We have "crappy" lines, because the sarters that played last season were freshman and sophomores who had never played before. We lost 4 offensive lineman before and during the season to injury, that we just did not have the depth to replace adequately. It takes years to have the depth to replace 4 quality starters. If you're going to blame Sark for that then I don't know what to say. We lost our best defensive lineman during fall practices. We just didn't have the depth.

If we didn't have those injuries, many were saying the line was as good as it had been in years. Hopefully some of those starters can come back and help the team next year. They are coming of devastating injuries, so all we can we do is hope. Coming of an 0-12 season Sark has done as well as anybody could have hoped for. Even your beloved Chip would have been hard pressed to do better.

You build depth over time, just like you build experience over time. We didn't have much if any of the depth Oregon has. That is the difference between the two programs. It is hard to build depth coming of a 0-12 season and it takes time. I'm sorry you can't and are not willing to understand that.

---------------------------------------------
--- OneFineDuck wrote:

Ummmmmmmmmmmm; enough with the 'young' theme . . . we had 65 freshmen and sophomores last season . . . a frosh qb, 2 sophomores as WRs, 3 true freshmen on the D line . . . a true sophomore as a center . . .

I could go on . . . the Heisman winner was a frosh . . . all teams have some youth . . .

You have crappy lines and will never exceed that magical 7 - 6 until you get some linemen . . .


Woulda, coulda, shoulda should be printed on all your uniforms . . .

---------------------------------------------
--- dubsup1234 wrote:

UW beat Stanford. That is a really good win, no matter who the starting qb was. Stanford competed with Notre Dame with the same qb and beat USC and other good teams with Nunes.

We underestimated WSU after beating them for 3 straight years, but we still had a chance to win with an easy 30 yard kick, that our kicker missed. In our bowl game we missed another late field goal that had a huge affect on the outcome.

Beating Stanford and losing to WSU shows how inconsistent we were last year. Young teams are inconsistent and as we mature we will hopefully get better at treating every game as our season. We are not as far away from competing as many Duck fans believe and most Dawg fans believe in Sark.

We also blew a great chance against USC when we fumbled at the goal line. We win those 3 games and we are 10-3.
UW was really close to being a 10 win team last year and as we improve as a team and Sark improves as a coach, we will hopefully win those close games. This year will tell us a lot.

We were a really inconsistent team last year and most Dawg fans have been looking to this year as the year we will be mature enough and talented enough to beat good teams and compete with every team we play. We had trouble defending the option/spread last year, with two freshman linebackers starting. We will hopefully improve on that In the future as our players mature.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Ummmmmmmmm; you didn't come off of a 0 - 12 season . . . you came off of a season where the great Jake Lockner was hurt and Ty had lost the team . . . probably a 4- 8 team, at worst.

Also, why is there no depth after 4 years ? How many years does it take to create depth? Why hasn't Sark built that depth yet? Where is the fence around the state? Where are the classes full of O and D linemen to build that depth?

We lost one of our best O Linemen early on . . . lost some of our best D linemen mid season . . . lost our best Safety after 1 or 2 games . . . and another later in the season . . .

In short . . . all you are good at is excuses . . .

---------------------------------------------
--- dubsup1234 wrote:

We have "crappy" lines, because the sarters that played last season were freshman and sophomores who had never played before. We lost 4 offensive lineman before and during the season to injury, that we just did not have the depth to replace adequately. It takes years to have the depth to replace 4 quality starters. If you're going to blame Sark for that then I don't know what to say. We lost our best defensive lineman during fall practices. We just didn't have the depth.

If we didn't have those injuries, many were saying the line was as good as it had been in years. Hopefully some of those starters can come back and help the team next year. They are coming of devastating injuries, so all we can we do is hope. Coming of an 0-12 season Sark has done as well as anybody could have hoped for. Even your beloved Chip would have been hard pressed to do better.

You build depth over time, just like you build experience over time. We didn't have much if any of the depth Oregon has. That is the difference between the two programs. It is hard to build depth coming of a 0-12 season and it takes time. I'm sorry you can't and are not willing to understand that.

---------------------------------------------
--- OneFineDuck wrote:

Ummmmmmmmmmmm; enough with the 'young' theme . . . we had 65 freshmen and sophomores last season . . . a frosh qb, 2 sophomores as WRs, 3 true freshmen on the D line . . . a true sophomore as a center . . .

I could go on . . . the Heisman winner was a frosh . . . all teams have some youth . . .

You have crappy lines and will never exceed that magical 7 - 6 until you get some linemen . . .


Woulda, coulda, shoulda should be printed on all your uniforms . . .

---------------------------------------------
--- dubsup1234 wrote:

UW beat Stanford. That is a really good win, no matter who the starting qb was. Stanford competed with Notre Dame with the same qb and beat USC and other good teams with Nunes.

We underestimated WSU after beating them for 3 straight years, but we still had a chance to win with an easy 30 yard kick, that our kicker missed. In our bowl game we missed another late field goal that had a huge affect on the outcome.

Beating Stanford and losing to WSU shows how inconsistent we were last year. Young teams are inconsistent and as we mature we will hopefully get better at treating every game as our season. We are not as far away from competing as many Duck fans believe and most Dawg fans believe in Sark.

We also blew a great chance against USC when we fumbled at the goal line. We win those 3 games and we are 10-3.
UW was really close to being a 10 win team last year and as we improve as a team and Sark improves as a coach, we will hopefully win those close games. This year will tell us a lot.

We were a really inconsistent team last year and most Dawg fans have been looking to this year as the year we will be mature enough and talented enough to beat good teams and compete with every team we play. We had trouble defending the option/spread last year, with two freshman linebackers starting. We will hopefully improve on that In the future as our players mature.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------
--- RogerMurdock wrote:


<blockquote dir="ltr"><strong>GGG19 wrote:</strong> . I'm glad, we all are glad, that Sark is coming back.  </blockquote>
Us too...

Sark's last 3  recruiting classes:   Average ranking  #18

UO's last 3 recruiting classes:      Average ranking #17


Who would you rather play for?

---------------------------------------------

Chip Kelly. But he's gone....

The Ducks have been humiliating UWe'reBack since long before Flip Belly was the coach.

Even UWe'reBack's bestest season since the co-title in '90someting was ruined by losing to the Ducks. A Rose Bowl against Purdue, and the Pups had to have OSU beat the Ducks to even play in that game.

---------------------------------------------
--- LawDawg1 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- RogerMurdock wrote:


<blockquote dir="ltr"><strong>GGG19 wrote:</strong> . I'm glad, we all are glad, that Sark is coming back.  </blockquote>
Us too...

Sark's last 3  recruiting classes:   Average ranking  #18

UO's last 3 recruiting classes:      Average ranking #17


Who would you rather play for?

---------------------------------------------

Chip Kelly. But he's gone....

---------------------------------------------

Ummmmmmmmm; Here is Nick Saban's record his first 4 years at Michigan State:

6-6 in 1995
6-5 in 1996
7-5 in 1997
6-6 in 1998

You see any similarities? Now Sark has a lot to prove before he can be called Saban's equal, but they started out their careers in similar fashion. Saban did not even take over an 0-12 program like Sark did, whether you think the program was 0-12 or not. The talent on UW was very poor at the time, so it was a remarkable job by Sark improving by 7 wins over his predecessor and there is still more improvement to come.

I'm sure you would have had Saban fired for not winning after 4 years, but thankfully for Michigan State they have a smarter AD. Saban went 9-2 in year 5, so this is a big year for sark, but 4 years is not enough to have the depth to compete on a large scale in college football.

The fence around the state argument made by you and made by some UW fans is laughable. You cannot expect to compete on a large scale without out of state recruits, if you are not located in Cali, Texas, or Florida, etc. Sark, unlike you, knows that and that is why he focuses on getting the best players he can. I'm sure you would take a 2 star RB from Oregon over DAT, because DAT is fom Cali, right?

When you lose recruits it does not matter if they are in state or out of state. A lost recruit is a lost recruit. As Sark wins more he will recruit better. You cannot be expected to convince 5 star in state or out of state recruits to come to a recent 0-12 program. I hope you can understand that, but I doubt it.


---------------------------------------------
--- OneFineDuck wrote:

Ummmmmmmmm; you didn't come off of a 0 - 12 season . . . you came off of a season where the great Jake Lockner was hurt and Ty had lost the team . . . probably a 4- 8 team, at worst.

Also, why is there no depth after 4 years ? How many years does it take to create depth? Why hasn't Sark built that depth yet? Where is the fence around the state? Where are the classes full of O and D linemen to build that depth?

We lost one of our best O Linemen early on . . . lost some of our best D linemen mid season . . . lost our best Safety after 1 or 2 games . . . and another later in the season . . .

In short . . . all you are good at is excuses . . .

---------------------------------------------
--- dubsup1234 wrote:

We have "crappy" lines, because the sarters that played last season were freshman and sophomores who had never played before. We lost 4 offensive lineman before and during the season to injury, that we just did not have the depth to replace adequately. It takes years to have the depth to replace 4 quality starters. If you're going to blame Sark for that then I don't know what to say. We lost our best defensive lineman during fall practices. We just didn't have the depth.

If we didn't have those injuries, many were saying the line was as good as it had been in years. Hopefully some of those starters can come back and help the team next year. They are coming of devastating injuries, so all we can we do is hope. Coming of an 0-12 season Sark has done as well as anybody could have hoped for. Even your beloved Chip would have been hard pressed to do better.

You build depth over time, just like you build experience over time. We didn't have much if any of the depth Oregon has. That is the difference between the two programs. It is hard to build depth coming of a 0-12 season and it takes time. I'm sorry you can't and are not willing to understand that.

---------------------------------------------
--- OneFineDuck wrote:

Ummmmmmmmmmmm; enough with the 'young' theme . . . we had 65 freshmen and sophomores last season . . . a frosh qb, 2 sophomores as WRs, 3 true freshmen on the D line . . . a true sophomore as a center . . .

I could go on . . . the Heisman winner was a frosh . . . all teams have some youth . . .

You have crappy lines and will never exceed that magical 7 - 6 until you get some linemen . . .


Woulda, coulda, shoulda should be printed on all your uniforms . . .

---------------------------------------------
--- dubsup1234 wrote:

UW beat Stanford. That is a really good win, no matter who the starting qb was. Stanford competed with Notre Dame with the same qb and beat USC and other good teams with Nunes.

We underestimated WSU after beating them for 3 straight years, but we still had a chance to win with an easy 30 yard kick, that our kicker missed. In our bowl game we missed another late field goal that had a huge affect on the outcome.

Beating Stanford and losing to WSU shows how inconsistent we were last year. Young teams are inconsistent and as we mature we will hopefully get better at treating every game as our season. We are not as far away from competing as many Duck fans believe and most Dawg fans believe in Sark.

We also blew a great chance against USC when we fumbled at the goal line. We win those 3 games and we are 10-3.
UW was really close to being a 10 win team last year and as we improve as a team and Sark improves as a coach, we will hopefully win those close games. This year will tell us a lot.

We were a really inconsistent team last year and most Dawg fans have been looking to this year as the year we will be mature enough and talented enough to beat good teams and compete with every team we play. We had trouble defending the option/spread last year, with two freshman linebackers starting. We will hopefully improve on that In the future as our players mature.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Steve sarkisian is not nick Saban. Classic.

dubsup1234 wrote: Ummmmmmmmm; Here is Nick Saban's record his first 4 years at Michigan State:

6-6 in 1995
6-5 in 1996
7-5 in 1997
6-6 in 1998

You see any similarities? Now Sark has a lot to prove before he can be called Saban's equal, but they started out their careers in similar fashion. Saban did not even take over an 0-12 program like Sark did, whether you think the program was 0-12 or not. The talent on UW was very poor at the time, so it was a remarkable job by Sark improving by 7 wins over his predecessor and there is still more improvement to come.

I'm sure you would have had Saban fired for not winning after 4 years, but thankfully for Michigan State they have a smarter AD. Saban went 9-2 in year 5, so this is a big year for sark, but 4 years is not enough to have the depth to compete on a large scale in college football.

The fence around the state argument made by you and made by some UW fans is laughable. You cannot expect to compete on a large scale without out of state recruits, if you are not located in Cali, Texas, or Florida, etc. Sark, unlike you, knows that and that is why he focuses on getting the best players he can. I'm sure you would take a 2 star RB from Oregon over DAT, because DAT is fom Cali, right?

When you lose recruits it does not matter if they are in state or out of state. A lost recruit is a lost recruit. As Sark wins more he will recruit better. You cannot be expected to convince 5 star in state or out of state recruits to come to a recent 0-12 program. I hope you can understand that, but I doubt it.

Yeah but this is UW.  A legendary program.  Not some piddly Michigan State also-ran.  You should demand better, right?


By the way, careful with the "could have been 10-3" thoughts.  A break or two the other way and you could have lost to OSU and Stanford so you could have also been 5-7.

LawDawg1 wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- RogerMurdock wrote:


<blockquote dir="ltr"><strong>GGG19 wrote:</strong> . I'm glad, we all are glad, that Sark is coming back.  </blockquote>
Us too...

Sark's last 3  recruiting classes:   Average ranking  #18

UO's last 3 recruiting classes:      Average ranking #17


Who would you rather play for?

---------------------------------------------

Chip Kelly. But he's gone....

THAT...is what you guys are going with now???? "Chip Kelly is gone?"..

Shall we go over this again?

UW fan base goes FROM: THE HUGE HIRE..Tyrone Willingham!! He was never supported by ND alumni..He took Stanford to Rose Bowls!!! FINALLY got rid of Gilby...We're BACK!!! TO: We're gonna put a fence around the state of Washington for recruits....(except for Jonathan Stewart) Doh! Oregon 31 UW 6...TO: The fence is up!!!!!!!!Jake Locker is a GOD!!! We're back!!! Doh! Oregon 45 UW 21  TO: Bellotti is so desperate and scared of UW, he has now gone to that gimmick spread offense!!! Ha!! We're back...Doh!@#$!!#@@#@!!# Oregon 34-14....  Oregon 55 UW 34.... Oregon 44 UW 10  TO: Oregon has just beat us 5 in a row, and we're 0-12..Fire Willingham!!! I've always said he should have never hired that bum!! TO: Screw Pete Carroll,We have hired the guy who was the real mastermind behind SC's explosive offense...We're back!! Woof!! TO: I know Oregon has beat us 5 times in a row, but they just got rid of Bellotti and hired this Chip Kelly guy..We're back!!!TO: Sark + a healthy Jake Locker = Pac 10 champs...Who's back now b-tches???We have hired Holt..the pre-eminent Defensive coordinator in the nation..TO: Oregon 53 UW 16... TO: I heard on the Washington board that the NCAA is going to drop the hammer in 2 weeks....We're back!!! TO: Holt needed a season under his belt...He wasn't used to seeing spread offenses, but I've heard he spent all summer dissecting Oregon's offense and they're gonna get crushed in 2011!!! Chip Kelly is a 1-AA coach running a gimmick offense....This is our year... We're ba--wha? Muth-r F-k-r!! Again??? Oregon 43-19.....Oregon 34-17......TO: .Son of a b-tch!!! Baylor scored Again???  TO:  For the love of...Dammit!!--Will Somebody Stop Baylor!!! TO: Baylor scored again..Damn, guess we're not back all the way...TO: We just hired Justin F-k-n Wilcox!!! J-F-W!!!!...I ALWAYS hated that guy Holt....We're baaaack!!!!, TO: Tosh will get everyone he wants though X-box...We're F-k-n baaack!!!! Conference champs in 2012!!!!!We're back!!!! TO: I heard on the Washington board that the NCAA is going to drop the hammer in 2 weeks....We're back!!! TO: Darren Thomas is gone and so is LaMichael James....Where will you get your points??? You only beat us by 17 points last season...We are closing the gap!!!! We're back!!!!! You guys are starting a Freshman against J-F-W!!! He has intricate and complicated zone blitzes, chart and graphs that will blow your mind.. TO: Justin Wilcox (JFW) isn't gonna allow anyone past midfield..We're back!!! TO: Up 52-14 Oregon plays their 3rd string early in the 4th quarter, UW keeps their starters in the entire game. TO: Sark: "The game was much closer than the score indicated..."we're young"....only to be reminded that Oregon is a younger team...TO: I heard on the Washington board that the NCAA is going to drop the hammer in 2 weeks....We're back!!! TO: WSU wins only conference game of the season.....against UW....UW swears to rebound in the bowl game...TO: UW poops the bed on national TV to a weak Boise State team who is younger than UW...and...after pooping bed, leaves with soiled toilet paper clinging to their shoe by doing lawnmower dance.. TO: Tosh is telling recruits that the NCAA is going to drop the hammer in 2 weeks....We're back!!! TO: We have built a "new" stadium by replacing the track with more empty seats...coach has told recruits that this will allow Keith Price to finally throw a spiral.......TO: Chip Kelly is finally gone...We're back!!!!!

For all of the udumb Sark defenders out there, please go on record and tell us what will be considered a successful season that will not get him fired?  If you can please include a couple alternate scenarios with a Duck win or loss that would be much appreciated.  As much as some of you think another Duck loss isn't as bad as overall record, I tend to disagree and think you could chalk it up as counting as much as two maybe three losses.

Btw does Mathis even qualify?  Last I heard a couple months ago it was very evident that he had no chance and find it hard to believe he could qualify all of a sudden at such at prestigious institution as Udumb which holds itself in such high regard.

Murdock...that is classic! Post of the day. Remember too..."kids choose the UW because they want to play in bowl games like this." prior to "lawn mowing" prance.

I'll be fine with a 9 or 10 win season, because I feel that is very realistic, with the players we having coming back and the recruits we are bringing in that can contribute. There are very few if any teams we can't beat if we bring our "A" game every week. We beat Stanford with our second string oline and Stanford beat you guys. Our problem is inconsistency, not talent or coaching, so we will hopefully fix that as our players mature and grow older. If we have less than 9, which I feel is unlikely, then there will be some serious questions and Sark may have to go, but I don't see that happening.

My question is why do Duck fans want to see Sark go soooooo much? Is it fear? Is it knowing that Sark has a chance to bring UW back to national prominence? What is it that makes Duck fans continually pray to see Sark go?

As for Mathis, he is good to go. He was never as in danger of not qualifying as he was portrayed. He just had to work hard and he is pretty much fine if he finishes the year well. We don't have many in danger of not qualifying, since Farria, who is absolutely dominant, has picked it up and some others are doing well. There will always be some that won't make it, but thankfully we don't know who they are and all have a chance of qualifying and Sark and co have recruited guys that will likely qualify.

---------------------------------------------
--- govduck wrote:

For all of the udumb Sark defenders out there, please go on record and tell us what will be considered a successful season that will not get him fired?  If you can please include a couple alternate scenarios with a Duck win or loss that would be much appreciated.  As much as some of you think another Duck loss isn't as bad as overall record, I tend to disagree and think you could chalk it up as counting as much as two maybe three losses.

Btw does Mathis even qualify?  Last I heard a couple months ago it was very evident that he had no chance and find it hard to believe he could qualify all of a sudden at such at prestigious institution as Udumb which holds itself in such high regard.

---------------------------------------------

Excellent stuff, Murdock!

Haha. I'm sure you would have fired Nick Saban, since he had a similar résumé to Sark at Michigan State.

The Oregon State and Stanford games did not come down to field goals, like the two final losses did. We are much closer than you think. Hopefully, it all comes together and you will see this season.

---------------------------------------------
--- PazzoDuck wrote:


<blockquote dir="ltr"><strong>dubsup1234 wrote:</strong> Ummmmmmmmm; Here is Nick Saban's record his first 4 years at Michigan State:

6-6 in 1995
6-5 in 1996
7-5 in 1997
6-6 in 1998

You see any similarities? Now Sark has a lot to prove before he can be called Saban's equal, but they started out their careers in similar fashion. Saban did not even take over an 0-12 program like Sark did, whether you think the program was 0-12 or not. The talent on UW was very poor at the time, so it was a remarkable job by Sark improving by 7 wins over his predecessor and there is still more improvement to come.

I'm sure you would have had Saban fired for not winning after 4 years, but thankfully for Michigan State they have a smarter AD. Saban went 9-2 in year 5, so this is a big year for sark, but 4 years is not enough to have the depth to compete on a large scale in college football.

The fence around the state argument made by you and made by some UW fans is laughable. You cannot expect to compete on a large scale without out of state recruits, if you are not located in Cali, Texas, or Florida, etc. Sark, unlike you, knows that and that is why he focuses on getting the best players he can. I'm sure you would take a 2 star RB from Oregon over DAT, because DAT is fom Cali, right?

When you lose recruits it does not matter if they are in state or out of state. A lost recruit is a lost recruit. As Sark wins more he will recruit better. You cannot be expected to convince 5 star in state or out of state recruits to come to a recent 0-12 program. I hope you can understand that, but I doubt it.


</blockquote>
Yeah but this is UW.  A legendary program.  Not some piddly Michigan State also-ran.  You should demand better, right?


By the way, careful with the "could have been 10-3" thoughts.  A break or two the other way and you could have lost to OSU and Stanford so you could have also been 5-7.

---------------------------------------------

If you can't see that a big part of why you are what you are IS coaching...good coaching get's helps get rid of "inconstancies." And also, if you would do a little looking into our thread history regarding Sark, us duck fans love having him as your coach. And....did Baylor just score again?

POTY...

RogerMurdock wrote:

LawDawg1 wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- RogerMurdock wrote:


<blockquote dir="ltr"><strong>GGG19 wrote:</strong> . I'm glad, we all are glad, that Sark is coming back.  </blockquote>
Us too...

Sark's last 3  recruiting classes:   Average ranking  #18

UO's last 3 recruiting classes:      Average ranking #17


Who would you rather play for?

---------------------------------------------

Chip Kelly. But he's gone....

THAT...is what you guys are going with now???? "Chip Kelly is gone?"..

Shall we go over this again?

UW fan base goes FROM: THE HUGE HIRE..Tyrone Willingham!! He was never supported by ND alumni..He took Stanford to Rose Bowls!!! FINALLY got rid of Gilby...We're BACK!!! TO: We're gonna put a fence around the state of Washington for recruits....(except for Jonathan Stewart) Doh! Oregon 31 UW 6...TO: The fence is up!!!!!!!!Jake Locker is a GOD!!! We're back!!! Doh! Oregon 45 UW 21  TO: Bellotti is so desperate and scared of UW, he has now gone to that gimmick spread offense!!! Ha!! We're back...Doh!@#$!!#@@#@!!# Oregon 34-14....  Oregon 55 UW 34.... Oregon 44 UW 10  TO: Oregon has just beat us 5 in a row, and we're 0-12..Fire Willingham!!! I've always said he should have never hired that bum!! TO: Screw Pete Carroll,We have hired the guy who was the real mastermind behind SC's explosive offense...We're back!! Woof!! TO: I know Oregon has beat us 5 times in a row, but they just got rid of Bellotti and hired this Chip Kelly guy..We're back!!!TO: Sark + a healthy Jake Locker = Pac 10 champs...Who's back now b-tches???We have hired Holt..the pre-eminent Defensive coordinator in the nation..TO: Oregon 53 UW 16... TO: I heard on the Washington board that the NCAA is going to drop the hammer in 2 weeks....We're back!!! TO: Holt needed a season under his belt...He wasn't used to seeing spread offenses, but I've heard he spent all summer dissecting Oregon's offense and they're gonna get crushed in 2011!!! Chip Kelly is a 1-AA coach running a gimmick offense....This is our year... We're ba--wha? Muth-r F-k-r!! Again??? Oregon 43-19.....Oregon 34-17......TO: .Son of a b-tch!!! Baylor scored Again???  TO:  For the love of...Dammit!!--Will Somebody Stop Baylor!!! TO: Baylor scored again..Damn, guess we're not back all the way...TO: We just hired Justin F-k-n Wilcox!!! J-F-W!!!!...I ALWAYS hated that guy Holt....We're baaaack!!!!, TO: Tosh will get everyone he wants though X-box...We're F-k-n baaack!!!! Conference champs in 2012!!!!!We're back!!!! TO: I heard on the Washington board that the NCAA is going to drop the hammer in 2 weeks....We're back!!! TO: Darren Thomas is gone and so is LaMichael James....Where will you get your points??? You only beat us by 17 points last season...We are closing the gap!!!! We're back!!!!! You guys are starting a Freshman against J-F-W!!! He has intricate and complicated zone blitzes, chart and graphs that will blow your mind.. TO: Justin Wilcox (JFW) isn't gonna allow anyone past midfield..We're back!!! TO: Up 52-14 Oregon plays their 3rd string early in the 4th quarter, UW keeps their starters in the entire game. TO: Sark: "The game was much closer than the score indicated..."we're young"....only to be reminded that Oregon is a younger team...TO: I heard on the Washington board that the NCAA is going to drop the hammer in 2 weeks....We're back!!! TO: WSU wins only conference game of the season.....against UW....UW swears to rebound in the bowl game...TO: UW poops the bed on national TV to a weak Boise State team who is younger than UW...and...after pooping bed, leaves with soiled toilet paper clinging to their shoe by doing lawnmower dance.. TO: Tosh is telling recruits that the NCAA is going to drop the hammer in 2 weeks....We're back!!! TO: We have built a "new" stadium by replacing the track with more empty seats...coach has told recruits that this will allow Keith Price to finally throw a spiral.......TO: Chip Kelly is finally gone...We're back!!!!!

---------------------------------------------
--- JDDucky wrote:

If you can't see that a big part of why you are what you are IS coaching...good coaching get's helps get rid of "inconstancies." And also, if you would do a little looking into our thread history regarding Sark, us duck fans love having him as your coach. And....did Baylor just score again?

---------------------------------------------

We have good coaching, we just don't have the depth Oregon has, which means we have to play young guys that may not be ready. Young guys are going to be inconsistent. That is how we beat Stanford and lost to WSU. Doesn't make sense does it? It is called inconsistency.

BTW, your kicker just missed another field goal (against a team we beat outright, without overtime) costing you a chance at a "Natty."

Murdock's post is an immediate entry into the eDuck Hall of Fame. Truthful, funny as hell, strong logic, great use of BOLD, excellent spelling and grammar. A classic!

dub..65 freshmen and sophomores on the Ducks roster, the difference IS coaching. Look at Kiffy's 5 stars up and down the roster, the difference IS coaching. You can have all the talent in the world and not get "coached up" and end your season say, 7-6. You keep getting talent, and you continue to remind us of that each February 6th on Wednesday, and your coach still talks about being young. Mariota RS freshman, DAT true soph, Addison true frosh, Lyrela sophomore, need I go on? It is coaching that fixes inconsistencies.

---------------------------------------------
--- JDDucky wrote:

dub..65 freshmen and sophomores on the Ducks roster, the difference IS coaching. Look at Kiffy's 5 stars up and down the roster, the difference IS coaching. You can have all the talent in the world and not get "coached up" and end your season say, 7-6. You keep getting talent, and you continue to remind us of that each February 6th on Wednesday, and your coach still talks about being young. Mariota RS freshman, DAT true soph, Addison true frosh, Lyrela sophomore, need I go on? It is coaching that fixes inconsistencies.

---------------------------------------------

Mariota, DAT, Addison, Lyerla, etc. are not relied on to do all the heavy lifting. Plus they are all supremely talented, so they are much different from the recruits UW got after going 0-12. You have older guys like Barner, who are able to get the job done each year. Freshman and sophomores are fine if they are not relied on. We don't have the depth so we have to rely on them, which leads to inconsistency. If we traded coaches last year, the outcome of the season would not have changed a great deal last year for either of us. However good a coach you are, you are restricted by your talent. Otherwise, recruiting would not matter (which it does).

What? Mariota was our starting QB! Not required to do the heavy lifting?. DAT was a RB, slot, wide out and punt and kick returner. Not required to do the heavy lifting? Again, if Chip, Saban, Meyers, Shaw, heck, even Peterson were coaching they could squeeze out 10 wins from USUC without much effort. PLEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSEEEEEEE keep Sark. Sign him to a lifetime contract! Eventually you guys will figure out that good coaching produces good results.