Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Coaching Effect over the last 7 years
Comments
-
This year is going to be different! I can feel it!
-
"..Willingham . It takes a special effort to take average talent and go 0-12"
-
By the metric used in this exercise he actually underperformed the first two years relative to the talent he had. Looking at the season records for 2007 and 2008, Harbaugh was actually blown out several times so I don't think this is some sort of anomaly. It seems it actually took Harbaugh a while to get things implemented/change the culture/whatever. That being said Harbaugh's worst season is better than Sark's average in terms of getting results from your talent.He_Needs_More_Time said:
Another problem with Harbaugh is he went 4-8, 5-7 first two years then only 8-5 year three. Only his fourth and final year was kick ass so his true value isn't shown.Mad_Son said:
Yeah, Harbaugh is lower than I would think to put him. I would rate him right up there with Saban. Something that is interesting about him though is that in an absolute sense his talent increased every year, his expectations raised every year (duh since that is determined by talent), his success raised every year, and his relative success increased each year. Basically Harbaugh was improving exponentially. Stanford was on pace to win the Super Bowl in like three years.Homebrew_Dawg said:Interesting to see Harbaugh at #47 and only 2% positive deviation from expectation. Would have thought he should be ranked higher. Trouble with statistics is they can be manipulated to support any conclusion.
Him laying the foundation for Stanford to make two more BCS games doesn't equate into that is the problem. -
Maybe my middle aged and frequently inebriated eyes missed it but based on your metrics I can't imagine Chris Peterson not being near the top.
-
This has FBS AQ coaches only. No BSU.koopdog said:Maybe my middle aged and frequently inebriated eyes missed it but based on your metrics I can't imagine Chris Peterson not being near the top.
-
I'll keep posting this until you clowns listen. Sark is Ty. You're letting 0-12 cloud your vision.greenearplugs said:Turns out of the 130 coaches, steve sarksian is the 109th ranked coach out of 132 measured. believe it or not, Willingham is ranked 105. Fuck. So who is the better coach, Sarksian or Willingham? I thought it was pretty clear that Sark was better. Now i'm not so sure.
The objection to Willinghams hiring wasn't that he would be a disaster that would lead to 0-12, it was that he was a mediocore coach and that UW would be stuck with him because he'd be impossible to fire when winning 6-8 games a season. This should sound familiar because Sark is right in the sweet spot of 6-8 wins.
Sark may well win 9 games this season but it will be no different from when Ty had magical seasons. The stars align sometimes. 9 wins this season won't make Sark some great coach or even a coach with potential. It'll make him a mediocore coach with a contract extension. -
I havent looked but the advanced metrics for Harbaugh's teams in years 2 and 3 likely showed a team much better than the record indicated. In year 2 I think they were 5-7 and had quite a few close losses. Then in the 8-5 year, they had many close calls and were quite close to being a 10 win team.Mad_Son said:
By the metric used in this exercise he actually underperformed the first two years relative to the talent he had. Looking at the season records for 2007 and 2008, Harbaugh was actually blown out several times so I don't think this is some sort of anomaly. It seems it actually took Harbaugh a while to get things implemented/change the culture/whatever. That being said Harbaugh's worst season is better than Sark's average in terms of getting results from your talent.He_Needs_More_Time said:
Another problem with Harbaugh is he went 4-8, 5-7 first two years then only 8-5 year three. Only his fourth and final year was kick ass so his true value isn't shown.Mad_Son said:
Yeah, Harbaugh is lower than I would think to put him. I would rate him right up there with Saban. Something that is interesting about him though is that in an absolute sense his talent increased every year, his expectations raised every year (duh since that is determined by talent), his success raised every year, and his relative success increased each year. Basically Harbaugh was improving exponentially. Stanford was on pace to win the Super Bowl in like three years.Homebrew_Dawg said:Interesting to see Harbaugh at #47 and only 2% positive deviation from expectation. Would have thought he should be ranked higher. Trouble with statistics is they can be manipulated to support any conclusion.
Him laying the foundation for Stanford to make two more BCS games doesn't equate into that is the problem. -
8/28/2008 Oregon State W 36-28 +12HeretoBeatmyChest said:
I havent looked but the advanced metrics for Harbaugh's teams in years 2 and 3 likely showed a team much better than the record indicated. In year 2 I think they were 5-7 and had quite a few close losses. Then in the 8-5 year, they had many close calls and were quite close to being a 10 win team.Mad_Son said:
By the metric used in this exercise he actually underperformed the first two years relative to the talent he had. Looking at the season records for 2007 and 2008, Harbaugh was actually blown out several times so I don't think this is some sort of anomaly. It seems it actually took Harbaugh a while to get things implemented/change the culture/whatever. That being said Harbaugh's worst season is better than Sark's average in terms of getting results from your talent.He_Needs_More_Time said:
Another problem with Harbaugh is he went 4-8, 5-7 first two years then only 8-5 year three. Only his fourth and final year was kick ass so his true value isn't shown.Mad_Son said:
Yeah, Harbaugh is lower than I would think to put him. I would rate him right up there with Saban. Something that is interesting about him though is that in an absolute sense his talent increased every year, his expectations raised every year (duh since that is determined by talent), his success raised every year, and his relative success increased each year. Basically Harbaugh was improving exponentially. Stanford was on pace to win the Super Bowl in like three years.Homebrew_Dawg said:Interesting to see Harbaugh at #47 and only 2% positive deviation from expectation. Would have thought he should be ranked higher. Trouble with statistics is they can be manipulated to support any conclusion.
Him laying the foundation for Stanford to make two more BCS games doesn't equate into that is the problem.
9/6/2008 @ Arizona State L 17-41 -24
9/13/2008 @ Texas Christian L 14-31 -17
9/20/2008 San Jose State W 23-10 +13
9/27/2008 @ Washington W 35-28 +7
10/4/2008 @ Notre Dame L 21-28 -7
10/11/2008 Arizona W 24-23 +1
10/18/2008 @ UCLA L 20-23 -3
11/1/2008 Washington State W 58-0 +58
11/8/2008 @ Oregon L 28-35 -7
11/15/2008 Southern California L 23-45 -22
11/22/2008 @ California L 16-37 -21
That is four losses by 17+ in year 2. Year 3 (8-5) was much better. -
Harbaugh took a 1 win team to 4, to 5, to 8, to 12. His situation was by far worse than Sark's. He had Tavita Pritchard playing QB his first two years. Locker is a polarizing guy, but Pritchard was basically Casey Paus II. He was terrible. Looking back, he probably should have played Luck his true freshman year, but Harbaugh may not have wanted to throw him to the wolves too early.
The other thing Harbaugh did was develop players. In 2008, he had the same WR's and TE's (Fleenor, Baldwin, the Whalen's, Owusu) as 2010. Young players got better under Harbaugh. I would have loved to see what he could have done at Michigan, they would have been scary good. -
They did have 3 losses by 7 points or less. The loss to Oregon by 7 was at the end of the year and that was a 10-3 Oregon team that I think picked up steam at that time. They also lost by 22 to a USC team that was national championship caliber....a moral victory of sorts. They had wins over Arizona and OSU who were both good teams.Mad_Son said:
8/28/2008 Oregon State W 36-28 +12HeretoBeatmyChest said:
I havent looked but the advanced metrics for Harbaugh's teams in years 2 and 3 likely showed a team much better than the record indicated. In year 2 I think they were 5-7 and had quite a few close losses. Then in the 8-5 year, they had many close calls and were quite close to being a 10 win team.Mad_Son said:
By the metric used in this exercise he actually underperformed the first two years relative to the talent he had. Looking at the season records for 2007 and 2008, Harbaugh was actually blown out several times so I don't think this is some sort of anomaly. It seems it actually took Harbaugh a while to get things implemented/change the culture/whatever. That being said Harbaugh's worst season is better than Sark's average in terms of getting results from your talent.He_Needs_More_Time said:
Another problem with Harbaugh is he went 4-8, 5-7 first two years then only 8-5 year three. Only his fourth and final year was kick ass so his true value isn't shown.Mad_Son said:
Yeah, Harbaugh is lower than I would think to put him. I would rate him right up there with Saban. Something that is interesting about him though is that in an absolute sense his talent increased every year, his expectations raised every year (duh since that is determined by talent), his success raised every year, and his relative success increased each year. Basically Harbaugh was improving exponentially. Stanford was on pace to win the Super Bowl in like three years.Homebrew_Dawg said:Interesting to see Harbaugh at #47 and only 2% positive deviation from expectation. Would have thought he should be ranked higher. Trouble with statistics is they can be manipulated to support any conclusion.
Him laying the foundation for Stanford to make two more BCS games doesn't equate into that is the problem.
9/6/2008 @ Arizona State L 17-41 -24
9/13/2008 @ Texas Christian L 14-31 -17
9/20/2008 San Jose State W 23-10 +13
9/27/2008 @ Washington W 35-28 +7
10/4/2008 @ Notre Dame L 21-28 -7
10/11/2008 Arizona W 24-23 +1
10/18/2008 @ UCLA L 20-23 -3
11/1/2008 Washington State W 58-0 +58
11/8/2008 @ Oregon L 28-35 -7
11/15/2008 Southern California L 23-45 -22
11/22/2008 @ California L 16-37 -21
That is four losses by 17+ in year 2. Year 3 (8-5) was much better. -
They barely beat a UW team who was playing Ronnie fucking Fouch for an entire half. Just admit that team wasn't that good as they were blown out four times that year.HeretoBeatmyChest said:
They did have 3 losses by 7 points or less. The loss to Oregon by 7 was at the end of the year and that was a 10-3 Oregon team that I think picked up steam at that time. They also lost by 22 to a USC team that was national championship caliber....a moral victory of sorts. They had wins over Arizona and OSU who were both good teams.Mad_Son said:
8/28/2008 Oregon State W 36-28 +12HeretoBeatmyChest said:
I havent looked but the advanced metrics for Harbaugh's teams in years 2 and 3 likely showed a team much better than the record indicated. In year 2 I think they were 5-7 and had quite a few close losses. Then in the 8-5 year, they had many close calls and were quite close to being a 10 win team.Mad_Son said:
By the metric used in this exercise he actually underperformed the first two years relative to the talent he had. Looking at the season records for 2007 and 2008, Harbaugh was actually blown out several times so I don't think this is some sort of anomaly. It seems it actually took Harbaugh a while to get things implemented/change the culture/whatever. That being said Harbaugh's worst season is better than Sark's average in terms of getting results from your talent.He_Needs_More_Time said:
Another problem with Harbaugh is he went 4-8, 5-7 first two years then only 8-5 year three. Only his fourth and final year was kick ass so his true value isn't shown.Mad_Son said:
Yeah, Harbaugh is lower than I would think to put him. I would rate him right up there with Saban. Something that is interesting about him though is that in an absolute sense his talent increased every year, his expectations raised every year (duh since that is determined by talent), his success raised every year, and his relative success increased each year. Basically Harbaugh was improving exponentially. Stanford was on pace to win the Super Bowl in like three years.Homebrew_Dawg said:Interesting to see Harbaugh at #47 and only 2% positive deviation from expectation. Would have thought he should be ranked higher. Trouble with statistics is they can be manipulated to support any conclusion.
Him laying the foundation for Stanford to make two more BCS games doesn't equate into that is the problem.
9/6/2008 @ Arizona State L 17-41 -24
9/13/2008 @ Texas Christian L 14-31 -17
9/20/2008 San Jose State W 23-10 +13
9/27/2008 @ Washington W 35-28 +7
10/4/2008 @ Notre Dame L 21-28 -7
10/11/2008 Arizona W 24-23 +1
10/18/2008 @ UCLA L 20-23 -3
11/1/2008 Washington State W 58-0 +58
11/8/2008 @ Oregon L 28-35 -7
11/15/2008 Southern California L 23-45 -22
11/22/2008 @ California L 16-37 -21
That is four losses by 17+ in year 2. Year 3 (8-5) was much better. -
I remember when Ty was hired and everyone said he'll get us out of the NCAA doghouse and back to winning 6-8 games a year. Once he retires and that won't be terribly long, 5-7 years, we'll be a respectable program and can hire a respectable coach.TheKobeStopper said:
I'll keep posting this until you clowns listen. Sark is Ty. You're letting 0-12 cloud your vision.greenearplugs said:Turns out of the 130 coaches, steve sarksian is the 109th ranked coach out of 132 measured. believe it or not, Willingham is ranked 105. Fuck. So who is the better coach, Sarksian or Willingham? I thought it was pretty clear that Sark was better. Now i'm not so sure.
The objection to Willinghams hiring wasn't that he would be a disaster that would lead to 0-12, it was that he was a mediocore coach and that UW would be stuck with him because he'd be impossible to fire when winning 6-8 games a season. This should sound familiar because Sark is right in the sweet spot of 6-8 wins.
Sark may well win 9 games this season but it will be no different from when Ty had magical seasons. The stars align sometimes. 9 wins this season won't make Sark some great coach or even a coach with potential. It'll make him a mediocore coach with a contract extension.
-
I remember hearing that too. Well now we are a "respectable program" so let's go hire a respectable coach.CFetters_Nacho_Lover said:
I remember when Ty was hired and everyone said he'll get us out of the NCAA doghouse and back to winning 6-8 games a year. Once he retires and that won't be terribly long, 5-7 years, we'll be a respectable program and can hire a respectable coach.TheKobeStopper said:
I'll keep posting this until you clowns listen. Sark is Ty. You're letting 0-12 cloud your vision.greenearplugs said:Turns out of the 130 coaches, steve sarksian is the 109th ranked coach out of 132 measured. believe it or not, Willingham is ranked 105. Fuck. So who is the better coach, Sarksian or Willingham? I thought it was pretty clear that Sark was better. Now i'm not so sure.
The objection to Willinghams hiring wasn't that he would be a disaster that would lead to 0-12, it was that he was a mediocore coach and that UW would be stuck with him because he'd be impossible to fire when winning 6-8 games a season. This should sound familiar because Sark is right in the sweet spot of 6-8 wins.
Sark may well win 9 games this season but it will be no different from when Ty had magical seasons. The stars align sometimes. 9 wins this season won't make Sark some great coach or even a coach with potential. It'll make him a mediocore coach with a contract extension.
Too bad money talks and bullshit walks so had UW ponied up the cash in 2008 or 2007 they could have landed a good coach.
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
