Going to Need some help getting on board with Sark...

A lot of folks saying it would be a great hire, I'm not sure I see it like that so somebody sell me on it.

Here's what I see:

Turned around Washington= good but, hey, it's in the PAC12

Coached USC = meh. Great talent, easy to recruit and had mixed results.

Fired for being intoxicated on the job repeatedly= not good.

ATL Falcons OC= disaster (if I remember correctly)

Bama OC = good results but the thing was already built and he had structure there, so I'm taking that with a grain of salt.

We need discipline, a competent offense, maintain our defense. Can Sark do that? Outside of offense, there's not a lot there that tells me he can do the other. I hope like hell Im wrong. The way I see it, the hire is one of desperation. I mean, where else in the last few years has his name been rumored as a candidate? Who has targeted him?

The whole thing, to me, reeks of us trying to go cheap and getting turned down left and right.

Change my mind.

I'm in the same boat. I just don't see it. The big money boosters I know will not be happy with him from what I know.

He's a great offensive coach. The falcons were good his first year then not so good his second year (and not so good this year - May just be personnel issue with them)..... he's no Grantham when it comes to discipline of a football team either..... also, he's not a bad recruiter but doesn't like recruiting. I've been told this several times by folks at Bama.

It's a good hire because he is a good coach..... we need some really good recruiters to support him...... I really liked Napier because he has a really good supporting cast..... I'm not sure who Sarkisian will bring with him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randolph Dupree

A lot of folks saying it would be a great hire, I'm not sure I see it like that so somebody sell me on it.

Here's what I see:

Turned around Washington= good but, hey, it's in the PAC12

Coached USC = meh. Great talent, easy to recruit and had mixed results.

Fired for being intoxicated on the job repeatedly= not good.

ATL Falcons OC= disaster (if I remember correctly)

Bama OC = good results but the thing was already built and he had structure there, so I'm taking that with a grain of salt.

We need discipline, a competent offense, maintain our defense. Can Sark do that? Outside of offense, there's not a lot there that tells me he can do the other. I hope like hell Im wrong. The way I see it, the hire is one of desperation. I mean, where else in the last few years has his name been rumored as a candidate? Who has targeted him?

The whole thing, to me, reeks of us trying to go cheap and getting turned down left and right.

Change my mind.

---

I can't. I can only agree with you and add that any OC with that OL,those RB's, 3-4 first round WR's, and Tua at QB is gonna look good.

Then lose 2 games with all that talent.

Of all the hires I could get behind this is towards the bottom of the list. 0 excitement about this hire.

I would rather have Hud than Sark. Hell give me Grantham, at least with him we would be tougher than cheap meat. This hire does nothing for me.

4-23 vs top 25. His metrics aren’t great if you ask guys like Jake Wimberly or Dave Bartoo. I’m not real excited about this. All that said, it’s better than Moorehead but so is 2-day our cat puke on Bourbon street.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randolph Dupree

A lot of folks saying it would be a great hire, I'm not sure I see it like that so somebody sell me on it.


Change my mind.

---

I can't. He was basically a 7-6 guy at Washington. Now look at what Peterson is doing there. I can't even see that stop as anything above "meh".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randolph Dupree

A lot of folks saying it would be a great hire, I'm not sure I see it like that so somebody sell me on it.

Here's what I see:

Turned around Washington= good but, hey, it's in the PAC12

Coached USC = meh. Great talent, easy to recruit and had mixed results.

Fired for being intoxicated on the job repeatedly= not good.

ATL Falcons OC= disaster (if I remember correctly)

Bama OC = good results but the thing was already built and he had structure there, so I'm taking that with a grain of salt.

We need discipline, a competent offense, maintain our defense. Can Sark do that? Outside of offense, there's not a lot there that tells me he can do the other. I hope like hell Im wrong. The way I see it, the hire is one of desperation. I mean, where else in the last few years has his name been rumored as a candidate? Who has targeted him?

The whole thing, to me, reeks of us trying to go cheap and getting turned down left and right.

Change my mind.

---

Yep. It has been Cohen'd. Larry Templeton 2.0.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randolph Dupree

A lot of folks saying it would be a great hire, I'm not sure I see it like that so somebody sell me on it.

Here's what I see:

Turned around Washington= good but, hey, it's in the PAC12

Coached USC = meh. Great talent, easy to recruit and had mixed results.

Fired for being intoxicated on the job repeatedly= not good.

ATL Falcons OC= disaster (if I remember correctly)

Bama OC = good results but the thing was already built and he had structure there, so I'm taking that with a grain of salt.

We need discipline, a competent offense, maintain our defense. Can Sark do that? Outside of offense, there's not a lot there that tells me he can do the other. I hope like hell Im wrong. The way I see it, the hire is one of desperation. I mean, where else in the last few years has his name been rumored as a candidate? Who has targeted him?

The whole thing, to me, reeks of us trying to go cheap and getting turned down left and right.

Change my mind.

---

I just had this exact convo with my boss and brought up every single one of your points almost exactly.

Pac-12 success... meh. USC nothing crazy other than a big stain on his career. ATL blunder but I'll give him a pass because sometimes the NFL and college guys just don't pan out (See Saban). And if you can't produce with the arsenal that Bama has (and we don't) you shouldn't be coaching any where.

I'm not looking for a sexy hire because we don't require that. He'd have my support because ultimately I root for MSU. But I would have to buy in and would be cautiously optimistic going into this next season.

That's better than how I would feel going in if we had kept Moorhead, but the only reason why is I knew the answer to my questions with why Moorhead wasn't the guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeastMan

4-23 vs top 25. His metrics aren’t great if you ask guys like Jake Wimberly or Dave Bartoo. I’m not real excited about this. All that said, it’s better than Moorehead but so is 2-day our cat puke on Bourbon street.

---

Where is this stat from? The only article I see had him 11-20 against the Top 25 before his 2nd year at USC.

ETA: That can't be right if you're using traditional Top 25 stats. On a quick search, he beat No. 3 USC, No. 19 California in 2009; No. 18 USC, No. 18 Nebraska and No. 24 Oregon State in 2010; No. 7 Oregon State and No. 8 Stanford in 2012; No. 13 Boise State in 2013, all while at UDub.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PMDawg

I can't. He was basically a 7-6 guy at Washington. Now look at what Peterson is doing there. I can't even see that stop as anything above "meh".

---

You do realize Wasington was 0-12 the year before he got there. He does not get the USC job unless he does well at Washington turning them around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spiderman

I can't. I can only agree with you and add that any OC with that OL,those RB's, 3-4 first round WR's, and Tua at QB is gonna look good.

Then lose 2 games with all that talent.

---

Scored 41 against LSU and 45 vs auburn with backup qb. You blaming him for those losses?

It's not Moorhead

Same here. I've lost any excitement I had for football. None of these rumored candidates excite me at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spiderman

I can't. I can only agree with you and add that any OC with that OL,those RB's, 3-4 first round WR's, and Tua at QB is gonna look good.

Then lose 2 games with all that talent.

---

lol.

You are blaming the 2 loses on the offense?

You clearly have not done a bit of research and are complaining just to complain

The problem is to many are looking for a reason to " get on board " and are letting themselves be influenced by the fan media. Just let this thing play out and then make up your own mind by what the results dictate.

I'd rather have Hud than Sark. Cohen once again trying to prove he's the smartest guy in the room.

My excitement with this potential hire rests solely on the fact that Shitshow Joe is gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msstate7

Scored 41 against LSU and 45 vs auburn with backup qb. You blaming him for those losses?

---

No, but I'm saying anyone could put up great stats with that talent. He would never have 25% of tha talent on offense at State.

And if he tries to run that same pro style, heavy RPO system here, it will be Moorhead 2.0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drummerdawg

Same here. I've lost any excitement I had for football. None of these rumored candidates excite me at all.

---

Who would excite you? Not saying you are missing out or anything.

I'm just curious who you think we could/should pluck right now.