On assessing coaches and shifting fan perceptions
by kirkd on Nov 21, 2011 12:28 PM PST
Email
PrintObviously there's been a ton of talk about the performance of Nick Holt as defensive coordinator, and there are now some beginning to express some concerns about Sark himself. Such is the nature of the beast when the Huskies suffer probably their least justifiable loss of the Sark era.
Plenty of chatter about coaches and people talking about who they'd want to bring in if they had their choice. One particular thread over at Dawgman.com got me thinking about how fickle are fan perceptions of coaches - a guy who's a hero one day can become a bum who needs to go the next.
I can't remember exactly when it was, but sometime earlier this season, AndyPanda from the Beavers' SB Nation blogosphere offered to trade Oregon State's defensive coordinator Mark Banker straight up for Nick Holt. I recall being quite taken aback, as Oregon State has featured some pretty salty defenses under his watch during the Mike Riley era. Just a few years ago I remember quite a few in the Husky message board fanbase clamoring to try to steal away Banker from Riley's staff.
Just to jog everyone's memory, here's how Banker's defenses have rated at Oregon State:
- 2003: 288.7 ypg (7th nationally), 23.2 ppg (46th)
- 2004: 313.3 ypg (18th), 24.5 (48th)
- 2005: 406.7 ypg (84th), 33.2 (105th)
- 2006: 333.9 ypg (59th), 22.2 (54th)
- 2007: 306.2 ypg (8th), 22.6 (33rd)
- 2008: 312.2 ypg (23rd), 23.1 (47th)
- 2009: 349.5 ypg (46th), 25.0 (57th)
- 2010: 407.9 ypg (86th), 26.8 (64th)
- 2011: 387.7 ypg (66th), 29.2 (82nd)
Pretty good resume overall really, when you consider that the Beavers don't operate with top-shelf talent (as judged by the recruiting services). But the difficulties he's had the last couple of years after experience quite a bit of success in 6 of his previous 7 years have turned-off some Beaver faithful.
Consider also the example of Jeff Tedford. Tedford took a totally downtrodden Cal program and immediately made them respectable, and for a while they were a top-20, top-15 kind of program. Tedford was hailed as a genius, and both times the Husky job came open while Tedford was at Cal, there was a large contingent of Husky fans clamoring for the UW to steal him away.
Now Cal has slumped to the middle of the conference, no longer the darkhorse candidate to go to a Rose Bowl, and some Old Blues are ready to cut ties and move on. If you polled Husky fans, I'm sure far fewer would say they want Tedford over Sark than if you'd asked that 3 years ago.
I bring all this up because I think we need to remember that it's hard to judge a coach. What we think we know about a coach can change over 2-3 years. Is it because coaches stagnate? Is it because even really good coaches are not immune from tough times? Is it because most coaches are roughly average, and there are few truly outstanding coaches out there? I tend to think the latter 2 points are true, and point number 1 has some merit as well.
Just keep this thought in mind when you start clamoring for the head of Nick Holt. I don't say this to dissuade you from thinking he should stay or go, only that I think it's hard to find truly great coaches, and that judging the true differences between coaches may be harder than we think. It's entirely possible we could jettison Holt and see him land somewhere else and post terrific results. And conversely, we could poach a DC from elsewhere that's posted impressive numbers at his previous stop only to see him barely move the needle here.
184 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Totally agree.
Change for its own sake has as little value as continuity for its own sake. If you’re going to make a change, you’d better be damned sure that the new guy is better than the guy he’s replacing. But there’s just no way to be sure.
Hiring coaches is a crap shoot. Always.
Typically great players help make great coaches
Talent, health, and experience are huge factors in the success of any coaching staff. Holt could have used better help in all three of those area’s this season.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
thanks kirkd, it could always be worse.....
we could be Cal.
Cal definitely has better talent than us but under performs.
OSU has lesser talent than us but over achieves.
we are middling and was hoping to get Cal talent and OSU coaching to get us to the upper reaches of our league.
think we are getting closer to the former but questioning the latter.
I dont think
OSU has lesser talent. They have a lot of injuries this year, and they began with a freshman QB. We found out what a freshman QB does for you. MAny seem to think we were outperformed by lesser talent, but I think we were outperformed greatly at QB, more than any where else. If Price plays, we win easy.
You Guys Are Nuts
We got beat, and I mean beat badly, on both sides of the line. This is the main reason we got our butts kicked by OSU, and KP could do absolutly nothing about that. I’m sick-n-tired of reading this “we could have won” moronics.
by The Dude 4 Real on Nov 21, 2011 8:25 PM PST up reply actions
Hmm must have been two games
I just saw the replay. The last play of the third quarter, we missed a chip shot to tie, shortly after dropping a touchdown to go ahead. I say any game where you are tied at the end of the third is winnable.
KP would have put points on the board
Just Jake Locker…he makes the line in front of him look better than it is.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 22, 2011 10:26 AM PST up reply actions
that game was there to be had by us
If Price throws that pass to Kasen just a foot lower, the defender has no chance at it and it’s 28-31 with all the momentum going our way.
If Folk makes that 38 yarder, it’s 17-all in the 3rd quarter.
We didn’t get our “butts kicked” by OSU – we lost a winnable game.
I would REALLY like to forget!
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
I'll say this:
With having Keith Price lining up under center, that alone would have changed the dynamics of the way that Oregon State played UW, because he could threaten to complete 20+ yard passes on them.
Once Oregon State realized that Nick Montana was not much of a threat to consistently complete passes greater than 7 yards, up came the linebackers and safeties to stop Chris Polk. (It also didn’t help that Tanigawa got hurt, either, as the running game began to stall after he got hurt).
Nick Montana made the offense rather one-dimensional.
by Carl Shinyama on Nov 22, 2011 10:52 AM PST up reply actions
when sark was putting together his staff
the defensive side was the last to gel.
Holt turned him down, Rocky Seto’s name surfaced and there was no action and so the second time Holt came. this says something about Sark’s closing ability as a recruiter. ;-)
but when it came to the choice of whether to have better recruiters than coaches for coaches or better coaches do you think he went for the former more than the latter?
so having good talent that doesnt get coached up
Is preferable to taking the talent given and bringing them to another level.
It seems we have the former. Guys who have 2*-3* upperclassmen who have young 3*-4* and expect the talent to play to their rating.
I think OSU is having an off year but overall I think one can feel good about their accomplishments better than one could feel at Cal
by PandG on Nov 22, 2011 12:51 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
If changes are made,
I really hope that Sarkisian looks to bring in more experience. There are a lot of really, really young guys on this staff. Guys that definitely fit in the Sarkisian image (young, energetic, enthusiastic), but might not have the years in the business to really know how to handle some things that come up during the course of a game, or a season. 7 of the coaches (including Sarkisian) are 40 or younger. I can’t help but think that a little more grey hair on the sidelines might prove to be beneficial both to the players and some of the younger coaches.
That could be good and bad
Experience in handling certain situations yes. But Experience could also = burnout. I just want the right guys.
All I saw was purple
Point well taken
It means they have a lot to learn. Also means they have energy. I was sorry to see Sark let Tormey and Hart go, but I also understand. I still think the staff as constructed is good, and with a little time and two more classes, they will get good. It is likely there will be some turnover, but hopefully, not too much.
Agree on all accounts
Continuity is huge in recruiting. It’s huge is creating a working relationship with other coaches. We are about to complete year 3 and yes the defense is still struggling. But the talent level has increased, the system is in place. We just have to continue teaching and learn to trust ourselves and our teammates. Offense is way ahead of defense these days and the spread offense, fly offense, pistal offense, and the no huddle offense has defensive coordinators scrambling to catch up. How many different offenses do we see in the Pac 12? It’s going to take a little more time for us to see some very good improvements. In Sark I trust, he’ll make the right decisions.
All I saw was purple
Changes Defensive Coordinators has had ZERO negative impact at Stanford.
You are making crap up. Continuity is only important if the coaches are being successful.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
Similarly cal
Hired Clancy P two years ago and got nothing but better recruits and better response from their D to the point that they’re one of the best defenses in the league, even losing as much as they did last year.
Sometimes it really is that simple.
Put it another way: if you trust in Sark, you already know what a difference a coach can make. Why would DCoordinator or any other coordinator be different? Why does it take Holt 4 years to do something special but Sark not? Why are all the star defensive players recruits from the Willingham era?
because Ty's last few recruiting classes left us with no depth...
…and Sark whiffed badly on his first recruiting class.
Sark didn’t have a full recruiting class because we waited way too long to fire TW and pick a new coach. Sark had to scramble to get anybody, and it’s showing. That’s on the AD, not Sark.
by Skeptical Dawg on Nov 21, 2011 10:02 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not placing a lot of blame on Sark
He inherited a piss-poor recruiting situation. Just pointing out that it’s really been the last 2 recruiting classes that have provided any kind of quality depth to the situation, and you’re talking about 1st & 2nd year guys, not your ideal candidates to have to step in and play meaningful minutes because there’s simply no one else available.
Blame Sark when....
The players he recruited are 4th and 5th year players rather than first or second year…it makes a huge difference for every coach.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 22, 2011 10:27 AM PST up reply actions
Actually
he left some very nice offensive players, which is why the offense is so far ahead of the defense.
He left some very nice defensive players too
Multiple NFL first-round picks and other quality players. Ty did a fairly good job of recruiting good guys, even if they weren’t the highest star value.
I guess I don’t see the difference in the good players at offense argument. There’s been at least as many good defenders as offensive players as far as high quality.
Yep
Mason Foster and Ta’amu, at least that I know of. Possibly more.
Put it this way: UW complains a lot about how when X leaves or Y leaves things are going to suck (see: Mason Foster). But those weren’t Holt’s players – those were Ty’s. Why hasn’t Holt been able to get people to replace this talent?
I think Foster was a third-rounder. Ta’amu might sneak into the first round, but regardless, none of that changes your point, really.
Who replaced Foster? A true freshman coming off an ACL and hadn’t played football for close to two years, and was switching from safety to linebacker. You don’t think there’s going to be a dropoff?
Why hasn’t Holt been able to get people to replace this talent?
Why hasn’t Sarkisian? And there’s no way to know right now if either one of them have or haven’t. The guys doing the replacing are true sophomores and younger. You expect them to immediately step in without missing a beat?
I personally think that the staff has found some good players, but they’re not ready for prime time yet. We’ll see if I’m right or not, but there’s no way to know when these guys were generally projects and not superstars.
Honestly, yes
You expect them to immediately step in without missing a beat?
Why not? If the talent was that poor for Ty’s group (and it’s increasingly clear that it wasn’t the talent that was the issue, honestly, given how good some of his players were and still are and what is being done with them) then I would expect the better recruiting and coaching of Sark/Holt to shine through. You can do well as a freshman or a sophomore, and it’s not as if the Holt scheme is particularly complex or requires a ton of reading.
Ultimately it comes down to the same thing as before: there was talent on defense and offense. The offense talent has clearly improved under Sark. The defensive talent has not, and by statistical analysis it has gotten progressively worse as more of Ty’s kids got out of the system. Regardless of whether that’s on recruiting or on coaching that’s on Holt.
no, you're missing some key points
While there were a few good players on defense from Ty, not nearly enough to make a good defense. And almost none from his last couple of classes – you know, the guys that should be making up more than half of our 2-deeps right now as 4th & 5th year players.
“Some talent” does not equal “a lot of talent” or “enough talent”. These 1st & 2nd year kids from Sark’s classes that are playing right now simply because there’s no choice – they may turn out to be pretty good players by the time they’re in their 4th & 5th years. That’s when they’re supposed to be good. When they’re 1st & 2nd year guys, they’re supposed to be on the scout team and low on the depth chart, getting bigger, stronger, faster and learning the system and making their mistakes on the practice field instead of in games.
Yes, a few uber-talented kids can come in and make a big impact right away. Sark hasn’t been able to land enough of those kinds of kids on defense. Blame Sark on that if you want. But it’s not like most programs in the situation Washington has been in are suddenly landing exclusively 4 & 5 star talent right away.
I get the argument about depth
I really do. And the junior class is a wasteland apparently.
Still, one of the big excuses I see is “we are missing X who left last year and are now hurting”. Those are all Ty’s guys. Foster, Butler, etc – those are losses and big ones, but where are the guys stepping up to that?
The fact is that so far, Holt’s had zero success either improving or producing quality defenders. The players that were good were good with Ty. His recruits have so far been at best a wash.
So let me ask you this, kirkd – do you expect that the team next year will dramatically improve? That’s when you’ll see the 4th year guys under Holt be The Guys, right? Do you really expect the junior class to produce dramatically?
again, you're wrong
The fact is that so far, Holt’s had zero success either improving or producing quality defenders.
Alameda Ta’amu, Victor Aiyewa, Mason Foster, Donald Butler, Cort Dennison – they all put the lie to that statement.
Hauoli Jamora, Sean Parker, Greg Ducre, Semisi Tokolahi – they all have shown reason to believe that Holt & this staff can develop their own recruits too.
And you’re still not grasping the depth argument when you make this statement:
So let me ask you this, kirkd – do you expect that the team next year will dramatically improve? That’s when you’ll see the 4th year guys under Holt be The Guys, right?
What 4th year guys? Sark’s first class was mostly a wash. The only guys on defense from that class that have shown to be Pac-12 worthy players are Desmond Trufant, Semisi Tokolahi, Nate Fellner and I suppose Will Shamburger. That’s it. And Tokolahi may not be 100% recovered from his awful leg injury last year.
The guys that will provide hope for the future of the defense are all currently 1st or 2nd year guys. Next year they should be better, but overall I would figure the defense to be only slightly improved – Shelton looks very promising, but it’ll still be a tall task replacing Ta’amu. And while Everrette Thompson hasn’t been great, we need a lot of progression in our young DE’s to make up for his loss.
I would expect 2013 as the year when we have enough experience, depth and talent on defense to be an above-average unit.
All those guys you named early on
Were Ty’s guys, and were good under Ty as well. Holt did make them play somewhat better than Ty, but that’s not hugely surprising. They were still considered quality players before Holt got here, just like Locker did.
So you don’t expect the Huskies to improve next year either then? Gotcha. And you also don’t expect a defense to be at all good until players have had at least 3 years and preferably 4 years in a system? Okay.
So how does Stanford do it? How does Cal with Pendergast? How does Sark do it on offense?
The fact is, kirkd, you don’t need experience to be a quality defense. Depth helps, but only so much. You need talent and you need coaching. You need the same things you need on offense. And unlike the offense, Holt has so far done nothing that would indicate that he can do this.
those guys weren't anywhere nearly as good before Sark & Holt got here
You clearly don’t pay very close attention to UW football.
How did Stanford do it? Their defense got good in Harbaugh’s 4th year. How does Penderast do it? Cal has recruited quite well for several years running now. How does Sark do it on offense? He had better talent and more quality depth on offense than Holt has had on defense.
Sorry this is so difficult for you to grasp.
So let's say that
Let’s assume Mason Foster et al were crap before Holt got here, and he magically improved them to quality NFL draft picks. Let’s go with that.
Why hasn’t he been able to do the same thing with his players? After all, Foster was what, a sophomore when Holt got him? By your reckoning that means he would be useless. Heck, he should have been basically bleh in his junior year, no?
So why does he turn out well?
What is different about Foster compared to Holt’s recruits? Why did he turn out okay when others faltered?
how many times do I have to repeat it?
Foster wasn’t “crap” before Holt got here, but he was nowhere near as polished and as good as when he graduated.
Who says Holt isn’t doing the same thing with his players? Most of the guys with talent are currently 1st or 2nd year players. Some of them are already showing a lot of promise (Jamora, Parker, Shelton). Some of them are still pretty raw, but getting a lot of playing time very early in their career because there’s little other choice (Timu, Fuimaono, Shirley, Hudson, Ducre, Kearse, Gilliland, Sample before he got hurt). In the next couple of years, we should see those guys progressing and becoming good players, much like Ta’amu, Foste, Aiyewa and Dennison blossomed under this staff.
Repeating it ad infinitum won't make it true
“Who says Holt isn’t doing the same thing with his players? "
You did, when you said we’re relying on them to play and they’re not doing well.
So which is it?
And why are other teams like Stanford able to get more out of their guys (and while their defense wasn’t stellar outside of last year it was improving) or Cal able to get regular, quality recruits who play well at a sophomore or freshman level?
your reading comprehension continues to suck
So the only way Holt is a good coach is if he can immediately turn 1st & 2nd year players into studs? Is that really your argument?
Don James was the best coach in Husky history and one of the better coaches all time. You know what his great defenses had in common? The 2-deeps were comprised primarily of 4th & 5th year guys. Yes, there were a few younger, freakishly talented kids that started, but they were the exception to the rule.
As he always said, the best time to play a freshman is when he’s a Junior or a Senior.
The only way Holt is a good coach
Is if his teams improve year to year. The only way he’s the equal of Sark is if his teams improve at a similar rate to the offense.
My argument is that if he’s a good coach he will make freshmen and sophomores play well enough to where there isn’t an actual decline in value. My argument is that the level of performance is not indicative of a huge lack of depth alone, especially in his third year of the program where there are multiple sophomores in the program who should be getting it.
My point is that blaming it on the depth and the players is unproductive at the end of the day, because Holt was brought in to improve both of these things. And he hasn’t.
The only way he’s the equal of Sark is if his teams improve at a similar rate to the offense.
This has been addressed numerous times. You’ve either ignored it, or made specious arguments that simply don’t hold water.
There are depth and talent issues. There may very well be coaching issues as well. The former cannot be addressed without the passage of time. The latter simply isn’t clear. To claim that you know is simply false.
To put it another way, please show the true sophomores and younger on the defense that are underperforming relative to their health and innate talent level.
To put it another way, please show the true sophomores and younger on the defense that are underperforming relative to their health and innate talent level.
Aside from that not being my job – it’s Holt’s – it doesn’t matter, because their talent level is entirely on Holt too. If he doesn’t have kids who are making plays and are getting improvement then that’s entirely on him. Again, look at the offense – we have Price making people wonder why Locker was supported for so long, we have ASJ coming in as a huge star, we have Sankey making people hopeful when Polk leaves, we have Williams and Callier. These are all freshmen and sophomores that are playing very well.
We don’t have that same level of talent on defense. And regardless of whether it’s because they weren’t recruited or they weren’t trained, that all goes to Holt, right?
Holt is not solely responsible for defensive recruiting.
Recruiting issues are on the entire staff, meaning they are mostly Sark’s problem.
Aside from that not being my job – it’s Holt’s – it doesn’t matter, because their talent level is entirely on Holt too.
When the bulk of your entire argument is the lack of development (as seen through production) of the young players, you have absolutely made it your job. Otherwise, you are simply making a baseless assertion.
Williams and Sefarian-Jenkins were all-world talents that literally had their pick of programs. There’s no one like that on D. And, neither has been asked to be anything but a supporting player. Sankey, while not at that same level, has been utilized in exactly the same way. Very low pressure situations that give him the greatest opportunity for success.
And regardless of whether it’s because they weren’t recruited or they weren’t trained, that all goes to Holt, right?
Holt’s the primary recruiter? No, that’s Sarkisian. This team, 1-85, is his. As to whether or not they were trained, how do you know? And who has and has not been? Is it failure across the board?
It's not a baseless assertion
For three years the Huskies have had roughly the same amount of ‘young’ talent starting on D. For three years they’ve had a statistically static growth rate for the defense. The clear implication is that the youth have not improved from year to year or that this is the height of what we can expect from them. This isn’t me saying that – this is from the smart stats evaluating Nick Holt article.
If Williams and ASJ are studs, awesome. Why couldn’t the Huskies get players like that on D? If that’s Sark’s problem I’m okay with that too – because that realistically means that the best Holt can hope for is the also-rans of the recruiting dregs, since Sark apparently isn’t a very good recruiter of defensive players. That being said, I don’t think it’s exclusively Sark’s responsibility to recruit. He might be the one who ends up selling, but as to who the Huskies target and what they’re looking for – that is a group effort from all the coaches and staff, not just Sark.
You are right in that I don’t know who is responsible for the lack of growth in the youth. Why, as Holt says, no one has stepped up. I do know that ultimately if the kids aren’t doing what they’re supposed to it comes down to one of two things: either bad coaching or bad recruiting. No need to throw the kids under the bus.
this part is correct
Why couldn’t the Huskies get players like that on D? If that’s Sark’s problem I’m okay with that too
Sark has not recruited as well on the defensive side of the ball, and he hasn’t exhibited a tendency to favor starting “athletes” on defense over offense.
He also hasn’t been helped by injuries which have hit harder on defense than offense.
Will Sark continue to not attract as many studs on defense as offense? Too soon to judge, but I would say that he probably leans a bit too much on stocking the offensive side over the defensive side when push comes to shove.
this is from the smart stats evaluating Nick Holt article.
That evaluation of youth was fairly flawed. I’m not going to take the time to look up the rosters again, but this team is actually quite a bit younger than 2009 and 2010, especially when you look at two-deeps and not just starters. You can take me at my word or not – your choice.
If that’s Sark’s problem I’m okay with that too – because that realistically means that the best Holt can hope for is the also-rans of the recruiting dregs, since Sark apparently isn’t a very good recruiter of defensive players.
In the two full classes that Sarkisian has had, no, he (and the rest of the staff) haven’t done as well on the defensive side as on offense. I certainly don’t take that to mean they can’t recruit defense as well, but the fact is they haven’t in an extremely small sample size.
That being said, I don’t think it’s exclusively Sark’s responsibility to recruit.
Nor do I. But you’ve stated the talent level on D (as well as development) is on Holt on numerous ocassions. I was simply challenging that.
I do know that ultimately if the kids aren’t doing what they’re supposed to it comes down to one of two things: either bad coaching or bad recruiting. No need to throw the kids under the bus.
I’ve stated several times that the issue is that I believe there is young talent on the roster that needs a chance to develop. A lot of it is due to position changes. Maybe I should’ve used the word “experience” more often than “talent.” I’ve definitely questioned the talent in the oldest classes left by Willingham and in the transition class. Rightly so, too.
Foster, Butler, etc – those are losses and big ones, but where are the guys stepping up to that?
The guys that have stepped in for Foster and Butler are true sophomores or younger. Three were high school safeties, and only one got to redshirt to actually learn the position. All were (and mostly still are) undersized. The other linebacker is a Dennison-type clone – scrappy, heady player, but smallish and athletically limited. The first three guys could very well end up being talented players, and would be good depth to have right now, but none is really ready to be a starter, much less a playmaker.
The players that were good were good with Ty. His recruits have so far been at best a wash.
This really isn’t true. Te’o Nesheim was, but Butler and Foster improved a lot their last few seasons. Maybe they would’ve done it on their own. Maybe it was because of Holt and the linebackers coach. Victor Aiyewa languished as a safety for three seasons. In his one year as a linebacker, he was an all-conference (honorable mention, I believe…) player. Ta’amu flashed some potential early on, but it wasn’t until he got serious about his fitness that he entered any draft discussions.
That’s when you’ll see the 4th year guys under Holt be The Guys, right?
There are two (and maybe three) guys that will be fourth-year players that will see much significant time next season. That was a lost class. The improvement is going to come from the guys that are 3rd year players and younger. And without a doubt, I expect those guys to be better next season than they are this season. Will it be “dramatic?” I don’t know. How is that defined?
Who are the defensive stars left over from Willingham on the roster today?
Here’s the list of guys:
Here’s a list of everybody (not including walk-ons)
Adam Long (injured) CB
Alameda Ta’amu NG
Everrette Thompson DE
Cort Dennison MLB
Quentin Richardson CB
Anthony Gobern CB
Justin Glenn S
Greg Walker S
Marquis Persley CB
What stands out on that list? One defensive tackle, total. One linebacker, total. 4 cornerbacks that, quite frankly, are low Pac 12 talent at best. A safety that has played reasonably well when healthy in Glenn, and another whose scholarship wasn’t renewed for next season.
Ta’amu has played well enough that he’s probably a 1st or 2nd round draft pick. But he doesn’t exactly play an “impact” position. Dennison is a scrappy overachiever type. But athletically, not overly impressive. Thompson has not performed as well as I’d hoped this season, but he’s also coached by the guy that I think is the weakest position coach on the defensive staff.
On offense, Willingham left Kearse (who has been 2nd team all-conference the last two years), Aguilar, Kelemete (who Willingham had on D), Schaeffer (who is a serviceable center), and the single biggest difference maker on offense in Chris Polk (You can argue who recruited Price – he committed to Willingham, and then recommitted to Sarkisian after looking around).
The talent that’s left over today from Willingham is heavily slanted to the offense, especially in terms of playmakers. It’s not close.
by Sundodger on Nov 22, 2011 9:57 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
From today, sure
But from the last few years? Not exactly. The only difference is that the ‘good’ offense players have been around since Ty’s last class and all came from that class. The good defensive players came from Ty’s last class and the last two prior to that.
But as far as numbers go? It’s about the same.
In each and every case that one of those guys has graduated,
he’s been replaced by a guy in his first or second year in the program.
As far as numbers of what? Bodies? Maybe. But playmakers? No, and it’s not close. Especially when you consider the impact that a running back can have on a game versus any defensive player.
So what?
That’s the case for every program. The only argument that I see that makes sense here is that the junior class is kind of hosed, especially on defense.
But at the same time, you see youth at Oregon, at USC. Stanford turned things around dramatically on defense with the same players.
The difference between the offensive starters and the defense is that the majority of skill players started on offense for a while. Kearse, Aguilar, Polk are all from the same class. If one of them were lost each and every year you’d have the same situation as the defense does – and a fresh/sophomore would have to step up. The difference here is that for the offense, they HAVE. Price not only replaced Locker he outplays him regularly. ASJ is the best TE since the rapist Stevens. The young WRs are doing well. Even Sankey is fine.
The offense has tons of youth too. Why are they doing so well when the defense isn’t? Another way to put it: why isn’t there a Price-like figure on the defense?
no, that's not the case for every program
In healthy programs, graduated starters are being replaced by experienced 2nd teamers that are themselves entering their 3rd, 4th or 5th year in the program. “Every” program is not starting 1st & 2nd year guys at both OLB spots and DE because there’s no other option.
You really aren’t grasping the lack of depth that Sark inherited.
And you're not grasping that UW isn't a special snowflake
What, do you think that Stanford had talent on their 1-10 team? Who do you think was playing mostly in their 2008 or 2009 teams?
How about Cal before Tedford got there?
Teams often have to swap players around because they didn’t get lucky in recruiting and have holes. Oregon’s a good example – they lost 2 of their three starting LBs and 3 of their four starting linemen, and those are being filled by primarily juniors and sophomores. Yes, that’s a skill loss – but teams do it. Alabama reloads every year despite sending basically their entire junior/senior class to the NFL. Cal sent a ton of folks out of their line and have a hugely young front 7.
UW isn’t a special snowflake because they have something of a shallow depth at defense. Honestly, here’s one thing that Sark et al could do that they don’t – they don’t go for JC at all. If they knew they’d have a lack of senior talent and experience, why not go for JC for this year? Let’s not pretend that this is solely on Ty.
And I still don’t get why on earth this applies only to the defense. The offense has dramatically improved and is starting youth at the line, at QB, at TE and at WR. And they’re better than ever. Why wouldn’t this be the case for the defense? Why is the offense so much better?
UW has a much harder time getting JC's in
You clearly don’t have much of an understanding of UW football if you’re looking to JC players as the answer. Most kids in JC’s are there because of grade issues. And most of those kids skate by in JC’s taking the minimum workload, often getting quite a few credits toward their AA degree via phys-ed “classes”. Since the UW doesn’t offer a phys-ed program, those kids can only transfer a few of those credits, and many of them end up being short of meeting the transfer requirements of the UW admissions dept.
Cal did not have that issue – they are able to bring in JC’s with little to no issues, especially if they are from California community colleges. That was one of the reasons Tedford was able to quickly turn Cal around.
Harbaugh’s Stanford team didn’t really turn the corner defensively until last year, his 4th year there.
Yes, most teams will have a few holes here and there due to attrition and recruiting misses. But few bowl eligible programs have the number of holes that the UW has. And most that do have a much easier time getting JC’s in their programs to help fill in those gaps.
Oh come on
Grade issues? Do you really think that UW has such stringent grade requirements that you can’t get some JCers? UW is better than Oregon in that regard but they’re not some stellar program like Stanford, and Cal has hugely stringent requirements.
And Stanford did very well in the second and later years of Harbaugh, especially by comparison to what they started with. If you look at their year to year they show steady improvement. In his 4th year Harbaugh made a top-20 team, but they were top-40 before that and top-60 before that. UW stayed in the 70-80 range and has only gotten worse since Holt got here.
yes
You obviously don’t follow UW football. And you clearly don’t follow recruiting that closely.
With a few exceptions, all schools use the same NCAA minimums for incoming High School athletes. A few like Stanford, UCLA, Vanderbilt and maybe one or two others voluntarily use higher standards.
For transfer athletes with an AA degree, it’s a different story – like any other student trying to transfer in with their AA degree, they have to have a certain number of transferable credits that the school accepts.
Once again, the UW does not offer a phys-ed program. So an athlete can usually only get one such class to transfer over to the UW as an “elective”. Since quite a few JC players take quite a few phys-ed classes to get their AA at the expense of harder core classes, quite a few such JC players don’t have the credits needed that the UW will accept and fail to quality.
On Stanford, their defense was nothing special their first 3 years. Much like Washington under Sark, the offense took shape quicker than the defense.
Okay, let's go with this:
2009, here’s the info:
“Sarkisian’s first recruiting class was distinguished by six junior college transfers – six more than his predecessor, “’
source: ”http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/UW-hopes-going-to-junior-college-pays-off" target="_blank">http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/UW-hopes-going-to-junior-college-pays-off
Huh. So…Sark COULD get JC transfers. Interesting.
So sorry – why can’t Sark get JC transfers? When he’s already shown that he can? I’m confused now.
See, I remember UW doing this and Sark remarking that you can’t go to the JC well that often because it hurts long-term depth – but he was fine doing it in 2009. And it’s clear that he can do it for UW. It might be harder, but it’s certainly possible.
Oookay
Two others made it in this year too.
The point is that you can get players via JC. And they can start right away. Sark might have avoided that (especially on defense) but saying that it doesn’t happen at all? Come on.
First, only one of those two got in.
Second, the one guy that did was a full qualifier out of high school that didn’t have the offers he wanted, so he went the JC route. As such, he didn’t need an AA….
Third, nobody said it never happens. But for every one that does, there are four or five that don’t. It’s a very risky prospect. You might get a guy that can help right away (versus a high school project that might take several years), or you might get nothing but a hole in the roster.
I concede that they're not trying that hard
Because they’re just not getting that many, one way or another. And they’re certainly not making it a priority to do so.
Which is fine – but it’s an option that they’re not taking. Sark said as much as well – that he doesn’t want to go down that route. But he could. The option exists. He just doesn’t.
Ultimately it doesn’t really matter that much. It could have helped tremendously with the depth at defense if that’s the issue, but I don’t honestly think that it is the issue.Or not the big one.
you're an idiot
What part of “it’s a lot harder to get quality JC recruits at the UW than at most other schools” is not getting through to you?
Name calling.
I’m not a mod, but I’d chill on that if I were you.
by Carl Shinyama on Nov 22, 2011 12:00 PM PST up reply actions
if the shoe fits
He clearly isn’t interested in the facts. He has a pre-determined view, and facts be damned. It gets really old trying to have a discussion with someone who isn’t interested in facts and disregards the evidence presented to them.
I would agree with that
If you’d answer why it’s harder to get JC talent in at UW and not at Cal, I’ll quit the argument right now.
I missed it
I replied to the answer and I’ve moved on. It is much harder for UW to get JC players in because of no Phys Ed program, which Cal apparently has. Got it.
Doesn't matter.
It still doesn’t justify the name calling.
You are capable of representing the fanbase of the University of Washington much better than that.
I’d like to see you do so.
by Carl Shinyama on Nov 22, 2011 12:09 PM PST up reply actions
my opinion differs
I’ve been cordial for most of my responses. Eventually when the poster in question clearly isn’t interested in listening to my responses, I lose patience. Sorry this doesn’t meet your standards.
Your opinion differs, on which part?
That you are justified in the name calling? Or that you are not capable of representing the fanbase better than that?
Also, if it becomes clear that the poster isn’t interested in listening to your responses, which do you think is better approach, calling the person names, or just dropping it if they don’t want to listen to you?
Further, it’s not my standards that me, or anyone else should be cognizant of, but the standards of this e-community. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this site doesn’t tolerate name calling.
by Carl Shinyama on Nov 22, 2011 3:56 PM PST up reply actions
It really isn't that big of a deal.
KirkD was trying to get Kalon to aknowledge the points he had when he just kept ignorning them. Calling people names can sometimes be done pretty benginly and have a positive effect on the discussion. This was one of those instances.
I don't think I was out of line or a poor representative
If you expect me to display endless patience, you will be disappointed. I feel like I was making clear points that were being ignored, and I’d had enough.
With all do respect . . .
kirkd is, by far, the most highly regarded poster on this blog. He loses his cool far less (if ever) than the rest of us.
It’s like calling out Mother Teresa for being too violent.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
FYI
I don’t really care if he calls me an idiot. I’m learning some things and I’m willing to get into a disagreement. As long as the argument is based on rationality and not because, for instance, you get off on seeing Holt’s sexy bald head I’m fine.
You're a duck . . .
we could call you far worse things than an idiot!
Free advice – When kirk disagrees with me, I have to take a very hard look at my argument, he has a very balanced and informed opinion.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
You aren't a mod
And Kalon needs to check himself. It’s fine for him to have an opinion … But to sustain this debate when he clearly lacks some basic fundamental understanding of the situation at UW implies that he is simply trying to “win” a point.
Dude, we get it, you don’t like Holt. And I think Chip Kelly is a flash in the pan asshole with man boobs debate that, please
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
The part with Cal
Why can Cal get those recruits then? Why does Cal have 4 more recruits over the same period?
It’s a choice that Tedford has made that UW has not. The academic standards at Cal are significantly tougher than they are at UW no matter what.
They’re simply not grabbing them at the rate other teams can. And stringent academics don’t solely make that make sense when Cal can do it.
JC players typically go that route...
…because they can’t get in out of high school, right?
So, when at a JC, do you think they’re going to take advanced math and physics, or PE if it’s offered?
Here’s the thing you are flat-out ignoring – in the UC system, those PE credits count exactly the same as math, or english lit, or biology credits do. At the UW, they count for zero. Nothing. They simply don’t exist.
THAT’S why Cal can get JC’s in. It doesn’t have anything to do with admissions standards, and everything to do with the credits that are eligible for transfer.
just give up
You clearly don’t know how to research effectively.
Yes, let’s look at that first recruiting class and those 6 JC kids:
TE Dorson Boyce – gained admittance
OT Daniel Mafoe – denied admittance
DT Johnny Tivao – denied admittance
CB David Batts – gained admittance, booted before he ever played for being a punk
CB Dominic Gaise – denied admittance
P Will Mahan – gained admittance
Of those 6, only 3 qualifed, and only 2 actually played, neither of which was a defensive player.
You might want to quit while you’re way behind.
What's the rate on normal recruits?
3 of 6 playing, 1 of them kicked – that’s still 2 starters at junior level, no?
I suspect that’s pretty close to the national average.
Here’s a list of JuCos by conference over 4 years:
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/01/which_football_teams_sign_the.html
Washington ranks near the bottom. But I still don’t see why Cal et al gets so many more given their stringent requirements.
Oh, and hey – Stanford? got a mighty ZERO. Interesting, that.
The point is that even with the 6/3 ratio the option clearly exists. It might be harder, but it certainly is there.
Now this year it’s what, Sims and Tutoqi, both of whom should be defense, no?
Cal doesn't have "stringent" requirements
Cal has a Phys Ed program. UW doesn’t. Is this clear enough? Cal can admit those large number of academically questionable but physically gifted kids that didn’t qualify out of High School and barely got their AA degree because they could count so many sports classes as “credits” because those credits are all accepted at Cal due to the Phys Ed program, but not at the UW because we have no Phys Ed program.
Sorry you’re having such difficulty understanding this.
Oh, and Sims? Didn’t gain admittance.
Fair enough
So all those kids have only credit via phys ed. Got it.
Guess UW is completely hosed next year too then.
Why is that obtuse?
Kirkd’s argument was that juniors aren’t even good enough to play well and that you won’t see improvement until 2013. Those were his words, not mine. My whole point about JC was that it’s an easy way to get depth, so if depth is an issue in 2012 you can go the JC route.
But UW can’t. And the Huskies won’t have the depth to play well until 2013.
So the obvious conclusion – by kirkd’s statements – is that he fully expects UW’s defense to not be significantly better in 2012.
Kirkd’s argument was that juniors aren’t even good enough to play well and that you won’t see improvement until 2013.
No, Kirkd’s argument was that there aren’t any juniors (or redshirt sophomores) that will be in their fourth year next season. And it’s true.
Right
Which means they’ll be juniors.
And he doesn’t expect them to play well – he only expects 4th and 5th year guys to play well.
Really, I didn’t make this up. I understand that there are no juniors this year worth a damn and that the senior class next year is very barren. Again, read what kirkd said. He said it very plainly.
This is what you wrote:
So let me ask you this, kirkd – do you expect that the team next year will dramatically improve? That’s when you’ll see the 4th year guys under Holt be The Guys, right?
The fourth-year guys next year will be seniors. They make up the last of the non-existant classes on defense (Sarkisian’s first, transition class). Exactly one guy in that class got to redshirt. One.
The full classes next season are true juniors (third year players) and younger.
I read what kirkd said. And yes, it was very easy to understand.
Exactly
So you’re agreeing with me then – that next year the Huskies can’t expect any real improvement on defense because they are only starting juniors and they won’t be mature enough to make a difference, and the seniors that the Huskies do have are not good enough and there simply aren’t enough of them.
Right?
you're still being obtuse
First off, let’s stop with the whole “juniors”, “seniors”, “freshmen” thing. If you want to be accurate, talk about how many years they have in the program. A 2nd year sophomore is different than a 3rd year sophomore.
Look at the 2-deeps. A whole lot of 2nd year guys forced to play. Some of them are “sophomores” because they didn’t redshirt, some are “freshmen” because they did. Still the same experience level in the program.
We lose are best DT by far in Ta’amu. We lose our best LB in Dennison.
Shelton has the talent to be as good (or even better) than Ta’amu eventually, but expecting that he’ll be as good next year as Ta’amu is this year, and that someone else takes Shelton’s place and is as good next year as Shelton is this year, is optimistic.
Dennison is quite a bit better right now than the 1st & 2nd year guys around him and behind him. Timu, Fuimaono, Kearse & Gilliland should improve as a group given another year of experience and time in the weight room. Enough to offset the loss of Dennison? Maybe.
Everrette Thompson isn’t a great DE, but he’s definitely better than the rest currently playing. Getting Jamora back from injury will be a big help. Hopefully he can play as good (or better) than ET next year while Shirley & Hudson improve.
The defensive backs all return and as a group should be better with another year under their belts.
Add all that up and you get expectations for modest improvement. Which is what we’ve been saying this whole time.
Well the defensive backs don't all return...
But I don’t think we’ll miss the one who’s leaving too much.
The offense has dramatically improved and is starting youth at the line, at QB, at TE and at WR. And they’re better than ever. Why wouldn’t this be the case for the defense? Why is the offense so much better?
Mostly because of Chris Polk. He’s masked huge deficiencies in the line and provided a pretty serviceable running game mostly by himself. Two and a half years of a QB that could either avoid a rush and make plays with his feet (Locker), or avoid a rush and make plays with his arm (Price, prior to getting beat up), and again, the line looks like it’s better than it really is.
Add in Kearse, Aguilar, Johnson, Williams, and Sefarian-Jenkins….
What about all those defensive players who are in the NFL
We keep hearing about all the NFL talent we lost the last few years, yet the defense has NEVER been very good, even when those players were still at the UW.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
There's a difference between having a few good players...
…and having a collection of them at one time.
If AZ indeed highed RichRod
there wil be another offense to deal with. I agree with you. The days of a completely stifling defense ala 91 are probably gone. That is also part of the fan frustration.
I don't think this has to be true...
…but it is going to takenan “all in” commitment to resist the urge to put your elite athletes on the offense in favor of doing so on the defense. Balance = Mediocrity. We need to commit to an identity that differentiates and gives us a chance to win.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
I was on the Tedford bandwagon
especially the first time. Now they are down, and I’m happy with Sark, but getting rid of Tedford would be a premature mistake. In addition to Tedford, I liked Peterson’s boss at Boise State and I was upset when he went to Colo the next year while we were stuck with Ty. Sometimes the best move is no move, glad he failed there rather than here. Sure would like to hit a home run like Mich did with their DC, but Holt will definitely be here next year.
Jim Walden
Cougar homer, but smart guy, said," All coaches want to be the coach, that follows the coach, that follows the coach." Meaning, if you take over from they guy who took over from Ty, or Doba, you get a bunch of hungry young kids ready to break out. I beat the Mich DC found a nice full cupboard to work with.
Thanks for the well thought-out and timely perspective
This is good, balanced thinking that’s useful in the face of the frustration most of us are feeling right now. I think it’s fair to say that many fans here were spoiled by UW’s success during the 80’s and 90’s, and after the brutal stretch of the past decade, we’re anxious to be back on top. I’m willing to be patient to some extent, as long as I see progress. I’m also willing to grudgingly accept set backs on occasion.
What I can’t stand, however, is a lack of passionate, emotional, aggressive play. I remember the impression from Sark’s first game against LSU 2+ years ago how improved the team energy was vs the Ty years, even in a loss. What’s killing me in the past few weeks is the apparent drop off in the team’s intensity. Is it youth or coaching? Probably some of both. Without being in the locker room, or much closer to the players there’s no way to know if some of the coaches have lost these guys, but if the problem was just inexperience on the field, I wouldn’t expect to see the regression we’re witnessing now. Motivation seems to be a problem, and I’m a bit tired of the cliches offered week after week about the “kids playing with great effort”, etc. I honestly don’t have a view on whether that’s on Sark, his staff, or a lack of player leadership.
Clearly we’re starting lots of young guys that are learning on the job, and would probably be in the two-deep chart on an ideal roster. What we’re also living with is a head coach who’s learning on the job. Can he get through emotionally to his team and coaches to turn this thing around and continue to progress as players develop? Is he capable and willing to make the tough staff decisions that may be required to be successful, even if that means letting friends go, or giving up his own OC role? I think the answers are yes to both, but admit to letting doubts slip in after the flop against the Beavers.
If you think back
this is actually the first game in the Sark era they likely should have won, that they lost. GIven time, every program has stinker games they likely should have won. We not only start guys who should be on a two deep, we start guys who should be red shirting and not on any deep. I still think, if Price plays, we win easy. QB is the one position that affects the team more than any other.
Agreed, Montana was not ready. I’m not a biologist, but I’m pretty sure there is no football gene. Just being named Montana doesn’t mean he’s a born QB. He may or may not be good, but he was far from ready.
by Skeptical Dawg on Nov 21, 2011 9:28 PM PST up reply actions
The offense the last few games
Is still probably better than what most were expecting this season. This fire Sark talk is complete nonsense. KP has 26 TDs despite being hurt a lot of the season, Polk has over 1200 yards, and we’re still averaging 31 points per game on the season.
Sark’s offense is way ahead of where it should be after losing a #8 overall draft pick senior QB and having a first year QB and true frosh TE and WRs.
Honestly, some “fans” are more embarrassing than our team’s play against OSU.
Couldn't agree more.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
So here's the dilemma..
We give Holt another year, a year where his best LB and DT will be gone from this year, a year where we will still be young at LB, DT, DE and still have Tru trying to figure it out. At this time looking at the roster for next years defense, I am not excited for improvement, especially with the lack of improvement so far. At what point do we say enough is enough, with all the coaches on that side of the ball? I’m not going to sit here and pretend to know the answer because I don’t, but the fact of the matter is this D isn’t getting better next year by the looks of the current roster, so what then? Defense WINS championships and right now we are no where near the level it needs to be, even if we had a middle of the road D showing improvement I would be exstatic about the future, but we don’t. What I see happening is a wasted oppertunity with the offensive talent we have due to a lack of a competent defense. So then after next year we will be sitting here, again, asking what should we do about a defense looking like they have no clue and are at the mercy of every offense it faces week in and week out, is it possible we just can’t get the recruits to fit the scheme of Holt’s defense? I know i’ve brought more questions then answers to this thread but I don’t have em, and i’m not paid to have… but Holt is.
Last PAC-12 Rose Bowl winner not named USC....Washington
If you get rid of the coaches
the dilemma remains. There is simply not enough depth to build a high quality defense next year. Probably not the following year either. We will still be young at every spot. New players will not help much for a year or two. Get over the fire the coach mentality, new coaches will still have the same players. These are experienced coaches. To think they have forgotten how to coach, or are somehow neglecting to to coach is silly. There are better days ahead.
Disagree
Keep Holt = Guarantee of bad defense next year.
Fire Holt = Defense might still be bad, but it MIGHT be better.
Please Sark, give us HOPE.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
Keep Holt = Guarantee of bad defense next year.
Maybe. But it’s an argument that you’ve created in your head. There is literally no guarantee of anything right now.
You need to make up your mind. Is it all Holt’s fault, and nothing else needs to be changed, or is it the entirety of the defensive staff that’s the issue?
You are making up issues that don't exist.
You need to make up your mind. Is it all Holt’s fault, and nothing else needs to be changed, or is it the entirety of the defensive staff that’s the issue?
I’ve said many times that I’d replace most of the defensive staff. Holt, as the leader of the defense, is the first change that needs to made.
In the past three years, what have you seen to make you believe there is any chance the defense will improve next year? We will lose our two top players, plus a few other regular starters, your belief that defense will be better next year has nothing but blind faith to support it.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
The only glaring question on D for next year is if we will get anything from our ends...
… Even mediocre production from them solves most other confers – especially the CB play
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
So I ask you Gekko
Do you believe the current DE’s will have the impact required to make this D vastly improved? If so why? If not why? Personnally I don’t, it will take a miraculous tranformation from what they are to what they need to be, could it happen, sure. I’m not willing to bet a $1 it will though.
Last PAC-12 Rose Bowl winner not named USC....Washington
by DAWGFATHER91 on Nov 22, 2011 6:23 PM PST up reply actions
I am skeptical
DE is the hardest, most physically demanding position on the field. The athletes are required to do a 10-15 yard sprint on every play while battling the weight of a man 50 lbs heavier than him. Every play. It takes a special athlete and, too often, those guys end up as Wr’s and TE’s. Shirley is a special athlete. He might develop. Jamora is high octane. Ironically, Pulu had the tools and we could use him now (compare and contrast Sark’s handling of Pulu to Kelly’s handling of Kiko). However, do we have a Nick Perry kind of guy? Not yet. I’m skeptical of being great, but I expect wecan be good enough.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
Whatever we think
makes no difference. There is only one guy who controls the staff, and he is not going to get rid of his right hand guy. Nor should he based on what we think. If you are frustrated with the defense now, just wait. Next year will likely be little better. Like it or not, you are stuck with it.
I think we should all be careful about absolutes.
To say Sark would never get rid of his right hand guy presumes he would sacrifice the progress of his program for the loyalty of that friendship, IF he concludes that any coach’s performance is an issue, AND sees an alternative to improve the production of that coach’s responsibilities. I think Sark is more committed to success than personal relationships, but admit those friendships may challenge his reasoning.
Furthermore, to points raised elsewhere above and below, coaching changes can make a difference, even with existing talent. There’s certainly risk, but continuity and experience alone are not sufficient arguments that support not considering changes. There’s an argument to be made that, regardless of experience, position coaches and coordinators can and should get more out of their players, both physically and mentally.
To absolutely rule out the consideration of coaching changes is a mistake. You’re right that it really only matters what our HC thinks, but I trust, for now, his ability to not make that mistake. None of us can really know with certainty how he thinks, but my hope is that he’s willing to do what, in his judgment, is best for the program. That may or may not involve some difficult personal personnel choices.
don't get me wrong
I’m certainly not saying don’t ever make a coaching change – far from it. I’m simply pointing out that it’s not as easy to identify truly above-average coaches as you might think. You can look at the numbers produced by a coach over a few years and think “this guy is a stud!”, but a few years later you look again and his units are playing far worse. Did he get worse? Has the talent he has to work with decreased? Is something else affecting his ability to be an effective coach?
I’m not happy with the defensive results under Holt. While I know (and have argued multiple times) that he’s had to work around some major depth issues that he inherited, and his buddy Sark hasn’t been as good about landing impact players on defense as he has on offense, I also suspect he’s not getting the most out of what he has. So if a change is made, I’m not going to feel too sorry for Holt.
But let’s not pretend that Holt is suddenly a terrible coach. I think there’s 0% chance a guy like Pete Carroll – a defensive-minded coach – has Holt as his defensive coordinator, and in fact goes out of his way to convince Holt not to take a job in the NFL so he can get him back on his staff, if he doesn’t think he’s a good coach. I don’t think John L. Smith makes a point of hiring him multiple times to his staff if he doesn’t think he’s a good coach. Holt is not a guy who’s been revolving jobs as a defensive assistant because he gets fired – he moves around because other head coaches pursue him and pluck him away.
And so what I’m saying is, let’s keep in mind that solving the issues on defense are certainly not so simple as saying “fire Nick Holt” and “Hey Sark, go find a defensive genius”.
Not sure using Carroll as a management person is a good choice
Carroll’s coworkers have not had a ton of success outside of USC. Norm Chow was considered a mastermind and he’s been a failure outside of USC. Kiffen’s number is somewhat sketchy at best, and he certainly looks like an idiot and a dick for the Oakland/Tenn/USC stuff. Sark is probably the most successful of the lot.
So him keeping Holt might be fine – if Holt is with Carroll and USC. But outside of having the best talent outside of the SEC and having a coach who is also defensive minded and can make up for some of your issues, is he good?
you're nuts
Chow has been a “failure” outside of USC? You’re right, that time he spent at BYU – big failure.
Kiffin looked pretty good Saturday when he beat your Ducks. I don’t like Kiffin, but what he’s done this year with that USC team is pretty impressive.
Carroll is widely acknowledged as one of the better defensive minds in the game. I find it hard to imagine that he’d have a sub-par coach as his top assistant.
Yes, Chow hasn't been great
His time at UCLA was a huge, huge failure. And Utah’s not exactly been great since he’s been there either, have they? Yes, BYU was a success, as was his time at USC. Sorry if I wasn’t more specific – I’ll state it as his success AFTER USC.
Kiffen did well against the Ducks, I’ll admit. At the same time they barely beat Minnesota and got killed against ASU this season. At Tennessee he managed to piss everyone off and doom that program for multiple years on a wave of recruiting violations. He had a great plan against Oregon and certainly did better than Kelly did, but one game does not make a great coach any more than Holt’s winning against USC 3 years ago made him a great coach.
Carroll is a great defensive mind. But his coworkers have not been great. We’ve seen that in the NFL and at college. And that makes sense, honestly. There are lots of people that work well with one boss and poorly with another.
that's kind of beside the point though
Chow is a bit of a different case – the guy is nearly 70, and it’s been widely whispered that he’s been on cruise control for the last several years. That happens with coaches in the twilight of their career. Besides, Chow is an offensive coach. Carroll is a defensive guy, and I would expect he is more demanding of and more picky about his defensive assistants.
So you think that Holt's doing a great job then?
And Sark is doing badly?
Because that’s the implication that that states.
You might expect Carroll to be more picky. Does that matter as far as the production that Holt has done?
your reading comprehension sucks
And there is a wide range between “sucks” and “great”.
I’ve stated many, many, many times that I’m not happy with our defense. I’ve stated many times that Holt may indeed be a big part of the problem, though there are also other clear problems to be accounted for (the quality of depth situation).
My point is that before we fans, who can only judge from a distance, start thinking that a certain coach “sucks”, we might want to consider what experts in the field (aka other coaches whose careers are on the line) think about that coach. And the fact that two very respectable coaches in John L. Smith and Pete Carroll have gone out of their way to hire Holt on multiple occasions, the fact that Holt has never been fired as a defensive assistant, should probably factor into our assessments of him.
It’s entirely possible that Holt is a good defensive coach, and for whatever reason it’s not working out in this particular situation.
That's fair
At the same time, he’s not doing well at UW.
His defenses have consistently declined since he’s been here, by 4 points a year. With advanced stats the team has basically plateaued on defense.
His recruits have not distinguished themselves in any significant way. Ty’s recruits have, though you could make the argument that he was a big part of that improvement.
The defense routinely appears to have emotional and mental letdowns that cost the game. This has been a characteristic of Holt teams since he started.
He routinely blames this on the players; earlier this week he said that he needs players to step up and make a play while saying nothing about his role in that.
He might be a good coach. And he might have had a good experience elsewhere. But so far I’m unimpressed on every level. And unlike you, I don’t see how giving his recruits – the ones that should be more polished than Ty’s – more time will make the defense significantly better in two years. I see them making bad choices, bad playcalls and simply being confused by other coaches’ decisions. I see them failing to understand what’s coming at them.
And I don’t see that changing.
how should his recruits be more "polished" when they're 1st & 2nd year guys?
That makes no sense whatsoever.
I don't see why not
Two years of Holt should make them polished, no? Or certainly more polished. I don’t see how this is confusing.
Basically, the argument that I see is that Ty screwed up so badly that all Holt and Sark has been doing is fixing the mistakes that he made left and right; basically anyone who was there with Ty had to be deprogrammed.
But yes, I would think that if Ty was so bad and his recruiting was so bad that his recruits should be significantly better at all levels. Sophomores that Holt recruited should be good players by comparison to Ty’s people, no?
you don't understand football then
Expecting 1st & 2nd year players to be polished is simply unrealistic. There is the infrequent stud that comes in extremely skilled, but those are rare. None of our recruits on the defensive side of the ball had that rep coming in.
Football players typically grow with each year in the program – they physically mature, they continue to get stronger and faster with more years of intensive weight training and conditioning at a college level, they gain experience with each rep in practice and each film session.
The idea that a 4th or 5th year guy is going to be more polished than a 1st or 2nd year one is not difficult to understand for anyone that has a clue about college football.
And who says the 2nd year guys aren’t more polished under Holt?
Parker is more polished
Ducre is more polished
Fuimaono is more polished
Kearse is more polished
Shirley is more polished
Hudson is more polished
Lagafuaina is more polished
The ones I didn’t list – Jamora, Potoa’e, Stevenson, Gilliland – are all out or dealing with injuries and there’s simply not enough evidence to judge their progress.
I don't expect them to be polished
I expect them to be MORE polished. I chose my words specifically for that reason.
I do expect 4th and 5th year players to be better in the system, though having a discontinuity in the coaching often throws that for a loop. I’d think on defense that’s less profound unless you’re switching to a 3-4 from a 4-3.
As to the more polished argument of the specific players I’ll agree to disagree there. They simply haven’t performed up to a level I would want or expect from them so far, polish or no.
we'll disagree then
I don’t expect 2nd year players to be great players. Those guys that are, are exceptions. Of that list above, Parker & Shirley were the most highly regarded coming in. Parker has pretty much lived up to reasonable expectations. Shirley has been a big of a disappointment so far, though he’s clearly not physically ideal to be starting at DE right now. Is Shirley not yet living up to expectations on Holt as the DC? Or is that on his position coach Nansen, the guy who should be teaching him various pass-rushing techniques, blocking leverage, play-recognition, how to disengage from blocks, tackling technique, etc?
I honestly don't know
That’s a good question. How much of it is on the position coaches and the Coordinator? Part of it has to be on Holt the same way that part of the recruiting issues have to be on Sark – ultimately if it’s about defense it stops with Holt and it reflects on Holt. But specifically? It’s tough to say.
I will say that things like not having a deep safety against ASU makes me think it’s more about Holt than about the position coaches. But you have a point, and it could easily be just a cavalcade of badness from start to finish. The kids could be not being taught well. Holt could be not preparing them well for the next opponents and making bad defensive playcalls. Sark could be not recruiting as well on defense. And all of these things might not be catastrophically bad, but they all add up to being bad.
That being said, if that’s the case – how do you improve it?
I will say that things like not having a deep safety against ASU makes me think it’s more about Holt than about the position coaches.
Are you talking about the 2009 game when the guy that was playing deep safety inexplicably bit on an underneath route?
That being said, if that’s the case – how do you improve it?
That’s the $64,000 question. It gets debated ad naseum over here. Ultimately, it’s up to Sarkisian to get it done. He selected the staff. He’s the one that has to figure out who makes up for coaching deficiencies by being a good recruiter (two of the most-oft criticized members of the defense are two guys that are widely considered the best recruiters on staff).
The entirety of your last paragraph is why some of us here think that simply blaming Holt is far too simplistic an answer for what’s happening. We basically get 13 chances (plus maybe a practice here or there) to evaluate the state of the program. It’s easy to make snap judgements, but they’re probably incorrect more often than correct.
wish I knew the best answer
Obviously I think part of the issue is experience and talent. I’ve also expressed frustrating in the past with some of our position coaches – Nansen & Martin in particular on the defensive side. Which is problematic, because those are our two best recruiters among the assistants.
I’d have to say at this point that some of it is on Holt. Whether or not Holt can course-correct, I don’t know. That’s on Sark to evaluate. And really, none of us knows for sure (unless anyone here is close buddies with people on the coaching staff) what directives Sark has given Holt about defense.
Our defense has frequently played conservatively, playing a lot of soft coverages to try to prevent explosive plays at the expense of giving up routine ones that lead to long drives. Is that Holt, or has Sark been requesting it?
From a personal standpoint, I’m ready to throw in the towel on conservative defense. I can see the arguments for it – I’ve made them myself – but after a while, I wonder if it just perpetuates the problem. If we ask our players to play conservatively, do they internalize that as lack of confidence? Do they suck at aggressive schemes because they don’t get a lot of practice at it?
I’d be willing to roll the dice a bit and see more aggressive play-calling (though it’s worth noting I think Holt has gotten more aggressive as the year has progressed). If we get burned, we get burned, but let’s start emphasizing a mentality in this team. Sark already does this to a certain extent with his boldness on 4th downs and eschewing FG attempts to keep drives going or go for a TD. Let’s do more of it. Sark is already a pretty balanced play-caller, but lean even more towards emphasizing a power-running attack when you feature one of the best RB’s in the country. Don’t worry as much about being predictable and be like Stanford – build that mentality that “we’re going to run it down your throat, and there’s nothing you can do about it”.
Then again, when we do play aggressive and get burned, that sucks too.
Sure would be nice to see Sark sign some highly-regarded DE’s, MLB’s and CB’s. We’ve done pretty well with safeties and DT’s, and have an intriguing mix of guys that can grow into fast and big enough OLB’s, but those other spots haven’t been well recruited so far.
Hudson was the top DE on the west cost his senior year and Jamora has turned out to be a solid player. Although I fear the extra 20 lbs. Jamora put on over last off season slowed him down a bit. I’d love to see them put Potoa’e at DE. MLB is going to need to be recruited hard but Tutogi is HUGE, hopefully he’ll learn the position well. CB…got to get more of’em.
was he?
I don’t think that’s correct. Hudson was a 3-star guy in Scout.com’s system, and guys like Ronald Powell (CA), Curtis White (OR), Owamagbe Odighizuwa (OR) were all 5-star guys at DE that year from the West Coast.
Hudson was a decent prospect, but far from the top one at his position in the region.
Hmmm…I think your right now that I think about it. I read it somewhere (Dawgman) but it could have been that he was the top uncommited DE on the west cost bot the top overall.
And I don’t see that changing.
All you have to do is look at your own program to see how this “changes.” Aliotti was there for the better part of a decade with exceedingly middling results. In a mature program, which the UW is most definitely not right now.
And there were plenty of "Fire Aliotti" comments
The defense on Oregon was always a bit dodgy at times. Still is, clearly. But honestly, if you’re making the argument that it’ll take firing the head coach (or making him the AD) before Holt gets to be much better, I think that you’re in agreement with me. One way or another something systematic HAS to change for Holt to be good.
Oregon's defense improved because recruiting improved.
It’s as simple as that. If you’re arguing that recruiting only improved because the head coach was changed, that’s one thing. It’s a different situation at the UW given what Sarkisian and Kelly each took over, but that’s a debateable point. If you’re somehow arguing that Kelly made Aliotti a better coach, then you’re going to have to present a little something more.
It’s that increase in talent, plus some physical growth of guys that are young, is what makes pretty much every defense better.
No matter how hard you try, you just can’t separate Fangio (as one example of a successful coordinator change) from Harbaugh’s players entering their fourth year, and the steady uptick in Stanford’s recruiting.
Recruiting didn't pick up in 2007
But Oregon’s defense most assuredly did.
The recruiting class of 2007 – the most successful Oregon class ever – did not have star power on the defense at the time. Casey Matthews was about the biggest ‘name’ and he was barely recruited. The secondary didn’t have anyone special from that class; the best of the lot was Jeff Maehl.
And yet they were amazingly good in 2011 by advanced stat standards, and certainly better than before.
Here’s one argument for Aliotti’s success with Kelly: Aliotti can concentrate on doing one major thing: stopping the pass. With blitzing and aggressive secondary his scheme works great. This didn’t work as well in the past because the lack of size on the defense meant run games could really hurt, which meant they couldn’t sell out against the pass like they can. But when you’re playing with a 14+ point lead? You can sell out and be fine.
And that’s what we’ve seen. Oregon in 2009-2011 repeatedly has been in pass situations and forced most teams to abandon the run. When they haven’t been able to do this for whatever reason (LSU, Auburn, Cal, USC, OSU) they’ve had issues. When they could focus on the passing game only and make a team one-dimensional they became just insane – and that’s pretty much entirely because of the pressure the offense puts on the other team to score.
Recruiting certainly improved, but shouldn’t that be the case with Sark too compared to Ty? I guess that’s what I don’t get here – if you’re contending that Aliotti got better because recruiting got better at Oregon when Kelly got there in 2007, then Washington’s D should be also improving since 2009 as well, no?
Here’s one argument for Aliotti’s success with Kelly: Aliotti can concentrate on doing one major thing: stopping the pass.
A very good point.
Recruiting certainly improved, but shouldn’t that be the case with Sark too compared to Ty?
Relative to Willingham, I’d argue it has, and that it’s the three-class hole at the top of the roster that is the much bigger problem than the talent level on the roster. The issue is that a ton of inexperience out on the field at one time will often manifest itself (in appearance, anyway) as a lack of talent.
Oregon in 2007 and Washington in 2009 were far different programs. Even if it took Kelly to push Oregon over the top, the Ducks’ issue was that they were “only” 30-19 in the prior four seasons and had failed in their bowl games. That’s a far cry from 11-37 and an entirely dysfunctional program. Kelly was able to maintain significant portions of Belloti’s staff. Sarkisian had to start completely over, and dig out of a fairly deep hole.
Relative to Willingham
I actually think recruiting has largely been worse on defense compared to Ty.
Ty has had a history of recruiting well but coaching poorly. Notre Dame is a good example of this – Weis’ teams got progressively worse as more of Ty’s kids got out of the system, but the first year he was there it was gangbusters as far as how well they played.
With UW, we’re kind of seeing something similar. There was apparently quite a few good players on the roster that are now hard to replace – and those have all been Ty’s kids. (aside: Ty’s kids sounds like some kind of charity for developmentally disabled youths). Same with the offense – Locker et al did significantly better as soon as Sark got here. The difference is that things have improved on offense with the new players, but things have declined on defense.
I do think that the situations are different, but I guess that makes the offense vs. defense performance that much more stark. I think that if the offense was performing at the leve the defense has that we wouldn’t be having this discussion. (or vice versa, obviously).
Of course, if the offense had been playing at the level of the defense Sark would be on the chopping block already.
I actually think recruiting has largely been worse on defense compared to Ty.
We’ll have to agree to disagree, I guess. I think there’s more young talent on the roster right now than there’s been in quite a while. The problem is that they’re being forced to play well before they’re ready, and they’re all playing at the same time.
Ty has had a history of recruiting well but coaching poorly.
I’m not sure where you’re getting this. Willingham is an incredibly lazy recruiter. He had the benefit of one exceptional year in the state of Washington, but other than that, his recruiting at the UW was far less than adequate. And that was the same story at Notre Dame. They didn’t start to fall off under Weis because Willingham’s recruits graduated. They fell off under Weis because Notre Dame had to suffer through the same type of hole in their upper classes that the UW is going right now.
By the time Sarkisian had been on the job 6 months, he had already made as many recruiting trips off-campus as Willingham did in 4 years.
I do think that the situations are different, but I guess that makes the offense vs. defense performance that much more stark. I think that if the offense was performing at the leve the defense has that we wouldn’t be having this discussion. (or vice versa, obviously).
The UW has had a couple of skill players that were able to mask (or at least mitigate) the biggest weaknesses on the offense nearly by themselves. Polk at running back, and Locker and Price (when he was healthier) at QB. Those three have appeared to make the offensive line serviceable when it really hasn’t been. I’d say the D’s biggest weakness is also on the line. But instead of having good linebackers or a lock-down secondary to mask it, they have inexperience behind them.
by Sundodger on Nov 22, 2011 3:32 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I have a lot of faith in Sark. You could say I "Bark for Sark"
I would want no other coach in all of the nation, and I mean it. Sark is the man for the Huskies. He is a young energetic coach and I think has a great offensive mind. The guys is truly genius.
With all that being said, Nick Holt is a different story. I have been very faithful to our coahcing staff, never once saying anything negative about them. But, when I watch our defense constantly out of position, constantly missing tackles, constantly getting no pressure on opposing QB’s, and constantly making no stride to get better, I have a problem with that. Sark has got to fire Nick Holt. Continuity is one thing, being consistently bad for years is another. There is absolutely no proof that continuity makes a team better, there is proof against and for continuity. When Harbaugh made the change at DC, Stanford became elite. That doesn’t mean we will become elite if we make a change but it totally abolishes any argument that making a change is guaranteed a bad thing. Our defense is bad. It regressed this season. That is what made me flip to the “fire Nick Holt” bandwagon. It has become very apparent that he is clueless at gameplanning, let alone how to build a defense.
I used to blame it on Ty saying he recruited bad on defense, which he has. But, Mason Foster, Cort Dennison, Daniel TeoNesheim, Alameda Ta’amu, these are all Willingham recruits! We only have had one good recruit on defense and that is Sean Parker wince Holt has been our DC, at least only one recruit making plays. The fact that our D stinks is not Willingham, it is Nick Holt. Stop making that excuse for Holt and realize what our team is. It is a team that will never succeed without a defense. If Sark doesn’t make a change, we will never change from where we currently are. If Sark doesn’t get us into the top of the Pac-12 by 2013, Sark and Holt will be gone.
that's not true
We only have had one good recruit on defense and that is Sean Parker wince Holt has been our DC, at least only one recruit making plays
First off, this is simply inaccurate – Desmond Trufant has made plenty of plays for us and is likely to move on to the NFL. Danny Shelton is clearly a hell of a talent. Haouli Jamora was making quite a few plays before getting injured.
Secondly, Sark has had 3 recruiting classes at the UW. The first one was mostly a wash-out given the situation he stepped into, but he did get Trufant. Most of the best Sark recruits are 1sr or 2nd year players – expecting to see a ton of stars at this point out of kids that young and inexperienced is foolish.
Thirdly, yes, Ty managed to land some pretty good players. But far from enough. Look at Sundodger’s post above and realize just how few players total are left on defense from his regime. Your best players should be your 4th & 5th year guys. Not only do we have very few impact guys on defense in their 4th or 5th year, we have very few guys on defense period from those classes.
Shelton hasn't done anything yet to praise him
Absolutely nothing. To tell me he has had some type of impact is crazy. Desmond has also been horrible this season. He made a couple of plays beginning of the year but where has he been since? Blowing coverages is all he has been doing all season long! His bad plays out number the good.
With Jamora, Shelton and Trufant, we still have a horrible defense. Sean Parker has been the only consistent player on defense besides Ta’amu all season long. Alameda is Ty’s recruit. Where are Holt’s recruits at?
by datboyeddiep on Nov 22, 2011 10:57 AM PST up reply actions
I'm not saying
Shelton won’t turn out good, but judging by the other players who have made no stride under Holt to improve, why would I expect different?
Jamora wasn’t even that good, he was just an improvement from what we had. Who cares, we still would be in the same exact position with Jamora not injured. We would still be bottom of the nation in defense. I mean, we already were right? Jamora was healthy, Trufant was actually doing good, but we still were one of the worse defenses in the nation. That was after playing Hawaii and EWU.
by datboyeddiep on Nov 22, 2011 11:01 AM PST up reply actions
Shelton's been respectable, especially for a true frosh DT
You’re being waaaaaaaay too harsh on Jamora and Shelton. And yes, while Trufant has had some bad plays, he’s also had a lot of good plays. He wouldn’t be on NFL radars if he wasn’t a good player.
where are Holt's recruits? They're 1st & 2nd year players forced into action because of the lack of Ty recruits
How hard is this to understand?
Look
I actually agree with you that we have little to no senior leadership. I understand how much of an impact that has on our team, especially when we get down and dirty into the grind of our conference. I’m just tired of making Holt excuses. I’ve been doing it all year and now I’m starting to really see that it’s not the players, it is him. I was too harsh on that last comment, but I’m pissed off.
by datboyeddiep on Nov 22, 2011 11:07 AM PST up reply actions
I just hope
We win the Apple Cup so all of my bitterness goes away. A win cures all ailments. A win gets me off of NIck Holt’s Chrome Dome.
Let’s stop arguing about it because I was in your shoes just a couple of weeks ago. Talking to people about the same thing you are saying. Making the same exact arguments for Nick Holt. I actually hope he turns things around cause I like the fire he shows on the sidelines. I just don’t know when the excuses will stop and when it becomes apparent it is him. Is it even apparent that either one of us are right? I’m not sure…..
by datboyeddiep on Nov 22, 2011 11:10 AM PST up reply actions
I get the consternation over Holt
Check the fanpost I did a few weeks ago about Holt. I’m certainly not out to praise him. He may well be a problem, and I’m certainly as sick as anyone about the Husky defense basically being a joke for the last decade.
I’m just trying to caution everyone about what the solutions might be.
Thanks man
I’m just a pissed off Husky fan with nobody left to blame! I did read that post and I believe I put comments on it protecting Nick Holt, as I said I just recently jumped to the fire Nick Holt bandwagon.
by datboyeddiep on Nov 22, 2011 11:45 AM PST up reply actions
Amen
I have jumped on both sides, flip flopping depending on the sway of emotion after the game, usually calming down and looking at the overall picture of youth being a problem. Now I’ve come to the conclusion it’s not all about youth, we have juniors and seniors playing as well as we are at the end of the year now on all underclassmen, I feel everything and everyone needs to be examined, from scheme to how they practice to talent evaluation. I believe it ALL needs to be tweaked. My harshness on Holt comes mainly from the expectations for this D stemming from August, I firmly believe at this point his talent evaluation and ability to adjust to the talent he has is concerning. I also don’t believe this is squarely on his shoulders, all I know is that everyone and everything they do needs to be reevaluated and scrutinized by Sark
Last PAC-12 Rose Bowl winner not named USC....Washington
by DAWGFATHER91 on Nov 22, 2011 1:38 PM PST via iPhone app up reply actions
My harshness on Holt comes mainly from the expectations for this D stemming from August, I firmly believe at this point his talent evaluation and ability to adjust to the talent he has is concerning.
What were your expectations?
What do you mean by his talent evaluation? Are you speaking specifically of recruiting? If so, why no indictment of Sarkisian for this? If you mean something else, such as playing “Player X” over “Player Y,” can you give some examples?
What adjustments should be made based on the talent at hand?
I had very low expectations for our defense.
And we didn’t even meet those low expectations.
It’s really quite funny, you ask for examples, yet when I gave examples of things I’d consider doing with the defense, I got the responses: “I’m glad it’s so simple” and “Good to see you have it all figured out”. B Money is right, there are fans on the blog that want one thing, then complain when that thing happens.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
What you said (basically throwing out ideas)
is very different than the specific statements from Dawgfather.
Well, expectations can vary..
But, correct me if I’m wrong, what was the whole story of the off season? Oh yeah, that’s right, the D was expected to carry this team while we were going to run Polk every game until his legs fell off, due in part to the lack of QB experience and no idea who was going to start at QB. Price became a hero overnight from his spectacular start and the D was atrocious. So, my expectations were that our D would be above average, mostly because of the hype around Meda, Cort, Tru, Qrich, Parker, ET, Hauoli and Shirley. Go back and think about August. As far as talent evaluation, again I could be wrong but I’m pretty sure all fall camp he was excited about all the guys I have listed above, so far either his scheme or talent evaluation of his players for his scheme isn’t working at all! And my indictment of Sark is in this quote:
I also don’t believe this is squarely on his shoulders, all I know is that everyone and everything they do needs to be reevaluated and scrutinized by Sark
Am I going to blame Sark for all the D’s issues, absolutely not. What’s the point of having assistants if you can’t trust them to know what they’re doing, I will blame Sark when he doesn’t take action to fix the issue. Unfortunately I don’t know what the alternative is and I don’t have all the answers as I’ve said in previous statements I’ve posted, but I don’t get paid to have those answers either.
Last PAC-12 Rose Bowl winner not named USC....Washington
by DAWGFATHER91 on Nov 22, 2011 5:18 PM PST up reply actions
I agree to a point but...
OLB was always a question mark this off season as well as who was going to step up at DT next to Ta’amu. Jamora getting hurt was a big lose to the D and QR continuing his rich history of mental mistakes has really hurt.
yes OLB was a ? mark
As far as DT, the talk was we are extremely deep at that position as well as DE with ET playing both. But based off of expectations and what every report was from fall camp… again, it was the D was going to be legit this year. Seems like I heard that before… maybe 2010. And yes the injury to Jamora was a big loss and QR is a mental case, but my expectations was that they were going to be good to really good.
Last PAC-12 Rose Bowl winner not named USC....Washington
by DAWGFATHER91 on Nov 22, 2011 6:13 PM PST up reply actions
that may have been the "story"...
…but I never bought it. I was highly concerned about replacing Foster & Aiyewa with such an inexperienced group as we had behind them.
I was cautiously optimistic we’d be a bit better, but I had serious concerns and stated multiple times we’d miss Foster more than we’d miss Locker.
I guess I was just too optimistic
I knew we would miss Foster as well, any time you lose a NFL quality LB (2 years in a row), your D is going to take a hit. My thinking was more along the line of the unit as a whole would be better due to experience as a group and one more year in the system with what, 7 or 8 returning starters? I just didn’t see this coming, at all.
Last PAC-12 Rose Bowl winner not named USC....Washington
by DAWGFATHER91 on Nov 22, 2011 8:14 PM PST up reply actions
I think losing Jamora has also been a big deal
Jamora wasn’t an all-conference player yet or anything, but he was big enough to not get constantly rolled on running plays and got some pass rush. Losing him for the season was a tough blow – Shirley & Hudson are not playing as well as Jamora was.
As far as adjustments that could be made
ANYTHING, I would rather see this defense send 7 guys in a blitz or mix up a 3-4 every once in a while or a 5-2, I don’t care, just show me you are trying to find something that works. If they give up big plays then they give up big plays, currently the D looks like our main strategy is to hope the offense fails at whatever they’re trying to do, like drop passes or have the RB trip on his way to the goal line. It’s not like we haven’t seen this D give up huge plays, mix it up and try different things multiple times with all your personnel. For like 5 games straight all I heard is, yeah were going to try this rotation or get more guys in here or there, then after the game it was well we just didn’t get him enough reps or we didn’t feel comfortable with the situation, blah, blah, blah. I don’t feel comfortable watching your FFFF’n D Holt!!! So you tell me Sundodger, if I am way off base here in my angst for Holt and his crew of assistants that can’t seem to teach these guys even the basic fundamentals of tackling, why should I think they know who the right guys are to bring in to fit the system they want to run? Sure they’ve proved it before… with 4-5 star talent. I’m just not sure the teaching styles these guys have fit the 2-3 star guys they were left with and are currently committed to this team next year. That’s what I mean by his talent evaluation, either he thinks he these guys are one of the worst groups he has ever coached with his bullets statements and he can’t trust them to do anything right, or he thought they were going to make huge strides in improvement by this time that they’d fit his scheme by now, either way his evaluation of them was way off. He is now considering dumbing down the playbook even more after last week’s game, so what is it? They don’t learn well, all of em? Holt believed this D was going to be really good this year and I believed him, for that, shame on me.
Last PAC-12 Rose Bowl winner not named USC....Washington
by DAWGFATHER91 on Nov 22, 2011 6:02 PM PST up reply actions
Dawgfather
You are pretty much right about the expectations. We all knew OLB was going to be a step down, but we were all told how deep the Dline was going to be. How they could play multiple positions, how JOsh Shirley was going to be a pas rushing machine. I think they probably were in camp against our Oline but they haven’t done much against other teams. They’ve played some good games and threw others away. I feel your pain. And Q Rich has killed us all year. We all thought, including Sark and Holt, that this guy finally made it. Nope, he is the worse CB we’ve ever had. I even think there was an article stating how he has improved. Please, dude sucks!
by datboyeddiep on Nov 23, 2011 2:54 AM PST up reply actions
Watch the last game
and tell me how many times OSU ran the same 5 yard crossing route that Holt could not figure out how to stop. The same exact route on third and fourth downs over and over again. Not only was OSU able to run the same damn route, they got more yards everytime they ran the same route. We allowed OSU more running yards than they had the last three games combined! Show me something, some type of data, some type of stat, that shows Nick Holt should keep his job. Show me something we have done besides make a bowl game last year that proves he should keep his job. Anything KirkD or anyone else protecting Holt. You can’t! Absolutely cannot! So stop acting like us fans are the ones with the problem.
I agree with all
you say in your last two comments. There is enough talent on the present Husky roster for the defense to much more successful than it has been. Nick Holt is clueless. Time for a change.
watch again dat..
those crossing routes were aimed at our inexperienced OLB’s. On several occasions Holt had them in the right place they just didn’t make the play. On one of them Timu was in better position to catch / intercept the ball than the WR but he was looking at the WR and didn’t see the ball as it allmost hit his shoulder. If Young & Waters would have made it into school then we wouldn’t be haveing this conversation…but they didn’t and we’ve been force to play two OLB’s that aren’t ready,.
Oh I watched
We were sitting in zone allowing the play to happen again and again. I saw the linebacker watching the whole time. I’m just tired of blaming the players. We have Jamaal Kearse, we have Gilliland, yet we still play Timu and Princeton. Now I know Gilliland was hurt that last game but even when he is healthy Holt plays those two guys. How much of it can we really blame on the players?
by datboyeddiep on Nov 22, 2011 11:03 AM PST up reply actions
My guess is...
Gilliland is much better at run defense and a bit of a liability on pass defense because of his speed. I think that’s why they’re playing Fui and Timu so much is because they are much faster and once they “get it” they have the potential to be ver good / great. That being said Timu REALLY needs to work on his tackleing and getting his head infront of the ball carrier.
Understand
Gilliland has looked like a beast in pass defense though. He has made a few good plays. He also has a INT.
by datboyeddiep on Nov 22, 2011 11:40 AM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
