Jump to content

2022 Transfer Thread - It's the End of the World As We Know It (And I Feel Fine)

closetojumping

By closetojumping
in 🤫$9.95🤫

 Share

Recommended Posts

Bevo

Bevo 13440

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Vito Andolini said:

We’ve had that forever. Dick Tomey and Vince Young (helped by Blalock/Studdard and others) changed that shit in 2004. I hope Patterson can inspire a Tomey-style attitude adjustment, and these talented add-ons can lead a player-revolt of pussification. The culture needs flipping. 

 

We suck because we are pussies or because we are pussies we suck?

Edited by Bevo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 15.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Mr Shrimp Unlimited
Mr Shrimp Unlimited

God fucking damnit motherfucker. I've been happily lurking on this board for years but your disgusting fucking verbal flatulence about "but but but he's winner and he hurt his thumb :(" have forced me

closetojumping
closetojumping

Texas and Oregon put the CFB world on tilt with their respective NIL efforts. Many alumni bases are reacting pragmatically and trying to build something competitive of their own that fits their specif

immamac
immamac

Color me surprised that people promising NIL as enticement have not followed through at all and those who have done everything by the book have set expectations that will be met.  It's almost lik

Posted Images

Vito Andolini

Vito Andolini 9051

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Bevo said:

 

We suck because we are pussies or because we are pussies we suck?

I see you’ve edited your post. I don’t believe everyone on the team is a pussy, far from it. it’s just a comment on the country club label. When it comes to “pussification” (I could show you some safety play from the last couple seasons that would illustrate such behavior), “entitlement” would have been a better word. That’s what I’d like to eliminate. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bevo

Bevo 13440

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Vito Andolini said:

I see you’ve edited your post. I don’t believe everyone on the team is a pussy, far from it. it’s just a comment on the country club label. When it comes to “pussification” (I could show you some safety play from the last couple seasons that would illustrate such behavior), “entitlement” would have been a better word. That’s what I’d like to eliminate. 

The bigger issue the last few years is that we have had guys who just weren't that good. We just didn't have a huge talent advantage. And we had positions that just sucked. QB last year sucked. OL was average. WR consisted of 1 player. Our DEs sucked after Jones was lost. Our linebackers were terrible. Our CBs were average and our safeties sucked.

 

Now, we have an average OL but much better QB, WR, and TE room. We may have at least 1 defensive end. And I think our secondary will actually be good. This leaves us with big concerns at OT and linebacker. That is a big step forward which you will see in play. It won't be because we started serving runny eggs. It will be because we have better talent and fewer holes. Fewer holes means fewer pussies.

 

 

Edited by Bevo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
46andtoo

46andtoo 11

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, closetojumping said:

I hope Sarklossian takes Texas to multiple college football titles and builds his own dynasty. You dipshits can gratify yourselves over telling me how wrong I was and that you’re undying support for our coaching genius was there the whole time. I’ll laugh right along with you. 

I'll prefix my question with the acknowledgement that you've proven your sourcing and it seems readily apparent that you are the holder of opinions that merit consideration. Now let me remove myself from the inner sanctuary of your anus and ask about the nature of Sark's incompetence. Knowing of your connection to the Bama folks, I'd imagine your opinion has been shaped by those discussions and Texas considerable underperformance last year. Sark's track record as a head coach suggests he's missing some key ingredients. I do think he had reasonable success at Washington, which is the meat of his head man experience. I'm looking for some clarity on the nature of his failings, beyond his addiction demons. Listening to him talk, he doesn't come across as dumb, naive, or arrogant which are the typical hallmarks of incompetence. His coaching hires within the context of Strong and Herman's hiring practices suggest football intelligence. His offensive system/play calling is in the upper tier of the college fb world. So my question divorced of my editorializing is can you offer some insight into the nature of Sark's incompetence as a Head coach? Do you view him as incompetent even as an OC?

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertigo

Vertigo 20208

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, WinningIsHard said:

For all your bluster I will admit that you take most shit talking in stride. I hadn’t watched Groundhog Day in a loooong time, but when I saw that scene it made me think of your predictions for us with Sark which made me laugh harder than normal. All of the personalities around here make this place unique, and that includes some of my more moronic takes over the years. Lol 

I don't think this will officially be the turning point until we see a "Steve Sarklossian gargles my balls" thread. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hornlover

Hornlover 8824

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, JesusSweatDuck said:

Hell yeah.  Most of them didn't do anything that crazy.  Hell they wouldn't even be arrested for the pot charges that seemed to add up.

Are the recruits aware of Prop A ballot initiative in May? 

Quote

A "yes" vote supports amending the city's code to add a new section to prohibit Austin police from issuing any citations or making any arrests for misdemeanor marijuana possession offenses and to prohibit the use of no-knock warrants.

https://ballotpedia.org/Austin,_Texas,_Proposition_A,_Marijuana_Decriminalization_and_Prohibit_No-Knock_Warrants_Initiative_(May_2022)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
closetojumping

closetojumping 62010

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 hours ago, WinningIsHard said:

For all your bluster I will admit that you take most shit talking in stride. I hadn’t watched Groundhog Day in a loooong time, but when I saw that scene it made me think of your predictions for us with Sark which made me laugh harder than normal. All of the personalities around here make this place unique, and that includes some of my more moronic takes over the years. Lol 

Listen, I revel in the shit talking when there isn't a darker undercurrent to a poster's behavior, be that they seem legitimately crazy or are a doxxing asshat or legitimately stupid.

I still haven't figured out whether I get more entertainment from being absurdly wrong on something and watching people climb over each other to tell me what kind of imbecile or fuckup I am, or if it is more glorious when I get to tell a bunch of you dickwads how much of a soothsayer I was as each of you on the other side of the subject lose your shit. Probably the former though. Gloating has a short shelf-life before I start irritating friends, enemies, and myself.

3 hours ago, HenryJames said:

@closetojumping is currently working on a ‘Why we stomp a mud hole in Alabama’s ass’ post.

You dickhead. Yes, though, I am going to write one before that game. If the "Why Alabama Gargles Balls This Year" post from Shaggy can be found, I'll link to that at the end of it.

2 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Do y’all want football players or scholars?

Watching Tom Herman's antics, and our recruitment of Urban Meyer, taught me exactly where my line is that I do not want to see crossed. It turns out, I want wins all the way up to but falling just short of Barry Switzer/Jimbo Fisher behaviors with bags and player latitude. Briles, Sandusky/Paterno, Schembechler are miles past that, but yeah, give me football players who can win titles and at least vaguely attempt the notion of school. No rape factories, drug dealing in dorms, widespread player molesting, or child rape cover-ups, please.

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
closetojumping

closetojumping 62010

Posted
  • Author
  • Popular Post
Posted
1 hour ago, 46andtoo said:

I'll prefix my question with the acknowledgement that you've proven your sourcing and it seems readily apparent that you are the holder of opinions that merit consideration. Now let me remove myself from the inner sanctuary of your anus and ask about the nature of Sark's incompetence. Knowing of your connection to the Bama folks, I'd imagine your opinion has been shaped by those discussions and Texas considerable underperformance last year. Sark's track record as a head coach suggests he's missing some key ingredients. I do think he had reasonable success at Washington, which is the meat of his head man experience. I'm looking for some clarity on the nature of his failings, beyond his addiction demons. Listening to him talk, he doesn't come across as dumb, naive, or arrogant which are the typical hallmarks of incompetence. His coaching hires within the context of Strong and Herman's hiring practices suggest football intelligence. His offensive system/play calling is in the upper tier of the college fb world. So my question divorced of my editorializing is can you offer some insight into the nature of Sark's incompetence as a Head coach? Do you view him as incompetent even as an OC?

There's a lot to unpack there. I'm spoilering my response to spare the rest of the board the bloviation:

Spoiler

As it pertains to Bama people and their views on Sarkisian at Texas plus his time with them, they were mostly positive about him. I can tell you that when I first heard that Sarkisian might be legitimately a target, I called one of them during the holidays and they were outright dismissive of the premise for the same reasons I was. Turns out we were all wrong and they were around the guy every day. In another vein, Applewhite told people right up until the day before the announcement that there was no fucking way as well, and he's buddies with Sarkisian and knows the Texas machine well. 

In any event, they all said Seven Loss Steve was terrific as a planner and playcaller and a great guy. They felt like he could recruit and he could evaluate. They also did not think he was HC material for numerous reasons, some of which are obvious and best not discussed here. The other biggest issue is that they didn't view him as a killer. 

People around the sport love Sarkisian. He's buddies with a bunch of the analysts and they all speak the same language. If Sarklossian doesn't get it done at Texas, you can 100% guarantee that he will not be blamed by anyone in the media. The narrative will continue that Texas is a broken program and our admins and boosters are evil Machiavellian types warring with Sarkisian and each other and short-tempered with no vision or patience. The only thing that could stop that would be the equivalent of the guy being visibly drunk during a game like he was at USC.

Speak to people that cover the sport in different ways though, and they'll tell you that he's soft and he's not a closer. Again, "not a killer". 

But what do I think are his problems?

I definitely think he's softer than the archetypical winning Head Ball Coach. I think he adjusts for shit in games. He's got too favorable of a view of west coast talent. He's weak with his coaching and analyst personnel when it comes to cutting dead weight.

He has no track record of success other than when coaching under football legends. He turned around UW quickly, but that was a testament to competence, not excellence. He never looked like he was going to take UW to the national title-competitive level, which coaches were able to do before and after him at UW. He failed spectacularly at USC. He did jack shit at Atlanta and was summarily fired after a 2 year stint in which the offense got worse from the offense he inherited and then worse again in his second year. He went 5-7 here last year and lost to fucking Kansas at home. 

So I don't blame anyone for being hopeful for the guy, or liking him. I disagree with anyone who claims that the guy is some sort of proven success or that he currently merits any benefit of the doubt as the HC at Texas. I also vehemently disagree with anyone who wants to defend the hire in the first place and have told someone near the guy and CDC that and then mocked him for attempting to matter-of-factly state that "we all know he was the best choice at the time". Uh, no, "we all" didn't. I thought he was a terrible reach of a rebound hire after the UM spurning, said as much on this site and elsewhere, and have seen nothing to indicate a need to change that thinking so far. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 16
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertigo

Vertigo 20208

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

There's a lot to unpack there. I'm spoilering my response to spare the rest of the board the bloviation:

  Reveal hidden contents

As it pertains to Bama people and their views on Sarkisian at Texas plus his time with them, they were mostly positive about him. I can tell you that when I first heard that Sarkisian might be legitimately a target, I called one of them during the holidays and they were outright dismissive of the premise for the same reasons I was. Turns out we were all wrong and they were around the guy every day. In another vein, Applewhite told people right up until the day before the announcement that there was no fucking way as well, and he's buddies with Sarkisian and knows the Texas machine well. 

In any event, they all said Seven Loss Steve was terrific as a planner and playcaller and a great guy. They felt like he could recruit and he could evaluate. They also did not think he was HC material for numerous reasons, some of which are obvious and best not discussed here. The other biggest issue is that they didn't view him as a killer. 

People around the sport love Sarkisian. He's buddies with a bunch of the analysts and they all speak the same language. If Sarklossian doesn't get it done at Texas, you can 100% guarantee that he will not be blamed by anyone in the media. The narrative will continue that Texas is a broken program and our admins and boosters are evil Machiavellian types warring with Sarkisian and each other and short-tempered with no vision or patience. The only thing that could stop that would be the equivalent of the guy being visibly drunk during a game like he was at USC.

Speak to people that cover the sport in different ways though, and they'll tell you that he's soft and he's not a closer. Again, "not a killer". 

But what do I think are his problems?

I definitely think he's softer than the archetypical winning Head Ball Coach. I think he adjusts for shit in games. He's got too favorable of a view of west coast talent. He's weak with his coaching and analyst personnel when it comes to cutting dead weight.

He has no track record of success other than when coaching under football legends. He turned around UW quickly, but that was a testament to competence, not excellence. He never looked like he was going to take UW to the national title-competitive level, which coaches were able to do before and after him at UW. He failed spectacularly at USC. He did jack shit at Atlanta and was summarily fired after a 2 year stint in which the offense got worse from the offense he inherited and then worse again in his second year. He went 5-7 here last year and lost to fucking Kansas at home. 

So I don't blame anyone for being hopeful for the guy, or liking him. I disagree with anyone who claims that the guy is some sort of proven success or that he currently merits any benefit of the doubt as the HC at Texas. I also vehemently disagree with anyone who wants to defend the hire in the first place and have told someone near the guy and CDC that and then mocked him for attempting to matter-of-factly state that "we all know he was the best choice at the time". Uh, no, "we all" didn't. I thought he was a terrible reach of a rebound hire after the UM spurning, said as much on this site and elsewhere, and have seen nothing to indicate a need to change that thinking so far. 

 

Sarkisian did seem to figure out that he needs to be more aggressive (on the recruiting side) after getting banged like a drum by Jimbo and his bags for the first half of the cycle last year. We saw some stronger closing down the stretch for the guys not dropping into our laps from the coaching changes. He seems to be really engaged on that side this cycle as well, and much like Bama, Georgia, and the rest, I don't see him getting surprised by Jimbo again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
46andtoo

46andtoo 11

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

There's a lot to unpack there. I'm spoilering my response to spare the rest of the board the bloviation:

  Reveal hidden contents

As it pertains to Bama people and their views on Sarkisian at Texas plus his time with them, they were mostly positive about him. I can tell you that when I first heard that Sarkisian might be legitimately a target, I called one of them during the holidays and they were outright dismissive of the premise for the same reasons I was. Turns out we were all wrong and they were around the guy every day. In another vein, Applewhite told people right up until the day before the announcement that there was no fucking way as well, and he's buddies with Sarkisian and knows the Texas machine well. 

In any event, they all said Seven Loss Steve was terrific as a planner and playcaller and a great guy. They felt like he could recruit and he could evaluate. They also did not think he was HC material for numerous reasons, some of which are obvious and best not discussed here. The other biggest issue is that they didn't view him as a killer. 

People around the sport love Sarkisian. He's buddies with a bunch of the analysts and they all speak the same language. If Sarklossian doesn't get it done at Texas, you can 100% guarantee that he will not be blamed by anyone in the media. The narrative will continue that Texas is a broken program and our admins and boosters are evil Machiavellian types warring with Sarkisian and each other and short-tempered with no vision or patience. The only thing that could stop that would be the equivalent of the guy being visibly drunk during a game like he was at USC.

Speak to people that cover the sport in different ways though, and they'll tell you that he's soft and he's not a closer. Again, "not a killer". 

But what do I think are his problems?

I definitely think he's softer than the archetypical winning Head Ball Coach. I think he adjusts for shit in games. He's got too favorable of a view of west coast talent. He's weak with his coaching and analyst personnel when it comes to cutting dead weight.

He has no track record of success other than when coaching under football legends. He turned around UW quickly, but that was a testament to competence, not excellence. He never looked like he was going to take UW to the national title-competitive level, which coaches were able to do before and after him at UW. He failed spectacularly at USC. He did jack shit at Atlanta and was summarily fired after a 2 year stint in which the offense got worse from the offense he inherited and then worse again in his second year. He went 5-7 here last year and lost to fucking Kansas at home. 

So I don't blame anyone for being hopeful for the guy, or liking him. I disagree with anyone who claims that the guy is some sort of proven success or that he currently merits any benefit of the doubt as the HC at Texas. I also vehemently disagree with anyone who wants to defend the hire in the first place and have told someone near the guy and CDC that and then mocked him for attempting to matter-of-factly state that "we all know he was the best choice at the time". Uh, no, "we all" didn't. I thought he was a terrible reach of a rebound hire after the UM spurning, said as much on this site and elsewhere, and have seen nothing to indicate a need to change that thinking so far. 

 

Appreciate that thorough response. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Codaxx

Codaxx 5458

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

There's a lot to unpack there. I'm spoilering my response to spare the rest of the board the bloviation:

  Reveal hidden contents

As it pertains to Bama people and their views on Sarkisian at Texas plus his time with them, they were mostly positive about him. I can tell you that when I first heard that Sarkisian might be legitimately a target, I called one of them during the holidays and they were outright dismissive of the premise for the same reasons I was. Turns out we were all wrong and they were around the guy every day. In another vein, Applewhite told people right up until the day before the announcement that there was no fucking way as well, and he's buddies with Sarkisian and knows the Texas machine well. 

In any event, they all said Seven Loss Steve was terrific as a planner and playcaller and a great guy. They felt like he could recruit and he could evaluate. They also did not think he was HC material for numerous reasons, some of which are obvious and best not discussed here. The other biggest issue is that they didn't view him as a killer. 

People around the sport love Sarkisian. He's buddies with a bunch of the analysts and they all speak the same language. If Sarklossian doesn't get it done at Texas, you can 100% guarantee that he will not be blamed by anyone in the media. The narrative will continue that Texas is a broken program and our admins and boosters are evil Machiavellian types warring with Sarkisian and each other and short-tempered with no vision or patience. The only thing that could stop that would be the equivalent of the guy being visibly drunk during a game like he was at USC.

Speak to people that cover the sport in different ways though, and they'll tell you that he's soft and he's not a closer. Again, "not a killer". 

But what do I think are his problems?

I definitely think he's softer than the archetypical winning Head Ball Coach. I think he adjusts for shit in games. He's got too favorable of a view of west coast talent. He's weak with his coaching and analyst personnel when it comes to cutting dead weight.

He has no track record of success other than when coaching under football legends. He turned around UW quickly, but that was a testament to competence, not excellence. He never looked like he was going to take UW to the national title-competitive level, which coaches were able to do before and after him at UW. He failed spectacularly at USC. He did jack shit at Atlanta and was summarily fired after a 2 year stint in which the offense got worse from the offense he inherited and then worse again in his second year. He went 5-7 here last year and lost to fucking Kansas at home. 

So I don't blame anyone for being hopeful for the guy, or liking him. I disagree with anyone who claims that the guy is some sort of proven success or that he currently merits any benefit of the doubt as the HC at Texas. I also vehemently disagree with anyone who wants to defend the hire in the first place and have told someone near the guy and CDC that and then mocked him for attempting to matter-of-factly state that "we all know he was the best choice at the time". Uh, no, "we all" didn't. I thought he was a terrible reach of a rebound hire after the UM spurning, said as much on this site and elsewhere, and have seen nothing to indicate a need to change that thinking so far. 

 

the "not a killer" one hurts, because it is something I have thought about. That goes for the staff as a whole also. Lots of players coaches, no real assholes

Edited by Codaxx
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DanTheHorn

DanTheHorn 4873

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Do y’all want football players or scholars?

Well we don't need scholars but we do need folks that can learn the playbook. A high school coach friend of mine always has said that on defense the further they play away from the line the smarter they have to be. All we ever hear around here is that they have to simplify the playbook for our players. Some of these transfers did not see the field because as their prior coach said they were having a real hard time learning the playbook.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
closetojumping

closetojumping 62010

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 minutes ago, LTtxfan said:

Solid info in your spoiler CTJ

Still hope that SARK (like Mack) somehow lucks into a National Championship at Texas   😋 

I've heard other folks compare Sarkisian to Mack as well. I don't share that point of view. Mack Brown was a killer. He still is on the recruiting trail. He had the nice guy veneer, but he was an insecure, angry, driven man until he won the title, then he was an angry, entitled, insecure, non-driven man after it. He went after perceived slights and opponents off the field with a vengeance. He wanted to win in ways that caused him to become physically ill when it didn't happen. His lack of success against OU was not a by-product of not being "a killer" and was more tied directly to not understanding what was necessary to get the kill in the first place. 

But sure, I'll take as many titles as Seven Loss Steve wants to give us at Texas.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Duane Moore

Duane Moore 5236

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

There's a lot to unpack there. I'm spoilering my response to spare the rest of the board the bloviation:

  Reveal hidden contents

As it pertains to Bama people and their views on Sarkisian at Texas plus his time with them, they were mostly positive about him. I can tell you that when I first heard that Sarkisian might be legitimately a target, I called one of them during the holidays and they were outright dismissive of the premise for the same reasons I was. Turns out we were all wrong and they were around the guy every day. In another vein, Applewhite told people right up until the day before the announcement that there was no fucking way as well, and he's buddies with Sarkisian and knows the Texas machine well. 

In any event, they all said Seven Loss Steve was terrific as a planner and playcaller and a great guy. They felt like he could recruit and he could evaluate. They also did not think he was HC material for numerous reasons, some of which are obvious and best not discussed here. The other biggest issue is that they didn't view him as a killer. 

People around the sport love Sarkisian. He's buddies with a bunch of the analysts and they all speak the same language. If Sarklossian doesn't get it done at Texas, you can 100% guarantee that he will not be blamed by anyone in the media. The narrative will continue that Texas is a broken program and our admins and boosters are evil Machiavellian types warring with Sarkisian and each other and short-tempered with no vision or patience. The only thing that could stop that would be the equivalent of the guy being visibly drunk during a game like he was at USC.

Speak to people that cover the sport in different ways though, and they'll tell you that he's soft and he's not a closer. Again, "not a killer". 

But what do I think are his problems?

I definitely think he's softer than the archetypical winning Head Ball Coach. I think he adjusts for shit in games. He's got too favorable of a view of west coast talent. He's weak with his coaching and analyst personnel when it comes to cutting dead weight.

He has no track record of success other than when coaching under football legends. He turned around UW quickly, but that was a testament to competence, not excellence. He never looked like he was going to take UW to the national title-competitive level, which coaches were able to do before and after him at UW. He failed spectacularly at USC. He did jack shit at Atlanta and was summarily fired after a 2 year stint in which the offense got worse from the offense he inherited and then worse again in his second year. He went 5-7 here last year and lost to fucking Kansas at home. 

So I don't blame anyone for being hopeful for the guy, or liking him. I disagree with anyone who claims that the guy is some sort of proven success or that he currently merits any benefit of the doubt as the HC at Texas. I also vehemently disagree with anyone who wants to defend the hire in the first place and have told someone near the guy and CDC that and then mocked him for attempting to matter-of-factly state that "we all know he was the best choice at the time". Uh, no, "we all" didn't. I thought he was a terrible reach of a rebound hire after the UM spurning, said as much on this site and elsewhere, and have seen nothing to indicate a need to change that thinking so far. 

 

That’s a pretty fair assessment of Sark, and there does seem to be a high correlation of “killers” a/k/a “assholes” to successful football coaches. I’ll just keep clinging to Tony Dungy winning a Super Bowl as my reason for hope. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DanTheHorn

DanTheHorn 4873

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

I've heard other folks compare Sarkisian to Mack as well. I don't share that point of view. Mack Brown was a killer. He still is on the recruiting trail. He had the nice guy veneer, but he was an insecure, angry, driven man until he won the title, then he was an angry, entitled, insecure, non-driven man after it. He went after perceived slights and opponents off the field with a vengeance. He wanted to win in ways that caused him to become physically ill when it didn't happen. His lack of success against OU was not a by-product of not being "a killer" and was more tied directly to not understanding what was necessary to get the kill in the first place. 

But sure, I'll take as many titles as Seven Loss Steve wants to give us at Texas.

Just to add to the differences in my view between Mack and Sark is that Sark is indecisive and Mack was decisive. Sark knows what is wrong and he knows that doing the same thing is not going to fix the issue but he continues to do the same thing. Mack on the other hand was a slow learner and it took him way to much time to figure out what was wrong but once he figured it out he was decisive in what he would do to fix it and implemented it effectively. 

Examples: Standford loss next practice "Not our standard" is born. Defense cost me getting over the hump fire the guy and hire guys because they are good even if I do not know them. Let Vince be Vince. Made fun of for having bad special teams at NC and first year here turn it into best special teams in the country. etc.., etc..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
victory88

victory88 5641

Posted
Posted

Gary Patterson isn't here because Sark wanted him or because PK may suck and Gary will become DC.  Patterson is here because CDC thinks Sarks probably needs help in quite a few areas of evaluating the defense and he's most likely hedging having Sark's replacement ready if he shows up drunk or we have another 5-7 loss season.  This is great for Patterson because he can stay involved in football and slide in and take over if thing go south.   With that said, I'm not sure replacing Sark with another HC that didn't make a bowl game 2 years in a row is really a solution either.  My 2 cents on some of the Patterson posts.

As for Sark, the dude can put together an offense and call plays.  We need to use him to his strengths and keep him off the bottle if he's still partaking.  Then you ask Patterson to make suggestions to PK and/or bring in another DC that can handle that side.  At this point, we need to try to put together a similar setup as Riley at ou where he had Grinch handle all aspects of the defense and Riley mainly calling plays.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bevo14

Bevo14 8196

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

not really on the staff, he has a limited role. Feel like Sark could use 1-2 dicks on his staff

Not sure why you want Sark to become a triceradick. Anyway, is his role that limited outside of off campus recruiting? The various reports make it sound like he's heavily involved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Beast

The Beast 583

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, closetojumping said:

I hope Sarklossian takes Texas to multiple college football titles and builds his own dynasty. You dipshits can gratify yourselves over telling me how wrong I was and that you’re undying support for our coaching genius was there the whole time. I’ll laugh right along with you. 

Lady Gaga Ok GIF by House of Gucci

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sabalo

Sabalo 992

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

I've heard other folks compare Sarkisian to Mack as well. I don't share that point of view. Mack Brown was a killer. He still is on the recruiting trail. He had the nice guy veneer, but he was an insecure, angry, driven man until he won the title, then he was an angry, entitled, insecure, non-driven man after it. He went after perceived slights and opponents off the field with a vengeance. He wanted to win in ways that caused him to become physically ill when it didn't happen. His lack of success against OU was not a by-product of not being "a killer" and was more tied directly to not understanding what was necessary to get the kill in the first place. 

But sure, I'll take as many titles as Seven Loss Steve wants to give us at Texas.

Hopefully the ass kicking Arkansas gave us last year will instill a little killer instinct in Sarkisian. I don't think he prepared the team for the level of hate Arkansas has for UT. Tried to treat it like just another game. That might work at Alabama where you out talent everyone, but I felt like our players were ambushed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Codaxx

Codaxx 5458

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Bevo14 said:

Not sure why you want Sark to become a triceradick. Anyway, is his role that limited outside of off campus recruiting? The various reports make it sound like he's heavily involved. 

No idea how involved Gary is. He is allowed to be on the field, so I dont know how much influence he can wield there. I just think back to Strong. Clint Hurt was rumored to be the cop on Strong's staff. He kept players in line and buttoned up. I cant prove it, but I think losing that dynamic exposed Strong. I just think Sark could benefit from having a guy like that on the staff. All of them seem to be players coaches. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fud

Fud 9522

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, closetojumping said:

He did jack shit at Atlanta and was summarily fired after a 2 year stint in which the offense got worse from the offense he inherited and then worse again in his second year. He went 5-7 here last year and lost to fucking Kansas at home. 

The bolded part isn't true based on yards per play, although perhaps you're using a different statistic 

2014 (Koetter): 8th

2015 (Shanahan): 11th

2016 (Shanahan): 1st

2017 (Sarkisian): 5th

2018 (Sarkisian): 5th

2019 (Koetter): 15th

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FreeHorn

FreeHorn 1307

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

No idea how involved Gary is. He is allowed to be on the field, so I dont know how much influence he can wield there. I just think back to Strong. Clint Hurt was rumored to be the cop on Strong's staff. He kept players in line and buttoned up. I cant prove it, but I think losing that dynamic exposed Strong. I just think Sark could benefit from having a guy like that on the staff. All of them seem to be players coaches. 

I’m friends with a player and an admin from the Louisville teams Strong had. They visited Texas a few times while Strong was in austin. They both said things were night and day different with out Hurts around and felt like that was the biggest reason Charlie didn’t work out at Texas. I don’t believe that to be the case but it does go back to the value of having a few coaches on the staff that will kick ass if you have a soft head coach. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Enchubben

Enchubben 5495

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

Just to add to the differences in my view between Mack and Sark is that Sark is indecisive and Mack was decisive. Sark knows what is wrong and he knows that doing the same thing is not going to fix the issue but he continues to do the same thing. Mack on the other hand was a slow learner and it took him way to much time to figure out what was wrong but once he figured it out he was decisive in what he would do to fix it and implemented it effectively. 

Examples: Standford loss next practice "Not our standard" is born. Defense cost me getting over the hump fire the guy and hire guys because they are good even if I do not know them. Let Vince be Vince. Made fun of for having bad special teams at NC and first year here turn it into best special teams in the country. etc.., etc..

If only Mack hadnt been so decisive about turning an elite spread Texas offense into some sort of bullshit halfbreed I formation 90's Alabama offense we might be on a different trajectory.  I also don't necessarily agree that Sark hasn't done anything different to fix known issues. His 22 recruiting class and transfer additions this year seem to close many but not all of the current and future roster holes. If the defense blows yet again this year and PK comes back for the following season, then I think you might be on to something. 

Maybe the killer attitude can be developed from a sense of confidence if we have a great season or two.  I'm going to hope for that in one hand and shit in the other and throw whichever one fills up first at my aggy neighbors front door.  I just hope he doesnt run me over in his car for it.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Levi

Levi 2566

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, Fud said:

The bolded part isn't true based on yards per play, although perhaps you're using a different statistic 

2014 (Koetter): 8th

2015 (Shanahan): 11th

2016 (Shanahan): 1st

2017 (Sarkisian): 5th

2018 (Sarkisian): 5th

2019 (Koetter): 15th

Sark couldn’t replicate what Shanahan did but the firing seemed more like Quinn trying to save an already sinking ship from his own doing. I could be wrong tho, I don’t keep up with nfl that much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
burdine

burdine 522

Posted
Posted

I'm happy to root for Sark and the team to succeed.  I don't think Sark was a slam dunk hire and I don't think he is an automatic disaster either.  

He knows offense and is a good playcaller.  If he can keep recruiting up and get the defense fixed then he may succeed.

I don't think success or failure is written in stone yet, though I do think more coaching hires fail than succeed.

In the era of the portal, hard ass coaches might not even work well anymore.  Who knows?  Things change.

Also, I don't recall a lot of unanimity that there were obvious better choices available.  In hindsight, Brian Kelly looks gettable and a more proven hire.

Personally, I just enjoy rooting for the team and the coach to succeed until they have proven they can't.  I know some are already there and they may be right.

I remember being all in on Gary Barnett back in the day.  Since then, I recognize it's really difficult to know how a coaching situation will play out.

Also, FWIW I think the two new coachees seem like steps in the right direction.  It would have been better to get the first staff right though.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...