Here is the problem with Sark.....
Comments
-
I think we can all agree that the team Sark took over was a) much better than 0-12 b) still worse than the team's most new UW coaches have inherited. Given that context, I'm not necessarily "win a Rose Bowl in your first five years or GTFO".He_Needs_More_Time said:
Not telling anyone "I told you so". Was just showing how rare it is for a UW coach to see a 6th year without winning a conference title or going to a Rose Bowl. You have to go back to the 1930's for the last time that happened.TTJ said:
Not that I really disagree with you. But the problem with your whole tantrum is the told-you-so bit. Take yourself out of itHe_Needs_More_Time said:He is what we feared Ty was going to be. Nobody thought Ty was going to be the disaster that he was when he was hired. Most were pissed because we feared Ty would be just good enough to keep our idiot Doogs happy but never good enough to lead us to a Rose Bowl.
That is what Sark is. I can't see the Huskies going through a bowl drought under him but I honestly can't ever picture him leading us to a Rose Bowl. This year he might win 9 games or 10. Next year he might win 10 or 11 only because our schedule is a joke. Both years we'll get plunger raped 2-3 times if not more. Not even come close to winning the conference title.
When Sark gets a 6th year he'll be the first Husky coach to see a year six without winning a conference title since Ralph Welch did who coached from 1942-1947. He did however lose a Rose Bowl in 1943.
I guess Sark is hoping to be on the James Phelan plan who coached at UW from 1930-1941 and didn't win a conference title until 1936 when he lost the Rose Bowl to finished the season ranked 5th in the nation.
You have to go back almost 80 years the last time a UW coach received a sixth year who didn't win a conference title or go to a Rose Bowl within his first five years on the job.
We know what we have in Sark. He's not "learning on the job" still. His mistakes in year one are still here. He still doesn't know how to take the 3 points, instead goes for it on fourth and short out of the shot gun so it's stuffed, his OL is actually worse the longer he's been here, the defense has been shaky to downright terrible during his tenure.
Why are we "letting it play out" ? We know Sark fucking blows. This team at best will go 8-4 in the regular season. Fans wanted Lambo fired for going 8-4 in 1997, fans weren't jacked up when Rick went 8-4 in 2001 either.
Sark is what we all feared Ty was going to be. I can't believe so many of you are falling into this Doog trap.
TLDR. The problem with Seven is that he hasn't won enough games. Period. If he significantly improves the team's W-L record, starting this year, I'll get off his case.He_Needs_More_Time said:He is what we feared Ty was going to be. Nobody thought Ty was going to be the disaster that he was when he was hired. Most were pissed because we feared Ty would be just good enough to keep our idiot Doogs happy but never good enough to lead us to a Rose Bowl.
That is what Sark is. I can't see the Huskies going through a bowl drought under him but I honestly can't ever picture him leading us to a Rose Bowl. This year he might win 9 games or 10. Next year he might win 10 or 11 only because our schedule is a joke. Both years we'll get plunger raped 2-3 times if not more. Not even come close to winning the conference title.
When Sark gets a 6th year he'll be the first Husky coach to see a year six without winning a conference title since Ralph Welch did who coached from 1942-1947. He did however lose a Rose Bowl in 1943.
I guess Sark is hoping to be on the James Phelan plan who coached at UW from 1930-1941 and didn't win a conference title until 1936 when he lost the Rose Bowl to finished the season ranked 5th in the nation.
You have to go back almost 80 years the last time a UW coach received a sixth year who didn't win a conference title or go to a Rose Bowl within his first five years on the job.
We know what we have in Sark. He's not "learning on the job" still. His mistakes in year one are still here. He still doesn't know how to take the 3 points, instead goes for it on fourth and short out of the shot gun so it's stuffed, his OL is actually worse the longer he's been here, the defense has been shaky to downright terrible during his tenure.
Why are we "letting it play out" ? We know Sark fucking blows. This team at best will go 8-4 in the regular season. Fans wanted Lambo fired for going 8-4 in 1997, fans weren't jacked up when Rick went 8-4 in 2001 either.
Sark is what we all feared Ty was going to be. I can't believe so many of you are falling into this Doog trap.
My big problems with Sark are two-fold. First, we that we haven't moved towards that, at all. If we had knocked on the RB door just finishing a game behind Oregon the last year or two, I'd think we are headed in the right direction. Secondly, and probably more importantly, while doogs want to talk about two field goals from 9-4, the truth is UW has been worse than it's record almost every season under Sark. It's not that we're close and making a mistake here or there, it's that we're lucky to be a .500 team.
That's scary, and it's why I'm more than ready for UW to hire a real coach. -
It's hard reading posts when you are doing 90 on 1-5 doing blow off of a hooker's ass. My bad.MikeDamone said:
It wasn't about "you".He_Needs_More_Time said:
I'm advocating for Sark to be fired so I don't get your point. I think most of us in here agree that Lambo was a shitty coach but a better coach than Sark.MikeDamone said:Lambright was fired for winning 7-9 games and losing to Oregon.
HTH -
Anderson was actually his recruit but he was a shitty coach. That 1994, 1996 and 1997 teams had top 10 talent and lost 4, 3 and 4 games.Steve_Bowman said:Lambo may not have been a great coach, but but shitty? His teams we're tough....they still hurt people. Ask Shark's sorry BYU ass about how shitty his teams were.
Plus, Jim could recruit. I believe the 2000 team were mostly his guys except for Alexis and John Anderson (the kicker.)
His personally cost us a Rose Bowl in 1995 with his coaching blunders against Notre Dame, USC and Oregon that year.
Also that 2000 team may have been his guys but if he were head coach that team goes 8-4 at best. -
Agree 100%. I thought by now Sark should have us competing for a Rose Bowl. Look Oregon and recently Stanford has been nationally good I accept that. Still we aren't even close to being in the Rose Bowl hunt.dnc said:
I think we can all agree that the team Sark took over was a) much better than 0-12 b) still worse than the team's most new UW coaches have inherited. Given that context, I'm not necessarily "win a Rose Bowl in your first five years or GTFO".He_Needs_More_Time said:
Not telling anyone "I told you so". Was just showing how rare it is for a UW coach to see a 6th year without winning a conference title or going to a Rose Bowl. You have to go back to the 1930's for the last time that happened.TTJ said:
Not that I really disagree with you. But the problem with your whole tantrum is the told-you-so bit. Take yourself out of itHe_Needs_More_Time said:He is what we feared Ty was going to be. Nobody thought Ty was going to be the disaster that he was when he was hired. Most were pissed because we feared Ty would be just good enough to keep our idiot Doogs happy but never good enough to lead us to a Rose Bowl.
That is what Sark is. I can't see the Huskies going through a bowl drought under him but I honestly can't ever picture him leading us to a Rose Bowl. This year he might win 9 games or 10. Next year he might win 10 or 11 only because our schedule is a joke. Both years we'll get plunger raped 2-3 times if not more. Not even come close to winning the conference title.
When Sark gets a 6th year he'll be the first Husky coach to see a year six without winning a conference title since Ralph Welch did who coached from 1942-1947. He did however lose a Rose Bowl in 1943.
I guess Sark is hoping to be on the James Phelan plan who coached at UW from 1930-1941 and didn't win a conference title until 1936 when he lost the Rose Bowl to finished the season ranked 5th in the nation.
You have to go back almost 80 years the last time a UW coach received a sixth year who didn't win a conference title or go to a Rose Bowl within his first five years on the job.
We know what we have in Sark. He's not "learning on the job" still. His mistakes in year one are still here. He still doesn't know how to take the 3 points, instead goes for it on fourth and short out of the shot gun so it's stuffed, his OL is actually worse the longer he's been here, the defense has been shaky to downright terrible during his tenure.
Why are we "letting it play out" ? We know Sark fucking blows. This team at best will go 8-4 in the regular season. Fans wanted Lambo fired for going 8-4 in 1997, fans weren't jacked up when Rick went 8-4 in 2001 either.
Sark is what we all feared Ty was going to be. I can't believe so many of you are falling into this Doog trap.
TLDR. The problem with Seven is that he hasn't won enough games. Period. If he significantly improves the team's W-L record, starting this year, I'll get off his case.He_Needs_More_Time said:He is what we feared Ty was going to be. Nobody thought Ty was going to be the disaster that he was when he was hired. Most were pissed because we feared Ty would be just good enough to keep our idiot Doogs happy but never good enough to lead us to a Rose Bowl.
That is what Sark is. I can't see the Huskies going through a bowl drought under him but I honestly can't ever picture him leading us to a Rose Bowl. This year he might win 9 games or 10. Next year he might win 10 or 11 only because our schedule is a joke. Both years we'll get plunger raped 2-3 times if not more. Not even come close to winning the conference title.
When Sark gets a 6th year he'll be the first Husky coach to see a year six without winning a conference title since Ralph Welch did who coached from 1942-1947. He did however lose a Rose Bowl in 1943.
I guess Sark is hoping to be on the James Phelan plan who coached at UW from 1930-1941 and didn't win a conference title until 1936 when he lost the Rose Bowl to finished the season ranked 5th in the nation.
You have to go back almost 80 years the last time a UW coach received a sixth year who didn't win a conference title or go to a Rose Bowl within his first five years on the job.
We know what we have in Sark. He's not "learning on the job" still. His mistakes in year one are still here. He still doesn't know how to take the 3 points, instead goes for it on fourth and short out of the shot gun so it's stuffed, his OL is actually worse the longer he's been here, the defense has been shaky to downright terrible during his tenure.
Why are we "letting it play out" ? We know Sark fucking blows. This team at best will go 8-4 in the regular season. Fans wanted Lambo fired for going 8-4 in 1997, fans weren't jacked up when Rick went 8-4 in 2001 either.
Sark is what we all feared Ty was going to be. I can't believe so many of you are falling into this Doog trap.
My big problems with Sark are two-fold. First, we that we haven't moved towards that, at all. If we had knocked on the RB door just finishing a game behind Oregon the last year or two, I'd think we are headed in the right direction. Secondly, and probably more importantly, while doogs want to talk about two field goals from 9-4, the truth is UW has been worse than it's record almost every season under Sark. It's not that we're close and making a mistake here or there, it's that we're lucky to be a .500 team.
That's scary, and it's why I'm more than ready for UW to hire a real coach.
Only Doogs think this team has a shot at the Roses. Also you are right he's been very lucky to have the shitty record that he has.
In 2010 that team won four games on the final play or inside the final 30 seconds. That team could have easily gone 2-10.
In fact the WSU game was the first close game he had lost in over two years. That's pretty damn lucky and we were due to lose one of those. Plus the Cougs out gained us by over 100 yards. -
Bingo. Think Lambright would have been flexible enough to switch to the option because two of his players suggested it? Hell no. That team won because of Lambo's players and Rick's coaching.He_Needs_More_Time said:
Anderson was actually his recruit but he was a shitty coach. That 1994, 1996 and 1997 teams had top 10 talent and lost 4, 3 and 4 games.Steve_Bowman said:Lambo may not have been a great coach, but but shitty? His teams we're tough....they still hurt people. Ask Shark's sorry BYU ass about how shitty his teams were.
Plus, Jim could recruit. I believe the 2000 team were mostly his guys except for Alexis and John Anderson (the kicker.)
His personally cost us a Rose Bowl in 1995 with his coaching blunders against Notre Dame, USC and Oregon that year.
Also that 2000 team may have been his guys but if he were head coach that team goes 8-4 at best.
-
Actually, the option was Gilbertson...Rick didn't get in the way.
Another crappy head coach, but one hell of O coordinator.
The one thing I give Jim, is his teams were tough. None of the pussy soft crap we see now.dnc said:
Bingo. Think Lambright would have been flexible enough to switch to the option because two of his players suggested it? Hell no. That team won because of Lambo's players and Rick's coaching.He_Needs_More_Time said:
Anderson was actually his recruit but he was a shitty coach. That 1994, 1996 and 1997 teams had top 10 talent and lost 4, 3 and 4 games.Steve_Bowman said:Lambo may not have been a great coach, but but shitty? His teams we're tough....they still hurt people. Ask Shark's sorry BYU ass about how shitty his teams were.
Plus, Jim could recruit. I believe the 2000 team were mostly his guys except for Alexis and John Anderson (the kicker.)
His personally cost us a Rose Bowl in 1995 with his coaching blunders against Notre Dame, USC and Oregon that year.
Also that 2000 team may have been his guys but if he were head coach that team goes 8-4 at best. -
I saw many a Lambo team lay down and quit
-
I would have fired Lambo when Kenny Wheaton crossed the 50.RaceBannon said:I saw many a Lambo team lay down and quit
-
Agreed. He'd get plunger raped at least 1-2 times a year. We'd all be out raged yet Doogs accept Sark does 3+ times a year.RaceBannon said:I saw many a Lambo team lay down and quit
-
it showed Sark's lack of faith in his offensive line. On some level, the players know this and it will impact their performance.jmc84 said:
It's really easy to struggle in the red zone when you don't throw/hand off to ASJ, Sankey, and Kasen. That bullshit at the end of the 2nd quarter against Illinois was a perfect example. Twice to Smith, once to Mickens. Smith and Mickens have been pretty good, but they aren't the red zone threats that ASJ, Sankey, and Kasen are. You're spot on. SFSHe_Needs_More_Time said:
Plus he will fuck up some games by himself with his terrible RZ play calling. It was the only reason the Boise game in the first half was only 10-3, same with Illinois.jmc84 said:Lesbianest. The problem with Sark is that he doesn't win enough games because his teams are LA soft and WSU stupid.
I don't get how a team with ASJ, Sankey and Kasen can struggle so much in the RZ but it does. That's Sark fucking stupid for you.
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
