FIRE NICK HOLT! Is that loud enough?! Coach Sark, can you hear me?! In one of the most amazing offensive performances of any bowl game to date, the losing team gets to hear all the gripe about a poor defense, while the winning team revels in their potent offensive performance. Since the Baylor Bears were the latter, the Huskies are left to figure out and correct the defensive draught that has been in place since Nick Holt took over as D. Coordinator at the University of Washington.
Coming over from USC, all anyone talks about in the media is how well-respected Nick Holt is, which somehow should equal success. And yes, his defenses did have success down at 'SC, but how many first-round draft picks did he have? Enough to play a basic defense and let them make plays. Well that works with elite talent. One thing missing with Nick Holt is the ability to devise a game plan with HIS defensive players that can slow down the opposition. Instead he draws up a plan to stop an offense, and attempts to get his players to fill those roles without considering his player's strengths and weaknesses. The problem is that he does not have those players who can realistically play that style. Three years was enough time to try and use his method, and was enough time to expose Holt's weaknesses. If Sark wants to continue his rise at UW, he must fire Nick Holt. He is the only aspect holding this program back, and quite clearly as the Alamo Bowl showed, the most important.
Coach Sark must go out and find an up-and-coming defensive mastermind. One that can draw up and execute defensive schemes against an offense, with lesser talent. Yes, Washington's defense is young and inexperienced, and will only get bigger and better with another off-season, but they won't reach their full potential with a defensive coordinator who can't work with less than first-round talent. That's why a new defensive coordinator with proven success with lesser talent, would be huge in revitalizing the defensive side of the ball. Maybe go out east into the SEC and try to pull a coach? I'm sure the defensive coordinator position at the University of Washington would entice a bright mind. All I hope for is a change, and one quickly.
Signing off.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
12/22/11
Almost a full year has gone by, and yes, my next gripe/wonder deals with the University of Oregon, yet again (and all other programs/coaches with the same philosophy). Like I said before, I despise the Ducks and everything they stand for. Specifically, their football program drives me nuts. I hate their gimmick offense, their strength and conditioning coach (google him, he's a tool in every aspect of the word), and yes, their head coach, as well as everyone who supports and agrees with him. WTD? "Win the Day?" Their motto is the exact reason for my gripe. The ducks are stuck in the present, the current play, and the current day. I understand where they are going with it. If you win every single day, you'll have success and a successful season. Where I struggle is, what is the purpose for a college football coach?
Yes it is a job. Yes their livelihood depends on their job. And yes their job status directly depends on wins and losses. However, where does developing talent for the next level (NFL) fit into the job requirement for a coach? At the end of the day, end of the season, end of a college football career, doesn't a football coach want to see his players continue to play at the next level? It seems wrong to play a player at a position that best suits your team's success, knowing full-well that the player is only a prospect at a position on the other side of the ball (defense vs offense). ie DeAnthony Thomas.
I know this is a fine line when it comes to weighing your team's success vs. a player's NFL draft stock. But at the end of your four years in college, unless you are put in a position to play in the NFL, your playing days are over, and you are left fighting for a job in this tough economy with just a college degree full of great football stats and memories. Chip Kelly's offense puts up staggering statistics, wins, and a buzz that attracts so many talented high school players. Just not NFL players. I feel as though it is the goal and job of a coach to develop his players for the next level, whichever it may be.
Still to come...Why is there a press conference for everything now?
In the meantime, I wish you a merry Christmas and enjoy the bowl season.
Signing off.
Yes it is a job. Yes their livelihood depends on their job. And yes their job status directly depends on wins and losses. However, where does developing talent for the next level (NFL) fit into the job requirement for a coach? At the end of the day, end of the season, end of a college football career, doesn't a football coach want to see his players continue to play at the next level? It seems wrong to play a player at a position that best suits your team's success, knowing full-well that the player is only a prospect at a position on the other side of the ball (defense vs offense). ie DeAnthony Thomas.
I know this is a fine line when it comes to weighing your team's success vs. a player's NFL draft stock. But at the end of your four years in college, unless you are put in a position to play in the NFL, your playing days are over, and you are left fighting for a job in this tough economy with just a college degree full of great football stats and memories. Chip Kelly's offense puts up staggering statistics, wins, and a buzz that attracts so many talented high school players. Just not NFL players. I feel as though it is the goal and job of a coach to develop his players for the next level, whichever it may be.
Still to come...Why is there a press conference for everything now?
In the meantime, I wish you a merry Christmas and enjoy the bowl season.
Signing off.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
01/09/11
Here we are, another year older and another year wiser. Well, for sure that year older. With so much media attention going to the University of Oregon this past football season, and rightfully so, I'm left baffled at just one thing. For the record, I'm a husky. I hate Oregon, I hate Chip Kelly, and I hate Phil Knight. This is where I'm baffled.
Knights wealth due to Nike, has given him the opportunity to be a major donor to the University of Oregon and its athletics. I have no problem with that since if it were the University of Washington on the receiving end, i'd be ecstatic. No, my gripe is with all the other northwest colleges that choose to go with Nike. Sure, it's a popular choice and I'm sure Nike treats them well. What recruit wouldn't want to go to a school with all Nike? To me, it just seems like you're supporting a company who's head donates a godly amount of money to the University of Oregon. Is that what Washington, Oregon State, Washington State, etc. really want to do? At that point, I may consider going with Adidas.
Knights wealth due to Nike, has given him the opportunity to be a major donor to the University of Oregon and its athletics. I have no problem with that since if it were the University of Washington on the receiving end, i'd be ecstatic. No, my gripe is with all the other northwest colleges that choose to go with Nike. Sure, it's a popular choice and I'm sure Nike treats them well. What recruit wouldn't want to go to a school with all Nike? To me, it just seems like you're supporting a company who's head donates a godly amount of money to the University of Oregon. Is that what Washington, Oregon State, Washington State, etc. really want to do? At that point, I may consider going with Adidas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
