UW's Vegas Bowl Debacle: Sarkisian Crapping out as Husky Coach
UW's Vegas Bowl Debacle: Sarkisian Crapping out as Husky Coach
When it comes to head football coaches, you gotta know when to hold 'em, and know when to fold 'em. Regarding the Steve Sarkisian era at Washington, the time has come to walk away... Or maybe even run.
Comments
-
Obviously the BFF soft culture is not working. I wonder how many Tweets Kelly, Mora, and Shaw tweeted out this year.
-
Woodward won't do a thing. He needs to be fired first.
-
^^ This.
-
Sark cost this team that game by not challenging the spot on that 4th and 1. The defensive line actually stood up Southwick and stopped him comfortably short of the marker. Who knows how a review will go, but the Huskies would've had a decent chance at getting that overturned. That was probably the most boneheaded coaching mistake of the season for Sarkisian. At least ask for a measurement. They have to give it to you, and it doesn't even cost a timeout. I know we've talked about that play, but it just kills me that our coach doesn't have the game awareness to understand that 4th and 1 deep in the fourth quarter of a one point game is sort of important.
Another reason that play troubles me is that it indicates that he's repeating old mistakes. Remember the UCLA game from his first year? The tight end catches a pass near the goal line that was obviously trapped. Sark conserves his timeouts, and doesn't challenge. Neuheisel wisely snaps the ball ASAP, scores, and goes on to win the game. The original problem was that when Sark was hired, we all complained that Washington was not a 'learn on the job' kind of program. The new and much bigger problem is that four years along, we're finding out that Sark isn't even doing that. He's not learning on the job. He's prone to the same gameday mistakes that plagued him in Year 1. This is bad.
I am not at all convinced that he will get much better, or that 2013 will be special. He will peak out as an occasional 8 or 9 win guy, but Seven Win Steve is just who he is. And that might just be good enough for this fanbase, as long as everybody has a nice time at the game. Stomp your feet all you want, Sark will be head coach here as long as he wants, as long as he can keep the December bowl losses rolling in.
-
Two things I noticed after rewatching that fourth and 1...then an explanation of why there was no measurement:
1. Boise got jobbed on the forward progress spot on the third down play. Husky fans can shut the fuck up already about it.
2. There was no way in hell that video evidence could have overturned the fourth and 1 spot. That was a scrum.
As I mentioned before, that was a spot that required no measurement. Ball touches the line = first down BSU, ball short of line = first down UW. The ball was clearly spotted on the line. They don't have to give you a measurement in that situation because the series started exactly at the edge of the UW 42 yard line. Officials do this after every change of possession to reduce the need for measurements in a game. They do it at every level from pee wee football to the NFL. -
You're assuming that there's no such thing as an inaccurate ball spot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY1b5zsHR-I
The 4th and 1 play is around 2:14:10. If you watch the scrum, the ball is in Southwick's left hand and you get a pretty clear look at where he is. He gets stopped initially, but then gets a second push. He gets lost in the shuffle from the angle of the original broadcast. The camera angle that we have is certainly inconclusive, but the replay booth would be able to use multiple angles.
The key is that the guy who has the best look is the line judge(s). Watch the line judge come running down from the top of the screen to spot the ball. He's inches short of the 32 the ENTIRE time. The second line judge runs up from the bottom of the screen and is closer to the 32, I'd even say right on the 32.
No, I don't think the officials conspired to screw Washington. I think it was too close to call accurately at full game speed, and that alone warranted a challenge.
It's totally plausible that UW loses the review. But the replay official might well have noticed that the two line judges came up with slightly different spots and been forced to make a call. We'll never know, and the fact that we'll never know is entirely Sark's fault. Washington had all 3 timeouts, and there was 2:36 on the clock. Sark could've easily afforded to risk a single timeout to clear the question up. If it was our last timeout, I get it. Hold on to the timeout and give your offense a chance. He had 3.
By the way, Washington ended the game with one timeout. Sark took it into the locker room with him.
-
and yes, the Boise receiver looked to be ahead of the first down marker on 3rd and 4, but after the ball is snapped, it no longer matters. Had UW been awarded the ball on 4th and 1, Boise fans would be arguing about whether Petersen should've challenged the third down ball spot. He chose to play it as it was, and it worked out.
-
If the officials screwed up twice and got it right by doing so, they didn't cost you the game. Washington cost Washington that game by failing to take advantage of its massive advantage in the running game.
-
I'm not arguing that the officials cost us the game. I'm arguing that Sarkisian cost us the game. In a game that close and a call that close, you just don't end the game with a timeout in your pocket.
Again, I think that the camera angle we have is inconclusive, and nobody can say that the spot of the ball was correct after the two screw ups. That's still not on the officials, it's on the head coach. -
God, I remember that UCLA play.DeLarry said:Sark cost this team that game by not challenging the spot on that 4th and 1. The defensive line actually stood up Southwick and stopped him comfortably short of the marker. Who knows how a review will go, but the Huskies would've had a decent chance at getting that overturned. That was probably the most boneheaded coaching mistake of the season for Sarkisian. At least ask for a measurement. They have to give it to you, and it doesn't even cost a timeout. I know we've talked about that play, but it just kills me that our coach doesn't have the game awareness to understand that 4th and 1 deep in the fourth quarter of a one point game is sort of important.
Another reason that play troubles me is that it indicates that he's repeating old mistakes. Remember the UCLA game from his first year? The tight end catches a pass near the goal line that was obviously trapped. Sark conserves his timeouts, and doesn't challenge. Neuheisel wisely snaps the ball ASAP, scores, and goes on to win the game. The original problem was that when Sark was hired, we all complained that Washington was not a 'learn on the job' kind of program. The new and much bigger problem is that four years along, we're finding out that Sark isn't even doing that. He's not learning on the job. He's prone to the same gameday mistakes that plagued him in Year 1. This is bad.
I am not at all convinced that he will get much better, or that 2013 will be special. He will peak out as an occasional 8 or 9 win guy, but Seven Win Steve is just who he is. And that might just be good enough for this fanbase, as long as everybody has a nice time at the game. Stomp your feet all you want, Sark will be head coach here as long as he wants, as long as he can keep the December bowl losses rolling in.
And I am glad Larry saw the the same thing I did. Sven, not so much.
