On a positive note...
The obvious question mark will be (shocking) the ability of the D-line to penetrate. In this conference, you have to ease the pressure on your CBs by giving the opposing QB VERY little time to throw the ball. He needs to feel anxious in the pocket. With Jamora's future in doubt, and some real question marks across the front, I'm not sure one way or the other. Yes, Shirley is small, but he has "beast" potential. Hudson is a question mark, and the others are really hard to get excited about. Lastly, it's difficult to get excited about incoming freshmen DLs since the position takes so long to develop (minus Jadaveon Clowney).
HOWEVER, I am very pleased with the turnaround last year under Wilcox, and I'm hopeful that Lupoi can teach these guys some techniques.
Comments
-
Hopefully the pass rush will be better. I think Shaq can really help us there if the coaches chose to use him as a blitzer more frequently. I am worried about DT. We have Shelton and basically nobody. I guess Banks was okay, but he is small. He didn't look like an impact guy to me. The rest of the guys are terrible, especially Potoa.
Hopefully Mathis, Qualls, Farria, and Basham get in. I know we should not count on much from them next season, but we need them in the mix. It won't be that hard for them to pass Potoa, Tani, Finau, Turpin. -
The defense has a lot of talent on paper but is deficient at the key spots. The loss of Trufant could be huge considering his presence partially mitigated the lack of a pass rush. The frosh will help in terms of depth. It will be interesting to see if Wilcox can improve the defense further and especially given this deficiency up front.
-
It comes down to Lupoi. Holt may have tried to ruin Potoae but a good coach can get the talent out of a player. Cal sent a lot of DL to the NFL so I am hopeful our DL can improve. Honestly it is the OL and offense that worry me the most at this point. I think we will likely field a respectable defense.
-
Potoae sucks. That's all there is to it. I have focused on him many times and he plays patty cake and locks up with the guy blocking him. He is small and has put on very little weight since he got here. He's one of those guys who matured early and maxed out before he got here. He's had some injuries as well. He's not going to do shit this season.Mad_Son said:It comes down to Lupoi. Holt may have tried to ruin Potoae but a good coach can get the talent out of a player. Cal sent a lot of DL to the NFL so I am hopeful our DL can improve. Honestly it is the OL and offense that worry me the most at this point. I think we will likely field a respectable defense.
-
They way Wilcox's defense ended the year, I'm thinking the hype around him is also bullshit. The Apple Cup was simply bad coaching all the way around. From Sark, to Wilcox, to the lawnmower cheer guy..plain bad coaching. And the Baylor game wasn't much better.
-
I don't think it's bullshit, the defense played better and more consistently last year. But he has been over hyped for sure.
The WSU and Boise losses stemmed from one man: Sark -
That's the same logic that Sark's a good coach. He improved the team a lot. Went from 0 wins to 5 and then 7. They have played better since Willingham left. Wilcox took the worst D in the nation and made them average. Holt was the worst . AZ doesn't hang 52 on a good D. I think the Jury is still out on Wilcox. Just like with Sark, the tendency is to anoint the new guy the best coach in America before they actually prove it.DerekJohnson said:I don't think it's bullshit, the defense played better and more consistently last year. But he has been over hyped for sure.
The WSU and Boise losses stemmed from one man: Sark
-
until we beat a spread team, our defense and defensive staff are fucking terrible IMO.
-
Wilcox should have been fired after the Baylor game.MikeDamone said:They way Wilcox's defense ended the year, I'm thinking the hype around him is also bullshit. The Apple Cup was simply bad coaching all the way around. From Sark, to Wilcox, to the lawnmower cheer guy..plain bad coaching. And the Baylor game wasn't much better.
-
HillsboroDuck said:
Wilcox should have been fired after the Baylor game.MikeDamone said:They way Wilcox's defense ended the year, I'm thinking the hype around him is also bullshit. The Apple Cup was simply bad coaching all the way around. From Sark, to Wilcox, to the lawnmower cheer guy..plain bad coaching. And the Baylor game wasn't much better.
HillsboroDuck said:
Wilcox should have been fired after the Baylor game.MikeDamone said:They way Wilcox's defense ended the year, I'm thinking the hype around him is also bullshit. The Apple Cup was simply bad coaching all the way around. From Sark, to Wilcox, to the lawnmower cheer guy..plain bad coaching. And the Baylor game wasn't much better.
I meant Boise smart ass.
-
Wilcox deserves a ton of shit for blowing the 18 point lead in the Apple Cup.DerekJohnson said:I don't think it's bullshit, the defense played better and more consistently last year. But he has been over hyped for sure.
The WSU and Boise losses stemmed from one man: Sark -
The collapses under Sark (boise state and wsu, for example) are caused by a lack of consistency. Sark's teams cannot play consistently from one week (or one year) to the next. Whether it's his QB or his defense, you never know what you're going to get. And what is the foundation of consistency?
Discipline...something that Sark does not instill.
Look, perhaps I am too much of an optimist, but I actually am hopeful that Sark can turn this program (and himself) into a winner. That doesn't mean hope = you get to keep your job. I need proof (i.e., winning). IMO, my "hope" runs out at the end of 2013. -
does anyone here know if Idaho State runs the spread?volcanodawg said:until we beat a spread team, our defense and defensive staff are fucking terrible IMO.
-
Absolutely. But when you look at Keith Price smiling at the coin flip, the softness of the team in the fourth quarter of the WSU and Boise games, the image of our guys doing the Lawn Mower, that all stems from the top-- Sark.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Wilcox deserves a ton of shit for blowing the 18 point lead in the Apple Cup.DerekJohnson said:I don't think it's bullshit, the defense played better and more consistently last year. But he has been over hyped for sure.
The WSU and Boise losses stemmed from one man: Sark -
I'm hoping they replace the Lawn Mower with the Dougie. Change it up a bit.DerekJohnson said:
Absolutely. But when you look at Keith Price smiling at the coin flip, the softness of the team in the fourth quarter of the WSU and Boise games, the image of our guys doing the Lawn Mower, that all stems from the top-- Sark.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Wilcox deserves a ton of shit for blowing the 18 point lead in the Apple Cup.DerekJohnson said:I don't think it's bullshit, the defense played better and more consistently last year. But he has been over hyped for sure.
The WSU and Boise losses stemmed from one man: Sark -
I'm hearing they've been practicing the Harlem ShakeMikeDamone said:
I'm hoping they replace the Lawn Mower with the Dougie. Change it up a bit.DerekJohnson said:
Absolutely. But when you look at Keith Price smiling at the coin flip, the softness of the team in the fourth quarter of the WSU and Boise games, the image of our guys doing the Lawn Mower, that all stems from the top-- Sark.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Wilcox deserves a ton of shit for blowing the 18 point lead in the Apple Cup.DerekJohnson said:I don't think it's bullshit, the defense played better and more consistently last year. But he has been over hyped for sure.
The WSU and Boise losses stemmed from one man: Sark -
Easy mistake. Swinging at Wilcox is warranted. Missing and hitting FUCLA vs Baylor isn't too far off target though. Baylor knocked the shit out of them. Bottom line, PAC12 defenses are not much to write home about.MikeDamone said:HillsboroDuck said:
Wilcox should have been fired after the Baylor game.MikeDamone said:They way Wilcox's defense ended the year, I'm thinking the hype around him is also bullshit. The Apple Cup was simply bad coaching all the way around. From Sark, to Wilcox, to the lawnmower cheer guy..plain bad coaching. And the Baylor game wasn't much better.
HillsboroDuck said:
Wilcox should have been fired after the Baylor game.MikeDamone said:They way Wilcox's defense ended the year, I'm thinking the hype around him is also bullshit. The Apple Cup was simply bad coaching all the way around. From Sark, to Wilcox, to the lawnmower cheer guy..plain bad coaching. And the Baylor game wasn't much better.
I meant Boise smart ass.
-
Wilcox isn't perfect but he's damn good. The guy has a strong track record at multiple schools and Texas tried to hire him two years ago. It's fucking Texas. The defense went from 106th to 31st or whatever it was. Up until the last two games it held 7 teams under 20 points, plus USC technically because their offense only scored 17. Yes WSU rallied late but it was the defense that accounted for most of our points. Arizona game? Well genius Sark tried to pass all over a team that had a high school run defense. You think the defense gives up 50 if we run Sankey 35 times and control the clock? (BTW, UCLA gave up 28ppg last year, we gave up 24ppg).
Also a few days ago I read something and I think it mentioned that Wilcox is very strict and detail oriented in his practices. He's clearly a 180 from Sark.
The D coaches are quite good. And Sirmon and Tosh are great recruiters. They immediately bolstered the 2012 class which was basically average before they showed up. Tosh brought in a strong D-line class this year and the LB's also look good. The problem is 7-6 is holding them back.
I know its not the company line but everything doesn't suck about the program. New stadium and strong d coaches are big strengthes. Nuss was hired at Alabama. Do you think the offense would have been better last year with Nuss there?
90% of the problem is Sark.
-
I don't think anyone here thinks that we're a 3-8 program right now. I think what bothers most of us is that UW is not putting its best foot forward. That we're doomed to win 5-8 games a year in perpetuity.
-
"Sirmon and Tosh are great recruiters"
Does everyone say so?
I don't think Wilcox sucks, but I'm not ready to heap as much praise as you. Saying that Texas wanted him isn't proof. Did you know Sark rebuffed several teams this year? You're making a lot of the same arguments for Wilcox that doogs make for Sark. Check yourself before you wreck yourself. And as always, let it play out. -
DerekJohnson said:
Absolutely. But when you look at Keith Price smiling at the coin flip, the softness of the team in the fourth quarter of the WSU and Boise games, the image of our guys doing the Lawn Mower, that all stems from the top-- Sark.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Wilcox deserves a ton of shit for blowing the 18 point lead in the Apple Cup.DerekJohnson said:I don't think it's bullshit, the defense played better and more consistently last year. But he has been over hyped for sure.
The WSU and Boise losses stemmed from one man: Sark
Spot on. I don't think we will ever see a Sark team that isn't soft and undisciplined.
-
Are you saying he Rick without the Rosebowl? How dare you!RoadDawg55 said:DerekJohnson said:
Absolutely. But when you look at Keith Price smiling at the coin flip, the softness of the team in the fourth quarter of the WSU and Boise games, the image of our guys doing the Lawn Mower, that all stems from the top-- Sark.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Wilcox deserves a ton of shit for blowing the 18 point lead in the Apple Cup.DerekJohnson said:I don't think it's bullshit, the defense played better and more consistently last year. But he has been over hyped for sure.
The WSU and Boise losses stemmed from one man: Sark
Spot on. I don't think we will ever see a Sark team that isn't soft and undisciplined. -
I disagree.....the new stadium? paying top dollar for assistants?DerekJohnson said:I don't think anyone here thinks that we're a 3-8 program right now. I think what bothers most of us is that UW is not putting its best foot forward. That we're doomed to win 5-8 games a year in perpetuity.
Sark is the biggest problem.
-
The same arguments?MikeDamone said:"Sirmon and Tosh are great recruiters"
Does everyone say so?
I don't think Wilcox sucks, but I'm not ready to heap as much praise as you. Saying that Texas wanted him isn't proof. Did you know Sark rebuffed several teams this year? You're making a lot of the same arguments for Wilcox that doogs make for Sark. Check yourself before you wreck yourself. And as always, let it play out.
The defense improving from 106th to 31st? Holding 8 of the first 11 teams to less than 20 points? There's a similar fact-based argument for Sark?
The doogs were the ones saying if we had an average defense we'd win 9 or 10 games. Well, we had an above average defense and only won 7 because the brains behind the offense (Nuss) left and Sark is a fuckhead. -
Yes, very similar argument. In 2008, Saragin had UW at 129, the next year they were 52. Wilcox replaced an abysmal coach and got them to average. Just like Sark. Just like Sark, Wilcox was crowned a great coach, recruiter, staff builder etc. before actually doing anything. We hear how other schools want him, just like we hear about Sark. All I'm saying is I've heard this one before. Let it play out.ACSlaterDawg said:
The same arguments?MikeDamone said:"Sirmon and Tosh are great recruiters"
Does everyone say so?
I don't think Wilcox sucks, but I'm not ready to heap as much praise as you. Saying that Texas wanted him isn't proof. Did you know Sark rebuffed several teams this year? You're making a lot of the same arguments for Wilcox that doogs make for Sark. Check yourself before you wreck yourself. And as always, let it play out.
The defense improving from 106th to 31st? Holding 8 of the first 11 teams to less than 20 points? There's a similar fact-based argument for Sark?
The doogs were the ones saying if we had an average defense we'd win 9 or 10 games. Well, we had an above average defense and only won 7 because the brains behind the offense (Nuss) left and Sark is a fuckhead. -
that's exactly what i've been sayingACSlaterDawg said:
I disagree.....the new stadium? paying top dollar for assistants?DerekJohnson said:I don't think anyone here thinks that we're a 3-8 program right now. I think what bothers most of us is that UW is not putting its best foot forward. That we're doomed to win 5-8 games a year in perpetuity.
Sark is the biggest problem. -
I've never heard anyone call Wilcox a great recruiter.MikeDamone said:
Yes, very similar argument. In 2008, Saragin had UW at 129, the next year they were 52. Wilcox replaced an abysmal coach and got them to average. Just like Sark. Just like Sark, Wilcox was crowned a great coach, recruiter, staff builder etc. before actually doing anything. We hear how other schools want him, just like we hear about Sark. All I'm saying is I've heard this one before. Let it play out.ACSlaterDawg said:
The same arguments?MikeDamone said:"Sirmon and Tosh are great recruiters"
Does everyone say so?
I don't think Wilcox sucks, but I'm not ready to heap as much praise as you. Saying that Texas wanted him isn't proof. Did you know Sark rebuffed several teams this year? You're making a lot of the same arguments for Wilcox that doogs make for Sark. Check yourself before you wreck yourself. And as always, let it play out.
The defense improving from 106th to 31st? Holding 8 of the first 11 teams to less than 20 points? There's a similar fact-based argument for Sark?
The doogs were the ones saying if we had an average defense we'd win 9 or 10 games. Well, we had an above average defense and only won 7 because the brains behind the offense (Nuss) left and Sark is a fuckhead.
And the defense Wilcox inherited made much bigger strides in year 1 than Sark's team did. Most importantly, Wilcox has a track record and resume that massively trumps Sark's. There's a REASON to believe in Wilcox, and it's not just his first year at UW. He's succeeded at a smaller conference school and at an SEC school. He's been successful with defenses with great talent and defenses without great talent.
Sark was sort of a success as an OC at the school with the most offensive talent in the country. There was plenty of reason to be skeptical about him as HC, and he needed to do a lot more than have one 5 win season to overcome that. There's no such reason to be skeptical about Wilcox. He's legit. The only question is why he hasn't been promoted to HC.
-
HillsboroDuck said:
I've never heard anyone call Wilcox a great recruiter.MikeDamone said:
Yes, very similar argument. In 2008, Saragin had UW at 129, the next year they were 52. Wilcox replaced an abysmal coach and got them to average. Just like Sark. Just like Sark, Wilcox was crowned a great coach, recruiter, staff builder etc. before actually doing anything. We hear how other schools want him, just like we hear about Sark. All I'm saying is I've heard this one before. Let it play out.ACSlaterDawg said:
The same arguments?MikeDamone said:"Sirmon and Tosh are great recruiters"
Does everyone say so?
I don't think Wilcox sucks, but I'm not ready to heap as much praise as you. Saying that Texas wanted him isn't proof. Did you know Sark rebuffed several teams this year? You're making a lot of the same arguments for Wilcox that doogs make for Sark. Check yourself before you wreck yourself. And as always, let it play out.
The defense improving from 106th to 31st? Holding 8 of the first 11 teams to less than 20 points? There's a similar fact-based argument for Sark?
The doogs were the ones saying if we had an average defense we'd win 9 or 10 games. Well, we had an above average defense and only won 7 because the brains behind the offense (Nuss) left and Sark is a fuckhead.
And the defense Wilcox inherited made much bigger strides in year 1 than Sark's team did. Most importantly, Wilcox has a track record and resume that massively trumps Sark's. There's a REASON to believe in Wilcox, and it's not just his first year at UW. He's succeeded at a smaller conference school and at an SEC school. He's been successful with defenses with great talent and defenses without great talent.
Sark was sort of a success as an OC at the school with the most offensive talent in the country. There was plenty of reason to be skeptical about him as HC, and he needed to do a lot more than have one 5 win season to overcome that. There's no such reason to be skeptical about Wilcox. He's legit. The only question is why he hasn't been promoted to HC.
Don't get me wrong, I like Wilcox. But did he really SUCCEED at a SEC school? Wasn't Tenn's defense ranked around 35th?
-
DerekJohnson said:HillsboroDuck said:
I've never heard anyone call Wilcox a great recruiter.MikeDamone said:
Yes, very similar argument. In 2008, Saragin had UW at 129, the next year they were 52. Wilcox replaced an abysmal coach and got them to average. Just like Sark. Just like Sark, Wilcox was crowned a great coach, recruiter, staff builder etc. before actually doing anything. We hear how other schools want him, just like we hear about Sark. All I'm saying is I've heard this one before. Let it play out.ACSlaterDawg said:
The same arguments?MikeDamone said:"Sirmon and Tosh are great recruiters"
Does everyone say so?
I don't think Wilcox sucks, but I'm not ready to heap as much praise as you. Saying that Texas wanted him isn't proof. Did you know Sark rebuffed several teams this year? You're making a lot of the same arguments for Wilcox that doogs make for Sark. Check yourself before you wreck yourself. And as always, let it play out.
The defense improving from 106th to 31st? Holding 8 of the first 11 teams to less than 20 points? There's a similar fact-based argument for Sark?
The doogs were the ones saying if we had an average defense we'd win 9 or 10 games. Well, we had an above average defense and only won 7 because the brains behind the offense (Nuss) left and Sark is a fuckhead.
And the defense Wilcox inherited made much bigger strides in year 1 than Sark's team did. Most importantly, Wilcox has a track record and resume that massively trumps Sark's. There's a REASON to believe in Wilcox, and it's not just his first year at UW. He's succeeded at a smaller conference school and at an SEC school. He's been successful with defenses with great talent and defenses without great talent.
Sark was sort of a success as an OC at the school with the most offensive talent in the country. There was plenty of reason to be skeptical about him as HC, and he needed to do a lot more than have one 5 win season to overcome that. There's no such reason to be skeptical about Wilcox. He's legit. The only question is why he hasn't been promoted to HC.
Don't get me wrong, I like Wilcox. But did he really SUCCEED at a SEC school? Wasn't Tenn's defense ranked around 35th?
Tennessee's defense was horrible without him this year. Tennessee's offense had some really good players, but they got shredded every time I watched them. It is still too early to say if Wilcox is great, but the early returns are about as good as anyone could expect.
-
If you can't see the parallels of irrational exuberance between the the two then I can't help you. I wonder if he was promoted to head coach if he would give a kick ass presser. As always, let it play out.HillsboroDuck said:
I've never heard anyone call Wilcox a great recruiter.MikeDamone said:
Yes, very similar argument. In 2008, Saragin had UW at 129, the next year they were 52. Wilcox replaced an abysmal coach and got them to average. Just like Sark. Just like Sark, Wilcox was crowned a great coach, recruiter, staff builder etc. before actually doing anything. We hear how other schools want him, just like we hear about Sark. All I'm saying is I've heard this one before. Let it play out.ACSlaterDawg said:
The same arguments?MikeDamone said:"Sirmon and Tosh are great recruiters"
Does everyone say so?
I don't think Wilcox sucks, but I'm not ready to heap as much praise as you. Saying that Texas wanted him isn't proof. Did you know Sark rebuffed several teams this year? You're making a lot of the same arguments for Wilcox that doogs make for Sark. Check yourself before you wreck yourself. And as always, let it play out.
The defense improving from 106th to 31st? Holding 8 of the first 11 teams to less than 20 points? There's a similar fact-based argument for Sark?
The doogs were the ones saying if we had an average defense we'd win 9 or 10 games. Well, we had an above average defense and only won 7 because the brains behind the offense (Nuss) left and Sark is a fuckhead.
And the defense Wilcox inherited made much bigger strides in year 1 than Sark's team did. Most importantly, Wilcox has a track record and resume that massively trumps Sark's. There's a REASON to believe in Wilcox, and it's not just his first year at UW. He's succeeded at a smaller conference school and at an SEC school. He's been successful with defenses with great talent and defenses without great talent.
Sark was sort of a success as an OC at the school with the most offensive talent in the country. There was plenty of reason to be skeptical about him as HC, and he needed to do a lot more than have one 5 win season to overcome that. There's no such reason to be skeptical about Wilcox. He's legit. The only question is why he hasn't been promoted to HC.
