Another Stellar Incoming OLine Class
Comments
-
If I was truly exasperated I wouldn't be posting it on a message board where everyone is a smart ass.DerekJohnson said:
Did I say that? You're free to say almost anything you want here. But you implied you were exasperated so I was passing along a little wisdom.He_Needs_More_Time said:
So we can't mock doogs? If that's the case this forum would be pretty dull.DerekJohnson said:
Here's today's lesson in life for you:He_Needs_More_Time said:
I'm not even kidding someone actually said we have a bumper crop of in state talent in 2015 and I go gee where have I heard that before. Then I was met with "Why are you always so negative about Sark?"MikeDamone said:No worries. Bumper crop next year.
Apparently being honest= being negative.
It's never what's being said that matters, it's who is saying it. -
cozzetto is f**king dead weight to this program. Every year that he is retained is another year of celebration for other teams in the conference. They get to negatively recruit against UW.Global said:OL is low priority for Sark even though he would never admit it. And fundamentally he made his first mistake by hiring Dan Cozzetto when his first choice from Cal reversed and turned Sark down. Cozzetto is a mean-spirited screamer who cannot teach. None of these talented OL prospects want to play for him, since word of his style has got out. Of course other teams use Cozzetto against us in recruiting. But Sark has kept Cozzetto despite the most inept years of OL recruiting and development in UW football history.
Unacceptable.
I don't know what dirty pictures cozzetto has of Sark, but they must be pretty incriminating to keep him around this long. For a school that once prided itself on offensive linemen, it's a friggin embarrassment.
-
Very true. The writing is on the wall.RoadDawg55 said:Cozzetto sucks, and it's not even a debate. The last good OL he coached was at ASU in the late 90's. High school recruits were infants and toddlers the last time Cozzetto coached a good OL. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Having said that, he is not the reason we don't get good OL recruits, Sark is.
Of course, Sark would like to get good OL recruits, but is there any doubt he enjoys recruiting a good QB or WR more than the OL? Don't you think we would have more good OL if Sark personally recruited them and made them know how badly we needed them? Instead, he pawns off the in state guys from 2012 on Cox who fucks it up, and becomes the scapegoat for who is actually responsible for fucking up, the guy in charge, Sark.
As SouthernDawg notes, I am big proponent of coaching stability, and against the "coaching carousel" mentality. Coaching stability was a factor in DJ's success, and more recently in Oregon's success. But it depends on having good coaches in place to begin with. In response to SouthernDawg, it is true that for years I have argued in favor of coaching stability, and that lead to me being supportive of coaches who did not deserve support. What i have said also is that (as in the case of Sark and as became the case with Willingham), they should be judged by teams composed of their own recruits who have been coached through their system. I know that there are times when a new coach will have success with the previous team's recruits, but the measure of whether a coach is suitable for longer term -- i.e., whether he can be the guy for coaching stability -- is how his teams do in year's 4-5 when his recruits become upperclassmen trained in his system. I was wrong to support a last year for Willingham, and I said so at the time, but I did support him for the reasons I state above. I should have discarded those reasons, but I did not in favor of stability.
I have learned from that experience, and in fact have been critical of Sark from the time of his hiring. His failure to fire Cozzetto last year was the last straw for me, so Sark deserves firing. Not only because of Cozzetto, but because of play calling, recruiting that does not build the core of the team (OL and DL), weak attitudes across the team, and the obvious: three 7-6 records. The first two were more understandable considering the schedules we inherited. The 2012 season was a mess from the beginning. I could see it in the spring practices of 2012 and again in fall practice, and in the opening game against San Diego State, the wheels went off the Husky team after the first two series. They never came back on, even though we had an amazing win against Stanford that somehow blurred the issues once again.
Sark should have been fired after the Apple Cup last year. -
obvious spell checksPassion said:
Sark is fucking dead weight to this program. Every year that he is retained is another year of celebration for other teams in the conference. They get to negatively recruit against UW.Global said:OL is low priority for Sark even though he would never admit it. And fundamentally he made his first mistake by hiring Dan Cozzetto when his first choice from Cal reversed and turned Sark down. Cozzetto is a mean-spirited screamer who cannot teach. None of these talented OL prospects want to play for him, since word of his style has got out. Of course other teams use Cozzetto against us in recruiting. But Sark has kept Cozzetto despite the most inept years of OL recruiting and development in UW football history.
Unacceptable.
I don't know what dirty pictures Sark has of Pool Boy, but they must be pretty incriminating to keep him around this long. For a school that once prided itself on football, it's a fucking embarrassment. -
Why are some of you guys making the same mistakes as doogs where you are blaming position coach? It all falls to the top.
The OL won't improve until Sark is fired. Simple as that. -
Is this a thought of yours or did you hear this from someone?DerekJohnson said:The Cal OL coach got up here, quickly saw that Sark's staff had a frat house mentality, and wanted no part of it when others wanted his services.
-
If you want stability, the option is obvious. Promote Wilcox and keep the D coaches on board. Keisau coached with Wilcox and Tosh at Cal. Jim Michalzek was the OL coach at Cal at the time. I'm sure you could pull him away from Arizona. Then all you really need is to hire a new OC. Out- Sark, Nansen, Cozetto. In-Michalzek, & new OC. This staff would be able to make huge inroads in the bay area. With Sark & Nansen's frat-boy mentality gone, you'd be able to rebuild in state behind Sirmon. Go out and get the best OC available. Almost any OC would be an upgrade over Sark.Global said:
Very true. The writing is on the wall.RoadDawg55 said:Cozzetto sucks, and it's not even a debate. The last good OL he coached was at ASU in the late 90's. High school recruits were infants and toddlers the last time Cozzetto coached a good OL. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Having said that, he is not the reason we don't get good OL recruits, Sark is.
Of course, Sark would like to get good OL recruits, but is there any doubt he enjoys recruiting a good QB or WR more than the OL? Don't you think we would have more good OL if Sark personally recruited them and made them know how badly we needed them? Instead, he pawns off the in state guys from 2012 on Cox who fucks it up, and becomes the scapegoat for who is actually responsible for fucking up, the guy in charge, Sark.
As SouthernDawg notes, I am big proponent of coaching stability, and against the "coaching carousel" mentality. Coaching stability was a factor in DJ's success, and more recently in Oregon's success. But it depends on having good coaches in place to begin with. In response to SouthernDawg, it is true that for years I have argued in favor of coaching stability, and that lead to me being supportive of coaches who did not deserve support. What i have said also is that (as in the case of Sark and as became the case with Willingham), they should be judged by teams composed of their own recruits who have been coached through their system. I know that there are times when a new coach will have success with the previous team's recruits, but the measure of whether a coach is suitable for longer term -- i.e., whether he can be the guy for coaching stability -- is how his teams do in year's 4-5 when his recruits become upperclassmen trained in his system. I was wrong to support a last year for Willingham, and I said so at the time, but I did support him for the reasons I state above. I should have discarded those reasons, but I did not in favor of stability.
I have learned from that experience, and in fact have been critical of Sark from the time of his hiring. His failure to fire Cozzetto last year was the last straw for me, so Sark deserves firing. Not only because of Cozzetto, but because of play calling, recruiting that does not build the core of the team (OL and DL), weak attitudes across the team, and the obvious: three 7-6 records. The first two were more understandable considering the schedules we inherited. The 2012 season was a mess from the beginning. I could see it in the spring practices of 2012 and again in fall practice, and in the opening game against San Diego State, the wheels went off the Husky team after the first two series. They never came back on, even though we had an amazing win against Stanford that somehow blurred the issues once again.
Sark should have been fired after the Apple Cup last year.
Whatever the case, the sooner Sark is gone the better. -
Let's hire Wilcox as head coach. Cause hiring first time head coaches with no head coaching offers worked so well with Sark.HeretoBeatmyChest said:
If you want stability, the option is obvious. Promote Wilcox and keep the D coaches on board. Keisau coached with Wilcox and Tosh at Cal. Jim Michalzek was the OL coach at Cal at the time. I'm sure you could pull him away from Arizona. Then all you really need is to hire a new OC. Out- Sark, Nansen, Cozetto. In-Michalzek, & new OC. This staff would be able to make huge inroads in the bay area. With Sark & Nansen's frat-boy mentality gone, you'd be able to rebuild in state behind Sirmon. Go out and get the best OC available. Almost any OC would be an upgrade over Sark.Global said:
Very true. The writing is on the wall.RoadDawg55 said:Cozzetto sucks, and it's not even a debate. The last good OL he coached was at ASU in the late 90's. High school recruits were infants and toddlers the last time Cozzetto coached a good OL. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Having said that, he is not the reason we don't get good OL recruits, Sark is.
Of course, Sark would like to get good OL recruits, but is there any doubt he enjoys recruiting a good QB or WR more than the OL? Don't you think we would have more good OL if Sark personally recruited them and made them know how badly we needed them? Instead, he pawns off the in state guys from 2012 on Cox who fucks it up, and becomes the scapegoat for who is actually responsible for fucking up, the guy in charge, Sark.
As SouthernDawg notes, I am big proponent of coaching stability, and against the "coaching carousel" mentality. Coaching stability was a factor in DJ's success, and more recently in Oregon's success. But it depends on having good coaches in place to begin with. In response to SouthernDawg, it is true that for years I have argued in favor of coaching stability, and that lead to me being supportive of coaches who did not deserve support. What i have said also is that (as in the case of Sark and as became the case with Willingham), they should be judged by teams composed of their own recruits who have been coached through their system. I know that there are times when a new coach will have success with the previous team's recruits, but the measure of whether a coach is suitable for longer term -- i.e., whether he can be the guy for coaching stability -- is how his teams do in year's 4-5 when his recruits become upperclassmen trained in his system. I was wrong to support a last year for Willingham, and I said so at the time, but I did support him for the reasons I state above. I should have discarded those reasons, but I did not in favor of stability.
I have learned from that experience, and in fact have been critical of Sark from the time of his hiring. His failure to fire Cozzetto last year was the last straw for me, so Sark deserves firing. Not only because of Cozzetto, but because of play calling, recruiting that does not build the core of the team (OL and DL), weak attitudes across the team, and the obvious: three 7-6 records. The first two were more understandable considering the schedules we inherited. The 2012 season was a mess from the beginning. I could see it in the spring practices of 2012 and again in fall practice, and in the opening game against San Diego State, the wheels went off the Husky team after the first two series. They never came back on, even though we had an amazing win against Stanford that somehow blurred the issues once again.
Sark should have been fired after the Apple Cup last year.
Whatever the case, the sooner Sark is gone the better. -
Answer the question!CheersWestDawg said:
Is this a thought of yours or did you hear this from someone?DerekJohnson said:The Cal OL coach got up here, quickly saw that Sark's staff had a frat house mentality, and wanted no part of it when others wanted his services.
-
No no no, that's me speculating.CheersWestDawg said:
Is this a thought of yours or did you hear this from someone?DerekJohnson said:The Cal OL coach got up here, quickly saw that Sark's staff had a frat house mentality, and wanted no part of it when others wanted his services.
-
Sassy!CFetters_Nacho_Lover said:
Answer the question!CheersWestDawg said:
Is this a thought of yours or did you hear this from someone?DerekJohnson said:The Cal OL coach got up here, quickly saw that Sark's staff had a frat house mentality, and wanted no part of it when others wanted his services.
-
Hiring a guy who gets embarrassed by his rivals is a great way to fail.
-
So it is possible that this is an AND and not an OR. Michalczik saw that Sark's staff had a frat house mentality, wanted no part of it AND saw a move to Oakland as an opportunity to stay in the Bay Area while working for a personal friend AND making NFL money. It's possible he chose the life of abundance.DerekJohnson said:
No no no, that's me speculating.CheersWestDawg said:
Is this a thought of yours or did you hear this from someone?DerekJohnson said:The Cal OL coach got up here, quickly saw that Sark's staff had a frat house mentality, and wanted no part of it when others wanted his services.
-
If you're just here to speculate you won't last long
-
I like that most of you caught on. Except Kopestopper. He still has an OR mentality I think.Southerndawg said:
So it is possible that this is an AND and not an OR. Michalczik saw that Sark's staff had a frat house mentality, wanted no part of it AND saw a move to Oakland as an opportunity to stay in the Bay Area while working for a personal friend AND making NFL money. It's possible he chose the life of abundance.DerekJohnson said:
No no no, that's me speculating.CheersWestDawg said:
Is this a thought of yours or did you hear this from someone?DerekJohnson said:The Cal OL coach got up here, quickly saw that Sark's staff had a frat house mentality, and wanted no part of it when others wanted his services.
-
You have to replace every assistant at least once before the HC get's blamed #thescriptHe_Needs_More_Time said:Why are some of you guys making the same mistakes as doogs where you are blaming position coach? It all falls to the top.
The OL won't improve until Sark is fired. Simple as that.
-
He_Needs_More_Time said:
Let's hire Wilcox as head coach. Cause hiring first time head coaches with no head coaching offers worked so well with Sark.HeretoBeatmyChest said:
If you want stability, the option is obvious. Promote Wilcox and keep the D coaches on board. Keisau coached with Wilcox and Tosh at Cal. Jim Michalzek was the OL coach at Cal at the time. I'm sure you could pull him away from Arizona. Then all you really need is to hire a new OC. Out- Sark, Nansen, Cozetto. In-Michalzek, & new OC. This staff would be able to make huge inroads in the bay area. With Sark & Nansen's frat-boy mentality gone, you'd be able to rebuild in state behind Sirmon. Go out and get the best OC available. Almost any OC would be an upgrade over Sark.Global said:
Very true. The writing is on the wall.RoadDawg55 said:Cozzetto sucks, and it's not even a debate. The last good OL he coached was at ASU in the late 90's. High school recruits were infants and toddlers the last time Cozzetto coached a good OL. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Having said that, he is not the reason we don't get good OL recruits, Sark is.
Of course, Sark would like to get good OL recruits, but is there any doubt he enjoys recruiting a good QB or WR more than the OL? Don't you think we would have more good OL if Sark personally recruited them and made them know how badly we needed them? Instead, he pawns off the in state guys from 2012 on Cox who fucks it up, and becomes the scapegoat for who is actually responsible for fucking up, the guy in charge, Sark.
As SouthernDawg notes, I am big proponent of coaching stability, and against the "coaching carousel" mentality. Coaching stability was a factor in DJ's success, and more recently in Oregon's success. But it depends on having good coaches in place to begin with. In response to SouthernDawg, it is true that for years I have argued in favor of coaching stability, and that lead to me being supportive of coaches who did not deserve support. What i have said also is that (as in the case of Sark and as became the case with Willingham), they should be judged by teams composed of their own recruits who have been coached through their system. I know that there are times when a new coach will have success with the previous team's recruits, but the measure of whether a coach is suitable for longer term -- i.e., whether he can be the guy for coaching stability -- is how his teams do in year's 4-5 when his recruits become upperclassmen trained in his system. I was wrong to support a last year for Willingham, and I said so at the time, but I did support him for the reasons I state above. I should have discarded those reasons, but I did not in favor of stability.
I have learned from that experience, and in fact have been critical of Sark from the time of his hiring. His failure to fire Cozzetto last year was the last straw for me, so Sark deserves firing. Not only because of Cozzetto, but because of play calling, recruiting that does not build the core of the team (OL and DL), weak attitudes across the team, and the obvious: three 7-6 records. The first two were more understandable considering the schedules we inherited. The 2012 season was a mess from the beginning. I could see it in the spring practices of 2012 and again in fall practice, and in the opening game against San Diego State, the wheels went off the Husky team after the first two series. They never came back on, even though we had an amazing win against Stanford that somehow blurred the issues once again.
Sark should have been fired after the Apple Cup last year.
Whatever the case, the sooner Sark is gone the better.
I'm pretty sure that after an exhaustive and unrealistic (Nick Saban, Urban Meyer) nation wide coaching search Woody will announce just that. Maybe Wilcox will work out, he's at least smart enough to realize the defensive players aren't all that great and change the scheme but in the end I feel like that as a HC he's just another Sark minus Erin Andrews and Joey's waitresses. Allegedly.
-
Yale is a fucking butthole Sniffer, Pure and Simple. dude has never held a foootball. His "film analysis " is comicalbananasnblondes said:
I highly doubt Kirkland subscribes to Dawgman. That being said, I know that Yale's opinion of him is that he was not a Division 1 level football player. The Oregon board all had a good laugh when we took his commitment because Chip wouldn't touch him with a ten-foot poleHeretoBeatmyChest said:Spoke with YaleDawg recently and he said that he posted on Dawgman that Kirkland sucked (I recall it). Kirkland, a subscriber got pissed and Kim deleted the post. I heard that the way Sark & Nansen recruit most guys (non 4-5* guys) is akin to trying to pick up chicks at 1:55am at the bar. We know that OL is the most difficult position to recruit because its all about player development more so than talent. It takes careful and thorough evaluation. No surprise at the current situation, given what I heard. Mind you, this is only what I'm hearing.
-
Did you watch Cozz's Oline last year? By the way, Sean Harlow looks really good at OSU. HUGE FUCKING loss for Sark. Worse than the skinny bball player, unless your SarkGlobal said:OL is low priority for Sark even though he would never admit it. And fundamentally he made his first mistake by hiring Dan Cozzetto when his first choice from Cal reversed and turned Sark down. Cozzetto is a mean-spirited screamer who cannot teach. None of these talented OL prospects want to play for him, since word of his style has got out. Of course other teams use Cozzetto against us in recruiting. But Sark has kept Cozzetto despite the most inept years of OL recruiting and development in UW football history.
Unacceptable.
-
Losing Harlow was bad, but how do you know he looks really good? He hasn't even played a game.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
Did you watch Cozz's Oline last year? By the way, Sean Harlow looks really good at OSU. HUGE FUCKING loss for Sark. Worse than the skinny bball player, unless your SarkGlobal said:OL is low priority for Sark even though he would never admit it. And fundamentally he made his first mistake by hiring Dan Cozzetto when his first choice from Cal reversed and turned Sark down. Cozzetto is a mean-spirited screamer who cannot teach. None of these talented OL prospects want to play for him, since word of his style has got out. Of course other teams use Cozzetto against us in recruiting. But Sark has kept Cozzetto despite the most inept years of OL recruiting and development in UW football history.
Unacceptable.
-
In his Freshman photoRoadDawg55 said:
Losing Harlow was bad, but how do you know he looks really good? He hasn't even played a game.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
Did you watch Cozz's Oline last year? By the way, Sean Harlow looks really good at OSU. HUGE FUCKING loss for Sark. Worse than the skinny bball player, unless your SarkGlobal said:OL is low priority for Sark even though he would never admit it. And fundamentally he made his first mistake by hiring Dan Cozzetto when his first choice from Cal reversed and turned Sark down. Cozzetto is a mean-spirited screamer who cannot teach. None of these talented OL prospects want to play for him, since word of his style has got out. Of course other teams use Cozzetto against us in recruiting. But Sark has kept Cozzetto despite the most inept years of OL recruiting and development in UW football history.
Unacceptable.
) -
Trying to equate hiring Wilcox with Sark is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard on this bored. Yeah...the 2 are the same...Except for the fact that Wilcox has improved defenses at three different schools and worked with mediocre and marginal talent while Sark was an OC for 2 years working with 5* talent.He_Needs_More_Time said:
Let's hire Wilcox as head coach. Cause hiring first time head coaches with no head coaching offers worked so well with Sark.HeretoBeatmyChest said:
If you want stability, the option is obvious. Promote Wilcox and keep the D coaches on board. Keisau coached with Wilcox and Tosh at Cal. Jim Michalzek was the OL coach at Cal at the time. I'm sure you could pull him away from Arizona. Then all you really need is to hire a new OC. Out- Sark, Nansen, Cozetto. In-Michalzek, & new OC. This staff would be able to make huge inroads in the bay area. With Sark & Nansen's frat-boy mentality gone, you'd be able to rebuild in state behind Sirmon. Go out and get the best OC available. Almost any OC would be an upgrade over Sark.Global said:
Very true. The writing is on the wall.RoadDawg55 said:Cozzetto sucks, and it's not even a debate. The last good OL he coached was at ASU in the late 90's. High school recruits were infants and toddlers the last time Cozzetto coached a good OL. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Having said that, he is not the reason we don't get good OL recruits, Sark is.
Of course, Sark would like to get good OL recruits, but is there any doubt he enjoys recruiting a good QB or WR more than the OL? Don't you think we would have more good OL if Sark personally recruited them and made them know how badly we needed them? Instead, he pawns off the in state guys from 2012 on Cox who fucks it up, and becomes the scapegoat for who is actually responsible for fucking up, the guy in charge, Sark.
As SouthernDawg notes, I am big proponent of coaching stability, and against the "coaching carousel" mentality. Coaching stability was a factor in DJ's success, and more recently in Oregon's success. But it depends on having good coaches in place to begin with. In response to SouthernDawg, it is true that for years I have argued in favor of coaching stability, and that lead to me being supportive of coaches who did not deserve support. What i have said also is that (as in the case of Sark and as became the case with Willingham), they should be judged by teams composed of their own recruits who have been coached through their system. I know that there are times when a new coach will have success with the previous team's recruits, but the measure of whether a coach is suitable for longer term -- i.e., whether he can be the guy for coaching stability -- is how his teams do in year's 4-5 when his recruits become upperclassmen trained in his system. I was wrong to support a last year for Willingham, and I said so at the time, but I did support him for the reasons I state above. I should have discarded those reasons, but I did not in favor of stability.
I have learned from that experience, and in fact have been critical of Sark from the time of his hiring. His failure to fire Cozzetto last year was the last straw for me, so Sark deserves firing. Not only because of Cozzetto, but because of play calling, recruiting that does not build the core of the team (OL and DL), weak attitudes across the team, and the obvious: three 7-6 records. The first two were more understandable considering the schedules we inherited. The 2012 season was a mess from the beginning. I could see it in the spring practices of 2012 and again in fall practice, and in the opening game against San Diego State, the wheels went off the Husky team after the first two series. They never came back on, even though we had an amazing win against Stanford that somehow blurred the issues once again.
Sark should have been fired after the Apple Cup last year.
Whatever the case, the sooner Sark is gone the better. -
Pressing
-
Hiring a first time head coach isn't always a bad idea. Chip Kelly turned out okay. The problem is hiring first time coaches who haven't done shit to establish that they can be a head coach (e.g. Lane Kiffin, Sark, etc) other than ride the coattails of a high-riding program and a great head coach. Most USC fans didn't think Sark was worth a shit as the OC for them. Conversely, Wilcox has kicked ass for quite a few years now in a number of different jobs. Far more prepared for a HC job than Sark ever was.He_Needs_More_Time said:
Let's hire Wilcox as head coach. Cause hiring first time head coaches with no head coaching offers worked so well with Sark.
Not that I'm saying I'd take Wilcox over a proven HC. But if you're going to hire a first time HC, at least hire somebody who has more credentials and a proven history of success.
-
Yes, Wilcox is a better coordinator than Sark was. A no, he shouldn't be hired as head coach. And since you are saying he should the hired over an experienced head coach, why continue to debate this mute point.Dawgs4ever said:
Hiring a first time head coach isn't always a bad idea. Chip Kelly turned out okay. The problem is hiring first time coaches who haven't done shit to establish that they can be a head coach (e.g. Lane Kiffin, Sark, etc) other than ride the coattails of a high-riding program and a great head coach. Most USC fans didn't think Sark was worth a shit as the OC for them. Conversely, Wilcox has kicked ass for quite a few years now in a number of different jobs. Far more prepared for a HC job than Sark ever was.He_Needs_More_Time said:
Let's hire Wilcox as head coach. Cause hiring first time head coaches with no head coaching offers worked so well with Sark.
Not that I'm saying I'd take Wilcox over a proven HC. But if you're going to hire a first time HC, at least hire somebody who has more credentials and a proven history of success. -
The dude's defense got prison raped by Oregon and blew an 18 point lead in the Apple Cup.HeretoBeatmyChest said:
Trying to equate hiring Wilcox with Sark is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard on this bored. Yeah...the 2 are the same...Except for the fact that Wilcox has improved defenses at three different schools and worked with mediocre and marginal talent while Sark was an OC for 2 years working with 5* talent.He_Needs_More_Time said:
Let's hire Wilcox as head coach. Cause hiring first time head coaches with no head coaching offers worked so well with Sark.HeretoBeatmyChest said:
If you want stability, the option is obvious. Promote Wilcox and keep the D coaches on board. Keisau coached with Wilcox and Tosh at Cal. Jim Michalzek was the OL coach at Cal at the time. I'm sure you could pull him away from Arizona. Then all you really need is to hire a new OC. Out- Sark, Nansen, Cozetto. In-Michalzek, & new OC. This staff would be able to make huge inroads in the bay area. With Sark & Nansen's frat-boy mentality gone, you'd be able to rebuild in state behind Sirmon. Go out and get the best OC available. Almost any OC would be an upgrade over Sark.Global said:
Very true. The writing is on the wall.RoadDawg55 said:Cozzetto sucks, and it's not even a debate. The last good OL he coached was at ASU in the late 90's. High school recruits were infants and toddlers the last time Cozzetto coached a good OL. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Having said that, he is not the reason we don't get good OL recruits, Sark is.
Of course, Sark would like to get good OL recruits, but is there any doubt he enjoys recruiting a good QB or WR more than the OL? Don't you think we would have more good OL if Sark personally recruited them and made them know how badly we needed them? Instead, he pawns off the in state guys from 2012 on Cox who fucks it up, and becomes the scapegoat for who is actually responsible for fucking up, the guy in charge, Sark.
As SouthernDawg notes, I am big proponent of coaching stability, and against the "coaching carousel" mentality. Coaching stability was a factor in DJ's success, and more recently in Oregon's success. But it depends on having good coaches in place to begin with. In response to SouthernDawg, it is true that for years I have argued in favor of coaching stability, and that lead to me being supportive of coaches who did not deserve support. What i have said also is that (as in the case of Sark and as became the case with Willingham), they should be judged by teams composed of their own recruits who have been coached through their system. I know that there are times when a new coach will have success with the previous team's recruits, but the measure of whether a coach is suitable for longer term -- i.e., whether he can be the guy for coaching stability -- is how his teams do in year's 4-5 when his recruits become upperclassmen trained in his system. I was wrong to support a last year for Willingham, and I said so at the time, but I did support him for the reasons I state above. I should have discarded those reasons, but I did not in favor of stability.
I have learned from that experience, and in fact have been critical of Sark from the time of his hiring. His failure to fire Cozzetto last year was the last straw for me, so Sark deserves firing. Not only because of Cozzetto, but because of play calling, recruiting that does not build the core of the team (OL and DL), weak attitudes across the team, and the obvious: three 7-6 records. The first two were more understandable considering the schedules we inherited. The 2012 season was a mess from the beginning. I could see it in the spring practices of 2012 and again in fall practice, and in the opening game against San Diego State, the wheels went off the Husky team after the first two series. They never came back on, even though we had an amazing win against Stanford that somehow blurred the issues once again.
Sark should have been fired after the Apple Cup last year.
Whatever the case, the sooner Sark is gone the better.
Clearly he deserves a promotion. -
Bottom line, coaching stability makes no sense unless the coach is worthy.Global said:
.......... As SouthernDawg notes, I am big proponent of coaching stability, and against the "coaching carousel" mentality. Coaching stability was a factor in DJ's success, and more recently in Oregon's success. But it depends on having good coaches in place to begin with.
By the way, Oregon pushed Bellotti up and out of the way when Kelly came along in a move somewhat similar to the move Tennessee made in replacing Johnny Majors with Phil Fulmer. Is that what you mean by coaching stability? Or maybe the OC churn of Tedford, Ludwig, Crowton, Kelly from 2002 to 2007?
You don't need 4 - 5 years to tell if a coach is going to be worth his salt. Trends in hiring assistants, recruiting, player development, and performance on the field are usually clear long before you get to a fifth year.Global said:
In response to SouthernDawg, it is true that for years I have argued in favor of coaching stability, and that lead to me being supportive of coaches who did not deserve support. What i have said also is that (as in the case of Sark and as became the case with Willingham), they should be judged by teams composed of their own recruits who have been coached through their system. I know that there are times when a new coach will have success with the previous team's recruits, but the measure of whether a coach is suitable for longer term -- i.e., whether he can be the guy for coaching stability -- is how his teams do in year's 4-5 when his recruits become upperclassmen trained in his system. I was wrong to support a last year for Willingham, and I said so at the time, but I did support him for the reasons I state above. I should have discarded those reasons, but I did not in favor of stability.
..........................
-
You missed the part where I said "If you want stability..."TierbsHsotBoobs said:
The dude's defense got prison raped by Oregon and blew an 18 point lead in the Apple Cup.HeretoBeatmyChest said:
Trying to equate hiring Wilcox with Sark is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard on this bored. Yeah...the 2 are the same...Except for the fact that Wilcox has improved defenses at three different schools and worked with mediocre and marginal talent while Sark was an OC for 2 years working with 5* talent.He_Needs_More_Time said:
Let's hire Wilcox as head coach. Cause hiring first time head coaches with no head coaching offers worked so well with Sark.HeretoBeatmyChest said:
If you want stability, the option is obvious. Promote Wilcox and keep the D coaches on board. Keisau coached with Wilcox and Tosh at Cal. Jim Michalzek was the OL coach at Cal at the time. I'm sure you could pull him away from Arizona. Then all you really need is to hire a new OC. Out- Sark, Nansen, Cozetto. In-Michalzek, & new OC. This staff would be able to make huge inroads in the bay area. With Sark & Nansen's frat-boy mentality gone, you'd be able to rebuild in state behind Sirmon. Go out and get the best OC available. Almost any OC would be an upgrade over Sark.Global said:
Very true. The writing is on the wall.RoadDawg55 said:Cozzetto sucks, and it's not even a debate. The last good OL he coached was at ASU in the late 90's. High school recruits were infants and toddlers the last time Cozzetto coached a good OL. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Having said that, he is not the reason we don't get good OL recruits, Sark is.
Of course, Sark would like to get good OL recruits, but is there any doubt he enjoys recruiting a good QB or WR more than the OL? Don't you think we would have more good OL if Sark personally recruited them and made them know how badly we needed them? Instead, he pawns off the in state guys from 2012 on Cox who fucks it up, and becomes the scapegoat for who is actually responsible for fucking up, the guy in charge, Sark.
As SouthernDawg notes, I am big proponent of coaching stability, and against the "coaching carousel" mentality. Coaching stability was a factor in DJ's success, and more recently in Oregon's success. But it depends on having good coaches in place to begin with. In response to SouthernDawg, it is true that for years I have argued in favor of coaching stability, and that lead to me being supportive of coaches who did not deserve support. What i have said also is that (as in the case of Sark and as became the case with Willingham), they should be judged by teams composed of their own recruits who have been coached through their system. I know that there are times when a new coach will have success with the previous team's recruits, but the measure of whether a coach is suitable for longer term -- i.e., whether he can be the guy for coaching stability -- is how his teams do in year's 4-5 when his recruits become upperclassmen trained in his system. I was wrong to support a last year for Willingham, and I said so at the time, but I did support him for the reasons I state above. I should have discarded those reasons, but I did not in favor of stability.
I have learned from that experience, and in fact have been critical of Sark from the time of his hiring. His failure to fire Cozzetto last year was the last straw for me, so Sark deserves firing. Not only because of Cozzetto, but because of play calling, recruiting that does not build the core of the team (OL and DL), weak attitudes across the team, and the obvious: three 7-6 records. The first two were more understandable considering the schedules we inherited. The 2012 season was a mess from the beginning. I could see it in the spring practices of 2012 and again in fall practice, and in the opening game against San Diego State, the wheels went off the Husky team after the first two series. They never came back on, even though we had an amazing win against Stanford that somehow blurred the issues once again.
Sark should have been fired after the Apple Cup last year.
Whatever the case, the sooner Sark is gone the better.
Clearly he deserves a promotion.
You can pick out a few negative points for anyone. Hell Mora's defense gave up 28+ points 8 fucking times last year including 43 to Cal, 49 to Baylor, 36 to WSU. They fortunately missed Oregon.
Tim DeRuyter's D gave up 40 to San Diego St, 42 to Oregon, and 36 to Nevada.
-
If you want stability with this coaching staff, you deserve to die in a fucking fire.HeretoBeatmyChest said:
You missed the part where I said "If you want stability..."TierbsHsotBoobs said:
The dude's defense got prison raped by Oregon and blew an 18 point lead in the Apple Cup.HeretoBeatmyChest said:
Trying to equate hiring Wilcox with Sark is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard on this bored. Yeah...the 2 are the same...Except for the fact that Wilcox has improved defenses at three different schools and worked with mediocre and marginal talent while Sark was an OC for 2 years working with 5* talent.He_Needs_More_Time said:
Let's hire Wilcox as head coach. Cause hiring first time head coaches with no head coaching offers worked so well with Sark.HeretoBeatmyChest said:
If you want stability, the option is obvious. Promote Wilcox and keep the D coaches on board. Keisau coached with Wilcox and Tosh at Cal. Jim Michalzek was the OL coach at Cal at the time. I'm sure you could pull him away from Arizona. Then all you really need is to hire a new OC. Out- Sark, Nansen, Cozetto. In-Michalzek, & new OC. This staff would be able to make huge inroads in the bay area. With Sark & Nansen's frat-boy mentality gone, you'd be able to rebuild in state behind Sirmon. Go out and get the best OC available. Almost any OC would be an upgrade over Sark.Global said:
Very true. The writing is on the wall.RoadDawg55 said:Cozzetto sucks, and it's not even a debate. The last good OL he coached was at ASU in the late 90's. High school recruits were infants and toddlers the last time Cozzetto coached a good OL. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Having said that, he is not the reason we don't get good OL recruits, Sark is.
Of course, Sark would like to get good OL recruits, but is there any doubt he enjoys recruiting a good QB or WR more than the OL? Don't you think we would have more good OL if Sark personally recruited them and made them know how badly we needed them? Instead, he pawns off the in state guys from 2012 on Cox who fucks it up, and becomes the scapegoat for who is actually responsible for fucking up, the guy in charge, Sark.
As SouthernDawg notes, I am big proponent of coaching stability, and against the "coaching carousel" mentality. Coaching stability was a factor in DJ's success, and more recently in Oregon's success. But it depends on having good coaches in place to begin with. In response to SouthernDawg, it is true that for years I have argued in favor of coaching stability, and that lead to me being supportive of coaches who did not deserve support. What i have said also is that (as in the case of Sark and as became the case with Willingham), they should be judged by teams composed of their own recruits who have been coached through their system. I know that there are times when a new coach will have success with the previous team's recruits, but the measure of whether a coach is suitable for longer term -- i.e., whether he can be the guy for coaching stability -- is how his teams do in year's 4-5 when his recruits become upperclassmen trained in his system. I was wrong to support a last year for Willingham, and I said so at the time, but I did support him for the reasons I state above. I should have discarded those reasons, but I did not in favor of stability.
I have learned from that experience, and in fact have been critical of Sark from the time of his hiring. His failure to fire Cozzetto last year was the last straw for me, so Sark deserves firing. Not only because of Cozzetto, but because of play calling, recruiting that does not build the core of the team (OL and DL), weak attitudes across the team, and the obvious: three 7-6 records. The first two were more understandable considering the schedules we inherited. The 2012 season was a mess from the beginning. I could see it in the spring practices of 2012 and again in fall practice, and in the opening game against San Diego State, the wheels went off the Husky team after the first two series. They never came back on, even though we had an amazing win against Stanford that somehow blurred the issues once again.
Sark should have been fired after the Apple Cup last year.
Whatever the case, the sooner Sark is gone the better.
Clearly he deserves a promotion.
You can pick out a few negative points for anyone. Hell Mora's defense gave up 28+ points 8 fucking times last year including 43 to Cal, 49 to Baylor, 36 to WSU. They fortunately missed Oregon.
Tim DeRuyter's D gave up 40 to San Diego St, 42 to Oregon, and 36 to Nevada.
Mora's defense was good enough to beat its rival and win its division of the Pac-12.
As for Tim DeRuyter, I don't give a fuck. -
Duck fans love Sark and his staff.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
If you want stability with this coaching staff, you deserve to die in a fucking fire.HeretoBeatmyChest said:
You missed the part where I said "If you want stability..."TierbsHsotBoobs said:
The dude's defense got prison raped by Oregon and blew an 18 point lead in the Apple Cup.HeretoBeatmyChest said:
Trying to equate hiring Wilcox with Sark is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard on this bored. Yeah...the 2 are the same...Except for the fact that Wilcox has improved defenses at three different schools and worked with mediocre and marginal talent while Sark was an OC for 2 years working with 5* talent.He_Needs_More_Time said:
Let's hire Wilcox as head coach. Cause hiring first time head coaches with no head coaching offers worked so well with Sark.HeretoBeatmyChest said:
If you want stability, the option is obvious. Promote Wilcox and keep the D coaches on board. Keisau coached with Wilcox and Tosh at Cal. Jim Michalzek was the OL coach at Cal at the time. I'm sure you could pull him away from Arizona. Then all you really need is to hire a new OC. Out- Sark, Nansen, Cozetto. In-Michalzek, & new OC. This staff would be able to make huge inroads in the bay area. With Sark & Nansen's frat-boy mentality gone, you'd be able to rebuild in state behind Sirmon. Go out and get the best OC available. Almost any OC would be an upgrade over Sark.Global said:
Very true. The writing is on the wall.RoadDawg55 said:Cozzetto sucks, and it's not even a debate. The last good OL he coached was at ASU in the late 90's. High school recruits were infants and toddlers the last time Cozzetto coached a good OL. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Having said that, he is not the reason we don't get good OL recruits, Sark is.
Of course, Sark would like to get good OL recruits, but is there any doubt he enjoys recruiting a good QB or WR more than the OL? Don't you think we would have more good OL if Sark personally recruited them and made them know how badly we needed them? Instead, he pawns off the in state guys from 2012 on Cox who fucks it up, and becomes the scapegoat for who is actually responsible for fucking up, the guy in charge, Sark.
As SouthernDawg notes, I am big proponent of coaching stability, and against the "coaching carousel" mentality. Coaching stability was a factor in DJ's success, and more recently in Oregon's success. But it depends on having good coaches in place to begin with. In response to SouthernDawg, it is true that for years I have argued in favor of coaching stability, and that lead to me being supportive of coaches who did not deserve support. What i have said also is that (as in the case of Sark and as became the case with Willingham), they should be judged by teams composed of their own recruits who have been coached through their system. I know that there are times when a new coach will have success with the previous team's recruits, but the measure of whether a coach is suitable for longer term -- i.e., whether he can be the guy for coaching stability -- is how his teams do in year's 4-5 when his recruits become upperclassmen trained in his system. I was wrong to support a last year for Willingham, and I said so at the time, but I did support him for the reasons I state above. I should have discarded those reasons, but I did not in favor of stability.
I have learned from that experience, and in fact have been critical of Sark from the time of his hiring. His failure to fire Cozzetto last year was the last straw for me, so Sark deserves firing. Not only because of Cozzetto, but because of play calling, recruiting that does not build the core of the team (OL and DL), weak attitudes across the team, and the obvious: three 7-6 records. The first two were more understandable considering the schedules we inherited. The 2012 season was a mess from the beginning. I could see it in the spring practices of 2012 and again in fall practice, and in the opening game against San Diego State, the wheels went off the Husky team after the first two series. They never came back on, even though we had an amazing win against Stanford that somehow blurred the issues once again.
Sark should have been fired after the Apple Cup last year.
Whatever the case, the sooner Sark is gone the better.
Clearly he deserves a promotion.
You can pick out a few negative points for anyone. Hell Mora's defense gave up 28+ points 8 fucking times last year including 43 to Cal, 49 to Baylor, 36 to WSU. They fortunately missed Oregon.
Tim DeRuyter's D gave up 40 to San Diego St, 42 to Oregon, and 36 to Nevada.
Mora's defense was good enough to beat its rival and win its division of the Pac-12.
As for Tim DeRuyter, I don't give a fuck.
If your rival loves your head coach and staff, then you need a new head coach and staff. I think we're done here.
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
