Which result would be the worst for your 2013 Huskies?
Which result would be the worst for your 2013 Huskies? 39 votes
Comments
-
I voted 8-5. At 8-5 there is some "progress" so that will buy Sark even more time to continue his mediocrity.
Going 0-12 would suck but that's just for one year. The advantage would be Woodward and Sark would be D.A.O.
While I do believe 7-6 neither would be fired, I do feel both would be on the hot season heading into 2014.
That's why 8-5 would be the worst for me. -
I said 7-6, because picking anything different would be unrealistic
-
Definitely 8-5. Technically its improvement but not the jump you really need to see after three straight 7-6s. After going 5-7 and then only winning 8 games over the next three years with improved talent is the sign of a poor coach.
Now if they are 8-5 but beat Arizona, Boise, Cal by 17, Illinois by 30, Colorado by 30 and lose to Oregon by 14 Stanford by 7 and ASU, UCLA and OSU by 3-7 then the advanced metrics would probably show a jump from the 45-55th of the past 3 years to 20-25. -
Just stop please. That type of talk is why Doogs were willing to give a Ty a chance. He wasn't really 4-9 since every loss was close and that has to count.HeretoBeatmyChest said:Definitely 8-5. Technically its improvement but not the jump you really need to see after three straight 7-6s. After going 5-7 and then only winning 8 games over the next three years with improved talent is the sign of a poor coach.
Now if they are 8-5 but beat Arizona, Boise, Cal by 17, Illinois by 30, Colorado by 30 and lose to Oregon by 14 Stanford by 7 and ASU, UCLA and OSU by 3-7 then the advanced metrics would probably show a jump from the 45-55th of the past 3 years to 20-25.
Sorry only thing that matters is scoreboard baby! Did you fucking win the game or did you fucking lose the game?
Under no circumstance should 8-5 be acceptable. -
You do realize that 50% of DJ's season ended with 8 wins or lessHe_Needs_More_Time said:
Just stop please. That type of talk is why Doogs were willing to give a Ty a chance. He wasn't really 4-9 since every loss was close and that has to count.HeretoBeatmyChest said:Definitely 8-5. Technically its improvement but not the jump you really need to see after three straight 7-6s. After going 5-7 and then only winning 8 games over the next three years with improved talent is the sign of a poor coach.
Now if they are 8-5 but beat Arizona, Boise, Cal by 17, Illinois by 30, Colorado by 30 and lose to Oregon by 14 Stanford by 7 and ASU, UCLA and OSU by 3-7 then the advanced metrics would probably show a jump from the 45-55th of the past 3 years to 20-25.
Sorry only thing that matters is scoreboard baby! Did you fucking win the game or did you fucking lose the game?
Under no circumstance should 8-5 be acceptable.
Sure glad this board was not around then.
-
You do realize that DJ never got to play 12 game schedules and face Div II teamsIrishDawg22 said:
You do realize that 50% of DJ's season ended with 8 wins or lessHe_Needs_More_Time said:
Just stop please. That type of talk is why Doogs were willing to give a Ty a chance. He wasn't really 4-9 since every loss was close and that has to count.HeretoBeatmyChest said:Definitely 8-5. Technically its improvement but not the jump you really need to see after three straight 7-6s. After going 5-7 and then only winning 8 games over the next three years with improved talent is the sign of a poor coach.
Now if they are 8-5 but beat Arizona, Boise, Cal by 17, Illinois by 30, Colorado by 30 and lose to Oregon by 14 Stanford by 7 and ASU, UCLA and OSU by 3-7 then the advanced metrics would probably show a jump from the 45-55th of the past 3 years to 20-25.
Sorry only thing that matters is scoreboard baby! Did you fucking win the game or did you fucking lose the game?
Under no circumstance should 8-5 be acceptable.
Sure glad this board was not around then.
HTH -
8 wins with no plunger rape losses would be progress, but I would still hope for Sark to be gone. I don't think he will be gone unless we miss a bowl. 7 or 8 wins would be bad because we would have to put up with at least one more year of Sark ball.
-
You do realize that Don James lost 6 games exactly once in his career at Washington.IrishDawg22 said:
You do realize that 50% of DJ's season ended with 8 wins or lessHe_Needs_More_Time said:
Just stop please. That type of talk is why Doogs were willing to give a Ty a chance. He wasn't really 4-9 since every loss was close and that has to count.HeretoBeatmyChest said:Definitely 8-5. Technically its improvement but not the jump you really need to see after three straight 7-6s. After going 5-7 and then only winning 8 games over the next three years with improved talent is the sign of a poor coach.
Now if they are 8-5 but beat Arizona, Boise, Cal by 17, Illinois by 30, Colorado by 30 and lose to Oregon by 14 Stanford by 7 and ASU, UCLA and OSU by 3-7 then the advanced metrics would probably show a jump from the 45-55th of the past 3 years to 20-25.
Sorry only thing that matters is scoreboard baby! Did you fucking win the game or did you fucking lose the game?
Under no circumstance should 8-5 be acceptable.
Sure glad this board was not around then. -
One more year of Sark ball with 8 wins??? Try we need to extend him before some NFL team snatches him up.RoadDawg55 said:8 wins with no plunger rape losses would be progress, but I would still hope for Sark to be gone. I don't think he will be gone unless we miss a bowl. 7 or 8 wins would be bad because we would have to put up with at least one more year of Sark ball.
That's why 8 wins is the worst possible scenario for this season. -
3 = the number of times DJ faced an WSU, Oregon or Oregon St team that was ranked during his career.DerekJohnson said:
You do realize that DJ never got to play 12 game schedules and face Div II teamsIrishDawg22 said:
You do realize that 50% of DJ's season ended with 8 wins or lessHe_Needs_More_Time said:
Just stop please. That type of talk is why Doogs were willing to give a Ty a chance. He wasn't really 4-9 since every loss was close and that has to count.HeretoBeatmyChest said:Definitely 8-5. Technically its improvement but not the jump you really need to see after three straight 7-6s. After going 5-7 and then only winning 8 games over the next three years with improved talent is the sign of a poor coach.
Now if they are 8-5 but beat Arizona, Boise, Cal by 17, Illinois by 30, Colorado by 30 and lose to Oregon by 14 Stanford by 7 and ASU, UCLA and OSU by 3-7 then the advanced metrics would probably show a jump from the 45-55th of the past 3 years to 20-25.
Sorry only thing that matters is scoreboard baby! Did you fucking win the game or did you fucking lose the game?
Under no circumstance should 8-5 be acceptable.
Sure glad this board was not around then.
HTH
And almost every year had the cupcake (San Jose St, Idaho, etc)
These people would have crucified him for going 6-5, 5-6, 8-4 (on field) and 7-4.
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
