In a recent interview with SiriusXM College Sports Nation, UW coach Steve Sarkisian said,
Read the full story here
Last edited:
Washington Football: Is Steve Sarkisian Circling the Wagons?
- Thread starter administrator
- Start date
In a recent interview with SiriusXM College Sports Nation, UW coach Steve Sarkisian said,
Read the full story here
Good thing he had Kim Grinolds around to be his dirty little parrot so Kim could tell the world that Husky fans couldn't have any semblance of expectations until the magical year of 2013. Something tells me that it isn't just Kim who will blame Keith Price if the Special Year of 2013 goes into the shitter - it will be the head coach as well.
MikeDamone
Active poster
Sounds like he taking a page from the Obama playbook. Some of you don't realize the damage Bush/Willingham did.
Steve_Bowman
New Fish
I really don't think he's feeling any heat. He's just tamping expectations and toning down the BS so heat doesn't develop.
He laid out a set of excuses...."not my fault' laced with a bit of bravado, "competing for the conference championship." If he wins 8 regular season games, we'll erect a statue to him. As long as he goes 7 - 5 he'll be around for several years.
As oft mentioned, "Husky Football IS Dead."
He laid out a set of excuses...."not my fault' laced with a bit of bravado, "competing for the conference championship." If he wins 8 regular season games, we'll erect a statue to him. As long as he goes 7 - 5 he'll be around for several years.
As oft mentioned, "Husky Football IS Dead."
Last edited:
This is my real fear. Will he be gone if he goes 7-5? Somehow, I doubt he will.
Steve_Bowman
New Fish
We just might be able to eak out 7 wins.
BOISE STATE - L
at Illinois
IDAHO STATE
CALIFORNIA
Stanford - L
OREGON - L
Oregon State - L
UCLA - L
ARIZONA
Arizona State
COLORADO
WASHINGTON STATE
We might win one of the five games marked as a loss. We'll lose a game to some high school team like WSU so there's five loses in all likely hood. If anything goes wrong, we're 6 - 6 or worse. Anybody on this schedule can beat us other than Idaho St and perhaps Colorado and Illinois.
At this stage, I'm hoping for less than 6 wins.....it's the only way we eradicate this cancer.
BOISE STATE - L
at Illinois
IDAHO STATE
CALIFORNIA
Stanford - L
OREGON - L
Oregon State - L
UCLA - L
ARIZONA
Arizona State
COLORADO
WASHINGTON STATE
We might win one of the five games marked as a loss. We'll lose a game to some high school team like WSU so there's five loses in all likely hood. If anything goes wrong, we're 6 - 6 or worse. Anybody on this schedule can beat us other than Idaho St and perhaps Colorado and Illinois.
At this stage, I'm hoping for less than 6 wins.....it's the only way we eradicate this cancer.
Last edited:
The only point where I could start actually hoping for the Huskies to lose is if we're 3-7 or something like that. Just like 2007.
Steve_Bowman
New Fish
UCLA. Would they be better of if Rick had won a few more games his last year? He might still be there.
It's bitter medicine.
It's bitter medicine.
MikeDamone
Active poster
If Sark can't win 9 games before December, i think 3 wins would be my next choice. Get him the fuck out.
My problem is I have no confidence the next hire will be anything other than Lather, Rinse, repeat.
My problem is I have no confidence the next hire will be anything other than Lather, Rinse, repeat.
Passion
New Fish
Sark was right the first time, when he said that it shouldn't take that long. Yes, he inherited an 0-12 team in terms of wins and losses, but not in terms of talent. He inherited Daniel Te'O Nesheim, Donald Butler, Mason Foster, Jake Locker, Jermaine Kearse, Devin Aguilar, Chris Polk, Alameda Ta'Amu, Senio Kelemete, a productive-Kavario Middleton, etc. In other words, he had a lot to work with.
Now he is realizing that he should have milked the 0-12 excuse a lot longer. It's a winning argument to the uneducated masses.
Now he is realizing that he should have milked the 0-12 excuse a lot longer. It's a winning argument to the uneducated masses.
Last edited:
MikeDamone
Active poster
It's worked for BHO.
Last edited:
Passion
New Fish
Come on, you're not that simple minded. It's completely different, pal. Look at where unemployment was when dubbya took over, the debt, deficit, and credit markets.
Then look at where unemployment was when BHO took over, the debt, deficit, and credit markets. Banks weren't lending (those that were surviving), the economy was bleeding jobs, and foreclosure rates were at an all-time. Oh yah, and we were mired in 2 very expensive wars (1 of which was unnecessary).
In stark contrast, Sark inherited a bunch of talented players that simply underachieved under his predecessor. All he had to do was instill some enthusiasm (i.e., "fun") and the rest took care of itself.
The President and a football coach are not even comparable. A President does not have "complete control of the world," meaning that he/she cannot force banks to restructure home loans, and he cannot force companies to hire, and he cannot not force consumers to increase their confidence. Obama only had 2 years with a Democratic House, so he did not have the power to implement his policies.
But Sark was the dictator - he got to do whatever he wanted (call plays, recruit players, etc etc etc).
Sark inherited a good situation. Obama did not.
Then look at where unemployment was when BHO took over, the debt, deficit, and credit markets. Banks weren't lending (those that were surviving), the economy was bleeding jobs, and foreclosure rates were at an all-time. Oh yah, and we were mired in 2 very expensive wars (1 of which was unnecessary).
In stark contrast, Sark inherited a bunch of talented players that simply underachieved under his predecessor. All he had to do was instill some enthusiasm (i.e., "fun") and the rest took care of itself.
The President and a football coach are not even comparable. A President does not have "complete control of the world," meaning that he/she cannot force banks to restructure home loans, and he cannot force companies to hire, and he cannot not force consumers to increase their confidence. Obama only had 2 years with a Democratic House, so he did not have the power to implement his policies.
But Sark was the dictator - he got to do whatever he wanted (call plays, recruit players, etc etc etc).
Sark inherited a good situation. Obama did not.
MikeDamone
Active poster
Listen fella...if you can't see the damage Willingham did then I can't help you.
I heard the wars were not only expensive and the reason for the high debt, but they were ILLEGAL. Staff? True?
TierbsHsotBoobs
New Fish
Pussy. I'm already hoping for 0-12 this year.
ACSlaterDawg
New Fish
Boise St lost quite a few seniors and they are not a great road team. We'll win that.
This season will be a microcosm of 2011. We'll start out 4-0 and be ranked like 15th, then lose 3 in a row to Stanford, Oregon and ASU and the season will basically be over. We'll finish 8-5 and theres no way Sark will get fired for that. Worst case scenario fellas, 8 wins. 7 and its 50-50 he gets fired. 9 wins means expectations are for 10 and north title in 2014.
I agree that we should beat Boise State, but it is far from a sure thing. We have played poorly in every opener under Sark except the LSU game in 2009. The real dilemma is that Sark is not in Chris Peterson's league as a coach. Boise State will be ready to play, it is debatable if UW will be. I think it will be a very close game.
Last edited:
With the stadium debuting, UW will be excited by default. It will be a close game, and intense.
MikeDamone
Active poster
After the standford beat down we will hear "can't you just be happy with 4-1?" Then after the Oregon beat down we will hear "honestly, at the beginning of the year did you expect to beat Oregon?"
Agreed, although being excited and being ready to play can be two entirely different things.