Stew on this my fellow fucktards
Jim Mora, UCLA $2.0 million
Steve Sarkisian, Washington $2.7 million
Pleased to be explaining to me why we're paying Sark so much money?
Comments
-
Because he gave a great interview?
-
this post wouldn't last 53 seconds on Dawgman before being deleted
-
Because thats how much we had to pay to get someone to coach this 0-12 team and worst program in the NCAA with nothing going for it, no talent, no resources.
Sheesh! You think everything is free? -
if you are just going to look back instead of forward, then you're going to be gone!!
-
You act like 7-6 > 7-6 > 7-6 > 7-6 never happened
-
I saw him throw fish at Pike Place with LoRo one time......that's free pub you can't put a price on.
-
Sark is running a program the right way. Building for the long term. Comportment AND seven win seasons. High fives everybody!
-
Can Mora hit the crossbar? I didn't think so.
-
just wait for the Mora meltdown. the $.7M less he earns will make sense at that point.
-
Sounds like he has a CONTRACT.
-
I wish we would have gotten Mora in 2007, but I'm not sure if he is as great as some of you think he is. His team lost 3 in a row to end the year and the defense (his specialty) sucked. His defenses with the Seahawks sucked as well, both when he was the head coach and when he was DB coach (his group was the worst on the team).
Could UCLA have gone 9-5 with Rick? I think it would have been possible. Hundley was the real reason for improvement. Prince and Brehaut were arguably the worst QB's in the conference and played a key role on getting Rick fired.
I'm not a cunt like Kim saying wait for Mora to implode, but the Mora dick sucking on here is a little strange. He really hasn't done shit yet.
-
-
Someone sounds bitter and clearly has an agenda. Take it out of the middle of the store or your gone!DerekJohnson said:Salary
Jim Mora, UCLA $2.0 million
Steve Sarkisian, Washington $2.7 million
Pleased to be explaining to me why we're paying Sark so much money?
Just a fucktarded guess, maybe Sark is smarter than Woodard and won the salary negotiation? Another fucktarded guess, maybe Mora's performance at Seattle and his unemployed status hurt his negotiating position and he had to "settle" for a mere 2 million a year? Yet another fucktarded guess, maybe UW is more of a "football school" than UCLA and willing to pay more for ANY head football coach? Let it play out. A year from now Sark may be on the unemployment line and Mora at the center of a bidding war
] ... -
Easy question. Cream Puff calls his own plays, has better dance routines, mo betta music in practices PLUS he howls and barks at recruits front door. For a 700K delta, a deal.
-
Hand gesture to the mouth? Jim, inappropriate.Southerndawg said:
-
PressingDeepSeaZ said:Hand gesture to the mouth? Jim, inappropriate.
Southerndawg said: -
UCLA was 9-3 with an easier than average schedule by pac-10 standards. Mora is recruiting very well. I'm not sure Rick would have had them at 9-3...maybe 8-4 at best.RoadDawg55 said:I wish we would have gotten Mora in 2007, but I'm not sure if he is as great as some of you think he is. His team lost 3 in a row to end the year and the defense (his specialty) sucked. His defenses with the Seahawks sucked as well, both when he was the head coach and when he was DB coach (his group was the worst on the team).
Could UCLA have gone 9-5 with Rick? I think it would have been possible. Hundley was the real reason for improvement. Prince and Brehaut were arguably the worst QB's in the conference and played a key role on getting Rick fired.
I'm not a cunt like Kim saying wait for Mora to implode, but the Mora dick sucking on here is a little strange. He really hasn't done shit yet.
UCLA actually lost a fair amount of talent and they do have to play Nebraska, USC, Oregon, Stanford and Arizona on the road with UW and ASU as their toughest games at home. If they went 9-3 that would be a great job by Mora where 8-4 would probably be my guess.
UCLA's easy schedule last year inflated Mora slightly but he still would have been an awesome hire for us. -
Mora has been recruiting very well, but for the most part UCLA has always recruited well.ACSlaterDawg said:
UCLA was 9-3 with an easier than average schedule by pac-10 standards. Mora is recruiting very well. I'm not sure Rick would have had them at 9-3...maybe 8-4 at best.RoadDawg55 said:I wish we would have gotten Mora in 2007, but I'm not sure if he is as great as some of you think he is. His team lost 3 in a row to end the year and the defense (his specialty) sucked. His defenses with the Seahawks sucked as well, both when he was the head coach and when he was DB coach (his group was the worst on the team).
Could UCLA have gone 9-5 with Rick? I think it would have been possible. Hundley was the real reason for improvement. Prince and Brehaut were arguably the worst QB's in the conference and played a key role on getting Rick fired.
I'm not a cunt like Kim saying wait for Mora to implode, but the Mora dick sucking on here is a little strange. He really hasn't done shit yet.
UCLA actually lost a fair amount of talent and they do have to play Nebraska, USC, Oregon, Stanford and Arizona on the road with UW and ASU as their toughest games at home. If they went 9-3 that would be a great job by Mora where 8-4 would probably be my guess.
UCLA's easy schedule last year inflated Mora slightly but he still would have been an awesome hire for us.
Now that I look at their schedule, I don't see them having that great of a year. Their defense is going to get shredded in those road games. Hundley and the offense is going to need to out up some big numbers to win some of those games.
Mora could very well be a big time coach like Petey. He could also be Al Groh or Dave Wandstett. -
Well it sounds like you have your bases covered regardless of outcome.RoadDawg55 said:
Mora has been recruiting very well, but for the most part UCLA has always recruited well.ACSlaterDawg said:
UCLA was 9-3 with an easier than average schedule by pac-10 standards. Mora is recruiting very well. I'm not sure Rick would have had them at 9-3...maybe 8-4 at best.RoadDawg55 said:I wish we would have gotten Mora in 2007, but I'm not sure if he is as great as some of you think he is. His team lost 3 in a row to end the year and the defense (his specialty) sucked. His defenses with the Seahawks sucked as well, both when he was the head coach and when he was DB coach (his group was the worst on the team).
Could UCLA have gone 9-5 with Rick? I think it would have been possible. Hundley was the real reason for improvement. Prince and Brehaut were arguably the worst QB's in the conference and played a key role on getting Rick fired.
I'm not a cunt like Kim saying wait for Mora to implode, but the Mora dick sucking on here is a little strange. He really hasn't done shit yet.
UCLA actually lost a fair amount of talent and they do have to play Nebraska, USC, Oregon, Stanford and Arizona on the road with UW and ASU as their toughest games at home. If they went 9-3 that would be a great job by Mora where 8-4 would probably be my guess.
UCLA's easy schedule last year inflated Mora slightly but he still would have been an awesome hire for us.
Now that I look at their schedule, I don't see them having that great of a year. Their defense is going to get shredded in those road games. Hundley and the offense is going to need to out up some big numbers to win some of those games.
Mora could very well be a big time coach like Petey. He could also be Al Groh or Dave Wandstett. -
Roaddawg55, I am very impressed with your insight and your ability structure sound opinions. You are a welcome addition to the discussions on this board.
Keep it up, we need more posters like yourself. -
Classy poastjecornel said:Roaddawg55, I am very impressed with your insight and your ability structure sound opinions. You are a welcome addition to the discussions on this board.
Keep it up, we need more posters like yourself. -
RoadDawg has always been one of my favoritesDerekJohnson said:
Classy poastjecornel said:Roaddawg55, I am very impressed with your insight and your ability structure sound opinions. You are a welcome addition to the discussions on this board.
Keep it up, we need more posters like yourself. -
Classyjecornel said:Roaddawg55, I am very impressed with your insight and your ability structure sound opinions. You are a welcome addition to the discussions on this board.
Keep it up, we need more posters like yourself. -
In other words, Carroll is his ceiling, Sark is his floor.RoadDawg55 said:
Mora has been recruiting very well, but for the most part UCLA has always recruited well.ACSlaterDawg said:
UCLA was 9-3 with an easier than average schedule by pac-10 standards. Mora is recruiting very well. I'm not sure Rick would have had them at 9-3...maybe 8-4 at best.RoadDawg55 said:I wish we would have gotten Mora in 2007, but I'm not sure if he is as great as some of you think he is. His team lost 3 in a row to end the year and the defense (his specialty) sucked. His defenses with the Seahawks sucked as well, both when he was the head coach and when he was DB coach (his group was the worst on the team).
Could UCLA have gone 9-5 with Rick? I think it would have been possible. Hundley was the real reason for improvement. Prince and Brehaut were arguably the worst QB's in the conference and played a key role on getting Rick fired.
I'm not a cunt like Kim saying wait for Mora to implode, but the Mora dick sucking on here is a little strange. He really hasn't done shit yet.
UCLA actually lost a fair amount of talent and they do have to play Nebraska, USC, Oregon, Stanford and Arizona on the road with UW and ASU as their toughest games at home. If they went 9-3 that would be a great job by Mora where 8-4 would probably be my guess.
UCLA's easy schedule last year inflated Mora slightly but he still would have been an awesome hire for us.
Now that I look at their schedule, I don't see them having that great of a year. Their defense is going to get shredded in those road games. Hundley and the offense is going to need to out up some big numbers to win some of those games.
Mora could very well be a big time coach like Petey. He could also be Al Groh or Dave Wandstett.
As opposed to Sark, who's basically Dave Wandstett without the killer stache.
-
I'll put it this way. If I had to bet, he will be closer to Wandstett than Carroll. I don't see him leading UCLA to elite status. I think he is an above average to good coach, but I just don't see him becoming a great coach.DerekJohnson said:
Well it sounds like you have your bases covered regardless of outcome.RoadDawg55 said:
Mora has been recruiting very well, but for the most part UCLA has always recruited well.ACSlaterDawg said:
UCLA was 9-3 with an easier than average schedule by pac-10 standards. Mora is recruiting very well. I'm not sure Rick would have had them at 9-3...maybe 8-4 at best.RoadDawg55 said:I wish we would have gotten Mora in 2007, but I'm not sure if he is as great as some of you think he is. His team lost 3 in a row to end the year and the defense (his specialty) sucked. His defenses with the Seahawks sucked as well, both when he was the head coach and when he was DB coach (his group was the worst on the team).
Could UCLA have gone 9-5 with Rick? I think it would have been possible. Hundley was the real reason for improvement. Prince and Brehaut were arguably the worst QB's in the conference and played a key role on getting Rick fired.
I'm not a cunt like Kim saying wait for Mora to implode, but the Mora dick sucking on here is a little strange. He really hasn't done shit yet.
UCLA actually lost a fair amount of talent and they do have to play Nebraska, USC, Oregon, Stanford and Arizona on the road with UW and ASU as their toughest games at home. If they went 9-3 that would be a great job by Mora where 8-4 would probably be my guess.
UCLA's easy schedule last year inflated Mora slightly but he still would have been an awesome hire for us.
Now that I look at their schedule, I don't see them having that great of a year. Their defense is going to get shredded in those road games. Hundley and the offense is going to need to out up some big numbers to win some of those games.
Mora could very well be a big time coach like Petey. He could also be Al Groh or Dave Wandstett.
He actually has a little in common with Sark. Mora is known for his defensive acumen, but he has commonly had defenses that suck. Sark is known as a good offense guy, yet has constantly fielded offenses that suck. The only time they thrived is when they had elite talent (Sark at USC, Mora in SF), and even then, they did worse than their predecessors.
What is it that makes you think Mora is so great?
-
For me, I think it started with a 90-minute conversation I had with Hugh Millen back in 2007, where Hugh told me a lot of stories and data and said that he thought Mora would be the "perfect college football coach." His defenses in San Francisco were outstanding, he took ATL to the NFC title game, he's very intelligent, and he has that great charisma. As I have watched and followed Mora ever since, everything I see in him strikes me as a being a younger Pete Carroll-type. Like the judge who was asked how he knew something was pornography, he said "I know it when I see it." Most or all HHBs share this view of Mora. You just see it. And last year justified our viewpoint, much to the chagrin of Dawgman.com and doogs.RoadDawg55 said:
I'll put it this way. If I had to bet, he will be closer to Wandstett than Carroll. I don't see him leading UCLA to elite status. I think he is an above average to good coach, but I just don't see him becoming a great coach.DerekJohnson said:
Well it sounds like you have your bases covered regardless of outcome.RoadDawg55 said:
Mora has been recruiting very well, but for the most part UCLA has always recruited well.ACSlaterDawg said:
UCLA was 9-3 with an easier than average schedule by pac-10 standards. Mora is recruiting very well. I'm not sure Rick would have had them at 9-3...maybe 8-4 at best.RoadDawg55 said:I wish we would have gotten Mora in 2007, but I'm not sure if he is as great as some of you think he is. His team lost 3 in a row to end the year and the defense (his specialty) sucked. His defenses with the Seahawks sucked as well, both when he was the head coach and when he was DB coach (his group was the worst on the team).
Could UCLA have gone 9-5 with Rick? I think it would have been possible. Hundley was the real reason for improvement. Prince and Brehaut were arguably the worst QB's in the conference and played a key role on getting Rick fired.
I'm not a cunt like Kim saying wait for Mora to implode, but the Mora dick sucking on here is a little strange. He really hasn't done shit yet.
UCLA actually lost a fair amount of talent and they do have to play Nebraska, USC, Oregon, Stanford and Arizona on the road with UW and ASU as their toughest games at home. If they went 9-3 that would be a great job by Mora where 8-4 would probably be my guess.
UCLA's easy schedule last year inflated Mora slightly but he still would have been an awesome hire for us.
Now that I look at their schedule, I don't see them having that great of a year. Their defense is going to get shredded in those road games. Hundley and the offense is going to need to out up some big numbers to win some of those games.
Mora could very well be a big time coach like Petey. He could also be Al Groh or Dave Wandstett.
He actually has a little in common with Sark. Mora is known for his defensive acumen, but he has commonly had defenses that suck. Sark is known as a good offense guy, yet has constantly fielded offenses that suck. The only time they thrived is when they had elite talent (Sark at USC, Mora in SF), and even then, they did worse than their predecessors.
What is it that makes you think Mora is so great?
-
Mora passed your eye test?DerekJohnson said:
For me, I think it started with a 90-minute conversation I had with Hugh Millen back in 2007, where Hugh told me a lot of stories and data and said that he thought Mora would be the "perfect college football coach." His defenses in San Francisco were outstanding, he took ATL to the NFC title game, he's very intelligent, and he has that great charisma. As I have watched and followed Mora ever since, everything I see in him strikes me as a being a younger Pete Carroll-type. Like the judge who was asked how he knew something was pornography, he said "I know it when I see it." Most or all HHBs share this view of Mora. You just see it. And last year justified our viewpoint, much to the chagrin of Dawgman.com and doogs.RoadDawg55 said:
I'll put it this way. If I had to bet, he will be closer to Wandstett than Carroll. I don't see him leading UCLA to elite status. I think he is an above average to good coach, but I just don't see him becoming a great coach.DerekJohnson said:
Well it sounds like you have your bases covered regardless of outcome.RoadDawg55 said:
Mora has been recruiting very well, but for the most part UCLA has always recruited well.ACSlaterDawg said:
UCLA was 9-3 with an easier than average schedule by pac-10 standards. Mora is recruiting very well. I'm not sure Rick would have had them at 9-3...maybe 8-4 at best.RoadDawg55 said:I wish we would have gotten Mora in 2007, but I'm not sure if he is as great as some of you think he is. His team lost 3 in a row to end the year and the defense (his specialty) sucked. His defenses with the Seahawks sucked as well, both when he was the head coach and when he was DB coach (his group was the worst on the team).
Could UCLA have gone 9-5 with Rick? I think it would have been possible. Hundley was the real reason for improvement. Prince and Brehaut were arguably the worst QB's in the conference and played a key role on getting Rick fired.
I'm not a cunt like Kim saying wait for Mora to implode, but the Mora dick sucking on here is a little strange. He really hasn't done shit yet.
UCLA actually lost a fair amount of talent and they do have to play Nebraska, USC, Oregon, Stanford and Arizona on the road with UW and ASU as their toughest games at home. If they went 9-3 that would be a great job by Mora where 8-4 would probably be my guess.
UCLA's easy schedule last year inflated Mora slightly but he still would have been an awesome hire for us.
Now that I look at their schedule, I don't see them having that great of a year. Their defense is going to get shredded in those road games. Hundley and the offense is going to need to out up some big numbers to win some of those games.
Mora could very well be a big time coach like Petey. He could also be Al Groh or Dave Wandstett.
He actually has a little in common with Sark. Mora is known for his defensive acumen, but he has commonly had defenses that suck. Sark is known as a good offense guy, yet has constantly fielded offenses that suck. The only time they thrived is when they had elite talent (Sark at USC, Mora in SF), and even then, they did worse than their predecessors.
What is it that makes you think Mora is so great?
-
My rebuttal would be, who did UCLA beat? Their best win was against Nebraska who really was not anything special. Nebraska had a terrible defense. Their win at Arizona State was gritty, but ASU isn't anything special either. UW had a better "best win" than UCLA did.
It was a pretty good season for Mora and UCLA, but there were some pretty big blemishes. A blowout loss to Cal, a blowout to Baylor in the bowl game. Not to mention, the Pac 12 South was terrible last year.
It's also hard to ignore how bad some of his defenses have played for a defensive guy. I don't think he is as bad as the dawgman guys say, but I don't think he is as good as you guys think (at least he hasn't proven it yet).
-
I know you're not comparing him to Sark per se, but since I hear a lot of people talk about how weak the South was, lets compare their results looking at common opponents:RoadDawg55 said:My rebuttal would be, who did UCLA beat? Their best win was against Nebraska who really was not anything special. Nebraska had a terrible defense. Their win at Arizona State was gritty, but ASU isn't anything special either. UW had a better "best win" than UCLA did.
It was a pretty good season for Mora and UCLA, but there were some pretty big blemishes. A blowout loss to Cal, a blowout to Baylor in the bowl game. Not to mention, the Pac 12 South was terrible last year.
It's also hard to ignore how bad some of his defenses have played for a defensive guy. I don't think he is as bad as the dawgman guys say, but I don't think he is as good as you guys think (at least he hasn't proven it yet).
Stanford: Sark +1 win, +21 points
USC: Mora +1 win, +20 points
Arizona: Mora +1 win, +91 points (!)
Oregon State: Sark +1 win, +10 points
Cal: Sark +1 win, +34 points
Utah: Both won, Sark +12 points
CU: Both won, Sark +7 points
WSU: Mora +1 win, +11 points
So looking at common opponents they both went 5-3. Mora comes out with a 40 points advantage, or an average of 5 points of differential better per game.
The point differentials are my biggest complaint with Sark (even bigger than 7-6, 7-6, 7-6, etc). It's not that he's a good coach who can't quite finish. He's actually been LUCKY to have the record he does. That does not bode well at all.
If you put their 5 seasons of CFB together, Mora's one season of defense would rank at #3 of the 5 in points per game, which doesn't tell us much. Mora's one season of offense, OTOH, would rank at #1 of the 5 in points per game. That does tell us something, IMO. Mora's already had a better offensive season than any alleged offensive genius Steve Sarkisian has. Scary stuff.
-
HHBs are experts at porn too
