Nick Holt and the defense - a long essay
by kirkd on Oct 24, 2011 12:51 AM PDT
Email
PrintI think I can speak for all of us here when I state this (obvious) point – our defense is not very good. We can’t stop a good running attack (Nebraska, Stanford) and we can’t stop a good (or even decent) passing attack. The only teams we’ve done well against are teams struggling on offense with significant injuries (Utah, Colorado).
Seeing Stanford absolutely manhandle our defense in a way not seen since the worst days of this program under Gilby & Ty was monumentally frustrating. Naturally, Husky fans are fed up with seeing this kind of performance and are looking to vent. Hence, Nick Holt.
Now, understand right off the bat that I get why he's a target:
- He's the defensive coordinator
- He's highly paid
- He isn't well-spoken and often comes across as a meat-head
- His sideline antics don't sit well with some
- He's been rather blunt about calling out lack of talent or lack of physical development as an excuse
Let me address a few of these quickly:
- I don't care how much he gets paid. If he's doing a great job, I don't care if gets paid $1.2M. If he sucks, I don't care if he only gets paid $90K. His salary isn't paid by the public, and his salary doesn't affect my ticket prices. The only way in which his salary matters to me is if the amount bothers other coaches on the staff, notably Doug Nussmeier.
- I hesitate to read too much into how Holt comes across in public; I know he's not the best public speaker, and he's not nearly as articulate as Sark or others on the staff - I can't know for sure if that's actually an indication of his coaching acumen, so it's best if I don't make any assumptions on that either way based off how he speaks.
- His sideline antics don't bug me that much and I don't think they'd be an issue to others if his defenses were performing at a high level. It's not like he's at a Mike Stoops level.
One other thing we should note - Holt is a guy that's been in demand in his career. So far as I can tell, he's only ever been fired once, when the UNLV coaching staff he was on early in his career was let go. He then immediately latched on at Idaho under John L. Smith (a pretty well-regarded coach), and when Smith left for Utah State, Holt was retained by new Head Coach Chris Tormey. And before you wonder about why Smith didn't take Holt with him (I'd guess Holt wasn't interested in relocating to Utah), Smith then grabbed Holt away from Tormey and Idaho when he was hired at Louisville. And then Pete Carroll, another highly regarded coach (especially on the defensive side of the ball) hired Holt away from Smith to coach at USC. Holt impressed enough that he was then given the head coaching job at Idaho. He didn't do so well at that job, and resigned to take an offer from Scott Linehan (a colleague from the Louisville staff) and coach in the NFL. But before he signed that contract, Carroll wanted him back at USC bad enough that he was able to persuade Holt to forego the NFL. And then Steve Sarkisian wanted him bad enough at Washington that he didn't let Holt's initial rejection dissuade him - he came back with a bigger offer, determined to get the guy at the top of his list.
I mention this not to claim that Holt is doing a great job here, but I think it's instructive to realize that he's been well-regarded in the coaching industry. This isn't a guy with a history of failure, of getting fired often and bouncing around the coaching fraternity like many guys out there.
Now, the point of this post isn't strictly about Holt - it's about the defense, and trying to figure out why it's still really bad, 2.5 years into Sark's coaching career at Washington. A question has been asked, why has the defense not really improved from year to year to year under Holt's watch? It's a good question. I would submit there are a multitude of reasons:
Inherited (lack of) talent
There were a few good experienced players on defense left over from the Willingham Error:
- Daniel Te'o Nesheim
Unfortunately, that's it. There were also a few young guys that didn't really have any experience but would be developed under Sark & Holt's watch - guys like Victor Aiyewa, Cort Dennison and Quinton Richardson. There were also some OK guys with experience left over: Nate Williams, Everrette Thompson, Cameron Elisara and Johri Fogerson.
So when key players graduated, like Te'o Nesheim, Butler & Savannah after the 2009 season and Foster after the 2010 season, what experienced, talented upperclassmen were there to take over? Other than Cort Dennison, nobody.
Who was left to team with ‘tweener Everrette Thompson at DE? The perpetually injured Kalani Aldrich and the never developed De'Shon Matthews. And look who got the majority of the snaps opposite Thompson - a true Sophomore in Talia Crichton and a true Freshman in Hau'oli Jamora.
When Foster and Aiyewa graduated this past year, who was here to fill those spots alongside Dennison? Almost strictly 1st & 2nd year players.
Look at the youth in the secondary ever since Sark got the job - it's been primarily guys in their 1st or 2nd year in the program starting, guys like Desmond Trufant, Nate Fellner, Justin Glenn, Sean Parker, Greg Ducre. We're finally developing some experienced depth back there, but it's been a struggle.
Who's been starting at the 3-technique alongside Ta'amu? A collection of ‘tweeners like Thompson and Elisara, or 1st & 2nd year guys like Tokolahi and Potoa'e.
So every season under Sark & Holt we've been running out a significant amount of young guys with little to no experience who aren't close to fully developed, either physically or in terms of technique. That revolving door should be slowing now as more and more of the roster is made up of guys recruited and developed under Sark - we should see less and less true freshmen and 2nd year guys earning starting jobs as the talent level keeps rising, and more of these players will get a chance to develop physically without being forced into the lineup prematurely, much like in the days under Don James & Jim Lambright.
Compare that with the offensive side of the ball - there, Sark inherited Jake Locker, Chris Polk, Jermaine Kearse and Devin Aguilar. That's a good group of skill guys. And he moved one of his more promising young DL over to the OL in Kelemete.
Now granted, the OL situation was not good - the inherited group was mostly a mess, and Sark is now relying quite a bit on the "Cascade Front" group to grow up quickly. But I don't think there's much question the inherited talent was better on the offensive side.
Recruited talent
While Sark has landed some touted players on the defensive side of the ball, I don't think he's done as well there as he has with the offense. Here are the notable recruits on the offense recruited under Sark:
- James Johnson
- Kevin Smith
- Austin Sefarian-Jenkins
Here are the notable defensive recruits:
- Desmond Trufant
- Nate Fellner
- Andrew Hudson
- Sean Parker
- Greg Ducre
- Tani Tupou
- Marcus Peters
A number of the better defensive recruits never made it in to school, or washed out for off-the-field reasons:
- Chris Young
- Darius Waters
- Ma'atua Brown
Sark has gone after a lot of safety-sized guys with the intention of bulking them up to play linebacker. Most of them really haven't fully developed physically and are still undersized. He's also failed to land a big thumper at MLB other than JC transfer Thomas Tutogi. He's landed mostly 3-star guys at CB and DE - guys with some potential to develop into good players (as we've seen with Jamora & Ducre), but not the sure-fire NFL studs he's targeted and lost.
Josh Shirley is one of the most-hyped guys Sark has gotten (and only because he got busted for theft at UCLA and was booted), and while he may yet develop into a pass-rushing terror, right now he's a severely under-sized DE that gets knocked around on running plays and is still learning how to rush the passer at the college level.
Technique
When I watch our defense, I still see a lot of technique problems. On the defensive line, I see guys that don't show a lot of ability to shed blocks and lack much in the way of pass-rush techniques, from spin moves to counters to rip moves to clubs - these guys basically suck at rushing the passer. Ta'amu and Tokolahi show some ability to clog the middle against the run, but Ta'amu especially doesn't seem to be coming close to maximizing his physical skills.
Our linebackers are young and need more experience, but their zone drops are poor.
Our safeties often take bad angles to the ball and are not great in coverage. Nate Fellner at least is able to catch the ball when it's in his vicinity, but I've rarely seen a more fluke year in terms of interceptions than his 2010 season. Our corners seem unable to play effective press coverage, play off the ball too much in zone and don't make many plays on the ball.
So where to point blame?
Well, first and foremost, point it at Sark. He's the head coach, so the buck stops there. He's the guy that desperately wanted Holt as his Defensive Coordinator. He's the one that hired all of the assistants working under Holt. He's the guy ultimately in charge of recruiting. And as the head coach, it's ultimately his responsibility how the defense plays (as well as how the offense & special teams play). I don't know how true it actually is that Sark lets Holt take ownership of the defense while Sark focuses on the offense. The coaching situation has been characterized as such, but perhaps that's an exaggeration.
I know this - Sark isn't ignorant about defense. He can't be - as an offensive play-caller, he has to understand what he's attacking. With all the film he's watched of opposing defenses, trying to diagnose how to attack them, there's no way he doesn't have a pretty good eye about what constitutes good performance on defense.
However, that doesn't mean he spends much time thinking about how to attack offenses from a defensive perspective. It doesn't mean he thinks about coming up with new schemes and plays on defense. And it doesn't mean he knows how to coach defensive techniques. Should he? In my opinion, the head coach needs to be involved on both sides of the ball in terms of game-planning - otherwise, how can he really know how his defensive staff is performing?
It's up to Sark to assess his staff and make the hard decisions about who he employs. He has to determine whether great recruiting ability overcomes questionable position coaching. He has to figure out whether his coaches are employing the right schemes and whether they are coaching those schemes effectively.
And it's up to the head coach to set the tone for the whole team. If our team isn't as physical as they need to be, as tough as they need to be, that reflects on Sark.
Obviously Holt bears quite a bit of responsibility - he's the defensive coordinator. It's up to him to utilize the best schemes, to make the right play calls, to put the talent he has on hand in the best position to succeed, to oversee his defensive staff and make sure they are doing their jobs (though ultimately that responsibility belongs to Sark), and to be a positive asset in recruiting and evaluation.
I'm not fully qualified to evaluate his X's and O's - I'll leave that to others that are. His schemes worked pretty well at USC - was that due to much superior talent? Can he adapt to lesser talent? Was he just a rah-rah attitude guy while Carroll handled the play-calling and a top-notch staff did the position coaching? Could be.
Ivan Lewis bears some responsibility too. That may sound like sacrilege I know, but we can't let him completely off the hook. The strength & conditioning under the previous staff was horrible - we all know that at this point. Lewis has obviously been an improvement in that regard. But is he good enough to produce championship athletes? I still give him the benefit of the doubt and would like to see more of the kids Sark has recruited have more time under Ivan, but it was clear Saturday that our team is a long ways off from matching the physicality & toughness of Stanford, so Lewis has to be considered as potentially part of the problem.
On the coaching staff, I cast a particularly questioning eye at Johnny Nansen & Demetrice Martin. Those guys happen to be considered the top recruiters on the staff. Watching their players, I come to the conclusion that it's their recruiting prowess that has them employed, not their position coaching. I feel slightly better about Jeff Mills, but I'm not blown away by our safety play. I tend to think Mike Cox is the best of the bunch, but he's got his work cut out with the young stable of OLB's and figuring out a replacement for Dennison next year.
To close out this admittedly very long post, I'll summarize my view:
- Our defense is not very good and needs to improve greatly if we're to return to being a Pac-12 championship caliber program
- I think the depth of talent on the defensive side of the ball was tremendously lacking when Sark took over, resulting in major drop-offs at key positions the last two years when our best defensive players graduated - this goes a long way towards explaining the seeming lack of progress on defense from year to year
- I think the recruiting has been better on the offensive side than the defensive side
- I think we don't have great position coaches on the defensive side, particularly at DL and CB
- I think Sark needs to be more involved in defensive game-planning and can't completely hand that off to Holt
- I think Holt may be a part of the problem, but I need to see more expert analysis of his schemes and the execution of those schemes, and am somewhat swayed by his prior employment history to give him the benefit of the doubt
- As bad as yesterday was, I'm still inclined to stick by my idea that Holt is best judged by waiting until the end of next season - that will reduce the excuses of youth, experience and physical development from the equation (though the defense will still be a bit young)
- I'm not claiming that Holt may not deserve to be fired, and perhaps as soon as this off-season; my intent is that we all take a bigger picture view of the problem and realize that there's more to the mess than just who the defensive coordinator is
41 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Kirk, bingo
firing a position coach or coordinator mid season is nutty, unless he commits a felony. I am not a fan of firing a HC mid season also, but concede that sometimes it is necessary to send a message (Lockley at New Mexico), or just get a head start on an overt rather than a clandestine search (Stoops at Az).
What do you gain by firing a coach in season, you are now minus one coach in practice further exacerbating your problem. Granted, Sark should be assessing all his coaches all the time, so at seasons end, he can make a logical and honest assessment and make changes if necessary.
I also agree that many of the whiffs in recriting happened on D side, C. Young, M Brown, Sims etc. Horses that were counted on are simpy not here. I believe Ivan has done a terrific job in improving our S & C, but we still have a long way to go after seeing Stanford. We are however, better and closer in the “looks department” , maybe we will have caught up with oregon there. Find that out on 5 Nov.
Great well thought out piece.
no to firing mid-season
There’s no good reason to fire an assistant coach mid-season (aside from criminal or major rules violations).
Whether or not Holt should be retained after this season – I’m still inclined to give him another year. We’ll see by the end of the season.
Thanks! Very good post.
Listened to the Husky Honks podcast last night. That combined with this means I am feeling a bit better about the future.
Defense's Progress Or Lack Thereof
Excellent overall assessment and evaluation of the Husky defense – past, present, and future possibilities. DC Holt is obviously an easy target (for the reasons noted), and, certainly, not without significant responsibility. However, Kirk is spot on when he advises we need to look at the bigger picture. That said, I don’t think we can overstate the giant “hole” Sark and Company inherited from Tyrone B. Horn-eye, in terms of overall talent, player development, football mentality, strength conditioning, etc. A team doesn’t get to 0 and 12 without some serious and deep deficiencies. Offensively, the recovery and progress has been notably faster for the reasons cited and that’s Sark’s primary strength and interest. However, defensively, the recovery has been much slower, with mixed results (Holiday Bowl versus Sanford And Son). So, where do we go from here?
Following this season’s end:
1. Sark makes some confidential calls/contacts to defensive experts he knows for their advice and counsel.
2. Along with his evaluation of his entire staff, he puts a special focus on the defense and lays out some specific goals and objectives for the off-season and 2012 season, using the outside input he received.
3. Assuming item 2 results in a decision that some adjustments/changes are needed on the defensive side, Sark formally promotes Holt to Assistant Head Coach and assigns him some additional duties and responsibilities beyond just defense.
4. On game days, new AHC Holt is assigned to the press box to strategically observe and make recommendations regarding the overall game proceedings, with a special emphasis on the defense and special teams.
5. Sark recruits and hires a hot new defensive assistant to manage the defensive details, who will report to both HC Sark and AHC Holt.
6. Subsequently, the Purple Reign returns and the citizens of Husky-ville live happily ever after.
Now, I’ll get off my soapbox.
I think getting the input of outsiders is a great idea.
And I’m sure Sarkisian will, particularly with a great sounding board in Carroll just a couple of miles away.
But if it turns out that Holt isn’t the right guy to run the D, I’d say not firing him outright is a bad idea, for a couple of reasons. One, there’s just no need to prop him up. He either does the job or he doesn’t. He shouldn’t be Peter Principled into a “promotion” that he doesn’t rightly deserve. Two, the Dawgs are limited in the number of coaches they can have. Doing what you suggest means getting rid of someone else. Maybe you can combine the secondary positions into a single job, but those two guys are both good recruiters. Maybe Holt takes over the defensive line, and Nansen is relieved, but again, he’s one of the top recruiters.
an outside look is a good idea
Obviously Carroll is someone Sark could consult, but he should also look around beyond his coaching tree for a more objective view.
And yeah, if Holt isn’t getting it done, fire him rather than create some kind of muddled hierarchy.
First though, Sark really needs to assess whether Nansen & Martin’s recruiting offsets any deficiencies in their coaching.
Sark really needs to assess whether Nansen & Martin’s recruiting offsets any deficiencies in their coaching.
I fully agree on Nansen. But the more I watch the corners, I’m not as sure that I think Martin is a bad position coach as I used to be. While Trufant surely isn’t perfect, he’s playing fairly well. At worst, he’s a high risk, high reward type of guy. And Ducre has really come along well this year, which is notable considering this is only his second year ever at the position, and he missed most of last season. Both have great mentalities for corners, too. To me, it’ll be really interesting to see if Peters can have an impact right away next season.
good point
Maybe I’m being too harsh on Martin. But I’d still like to see them better able to play press coverage, and I’d like to see them be more aggressive in trying to make the interception instead of knocking the ball down. I’ve seen a few too many instances of our guys being in a good position to try to pick the ball, but instead go for the swat.
Maybe Martin & Daugherty need to run more catching drills?
I can agree with all of that.
I don’t have as much issue with the lack of press, partly because I think there’s more played than most do. But I would like to see it played more aggressively – not just one jam attempt at the line and then run, but a more concerted effort to genuinely hold a guy up from getting into his route.
But that, and playing for the pick as opposed for the deflection, are probably the last two things to come for a corner. Those are the plays that carry the most risk, and to do them, you really have to be sure that you can succeed. The fact is that the vast majority of corners can’t pull them off.
confidence
I agree – I think in most cases where I’ve seen our guys go for the sure knock-down instead of the potential pick, it’s because they lack confidence in themselves to make the riskier play. That’s where perhaps more catching drills might help, though I acknowledge I haven’t seen enough practices to really know.
also...
…if I’m Sark, I’d like to pow-wow with Nick Saban this off-season and talk defense. And because you can argue that Alabama is able to do what they do largely because of superior athletes, I’d also pow-wow with Justin Wilcox, the guy who coordinated the great Boise State defenses with less than stellar talent (and is now at Tennessee).
Glad to see some good reasoning
But one thing is still rubbing me wrong. We have 2 def position coaches that are considered good recruiters. Yet we have failed to land the ‘sure fire NFL stud’ 5 star players, and consistently land 3 star recruits on the defensive side of the ball. Is Sark just recruiting the offense, and leaving to the D to said recruiters and Holt? If so, what does that say about said defensive coaches? What does that say about how recruits feel about our offensive coaches, versus how they view our defensive coaches?
Duck hunting season has officially begun.
by S_o_Smith on Oct 24, 2011 11:28 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
recruiting
The Huskies have targeted plenty of 5 and 4 star talent on the defensive side, but just haven’t landed many of them.
I think you’re on to something with this though:
What does that say about how recruits feel about our offensive coaches, versus how they view our defensive coaches?
If you’re an offensive prospect and you look at how the Huskies have performed under Sark, hard not to really like what you see. If you’re a defensive prospect and you look at how the Huskies have performed under Sark, you’re probably more wary. On the plus side, there’s an opportunity for early playing time. On the downside, your unit frequently gets their butt kicked.
One argument in favor of taking a more risky, aggressive approach on defense is that it would likely appeal more to recruits.
I'm thinking giving up over 60 points is reason enough...
For a change in defensive “approach”? In other words, can they really do much worse by being more proactive on the defensive side of things?
or giving up 120 some odd points in two games against the only ranked teams we've played?
yeah.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
One argument in favor of taking a more risky, aggressive approach on defense is that it would likely appeal more to recruits.
There’s definitely some validity to the notion. But unless Holt has a Lambright-esque change in his entire way of playing defense, then to do this, I think you’re best off bringing in a guy that fits this mold.
Recruiting/drafting by association
Top defensive teams (LSU & Balance etc) always bring in 4-5 star recruits. Success breeds success. In college basketball, playing time as a fresh is huge. I don’t believe so in football. Your going to be in a college program 3-4 years almost no matter what, and sitting behind studs, watching waiting and learning will greatly improve your draft stock.
NFL teams have shown they do believe def is a team concept more than skill position off guys. When you play on a dominant college defense you look better by association, especially when you shut down good offenses.
A good coach can tell a recruit “we put guys into the NFL, just wait, watch and learn.” Or he can promise playing time. Playing time on offense gives guys a good chance to build stats and highlights; on defense I believe you are viewed more as a unit and its merits.
Duck hunting season has officially begun.
by S_o_Smith on Oct 24, 2011 12:27 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Should read (LSU & Bama etc)*
Phone auto correct, love and hate it.
Duck hunting season has officially begun.
by S_o_Smith on Oct 24, 2011 12:31 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
The coaches recruit areas rather than positons
Holt and the defensive coaches don’t just recruit defensive players. For example, Coach Martin would cover LA and SD and Coach Nansen would cover the Bay Area. I’m sure if we’re in on a 5* defensive player that they’ll send Holt or his position coach down to try and close, but the guys shaking hands and making calls are not always who will coach them when they arrive.
Also, if I remember right
Holt doesn’t do a whole ton in the way of recruiting. So I guess you could blame him for not grinding on the trail more, or you could excuse him for not having those players because it’s in other peoples hands.
Fall guys are rarely the problem. Firing Holt and then acting like everything is fixed is akin to killing Hitler and then pardoning Goebbels, Himmler and Goring.
Fall guys are rarely the problem.
Exactly. It’s very highly unlikely that the issue is simply Holt. He might be part of it, but to think that’s all the deeper it goes…
Absolutely
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Oct 24, 2011 5:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Man - you nailed it
Seeing Stanford absolutely manhandle our defense in a way not seen since the worst days of this program under Gilby & Ty was monumentally frustrating.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
Love the post
My worry is we are here again a year from now with no real clue as to how Sark and Co are going to change things for the better on the D side of things. Will we be here a year from now complaining about another slow start to a season, or another blowout of epic proportions from some team that’s physical or can pass. What I want is Holt to say yes we have a problem, we are going to change things and be more creative to mask our defensive weaknesses. I have no problem placing no blame for this if we have some kind of idea moving forward on how to adapt to our personnel. What can be expected without ET, Meda and Cort next year? They say the definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, right now we are doing the same thing and it’s getting worse. What are we supposed to do?
Last PAC-12 Rose Bowl winner not named USC....Washington
what will be different is the quality of depth
When you hear the comments from Sark & Holt, they make it pretty easy to see that they still don’t feel they have the athletes on defense that they want. Some of that is recruiting. Some of that is simply the kids they’ve recruited physically maturing. A lot of if is what this staff was left with when they got here. As I’ve noted in this post, the quality of depth all around the defense was virtually non-existent when Sark took over. A good portion of what we’re seeing is growing pains.
That we are starting 1st & 2nd year guys at OLB, with 1st & 2nd year guys backing them up; that we’ve given most of the snaps at one of the DE spots to 2nd year guys; that our primary backups at DT are 1st & 2nd year guys; that one of our starters at S is a 2nd year guy, and we’ve had to play a 2nd year guy much of the time at one of the CB positions due to injury – that showcases where this program currently is in terms of quality depth on defense.
At a strong program, the vast majority of those guys redshirt, and almost none of them are starters until their 3rd year in the program at the earliest.
So what changes next year? More quality depth, more experience all around, continued physical maturation of all the 1st & 2nd year kids forced into action early.
That’s why I’ve cautioned that we should wait until the end of next season to pass full judgment on Holt – let’s see what he can do with a more experienced and deeper group that is a lot closer in overall talent level to what we should expect on a yearly basis with a good coaching staff. If we are still failing big-time at that point, the biggest alternate explanation for our failures on defense will be mostly negated (though really, it’s the 2013 season where the quality of depth and talent figures to be highest).
I've got to agree with Dawgfather91
Next season is going to be much of the same, and we will hear: we lost Ta’amu, we lost Thompson, we lost Dennison, our three best players, Holt needs more talent and more time . . . . .
What I wouldn’t give for a DC with an imagination, who would try and alter his schemes to take the most advantage out of the talent he has on hand. The best thing Don James and Lambright did was to change their defensive philosophy. You could even say the worst thing Lambright (and a great number of other coaches) did, was staying with that philosophy for too long, never changing or adapting to the ever changing offenses of college football.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
having an imagination is easier with more depth
more depth meaning kids starting for the first time when they are redshirt juniors or redshirt sophomores. We aren’t even close to that right now. That falls on recruting.
Formerly the fan known as Denvdawg.
"You can observe a lot by just watching." - Yogi Berra
by Randall Floyd on Oct 24, 2011 8:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Should we have given Willingham more time?
The offensive depth was definitely going to be better, but we still fired him.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
How many wins did Ty have?
Did he ever have a signature win?
Holt’s defense has had signature wins…just saying!
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Oct 25, 2011 5:10 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
It has?
What good offense has a Holt defense stopped? I can only think of one Nebraska in the Holiday Bowl. We could rehash the argument of how good/healthy was Nebraska that day, but what’s the point. We’ve only had one good defensive performance against a “good” offense in 3 years.
3 years – 0 Improvement, and the stats prove it.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
Can you say: Aaron Corp
What does it tell you that the best example was in Holt’s first year, not his second or third??
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
except....
…there are better backups ready to step in for those guys: Shelton & Lagafuaina for Ta’amu, Tutogi & Gilliland for Dennison and Shirley & Hudson for Thompson.
Can you not see that the quality of depth is improving greatly over the previous years?
Again, this is not to say that Holt shouldn’t change some things up. But the excuse of personnel will be quite a bit weaker next year than it has been the first 3 seasons. It will still be a fairly young defense, but the quality of depth will be a definite upgrade.
which is what I've been saying for a few weeks now!
Formerly the fan known as Denvdawg.
"You can observe a lot by just watching." - Yogi Berra
by Randall Floyd on Oct 25, 2011 7:05 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Agreed.
But I don’t need another season of the same excuse before I pull the plug on Holt. I see enough problems with his coaching skills, personal skills, media skills, and coordinating skills to pull the plug at the end of the season.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on UW Dawg Pound
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
