A fair assessment of the state of Husky Football
Since I don't have the time, energy, ambition, intelligence, or writing prowess to give you the "evidence" of why I believe Husky Football is on the rise, I thought I would post the link to this article that basically sums up how I feel about our program. I'm sure many of you have already seen it. I think it is a fair assessment of the Husky Football program from an outsiders perspective. It clearly explains both the strengths and the weaknesses of our team. Here it is.
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/6/28/4463864/washington-huskies-2013-football-schedule-roster-preview
Comments
-
Your intro is boring. I think I will repost the article so people don't have to endure that piece of shit attempt at something.
-
I told you I have no writing prowess.MikeDamone said:Your into is boring. I think I will repost the article so people don't have to endure that piece of shit attempt at something.
-
I stopped reading when the author tried to give Sark a mythical 9-4 record for the 2012 season.
-
You are a cynical bastardTierbsHsotBoobs said:I stopped reading when the author tried to give Sark a mythical 9-4 record for the 2012 season.
-
NorthLakeDub said:
You are a cynical bastardTierbsHsotBoobs said:I stopped reading when the author tried to give Sark a mythical 9-4 record for the 2012 season.
Yes. I believe in REAL football game results, not mythical ones.
If anything, that article just goes to show that Sark's teams are underperforming relative to the talent level the teams have. CFBMatrix has already been telling me that for years though.
-
I didn't read the article, don't have to. Outsider perspectives just go by media hype bullshit. Kirk Herbstriet said sark is the best play caller in the country a few years back, and everyone and their mother starting saying that BS. Anyone who has watched his play calling know it's average at best and ask U$C fans what they thought of his play calling.
Any average coach could win 6 or 7 games at UW EVEN after the 0-12 season. Let's not get too carried away over sarky. -
He's using some kind of statistic to get that record. I'm not sure how its applicable because it counts Oregon as a win, USC as a win, OSU as a loss.TierbsHsotBoobs said:I stopped reading when the author tried to give Sark a mythical 9-4 record for the 2012 season.
I don't know how beating Boise means its a 9-10 win season. Still have UO, and Stan, ASU, UCLA and OSU all on the road. If you blow one game (say Cal or Arizona), you have to win 2 of the other 5 just to get to 8.
Nevertheless, I agree with the OP, its a quite reasonable article from an outsider. -
Jesus. They're heading over here in droves. Who's the pied piper of doogism? 55? Damone?
-
Yes, it's me. One of the higher ups.DUCKSareOVERRATED said:Jesus. They're heading over here in droves. Who's the pied piper of doogism? 55? Damone?
-
Are you paying attention?DUCKSareOVERRATED said:Jesus. They're heading over here in droves. Who's the pied piper of doogism? 55? Damone?
Dawgman has become a fucking disgrace thanks to Kim. He's been completely wrong about everything since 2004. He's become a complete fucking embarrassment. He's ostracized so many posters that the place has become a carbon copy of what cougfan used to be. People over there are bitching and moaning more about this Oregon thing than Sark's pathetic blowouts and snatching 7-6 from the jaws of 9-4.
The only reason a few people are left is because there are still a few poasters around who want to talk about husky football. But they are leaving one by one and heading over here. Its evidence that Kim's fuckbaggery and douchetardedness have now vastly exceeded that of Race and his minions.
Wise up.
-
For the record, I was never on Dawgman. I don't know much about Kim and Fetters, other than they cover recruiting. The first time I saw Fetters I was like "who the hell is that fat ass dude standing in the background and what does he have to do with Husky Football?"HeretoBeatmyChest said:
Are you paying attention?DUCKSareOVERRATED said:Jesus. They're heading over here in droves. Who's the pied piper of doogism? 55? Damone?
Dawgman has become a fucking disgrace thanks to Kim. He's been completely wrong about everything since 2004. He's become a complete fucking embarrassment. He's ostracized so many posters that the place has become a carbon copy of what cougfan used to be. People over there are bitching and moaning more about this Oregon thing than Sark's pathetic blowouts and snatching 7-6 from the jaws of 9-4.
The only reason a few people are left is because there are still a few poasters around who want to talk about husky football. But they are leaving one by one and heading over here. Its evidence that Kim's fuckbaggery and douchetardedness have now vastly exceeded that of Race and his minions.
Wise up. -
And you're not seeing the parallels? You're here.HeretoBeatmyChest said:
Are you paying attention?DUCKSareOVERRATED said:Jesus. They're heading over here in droves. Who's the pied piper of doogism? 55? Damone?
Dawgman has become a fucking disgrace thanks to Kim. He's been completely wrong about everything since 2004. He's become a complete fucking embarrassment. He's ostracized so many posters that the place has become a carbon copy of what cougfan used to be. People over there are bitching and moaning more about this Oregon thing than Sark's pathetic blowouts and snatching 7-6 from the jaws of 9-4.
The only reason a few people are left is because there are still a few poasters around who want to talk about husky football. But they are leaving one by one and heading over here. Its evidence that Kim's fuckbaggery and douchetardedness have now vastly exceeded that of Race and his minions.
Wise up.
HTH -
Having only read the preamble I see the author claims we will still be young while Phil Steele said we will be one of the most experienced teams. Sounds like somebody has an agenda.
-
What's this bullshit about Race and his minions anyway? If you're just here to beat your chest you won't last long. I know Harvey Road. I pick up the phone and you're gone
-
I don't get why people insist this team was almost 9-4 without mentioning if OSU and Stanford started the right QB this team goes fucking 5-7. Sark is more than ahead on the close calls. UW had a run of like 11 games in a row they won by where the outcome was decided by 8 points or less. I refuse to read any piece that tries to give Sark credit for a mythical 9-4 season.TierbsHsotBoobs said:I stopped reading when the author tried to give Sark a mythical 9-4 record for the 2012 season.
-
The piece isnt giving him credit for that. It has some statistical model that says 9-4 and doesn't mention it beyond that.
Here is an instructive statistical analysis:
In terms of F/+ rankings, the Huskies ranked 78th in 2005, 60th in 2006, 50th in 2007, 63rd in 2009, 70th in 2010, 67th in 2011, and 56th in 2012. Average ranking in those seven seasons: 63.4. Granted, this ignores a year in which they were, in Matt Hinton's words, "really awful" (that would be the 2008 season that saw them go 0-12, rank 117th, and get Ty Willingham fired), but that one outlier aside, there has been almost no trend, just slightly different grades of average football. -
I didn't pay any attention to that adjusted score bs. I don't know what that was all about. But I understand if you are so sick of average Husky Football that you can no longer even bring yourself to read articles about the team. Personally, I enjoy reading anything about Husky FB. If you do happen to find the time to read it, the rest of the article seems pretty straight forward and honest to me.
I don't think the author was being overly biased in favor of Sark. His shortcomings as a coach are clearly laid out, along with his accomplishments. And when the author says we are young, he is talking about the 19 returning starters who the majority of were freshmen or sophomores last season.
So the question is whether or not you think these young guys can build upon their experience after being battle tested early in their college careers, and step up and play at a championship level, with consistency, in order to finish the close games and dominate the ones that we should be dominating. Can Sark grow with this team into a smarter, battle tested coach that can finally lift our program to the level that we all expect? -
The answer to your question is no.NorthLakeDub said:I didn't pay any attention to that adjusted score bs. I don't know what that was all about. But I understand if you are so sick of average Husky Football that you can no longer even bring yourself to read articles about the team. Personally, I enjoy reading anything about Husky FB. If you do happen to find the time to read it, the rest of the article seems pretty straight forward and honest to me.
I don't think the author was being overly biased in favor of Sark. His shortcomings as a coach are clearly laid out, along with his accomplishments. And when the author says we are young, he is talking about the 19 returning starters who the majority of were freshmen or sophomores last season.
So the question is whether or not you think these young guys can build upon their experience after being battle tested early in their college careers, and step up and play at a championship level, with consistency, in order to finish the close games and dominate the ones that we should be dominating. Can Sark grow with this team into a smarter, battle tested coach that can finally lift our program to the level that we all expect?
-
In your opinion.RoadDawg55 said:
The answer to your question is no.NorthLakeDub said:I didn't pay any attention to that adjusted score bs. I don't know what that was all about. But I understand if you are so sick of average Husky Football that you can no longer even bring yourself to read articles about the team. Personally, I enjoy reading anything about Husky FB. If you do happen to find the time to read it, the rest of the article seems pretty straight forward and honest to me.
I don't think the author was being overly biased in favor of Sark. His shortcomings as a coach are clearly laid out, along with his accomplishments. And when the author says we are young, he is talking about the 19 returning starters who the majority of were freshmen or sophomores last season.
So the question is whether or not you think these young guys can build upon their experience after being battle tested early in their college careers, and step up and play at a championship level, with consistency, in order to finish the close games and dominate the ones that we should be dominating. Can Sark grow with this team into a smarter, battle tested coach that can finally lift our program to the level that we all expect? -
Did you write this article? Three things were glaring, the filling of a lot of space about adjusted numbers I dont care about, we are still young for the 12th year in a row, a lot of Kim double speak
1) F+ isn't explained at all. How can I read that graph that has percentage on the y axis when its not clear what the fuck percentage even is? Percent change from the previous year, the graph doesnt match up to the F+ numbers listed below at all. Maybe I am just dense but the entire first point is lost because it shows a graph with percentages on the y axis but talks about real values in the sentences that dont match up to the graph. There is also no evidence to show that Washington is "average", the author just claims it as truth but failed to explain or show why. Maybe the graph was supposed to show why UW has be "average"? Also average should be defined. Average for who? Average for UW? Average for pac12? Average based on wins against NCAA? What are we averaging? This first point is flawed enough to stop reading but ill continue on for arguments sake.
2) A yes, the youth "argument". If you are going to ignore the fact that it is Sarks fault we are young again for the 5th year in a row in his tenor at least have the intelligence to prove we are young compared to the teams we are facing. If you are going to claim we are too young then show were are significantly younger or our starters have less experience than the rest of the pac12, opponents, or NCAA. As an aside, the offensive line being young isn't an excuse and isn't going to change. Sarks inability to consistently recruit offensive lineman forces them to play when they aren't ready out of high school which causes them to get injured or stunt their growth which means the next class has to play before they are ready. This is exactly why the bull shit bumper (or buffer) crop line is so fucktarded. The offensive line has to have solid depth so players dont have to play before they are ready. Missing a class (let alone 2) is devastating to even, quality, depth. In the end its Sarks fault we are young, A-Fucking-gain. He doesnt get credit for overcoming a problem he created.
3) "The Huskies were a frequently good team done in by a handful of outright disasters". Reading further, we have come to the full doog part of the article. In top doog fashion the writer has started to remove data or information simply because it does look as good. Why do fucktard doogs insist on selectively removing the "bad games" without justifying why? This fucktard seriously just went and said, if I remove the 3 worst games UW had according to adjusted score UW looks a lot better. News Flash fuckhead if you remove the three worst games any team lost last year many teams would be undefeated... The fucktarded doog logic is mindblowing and the "statistics" are fucking horrible.
4) "style emphasized weakness"? what the fuck does this shit even mean. Last time I checked, it was the coach's job to fully utilize the players he has. Maybe he is arguing that Sark underutilized the players he had because he is a shitty coach and we have the talent to win more games? Reading further the real point is that you cant blame Sark for shitty play, blame the players for not being able to play in a shitty system that doesnt utilize them.
5) More blaming of Price, one of HHB iron laws coming full circle... The longer a player stays at UW the more and more hated he becomes. Its Sark supposed to be some kind of QB and playcalling Guru... Nope, blame the QB that we know has the ability to play great.
6) This is the same argument as stated in #2
7) "considering the youth" fuckoff about the youth thing. Also no adjusted defense numbers shown for 2012 when he brought up 2011... Wilcox has shown improvement from Holt, just like Sark has shown improvement from Willingham. Big Fucking Deal. This season will be much more telling on the future of Wilcox. Anyone anointing or condemning Wilcox this early in the game is a fucktard. Wilcox did show some progress last year, aside from giving up 41 to LSU, 52 to Oregon, 52 to Arizona, and 32 to WSU. Meh, only 30% of the games were defensive horrors..............
8) Star recruits... this is nothing but speculation if those numbers aren't compared to at least the rest of the pac12. This entire paragraph is borderline off season championship talk
9) Here this fucktard names a bunch of pretty good players that still play for UW and then claims we have to wait for 2014 to be special
10) This isnt an assessment on the current state of UW football. This is a "what if" we beat BSU and just wait till next season (2014) to be special. "BSU is important"? No shit its important, just like every fucking game.
This "article" fucking sucks and didnt make one solid point with regards to this coming season, Sark, or UW football.
TL;DR from the article: You cant expect UW to be anything other than "average" because we are young, our QB is mentally handicapped, We have 3 horrible games a year, our coach runs a system that doesnt utilize our players, our QB sucks, we are young again, more youth, star recruits are awesome, we have a bunch of really good players that wont be really good until 2014, what if we win all the games we should
TL:DR from me: Fuck off doog, this isn't a fair assessment, this is a bullshit full doogtard assessment, filled with excuses, blaming players, and fucktarded "statistics". -
NorthLakeDub said:
What Fetters has to do with Husky Football is he's from Walla Walla, the Snitch's home base ( the Snitch being the Blethen family member and WSU grad who owns and operates The Seattle Times or used to at the time the Snitch was scourging Husky Football). There might be some truth in this.HeretoBeatmyChest said:
For the record, I was never on Dawgman. I don't know much about Kim and Fetters, other than they cover recruiting. The first time I saw Fetters I was like "who the hell is that fat ass dude standing in the background and what does he have to do with Husky Football?"DUCKSareOVERRATED said: -
I liked it when a doog argued with me after the 2010 Apple Cup, (paraphrasing) "if you take way Polk's touchdown runs of 76, 58 and 43 yards, he only gained about 100 yards."
-
This line was repeated many times on doogman whenever someone brought up Sarks under utilization of one of the best RBs in UW history in big games...DerekJohnson said:I liked it when a doog argued with me after the 2010 Apple Cup, (paraphrasing) "if you take way Polk's touchdown runs of 76, 58 and 43 yards, he only gained about 100 yards."
-
Polk would have won a Heisman at Wisconsin, Stanford, or Alabama.Houhusky said:
This line was repeated many times on doogman whenever someone brought up Sarks under utilization of one of the best RBs in UW history in big games...DerekJohnson said:I liked it when a doog argued with me after the 2010 Apple Cup, (paraphrasing) "if you take way Polk's touchdown runs of 76, 58 and 43 yards, he only gained about 100 yards."
-
don't forget that Polk originally verballed to USCMad_Son said:
Polk would have won a Heisman at Wisconsin, Stanford, or Alabama.Houhusky said:
This line was repeated many times on doogman whenever someone brought up Sarks under utilization of one of the best RBs in UW history in big games...DerekJohnson said:I liked it when a doog argued with me after the 2010 Apple Cup, (paraphrasing) "if you take way Polk's touchdown runs of 76, 58 and 43 yards, he only gained about 100 yards."
-
Fixed it up.Mad_Son said:
Polk would have won a Heismanat Wisconsin, Stanford, or Alabama.with a competent head coach like Jim L. Mora -
To answer this specific question, yes I think we have some good pieces. My question and my worry is can we develop them? Our biggest failure is not developing the talent we have to their fullest potential. Sark's first defensive staff failed miserably. The second defensive staff improved but failed miserably the last two games. The line play on both sides of the ball are subpar and have not shown improvement. And I really don't know what to think about Sark's ability to develop QBs. I want Sark to be the answer for multiple reasons but I haven't seen anything to show me he is. I hope Sark and his staff turn the corner for good this year. I hope they realize house money does not exist. I hope he realizes the shiny new cathedral known as Husky Stadium comes with a price. And all who enter better be willing and able to pay it.NorthLakeDub said:
I didn't pay any attention to that adjusted score bs. I don't know what that was all about. But I understand if you are so sick of average Husky Football that you can no longer even bring yourself to read articles about the team. Personally, I enjoy reading anything about Husky FB. If you do happen to find the time to read it, the rest of the article seems pretty straight forward and honest to me.
I don't think the author was being overly biased in favor of Sark. His shortcomings as a coach are clearly laid out, along with his accomplishments. And when the author says we are young, he is talking about the 19 returning starters who the majority of were freshmen or sophomores last season.
So the question is whether or not you think these young guys can build upon their experience after being battle tested early in their college careers, and step up and play at a championship level, with consistency, in order to finish the close games and dominate the ones that we should be dominating. Can Sark grow with this team into a smarter, battle tested coach that can finally lift our program to the level that we all expect? -
This is year fucking five why are people still "hoping" Sark turns the corner? He is what he is as a coach. Put in a tape of UW football from 2009 vs a game from 2012 and you can't tell a difference.DeepSeaZ said:To answer this specific question, yes I think we have some good pieces. My question and my worry is can we develop them? Our biggest failure is not developing the talent we have to their fullest potential. Sark's first defensive staff failed miserably. The second defensive staff improved but failed miserably the last two games. The line play on both sides of the ball are subpar and have not shown improvement. And I really don't know what to think about Sark's ability to develop QBs. I want Sark to be the answer for multiple reasons but I haven't seen anything to show me he is. I hope Sark and his staff turn the corner for good this year. I hope they realize house money does not exist. I hope he realizes the shiny new cathedral known as Husky Stadium comes with a price. And all who enter better be willing and able to pay it.
NorthLakeDub said:I didn't pay any attention to that adjusted score bs. I don't know what that was all about. But I understand if you are so sick of average Husky Football that you can no longer even bring yourself to read articles about the team. Personally, I enjoy reading anything about Husky FB. If you do happen to find the time to read it, the rest of the article seems pretty straight forward and honest to me.
I don't think the author was being overly biased in favor of Sark. His shortcomings as a coach are clearly laid out, along with his accomplishments. And when the author says we are young, he is talking about the 19 returning starters who the majority of were freshmen or sophomores last season.
So the question is whether or not you think these young guys can build upon their experience after being battle tested early in their college careers, and step up and play at a championship level, with consistency, in order to finish the close games and dominate the ones that we should be dominating. Can Sark grow with this team into a smarter, battle tested coach that can finally lift our program to the level that we all expect?
He is supposedly an "offensive genius" yet his offenses outside of 2011(more on that) have been pretty bad to average. While in 2011 the offense any time they faced a quality defense(Stanford, Oregon, USC) they shut down.
He has shown time and time again he's a terrible coach on the road as well. Every year under his tenure UW has lost to a terrible team on the road(ASU/UCLA in 2009, BYU in 2010, Oregon State in 2011 and of course WSU in 2012), he's been blown out by an average team on the road(Oregon State in 2009, Arizona in 2010, Nebraska in 2011 and Arizona in 2012).
His QB's so far both are Ty recruits by the way have gotten worse the longer he's been with them. Locker looked most comfortable with Sark his first three games with him after that he was flat terrible. Price looked good in 2011 but looked terrible in 2012.
He isn't that great of a recruiter and he is terrible at player development. We are in year 5 and we still have no clear #2 WR, back up RB or a back up QB. We still don't have one OL that we can say with confidence will be all conference.
So what are you waiting for? The evidence is there he's an average coach. I know we were 0-12 blah blah blah but who gives a fuck? Stanford was 1-10 and Harbaugh inherited a lot less talent than Sark did and he turned them into 12-1 by year fucking four!
Let's stop waiting for Sark and hoping Sark turns the corner. He can't and won't. We'll go 7-6 again next year and that's with a win over Boise even.
As everyone on here says Lather, Rinse, Repeat. -
he really watered down how bad the O-line was at timesMad_Son said:
Polk would have won a Heisman at Wisconsin, Stanford, or Alabama.Houhusky said:
This line was repeated many times on doogman whenever someone brought up Sarks under utilization of one of the best RBs in UW history in big games...DerekJohnson said:I liked it when a doog argued with me after the 2010 Apple Cup, (paraphrasing) "if you take way Polk's touchdown runs of 76, 58 and 43 yards, he only gained about 100 yards."
-
Agreed. Polk was extraordinarily underappreciated. He should have received all the attention that Jake got.dhdawg said:
he really watered down how bad the O-line was at timesMad_Son said:
Polk would have won a Heisman at Wisconsin, Stanford, or Alabama.Houhusky said:
This line was repeated many times on doogman whenever someone brought up Sarks under utilization of one of the best RBs in UW history in big games...DerekJohnson said:I liked it when a doog argued with me after the 2010 Apple Cup, (paraphrasing) "if you take way Polk's touchdown runs of 76, 58 and 43 yards, he only gained about 100 yards."
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
