UW practices according to a buddy
Comments
-
Sark's poor coaching, attention to details, poor special teams and sometimes erratic play calling could hurt Wilcox though.HeretoBeatmyChest said:I think Wilcox went to USC for these reasons...
1) Because Sark's expertise is extremely limited, Wilcox basically has full reign over the defense
2) He had already worked for Petersen, so he may have viewed it as somewhat of a step back
3) Going to USC he's still working with Heyward & Sirmon. At UW he would have had new assistants.
4) Going from UW DC to USC DC is not a lateral move and gets him that much closer to being a HC
5) Broadens his base as a potential future HC. Him & Sirmon have recruiting roots in the south, Oregon, WA and a few years at USC will earn them some recognition in that area.
He doesn't need to prove himself as a DC, as he's already highly thought of. Sark's coming mediocrity at USC won't harm Wilcox's reputation if his defenses perform well.
I can see Wilcox bailing on Sark though after 2015 when it's pretty obvious Sark could be in trouble. I think Sark will be on the hot seat going into 2016 and as an assistant you don't want to be on a coaching staff where head coach is facing death watch. -
Excellent use of 5 reasons, although I think if Petersen went after him, Wilcox would still be here. He may not have wanted to step on his buddy Coach K's toes either by staying at UW and relegating K to DL coach.HeretoBeatmyChest said:I think Wilcox went to USC for these reasons...
1) Because Sark's expertise is extremely limited, Wilcox basically has full reign over the defense
2) He had already worked for Petersen, so he may have viewed it as somewhat of a step back
3) Going to USC he's still working with Heyward & Sirmon. At UW he would have had new assistants.
4) Going from UW DC to USC DC is not a lateral move and gets him that much closer to being a HC
5) Broadens his base as a potential future HC. Him & Sirmon have recruiting roots in the south, Oregon, WA and a few years at USC will earn them some recognition in that area.
He doesn't need to prove himself as a DC, as he's already highly thought of. Sark's coming mediocrity at USC won't harm Wilcox's reputation if his defenses perform well. -
Completely disagree.HeretoBeatmyChest said:I think Wilcox went to USC for these reasons...
1) Because Sark's expertise is extremely limited, Wilcox basically has full reign over the defense
2) He had already worked for Petersen, so he may have viewed it as somewhat of a step back
3) Going to USC he's still working with Heyward & Sirmon. At UW he would have had new assistants.
4) Going from UW DC to USC DC is not a lateral move and gets him that much closer to being a HC
5) Broadens his base as a potential future HC. Him & Sirmon have recruiting roots in the south, Oregon, WA and a few years at USC will earn them some recognition in that area.
He doesn't need to prove himself as a DC, as he's already highly thought of. Sark's coming mediocrity at USC won't harm Wilcox's reputation if his defenses perform well.
If he didn't need to prove himself as a DC, he would have a better gig than working for Sark by now. -
He's proven himself as a DC but he hasn't had a championship type of defense yet. If he develops one at USC then he probably will get some HC offers.
-
So he's proven himself to be a good DC, not a great DC... but he doesn't need to prove himself unless he proves himself at USC then will get HC offers.HeretoBeatmyChest said:He's proven himself as a DC but he hasn't had a championship type of defense yet. If he develops one at USC then he probably will get some HC offers.
Got it. -
My head hurtsTierbsHsotBoobs said:
So he's proven himself to be a good DC, not a great DC... but he doesn't need to prove himself unless he proves himself at USC then will get HC offers.HeretoBeatmyChest said:He's proven himself as a DC but he hasn't had a championship type of defense yet. If he develops one at USC then he probably will get some HC offers.
Got it. -
Perhaps Petermen didn't want him anywayHeretoBeatmyChest said:I think Wilcox went to USC for these reasons...
1) Because Sark's expertise is extremely limited, Wilcox basically has full reign over the defense
2) He had already worked for Petersen, so he may have viewed it as somewhat of a step back
3) Going to USC he's still working with Heyward & Sirmon. At UW he would have had new assistants.
4) Going from UW DC to USC DC is not a lateral move and gets him that much closer to being a HC
5) Broadens his base as a potential future HC. Him & Sirmon have recruiting roots in the south, Oregon, WA and a few years at USC will earn them some recognition in that area.
He doesn't need to prove himself as a DC, as he's already highly thought of. Sark's coming mediocrity at USC won't harm Wilcox's reputation if his defenses perform well.
-
Boobs, he just needs more time is all. Wait til he gets his own guys, nobody knows the damage that Holt did.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
So he's proven himself to be a good DC, not a great DC... but he doesn't need to prove himself unless he proves himself at USC then will get HC offers.HeretoBeatmyChest said:He's proven himself as a DC but he hasn't had a championship type of defense yet. If he develops one at USC then he probably will get some HC offers.
Got it.
Damn when did this place turn into Doogman where we make excuses for coaches?
-
If Wilcox is smart he's gone after this coming season and two season tops ... only part of attaching the ride to Sark's wagon is that Sark's now at USC. That's solid gold from a resume standpoint.
-
Looks like I have all the screenshots I need.MikeDamone said:
There was the famous "Can't you just be happy with 5-1?" When I pointed out that UW went through the easy part of the schedule in unimpressive fashion and the reckoning would soon come. They went 2-5 after that.He_Needs_More_Time said:
Conversely I remember in 2011 being like "This is going to be a long year" after the Eastern game and being told "a win is a win" by several doogs.DerekJohnson said:I remember beating Indiana (around 2002 or 2003) something like 38-13 and going onto Dawgman to vent about how that wasn't Husky Football and why do we suck so bad.
"Three years ago you would have killed for a win and now you are complaining? Damn you are negative!".
While like you said back then being disappointed in wins was normal because the expectations were so much higher. I remember leaving Husky Stadium in 1995 after barely beating Army and walking out feeling like we had lost.
How a team wins or losses in very important. I remember after watching the Colorado game in 1990 thinking, UW has a very good team and could very well be one of the best in the nation. It was a well played game by two good teams. I think Colorado won the MNC that year (even though they got a 5th down vs. Missouri). Then there are games where they play like shit, but are lucky to beat an inferior team, and you know they aren't very good and it will catch up with them. Like a bad golfer who who maybe skips one across the water, or hits a tree and gets a bounce that puts him near the hole...maybe he gets a par or a birdy on the first couple of holes, but everyone knows he will still shoot a 110, becuase he isn't very good. (see the Arizona foot bounce pick 6 for reference)
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
