The Apple Cup should never have come down to a field goal. That was coaching/lack of focus.

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

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.

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

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

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

So your saying for your last two losses of the season were based on lack of talent? Last time I checked WSU wasn't considered to be a PAC-12 powerhouse and a team good teams either beat badly or find a way to beat. If Husky fans are happy with Sark so am I. Only helps us. Btw your O-line has been disgustingly bad and really haven't seen anything to make me believe it will be any different. You recruiting gods must think that smaller and slower is better. Lets see if it works.

---------------------------------------------
--- GGG19 wrote:

With Wilcox-Sirmon-Tosh-Heyward's recruiting prowess bringing in good classes now and the future, it shouldn't be an issue.

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

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

Recruiting classes last 5 years.(per scout)
Ore Wash
16 22 2012
11 22 2011
13 11 2010
26 66 2009
23 14 2008

So as you can see, other than 09 Washington has recruited just as strong as Oregon, when is it going to translate on the field?

we were 0-12

LOLz. This guy just compared Sark with Nick Saben. 

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.


---------------------------------------------
--- 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.

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

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

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

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