Sarkisian: 2012 Huskies couldn't overcome the youth factor
Comments
-
I never said to count it as a 9-4 season. I am saying that we were a couple of mistakes away from being 9-4. So either you trust in Sark to fix the mistakes, or you don't. I am just as sickened by all the stupid losses as everyone else, it makes me physically sick to my stomach. I just believe the mistakes will be fixed, and the overall program is on the rise. I expect 9 or 10 wins this season, otherwise I would start looking for a new coach.
-
And I don't know if we would have beat Stanford with Hogan or not. To me that is irrelevant. We beat them with the QB that they chose to start. And Mannion for OSU was their starter the year before when we lost to them if I'm not mistaken.
Would we have lost to WSU and BSU if we had our full starting O Line? Who knows? But it doesn't matter because we lost. -
If people are going to say "we would have been 9-4 if not for 2 missed field goals", you also have to take into account wins where the ball takes a 1 in a million bounce off the foot of a receiver a millimeter from the ground and UW scores a TD for the win.
You look at overall patterns. The WSU game last year shouldn't have even came close to a field goal for the win. That was a 20+ win that went vanished because the team let it vanish. Last year's Arizona blowout, the Oregon blowouts, LSU's Dline taunting the UW Oline, "House Money", Baylor Bowl, Boise State Bowl...these are patterns.
My metaphor is golf. If you look at a few rounds overtime, the kind of golfer you are will be apparent. Bouncing one off a tree that lands a foot from the cup for a birdie doesn't make you a good golfer. Taking a quadruple boogie doesn't make you a bad golfer. Averaging 1 or 2 strokes over par makes you an average golfer. Sark and his team is average based on the last 51 games.
-
I'm not sure that you have a clear understanding of what you're trying to say. And I don't mean that as an insult. In any event, welcome to the boreds and I hope you enjoy it here.NorthLakeDub said:And I don't know if we would have beat Stanford with Hogan or not. To me that is irrelevant. We beat them with the QB that they chose to start. And Mannion for OSU was their starter the year before when we lost to them if I'm not mistaken.
Would we have lost to WSU and BSU if we had our full starting O Line? Who knows? But it doesn't matter because we lost. -
Mike, I see what you are saying about the overall patterns. There have been some disturbing patterns in the Sark era. I would say the most obvious one being the porous defense, which he addressed by remaking the D staff. And the entire program from Sark on down has acknowledged the fact that hurry up spread offenses have killed us, and they are focusing a great amount of effort into addressing that.
As far as the silly statements like "playing with house money" and other in game coaching mistakes, I would attribute that to being a young, inexperienced coach. He is still evolving and growing as a coach. I think 98% of the time, Sark has the right mentality, and says the right thing.
Sark has already shown his ability to run a potent offense. I think the 2012 offense was an aberration because of all the O line injuries. The 2013 offense will return to a high level with 5th year senior Keith Price having a season more like 2011.
Yes, Sark and his team have been average "golfers" so far, I like your metaphor btw. But if you are an average golfer that has the ability to hit the great shots, all you have to do is cut out the bad shots, and you will become good. As opposed to an average golfer who doesn't have the ability to hit great shots ever, he is just average and will always be average. I think Sark and this team fall into the first category.
-
I guess from my standpoint, he looks more like the guy that will always be average. The fact that he is still "young and learning" after 51 games leads me to believe what you see is what you get.NorthLakeDub said:Mike, I see what you are saying about the overall patterns. There have been some disturbing patterns in the Sark era. I would say the most obvious one being the porous defense, which he addressed by remaking the D staff. And the entire program from Sark on down has acknowledged the fact that hurry up spread offenses have killed us, and they are focusing a great amount of effort into addressing that.
As far as the silly statements like "playing with house money" and other in game coaching mistakes, I would attribute that to being a young, inexperienced coach. He is still evolving and growing as a coach. I think 98% of the time, Sark has the right mentality, and says the right thing.
Sark has already shown his ability to run a potent offense. I think the 2012 offense was an aberration because of all the O line injuries. The 2013 offense will return to a high level with 5th year senior Keith Price having a season more like 2011.
Yes, Sark and his team have been average "golfers" so far, I like your metaphor btw. But if you are an average golfer that has the ability to hit the great shots, all you have to do is cut out the bad shots, and you will become good. As opposed to an average golfer who doesn't have the ability to hit great shots ever, he is just average and will always be average. I think Sark and this team fall into the first category. -
Sark hasnt shown any ability to run a potent offense. He was an OC at USC for only 2 years. Anyone could have that job and be okay. He never had to build shit. AND, in his 4 years, the 2011 offense is the outlier. The offense sucked the other three years and in 2011 if you exclude the extremely high red zone output, it was basically an average offense.Furthermore, there is no trend or consistency to the offense in his 4 years.
And cut the 9-4 shit. We were in the bottom 5 (out of 12 teams) in almost every statistic except for pass defense. The metrics had us ranked around 40th. We didn't outscore our opponents. Who goes 9-4 and cant even outscore its opponents?
Its actually good we didn't go 9-4 bc it would have given the fanbase the false impression that we were turning the corner.
There are two reasons to be optimistic going forward- new stadium and a very strong defensive staff. Sark is the weak link in the program and he inherited a 4-5 win team (not a 0 win team) and should be credited for the quick recovery. Since that he's stagnated and is lucky he has a new stadium and strong D staff that my save his job for another year or two.
Young fans (which I'm guessing you are), cannot look at Sark objectively because the memories, their basis of comparison are only the past 10 years. 7-8 wins doesn't mean shit. Its whether Sark can be a championship coach or not and so far he's shown nothing to think he can be that coach. This school has the history, fanbase, location and now facilities to attract big-time coaches who can win championships. Either Sark can get it done the next two years or he can take his healthy paycheck and GTFO. A handful of better coaches would line up at the chance to coach at UW. This is about UW Football, not Sark. -
This is what I am trying to say. Sark is the one. He is the next Dawgfather. He is a great leader and he knows what he is doing. That is my opinion. If I am wrong and we only win 8 games next year, then I will say fire him. I say we will win 10 games next year. After that, the next great Husky QB will be Troy Williams, he will take us to Rose Bowls and a NC.
-
We've been whooooshed
-
-
That's what I'm thinking.RaceBannon said:We've been whooooshed
-
I know you are whoosing everyone, but I would think the exact same of the program, even if we went 9-4. By the end of the Apple Cup, I really didn't give a shit that we lost. It was more the way we played. We were making the Cougs' Samoan DT look like Warren Sapp in his prime. I watched 3 or 4 other Coug games and never noticed the guy one time when I did.NorthLakeDub said:
So if they had been 9-4 last season like they should have been, then would you say the program is in good condition? A couple of stupid fluke losses away from being 9-4 and the program is hopeless? Yes those losses were an embarrassment and inexcusable mistakes. But that does not define where the program is currently at.
The program rose to respectability the last 4 years, and now with the new Husky Stadium and facilities upgrades, we can finally "take the next step" (I know you all love that quote from last season haha) to elite status.
We fell behind in the facilities race for far too long. Not even Nick Saban could win the Pac 12 with a piece of shit stadium with a fucking track around the field, and a decade of miserable losing seasons.
There's no excuse for getting blown out in year 4 like we did. We were arguably LSU's easiest win all season. Towson played them tougher than we did! Arizona beat us 52-17! How can you ignore that shit?
Did you see the game against Cal? How about Colorado? We looked like a team that was close to contending in those games? The program sucks and there is more than enough evidence that Sark is no better than average. I guess the program isn't hopeless in the sense we are better than we were under Ty, but we are hopeless to thinking we can contend for conference championships. It's not going to happen under Sark. I will gladly eat my words if we go 9-3 this year, but I know that is never going to happen.
-
Let's rollMikeDamone said: -
Everyone here wants Sark to be the one but its not promising. Sure, there is a healthy amount of talent on paper but the problem is two-fold: weakness on the lines and sloppy/inconsistent play. Those two areas are critical and more important than talent. You may not recall the 2002/2003 squads but they were very strong on paper and projected to be top 15 teams. Both had problems on the OL and DL and were hugely inconsistent and overall disappointing.NorthLakeDub said:This is what I am trying to say. Sark is the one. He is the next Dawgfather. He is a great leader and he knows what he is doing. That is my opinion. If I am wrong and we only win 8 games next year, then I will say fire him. I say we will win 10 games next year. After that, the next great Husky QB will be Troy Williams, he will take us to Rose Bowls and a NC.
Dude, have you seen our DL? If Danny Shelton gets hurt the DL could be worse shape than the OL from early last season.
Oregon and Stanford will be losses while we'll likely lose 2/3 to UCLA, ASU and OSU. Thats 4 losses right there before even playing Boise, Cal and Arizona. Best scenario is we beat OSU (its a good matchup) and upset one of the other 4 and go 9-3.
I commend you for having high expectations, if that's really the case and I agree on Troy Williams. He is going to be damn good. -
That sort of feels like a low tweak.RaceBannon said:
Let's rollMikeDamone said:
-
I'm not familiar with this term. What does it mean?RaceBannon said:We've been whooooshed
-
Hi Harv?NorthLakeDub said:
I'm not familiar with this term. What does it mean?RaceBannon said:We've been whooooshed
-
Disagree.NorthLakeDub said:
So if they had been 9-4 last season like they should have been, then would you say the program is in good condition? A couple of stupid fluke losses away from being 9-4 and the program is hopeless? Yes those losses were an embarrassment and inexcusable mistakes. But that does not define where the program is currently at.
The program rose to respectability the last 4 years, and now with the new Husky Stadium and facilities upgrades, we can finally "take the next step" (I know you all love that quote from last season haha) to elite status.
We fell behind in the facilities race for far too long. Not even Nick Saban could win the Pac 12 with a piece of shit stadium with a fucking track around the field, and a decade of miserable losing seasons. -
Great leader you say?NorthLakeDub said:This is what I am trying to say. Sark is the one. He is the next Dawgfather. He is a great leader and he knows what he is doing. That is my opinion. If I am wrong and we only win 8 games next year, then I will say fire him. I say we will win 10 games next year. After that, the next great Husky QB will be Troy Williams, he will take us to Rose Bowls and a NC.
-
I watch the games. That's all I need to see to know that Sark is not even close to building a winning team.NorthLakeDub said:
And after having a 12-1 season as BYU QB, and being a protege under Pete Carroll at USC, Sark knows absolutely nothing about how a winning team is built. He has never seen what a winning team looks like, has he?Steve_Bowman said:Nothing will change.
As a bench warmer in the SEC, I played very little, but I did see how winning teams are built. Cream Puff is not even close.Southerndawg said:Lack of preparedness, direction, attitude, toughness, player development and accountability. These are coaching problems. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see things changing until a new head coach takes over.
So I guess you must have some kind of privileged insider's perspective of the UW program and you see the daily ins and outs of the program that leads you to the conclusion that nothing will change and Sark is not even close to building a winning team?
HTH -
NorthLakeDub is a bit less obvious than QueenAnneCoog.HillsboroDuck said:
Hi Harv?NorthLakeDub said:
I'm not familiar with this term. What does it mean?RaceBannon said:We've been whooooshed
-
7-6>7-6>7-6. Hope THAT helps.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
I watch the games. That's all I need to see to know that Sark is not even close to building a winning team.NorthLakeDub said:
And after having a 12-1 season as BYU QB, and being a protege under Pete Carroll at USC, Sark knows absolutely nothing about how a winning team is built. He has never seen what a winning team looks like, has he?Steve_Bowman said:Nothing will change.
As a bench warmer in the SEC, I played very little, but I did see how winning teams are built. Cream Puff is not even close.Southerndawg said:Lack of preparedness, direction, attitude, toughness, player development and accountability. These are coaching problems. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see things changing until a new head coach takes over.
So I guess you must have some kind of privileged insider's perspective of the UW program and you see the daily ins and outs of the program that leads you to the conclusion that nothing will change and Sark is not even close to building a winning team?
HTH
-
You disagree on Saban?Swaye said:
Disagree.NorthLakeDub said:
So if they had been 9-4 last season like they should have been, then would you say the program is in good condition? A couple of stupid fluke losses away from being 9-4 and the program is hopeless? Yes those losses were an embarrassment and inexcusable mistakes. But that does not define where the program is currently at.
The program rose to respectability the last 4 years, and now with the new Husky Stadium and facilities upgrades, we can finally "take the next step" (I know you all love that quote from last season haha) to elite status.
We fell behind in the facilities race for far too long. Not even Nick Saban could win the Pac 12 with a piece of shit stadium with a fucking track around the field, and a decade of miserable losing seasons.
-
Well I guess you are a glass half empty and I am a glass half full point of view on the current state of the program. But my expectations are not any lower than yours. I expect championship level football, and that is where I think we will be.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
I watch the games. That's all I need to see to know that Sark is not even close to building a winning team.NorthLakeDub said:
And after having a 12-1 season as BYU QB, and being a protege under Pete Carroll at USC, Sark knows absolutely nothing about how a winning team is built. He has never seen what a winning team looks like, has he?Steve_Bowman said:Nothing will change.
As a bench warmer in the SEC, I played very little, but I did see how winning teams are built. Cream Puff is not even close.Southerndawg said:Lack of preparedness, direction, attitude, toughness, player development and accountability. These are coaching problems. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see things changing until a new head coach takes over.
So I guess you must have some kind of privileged insider's perspective of the UW program and you see the daily ins and outs of the program that leads you to the conclusion that nothing will change and Sark is not even close to building a winning team?
HTH -
If you guys think I am some old poster named Harv, I am not. I am new to this forum. I have read the articles posted in the past.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
NorthLakeDub is a bit less obvious than QueenAnneCoog.HillsboroDuck said:
Hi Harv?NorthLakeDub said:
I'm not familiar with this term. What does it mean?RaceBannon said:We've been whooooshed
-
And if we don't get to at least 9-4 in 2013 then its time to make some changes. But like I said before, I think we'll get 10 wins. We will win out at home this year, yes even beating the Ducks, finally!ACSlaterDawg said:
7-6>7-6>7-6. Hope THAT helps.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
I watch the games. That's all I need to see to know that Sark is not even close to building a winning team.NorthLakeDub said:
And after having a 12-1 season as BYU QB, and being a protege under Pete Carroll at USC, Sark knows absolutely nothing about how a winning team is built. He has never seen what a winning team looks like, has he?Steve_Bowman said:Nothing will change.
As a bench warmer in the SEC, I played very little, but I did see how winning teams are built. Cream Puff is not even close.Southerndawg said:Lack of preparedness, direction, attitude, toughness, player development and accountability. These are coaching problems. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see things changing until a new head coach takes over.
So I guess you must have some kind of privileged insider's perspective of the UW program and you see the daily ins and outs of the program that leads you to the conclusion that nothing will change and Sark is not even close to building a winning team?
HTH
-
Yes. I think Saban could win with two tracks around the field. Don James won big with a track around the field. Sure, facilities matter, but did you ever see the dump that Miami won all those NC's in? At the end of the day all you need is a solid AD and a great Coach, and Saban is a great college football Coach. He would win and win quickly here, no matter the stadium.NorthLakeDub said:
You disagree on Saban?Swaye said:
Disagree.NorthLakeDub said:
So if they had been 9-4 last season like they should have been, then would you say the program is in good condition? A couple of stupid fluke losses away from being 9-4 and the program is hopeless? Yes those losses were an embarrassment and inexcusable mistakes. But that does not define where the program is currently at.
The program rose to respectability the last 4 years, and now with the new Husky Stadium and facilities upgrades, we can finally "take the next step" (I know you all love that quote from last season haha) to elite status.
We fell behind in the facilities race for far too long. Not even Nick Saban could win the Pac 12 with a piece of shit stadium with a fucking track around the field, and a decade of miserable losing seasons. -
You were doing pretty well until the "even beating the Yucks (LOL), finally!NorthLakeDub said:
And if we don't get to at least 9-4 in 2013 then its time to make some changes. But like I said before, I think we'll get 10 wins. We will win out at home this year, yes even beating the Ducks, finally!ACSlaterDawg said:
7-6>7-6>7-6. Hope THAT helps.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
I watch the games. That's all I need to see to know that Sark is not even close to building a winning team.NorthLakeDub said:
And after having a 12-1 season as BYU QB, and being a protege under Pete Carroll at USC, Sark knows absolutely nothing about how a winning team is built. He has never seen what a winning team looks like, has he?Steve_Bowman said:Nothing will change.
As a bench warmer in the SEC, I played very little, but I did see how winning teams are built. Cream Puff is not even close.Southerndawg said:Lack of preparedness, direction, attitude, toughness, player development and accountability. These are coaching problems. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see things changing until a new head coach takes over.
So I guess you must have some kind of privileged insider's perspective of the UW program and you see the daily ins and outs of the program that leads you to the conclusion that nothing will change and Sark is not even close to building a winning team?
HTH
-
The facilities argument is completely flaccid. USC has consistently had the worst facilities in the conference. As soon as Carroll showed up they started kicking ass again. Oregon's program turned around before most of the facilities improvements. The reason it turned around was because the conference sucked in the mid to late 90s and they were able to string together 4-4 and 5-3 conference records which would be inflated by their non-conference schedule, Kansas St-lite. They had all the great facilities before Chip but never became the national program they thought they were. It was Chip who took them there.
You will see in the next few years that the new facilities will not elevate mediocre-Sark to a sudden championship coach. -
Any coach at Saban's level, at that point in his career, would not take the job with a track around the field and crumbling stadium.Swaye said:
Yes. I think Saban could win with two tracks around the field. Don James won big with a track around the field. Sure, facilities matter, but did you ever see the dump that Miami won all those NC's in? At the end of the day all you need is a solid AD and a great Coach, and Saban is a great college football Coach. He would win and win quickly here, no matter the stadium.NorthLakeDub said:
You disagree on Saban?Swaye said:
Disagree.NorthLakeDub said:
So if they had been 9-4 last season like they should have been, then would you say the program is in good condition? A couple of stupid fluke losses away from being 9-4 and the program is hopeless? Yes those losses were an embarrassment and inexcusable mistakes. But that does not define where the program is currently at.
The program rose to respectability the last 4 years, and now with the new Husky Stadium and facilities upgrades, we can finally "take the next step" (I know you all love that quote from last season haha) to elite status.
We fell behind in the facilities race for far too long. Not even Nick Saban could win the Pac 12 with a piece of shit stadium with a fucking track around the field, and a decade of miserable losing seasons.
Yes, James won with the track around the field, 20-30 years ago. Husky Stadium was cool back in the 80's and early 90's. Look, I love the old Husky Stadium because of all the great memories there. But let's face it, it was damn embarrassing having a crumbling stadium with an ugly ass track around the field, with the fans on the west end sitting 50 yards away from the endzone.
Last time I checked the AD doesn't call any of the plays. As long as the AD puts full support behind football and basketball, and makes the right coaching hires, then he is doing his job. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Woodward have a lot to do with the stadium being rebuilt? I'd say that is a pretty big accomplishment.
6-5-1, 6-6, 7-5, 6-6. Nick Saban's first four years as a head coach at Michigan State. His first four years as a head coach were proof that he would never become a great college coach.....oh wait, actually he turned out to be pretty damn good.
