Sark's problems becoming clear
Confirms pretty much everyone's suspisions on UW being run by a frat boy that had no idea what he was doing. USC is fucked. Can't wait for Kim to weigh in on these "idiots" tarnishing the reputation of his bro.
Comments
-
of course I know you're only hearing these things.
-
Why is USC fucked? Sark will recruit so much talent there Haden could coach it up. And might have to. Either way USC has nowhere to go but upbananasnblondes said:TBS reports from kids who attended this weekend's camp at UW are coming in and there is a pretty clear theme. Many say that they had written UW off under the last staff because they were extremely disorganized and didn't seem to care about the players, only themselves. All said they have a renewed interest in UW under Peterman and see the program on a big upswing. Others have also dropped stories about how horribly-run different aspects of the program were.
Confirms pretty much everyone's suspisions on UW being run by a frat boy that had no idea what he was doing. USC is fucked. Can't wait for Kim to weigh in on these "idiots" tarnishing the reputation of his bro. -
Why is USC fucked?
Sure, they may get kids that are better "talent" than what Dude Brah was getting at UW. However, it's not like Dude Brah and his staff (hello Johnny Nansen) are going to all of a sudden learn organizational skills, put down the tequila bottle, and stop banging out cocktail sluts every opportunity long enough to make those kids better than what they were when they came into the program.
That talent may be enough to get Dude Brah out of the 5-4 every fucking year dreckfest, but I think that he'll rather easily establish the annual 6-3 dreckfest. -
Puppy really doesn't get it.
-
Even in the face of overwhelming evidence the the retards over there are still in love with stars and most would probably prefer to have Sark back because you know getting lots of stars and high ranked classes that get pushed all over the field is AWESOME.
-
Some fucktard is trying to compare CP to Tyrone saying "well Ty seemed to be making good steps at first"...
WTF is wrong with these people? -
Peterman was recruited away from one of the nations most successful programs he built over an 8 year span, in spite of the nations shittiest academics and low overall budget.
Ty, fucked up NOTRE DAME and was unemployed when hired to fuck up Washington. -
One could argue that Ty actually recruited better than Dude brah.
-
92-12 ...section8 said:Some fucktard is trying to compare CP to Tyrone saying "well Ty seemed to be making good steps at first"...
WTF is wrong with these people?
Nothing else matters -
If you can't see how recruiting 5 DB's out of a class of 19 to win the offseason 'star' battle in recruiting means USC recruited a better overall class than Washington, you need to take a long walk and seek perspective.section8 said:Even in the face of overwhelming evidence the the retards over there are still in love with stars and most would probably prefer to have Sark back because you know getting lots of stars and high ranked classes that get pushed all over the field is AWESOME.
-
All you Sark bashers I would like to see you put on a fucking headset and grab a clipboard.
-
This. Sark and his staff think they did a great job at UW. Why exactly are they going to change?Tequilla said:Why is USC fucked?
Sure, they may get kids that are better "talent" than what Dude Brah was getting at UW. However, it's not like Dude Brah and his staff (hello Johnny Nansen) are going to all of a sudden learn organizational skills, put down the tequila bottle, and stop banging out cocktail sluts every opportunity long enough to make those kids better than what they were when they came into the program.
That talent may be enough to get Dude Brah out of the 5-4 every fucking year dreckfest, but I think that he'll rather easily establish the annual 6-3 dreckfest. -
Ken Griswold rolls his eyes at criticism of the old staff, dismissing it as hurt feelings from high school coaches and recruits who simply weren't good enough to get an offer from Sarkisian.
(You know, like Scott Crichton).
Scott Eklund debunks the notion Sarkisian didn't do a good job in state, making it clear there was nothing anyone could have done to get Garnett, Banner, Russell, Jack, Browne, et al to sign with Washington.
(Plus, the Dawgman guys always assured us, Sark and his staff were on better guys from Cali like Garrett Gilliland, Dezden Petty, Matthew Lyons, Antavius Sims, Dameon Turpin, Darien Washington, Erich Wilson, Taylor Hindy, Blake Rogers and on and on).
In-state recruiting — and the time it would take to build those relationships with high school coaches in the state — wasn't a priority for Sarkisian at UW.
-
USC has averaged a conference title every 2.5 years while UW about 6.
That needs to be taken into context when evaluating Sark at USC. Theres no chance he wins two in his first 3-4 years. He may win 1 in his first 3 or 4 years and Kim and other sycophants will use it to boost their opinion of Sark and throw it in our face when in reality 1/3 or 1/4 is below average for U$C. -
Sark will win 9 a year at SCHeretoBeatmyChest said:USC has averaged a conference title every 2.5 years while UW about 6.
That needs to be taken into context when evaluating Sark at USC. Theres no chance he wins two in his first 3-4 years. He may win 1 in his first 3 or 4 years and Kim and other sycophants will use it to boost their opinion of Sark and throw it in our face when in reality 1/3 or 1/4 is below average for U$C.
He will feast on the losers ... be average against the runner ups ... and be crushed by the real deals
Lather, Rinse, Repeat -
One of the problems for Sark is this first year will be rough. A 7-6 season and negativity will take over the program. I don't think they are very good. Add in Sark coaching and I predict a rough first season.HeretoBeatmyChest said:USC has averaged a conference title every 2.5 years while UW about 6.
That needs to be taken into context when evaluating Sark at USC. Theres no chance he wins two in his first 3-4 years. He may win 1 in his first 3 or 4 years and Kim and other sycophants will use it to boost their opinion of Sark and throw it in our face when in reality 1/3 or 1/4 is below average for U$C.
-
i think the big question each year will be how many wins each year vs how many pounds he gains.
-
"Nation's shittiest academics and low overall budget" ? And you know this how aside from sarcasm....... are you a BSU alum or envious vandaloser? And what does "low overall budget" have to do with football? Bronco stadium has had luxury suites and club boxes for years. Unlike UW, Boise State didn't waste five years begging a university hating state legislature for public money to upgrade it's football stadium.sarktastic said:Peterman was recruited away from one of the nations most successful programs he built over an 8 year span, in spite of the nations shittiest academics and low overall budget.
-
I agree he's going to have a bad first year. He'll have to win it his 2nd or 3rd year or he will be fired after three years. UCLA will definitely win the south next year. USC, ASU & UA are all rebuilding. Without Hundley it will be open in 2015 but UCLA should still win it. Funny thing is I could see Sark playing UW in the Pac-12 title game with his job on the line at somepoint.RoadDawg55 said:
One of the problems for Sark is this first year will be rough. A 7-6 season and negativity will take over the program. I don't think they are very good. Add in Sark coaching and I predict a rough first season.HeretoBeatmyChest said:USC has averaged a conference title every 2.5 years while UW about 6.
That needs to be taken into context when evaluating Sark at USC. Theres no chance he wins two in his first 3-4 years. He may win 1 in his first 3 or 4 years and Kim and other sycophants will use it to boost their opinion of Sark and throw it in our face when in reality 1/3 or 1/4 is below average for U$C. -
I think by year three it was pretty evident to those following recruiting that Sark was working hard to keep Cali pipelines open to the detriment of in-state players. Talia Crichton? Seriously we went to Cali to get this kid who's whole career yielded the amount of tackles a good player does in 6 games. I'm so happy Petersen is a NW guy. Best thing ever for us. Sark is where he wants to be and I figure he'll last 5 years there before getting canned like Kiffin. Petersen is where he wants to be and I figure he'll be here a decade.
-
The big difference between Sark and Petersen is already obvious to anyone with half a brain from how they both handled their first recruiting season at Washington.
Sark chose to stay at USC for another month for FREE PUB! and put off the rebuilding job. After 0-12 it was important he came up here from day one and busted his ass. Instead he got nothing out of that class and we kept hearing from Doogs well you can't expect him to sign a good class in only two months time.
That class produced Keith Price, Desmond Trufant, Nate Fellner, Will Shamburger, and James Johnson. Literally only five guys in the class who really ever saw the field.
Sark always viewed this job as internship which again everyone pointed this out way back when despite what Doogs were saying. Then Sark basically admitted that a few weeks back.
Sark is lazy, the same problems his teams had in year one were still very much alive in year five. Tells me he doesn't try to fix his problems, sure he may patch up a problem here and there. Fundamentally his problems were consistent every year and that is because he is simply a lazy coach. This is why coaches like him won't succeed because he doesn't have the drive. He was on staff for the greatest dynasty we've seen in a while and probably took it all for granted not realizing how much hard work Carroll put into that.
As for Petersen, he built Boise State some little school with poor academics in Butt Fuck Egypt into a national known powerhouse. Go to a major city like a Las Vegas, LA or even NYC and people will recognize Boise State over sadly even the Washington Huskies.
He was hired at UW and went to work immediately. Doogman was on his ass after two days as was Passion about not signing enough recruits. There was no "You can't expect a good class after only two months" for Petersen because he doesn't give out FREE PUB! or allow Kim to blow him.
Petersen salvaged a shitty class that Sark had destroyed by already having one foot out the door to a conference rival. Still baffles me Doogs aren't pissed at Sark for that.
Petersen is a good who will be up all night studying film, recruiting, making changes to his program for the better. Sark will be up all night downing shots with Nansen and trying to find some whore to fuck in the bathroom.
When you watch Boise State they were always a fundamentally good team. Even the UW ass kicking of Boise State you saw Boise only had one turnover and two penalties the whole game. They were well coached just UW given the first game at the new stadium and the talent gap wasn't going to lose that game.
I'm glad the Dude Brah era is over and can't wait to see him sink the biggest giant in the conference. With Helfrich I don't trust Oregon either going forward.
I have a feeling Petersen vs Mora will be a match up we'll see quite a bit in the Pac-12 championship game. -
HeretoBeatmyChest said:
I agree he's going to have a bad first year. He'll have to win it his 2nd or 3rd year or he will be fired after three years. UCLA will definitely win the south next year. USC, ASU & UA are all rebuilding. Without Hundley it will be open in 2015 but UCLA should still win it. Funny thing is I could see Sark playing UW in the Pac-12 title game with his job on the line at somepoint.RoadDawg55 said:
One of the problems for Sark is this first year will be rough. A 7-6 season and negativity will take over the program. I don't think they are very good. Add in Sark coaching and I predict a rough first season.HeretoBeatmyChest said:USC has averaged a conference title every 2.5 years while UW about 6.
That needs to be taken into context when evaluating Sark at USC. Theres no chance he wins two in his first 3-4 years. He may win 1 in his first 3 or 4 years and Kim and other sycophants will use it to boost their opinion of Sark and throw it in our face when in reality 1/3 or 1/4 is below average for U$C.
-
5 DB's, lol! Sark does and always will run his program like a video game. He recruits by star ranking rather than what fits his program.
-
3DB > 5 DB'sSteveInShelton said:5 DB's, lol! Sark does and always will run his program like a video game. He recruits by star ranking rather than what fits his program.
-
DNC,
If that happens, you can also guar-an-fuckin-tee that that game will be in Seattle -
I can't completely hate on the job that Sark did at the UW as we're clearly in a better spot today than when he took the job. The talent level on the roster is good enough to (at least at the skill level standpoint) to compete at the highest ends of the conference. We have kids in California viewing us as one of the "it" alternatives for those wanting to leave SoCal. All those are positives.
But at the end of the day, Sark's attention to detail on the field when it came to winning games wasn't good enough. While some players developed in the program, you couldn't call player development a significant strength. You saw a coach that at best wasn't good from self evaluation and learning from his prior mistakes.
It's hard not to get the feeling that Sark hit his ceiling in Seattle and that he wasn't the right person to take the program to the next step. There doesn't appear to be any evidence that has surfaced to this point to suggest that Woodward tried hard to keep Sark.
In fact, Woodward told the team immediately afterward that his job was to go get the players a "Championship Caliber" coach. His result was Chris Petersen. I think the record/results speak for themselves on that front.
Sark will probably have more success at SC than he had at Washington ... but that's not rocket science. As someone else posted, the SC model suggests 2 conference titles every 5 years. I think Sark will be hard pressed to hit that rate. And further, when you think about that with USC, that's including the fucking dreckfest coaches that they've had over the years from Lane Kiffin to Paul Hackett to John Robinson II, etc. What SC has proven over time is that if you are the right coach, your win rate for conference championships is greater than 2 titles every 5 years. It's more in the every other year range. I'd gladly bet a Sark supporter $100 that Sark doesn't win 5 PAC titles at SC in the next 10 years. -
Even 17 year-olds can recognize arrogant and hollow pieces of shit.bananasnblondes said:TBS reports from kids who attended this weekend's camp at UW are coming in and there is a pretty clear theme. Many say that they had written UW off under the last staff because they were extremely disorganized and didn't seem to care about the players, only themselves. All said they have a renewed interest in UW under Peterman and see the program on a big upswing. Others have also dropped stories about how horribly-run different aspects of the program were.
Confirms pretty much everyone's suspisions on UW being run by a frat boy that had no idea what he was doing. USC is fucked. Can't wait for Kim to weigh in on these "idiots" tarnishing the reputation of his bro. -
One of the things you hear people say about Carroll is that he makes the job look easy or effortless. Something about his personality, energy, and positive outlook makes it appear like his job is easy, even though it's not.He_Needs_More_Time said:....He was on staff for the greatest dynasty we've seen in a while and probably took it all for granted not realizing how much hard work Carroll put into that. ....
I could see Sark watching Carroll and thinking "man, that guy makes it look easy. It should be easy for me too!" This would explain a lot of the laziness and details getting overlooked.
The funny thing is there are other people who have the same mentality (Kimmy) and don't understand that laziness and arrogance are a terrible combination. -
5 titles in 10 years, Tequilla? I wouldn't bet that for a great coach, let alone a mediocre coach like Sark. He's not even going to last there for 10 years. I would be somewhat surprised if he lasts 5. If he won 2 or 3 in 10 years, it would be a huge accomplishment.
I don't think he will win any titles. I wouldn't bet a ton of money on that, but if someone wanted to, I would bet a couple hundred on that. UCLA isn't going anywhere, and the Arizona schools are looking stronger than they have in the past 15 years. It's still Sark. Great talent will get you to a certain point, but in college football, coaching is everything. He's at best the third or fourth best coach in the South. He's one of the worst coaches in the conference, at least in the bottom half. He's not Larry Coker inheriting Miami from Butch Davis. This is a team that has some very good talent in places, but a weak OL and an average QB. Outside of RB, USC's talent on offense is about league average. That's a bad combination for Snarky.
Sark is not winning the tough road games that you need to win conference titles. Even if he reaches the title game, he's going to either face Oregon, UW, or Stanford. I like Wilcox, but good luck stopping UW or Oregon's no huddle, and Stanford will always be a tough team the way they have recruited the OL. -
Obvious points in the post, but it's always good to read one more time what a piece of shit the fat ass Armenian Hamster is. U$C is having problems because of the sanctions...with Shark at the helm they're in deep shit.
Best guess is the coming powers to be in the PAC will be UCLA and Washington. Also, reversion to the mean puts the quacks and Stanford in the less than stellar column most seasons.
Washington shot the lights out with the Petersen hire. It may not work as well as we hope, but it's one hella of a hire.
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
