UW practices according to a buddy
Comments
-
noobody cares if a title is vacated. Alabama, miami and usc still enjoy all the championships they cheated to. Whether or not they can fly a flag or banner on their campus… well nobody really gives a shit. HTH.
-
I remember when that all went down for USC. Matt Leinart was on the Dan Patrick show and Patrick asked ,him how he felt about it and Leinart goes "Well I'm staring at my national title ring right now so what do you think?"AtomicDawg said:noobody cares if a title is vacated. Alabama, miami and usc still enjoy all the championships they cheated to. Whether or not they can fly a flag or banner on their campus… well nobody really gives a shit. HTH.
It all happened, we all remember it happening. Only fuckheads like to bring it up downplay it but ultimately it doesn't matter. It still exists even if the NCAA fucktards don't treat it as such. -
He_Needs_More_Time said:
I remember when that all went down for USC. Matt Leinart was on the Dan Patrick show and Patrick asked ,him how he felt about it and Leinart goes "Well I'm staring at my national title ring right now so what do you think?"AtomicDawg said:noobody cares if a title is vacated. Alabama, miami and usc still enjoy all the championships they cheated to. Whether or not they can fly a flag or banner on their campus… well nobody really gives a shit. HTH.
It all happened, we all remember it happening. Only fuckheads like to bring it up downplay it but ultimately it doesn't matter. It still exists even if the NCAA fucktards don't treat it as such.
If so... What does Billy Jo say when He stares at half of his Natty ring? -
I like the Wilcox debate. I'm not sure why I feel my .02 is necessary since the points have all been made, but here goes...
The DC is going to get results that reflect a lot of things, most notable among them is the quality of head coaching. It all falls back on the head coach, and the rest are just details that can be debated to eternity.
Some of the other factors are valid discussion points though. Quality and depth of talent are important (someone pointed out our D last season had one legit, interior lineman). Getting some help from the offense is very important too even though TOP is no longer considered to be an important stat. You can't just keep going three-and-out and expect your defense to hold up against a decent or good offensive team. Take a look at how Sark's offense fared in the games where Wilcox's D fell apart. The offense always started the avalanche the way I remember it.
I think it's a huge stretch to say Wilcox is a great coordinator. It's not a stretch at all to call him a good one though.
I do think the guy's judgement could be called into question for hitching his wagon to Sarkisian. I have to wonder if he would have followed him anywhere aside from a premier spot like USC. If he's half the smart pro that I think he is, he would have been prepping to get the fuck out of Seattle one way or the other. He had to see that he was limiting his potential success level by being at UW with Sark. I think he's still limiting it by following him to USC, but I can understand the thought process that led to it. -
Chuck,
Good point about the offense. In five years I can recall Sark having only two games where his offense did well against a quality defense which was at USC in 2010 and at Stanford in 2013. You could also argue Nebraska in 2011 but if I remember correctly their defense wasn't very good that year.
Every year we go into the Oregon game talking about how our defense has improved from last year. Then our defense gets lit up and we complain how the defense didn't show up. Nevermind in five years Sark scored 17, 16, 17, 21, and 24 points against Oregon. In five years against Stanford his offense scored 14, 0, 21, 17 and 28 points.
For being an "offensive genius" his offenses always had a bad habit of fucking the defense over against quality opponents. -
He went to usc to get paid and have a defense with top tier talent. Basically you will get to see how good the defense could have been better players.
I think would have had a better defense by going under a better head coach, but regardless it is not that hard to put a good defense on the field down at SC.
I don't think it is a bad idea for a coordinator to spend only a few years at each spot as long as you never throw in a bad year. If he had gotten the Boise State HC job he would not be down there right now. -
Here is the most simple metric I can come up with for coaches. They tune up against shitty teams, crush decent teams, and don't get blown out in big/meaningful games.
If you have one of those you are in great shape. Now if your coach needs the final play to beat a Beaver team on a four game losing streak, lose by a land slide when the division on the line, or scores one TD after a month to prepare against a coach being "let out to pasture" then you're fucked.
A win-is-a-win unless you're trying to win a lot. -
Wilcox is the beneficiary of a bizarre moment in time when Sark is tumbling up the paygrade charts and given coaching uncertainty even I would follow him the way it's raining around him these days.
-
Meek and Atomic have it right. Wilcox hitched his wagon to Sark because he was in a terrible situation at Tennessee. He's at USC now because of the money and talent.
-
I think Wilcox went to USC for these reasons...
1) Because Sark's expertise is extremely limited, Wilcox basically has full reign over the defense
2) He had already worked for Petersen, so he may have viewed it as somewhat of a step back
3) Going to USC he's still working with Heyward & Sirmon. At UW he would have had new assistants.
4) Going from UW DC to USC DC is not a lateral move and gets him that much closer to being a HC
5) Broadens his base as a potential future HC. Him & Sirmon have recruiting roots in the south, Oregon, WA and a few years at USC will earn them some recognition in that area.
He doesn't need to prove himself as a DC, as he's already highly thought of. Sark's coming mediocrity at USC won't harm Wilcox's reputation if his defenses perform well. -
Sark's poor coaching, attention to details, poor special teams and sometimes erratic play calling could hurt Wilcox though.HeretoBeatmyChest said:I think Wilcox went to USC for these reasons...
1) Because Sark's expertise is extremely limited, Wilcox basically has full reign over the defense
2) He had already worked for Petersen, so he may have viewed it as somewhat of a step back
3) Going to USC he's still working with Heyward & Sirmon. At UW he would have had new assistants.
4) Going from UW DC to USC DC is not a lateral move and gets him that much closer to being a HC
5) Broadens his base as a potential future HC. Him & Sirmon have recruiting roots in the south, Oregon, WA and a few years at USC will earn them some recognition in that area.
He doesn't need to prove himself as a DC, as he's already highly thought of. Sark's coming mediocrity at USC won't harm Wilcox's reputation if his defenses perform well.
I can see Wilcox bailing on Sark though after 2015 when it's pretty obvious Sark could be in trouble. I think Sark will be on the hot seat going into 2016 and as an assistant you don't want to be on a coaching staff where head coach is facing death watch. -
Excellent use of 5 reasons, although I think if Petersen went after him, Wilcox would still be here. He may not have wanted to step on his buddy Coach K's toes either by staying at UW and relegating K to DL coach.HeretoBeatmyChest said:I think Wilcox went to USC for these reasons...
1) Because Sark's expertise is extremely limited, Wilcox basically has full reign over the defense
2) He had already worked for Petersen, so he may have viewed it as somewhat of a step back
3) Going to USC he's still working with Heyward & Sirmon. At UW he would have had new assistants.
4) Going from UW DC to USC DC is not a lateral move and gets him that much closer to being a HC
5) Broadens his base as a potential future HC. Him & Sirmon have recruiting roots in the south, Oregon, WA and a few years at USC will earn them some recognition in that area.
He doesn't need to prove himself as a DC, as he's already highly thought of. Sark's coming mediocrity at USC won't harm Wilcox's reputation if his defenses perform well. -
Completely disagree.HeretoBeatmyChest said:I think Wilcox went to USC for these reasons...
1) Because Sark's expertise is extremely limited, Wilcox basically has full reign over the defense
2) He had already worked for Petersen, so he may have viewed it as somewhat of a step back
3) Going to USC he's still working with Heyward & Sirmon. At UW he would have had new assistants.
4) Going from UW DC to USC DC is not a lateral move and gets him that much closer to being a HC
5) Broadens his base as a potential future HC. Him & Sirmon have recruiting roots in the south, Oregon, WA and a few years at USC will earn them some recognition in that area.
He doesn't need to prove himself as a DC, as he's already highly thought of. Sark's coming mediocrity at USC won't harm Wilcox's reputation if his defenses perform well.
If he didn't need to prove himself as a DC, he would have a better gig than working for Sark by now. -
He's proven himself as a DC but he hasn't had a championship type of defense yet. If he develops one at USC then he probably will get some HC offers.
-
So he's proven himself to be a good DC, not a great DC... but he doesn't need to prove himself unless he proves himself at USC then will get HC offers.HeretoBeatmyChest said:He's proven himself as a DC but he hasn't had a championship type of defense yet. If he develops one at USC then he probably will get some HC offers.
Got it. -
My head hurtsTierbsHsotBoobs said:
So he's proven himself to be a good DC, not a great DC... but he doesn't need to prove himself unless he proves himself at USC then will get HC offers.HeretoBeatmyChest said:He's proven himself as a DC but he hasn't had a championship type of defense yet. If he develops one at USC then he probably will get some HC offers.
Got it. -
Perhaps Petermen didn't want him anywayHeretoBeatmyChest said:I think Wilcox went to USC for these reasons...
1) Because Sark's expertise is extremely limited, Wilcox basically has full reign over the defense
2) He had already worked for Petersen, so he may have viewed it as somewhat of a step back
3) Going to USC he's still working with Heyward & Sirmon. At UW he would have had new assistants.
4) Going from UW DC to USC DC is not a lateral move and gets him that much closer to being a HC
5) Broadens his base as a potential future HC. Him & Sirmon have recruiting roots in the south, Oregon, WA and a few years at USC will earn them some recognition in that area.
He doesn't need to prove himself as a DC, as he's already highly thought of. Sark's coming mediocrity at USC won't harm Wilcox's reputation if his defenses perform well.
-
Boobs, he just needs more time is all. Wait til he gets his own guys, nobody knows the damage that Holt did.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
So he's proven himself to be a good DC, not a great DC... but he doesn't need to prove himself unless he proves himself at USC then will get HC offers.HeretoBeatmyChest said:He's proven himself as a DC but he hasn't had a championship type of defense yet. If he develops one at USC then he probably will get some HC offers.
Got it.
Damn when did this place turn into Doogman where we make excuses for coaches?
-
If Wilcox is smart he's gone after this coming season and two season tops ... only part of attaching the ride to Sark's wagon is that Sark's now at USC. That's solid gold from a resume standpoint.
-
Looks like I have all the screenshots I need.MikeDamone said:
There was the famous "Can't you just be happy with 5-1?" When I pointed out that UW went through the easy part of the schedule in unimpressive fashion and the reckoning would soon come. They went 2-5 after that.He_Needs_More_Time said:
Conversely I remember in 2011 being like "This is going to be a long year" after the Eastern game and being told "a win is a win" by several doogs.DerekJohnson said:I remember beating Indiana (around 2002 or 2003) something like 38-13 and going onto Dawgman to vent about how that wasn't Husky Football and why do we suck so bad.
"Three years ago you would have killed for a win and now you are complaining? Damn you are negative!".
While like you said back then being disappointed in wins was normal because the expectations were so much higher. I remember leaving Husky Stadium in 1995 after barely beating Army and walking out feeling like we had lost.
How a team wins or losses in very important. I remember after watching the Colorado game in 1990 thinking, UW has a very good team and could very well be one of the best in the nation. It was a well played game by two good teams. I think Colorado won the MNC that year (even though they got a 5th down vs. Missouri). Then there are games where they play like shit, but are lucky to beat an inferior team, and you know they aren't very good and it will catch up with them. Like a bad golfer who who maybe skips one across the water, or hits a tree and gets a bounce that puts him near the hole...maybe he gets a par or a birdy on the first couple of holes, but everyone knows he will still shoot a 110, becuase he isn't very good. (see the Arizona foot bounce pick 6 for reference) -
[Deleted User] said:
This board will be more intense I think. The more winning you do the more it hurts when you lose, the more joy you gain when there is a big win.unfrozencaveman said:No complaints here - which makes this bored difficult, nothing to bitch about
Even jamming some Springsteen on Tues
Dawgman back in the late 1990's and early 2000's was very much like that. There was several people punching their fists on the key board after the Miami loss in 2001 and they allowed it. That was the mindset back then that blowout losses like that were fucking unacceptable as they should be.
So I think even in wins you'll see posters more critical of individuals as we are looking big picture. Like if UW defeats Hawaii for an example 34-24(same score as Illinois) there will be some major angst in here while last year nobody cared because we knew the season was over the minute Sark was allowed to have a year five.
Huh?[Deleted User] said:
Conversely I remember in 2011 being like "This is going to be a long year" after the Eastern game and being told "a win is a win" by several doogs.DerekJohnson said:I remember beating Indiana (around 2002 or 2003) something like 38-13 and going onto Dawgman to vent about how that wasn't Husky Football and why do we suck so bad.
"Three years ago you would have killed for a win and now you are complaining? Damn you are negative!".
While like you said back then being disappointed in wins was normal because the expectations were so much higher. I remember leaving Husky Stadium in 1995 after barely beating Army and walking out feeling like we had lost. -
I'm glad I never participated in this thread.
-
Same.Swaye said:I'm glad I never participated in this thread.
Also, this thread reminds me that Cockus was responsible for 81% of the posts on HH back when he was still alive (RIP Ts and Ps). I imagine if he didn't leave he'd be approaching 100,000 posts by now. -
whatshouldicareabout said:
Same.Swaye said:I'm glad I never participated in this thread.
Also, this thread reminds me that Cockus was responsible for 81% of the posts on HH back when he was still alive (RIP Ts and Ps). I imagine if he didn't leave he'd be approaching100,000Avogadro's number of posts by now. -
You must have went to one of them fancy injun boarding schools where they yardstick your balls for using the native tongue.Swaye said: -
Fuck, More_Cockus must have worn out the keys in his mom's basement typing this much. Can you TL:DR an entire thread?
-
Crisperization complete.[Deleted User] said:...I can see
WilcoxMarques bailing on Sark though after 2015 when it's pretty obvious Sark could be in trouble. I think Sark will be on the hot seat going into 2016 and as an assistant you don't want to be on a coaching staff where head coach is facing death watch... -
This thread, TL;DR except for first and last posts.
-
WilburHooksHands said:
You must have went to one of them fancy injun boarding schools where they yardstick your balls for using the native tongue.Swaye said:
-
Great 5 month bump at 3 AM as alwaysdoogsinparadise said:
Looks like I have all the screenshots I need.MikeDamone said:
There was the famous "Can't you just be happy with 5-1?" When I pointed out that UW went through the easy part of the schedule in unimpressive fashion and the reckoning would soon come. They went 2-5 after that.He_Needs_More_Time said:
Conversely I remember in 2011 being like "This is going to be a long year" after the Eastern game and being told "a win is a win" by several doogs.DerekJohnson said:I remember beating Indiana (around 2002 or 2003) something like 38-13 and going onto Dawgman to vent about how that wasn't Husky Football and why do we suck so bad.
"Three years ago you would have killed for a win and now you are complaining? Damn you are negative!".
While like you said back then being disappointed in wins was normal because the expectations were so much higher. I remember leaving Husky Stadium in 1995 after barely beating Army and walking out feeling like we had lost.
How a team wins or losses in very important. I remember after watching the Colorado game in 1990 thinking, UW has a very good team and could very well be one of the best in the nation. It was a well played game by two good teams. I think Colorado won the MNC that year (even though they got a 5th down vs. Missouri). Then there are games where they play like shit, but are lucky to beat an inferior team, and you know they aren't very good and it will catch up with them. Like a bad golfer who who maybe skips one across the water, or hits a tree and gets a bounce that puts him near the hole...maybe he gets a par or a birdy on the first couple of holes, but everyone knows he will still shoot a 110, becuase he isn't very good. (see the Arizona foot bounce pick 6 for reference)
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
