At the Pac-12 Poker Table, is Washington's Sark an Easy Mark?

A

administrator

Administrator
Staff member
Swaye's Wigwam

skidark.jpg
At the Pac-12 Poker Table, is Washington's Sark an Easy Mark?
This brief summation gives voice to the concerns that Sark isn't the genius so many believe him to be. In fact, he may be an easy mark. That's why many who yearn to see Husky Football return to dominance struggle to accept him as head coach -- because we don't want Husky Football to embrace mediocrity.
Read the full story here

 
Last edited:
Nice job, Derek. One thing, we did not beat Oregon State in 2011. I believe you are talking about the Arizona game we won the week after getting throttled by Stanford. Oregon State was the infamous Nick Montana game that was a complete debacle.
 
Last edited:
Nice job, Derek. One thing, we did not beat Oregon State in 2011. I believe you are talking about the Arizona game we won the week after getting throttled by Stanford. Oregon State was the infamous Nick Montana game that was a complete debacle.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I made the correction.

 
Anyone one that wanted Cream Puff to fail from the beginning just to say they're right is seriously F'ed up. I have a hard time believing that was the case.

Going forward I hope he lays a big egg...this year is good. My fear is if he hovers above 500, he'll be here a long time. Get to the inevitable and loose him now rather than later. A good coach could have this program humming in a couple of years.

Oh, and like Derek says, 10 - 2 would give me reason to take all this back as well.
 
Last edited:
Anyone one that wanted Cream Puff to fail from the beginning just to say they're right is seriously F'ed up. I have a hard time believing that was the case.

Going forward I hope he lays a big egg...this year is good. My fear is if he hovers above 500, he'll be here a long time. Get to the inevitable and loose him now rather than later. A good coach could have this program humming in a couple of years.

Oh, and like Derek says, 10 - 2 would give me reason to take all this back as well.
Click to expand...

No one here wants Sark to fail so they can be right. That is a standard line about us from the dawgman.com posters who chose to ignore facts, and cling to "hope" and Sarks Kick ass pressers where he does things like prediciting no home losses.

It's an unthoughtful and desperate comeback when they have nothing no facts to back up their claim that Sark is the right coach.
 
yep, exactly. i like to spend countless hours and money on something i really want to be miserable and pathetic. yep, that's right. #hikim

 
I believe this to be true.

I was a dogboy customer for years. Me and many others I knew never said this about people connected with this site, although it was the party line. Many, many of us told the party line groupies and the dogboy bosses they had their heads up their asses starting in 2011. Granted, we may have been a little slow, but we figured it out.

Anyone one that wanted Cream Puff to fail from the beginning just to say they're right is seriously F'ed up. I have a hard time believing that was the case.

Going forward I hope he lays a big egg...this year is good. My fear is if he hovers above 500, he'll be here a long time. Get to the inevitable and loose him now rather than later. A good coach could have this program humming in a couple of years.

Oh, and like Derek says, 10 - 2 would give me reason to take all this back as well.
Click to expand...

No one here wants Sark to fail so they can be right. That is a standard line about us from the dawgman.com posters who chose to ignore facts, and cling to "hope" and Sarks Kick ass pressers where he does things like prediciting no home losses.

It's an unthoughtful and desperate comeback when they have nothing no facts to back up their claim that Sark is the right coach.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited:
I like to call this 2006
I believe this to be true.

I was a dogboy customer for years. Me and many others I knew never said this about people connected with this site, although it was the party line. Many, many of us told the party line groupies and the dogboy bosses they had their heads up their asses starting in 2011. Granted, we may have been a little slow, but we figured it out.

Anyone one that wanted Cream Puff to fail from the beginning just to say they're right is seriously F'ed up. I have a hard time believing that was the case.

Going forward I hope he lays a big egg...this year is good. My fear is if he hovers above 500, he'll be here a long time. Get to the inevitable and loose him now rather than later. A good coach could have this program humming in a couple of years.

Oh, and like Derek says, 10 - 2 would give me reason to take all this back as well.
Click to expand...

No one here wants Sark to fail so they can be right. That is a standard line about us from the dawgman.com posters who chose to ignore facts, and cling to "hope" and Sarks Kick ass pressers where he does things like prediciting no home losses.

It's an unthoughtful and desperate comeback when they have nothing no facts to back up their claim that Sark is the right coach.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I like to call this 2007
 
I like to call this 2006
I believe this to be true.

I was a dogboy customer for years. Me and many others I knew never said this about people connected with this site, although it was the party line. Many, many of us told the party line groupies and the dogboy bosses they had their heads up their asses starting in 2011. Granted, we may have been a little slow, but we figured it out.

Anyone one that wanted Cream Puff to fail from the beginning just to say they're right is seriously F'ed up. I have a hard time believing that was the case.

Going forward I hope he lays a big egg...this year is good. My fear is if he hovers above 500, he'll be here a long time. Get to the inevitable and loose him now rather than later. A good coach could have this program humming in a couple of years.

Oh, and like Derek says, 10 - 2 would give me reason to take all this back as well.
Click to expand...

No one here wants Sark to fail so they can be right. That is a standard line about us from the dawgman.com posters who chose to ignore facts, and cling to "hope" and Sarks Kick ass pressers where he does things like prediciting no home losses.

It's an unthoughtful and desperate comeback when they have nothing no facts to back up their claim that Sark is the right coach.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I like to call this 2007
Click to expand...

Is that what you like to call it?
 
The over the top defending of all that relates to Sark got really old on Dawgman. The OL has not sucked all 4 years under Sark, the game plan against Arizona was solid, the OL issues have been fixed, Sark is a tough guy because he got up in '96 after Chorak and co sacked him a bunch of times, Cozzetto is a good coach because you would not want to see him angry, this year is going to be special, etc. All of that has been said by the staff or a fanboy. The shit that the staff and the fanboys on that site spew in the face of facts has gotten old.

I guess there is a market for being a delusional, moronic fanboy because people still post over there. It really has become a pro Sark circle jerk. Anyone who does not follow their mantra and is critical of Sark and the program are told they are miserable, jerks, need to take it to the vent board, or the OL board.

How fucking hard is it to call it like it is? We all watch the games, our eyes are not lying. This is an average program with a lot of flaws that point straight to the head coach. The head coach in college football is more important and influential than a coach in any other sport. It is crucial to have a great coach in order to be great. It's obvious Sark is not better than average. Stability means almost nothing without the right coach. I don't get why some have such a hard time admitting that.

This thread does pose an interesting dilemma. Is it better to go 8-5 and continue with Sark (there'es no way he gets fired from 8-5) or 5-7 and Sark gets fired. Or would 5-7 even get Sark fired?

 
Last edited:
My favorite was when Arizona beat Washington 52-17, Dawgman customers were informed that it was a needed step backwards in order to go forward.
 
Last edited:
My favorite was when Arizona beat Washington 52-17, Dawgman customers were informed that it was a needed step backwards in order to go forward.
Click to expand...

The days after the Arizona game were classic Kim. First, he says the game plan was solid and that the way to beat Arizona was by passing. What better way to get your QB on track? Never mind, that we were running the ball down their throats whenever we called running plays and Price was running for his life almost every time we called a pass. He kept pointing out that Arizona was one of the worst in the conference in passing defense. A poster later pointed out that Arizona was 11th in the Pac 12 in both rushing and passing defense, but Kim still wouldn't budge.

Thankfully, Sark admitted on the coaches show that while he thought it was a solid game plan, in hindsight it sucked. Oh yeah, UCLA ran for over 300 yards two weeks later against Arizona. That was my personal favorite moment of Kim's bullshit blowing up in his face.

 
Last edited:
Kim defends Sark and Woodward to have access to both of them. I've seen it firsthand.

To call Kim's journalistic integrity compromised is to say that water is a tad bit damp.
 
Kim defends Sark and Woodward to have access to both of them. I've seen it firsthand.

To call Kim's journalistic integrity compromised is to say that water is a tad bit damp.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top