The neverending Sark criticism continues to baffle me.

Let me take a look at the main 'arguments':
1. He screwed up the Clemson game
a) Sark was OC for one (1) WEEK and then lost the Clemson game. Conclusion: he was a full-blown disaster, a bust, a fiasco?
b) Locks was OC for one full YEAR, had an endless amount of offensive weapons, more than any OC ever had at his disposal in the Saban era (i.e. Tua, Hurts, Jeudy, Smith, Ruggs, Waddle, Irv Smith Jr. Damien Harris, Najee Harris and a possible Top 3 NFL draft pick in Josh Jacobs) and lost the Clemson game. Conclusion: great, fantastic OC, such a pity he left?
c) Sark's point total vs Clemson after 1 week of work: 31.
d) Lock's point total vs Clemson after a full season of work: 16.
Go figure.

2. The A-day game
What Saban said after the A-day game about game planning:

quote:
ON A-DAY GAME PLAN

How do you evaluate Steve Sarkisian and the game plan he put together today?
“We didn’t have a game plan today. We had the simplest offense and the simplest defense that we could possibly have

Yet Sark is considered a concern as OC, because of the A-day game...

3. He did terrible for the Falcons
He didn't. It was discussed in the coaching thread here that Sark actually did a decent job given the circumstances (key injuries at RB and O-line), with the stats and data to substantiate it. If your 1-week OC is hired by one of the best offenses in the NFL to be their OC that should be considered a positive sign.

Now do I think Sark will be a huge success as OC this season? I don't know. If the O-line stays healthy there seems to be no reason why he shouldn't.
Could he be a bust? Yep, the bar is set pretty high for him.
Am I ready to call him a bust or a risk just yet? Nope.

I say: Roll Tide.

This post was edited on 4/16/19 at 2:34 pm