Sucks for the Huskies, Sarkisian to USC

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
...not really, he was barely above .500 as their head coach (34-29 in five seasons) :dunno:
 
Last edited:
I don't like this hire for SC. Think they could have done better. And I'm surprised there isn't a stronger desire for this position among all that is out there.

As for the Huskies, the right hire and there are some good candidates out there. Josh Wilcox for one, Doug Nussmeier for two and I think Chris Peterson would be perfect.

Something deep down tells me that Chris is waiting for this Duck position to open up though.
 
OneLifeToLive said:
I don't like this hire for SC. Think they could have done better. And I'm surprised there isn't a stronger desire for this position among all that is out there.

As for the Huskies, the right hire and there are some good candidates out there. Josh Wilcox for one, Doug Nussmeier for two and I think Chris Peterson would be perfect.

Something deep down tells me that Chris is waiting for this Duck position to open up though.
Click to expand...

I love Peterson but if he were the coach of the Ducks there would be some major retooling. It would take 2-3 years for his system to work IMO.
 
BlazerDuckSeahawkFan94 said:
I love Peterson but if he were the coach of the Ducks there would be some major retooling. It would take 2-3 years for his system to work IMO.
Click to expand...

Well, if both Mariotta and Thomas leave. There isn't a better time for the retool to begin.

I'm concerned this team is about to make a great big drop and it should be a concern to the major booster.
 
I totally read Orgeron as Oregon and was thinking WTF is going on? :) LOL
 
OneLifeToLive said:
Well, if both Mariotta and Thomas leave. There isn't a better time for the retool to begin.

I'm concerned this team is about to make a great big drop and it should be a concern to the major booster.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be opposed but I don't think it's fair to can Helfrich anytime soon. Personally though I want to see more pro-style elements in our offense and Peterson would definitely bring that.

In all honesty if the Ducks had the opportunity to land Ed Orgeron and have Aliotti "retire" this offseason things would start to roll.
 
BlazerDuckSeahawkFan94 said:
I wouldn't be opposed but I don't think it's fair to can Helfrich anytime soon. Personally though I want to see more pro-style elements in our offense and Peterson would definitely bring that.

In all honesty if the Ducks had the opportunity to land Ed Orgeron and have Aliotti "retire" this offseason things would start to roll.
Click to expand...

I don't think its fair either. But where is the program going with him as coach? Boosters are asking this question and have to believe are concerned.

I'll take both Orgeron and Josh Wilcox. Wilcox can guide our defense and might be huge into bringing better talent on that side of the field.
 
OneLifeToLive said:
I don't think its fair either. But where is the program going with him as coach? Boosters are asking this question and have to believe are concerned.

I'll take both Orgeron and Josh Wilcox. Wilcox can guide our defense and might be huge into bringing better talent on that side of the field.
Click to expand...

Wilcox would be ideal because of his Oregon ties but I don't see that happening. However if by 2015 our coaching staff was HC: Peterson, OC: Peterson/Frost, and DC: Wilcox I would be a happy guy.
 
BlazerDuckSeahawkFan94 said:
Wilcox would be ideal because of his Oregon ties but I don't see that happening. However if by 2015 our coaching staff was HC: Peterson, OC: Peterson/Frost, and DC: Wilcox I would be a happy guy.
Click to expand...

That would be neat. Wilcox prob won't last that long as a coordinator. He's a talented guy
 
A below par coach, again, for USC. Good for us. Now, if UW actually hirews someone compentent that could be bad for us.
 
I don't follow the Ducks forum much--where did this story of Sark being a "below-par" coach come from? Dude's turned water to wine in Seattle. Maybe it's a $10 cab blend and not a Chateauneuf du Pape yet, but he's built a legit staff (aside from D, but you guys know about that :) ), he's recruited big-time from California while keeping many of his in-state guys. He's coached up guys who are or will be first-round talent. He took a program that, even with Jake Locker, sucked for most of a decade and has 4 winning seasons in a row. He's not Saban or Urban Meyer (and probably isn't Chip Kelly or Harbaugh). But "below par"? Are you saying that there are 50+ Division I coaches better? Or 6 Pac-12 coaches who are better? Seriously? Let's just go through the Pac-12, and I'll even concede Helfrich b/c I don't want to waste time debating UO's coach in a UO forum. :) But he's better than Mora. Better than RichRod and Sonny Dykes. Better than Todd Graham and David Shaw. Better than the guys at Colorado and Utah. If you like Leach better, I disagree but can see there's a discussion. Riley has a longer track record, so maybe you can pick him. But conservatively, he's the 3rd-best coach in the Pac-12. That's above-average.

As for UW going forward, they're not UO-level yet. They're not Stanford. They don't have the history of USC. But they are in a big city, a petty historically-good program, in a state that's putting out a decent amount of HS talent, and with a brand-new remodel of a stadium and are the 2nd-biggest game in town. I can easily see UO/Stanford/USC/UW being the 'Bama/LSU/Florida/Auburn of the Pac-12, where one has an ability to play for a Rose Bowl and National Championship every year if the breaks go alright.
 
Well, OK, I was being a bit harsh. I think he is an excellent recuiter but the Fuskies seem to underperform in my opinion. He has talent and depth and I think his teams are inconsistent and don't play up to their talent level.
 
My gut feel is that your feeling of "underperformance" is because you're probably of my era (at least) that remembers the Don James teams that were 2- or 3-deep at every position with studs. I can't describe how bare the cupboard was in 2008, and it takes a few years to build that back up. Yeah, I've never been a Keith Price fan, but I think that his missteps (and the horrible D) have been the issue moreso than coaching. It's not a Lane Kiffin thing or Brady Hoke thing where they wasted talent. They've had one pick (Locker) in the last decade that was higher than a 3rd-round pick.

That said, he's brought in and coached up Sankey and Sefarian-Jenkins. He got Locker to 1st-round level. He beat #3 USC and #19 Cal (with an otherwise 3-7 team) in the first season after taking an 0-12 team.

As I said, I'm not saying he's Saban/Urban. But tell me what he's missing over, say, Sumlin/Muschamp/Malzahn/Gundy/Stoops?
 
Before the apple cup win, there was starting to be talk of getting rid of Sark on Seattle sports talk radio. I'm not saying it made a ton of sense (given how cruddy the team was when Sark arrived), but the frustration at the string of 7-5 seasons coupled with the inability to knock of the top tier Pac 12 teams was at the center of it. They were worried that Sark wouldn't be able to take the team to the next level and, based on the good talent and poor performance this season, there's probably some merit to that feeling, even if it was a bit premature.
 
LOL...was it Softy? He makes Mags look like a hater when it comes to Husky football.

They didn't (don't) have the D to hang with UO and Stanford. His attachment to Price hurt him the games that Price crapped the bed the last two years. I think Sark could really use a Palmer/Leinart/Barkley-level talent at QB to take them to the next level (since it's tough to get the team size/speed on D quickly), but let's be frank--UW hasn't been an "automatic 9-win" team for over a decade. To assume anything differently is fallacy, and the fact that the Softies/boosters of the UW world are dissatisfied with multiple bowl games in a row and a possible 9-win season this year speaks to the job Sark did.
 
Ha ha...no, not Softy and your take on him is spot on. I don't even remember which shows, but it's come up multiple times over the last month. There are now three sports talk stations in Seattle and I'm having a hard time remembering exactly who said it, but I know I've heard it multiple times.

Honestly, I pretty much agree with you, but the naysayers focus on the fact that Sark has been coach long enough that all the players are his and that any depth issues are on him. There's also the feeling that sum is less than the total of the parts.

It could be a lack of talent depth as you say, but I think the team doesn't have the toughness of the old Husky teams. The causes could be lack of talent/depth, less than ideal coaching, or a team mindset that needs to be established.
 
OneLifeToLive said:
As for the Huskies, the right hire and there are some good candidates out there. Josh Wilcox for one, Doug Nussmeier for two and I think Chris Peterson would be perfect.
Click to expand...

...they should hire Ed Ogeron, that would be a classic Fuck You to SC!
 
Problem. Solved.

Lake_Kiffin_Huskies.jpg
 
Chris Petersen is in! What great news to wake up to. Hopefully he hangs onto Wilcox, who I was hoping would get the HC job.
 
BoBoBREWSKI said:
Huskies win. Peterson is a much better coach than Sark.
Click to expand...

You could very well be right.

The funny thing to me? (From the ESPN article) Even taking into account what Petersen did with his QBs at Boise St. (Dinwiddie/Zabransky while OC, Moore), the returning young guys at UW (Lindquist, Miles, Williams) would all be the highest-rated recruit at QB that Petersen's ever had.

Unfortunately, that doesn't do anything for the defense. But I don't dislike the move at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Nate Dogg
USC Football program screws itself
Replies
2
Views
328
BoBoBREWSKI
BoBoBREWSKI
PapaG
PERS Monthy Payments
2
Replies
49
Views
4K
huevonkiller
huevonkiller

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top