Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

The Whole Sark is Learning On The Job Bullshit

RoadDawg55RoadDawg55 Member Posts: 30,123
Really pisses me off. Do Florida fans talk about Muschamp needing to learn on the job? What about when Stoops was hired at Oklahoma? Chip sure didn't need much time to learn. Every year, coordinators become first time head coaches in the NFL, and nothing is ever said about them needing to learn on the job.

It's not like Sark doesn't know football or how to recruit. He was actively involved in game planning, calling plays, and recruiting at USC. He has been involved in football since 1993, and coaching since 2000. Was he not training for a head coach job during that time? He has been a part of championship level teams. Sure, there are new aspects of the job that come with being a head coach, but to say he is still learning on the job after year 1 is some of the dumbest shit I have ever heard. It's another doog myth used to try and justify Sark's coaching.

Comments

  • MeekMeek Member Posts: 7,031
    the hope is that he's learning... the fear is that he's not a good coach.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 104,542 Founders Club
    I just hope we can keep him after he learns
  • HeretoBeatmyChestHeretoBeatmyChest Member Posts: 4,295
    If he actually was learning, we'd have seen some progression in wins. Thats the problem. He's no better than he was the first season.
  • HillsboroDuckHillsboroDuck Member Posts: 9,186
    "Learning on the job" is a nice way of saying we never should have hired him.
  • TheKobeStopperTheKobeStopper Member Posts: 5,959

    If he actually was learning, we'd have seen some progression in wins. Thats the problem. He's no better than he was the first season.

    What do you call going from 7 wins to 9?
  • HeretoBeatmyChestHeretoBeatmyChest Member Posts: 4,295
    Sark's resume is the weakest in the conference. He was an OC for only two years and at a school with top notch talent. He didnt have to teach fundamentals or the basics. Stoops, Muschamp and Kelly had experience as well as a track record. (Maybe only one year for Kelly but Oregon knew how good he might be after 1 year).

    Not to get into a Wilcox debate but just compare him with Sark. Sark was an OC for 2 years. Wilcox 7. Sark had 5* talent. Wilcox did not and had to get by on fundamentals and execution. Sark's resume is weaker than his own DC.

    And to my first point, Sark is not learning. He just thinks the offense will be better this year because of a healthy & experienced OL, ASJ, Kasen, Sankey and an influx of talent and depth at the skill spots. Its his Jimmy and Joes bullshit.

    Sark is a worse OC than HC.
  • IrishDawg22IrishDawg22 Member Posts: 2,754
    Muschamp was my guy.

    He had a little road bump in the bowl against Louisville, but I think his teams are going to be a defensive force in the SEC for years to come.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,453

    Sark's resume is the weakest in the conference. He was an OC for only two years and at a school with top notch talent. He didnt have to teach fundamentals or the basics. Stoops, Muschamp and Kelly had experience as well as a track record. (Maybe only one year for Kelly but Oregon knew how good he might be after 1 year).

    Not to get into a Wilcox debate but just compare him with Sark. Sark was an OC for 2 years. Wilcox 7. Sark had 5* talent. Wilcox did not and had to get by on fundamentals and execution. Sark's resume is weaker than his own DC.

    And to my first point, Sark is not learning. He just thinks the offense will be better this year because of a healthy & experienced OL, ASJ, Kasen, Sankey and an influx of talent and depth at the skill spots. Its his Jimmy and Joes bullshit.

    Sark is a worse OC than HC.

    I agree with all that. I'm not a believer in Wilcox as a head coach....for now but his resume is much better than Sark's.

    Kelly was a former DC then turned to OC so he has experience on both sides of the ball before becoming head coach.

    Sark I would say is a good recruiter given that he's had four straight ranked recruiting classes but player development which IMO is more important is still lacking.

    As a coach he hasn't shown any improvements from year one at all. His teams win more close games than year one but they also tend to get plunger rape more too.

    Like I pointed out his offense in his four years has ranged from above average(2011) to just terrible(2012) with the other two years being bad. This was supposedly his strength yet I feel better with our defense going forward than our offense.
  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781

    I just hope we can keep him after he learns

    If we like him, can we keep him?
  • HeretoBeatmyChestHeretoBeatmyChest Member Posts: 4,295

    Sark's resume is the weakest in the conference. He was an OC for only two years and at a school with top notch talent. He didnt have to teach fundamentals or the basics. Stoops, Muschamp and Kelly had experience as well as a track record. (Maybe only one year for Kelly but Oregon knew how good he might be after 1 year).

    Not to get into a Wilcox debate but just compare him with Sark. Sark was an OC for 2 years. Wilcox 7. Sark had 5* talent. Wilcox did not and had to get by on fundamentals and execution. Sark's resume is weaker than his own DC.

    And to my first point, Sark is not learning. He just thinks the offense will be better this year because of a healthy & experienced OL, ASJ, Kasen, Sankey and an influx of talent and depth at the skill spots. Its his Jimmy and Joes bullshit.

    Sark is a worse OC than HC.

    I agree with all that. I'm not a believer in Wilcox as a head coach....for now but his resume is much better than Sark's.

    Kelly was a former DC then turned to OC so he has experience on both sides of the ball before becoming head coach.

    Sark I would say is a good recruiter given that he's had four straight ranked recruiting classes but player development which IMO is more important is still lacking.

    As a coach he hasn't shown any improvements from year one at all. His teams win more close games than year one but they also tend to get plunger rape more too.

    Like I pointed out his offense in his four years has ranged from above average(2011) to just terrible(2012) with the other two years being bad. This was supposedly his strength yet I feel better with our defense going forward than our offense.
    I disagree on the recruiting. Other than being able to recruit QB's and WR's I'm not impressed at all with Sark's recruiting.

    The last class in my opinion was WAY better than 2011 and 2012 and better than 2010 which was a good class. Most of the three star guys in the 2013 class are much closer to being 4 star guys. I think the bottom half of the class will end being way better than the bottom half of the other classes. If they'd got a few good OL, I'd give the class an A. It was strong and well-balanced aside from the OL.

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,453

    Sark's resume is the weakest in the conference. He was an OC for only two years and at a school with top notch talent. He didnt have to teach fundamentals or the basics. Stoops, Muschamp and Kelly had experience as well as a track record. (Maybe only one year for Kelly but Oregon knew how good he might be after 1 year).

    Not to get into a Wilcox debate but just compare him with Sark. Sark was an OC for 2 years. Wilcox 7. Sark had 5* talent. Wilcox did not and had to get by on fundamentals and execution. Sark's resume is weaker than his own DC.

    And to my first point, Sark is not learning. He just thinks the offense will be better this year because of a healthy & experienced OL, ASJ, Kasen, Sankey and an influx of talent and depth at the skill spots. Its his Jimmy and Joes bullshit.

    Sark is a worse OC than HC.

    I agree with all that. I'm not a believer in Wilcox as a head coach....for now but his resume is much better than Sark's.

    Kelly was a former DC then turned to OC so he has experience on both sides of the ball before becoming head coach.

    Sark I would say is a good recruiter given that he's had four straight ranked recruiting classes but player development which IMO is more important is still lacking.

    As a coach he hasn't shown any improvements from year one at all. His teams win more close games than year one but they also tend to get plunger rape more too.

    Like I pointed out his offense in his four years has ranged from above average(2011) to just terrible(2012) with the other two years being bad. This was supposedly his strength yet I feel better with our defense going forward than our offense.
    I disagree on the recruiting. Other than being able to recruit QB's and WR's I'm not impressed at all with Sark's recruiting.

    The last class in my opinion was WAY better than 2011 and 2012 and better than 2010 which was a good class. Most of the three star guys in the 2013 class are much closer to being 4 star guys. I think the bottom half of the class will end being way better than the bottom half of the other classes. If they'd got a few good OL, I'd give the class an A. It was strong and well-balanced aside from the OL.

    I'd say his recruiting has been a strength of his so far. I'm not happy with the OL recruiting but you have to admit the talent has improved greatly from his first year especially on defense.

    Now as a head coach he still gives away 1-2 games a year by himself which doesn't count all our "close" wins that are only close because he tries his best to give away those games.

    The soft culture and lack of discipline tells me he isn't a very good head coach and I agree he is a much worse play caller.
  • TailgaterTailgater Member Posts: 1,389

    Really pisses me off. Do Florida fans talk about Muschamp needing to learn on the job? What about when Stoops was hired at Oklahoma? Chip sure didn't need much time to learn. Every year, coordinators become first time head coaches in the NFL, and nothing is ever said about them needing to learn on the job.

    It's not like Sark doesn't know football or how to recruit. He was actively involved in game planning, calling plays, and recruiting at USC. He has been involved in football since 1993, and coaching since 2000. Was he not training for a head coach job during that time? He has been a part of championship level teams. Sure, there are new aspects of the job that come with being a head coach, but to say he is still learning on the job after year 1 is some of the dumbest shit I have ever heard. It's another doog myth used to try and justify Sark's coaching.

    My 94 year old mother has been involved with football since 1933 and she still can't coach a decent meal out of the kitchen.

    Think of Sark's learning curve as sort of a Catch-22. There's a few head coaching things that he still hasn't mastered such as recruiting and developing an OL and hiring great assistant coaches. Sark is a head football coach-in-training for at this point in his career, there's no other way for him to learn his craft.

    Another example of a coordinator stepping right into a head coaching position and having immediate success is BSU's Chris Peterson. Let us hope that Sark learned some stuff from Coach Peterson in Las Vegas and didn't leave it there.

  • loadsockloadsock Member Posts: 686
    I think the only thing to take from Vegas was that Sark won't let the players do the lawnmower until there is zero on the clock.

    Unfortunately that could be a lot to ask.
  • DerekJohnsonDerekJohnson Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 62,422 Founders Club
  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    Lake = sark 2.0
  • Pitchfork51Pitchfork51 Member Posts: 26,853

    Lake = sark 2.0





    There's already a black sark in the pac
Sign In or Register to comment.