Trojan Dave, you make some good points. And if we were dealing with a coach that had distinguished himself in any manner through his career, even if just as a coordinator, I could probably buy what you're selling.
I hated the Carroll hire. Called into a radio show even, to voice my displeasure. I knew a lot less about football then than I do now. I was younger and more ignorant. In hindsight, you can see that Carroll was kind of a perfect storm for a coach. He was an elite defensive mind at the time and so he had distinguished himself, even excelled, in that position. Add in a couple factors like being humbled and allowed to take time off to articulate a coaching identity and philosophy which he would then use as his steadfast roadmap through thick and thin. He also had experience. Lots of it. He had been a head coach twice and in coaching at every level for years. The only thing he hadn't been was a winning head coach but the rest was there. It also helped he came along when the Pac 12 was a mediocre conference with not a lot of coaching talent. Mike Bellotti was considered the "great" head coach in the conference. A guy who not long after would be pushed upstairs to make room for a true "great" head coach in Chip Kelly.
I won't even get into the McKay comparisons because it's foolhardy. That was a different time, a different generation of football. The big programs dominated because they could recruit almost as many players as they wanted. They could keep great players on their bench just so they didn't go to the other schools. It was like Ma Bell before she was split up. The big entities didn't have to worry about much outside competition because they could stifle it. Now, you have hundreds of upstart programs with innovative offense and defense creating parity in the CFB world. A school like Baylor that was a laughingstock is now a top team due to it's offensive genius and ability to get players that would otherwise have ended up at the big powers before the scholarship limitation rule changes.
So, that leaves us with Steve Sarkisian. The guy has history. Five years of it. The evidence of his coaching shortcomings are out there: Frequently disorganized teams, puzzling and poor playcalling in tight games, teams that lead the nation in penalties, undisciplined play (see disorganization), poor adjustments when losing. It's all out there. The evidence of it is on tape, it's memorialized in the opinions of those close to the UW program, the fans, and the media. His personality and tendencies are set. He coaches tight and scared in tight games, his teams aren't well prepared and he loses nearly every road game he plays.
So, can he change personalities and tendencies? Sure. It's not impossible. Pete Carroll sort of did it during his year off. But, the truth is, it's very very rare. You're either one thing or another or another and if that's your center since birth, that will usually stay your center.
I realize you're peddling hope and I'm peddling cynicism here. My opinion won't be popular. Yours will. People want to hope. I want to hope. I read a couple things you've written and I want to believe too. But, there's too much evidence out there. Too many facts. Yes, the team is young. So are very many teams out there having success. Unless we're following the Stanford model, that's the norm. There's a lot of talent on this team despite its youth. Is that talent being developed? Maximized? Put in the best position to succeed. The answer if we're being honest with ourselves is a resounding "no." We have so much speed on the wings and we do nothing unorthodox to put the ball in the hands of those playmakers. We did run a reverse on a wet field at Boston College one time. It didn't work so we abandoned it seemingly forever. That's just one example.
I've believed since I was first a fan that college football comes down to three things. Coaching, emotion, and talent in that order. If you don't have the first, you will not be successful 99 times out of 100 on a long time horizon. Your premise is that we need patience to see if Sark can buck his 5 1/2 year trend and become a great head coach despite showing personality traits and tendencies that seem to prove otherwise. That's fine, I guess. I suppose maybe for me, personally, I'm just a bit fatigued with that "hope he changes/hope he figures things out" approach because I just got out of a 4 year relationship with a coach like that. His name was Lane Somethingorrather. I'm not sure I can jump back into another abusive 3 year relationship just right now.
But, that all said, I appreciate your opinions and contributions to the board.
