Jump to content

This is who Steve Sarkisian is.


lilMAC25

Recommended Posts

Just now, Hookem2147 said:

The schedule that hasn't been released yet? We are trading ULM and UTSA for Rice and Wyoming in two of our non-conference games.

Alabama on the road.  Tech and ou will have qbs next year against us. I’ll pencil in rice and Wyoming as dubs.  Baylor will be on the road?  Not sure who we get out of houston, cincy, etc.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Everybody Loves Raymond Uhm GIF by TV Land

Remember when the sarkolytes were screaming “where the haters at now?”   Pretty much after the Kansas and baylor wins.  Maybe those teams actually weren’t that good or are they, like is, just using bowl games as meaningless exhibitions

People kept trying to tell us how good the big12 was because it has a bunch of average ass teams. Pretty clear the Big12 is ass this year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, closetohumping said:

Alabama on the road.  Tech and ou will have qbs next year against us. I’ll pencil in rice and Wyoming as dubs.  Baylor will be on the road?  Not sure who we get out of houston, cincy, etc.   

Again, do we know we are playing Tech and Baylor? It's been leaked we are playing UH in Houston which means at least one of the conference teams we played this year we are not playing next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Doc Daneeka said:

Probably nothing giant, but getting back to 10 wins will be nice. 

This year's team should have won 10+, and they only won 8, specifically because the coach turtled and blew a pair of 14-point leads.

That coach is coming back.  The two best players on offense and the best player on defense are not.

The only way we're winning 10 next year is if the O line and the secondary each get a metric fuckton better over the next few months and the coach realizes after all these years that he shouldn't be a pussy with a lead.  I guess it's possible, and I'll certainly hope for it, but I'd have to say that 7 wins sounds more realistic than 10.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TexArcher said:

This year's team should have won 10+, and they only won 8, specifically because the coach turtled and blew a pair of 14-point leads.

That coach is coming back.  The two best players on offense and the best player on defense are not.

The only way we're winning 10 next year is if the O line and the secondary each get a metric fuckton better over the next few months and the coach realizes after all these years that he shouldn't be a pussy with a lead.  I guess it's possible, and I'll certainly hope for it, but I'd have to say that 7 wins sounds more realistic than 10.

The only way Texas wins more is by getting better. I agree. 

If you think 7 is more realistic, I bet there’s a couple of games leeway for you to make a lot of money when the over/under bets come around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, closetohumping said:

I think we win less than 10 in the regular season.  Willing to put a wager on it?

If I — or you — knew enough to make fuckall betting I’d probably be at my Italian villa drinking some wine watching the ocean. 

Just now, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Lemme know if you want to wager on that, Chief.

Ten wins at the end of the season?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Doc Daneeka said:

The only way Texas wins more is by getting better. I agree. 

If you think 7 is more realistic, I bet there’s a couple of games leeway for you to make a lot of money when the over/under bets come around. 

I have never and will never bet against Texas.  And I didn't predict 7 wins; I said I feel like that's more likely than 10.  The most likely outcome is probably something almost exactly like this season.  

But who knows.  Maybe the O line gets so much better that a lot of these close losses turn into close wins and all is right with the world.  I'll believe it when I see it.

Edited by TexArcher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some great aged comments from the open practice in August as we wrap up this season

On 8/16/2022 at 10:53 PM, PanchoChancho said:

It’s gonna be funny when the defense is solid after so many of y’all talked shit about kwiatkowski after one season

 

 

On 8/17/2022 at 7:59 AM, 6th Street said:

It's going to be a long year. Hopefully we can beat Kansas and go to the Cheeze It Bowl

 

On 8/17/2022 at 6:43 AM, Nicole44 said:

Yikes is all I have to say. It looks like our ceiling is possibly a 6-6 season and bowl game. It’s a shame too because as mentioned there is talent (lots of youth) all over the field. 
I have been encouraged by what I’ve been reading about the defense. 
 

Start Ewers because we haven’t seen his ceiling and Card, frankly should be further along. Having said that, I’m pretty fucking disappointed with all I’ve read about Ewers. As I said in an earlier post, I feel we have every right to expect him to play better than this. I feel like I opened up a box of shit on Christmas morning. Cool he throws a pretty long ball which we sorely need. He also has shit intermediate throws very likely to get picked off that resemble a frisbee. His body language sucks. I mentioned it and others have as well…maybe the QB position should finish senior year of high school. I’m already ready for Arch Madness. We should have a more well oiled team by then (or the hot seat will be an inferno for Sark.)

 

On 8/16/2022 at 10:09 PM, 6th Street said:

Gary Patterson will take over in 2024

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Doc Daneeka said:

Probably nothing giant, but getting back to 10 wins will be nice. 

That’s his ceiling.  And if he wins 10 it’s possibly our worst nightmare because you can’t fire a coach who wins 10, and he will regress more often to 8 and 9 wins than over perform and win 11+ games. And if he’s given enough time he probably will have a magic season, but there just isn’t a path where I see Texas in the CFP semifinals 3 out of 5 years for a decade straight. His teams play down and play up to competition. That’s a recipe for losing games you shouldn’t and looking the genius part every now and again. 
 

I would bet he makes it here 5+ years as much as I’d bet he’s gone after 4, and I would bet he wins nothing if he was the coach here for a decade.  We are very much at risk of having an okay coach that wins enough to keep but not enough to have any hardware to show for it. 

Edited by troph
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I the only one not totally despondent over the game last night?  This isn't meant as some glowing review of Sark or anything, but it kinda feels like everyone is using the loss as a conduit to spew whatever preconceived criticisms they had in the chamber, regardless of whether or not they actually applied to the performance.

Objectively, we were facing a team that will finish (and start next season) as one of the ten best in the country.  Objectively, we were a run heavy team without our top two RBs.  Objectively, we were facing a QB who was starting games in college before our QB had ever taken a snap in high school.  Objectively, we were missing the QB of our defense, a dude who will be only the third Longhorn LB to get drafted in a decade, against the top passing team in the nation.  I know what the line said, but objectively, we were the underdog going into last night.  Anyone acting like this is an inexplicable loss (of which admittedly Sark has plenty!) to a garbage team is just venting and not dealing with reality.

A valid criticism of Sark has been that he develops a great script to start the game and cannot adjust after that.  That was not true last night, our second half offense was much more effective than how we started.  I'm not smart enough to know if it was simply Quinn playing better or if there was a material difference in the play-calling, but either way this was a welcome development that we did not see earlier this season.  The Quinn/offense we saw in the second half wins the Oklahoma State and TCU games, period.

There were obviously some negatives.  The sense of urgency in the fourth quarter was not good.  I'm tempted to chalk that up to a freshman QB, but that will need to improve.  We also need to hire a football nerd purely to figure out why we can't stop 3rd and long.  Xavier Worthy's stock is falling faster than Tesla.  I don't know who was out there in the 41 jersey last night, but I hope someone has an update on Jaylan Ford's whereabouts.

You can argue that the performance on the field is below whatever you consider the standards of Texas football to be, and... sure, whatever.  But that's the kind of thinking that results in a new coach every 3 years and a decade and a half of shit.  Last year we had an abomination of a defense and were blown out in almost as many games as we won.  This year, our defense is legitimately a strength and we never lost by more than a score.  There are signs of improvement with both the coaching staff and some of the key pieces for next year.  These are the kinds of seasons that, historically, exist between a team going from dogshit to contender and now it's up to Sark to take the next step.

If we still look like this in a year, then sign me up for your pity party.  

 

 

Edited by Chuckie Finster
  • Hook 'Em 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look at it this way - an average/mediocre coach at Texas should go 8-4/7-5 on average…better than .500 because of access to talent. Basically, Tom Herman’s tenure, or Sark in 2022 (we can argue all we want about whether Herman is better, but I think Sark is better at roster construction, talent acquisition, etc, which I think is the most important thing). Mack was significantly better than that; Strong was worse. 

I think Sark can have a 10-win season here and there if he continues to build the roster as he has, because he’s competent enough to win with a big talent advantage (I disagree that we had that this year against several teams; a freshman QB and freshmen OL starters and a lack of big-play WRs goes a long way in negating an “overall” talent advantage). But he’s probably not a guy that’s going to consistently have the team in playoff contention late into seasons.

All that is to say - I don’t think he’s terrible, I don’t think he’s very good. I think he’s probably in the Herman / Mackovic tier of Texas coaches, and this year’s performance is probably about what your expectations should be.

Edited by Hank Chinaski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's probably easier for me to be okay with this years performance, since I greatly underestimated the progress of the O line. Going into the season with projections of freshmen on the O line and a freshman QB, I had little hope that we would even make it to a bowl game. When Neyor went down for the season, I figured that opposing D coaches would game plan around stopping/limiting Bijan and that we would be screwed. I figured we would lose to UTSA and OU, probably lose to ISU, K-State and Baylor. 

I'm on the same page as Doc Daneeka, I'm not sure that Sark is it and I'm not sure he's not. I see some encouraging things, I like his calm demeanor and I like his coaching hires (something I never liked under Herman or Strong). My guess is he will be here at least two more years and that will be an appropriate amount of time to figure it out.

In the words of the great Gene Krantz...

image.jpeg

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hank Chinaski said:

I look at it this way - an average/mediocre coach at Texas should go 8-4/7-5 on average…better than .500 because of access to talent. Basically, Tom Herman’s tenure, or Sark in 2022 (we can argue all we want about whether Herman is better, but I think Sark is better at roster construction, talent acquisition, etc, which I think is the most important thing). Mack was significantly better than that; Strong was worse. 

I think Sark can have a 10-win season here and there if he continues to build the roster as he has, because he’s competent enough to win with a big talent advantage (I disagree that we had that this year against several teams; a freshman QB and freshmen OL starters and a lack of big-play WRs goes a long way in negating an “overall” talent advantage). But he’s probably not a guy that’s going to consistently have the team in playoff contention late into seasons.

All that is to say - I don’t think he’s terrible, I don’t think he’s very good. I think he’s probably in the Herman / Mackovic tier of Texas coaches, and this year’s performance is probably about what your expectations should be.

So, would you say he’s “middling”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hoping/expecting Sark to do something he's never done as a HC is a bold strategy that I won't partake in.

3 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

DeBoer could be good.  Traylor over McGuire for me.  

Daboer > Traylor

McGuire is meh

Urban should once again be top of the list.

We should also act like a big fucking time program and make a play for established coaches like USC/LSU did. 

 

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

9 hours ago, mdmost said:

Wait, so he loses the two most key players off his offense

"Lost" them? He inherited them from Herman and they're going to the draft, and he's had plenty of time to recruit his own RBs to replace them. Bijan and Roschon aren't going to magically reappear in our backfield next season. This is our offense moving forward.

We spent the last two years making excuses for Sark's underperformance because of all the bad players Herman left behind. And now we've moved on to making excuses for Sark because the few good players Herman left behind are leaving.

Edited by satyanash
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, satyanash said:

"Lost" them? He inherited them from Herman and they're going to the draft, and he's had plenty of time to recruit his own RBs to replace them. Bijan and Roschon aren't going to magically reappear in our backfield next season. This is our offense moving forward.

Herman put an exclamation point on getting great RBs but failing to give them an OL to maximize their gifts.

We’re making good progress on OL under Sark. Better run game, better pass protection… better team. And D looks good and is also heading in right direction.

Some of y’all talk about Washington like we were the superior team and we blew it. Frankly, they were better than we were.

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

25 minutes ago, troph said:

I would bet he makes it here 5+ years as much as I’d bet he’s gone after 4, and I would bet he wins nothing if he was the coach here for a decade.  We are very much at risk of having an okay coach that wins enough to keep but not enough to have any hardware to show for it. 

This is my concern.  I was in college for some of the Mackovic years, and this feels like that.  We were good enough to play better teams close and pull the occasional upset.  We were ranked a lot of the time, but almost never in the top 10.  The good years were 10 wins, 8 wins, and 8 wins.  The bad years didn't even get bowl games.  That went on for 6 seasons, and I'm afraid this tenure might look an awful lot like that one.

 

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Earl of Texas said:

Herman put an exclamation point on getting great RBs but failing to give them an OL to maximize their gifts.

We’re making good progress on OL under Sark. Better run game, better pass protection… better team. And D looks good and is also heading in right direction.

Some of y’all talk about Washington like we were the superior team and we blew it. Frankly, they were better than we were.

no I think we are saying we are tired of playing a team like Washington that's... better than we were.  And we are staring down the barrel of Sark's entire tenure being littered with losses that are inexplicable or to teams that ... were better than we were.  

typing that out makes me want to vomit.

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, satyanash said:

"Lost" them? He inherited them from Herman and they're going to the draft, and he's had plenty of time to recruit his own RBs to replace them. Bijan and Roschon aren't going to magically reappear in our backfield next season. This is our offense moving forward.

We spent the last two years making excuses for Sark's underperformance because of all the bad players Herman left behind. And now we've moved on to making excuses for Sark because the few good players Herman left behind are leaving.

It Hurts Sal Vulcano GIF by truTV’s Impractical Jokers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, satyanash said:

"Lost" them? He inherited them from Herman and they're going to the draft, and he's had plenty of time to recruit his own RBs to replace them. Bijan and Roschon aren't going to magically reappear in our backfield next season. This is our offense moving forward.

See, this is the type of shit that proves that this board just wants to bitch and moan without any understanding of how things really work.  Sark has personally recruited an elite swiss army knife in Keilan, arguably the top RB in Texas in Blue, and the best RB in the country in Baxter (not to mention holding on to Brooks right after getting hired).  There are conclusions to be drawn from last night, but "Sark has not recruited players talented enough to immediately resemble the two most talented football players on the roster" is... exactly what I would expect from you.

  • Hook 'Em 6
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.



×
×
  • Create New...