Official invite from Softy Mahler via twitter

  • Thread starter Thread starter [Deleted User]
  • Start date Start date
You're preaching to the choir with me ...

I've got no problem shoving it up Softy's ass if he's so supportive of Sark still.

Free pub.

Free access.

Sizzle to the steak.
 
Tequilla, we've discussed this ad naseum.

The advanced metrics show very little difference between the 2009-2012 seasons compared to 2006-2007. Those were basically average teams, ranked around 45-55.

Fact is, if Wilcox and the other guys weren't hired at the end of 11, Sark probably has his worst season in 2012 and gets canned.
Click to expand...

Going 5-4, 5-4 with Wilcox >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going 4-5, 5-4, 5-4 with Holt.

Everybody says so.
 
Tequilla, we've discussed this ad naseum.

The advanced metrics show very little difference between the 2009-2012 seasons compared to 2006-2007. Those were basically average teams, ranked around 45-55.

Fact is, if Wilcox and the other guys weren't hired at the end of 11, Sark probably has his worst season in 2012 and gets canned.
Click to expand...

Going 5-4, 5-4 with Wilcox >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going 4-5, 5-4, 5-4 with Holt.

Everybody says so.
Click to expand...

If you can't see the incremental progress in that then DiggyDawg can't help you
 
I brought up 5-4 four years in a row. He changed the subject "bottom line we have Petersen now and Sark left us better off than when he took over. All is good"
 
Tequilla, we've discussed this ad naseum.

The advanced metrics show very little difference between the 2009-2012 seasons compared to 2006-2007. Those were basically average teams, ranked around 45-55.

Fact is, if Wilcox and the other guys weren't hired at the end of 11, Sark probably has his worst season in 2012 and gets canned.
Click to expand...

Going 5-4, 5-4 with Wilcox >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going 4-5, 5-4, 5-4 with Holt.

Everybody says so.
Click to expand...
Agree to a point but holt goes 4-8 with the dreckfest offense sark put out in 2012. We lose to Stanford Oregon state and maybe even SDSU (fml)

 
Tequilla, we've discussed this ad naseum.

The advanced metrics show very little difference between the 2009-2012 seasons compared to 2006-2007. Those were basically average teams, ranked around 45-55.

Fact is, if Wilcox and the other guys weren't hired at the end of 11, Sark probably has his worst season in 2012 and gets canned.
Click to expand...

Going 5-4, 5-4 with Wilcox >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going 4-5, 5-4, 5-4 with Holt.

Everybody says so.
Click to expand...
Agree to a point but holt goes 4-8 with the dreckfest offense sark put out in 2012. We lose to Stanford Oregon state and maybe even SDSU (fml)
Click to expand...

Are you new here?
 
I brought up 5-4 four years in a row. He changed the subject "bottom line we have Petersen now and Sark left us better off than when he took over. All is good"
Click to expand...

And how many people here would argue that Petersen wasn't left with a better starting place than Sark was? That's just flat out not answering the question ... which is because he CAN'T answer that question.
 
Tequilla, we've discussed this ad naseum.

The advanced metrics show very little difference between the 2009-2012 seasons compared to 2006-2007. Those were basically average teams, ranked around 45-55.

Fact is, if Wilcox and the other guys weren't hired at the end of 11, Sark probably has his worst season in 2012 and gets canned.
Click to expand...

Going 5-4, 5-4 with Wilcox >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going 4-5, 5-4, 5-4 with Holt.

Everybody says so.
Click to expand...
Agree to a point but holt goes 4-8 with the dreckfest offense sark put out in 2012. We lose to Stanford Oregon state and maybe even SDSU (fml)
Click to expand...

This. We lose at least two more games, probably three (SDSU, Stanford, Oregon State, Cal). I still bet Sark would have gotten one more year.

 
Let me help since Sven does not watch any games.

2012 season you had an awful offense and a top 30 defense, which was a major improvement over previous dreck and unexpected. Had those coaches not come in, you lose to Stanford, OSU and Cal and dont sniff a bowl game. And yes, maybe even SDSU also.
 
I brought up 5-4 four years in a row. He changed the subject "bottom line we have Petersen now and Sark left us better off than when he took over. All is good"
Click to expand...

LOL 0-12!!!!!!
Click to expand...

When I brought up Sark failing by his own goals of competing for a rose bowl and natty's he of course ignored it.

Facts are UW was eliminated from contention in mid October in year five.
 
Bottom line, there's 3 primary things that Softy, and other Sark supporters (hi Kim Jong Vino), need to understand:

1) I can't think of many people that don't realize that this program is in a better place today than it was when Sark took over - he should be thanked for that. But at the same time, it was also clear that he wasn't the answer going forward to take this program to the next level.

2) There are a number of people that know what the UW is capable of if properly motivated ... and Woodward proved that by hiring Petersen. It essentially was a giant middle finger to anybody that said "well, who would you hire to replace Sark" ... answer: somebody better.

3) There's not a lot of reason to be afraid of Sark at USC because even though Sark will get good talent (which he also got at Washington), his lack of focus, discipline, and attention to detail will still result in SC under performing. However, because he's at SC he might move up from seven-win Steve to eight-win Steve. Sark's definitely not a coach in the ilk of Petey, John Robinson (the first time around), or John McKay.
 
The Wilcox Doogs are almost as bad as the Sark Doogs.

At least they defend an adult though.
 
Bottom line, there's 3 primary things that Softy, and other Sark supporters (hi Kim Jong Vino), need to understand:

1) I can't think of many people that don't realize that this program is in a better place today than it was when Sark took over - he should be thanked for that. But at the same time, it was also clear that he wasn't the answer going forward to take this program to the next level.

2) There are a number of people that know what the UW is capable of if properly motivated ... and Woodward proved that by hiring Petersen. It essentially was a giant middle finger to anybody that said "well, who would you hire to replace Sark" ... answer: somebody better.

3) There's not a lot of reason to be afraid of Sark at USC because even though Sark will get good talent (which he also got at Washington), his lack of focus, discipline, and attention to detail will still result in SC under performing. However, because he's at SC he might move up from seven-win Steve to eight-win Steve. Sark's definitely not a coach in the ilk of Petey, John Robinson (the first time around), or John McKay.
Click to expand...
Right on cue

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top