Sark wasn't a bad coach at Washington, he was average. The biggest problem was that doogsFS hailed him as being great without ever demanding he actually achieve anything great, first.
Sark wasn't a bad coach at Washington, he was average. The biggest problem was that doogsFS hailed him as being great without ever demanding he actually achieve anything great, first.
No he was a bad coach at Washington. Going 24-21 in conference with the talent he had is a bad coach.
Sark wasn't a bad coach at Washington, he was average. The biggest problem was that doogsFS hailed him as being great without ever demanding he actually achieve anything great, first.
No he was a bad coach at Washington. Going 24-21 in conference with the talent he had is a bad coach.
He underachieved with what he had from 2011 onward for sure. Warshington on average was something like 5-7 recruiting spots lower than whOregon from 2010 to 2013. That's what's so ridiculous about all the blowouts.
I was underwhelmed with the hire initially ... actually gave credit for his ability to lure Nick Holt's AWESOMENESS to Seattle simply as it related to his ability to spin that publicly. I definitely was more of a wait and see kind of guy on Sark but willing to give him the benefit of a doubt until I had more evidence to judge him on.
I heard a lot of stuff about him off the field and none of it was ever flattering. The more time passed, the more his ability as a head coach became unflattering.
I'm going to take some heat for saying this, but Sark is not a bad coach.
He is lazy, immature, and overrated as a play caller.
What we overlook is at the age of 34 he took over one of the top football programs in the country (revenue, size, conference, etc) and didn't run it into the ground.
0-12 was not 0-12 ... it was still a bad culture and could have easily been in the shits for years.
If the guy had discipline, maybe paid his dues a little more and been focused, he likely would have been above average.
At SC I fully expect him to win 9-10-11 games a year. The equivalent to average at Washington. Just enough to make the naive believe in him ... piss off those who know better ... and not justify a buy out by firing.
He will never out coach a good coach, he'll never out hustle a worker coach, and he'll beat average coaches and beat the shit out of bad coaches.
As the famous Race Bannon says ... you are what your record says you are ... and it fully applies to Sark.
A below average coach who feasts on weak competition and has a great agent and a charming smile.
I like to be topdawgncfs and say a coach isn't a bad coach while also saying he's a below average coach in the same poast, TWILTD.
Below average = bad.
hth
Bad is Tyrone Willingham
Below average is Sark
One destroyed a program ... the other survived.
HTH
Tyrone Willingham achieved more at Stanford than Sark did at UW. Now, Sark is at USC which is comparable to Ty at Notre Dame. Sark will get a quick hook at USC like Ty did at ND. Then Sark will take over a downtrodden program. He will run it into the ground, just like Tyrone did. I'm calling it now. They are more similar than you think.
Thank you! I've been screaming Sark is Ty for a couple years. I hadn't thought of the USC/Notre Dame comparison though. There is no doubt that the scenario you just laid out will happen.
Couple of points, he is a shitty head coach, we all know it despite what some talking heads believe, secondly, the USC fans will not put up with mediocrity for long, it will be a short tenure unless Haden keeps him around out of loyalty, and lastly, he might have a few bucks but wait until Mrs. Sark dumps him and the California divorce attorneys get though with him. My guess is he ends up a QB coach at the pro level.
Comments
I heard a lot of stuff about him off the field and none of it was ever flattering. The more time passed, the more his ability as a head coach became unflattering.
Sark had Chris Polk
Name that fucktard:
If having a negative effect five years in a row doesn't make you a bad coach, what does?