Sarkisian: 2012 Huskies couldn't overcome the youth factor
Comments
-
Based on what I've seen, I would say that Sark's Huskies are underdeveloped, especially on the line of scrimmage. Some of this is likely due to holes in the talent depth inherited from Tyrone and some of it (perhaps even more) is the result of Sark's imbalanced recruiting during his first three years. Normally, a college football program in rebuild, such as Husky Football has been the past four seasons, needs an infusion of JC transfers to fill-in the holes, but UW has had little or none of that thus far during Sark's regime. Given the lack of transfers combined with the injuries, Husky Football may remain forever young.DeepSeaZ said:Will this ever change? Do we rely on youth because they are better athletes or do we screw them up threw our "development process?" Both?
-
Some of this is The Dud's (Tyster) doing? Give us a break! This is the most worn out of a litany of worn out excuses. Imbalanced recruiting? Ya think?Tailgater said:
Some of this is likely due to holes in the talent depth inherited from Tyrone and some of it (perhaps even more) is the result of Sark's imbalanced recruiting. -
Sark still has his job because 1-2-5-4-0 is what preceded him going 5-7-7-7 with three straight bowls. Now with a new stadium and his best team, expectations are for 9 wins this year and 10 next.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Sark can't go 5-8. A real football school would have fired him already. Washington wouldn't even fire him if he went 5-7 in 2013.puppylove_sugarsteel said:Roaddawg, saying Sark needs to go is premature. See how he does next year. If he doesn't beat Oregon and win 10 then I think he needs to go, but that will never happen. there are no SEC standards here at Washington. Their used to be.
Part of me wants Sark to finish 5-8 and get canned. But what's more likely to happen? Sark will finish 8-5 and that will be enough improvement (even though he should have finished there in year three) for a contract extention. If we don't win the conference next year, Sark wont get us to a rose bowl ever. And Woody doesn't have the balls to cut ties as we have a brand new stadium, and recruiting is going well.
Its going to be a perpetual "just wait till next year" program with Sark if he doesn't win next year. However I'm willing to give Sark the benefit. I like him a lot as a person
Washington already is a perpetual "just wait until next year" program. That's why Sark still has his job.
If Sark goes 5-7 he definitely would be gone. This is a program that built a new stadium and had a blank check from the Pres & AD to help Sark revamp half of his staff after year 3. Does that sound like a program that is happy with 7-6 or 8-5? The admin has given him everything he needs. They know it and he knows it.
-
9-4 with this schedule is 7-6.
-
Woodward will only fire Sark to save himself. Not a minute sooner.
-
Why are you trying to compare your time on the cheerleading squad to playing football. Hardly the same. Even if it was in the SECSteve_Bowman said:Nothing will change.
As a bench warmer in the SEC, I played very little, but I did see how winning teams are built. Cream Puff is not even close.Southerndawg said:Lack of preparedness, direction, attitude, toughness, player development and accountability. These are coaching problems. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see things changing until a new head coach takes over.
-
That is an interesting point because a lot of AD's get fired along with the coach unless you are Dan Guerrero at UCLA. Woody and Sark'a future seem to go together, which is why I doubt Sark gets fired, even if he goes 7-5 or 6-6. As long as he makes a bowl, he's safe.DerekJohnson said:Woodward will only fire Sark to save himself. Not a minute sooner.
-
That's more often the case in the NFL with the GM and head coach going out at the same time. It happens in college as well but not as often when the AD is working with his first coach. I imagine Woody has the political clout to survive if Sark goes 5-7 or worse. I would guess that if Sark is caught fondling waitresses at Joey causing embarassmet for the school, Woody might go out with him.RoadDawg55 said:
That is an interesting point because a lot of AD's get fired along with the coach unless you are Dan Guerrero at UCLA. Woody and Sark'a future seem to go together, which is why I doubt Sark gets fired, even if he goes 7-5 or 6-6. As long as he makes a bowl, he's safe.DerekJohnson said:Woodward will only fire Sark to save himself. Not a minute sooner.
-
Agree on both counts. He's benefiting from his predecessor's fuck ups and he's been given everything he needs to win. 5-7 = slam dunk fired. The test of the admin's commitment to excellence via accountability will be if he stays after a 7-6 or 8-4 season.ACSlaterDawg said:
Sark still has his job because 1-2-5-4-0 is what preceded him going 5-7-7-7 with three straight bowls. Now with a new stadium and his best team, expectations are for 9 wins this year and 10 next.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Sark can't go 5-8. A real football school would have fired him already. Washington wouldn't even fire him if he went 5-7 in 2013.puppylove_sugarsteel said:Roaddawg, saying Sark needs to go is premature. See how he does next year. If he doesn't beat Oregon and win 10 then I think he needs to go, but that will never happen. there are no SEC standards here at Washington. Their used to be.
Part of me wants Sark to finish 5-8 and get canned. But what's more likely to happen? Sark will finish 8-5 and that will be enough improvement (even though he should have finished there in year three) for a contract extention. If we don't win the conference next year, Sark wont get us to a rose bowl ever. And Woody doesn't have the balls to cut ties as we have a brand new stadium, and recruiting is going well.
Its going to be a perpetual "just wait till next year" program with Sark if he doesn't win next year. However I'm willing to give Sark the benefit. I like him a lot as a person
Washington already is a perpetual "just wait until next year" program. That's why Sark still has his job.
If Sark goes 5-7 he definitely would be gone. This is a program that built a new stadium and had a blank check from the Pres & AD to help Sark revamp half of his staff after year 3. Does that sound like a program that is happy with 7-6 or 8-5? The admin has given him everything he needs. They know it and he knows it.
-
And after having a 12-1 season as BYU QB, and being a protege under Pete Carroll at USC, Sark knows absolutely nothing about how a winning team is built. He has never seen what a winning team looks like, has he?Steve_Bowman said:Nothing will change.
As a bench warmer in the SEC, I played very little, but I did see how winning teams are built. Cream Puff is not even close.Southerndawg said:Lack of preparedness, direction, attitude, toughness, player development and accountability. These are coaching problems. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see things changing until a new head coach takes over.
So I guess you must have some kind of privileged insider's perspective of the UW program and you see the daily ins and outs of the program that leads you to the conclusion that nothing will change and Sark is not even close to building a winning team?
