Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Both Texas and Georgia had budding superstars standing on the sideline. Only one of those got a chance to make a meaningful contribution - which he did. He fucking decided to run the ball right up our gut - and he won the fucking game for Georgia. Yeah, he got his bell rung, but he'll be back after a big rest (that we won't get). 

Had both budding superstars had a shot in this game, it's almost a lock ours woulda come out on top. Because Arch would have had a better Defense playing behind him.

  • Replies 26.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
2 minutes ago, Navin R. Johnson said:

I’m concerned that we’re boxing Manning into a running qb. He is a qb that can run. He’s much more advanced as a passer than Tebow. He should not be in on running plays only.

Compared to Quinn he's a running QB. We all know he can do much more with his arm.

Posted
1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Compared to Quinn he's a running QB. We all know he can do much more with his arm.

Arch should be given the same playbook as Quinn. It’s detrimental to treat him differently just because Quinn is is a frail statue. I’m not sure if sark is treating him differently, I think it’s possible, but it should not happen.

Posted
35 minutes ago, Irish Wrist Watch said:

It seems to me that there's a very good argument to be made that there's no way Texas, with Arch taking half of the snaps against Georgia (with an "Arch Gameplan", of course), would have done any worse than the meager 16 fucking points that Ewers put on the board in Regulation. We probably would have fared a little better with him getting just half the snaps, maybe a lot better.

Therefore, there's an even stronger argument to be made that Arch should get half the snaps against Clemson, so that he can be ready to take on whatever comes after Clemson, because there is zero chance that Ewers can win the big one - zero - and that we absolutely have to get Manning into the game ASAP and not just for a couple of plays (for Christ Sakes). Only Manning can take us to the promised land. He needs to play at least half of the Clemson game, goddammit.

But what if Arch throws a pick 6?
No one knows how he would have fared in the game.

Not being able to run the ball consistently is our biggest problem on offense.

Posted
45 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Quinn's biggest problem is our overrated oline. 

Shadeur and Cam Ward would eat behind that line. Quinn's biggest problems are his mechanics, slow processing, angled release that gets batted down, the butterfly balls that float in the air forever (allowing the DB to catch up or worse, pick it) and his inability to scramble for the easy yards until he self sacks. Every once in a while Quinn will make a throw where you stop and say "well damn...that was nice" but if everything has to go 100 percent smoothly in all facets of a play for a 3rd year QB to have a modicum of success then that's a problem with the QB, the really good ones can do stuff off script.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
15 minutes ago, Navin R. Johnson said:

I’m concerned that we’re boxing Manning into a running qb. He is a qb that can run. He’s much more advanced as a passer than Tebow. He should not be in on running plays only.

I think you are reading too much into the last 2 appearances for Arch. Sark didn’t use him as a running QB in his 2 starts. He has used him as a change a pace the last 2 games. Bringing in a QB that can run the ball in the red zone. I suspect that package might get a bit deeper based on Sark’s comments about the Georgia game, but only time will tell 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

I think you are reading too much into the last 2 appearances for Arch. Sark didn’t use him as a running QB in his 2 starts. He has used him as a change a pace the last 2 games. Bringing in a QB that can run the ball in the red zone. I suspect that package might get a bit deeper based on Sark’s comments about the Georgia game, but only time will tell 

I suspect we won't see the package, period. It'll be a fewer than 5 snap thing for Arch.

Posted
15 minutes ago, FOXHOUND said:

Shadeur and Cam Ward would eat behind that line. Quinn's biggest problems are his mechanics, slow processing, angled release that gets batted down, the butterfly balls that float in the air forever (allowing the DB to catch up or worse, pick it) and his inability to scramble for the easy yards until he self sacks. Every once in a while Quinn will make a throw where you stop and say "well damn...that was nice" but if everything has to go 100 percent smoothly in all facets of a play for a 3rd year QB to have a modicum of success then that's a problem with the QB, the really good ones can do stuff off script.  

Do you even watch the games?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
24 minutes ago, Navin R. Johnson said:

Arch should be given the same playbook as Quinn. It’s detrimental to treat him differently just because Quinn is is a frail statue. I’m not sure if sark is treating him differently, I think it’s possible, but it should not happen.

Yeah, putting Manning in to run a glorified wildcat play everytime is a waste.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

Stockton was damn good when he came in. I'd take him over Quinn any day as my QB. That kid has moxie. I don't dislike Quinn at all, but he's not a gamer. Like others have said, he just loafs out there, then comes back and sits down. Stockton came in and was dealing. That's exactly what Arch is foj g to do, but better. 

Edit: It's mainly hyperbole. I have no idea how Stockton would have done had he started. I wouldn't actually take him over Quinn. It was retarded on my part to even say it. Just wanted to get that out of the way

Edited by Funk Doctor Spock
  • Haha 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Seems like he does, as that was all on point. 

Bullshit.

Quinn was moving around just fine and buying some.

He threw the ball well also.

He was not the reason Texas lost.

Not even close.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Funk Doctor Spock said:

Stockton was damn good when he came in. I'd take him over Quinn any day as my QB. That kid has moxie. I don't dislike Quinn at all, but he's not a gamer. Like others have said, he just loafs out there, then comes back and sits down. Stockton came in and was dealing. That's exactly what Arch is foj g to do, but better. 

The whole offense rallied behind Stockton whereas before they were all ho-hum and going through the motions. Kirby kept it simple for him, they ran the ball and he made some stuff happen. 

Posted
32 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

But what if Arch throws a pick 6?
No one knows how he would have fared in the game.

Not being able to run the ball consistently is our biggest problem on offense.

I mean Quinn has thrown a couple recently and it’s brushed off here.  

Posted
2 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

Watch closer.

We have a three year sample size of Quinn as the starting QB, this ain't George RR Martin and waiting on Winds of Winter the book on him is out. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

Quinn = Blake Sims, Jake Coker, Jake Fromm, or JJ McCarthy.  All those QBs CFP-era QBs made the NC game and 2 of them won it, mostly with good defense.  Actually Coker had Derrick Henry so that's a big reason too.  Anyway, none of them were expected to be superman and put the team on their backs. 

With this defense we can still win the NC with Quinn as long as he doesn't turn it over, special teams doesn't melt down, and some semblance of a running game.  Give it a 20% chance we can do that 4 games in a row.  I'll take it.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
12 minutes ago, Funk Doctor Spock said:

Stockton was damn good when he came in. I'd take him over Quinn any day as my QB. That kid has moxie. I don't dislike Quinn at all, but he's not a gamer. Like others have said, he just loafs out there, then comes back and sits down. Stockton came in and was dealing. That's exactly what Arch is foj g to do, but better. 

Let’s not crown his ass.   Simple one read throws.  And he ran it a few plays

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
Posted
Just now, closetohumping said:

I mean Quinn has thrown a couple recently and it’s brushed off here.  

Well so did Joe Montana.

It is going to happen but I really do not remember any of Quinn’s being a game changer.

He had the fumble against Kentucky that went for six but that was a fumble and not a pick.

I have probably erased any other from my feeble memory.

Posted
9 minutes ago, FOXHOUND said:

The whole offense rallied behind Stockton whereas before they were all ho-hum and going through the motions. Kirby kept it simple for him, they ran the ball and he made some stuff happen. 

Exactly. We don't know how he would have done had he started the game, but he was damn good for what was asked of him. 

Posted
30 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

I think you are reading too much into the last 2 appearances for Arch. Sark didn’t use him as a running QB in his 2 starts. He has used him as a change a pace the last 2 games. Bringing in a QB that can run the ball in the red zone. I suspect that package might get a bit deeper based on Sark’s comments about the Georgia game, but only time will tell 

I'm not saying that Sark should give Arch half the snaps as a running QB, I'm saying the special Arch Package would open up the fucking playbook to everything including RPOs. Maybe they get rid of the shit that pinned Quinn in the pocket, although Arch can do that shit all day long if necessary, but move him around in such a way that if all the receivers are taken, he doesn't have to run thru three lineman to break into the open. He gets an easy five yards and slides, or maybe he sees an opening and takes it 65 yards, pulling away from cornerbacks and safeties. Forget the lateral passes. We don't need those. Throw in a few sweeps for the RBs. Bust some fucking heads.

An aside: The Horns showed they weren't afraid to bust heads against anyone last night. They just needed a leader to light them on fire.

  • Like 1
Posted
Stockton was damn good when he came in. I'd take him over Quinn any day as my QB. That kid has moxie. I don't dislike Quinn at all, but he's not a gamer. Like others have said, he just loafs out there, then comes back and sits down. Stockton came in and was dealing. That's exactly what Arch is foj g to do, but better. 


It’s ridiculous to say you’d take Stockton over Ewers at this point. Full stop.


Bullshit.
Quinn was moving around just fine and buying some.
He threw the ball well also.
He was not the reason Texas lost.
Not even close.


Ewers’ RZ numbers were bad last night — something like 2-of-10 for five yards. We couldn’t run for shit and kept bogging down in Georgia territory. Mix in a couple Bert hiccups and our razor-thin path to victory disappeared.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, C-Man said:

 


It’s ridiculous to say you’d take Stockton over Ewers at this point. Full stop.




Ewers’ RZ numbers were bad last night — something like 2-of-10 for five yards. We couldn’t run for shit and kept bogging down in Georgia territory. Mix in a couple Bert hiccups and our razor-thin path to victory disappeared.

 

Alright, I admit it was a bit hyperbole. It was stupid to even say it. You're right, because no one knows how he would have done had he actually started and went through the game. But I was impressed with what little time he had. 

Quinn had a pretty good game, but we need more from him. I don't know if he's still hurt, or if he is what he is. I just keep expecting more from him every game. Maybe in 2 weeks he'll ball out and face fuck Clemson (God that would be delicious). 

Edited by Funk Doctor Spock
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
57 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

We all know he can do much more with his arm.

You know this?  He hasn't shown it against much beyond spare competition.  Don't get me wrong, I'm on board with Quinn moving on (draft, portal) but I don't think the passing game is as big an upgrade under Arch as you are sure it is.  The logic doesn't work -- either Sark is a moron or he doesn't think Arch is ready.

Posted

The thing about Quinn is he's an enigma because he's always hurt, he's not that tall and he weighs 195. If he were able to stay healthy maybe we see a different player, but as of now we'll never know. He's just frail. It sucks that he's always hurt because there's a part of me that believes he would tear it up. He clearly has a gifted arm, but it makes no difference when you can't step into the box and find your receivers, or even move your abdominal ands top throwing off your back foot. 

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

You know this?  He hasn't shown it against much beyond spare competition.  Don't get me wrong, I'm on board with Quinn moving on (draft, portal) but I don't think the passing game is as big an upgrade under Arch as you are sure it is.  The logic doesn't work -- either Sark is a moron or he doesn't think Arch is ready.

The logic works. He just doesn't want to bench a 3 year starter that has led us to 11 wins so far. Sark has had a succession plan for awhile and wants to stick to it. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The logic works. He just doesn't want to bench a 3 year starter that has led us to 11 wins so far. Sark has had a succession plan for awhile and wants to stick to it. 

You think Sark is self-sabotaging his chance at a national title?  LMAO

I'm not saying he's right, but I guarantee you he thinks he's right.

Posted
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

You think Sark is self-sabotaging his chance at a national title?  LMAO

I'm not saying he's right, but I guarantee you he thinks he's right.

I think he’s a hard headed dipshit a lot of times with his playcalling. No reason to believe he wouldn’t be the same with this decision. 

1 hour ago, Steamboat1874 said:

But what if Arch throws a pick 6?

You mean just like Quinn did against Aggie and the fumble 6 vs Kentucky?

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You think Sark is self-sabotaging his chance at a national title?  LMAO

I'm not saying he's right, but I guarantee you he thinks he's right.

No, I don't think he's self sabotaging. 

I agree with your second sentence. 

 

Posted
3 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I think he’s a hard headed dipshit a lot of times with his playcalling. No reason to believe he wouldn’t be the same with this decision. 

LMAO you're such a fucking idiot.  You're saying a man who is WIDELY regarded as an elite -- perhaps THE elite -- playcaller in college football is a hard headed dipshit in that regard?

Take a breath, Ace.  You're way out over you skis on this one.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I think he’s a hard headed dipshit a lot of times with his playcalling. No reason to believe he wouldn’t be the same with this decision. 

You mean just like Quinn did against Aggie and the fumble 6 vs Kentucky?

One was tipped, still his fault, and one was a sack fumble that you would be hard to blame him for.

What is your point.

Sark went…

5-7

8-5

12-2 

11-2

Pretty sure he knows what he is doing and only an idiot would think otherwise.

 

Posted
3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

LMAO you're such a fucking idiot.  You're saying a man who is WIDELY regarded as an elite -- perhaps THE elite -- playcaller in college football is a hard headed dipshit in that regard?

Take a breath, Ace.  You're way out over you skis on this one.

I mean did any of the Alabama teams he coached score only 16 points in an seccg

Posted
Just now, immamac said:

I mean did any of the Alabama teams he coached score only 16 points in an seccg

We scored 19, numb nuts.  And guess what, the opposing head coach won the Broyles Award as a DC and was DC for 4 national championship teams.  Holy fuck some of you are really thick.  Georgia is by far the defense that has our number, assuming that Arch would do better is absolute wish-casting.  Carry on, ladies.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

One was tipped, still his fault, and one was a sack fumble that you would be hard to blame him for.

What is your point.

Sark went…

5-7

8-5

12-2 

11-2

Pretty sure he knows what he is doing and only an idiot would think otherwise.

 

Yea it was his fault as it should have never been thrown as DB undercut regardless 

Posted
34 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

Well so did Joe Montana.

It is going to happen but I really do not remember any of Quinn’s being a game changer.

He had the fumble against Kentucky that went for six but that was a fumble and not a pick.

I have probably erased any other from my feeble memory.

The aggy one kept them I. The game. Yes we still won. Yes he had a good first half. But he and sark don’t seem to do well in the second half

Posted
32 minutes ago, Funk Doctor Spock said:

I'm just saying he looked pretty damn good for what was asked of him. 

This is vastly different than saying you’d take him over Ewers, which you did.

Posted
8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

LMAO you're such a fucking idiot.  You're saying a man who is WIDELY regarded as an elite -- perhaps THE elite -- playcaller in college football is a hard headed dipshit in that regard?

Take a breath, Ace.  You're way out over you skis on this one.

Does he stop calling plays in the second half?  Is that Flood or Mileee calling plays?  I know I know games were already decided.  

Posted
31 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You know this?  He hasn't shown it against much beyond spare competition.  Don't get me wrong, I'm on board with Quinn moving on (draft, portal) but I don't think the passing game is as big an upgrade under Arch as you are sure it is.  The logic doesn't work -- either Sark is a moron or he doesn't think Arch is ready.

The post is about Arch being a better thrower than a young Tebow, he’ll even older Tebow. Read the thread and get the context

Posted

Sark has to consider the politics and optics of his decisions, as he is the head coach. I think Sark has done a tremendous job in that regard. However, it can also be true that Manning gives us a better chance to win.

I’ll trust Sark to continue making good decisions. But one thing that concerns me is making Arch a running qb. Sark hasn’t necessarily done that yet, but I’m terrified of the possibility.

 I still remember the post-Colt years where Mack ruined multiple talented qb’s by trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Posted
2 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

The post is about Arch being a better thrower than a young Tebow, he’ll even older Tebow. Read the thread and get the context

Nobody got time for that.  It's a Ewers thread.  

I would agree that Arch is a better thrower than Tebow, young or old.  Tebow threw a bunch of jump pass TDs.

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Quinn's biggest problem is our overrated oline. 

Quinn and the slow developing play calls from our HC make them look worse against elite defenses.

Are they overrated? Perhaps but we did them no favors in the first game and very few again yesterday.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

I missed the part where the score was 19 for Texas at any time in regulation. OT points don't make a shit you start in FG range basically. Stop being such a dipshit. 

Sark also scored a ton in his Alabama OC seccg I looked it up. Weird. 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 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...