Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

lilMAC's politics melts are the best thing about this thread.

Even better than my initial posts and roasts?

Lies I Dont Believe It GIF

Edited by lilMAC25
Posted
3 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

and there were a shitload of chucklefucks on this board that hated PK and wanted somebody else.  

Suspicious Monkey GIF by MOODMAN
 

 

 

 

 

I did come back and take my lumps

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Posted

Hey guys didn’t know the turn this thread took but I just want to put out there I was really disappointed that W didn’t pardon Karla Faye Tucker or at least commute her death sentence to life imprisonment. She had a really rough life and used her time in prison to improve the lives of her fellow inmates. 

Posted
1 minute ago, immamac said:

In fucked up watching the Miami ND game.

Knock it the fuck off. I get a report for CR again after this post and it's a month off. Fucking quit it. 

Thank you

Posted
37 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

The delusion that sports won't Venn Diagram with politics and that people are expected to shut their mouths and sit on their hands when a guy that has fuck all to do with "the game" is brought on to bleat his shit.

The dude pardoned a convicted murderer.

Cr has nothing to do with football.  Stfu.  If anything, the currently leadership at Texas is responsible for Texas being back.  It's just our HC had a little issue with red zone.  Last 10 years has been utter dog shit.

Posted
24 minutes ago, immamac said:

In fucked up watching the Miami ND game.

Knock it the fuck off. I get a report for CR again after this post and it's a month off. Fucking quit it. 

Grown men actually tattle? For real?

Amazing.

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Hookem2147 said:

Ryan Day did not plan for 8 months to have 200 yards of total offense and count on Texas bailing him out in the red zone in order to win a 14-7 game.

Let's be serious. 

No coach gameplans for a specific number of yards. You are fixated on the ridiculous notion that Sark had the better gameplan because Texas had more total yards.

Defenses play bend but don't break all the time. That entails giving up lots of yards but relatively few points. And it was obvious that Ohio State was not interested in having Sayin aggressively challenge our secondary. He took a shot when he saw Tate had completely beaten Guilbeau. They took which was given, which wasn't much but was enough given other circumstances.

Edited by satyanash
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
11 hours ago, The Ace of Aces said:

Tonight’s College Football Enquirer podcast raked Sark over the coals about his play calling from inside the 25 - dating back to his Atlanta OC days.  It’s who he is. It isn’t changing.  

It’s a major problem that won’t be fixed 

Someone post his numbers as OC in Atlanta vs shanahans.  
 

36 ppg with the offense and schedule we have isn’t really that impressive especially considering the cupcakes we’ve played though sark does intentionally kill clock

Posted

I don’t think you can say with 100% certainty it won’t be fixed. The dude is clearly capable of change.

 

But it defiantly hasn’t been fixed yet, that’s for sure. 

Posted
24 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

I don’t think you can say with 100% certainty it won’t be fixed.

I don't know if you can say anything with 100% certainty, but it is in the VERY high 90s. 

Posted
41 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

I don’t think you can say with 100% certainty it won’t be fixed. The dude is clearly capable of change.

 

But it defiantly hasn’t been fixed yet, that’s for sure. 

Guy is 50 years old and has the best job in football.  What makes you think he’s eager and willing to change.  

12 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Sark is Jimbo Fisher without the NC

Pull up his record vs James franklins

Posted
6 minutes ago, Thermos H. Christ said:

Am I allowed to want Sark to stay even if I think he’ll most likely never win a NC, like most other coaches at most other schools ever since the sport was invented? I mean you can’t totally rule it out either. 

This is still better than the abortion of late Mack, Chuckles and Herman.  Just gotta hope he gets lucky and squeezes 1 title in next 10 years.

Posted
8 minutes ago, Thermos H. Christ said:

Am I allowed to want Sark to stay even if I think he’ll most likely never win a NC, like most other coaches at most other schools ever since the sport was invented? I mean you can’t totally rule it out either. 

Nobody is advocating for a new coach. Sarks public persona is very likable.   A deeper inspection of his coaching record shows he may not be A+ at everything. But I trust CDC 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
6 minutes ago, gernblansten said:

It’s been highly entertaining watching Sark fluctuate between genius and incompetent on this board over the years. 

Over the years?  Based on the knee jerks in this thread it fluctuates wildly between the Dr Pepper commercial and the AFLAC commercial during any given game. 

Posted
21 hours ago, troph said:

There are big games where the talent edge is decidedly in our favor and big games where it’s even. Oklahoma state for the big 12 and A&M, arky and a few OU games come to mind. As do the UW, UGA and tOSU games. The only game where the talent was even and we won was at Bama. 

Is argue sark lost a few games where he had more talent 

Posted

I believe in Sark, I just wish he wasn't the play caller and head coach. I keep remembering that Ryan Day would have probably been fired last year had he not won the National Championship. There were big rumblings. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Brandywine said:

I believe in Sark, I just wish he wasn't the play caller and head coach. I keep remembering that Ryan Day would have probably been fired last year had he not won the National Championship. There were big rumblings. 

Here's the most frustrating part, as a CEO of the program he's doing fantastic. He brought in one of the best CTO's in the nation in PK. He aligned with the board president CDC on the best CMO and CFO. The VP of HR is excellent at assessing, hiring and keeping the best talent. All of his VPs and middle managers are great. Problem is the COO is, in broad strokes, doing really well on the offense, but the CEO keeps sticking his fingers in the mix and it's messing up specific issues in operations. Namely, the close out sales process with whales, or RZ in football terms. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
21 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Mack won his championship in year 8.

Sark is doing just fine. He's a good head coach and great for Texas. 

Don’t nobody wanna wait no damn 8 years 

  • Haha 1
Posted

I didn't plan to return here, but I respect your post. You missed some of my earlier statements in the discussion. It's a long, unharmonious thread, so that's totally reasonable.

I used the word stupid in the second quote of mine below which was addressed specifically at an early responder to me. I do not define as stupid anyone who disagrees with me. Many people who found fault with my argument seized on details rather than the overall point.

You:

13 hours ago, dcar00 said:

while I understand the premise, I will use the same argument for Manning that I did for Ewers.  Sark sees practice and Manning is his best chance to win. [See first below]

who is the guy under him that you think can do better? [See second below]

you also are discounting that this could be a Sark QB development problem.

 

20 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

I guess coach-hating is addictive. It's absurd to think Manning looked in practice the way he did in the shoe, and Sark decided he was ready. This was not a failure of coach preparation unless you think a coach can prescribe and administer xanax.

It wasn't footwork or mechanics that thwarted Manning. He choked horrifically. All the evidence you need for that is to review his performance in other games where the pressure was low. He was more than competent in those games. Had he played that well in this game, we likely win.

The only difference was pressure. Similarly to his panicky showing against Georgia last year, the moment was too large for him.  He faces pressure from the importance of a game and the expections almost cruelly laid upon him. 

I'll write this game off. He has a couple of cupcakes coming up, then he must face the next test. 

It's profoundly stupid to blame Manning's performance on Sarkisian. Fourth downs are another matter altogether.

We're seemingly in agreement. We see Sark's decision making on starting Manning in the same way as you describe Ewers. My main point was addressing the blame placed on Sark for Manning's preparation. As you assert, Manning did not play in practice as he did in the actual game.

 

Now, for whom to insert in his stead. From my discussion in this thread with @troph whose post I pos-repped:

Quote

Actually, I think your characterization vindicates Sark more than condemns him. [Manning's] performance was so spectacularly bad (I agree with your description), that it's difficult to imagine what  a coach could have done about it [during the game]. 

Manning did not belong on the field in the role of QB. I'm not hating. I want him to work out. 

Leaving Manning in the game was the only decisive choice, IMHO, that falls on Sark. I can't even name our second team QB, but he would have been better. If there were no other factors such as Manning's psychological strength and merciless public opinion, Manning should have been pulled.

The only reason you don't bench him is because you feel he is your best chance for a great season and that benching him would damage him and the hopes of a great season.

If we get into conference play and Manning plays nearly as poorly as yesterday, I say pull him. 

I don't think leaving Manning in this game was definitively bad. We were close. He's shown great play before, so you hope that version re-emerges. Some here believe that version did re-emerge in the fourth quarter. Maybe it did. We almost tied the game. He still didn't look great nor was his decision making notable.

I recognize Manning is a special case due to unprecedented attention and ballyhoo just because of his last name. I don't advocate a decision about replacing him until conference play. Frankly, I expect him to bounce back. If he doesn't, his fate by then should be the same as any other struggling QB even if benching him would be classic tragedy that I'd rather not see. 

Arch Manning presents as a great young man who I love representing my university. I keenly want him to succeed and believe he will. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
18 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The criticisms are eerily similar.

Your right!!! 
 

and the worse part about it is, like Mack Sark has had teams that should have won it all. I hate thinking about the what ifs but that 2023 team should’ve won it 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I didn't plan to return here, but I respect your post. You missed some of my earlier statements in the discussion. It's a long, unharmonious thread, so that's totally reasonable.

I used the word stupid in the second quote of mine below which was addressed specifically at an early responder to me. I do not define as stupid anyone who disagrees with me. Many people who found fault with my argument seized on details rather than the overall point.

You:

 

We're seemingly in agreement. We see Sark's decision making on starting Manning in the same way as you describe Ewers. My main point was addressing the blame placed on Sark for Manning's preparation. As you assert, Manning did not play in practice as he did in the actual game.

 

Now, for whom to insert in his stead. From my discussion in this thread with @troph whose post I pos-repped:

I don't think leaving Manning in this game was definitively bad. We were close. He's shown great play before, so you hope that version re-emerges. Some here believe that version did re-emerge in the fourth quarter. Maybe it did. We almost tied the game. He still didn't look great nor was his decision making notable.

I recognize Manning is a special case due to unprecedented attention and ballyhoo just because of his last name. I don't advocate a decision about replacing him until conference play. Frankly, I expect him to bounce back. If he doesn't, his fate by then should be the same as any other struggling QB even if benching him would be classic tragedy that I'd rather not see. 

Arch Manning presents as a great young man who I love representing my university. I keenly want him to succeed and believe he will. 

OK, but there is no way to know that the backup would have been better.  he could have thrown pick 6's, fumbled on sacks, all kinds of stuff.

first we have Ewers and now we have Arch, are you absolutely sure it isn't a QB development problem with Sark?  development is as much mental as it is physical.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

 

I noticed a comment from Sark in post-game PC (5:20 mark) about sitting with Arch at halftime to look at the tape/coverages. 

My questions are this: 

- Is there any coach communicating with our QB during the game on the sidelines? 

- Are we actually waiting until halftime to discuss tape/coverages? 

Edited by Hank Kingsley
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

OK, but there is no way to know that the backup would have been better.  he could have thrown pick 6's, fumbled on sacks, all kinds of stuff.

first we have Ewers and now we have Arch, are you absolutely sure it isn't a QB development problem with Sark?  development is as much mental as it is physical.

You're correct, there is no way to know. I honestly have a hard time thinking of a performance any worse than Manning's yesterday. But you're right. I think I may be right, but that it's in the question tells us something, no? Part of my reason to mention an unnamed QB was to illustrate my opinion of Manning's game yesterday.

I'm not sure I see how Ewers was poorly developed. Before he got hurt each season, if I'm not mistaken, he was rather brilliant. Perhaps I attribute too much to the injuries. I'm a football idiot compared to the guys around here who clearly know shit. I thought Arch might be better than Ewers last year, but things other than the way they played kept Ewers on the field. I was way off on that one.

Politics has shown me what a miserable predictor I can be. I'm better at football but not by much.

Posted
59 minutes ago, lilMAC25 said:

This.

 

It’s been a while since Texas lost to a lesser talented team.

There are plenty of rankings and so called experts that were saying Texas has more talent than OSU. And the ESPN power index had Texas at 53%, and that's on the road. It would've been nearly 60% at home. How many people posting here picked OSU? I think myself and about 2 others, that's it. In fact someone posted that something like 98% of Texas fans picked Texas, but only 90% of OSU fans so that means Texas has the better chance to win.

To be honest, I'm not sure at this point if I could pick who has the most talent, but I'm pretty damn sure who has the better coaching staff. Thank God at least we have coach K. 

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

I noticed a comment from Sark in post-game PC (5:20 mark) about sitting with Arch at halftime to look at the tape/coverages. 

My questions are this: 

- Is there any coach communicating with our QB during the game on the sidelines? 

- Are we actually waiting until halftime to discuss tape/coverages? 

Very important questions that need to be answered. I’ll be waiting for one of our phenomenal beat writers to ask at his next press conference. 

Edited by BurntOrange&White
  • Haha 2

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...