ASJ Follow-Up
by John Berkowitz on Aug 17, 2010 6:49 AM PDT
Email
PrintI don't think I can remember this much excitement this early in the season about the recruitment of a potential Husky player. Usually this type of excitement is reserved for early February. Last night the chat room at Dawgman was filled with over 100 fans awaiting ASJ's announcement.
Kim Grinolds and Scott Eklund went prime time on KJR with the Dawgman Show last night. Click here for a podcast of the interview they had with ASJ last night after he announced he was going to Washington.
With all the excitement about ASJ most of us forgot that his future team was out on the field last night taking part in a very intense practice. Bob Condotta of the Seattle Times has all the details.
It was intense enough that there was a brief scuffle between Dorson Boyce and Sean Parker, that caused UW coach Steve Sarkisian to repeat a scene we saw a couple times last year as he then called the entire team together for a minute or so. We didn't get a chance to talk to Sarkisian afterward, but he has said in the past that his message in those situations is not to let emotions get out of hand and remember that it's all one team. The defense was assessed a penalty on the play.
Scott Eklund at Dawgman gives us his take on what type of impact ASJ will make on the roster next spring when he enrolls in school. Scott also thinks this could be the start of a four and five star player avalanche of talent signing with Washington.
With his size, speed, athleticism and soft hands, Seferian-Jenkins is a perfect fit in Washington's offense. He'll be able to challenge corners with his size and safeties and linebackers with his speed and athleticism.
Chris Fetters of Dawgman who was in Gig Harbor last night gives his take on the ASJ signing.
Why the Huskies? "Coach Sark, the players there - it's going to be a national championship soon, and I want to be a part of that," Seferian-Jenkins said after donning a purple and grey UW hat to big applause from a noticeably partisan audience at the Gig Harbor Yacht Club. "I want to be that hometown guy, that local guy that helps brings them back up. I think I can do that, I know I can do it. We're gonna do it.
88 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
AS-J's comment
about going to get some roses. I like that comment…it’s time for the Huskies to get back to the Rose Bowl and do something the ducks/cougs haven’t done in recent memory….
WIN a Rose Bowl.
A couple of ASJ notes:
I had heard he was 287lbs. but on KJR yesterday he said he is currently 257lbs.
He will inroll in this winter and be here for spring football
ASJ says he is aware of several more high profile recruites that will be commiting to UW but he didn’t name names.
I hope he is here in January but I definitely heard he was enrolling in March.
by John Berkowitz on Aug 17, 2010 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions
I've heard anywhere from...
246 to 276. Can someone nail down his current weight? Current weight is sort of tricky. Because current weight has very little to do with playing weight. I’m confident Ivan Lewis will get him at the preferred playing weight for his position.
All I saw was purple
Went over to Orangeblood
And saw a photo of him posing with the Texas commits. I think the 257 is very accurate according to th picture I saw. He’s tall, but he didn’t look like he was carrying much extra weight on his frame.
All I saw was purple
I’m confident Ivan Lewis will get him at the preferred playing weight for his position.
I think that’s the key thing to remember. Some kids are just naturally really large people – Lagafuaina, Ta’amu, Atoe, Banner. Some kids are tall and have the frames to fill out if they work at it – Hatchie, Criste, Riva. ASJ is in the latter camp. I have no doubt that if he wanted to be an OT, he could build up his body to fit that position. But I also don’t think it’s a given that him being in our strength and conditioning program is automatically going to grow him out of TE. He’s going to get stronger for sure, and he may gain some weight via muscle development because of it, but I don’t think it’s a given that he’s going to become a 290-310 lb kid that outgrows TE.
Agreed
Lewis will put together an offseason conditioning regime that will ensure that ASJ is right where he needs to be in terms of weight. Olympic-style wrestlers have been doing this for generations. Get down to a weight class or go up a weight class.
All I saw was purple
Uh, the last thing you want is a football guy "going down a weight class"
I wouldn’t compare weight cutting in wrestling to football ever.
I'm not talking about a starvation diet
I’m talking about a physical regime along with a healthy diet that will assist ASJ in keeping his weight close to the preferred TE weight classification so that he can maximize his peformance on the field. Is that too hard to comprehend?
All I saw was purple
You obviously don't have a clue about wrestling.
What wrestlers due to drop weight has got to be the worst thing an athlete can do to themselves. If you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn’t have made the comparison.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
I think this shows maturity
Why would ASJ name names? To do so would seem premature and impulsive. I think the hint he offered is enough to keep Husky fans excited about the upcoming class, where it could be better then the previous class.
All I saw was purple
Everyone deserves their moment…so no need to name names.
by John Berkowitz on Aug 17, 2010 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions
I am so stoked
This is just such a testament to Sark and his staff. A year ago, ASJ leaving the state for college was a foregone conslusion, and there he was yesterday, saying he’s a Dawg and going to help us win some Rose Bowls. That is just awesome.
I want Hundley and Kasen too, but don’t forget about Shelton. We need to keep him at home.
Shelton
Would definitely overlap the defensive front depth we are aquiring. I’ve heard his favs are Washington and Oregon, but not sure how accurate that is. Yet if we get Hundley and Kasen to come in with ASJ- how difficult would it be for Shelton to pass up an opportunity to come in with that UW class?
It’s going to get very interesting to see where the 4 and 5 star California recruits on our wish list will go…
All I saw was purple
Nope….but Sark and Romar have always had a good relationship in those regards.
by John Berkowitz on Aug 17, 2010 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, Romar could certainly use the big man
after the juke he got from Jones . . . Why didn’t Sark let Middleton play basketball — because he didn’t show the dedication on the football field?
by The Ancient Mariner on Aug 17, 2010 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions
ASJ UW hat?
Did anyone see the UW hat ASJ sported? The hat had the image (purple outline) of the state of Washington on it, along with a big bold “W”. I want this hat! Does anyone know where I can pick one up?
I thought the outline of the state of Washington represented the fence Sark is putting up in terms of recruiting in-state kids. Secondly I found it hilarious where the “W” was located in relation to the outline of the state. The “W” was placed in the Southeast corner of the image of the state, where it is thought to be Coug country.
Somebody tell me where I can purchase this hat- it’s one of a kind.
All I saw was purple
Well, if it's one of a kind
then the only place you’ll be able to purchase it is from ASJ . . .
:)
by The Ancient Mariner on Aug 17, 2010 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions
One of a kind means unique
I’ve seen many Husky hats, but this one is just different. Would love to get my hands on this hat.
All I saw was purple
Yes, and unique means there's only one of it
which means, if you want it, you’ll need to get it from ASJ.
If there’s more than one of it, it isn’t unique, it’s just new to you.
by The Ancient Mariner on Aug 17, 2010 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Whatever Man, I want it
Unique could also mean “different”. And it’s not really that big a deal. I love the hat and the symbol it represents.
All I saw was purple
Could be he had it made
If you can’t find it online chances are it was made for him.
Last PAC-10 Rose Bowl winner not named USC....Washington
by DAWGFATHER91 on Aug 17, 2010 10:23 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
This is completely CRAZY to think..
2 years ago we were absolutely at the lowest point of our history as a football program, and here we are today thinking about Rose bowls in the near future. Sark is on a path of greatness!
Last PAC-10 Rose Bowl winner not named USC....Washington
by DAWGFATHER91 on Aug 17, 2010 10:53 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
It's really not that complicated
Not when you have a tradition of excellence for generations. Alabama, Oklahoma, Miami, Michigan, Nebraska, Florida State, and USC have all had some down years. Programs that have a history of excellence and traditions of winning Rose, Orange, and Sugar Bowls can bounce back withe the right leadership at the top. Sark and Woodward are those guys.
All I saw was purple
"It's not that complicated"
You’re hilarious. Tell Willingham and the 20 other head coaches that get fired on a yearly basis, “It’s not that complicated”.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
Very complicated
The amount of work and planning that goes into a turnaround like this is massive.
by John Berkowitz on Aug 18, 2010 5:34 AM PDT up reply actions
Did you just read the headline on this one?
Programs that have a history of excellence and traditions of winning Rose, Orange, and Sugar Bowls can bounce back withe the right leadership at the top
I think it’s obvious to everyone that Turner and Ty were not the leaders who could rebuild our traditional successful program. Translation: we had the wrong guys calling the shots. Woodward and Sark are making all the right decisions and the move up the ladder is progressing rather nicely.
All I saw was purple
Yep, you're totally right . . .
If a school has a “good history of excellence and traditions . . . . .can bounce back with the right leadership at the top”
Funny thing, there have been tons of good coaches at great schools that haven’t done so well. So tell Ron Zook, John Blake, Rich Rodriquez, Charlie Wies, Paul Hackett, Tyrone Wilingham, and the other thousands of football coaches that have failed at big schools, “it’s not that complicated”.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
I think you keep missing his point – I don’t think he means to imply that it’s “easy” to return a traditional power to greatness, more that traditional powers are such because they have a lot of built-in advantages, and when the right leadership comes into place, they can return to greatness quickly.
Take the examples of Washington and WSU. Put the same coach in charge of each program, and I guarantee that he can get Washington back to Rose Bowls far faster than he can at WSU. The right coach can win at any school, but the amount of time it takes to get there can vary wildly between a “have” like an Oklahoma or Texas and a “have-not” like Iowa State or Washington State.
Or
Another example: put Paul Wulff in charge of Washington and put Steve Sarkisian in charge of Washington State. Now that is a little scary to think about, but is Paul Wulff leading us to Pasadena? Sarkisian would be a better hire then Wulff at WSU (no question). But clearly Wulff at Washington would be almost as scary if not more then Tyrone Willingham.
This is all hypothetical but you get the point- hopefully :)
All I saw was purple
Wulff...
Doesn’t seem to have the right stuff but I don’t dislike him….the Cougars may be better than people thing this year.
by John Berkowitz on Aug 18, 2010 8:39 PM PDT up reply actions
I think he got the point.
He was simply refuting just one point of contention Crazi’s statement.
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on Aug 18, 2010 11:44 PM PDT up reply actions
For the school Lear ... not the coach
I’m talking about the school. Zook, Blake, RichRod, Wies, Hackett, and Willingham were all bad hires and it didn’t pan out for them. But if the school makes the pefect hire, it could bounce back nicely. If we yank out 8 or 9 wins this season can you say “bounce back” and only 2 seasons removed from being an Ofer.
Actually I think the world of Ron Zook. He’s done wonders at Illinois, but the pressure-packed situation at Floirda, replacing the ole Ball coach is tough. Like they always say, “don’t be the coach that replaces the legend … be the coach that replaces the guy that replaces the legend”. Many of the coaches you listed replaced legends. Wies and Willingham were just clueless.
All I saw was purple
Now we are getting somewhere . . .
But if the school makes the pefect hire, it could bounce back nicely
I completely agree with what kirkd said above, big programs can jump back faster because they have advantages that come with being a big program. All that being said, you MUST have the right coach. Big programs with “good” coaches can go 0-12, we know that first hand.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
No
Willingham was not a “good” coach – he proved that at Washington. Maybe he was a good coach at Stanford, and maybe he was just a better fit there, but he was no longer a “good” coach (if he ever was in the first place) by the time he got here.
Good coaches don’t go 11-37 at Washington and leave the program in worse shape than they found it.
No _ _ _ _ Sherlock!!!
Don’t get me wrong, Willingham SUCKED.
But he did receive a National Coach of the Year award. So somebody somewhere (Todd Turner) was dumb enough to believe he was a good coach.
My point is simple, being a top level football program is not easy, it is complicated. See Steve Spurrier AND Lou Holtz at South Carolina.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
well, clarify your point then
You were the one that implied Willingham was a “good” coach:
Big programs with "good" coaches can go 0-12, we know that first hand.
I was simply refuting the idea that Willingham was a “good” coach. Sure, he won a “coach of the year” award. Other guys that won that award:
Rich Brooks
Frank Solich
Guys that haven’t won that award:
Mike Riley
Frank Beamer
Tom Osborne
Bill Snyder
Mack Brown
My point being, winning that award is nice and all, but hardly the be-all, end-all of coaching evaluation.
And your point about South Carolina and Spurrier and Holtz only reinforces what crazi’s point was – some programs are easier to win at than others. South Carolina is not, and has never been a major power. And even really good coaches (albeit ones at the very end of their careers) can’t get that program into the upper echelon of college football.
it was in pretty bad shape when he got here
… Funny how we forget that.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Aug 18, 2010 7:18 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I don't think that is true...
… the talent was not well developed, but it was better than what he inherited. He also cleared out the attitude problems that were dragging the program down. Even Sark said the cabinet was not bare when he got here. It pretty much was when Ty got here.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
the talent was not well developed, but it was better than what he inherited.
I agree with this.
He also cleared out the attitude problems that were dragging the program down.
I’m not so sure about this, though. While he might have run a few guys that had attitude issues (even though some were his own recruits), he thoroughly killed the motivation and enthusiasm of the players. He created a team-wide attitude problem.
I don’t agree that the talent was “better” when Ty left than arrived – I think it was about even. Think about how much house-cleaning Sark has done since he arrived. Yeah, Ty had a good class in 2008, but people forget that there were some talented kids recruited by Neuheisel and Gilby too – they just weren’t developed very well.
And as you point out, while Ty may have run off a few attitude problems, he had also completely killed the motivation of the team. The attitude transformation under Sark & Holt is perhaps the biggest thing they did last year.
From an overall program standpoint, no question Sark inherited a worse situation than Ty. Ty inherited a traditional power that had been slipping slowly and had one really awful season. But it was a program that was one season removed from having gone 27 seasons without a losing record, and only 5 seasons removed from a Rose Bowl win and #3 ranking. Yeah, they’d just come off an awful season, but it could have been an exception rather than the new reality.
Sark inherited a program that had gone 12-47 in the 5 seasons prior and was widely considered one of the doormats in the BCS.
I understand the bitterness to Ty
…but he left us with Jake, Kavario, Kearse, Senio, Mase, Cort, Nate, Isbicki, Tolar, Alameda, Cam, Polk, and Devin to name a few. Who did he inherit? His best player was Stanback and he played out of position.
Ty was a lazy sack when it came to the coaching side- but he did clean up the lack standards around the program and he recruited some talent.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
Now that I think about it...
… He recruited Butler, Homer, DTN, Price, Fellner, and Savannah, too. Who else? Given the fact that he inherited a 1-10 team that was stuffed with upperclassmen, I don’t think we can complain about the talent he left behind. Blame him for missing on mays, Stewart and schilling, but not for leaving the cupboard bare.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
Ty inherited talent too
What we tend to forget about the talent that Ty inherited is that he didn’t do much with it, so we begin to think there wasn’t talent there, but there was:
Dashon Goldson
Casey Bulyca
Walt Winters
Jordan White-Frisbee
Erick Lobos
Greyson Gunheim
Louis Rankin
C.J. Wallace
Sonny Shackleford
Juan Garcia
Tahj Bomar
Craig Chambers
Stanley Daniels
Kenny James
Brandon Ala
Donny Mateaki
Scott White
Clay Walker
Isaiah Stanback
Tui Alailafaleula
Kai Ellis
Charles Frederick
Manase Hopoi
Robin Meadow
Joe Toledo
The cupboards were far from bare for Ty – he just didn’t do a whole lot to develop the raw talent on hand.
Actually, I believe a few of those guys were gone when Ty arrived (eg Fredericks)...
… And several others had already turned into busts or guys with limited upside. You also have to remember that most of those contributed to our one win season as upperclassmen. That list isn’t really all that impressive compared to what he left us with. You also have to remember context – a bunch of those guys (meaning all holdovers) had issues and we just had our probation extended for lack of institutional control in the football program along with the gambling issues.
The program was not in worse shape when he left. It just wasn’t nearly in the state of recovery that was fair to expect. But, we didn’t have our probation renewed, our grad rates were way up, and we had several YOUNG 3 and 4 star talents to build upon.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
agree to disagree I guess
You’re right about Frederick, and Ellis was a JC guy so he was gone too. All the rest played under Ty though.
As for guys being “busts” or having limited upsides – no doubt some of those guys weren’t as talented as their recruiting ranking might have suggested. But guys can progress quickly under the right staff, even as seniors – think of the improvement we saw under Sark last year in guys like Locker, Polk, Foster, Butler, Kelemete and others. Think of the major improvement in a guy like Kyle Boller as a senior under Tedford. Under the right staff, a guy with raw tools can progress quickly. How many guys can you say improved significantly in their time under Ty? A handful at best…
I’m not sure what issues you’re referring to with the guys Ty inherited and what that had to do with our probation – maybe you have some inside info that I’m not privy to. I’ll say this – there’s been a tremendous amount of attrition with Sark in charge of guys Ty recruited, moreso than happened under Ty with guys Gilby and Neuheisel recruited.
The horrible conditioning of our team, the loser mentality that had set in from 5 awful years of football, the fact that under Ty, football was no longer fun, the laughingstock perception of our program nationally – no way was our program in better shape when Ty left than when he found it.
… And several others had already turned into busts or guys with limited upside.
You could say the same thing about a lot of the guys Sarkisian inherited. Until he started coaching them, that is. I think the only reasons some of the guys looked like busts is because they never had good coaching during their careers at the UW.
You can make a pretty good argument that much of the talent that Willingham left Sarkisian would’ve looked like busts or had limited upsides if Willingham would’ve remained the coach. Would Kelemete still be on the d-line? Would Ta’amu, Tolar, Habben et al still weigh 330 and be physically underdeveloped? How good would some of the linemen Willingham inherited have looked with a good strength program?
obviously I agree with the sentiment that he didnt do much with what he recruited...
… But he recruited Pac 10 talent
It amazes me how some have forgotten how embarrassing our program was at the end of hedges, end of CRN and end of Gilby. We also had the drug scam and bball mess. I was embarrassed to be a fan back then. Ty played a role in clearing up that stink, like it or not.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Aug 20, 2010 2:29 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
It amazes me how some have forgotten how embarrassing our program was at the end of hedges, end of CRN and end of Gilby.
I found 0-12 to be more embarassing.
I think 1-10 with ...
- a junior and senior heavy starting lineup
- no leadership
- no promising young players in football
- extended probation (basketball and football problems)
- drug scandal in softball
- Rick Neuheisel’s flirtation with the NFL and the bball pool
is probably more embarrassing than 0-12 under a coach that was fired mid-season and was playing with about a dozen true freshmen in the lineup.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
Not me
Because with Gilby’s 1-10, there was still the possibility that the dip in Husky fortunes was an aberration that wouldn’t last long. With Ty’s 0-12, it was the nadir of the worst 5 year stretch in our history. And winless is a stain that will never go away – even the Cougs have never had a season that bad.
And I guess we’ll continue to disagree about the comparative talent levels of those two teams.
Maybe he had a better staff that suited the type of recruits that he had at Stanford.
by John Berkowitz on Aug 18, 2010 8:40 PM PDT up reply actions
That's easier to do . . .
when you’re not out golfing! =)
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
It's really not that complicated
Crazi, if it wasn"t that complicated everyone would be successful, not just a couple of programs. Now we have the right combination. Go Dawgs
you missed his point
Top programs have an easier time bouncing back with the right coach than have-nots. That was his point. Nobody would say that the work Sark is doing, or that Carroll did at USC or Stoops did at Oklahoma or that Davis did at Miami was “easy”, but they are working at places where it is easier to climb back quickly than a place like WSU, Vanderbilt, Iowa State, etc.
Finding the right coach IS COMPLICATED!!!!!!!!!!!
Final example, Notre Dame. Big program, all the advantages college football can offer, yet Bob Davie, Ty Losingham, and Chucky Weis, have all failed. Yep, not complicated at all.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
again, you miss the point
Nobody said finding the right coach is easy. To reiterate – get the right coach in place, and it shouldn’t take long a for a traditional power to return to prominence. That was crazi’s point. I’m not sure why everyone is having such a hard time with this…
Another way to look at this...
Good coaches win, wherever they are. Traditional powers are the most likely to have the resources and the appeal to attract and retain them.
Yes
But it goes further than that – traditional powers can return to glory a lot faster with a good coach than a traditional have-not jumping up to become a good program under a good coach.
I think what people are misinterpreting from crazi’s post is what the “not that complicated” statement was in reference too. He wasn’t saying it’s not that complicated to hire a great coach or for that great coach to achieve success; what he was saying was, it’s not that complicated to understand why the UW seems to be bouncing back so quickly under Sark. Get a great coach in charge of a traditional power, and it shouldn’t take long for that traditional power to return to their previous winning ways.
Of course, for all the enthusiasm about Sark, it’s probably premature to label him a “great” coach. He’s showing a lot of promise, but we still need to see it fully proven on the field.
My headline should've said, "Another way to say this..."
We really aren’t saying anything different.
Great Coaching + Resources, Appeal, and a Commitment to Winning (in theory, a “Traditional Power”) = Winning.
The coaching is the huge variable. No matter the school, finding a “great” coach is far less than a 50/50 proposition. Which is why I can understand Lear’s point as well.
I get the point.
That doesn’t change the fact that it’s still foolish to say, “It’s not that complicated”.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
No
It wasn’t foolish at all when you realize what he was talking about when he said “it’s not that complicated”.
Give me a break.
Time to get off your high horse.
Here’s a deal for you, when you go up to Sark (or Woodward, or Emmert), and tell him to his face, that what he is doing “is not that complicated”, then I’ll admit I am wrong.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
you still don't get it
Once again, you have completely missed the point, so I’ll spell it out for you:
DAWGFATHER91 expresses amazement at how quickly things seem to be turning around for UW football under Sark;
crazidawg responds saying “it’s not that complicated” and talks about tradition and finding the right coach
What you (and others) have misinterpreted is what crazi was describing as “not complicated”; he’s not saying that finding the right coach is easy, or that the work that a guy like Sark does is easy.
No, what he was saying was “not complicated” is explaining how a program like the UW can get turned around so quickly – if you’re a traditional power and you have the right guy in charge, you can change your fortunes quickly.
The explanation is what he’s saying is not complicated.
Are you clear now?
explanation cont'd
Maybe this will make it easier to follow:
Imagine you’re having a conversation with someone expressing surprise at how quickly Sark seems to be turning things around, and someone else replies “It’s not that complicated – put the right coach in charge of a traditional power, and things can turn around quickly”. That’s what crazi was saying to DAWGFATHER.
And I'm saying . . .
you’re both full of BS. It’s easy for Crazi to explain anything, just don’t support what you say.
Here’s what I’m saying, I understand Crazi is telling Dawgfather “it’s not that complicated” to explain why Sark is doing such a great job. I’M SAYING: it’s extremely complicated to explain why Sark is doing such a great job and why so many others fail at it. Know it all’s, like the two of you, make a super generic statement like “it’s easy to explain”. BS, it’s so far over any of our heads why, we just say something stupid like, "A big program, the “right” coach" and it’s a done deal.
If I were to ask you, “Why is it Sark is successful at UW, yet Charlie Weis failed at Notre Dame”, it’s going to be a pretty _ _ _ _ _ _ _ complicated answer.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
Nope, you missed again
What crazi is saying is it’s not that complicated to explain why the UW is bouncing back so quickly – it’s because the UW is a traditional football power and Sark is the right guy in charge. He didn’t say it’s easy to explain why Sark is doing a great job. Yes, his statement is somewhat generic, but there’s a valid point – great programs don’t need a lot of time to bounce back if you have a really good coach. Ty was not a really good coach; Paul Hackett was not a really good coach; John Blake was not a really good coach. Pete Carrol was a really good coach, Bob Stoops is a really good coach, and the early returns on Sark are that he may be a really good coach. And all of those guys coached at traditional powers, and the combination of a really good coach and a traditional power means that a turnaround shouldn’t take very long.
And frankly, I’m tired of your attitude. “Know it all?” How many times have I had to explain what was being said and what wasn’t only for you to ignore it. You read what you wanted to read and didn’t want to understand what was being said, because that would mean having to admit crazi might have had a valid point.
You have a thing against crazi, and while he’s often saying things off the cuff that don’t hold up to scrutiny, that doesn’t mean everything he says is worthless, and it’s a little old seeing you jump down his throat on everything he posts, especially when you misread what he’s saying.
To reiterate – neither crazi, nor me, nor anyone here has said that what Sark is doing is “easy”, nor is anyone saying that it’s “easy” to hire the right guy. Once again, crazi said it’s easy to explain why the turnaround seems to be happening quickly.
It’s pretty easy to explain why Charlie Weis failed at Notre Dame – he wasn’t a really good coach. Never thought he was in the first place, and he proved it. I can give you more detailed reasons why I think Weis failed if you like…
Last time, let me try it another way:
How Crazi explains why the turn around is happening so quickly:
Big Program + The “Right” coach = Grid Iron Success
How Lear explains why the turn around is happening so quickly:
Erf(x) = 2/PI^(1/2)e^(-t^2) DT = 2/PI (n=0..inf) (-1)^n
x = quality of players on team
e = effort players will give to new coach
n = size of program
t = conditioning of players before new coach arrived
D = how good coach is at recruiting
T = how patient are the fans
everything else = no clue, it’s over ALL of our heads.
According to your theory, program + coach = success, please explain Ron Zook. Best record at Florida 8-5, best record at ILLINOIS 9-4. Shouldn’t a coach who can turn Illinois into a 9 win team, be able to get 10 wins in Florida?
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
Zook?
That’s your example? Let’s take a look at what Zook has done at Illinois:
2005: 2-9 (0-8 conference)
2006: 2-10 (1-7 conference)
2007: 9-4 (6-2 conference)
2008: 5-7 (3-5 conference)
2009: 3-9 (2-6 conference)
He’s gone 21-39 (12-28 conference); doesn’t look like the record of someone I’d characterize as a good coach. Yeah, he had one season where he won 9 – looks like an aberration doesn’t it?
Zook can recruit pretty well, but he doesn’t usually do a whole lot with that talent – he showed that at Florida, he’s showing that at Illinois.
My “theory” is that with the right coach at a traditional power, it shouldn’t take long to return to glory; see Ara Parsehgian at Notre Dame, Lou Holtz at Notre Dame, Bob Stoops at Oklahoma, Bob Devaney at Nebraska, Pete Carroll at USC, Darrell Royal at Texas, Nick Saban at LSU & Alabama, etc.
And again, not saying it’s “easy” to identify who the right coach is ahead of time. Sometimes there’s a lot of evidence (like Saban when he went to Alabama or Holtz to Notre Dame); often you have to take a bit of a leap of faith based off of qualities that seem good, but a guy that isn’t proven like Stoops, Carroll, Royal, etc. But if it’s the right guy, it won’t take him long to develop the talent on hand, demonstrate strategic superiority and recruit really well and thus lead their program back to eminence.
great programs don’t need a lot of time to bounce back if you have a really good coach.
Really, it’s just that simple? Doesn’t depend on how “bare the cupboards” are, at all? Doesn’t depend on how long they’ve been down. Doesn’t depend on the “bullets” available?
So why hasn’t Neuheisel turned around UCLA faster? Not a great coach??
P.S. – Don’t worry, I’m tired of your attitude too, you aren’t infallible, you can be wrong.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
Really, it’s just that simple? Doesn’t depend on how "bare the cupboards" are, at all? Doesn’t depend on how long they’ve been down. Doesn’t depend on the "bullets" available?
Traditional powers don’t have “empty cupboards”. Even in down times, programs like Oklahoma, Alabama, Texas, USC, etc. are going to pull in good recruits. Maybe not as good as they do with great coaches in charge, but a big part of the reason traditional powers are traditional powers is because they have built-in advantages that enable them to consistently bring in a lot of talent.
So why hasn’t Neuheisel turned around UCLA faster? Not a great coach??
UCLA isn’t as strong of a program as the UW, and Neuheisel isn’t a great coach. He’s decent, but not great.
Don’t worry, I’m tired of your attitude too, you aren’t infallible, you can be wrong.
Sure I can. The difference between us? I’ll admit it when I am.
Riddle me this, Batman:
Traditional powers don’t have "empty cupboards". Even in down times, programs like Oklahoma, Alabama, Texas, USC, etc. are going to pull in good recruits. Maybe not as good as they do with great coaches in charge, but a big part of the reason traditional powers are traditional powers is because they have built-in advantages that enable them to consistently bring in a lot of talent.
Um, why didn’t you list Washington in your list? Are we not a traditional power? I’d be shocked if “Kirkd The Great” considers Washington to be equal to any of the schools you just listed. I also seem to recall plenty of conversations about Nick Holt not having enough “bullets” to fire last year. AND . . . I remember (look above) conversations discussing the condition of our “cupboards” and whether or not coaches were recruiting as well as they should.
*So Riddle me this, if Washington is not equal to the schools you listed, and we didn’t have the “bullets” for Nick Holt to fire last year, then how in the hell can you say “it’s not complicated, we’re a traditional power with the right coach”. *
Sure seems to me that we are NOT a “traditional” power that will ALWAYS have the cupboards full like OU, USC, Texas, Alabama.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
Are you being intentionally obtuse?
First of all, what do you think “etc” means after the schools kirkd lists?
Second, it’s a sliding scale. There are about 10 schools, that with the right coach, are near-immediate national title contenders. There are about 10 more that, with the right coach, are near-immediate conference title contenders. US falls into that second group.
The vitriol is decidedly unbecoming, by the way. Be a grown-up.
by Sundodger on Aug 20, 2010 7:21 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Just trying to point out
that UW wasn’t loaded with talent, and was/is not an easy turn around job that can be simply explained by big school, right coach.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
Washington isn’t at the same level as an Alabama, USC, Oklahoma, Texas, Ohio State. Sorry to burst your bubble if you were under that illusion.
We are a step back from that. As Sundodger points out, it’s a sliding scale. We’re a top-20 program, but not top-10. If Sark’s as good as we think he may be, he’ll have us bowling this year and next year, and by 2012 we can expect to be fully contending for a Rose Bowl and double-digit wins. That’s a pretty quick turnaround, but not as quick as say Stoops at Oklahoma.
UW had enough talent when Sark arrived to be a winning program, and we damn near were if it weren’t for screw-ups against UCLA and ASU. We’re a strong program that can be brought back to consistent double-digit wins far faster than WSU, or would you like to argue that point?
Exactly
We are a step back from that. As Sundodger points out, it’s a sliding scale. We’re a top-20 program, but not top-10
The talent on hand, combined with the horrible conditioning of said talent, is exactly why it’s very complicated to explain how quickly Sark has got in these guys head, got them in the gym and got them on the road to success.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
Meant to quote the first paragraph.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
think about the commitments we had when Sark was hired
I can only remember a QB we lost and a CB they didn’t want. To the current crop of 17 year olds, that 0-12 was back in the day. For the coaches second real class we have a great start and now the heavy hitters are starting to weigh in. Ty is so yesterday.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
