Sarkisian: 2012 Huskies couldn't overcome the youth factor
Comments
-
I never said to count it as a 9-4 season. I am saying that we were a couple of mistakes away from being 9-4. So either you trust in Sark to fix the mistakes, or you don't. I am just as sickened by all the stupid losses as everyone else, it makes me physically sick to my stomach. I just believe the mistakes will be fixed, and the overall program is on the rise. I expect 9 or 10 wins this season, otherwise I would start looking for a new coach.
-
And I don't know if we would have beat Stanford with Hogan or not. To me that is irrelevant. We beat them with the QB that they chose to start. And Mannion for OSU was their starter the year before when we lost to them if I'm not mistaken.
Would we have lost to WSU and BSU if we had our full starting O Line? Who knows? But it doesn't matter because we lost. -
If people are going to say "we would have been 9-4 if not for 2 missed field goals", you also have to take into account wins where the ball takes a 1 in a million bounce off the foot of a receiver a millimeter from the ground and UW scores a TD for the win.
You look at overall patterns. The WSU game last year shouldn't have even came close to a field goal for the win. That was a 20+ win that went vanished because the team let it vanish. Last year's Arizona blowout, the Oregon blowouts, LSU's Dline taunting the UW Oline, "House Money", Baylor Bowl, Boise State Bowl...these are patterns.
My metaphor is golf. If you look at a few rounds overtime, the kind of golfer you are will be apparent. Bouncing one off a tree that lands a foot from the cup for a birdie doesn't make you a good golfer. Taking a quadruple boogie doesn't make you a bad golfer. Averaging 1 or 2 strokes over par makes you an average golfer. Sark and his team is average based on the last 51 games.
-
I'm not sure that you have a clear understanding of what you're trying to say. And I don't mean that as an insult. In any event, welcome to the boreds and I hope you enjoy it here.NorthLakeDub said:And I don't know if we would have beat Stanford with Hogan or not. To me that is irrelevant. We beat them with the QB that they chose to start. And Mannion for OSU was their starter the year before when we lost to them if I'm not mistaken.
Would we have lost to WSU and BSU if we had our full starting O Line? Who knows? But it doesn't matter because we lost. -
Mike, I see what you are saying about the overall patterns. There have been some disturbing patterns in the Sark era. I would say the most obvious one being the porous defense, which he addressed by remaking the D staff. And the entire program from Sark on down has acknowledged the fact that hurry up spread offenses have killed us, and they are focusing a great amount of effort into addressing that.
As far as the silly statements like "playing with house money" and other in game coaching mistakes, I would attribute that to being a young, inexperienced coach. He is still evolving and growing as a coach. I think 98% of the time, Sark has the right mentality, and says the right thing.
Sark has already shown his ability to run a potent offense. I think the 2012 offense was an aberration because of all the O line injuries. The 2013 offense will return to a high level with 5th year senior Keith Price having a season more like 2011.
Yes, Sark and his team have been average "golfers" so far, I like your metaphor btw. But if you are an average golfer that has the ability to hit the great shots, all you have to do is cut out the bad shots, and you will become good. As opposed to an average golfer who doesn't have the ability to hit great shots ever, he is just average and will always be average. I think Sark and this team fall into the first category.
-
I guess from my standpoint, he looks more like the guy that will always be average. The fact that he is still "young and learning" after 51 games leads me to believe what you see is what you get.NorthLakeDub said:Mike, I see what you are saying about the overall patterns. There have been some disturbing patterns in the Sark era. I would say the most obvious one being the porous defense, which he addressed by remaking the D staff. And the entire program from Sark on down has acknowledged the fact that hurry up spread offenses have killed us, and they are focusing a great amount of effort into addressing that.
As far as the silly statements like "playing with house money" and other in game coaching mistakes, I would attribute that to being a young, inexperienced coach. He is still evolving and growing as a coach. I think 98% of the time, Sark has the right mentality, and says the right thing.
Sark has already shown his ability to run a potent offense. I think the 2012 offense was an aberration because of all the O line injuries. The 2013 offense will return to a high level with 5th year senior Keith Price having a season more like 2011.
Yes, Sark and his team have been average "golfers" so far, I like your metaphor btw. But if you are an average golfer that has the ability to hit the great shots, all you have to do is cut out the bad shots, and you will become good. As opposed to an average golfer who doesn't have the ability to hit great shots ever, he is just average and will always be average. I think Sark and this team fall into the first category. -
Sark hasnt shown any ability to run a potent offense. He was an OC at USC for only 2 years. Anyone could have that job and be okay. He never had to build shit. AND, in his 4 years, the 2011 offense is the outlier. The offense sucked the other three years and in 2011 if you exclude the extremely high red zone output, it was basically an average offense.Furthermore, there is no trend or consistency to the offense in his 4 years.
And cut the 9-4 shit. We were in the bottom 5 (out of 12 teams) in almost every statistic except for pass defense. The metrics had us ranked around 40th. We didn't outscore our opponents. Who goes 9-4 and cant even outscore its opponents?
Its actually good we didn't go 9-4 bc it would have given the fanbase the false impression that we were turning the corner.
There are two reasons to be optimistic going forward- new stadium and a very strong defensive staff. Sark is the weak link in the program and he inherited a 4-5 win team (not a 0 win team) and should be credited for the quick recovery. Since that he's stagnated and is lucky he has a new stadium and strong D staff that my save his job for another year or two.
Young fans (which I'm guessing you are), cannot look at Sark objectively because the memories, their basis of comparison are only the past 10 years. 7-8 wins doesn't mean shit. Its whether Sark can be a championship coach or not and so far he's shown nothing to think he can be that coach. This school has the history, fanbase, location and now facilities to attract big-time coaches who can win championships. Either Sark can get it done the next two years or he can take his healthy paycheck and GTFO. A handful of better coaches would line up at the chance to coach at UW. This is about UW Football, not Sark. -
This is what I am trying to say. Sark is the one. He is the next Dawgfather. He is a great leader and he knows what he is doing. That is my opinion. If I am wrong and we only win 8 games next year, then I will say fire him. I say we will win 10 games next year. After that, the next great Husky QB will be Troy Williams, he will take us to Rose Bowls and a NC.
-
We've been whooooshed
-
