A Q for the board..
Since Sark is a great recruiter (everyone says so), is Petersen inheriting a stocked cupboard? Or the bigger question, did Petersen walk into a team with more raw talent that Sark? I think at some positions yes and others certainly not. I give the edge to Sark inheriting more talent than Petersen. I could be wrong, but given how bad willingham was and how supposedly great Sark was, this shouldn't even be a debatable topic.
Comments
-
I definitely think the top-to-bottom talent Peterman inherited is a bit better. But you fucking nailed it:MikeDamone said:
...given how bad willingham was and how supposedly great Sark was, this shouldn't even be a debatable topic...
-
Sark went to a team stocked with 5 star offensive lineman in USC.
Peterman went to a team with barely enough 2 star offensive lineman to field a team. -
You lack reading comprehension.PostGameOrangeSlices said:Sark went to a team stocked with 5 star offensive lineman in USC.
Peterman went to a team with barely enough 2 star offensive lineman to field a team. -
Stop plagiarism puppy's takes from three weeks ago Da Moan.MikeDamone said:we know the Doog and Troojan line that when sark took over he inherited a bare cupboard. But he is such a great coach and recruiter he made them into a respectable team.
Since Sark is a great recruiter (everyone says so), is Petersen inheriting a stocked cupboard? Or the bigger question, did Petersen walk into a team with more raw talent that Sark? I think at some positions yes and others certainly not. I give the edge to Sark inheriting more talent than Petersen. I could be wrong, but given how bad willingham was and how supposedly great Sark was, this shouldn't even be a debatable topic. -
Wtf?PostGameOrangeSlices said:Sark went to a team stocked with 5 star offensive lineman in USC.
Peterman went to a team with barely enough 2 star offensive lineman to field a team. -
I didn't see it. What was the consensus?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Stop plagiarism puppy's takes from three weeks ago Da Moan.MikeDamone said:we know the Doog and Troojan line that when sark took over he inherited a bare cupboard. But he is such a great coach and recruiter he made them into a respectable team.
Since Sark is a great recruiter (everyone says so), is Petersen inheriting a stocked cupboard? Or the bigger question, did Petersen walk into a team with more raw talent that Sark? I think at some positions yes and others certainly not. I give the edge to Sark inheriting more talent than Petersen. I could be wrong, but given how bad willingham was and how supposedly great Sark was, this shouldn't even be a debatable topic. -
This team is more talented than what Sark inherited IMHO. But Sark had a huge advantage in Lockner.
As much as I hate Lockner, he was better from day 1 than Miley or Lindquist will ever be.
If Lockner was on this team it wouldn't be 10 wins it would final four playoffs or gtfo. -
Disagree. Lockner would still shit the bed two games a year.allpurpleallgold said:This team is more talented than what Sark inherited IMHO. But Sark had a huge advantage in Lockner.
As much as I hate Lockner, he was better from day 1 than Miley or Lindquist will ever be.
If Lockner was on this team it wouldn't be 10 wins it would final four playoffs or gtfo. -
You poasted a spreadsheet a few weeks ago that someone spoonfed you on another forum that showed Ty's NFL talent that Sark took credit for.
I will fucking guarantee that that list is 2:1 in favor of Ty in a few years. -
Even without a top tier running back? Sark had locker and Polk.allpurpleallgold said:This team is more talented than what Sark inherited IMHO. But Sark had a huge advantage in Lockner.
As much as I hate Lockner, he was better from day 1 than Miley or Lindquist will ever be.
If Lockner was on this team it wouldn't be 10 wins it would final four playoffs or gtfo. -
He actually said it four weeks ago:
http://forum.hardcorehusky.com/discussion/11949/told-u-bitches-sark-took-over-a-better-team-in-09 -
Since I have no life maybe tomorrow I'll do a position by position breakdown. I'd do it now but I'm drinking. Better to do it during work hours.
Again, the fact that this is even a topic is astonishing. -
Sounds like you dismissed the notion at the time.TierbsHsotBoobs said:He actually said it four weeks ago:
http://forum.hardcorehusky.com/discussion/11949/told-u-bitches-sark-took-over-a-better-team-in-09 -
If he lost 2 games because Jack shit the bed I'd be willing to AuburnDoog my expectations. He is a complete fucking loser so you're probably right.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Disagree. Lockner would still shit the bed two games a year.allpurpleallgold said:This team is more talented than what Sark inherited IMHO. But Sark had a huge advantage in Lockner.
As much as I hate Lockner, he was better from day 1 than Miley or Lindquist will ever be.
If Lockner was on this team it wouldn't be 10 wins it would final four playoffs or gtfo. -
Washington and Coleman will never be Polk/Sankey level backs. But they're good enough to win with. They certainly weren't the problem yesterday.MikeDamone said:Even without a top tier running back? Sark had locker and Polk.
-
Here is the 2009 starting O. Who to you trade out for yesterday's starting offense?
Locker
Polk
Aguilar
Schaefer/Ossi (lol)
Christine/Wood
Kelemete
Habban
Middleton
Johnson
Kearse.
-
It's really strange to say this, but outside of Stringfellow's half year and Kasen, WIllingham's receivers were a lot better. Defensive talent is miles (lol) ahead right now at the top end (Shelton, Shaq, Peters), but the middle and bottom are not any better (Scott Lawyer, Evan Hudson, wtf?).
-
2009 defense. Who do you replace with yesterday's starters?
Te’o-Nesheim
Ta’amu
Elisara
Jones
Savannah
Butler
Foster
Aiyewa
Fellner
Trufant
Richardson -
Polk and Sankey were two of the best backs in UW history. Even with shitty lines. They gave the offense something defenses had to always fear and respect. Coleman and Washington types are on the two and three deeps of every team in the pac 12.TTJ said:
Washington and Coleman will never be Polk/Sankey level backs. But they're good enough to win with. They certainly weren't the problem yesterday.MikeDamone said:Even without a top tier running back? Sark had locker and Polk.
-
Te’o-Nesheim -- Jamora
Ta’amu -- Shelton
Elisara -- Gaines/Qualls, lipo
Jones -- Te'o Nesheim
Savannah -- Shaq
Butler starts
Foster starts
Aiyewa starts
Fellner -- Baker
Trufant starts
Richardson -- Peters
So 5/11? Not a drastic difference.
Agree, not crazy about Coleman behind this line.MikeDamone said:
Polk and Sankey were two of the best backs in UW history. Even with shitty lines. They gave the offense something defenses had to always fear and respect. Coleman and Washington types are on the two and three deeps of every team in the pac 12.TTJ said:
Washington and Coleman will never be Polk/Sankey level backs. But they're good enough to win with. They certainly weren't the problem yesterday.MikeDamone said:Even without a top tier running back? Sark had locker and Polk.
-
Jamora over Nesheim is debatable. Others seem right.doogsinparadise said:Te’o-Nesheim -- Jamora
Ta’amu -- Shelton
Elisara -- Gaines/Qualls, lipo
Jones -- Te'o Nesheim
Savannah -- Shaq
Butler starts
Foster starts
Aiyewa starts
Fellner -- Baker
Trufant starts
Richardson -- Peters
So 5/11? Not a drastic difference.
Agree, not crazy about Coleman behind this line.MikeDamone said:
Polk and Sankey were two of the best backs in UW history. Even with shitty lines. They gave the offense something defenses had to always fear and respect. Coleman and Washington types are on the two and three deeps of every team in the pac 12.TTJ said:
Washington and Coleman will never be Polk/Sankey level backs. But they're good enough to win with. They certainly weren't the problem yesterday.MikeDamone said:Even without a top tier running back? Sark had locker and Polk.
Edit : nevermind. I see what you did. Makes sense -
You try comprehending what you read on your galaxy while going 110 down i5 doing bumps off a sorority sluts rear!Doogles said:
You lack reading comprehension.PostGameOrangeSlices said:Sark went to a team stocked with 5 star offensive lineman in USC.
Peterman went to a team with barely enough 2 star offensive lineman to field a team. -
Eh running back is replaceable. But after looking at the lineups you posted I'm probably wrong.MikeDamone said:
Even without a top tier running back? Sark had locker and Polk.allpurpleallgold said:This team is more talented than what Sark inherited IMHO. But Sark had a huge advantage in Lockner.
As much as I hate Lockner, he was better from day 1 than Miley or Lindquist will ever be.
If Lockner was on this team it wouldn't be 10 wins it would final four playoffs or gtfo. -
Sark left this team in far better shape than when he took over.
Some of you blowhards--aheem---Aubs thought this was a natty squad waiting to happen with our new BBryant Coach.
The reality is girls, we are pretenders, not contenders. Weare really screwed next year when Danny Shaq and MPete leave.
sorry the young 4 stars on this team, save John Ross aint difference makers. There might be some linemen among the young kids but remember no Ivan to make them road graders and war daddies.
We need some trickery and skullduggry to keep the facade going to get some talent in for Pete to mold (Which I think he'll do)
What say yous? -
ThisMikeDamone said:
Polk and Sankey were two of the best backs in UW history. Even with shitty lines. They gave the offense something defenses had to always fear and respect. Coleman and Washington types are on the two and three deeps of every team in the pac 12.TTJ said:
Washington and Coleman will never be Polk/Sankey level backs. But they're good enough to win with. They certainly weren't the problem yesterday.MikeDamone said:Even without a top tier running back? Sark had locker and Polk.
-
Same question, who inherited more talent? Petersen from the great recruiter (everyone says so) or Sark from the worst coach in UW history?Baseman said:Sark left this team in far better shape than when he took over.
Some of you blowhards--aheem---Aubs thought this was a natty squad waiting to happen with our new BBryant Coach.
The reality is girls, we are pretenders, not contenders. Weare really screwed next year when Danny Shaq and MPete leave.
sorry the young 4 stars on this team, save John Ross aint difference makers. There might be some linemen among the young kids but remember no Ivan to make them road graders and war daddies.
We need some trickery and skullduggry to keep the facade going to get some talent in for Pete to mold (Which I think he'll do)
What say yous? -
Petersen inherited some big time defensive players but offensively he got John Ross and that is about it. Not to say every other offensive player is shitty... But Ross is the only one who really stands out.
-
Petersen recruited Baker so does he really count? Budda would be a duck or bruin if Sark stayed. I thought we were comparing Sark and Peterman by the players they each inherited.
-
I take Locker for Miles, Polk for Washington, Aguilar over Mickens, Kearse for Kasen, And Kelemete over any of our current OL. That OL was fucking dreck too. That's our biggest problem, we haven't had a decent offensive line in years.MikeDamone said:Here is the 2009 starting O. Who to you trade out for yesterday's starting offense?
Locker
Polk
Aguilar
Schaefer/Ossi (lol)
Christine/Wood
Kelemete
Habban
Middleton
Johnson
Kearse. -
I'll take Te'o over Andrew Hudson, Butler over Timu, Foster over Feeney, and Trufant over Jones or whoever our 2nd corner is.MikeDamone said:2009 defense. Who do you replace with yesterday's starters?
Te’o-Nesheim
Ta’amu
Elisara
Jones
Savannah
Butler
Foster
Aiyewa
Fellner
Trufant
Richardson
