Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

ThEy'rE exPLoiTing the cHilDRen! as he types from his iphone, made using chinese slave labor and specifically little kids hands that can manipulate the parts better.  I'm so tired of selective outrage.  The world is a shit place....at least that kid got a fucking teddy bear.  

 

Anywho, I'm excited to see what Sark can do next year.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

I don’t know whether calling plays is part of the reason Sark teams have been having in-game challenges, but it does make you wonder when you see Riley teams also struggle with defense and have wtf games too.

If I were head coach I would never bury myself in play calling. I’d want to have the freedom to keep a pulse on everything during a game and during the week. 

Posted
6 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

I don’t know whether calling plays is part of the reason Sark teams have been having in-game challenges, but it does make you wonder when you see Riley teams also struggle with defense and have wtf games too.

If I were head coach I would never bury myself in play calling. I’d want to have the freedom to keep a pulse on everything during a game and during the week. 

Who hasn’t had a WTF game so far this year? Georgia, Michigan, TCU, maybe. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

There’s multiple games this season where we abandoned the run game. It’s literally the reason we aren’t playing in the CCG.

Look it takes a couple of years to build a team. A pro just can’t come into a situation and work with what’s available and plug the gaps in the roster from the portal and JUCO. That’s for amateurs. See you need every single player to come up through high school. There is simply no other way to build a winning team. It takes time. Man…(lmao)

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Jkwellborn said:

Do any HC call the defense?

A lot of the NFL guys do, including Belicheck.  You don't hear about it as much because it's not the same burden as offensive playcalling.

Posted
With all due respect...  Go back to the CR room 
 
Fuck

This 1604 cocksucker would be considered the biggest most insufferable cunt in Cuntsville.

Muting is the only answer.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 4
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
1 hour ago, LTtxfan said:

With all due respect...  Go back to the CR room 

 

Fuck

Sorry but sexually-charged child exploitation transcends politics and party lines. Especially when it directly involves a highly-public figure of my University. It was simply unacceptable and tone deaf for her to wear that last night. Full stop.
 

Btw- Have never made one post nor spent one second in that cesspool called the CR.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck You 3
Posted
18 minutes ago, MirrOlure said:


This 1604 cocksucker would be considered the biggest most insufferable cunt in Cuntsville.

Muting is the only answer.

You truly are a miserable person. Maybe you’ll encourage me to drink again, that was a bannable offense considering the amount of recovering alcoholics on this board. Kindly fuck yourself sir.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Loop 1604 said:

Sad Pop Tv GIF by Schitt's Creek
 

A good common sense check for 2022. If you find yourself on the same side of a controversial issue as Kanye West, you might want to do a little more research.

Based on my experience here so far, being on the opposite side of an issue from you is the way to go, without even knowing the issue. 

  • Haha 6
Posted
16 hours ago, Loop 1604 said:

Do you live under a rock?

That's what our wives are for. My wife usually comes running in telling me what humanitarian/environmental issues I am supposed to be up in arms about while I am busy making money for her to spend. There could be a world-ending meteor headed our way. Unless it was on here or a commercial during a football game I wouldn't know. 

  • Like 3
Posted
21 hours ago, Hookem2147 said:

Well if that talented defense could have just saved their own lives on one of those SIX 4th down conversions Tech had.

Maybe if the offense didn’t continue going 3 and out, leaving the D on a 140 degree field for over 100 plays…

For a play calling genius, Sarkisian sure hasn’t seemed to figure out that the offense has to make an effort to not kill the defense by leaving them on the field all game. 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

  Everything is black and white to you guys. It's pretty amazing. 

mad people GIF
 

 

Oh, you must mean the people that can read a box score. Those people. Yes, I’m one of those.

Edited by lilMAC25
  • Like 3
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

At least we are 3rd place in the Big12. No other team can say that shit 🤘🏼!

 

6DAE414C-88C8-4AA0-BD5B-D3E6CC1ABF94.gif

7BE308CF-0645-4F6B-B61D-A163E0E8067E.gif

I Guess If You Say So GIF

Edited by D3zii
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, lilMAC25 said:

mad people GIF
 

 

Oh, you must mean the people that can read a box score. Those people. Yes, I’m one of those.

And therein lies the problem....you are just reading the box score. 

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

And therein lies the problem....you are just reading the box score. 

Well, I watched the game and watched our QB complete about 43.5% of his passes, so that’s not true at all.

Edited by lilMAC25
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, lilMAC25 said:

Well, I watched the game and watched our QB complete about 33% of his passes, so that’s not true at all.

So why do you think we couldn't run the ball?

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

So why do you think we couldn't run the ball?

In large part because we didn’t try. Why did we only allow our Heisman candidate RB 12 touches? Why did Sark say it was his fault we got away from the run game?
 

 

ETA: it was 17/39 for Ewers, so closer to 43.5% completion.

 

Edited by lilMAC25
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
Just now, lilMAC25 said:

In large part because we didn’t try. Why did we only allow our Heisman candidate RB 12 touches? 

On the rushes we DID have why didn't they work?

Posted
2 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

On the rushes we DID have why didn't they work?

Because they weren’t well blocked or we were outschemed. That doesn’t mean that you have to give up, especially when your Fr QB is shitting the bed.

 

again, why did Sark say it was his fault we got away from running the ball if we actually SHOULD have abandoned the run game?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, lilMAC25 said:

Because they weren’t well blocked or we were outschemed. That doesn’t mean that you have to give up, especially when your Fr QB is shitting the bed.

 

again, why did Sark say it was his fault we got away from running the ball if we actually SHOULD have abandoned the run game?

  That wasn't the only reason, and Sark ALWAYS jumps on the grenade. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
2 hours ago, Thatguy said:

On the rushes we DID have why didn't they work?

How many were counters, how many were with motion, how many were jet sweeps/shovel passes

Posted
2 hours ago, Thatguy said:

On the rushes we DID have why didn't they work?

If I told you we had two upper class RBs that were going to the NFL, and a freshman QB, how many games would you plan to have the freshman QB drop back 40+ times and give your Doak Walker RB 12 carries?

We panicked early and quit in the run... Even though the run was averaging enough yards to keep running and wear down the defense later.

The QB Coach got away from the QBs best friend. Let's hope it doesn't become a habit.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
20 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

How many were counters, how many were with motion, how many were jet sweeps/shovel passes

   We ran a bit of everything. Sometimes we get away from motion because the guys are false starting. However, we ran a bunch of stuff. 

  

1 minute ago, Slacks said:

If I told you we had two upper class RBs that were going to the NFL, and a freshman QB, how many games would you plan to have the freshman QB drop back 40+ times and give your Doak Walker RB 12 carries?

We panicked early and quit in the run... Even though the run was averaging enough yards to keep running and wear down the defense later.

The QB Coach got away from the QBs best friend. Let's hope it doesn't become a habit.

  I agree we should've run it more. I am saying Bijan was a large part of the problem. For all his greatness he doesn't always understand when its time to quit trying to hit the homerun and take the yards that are there. I can see how Sark got lured away from him. Of Bijan's 12 carries 8 of them were for virtually no gain. 1 for 1 yard, 6 for no gain, and 1 for a 1 yard loss. He was trying to dance and bounce runs when it wasn't there to do. Take the 3 or 4 yards and move on. As a playcaller that is extremely frustrating. 

  Meanwhile TCU was plugging away the whole time. There was this misconception that TCU was running the same as we were, but they weren't. This is their yards gained each rush. -2, 5, 4, 6, 4, 2, 4, 2, 5, 2, 3, 5,-1,-1, 4, 6, 5, 12, 9, 2, 14, 5, 0, 1, 4, 6, 0, 11, 1, 7, and 4. 

  TCU was always getting positive yardage in the run game outside of three runs in the first half and 2 in the second. 

 My point to @lilMAC25 is that even if we had stuck with the running game in that particular game it doesn't mean we automatically win. Bijan wasn't seeing the field the way he usually does, and more carries may not have translated into more wins. It could've translated into more 3 and outs. It is all speculation. We ran it 33 times vs Bama and totaled 79 yards. Again, I agree that Sark should ride his two horses, just disagree that it would automatically mean a W, especially when your RB is struggling like he was. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

   We ran a bit of everything. Sometimes we get away from motion because the guys are false starting. However, we ran a bunch of stuff. 

  

  I agree we should've run it more. I am saying Bijan was a large part of the problem. For all his greatness he doesn't always understand when its time to quit trying to hit the homerun and take the yards that are there. I can see how Sark got lured away from him. Of Bijan's 12 carries 8 of them were for virtually no gain. 1 for 1 yard, 6 for no gain, and 1 for a 1 yard loss. He was trying to dance and bounce runs when it wasn't there to do. Take the 3 or 4 yards and move on. As a playcaller that is extremely frustrating. 

  Meanwhile TCU was plugging away the whole time. There was this misconception that TCU was running the same as we were, but they weren't. This is their yards gained each rush. -2, 5, 4, 6, 4, 2, 4, 2, 5, 2, 3, 5,-1,-1, 4, 6, 5, 12, 9, 2, 14, 5, 0, 1, 4, 6, 0, 11, 1, 7, and 4. 

  TCU was always getting positive yardage in the run game outside of three runs in the first half and 2 in the second. 

 My point to @lilMAC25 is that even if we had stuck with the running game in that particular game it doesn't mean we automatically win. Bijan wasn't seeing the field the way he usually does, and more carries may not have translated into more wins. It could've translated into more 3 and outs. It is all speculation. We ran it 33 times vs Bama and totaled 79 yards. Again, I agree that Sark should ride his two horses, just disagree that it would automatically mean a W, especially when your RB is struggling like he was. 

Sark says the goal of his offense is to get the ball in the hands of the best players. He took the ball out of the hands of the best RB in CFP... And let a freshman QB throw the game away.

Let Bijan and Roschon lose the game.

There were 3 games where he had that opportunity but he became a QB coach...

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Slacks said:

Sark says the goal of his offense is to get the ball in the hands of the best players. He took the ball out of the hands of the best RB in CFP... And let a freshman QB throw the game away.

Let Bijan and Roschon lose the game.

There were 3 games where he had that opportunity but he became a QB coach...

We ran for over 200 yards on OSU and we put the ball in our best player's hands vs Tech and he fumbled it in OT. We lost both games. Of our 4 losses, TCU is the only game we lost with less than 30 carries. It doesn't mean simply because we run more we win is all I am saying. Other factors can contribute to that. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
7 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

We ran for over 200 yards on OSU and we put the ball in our best player's hands vs Tech and he fumbled it in OT. We lost both games. Of our 4 losses, TCU is the only game we lost with less than 30 carries. It doesn't mean simply because we run more we win is all I am saying. Other factors can contribute to that. 

Your defense of running the ball isnt enough to win is the game where Texas threw it 49 times and only completed 19?

 

Will Ferrell Reaction GIF by MOODMAN

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, victory88 said:

TCU was stacking and overloading the box and they were whipping our OL with the penetration they were getting.  Sark tried to run it.  Bijan was getting hit behind the line line everytime.  His mistake was that he was trying to throw it deep with play action to make them pay for stacking the box.  Instead, he should have attacked the outside in the screen game and punished tcu for overloading the box.  We started doing that late in the game with J Whit and we’re getting chunk yardage.  Sark wasn’t able to adjust early enough.  Even if he was, the entire offense was playing like shit.  Penalty after penalty along with dropped passes, inability to block, and bad throws.  We were doomed regardless of the plays that were called.  TCU had a good game plan on defense and we sucked it up.  Had nothing to do with Sark not getting the ball to Bijan.  Bijan was going to run into a wall for a loss every play.

So instead of feeding your heisman candidate, you throw it 3:1 vs the run with the Fr QB who is completely shitting the bed?

 

How did that work out for us?

Edited by lilMAC25
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

 It doesn't mean simply because we run more we win is all I am saying. Other factors can contribute to that. 

Agreed. I'm not saying run would have been a certain win.  I'm saying i believe there would have been a better chance to win.

It's all hindsight, but you'll pretty much always hear me saying "Run The Ball".

I'm an old.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
11 minutes ago, lilMAC25 said:

So instead of feeding your heisman candidate, you throw it 3:1 vs the run with the Fr QB who is completely shitting the bed?

 

How did that work out for us?

We handed it to our Heisman candidate in OT vs Tech. How did that work out for us? 

  Doesn't guarantee a win. 

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, victory88 said:

TCU was stacking and overloading the box and they were whipping our OL with the penetration they were getting.  Sark tried to run it.  Bijan was getting hit behind the line line everytime.  His mistake was that he was trying to throw it deep with play action to make them pay for stacking the box.  Instead, he should have attacked the outside in the screen game and punished tcu for overloading the box.  We started doing that late in the game with J Whit and we’re getting chunk yardage.  Sark wasn’t able to adjust early enough.  Even if he was, the entire offense was playing like shit.  Penalty after penalty along with dropped passes, inability to block, and bad throws.  We were doomed regardless of the plays that were called.  TCU had a good game plan on defense and we sucked it up.  Had nothing to do with Sark not getting the ball to Bijan.  Bijan was going to run into a wall for a loss every play.

Didn't run enough to figure out what would work and then throw off it.

But I completely agree that too many deep shots was a factor.

Hell I'm ok with using the short passing game as run game, but even that didn't seem to be consistent.

Rush 3 / Drop 8 is Sark kryptonite.

I hope the is more go-go in the game next season.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Slacks said:

Agreed. I'm not saying run would have been a certain win.  I'm saying i believe there would have been a better chance to win.

It's all hindsight, but you'll pretty much always hear me saying "Run The Ball".

I'm an old.  

  I would agree as I am also an old. I just get tired of the "if we did this ONE thing we would be 12-0" crowd. A lot of stupid factors contributed to our current record. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
24 minutes ago, victory88 said:

TCU was stacking and overloading the box and they were whipping our OL with the penetration they were getting.  Sark tried to run it.  Bijan was getting hit behind the line line everytime.  His mistake was that he was trying to throw it deep with play action to make them pay for stacking the box.  Instead, he should have attacked the outside in the screen game and punished tcu for overloading the box.  We started doing that late in the game with J Whit and we’re getting chunk yardage.  Sark wasn’t able to adjust early enough.  Even if he was, the entire offense was playing like shit.  Penalty after penalty along with dropped passes, inability to block, and bad throws.  We were doomed regardless of the plays that were called.  TCU had a good game plan on defense and we sucked it up.  Had nothing to do with Sark not getting the ball to Bijan.  Bijan was going to run into a wall for a loss every play.

 

4 minutes ago, Slacks said:

Didn't run enough to figure out what would work and then throw off it.

But I completely agree that too many deep shots was a factor.

Hell I'm ok with using the short passing game as run game, but even that didn't seem to be consistent.

Rush 3 / Drop 8 is Sark kryptonite.

I hope the is more go-go in the game next season.

  This is where I have been. The deep shots are the issue not the passing game in and of itself. Get it out of his hands quick. Use the short passing game as a running attack. TCU was going to demand we show them we could throw it before they came out of what they were in, and we don't have a good enough line to run against loaded boxes. We went to that and then penalties n drops happened. 

  We have lost in a variety of ways. One way is dropping all the INTs we had our hands on. We probably dropped double digits this year. Shame our linebacker has better hands than the secondary. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

  I would agree as I am also an old. I just get tired of the "if we did this ONE thing we would be 12-0" crowd. A lot of stupid factors contributed to our current record. 

Except I never said that.

 

I DID point out that you can run on TCU. We just decided not to do so.

35 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

We handed it to our Heisman candidate in OT vs Tech. How did that work out for us? 

  Doesn't guarantee a win. 

Who said it guaranteed anything? That’s a red herring.

Edited by lilMAC25
Posted
On 12/2/2022 at 4:38 PM, Dbeasy said:

I don’t know whether calling plays is part of the reason Sark teams have been having in-game challenges, but it does make you wonder when you see Riley teams also struggle with defense and have wtf games too.

If I were head coach I would never bury myself in play calling. I’d want to have the freedom to keep a pulse on everything during a game and during the week. 

Well, Riley has defensive problems because he has the same defensive staff as he had at blOwU for the most part.

I was skeptical of PK and still hate the way our DBs play, but the defensive progress made this year was pretty impressive.  I don't think Riley has ever had that.

I'm not sure we can say it's a systemic problem among playcalling coaches.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Thatguy said:

We ran for over 200 yards on OSU and we put the ball in our best player's hands vs Tech and he fumbled it in OT. We lost both games. Of our 4 losses, TCU is the only game we lost with less than 30 carries. It doesn't mean simply because we run more we win is all I am saying. Other factors can contribute to that. 

Yeah that's the thing that annoys me.  IF Sarkisian had just done this or that, we'd be 12-0 and BECAUSE he didn't do this or that and obtain some other speculative outcome, he's a shit coach and should be fired.

That's a pretty amazing  causal "chain" of false certainty.  And a lot of that certainty seems to come from drawing some kind of similarity to some other failed coach, or a false or speculative assertion that Saban never does that or never did.

Because let's not kid ourselves, Saban is our only standard round here for a lot of folks.  And that's a masturbatory pipe dream.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

 

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah that's the thing that annoys me.  IF Sarkisian had just done this or that, we'd be 12-0 and BECAUSE he didn't do this or that and obtain some other speculative outcome, he's a shit coach and should be fired.

That's a pretty amazing  causal "chain" of false certainty.

   Hindsight is always 20/20. So of course we are irritated that a coach didn't do something different in a loss. However, Surly takes it a step too far sometimes. "If we had only pulled out the QB who went 6-2 for the QB who went 2-2, we would've gone 12-0" might be my personal favorite. 

   

  • Hook 'Em 1

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...