Larry Stone must lurk here

dnc said:

Hi Larry!

I've been a big fan of your baseball writing for years. Unlike most of your local peers, you are informed and thoughtful. You are open to the use of new metrics and seek to report the truth, not just the popular opinion.

I would encourage you to truly reexamine "just how low the program had fallen under Tyrone Willingham." You might be surprised by what you find. Here's a few things to consider:

First, that team certainly wouldn't have gone 0-12 if not for the injury to Jake Locker. Yes, Jake was flawed, but his running and enthusiasm brought real value. His replacement, Ronnie Fouch, brought nothing to the table. NOTHING. The Indianapolis Colts fell apart when Manning went down a couple seasons ago and they had to trot out the worst backup QB's in the league, but they magically bounced back when they drafted Andrew Luck. UW was similar - they were a lock for 3 or 4 wins at an absolute minimum in 2009 with a healthy Locker. Perhaps you can give Sark a little credit for keeping Jake healthy, but anyone who's watched our offensive line "protect" the passer in the Sarkisian era can tell you the difference in Jake's health between 08 and 09 was much more about randomness than it was about coaching.

Next, setting QB aside, how many future NFL players were on the roster Sark inherited? There were probably a lot more than you think. Chris Polk, Mason Foster, Donald Butler, Alameda Ta'amu, Daniel Teo-Nesheim, Jermaine Kearse, Senio Kelemete, Everette Thompson are in the league right now along with Locker - that's nine inherited pros. And there are others like Jonathan Amosa who have had a cup of coffee or at least made a practice squad. The point is, despite the lack of player development under Ty and the often spotty recruiting, there was still plenty of talent around for the new coach to work with. There's a reason Coach Sark was able to win 5 games in his first year and be extremely close in three others, and, as evidenced by the last four seasons, it's not because Sark is a miracle worker. That was not an 0-12 team, talent wise. Yes, Sark infused some confidence and enthusiasm, but don't you think a big chunk of that was simply due to the removal of Ty, no matter who the replacement was? Check out what's going on in Troy since they let Lane Kiffin go. I don't for a second think that Ed Orgeron suddenly became a great head coach. That team has surged because the coach they hated isn't there anymore. 2009 Washington was much the same.

Contrast all that talent Sark inherited, with say, Stanford when Jim Harbaugh arrived for the 2007 season. That was a program that truly had cratered, and a program that has far less historical advantages than UW does. But they hired a great coach, and he was able to turn them around, and quickly. He didn't make a quick surge and then plateau like Sark has done, he made consistent, steady progress, and by his fourth season they were 11-1, won a BCS bowl and finished #4 in the nation. Its year 5 for Sark who inherited, in my opinion, a far superior team. He isn't anywhere close to that type of success this year, and he's given us no real reason to think he will be next year either outside of blind hope. Hope, as you know Mr. Stone, is not a strategy.

One of those vocal posters who are out for blood went back and did the research and here's what he found - in nearly 100% of cases, a head coach who did not win 11 games or go to a BCS bowl in his first four years never went to a BCS bowl or won 11 games. Sark has had five years and failed to be within 3 games of either. Three conference wins is a mountain, and it would be foolish to expect Steve Sarkisian to scale that mountain anytime soon. Perhaps if we kept him long enough he would have a perfect storm season and win the conference ala Willingham at Stanford, but he will never be a coach who consistently challenges for the top of the conference.

I would argue that three years is enough to evaluate a coach, but four years is certainly enough. Five years is more than enough. As you can see here, without even addressing his inability to instill discipline or prevent penalties, without mentioning his annually horrific special teams, without discussing his dreadful in state recruiting, we have been able to establish that we know what Steve Sarkisian is, and what he is not. He is not a championship coach. Not because of Tyrone's inadequacies, but because of his own. Washington should aspire to have a coach who at least gives them a chance at a championship any given season. Sark is not, nor will he ever be that guy.

Fire Sark. Every season you wait is another wasted season.

dnc said:

Hi Larry!

I've been a big fan of your baseball writing for years. Unlike most of your local peers, you are informed and thoughtful. You are open to the use of new metrics and seek to report the truth, not just the popular opinion.

I would encourage you to truly reexamine "just how low the program had fallen under Tyrone Willingham." You might be surprised by what you find. Here's a few things to consider:

First, that team certainly wouldn't have gone 0-12 if not for the injury to Jake Locker. Yes, Jake was flawed, but his running and enthusiasm brought real value. His replacement, Ronnie Fouch, brought nothing to the table. NOTHING. The Indianapolis Colts fell apart when Manning went down a couple seasons ago and they had to trot out the worst backup QB's in the league, but they magically bounced back when they drafted Andrew Luck. UW was similar - they were a lock for 3 or 4 wins at an absolute minimum in 2009 with a healthy Locker. Perhaps you can give Sark a little credit for keeping Jake healthy, but anyone who's watched our offensive line "protect" the passer in the Sarkisian era can tell you the difference in Jake's health between 08 and 09 was much more about randomness than it was about coaching.

Next, setting QB aside, how many future NFL players were on the roster Sark inherited? Probably more than you might think. Chris Polk, Mason Foster, Donald Butler, Alameda Ta'amu, Daniel Teo-Nesheim, Jermaine Kearse, Senio Kelemete, and Everette Thompson are in the league right now along with Locker - that's nine inherited pros. And there are others like Jonathan Amosa who have had a cup of coffee or at least made a practice squad. The point is, despite the lack of player development under Ty and the often spotty recruiting, there was still plenty of talent around for the new coach to work with. There's a reason Coach Sark was able to win 5 games in his first year and be extremely close in three others, and, as evidenced by the last four seasons, it's not because Sark is a miracle worker. That was not an 0-12 team, talent wise. Yes, Sark infused some confidence and enthusiasm, but don't you think a big chunk of that was simply due to the removal of Ty, no matter who the replacement was? Check out what's going on in Troy since they let Lane Kiffin go. I don't for a second think that Ed Orgeron suddenly became a great head coach. That team has surged because the coach they hated isn't there anymore. 2009 Washington was much the same.

Contrast all that talent Sark inherited, with say, Stanford when Jim Harbaugh arrived for the 2007 season. That was a program that truly had cratered, and a program that has far less historical advantages than UW does. But they hired a great coach, and he was able to turn them around, and quickly. He didn't make a quick surge and then plateau like Sark has done, he made consistent, steady progress, and by his fourth season they were 11-1, won a BCS bowl and finished #4 in the nation. Its year 5 for Sark who inherited, in my opinion, a far superior team. He isn't anywhere close to that type of success this year, and he's given us no real reason to think he will be next year either outside of blind hope. Hope, as you know Mr. Stone, is not a strategy.

One of those vocal posters who are out for blood went back and did the research and here's what he found - in nearly 100% of cases, a head coach who did not win 11 games or go to a BCS bowl in his first four years never went to a BCS bowl or won 11 games. Sark has had five years and failed to be within 3 games of either. Three conference wins is a mountain, and it would be foolish to expect Steve Sarkisian to scale that mountain anytime soon. Perhaps if we kept him long enough he would have a perfect storm season and win the conference ala Willingham at Stanford, but he will never be a coach who consistently challenges for the top of the conference.

I would argue that three years is enough to evaluate a coach, but four years is certainly enough. Five years is more than enough. As you can see here, without even addressing his inability to instill discipline or prevent penalties, without mentioning his annually horrific special teams, without discussing his dreadful in state recruiting, we have been able to establish that we know what Steve Sarkisian is, and what he is not. He is not a championship coach. Not because of Tyrone's inadequacies, but because of his own. Washington should aspire to have a coach who at least gives them a chance at a championship any given season. Sark is not, nor will he ever be that guy.

Fire Sark. Every season you wait is another wasted season.