I, as well as many other SC fans, bought into his BS and ignored everything the UW fans told us thinking that they had unrealistic expectations. We were excited before the season expecting this team to be well-coached and disciplined. Boy were we wrong. It takes a special kind of coach to lose a game like USC lost this Saturday and Sark was able to pull it off. The guy is all talk and no substance. He has absolutely no clue what to do. He's Paul Hackett with a much better personality and, at the very minimum, he's locked in until December of 2017. Enjoy!
Sounds like UW fans reactions to us warning them about Willingham. Thought it was just a bunch of mean ND racists that drove him out. They learned the hard way.
I, as well as many other SC fans, bought into his BS and ignored everything the UW fans told us thinking that they had unrealistic expectations. We were excited before the season expecting this team to be well-coached and disciplined. Boy were we wrong. It takes a special kind of coach to lose a game like USC lost this Saturday and Sark was able to pull it off. The guy is all talk and no substance. He has absolutely no clue what to do. He's Paul Hackett with a much better personality and, at the very minimum, he's locked in until December of 2017. Enjoy!
Why do they think he's lasting until 2017? His seat will be red hot after he loses a couple more games this season. He will lose this weekend to Arizona. He's not beating both Utah and WSU on the road. Then he plays UCLA and Notre Dame. They will lose at least 3 more games, likely 4. His seat will be red hot after this season and if Haden goes, Sark will probably follow shortly after.
jefmc59 wrote: We have 8 sacks on the season, Utah had 10 last night.
That tells you all you need to know. Fire this idiot now. he's an embarrassment! If he was any kind of man at all he won't cash this week's paycheck or at least donate it to breast cancer research or something. That's all I have to say bout that.
"I remember reading an article in Sports Illustrated about McKay, basically about all those who said he didn't understand the game, wasn't keeping up with the evolution of the game, didn't know his X's and O's.
The article was all about that 1972 team, the team many say was the best in college football history.
A lot of coaches look pretty foolish while they get personnel and staff on a single page. Sometimes it takes more than a single season. And sometimes it takes seeing a specific offense or defense to see weakness truly exposed.
While I agree that adaptation and adjustment and refinement are all needed, I also believe that the need for all those is as obvious to Sark and Wilcox as it is to us. And those things were also obvious to McKay (so obvious) and even to Carroll (who learned and adjusted quickest of all).
Again, this can all work. As it has in the past. And if it doesn't under Sark, it will under someone else. But we've been here before. So we can handle it. . . . The best talent. The best preparation. The best program. USC"
"I remember reading an article in Sports Illustrated about McKay, basically about all those who said he didn't understand the game, wasn't keeping up with the evolution of the game, didn't know his X's and O's.
The article was all about that 1972 team, the team many say was the best in college football history.
A lot of coaches look pretty foolish while they get personnel and staff on a single page. Sometimes it takes more than a single season. And sometimes it takes seeing a specific offense or defense to see weakness truly exposed.
While I agree that adaptation and adjustment and refinement are all needed, I also believe that the need for all those is as obvious to Sark and Wilcox as it is to us. And those things were also obvious to McKay (so obvious) and even to Carroll (who learned and adjusted quickest of all).
Again, this can all work. As it has in the past. And if it doesn't under Sark, it will under someone else. But we've been here before. So we can handle it. . . . The best talent. The best preparation. The best program. USC"
Well I hear Sark is on the same path as Nick Saban.
Also Sark has the same staff now that he had at UW so I have no idea why this fucktard wrote: "A lot of coaches look pretty foolish while they get personnel and staff on a single page. Sometimes it takes more than a single season."
Haden Please Call It a Day and Take Lopes With You. You went out with 2 months lead time and a national search firm and hired the guy who will prove to be the WORST coach in the conference. How is that possible? All that time and the fact that reports are you were in initial talks with Kevin Sumlin but got cold feet pushing him back to TAMU and a huge extension. If that's true you are completely incompetent.
Anyone in business knows if you make the safe or comfortable hire in a company that is listing and directionless it never works out. And, that's exactly what you did. Great, you saved one recruiting class. Great, the guy has "knowledge of " or "gets" USC. But, how was his coaching record. And not superficially. How was it when you really dig your teeth into it? What did the UW fans and media think of him. What were his short comings beyond a clearly mediocre win loss record. What was his true personality and how did he handle adversity in big games?
See I did do that type of investigation when he was hired. I checked to see what the major complaints were. I checked to see what the stats were beyond won loss. The road record. The record against top teams. Opinions on how he coached in tough games, in the tight games, in conference games and in road games. That he has shown a consistent ability to turtle, to tighten up, to coach scared in close games, is not surprising at all to me. Why? Because I already knew this was his personality based on the Washington media and fan's opinions on what they saw over 5 years. Coaching personality doesn't change even for a coach that changes his philosophy almost hourly.
You were obviously swayed by your know nothing Assistant ADs who are "buddies" with Sark from his time here. He's such a cool guy. So nice. And he interviewed well, right? Dude can talk. He sure has a good personality. He's not Kiffin in that department and really that's what the fanbase needs. They need to feel good about the words and warm personality of their head coach. You just forgot to actually prioritize good coaching and player development as attributes.
Look, you're probably a good guy, Haden. And probably a good Trojan. Your past actions and deeds seem to say as much. But you're in way way way over your head. Your two head coaches for basketball and football are too. You've taken a sports program that in the mid-2000s was top notch and replaced talented and experienced coaches with people in way over their head just like you. There's a saying "do no harm." Well, Pat, you're doing harm. A lot of harm. Irreparable harm. If things continue to go south like they did for Kiffin in 2012, this recruiting class will fall apart. The other Pac 12 schools including the one across town will continue to distance themselves in quality from USC and the hole you'll leave future administrations will be even bigger if not insurmountable. Don't put USC in a position like it was in 2000 when it took a miracle and fortuitous hire of Pete Carroll to turn things around. Do no more harm, Pat. Please.
Perhaps the BOT and Nikias can use Korn Ferry to find a new AD. Ha.
See I did do that type of investigation when he was hired. I checked to see what the major complaints were. I checked to see what the stats were beyond won loss. The road record. The record against top teams. Opinions on how he coached in tough games, in the tight games, in conference games and in road games. That he has shown a consistent ability to turtle, to tighten up, to coach scared in close games, is not surprising at all to me. Why? Because I already knew this was his personality based on the Washington media and fan's opinions on what they saw over 5 years. Coaching personality doesn't change even for a coach that changes his philosophy almost hourly.
Ultimately, when hiring a coach all you have to do is go to that team's forums and see their reactions. Are they upset and/or furious he is leaving? Great hire! Are they happy he's leaving? Terrible hire!
Trojan Dave, you make some good points. And if we were dealing with a coach that had distinguished himself in any manner through his career, even if just as a coordinator, I could probably buy what you're selling.
I hated the Carroll hire. Called into a radio show even, to voice my displeasure. I knew a lot less about football then than I do now. I was younger and more ignorant. In hindsight, you can see that Carroll was kind of a perfect storm for a coach. He was an elite defensive mind at the time and so he had distinguished himself, even excelled, in that position. Add in a couple factors like being humbled and allowed to take time off to articulate a coaching identity and philosophy which he would then use as his steadfast roadmap through thick and thin. He also had experience. Lots of it. He had been a head coach twice and in coaching at every level for years. The only thing he hadn't been was a winning head coach but the rest was there. It also helped he came along when the Pac 12 was a mediocre conference with not a lot of coaching talent. Mike Bellotti was considered the "great" head coach in the conference. A guy who not long after would be pushed upstairs to make room for a true "great" head coach in Chip Kelly.
I won't even get into the McKay comparisons because it's foolhardy. That was a different time, a different generation of football. The big programs dominated because they could recruit almost as many players as they wanted. They could keep great players on their bench just so they didn't go to the other schools. It was like Ma Bell before she was split up. The big entities didn't have to worry about much outside competition because they could stifle it. Now, you have hundreds of upstart programs with innovative offense and defense creating parity in the CFB world. A school like Baylor that was a laughingstock is now a top team due to it's offensive genius and ability to get players that would otherwise have ended up at the big powers before the scholarship limitation rule changes.
So, that leaves us with Steve Sarkisian. The guy has history. Five years of it. The evidence of his coaching shortcomings are out there: Frequently disorganized teams, puzzling and poor playcalling in tight games, teams that lead the nation in penalties, undisciplined play (see disorganization), poor adjustments when losing. It's all out there. The evidence of it is on tape, it's memorialized in the opinions of those close to the UW program, the fans, and the media. His personality and tendencies are set. He coaches tight and scared in tight games, his teams aren't well prepared and he loses nearly every road game he plays.
So, can he change personalities and tendencies? Sure. It's not impossible. Pete Carroll sort of did it during his year off. But, the truth is, it's very very rare. You're either one thing or another or another and if that's your center since birth, that will usually stay your center.
I realize you're peddling hope and I'm peddling cynicism here. My opinion won't be popular. Yours will. People want to hope. I want to hope. I read a couple things you've written and I want to believe too. But, there's too much evidence out there. Too many facts. Yes, the team is young. So are very many teams out there having success. Unless we're following the Stanford model, that's the norm. There's a lot of talent on this team despite its youth. Is that talent being developed? Maximized? Put in the best position to succeed. The answer if we're being honest with ourselves is a resounding "no." We have so much speed on the wings and we do nothing unorthodox to put the ball in the hands of those playmakers. We did run a reverse on a wet field at Boston College one time. It didn't work so we abandoned it seemingly forever. That's just one example.
I've believed since I was first a fan that college football comes down to three things. Coaching, emotion, and talent in that order. If you don't have the first, you will not be successful 99 times out of 100 on a long time horizon. Your premise is that we need patience to see if Sark can buck his 5 1/2 year trend and become a great head coach despite showing personality traits and tendencies that seem to prove otherwise. That's fine, I guess. I suppose maybe for me, personally, I'm just a bit fatigued with that "hope he changes/hope he figures things out" approach because I just got out of a 4 year relationship with a coach like that. His name was Lane Somethingorrather. I'm not sure I can jump back into another abusive 3 year relationship just right now.
But, that all said, I appreciate your opinions and contributions to the board.
When I read some of the comments on that board they are nearly word for word as the comments made on Dawgman before Haden bailed us out. Groundhog Day.
When I read some of the comments on that board they are nearly word for word as the comments made on Dawgman before Haden bailed us out. Groundhog Day.
No, it's not. B/C he isn't our coach when you wake up in the morning
Ryan Abraham sums up all the mistakes that led to the Trojans' coogit on Saturday. He gets FS with the bullshit about Pullard boxing out McQuay. He also goes full Trooj in making a reference to a "young coaching staff".
Question to those posters in and around the USC campus
I was given some information about the players not on board with Sark and the coaching staff, has anyone else heard this? The source advised me that Mutiny was the word. Anyone hearing this type of talk as well.
Its just too early to say that Sark and staff will not or do not adjust, have philosophical deficiencies. or don't have the mental dexterity to get this job done. Its five games, a variety of opponents, so many young players and changes, its just a bit early.
At Washington, I did not watch all of the Husky games and therefore have a limited sampling. However, I did see teams that were well coached, well prepared, and played to their strength. With time to get his approach fully implemented and with time to bring in enough of the players he wants in the system he has in mind, things can be different.
Question to those posters in and around the USC campus
I was given some information about the players not on board with Sark and the coaching staff, has anyone else heard this? The source advised me that Mutiny was the word. Anyone hearing this type of talk as well.
Well, at least he has the cheerleader walk-ons backing him up.
Comments
jefmc59 wrote: We have 8 sacks on the season, Utah had 10 last night.
That tells you all you need to know. Fire this idiot now. he's an embarrassment! If he was any kind of man at all he won't cash this week's paycheck or at least donate it to breast cancer research or something. That's all I have to say bout that.
"I remember reading an article in Sports Illustrated about McKay, basically about all those who said he didn't understand the game, wasn't keeping up with the evolution of the game, didn't know his X's and O's.
The article was all about that 1972 team, the team many say was the best in college football history.
A lot of coaches look pretty foolish while they get personnel and staff on a single page.
Sometimes it takes more than a single season.
And sometimes it takes seeing a specific offense or defense to see weakness truly exposed.
While I agree that adaptation and adjustment and refinement are all needed, I also believe
that the need for all those is as obvious to Sark and Wilcox as it is to us. And those things
were also obvious to McKay (so obvious) and even to Carroll (who learned and adjusted
quickest of all).
Again, this can all work. As it has in the past. And if it doesn't under Sark, it will under someone else.
But we've been here before. So we can handle it.
.
.
.
The best talent. The best preparation. The best program. USC"
Also Sark has the same staff now that he had at UW so I have no idea why this fucktard wrote: "A lot of coaches look pretty foolish while they get personnel and staff on a single page.
Sometimes it takes more than a single season."
You went out with 2 months lead time and a national search firm and hired the guy who will prove to be the WORST coach in the conference. How is that possible? All that time and the fact that reports are you were in initial talks with Kevin Sumlin but got cold feet pushing him back to TAMU and a huge extension. If that's true you are completely incompetent.
Anyone in business knows if you make the safe or comfortable hire in a company that is listing and directionless it never works out. And, that's exactly what you did. Great, you saved one recruiting class. Great, the guy has "knowledge of " or "gets" USC. But, how was his coaching record. And not superficially. How was it when you really dig your teeth into it? What did the UW fans and media think of him. What were his short comings beyond a clearly mediocre win loss record. What was his true personality and how did he handle adversity in big games?
See I did do that type of investigation when he was hired. I checked to see what the major complaints were. I checked to see what the stats were beyond won loss. The road record. The record against top teams. Opinions on how he coached in tough games, in the tight games, in conference games and in road games. That he has shown a consistent ability to turtle, to tighten up, to coach scared in close games, is not surprising at all to me. Why? Because I already knew this was his personality based on the Washington media and fan's opinions on what they saw over 5 years. Coaching personality doesn't change even for a coach that changes his philosophy almost hourly.
You were obviously swayed by your know nothing Assistant ADs who are "buddies" with Sark from his time here. He's such a cool guy. So nice. And he interviewed well, right? Dude can talk. He sure has a good personality. He's not Kiffin in that department and really that's what the fanbase needs. They need to feel good about the words and warm personality of their head coach. You just forgot to actually prioritize good coaching and player development as attributes.
Look, you're probably a good guy, Haden. And probably a good Trojan. Your past actions and deeds seem to say as much. But you're in way way way over your head. Your two head coaches for basketball and football are too. You've taken a sports program that in the mid-2000s was top notch and replaced talented and experienced coaches with people in way over their head just like you. There's a saying "do no harm." Well, Pat, you're doing harm. A lot of harm. Irreparable harm. If things continue to go south like they did for Kiffin in 2012, this recruiting class will fall apart. The other Pac 12 schools including the one across town will continue to distance themselves in quality from USC and the hole you'll leave future administrations will be even bigger if not insurmountable. Don't put USC in a position like it was in 2000 when it took a miracle and fortuitous hire of Pete Carroll to turn things around. Do no more harm, Pat. Please.
Perhaps the BOT and Nikias can use Korn Ferry to find a new AD. Ha.
I hated the Carroll hire. Called into a radio show even, to voice my displeasure. I knew a lot less about football then than I do now. I was younger and more ignorant. In hindsight, you can see that Carroll was kind of a perfect storm for a coach. He was an elite defensive mind at the time and so he had distinguished himself, even excelled, in that position. Add in a couple factors like being humbled and allowed to take time off to articulate a coaching identity and philosophy which he would then use as his steadfast roadmap through thick and thin. He also had experience. Lots of it. He had been a head coach twice and in coaching at every level for years. The only thing he hadn't been was a winning head coach but the rest was there. It also helped he came along when the Pac 12 was a mediocre conference with not a lot of coaching talent. Mike Bellotti was considered the "great" head coach in the conference. A guy who not long after would be pushed upstairs to make room for a true "great" head coach in Chip Kelly.
I won't even get into the McKay comparisons because it's foolhardy. That was a different time, a different generation of football. The big programs dominated because they could recruit almost as many players as they wanted. They could keep great players on their bench just so they didn't go to the other schools. It was like Ma Bell before she was split up. The big entities didn't have to worry about much outside competition because they could stifle it. Now, you have hundreds of upstart programs with innovative offense and defense creating parity in the CFB world. A school like Baylor that was a laughingstock is now a top team due to it's offensive genius and ability to get players that would otherwise have ended up at the big powers before the scholarship limitation rule changes.
So, that leaves us with Steve Sarkisian. The guy has history. Five years of it. The evidence of his coaching shortcomings are out there: Frequently disorganized teams, puzzling and poor playcalling in tight games, teams that lead the nation in penalties, undisciplined play (see disorganization), poor adjustments when losing. It's all out there. The evidence of it is on tape, it's memorialized in the opinions of those close to the UW program, the fans, and the media. His personality and tendencies are set. He coaches tight and scared in tight games, his teams aren't well prepared and he loses nearly every road game he plays.
So, can he change personalities and tendencies? Sure. It's not impossible. Pete Carroll sort of did it during his year off. But, the truth is, it's very very rare. You're either one thing or another or another and if that's your center since birth, that will usually stay your center.
I realize you're peddling hope and I'm peddling cynicism here. My opinion won't be popular. Yours will. People want to hope. I want to hope. I read a couple things you've written and I want to believe too. But, there's too much evidence out there. Too many facts. Yes, the team is young. So are very many teams out there having success. Unless we're following the Stanford model, that's the norm. There's a lot of talent on this team despite its youth. Is that talent being developed? Maximized? Put in the best position to succeed. The answer if we're being honest with ourselves is a resounding "no." We have so much speed on the wings and we do nothing unorthodox to put the ball in the hands of those playmakers. We did run a reverse on a wet field at Boston College one time. It didn't work so we abandoned it seemingly forever. That's just one example.
I've believed since I was first a fan that college football comes down to three things. Coaching, emotion, and talent in that order. If you don't have the first, you will not be successful 99 times out of 100 on a long time horizon. Your premise is that we need patience to see if Sark can buck his 5 1/2 year trend and become a great head coach despite showing personality traits and tendencies that seem to prove otherwise. That's fine, I guess. I suppose maybe for me, personally, I'm just a bit fatigued with that "hope he changes/hope he figures things out" approach because I just got out of a 4 year relationship with a coach like that. His name was Lane Somethingorrather. I'm not sure I can jump back into another abusive 3 year relationship just right now.
But, that all said, I appreciate your opinions and contributions to the board.
Trojan mistakes in the last 7 minutes of the game...
I wasn't spamming either, just pointing out Sark's tendencies. He referred to me as a "jilted lover" before dropping me a PM.
I was given some information about the players not on board with Sark and the coaching staff, has anyone else heard this? The source advised me that Mutiny was the word. Anyone hearing this type of talk as well.
or don't have the mental dexterity to get this job done. Its five games, a variety of opponents, so many
young players and changes, its just a bit early.
At Washington, I did not watch all of the Husky games and therefore have a limited sampling.
However, I did see teams that were well coached, well prepared, and played to their strength.
With time to get his approach fully implemented and with time to bring in enough of the players
he wants in the system he has in mind, things can be different.