State of the Huskies - Offense
by John Berkowitz on Dec 5, 2011 10:27 AM PST
Email
PrintA good friend of mine asked me last week where I thought the Husky football team currently was in the overall rebuilding process.
My answer was a little over halfway when it came to overall talent, depth, and experience on the roster. Dick Baird agrees. He feels the Huskies are about thirty quality bodies short of where they need to be which sounds just about right.
When Sark was hired I commented that it would be at least a five year project to rebuild this program into a national title contender. Just for example both of the lines had to be completely rebuilt from top to bottom and that takes 4-5 years to do it right when you don't have the luxury of using JC talent.
So lets start off by comparing the 2009 roster Sark started with to the anticipated fall 2012 roster which should give us a pretty good idea of how productivity, talent, and depth have progressed.
Offensive Line - Improving
The 2009 offensive line that Sark inherited listed Jr. Cody Habben (Starter), Sr. Ben Ossai (Starter), So. Greg Christine (Walk-On), So. Senio Kelemete (Three Year Starter), and Jr. Ryan Tolar (Starter) as starters. Just as today So. Nick Wood (Depth) was the unlikely first player off the bench.
So. Scott Fancher (Leg Injury), So. Mark Armelin (Quit), So. Scott Shugert (Transfer), RS Mykena Ikehara, RS Drew Shaeffer (Starter), Sr. Morgan Rosborough (Bust) , RS Alan Carroll (Quit), and RS Terrence Thomas (Medical RS) made up the rest of the depth.
Heading into 2012 three year starting center Sr. Drew Shaeffer is the only survivor from the 2009 group. Talented third year guards Jr. Colin Porter and So. Colin Tanigawa will flank him. Jr. Erik Kohler, So. Ben Riva, So. Micah Hatchie, and RS Dexter Charles will fight it out for the starting tackle jobs. So. James Atoe, So. Mike Christe, and RS Siosifa Tutunga fill out the depth inside and get their first serious looks at playing time this spring.
We keep hammering the proven theory that you win most often with fourth and fifth year players on your offensive and defensive line. The Huskies are getting closer to doing that. In 2012 they will be starting one fifth year senior, two third year juniors, and two third year sophomores.
Overall it is a huge improvement in overall talent and depth compared to 2009. Nothing against Habben, Ossai, and Tolar but kids like Porter, Tanigawa, and Kohler have way more upside.
Back in 2009 there was a lot of dead wood...not so much in 2012. I think the overall quality and athletic ability of the line has done a 180 since Sark arrived. They still are a year or two a way from fully maturing not to mention completely filling out the depth until this unit becomes an assembly line that pops out fourth and fifth year starters a very season.
If the Huskies can add the likes of Zach Banner, Josh Garnett, Shane Brostek, Nathan Dean, Cody English, and Lacy Westbrook to the squad in 2012 the foundation for the future is pretty much complete. Sark and Cozzetto can start recruiting with the goal to reload each year rather than rebuild.
Tight End - Improved
Washington was once known as TE University but the position basically disappeared under Rick Neuheisel. Ty Willingham responded by recruiting two of the top TE's in the country to attend UW and they both ended up being busts.
So. Kavario Middleton (Transfer) had all the tools but he never got on the same page as Sark. His career ended in a flurry of failed drug tests, weight gain, and a transfer to Montana. So. Chris Izbicki (Quit) never came close to living up to his potential either. A set of stone hands didn't help him. Jr. Dorson Boyce (Bust) and Fr. Marlion Bennett (Bust) were both Sark recruits brought in during his first year who didn't play much.
Middleton left the team prior to the 2010 season and Washington ended up using walk-on OT Daniel Kanzcugowski as a blocking TE for most of the season. Izbicki quit over playing time before the end of the season. The versatile Kanzcugowski was ineligible due to grades last season.
TE never got truly untracked until last season with the arrival of Fr. Austin Seferian-Jenkins, RS Michael Hartvigson, and RS Andrew Hudson. All three of these guys are capable of being All Pac 12 players. Production at the position has finally returned to where it used to be during the glory days.
The Huskies would love to add a TE to the 2012 class but it isn't a strong year for TE's out West. With three young players sharing time UW can wait another year if necessary to being in more depth.
Wide Receiver - About to take it to the next level
Jermaine Kearse So (All Pac 12), Devin Aguilar So (Starter), James Johnson Fr (Starter). were the starters in 2009 and for the most part have held on to those jobs over the past three seasons when they have been healthy.
Kearse flashed AA potential at times but a series of drops over the past couple of years dimmed his star. Aguilar was a steady presence and a very good down field blocker. Johnson had an impressive frosh season but lost most of his sophomore year to a nagging injury. He came back strong last season to reclaim his starting job once again only to lose it late in the season because of injury.
Cody Bruns So (Depth), DeAndre Goodwin Jr (Starter), Jordan Polk So (Transfer), Luther Leonard RS (Depth), Vince Taylor RS (Quit) provided the depth in 2009.
The Huskies will be led in 2012 by So. Kasen Williams who has the potential to be one of the best receivers in Husky history. Sr. James Johnson and Jr. Kevin Smith are very talented. I am really interested to see what Smith will do with his extra chances in 2012.
Sr. Cody Bruns is the first guy off the bench. He sat out last season to help his mom after his dad passed away unexpectedly. This is a good move which adds some experience and maturity to the unit. So. DiAndre Campbell is promising but needs to hold onto the ball better. RS Josh Perkins and RS Jamal Jones get their first shots at playing time and providing quality depth.
Fr. Marvin Hall joins the team winter quarter after sitting the fall out to improve his grades and qualify. Hall is an explosive player who will add a lot of excitement immediately to the return game.
The Huskies have recruited the position well so far in 2012. Fr. Michael Rector, Fr. Kendyl Taylor, Fr. Dwayne Washington join the team in the fall. UW might still take another if the right kid wants to call Montlake home.
Sark had a lot of talent to work with when he arrived but most of those guys had similar size and talents. Over the past three years Sark has recruited bigger more physical kids while keeping the speed while cutting back on the smurf size players.
Running Back - Deeper
Sarkisian had personally recruited RS Chris Polk (All Pac 12) when he was at USC. The staff immediately went to work bringing out the physical side of Polk who responded by picking up over 1000 yards in his first full season toting the ball.
Demetrius Bronson Fr (Transfer), Johri Fogerson So, Curtis Shaw So (Transfer), Willie Griffin So (Transfer), Brandon Johnson So (Transfer), Brandon Yakabowski RS (Medical RS) where the backups in 2009. Not a single one of those guys are left on the roster (thank god).
Chris Polk has one more year of eligibility at Washington but he is probably headed to the NFL in 2012. Chris has distinguished himself as being a hard worker. Nobody in the conference gets as many yards after contact than Polk. He will be missed in 2012 but the Huskies have some talent in the stable to replace him if needed.
So. Bishop Sankey is the heir apparent and he looked really good in limited action last season. He has more of a burst than Polk does and he has the ability to run well between the tackles. Jr. Jessie Callier has spent the past two years backing up Chris Polk and being a key player on special teams. Talented So. Deontae Cooper has sat out the last two seasons with knee injuries.
Washington will bring in up to four running backs in 2012. Fr. Tairen Owens and Fr. Erich Wilson are already committed. UW is also hot on the trail of Keivarae Russell, Chris Brown, and Kelvin York who is described as a Polk type clone.
Quarterback - Loaded
One big reason for Washington's problems last decade was the lack of talent at QB on the roster after Cody Pickett (NFL) graduated in 2003. Rick Neuheisel and Keith Gilbertson get to take the blame for that one. Neither were able to recruit a big time QB to Washington that was ever capable of performing at a high level.
Ty Willingham attempted to remedy the situation in 2006 when he recruited Jake Locker (NFL First Round) who went on to become a four year starter after sitting out his first season. Locker had a lot of talent but he wasn't a natural passing QB. He came from a Wing T offense in HS which required him to run the ball and hand off most of the time.
Locker was far from a finished product when Sark arrived in 2009. He was one of the most feared runners in the conference, but his touch, accuracy, and ability to make reads down field needed a lot of work. So. Ronnie Fouch (Transfer) was his back up. Unheralded Fr. Keith Price (Starter) was starting his first spring.
Jr. Keith Price is the unquestioned starter heading into 2012. He tossed a school record 29 TD passes in 2010 and actually made the fan base forget about Jake Locker for the most part. The only knock on Price is size and strength. He could use another 15-20 solid pounds to become mire durable.
So. Nick Montana is the current back up. He had mixed results in one start and a bit of back up duty in 2010. He needs to improve his arm strength and play faster if he has any hopes of becoming a starter some day at Washington.
RS Derrick Brown has the ability to pass Montana on the depth chart next season. At 6'3 236 he is built more like a LB than a QB. A number of folks who watched practice this season commented that he reminded them of Jake Locker with a more accurate arm.
The Huskies are bringing in two top 12 QB recruits for 2012. Jeff Lindquist and Cyler Miles have the tools to become excellent QB's while at Washington.
229 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Excellent write up John
The improvement on the offensive side of the ball is staggering when you look at the totality of it all.
Wait till you see the defensive write up...
It explains a lot of things.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Dec 5, 2011 10:51 AM PST up reply actions
whatever it says, I can predict the following:
1) Lear: “Nick Holt is accountable for not inheriting Pac 12 quality defenders”
2) Steen: “Nick Holt should do better with what he has based on how much he gets paid”
3) Lear: “Nick Holt sucks”
4) Steen: “We suck”
5) Lear: “Steen, I’m glad we see eye to eye”
6) Steen: “Lear, I love you”
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
by Gekko Mojo on Dec 5, 2011 11:00 AM PST up reply actions 15 recs
Nick holt is accountable for not doing more with the talent at hand.
Year after year after year.
by Steen on Dec 5, 2011 12:55 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Not sure what you're saying.
Do you want Gekko to correct his #2, or do you want to add this as #7?
by Sundodger on Dec 5, 2011 2:06 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Glad to know that you enjoy bad defense.
My apologies for not getting excited over one of the worst defenses in school history.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
by Lear Pilot on Dec 5, 2011 2:30 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
don't be defensive...
…you have to admit that your obsession with this topic is somewhat humorous. Your alliance with Steen is even moreso. Let’s have some fun with it.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
by Gekko Mojo on Dec 5, 2011 2:40 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Enjoying this...
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Dec 5, 2011 2:49 PM PST up reply actions
Looks like some are already eagerly awaiting the state of the defense blog...
judging from all the talk on the defense below! That ought to spur some more debate we’ve may have heard a bit of this year. Looking forward to a masterpiece!
"The same thing that will make you laugh will make you cry." Ray Lewis
by Carne Guisada on Dec 5, 2011 9:44 PM PST up reply actions
My obsession?
I have been doing a really good job of not bring it up. Had YOU not brought it up, we would be on topic!
As negative as Steen comes across, he is absolutely correct about the defense. 3 FULL years of Nick Holt and defensively we are exactly where we started. Now tell me it’s not about coaching . . . .
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
When the revolution comes, and I seize power...
I’ll remember this Lear and make you Ambassador to Monaco , or kill you first… there’s really no telling how psychotic and drunk with power (amongst other now legal drugs) I will be.
Viva la revolucion!
You are so much funnier when you are, you know, not being you
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
Yeah, I started the revolution early.
Today, California Ave., tomorrow western Europe!
Also, I freed the tequila from the fascist clutches of the cabinet…
3 FULL years of Nick Holt and defensively we are exactly where we started. Now tell me it’s not about coaching . . . .
Yes. It’s the only answer. All objective analysis points to this one, irrefutible conclusion.
Fire Nick Holt, and all will be fine. The stock market will rally. My house will regain the value it’s lost. Peace in the Middle East. Gas prices below $1/gallon. Cats and dogs will become friends, and begin working toward common goals. The music today that’s called “R&B” will finally be known as what it really is – crappy pop. Raises for everyone. Beer will finally get the credit it so justly deserves for its nutritional value. “Reality TV” will die the death it deserves. We’ll finally be able to put metal in the microwave, where it belongs. My wife’s “headache” will go away. Major appliances will last longer than five years, like they used to (prior to Nick Holt, that is). Tony Wroten will focus on making easy pass and playing D. Those damn kids will finally get off my lawn. And top defensive recruits from around the country will begin offering to walk on at the UW, if a scholarship isn’t available to them.
by Sundodger on Dec 5, 2011 4:11 PM PST up reply actions 8 recs
I doubt
Your wife’s headache will go away, but the rest seems reasonable.
by sdhuskyfan on Dec 5, 2011 4:26 PM PST via iPhone app up reply actions
Once again . . .
you mock my opinion, yet you provide ZERO reasons why my opinion is wrong, or even better, why your opinion might be right. Thanks for adding so much to the conversation, but you got five rec’s, so obviously most people are happy with a Tyrone Willingham defense.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
talk about adding nothing to the conversation
…so obviously most people are happy with a Tyrone Willingham defense.
Really? That’s the logical conclusion to people rec’ing his post? You’re better than this Lear…
I know its a bit extreme . . .
But statistically we aren’t any better than we were under Kent Baer, yet nobody wants to hold the coaches accountable. You guys are supporting a coach who is providing a Willingham caliber defense!
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
by Lear Pilot on Dec 6, 2011 1:10 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Nobody is giving the coaches a free pass. Those of us that aren’t firmly seated on the Fire Holt bandwagon just want to make sure that 1. It’s actually the coaches that are the problem, and 2. That the right coach (or coaches) are the ones that get fired.
Nobody is “supporting” Holt. And nobody thinks the defense is good, or acceptable, or anything but atrocious. But the real issue is to figure out why, and then to fix it. It might be clear in your mind, but that doesn’t mean that you’re correct. You might be, but there might be a different problem, or a collection of them, that need to be addressed.
bingo
Nobody here is saying they are certain Holt isn’t a problem (or even the main problem).
What we’re saying is, there is (at least) one other clear reason why the defense hasn’t improved – the roster that was inherited, how Sark has recruited and who’s been available in the depth to step in when talented Seniors have departed. The roster situation appears to be starting to sort itself out as next year should have a better overall balance of depth and experience, and 2013 should be better yet.
Another possible factor is that the defensive position coaches (particularly Nansen & Martin) may not be doing a good job teaching their kids, and that failure of execution is much more to blame with our defensive failures than Holt’s schemes and/or play-calling.
And beyond that, it’s not exactly easy to identify a defensive coordinator that A) is a sure-fire improvement, and B) someone that Sark has a realistic chance at being able to hire. Sark has limited experience as a coach and doesn’t have a wide range of contacts he can call on – guys he’s worked with that he trusts, that trust him. He spent the vast majority of his time on one coaching staff, and as we saw when Sark was hired, his DC search pretty much consisted of going after Holt, then Seto, and then re-doubling his efforts on Holt – he didn’t look outside his direct USC connections for that job.
If Sark decides that Holt is part of the problem, he still has to be certain he can find a guy that is better than Holt. We all as Monday Morning QBs might think we can easily identify the hot flavor of the month coach, but as I tried to point out in my fanpost a while back, the coach that might look like hot-shit right now doesn’t look so great 5 years from now after there’s more data to analyze.
by kirkd on Dec 6, 2011 1:39 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I should've just referred Kalon to this post.
I wrote a similar essay below before I read yours.
Good stuff here.
And I am saying that those are most;y excuses.
Yes the roster is young. That is the only excuse that I buy.
After three years in one system, led by a highly rated DC, who was an NFL coach and stolen away from the NFL by Pete “God Almighty” Carrol, we should have some minor improvement as long as we have equal talent. Please don’t tell me the talent now is worse than when Kent Baer was DC, if so the coaches should be fired for that reason alone.
Three years, with motivated players (unlike the Willingham years) should have provided far more improvement than we have seen. These coaches have shown absolutely nothing to lead me to believe that they will ever produce an above average defense at Washington. Yet, everybody is scared that if we fire him we are going to get worse on defense. I’m here to tell you there is very little difference from 100th in the nation to 120th in the nation. Either way, our offense won’t be able to score enough points to overcome it.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
Those aren't excuses, they are factors that a prudent person considers
…especially the “next best alternative” argument. If the issue is youth/inexperience then plugging someone new in doesn’t do anything for you other than cost you steps backward in recruiting and time to install new changes.
What is maddening about this debate is that neither you or Steen have introduced criteria that you want to see met by an alternative option. Firing Nick Holt as a punitive tactic for a poor statistical season (at least by your accounting) can hurt the team if a better plan isn’t actionable from that very moment. If your argument is that “anything else is better” – well,clearly that’s not very compelling.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
Bull Sh__.
“The next best alternative” is the big load of garbage possible. It’s an excuse base on what Holt used to be, or was believed to be.
Statistically Holt has produced Kent Baer results. Are you telling me there are no better options than a coach who produces the 100th ranked defense in college football? He has produced nothing at Washington, I’d take my chance on ANY other DC.
People I’d give a shot before I’d give Holt another year:
Jim Mora (Sr or Jr)
Chris Tormey
Nigel Burton
Mike Stoops
Santa Claus
The Easter Bunny
Newt Gingrich
Barack Obama
Sarah Palin
Stalin
Rick Neuheisel (Yep, that’s saying something)
How many examples do we need of programs that switched coordinator and made AMAZING turn arounds? Georgia, Stanford, Michigan??? And those are all very recent. I don’t need an amazing turn around, just small steady improvement.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
Howdy Lear Pilot
Enjoy most of your posts, and you clearly understand the team better than I,
BUT
now you are mocking yourself . . .
Best Regards,
by HuskyInExile on Dec 6, 2011 11:20 PM PST up reply actions
What has he shown?
I think that a coach of his supposed ability should be able to show us something, no matter the circumstances. One of the common traits of great coaches is that they have the ability to take their over matched, motley crew and rise up once in awhile and slay Goliath. He’s never shown that. great coaches typically show the ability to coach up their guys, the players form and skill (mental and physical) improves. i see the same sloppy technique and the same bone headed plays in every season he has been here.
I see nothing to make me believe the talent is still so abhorrently bad that it’s hiding Holt’s genius as a DC. Holt be replaced. We can do better.
by Steen on Dec 6, 2011 4:06 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Its better than nothing.
But its loaded with red flags as a probable outlier. Second meeting, a month to prepare, unmotivated opponent with its backfield banged up and a QB in Martinez you couldn’t throw the ball anymore. Can’t you see how that is pretty unique circumstances. If that number of stars need to align for Holt to look competent, we are f*cked.
by Steen on Dec 6, 2011 5:50 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
unmotivated
that is a total bullshit argument that just needs to go away. If those kids werent motivated for a bowl game then they should all be thrown off the team and the whole coaching staff fired. I get emotions are always in the right spot, but football is such a physical sport you will get hurt without motivation
Hhmm
3 years, 1 game against an uninterested injured opponent. Not a resume builder.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"unintereted"
Now who is making a pathetic excuse? Please.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
Nebraska wanted to be at the Holiday Bowl???
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
iof thread continues,
you will be down to one word per line . . .
by HuskyInExile on Dec 6, 2011 11:21 PM PST up reply actions
you talked to all the players on that team?
You have some inside information that they truly were not focused and playing with great intensity? Or you’re just making assumptions?
Nebraskas entire backfield was banged up and Martinez also forgot how to throw.
Motivated or not, thats a hell of a difference for Holt.
injuries are a part of the game
Players are banged up all the time. And I don’t recall that both Helu & Burkhead were notably banged-up more than usual.
You seem to dismiss the fact...
…that Holt had 5 healthy defensive linemen, total. Two were true freshmen. Two were deep reserves that barely saw the field prior to that game. They’d just lost their starting 3-tech.
Rec'd
That just about sums it up.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
All you guys are doing is arguing for a "punishment"
… But what do you propose as a plan?
You both seem to believe that you need to convince us that the D has been bad. It was. Nobody disputes it despite your constant banging of the drum. Firing the DC is not a plan. Firing the DC and “something” is. What is your “something”?
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
The plan:
Hire somebody with a heart beat.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
He's asking you an earnest question.
At least give him a well-thought out response.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 6, 2011 10:44 PM PST up reply actions
For people who don't "support" Holt . . .
you sure get hostile when someone speaks out against him.
Before you jump on me for being the one to bring it up, check the posts, Gekko was the first to bring up the defense on an offensive thread, not a “Holt hater”.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
What does it tell you . . .
that 95% percent of the comments in the thread about our offense are discussing our defense?? It tells me we have a major issue that needs to be addressed.
Oh yeah, and it’s ALL YOUR FAULT.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
I've got a few ideas, what do you think?
www.firegekkomojoandnickholt.com
If the ENTIRE staff comes back intact next season, I’ll have to consider starting “Occupy Montlake”!
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
by Lear Pilot on Dec 6, 2011 5:51 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
We aren't mocking your opinion...
just your relentlessness in delivering it.
I’m sure you have other opinions on other topics, no?
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
yet you provide ZERO reasons why my opinion is wrong, or even better, why your opinion might be right.
Maybe because we’ve been through it several hundred thousand times?
I’m not mocking your opinion, Lear. Just your steadfastness and self-proclaimed assuredness in it. The reality is that you and I really aren’t that far apart. I just think the problem goes a lot deeper than you do.
In actuality
all of our opinion’s are wrong. That’s why they are opinions. All we can do is argue them.
That isn't true, there is surely an action, either fire Holt or keep him or something else, which would be the best.
You’re right that we can’t neccesarily determine which one that is. But it doesn’t make our opinions wrong.
No it doesn't
You are right, I was trying to say what your first sentence stated. Not that we were necessarily wrong or right. Of course someone’s opinion is right. My bad….
They had to start totally over
Taamu is probably the only upper classman that plays on sundays. If they are this bad next I will be right with you. I think we need to wait.
I know it will
It will point out a lot of what us objective fans have been saying all year.
by CODawg on Dec 5, 2011 1:13 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
That we suck?
I am not objective? There is no debate that our defense sucks, the only question is why. Youth is not the only reason. Coaching is a major part of the reason.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
I just believe
It has more to do with youth and inexperience than coaching. And I dont believe making a change now is that answer.
Do you really not understand that people disagree with you?
That people see other teams not collapsing into a heap when they don’t have a ton of seniors or even any seniors on their defense?
That people understand there wasn’t a ton of talent, but talent isn’t the only thing that determines defensive success?
That waiting 5 years after paying a person more than most coordinators in the country yet getting at best mediocre results is not acceptable from a job performance standpoint?
That Holt’s kind of a jerk for throwing kids under the bus and isn’t a particularly great guy to talk with in the first place?
Chip is twice the coach Holt is.
We’d be lucky beyond our wildest dreams to snag a DC with similar ability. I don’t care if he eats babies and is mean to sportswriters, I want wins.
Wow, I don't even get that.
Oh wait – you’re talking about that one little bit about being a particularly great guy to talk to, aren’t you?
Tell you what, Gekko – when Holt’s responsible for a defense that electrifies the nation, gets his team into national top 5 rankings and makes everyone discuss how his defense does the things they do, I’ll give him a pass on the throwing his own players under the bus and being unable to do things like name who the starting RB is on the other team when talking with the Media.
Whether he can name them or not is the last thing I would ever care about.
If he knows the numbers and what position they play why would their name matter? I’m staying out of the debate on everything else but seriously, the name thing is a non-issue.
Lots of coaches do that, though.
Even to their own players, and even to their own star players. Don James used to do it. Hugh Millen was on the radio the other day talking about a time when he was in Denver backing up Elway, and in the team meeting breaking down the previous game’s film, the offensive coach at one point barked, “QB, carry out your fake!!” to Elway. He apparently never called anyone by name, even one of the greatest QB’s of all time.
They stammer 'uh, uh, that #21 guy'
Because that’s what Holt did. “uh, uh, that #21 guy, what’s his name.”
“LaMichael James?”
‘uh, yeah, that’s him. He’s really good.’
I didn't hear the James one in particular.
I’ll take your word for it.
I’ve heard him do it before, and it seemed intentional, not out of ignorance.
Oh, so being an ass is acceptable when your team is good?
got it.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
It's certainly more acceptable
Than being an ass when your team isn’t good, like what Holt’s doing now.
Boy, if you get this up in arms about Kelly being sarcastic and quick with the media you are going to be so very, very pissed about Leach. Better keep those pearls handy. You’ll be clutching them quite often.
LOL. Winning does cure many ills.
…and your coach is a dick that you all wouldnt tolerate if his record was .500. Add that to the randomness of tossing kids like Cliff Harris but keeping kids like Kiko in addition to Ore offseasons and I think you see my point.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
It's random to toss Cliff Harris?
Let me guess – if Cliff got arrested for pot possession while suspended and he wasn’t kicked off, you would have been really bothered by that too, no?
I don’t pretend to understand or agree with the Alonso situation. I do know that given the penchant for releasing players who are critical to the team (like Masoli was perceived to be, like Cliff Harris was) there is very little hesitation, so I’d give the benefit of the doubt; it’s not like Alonso is a star player or Oregon is shallow at LB.
So no, I don’t see the point. I don’t think I’d have a big problem with Kelly; I didn’t in 2007 and 2008 when we weren’t performing insanely. But you might be right, and I might want to can him for his horrible media acumen and dickish behavior I don’t perceive now but will when he’s not winning.
Or I can point out that Holt’s being a dick doesn’t make me want to give him much latitude on also failing to do his job well, which was my original point.
yeah - that was kind of my point.
personality is irrelevant when you are winning. It only becomes a lynchable issue when success isn’t there.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
Wasn't a lynchable offense to begin with
Just wasn’t a great feature of his, and since part of his job is dealing with the media failing that as well is not great.
it’s another sign of his incompetence. It’s not the biggest deal. It’s just another one.
Think we mostly agree accept onthe incompetence observation
honestly, Chip Kelly is an egomaniacal dick. I don’t think too many unbiased people would debate that. His personality has no effect on or is in any way an indicator of his competence. He is brilliant and a true innovator .
That said, Oregon fans will tire of his shit quickly if the team falls to .500 levels. You can’t tell me that this isn’t true.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
I can tell you that's not true
Oregon fans stuck with Rich brooks and the suffering for 18 years. They stuck with Bellotti’s bizarre decisions and conservativeness for 13. After Kelly showed what he was about after Boise State in 2009, returning a fan’s money after his disgust and taking us to 3 BCS games – which is as many as Bellotti and Brooks combined – he’ll be a hero for an absurd time.
Put it another way – do you hate Don James because he was caught breaking rules and left? Of course not. If Don James offered to coach right now you’d welcome him gladly. And he was so egotistical that he felt NCAA rules didn’t apply to him. He’s beloved and he should be. Same is going to be the case with Kelly unless he pulls a Sandusky or goes and coaches OSU in a year.
And even then, I think Oregon fans would take the role of the dumped lover and wonder why Kelly left us, not the other way around.
DJ didn't break any rules
Get your facts straight before you go blathering a bunch of nasty accusations like that.
the NCAA said so
No member of the coaching staff was cited by the NCAA for breaking any rules.
You really think DJ was actively involved in setting up cushy summer jobs for his players?
I think that any coach as powerful and known as James
James knew about it and accepted it. I said the same thing about Tressel, about Carroll and Paterno (in the case of Sandusky).
I may be wrong. It’s entirely my opinion and it’s a cynical one that has nothing to do with James and everything to do with the state of college football. I do respect James more than a lot of other coaches for simply resigning in disgust about the penalties, but at the same time I also think he should have manned up and dealt with it too.
I do respect James more than a lot of other coaches for simply resigning in disgust about the penalties, but at the same time I also think he should have manned up and dealt with it too.
He actually resigned because Hedges said she was going to fight the bowl ban. Instead she went for a longer bowl ban but shorter period of lost TV revenues.
not Hedges, Gerberding
It was Gerberding himself that back-stabbed DJ. DJ told him flat-out that he’d resign if Gerberding opted for 2 years bowl-ban/1 year TV ban rather than 1 year bowl-ban/2 years TV ban, and Gerb did it anyway.
Rich Brooks
Ducks hadnt tasted winning yet when he got there. Not that you have if Kelly starts being .500 people will start disliking him. Maybe not you but a majority of fans will.
And yes DJ didnt break any rules.
Rich Brooks didn't make us win for a very, very long time
It was 10 years before we had more than one winning season. Rich Brooks actually caused a massive 2 year violation that was a serious violation – it was paying players and it was authorized by him.
Not sure what your point is; do you think Oregon fans thought Rich Brooks was bad? At some point?
Just a baffling post all around. “Not that you have if Kelly?” what?
my point
and poor editing on my part. Is that duck fans had been used to winning before Rich Brooks you wouldnt have put up with it for so long.
What again?
“duck fans had been used to winning before Rich Brooks”? we had?
What?
Bellotti had a lot of fairly meh teams in his first couple seasons and a few meh teams in the 2002-2006 era. One with a losing record. I think what you’re trying to say is that with Rich Brooks we didn’t have the expectation of winning. That’s true. We did, however, have the expectation of winning with Bellotti, especially after the Fiesta bowl win in 2001 – and we had a few down years there with some really ugly games (the loss to Indiana comes to mind). As a rule fans weren’t clamoring for Bellotti’s head there too.
There are a lot of younger fans who don’t remember the suffering of Oregon and have grown up on a team that has always been at least competitive. However, there are even more fans, especially boosters and donors, who do remember the suffering. They do remember how bad it was and how incredibly far a team who didn’t have their own stadium in their own city has come. To them, Kelly is probably coach for life as long as he doesn’t rape kids or stab someone who didn’t deserve it. That Phil Knight also supports Kelly so much doesn’t hurt either.
Awesome rant.
Really.
But since we’re talking about talent, and the state of the roster in 2009 versus 2011, why not just stick to that?
As for the rest, well…..
We're not just talking about talent
And that’s the point. It’s arguable whether or not there was less talent in 2011 than 2009. There was less experience, but given the recruiting rankings they’re about the same. Again, that piece on Holt from before went into that pretty well.
Your argument is that a team can not do well with freshmen and sophomores playing, and they really need juniors and seniors. I don’t agree, and I’ve seen multiple examples of this not being the case. Sometimes you can just have a couple ridiculous players who play well. Sometimes your scheme changes and you dominate. And sometimes you playcall well and get people. In all those cases talent is the same and it’s inexperienced, but it’s not being crushed. It’s not 38 points to OSU.
Your argument is that a team can not do well with freshmen and sophomores playing, and they really need juniors and seniors.
That’s an oversimplified part of it.
Please don’t pretend that you, in a couple of weeks of a years-long and very heated debate with different people here, possibly know what my argument is. Or how different aspects of the defense, the coaches, the roster, etc. have been discussed that lead to what you see on this board today.
OH PLEASE!!!
Please don’t pretend that you, in a couple of weeks of a years-long and very heated debate with different people here, possibly know what my argument is
Then why are you posting? After all of your post telling both of us that we are wrong, maybe it’s time you tell us what “your argument is”. Most people, by the nature of your post, would conclude that you think our coaching staff is doing just fine, but don’t have the talent or experienced talent to be successful.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
Wow guys!
We are Huskies, besides the Duck that is on this post. We can all get along. Everyone’s opinion is just that. Nobody is right or wrong. Lear can hate Nick Holt, Steen can hate Nick Holt, all of that is fine with me. Everyone whether for Nick or against him have to admit that Lear, Steen, and the Duck Kalon (sorry I just have to point out you are a Duck) are correct. Our defense is bad! Extremely bad! It can’t all be youth, and I don’t think it is. Our players suck! I think Holt may put them in a position to succeed and they just don’t get it. Q Rich blowing coverages, Timu and Princeton whiffing on tackles and coverage, Trufant blowing coverages, Nate Fellner completely missing int’s passed right into his hands, D line getting absolutely no push, Josh Shirley being lost when runs come to his side, none of these are Nick Holt’s fault. At the same time, somebody has top take the blame for the players, that’s the beauty of college sports, the coaches take the fall for inferior players. I can see us actually getting better next season on defense. Then again, I thought we’d be better this year.
Even with this being said
would replacing Holt be a good thing? No telling, but if we go out and blow this Baylor game, giving up over 50 points, Holt needs to be fired. I thought he should have been fired before the Washington St game after that embarrassing game at OSU.
Sarkisian will have to make a hard decision. Fire his buddy if the defense doesn’t progress, or be loyal and fired with Holt in a few more seasons. Hopefully the D progresses, which I really think or hope it will next season. So far though, they have absolutely made zero strides in the right direction.
coordinators
dont get fired mid season. Furthermore, Whoever we would hire to take over this job would be a great risk scenario. I would rather take a chance and see what holt can do with Sophmores and Junior playing
Me too
I think it will be better to keep Holt. After the OSU game I was blowing off steam and wanted him fired now! Now I’m calm and EXPECT a great game in our bowl. Don’t let me down Holt!
After all of your post telling both of us that we are wrong, maybe it’s time you tell us what "your argument is".
We’ve been through this at least a couple of dozen times over the last several months. All of the regulars here.
well, it's a smidgen unfair
If you’re going to call me out for not understanding your argument from the last year but then fail to explain it. I think I characterized what your argument is recently and in this topic. If that’s unfair, it’s similarly unfair to characterize it as more without elucidating it.
Did I call you out, or did I respond to an attack?
To me, it’s clear. And I’m sure it’s just as clear to you. I’m also sure we don’t agree.
And if you think you’ve characterized my argument (based on a single-line post), then you’re choosing to ignore the several exchanges that you and I have had about this that go beyond the roster (although, as it happens, that was typically the lead-in). What began as a civil debate over here has devolved to the point that it’s now pretty much straw men, snarky comments, and personal attacks. It’s pretty much the way every single long-term debate that I’ve ever seen on a sports message board goes. I’m as guilty as anyone in escalating it.
So, here’s my argument. One last time.
I think there are big roster issues. There’s a hole in the three oldest classes, and there’s talented but inexperienced youth, as evidenced by the 14 first and second year players in the two-deeps. As I told you before, the article about Holt has mistakes in it as far as the “talent and youth” argument goes. And as I also said, I did the research once, and am not going to spend the time to do it again. You can either believe or not.
I think there are coaching issues, but there’s no way to say for sure at what level. I think Sarkisian has to be held to blame. And the two worst-performing units on the D (line and corners) have the two coaches known for their recruiting. Is that why they’re on the staff? I don’t know. They were hand-picked by Sarkisian (as all of the assistants were) with no input from Holt. What does he think of the position coaches? Who’s to say if he’s allowed to make changes, or if he would if he was.
Holt may be the whole problem, part of the problem, or none of the problem. Simply assigning him all of the blame is likely short-sighted, though. Look at USC – the only thing that changed in 2009 was that Holt left. Carroll was still there, and was still the recruiter. But the results were much, much worse. Maybe that means nothing. Maybe it says something about Holt. Maybe it needs to be investigated a little further without dismissing his time there (or the fact that he’s been in demand his entire career) as having superior talent, or being a Carroll lackey. Just as with replacing Baer in 2008 showed us, the problems went a lot deeper. The goal shouldn’t be just to fire people. It needs to be to identify the real problem, and fix it so it doesn’t happen again.
I honestly don’t give a crap about Nick Holt. I only care about the Huskies, and improving the defense. If those closer to the program determine it means he goes, great. Sarkisian is the one whose feet are held to the fire to hire the guy (or guys) to fix it. If it means that he stays, then Sarkisian is the one that gets his feet held to the fire for Holt’s performance.
I’m not saying that Holt is a scapegoat. He bears a ton of responsibility with the state of things. But to an extent, people are setting him up as the sacrificial lamb, and don’t have any idea if he’ll give off a pleasing aroma as he burns.
That's a good post
At the same time, i think it misses on a few things that ultimately I find more important.
On Sark’s involvement with the assistants: All of my arguments are based around the notion that Sark isn’t going anywhere. He’s well-liked, respected, clearly improved the unit he focused on and the team as a whole is improving. So I’m assuming anything about it being Sark’s fault is a nonstarter; even if it is Sark’s fault there is nothing to be done about it.
So if Sark hired the assistants, whoever is DCoordinator is likely going to have to deal with those hires. If they suck, that means you’ll need to find someone to mitigate their suck. And from what I’ve seen Holt isn’t that guy.
Similarly to recruiting. I’m going to assume that the lion’s share of recruiting is Sark’s because it’s easier. So the defense is going to be undertalented compared to the offense; that’s just who Sark is and what the team is about. That means whoever the DCoordinator is needs to deal with that situation as well; they’ll need to play a defense that isn’t reliant on a bunch of studs and is probably overmatched from a raw talent, and still get something serviceable.
I think that there are genuine failures in coaching at game time; decisions that didn’t make sense, players that are out of position, bad penalties and mental errors. On those I blame Holt entirely. That’s up to him to get them fixed, and in the three years he’s been here it hasn’t been getting any better.
And that’s the real thing, Sundodger – this is a person who is in charge of the defense and the defense is not getting better AND no changes are being made. That tells me either Holt cannot institute the changes he wants or he is not making changes because he feels it’s fine, but at the end of the day it’s him. If the situation is that Holt needs good players and good position coaches, Holt is simply not going to be the guy to lead the defense to any success.
Whoever is the defensive coordinator has to be a good coordinator but they’re going to have constraints. I just feel like no matter what the root cause is Holt is not going to improve matters for a variety of reasons (many outside of his control, but again, doesn’t matter) and thus is the wrong man for the job. That doesn’t mean he won’t have success elsewhere or he isn’t a good guy – but that does mean that he doesn’t work well with the constraints that are in place.
Now, it doesn’t help matters that he’s clearly being overpaid. That his team has shown incompetence and that he is the leader of that position. But like you, I don’t really care about these things other than they kind of annoy me; I care about the results.
I do think that one way or another things need to change in the offseason. Something has to actually change or show change. Otherwise I’ll be even more convinced that Holt doesn’t have the power or the ability to get things done with the constraints he has, and thus isn’t worth the time.
on Sark and his job
Disagree with a few things here:
…even if it is Sark’s fault there is nothing to be done about it.
Disagree. If Sark has handed off most (or all) responsibility for overseeing the defense to Holt, then one thing that can – and should – change is that Sark spends more time involved with the defense. Do Sark & Nuss sit down with Holt and match wits, i.e. “If I did this, how would you stop it?”
Sark should also take a look at other successful defensive units around the country – both from talented teams (Alabama, LSU) and less talented teams (Boise State) and evaluate what they are doing that makes them a success, and whether any of that can be carried over to what his program is capable of.
Similarly to recruiting. I’m going to assume that the lion’s share of recruiting is Sark’s because it’s easier. So the defense is going to be undertalented compared to the offense; that’s just who Sark is and what the team is about. That means whoever the DCoordinator is needs to deal with that situation as well; they’ll need to play a defense that isn’t reliant on a bunch of studs and is probably overmatched from a raw talent, and still get something serviceable.
Strongly disagree with this. If the talent is deficient on defense, then rectify it, don’t just accept it. Ryan McDaniel is a great example of this – the kid looks like a pretty good prospect at RB and at LB. We know LB is a position that can use difference-makers, while RB may or may not be in that boat (depending on how well Cooper rehabs, whether Polk returns and who else signs as a RB this year). Where he starts off will tell us a lot about Sark’s priorities.
DJ had consistently strong defenses because he prioritized it, and was willing to put talented athletes on defense first rather than offense.
I think that there are genuine failures in coaching at game time; decisions that didn’t make sense, players that are out of position, bad penalties and mental errors. On those I blame Holt entirely. That’s up to him to get them fixed, and in the three years he’s been here it hasn’t been getting any better.
Really? Holt entirely? What if Holt’s schemes and calls are sound, but the execution sucks? Doesn’t that fall mostly on the position coaches – guys that Holt didn’t have any input on hiring?
I presume that Sark isn't going to change a whole lot
And if he does, it’s not a good sign either. Sark hired Holt at the high rate to make sure he doesn’t have to micromanage the defense. That’s what Sark wanted. That’s what Holt’s job is supposed to be. If he’s not doing that job well, why try to change the system? Are you willing to accept decreased offensive performance for some defensive gains?
On defense: I think that you can’t rectify it. I think that Sark is going to attract recruits that primarily want to play offense. I think he’s better at getting them jazzed about it, I think he’s better at coaching them up, and I think that more people want to come here for it. At the end of the day I assume that’s going to largely stay the same because at the end of the day Washington is Sark’s and Sark is about the O. It’s like saying that an Ohio State team by Tressel was going to turn into an offensive juggernaut. They might get a couple good recruits, but they were never going to set the world on fire – and the great recruits that do want to will go elsewhere. Same is true for Washington. I think the best recruits are going to be on offense. And that’s ok! But it’s something you need to consider when choosing your plans.
As to Holt and coaching on gametime – regardless of who made the mistake or why, it is entirely on him. If he can’t get his position coaches to do the right thing and he can’t get rid of his position coaches you might as well get rid of him; that’s the point I was trying to make. It means that either he doesn’t have the power to make the changes that need to be made or he doesn’t see an issue with getting changes, but either way it’s on him. It doesn’t mean he’s doing a bad job at it, mind you, just that the system, as it is, doesn’t work.
what, you can't recruit as well on both sides of the ball?
I think that’s an absurd contention. Yes, Sark is an offensive guy. Doesn’t mean he has to sacrifice his defense in the process.
Sark is going to be able to attract a lot of skilled talent for his offense. But the guys that are legit either/or players, he needs to consider giving more weight to putting on defense. He’s going to get good RB’s like Bishop Sankey and good WR’s like James Johnson & Kasen Williams. When he gets a kid like a Ryan McDaniel, a kid that can play either a big RB or LB, it’s time to start placing greater emphasis on starting those kids on defense and seeing if they can stick.
Sark also can probably afford to spend a little less time on offense if he has a guy like Nuss around. Sark is responsible for all facets of the team, and until his defense improves, there’s a limit to how good his teams will perform, which means he needs to be spending quality time evaluating what’s going on with his defense and making informed staffing decisions and directives to his defensive staff.
Typically, no you can't
There are very few programs out there that are balanced as far as recruiting. The elite programs tend to follow their coach’s lead too. USC was about the only school where talent was on both sides of the ball on a fairly regular level. Possibly Oklahoma and Texas, though both tended to be more offensive-minded. If you think about Alabama, who was their best QB in the last decade? What was the most heralded Wide Receiver out of Ohio State?
Teams get an identity. that doesn’t mean you can’t get the kids that go away from that identity, but it’s not going to be the common scenario. i don’t see why this is particularly challenging. Can you really think of all that many schools that are equally proficient at offense and defense and are known for both values about the same? Again, USC is the only one that came to mind, and even that’s changed to it being mostly about offense.
As to Sark and defense – he could be spending more time. He could be pushing kids who want to be RBs to LBs, though that’s not going to win him a lot of fans with recruiting (see: DeAnthony Thomas going to Oregon partially because he wanted to play RB, or LSU losing Darron Thomas because they thought of him as an ‘athlete’ and not a QB). I just don’t see him as making a big mark that way even if he does. What experience does Sark have coaching defense?
And if he does this, why is Holt getting paid the big bucks, again?
you are seeing long-term trends that don't exist
You seem to think that most programs are solidly one type – offensively focused or defensively focused. Recruiting ratings and statistical results don’t bear this out.
What was Arizona under Stoops? Early on, you might have said “defense”. More recently, you’d say “offense”. The reality is, they were trying to be both. What has Oregon become? As much as everyone focuses on their offense, most overlook that their defense has become very good. What’s Oregon State? They were quite balanced at their zenith. What was Washington under DJ? They were known for their consistently strong defenses, but they always had strong running games, NFL QB’s and very good offensive lines – they were balanced.
The number of RichRod’s out there – coaches that clearly and definitively focus on one aspect over another – are far more rare than you suggest.
You say 'don't bear this out'
but don’t actually back it with facts.
Stoops never had an identity other than mean. Offense or defense, it didn’t matter. I do agree he switched around a lot more. Oregon though – Oregon’s identity is about the offense. The defense is quite good too, I’ll grant you, and ironically has been much more successful in getting recruits into the NFL – but the offense is the heart and soul of the team now. When you say "Oregon’ to a kid, they don’t think about how great the defense is; point of fact, most people would be puzzled if you said that they’re a great defense.
Oregon State’s identity has long been about a running game and defense. Their best teams had the most balance, but Riley goes back to defense and running time and time again. The parade of NFL-caliber RBs over the last 12 years should speak to that.
And while Washington’s offensive teams were good under James they weren’t known for their offense. It was always fine. It occasionally was good – kind of like Ohio State under Tressel. Both had quality RBs and big men paying the line. Both had good QBs that would usually make a couple plays a game but mostly would be good and not make mistakes. But when you think of Don James and Washington – you think of defense. To put it in perspective from the 91 championship game the entire 2-deep roster on defense save one guy played in the NFL.
I’m not saying that great teams don’t have good talent on both sides – I am simply saying that the best talent, the top rung players – go to a team quite a bit because of the identity of the team.
you're getting off-track here
You say that Oregon’s identity is “offense”, and I’d agree. But that’s not the point – the point is that Oregon is able to successfully recruit on both sides of the ball, something you claimed was very difficult to do.
You’re being disingenuous about Stoops. He has always been known as a defensive coach – that’s his background and work history.
I’m not really sure what your point is about Oregon State – seems to me you’re confirming what I said. They have had successful offenses and defenses. They actually resemble DJ’s teams quite a bit in having strong running games, good defenses and putting QB’s in the NFL. Not at the same level as the UW under DJ, but a similar formula. I think you’re being dishonest if you claim OSU was more about defense than offense at their peak.
Regarding Washington under DJ – you’re setting an impossible standard to reach if you’re claiming they didn’t recruit equally well on both sides of the ball. Check the draft history from that era – there’s no big edge for one side of the ball over the other. Pretty much every starting QB went into the NFL, most TE’s, quite a few OL, and some WR’s and RB’s.
Can we stop talking about Holt's past . . .
or the fact that he’s been in demand his entire career
I don’t care who want him, who he worked for, where he worked, or how successful he was unless it wins games for the Washington Huskies. All the past accolades and achievements mean NOTHING if they weren’t done here as a member of the Washington Huskies.
How many of the greatest football coaches EVER, ended up getting fired? Even the greatest coaches end up losing their touch for one reason or another, just because Holt used to be successful, or in high demand, doesn’t make our defense suddenly play zone coverage better.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
it's valid because it's part of the data to evaluate him
If Holt was successful elsewhere but not here, you want to figure out why. We’ve already discussed possible reasons why – his assistants, the state of the roster he inherited, who Sark has been able to sign in recruiting classes and which players have been put on defense. Maybe that’s the critical difference. Maybe that’s only part of the difference. Maybe Holt wasn’t that good to begin with. Maybe he was, but there’s some other reason why he isn’t meshing here. Maybe he hasn’t been able to adapt to changes in offense.
Point being, just saying “things aren’t working here” isn’t enough information to make a good decision on how to fix it. Evaluating Holt’s past is a valid way to add data to the mix, to figure out where the problem is.
BS.
it’s valid because it’s part of the data to evaluate him
When your boss evaluates the job you are doing, does he give a rats ass about what you did at your last company? If you aren’t getting the job done, should you get to keep your job because you were employee of the year at your last company??
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
here's a big difference
We aren’t Holt’s boss. We don’t work with him every day. The vast majority of us have only a fraction of the understanding of this coaching staff of the UW playbook and knowing what player responsibilities are on each play.
I’m sure Sark doesn’t care much about Holt’s past, nor should he – he should evaluate him on the job he’s doing now as you say.
However, we the fans are not Sark – we don’t have the in-depth knowledge to judge him purely on his performance at the UW. So if we as fans want to make more educated judgments about the performance of a coach, we can use all the data we can get, which includes past performance.
Tell you what – if you want to do a chalk talk and break down in complete detail a few UW defensive plays and tell us with 100% confidence what every player on the defense was supposed to do on that play, and how well each of them accomplished their tasks, then I’ll agree that you can provide the same kind of judgment of Holt’s performance that his boss – Sark – can give.
Otherwise, you’re comparing apples & oranges.
Holt better be evaluated on what he is doing here, not what he did at USC.
Truth be told, WE are the customer, if they want us to continue being repeat customers, they better evaluate Holt on his performance at UW, not USC. I don’t buy tickets because back in the day they won games at USC.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
sure we're the customer
But your analogy was a boss evaluating his employee, and Sark is Holt’s boss.
What I’m calling out is your contention that you, as a fan, can evaluate Holt’s performance strictly off of what’s happened at the UW. Fine. But unless you show me you have a firm grasp of exactly what Holt’s defensive schemes are, and exactly why his schemes and play-calling are the problem and not talent and not how the position coaches are teaching (or failing to teach) what Holt wants, I’m going to take your judgments as what all of us are – amateur armchair QB’s.
And since we’re all amateur armchair QB’s, our opinions are less informed than an expert, and that’s why I look to Holt’s history to gain more information. And what I see are a number of experts that kept seeking out Holt to have on their staffs. That tells me that maybe there’s something else at play with the failures of our defense than simply blaming Holt.
Exactly, kirkd.
The “lack of in-game adjustments” call-out is another one that gets annoying. In-game adjustments are usually subtle. Most people miss them. I can think of several examples of Holt changing things during a game. Some have worked, and some haven’t. But the notion that he simply keeps banging his head against the same wall play after play is patently false.
You read my posts . . .
I don’t call out Sark for his playcalling, and when I do call out Holt, I am specific when I do it.
During multiple games, I’ve mentioned our DB’s playing 10 yards off the ball on 3rd and 1. I realize we are all armchair QB’s, but it painfully obvious that our defense has not improved. Eventually (say after 3 years), the coaching staff has to be blamed.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
you want tight man coverage on 3rd and 1
OK. What else? You’ve suggested that Holt’s schemes don’t work against offenses like Oregon’s – what in your view is wrong with his schemes? What would work better?
I’m not trying to pick on you, I’m just saying that unless you can demonstrate to me a very high level of understanding of the 4-3 Under style defense that Holt prefers, and what player assignments within those schemes are, and what the inherent weaknesses are of those strategies against certain offensive plays, it’s just noise.
Saying you want Holt to blitz more, or play more man – OK, those are valid complaints. And there may be valid counter-arguments to those suggestions based on the likelihood of worse results.
Ty was succesful in tbe past.
The game passes some by, and others are products of programs they inherited more than anything they contributed.
I’d love to know how many currently in support of Holt Staying thought Ty deserved a Third and Fourth year?
by Steen on Dec 6, 2011 5:56 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I did not support a 4th year for Ty
But then again, it’s a whole ’nother level of criteria in evaluating a head coach vs. a coordinator…
Criteria is different
But timeline is complete unique to each and every situation. Please show me one thing Holt has done to prove he deserves another year.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
we are playing our 2nd bowl game in 3 years
Seriously, I’m tired of repeating my explanations of why I’m dubious of blaming Holt solely for the issues with our defense. There are other reasonable explanations, and I’d like to see what happens to our performance when a major explanation – youth, depth, experience – become less viable because our roster is finally filling some glaring holes left behind by Ty.
And really, you should be asking Sark that question, because there seems to be little inclination that Holt won’t be returning.
Thank You.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
You saw how well that team worked
Without the main person on offense that made it run. The Huskies couldn’t beat Oregon State, a team that lost to a FCS school.
Yes, it’s a team game. Doesn’t mean some players on that team are more important than others. Doesn’t mean that one side doesn’t do their job better than the other.
I’d love to know how many currently in support of Holt Staying thought Ty deserved a Third and Fourth year?
Not even close to the same thing.
And no. I didn’t support a first year, or a second year, or a third year either.
Willingham lost me with his “The Dawg, as I know it, is a viscious animal” speach the first time he spoke to a UW crowd at halftime of a basketball game.
Let's try a different approach.
Let’s not argue about who is at fault or if Holt should go. Instead, let’s look at the alternatives and the actions that can be taken.
1. Recruiting on defense is not as good as on offense. This has been consistent for the three years and has shown in both performance and future results; the offense has improved dramatically, but the defense has not.
Possible solutions: Sark is the recruiter, fire him.
Holt is not doing well with the lower talent level; fire him
Get better recruiters and fire some position coaches and assume the Huskies will improve at the highest level on recruiting despite having an offensive-minded team.
Of those three, which should the Huskies do? What do you think is the most realistic option?
2. It is reported that the position coaches have continually failed to develop players well on certain defensive spots. These people were picked by Sark, not Holt, and hiring is decided by Sark. As is firing.
1. fire Sark – he’s responsible for these positions and the kinds of people that are getting hired isn’t going to change.
2. fire Holt – he doesn’t have power to fire them and isn’t getting the performance needed from them, so find someone else to get it
3. Fire the position coaches. Replace them somehow with better position coaches and hope they do their job better and work better with Holt.
4. Do nothing
Which makes the most sense to do?
3. There have been a number of big execution gaffes on defense through the 3 years, combined with quite a bit of people (including Holt) saying that players are out of position, don’t know what to do and aren’t stepping up. How do you solve this?
1. Fire Sark.
2. Fire Holt; he’s responsible for the overall game planning and responsible to understand what his players can and cannot do, as well as making up for deficiencies in his position coaches.
3. Fire the position coaches, who were picked by Sark for some other reasons (notably recruiting)
4. Do nothing
What makes the most sense to do?
For all of those, the problem for me is that Sark is (rightly) untouchable. Which means that you have two options – get rid of the person who is not working well with the other people Sark hand picked or get rid of the people Sark hand-picked. This doesn’t seem like a tough choice to me. This isn’t even an indictment on Holt; this just means that in this system, with these people, things just aren’t working.
fire the position coaches that aren't performing up to snuff
I get that Johnny Nansen & Demetrice Martin are considering our top recruiters. It’s also quite possible they are our worst position coaches (I’d also question how good Jimmy Daugherty is, but we’re talking defense right now).
Let’s say Nansen & Martin as compared to other BCS staffs are well below-average position coaches. Are they good enough recruiters to overcome their deficiencies as coaches? That’s a tough call that Sark has to make.
But really, the question is pretty simple – Sark has to look long and hard at his defense. He needs to develop a strong opinion of the talent level of the players he has. He needs to evaluate whether the schemes that Holt is running are sound for the offenses the UW sees, and whether Holt is making the right play-calls and in-game adjustments. And he needs to evaluate how effectively the position coaches are teaching their kids to execute the schemes Holt runs.
If he finds guys on his staff that aren’t up to snuff, he needs to then determine how confident he is that he can find better coaches to take those spots.
But really, the question is pretty simple – Sark has to look long and hard at his defense. He needs to develop a strong opinion of the talent level of the players he has. He needs to evaluate whether the schemes that Holt is running are sound for the offenses the UW sees, and whether Holt is making the right play-calls and in-game adjustments. And he needs to evaluate how effectively the position coaches are teaching their kids to execute the schemes Holt runs.
This. Exactly.
If he does THIS . . .
we will have a few new coaches by next season. I’m not saying Holt, maybe Holt, but I don’t think ANY of us would say every coach should be back next season.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
And what if he doesn't?
What if he evaluates it as exactly fine. What if the people he put in place there he’s totally good with – in fact, he thinks they’re doing a great job and exactly are where he wants them to be.
Do you fire Sark then?
Because that’s what I’m getting at. I think that Sark’s handpicked team of coaches and recruiters works with him well and I doubt he’s going to fire them unless there is a ton of pressure AND he can demonstrate that they’re the ones that need to go instead of Holt (because Holt is the fall guy here in the popular media and culture, not position coaches most fans have never heard of). And if he doesn’t affect change – and very little has been spoken of on the defensive side of the ball by Sark – what happens then?
Do you want Sark gone because he didn’t do what you wanted him to? Do you trust in him to make the right choices even after they’ve been demonstrably bad in ways you don’t find acceptable? I’m genuinely curious what you’d do in that case.
What if the people he put in place there he’s totally good with – in fact, he thinks they’re doing a great job and exactly are where he wants them to be.
Do you fire Sark then?
No, but firing someone hasn’t been my ultimate goal at any point. Improvement has been, though.
The idea that Sarkisian evaluates things as “exactly fine” is a nonstarter. He knows things aren’t fine. But that doesn’t mean that the solution is necessarily a staff-shakeup. He might decide the key is recruiting. Or changing the way the team practices. Or scheme tweaks, position changes, etc. or any of a number of things that don’t involve staff changes.
If nothing changes, I’ll admit that I’ll be a bit skeptical. But at the same time, I’m going to acknowledge that I have around 60 data points (the 37 games this staff has coached plus spring games and the practices I’ve attended), and he’s got well over a thousand. And he knows more than I do about all of this. And his interest is at least as vested as mine.
When I say I hold Sarkisian responsible for the D, I’m not suggesting that I want him fired now. But I’m not going to excuse him from the defensive issues. It’s his team. It’s his problem. He’s earning the head coach’s pay, not Nick Holt. And while Sarkisian has never shirked responsibility for the D, there are a ton of people here that do it for him. I don’t believe that’s correct.
by Sundodger on Dec 8, 2011 8:31 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I will agree on one thing
I dont like that he threw players under the bus. But to expect someone to be successful when he has 1 or 2 upper classmen that will play on sunday’s I find to just be unrealistic.
He didn't throw players under the bus by name...
… he made the same “bullets” mistake that Ty made in his first season here and his behavior was corrected swiftly and convincingly.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
He also said 'people need to step up'
He didn’t just say that he didn’t have the talent; he explicitly stated that for whatever reason the players aren’t stepping up and he needs them to do that.
Here’s the specific quote, if you’re interested:
“we need guys to rise up and make a play for us on third down and do something special and right now we are struggling to find those guys”
This is from ST after the OSU game.
I don't get why that statement is offensive
Pretty sure Sark has said essentially the same thing himself. That statement is a far cry from saying “our players aren’t good enough”.
Maybe it was the way he said it
Or maybe I’m being snitty. It was the last comment in his press conference and it felt to me like he was blaming the players for the loss. Which might be factually true, but it’s not something you want to tell the kids.
are you talking about Holt?
his behavior was corrected swiftly and convincingly.
I’d have to disagree, even this year he has comment on how we don’t have the talent to compete with the Oregon’s and Stanford’s of the college football world.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
Didn't he say that he didn't have the bullets in his first season? Why are people still holding that against him?
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 6, 2011 11:35 AM PST up reply actions
He made very similar comments this season.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
What did he say, specifically?
And please quote the whole statement. I don’t want something vague that is taken out of context.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 6, 2011 10:46 PM PST up reply actions
I'm done researching crap for other people.
It’s there, he said it, we all discussed it here at the time.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
You made the claim, you back it up.
Simple as that.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 7, 2011 12:53 PM PST up reply actions
That isn't the same thing.
It’s no different than Sarkisian saying the same thing (which he has on a couple of occasions).
nice article.
…dude, you got to space these out. This plus the monday morning wash is a lot to digest in one day!
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
I thought about that...
…but I couldn’t resist…we have plenty of content in the hopper.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Dec 5, 2011 11:07 AM PST up reply actions
nothing wrong with making them wait. We have a whole month before our bowl game
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
I have a ton of content this time of the year....
The ultimate goal for the blog (according to SBN) is to have at least three new articles per day during the season….wow!
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Dec 5, 2011 11:18 AM PST up reply actions
Love the comic!
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Dec 5, 2011 11:35 AM PST up reply actions
No NO No NO
Please, more!
Roast Duck is a delicacy.
This is very enlightening. Thanks, John!
And now, for my very elaborate and college-educated plan!'
by StuHamm on Dec 5, 2011 11:04 AM PST via mobile reply actions
A lot of forgetable names on that list
One of them in an LA jail awaiting his murder trial. Tremendous improvement in depth. I am anxiously awaiting the D story.
Here is a link
Brandon “Bull” Johnson as covered by CBS News
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
Thanks!
Great write up John, very excited about our potential next year on offense, with or without Chris Polk. I"m already on record as predicting 9 wins – time for the D to step up.
Eagerly awaiting the D side of the story (don’t listen to Gekko, flood me with information).
Roast Duck is a delicacy.
Does Callier have the talen/ability to be the starting RB next year?
I always thought he’d burst out and have a great year as a change of pace back alongside Polk but it never quite happened. Is there anything Callier has over Sankey?
Not sure Callier
has the size. I think Sankey wins the job but callier will get more carries than this year.
It's college fb, Callier is more than big enough.
by Steen on Dec 5, 2011 1:54 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Not with the OL
the Dawgs put on the field this year. 220 lb, tough-as-nails Chris Polk got most of his yards after contact, as there were few real holes for him to run through. Substitute Callier for Polk this past season and he gets 700 rather than Polk’s 1,300+. Put Callier in Oregon’s spread with their OL and he will get you at least 1,200 yds. Callier is a great change-up in Washington’s system, but not (at least not at this point) an every down back.
Callier was the leading rushing the the state of CA his senior year
you don’t do that without getting a ton of touches. Even in HS, that’s still a pounding and he can probably stand up to being a 20+ carry guy.
Look at his body.
Am I the only one paying attention. Callier is put together, judging a player by height and weight isn’t necessarily indicative of the strength or durability of the guy.
That being said, Price will never start every game unless he gets his lower body bigger and stronger.
I agree with you
I don’t think he’s big enough to go for 25-30 every game, only because our line isn’t going to cut it for that much work. I do think he’s big enough to go for 20 every week and shoulder the bulk of our rushing load.
I don't know, probably not more than 3 or 4.
Why are you arguing with me? Are you suggesting that even if he could shoulder that 25+ weekly load that it’s smart to do so? A lot of the reason Polk doesn’t carry as much as some other noteable “power” backs is because we have Callier and Sankey to take some of the burden. Letting one player take that kind of abuse is stupid.
Callier can handle the load of being our premier back, he likely cannot handle the load of being a thinner teams premier back.
We aren't talking about thinner teams.
I’m assuming the carry distribution this year is what Sark prefers, so it shouldn’t change much. Unless Sankey steals his carries because he’s just so much better, everyone moves up a slot.
didn't this already happen?
Unless Sankey steals his carries because he’s just so much better, everyone moves up a slot.
Looking at how they were used, especially as the season wore on, wasn’t Sankey already starting to pass up Callier?
Callier had 45 carries, Sankey had 28. Of Callier’s 45 carries, I’m thinking at least 8 of them were Wildcat runs, and maybe 5 more were Fly Sweep runs. Those are both roles that Callier did and Sankey did not. But in traditional running plays, Sankey was damn near even with Callier, and that corresponds with what I recall seeing over the course of the season in terms of RB rotation.
At this point I’d expect Sankey & Callier to be basically 1a & 1b heading into Spring Practices (assuming Polk leaves).
I think Kirkd is right
I expect Callier and Sankey to almost split carries if Polk takes off for the NFL. Callier CAN handle being an every down back. No matter who is listed as the starter the other back will get about the same amount of carries to keep the other fresh. Shouldn’t just judge people on their size but rather their ability. We all know Callier can carry the load. The question is, is Bishop Sankey better than him? He may be.
I hope your right
because I like Callier and his number, but he is doesnt do as well as Polk does when he is given the chance.
No way
It was stated earlier in a comment. Polk is playing out of his mind behind a subpar O line, he is getting hit before he gets to the line of scrimmage regularly. Callier has not shown he can break tackles and pick up tough yards yet.
I think they are tied....
It is going to be more running back by committee next season if Polk leaves.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
Great article John!
I’m really interested to see what Derrick Brown looks like. I didn’t get to see any practices this year, but his size is intriguing! Hopefully he’ll progress to push Nick and Keith next year.
"The same thing that will make you laugh will make you cry." Ray Lewis
two players...
At RB, the two biggest questions are 1) Polk staying or not and 2) if Cooper can get healthy enough to be a factor. Polk is a go/no go, but Cooper is a real question mark. There is a real possibility that his career will be over before it starts. What are the odds he can both get healthy and fulfil his potential?
The other player is Brown. He has the physical tools to play multiple positions. He could end up like a cross between Locker and Price. To me he looked like a guy with a huge upside, but less polish, perhaps even less polish than Vincent. Considering the additional guys coming in, he could end up being productive, a la Eric Bjornson, at another position. Or he might be the answer to the trivia question “When is going to the wild cat not really the wild cat?” The guy has “trick play” written all over him.
Cooper – I really want to see this kid get a chance to run the ball. He was definitely going to be special. What are the odds…not that great after two surgeries on the same knee. That being said there is always hope and exceptions.
Brown – I have gotten quite a bit of good feedback regarding Brown. It will be really interesting to see what they let him do this spring. The one huge thing he has going with his body type is strength, mobility, and durability.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Dec 5, 2011 2:47 PM PST up reply actions
I too have been disappointed
by Cooper’s injuries. The guy has blazing speed and exceptional quickness and could be an every down back behind a line that provides some holes to run through.
Cooper
Is still young and they have came along way on knee surgeries. From my understanding he should be good as new but it might not be good enough to supplant Sankey or Calliers experience. Next year he at best probably fills Sankey’s 2011 role. Which I think is fine
I just want to see him healthy and playing.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Dec 5, 2011 3:47 PM PST up reply actions
The only polish he's missing is mental.
he’s got arm strength, power, size, accuracy and an effortless throwing motion. From all the film I’ve seen, it looks like his weakest areas are poise and decision making.
Brown is better than Montana, right now.
I highly doubt they move him, unless the incoming guys this year both turn out to prodigy’s.
Brown is not better than Montana
they would have started him if he was better than Montana. A RS year does not mean more than victories to any coach, even stupid ones.
Sark must have thought
Montana was up to the task. He was seriously wrong, as Montana performed (in the OSU game) like a small-town high school QB who somehow wandered into the wrong huddle.
Man, everybody is a Montana hater around here
One game where you do about as well as can be expected for a backup QB to do and he goes from preseason where he was fighting for the starting job to now where everybody is counting on him riding the bench for his career. Sounds pretty tough to me.
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 5, 2011 5:16 PM PST up reply actions
He sucked against OSU.
Let’s try that again – he sucked against OSU.
Last year Price comes in against Oregon -at Oregon – and does well. Not the best ever, but certainly wasn’t the reason that the Huskies lost and didn’t make any huge mistakes.
This year Montana comes into Oregon State and doesn’t do well, to the point where Sark pulls him and puts in his injured starting QB because he has no other real choice if he wants to win.
Realistically if your QB was competing at the start of the season to be the starter you should expect a little bit better. In this day and age you can almost be certain your starting QB will miss games. You’ve got to beat the teams like OSU when you have backups.
He's a redshirt freshman who has now one start. I don't think you can expect much from him with nearly no practices or experience.
Plus we didn’t lose that game because our offense did poorly. Offense was only 1/2 the problem.
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 5, 2011 5:56 PM PST up reply actions
Cody Pickett through 10 TD and 14 INT in his sophmore year
Likewise Marques Tuiasosopo only completed 50% of his passes and threw 2 TD and 5 INT in his sophmore year.
I’m not saying he isn’t a bust or whatever. I just think everybody might be going a little overboard. He is basically ~19 and sounds like people assume his career at UW is done. I’m just saying it seems premature especially if we thought he was probably pretty good at the start of the year.
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 5, 2011 7:00 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Lets not forget ASJ's drop.
That was the biggest turning point in the game.
Ugly play of the year...
…that was just terrible…knock Nick Montana all you want…the OSU game ended on that play.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Dec 5, 2011 8:32 PM PST up reply actions
That drop was a total deflation...
The pick at the goal line to Kasen was the dagger #2? It sure seems there were a number of disasters that just stunk up the whole stinkin’ thing! All phases! Ugh….. I’m still cleaning the Kool-aid remnants….
That's fair
I felt like going against a team with questionable at best defense and a very good running game that Montana would be better, but I really didn’t see a whole lot from him when it mattered. You are right that there was a lot more to the game than his performance as to why the Huskies lost, but I was really expecting there to be not a precipitous drop in performance there. It was pretty shocking, but it did solidify my love of Keith Price.
I was really expecting there to be not a precipitous drop in performance there.
It was definitely pretty shocking. And you could feel the lift the entire team got when Price came in in the fourth.
Add to that the collective air coming out of the team’s sails when Montana came into the Apple Cup for a few plays, and it really showed that this is Price’s team. I tend to agree with you about Price versus Polk (in other posts) – there’s little doubt who the most important player is to this team.
Montana still has room to improve
You give him the ASJ drop and a few other plays, his stats were not that bad. The entire team picked a game, where a freshman was getting his first career start, against an easy opponenet, to play their worst game of the season! Defense, offense, special teams, the whole team played like crap in that one! I will still give Montana a chance, but KP is the man right now and I don’t think Montana will out play any of the guys behind him his entire career at Udub. Just my opinion.
Less than 1/2 of the problem...
Special Teams were not so special…either.
Could he?
I have my theories along with some other stuff I’ve heard, it’s really just an educated guess when you consider the circumstances and the issues Sark has to balance.
From a physical standpoint, I agree with you. Brown has it all over Montana.
It remains to be seen if he can actually run an offense when it matters. I’m not saying that Montana has done a great job, but he’s definitely not the floor. There’s room to be worse.
I’ve heard very positive stuff about Brown this year, but also that he has a long way to go. Pretty much the same thing we heard about Montana in 2010.
I'm no expert on quarterbacks but from what I've seen:
From attending a couple practices and watching them in pre-game warmups I think Montana is slightly ahead of Brown and then the gap between those two and Price is immense. Montana is by no means a bad quarterback but he’s at least a year away from being ready to play at the D-1 level. I was honestly extremely shocked at the team store making Montana Jerseys instead of Price jerseys this year because if you watched them in spring and fall camp Price looked better.
demand
I was honestly extremely shocked at the team store making Montana Jerseys instead of Price jerseys this year because if you watched them in spring and fall camp Price looked better.
The store ordered what they figured they’d sell, and until the season started, the average fan was probably more aware of Joe Montana’s kid than Keith Price. Until it became clear as the season progressed how good Price was, Montana had better name recognition.
I'd say its more than just average fans that get stars in their eyes when they see the name 'Montana'.
It makes rational folks put on the rose colored glasses, post haste.
by Steen on Dec 6, 2011 6:01 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Great article John
Thanks for the state of the union for our offense. I can’t wait for the defense one, especially the comments afterwards! And don’t listen to Gekko!
Excellent article John! Appreciate your perspective.
Have to agree it’s a little weird when a very good overview of the recent development of our Offense winds up being dominated by posts about coaches on Defense . . .
Best Regards,
and for the record, you have a great stable of regulars.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on UW Dawg Pound
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
