Here is the problem with Sark.....

  • Thread starter Thread starter [Deleted User]
  • Start date Start date
D

[Deleted User]

Guest
He is what we feared Ty was going to be. Nobody thought Ty was going to be the disaster that he was when he was hired. Most were pissed because we feared Ty would be just good enough to keep our idiot Doogs happy but never good enough to lead us to a Rose Bowl.

That is what Sark is. I can't see the Huskies going through a bowl drought under him but I honestly can't ever picture him leading us to a Rose Bowl. This year he might win 9 games or 10. Next year he might win 10 or 11 only because our schedule is a joke. Both years we'll get plunger raped 2-3 times if not more. Not even come close to winning the conference title.

When Sark gets a 6th year he'll be the first Husky coach to see a year six without winning a conference title since Ralph Welch did who coached from 1942-1947. He did however lose a Rose Bowl in 1943.

I guess Sark is hoping to be on the James Phelan plan who coached at UW from 1930-1941 and didn't win a conference title until 1936 when he lost the Rose Bowl to finished the season ranked 5th in the nation.

You have to go back almost 80 years the last time a UW coach received a sixth year who didn't win a conference title or go to a Rose Bowl within his first five years on the job.

We know what we have in Sark. He's not "learning on the job" still. His mistakes in year one are still here. He still doesn't know how to take the 3 points, instead goes for it on fourth and short out of the shot gun so it's stuffed, his OL is actually worse the longer he's been here, the defense has been shaky to downright terrible during his tenure.

Why are we "letting it play out" ? We know Sark fucking blows. This team at best will go 8-4 in the regular season. Fans wanted Lambo fired for going 8-4 in 1997, fans weren't jacked up when Rick went 8-4 in 2001 either.

Sark is what we all feared Ty was going to be. I can't believe so many of you are falling into this Doog trap.
 
If you really think Sark could win 20 or 21 games between this year and next you can't really want to fire him. No way that (20 wins) happens.

14-12.

DAO.

I agree Sark is what we feared Ty would be but I never feared Ty winning double digit games in back to back years. Dreckfest scheduling or not, that's an impressive achievement.

It's also an achievement Sark will never sniff.
 
Last edited:
If you really think Sark could win 20 or 21 games between this year and next you can't really want to fire him. No way that (20 wins) happens.

14-12.

DAO.

I agree Sark is what we feared Ty would be but I never feared Ty winning double digit games in back to back years. Dreckfest scheduling or not, that's an impressive achievement.

It's also an achievement Sark will never sniff.
Click to expand...

I was going high marks on those totals. This year I think we win 8 regular season games and who knows about crap tier bowl games?

Next year even Ty could start off 4-0 so if he goes 5-4 in conference which is what he usually does that's 9-4 and again who knows about crap tier bowl games?

Point is we are nowhwere closer to competing for a conference title now than we were in 2009.
 
If Oregon were to go 11-2 with those 2 losses being beatdowns, it would have been 2011 without the 2nd half comeback to USC. I and many Duck fans would have taken that.
 
If Oregon were to go 11-2 with those 2 losses being beatdowns, it would have been 2011 without the 2nd half comeback to USC. I and many Duck fans would have taken that.
Click to expand...

In 2014 UW is playing 13 regular season games. They will go 4-0 in OOC, if they manage to go 5-4 in conference play which is what Sark does that's a 9-4 regular season. Win some bull shit bowl game and that is 10 wins and 4 losses.

It's not that far fetched guys.
 
Your premise is sound. But win 10 regular season games? Not in a million years.

He might be able to eak out 9 games (9 - 3) some year, but that's it. There's a once in a decade up side of 10 - 3 with a bowl game. That I wouldn't hold my breath for.
 
Last edited:
Your premise is sound. But win 10 regular season games? Not in a million years.

He might be able to eak out 9 games (9 - 3) some year, but that's it. There's a once in a decade up side of 10 - 3 with a bowl game. That I wouldn't hold my breath for.
Click to expand...

Look I never said 10 regular season wins. I was just putting out some outliers is all. I actually think this team wins 8 regular season this year and 9 next year.

I don't predict minor bowl games because typically who wants to be there the most will win that game.

So Sark could win 17 games next two years or win 19. I think you guys are underestimating that 4-0 OOC next year.
 
Lesbianest. The problem with Sark is that he doesn't win enough games because his teams are LA soft and WSU stupid.
 
He is what we feared Ty was going to be. Nobody thought Ty was going to be the disaster that he was when he was hired. Most were pissed because we feared Ty would be just good enough to keep our idiot Doogs happy but never good enough to lead us to a Rose Bowl.

That is what Sark is. I can't see the Huskies going through a bowl drought under him but I honestly can't ever picture him leading us to a Rose Bowl. This year he might win 9 games or 10. Next year he might win 10 or 11 only because our schedule is a joke. Both years we'll get plunger raped 2-3 times if not more. Not even come close to winning the conference title.

When Sark gets a 6th year he'll be the first Husky coach to see a year six without winning a conference title since Ralph Welch did who coached from 1942-1947. He did however lose a Rose Bowl in 1943.

I guess Sark is hoping to be on the James Phelan plan who coached at UW from 1930-1941 and didn't win a conference title until 1936 when he lost the Rose Bowl to finished the season ranked 5th in the nation.

You have to go back almost 80 years the last time a UW coach received a sixth year who didn't win a conference title or go to a Rose Bowl within his first five years on the job.

We know what we have in Sark. He's not "learning on the job" still. His mistakes in year one are still here. He still doesn't know how to take the 3 points, instead goes for it on fourth and short out of the shot gun so it's stuffed, his OL is actually worse the longer he's been here, the defense has been shaky to downright terrible during his tenure.

Why are we "letting it play out" ? We know Sark fucking blows. This team at best will go 8-4 in the regular season. Fans wanted Lambo fired for going 8-4 in 1997, fans weren't jacked up when Rick went 8-4 in 2001 either.

Sark is what we all feared Ty was going to be. I can't believe so many of you are falling into this Doog trap.
Click to expand...

Not that I really disagree with you. But the problem with your whole tantrum is the told-you-so bit. Take yourself out of it
He is what we feared Ty was going to be. Nobody thought Ty was going to be the disaster that he was when he was hired. Most were pissed because we feared Ty would be just good enough to keep our idiot Doogs happy but never good enough to lead us to a Rose Bowl.

That is what Sark is. I can't see the Huskies going through a bowl drought under him but I honestly can't ever picture him leading us to a Rose Bowl. This year he might win 9 games or 10. Next year he might win 10 or 11 only because our schedule is a joke. Both years we'll get plunger raped 2-3 times if not more. Not even come close to winning the conference title.

When Sark gets a 6th year he'll be the first Husky coach to see a year six without winning a conference title since Ralph Welch did who coached from 1942-1947. He did however lose a Rose Bowl in 1943.

I guess Sark is hoping to be on the James Phelan plan who coached at UW from 1930-1941 and didn't win a conference title until 1936 when he lost the Rose Bowl to finished the season ranked 5th in the nation.

You have to go back almost 80 years the last time a UW coach received a sixth year who didn't win a conference title or go to a Rose Bowl within his first five years on the job.

We know what we have in Sark. He's not "learning on the job" still. His mistakes in year one are still here. He still doesn't know how to take the 3 points, instead goes for it on fourth and short out of the shot gun so it's stuffed, his OL is actually worse the longer he's been here, the defense has been shaky to downright terrible during his tenure.

Why are we "letting it play out" ? We know Sark fucking blows. This team at best will go 8-4 in the regular season. Fans wanted Lambo fired for going 8-4 in 1997, fans weren't jacked up when Rick went 8-4 in 2001 either.

Sark is what we all feared Ty was going to be. I can't believe so many of you are falling into this Doog trap.
Click to expand...

TLDR. The problem with Seven is that he hasn't won enough games. Period. If he significantly improves the team's W-L record, starting this year, I'll get off his case.
 
Lesbianest. The problem with Sark is that he doesn't win enough games because his teams are LA soft and WSU stupid.
Click to expand...

Plus he will fuck up some games by himself with his terrible RZ play calling. It was the only reason the Boise game in the first half was only 10-3, same with Illinois.

I don't get how a team with ASJ, Sankey and Kasen can struggle so much in the RZ but it does. That's Sark fucking stupid for you.
 
Lambright was fired for winning 7-9 games and losing to Oregon.

HTH
Click to expand...

I'm advocating for Sark to be fired so I don't get your point. I think most of us in here agree that Lambo was a shitty coach but a better coach than Sark.
 
He is what we feared Ty was going to be. Nobody thought Ty was going to be the disaster that he was when he was hired. Most were pissed because we feared Ty would be just good enough to keep our idiot Doogs happy but never good enough to lead us to a Rose Bowl.

That is what Sark is. I can't see the Huskies going through a bowl drought under him but I honestly can't ever picture him leading us to a Rose Bowl. This year he might win 9 games or 10. Next year he might win 10 or 11 only because our schedule is a joke. Both years we'll get plunger raped 2-3 times if not more. Not even come close to winning the conference title.

When Sark gets a 6th year he'll be the first Husky coach to see a year six without winning a conference title since Ralph Welch did who coached from 1942-1947. He did however lose a Rose Bowl in 1943.

I guess Sark is hoping to be on the James Phelan plan who coached at UW from 1930-1941 and didn't win a conference title until 1936 when he lost the Rose Bowl to finished the season ranked 5th in the nation.

You have to go back almost 80 years the last time a UW coach received a sixth year who didn't win a conference title or go to a Rose Bowl within his first five years on the job.

We know what we have in Sark. He's not "learning on the job" still. His mistakes in year one are still here. He still doesn't know how to take the 3 points, instead goes for it on fourth and short out of the shot gun so it's stuffed, his OL is actually worse the longer he's been here, the defense has been shaky to downright terrible during his tenure.

Why are we "letting it play out" ? We know Sark fucking blows. This team at best will go 8-4 in the regular season. Fans wanted Lambo fired for going 8-4 in 1997, fans weren't jacked up when Rick went 8-4 in 2001 either.

Sark is what we all feared Ty was going to be. I can't believe so many of you are falling into this Doog trap.
Click to expand...

Not that I really disagree with you. But the problem with your whole tantrum is the told-you-so bit. Take yourself out of it
He is what we feared Ty was going to be. Nobody thought Ty was going to be the disaster that he was when he was hired. Most were pissed because we feared Ty would be just good enough to keep our idiot Doogs happy but never good enough to lead us to a Rose Bowl.

That is what Sark is. I can't see the Huskies going through a bowl drought under him but I honestly can't ever picture him leading us to a Rose Bowl. This year he might win 9 games or 10. Next year he might win 10 or 11 only because our schedule is a joke. Both years we'll get plunger raped 2-3 times if not more. Not even come close to winning the conference title.

When Sark gets a 6th year he'll be the first Husky coach to see a year six without winning a conference title since Ralph Welch did who coached from 1942-1947. He did however lose a Rose Bowl in 1943.

I guess Sark is hoping to be on the James Phelan plan who coached at UW from 1930-1941 and didn't win a conference title until 1936 when he lost the Rose Bowl to finished the season ranked 5th in the nation.

You have to go back almost 80 years the last time a UW coach received a sixth year who didn't win a conference title or go to a Rose Bowl within his first five years on the job.

We know what we have in Sark. He's not "learning on the job" still. His mistakes in year one are still here. He still doesn't know how to take the 3 points, instead goes for it on fourth and short out of the shot gun so it's stuffed, his OL is actually worse the longer he's been here, the defense has been shaky to downright terrible during his tenure.

Why are we "letting it play out" ? We know Sark fucking blows. This team at best will go 8-4 in the regular season. Fans wanted Lambo fired for going 8-4 in 1997, fans weren't jacked up when Rick went 8-4 in 2001 either.

Sark is what we all feared Ty was going to be. I can't believe so many of you are falling into this Doog trap.
Click to expand...

TLDR. The problem with Seven is that he hasn't won enough games. Period. If he significantly improves the team's W-L record, starting this year, I'll get off his case.
Click to expand...

Not telling anyone "I told you so". Was just showing how rare it is for a UW coach to see a 6th year without winning a conference title or going to a Rose Bowl. You have to go back to the 1930's for the last time that happened.
 
Lesbianest. The problem with Sark is that he doesn't win enough games because his teams are LA soft and WSU stupid.
Click to expand...

Plus he will fuck up some games by himself with his terrible RZ play calling. It was the only reason the Boise game in the first half was only 10-3, same with Illinois.

I don't get how a team with ASJ, Sankey and Kasen can struggle so much in the RZ but it does. That's Sark fucking stupid for you.
Click to expand...

It's really easy to struggle in the red zone when you don't throw/hand off to ASJ, Sankey, and Kasen. That bullshit at the end of the 2nd quarter against Illinois was a perfect example. Twice to Smith, once to Mickens. Smith and Mickens have been pretty good, but they aren't the red zone threats that ASJ, Sankey, and Kasen are. You're spot on. SFS
 
Lambright was fired for winning 7-9 games and losing to Oregon.

HTH
Click to expand...

I'm advocating for Sark to be fired so I don't get your point. I think most of us in here agree that Lambo was a shitty coach but a better coach than Sark.
Click to expand...
SteelPuppy!!! True??

 
Lambo may not have been a great coach, but but shitty? His teams we're tough....they still hurt people. Ask Shark's sorry BYU ass about how shitty his teams were.

Plus, Jim could recruit. I believe the 2000 team were mostly his guys except for Alexis and John Anderson (the kicker.)
 
Last edited:
Lambright was fired for winning 7-9 games and losing to Oregon.

HTH
Click to expand...

I'm advocating for Sark to be fired so I don't get your point. I think most of us in here agree that Lambo was a shitty coach but a better coach than Sark.
Click to expand...
SteelPuppy!!! True??
Click to expand...

Why I had to put "most of us" instead of all of us because of him specifically. Although I'm sure Irish would argue Sark over Lambo too.
 
Lesbianest. The problem with Sark is that he doesn't win enough games because his teams are LA soft and WSU stupid.
Click to expand...

Plus he will fuck up some games by himself with his terrible RZ play calling. It was the only reason the Boise game in the first half was only 10-3, same with Illinois.

I don't get how a team with ASJ, Sankey and Kasen can struggle so much in the RZ but it does. That's Sark fucking stupid for you.
Click to expand...

It's really easy to struggle in the red zone when you don't throw/hand off to ASJ, Sankey, and Kasen. That bullshit at the end of the 2nd quarter against Illinois was a perfect example. Twice to Smith, once to Mickens. Smith and Mickens have been pretty good, but they aren't the red zone threats that ASJ, Sankey, and Kasen are. You're spot on. SFS
Click to expand...

Yea they are good WR's but both under 6 foot. In the RZ you want size. I'd just pound it to Sankey and if they overload for the run do a play action roll out to ASJ or Kasen. Kasen is a great leaper and good hands so a jump ball to him wouldn't be too bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top