Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
On a positive note...
Comments
-
Then the argument could be made that he didn't really leave much of an impact after leaving there.RoadDawg55 said: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. -
I guess Holt had a nice impact on UW's defense, they were pretty good after he left.DerekJohnson said:
Then the argument could be made that he didn't really leave much of an impact after leaving there.RoadDawg55 said: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.
-
Our offense sputtered post-Nussmeier. Considering Nick Saban wanted him and he added like 17 points/game to Alabama's offense (I know that was the number at one point in the season) I think it is a testament to the fact that coordinators' impacts are felt when they are there.DerekJohnson said:
Then the argument could be made that he didn't really leave much of an impact after leaving there.RoadDawg55 said: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. -
ToucheHillsboroDuck said:
I guess Holt had a nice impact on UW's defense, they were pretty good after he left.DerekJohnson said:
Then the argument could be made that he didn't really leave much of an impact after leaving there.RoadDawg55 said: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.
Douche -
Woodward tried to hire other guys (Muschamp, Meyer, Mora) and they all said no. Sark was clearly not the first choice. We weren't a 0 win team but the perception of UW then was quite lousy and it affected the pool of candidates.
Not saying I have confidence in him but getting the stadium done was huge and the school kept raising the bar until Tosh said yes. We'll see how he deals with Sark after this year. At the 2012 recruiting dinner Fleenor and Aandy said that if Sark took another job, Woodward's first choice would be Mora.
-
Bingo....big strides in year 1 and previous track record at multiple stops. Sark had no track record.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. -
Ok. This is getting into Doog territory. Call me when we have a top 10, 15, or even 20 defense. Until then, meh, maybe he's awesome and the best coordinator we've ever had, or maybe not.ACSlaterDawg said:
Bingo....big strides in year 1 and previous track record at multiple stops. Sark had no track record.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.
-
Woodward tried to hire Meyer? That was Turner that interviewed Meyer and I think Meyer said something about Turner being a little weird.ACSlaterDawg said:Woodward tried to hire other guys (Muschamp, Meyer, Mora) and they all said no. Sark was clearly not the first choice. We weren't a 0 win team but the perception of UW then was quite lousy and it affected the pool of candidates.
Not saying I have confidence in him but getting the stadium done was huge and the school kept raising the bar until Tosh said yes. We'll see how he deals with Sark after this year. At the 2012 recruiting dinner Fleenor and Aandy said that if Sark took another job, Woodward's first choice would be Mora.
Woodward gets a shit ton of credit for moving the stadium forward and getting it done and I will be the first to say that but you only need to look at his recent comments in the Baghdad Gregg article to see that the guy is Turner-lite.
While he might want a winner, he's a lot like Sark in that he has very little practical experience. He was Emmert political lackey before getting the AD job - he didn't grow up as an AD and doesn't have the depth of experience that comes from years of working for different ADs and different schools. Sark is similar in that except for a year or two at a JC and a year on the Raiders staff, he only knows how Pete Carroll operated and that was with some of the best talent in the country. He has nothing to fall back on when things go south. -
I totally agree with you on the stadium and facilities. They are world class and potential game changers for the program, but color me jaded on the coaching staff. Sark is who he is, and at best, the jury is out on Wilcox and Co. I know you're throwing the UCLA defense comparison in for the HHB bunch, but it really doesn't mean much. They're just another PAC 12 team with a weak PAC 12 defense. In fact they ranked 73rd in total defense last year, which is downright pathetic. Mora is doing a good job of instilling toughness in that team, so they may break that mold in the future, but for now, if we're talking about defense, you have to compare the Huskies to programs outside the PAC 12 to see where the defense stands, and right now, it's mediocre at best.ACSlaterDawg said: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.
In the past, what has set UW apart in this league has been tenacious defense, a balanced offense, disciplined special teams, and toughness across the board. Sark is a big part of the problem. The team lacks discipline and though there are a few tough players on this team, they are the exception not the rule. This team plays soft, it cannot rely on a tough nasty streak to help them punish opponents and overcome mistakes, and virtually every "big win" under Sark has had some qualifier, from opponent's key injuries, to bone headed moves by the opponent's coaching staff, to teams that just didn't care to be there. I have no doubt that until this team becomes disciplined, and the mental and physical toughness changes for the better, we're going to be stuck in that 5-8 win range Derek mentioned. -
I think this year the motto should be FINISH!!!!#ThingsLoserCoachesDo
-
If you're going to call out loser coaches, that's fine, but start using mottos and you're gone.
-
DerekJohnson said:
Then the argument could be made that he didn't really leave much of an impact after leaving there.RoadDawg55 said: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.
Wilcox was there for one recruiting class, so I am not sure what kind of impact he could have left. Tennessee's defense got much worse without him. UW's got much better with him. He also did well at Boise State. All signs point to him being a pretty good coach. You can twist that if you want to be skeptical, but I don't really see the point. Below are some stats so you can see what kind of impact Wilcox had. Tennessee gave up 11 more points a game in 2012 without Wilcox vs 2011 with Wilcox.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/stats/byteam?cat1=defense&cat2=Total&sort=1137&conference=I-A_SEC&year=2012
-
I have stats that say Sark is a good coach too. Again, I'm not saying Wilcox is bad or even average. I would just like to see UW actually win something, be in the top 20 in anything, and have some consistency before saying coach X is great and should be the head coach. So far, Wilcox has shown incremental progress. YAY!!!RoadDawg55 said:DerekJohnson said:
Then the argument could be made that he didn't really leave much of an impact after leaving there.RoadDawg55 said: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.
Wilcox was there for one recruiting class, so I am not sure what kind of impact he could have left. Tennessee's defense got much worse without him. UW's got much better with him. He also did well at Boise State. All signs point to him being a pretty good coach. You can twist that if you want to be skeptical, but I don't really see the point. Below are some stats so you can see what kind of impact Wilcox had. Tennessee gave up 11 more points a game in 2012 without Wilcox vs 2011 with Wilcox.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/stats/byteam?cat1=defense&cat2=Total&sort=1137&conference=I-A_SEC&year=2012
-
If Fleenor and AANDY said it, it's bullshit.ACSlaterDawg said:At the 2012 recruiting dinner Fleenor and Aandy said that if Sark took another job, Woodward's first choice would be Mora.
-
MikeDamone said:
I have stats that say Sark is a good coach too. Again, I'm not saying Wilcox is bad or even average. I would just like to see UW actually win something, be in the top 20 in anything, and have some consistency before saying coach X is great and should be the head coach. So far, Wilcox has shown incremental progress. YAY!!!RoadDawg55 said:DerekJohnson said:
Then the argument could be made that he didn't really leave much of an impact after leaving there.RoadDawg55 said: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.
Wilcox was there for one recruiting class, so I am not sure what kind of impact he could have left. Tennessee's defense got much worse without him. UW's got much better with him. He also did well at Boise State. All signs point to him being a pretty good coach. You can twist that if you want to be skeptical, but I don't really see the point. Below are some stats so you can see what kind of impact Wilcox had. Tennessee gave up 11 more points a game in 2012 without Wilcox vs 2011 with Wilcox.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/stats/byteam?cat1=defense&cat2=Total&sort=1137&conference=I-A_SEC&year=2012
Yeah, because going from the 10th ranked defense in the Pac 12 to the 3rd ranked is incremental progress. Shaving 10 points off per game isn't great progress either. Did you expect Wilcox to take these shitty players and dominate? Have you seen our DL? Did you realize our LB's last year were two freshmen and a sophomore who was absolutely, fucking terrible (Timu) as a freshman? I agree that there is still work to be done, but Wilcox has proven himself at three different stops to be a very good defensive coordinator. Like I said, the early returns have been about as good as one could expect.
-
Like I said, I like WilcoxRoadDawg55 said:DerekJohnson said:
Then the argument could be made that he didn't really leave much of an impact after leaving there.RoadDawg55 said: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.
Wilcox was there for one recruiting class, so I am not sure what kind of impact he could have left. Tennessee's defense got much worse without him. UW's got much better with him. He also did well at Boise State. All signs point to him being a pretty good coach. You can twist that if you want to be skeptical, but I don't really see the point. Below are some stats so you can see what kind of impact Wilcox had. Tennessee gave up 11 more points a game in 2012 without Wilcox vs 2011 with Wilcox.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/stats/byteam?cat1=defense&cat2=Total&sort=1137&conference=I-A_SEC&year=2012 -
Lets see...Sark went from last in the league to beating USC twice, 3rd place and winning the Holiday bowl in just two seasons. Early returns were good. About as good as one could expect.RoadDawg55 said:MikeDamone said:
I have stats that say Sark is a good coach too. Again, I'm not saying Wilcox is bad or even average. I would just like to see UW actually win something, be in the top 20 in anything, and have some consistency before saying coach X is great and should be the head coach. So far, Wilcox has shown incremental progress. YAY!!!RoadDawg55 said:DerekJohnson said:
Then the argument could be made that he didn't really leave much of an impact after leaving there.RoadDawg55 said: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.
Wilcox was there for one recruiting class, so I am not sure what kind of impact he could have left. Tennessee's defense got much worse without him. UW's got much better with him. He also did well at Boise State. All signs point to him being a pretty good coach. You can twist that if you want to be skeptical, but I don't really see the point. Below are some stats so you can see what kind of impact Wilcox had. Tennessee gave up 11 more points a game in 2012 without Wilcox vs 2011 with Wilcox.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/stats/byteam?cat1=defense&cat2=Total&sort=1137&conference=I-A_SEC&year=2012
Yeah, because going from the 10th ranked defense in the Pac 12 to the 3rd ranked is incremental progress. Shaving 10 points off per game isn't great progress either. Did you expect Wilcox to take these shitty players and dominate? Have you seen our DL? Did you realize our LB's last year were two freshmen and a sophomore who was absolutely, fucking terrible (Timu) as a freshman? I agree that there is still work to be done, but Wilcox has proven himself at three different stops to be a very good defensive coordinator. Like I said, the early returns have been about as good as one could expect.
I've been burned before. I'm waiting for something better than 31st, having the defense not get off the bus three times a year, and not be able to shut down a crappy team in the fourth quarter of a rivalry game. yes, there has been progress. Now Doog on.
-
MikeDamone said:
Lets see...Sark went from last in the league to beating USC twice, 3rd place and winning the Holiday bowl in just two seasons. Early returns were good. About as good as one could expect.RoadDawg55 said:MikeDamone said:
I have stats that say Sark is a good coach too. Again, I'm not saying Wilcox is bad or even average. I would just like to see UW actually win something, be in the top 20 in anything, and have some consistency before saying coach X is great and should be the head coach. So far, Wilcox has shown incremental progress. YAY!!!RoadDawg55 said:DerekJohnson said:
Then the argument could be made that he didn't really leave much of an impact after leaving there.RoadDawg55 said: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.
Wilcox was there for one recruiting class, so I am not sure what kind of impact he could have left. Tennessee's defense got much worse without him. UW's got much better with him. He also did well at Boise State. All signs point to him being a pretty good coach. You can twist that if you want to be skeptical, but I don't really see the point. Below are some stats so you can see what kind of impact Wilcox had. Tennessee gave up 11 more points a game in 2012 without Wilcox vs 2011 with Wilcox.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/stats/byteam?cat1=defense&cat2=Total&sort=1137&conference=I-A_SEC&year=2012
Yeah, because going from the 10th ranked defense in the Pac 12 to the 3rd ranked is incremental progress. Shaving 10 points off per game isn't great progress either. Did you expect Wilcox to take these shitty players and dominate? Have you seen our DL? Did you realize our LB's last year were two freshmen and a sophomore who was absolutely, fucking terrible (Timu) as a freshman? I agree that there is still work to be done, but Wilcox has proven himself at three different stops to be a very good defensive coordinator. Like I said, the early returns have been about as good as one could expect.
I've been burned before. I'm waiting for something better than 31st, having the defense not get off the bus three times a year, and not be able to shut down a crappy team in the fourth quarter of a rivalry game. yes, there has been progress. Now Doog on.
I fully understand being cautious about praising Wilcox too much, but I don't think it is dooging to admit he has been really good so far and has an impressive resume. Hopefully, we continue to make progress.
-
Look Damone, maybe you need a pencil in your eye
-
In 2010 the same could have been said about sark. And many people did. And still do.RoadDawg55 said:MikeDamone said:
Lets see...Sark went from last in the league to beating USC twice, 3rd place and winning the Holiday bowl in just two seasons. Early returns were good. About as good as one could expect.RoadDawg55 said:MikeDamone said:
I have stats that say Sark is a good coach too. Again, I'm not saying Wilcox is bad or even average. I would just like to see UW actually win something, be in the top 20 in anything, and have some consistency before saying coach X is great and should be the head coach. So far, Wilcox has shown incremental progress. YAY!!!RoadDawg55 said:DerekJohnson said:
Then the argument could be made that he didn't really leave much of an impact after leaving there.RoadDawg55 said: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.
Wilcox was there for one recruiting class, so I am not sure what kind of impact he could have left. Tennessee's defense got much worse without him. UW's got much better with him. He also did well at Boise State. All signs point to him being a pretty good coach. You can twist that if you want to be skeptical, but I don't really see the point. Below are some stats so you can see what kind of impact Wilcox had. Tennessee gave up 11 more points a game in 2012 without Wilcox vs 2011 with Wilcox.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/stats/byteam?cat1=defense&cat2=Total&sort=1137&conference=I-A_SEC&year=2012
Yeah, because going from the 10th ranked defense in the Pac 12 to the 3rd ranked is incremental progress. Shaving 10 points off per game isn't great progress either. Did you expect Wilcox to take these shitty players and dominate? Have you seen our DL? Did you realize our LB's last year were two freshmen and a sophomore who was absolutely, fucking terrible (Timu) as a freshman? I agree that there is still work to be done, but Wilcox has proven himself at three different stops to be a very good defensive coordinator. Like I said, the early returns have been about as good as one could expect.
I've been burned before. I'm waiting for something better than 31st, having the defense not get off the bus three times a year, and not be able to shut down a crappy team in the fourth quarter of a rivalry game. yes, there has been progress. Now Doog on.
I fully understand being cautious about praising Wilcox too much, but I don't think it is dooging to admit he has been really good so far and has an impressive resume. Hopefully, we continue to make progress. -
Two pencils for you. (Insert Gay Grinolds Wink here)RaceBannon said:Look Damone, maybe you need a pencil in your eye
-
The first six pencils were consensualsCheersWestDawg said:
Two pencils for you. (Insert Gay Grinolds Wink here)RaceBannon said:Look Damone, maybe you need a pencil in your eye
-
Look Damone, maybe you need a pencil in your eye
-
Sharpie in the pooper >>> pencil in the eye.
Check the facts. -
Who is AANDY anyway? DM acts like he is a CIA agent.CheersWestDawg said:
If Fleenor and AANDY said it, it's bullshit.ACSlaterDawg said:At the 2012 recruiting dinner Fleenor and Aandy said that if Sark took another job, Woodward's first choice would be Mora.
-
There's at least three differences that I can see.MikeDamone said:
In 2010 the same could have been said about sark. And many people did. And still do.RoadDawg55 said:MikeDamone said:
Lets see...Sark went from last in the league to beating USC twice, 3rd place and winning the Holiday bowl in just two seasons. Early returns were good. About as good as one could expect.RoadDawg55 said:MikeDamone said:
I have stats that say Sark is a good coach too. Again, I'm not saying Wilcox is bad or even average. I would just like to see UW actually win something, be in the top 20 in anything, and have some consistency before saying coach X is great and should be the head coach. So far, Wilcox has shown incremental progress. YAY!!!RoadDawg55 said:DerekJohnson said:
Then the argument could be made that he didn't really leave much of an impact after leaving there.RoadDawg55 said: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.
Wilcox was there for one recruiting class, so I am not sure what kind of impact he could have left. Tennessee's defense got much worse without him. UW's got much better with him. He also did well at Boise State. All signs point to him being a pretty good coach. You can twist that if you want to be skeptical, but I don't really see the point. Below are some stats so you can see what kind of impact Wilcox had. Tennessee gave up 11 more points a game in 2012 without Wilcox vs 2011 with Wilcox.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/stats/byteam?cat1=defense&cat2=Total&sort=1137&conference=I-A_SEC&year=2012
Yeah, because going from the 10th ranked defense in the Pac 12 to the 3rd ranked is incremental progress. Shaving 10 points off per game isn't great progress either. Did you expect Wilcox to take these shitty players and dominate? Have you seen our DL? Did you realize our LB's last year were two freshmen and a sophomore who was absolutely, fucking terrible (Timu) as a freshman? I agree that there is still work to be done, but Wilcox has proven himself at three different stops to be a very good defensive coordinator. Like I said, the early returns have been about as good as one could expect.
I've been burned before. I'm waiting for something better than 31st, having the defense not get off the bus three times a year, and not be able to shut down a crappy team in the fourth quarter of a rivalry game. yes, there has been progress. Now Doog on.
I fully understand being cautious about praising Wilcox too much, but I don't think it is dooging to admit he has been really good so far and has an impressive resume. Hopefully, we continue to make progress.
1) All the alleged Sarkisian progress was from the baseline of 0-12, which would not have possible to achieve without Ronnie Fouch at the helm. Sark never coached a game with Fouch as his QB. Say what you want about Jake's true position, but he was worth at least 4 wins over Fouch. The massive improvement was an illusion created by Jake's injury, and many were there to point that out before it even happened. Wilcox didn't add one player who completely turned the defense around from the year before. That's not even possible to do on the defensive side of the ball. The importance of QB is unlike anything else in the game.
2) Point differential is the best predictor of record (even better than W-L), and Sark's point differential in year 2 was -97. That team was worse than his first team, and was clearly moving in the wrong direction. Again, many were pointing this out at the time. Wilcox's stats support that there was real improvement, not just perceived improvement.
3) Sark didn't have a track record of success. Wilcox does.
I'm all for being skeptical, but when a guy has demonstrated that he's good at what he does, then comes in and he's good at what he does here, I think it's fair to conclude he knows what he's doing.
None of those things apply to Sark.
-
AANDY and Fleenor are just a couple of old guys who get their bullshit info from Kim. Kim likes to say they're connected, but they're no more connected than if you or I went to an away game and hung out with a few ex-players and had beers with them.DisplacedDawg said:
Who is AANDY anyway? DM acts like he is a CIA agent.CheersWestDawg said:
If Fleenor and AANDY said it, it's bullshit.ACSlaterDawg said:At the 2012 recruiting dinner Fleenor and Aandy said that if Sark took another job, Woodward's first choice would be Mora.
If anyone thinks AANDY, Fleenor, or Kim are "insiders" to some kind of Priory of Scion society of UW Football boosters, they need to stick two pencils in their eyes, a Sharpie in their ass, and quit on the motherfucking spot.
-
CheersWestDawg said:
AANDY and Fleenor are just a couple of old guys who get their bullshit info from Kim. Kim likes to say they're connected, but they're no more connected than if you or I went to an away game and hung out with a few ex-players and had beers with them.DisplacedDawg said:
Who is AANDY anyway? DM acts like he is a CIA agent.CheersWestDawg said:
If Fleenor and AANDY said it, it's bullshit.ACSlaterDawg said:At the 2012 recruiting dinner Fleenor and Aandy said that if Sark took another job, Woodward's first choice would be Mora.
If anyone thinks AANDY, Fleenor, or Kim are "insiders" to some kind of Priory of Scion society of UW Football boosters, they need to stick two pencils in their eyes, a Sharpie in their ass, and quit on the motherfucking spot.
Wow, just wow. You may want to think before you post. The last thing we want to do is revoke your posting privileges for a couple of days.
Questioning our insider information? Next
-
"lol"RoadDawg55 said:CheersWestDawg said:
AANDY and Fleenor are just a couple of old guys who get their bullshit info from Kim. Kim likes to say they're connected, but they're no more connected than if you or I went to an away game and hung out with a few ex-players and had beers with them.DisplacedDawg said:
Who is AANDY anyway? DM acts like he is a CIA agent.CheersWestDawg said:
If Fleenor and AANDY said it, it's bullshit.ACSlaterDawg said:At the 2012 recruiting dinner Fleenor and Aandy said that if Sark took another job, Woodward's first choice would be Mora.
If anyone thinks AANDY, Fleenor, or Kim are "insiders" to some kind of Priory of Scion society of UW Football boosters, they need to stick two pencils in their eyes, a Sharpie in their ass, and quit on the motherfucking spot.
Wow, just wow. You may want to think before you post. The last thing we want to do is revoke your posting privileges for a couple of days.
Questioning our insider information? Next -
The improvement from -97 to -33 happened when Holt was still around.HillsboroDuck said:
There's at least three differences that I can see.MikeDamone said:
In 2010 the same could have been said about sark. And many people did. And still do.RoadDawg55 said:MikeDamone said:
Lets see...Sark went from last in the league to beating USC twice, 3rd place and winning the Holiday bowl in just two seasons. Early returns were good. About as good as one could expect.RoadDawg55 said:MikeDamone said:
I have stats that say Sark is a good coach too. Again, I'm not saying Wilcox is bad or even average. I would just like to see UW actually win something, be in the top 20 in anything, and have some consistency before saying coach X is great and should be the head coach. So far, Wilcox has shown incremental progress. YAY!!!RoadDawg55 said:DerekJohnson said:
Then the argument could be made that he didn't really leave much of an impact after leaving there.RoadDawg55 said: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.
Wilcox was there for one recruiting class, so I am not sure what kind of impact he could have left. Tennessee's defense got much worse without him. UW's got much better with him. He also did well at Boise State. All signs point to him being a pretty good coach. You can twist that if you want to be skeptical, but I don't really see the point. Below are some stats so you can see what kind of impact Wilcox had. Tennessee gave up 11 more points a game in 2012 without Wilcox vs 2011 with Wilcox.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/stats/byteam?cat1=defense&cat2=Total&sort=1137&conference=I-A_SEC&year=2012
Yeah, because going from the 10th ranked defense in the Pac 12 to the 3rd ranked is incremental progress. Shaving 10 points off per game isn't great progress either. Did you expect Wilcox to take these shitty players and dominate? Have you seen our DL? Did you realize our LB's last year were two freshmen and a sophomore who was absolutely, fucking terrible (Timu) as a freshman? I agree that there is still work to be done, but Wilcox has proven himself at three different stops to be a very good defensive coordinator. Like I said, the early returns have been about as good as one could expect.
I've been burned before. I'm waiting for something better than 31st, having the defense not get off the bus three times a year, and not be able to shut down a crappy team in the fourth quarter of a rivalry game. yes, there has been progress. Now Doog on.
I fully understand being cautious about praising Wilcox too much, but I don't think it is dooging to admit he has been really good so far and has an impressive resume. Hopefully, we continue to make progress.
1) All the alleged Sarkisian progress was from the baseline of 0-12, which would not have possible to achieve without Ronnie Fouch at the helm. Sark never coached a game with Fouch as his QB. Say what you want about Jake's true position, but he was worth at least 4 wins over Fouch. The massive improvement was an illusion created by Jake's injury, and many were there to point that out before it even happened. Wilcox didn't add one player who completely turned the defense around from the year before. That's not even possible to do on the defensive side of the ball. The importance of QB is unlike anything else in the game.
2) Point differential is the best predictor of record (even better than W-L), and Sark's point differential in year 2 was -97. That team was worse than his first team, and was clearly moving in the wrong direction. Again, many were pointing this out at the time. Wilcox's stats support that there was real improvement, not just perceived improvement.
3) Sark didn't have a track record of success. Wilcox does.
I'm all for being skeptical, but when a guy has demonstrated that he's good at what he does, then comes in and he's good at what he does here, I think it's fair to conclude he knows what he's doing.
None of those things apply to Sark.
