UW's Vegas Bowl Debacle: Sarkisian Crapping out as Husky Coach

A

administrator

Administrator
Staff member
Swaye's Wigwam

1356407465254
UW's Vegas Bowl Debacle: Sarkisian Crapping out as Husky Coach
When it comes to head football coaches, you gotta know when to hold 'em, and know when to fold 'em. Regarding the Steve Sarkisian era at Washington, the time has come to walk away... Or maybe even run.
Read the full story here

 
Last edited:
Sark cost this team that game by not challenging the spot on that 4th and 1. The defensive line actually stood up Southwick and stopped him comfortably short of the marker. Who knows how a review will go, but the Huskies would've had a decent chance at getting that overturned. That was probably the most boneheaded coaching mistake of the season for Sarkisian. At least ask for a measurement. They have to give it to you, and it doesn't even cost a timeout. I know we've talked about that play, but it just kills me that our coach doesn't have the game awareness to understand that 4th and 1 deep in the fourth quarter of a one point game is sort of important.

Another reason that play troubles me is that it indicates that he's repeating old mistakes. Remember the UCLA game from his first year? The tight end catches a pass near the goal line that was obviously trapped. Sark conserves his timeouts, and doesn't challenge. Neuheisel wisely snaps the ball ASAP, scores, and goes on to win the game. The original problem was that when Sark was hired, we all complained that Washington was not a 'learn on the job' kind of program. The new and much bigger problem is that four years along, we're finding out that Sark isn't even doing that. He's not learning on the job. He's prone to the same gameday mistakes that plagued him in Year 1. This is bad.

I am not at all convinced that he will get much better, or that 2013 will be special. He will peak out as an occasional 8 or 9 win guy, but Seven Win Steve is just who he is. And that might just be good enough for this fanbase, as long as everybody has a nice time at the game. Stomp your feet all you want, Sark will be head coach here as long as he wants, as long as he can keep the December bowl losses rolling in.

 
Two things I noticed after rewatching that fourth and 1...then an explanation of why there was no measurement:

1. Boise got jobbed on the forward progress spot on the third down play. Husky fans can shut the fuck up already about it.
2. There was no way in hell that video evidence could have overturned the fourth and 1 spot. That was a scrum.

As I mentioned before, that was a spot that required no measurement. Ball touches the line = first down BSU, ball short of line = first down UW. The ball was clearly spotted on the line. They don't have to give you a measurement in that situation because the series started exactly at the edge of the UW 42 yard line. Officials do this after every change of possession to reduce the need for measurements in a game. They do it at every level from pee wee football to the NFL.
 
You're assuming that there's no such thing as an inaccurate ball spot.

The 4th and 1 play is around 2:14:10. If you watch the scrum, the ball is in Southwick's left hand and you get a pretty clear look at where he is. He gets stopped initially, but then gets a second push. He gets lost in the shuffle from the angle of the original broadcast. The camera angle that we have is certainly inconclusive, but the replay booth would be able to use multiple angles.

The key is that the guy who has the best look is the line judge(s). Watch the line judge come running down from the top of the screen to spot the ball. He's inches short of the 32 the ENTIRE time. The second line judge runs up from the bottom of the screen and is closer to the 32, I'd even say right on the 32.

No, I don't think the officials conspired to screw Washington. I think it was too close to call accurately at full game speed, and that alone warranted a challenge.

It's totally plausible that UW loses the review. But the replay official might well have noticed that the two line judges came up with slightly different spots and been forced to make a call. We'll never know, and the fact that we'll never know is entirely Sark's fault. Washington had all 3 timeouts, and there was 2:36 on the clock. Sark could've easily afforded to risk a single timeout to clear the question up. If it was our last timeout, I get it. Hold on to the timeout and give your offense a chance. He had 3.

By the way, Washington ended the game with one timeout. Sark took it into the locker room with him.

 
Last edited:
and yes, the Boise receiver looked to be ahead of the first down marker on 3rd and 4, but after the ball is snapped, it no longer matters. Had UW been awarded the ball on 4th and 1, Boise fans would be arguing about whether Petersen should've challenged the third down ball spot. He chose to play it as it was, and it worked out.
 
If the officials screwed up twice and got it right by doing so, they didn't cost you the game. Washington cost Washington that game by failing to take advantage of its massive advantage in the running game.
 
I'm not arguing that the officials cost us the game. I'm arguing that Sarkisian cost us the game. In a game that close and a call that close, you just don't end the game with a timeout in your pocket.

Again, I think that the camera angle we have is inconclusive, and nobody can say that the spot of the ball was correct after the two screw ups. That's still not on the officials, it's on the head coach.
 
Sark cost this team that game by not challenging the spot on that 4th and 1. The defensive line actually stood up Southwick and stopped him comfortably short of the marker. Who knows how a review will go, but the Huskies would've had a decent chance at getting that overturned. That was probably the most boneheaded coaching mistake of the season for Sarkisian. At least ask for a measurement. They have to give it to you, and it doesn't even cost a timeout. I know we've talked about that play, but it just kills me that our coach doesn't have the game awareness to understand that 4th and 1 deep in the fourth quarter of a one point game is sort of important.

Another reason that play troubles me is that it indicates that he's repeating old mistakes. Remember the UCLA game from his first year? The tight end catches a pass near the goal line that was obviously trapped. Sark conserves his timeouts, and doesn't challenge. Neuheisel wisely snaps the ball ASAP, scores, and goes on to win the game. The original problem was that when Sark was hired, we all complained that Washington was not a 'learn on the job' kind of program. The new and much bigger problem is that four years along, we're finding out that Sark isn't even doing that. He's not learning on the job. He's prone to the same gameday mistakes that plagued him in Year 1. This is bad.

I am not at all convinced that he will get much better, or that 2013 will be special. He will peak out as an occasional 8 or 9 win guy, but Seven Win Steve is just who he is. And that might just be good enough for this fanbase, as long as everybody has a nice time at the game. Stomp your feet all you want, Sark will be head coach here as long as he wants, as long as he can keep the December bowl losses rolling in.
Click to expand...

God, I remember that UCLA play.

And I am glad Larry saw the the same thing I did. Sven, not so much.
 
That spot seemed weak, but the bigger blown call IMO was the non-call on the blatant block in the back that gave Boise that huge return to start the drive.
 
Jesus Christ, I can't believe after reading the article, that you boneheads are arguing about a fucking spot of the ball, not about the overall issues with Sark! Yes, he may have screwed up that specific call, but is that what made the team get crushed 4 times this year, then play like pussies against WSU/BSU? Now, can we get back to the gist of the article?

Sark is not the coach that's going to take us to the next level, that's painfully obvious to me. How about you knuckleheads?
 
Larry said in his original post in this thread that Sark is making the same mistakes in Year 4 that he did in Year 1, and that he doesn't think he's going to get better. I think that's a pretty good indication that he doesn't think Sark is the guy. He was just pointing out yet another example of where Sark is failing; the blowouts have been discussed at length many times, and Larry was bringing up another point where Sark is crapping himself continually instead of learning from previous mistakes.
 
BAMA, I understand the OP's point, but to have over 50% of the posts on this thread be about that specific situation, to prove the point that Sark makes the same mistakes over and over is....?

Sark has shown very little ability to change his ways. The discipline is so lacking it's pathetic, as is the lack of toughness (physical and mental) of the team. And as DJ pointed out, the bodies of the team is underwhelming.
 
The specific situation they're talking about isn't to singularly prove that Sark is a jackass; it's just yet another example of how he just doesn't appear to be the guy to get the program to the next level. This situation is just the latest incident de jour. You won't find Larry or anyone else here disagreeing with anything you say; he's said it plenty of times before, and is just pointing out this situation as further evidence for a case that has already been built.
 
BAMA, I understand the OP's point, but to have over 50% of the posts on this thread be about that specific situation, to prove the point that Sark makes the same mistakes over and over is....?

Sark has shown very little ability to change his ways. The discipline is so lacking it's pathetic, as is the lack of toughness (physical and mental) of the team. And as DJ pointed out, the bodies of the team is underwhelming.
Click to expand...

The reason there's a focus on that play is because 15 second stretches of video that crystallize exactly why a coach is not up to the job are actually very rare. If I were arguing that the officials robbed UW and focused on the ball spot to support that, you might have had a point. That would be a clear case of whistling past the graveyard. No, that discussion was focused completely on Sarkisian's mismanagement of the situation, and its consequences.

This issue at the end of the LV Bowl was a case in point explaining why Sarkisian is not the guy, and never will be. Never can be is probably more accurate. I'm not sure it's something he can learn; the guy just doesn't have head coach DNA. Anybody with a reasonable feel for the game would have managed that situation in a manner that at least put the team in a position to win.

That's the larger arc I think you're looking for, and that's what the spot discussion was all about. It was Sark in a nutshell: The man is a piss poor game manager with horrendous instincts, which turns him into a heavy liability that has to be overcome, even in games where the team is otherwise competitive.
 
Sark is putting out a mediocre, soft product. They lack physicality and a killer instinct. That's the problem in a nutshell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top