Which result would be the worst for your 2013 Huskies?

[TierbsHsotBoobs]

Answer the fucking question. Your answers are anonymous for once.

 

[[Deleted User]]

I voted 8-5. At 8-5 there is some "progress" so that will buy Sark even more time to continue his mediocrity.

Going 0-12 would suck but that's just for one year. The advantage would be Woodward and Sark would be D.A.O.

While I do believe 7-6 neither would be fired, I do feel both would be on the hot season heading into 2014.

That's why 8-5 would be the worst for me.

 

[greenblood]

I said 7-6, because picking anything different would be unrealistic

 

[HeretoBeatmyChest]

Definitely 8-5. Technically its improvement but not the jump you really need to see after three straight 7-6s. After going 5-7 and then only winning 8 games over the next three years with improved talent is the sign of a poor coach.

Now if they are 8-5 but beat Arizona, Boise, Cal by 17, Illinois by 30, Colorado by 30 and lose to Oregon by 14 Stanford by 7 and ASU, UCLA and OSU by 3-7 then the advanced metrics would probably show a jump from the 45-55th of the past 3 years to 20-25.

 

[[Deleted User]]

Definitely 8-5. Technically its improvement but not the jump you really need to see after three straight 7-6s. After going 5-7 and then only winning 8 games over the next three years with improved talent is the sign of a poor coach.

Now if they are 8-5 but beat Arizona, Boise, Cal by 17, Illinois by 30, Colorado by 30 and lose to Oregon by 14 Stanford by 7 and ASU, UCLA and OSU by 3-7 then the advanced metrics would probably show a jump from the 45-55th of the past 3 years to 20-25.

Just stop please. That type of talk is why Doogs were willing to give a Ty a chance. He wasn't really 4-9 since every loss was close and that has to count.

Sorry only thing that matters is scoreboard baby! Did you fucking win the game or did you fucking lose the game?

Under no circumstance should 8-5 be acceptable.

 

[IrishDawg22]

Definitely 8-5. Technically its improvement but not the jump you really need to see after three straight 7-6s. After going 5-7 and then only winning 8 games over the next three years with improved talent is the sign of a poor coach.

Now if they are 8-5 but beat Arizona, Boise, Cal by 17, Illinois by 30, Colorado by 30 and lose to Oregon by 14 Stanford by 7 and ASU, UCLA and OSU by 3-7 then the advanced metrics would probably show a jump from the 45-55th of the past 3 years to 20-25.

Just stop please. That type of talk is why Doogs were willing to give a Ty a chance. He wasn't really 4-9 since every loss was close and that has to count.

Sorry only thing that matters is scoreboard baby! Did you fucking win the game or did you fucking lose the game?

Under no circumstance should 8-5 be acceptable.

You do realize that 50% of DJ's season ended with 8 wins or less

Sure glad this board was not around then.

 

[DerekJohnson]

Definitely 8-5. Technically its improvement but not the jump you really need to see after three straight 7-6s. After going 5-7 and then only winning 8 games over the next three years with improved talent is the sign of a poor coach.

Now if they are 8-5 but beat Arizona, Boise, Cal by 17, Illinois by 30, Colorado by 30 and lose to Oregon by 14 Stanford by 7 and ASU, UCLA and OSU by 3-7 then the advanced metrics would probably show a jump from the 45-55th of the past 3 years to 20-25.

Just stop please. That type of talk is why Doogs were willing to give a Ty a chance. He wasn't really 4-9 since every loss was close and that has to count.

Sorry only thing that matters is scoreboard baby! Did you fucking win the game or did you fucking lose the game?

Under no circumstance should 8-5 be acceptable.

You do realize that 50% of DJ's season ended with 8 wins or less

Sure glad this board was not around then.

You do realize that DJ never got to play 12 game schedules and face Div II teams

HTH

 

[RoadDawg55]

8 wins with no plunger rape losses would be progress, but I would still hope for Sark to be gone. I don't think he will be gone unless we miss a bowl. 7 or 8 wins would be bad because we would have to put up with at least one more year of Sark ball.

 

[TheKobeStopper]

Definitely 8-5. Technically its improvement but not the jump you really need to see after three straight 7-6s. After going 5-7 and then only winning 8 games over the next three years with improved talent is the sign of a poor coach.

Now if they are 8-5 but beat Arizona, Boise, Cal by 17, Illinois by 30, Colorado by 30 and lose to Oregon by 14 Stanford by 7 and ASU, UCLA and OSU by 3-7 then the advanced metrics would probably show a jump from the 45-55th of the past 3 years to 20-25.

Just stop please. That type of talk is why Doogs were willing to give a Ty a chance. He wasn't really 4-9 since every loss was close and that has to count.

Sorry only thing that matters is scoreboard baby! Did you fucking win the game or did you fucking lose the game?

Under no circumstance should 8-5 be acceptable.

You do realize that 50% of DJ's season ended with 8 wins or less

Sure glad this board was not around then.

You do realize that Don James lost 6 games exactly once in his career at Washington.

 

[[Deleted User]]

8 wins with no plunger rape losses would be progress, but I would still hope for Sark to be gone. I don't think he will be gone unless we miss a bowl. 7 or 8 wins would be bad because we would have to put up with at least one more year of Sark ball.

One more year of Sark ball with 8 wins??? Try we need to extend him before some NFL team snatches him up.

That's why 8 wins is the worst possible scenario for this season.

 

[IrishDawg22]

Definitely 8-5. Technically its improvement but not the jump you really need to see after three straight 7-6s. After going 5-7 and then only winning 8 games over the next three years with improved talent is the sign of a poor coach.

Now if they are 8-5 but beat Arizona, Boise, Cal by 17, Illinois by 30, Colorado by 30 and lose to Oregon by 14 Stanford by 7 and ASU, UCLA and OSU by 3-7 then the advanced metrics would probably show a jump from the 45-55th of the past 3 years to 20-25.

Just stop please. That type of talk is why Doogs were willing to give a Ty a chance. He wasn't really 4-9 since every loss was close and that has to count.

Sorry only thing that matters is scoreboard baby! Did you fucking win the game or did you fucking lose the game?

Under no circumstance should 8-5 be acceptable.

You do realize that 50% of DJ's season ended with 8 wins or less

Sure glad this board was not around then.

You do realize that DJ never got to play 12 game schedules and face Div II teams

HTH

3 = the number of times DJ faced an WSU, Oregon or Oregon St team that was ranked during his career.

And almost every year had the cupcake (San Jose St, Idaho, etc)

These people would have crucified him for going 6-5, 5-6, 8-4 (on field) and 7-4.

 

[[Deleted User]]

Definitely 8-5. Technically its improvement but not the jump you really need to see after three straight 7-6s. After going 5-7 and then only winning 8 games over the next three years with improved talent is the sign of a poor coach.

Now if they are 8-5 but beat Arizona, Boise, Cal by 17, Illinois by 30, Colorado by 30 and lose to Oregon by 14 Stanford by 7 and ASU, UCLA and OSU by 3-7 then the advanced metrics would probably show a jump from the 45-55th of the past 3 years to 20-25.

Just stop please. That type of talk is why Doogs were willing to give a Ty a chance. He wasn't really 4-9 since every loss was close and that has to count.

Sorry only thing that matters is scoreboard baby! Did you fucking win the game or did you fucking lose the game?

Under no circumstance should 8-5 be acceptable.

You do realize that 50% of DJ's season ended with 8 wins or less

Sure glad this board was not around then.

You do realize that DJ never got to play 12 game schedules and face Div II teams

HTH

3 = the number of times DJ faced an WSU, Oregon or Oregon St team that was ranked during his career.

And almost every year had the cupcake (San Jose St, Idaho, etc)

These people would have crucified him for going 6-5, 5-6, 8-4 (on field) and 7-4.

He won a Rose Bowl then popped off in year three. Plus wasn't getting plunger raped 3+ times a year or blowing 18 point leads to shitty rivals.

 

[Mad_Son]

Definitely 8-5. Technically its improvement but not the jump you really need to see after three straight 7-6s. After going 5-7 and then only winning 8 games over the next three years with improved talent is the sign of a poor coach.

Now if they are 8-5 but beat Arizona, Boise, Cal by 17, Illinois by 30, Colorado by 30 and lose to Oregon by 14 Stanford by 7 and ASU, UCLA and OSU by 3-7 then the advanced metrics would probably show a jump from the 45-55th of the past 3 years to 20-25.

Just stop please. That type of talk is why Doogs were willing to give a Ty a chance. He wasn't really 4-9 since every loss was close and that has to count.

Sorry only thing that matters is scoreboard baby! Did you fucking win the game or did you fucking lose the game?

Under no circumstance should 8-5 be acceptable.

You do realize that 50% of DJ's season ended with 8 wins or less

Sure glad this board was not around then.

You do realize that DJ never got to play 12 game schedules and face Div II teams

HTH

3 = the number of times DJ faced an WSU, Oregon or Oregon St team that was ranked during his career.

And almost every year had the cupcake (San Jose St, Idaho, etc)

These people would have crucified him for going 6-5, 5-6, 8-4 (on field) and 7-4.

After winning a Rose Bowl in year three I think people here would have put down the nails for a bit... If Sark had won a Rose bowl in year three he would have way fewer detractors right now. In short, you are wrong. People here care about results and winning the Rose Bowl is a result.

 

[IrishDawg22]

Not sure how many of you were actually around at that time, but it is weird how history has been rewritten.

UW had some excellent seasons, but they were never the consistent west coast power that some people seem to remember.

 

[[Deleted User]]

Not sure how many of you were actually around at that time, but it is weird how history has been rewritten.

UW had some excellent seasons, but they were never the consistent west coast power that some people seem to remember.

There was more pressure from our fans towards James after going 6-5(all 5 losses by a combined 15 points) in 1988 than there is on Sark right now. James who was #2 in the nation just 4 years prior.

If anyone is trying to rewrite history it is you.

 

[IrishDawg22]

Not sure how many of you were actually around at that time, but it is weird how history has been rewritten.

UW had some excellent seasons, but they were never the consistent west coast power that some people seem to remember.

There was more pressure from our fans towards James after going 6-5(all 5 losses by a combined 15 points) in 1988 than there is on Sark right now. James who was #2 in the nation just 4 years prior.

If anyone is trying to rewrite history it is you.

Were you actually there, or are you just repeating talking points from "people in the know"?? My memory is getting a little foggy, but as I remember it the main person putting pressure on Coach James was Coach James.

Maybe I missed the PUBLIC outcry for his job.

 

[[Deleted User]]

Not sure how many of you were actually around at that time, but it is weird how history has been rewritten.

UW had some excellent seasons, but they were never the consistent west coast power that some people seem to remember.

There was more pressure from our fans towards James after going 6-5(all 5 losses by a combined 15 points) in 1988 than there is on Sark right now. James who was #2 in the nation just 4 years prior.

If anyone is trying to rewrite history it is you.

Were you actually there, or are you just repeating talking points from "people in the know"?? My memory is getting a little foggy, but as I remember it the main person putting pressure on Coach James was Coach James.

Maybe I missed the PUBLIC outcry for his job.

The fans were pretty pissed off at the time. Back then 6-5 and losing to WSU and Oregon in the same season was unacceptable.

When Lambright lost 6 games for the first time he was fired, when Neuheisel lost 6 games for the first time he was also fired.

Was the Huskies in the 1980's and 1990's a top 10 program for the entire decade? No they weren't but they were a top 15-20 program which is a lot better than we are under your Sark.

 

[DerekJohnson]

Definitely 8-5. Technically its improvement but not the jump you really need to see after three straight 7-6s. After going 5-7 and then only winning 8 games over the next three years with improved talent is the sign of a poor coach.

Now if they are 8-5 but beat Arizona, Boise, Cal by 17, Illinois by 30, Colorado by 30 and lose to Oregon by 14 Stanford by 7 and ASU, UCLA and OSU by 3-7 then the advanced metrics would probably show a jump from the 45-55th of the past 3 years to 20-25.

Just stop please. That type of talk is why Doogs were willing to give a Ty a chance. He wasn't really 4-9 since every loss was close and that has to count.

Sorry only thing that matters is scoreboard baby! Did you fucking win the game or did you fucking lose the game?

Under no circumstance should 8-5 be acceptable.

You do realize that 50% of DJ's season ended with 8 wins or less

Sure glad this board was not around then.

You do realize that DJ never got to play 12 game schedules and face Div II teams

HTH

3 = the number of times DJ faced an WSU, Oregon or Oregon St team that was ranked during his career.

And almost every year had the cupcake (San Jose St, Idaho, etc)

These people would have crucified him for going 6-5, 5-6, 8-4 (on field) and 7-4.

Pressing.

 

[IrishDawg22]

Definitely 8-5. Technically its improvement but not the jump you really need to see after three straight 7-6s. After going 5-7 and then only winning 8 games over the next three years with improved talent is the sign of a poor coach.

Now if they are 8-5 but beat Arizona, Boise, Cal by 17, Illinois by 30, Colorado by 30 and lose to Oregon by 14 Stanford by 7 and ASU, UCLA and OSU by 3-7 then the advanced metrics would probably show a jump from the 45-55th of the past 3 years to 20-25.

Just stop please. That type of talk is why Doogs were willing to give a Ty a chance. He wasn't really 4-9 since every loss was close and that has to count.

Sorry only thing that matters is scoreboard baby! Did you fucking win the game or did you fucking lose the game?

Under no circumstance should 8-5 be acceptable.

You do realize that 50% of DJ's season ended with 8 wins or less

Sure glad this board was not around then.

You do realize that DJ never got to play 12 game schedules and face Div II teams

HTH

3 = the number of times DJ faced an WSU, Oregon or Oregon St team that was ranked during his career.

And almost every year had the cupcake (San Jose St, Idaho, etc)

These people would have crucified him for going 6-5, 5-6, 8-4 (on field) and 7-4.

Pressing.

Pressing = Facts???

What is funny people have already tried to label me pro Sark when that was not my argument. Fact is I was one of the 1st ones purged from that other place under 2 usernames for challenging Sark, their positive spring/fall reports and recruiting analysis of UW commits. Which has earned me the lifetime ban.

It is just funny to watch people get all worked up and lose sight of the original argument.

All I was doing was challenging this statement:

"Under no circumstance should 8-5 be acceptable"

 

[DerekJohnson]

I'm not worked up at all. I just think you're trying to be a fly in the ointment without the ability of a TierbsHsotBoobs to really pull it off.

Don James didn't get routinely destroyed by 30+ points, bear hug opposing coaches and then go on the radio and make a bunch of pre-rehearsed whiny remarks about how much he has accomplished and how much the odds were stacked against him.

There would have been some people criticizing him for sure, but to try to say that we would be acting the same toward him is nonsense.