Chest agenda towards Wilcox is as bad as Kim towards Sark.
UW consistently out recruits the AZ schools yet he's 3-5 against them and 0-4 on the road.
This Wilcox myth continues to live on. His defense never did shit against a good offense. Same with Tennessee as they got worse under him than previous coach.
Gladstone makes a reasonable point wondering if there is some Ty/Sark effect going on with Holt/Wilcox. The defense still had flaws, but it was much better and got better from year 1 to year 2. You continue to make this post every few months, even though there is plenty of evidence that shows it isn't very accurate. Tennessee was getting worse. In 2008 under Chavis, they were the #3 defense in the SEC at 263.5 YPG. In 2009 under Kiffin, they were much worse at #8 and 308 ypg.
Wilcox came the year after, had to replace a bunch of new starters, including Eric Berry, the best defensive player in college football and a first round DT. The arrow was going down. They also had a fucking terrible head coach in Derek Dooley. Wilcox improved the defense over 40 yards and 2 points from 2010 to 2011. The year after Wilcox left, they bring in Sunseri from Alabama and promptly become the worst defense in the SEC, giving up 13 more points and 130 more yards per game than Wilcox's last season. This year, with Butch Jones, their defense was still playing at a lesser level than Wilcox's in 2011.
For a dreckfest program with a shit head coach, Wilcox came out of Tennessee looking pretty good. Can't say he did a great job, but he didn't do bad either. The numbers after he left show that.
Wilcox improved UW from 5-4 to 5-4. Again can someone from the Husky Fan podcast answer a simple question like "What good offense did Wilcox shut down while at UW ?" you guys dance around this simple question.
Anyways your buddy said USC can win the South while stating Wilcox as the reason. I'd say it's obvious you guys have an agenda with Wilcox seeing Chest turned this thread into Wilcox.
Even after Petersen was hired he was raving about Wilcox and how this defense is making strides. In another thread talking about USC mentioned how USC will have a good defense. I've yet to hear one criticism by either of you two about Wilcox in fact. Even after ASU you both rushed to his defense. As well as the Oregon game and the UCLA game. You talk him up like he walks on water.
Thinking he is a good DC is not thinking he walks on water. Calling him great at this point is a stretch, but his career and the numbers show he is a good DC. I criticized Wilcox's shitty game plan against Oregon. You are full of shit for saying otherwise. It was stupid to try and limit big plays and not put much pressure on Mariota. I don't remember anyone defending UCLA either, even though turnovers played a big part in the early goings of that game.
He struggled with no huddle teams, the exceptions being Boise State, Arizona and BYU this year. There was definite improvement happening against the no huddle teams. In 2011, we struggled against ever single one. Held Arizona 134 yards below their average. His defenses played very well against Oregon State twice. They played well against USC in 2012. Barkley threw for less than 200 and Trufant shut Marquis Lee down. That was a good offense. They held Stanford to 279 yards this year which was 134 yards below their average of 413, held WSU 100 below their average.
He did well against a number of pretty good teams and was a good DC, despite some shitty games. It's not dancing around to acknowledge some shitty games, but think he did a nice job. The overall picture proves that, and arguing otherwise is pretty fucking stupid. I was slightly disappointed last year, but the defense improved from year 1 to 2, and should be better this year. Wilcox had a few good players, but the personnel wasn't that great and was young. There are guys on the defense that made huge jumps and players actually got developed under Wilcox. We have the same front 7 today as in 2012 except for Fuimaono, a guy who wasn't even a full time starter.
I think Race made the best point regarding Wilcox. We could have had Kirby Smart, John Chavis, or Pat Narduzzi as DC and it wouldn't have made much, if any difference. Sark set the tone for the program, even if Wilcox was in charge of the D. Wilcox was the least of our problems and was a great hire.
Back to the original point that Chest made before you guys hijacked my thread into a Wilcox love fest which is USC will win the south. Guess what? That same shit coach that held back Wilcox according to you and Chest is still with him at USC. So why will things change now?
That has been my point in this thread. Despite bringing in top tier talent I don't see USC winning the division under Sark. Special Teams is too sloppy, not good in the RZ, defense doesn't create plays, too many dumb bonehead mistakes, sloppy program in general, shitty on the road, etc despite great talent won't amount to shit.
I don't think he will ever win the South, but I won't be shocked if he does in 2016, or 2017 (if he makes it). Sark still sucks and has the same flaws. Mora will make things especially difficult, but as I previously posted, I have a hard time believing Mora doesn't want to get back in the NFL after the way things ended.
I didn't even mention Wilcox by name in my first post about why I thought Sark would win the South at least once. That's what we were debating until you said I had an agenda like Kim.
Forget about Wilcox. Lets just assume Sark is a -1 coach with Wilcox. If USC gets top 5 or top 10 talent than its easy (at least for me) to think that Sark will win the south at least once. He's not a good coach but he's not Gilby. Now the sanctions may prevent that. I dont know what the effect will be. Maybe you guys have a better idea.
I can see UCLA winning 2/3 but not three in a row. I don't see ASU or UA winning it that other year. USC is in the weaker division. Even last year if they beat ASU they would have tied for the south. The year before they would have won it if they beat UCLA. So even in their bad years they will still be right in the mix.
Just a prediction but Sark will be in the Pac-12 championship game with his job on the line- facing Petersen, in 2016.
Wilcox is a good DC but USC ain't doing shit with him as their DC if Sark is their HC.
Also, water is wet.
If everyone else in this thread can please take a look at what Boobs wrote here, you'll see how you summarize an argument and not go into TL, DR territory. You also can avoid the incoherent, pointless rants from PL_SS.
I think Race made the best point regarding Wilcox. We could have had Kirby Smart, John Chavis, or Pat Narduzzi as DC and it wouldn't have made much, if any difference. Sark set the tone for the program, even if Wilcox was in charge of the D. Wilcox was the least of our problems and was a great hire.
Back to the original point that Chest made before you guys hijacked my thread into a Wilcox love fest which is USC will win the south. Guess what? That same shit coach that held back Wilcox according to you and Chest is still with him at USC. So why will things change now?
That has been my point in this thread. Despite bringing in top tier talent I don't see USC winning the division under Sark. Special Teams is too sloppy, not good in the RZ, defense doesn't create plays, too many dumb bonehead mistakes, sloppy program in general, shitty on the road, etc despite great talent won't amount to shit.
I don't think he will ever win the South, but I won't be shocked if he does in 2016, or 2017 (if he makes it). Sark still sucks and has the same flaws. Mora will make things especially difficult, but as I previously posted, I have a hard time believing Mora doesn't want to get back in the NFL after the way things ended.
How can Mora go to the NFL when he has a CONTRACT! You must have missed the memo where Mora is the only coach in America where you can't break his contract.
I don't think its dooging it up when there are credible reasons behind the optimism.
Petersen is a proven championship coach and his style and tactics are different and light years ahead of Sark, who in his 5th year had a top 20 metrics team (before BYU win) that would have been top 10 easily with Petersen. Combine Petersen's track record and aura of national recognition with UW's advantages and tradition and theres no logical reason to think he won't have UW back in the top 10 regularly and competing on the national scale. Whether he goes 12-2 or 10-4 this season doesn't really change that.
Re: Petersen and Sark, there is a reasonable chance these two will meet in a pac-12 title game at somepoint and Sark's job could be on the line. Think 2016.
I don't see it. Sark isn't beating Mora and he'll drop some road games to teams less talented.
You don't think USC will win the South at least once in the next 3-4 years? They average a conference title every 2.5 years.
Are you counting the vacated titles?
Or are you still living in the 70's?
My apologies in advance to any 12's who may be butthurt by this poast.
noobody cares if a title is vacated. Alabama, miami and usc still enjoy all the championships they cheated to. Whether or not they can fly a flag or banner on their campus… well nobody really gives a shit. HTH.
noobody cares if a title is vacated. Alabama, miami and usc still enjoy all the championships they cheated to. Whether or not they can fly a flag or banner on their campus… well nobody really gives a shit. HTH.
I remember when that all went down for USC. Matt Leinart was on the Dan Patrick show and Patrick asked ,him how he felt about it and Leinart goes "Well I'm staring at my national title ring right now so what do you think?"
It all happened, we all remember it happening. Only fuckheads like to bring it up downplay it but ultimately it doesn't matter. It still exists even if the NCAA fucktards don't treat it as such.
noobody cares if a title is vacated. Alabama, miami and usc still enjoy all the championships they cheated to. Whether or not they can fly a flag or banner on their campus… well nobody really gives a shit. HTH.
I remember when that all went down for USC. Matt Leinart was on the Dan Patrick show and Patrick asked ,him how he felt about it and Leinart goes "Well I'm staring at my national title ring right now so what do you think?"
It all happened, we all remember it happening. Only fuckheads like to bring it up downplay it but ultimately it doesn't matter. It still exists even if the NCAA fucktards don't treat it as such.
If so... What does Billy Jo say when He stares at half of his Natty ring?
I like the Wilcox debate. I'm not sure why I feel my .02 is necessary since the points have all been made, but here goes...
The DC is going to get results that reflect a lot of things, most notable among them is the quality of head coaching. It all falls back on the head coach, and the rest are just details that can be debated to eternity.
Some of the other factors are valid discussion points though. Quality and depth of talent are important (someone pointed out our D last season had one legit, interior lineman). Getting some help from the offense is very important too even though TOP is no longer considered to be an important stat. You can't just keep going three-and-out and expect your defense to hold up against a decent or good offensive team. Take a look at how Sark's offense fared in the games where Wilcox's D fell apart. The offense always started the avalanche the way I remember it.
I think it's a huge stretch to say Wilcox is a great coordinator. It's not a stretch at all to call him a good one though.
I do think the guy's judgement could be called into question for hitching his wagon to Sarkisian. I have to wonder if he would have followed him anywhere aside from a premier spot like USC. If he's half the smart pro that I think he is, he would have been prepping to get the fuck out of Seattle one way or the other. He had to see that he was limiting his potential success level by being at UW with Sark. I think he's still limiting it by following him to USC, but I can understand the thought process that led to it.
Good point about the offense. In five years I can recall Sark having only two games where his offense did well against a quality defense which was at USC in 2010 and at Stanford in 2013. You could also argue Nebraska in 2011 but if I remember correctly their defense wasn't very good that year.
Every year we go into the Oregon game talking about how our defense has improved from last year. Then our defense gets lit up and we complain how the defense didn't show up. Nevermind in five years Sark scored 17, 16, 17, 21, and 24 points against Oregon. In five years against Stanford his offense scored 14, 0, 21, 17 and 28 points.
For being an "offensive genius" his offenses always had a bad habit of fucking the defense over against quality opponents.
He went to usc to get paid and have a defense with top tier talent. Basically you will get to see how good the defense could have been better players.
I think would have had a better defense by going under a better head coach, but regardless it is not that hard to put a good defense on the field down at SC.
I don't think it is a bad idea for a coordinator to spend only a few years at each spot as long as you never throw in a bad year. If he had gotten the Boise State HC job he would not be down there right now.
Here is the most simple metric I can come up with for coaches. They tune up against shitty teams, crush decent teams, and don't get blown out in big/meaningful games.
If you have one of those you are in great shape. Now if your coach needs the final play to beat a Beaver team on a four game losing streak, lose by a land slide when the division on the line, or scores one TD after a month to prepare against a coach being "let out to pasture" then you're fucked.
Wilcox is the beneficiary of a bizarre moment in time when Sark is tumbling up the paygrade charts and given coaching uncertainty even I would follow him the way it's raining around him these days.
Meek and Atomic have it right. Wilcox hitched his wagon to Sark because he was in a terrible situation at Tennessee. He's at USC now because of the money and talent.
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.
Comments
He struggled with no huddle teams, the exceptions being Boise State, Arizona and BYU this year. There was definite improvement happening against the no huddle teams. In 2011, we struggled against ever single one. Held Arizona 134 yards below their average. His defenses played very well against Oregon State twice. They played well against USC in 2012. Barkley threw for less than 200 and Trufant shut Marquis Lee down. That was a good offense. They held Stanford to 279 yards this year which was 134 yards below their average of 413, held WSU 100 below their average.
He did well against a number of pretty good teams and was a good DC, despite some shitty games. It's not dancing around to acknowledge some shitty games, but think he did a nice job. The overall picture proves that, and arguing otherwise is pretty fucking stupid. I was slightly disappointed last year, but the defense improved from year 1 to 2, and should be better this year. Wilcox had a few good players, but the personnel wasn't that great and was young. There are guys on the defense that made huge jumps and players actually got developed under Wilcox. We have the same front 7 today as in 2012 except for Fuimaono, a guy who wasn't even a full time starter.
Against one dimensional offenses he did well. Against teams who can pass and run is where we'd struggle.
I don't think Dude Brah wins the south. He's not a championship coach. Way too many negative qualities of his teams that champions don't do.
Sark has minimum two WTF losses a year.
I didn't even mention Wilcox by name in my first post about why I thought Sark would win the South at least once. That's what we were debating until you said I had an agenda like Kim.
Forget about Wilcox. Lets just assume Sark is a -1 coach with Wilcox. If USC gets top 5 or top 10 talent than its easy (at least for me) to think that Sark will win the south at least once. He's not a good coach but he's not Gilby. Now the sanctions may prevent that. I dont know what the effect will be. Maybe you guys have a better idea.
I can see UCLA winning 2/3 but not three in a row. I don't see ASU or UA winning it that other year. USC is in the weaker division. Even last year if they beat ASU they would have tied for the south. The year before they would have won it if they beat UCLA. So even in their bad years they will still be right in the mix.
Just a prediction but Sark will be in the Pac-12 championship game with his job on the line- facing Petersen, in 2016.
Also, water is wet.
You can etch that in Iron brother!
Etched in Iron brother! Oh and , but
Can I see that championship?
Are you counting the vacated titles?
Or are you still living in the 70's?
My apologies in advance to any 12's who may be butthurt by this poast.
It all happened, we all remember it happening. Only fuckheads like to bring it up downplay it but ultimately it doesn't matter. It still exists even if the NCAA fucktards don't treat it as such.
If so... What does Billy Jo say when He stares at half of his Natty ring?
The DC is going to get results that reflect a lot of things, most notable among them is the quality of head coaching. It all falls back on the head coach, and the rest are just details that can be debated to eternity.
Some of the other factors are valid discussion points though. Quality and depth of talent are important (someone pointed out our D last season had one legit, interior lineman). Getting some help from the offense is very important too even though TOP is no longer considered to be an important stat. You can't just keep going three-and-out and expect your defense to hold up against a decent or good offensive team. Take a look at how Sark's offense fared in the games where Wilcox's D fell apart. The offense always started the avalanche the way I remember it.
I think it's a huge stretch to say Wilcox is a great coordinator. It's not a stretch at all to call him a good one though.
I do think the guy's judgement could be called into question for hitching his wagon to Sarkisian. I have to wonder if he would have followed him anywhere aside from a premier spot like USC. If he's half the smart pro that I think he is, he would have been prepping to get the fuck out of Seattle one way or the other. He had to see that he was limiting his potential success level by being at UW with Sark. I think he's still limiting it by following him to USC, but I can understand the thought process that led to it.
Good point about the offense. In five years I can recall Sark having only two games where his offense did well against a quality defense which was at USC in 2010 and at Stanford in 2013. You could also argue Nebraska in 2011 but if I remember correctly their defense wasn't very good that year.
Every year we go into the Oregon game talking about how our defense has improved from last year. Then our defense gets lit up and we complain how the defense didn't show up. Nevermind in five years Sark scored 17, 16, 17, 21, and 24 points against Oregon. In five years against Stanford his offense scored 14, 0, 21, 17 and 28 points.
For being an "offensive genius" his offenses always had a bad habit of fucking the defense over against quality opponents.
I think would have had a better defense by going under a better head coach, but regardless it is not that hard to put a good defense on the field down at SC.
I don't think it is a bad idea for a coordinator to spend only a few years at each spot as long as you never throw in a bad year. If he had gotten the Boise State HC job he would not be down there right now.
If you have one of those you are in great shape. Now if your coach needs the final play to beat a Beaver team on a four game losing streak, lose by a land slide when the division on the line, or scores one TD after a month to prepare against a coach being "let out to pasture" then you're fucked.
A win-is-a-win unless you're trying to win a lot.
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.