Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
So I happened to see Julian Sayin's stats for the day.
I wish I hadn't.

Sayin doesn’t have an offensive line cosplaying as matadors like Brooks and Robertson. He also has a running game and better receivers to rely on.
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, The Ace of Aces said:

He is not throwing to WRa wide motherfucking open and when he does he has the aim of a blind, drink man.  The OL is trash but the issues rig JB this team start and end with QB1. And ours is one of the worst in college football right now 

Insanely stupid comment

Edited by A’Dam Psycho
Posted
3 minutes ago, chad.ihrig said:


Sayin doesn’t have an offensive line cosplaying as matadors like Brooks and Robertson. He also has a running game and better receivers to rely on.

You should go look at the rushing stats for the week 1 game in Columbus. 

Posted
2 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

@Thatguy

Niblet is fucking fearless and deadly. Is there any rational reason for him not playing receiver?

I know Wingo and Arch have this magical chemistry. The way Arch throws gives the ball a positive magnetic charge. Wingo gives off positive magnetic charge. Results: Chemistry!

I'll also repeat something else from earlier in the season. The team having to emotionally lift Arch instead of him doing that for the team is very bad mojo and needs to stop. Emotional fragility breeds emotional fragility.

u r wrong. Its Wingo's feet that have a negative charge. :P

Quote

Arch Manning: Sucking never paid so well

That or Stormy Daniels

Posted
1 hour ago, Vertuzzi said:

Respectfully, who gives a shit about his NIL. Isn’t it exclusively corporate money anyway? Sark’s job is the put together a roster that gives us the best chance to win. Arch doesn’t fit into that equation, unfortunately. If we don’t go out and get a very good, veteran QB from the portal then I will consider this a failure of roster management. The Franklin firing should be a huge wake-up call for Sark. 

Sark does, what if Arch portal and lights up somewhere else. Womp Womp. 

Posted
1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

1. When your eyes don't see what you want them to, switch to statistics. 

2. You cannot know that Caldwell is not better if he never plays. Your post reads as though you're fearful that Caldwell will actually play better and crush your Arch fantasy.

3. People are saying give him a chance. Starting him might actually decompress Arch. Giving Arch a quarter before trying Caldwell wouldn't be anything other than fair to do.

4. How does one obtain moron certification? Is it the same place they certify having no sense of irony?

1. My eyes see a QB that’s sped up because the OLine can’t block and WRs are rarely open, so he’s rushing. 

2. Let me be very clear, IF YOU THINK CALDWELL IS BETTER BECAUSE OF TWO PASSES, YOUR’E A FUCKIN MORON. Idgaf about “arch fantasy”. Caldwell was in the portal and didn’t even get picked up. He’s literally a stop gap QB.

3. No people aren’t saying “give him a chance”, Texas fans are pissed and do the lazy thing by putting all the blame on QB. They are wanting him to start because they think it will fix the entire offense.

4. Thinking a guy that went 13 tds and 8 INTs should start in the SEC

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Derka said:

this is not true. there is a ton of harm in trying, from alienating the best qb on the roster who may not be a lost cause, to sark completely losing his reputation as a great offensive mind and a qb guru. sark is publicly telling us that he’s encouraging arch to take more of a leadership role as the qb even though arch isn’t proven yet, and you think there’s literally no downside to benching that guy? 

this whole operation, which is years in the works, is based around arch manning being the guy, not just for today, but for next year as well. we are not going to scrap that after 7 games of his first year as a starter, and if you don’t understand the myriad of ways in which our qb guru head coach giving up on the guy he’s built his entire program around after 7 games could turn out to be a bad thing then i don’t know what to tell you.

ill just say this: imagine if we did bench arch after 7 whole games as the starter on some jeff fisher/VY shit. imagine that Arch gets replaced, his backup does no better than he did, the team is no better off for it, and next year dia bell is competing with some transfer from Bumfuck State while Arch goes and gets developed at ole miss, or oregon or somewhere else that’s not here. “literally nothing bad could happen from benching him.” sports fans are so short sighted.

We will portal a proven guy then.  Welcome to the portal era.

Posted
5 minutes ago, oldalum said:

Sark does, what if Arch portal and lights up somewhere else. Womp Womp. 

Ok, and what evidence supports this fear? We will never know the unknown but we do know he hasn’t performed well at Texas. 

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Vertuzzi said:

Ok, and what evidence supports this fear? We will never know the unknown but we do know he hasn’t performed well at Texas. 

its not my fear, I am just trying to think from Sarks perspective. it will put the guru in stark contrast that it was always him.  I think Arch has benefitted a whole lot from his last name. Maybe a 3 star if not manning and all the discussions about him being from a small private school. 

Edited by oldalum
Posted

Maybe Arch should call these guys?  I remember when Josh Allen showed up with a tendency to rocket the ball all over the field.  

 

Josh Allen improved his accuracy by rebuilding his throwing motion with the help of biomechanical experts and private coaches like Chris Hess and Jordan Palmer. This high-tech approach involved digital mapping of his mechanics, which identified flaws in his initial all-arm-strength technique and led to permanent adjustments that increased efficiency and completion percentage. 
Posted
1 hour ago, A’Dam Psycho said:

Let me be very clear, IF YOU THINK CALDWELL IS BETTER BECAUSE OF TWO PASSES, YOUR’E A FUCKIN MORON

Yes. You're being very clear. You're a parrot who thinks by repeating his declaration it becomes more correct with each squawk.

A last time before you return to your little swing in your cage, the argument is that we should give him a shot. Arch sets a very low bar for being exceeded. Maybe Caldwell can do that.

I'm sure you're persuaded. I look forward to your repeat about who is the moron here.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Surly Bevo said:

Maybe Arch should call these guys?  I remember when Josh Allen showed up with a tendency to rocket the ball all over the field.  

 

Josh Allen improved his accuracy by rebuilding his throwing motion with the help of biomechanical experts and private coaches like Chris Hess and Jordan Palmer. This high-tech approach involved digital mapping of his mechanics, which identified flaws in his initial all-arm-strength technique and led to permanent adjustments that increased efficiency and completion percentage. 

No offense to you personally, but I'm so sick of people bringing up mechanics when any QB fails. I'm not denying the importance of proper throwing motion, but just the use of that as a catchall for QB problems.

Mechanics does do much for a QB who can't complete a simple pass to a wide-open receiver. It doesn't do much for a QB struggling to know where to look. It doesn't do much for a QB that is late to launch. I don't know that it counts as part of footwork, but if not, it won't cure that problem either.

If the QB needs to get the ball out of his hand more efficiently after making a read, sure. If a QB needs more zip or tighter accuracy, sure.

I don't think it's the place to start with a QB who fails at the things I name. If a QB has already shown he can throw, and fails at the things I name, the problem is surely not mechanics.

Posted
10 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Did I post this already? Not sure. Too lazy to look.

Image

Caldwell:

spacer.png

 

Never thought I would see Sam Jackson IV play at a level near Arch and Dylan Raiola.  

Posted

The Arch/Caldwell debate is reasonable. The guy spent his career with players who we look down on. Even from what little we've seen of him, he's hitting OUR WRs (you know, the top 200 ones) efficiently. Maybe all he needs is actual good players to succeed. Trinidad Chambliss went from Ferris State to looking elite. Sometimes having better players is the answer. Just using Occam's Razor, nothing more. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

the people who think that we should bench arch so that we can possibly win more games right now a)don’t seem to be picking up on how sark operates, b)making a wild assumption that any of our backups would be more effective, and c)are not realizing what it would mean to bench arch.

sark isn’t out here like, “oh shit i need to win right now, my seat is hot, better bench (see: alienate and send to the portal) the one guy i’ve built this entire program around!”. benching arch would mean that sark is admitting complete failure when it comes to his ability to coach up “the greatest qb prospect ever”, and that’s not how sark (or any coach) works.

arch is *the* focal point for this organization (as it were). the entire plan revolves around arch being the guy, and i’m sorry, but you don’t know shit shout coaches if you think they’re likely to just give up on “their guy” after seven games because it’s not going well. and to do so in this case would be blowing up the whole thing and starting from scratch. you think sark wants to give up on arch for the rest of this year and go into next year with more uncertainty than ever? stop thinking that this is about winning games today and start realizing that this is about sark seeing his plan to fruition, a plan which squarely revolves around arch manning.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I’m fascinated by the contrast in situations between Kiffin at Ole Miss and his QB, vs Sark and Arch.  

Every play, Kiffin right before the snap tells the QB where to go with the ball. If the defense doesn’t completely disguise its coverage, presumably the play has a high chance of success. Ole Miss is scoring points. 

However, to win a title your QB needs to be able to read coverages, because sooner or later you will run into well disguised defenses. I don’t know why Smart did so poorly at it yesterday. 

 

Posted
the people who think that we should bench arch so that we can possibly win more games right now a)don’t seem to be picking up on how sark operates, b)making a wild assumption that any of our backups would be more effective, and c)are not realizing what it would mean to bench arch.
sark isn’t out here like, “oh shit i need to win right now, my seat is hot, better bench (see: alienate and send to the portal) the one guy i’ve built this entire program around!”. benching arch would mean that sark is admitting complete failure when it comes to his ability to coach up “the greatest qb prospect ever”, and that’s not how sark (or any coach) works.
arch is *the* focal point for this organization (as it were). the entire plan revolves around arch being the guy, and i’m sorry, but you don’t know shit shout coaches if you think they’re likely to just give up on “their guy” after seven games because it’s not going well. and to do so in this case would be blowing up the whole thing and starting from scratch. you think sark wants to give up on arch for the rest of this year and go into next year with more uncertainty than ever? stop thinking that this is about winning games today and start realizing that this is about sark seeing his plan to fruition, a plan which squarely revolves around arch manning.

That’s why it won’t happen, not why it shouldn’t happen.
And you’re right, it won’t. But it’s more fun to argue over why it should on the internet.
Posted
2 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Last year’s offense vs Kentucky.

 

 

IMG_6599.jpeg

This was also with Ewers hobbling around on a sprained ankle, and Arch probably should have gone in the game.

Posted
35 minutes ago, Derka said:

the people who think that we should bench arch so that we can possibly win more games right now a)don’t seem to be picking up on how sark operates, b)making a wild assumption that any of our backups would be more effective, and c)are not realizing what it would mean to bench arch.

sark isn’t out here like, “oh shit i need to win right now, my seat is hot, better bench (see: alienate and send to the portal) the one guy i’ve built this entire program around!”. benching arch would mean that sark is admitting complete failure when it comes to his ability to coach up “the greatest qb prospect ever”, and that’s not how sark (or any coach) works.

arch is *the* focal point for this organization (as it were). the entire plan revolves around arch being the guy, and i’m sorry, but you don’t know shit shout coaches if you think they’re likely to just give up on “their guy” after seven games because it’s not going well. and to do so in this case would be blowing up the whole thing and starting from scratch. you think sark wants to give up on arch for the rest of this year and go into next year with more uncertainty than ever? stop thinking that this is about winning games today and start realizing that this is about sark seeing his plan to fruition, a plan which squarely revolves around arch manning.

I'm not even sure if its an option for Sark. I think the money guys would have to tell him to bench Arch. Sark asked them to give $$$ to the Arch Manning show. I've heard him give an entire pitch about building around Arch. Granted, that was before Arch even made it to campus. These dudes wrote the checks because Sark said we have our guy now we need to put the pieces around him. 

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...