Sarkisian: 2012 Huskies couldn't overcome the youth factor
- Thread starter DerekJohnson
- Start date
RaccoonHarry
New Fish
May God bless you and keep you always
May your wishes all come true
May you always do for others
And let others do for you
May you build a ladder to the stars
And climb on every rung
May you stay forever young
Forever young, forever young
May you stay forever young
May you grow up to be righteous
May you grow up to be true
May you always know the truth
And see the lights surrounding you
May you always be courageous
Stand upright and be strong
May you stay forever young
Forever young, forever young
May you stay forever young
May your hands be always busy
May your feet always be swift
May you have a strong foundation
When the winds of changes shift
May your heart always be joyful
And may your song always be sung
May you stay forever young
Forever young, forever young
May you stay forever young
Way back when I betcha Bob Dylan had no idea he was writing a song about Husky football, Sarkesian style...
May your wishes all come true
May you always do for others
And let others do for you
May you build a ladder to the stars
And climb on every rung
May you stay forever young
Forever young, forever young
May you stay forever young
May you grow up to be righteous
May you grow up to be true
May you always know the truth
And see the lights surrounding you
May you always be courageous
Stand upright and be strong
May you stay forever young
Forever young, forever young
May you stay forever young
May your hands be always busy
May your feet always be swift
May you have a strong foundation
When the winds of changes shift
May your heart always be joyful
And may your song always be sung
May you stay forever young
Forever young, forever young
May you stay forever young
Way back when I betcha Bob Dylan had no idea he was writing a song about Husky football, Sarkesian style...
Lack of preparedness, direction, attitude, toughness, player development and accountability. These are coaching problems. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see things changing until a new head coach takes over.
TierbsHsotBoobs
New Fish
Disagree
Steve_Bowman
New Fish
Nothing will change.
As a bench warmer in the SEC, I played very little, but I did see how winning teams are built. Cream Puff is not even close.
As a bench warmer in the SEC, I played very little, but I did see how winning teams are built. Cream Puff is not even close.
It's hard to buy the youth excuse when these mistakes are happening every year. What will the excuses be this year?
Sark needs to go. I want to enjoy watching Husky Football again. I'm tried of watching a mediocre, soft team.
Sark needs to go. I want to enjoy watching Husky Football again. I'm tried of watching a mediocre, soft team.
puppylove_sugarsteel
New Fish
Sarks best coaching performance was in 2009. He actually coached them pretty well. The record did not indicate that. The PLAYERS were two field goals away from a 9-4 season last year. Sark finished 7-6. His coaching has stagnated or went down hill since 2009.
I'm from the 5-year fraternity. That's what you get as a head coach to win your conference. I have belief in Sark next year (his 5th). All the dawgman bitches will be happy with 9 wins. Only because nobody over there has a fucking clue. Sark SHOULD HAVE AND WAS 2 PLAYS AWAY FROM 9 WINS LAST YEAR. 10 wins is the benchmark for Snark next year, period, end of fucking story.
I closely watched Bruce Snyder take 2 shitty teams, in the 90's,to near back-to-back national championships in YEAR 5 (ASU was one play or two away from the crystal ball vs Ohio St. in the rose bowl, Cal finished #8 If I recall correctly). His teams got noticeably better each year. They didn't finish 7-6 every year. Were talking about CAL AND ASU for fuck sake.
Sark gets next year!!!!!! 18 starters and a senior qb. That usually means a pac10/12 champion. Oh fucking no, not Sark. He needs 7-10 years. One dipshit from fuckman.com said Sark needs 10 years because he took over an 0-12 team. Sark finished 6-7 in '09; hardly an 0-12 team (Les Miles was amazed that team was 0-12 the year prior. There was plenty of talent.
I'm from the 5-year fraternity. That's what you get as a head coach to win your conference. I have belief in Sark next year (his 5th). All the dawgman bitches will be happy with 9 wins. Only because nobody over there has a fucking clue. Sark SHOULD HAVE AND WAS 2 PLAYS AWAY FROM 9 WINS LAST YEAR. 10 wins is the benchmark for Snark next year, period, end of fucking story.
I closely watched Bruce Snyder take 2 shitty teams, in the 90's,to near back-to-back national championships in YEAR 5 (ASU was one play or two away from the crystal ball vs Ohio St. in the rose bowl, Cal finished #8 If I recall correctly). His teams got noticeably better each year. They didn't finish 7-6 every year. Were talking about CAL AND ASU for fuck sake.
Sark gets next year!!!!!! 18 starters and a senior qb. That usually means a pac10/12 champion. Oh fucking no, not Sark. He needs 7-10 years. One dipshit from fuckman.com said Sark needs 10 years because he took over an 0-12 team. Sark finished 6-7 in '09; hardly an 0-12 team (Les Miles was amazed that team was 0-12 the year prior. There was plenty of talent.
puppylove_sugarsteel
New Fish
Roaddawg, saying Sark needs to go is premature. See how he does next year. If he doesn't beat Oregon and win 10 then I think he needs to go, but that will never happen. there are no SEC standards here at Washington. Their used to be.
Part of me wants Sark to finish 5-8 and get canned. But what's more likely to happen? Sark will finish 8-5 and that will be enough improvement (even though he should have finished there in year three) for a contract extention. If we don't win the conference next year, Sark wont get us to a rose bowl ever. And Woody doesn't have the balls to cut ties as we have a brand new stadium, and recruiting is going well.
Its going to be a perpetual "just wait till next year" program with Sark if he doesn't win next year. However I'm willing to give Sark the benefit. I like him a lot as a person
Part of me wants Sark to finish 5-8 and get canned. But what's more likely to happen? Sark will finish 8-5 and that will be enough improvement (even though he should have finished there in year three) for a contract extention. If we don't win the conference next year, Sark wont get us to a rose bowl ever. And Woody doesn't have the balls to cut ties as we have a brand new stadium, and recruiting is going well.
Its going to be a perpetual "just wait till next year" program with Sark if he doesn't win next year. However I'm willing to give Sark the benefit. I like him a lot as a person
Steve_Bowman
New Fish
June Jones took friggin Hawaii to the Sugar Bowl after 6 years, Hawaii. Oh, but Hawaii is much easier to recruit for than Washington; the weather is better. (Fleenor always uses the weather excuse.)
Maybe Washington is in the same class as the Warriors now and we should give Cream Puff 6 years to get us back to the Holiday Bowl. By the way, who cares if Steve is a nice guy? I'd rather have a jerk that wins and the players respect.
Maybe Washington is in the same class as the Warriors now and we should give Cream Puff 6 years to get us back to the Holiday Bowl. By the way, who cares if Steve is a nice guy? I'd rather have a jerk that wins and the players respect.
TierbsHsotBoobs
New Fish
Sark can't go 5-8. A real football school would have fired him already. Washington wouldn't even fire him if he went 5-7 in 2013.
Washington already is a perpetual "just wait until next year" program. That's why Sark still has his job.
Based on what I've seen, I would say that Sark's Huskies are underdeveloped, especially on the line of scrimmage. Some of this is likely due to holes in the talent depth inherited from Tyrone and some of it (perhaps even more) is the result of Sark's imbalanced recruiting during his first three years. Normally, a college football program in rebuild, such as Husky Football has been the past four seasons, needs an infusion of JC transfers to fill-in the holes, but UW has had little or none of that thus far during Sark's regime. Given the lack of transfers combined with the injuries, Husky Football may remain forever young.
Steve_Bowman
New Fish
Some of this is The Dud's (Tyster) doing? Give us a break! This is the most worn out of a litany of worn out excuses. Imbalanced recruiting? Ya think?
ACSlaterDawg
New Fish
Sark still has his job because 1-2-5-4-0 is what preceded him going 5-7-7-7 with three straight bowls. Now with a new stadium and his best team, expectations are for 9 wins this year and 10 next.
If Sark goes 5-7 he definitely would be gone. This is a program that built a new stadium and had a blank check from the Pres & AD to help Sark revamp half of his staff after year 3. Does that sound like a program that is happy with 7-6 or 8-5? The admin has given him everything he needs. They know it and he knows it.
9-4 with this schedule is 7-6.
Woodward will only fire Sark to save himself. Not a minute sooner.
MikeDamone
Active poster
Why are you trying to compare your time on the cheerleading squad to playing football. Hardly the same. Even if it was in the SEC
That is an interesting point because a lot of AD's get fired along with the coach unless you are Dan Guerrero at UCLA. Woody and Sark'a future seem to go together, which is why I doubt Sark gets fired, even if he goes 7-5 or 6-6. As long as he makes a bowl, he's safe.
That's more often the case in the NFL with the GM and head coach going out at the same time. It happens in college as well but not as often when the AD is working with his first coach. I imagine Woody has the political clout to survive if Sark goes 5-7 or worse. I would guess that if Sark is caught fondling waitresses at Joey causing embarassmet for the school, Woody might go out with him.
Agree on both counts. He's benefiting from his predecessor's fuck ups and he's been given everything he needs to win. 5-7 = slam dunk fired. The test of the admin's commitment to excellence via accountability will be if he stays after a 7-6 or 8-4 season.