Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    41875
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. The consensus seems to be that we ran an outside-zone heavy run game to exploit Venables' defense, which was known to be exploitable that way. And Tre is pretty good at it. And that opened up a few things for Arch. And we went away from anything consistent like that to a grab bag of concepts that we're not very good at executing. While I can identify an OZ running play and know we didn't run many, I can't analyze much beyond that. Would be happy to hear your thoughts.
  2. I understood. Thought it was an interesting point and very possibly valid. Every now and then, things line up for him and he executes a pretty great throw.
  3. Where is all this Loreal rumor-mongering coming from? The non-rumor facts are probably bad enough in that they announced a divorce and then reconciled over a baby. That just doesn't sound to me like any kind of good personal/private life.
  4. Rather LBJ-ish. I do think CDC is going to have some form of come to Jesus with him, about an OC, some new assistants, something.
  5. I guess part of the reason for the OZ plan against OU is Venables is known to be weak against it. So perhaps the thinking was what worked against OU isn't gonna work against anyone else, or Kentucky. But that seems to be overthink. And maybe Tre was overworked/injured and perceived to be the only reliable RB, especially for OZ running.
  6. Well, if they had scored a TD, they would have won the game, that much is crystal clear. We weren't going to score a TD in OT absent extraordinary luck. But why not wait until another OT to do that? Because against our DL, that was a very low-percentage play. There is a line of thinking, though, that if you can't punch it in from the 1, you should just quit football. See, eg, every surly game thread with the ball on the 1 in the last five years, but especially against UGa and tOSU, where the odds are also pretty slim.
  7. So, is he a football dumbshit or over-coached. There have been some allusions to all the coaches in his ear, relatives, private coaches, our staff.
  8. I'm not really in favor of mid-season fires, but I wouldn't object to an assistant coach being canned midseason. Especially if that coach is Kyle Flood.
  9. Well, all I have done is explain why a bunch of nattering nabobs thought Arch would be great this year, or at least an improvement on Ewers. It was rational, as far as it went. The bigger question, for which there probably is no single answer, is why does he suck. It seems Sark knew he wasn't ready for prime time last year and was right. I guess he hoped another year would be a breakthrough. Seems he's still hoping there, while the other hand fills with shit. I don't think I'm gonna fault him for not playing Caldwell. Even if he fulfills our expectations, it's a short-term solution that's not going to get us an NC or even in or very far in the CFP. I think Sark has to have his eye on next year and what the blue fuck we're going to do with Arch, Lacey, a gimpy frosh Bell, and whoever we drag in from the portal. Some small chance remains that Arch gets it together. I'm also guessing that it is Sark's preference to bring a QB along relatively slowly, for better or worse. And then there's the OL problem, which may not have a quick fix and also risks headfucking (if not bodyfucking with injury) whoever is QB1 next year.
  10. Definitely. For years and multiple coaches all we hear is we out talent everyone. It's certainly not true when it comes to the UGa and OSUs of world and it may not be true at all. This season, with the Arch hype and the failure to seriously temper OL expectations may be the worst $9.95 yoink in a long history of them.
  11. While they conveniently ignore Miriam Adelson. And the various other weirdo elites like Elmo and Thiel that back them.
  12. You're a much more sophisticated observer than I. I don't see this as being contradictory, I was just speaking in broad strokes about why Arch may have appeared to be the solution to our woes last year. When Arch was in last year, he wasn't asked to do much. If and when he was pressured, he gave the appearance of being more composed than QE. He ran pretty well. He threw better deep balls and, therefore, as stated by gmr, everyone assumed he could throw the short/intermediate passes when called upon to do so. That turned out to be a terrible assumption. And, as you note, it seems he can't see the middle of the field. He's a DC's dream.
  13. Oh, I think Mack gave a shit, alright. He gave a shit about Mack. But not much else.
  14. Gotta confess at this point I'm pretty shook. I think expecting him to play call or game plan out of the shit show that is our OL and Arch is way too much. Then again, Arch and the OL is Sark's fault. I remain hopeful that Sark fucked up by expecting Flood to do his job like he just let PK PK and he's learning. But this is supposed to be his forte, so I really expect him to see that his OL is shit and was always going to be shit and compared to the alleged talent level, has always been relatively shit.
  15. The announcers did a fine job of rationalizing that, but it was stupid. Yes, a TD in OT practically guaranteed a win for UK, but they should have held out for a higher percentage play in a subsequent OT.
  16. I don't think Arch is capable of routinely getting it out quick. So it's a real toxic mix.
  17. Arch appears more composed than Quinn behind a much worse line. The key word there is "appears." The net result is worse. I think Ewers could function better than Arch behind this line until he got injured. I think the thing that fucked Ewers was that last year's OL just really wasn't that good, particularly against top competition. Of course, it was light years ahead of this dumpster fire.
  18. Addendum to all this. Arch appears to be more composed under pressure than Quinn. He has less tendency to get happy feet and self-sack. That said, what he does with that composure is not good. Our number one objection to Ewers was the happy feet/self sack. Number two was the long ball. In limited work behind a better OL, Arch seemed to offer solutions to those problems. But with further exposure, and a significantly worse OL, it turns out he's just not very good at throwing the ball.
  19. Yeah, there does seem to be some kind of bizarre parity at work. And you may be right in that more than individual talents moving around, it's roster disruption.
  20. Soros was a big D donor, mostly in past years. One cause he was particularly identified with was "defend the police"/progressive prosecutors. The quiet part is that he's a Hungarian Jew. But, as a megadonor, he's a piker compared to various right wing contributors.
  21. They're good yeah. Seems like maybe took a step back on the DL, maybe a bit improved in the secondary.
  22. This season was one giant, unfounded ASSumption.
  23. Thing is, although there are a goodly number of people that were raised to believe in some form of cultural purity, I think there's an even larger number that hadn't given it much thought until this:
  24. First off, I think we got $995ed, both with Arch and whistling past the graveyard on all the talent we lost from OL and WR corps. Second, this defense is not as good as last year's or the year before that. Third, "dominant." As to the third point, I think NIL is creating some kind of bizarre parity. But yeah, this sucks.
  25. Good question. I think we all know that a QB1 is not going to experience real pressure (ie with actual sack/hit potential) in practice. But something seems to be going on in practice or in Sark's head where he becomes convinced that players can execute better than they actually can in game time scenarios. And this isn't just an Arch problem.
×
×
  • Create New...