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

Official invite from Softy Mahler via twitter

13567…12

Comments

  • TierbsHsotBoobs
    TierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680
    HeretoBeatmyChest said:

    Tequilla, we've discussed this ad naseum.

    The advanced metrics show very little difference between the 2009-2012 seasons compared to 2006-2007. Those were basically average teams, ranked around 45-55.

    Fact is, if Wilcox and the other guys weren't hired at the end of 11, Sark probably has his worst season in 2012 and gets canned.

    Going 5-4, 5-4 with Wilcox >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going 4-5, 5-4, 5-4 with Holt.

    Everybody says so.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PurpleMicrodot
    PurpleMicrodot Member Posts: 66
    TierbsHsotBoobs said:

    HeretoBeatmyChest said:

    Tequilla, we've discussed this ad naseum.

    The advanced metrics show very little difference between the 2009-2012 seasons compared to 2006-2007. Those were basically average teams, ranked around 45-55.

    Fact is, if Wilcox and the other guys weren't hired at the end of 11, Sark probably has his worst season in 2012 and gets canned.

    Going 5-4, 5-4 with Wilcox >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going 4-5, 5-4, 5-4 with Holt.

    Everybody says so.
    If you can't see the incremental progress in that then DiggyDawg can't help you
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 11,453
    I brought up 5-4 four years in a row. He changed the subject "bottom line we have Petersen now and Sark left us better off than when he took over. All is good"
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dhdawg
    dhdawg Member Posts: 13,326
    TierbsHsotBoobs said:

    HeretoBeatmyChest said:

    Tequilla, we've discussed this ad naseum.

    The advanced metrics show very little difference between the 2009-2012 seasons compared to 2006-2007. Those were basically average teams, ranked around 45-55.

    Fact is, if Wilcox and the other guys weren't hired at the end of 11, Sark probably has his worst season in 2012 and gets canned.

    Going 5-4, 5-4 with Wilcox >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going 4-5, 5-4, 5-4 with Holt.

    Everybody says so.
    Agree to a point but holt goes 4-8 with the dreckfest offense sark put out in 2012. We lose to Stanford Oregon state and maybe even SDSU (fml)

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TierbsHsotBoobs
    TierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680
    edited March 2014
    He_Needs_More_Time said:

    I brought up 5-4 four years in a row. He changed the subject "bottom line we have Petersen now and Sark left us better off than when he took over. All is good"

    LOL 0-12!!!!!!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TierbsHsotBoobs
    TierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680
    dhdawg said:

    TierbsHsotBoobs said:

    HeretoBeatmyChest said:

    Tequilla, we've discussed this ad naseum.

    The advanced metrics show very little difference between the 2009-2012 seasons compared to 2006-2007. Those were basically average teams, ranked around 45-55.

    Fact is, if Wilcox and the other guys weren't hired at the end of 11, Sark probably has his worst season in 2012 and gets canned.

    Going 5-4, 5-4 with Wilcox >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going 4-5, 5-4, 5-4 with Holt.

    Everybody says so.
    Agree to a point but holt goes 4-8 with the dreckfest offense sark put out in 2012. We lose to Stanford Oregon state and maybe even SDSU (fml)

    Are you new here?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Tequilla
    Tequilla Member Posts: 20,259
    He_Needs_More_Time said:

    I brought up 5-4 four years in a row. He changed the subject "bottom line we have Petersen now and Sark left us better off than when he took over. All is good"

    And how many people here would argue that Petersen wasn't left with a better starting place than Sark was? That's just flat out not answering the question ... which is because he CAN'T answer that question.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RoadDawg55
    RoadDawg55 Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 30,538 Swaye's Wigwam
    dhdawg said:

    TierbsHsotBoobs said:

    HeretoBeatmyChest said:

    Tequilla, we've discussed this ad naseum.

    The advanced metrics show very little difference between the 2009-2012 seasons compared to 2006-2007. Those were basically average teams, ranked around 45-55.

    Fact is, if Wilcox and the other guys weren't hired at the end of 11, Sark probably has his worst season in 2012 and gets canned.

    Going 5-4, 5-4 with Wilcox >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going 4-5, 5-4, 5-4 with Holt.

    Everybody says so.
    Agree to a point but holt goes 4-8 with the dreckfest offense sark put out in 2012. We lose to Stanford Oregon state and maybe even SDSU (fml)

    This. We lose at least two more games, probably three (SDSU, Stanford, Oregon State, Cal). I still bet Sark would have gotten one more year.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • poc81
    poc81 Member Posts: 219
    Sounds like an invite for indian leg wrestling.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • allpurpleallgold
    allpurpleallgold Member Posts: 8,771
    He_Needs_More_Time said:

    I brought up 5-4 four years in a row. He changed the subject "bottom line we have Petersen now and Sark left us better off than when he took over. All is good"

    Christ he says 'bottom line' a lot.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter