This is who Steve Sarkisian is.

[TwiceHorn 31495]

11 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

I went to my first AA meeting 11.5 years ago and got sober for good 9.5 years ago.  So I feel qualified to say that there isn't one textbook definition of an alcoholic or pattern of behavior that makes someone identifiable as an alcoholic to others.  And it's not a binary thing; there are degrees involved.  I was an alcoholic at 21 and still at 35, but they were very different stages.

Also, people don't generally come to AA meetings out of curiosity.  It's ridiculously hard to go into that room for the first time.  People tend to come because either a) someone made them (a judge or a spouse), or b) they know they're going to die an alcoholic's death and they're so desperate that they'll even go to an AA meeting.

And the people who keep coming back are almost never the ones who came in because someone told them to.

Take that for what it's worth.  I don't know how far down the slippery slope Sark was.  I just hope he continues to take good care of himself now.

 

I don't know if I would have sacked up and gone to AA without some pretty strong encouragement.  But I had enough self-doubt that I was open to it.  God knows I tried the easier paths.

I'm pretty sure I was an alcoholic from birth, before I ever took a drink, but yeah there are stages to it, or degrees to which it affects your life.  And, although I doubt that one who is not predisposed can drink themselves into alcoholism, the amount of drinking that one does, and the consequences one suffers (the stages) , before attaining sobriety if at all vary pretty wildly.  It seems like children of alcoholics, who have seen what it can do, often see the signs early and get sober early.  But, again, that varies wildly.

Edited October 14, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[CTC2 2797]

25 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Those (drinking inappropriately and being unable to stop) are pretty closely correlated.  If you can't stop drinking long enough to sober up for something important, or because you have fatty liver or some other life-threatening ailment, or your wife wants to leave you, or to avoid your probation being revoked, you probably have a pretty tough time stopping at all.

But yeah, there are a shit-ton of true alcoholics that haven't yet attempted to stop and found it difficult to impossible without serious help.  Some never do and drink themselves right into an early grave.  But if you're questioning your drinking, one real good way to find out is to try to stop or moderate and see if you can for more than a few days or weeks.  Lots of people on this forum stop drinking or cut it way down successfully.  Some others failed miserably and talk about it on a particular thread.

And others just started using weed.

[totallynotabuttpirate 5400]

4 hours ago, Herpa Derpa said:

People that have low stress/low profile jobs and drink beer like water on the weekend are alcoholics.....

[TwiceHorn 31495]

11 minutes ago, CTC2 said:

And others just started using weed.

There is that, yes.  

I looked back at the news reports, and it appears that his drinking was spiraling out of control back at UW, with players and staff suspecting he was drunk at inappropriate times, e.g. practice..  Shortly after USC put him on a leave of absence, it appears that his family staged an intervention with a pro that set him up at rehab some place.  This from his lawsuit, https://documents.latimes.com/sarkisians-complaint-damages/.

So, yeah, it appears to me that he was a bit more than just a "problem drinker."

[lilMAC25 3794]

3 hours ago, Thatguy said:

Well if you know that what do you think you need to see? 

Not losing to teams like Tech. That shit was inexcusable.

[lilMAC25 3794]

3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Sark took over an 0-12 UDub team and led them to 4 winning seasons in 5 years (34-29 net).  He was 12-6 at USC when he got fired for being an alcoholic, or drunk, or both, whatever you want to call it.

I don't think the jury has decided whether or not he's hit his ceiling as a head coach in college.  It's not like he's been an abject failure, and there have been some pretty significant extenuating circumstances, including jumping on board at UT where what should have been a stellar junior class (RS soph?  can't remember) was essentially AWOL via injury, attrition, and transfer.

He isn’t called “Seven Win Steve” because he’s known for winning 9 games a year.

 

He seems like a great dude, a top notch OC, and a stud recruiter, but he has to win games (and a lot of them) or none of that shit matters.

You can’t lose to a Tech team that was running out their backup QB or to a Kansas (3rd string QB?).

Edited October 14, 2022 by lilMAC25

[tbone_ 14128]

Shouldn’t he be called Seven Loss Steve?

That’s said, I get the history. But for some reason I just have a feeling this guy is on a path to redemption and has a higher ceiling that what his history indicates.

Impressive analysis I know. Y’all are welcome.

[Your Mom 4806]

God grant me the serenity to accept the thread drift I cannot change… 

[jimmyjazz 45971]

9 hours ago, lilMAC25 said:

He isn’t called “Seven Win Steve” because he’s known for winning 9 games a year.

I get it.  He's won 9, 8, 7, 7, 7, 5, 5 games in the full seasons of his career.  He should top 7 wins this year, and winning out isn't beyond the pale (10-4).  The latter would shock me, we just have too many problems, including depth, on defense and the o-line.  Ironically, if he gets there, then he might have 2 or even 3 more opportunities to win games.

And, this team could be a fraud.  We'll find out soon enough.  

[lilMAC25 3794]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I get it.  He's won 9, 8, 7, 7, 7, 5, 5 games in the full seasons of his career.  He should top 7 wins this year, and winning out isn't beyond the pale (10-4).  The latter would shock me, we just have too many problems, including depth, on defense and the o-line.  Ironically, if he gets there, then he might have 2 or even 3 more opportunities to win games.

And, this team could be a fraud.  We'll find out soon enough.  

Winning out would be an 11 win season (counting bowl game. IMHO we won’t be in the CFP even if we do win out), no? And again, I’m rooting FOR that.

 

shoot, I’ll be at DKR this weekend for the first time in several years (The BYU disaster was my last game, I think), screaming my throat out. Can’t wait to see Bijan, Quinn, and Co laying some beat down. Hoping the D can continue with their top level play.

 

but you’re correct, this COULD be a fraud of a team.

Edited October 14, 2022 by lilMAC25

[jimmyjazz 45971]

23 minutes ago, lilMAC25 said:

Winning out would be an 11 win season (counting bowl game. IMHO we won’t be in the CFP even if we do win out), no?

I haven't looked at it very closely.  Winning out, however improbable, "should" get us in the conference title game, and of course a bowl game.  Whether it could get us in the playoff is hard to say, but I did hear a national pundit -- maybe Davis?  Klatt? can't remember -- suggesting that Texas could get that nod as a 2-loss team.  Basically, one great loss, one bad loss w/o the starting QB, both close, and then momentum.

It's way too early for any of this, I'm not expecting to run the table over the rest of the conference schedule.  There are plenty of teams in front of us that can beat us, and I'm sure one or more will.

 

EDIT:  now that I look at it, winning out should guarantee a berth in the Big XII title game.  We would be 8-1 with a loss to Texas Tech, and they already have 2 conference losses.  There would be no undefeated teams, and we'd own the tiebreaker over every 1-loss team.  Unless I'm high.  But I'm not.

Edited October 14, 2022 by jimmyjazz

[mwaadeeb 1221]

31 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I haven't looked at it very closely.  Winning out, however improbable, "should" get us in the conference title game, and of course a bowl game.  Whether it could get us in the playoff is hard to say, but I did hear a national pundit -- maybe Davis?  Klatt? can't remember -- suggesting that Texas could get that nod as a 2-loss team.  Basically, one great loss, one bad loss w/o the starting QB, both close, and then momentum.

 

Bad loss: early season, backup QB on road, freak fumble in OT.

Edited October 14, 2022 by mwaadeeb
double shot

[burdine 522]

Agree this team could be a fraud and Sark might not be the guy.  But IMO there is not enough out there to know definitely.

And  I can see bright spots - defensive improvement, actual player development, Manning approval, very good offense - that make me okay with being patient and waiting on more evidence.

Given all that, I find it a lot more enjoyable to root for the team and the coaching staff with a glass half full approach during the season.

The end of a season is a good time to reflect on "is he the guy" or "can he become the guy".

If I approached every game as an "accountability game" for the staff I would be miserable.

There is too much emotional up and down in season for me.

As to the Tech loss, Mack Brown had a ton of those bad losses (NC State 99, Stanford 00, WSU bowl game, Tech 98 + 02) yet he was elevating the program and putting us on our best footing in decades.

I'm not reading much into the Tech loss or the OU win either.  I think OSU, TCU and KSU will tell us how good this team is.  With ISU, we will have probably played the 4 weakest Big 12 teams this year.  The back half of the season should tell us a lot.

Edited October 14, 2022 by burdine

[Gil Bang 25970]

Twice, it was widely reported out here that Sark had installed a beer fridge in the football offices, and the entire staff would drink after practices. 

[burdine 522]

As somebody who had a very close family member struggle with addiction and seeing how it just plain wrecked their life for a time, I have no trouble thinking recovery could lead a person to achieve very different results.

 

I'm also beginning to think we are about to have our best NFL draft day in a loooonnnnng time.  Several players have really elevated their game and look very draftable to me.  Just one more bright spot and wonderful for recruiting.

[lilMAC25 3794]

1 hour ago, burdine said:

Agree this team could be a fraud and Sark might not be the guy.  But IMO there is not enough out there to know definitely.

And  I can see bright spots - defensive improvement, actual player development, Manning approval, very good offense - that make me okay with being patient and waiting on more evidence.

Given all that, I find it a lot more enjoyable to root for the team and the coaching staff with a glass half full approach during the season.

The end of a season is a good time to reflect on "is he the guy" or "can he become the guy".

If I approached every game as an "accountability game" for the staff I would be miserable.

There is too much emotional up and down in season for me.

As to the Tech loss, Mack Brown had a ton of those bad losses (NC State 99, Stanford 00, WSU bowl game, Tech 98 + 02) yet he was elevating the program and putting us on our best footing in decades.

I'm not reading much into the Tech loss or the OU win either.  I think OSU, TCU and KSU will tell us how good this team is.  With ISU, we will have probably played the 4 weakest Big 12 teams this year.  The back half of the season should tell us a lot.

Consider when the OP was posted Oct 9, 2021. We had just shit the bed against OU, (beginning our 6 game slide) and the prediction proved to be accurate as far as last year went.

[burdine 522]

10 minutes ago, lilMAC25 said:

Consider when the OP was posted Oct 9, 2021. We had just shit the bed against OU, (beginning our 6 game slide) and the prediction proved to be accurate as far as last year went.

Hell it may end up being completely accurate.  Who knows at this point!

My ability to pick out who is going to be a great coach in year 1 went out the window with Gary Barnett back in the day.  

Find a way to enjoy the ride if you can.  There are good moments even in tough seasons.

[USC_TMB 405]

16 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

There is that, yes.  

I looked back at the news reports, and it appears that his drinking was spiraling out of control back at UW, with players and staff suspecting he was drunk at inappropriate times, e.g. practice..  Shortly after USC put him on a leave of absence, it appears that his family staged an intervention with a pro that set him up at rehab some place.  This from his lawsuit, https://documents.latimes.com/sarkisians-complaint-damages/.

So, yeah, it appears to me that he was a bit more than just a "problem drinker."

Google “Steve Sarkisian bar tab”, there are links to an LA Times articles on his exploits. Dude liked his Patron. Hopefully he has addressed those demons, how much that was a part of Seven Win Steve remains to be seen. Personally, I think he moved into the blue-blood head coaching ranks too fast. He may be an offensive savant, but C-level management is a different skill set. He should have made his bones at an FCS program, then move to the big time.

[Thatguy 8740]

1 hour ago, lilMAC25 said:

Consider when the OP was posted Oct 9, 2021. We had just shit the bed against OU, (beginning our 6 game slide) and the prediction proved to be accurate as far as last year went.

Oh....I see what you are trying to do. 

[Eggo 3977]

1 hour ago, USC_TMB said:

Google “Steve Sarkisian bar tab”, there are links to an LA Times articles on his exploits. Dude liked his Patron. Hopefully he has addressed those demons, how much that was a part of Seven Win Steve remains to be seen. Personally, I think he moved into the blue-blood head coaching ranks too fast. He may be an offensive savant, but C-level management is a different skill set. He should have made his bones at an FCS program, then move to the big time.

Spoiler

 

[lilMAC25 3794]

48 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

Oh....I see what you are trying to do. 

No. I was explaining WHEN the thread was originally posted to someone who was seemingly unaware.

 

 

Aside from that, I can see who Steve Sarkisian is/always has been as a Head Coach while simultaneously hoping that he can figure it out and make a change for the better.

Edited October 14, 2022 by lilMAC25

[MrBig 5414]

7 minutes ago, Eggo said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

The athletic department had an exponential spike in G2 purchases when Mensa was coach 

[Bigbend1812 12927]

[Eggo 3977]

I also don't see why anyone suggests Sark should have gone FCS. The guy has been unemployed a total of zero years since his playing career ended and every job besides his first has been with a major Power 5 or the NFL. This isn't fucking Sterlin Gilbert we're talking about. 

[TwiceHorn 31495]

11 hours ago, Your Mom said:

God grant me the serenity to accept the thread drift I cannot change… 

Well, the thread title is "This is who Steve Sarkisian is."  The subtopic about whether he's an alcoholic was raised and that seems to be who he claims he is and the evidence does seem to support it.

[TwiceHorn 31495]

1 hour ago, Eggo said:

I also don't see why anyone suggests Sark should have gone FCS. The guy has been unemployed a total of zero years since his playing career ended and every job besides his first has been with a major Power 5 or the NFL. This isn't fucking Sterlin Gilbert we're talking about. 

Well, it is true that he has had lots of exposure to "big time" organizations.  But seeing it done does differ some from actually doing it, no matter how carefully you observe.  There's a reasonable argument that doing it on a smaller scale at an FCS/G5 school might have made it an easier transition.  Then again, the gulf between most G5 programs and "elite" P5 programs may be so large as to make the transition aspect of it sort of n/a.  And, UW could be regarded as a something less than elite P5 program that offers the same type of transitional opportunity.  But of course that transitional opportunity seems to have been squandered to some degree by Sark transitioning into a "true alcoholic."

Edited October 14, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[jimmyjazz 45971]

Jesus.  UDub and USC trump smaller schools in terms of experience.  If he didn't deserve the job, fine, but it's not because he had no idea what it means to coach at a big time D1 program.

[MrBig 5414]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the thread title is "This is who Steve Sarkisian is."  The subtopic about whether he's an alcoholic was raised and that seems to be who he claims he is and the evidence does seem to support it.

Sark’s past behavior as an alcoholic is verifiable. Alcoholism has a lifetime grip on people, but he hasn’t shown any signs of relapse since his USC debacle.

Sark seems like he’s doing great with Loreal by his side. He’s a new man with a new wife and a new outlook on life. 

I thought Sark was just a sunshine pumper, but I after I saw an interview with Keondre Coburn I felt differently. The players believe in him. Coburn said he felt more confident because Sark knew how to talk to the team the right way, and he hadn’t experienced that before at Texas. All of the players want to do well but it takes time. 

[Hornius Emeritus 12469]

6 hours ago, lilMAC25 said:

Consider when the OP was posted Oct 9, 2021. We had just shit the bed against OU, (beginning our 6 game slide) and the prediction proved to be accurate as far as last year went.

I don't see any qualifiers like "he's probably going to crap the bed this year but we need to give him a few years before we can judge whether or not he's going to be a good coach for Texas."
 

[TwiceHorn 31495]

3 minutes ago, MrBig said:

Coburn said he felt more confident because Sark knew how to talk to the team the right way, and he hadn’t experienced that before at Texas.

Yeah, that's consistent with being an alky in active recovery.  You have to be rigorously honest with yourself and with others and that comes through and is often characterized as personal authenticity.

Addicts lose sight of who they are and what they actually value and recovery requires the opposite, that is, finding yourself and your values and being an authentic person.

We have very few factual anecdotes about Tom Herman drinking or drugging or carrying on.  But a lot of his behavior seemed "inauthentic" in the above ways and led me to believe that maybe he did have a substance abuse problem despite the lack of actual facts backing that up.  I also tend to think that if it is true that Herman is bucking a problem, he might actually be a pretty good coach if he gets into recovery and has a Sark-like transformation.

Sark may be at his ceiling as a pretty gifted OC.  But given the glimpses that we've seen of his talent as a coach and that he seems to be on a soild recovery path, I think chances are pretty good that he busts the ceiling he's shown thus far.  I'd like to think so, anyway, as both a fellow traveler of that path and a Longhorn.

[DaggerHorns 3085]

I just hope he can be as good as Ed Orgeron or Gene Chizik for one season, because that’s all it takes to win a title.

[conVINCEd 21469]

3 minutes ago, DaggerHorns said:

I just hope he can be as good as Ed Orgeron or Gene Chizik for one season, because that’s all it takes to win a title.

If you have the QB room in good shape (it is) and can recruit you’re 90% of the way home.  Not to a title, but to a consistently relevant program.  Don’t dip your pen in company ink or fall off the wagon and you can last a while at a place if you do those two things.

[troph 24821]

If he won 7-9 as a selfish raging drunk then plus 2 and 9-11 as his standard sober performance with occasional moments of 12+ and a title is not completely unrealistic. Hell he does that for 15 years and plays for 3 and wins 2 and he’s arguably the greatest coach in Texas history. Sobriety can be a miracle especially for talented people. Jury is still out, let’s see what happens this year and next. 

[pyrohornIII 4815]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, that's consistent with being an alky in active recovery.  You have to be rigorously honest with yourself and with others and that comes through and is often characterized as personal authenticity.

Addicts lose sight of who they are and what they actually value and recovery requires the opposite, that is, finding yourself and your values and being an authentic person.

We have very few factual anecdotes about Tom Herman drinking or drugging or carrying on.  But a lot of his behavior seemed "inauthentic" in the above ways and led me to believe that maybe he did have a substance abuse problem despite the lack of actual facts backing that up.  I also tend to think that if it is true that Herman is bucking a problem, he might actually be a pretty good coach if he gets into recovery and has a Sark-like transformation.

Sark may be at his ceiling as a pretty gifted OC.  But given the glimpses that we've seen of his talent as a coach and that he seems to be on a soild recovery path, I think chances are pretty good that he busts the ceiling he's shown thus far.  I'd like to think so, anyway, as both a fellow traveler of that path and a Longhorn.

I don't think Herman could ever have the humility Sark seems to possess.  Too much of Herman was smoke and mirrors, and I've always felt Sark was understated and knew himself.  

I agree though that Sark's trials and tribulations probably made him a better coach by making him relatable to his players and help them improve themselves, because he does it for himself daily.  And he seems to do it in the right way.  After Tech, he could have gone off the wagon, or threw players and others under the bus, but he didn't.  He shouldered what was his responsibility and moved forward.   I just can't imagine the amount of pressure he has to be under and the temptation must be so high.   

It just makes me admire him more and wish only the best for him.  

[Blotto 23543]

I hated the hire when I heard about it and I hated it even more after last season was over. I don't give a fuck about the booze thing on its own, but I do give a fuck about hiring a guy with no track record of legitimate success in 6 seasons as a P5 HC. Last year's Kansas loss was the worst loss by far of any from Strong, Herman or Sark, imo. After that game, I was convinced we were entering a loser's holding pattern until we could shitcan Sark and move on in 1 or 2 years. While things now seem to be trending up with QE taking snaps, shit also looked bleak a couple of weeks ago. 

I'll re-evaluate at the end of the season after I see how we do in true road games against ranked teams (currently ranked, anyways). We played Bama close at home, but aggy played them close on the road, and that team is....aggy. I will admit the smooth buttfucking of OU went a long way in buying Sark some goodwill. I have zero doubt that Sark can call plays, and I have zero doubt that Texas will have continued success with recruiting in today's NIL era (regardless of coach). I still have concerns about Sark having the necessary chops to bring us what we all want. Prove me wrong, Sark. 

 

Edited October 15, 2022 by Blotto

[Born Burnt 6178]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

We have very few factual anecdotes about Tom Herman drinking or drugging or carrying on.

[GringoSalado 1651]

Who in the actual fuck are these coaching candidates w/ a "history of P5 success" that we forever in retrospect could've hired instead of Sark (or Herman/Strong for that matter)?

I hate having any rules for this site but one should be if you lament for some obvious alternative instead of Herman/Strong/Sark then for fuck's sake produce a list of these obvious alternatives.

[TXpride 546]

1 hour ago, Blotto said:

I hated the hire when I heard about it and I hated it even more after last season was over. I don't give a fuck about the booze thing on its own, but I do give a fuck about hiring a guy with no track record of legitimate success in 6 seasons as a P5 HC. Last year's Kansas loss was the worst loss by far of any from Strong, Herman or Sark, imo. After that game, I was convinced we were entering a loser's holding pattern until we could shitcan Sark and move on in 1 or 2 years. While things now seem to be trending up with QE taking snaps, shit also looked bleak a couple of weeks ago. 

I'll re-evaluate at the end of the season after I see how we do in true road games against ranked teams (currently ranked, anyways). We played Bama close at home, but aggy played them close on the road, and that team is....aggy. I will admit the smooth buttfucking of OU went a long way in buying Sark some goodwill. I have zero doubt that Sark can call plays, and I have zero doubt that Texas will have continued success with recruiting in today's NIL era (regardless of coach). I still have concerns about Sark having the necessary chops to bring us what we all want. Prove me wrong, Sark. 

 

I felt the same. Hated the hire, and hated it even more up until the last couple weeks. And while I loved every second of 49-0, that OU team is probably worse than any of the shit teams we've fielded over the last 12 years. They're that pitiful. But maybe Sark is the guy. Two weeks ago I would've said no way in hell; now I'd say it's about 50/50. Not a sure thing like some people seem to think after last week, but things appear to be trending upwards. We should know by the end of the season.

[TXpride 546]

dp

Edited October 15, 2022 by TXpride

[TwiceHorn 31495]

6 hours ago, GringoSalado said:

Who in the actual fuck are these coaching candidates w/ a "history of P5 success" that we forever in retrospect could've hired instead of Sark (or Herman/Strong for that matter)?

I hate having any rules for this site but one should be if you lament for some obvious alternative instead of Herman/Strong/Sark then for fuck's sake produce a list of these obvious alternatives.

Yeah, once we struck out on the fantasy hires of Meyer and Saban, which probably would not have resulted in the immediate success everyone now thinks we must have if we hired the right coach, there weren't a lot of obvious choices.  And some that might have been, in hindsight, aren't doing so hot. e.g. Brian Kelly.  But, as with Sark, it's too early to tell, yet.

I can't say that it's completely unfair criticism, but we're doing a lot of pattern-matching between our current coach and past failed ones.  That those patterns seem to fit does not make a bad outcome inevitable.  The PK hire seems to be questionable, but the rest of the staff and even PK don't really fit the pattern of crony-hires made in the past.

Regarding the Tech loss, even when we had what we thought were pretty good defenses and DCs, we'd lose to Tech dinking and dunking down the field.    It isn't quite the same Tech as the Leachian units, but there are similarities.  It was often a "welcome to the Big XII" moment.

Edited October 15, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Wulaw Horn 19077]

9 hours ago, Blotto said:

I hated the hire when I heard about it and I hated it even more after last season was over. I don't give a fuck about the booze thing on its own, but I do give a fuck about hiring a guy with no track record of legitimate success in 6 seasons as a P5 HC. Last year's Kansas loss was the worst loss by far of any from Strong, Herman or Sark, imo. After that game, I was convinced we were entering a loser's holding pattern until we could shitcan Sark and move on in 1 or 2 years. While things now seem to be trending up with QE taking snaps, shit also looked bleak a couple of weeks ago. 

I'll re-evaluate at the end of the season after I see how we do in true road games against ranked teams (currently ranked, anyways). We played Bama close at home, but aggy played them close on the road, and that team is....aggy. I will admit the smooth buttfucking of OU went a long way in buying Sark some goodwill. I have zero doubt that Sark can call plays, and I have zero doubt that Texas will have continued success with recruiting in today's NIL era (regardless of coach). I still have concerns about Sark having the necessary chops to bring us what we all want. Prove me wrong, Sark. 

 

 

7 hours ago, TXpride said:

I felt the same. Hated the hire, and hated it even more up until the last couple weeks. And while I loved every second of 49-0, that OU team is probably worse than any of the shit teams we've fielded over the last 12 years. They're that pitiful. But maybe Sark is the guy. Two weeks ago I would've said no way in hell; now I'd say it's about 50/50. Not a sure thing like some people seem to think after last week, but things appear to be trending upwards. We should know by the end of the season.

I too hated the hire, and I hated last year, but I gave him a list of 7 or 8 things he needed to do (in my mind) to be successful in the off-season and he did them all. 

Close on the OL

get Ewers

top 5 class

get a legit #2 WR

get manning

Bring in Patterson

i think there were 1 or 2 others and they all went really well  if we wouldn’t have lost Ewers and WR2 we are likely 6-0 at worst 5-1  that off-season changed my mind about him.  If he keeps the QB room fully stocked he’s literally got a floor of 8-4 after he establishes himself  

I got on board before y’all because I can see it coming.  both of your takes are imminently reasonable  I will jump off board if we can’t get to 8-4 at a minimum if Ewers stays healthy and the big 12 officials don’t decide to steal a couple games from us OSU under Charlie Strong style (which could happen) , because I’d rather have hope too early than pessimism that causes me to miss out on the fun of the turnaround, but that’s a personal preference.

Sark has the soft Skills to kill it here.  everyone  loves him.  He has the offensive chops to accumulate a shitload of talent and the play calling ability to utilize it well.  From there, given enough time if you aren’t actively fucking other shit up it probably becomes almost a given that one year you will break through.  

 

[Biff Tannen 45691]

I think today is going to be very telling. Possible trap game coming off a massive win over a rival. Let’s see if the kids get up. I feel they are going to. 

[Thatguy 8740]

9 hours ago, Blotto said:

I hated the hire when I heard about it and I hated it even more after last season was over. I don't give a fuck about the booze thing on its own, but I do give a fuck about hiring a guy with no track record of legitimate success in 6 seasons as a P5 HC. Last year's Kansas loss was the worst loss by far of any from Strong, Herman or Sark, imo. After that game, I was convinced we were entering a loser's holding pattern until we could shitcan Sark and move on in 1 or 2 years. While things now seem to be trending up with QE taking snaps, shit also looked bleak a couple of weeks ago. 

I'll re-evaluate at the end of the season after I see how we do in true road games against ranked teams (currently ranked, anyways). We played Bama close at home, but aggy played them close on the road, and that team is....aggy. I will admit the smooth buttfucking of OU went a long way in buying Sark some goodwill. I have zero doubt that Sark can call plays, and I have zero doubt that Texas will have continued success with recruiting in today's NIL era (regardless of coach). I still have concerns about Sark having the necessary chops to bring us what we all want. Prove me wrong, Sark. 

 

I really don't understand this thought process or @lilMAC25's. Charlie Strong and Tom Herman had real obvious schematic weaknesses that Sark doesn't have. 

[hook me 2100]

8 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

I really don't understand this thought process or @lilMAC25's. Charlie Strong and Tom Herman had real obvious schematic weaknesses that Sark doesn't have. 

One of the good things about Sark is that he seems perfectly capable of getting the QB he needs to make his offense go & has an OL coach that has proven capable of getting the OL where it needs to be. When one of those falters the team will falter with it, but as long as those 2 units are strong we're going to be winning a lot of games because his offense is absolutely sick.

[Cajun 11714]

19 hours ago, USC_TMB said:

Google “Steve Sarkisian bar tab”, there are links to an LA Times articles on his exploits. Dude liked his Patron. Hopefully he has addressed those demons, how much that was a part of Seven Win Steve remains to be seen. Personally, I think he moved into the blue-blood head coaching ranks too fast. He may be an offensive savant, but C-level management is a different skill set. He should have made his bones at an FCS program, then move to the big time.

You see, I look at it the other way around - Sark was winning 7 games hammered ass drunk.

Impressive.

[conVINCEd 21469]

1 minute ago, Cajun said:

You see, I look at it the other way around - Sark was winning 7 games hammered ass drunk.

Impressive.

I played wordle hammered ass drunk last weekend, so this hits close to home.

[Cajun 11714]

I once bowled a 235 completely sauced.  
 

Once.

[Modessit 5603]

I once bowled a 235 completely sauced.  
 
Once.

I've bowled a 232 sober. And that same month bowled a 37 after 7 Long Islands and a couple pitchers of beer.

[hook me 2100]

6 minutes ago, Modessit said:

24 minutes ago, Cajun said:

I once bowled a 235 completely sauced.  
 
Once.

I've bowled a 232 sober. 

Same... if you add the 3 games together

[bigcigar 1164]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Regarding the Tech loss, even when we had what we thought were pretty good defenses and DCs, we'd lose to Tech dinking and dunking down the field.    It isn't quite the same Tech as the Leachian units, but there are similarities.  It was often a "welcome to the Big XII" moment.

When was that? It’s super uncommon to lose to tech. 16-4 in last 20 seasons and half of those losses were coach potato.

 

Edited October 15, 2022 by bigcigar