Jump to content

Arch Manning: Doing his best JAG impression to fool scouts


Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Am I wrong? Manning is dog shit and so is the line. 

Manning is not dog shit.  He may not work his way into being a high draft pick, but he looks and plays like what he is -- an inexperienced QB with skill but for whom the game is too fast right now.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 minute ago, hobbes2702 said:

Yes.

You’re right the QB with a 60.1 QBR doesn’t suck. 

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Manning is not dog shit.  He may not work his way into being a high draft pick, but he looks and plays like what he is -- an inexperienced QB with skill but for whom the game is too fast right now.

He’s a fucking 3rd year player. Fuck out of here with this trading of thought. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

You’re even dumber in this thread than you were in the Ewers thread 


If you are out here defending Arch despite all of the ample evidence that shows he is fucking lost, you shouldn’t be out insulting people. He is certainly part of the problem even if he was not the biggest problem yesterday. The offensive line is as bad as I can ever remember being a Texas fan since the mid 80’s. When you combine it with this QB and RB play it’s entering Shawn Watson Cotton Bowl territory. 

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

He sucks and so does our line. Together they’re a hodgepodge of suck 

Yep

It's tough to hit throws over the middle with A-gap pressure in your face constantly. Except maybe quick slants, which we should do more of. And what about some "hide" routes for the RBs?

Posted
2 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

He’s a fucking 3rd year player. Fuck out of here with this trading of thought. 

Stupid take.  He's a rookie in terms of live fire, and particularly so against decent competition. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Stupid take.  He's a rookie in terms of live fire, and particularly so against decent competition. 

There are other first year starters who are uounger annd out playing him. Stupid fucking thought and you should feel bad for it. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Am I wrong? Manning is dog shit and so is the line. 

100% correct. Would Arch be better with an OL? Probably not based on his feet, hips, etc. I ride what @BurntOrange&White says. He says what we all see and don't want to believe.   

Posted
6 minutes ago, Newy25 said:


If you are out here defending Arch despite all of the ample evidence that shows he is fucking lost, you shouldn’t be out insulting people. He is certainly part of the problem even if he was not the biggest problem yesterday. The offensive line is as bad as I can ever remember being a Texas fan since the mid 80’s. When you combine it with this QB and RB play it’s entering Shawn Watson Cotton Bowl territory. 

Can you read?

Posted
Just now, hornlife said:

100% correct. Would Arch be better with an OL? Probably not based on his feet, hips, etc. I ride what @BurntOrange&White says. He says what we all see and don't want to believe.   

We're all enamored with Arch's pedigree, physical presence, and athletic ability. 

He makes some amazing plays occasionally, but how many were because he threw a pass on time, in rhythm from the pocket? Not often. That's what Sark expects from his QBs, and thus far Arch hasn't proven he can do it well.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

There are other first year starters who are uounger annd out playing him. Stupid fucking thought and you should feel bad for it. 

No Way Wow GIF
Players develop differently? Wild. 

Posted
6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Manning is not dog shit.  He may not work his way into being a high draft pick, but he looks and plays like what he is -- an inexperienced QB with skill but for whom the game is too fast right now.

Manning may not work his way into being drafted. I felt the same way about Quinn Ewers after his 2023 season but that year vs this year's Manning it's like night and day. 

Posted
1 minute ago, DFW Horn said:

We're all enamored with Arch's pedigree, physical presence, and athletic ability. 

He makes some amazing plays occasionally, but how many were because he threw a pass on time, in rhythm from the pocket? Not often. That's what Sark expects from his QBs, and thus far Arch hasn't proven he can do it well.

This. He looks like a QB who doesn’t fit a system right now and is still behind the speed of the game.

Just now, hornlife said:

so is Manning dogshit or is our OL, or both?  My Beagle has some thoughts and that Bitch runs...

Manning is not good at the moment. The OL is all time bad.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, hobbes2702 said:

This. He looks like a QB who doesn’t fit a system right now and is still behind the speed of the game.

A coach has to build his playbook and game plan around what his players do well, or he has to recruit players to his system.

I don't know WTF we're thinking right now. Ultimately, that's on Sark.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

There are other first year starters who are uounger annd out playing him. Stupid fucking thought and you should feel bad for it. 

Good news:  I always know that when we disagree, I'm right.

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

Good news:  I always know that when we disagree, I'm right.


Arch has started seven games and in his third year in the program. He’s still chucking balls 10 years over the heads of wide open guys and not seeing open TD’s. He is simply not nearly as good as we hoped. We can say that now and stop making excuses for him. And it can also be true that he was the only one battling yesterday while the rest of the offense quit before halftime. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Newy25 said:


Arch has started seven games and in his third year in the program. He’s still chucking balls 10 years over the heads of wide open guys and not seeing open TD’s. He is simply not nearly as good as we hoped. We can say that now and stop making excuses for him. And it can also be true that he was the only one battling yesterday while the rest of the offense quit before halftime. 

10 years over their heads?  Wow!

Five of those starts are in 2025, two were against air last year.  You cannot say with anything close to certainty that he will not progress to be a quality D1 QB.

What are the alternatives?  Caldwell, maybe, we don't know what he actually has going for him, and he's gone anyway.  That's a waste of 7 games.  Lacey?  Maybe, but he'll most likely struggle too.  Owens?  LMAO.  Sark needs to unfuck Arch by tailoring the offense better.

3 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

So you’ve watched every game this season and think arch is good? His season so far is dog shit. 

What the fuck is up with your binary reasoning?  Holy shit you're worse than my wife, and by a long shot.

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

Sark needs to unfuck Arch by tailoring the offense better.

You'd think Sark would've spent the bye week doing this, but you'd be wrong. Sark is gonna prove his system works come hell or high water.

Posted
3 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

A coach has to build his playbook and game plan around what his players do well, or he has to recruit players to his system.

I don't know WTF we're thinking right now. Ultimately, that's on Sark.

Sark is throwing everything including the kitchen sink at the offense right now. Arch is too erratic to find a consistent groove during the game which makes it hard for Sark to adjust. Once the game slows down for Arch we will start to see the offense have more an identity. We were able to find one with Ewers and his deficiencies (he at least had an oline that could somewhat pass protect). The identity Sark eventually finds with Arch will still look flawed because there is no fixing the big bag of shit our Oline is right now. Wins are just too difficult to find with the combo we are getting from Arch and the Oline. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

So you’ve watched every game this season and think arch is good? His season so far is dog shit. 

Agree and @Newy25 summed it up. Arch unfortunately isn't what we hoped for. No idea on Owens but seemed to be great last spring game. Is Lacey next or wait for Bell?

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Levi said:

Sark is throwing everything including the kitchen sink at the offense right now. Arch is too erratic to find a consistent groove during the game which makes it hard for Sark to adjust. Once the game slows down for Arch we will start to see the offense have more an identity. We were able to find one with Ewers and his deficiencies (he at least had an oline that could somewhat pass protect). The identity Sark eventually finds with Arch will still look flawed because there is no fixing the big bag of shit our Oline is right now. Wins are just too difficult to find with the combo we are getting from Arch and the Oline. 

Both Stroh and Hutson keep getting worse, which I didn't think was possible.

Stroh leans too much and gets out over his feet after first contact. Hutson doesn't anchor in pass pro. I'm glad we finally replaced Stroh, but is a true freshman really our best option? PFF grade says Brooks sucked, too.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

10 years over their heads?  Wow!

Five of those starts are in 2025, two were against air last year.  You cannot say with anything close to certainty that he will not progress to be a quality D1 QB.

What are the alternatives?  Caldwell, maybe, we don't know what he actually has going for him, and he's gone anyway.  That's a waste of 7 games.  Lacey?  Maybe, but he'll most likely struggle too.  Owens?  LMAO.  Sark needs to unfuck Arch by tailoring the offense better.

What the fuck is up with your binary reasoning?  Holy shit you're worse than my wife, and by a long shot.

Binary? I have 5 games of visual evidence and a lot of analytics to point to as to why he sucks. 

Edited by BurntOrange&White
Posted
29 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Stupid take.  He's a rookie in terms of live fire, and particularly so against decent competition. 

As a third year player the game should look a little slower for him. It doesn't help that play calling is dog shit and the oline is garbage. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
A big part of it was Arch looking for the TD play on every down. I don't know if it was the playcall or a young QB not trusting his team's ability to methodically march down the field and score. He was not looking for the intermediate passes at all. If it was Arch, then why didn't his OC talk to him in between the drives?

Maybe someone did speak with him about that issue between drives.
Posted
35 minutes ago, hornlife said:

100% correct. Would Arch be better with an OL? Probably not based on his feet, hips, etc. I ride what @BurntOrange&White says. He says what we all see and don't want to believe.   

Is it possible his mechanics might be better if he weren’t expecting to have to evade or be blasted by a Dlineman in 1.5 seconds?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
57 minutes ago, Newy25 said:


He double clutched that schemed up TD and made it look harder than it was. Never mind the RPO’s that he pre determines before the snap and just rifles into the receiver regardless of the coverage. Arch has very little feel for what he is being asked to do in this offense. 

Going by memory, I think he was trying to get the ball to Wingo who was in the end zone. Wisner was short of the goalline and there was a DB in between the two guys. He was trying to throw the DB off with the double clutch so that he could throw the ball to Wingo for a surefire TD instead of throwing to Wisner who could have been tackled short of the line. That's my interpretation of what he might have been thinking.

I think it's a bit more nuanced than the people who are willing to a write off a QB too early want to give credit for. If everyone wrote off all the talented QBs so early in their career, we wouldn't have the uncle Mannings, Brady, Aikman or any other HOF QBs.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
42 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

You’re right the QB with a 60.1 QBR doesn’t suck. 

He’s a fucking 3rd year player. Fuck out of here with this trading of thought. 

He is being asked to carry the offense. This is a bad OL, which you have said 10000x times. There isn’t a skill player on the team the scares a DC. Sadly, I think Arch and the offense would be better under Herman. Herman would realize at some point, usually a drive after it mattered, his offense isn’t working and he would spread it out and let Sam play hero ball. Sark is running 12 personnel making it harder on the offense 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

Both Stroh and Hutson keep getting worse, which I didn't think was possible.

Stroh leans too much and gets out over his feet after first contact. Hutson doesn't anchor in pass pro. I'm glad we finally replaced Stroh, but is a true freshman really our best option? PFF grade says Brooks sucked, too.

Our best options on the online right now are guys that can move people in the run game. I really don’t care who they are— we just need to give our run game a chance to succeed. 

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

Binary? I have 5 games of visual evidence and a lot of analytics to point to as to why he sucks. 

God damn the stupid.  I say he didn't suck and your retort is "so you think he's GOOD"?

That's binary.  Grow up, and stop fucking up this board.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
A coach has to build his playbook and game plan around what his players do well, or he has to recruit players to his system.
I don't know WTF we're thinking right now. Ultimately, that's on Sark.

He is already doing that. I see way fewer RPO stuff this season, for one example.

Also, serious question…
With this “system” are the progressions usually deep > intermediate > short?

I know there are plays where there isn’t even a true progression at all, so the answer might not be simple, but I’m just trying to grasp what Sark is asking him for vs what he is actually doing out there.
Posted
1 minute ago, scottsins said:

Also, serious question…
With this “system” are the progressions usually deep > intermediate > short?

Progressions are usually read high to low, deep to short. Right now, IDK if I'd trust Arch to make it to a 3rd read, especially with the O-Line's issues.

Posted
31 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

10 years over their heads?  Wow!

Five of those starts are in 2025, two were against air last year.  You cannot say with anything close to certainty that he will not progress to be a quality D1 QB.

What are the alternatives?  Caldwell, maybe, we don't know what he actually has going for him, and he's gone anyway.  That's a waste of 7 games.  Lacey?  Maybe, but he'll most likely struggle too.  Owens?  LMAO.  Sark needs to unfuck Arch by tailoring the offense better.

What the fuck is up with your binary reasoning?  Holy shit you're worse than my wife, and by a long shot.


You are mixing arguments and moving goal posts to try to defend your bizarre take that Arch is simply lacking enough experience. Arch played last year. Once against an SEC opponent, not against fucking air so get ahold of yourself. It doesn’t take 30 starts to hit a wide open receiver 10 yards in front of you. 

The lack of a viable alternative on our roster does not change my evaluation of Arch. I’m not advocating stating Lacey or Caldwell so stop with straw man arguments. Arch is not nearly as good as he was billed to be and that is extremely disappointing. 

Posted
Progressions are usually read high to low, deep to short. Right now, IDK if I'd trust Arch to make it to a 3rd read, especially with the O-Line's issues.

That’s how I thought it usually works. Since the OL sucks so bad, IMO, he needs to just glance at the deep option to see if the DB literally falls down or some shit and then immediately speed through the rest. He has less time than a QB should IMO, and I also think he’s really pressing/hoping that the first read is going to look better at some point. Then pressure comes and either he lets it fly into double/coverage and/or the throw is affected by the pass rush.

This offense shouldn’t have 3 reads at all IMO.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Newy25 said:


You are mixing arguments and moving goal posts to try to defend your bizarre take that Arch is simply lacking enough experience.

I am doing nothing of the sort.  He may not get any better, but if you think he's anything but a starter with 1/2 season of experience, then I don't know what to tell you.

I mean, he actually played better against UF than he did against SJSU and UTEP, so right there that might tell you there is something clicking.  Maybe it isn't.  I don't know, and neither do you.  Beyond that, what's your fucking solution?

10 minutes ago, Newy25 said:

Arch is not nearly as good as he was billed to be and that is extremely disappointing. 

Maybe stop reading recruiting reports.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, scottsins said:


That’s how I thought it usually works. Since the OL sucks so bad, IMO, he needs to just glance at the deep option to see if the DB literally falls down or some shit and then immediately speed through the rest. He has less time than a QB should IMO, and I also think he’s really pressing/hoping that the first read is going to look better at some point. Then pressure comes and either he lets it fly into double/coverage and/or the throw is affected by the pass rush.

This offense shouldn’t have 3 reads at all IMO.

A few people have asserted that he makes up his mind where he's going with the ball before the snap and waits for that receiver to come open. This is probably happening, too, at times. I'm just wondering why we appear to have given up on RPOs. Does Arch not read these plays well either?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Introducing a new starting quarterback with no oline blocking and no running game is never a successful formula. This stands true across all levels of football, no matter who the quarterback is supposed to be.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

Anyone flipping out about Arch’s play yesterday clearly didn’t recalibrate their expectations enough after the UTEP game.

Warts and all, that was his second best performance this season. He made some bad decisions/throws, but also did a great job many times of avoiding pressure and stepping up in the pocket. RBs had 15 yards and we didn’t have a LG. 
 

He’s got a lot of work to do but there is more potential with him than anyone else on offense at this point. 
 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
12 minutes ago, Surly Bevo said:

Yes it should but the third read should be

Academy Awards Film GIF by CBS

I spent most of the game yelling at the TV yesterday, "Get rid of it!" or "Run it, Arch!"

Posted
1 minute ago, pacman said:

Introducing a new starting quarterback with no oline blocking and no running game is never a successful formula. This stands true across all levels of football, no matter who the quarterback is supposed to be.

i mean if the current qb takes 20 seconds to pass the ball 6 yard from the receiver while the backup seems to be able to do it near instantly, you don't think that can be beneficial when the oline is dog shit?

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

Introducing a new starting quarterback with no oline blocking and no running game is never a successful formula. This stands true across all levels of football, no matter who the quarterback is supposed to be.

Yep.  See the Bengals.  Burrow was struggling before he got hurt  despite all their talent. Line play and running the ball matter. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Warts and all, that was his second best performance this season. He made some bad decisions/throws, but also did a great job many times of avoiding pressure and stepping up in the pocket. RBs had 15 yards and we didn’t have a LG

He’s got a lot of work to do but there is more potential with him than anyone else on offense at this point. 

11 rushes for 15 yards won't beat many teams. UF d-line was able to tee off on Arch, but he hung in there.

LG and C were the biggest problems yesterday

Posted
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

What are the alternatives?  Caldwell, maybe, we don't know what he actually has going for him, and he's gone anyway.  That's a waste of 7 games. 

What the fuck?? Dude there are seniors on this team. Players are going to portal if we suck ass this season. You play the guy that gives you the best chance to win. 

Posted
39 minutes ago, LonghornSean said:

This stat is basically the opposite of last year

image.thumb.png.af86c41b46c1680b2a91987870cb0ae3.png

I think that's a lot of the problem. That's going to be a boom or bust offense and it may put up a lot of points against SHSU, but more bust than boom against a good defense. I'd rather have a Colt who methodically moves the ball down the field and demoralizes the defense. But that's more due to Sark's play calling than the QB. He wants to do what he did at bama when he had All Americans at WR, RB and OL. It's flat out retarded to think this Texas team can do the things that Bama team did.

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...