Your final grade for Sark?
B-minus
No real indication Sark was figuring shit out and the program was headed to the upper echelon of the conference.
Comments
-
-
C. I think he's a B recruiter and a D coach.
Just because Ty and Boobs were fucking Fs doesn't elevate a MEDIOCRE coach. -
-
-
C +
The more I think about it (and listen to fucksticks on here), 2009 was mostly a coach bounce. His true colors started to show with the 3-6 start in 2010. I should have listened to @DerekJohnson and @whlinder .
He recrooooted pretty well, but player development, general discipline, and playcalling were average if that. We can and finally did get better. -
I give him a 7
-
D+
He could have been a solid B or B+ with effort ... Fucker was lazy and selfish. -
C+
A C as a coach and recruiter.
The + is for at least having a good time at Joey's. -
C-, Petersen will show what a REAL coach can accomplish at Washington. Not to mention Sark will get exposed at USC.
Special Teams were always bad. If the offense was good then the defense sucked, if defense was good then offense sucked.
As a recruiter he was okay. Didn't sign one 4 star OL since his 2010 class.
His teams could never rise up on the road against a decent team, often plunger raped.
Took 6th place in year 5 which had everyone returning. Nuff said. -
1.87
-
C
He was a B recruiter, a D game day coach, and a C developer.
There's no excuse for the Washington coach to be anything but an A in all of the above. I'm pretty sure we will see A level performance in all three aspects for the next few years and everyone is going to say "I told you not to sleep on Pete!" -
crisped for accuracyPurpleJ said:I give him a 7 out of 12 (not 10) on a scale where 7 = C/C-
-
D+
First of all, he was not a B recruiter. He was a B recruiter at getting the guys he wanted (maybe even a B+), but he was below average at identifying who to put his efforts into. The in state and OL recruiting neglect were inexcusable. Overall he's maybe a C+ recruiter.
His overall coaching probably was around a D+. He won more conference games than he lost (barely), but only thanks to the presence of Colorado and Utah - his conference performance was average, at best. And he wasn't coaching a dreck school, he was coaching at WASHINGTON, dammit, where an average coach should get above average results. Outside of recruiting he's below average at everything that matters - discipline, player development, decision making, prioritizing.
He's lucky he had owen12 to prop him up and give everyone the illusion he had accomplished something.
WDWHA -
C
He did bring the program from unparalleled depths (6 years of worthlessness) but failed to elevate the program to where it should be. He lead us to some great wins and some mind-numbing losses. He did leave the program in great shape for Petersen, so that's a bonus. -
-
Spot on.dnc said:D+
First of all, he was not a B recruiter. He was a B recruiter at getting the guys he wanted (maybe even a B+), but he was below average at identifying who to put his efforts into. The in state and OL recruiting neglect were inexcusable. Overall he's maybe a C+ recruiter.
His overall coaching probably was around a D+. He won more conference games than he lost (barely), but only thanks to the presence of Colorado and Utah - his conference performance was average, at best. And he wasn't coaching a dreck school, he was coaching at WASHINGTON, dammit, where an average coach should get above average results. Outside of recruiting he's below average at everything that matters - discipline, player development, decision making, prioritizing.
He's lucky he had owen12 to prop him up and give everyone the illusion he had accomplished something.
WDWHA -
Wasn't ready to be a head coach.
C
Perfect example of the Peter Principle. -
-
-
A+
Sark is the greatest coach to ever grace the sidelines of Husky Stadium. It's a shame that an unproven coach will now be given credit for the foundation he set and the personal sacrifice he made for UW.
As Sark returns USC to Carroll'esque glory, HHB's will regret the day they drove him away. The crime in all this is that they will never be held accountable for the permanent damage they've caused the program as they hid behind their anonymity. -
A+
Best play caller in America
Great recruiter, everybody says so
Kick ass pressers and memorials
Master motivator
Hip style
Big time on social media
-
I think you can give the Sark regime a C+ but Sark a C-.
If Woodward does not pay up for Wilcox, Tosh, etc...Sark goes 4-8 in 2012 and probably 7-6 in 2013. I give Sark little credit for the 9-4 and top 15 metrics 2013 team. He deserves a little credit for changing the offense but thats it.
He basically inherited a 5 win team and could not exceed 7 wins. A competent coach (not a Petersen type) would have taken UW to 9-10 wins.
Willingham gets a D and Gilby an F. -
pressingsarktastic said:A+
Sark is the greatest coach to ever grace the sidelines of Husky Stadium. It's a shame that an unproven coach will now be given credit for the foundation he set and the personal sacrifice he made for UW.
As Sark returns USC to Carroll'esque glory, HHB's will regret the day they drove him away. The crime in all this is that they will never be held accountable for the permanent damage they've caused the program as they hid behind their anonymity. -
How is Willingham anything but an F?HeretoBeatmyChest said:I think you can give the Sark regime a C+ but Sark a C-.
If Woodward does not pay up for Wilcox, Tosh, etc...Sark goes 4-8 in 2012 and probably 7-6 in 2013. I give Sark little credit for the 9-4 and top 15 metrics 2013 team. He deserves a little credit for changing the offense but thats it.
He basically inherited a 5 win team and could not exceed 7 wins. A competent coach (not a Petersen type) would have taken UW to 9-10 wins.
Willingham gets a D and Gilby an F. -
Gladstone said:
How is Willingham anything but an F?HeretoBeatmyChest said:I think you can give the Sark regime a C+ but Sark a C-.
If Woodward does not pay up for Wilcox, Tosh, etc...Sark goes 4-8 in 2012 and probably 7-6 in 2013. I give Sark little credit for the 9-4 and top 15 metrics 2013 team. He deserves a little credit for changing the offense but thats it.
He basically inherited a 5 win team and could not exceed 7 wins. A competent coach (not a Petersen type) would have taken UW to 9-10 wins.
Willingham gets a D and Gilby an F.
this. Willingham gets a fucking Z -
I place 2008 squarely on Mark Emmert. How fucking hard would you work if you were fired, but then reinstated later.
Gilby was worse than Tyrone, an utter fucking failure on all levels. Giving Tyrone an F and Sark a C is too much distance between the two. Exclude 2008 and there wasn't a huge difference between Ty and Sark. -
FO, GTheGlove said:A+
Best play caller in America
Great recruiter, everybody says so
Kick ass pressers and memorials
Master motivator
Hip style
Big time on social media -
The fuck? Grades are allowed in Seattle?
-
Oh god here comes the Wilcox love fest again. Improved us from 5-4 to 5-4.HeretoBeatmyChest said:I think you can give the Sark regime a C+ but Sark a C-.
If Woodward does not pay up for Wilcox, Tosh, etc...Sark goes 4-8 in 2012 and probably 7-6 in 2013. I give Sark little credit for the 9-4 and top 15 metrics 2013 team. He deserves a little credit for changing the offense but thats it.
He basically inherited a 5 win team and could not exceed 7 wins. A competent coach (not a Petersen type) would have taken UW to 9-10 wins.
Willingham gets a D and Gilby an F. -
That's why you give Ty an F and Sark a D.HeretoBeatmyChest said:I place 2008 squarely on Mark Emmert. How fucking hard would you work if you were fired, but then reinstated later.
Gilby was worse than Tyrone, an utter fucking failure on all levels. Giving Tyrone an F and Sark a C is too much distance between the two. Exclude 2008 and there wasn't a huge difference between Ty and Sark.
HTH.
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68N0c6WaabE
