Official Coach Sark Thread of Dominance—haters back off

[Tex Long 4417]

6 minutes ago, Doc Daneeka said:

In that scenario, maybe it’s reasonable to “suggest” to Sarkisian that he hire an OC if he wants to keep cashing those fat checks. It’s not reasonable to get rid of a guy whose defense isn’t the problem. 

The scenario is an 8-5 season. You are taking the position that the D is not a problem, and assuming that D isn't the problem, the O must be although maybe ST gives up too many punt/kick blocks and big returns. Sark needs to change something pretty radically. A lot of us seem to think the solution is for him to quit OC'ing and concentrate on CEO'ing, but nothing suggests that he will do so. 

 

[6th Street 6463]

Coach Prime after the 2024 season. He coming

[Doc Daneeka 6769]

Just now, Tex Long said:

The scenario is an 8-5 season. You are taking the position that the D is not a problem, and assuming that D isn't the problem, the O must be although maybe ST gives up too many punt/kick blocks and big returns. Sark needs to change something pretty radically. A lot of us seem to think the solution is for him to quit OC'ing and concentrate on CEO'ing, but nothing suggests that he will do so. 

 

Yes, yes, if we assume Kwiatkowski loses his damned mind and starts sucking then let’s talk about it. Until then, his guys have done nothing but get better. 

If Texas goes 8-5 without injuries of biblical proportions, Sarkisian is going to have a lot of splaining to do. 

Let’s keep coming up with imaginary reasons for a currently imaginary bad result. It’s the Texas way. 

[gmr548 16590]

You modify the premise to be "8-5 but the D is XII Best", and if that is applied, firing PK instead of re-tooling the O would not fly. 
Whether the proximate cause is shit offense or shit defense would determine who gets fired. 
Nah, the premise is purely that another 8-5 is not acceptable, true?  Changes would be required to be made, at least by the people who write checks, true? Or do you think they'd go with keeping on as-is? The problem is that he doesn't have an OC to replace, other than his titular co-OCs. 
 

Didn’t really modify the premise - you were responding to posts pointing out PK did well last year and appears to be on the same track. Simply reproducing last years top 10-20 defense looks like it would be best in the league this year so it doesn’t seem like that is a huge jump to make.

Also not sure I agree 8-5 would be viewed as unacceptable. By surly maybe but not by the fanbase at large or by the administration. You don’t hire a guy known as 7-Win Steve with a six year deal if 8-5 in year three is unacceptable, and everything we’ve seen in terms of posture from the university and reporting on the program seems to point toward being tired of the coaching carousel and an emphasis on continuity.

[Tex Long 4417]

To be fair, this is the - or at least a - Sark thread. 

I'm pretty damned sure that almost all of us want him to succeed... I know I do. Not all of that is about his success being our success, too. He seems like a really good guy, he's a couple orders of magnitude above Strong, and at least one above Herman.

I just think he's hanging on to the OC part far too long and too tightly, and if he won't or can't get past that, he's going to be 7- or 8-win Steve forever. 

[Doc Daneeka 6769]

He’s going to be better than that this season.

I was more disappointed by the OL than anything else. I don’t know if it’s evaluation, coaching, scheme or what. I’m told I’m overreacting, which is possible, so we’ll see. 

Edited September 4, 2023 by Doc Daneeka

[lilMAC25 3802]

1 minute ago, Doc Daneeka said:

He’s going to be better than that this season.

I was more disappointed by the OL than anything else. I don’t know if it’s evaluation, coaching, scheme or what. I’m told I’m overreacting, which is possible, so we’ll see. 

I want to rewatch the game.

[Doc Daneeka 6769]

Just now, lilMAC25 said:

I want to rewatch the game.

I was somewhat mollified by the 21 point third quarter, but I’m in the “yeah, they have scholarship players, too, but Texas should be able to impose its will on Rice regardless of scheme,” but I acknowledge that may be overly simplistic. 

[bschoolprof 6271]

2 hours ago, gmr548 said:

Also not sure I agree 8-5 would be viewed as unacceptable. By surly maybe but not by the fanbase at large or by the administration. You don’t hire a guy known as 7-Win Steve with a six year deal if 8-5 in year three is unacceptable, and everything we’ve seen in terms of posture from the university and reporting on the program seems to point toward being tired of the coaching carousel and an emphasis on continuity.

Nah, you don't fire Turtle Tom after going 10-4, 8-5, 7-3, only to be content with 5-7, 8-5, 8-5 by year 3 in the worst conference in football, heading off to the SEC.  It doesn't matter what CDC or the Texas administration thinks about continuity. All that matters is what the checkwriters want; they got us into this mess by hiring Sark and they'll probably run him off soon enough.  The seat will be very hot if we go 8-5 this year.  

Edited September 4, 2023 by bschoolprof

[Guest]

On 8/26/2023 at 6:33 PM, Tex Long said:

Agree. If this season turns out meaty ochre again, I'll expect to see at least an OC appear. Depending on performance, a new DC wouldn't be out of the question.

Reactionary given PK performance over the years. 

15 hours ago, LTtxfan said:

Gotta fix the interior O-line shit and run more quick game pass offense to help Quinn.  

Sark has to fix his offense... 

reactionary given one game. 

5 hours ago, Tex Long said:

Not so much that, as that a struggling HC has to sacrifice someone lest he become the sacrifice himself. Sumpin' have to change. An 8-5 season, again, would likely be seen to indicate no real progress.

Utterly idiotic. Go home Tex Long. You’re drunk. 

[lilMAC25 3802]

11 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

Reactionary given PK performance over the years. 

reactionary given one game. 

Utterly idiotic. Go home Tex Long. You’re drunk. 

You think an 8-5 season means everything is ok for Sark? I don’t buy that.

 

He would be under a lot of pressure at that point.

Edited September 4, 2023 by lilMAC25

[closetohumping 17455]

3 hours ago, 6th Street said:

Coach Prime after the 2024 season. He coming

Nobody thinks that would work.  I do though.  But I don’t think we’d ever hire him 

[DFW Horn 6140]

52 minutes ago, bschoolprof said:

Nah, you don't fire Turtle Tom after going 10-4, 8-5, 7-3, only to be content with 5-7, 8-5, 8-5 by year 3 in the worst conference in football, heading off to the SEC.  It doesn't matter what CDC or the Texas administration thinks about continuity. All that matters is what the checkwriters want; they got us into this mess by hiring Sark and they'll probably run him off soon enough.  The seat will be very hot if we go 8-5 this year.  

Anything less than 10-3, including a bowl win, with this roster is a disappointment.

I hope the administration and money sees it this way.

[Tex Long 4417]

1 hour ago, Porterhouse said:

Reactionary given PK performance over the years. 

reactionary given one game. 

Utterly idiotic. Go home Tex Long. You’re drunk. 

Perhaps. But tomorrow I shall be sober, whereas you will still be a fucking dumbass.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, lilMAC25 said:

You think an 8-5 season means everything is ok for Sark? I don’t buy that.

 

He would be under a lot of pressure at that point.

I do too. But to change a DC that has performed well the last 10 years outside of a transition year with a dearth of talent?  Unless they tank, which I don’t see, PK will be fine. If they go 8-5, Sark will end up hiring an OC, lessen his work load, and have a make or break ‘24. Saying heads will roll with PK in the crosshairs, at this point in time, is not only way premature but idiotic based on evidence to date. 

[Tex Long 4417]

Gettin

12 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

... PK in the crosshairs, at this point in time, is not only way premature but idiotic based on evidence to date. 

I can't tell whether you're trolling, or that calling you a fucking dumbass was actually too light. The original statement which has had you foaming at the mouth began with the words "Depending on performance" which I think almost every other surly reader understood to be fairly similar to "If the D looks like warmed-over dog shit again and we continue to struggle because PK and his intrepid band of would-be first-rounders are unable to get off the field on 3rd downs..." 

Were that performance to ensue this season, and be a leading factor to the 8-5 (or worse), Sark absolutely would want to dump PK, and rightly so. 

Frankly, I don't expect that to happen, but it is not in fact guaranteed so. 

[Wilcox Cummingtonite 3030]

Mike Norvell to HC, Sark to OC

[Doc Daneeka 6769]

3 minutes ago, Tex Long said:

Gettin

I can't tell whether you're trolling, or that calling you a fucking dumbass was actually too light. The original statement which has had you foaming at the mouth began with the words "Depending on performance" which I think almost every other surly reader understood to be fairly similar to "If the D looks like warmed-over dog shit again and we continue to struggle because PK and his intrepid band of would-be first-rounders are unable to get off the field on 3rd downs..." 

Were that performance to ensue this season, and be a leading factor to the 8-5 (or worse), Sark absolutely would want to dump PK, and rightly so. 

Frankly, I don't expect that to happen, but it is not in fact guaranteed so. 

Where are you getting “dog shit again” or “we continue to struggle…”?

The defense has been pretty strong, though imperfect like every other one, since year one.  Which DC whose guys have never had a bad day would you be looking to bring in?

Edited September 4, 2023 by Doc Daneeka

[Tex Long 4417]

15 minutes ago, Doc Daneeka said:

Where are you getting “dog shit again” or “we continue to struggle…”?

The defense has been pretty strong, though imperfect like every other one, since year one.  Which DC whose guys have never had a bad day would you be looking to bring in?

You're good with "pretty strong" defense, are you? That would explain some things.

[Doc Daneeka 6769]

Just now, Tex Long said:

You're good with "pretty strong" defense, are you? That would explain some things.

You didn’t answer the question. Of course. 
 

You’ve already been shown where Texas’ defense ranked last season. But, sure, curl up in a ball and moan about what might happen, but hasn’t happened to one of his experienced defenses yet. Maybe it will make you feel better. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Tex Long said:

Gettin

I can't tell whether you're trolling, or that calling you a fucking dumbass was actually too light. The original statement which has had you foaming at the mouth began with the words "Depending on performance" which I think almost every other surly reader understood to be fairly similar to "If the D looks like warmed-over dog shit again and we continue to struggle because PK and his intrepid band of would-be first-rounders are unable to get off the field on 3rd downs..." 

Were that performance to ensue this season, and be a leading factor to the 8-5 (or worse), Sark absolutely would want to dump PK, and rightly so. 

Frankly, I don't expect that to happen, but it is not in fact guaranteed so. 

You didn’t caveat any of that. I’m not foaming at the mouth. Don’t be a moron this early in the season. 

[Tex Long 4417]

2 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

You didn’t caveat any of that. 

English, mother fucker, do you speak it? Oh, wait... Latin, do you understand the difference between nouns and verbs?

[Thatguy 8775]

 What the hell going on in here?

[tonedeaf 56]

3 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

 What the hell going on in here?

Shitifino.

[Tex Long 4417]

2 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

 What the hell going on in here?

Some of your co-surlys apparently believe that the D was great last year and can only be better. That seems to coincide with the notion of all losses being caused solely by Sark and his O. Or not.

[Chuckie Finster 22712]

The Football board never ceases to amaze me with its ability to confirm what every rival fanbase says about ours.

[Thatguy 8775]

1 minute ago, tonedeaf said:

Shitifino.

@Tex Long arguing in like 2 different threads with the same dude. Lol

[Tex Long 4417]

Just now, Thatguy said:

@Tex Long arguing in like 2 different threads with the same dude. Lol

Guilty.

[Doc Daneeka 6769]

1 minute ago, Tex Long said:

Some of your co-surlys apparently believe that the D was great last year and can only be better. That seems to coincide with the notion of all losses being caused solely by Sark and his O. Or not.

You said “dog shit again” so that’s a pretty disingenuous reframing of the discussion. 

[Thatguy 8775]

Just now, Tex Long said:

Some of your co-surlys apparently believe that the D was great last year and can only be better. That seems to coincide with the notion of all losses being caused solely by Sark and his O. Or not.

  You been around long enough to know Knee-Jerk when you see it. D played well game one. O sputtered. So people gonna jump right in as if that's concrete. D could get run over next week and the O could play lights out. No one knows until the game happens.

[lilMAC25 3802]

14 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

 What the hell going on in here?

I was told there would be no math Latin.

[Tex Long 4417]

6 minutes ago, Doc Daneeka said:

You said “dog shit again” so that’s a pretty disingenuous reframing of the discussion. 

Late to the show, you are. Read the original statement, it's conditional, not absolute. 

Would you be content with owl shit instead of dog shit?

[lilMAC25 3802]

6 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

  You been around long enough to know Knee-Jerk when you see it. D played well game one. O sputtered. So people gonna jump right in as if that's concrete. D could get run over next week and the O could play lights out. No one knows until the game happens.

D played lights out against rice. If Texas goes 8-5 with similar D play, Coach K isn’t getting fired. 

[Doc Daneeka 6769]

Just now, Tex Long said:

Late to the show, you are. Read the original statement, it's conditional, not absolute. 

Would you be content with owl shit instead of dog shit?

“Again” implies a repeat which implies an absolute occurrence in the past. 

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2652]

it’s rice 

defense played great, but it was rice.

 

we shall see what happens these next few games 

[Armybrat 40861]

17 minutes ago, lilMAC25 said:

I was told there would be no math Latin.

There’s a lot of canis stercus goin’ on. 
 

edited to add: Noctua stercus has entered the chat.

Edited September 4, 2023 by Armybrat

[Tex Long 4417]

21 minutes ago, Doc Daneeka said:

“Again” implies a repeat which implies an absolute occurrence in the past. 

Sorry, you seem to be opining that the D was not dog shit last year. Three of the four season losses were on the D. Is that not dog shit, or at least owl shit? 

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Tex Long said:

English, mother fucker, do you speak it? Oh, wait... Latin, do you understand the difference between nouns and verbs?

Mea culpa. You said “depending on performance” before the Rice game. While I don’t think the Rice game is indicative of anything, I think you’re drawing up hypotheticals where you have no idea where our weaknesses in an overall 8-5 hypothetical finish will be. I suspect they won’t be on D, because the D has been relatively solid while the lesser talented of the two units.  None of us knows.

I suspect our D will struggle a bit more and our OL and Quinn will look better is Tuscaloosa. I strongly suspect reactionary posts here regardless. 

I don’t think we’re going 8-5, which implies an 8-4 season at best. I think 9-3 is the floor, and lower than that, I want change wherever needed (PK/OC) and I want Sark’s seat hot.  And frankly 9-3 would be a slight disappointment but improvement. 

[Doc Daneeka 6769]

5 minutes ago, Tex Long said:

Sorry, you seem to be opining that the D was not dog shit last year. Three of the four season losses were on the D. Is that not dog shit, or at least owl shit? 

I’m not opining it. I’m stating it as fact. 

DFEI rankings [for] Texas:

'22: 11th

No, that’s not dog shit. 

You calling TCU or Alabama a loss due to the defense?

Edited September 4, 2023 by Doc Daneeka

[Tex Long 4417]

In the season-prediction thread, I went for 12-0. I don't really expect it, but it's definitely possible... we do have a damned good supply of highly rated talent. If we don't have too many injuries, to the wrong guys, that record is attainable.

Unfortunately, the reverse is also true. Whether because of people going out or just underperforming at inopportune times or because Steve or his coordinators make stupid calls, it's definitely possible to lose 4 again. Like 12-0, I don't expect that to happen either. But it's possible... and if it does happen, our HC/OC is going to have a lot of 'splainin' to do, and "wait 'til next year" isn't going to be an acceptable response.

[runthebone 8027]

When did we change meadoker to meaty ochre?

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Tex Long said:

Sorry, you seem to be opining that the D was not dog shit last year. Three of the four season losses were on the D. Is that not dog shit, or at least owl shit? 

2, kind of. O wasn’t right with Quinn hurt in Lubbock, and Quinn going 19-49 in Stillwater.  We were also penalized heavily in the latter with OSU getting 0 penalties. I don’t put those games on PK. We don’t have the defensive talent to not get into a few Big 12 shootouts. Bama and TCU were certainly not on PK. 

Edited September 4, 2023 by Porterhouse

[lemonandaturd 4285]

8 minutes ago, Tex Long said:

Sorry, you seem to be opining that the D was not dog shit last year. Three of the four season losses were on the D. Is that not dog shit, or at least owl shit? 

Wut?  Defense was not responsible for the poor showing against TCU.  The defense scored late to keep us in the game.  The defense was not responsible for the Alabama loss.  We held them to 20 points and still lost for a host of reasons unrelated to the defensive performance.  Against Tech, Bijan's fumble on the first play in overtime was not on the defense.  The defense was not responsible for Worthy's dropsies against Washington.  

[Longhornlove 4841]

Wow, I didn't have "the defense is dogshit" on my post rice bingo card. Offensive line was on there though.

 

[Tex Long 4417]

8 minutes ago, Doc Daneeka said:

No, that’s not dog shit. 

You calling TCU or Alabama a loss due to the defense?

But is it owl shit? Bat shit? No shit at all?

Bama loss, yes, I say was on the D. We got the lead with a minute and a half to go. The D gave up 60+ yards in that time, including two plays of  20+ yards. Tech and OSU? Offense puts up 34 points, and D can't hold the oppo under that - regardless of reffing shenanigans, that's on the D.

TCU, the D did a damned fine job, and the O fell flat. O at fault.

If we wind up 8-4 again, Sark's seat will be scorching, and if the circumstances happen similarly, the demand for change will cost someone their job(s). I doubt Sark would fall on his sword, and he  doesn't have an OC to fire. It's possible that the blame would fall on ST for allowing returns, blocked or missed punts/kicks, fumbled punts/kicks... but three or four games' worth seems doubtful. 

[Doc Daneeka 6769]

Just now, Tex Long said:

Bama loss, yes, I say was on the D. 

JFC, why didn’t someone tell me I was dealing with someone with blunt head trauma. 

[Guest]

Just now, Doc Daneeka said:

JFC, why didn’t someone tell me I was dealing with someone with blunt head trauma. 

Yeah I understood his initial point, or so I thought, after rereading. But it was clear preseason he was anti-PK and at this point it’s funny watching him dig his heels in. People see what they want to see, and I have a totally different view of ‘22. 

If the point is solely, Sark will need a scapegoat if we produce similar season results then ok. I’ll disagree, and say no he’ll look for offensive help, but to go back and display revisionist history isn’t worth responding to. 

[Doc Daneeka 6769]

1 minute ago, Porterhouse said:

Yeah I understood his initial point, or so I thought, after rereading. But it was clear preseason he was anti-PK and at this point it’s funny watching him dig his heels in. People see what they want to see, and I have a totally different view of ‘22. 

If the point is solely, Sark will need a scapegoat if we produce similar season results then ok. I’ll disagree, and say no he’ll look for offensive help, but to go back and display revisionist history isn’t worth responding to. 

I get that coaches want scapegoats to save themselves. If I’m in charge and a struggling coach’s proposed solution is to can the guy with a borderline top ten defense, I’m going to suggest that that’s not an acceptable solution. 

[LTtxfan 49327]

This is badass...     #AllGas23  🤘

 

[SimkinsMan 4413]

Wisner looked like a beast on special teams.