Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Found this on wearesc.com

123468

Comments

  • topdawgnc
    topdawgnc Member Posts: 7,839
    dnc said:

    topdawgnc said:

    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
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dnc
    dnc Member Posts: 56,855
    RoadDawg55 said:

    topdawgnc said:

    dnc said:

    topdawgnc said:

    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.
    this

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HeretoBeatmyChest
    HeretoBeatmyChest Member Posts: 4,295
    RoadDawg55 said:

    topdawgnc said:

    dnc said:

    topdawgnc said:

    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.
    I think Sark will go the NFL assistant route. Guy has way too big of an ego to take a small time HC job after being HC at UW and USC.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Tequilla
    Tequilla Member Posts: 20,231
    If we're going to turn this thread into a discrimination thread about Armenians I'm out
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • topdawgnc
    topdawgnc Member Posts: 7,839
    RoadDawg55 said:

    topdawgnc said:

    dnc said:

    topdawgnc said:

    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.
    Ty had a 54% winning record at Stanford, Sark was at 53% during his time at UW.

    Ty did have a Rose Bowl appearance, of course when he was our coach many people would argue it was a down year for the PAC.

    Regardless, you are hard pressed to say that a coach is "bad" when he left a program no worse off than he found it. Taking into account he was 34 and taking his first run at a HC job anywhere ... and he didn't do bad.

    Maybe I should have said he was average, because that is what his record indicates. However, I chose to say below average because he isn't realizing his potential ... due to being lazy and undisciplined.

    I personally don't think Sark will be fired from SC. He would have to really shit the bed, and with the talent he will recruit ... I don't see him doing that.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 11,453
    topdawgnc said:

    RoadDawg55 said:

    topdawgnc said:

    dnc said:

    topdawgnc said:

    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.
    Ty had a 54% winning record at Stanford, Sark was at 53% during his time at UW.

    Ty did have a Rose Bowl appearance, of course when he was our coach many people would argue it was a down year for the PAC.

    Regardless, you are hard pressed to say that a coach is "bad" when he left a program no worse off than he found it. Taking into account he was 34 and taking his first run at a HC job anywhere ... and he didn't do bad.

    Maybe I should have said he was average, because that is what his record indicates. However, I chose to say below average because he isn't realizing his potential ... due to being lazy and undisciplined.

    I personally don't think Sark will be fired from SC. He would have to really shit the bed, and with the talent he will recruit ... I don't see him doing that.

    By that same FS logic then Ty wasn't bad at UW then since he took over a 1-10 team and left the team more talented than he took over.

    Sark was a bad coach and you proved it by pointing out how he and Ty were fucking identical win % in their first head coaching job.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • bananasnblondes
    bananasnblondes Member Posts: 15,587
    RoadDawg55 said:

    topdawgnc said:

    dnc said:

    topdawgnc said:

    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.
    This observation should be posted on the front page of this website and should be engraved on a plaque above the shitter at Hardcore Husky Headquarters. Well done
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Tequilla
    Tequilla Member Posts: 20,231
    Sark might get a relatively quick hook at SC, but I seriously doubt that he'll go 10-3, 5-7, and 6-5 like Tyrone did at Notre Dame. What's going to piss off everybody at SC will be the never ending 8-9 win seasons with 5-4 or 6-3 conference records and hearing about how PatHillTuff the PAC is.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter