Jump to content

Carl Spackler

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    4481
  • Joined

Everything posted by Carl Spackler

  1. Manning may have played poorly, but he never fucking quit. Stop with this bullshit.
  2. I tend to discount the SHSU game this season one way or the other simply due to the disparity in the level of competition. So even though Manning was generally (though not completely) sharp in that game, it doesn't really tip the scale one way or the other for me simply because it was SHSU. I suppose I was mildly encouraged that he seemed to show some general progress in that game, but then the very next game it was a step back against a much better defensive opponent. (Which brings up another issue -- consistency or the lack thereof, both as to Manning and the offense in general.) The MSU game last year? By no means was Manning perfect in that game. But he played at a winning level IMO, and he displayed that he can make throws that, for some reason(s), he's now struggling to make or not attempting to make.
  3. It's a bit of a "chicken and egg" situation to an extent, it seems to me. Are the O-line's struggles attributable in part to Manning's accuracy problems because those problems allow opposing defenses to key on the run, as you have suggested? Or are Manning's accuracy issues mainly attributable to a line that has allowed a very high rate of pressure so far this season? I tend to think it's some of both, which dovetails with my overarching point that the cause of the offensive malaise is multi-faceted. There have been times when Manning's inaccuracy has been caused at least in part by being under pressure. But there have been several other occasions when the blocking gives him time and he inexplicably throws bad, inaccurate passes. And, of course, there are other factors relating to the offensive struggles, including some headscratching playcalls/strategy on occasion by Sark, the general lack of a consistent run game (which I don't attribute completely to Arch's struggles -- go watch some of the lackluster run blocking if you have the Kentucky and Florida games saved), and occasional drops of catchable balls by receivers. When I started commenting on this issue, the two main points I wanted to make were: (1) the cause of the offensive struggles is multi-faceted, i.e., it isn't just Manning and it isn't just the O-line, etc.; and (2) Manning's performance last season indicates that he's at least got it in him to be a proficient college QB. My opinion on those two points hasn't changed, but I continue to be mystified as to why his accuracy has eroded even in situations when he's got a clean pocket and time to work through progressions.
  4. The one where he came off the bench cold with Texas already in the hole to a team that many felt was the odds-on favorite to be NC again and after Ewers took all the first team reps in practice that week? Yeah, neither he nor Ewers looked good in that game, IMO. Under those circumstances and the way the Georgia defense was playing in that game, I'm not sure that many college QBs would have looked real good in that particular situation. But OK, I'll agree that game serves as a bit of a counterbalance to his performance in his two starts last season. But if we're going to do that, we also have to take into account limited appearances like the one in the A&M game when he scored a TD with a gutsy run. In any event, it kind of avoids the greater overall point which is not that Manning's performance last year in ANY of those games meant he would be a great college QB . . . because it didn't. Rather, the point is that his performance in his two starts last season demonstrated that he had the ability to perform at a proficient level as a FBS QB. But it's been up to him, Sark, Milwee, et al. to bring all of that out this season, which hasn't happened so far. And that is concerning.
  5. I said exactly what I wanted to say, i.e., he's a significant part of the problem with the offense but not the sole problem, because that is, in fact, the case. I don't disagree that accuracy is a critical attribute for any QB, which is part of the reason why I specifically mentioned his issues in that area. So it's not as if I'm trying to cover up or sugarcoat anything in that regard. But if you're suggesting that the offensive woes are solely Manning's fault because of his problems with accuracy, then I can't agree with you.
  6. AZ just needs to let GB score and then go win the game with a TD.
  7. I'm not sure what your first sentence is asking. But your second sentence kind of hits on the problem, i.e., that the potential and ability Arch showed last season hasn't been realized at all this season. In fact, in certain areas there has been regression, not merely a failure to realize potential. If you can't see why people on this board are referencing last season's performance as a reason for the depth of disappointment in his play (and the offense's performance in general) this season or as a reason for thinking that his performance in '25 could improve if the O-line starts blocking better and the run game starts being effective, then I can't help you. I tried to explain it.
  8. It's relevant for at least three reasons. First, his performance last year helped form and establish the expectations that he's not meeting this year. Second, his performance last year indicates he can be far more accurate than he has been this season. Some of his misses when given time and a clean pocket have been absolutely headscratching this season, particularly given the absence of similarly bad misfires in his limited playing time last season. Finally, his performance last year behind a different line and with different receivers supports the proposition that he has it in him to be a proficient FBS QB if the current line starts blocking better, he cleans up his accuracy issues, the run game gets cranked up, etc. So while I understand that how Arch performed last season doesn't change the fact that he's been anywhere from meh to downright bad this season, his performance in '24 does have some relevance to what we're talking about now.
  9. Fucking infuriating . . .
  10. Third and long. Philly has Minnesota just where the Eagles want them. They've been killing the Vikings on third and long all day.
  11. Yeah, Minnesota's KO coverage has been pretty bad today.
  12. We're gonna have to agree to disagree re: whether Manning would be better with a better line in front of him and whether he can make short/intermediate throws. But I've got the tape from his two starts last season to back me up, whereas you have . . . your faulty recollection. In that regard, I notice that you didn't bother to address the throw from last year's MSU game that I specifically called out. That was a beautiful throw, and it's proof positive that he has the ability to do more than simply (as you contend) throw it deep. The two aspects of your post with which I can agree are your statements that "[h]e isn't just the problem" and that "he is absolutely a problem . . ."
  13. That's because he did look better last season. I don't agree with much of this. Arch certainly hasn't played up to expectations, which were built at least in part on what he showed last season. The accuracy issues are particularly confounding, because he hadn't previously given indications that he had them. Whether it is a mechanical issue or more of a mental thing, I don't know -- but it needs to get fixed pronto. But he's still developing, and I do not agree that he wouldn't be playing better if he had a better line and a viable running game to help him. Suggesting that he would be the same QB even if he had last year's line in front of him is, IMO, ridiculous and belied by the evidence, because we KNOW what he looked like behind that line in the two games he started. If you think Arch doesn't have the capability of making intermediate throws, then please take a look at the throw at 3:57 of this video. That's an NFL-quality intermediate throw. (And there are other quality short and intermediate throws on just this one video from only one game.) BTW, do you see any differences between that tape and the Kentucky game from yesterday? Notice that he often had a clean pocket from which to throw? And receivers that were consistently open? Things are a lot different so far this season in those two areas. The problem is NOT just Manning. He's a significant part of the problem, esp. with his accuracy issues, but by no means is it all on him. The offensive woes are due to a complex combination of several different factors.
  14. Brooks. But, yeah, he's a true frosh trying to play a position he wasn't projected to play.
  15. I do not agree. He showed enough in his two starts last season with a better, more experienced line that he would do fine behind a better line. The offensive problems, as usual, are not the result of one particular issue. It's a combination of things. The O-line is young and inexperienced, so it isn't a good line at this point. Consequently, Arch is under consistent pressure. There was a graphic on the broadcast of the game yesterday indicating that he's one of the most pressured QBs in the FBS. And the line is also a big part of the problem with respect to the run game. No run game puts even more pressure on Arch. Even experienced college QBs would be having problems operating behind this line. But Arch has also been missing easy/open throws that he would usually make and which he must make in order for this offense to be good. He's also missing open reads occasionally. So he is definitely part of the problem even when he's given time to do what he needs to do. So both the line and Arch are big parts of the overall problem. And that isn't even the entire picture. Playcalling is an element of the problem as well. Sark's calls and in-game decisions are sometimes headscratchers. We lack a true gamebreaker at both running back and (at least until Wingo develops or they start using him in accordance with his strengths) WR. We've had injuries on the O-line that have affected both depth and development. In sum, the offensive woes are attributable to a whole host of causes. I haven't even mentioned all of them. If you're an optimist, you think, "Both Arch and the line should improve as they gain experience, develop cohesion, etc." They both looked like they might have turned a corner against OU. That's one of the big reasons people are so upset about the Kentucky game -- the offense regressed significantly from the week before. But with young players, development isn't always a linear thing; rather, it often happens in spurts, in "fits and starts." There will be occasional bouts of regression combined with "Eureka!" moments when development is apparent. As fans, it's frustrating, but we're going to have to accept the fact that this season is, to a very large degree, a developmental season. As many on this board previously suggested, the 2026 season is the one in which this team should be a very large problem for opponents.
  16. Step away from the ledge
  17. OK, Stevie Wonder
  18. If you're gonna link to something from The Fog, I'd go with something like this instead.
  19. It may have been brought up, but if it was it was in passing and/or I must have missed it. There certainly was no drilling down about it in any kind of detail like there was with the impact of his father's death, his drinking, or his bodyweight. Again, this is just an explanation re: why I thought the documentary was good, but not great. Just my opinion. I certainly thought (and still think) that watching it was worthwhile.
  20. Not "upset" about anything. Just thought the documentary would have been better had it discussed Candy's drug usage and delved at least somewhat into why the man was unable to kick some of his demons -- the drinking, the smoking, the coke, the bodyweight. Don't get me wrong -- I enjoyed the documentary and would definitely recommend it. As others have mentioned, the Aykroyd eulogy was moving, as were Catherine O'Hara's words about Candy at his memorial. The fact that so many giants in the comedy and entertainment fields were willing to talk about and praise Candy on film speaks volumes about the man. (The fact that it was Colin Hanks, Tom Hanks' son, doing the documentary undoubtedly helped get people to talk, but still . . .) And I thought the film did a very thorough job of explaining the huge impact that his father's death had on Candy's life. But I thought it could/would have been better had it been a little more honest about Candy's drug usage and attempted to parse why Candy could never fully escape his vices, because his inability to do so obviously had a huge impact on his life and undoubtedly contributed to his death. There was virtually no substantive discussion of Candy's drug usage and its impact on his life. I'm not interested in that for titillating purposes; rather, I'm more interested in trying to find out what made the man tick and how drug usage factored into the equation.
  21. Punk move on his part.
  22. I see that I missed a good first half of football between KC and Det. I also see that the Chiefs were not penalized at all in that first half. What a shock that is.
  23. As I stated in another post, some of his decisions in prior games are a lot more questionable than that one play from the OU game that resulted in Texas starting at its 5 yard line, so I agree with you to an extent. He certainly hasn't been perfect as a punt returner -- and the instances in which he let punts hit the ground when he had a reasonable opportunity to field them are the biggest knock on him up to this point. But I think overall he's been solid. And my overarching point is that I think there are several other facets of the team's play that I think are bigger problems. Does he need to sharpen up his decisionmaking re: fielding punts? Yes. But at least he hasn't fumbled or muffed a punt up to this point, and he's had a few explosive returns. Hopefully he'll continue to improve.
×
×
  • Create New...