UW AT OREGON STATE

[davidonmi]

BTW if we did fire him it wouldn't be for Wilcox. We already have wilcox right now, an unproven coordinator who should be a HC at a smaller program before UW.
Let's just say Mora is off the table I would fire sark for 2 guys
Franklin at Vandy
Deruyter at FSU

 

[davidonmi]

You know, Pete Carroll sometimes punts from the opponent 30 yard line in a close game, despite having basically the most accurate kicker in the NFL. I really hate that. We should fire the bum.

dude what are u talking about, Pete is carroll is 10-1, something better than sark has ever been.

 

[kearly]

You know, Pete Carroll sometimes punts from the opponent 30 yard line in a close game, despite having basically the most accurate kicker in the NFL. I really hate that. We should fire the bum.

dude what are u talking about, Pete is carroll is 10-1, something better than sark has ever been.

Woosh.

Franklin at Vandy
Deruyter at FSU

What do you know about them? Beside the fact that they win games.

 

[davidonmi]

You know, Pete Carroll sometimes punts from the opponent 30 yard line in a close game, despite having basically the most accurate kicker in the NFL. I really hate that. We should fire the bum.

dude what are u talking about, Pete is carroll is 10-1, something better than sark has ever been.

Woosh.

Some people are serious when they post stuff like that LOL

 

[davidonmi]

You know, Pete Carroll sometimes punts from the opponent 30 yard line in a close game, despite having basically the most accurate kicker in the NFL. I really hate that. We should fire the bum.

No coach is perfect, but if you fire a good coach for not being perfect then you deserve what you get. Unfortunately, the rest of us would have to suffer with you.

Also, special teams and penalties have not been a long term problem. Feels like an outlier this season, most likely.

The halftime stat screams for context. How does that number stack up against other coaches? How many of those games was UW favored to lose by multiple scores before kickoff? etc.

penalties was a huge problem last season as well. Special teams too

 

[kearly]

penalties was a huge problem last season as well. Special teams too

Not like this. Though it's true that penalties were pretty bad last year.

During tonight's game I remarked several times that UW looks unbeatable when the officials take a chill pill before the games. I have never seen more questionable calls against UW or the Seahawks than this season, so this game was a breath of fresh air to actually see the Pac-12 officials call a good game.

 

[kearly]

I will say this. I think if Miles was as good of QB as Price (which he's not), I'd pencil in UW for 10 wins next season without blinking. UW has improved every year and statistically they played like a 10 win team this season. Hell, even this season which has so many silly folks out there wringing their hands, UW has a great shot at 9 wins.

Unfortunately Miles sucks, so we'll see the team start 4-0 before limping to 8-4 or 7-6 and the conversations will begin anew.

 

[jkitsune]

I don't understand how you can be so ferociously negative about a redshirt freshman who has played a total of 1.5 games so far. He seems reasonably accurate downfield for his level of experience, he's athletic, and he has a weak arm. With work and aging, his arm strength could improve somewhat, though it'll almost certainly always be marginal at its best. If Cyler played exactly like he did tonight, but had more arm strength, would you still feel this strongly?

Poised, reasonably-accurate, athletic QBs with weak arms can succeed in college. Not saying he's going to be great, or even above average, but I don't see anything to suggest he sucks nearly as much as you insist.

 

[kearly]

dude what are u talking about, Pete is carroll is 10-1, something better than sark has ever been.

I'm glad you brought this up, because it perfectly illustrates why I think the Fire Sark talk is silly, and also why I can't stand Danny O'Neil. Winning is not a stat. Or if it is, it is the stat that idiots love.

The reason football is a great game is because it is so complex. Every week in the NFL you see the better team lose football games here and there. The Seahawks have been the beneficiary of a few of those games this year, and they were the victim of it last year. Is 10-1 Pete Carroll a better coach than last year's 11-5 version? Was last year's 13-3 Mike Smith a better coach than Pete? The same coach who is currently 2-9?

Judging a team just by wins gets you KC at the top of the power rankings for most of the season, even as everyone in the world knew it was a laughable farce.

Did you know that this year's Seahawks team is weaker in DVOA than last year's team was, with a lower pythagorean win total? Now is that difference because Pete Carroll really stepped up his game and made some magical rah rahs from the sideline or do we just chalk it up to last year's team being unluckier than this year's version? Me, I'm going with luck (variance). Variance in football is routine.

Football Outsiders gave the 2012 Seahawks 13 estimated wins, meaning that with average luck they would have been two wins better... that whatever their record said, they played like a 13-3 team.

I feel like the Huskies are in that same boat. They are 7-4 but statistically they have played on a level more like a 9-2 team. This was not true in some of the previous years where UW needed clutch wins to scrape 6-6 records. This year when our team isn't losing heart breakers or having weird off games, when they aren't doing that, they are consistently melting teams faces off.

I think it's weird for anybody to call for a coaches job when he's multiple games over .500. We aren't Texas or Alabama. We are a few years removed from being a decade long doormat. But if we were playing terrible football and lucking into wins, I'd understand. But that's not what's going on. This team is playing at level like we've never seen before in some respects, but is just not having the kind of bounces you'd like to have in such a strong season.

Not that you'd hear anything resembling that level of nuance from Sark's haters, which are basically just reacting emotionally and forgetting that the grass isn't always greener.

The fewest points UW has scored in a game all season is 24. UW is averaging 39.54 points per game so far this season. When was the last time you could say that? Their scoring differential for the season is a gaudy +171 in 11 games. Their yardage differential is similarly impressive. How is a team like that 7-4? Small sample size and variance. Luck. Chance.

If in some weird alternate universe college football played a 162 game schedule, you can bet that UW would be rocketing up towards the top of the standings by year's end with numbers like that. If people want to react to outcomes from small sample sizes they can, but I won't stand idly by while they act outside their own best interests in calling for Sark's head.

 

[kearly]

I don't understand how you can be so ferociously negative about a redshirt freshman who has played a total of 1.5 games so far. He seems reasonably accurate downfield for his level of experience, he's athletic, and he has a weak arm. With work and aging, his arm strength could improve somewhat, though it'll almost certainly always be marginal at its best. If Cyler played exactly like he did tonight, but had more arm strength, would you still feel this strongly?

Poised, reasonably-accurate, athletic QBs with weak arms can succeed in college. Not saying he's going to be great, or even above average, but I don't see anything to suggest he sucks nearly as much as you insist.

First, I will admit to being ferociously negative and guilty of jumping the gun.

My problem is not based on how he's played, but how poorly he projects going forward. His mechanics are a mess, his arm strength is at liability levels, he's not as mobile as we hoped (less of a rusher than Price on most of his runs), he has terrible accuracy (he even struggles with screen passes), and he struggles to find open receivers after his first read. I wouldn't call him a mechanical QB since he does check multiple reads fairly often, but his reads are consistently very slow and he doesn't seem to be a mentally quick QB, he reminds me of Seneca Wallace in that regard.

The part that worries me the most is how his lack of zip is going to kill him on red zone throws. Fewer passing TDs with more interceptions in the one place you desperately don't want them. Throwing into the endzone means almost always making tight throws, and Miles is terrible in tight throw situations. He's just simply not equipped for them from a talent perspective. We saw that problem rear it's head in this game, as his only close proximity red zone throw was very nearly intercepted (should have been too). Unsurprisingly, UW called almost entirely rushing plays once they got close to the endzone. That worked great in this game, but you won't often have rushing performances like this to lean on.

I'm not judging him by his numbers, but it's worth noting that Miles passing stats were padded in this game by a pair of explosive plays that were terrible throws without pressure salvaged by awesome catches. Even with those plays, his final numbers weren't that great.

There are really only two positive things I can say about Miles going forward. The first is that he looks durable. That's nothing to scoff at given how many wins UW has lit on fire the last few years thanks to injuries to Locker and Price. The second is that he generally avoids the "wtf throw" and game manages well enough. If UW can rush for 250 yards every week and play strong defense, Miles could lead UW to a 10 win season. But so could Casey Paus.

That said, IMO Mile's overall skill base is not much higher than Nick Montana levels. That's why I'm sounding the alarms, even knowing it probably makes no difference. If your QB is talent liability that forces you to go away from him in the offense, you need another QB.

With all the future 1st and 2nd round picks Sark has recruited on offense, there's no way he can't find a better QB than Miles, at least from a talent perspective. Maybe Miles really is the best QB of the three, but I'd like to see the other guys throw some passes before I could buy it.

 

[Tical21]

Troy Williams can spin it. I think Miles started his last game today.

I don't dislike Sark, and wouldn't be very disappointed if he stays, but he does annoy me. I want him to call plays. He's a genius playcaller. We should have that advantage over every team we play, and we completely negate it to throw extra screen passes to Jaydon Mickens. How do you have a weapon like ASJ and phase him out of the offense?

Sark comes off to me as a big kid. Sometimes, kids or even teams need to get scared of their coach, and I don't know that he has that quality. Something is missing there. I think he'll learn it over time.

I hate the uniform crap. We don't need to be Oregon. I hate the offense. We don't need to be Oregon.

Most importantly, I hate losing the best local kids every year. They need to be Huskies. And if he can't do that, first and foremost, we need to find somebody who can.

 

[davidonmi]

dude what are u talking about, Pete is carroll is 10-1, something better than sark has ever been.

I'm glad you brought this up, because it perfectly illustrates why I think the Fire Sark talk is silly, and also why I can't stand Danny O'Neil. Winning is not a stat. Or if it is, it is the stat that idiots love.

The reason football is a great game is because it is so complex. Every week in the NFL you see the better team lose football games here and there. The Seahawks have been the beneficiary of a few of those games this year, and they were the victim of it last year. Is 10-1 Pete Carroll a better coach than last year's 11-5 version? Was last year's 13-3 Mike Smith a better coach than Pete? The same coach who is currently 2-9?

Judging a team just by wins gets you KC at the top of the power rankings for most of the season, even as everyone in the world knew it was a laughable farce.

Did you know that this year's Seahawks team is weaker in DVOA than last year's team was, with a lower pythagorean win total? Now is that difference because Pete Carroll really stepped up his game and made some magical rah rahs from the sideline or do we just chalk it up to last year's team being unluckier than this year's version? Me, I'm going with luck (variance). Variance in football is routine.

Football Outsiders gave the 2012 Seahawks 13 estimated wins, meaning that with average luck they would have been two wins better... that whatever their record said, they played like a 13-3 team.

I feel like the Huskies are in that same boat. They are 7-4 but statistically they have played on a level more like a 9-2 team. This was not true in some of the previous years where UW needed clutch wins to scrape 6-6 records. This year when our team isn't losing heart breakers or having weird off games, when they aren't doing that, they are consistently melting teams faces off.

I think it's weird for anybody to call for a coaches job when he's multiple games over .500. We aren't Texas or Alabama. We are a few years removed from being a decade long doormat. But if we were playing terrible football and lucking into wins, I'd understand. But that's not what's going on. This team is playing at level like we've never seen before in some respects, but is just not having the kind of bounces you'd like to have in such a strong season.

Not that you'd hear anything resembling that level of nuance from Sark's haters, which are basically just reacting emotionally and forgetting that the grass isn't always greener.

The fewest points UW has scored in a game all season is 24. UW is averaging 39.54 points per game so far this season. When was the last time you could say that? Their scoring differential for the season is a gaudy +171 in 11 games. Their yardage differential is similarly impressive. How is a team like that 7-4? Small sample size and variance. Luck. Chance.

If in some weird alternate universe college football played a 162 game schedule, you can bet that UW would be rocketing up towards the top of the standings by year's end with numbers like that. If people want to react to outcomes from small sample sizes they can, but I won't stand idly by while they act outside their own best interests in calling for Sark's head.

look I understand luck is involved but winning is absolutely a stat. Saying that means Tui in 2000 was a "lucky" QB because pretty much every game they won that year was close minus a few.
Their are people who rack up a gazzilion yards against bad teams and lose close to the good teams, and there are teams that don't blow out the bad teams but at the same time they beat the good teams.
This team has proven they cannot beat the good/great teams and they can blow out the bad teams. In the end for me all that matters is the W/L record. I respect your point of view though

 

[seahawk2k]

Whether the record shows it or not, the Huskies have improved every year. I don't think people would really argue with that. The questions is if Sark is the guy to take them to the next level.

Saying that the difference between winning and losing is luck is only partially true. The mid 90's Seahawks lost a ton of close games to good teams, they never broke through and beat good teams on the road and rarely beat them at home. The Holmgren Seahawks couldn't win on the road. Often they would lose in painfully close games. You can say the Seahawks were unlucky, and there were some games under Holmgren where things happened beyond their control. But at some point does "bad luck" become a trend and more than that? At some point a team just isn't good enough, or doesn't have the right mindset to finish games, thats not luck. That's a tangible issue with the team. The current Seahawks worked through that issue last year and now routinely finish off teams, home or away. That's why I hate statistics, the Seahawks statistically might have functioned better last year, but this year they are winning the games they lost, is that luck, or a team growing and becoming more confident and cohesive?

Also, I don't see how getting blown out by Oregon and playing flat and uninspired against ASU involves luck. And I have not seen anymore egregious officiating errors against the Huskies than what befalls a typical game involving Pac 12 teams. The referees overofficiate, they call a lot of penalties. As a coach you have to harp on fundamentals more than in any other conference. There are teams in this conference that don't commit a lot of penalties, the Huskies aren't one of them. They play fast and loose, just like those SC squads, who had tons of penalty yards every game.

I actually agree that Sark shouldn't be fired, but I don't blame a fan for wondering if he is the right guy to take them to the next level, its a valid question.

Furthermore, the gripe that a lot of Husky fans have is the style of play. A fanbase tends to desire the style of play that took them to their highest level of success. For the Huskies it was disciplined, physical, fast football. The Huskies now aren't disciplined, they aren't physical up front, and they lose to Oregon. Those are traits Husky fans can't get over.

 

[MLOhawks]

Sorry Kearly, but you sound like the King of Doogs in this thread.

You go on and on about how statistically the Huskies should be a 10 win team but refs and bad luck is why they are not.

WRONG.

Crap head coach is why the Huskies with 10 win talent are not getting 10 wins this year.

Sark is mediocre at best and 7 wins is his high water mark. He is pretty much Stoops at Arizona and I just hope we don't waste 8 years on him before we realize he will NEVER take us beyond a 7-8 win high point.

 

[HawkWow]

I just re-watched the Dawg / Beaver game. I have no doubt, if instructed to do so, a healthy Price would have contributed to the Dawgs dumping 100 on the Beav. My gawd what a meltdown by Ward and the Beaver.

I'm not exaggerating or being sarcastic. Think about how the Dawgs slowed the game and kept the ball on the ground once the game was out of reach. Yes, I know we scored big in the running game, but it would have been bigger if OSU thought we might also pass. Another 31 pts would have been doable if we were as classless as the Cougs. (Houston Cougs, that is).