Search results

Except that we throw it more than some playoff teams. But the 1st Amendment gives you the right to post dumb things.

Oh no question. We just don’t need to claim that DeBoer needed to start from the bottom. There has been a pretty strong foundation at UW.

Here’s another one. I get the memes and GIFs when I ask a simple question like, if Sarkisian is a genius and we need someone like him, why was he so mid for his first nine years? You people react to shiny objects.

The gap between Peterson’s rock solid program and DeBoer’s success was two years.

Another nothing response. You can’t think of anything. It’s like when we were told last year that improvement doesn’t take time, “just look at Lincoln Riley”. This year we don’t hear too much about Lincoln Riley.

Louisville and Richt won absolutely nothing. Not sure why they’re listed. Washington didn’t need an overhaul from 20 years of failure. But since it’s all coaching, please don’t get mad if I point out what Washington does without a stable of elite players. No steps back, right? It’s coaching.

All? Did you just ask why “they all” turned things around so quickly? Look at your chart again. One thing you conveniently left out is the 20 year period before year 1. Many of those programs were in solid shape.

And you never have any intelligent response. Memes and GIFs.

Players will always be the difference between 5-7 and 12-1. Always. Quit selling this “scheme” nonsense. Talent is what always makes a coach “great”.

Isn’t he the head coach? This is year 10 and finally a meaningful season.

So in his 10th year as a head coach he finally decided that defense counts? Because his first 9 years were meh.

That’s a masterful job of changing the subject. Could you remind us how Sark did at Washington?

Yeah I wouldn’t try to argue either. Use memes. Sarkisian finally got Washington to 8-4 in year five, because obviously it’s impossible to win there.

Then pull up his record and point out how many trophies he has accumulated as a genius. This is good stuff. Defending a career mid coach when he finally puts a season together.

Except that you have your head up a coaches *** even though he won nothing in his career until today.

And it took this top notch offensive mind until year three to get the point across. If he always had better players, why did he go 5-7?

Absolutely. Just quit telling us it’s not about the players when no one wins without having players.

Cool, if it doesn’t have anything to do with the quality of players, why did Sark win 5 games and then 8 games before unleashing his unbeatable system?

Enough talent????? Yikes. That continues to be the most drastic chasm between the two sides on this board. We’re just now getting to the point of having talent in both lines.

And you've also never seen a great coach win championships without having a championship caliber roster. Yet we continue to hear that if we would just run a more creative offense we would be back.