Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
24 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

Bro. I honestly think this dude just doesn't know the plays bro. Lol. It seems obvious to me. Anything that dude can see or truly knows, like a deep ball, he is accurate as hell. He is accurate when its scramble drill time. He is only inaccurate when its in the confines of the offense. Anyone who played sports knew a guy who didnt have the plays down. Whether it was he didnt study or was plane just dumb. I honestly this Arch just doesn't know the plays and therefore plays with zero anticipation. 

Plain

  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

I dont think he ever sees it pre snap. He might see it half the time post snap. Even when he does see it, he usually sees it too late. And even when he does see it, he misses way too often. 

Asswater. 

Posted
45 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

Bro. I honestly think this dude just doesn't know the plays bro. Lol. It seems obvious to me. Anything that dude can see or truly knows, like a deep ball, he is accurate as hell. He is accurate when its scramble drill time. He is only inaccurate when its in the confines of the offense. Anyone who played sports knew a guy who didnt have the plays down. Whether it was he didnt study or was plane just dumb. I honestly this Arch just doesn't know the plays and therefore plays with zero anticipation. 

1896856_10201633549591190_1198635962_a%2

So, is he a football dumbshit or over-coached.  There have been some allusions to all the coaches in his ear, relatives, private coaches, our staff.

Posted
6 minutes ago, BlackCat said:

I dont think he ever sees it pre snap. He might see it half the time post snap. Even when he does see it, he usually sees it too late. And even when he does see it, he misses way too often. 

Asswater. 

I agree with this a lot.  Very often, a RB or TE is open inmmediately quick routes to the outside and Arch holds the ball entirely too long.  Drop some short passes to the Rb and the safeties/LBs will have to start accounting for them earlier, which in turn opens up other things.  Instead, Arch is laser focusing downfield for so long that the short, underneath stuff goes away. 

It's infuriating to watch.

As for the OL, someone said over the KY game thread, we're running the same plays we did last year that we can't execute on this year.  Change the scheme and what you run out of it.  We might have to get really basic but if it produces more than 47 yards against teams like Kentucky then it's a success.   

Oh, and guess what a better running game does for your QB?

  • Like 3
Posted
11 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

I agree with this a lot.  Very often, a RB or TE is open inmmediately quick routes to the outside and Arch holds the ball entirely too long.  Drop some short passes to the Rb and the safeties/LBs will have to start accounting for them earlier, which in turn opens up other things.  Instead, Arch is laser focusing downfield for so long that the short, underneath stuff goes away. 

It's infuriating to watch.

As for the OL, someone said over the KY game thread, we're running the same plays we did last year that we can't execute on this year.  Change the scheme and what you run out of it.  We might have to get really basic but if it produces more than 47 yards against teams like Kentucky then it's a success.   

Oh, and guess what a better running game does for your QB?

You can’t go simple. A genius offensive coordinator would never do something like that!

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Here is every play from the game if you can stomach watching it again. 

Those misses to Wingo and Endries were really bad. They were the few times Arch was put in a position to succeed and he blew it.

But everything on offense is dogshit. UK defense knew what was coming on most of the plays. Shit blocking, shit situational play calling, no rhythm at all.  

Arch deserves the criticism but not many QBs can turn this shit sandwich into a consistently functional offense when no one is executing. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted

Arch is the worst QB we have fielded since Colt left in 2010. Not even close. Had no idea I'd be saying this before the season started. He fucking blows. Case McCoy looks like Vince Young compared to this spare. He hid behind the Manning last name long enough, got the hype and got paid. Even before this season, he was a heisman hopeful and people even talking about NFL teams tanking to get him. Could he perform better with the teams we had last year, especially the OL and run game? Maybe. But even when he has time to throw, he misses the very easy throws and does so consistently. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted

It's funny that people were talking after the OU game how Arch had turned it around. Yeah he threw for 160 yards. He didn't play bad, but he was just a bus driver and didn't have many of those WTF misses. Which, is probably pretty similar to what we would get from Caldwell if we made the switch. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Red Five said:

It's funny that people were talking after the OU game how Arch had turned it around. Yeah he threw for 160 yards. He didn't play bad, but he was just a bus driver and didn't have many of those WTF misses. Which, is probably pretty similar to what we would get from Caldwell if we made the switch. 

And instead of working off the successful game manager performance, Sark went back to hero ball and set up Arch to fail again, outside of a few crucial open throws he absolutely needs to complete. 
 

 

Posted

Sark has issues, his biggest being irrational loyalty to overrated QB’s. I’d like to see what he can do with a decent QB and a decent line. I bet he’d be lighting shit up with Pavia and the Vandy line. I think his offense is good enough to score 30ppg but he’s been handcuffed by his QB’s the last few years (again, this is entirely his fault for his personnel decisions).

Posted
1 hour ago, The Earl of Texas said:

If you had Arch coming in and this "#1 season" ahead of you, you have to hit the portal and shell out for two badass OL with experience. Going in with an inexperienced OL to this year was a major mistake.

Otherwise, I really don't blame Sark. These WRs are so fucking wide open it's hard to believe, and the missed throws are equally hard to believe. Unless you're saying it's on Sark to keep playing Arch (which I imagine there's sports-politics pressure to do so, so to speak), I think Sark is doing well.

Oh I pin a lot of this on Arch but ultimately this is sarks team.  I’m not a shitty enough of a human being to root against Arch just so I’m proven right.  

Posted
30 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

1896856_10201633549591190_1198635962_a%2

So, is he a football dumbshit or over-coached.  There have been some allusions to all the coaches in his ear, relatives, private coaches, our staff.

I dont mean he doesn't know the plays at all. He can call the plays. I mean he doesn't know them so well that he can see them in his head during the game. He is calling the play and then walking to the line and seeing blank. He doesn't see a defensive player moving and say to himself "that means x or y is open". He cant recall what x or y was supposed to do until he sees them do it. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

And instead of working off the successful game manager performance, Sark went back to hero ball and set up Arch to fail again, outside of a few crucial open throws he absolutely needs to complete. 
 

 

What is it you think Sark did different from last game to this game? 

Posted
14 minutes ago, Red Five said:

It's funny that people were talking after the OU game how Arch had turned it around. Yeah he threw for 160 yards. He didn't play bad, but he was just a bus driver and didn't have many of those WTF misses. Which, is probably pretty similar to what we would get from Caldwell if we made the switch. 

People like blood sausage too. People are morons.

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

I dont mean he doesn't know the plays at all. He can call the plays. I mean he doesn't know them so well that he can see them in his head during the game. He is calling the play and then walking to the line and seeing blank. He doesn't see a defensive player moving and say to himself "that means x or y is open". He cant recall what x or y was supposed to do until he sees them do it. 

I understood.  Thought it was an interesting point and very possibly valid.  Every now and then, things line up for him and he executes a pretty great throw.

Posted
1 minute ago, Thatguy said:

What is it you think Sark did different from last game to this game? 

Didn't try to establish the run, didn't give Arch enough opportunities to dump off/check down. 

Outside of the few obvious (and important!) missed throws, I think the All-22 re-watch is not gonna show Arch blowing it all game. Total failure everywhere. 

 

Posted
13 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

And instead of working off the successful game manager performance, Sark went back to hero ball and set up Arch to fail again, outside of a few crucial open throws he absolutely needs to complete. 
 

 

Or, maybe arch doesn’t see them or go to them quick enough?  I think it’s more of a “both could be true” thing 

4 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

What is it you think Sark did different from last game to this game? 

Not run the ball as much. The rest was very similar. It’s just in these guys who hate sark and blame him for everything nature to pretend debt game plan is different.  
 

It’s the same passion game. Just didn’t work this week.  The lack of run game helped make it so. 

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

What is it you think Sark did different from last game to this game? 

The consensus seems to be that we ran an outside-zone heavy run game to exploit Venables' defense, which was known to be exploitable that way. And Tre is pretty good at it.  And that opened up a few things for Arch.

And we went away from anything consistent like that to a grab bag of concepts that we're not very good at executing.

While I can identify an OZ running play and know we didn't run many, I can't analyze much beyond that.  

Would be happy to hear your thoughts.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Didn't try to establish the run, didn't give Arch enough opportunities to dump off/check down. 

Outside of the few obvious (and important!) missed throws, I think the All-22 re-watch is not gonna show Arch blowing it all game. Total failure everywhere. 

 

Yes he’s did Arch just didn’t hit them or see them.  Yall continue to say this stuff. 
 

Maybe the play call is for a longer deep route. But all the plays have a dump off.  Arch doesn’t process it fast enough. And the only times he hits those is when he’s off script(which they should probably incorporate more) 

Edited by Drew
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

It would be best for everyone if Arch moved on after the season. He is getting worse every week and a massive liability to our offense.

Gotta start wondering if the QBs are the only problem.  It's obvious Arch doesn't have it, but he actually looked better last year in his limited starts.  First Ewers regressed under Sark.  Now it's Arch.  For being an offensive genius and a supposed QB whisperer, Sark sure doesn't seem to be developing talent well, if at all.  He's had three years with this kid.  Seems reasonable to think you'd be able to have him completing simple crossing routes by this point in time.

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

Yes he’s did Arch just didn’t hit them or see them.  Yall continue to say this stuff. 
 

Maybe the okay call is for a longer deep route. But all the plays have a dump off.  

Bro is slurping Arch so hard

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 minute ago, SpiralOut said:

It's obvious Arch doesn't have it, but he actually looked better last year in his limited starts. 

It feels like the two seasons should be reversed. Like he's not only regressed, but it's like watching a first or second year QB vs an upperclassman. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I understood.  Thought it was an interesting point and very possibly valid.  Every now and then, things line up for him and he executes a pretty great throw.

I know you did Twice, but a lot of lurkers may not so i chose to elaborate. And you are correct. When things align for him he shows his abilities. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I consider Arch a redshirt Freshman with a sub-par oline. He was definitely overhyped, but I'm not ready to burn him at the stake.

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

I consider Arch a redshirt Freshman with a sub-par oline. He was definitely overhyped, but I'm not ready to burn him at the stake.

Leavitt is a RS sophomore, right? That guy doesn’t have a OL worth a shit but he makes plays. 

Posted
This offense is just full of JAGs. Arch looked a million times better last year with a solid Oline, elite WRs, and an actual TE. It’s not like the guy just decided to suck. He has nothing to work with.

He didn’t decide to suck, but he still does
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
11 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Most deserved blame for offensive woes this season, in order: 

1. Sark

2. Offensive Line 

3. Arch 

4. RBs

5. WRs 

 

Only an elite, veteran QB could overcome our issues, assuming they could survive a game behind this line. 

 

There was one Arch run where Endries had two guys he could have blocked and chose neither. 

 

this is why i’m not in the camp of “arch is a bust, time to move on.” maybe i've just become old, but back in my day when you brought in a qb with Arch’s pedigree and talent you didn’t just completely give up on him after 9 whole starts. he’s bad, but he’s not the main issue, and he’s still in his first year as a starter, which everyone seems to forget.

i’m wondering if some of his inexplicably poor passes to wide open receivers aren’t a product of him feeling pressure that isn’t there due to the fact that he pressure usually *is* there behind this porous o line. you give him a terrible game plan, you have him running for his life every play, you surround him with the worst we’ve had in years supporting cast in years, the third play of every single drive is 3rd and long, and yeah- that’s not exactly ideal conditions for a first year starter to grow. i’d love to see how how much he could grow with better play calling and more help from his teammates, and im not ready to move on and and declare the manning years to be over/a failure.

Posted
32 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

And instead of working off the successful game manager performance, Sark went back to hero ball and set up Arch to fail again, outside of a few crucial open throws he absolutely needs to complete. 
 

 

I'm sorry. There is no game plan that works with a QB that can't throw to wide open receivers. This irrational belief that we just need to call different plays and Manning will look good is ridiculous. For whatever reason, some games he can perform and other games he can't. The only one that can fix this Manning (or a different QB). 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

That Endries play pissed me off the most and makes me want to never see the guy on the field again. Running in between to defenders and just sticking your arms out is wild. If Sark had any pride, Endries won’t play next week

Posted
12 minutes ago, A’Dam Psycho said:

This offense is just full of JAGs. Arch looked a million times better last year with a solid Oline, elite WRs, and an actual TE. It’s not like the guy just decided to suck. He has nothing to work with.

No. He didn't. 

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

lol dude can’t hit open receivers or see open receivers and people still want blame other shit 

Recievers showing no effort unless the pass is completely perfect is an issue too. Endries and Wingo are lazy

  • Haha 1
Posted
Just now, Dahobbs said:

There is no game plan that works with a QB that can't throw to wide open receivers.

And there is no game plan for an OL that can't pass or run block. When you combine them you get an offense that scores 14 PPG against real college football teams (13 if you remove the TD that was gifted from the Niblett return). 

Posted
2 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Endries was standing alone by himself and Arch fired it 10 yards over his head. Beauty

lol no he didn’t. He assumed Endries was gonna keep running and he stopped. That’s 50/50 on Arch & Endries

Posted
Just now, Red Five said:

And there is no game plan for an OL that can't pass or run block. When you combine them you get an offense that scores 14 PPG against real college football teams (13 if you remove the TD that was gifted from the Niblett return). 

The line isn't good. But it wouldn't look as bad if Manning was a division 1 QB. 

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

The line isn't good. But it wouldn't look as bad if Manning was a division 1 QB. 

We could do this all day. It's a horrific combo right now.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm sorry. There is no game plan that works with a QB that can't throw to wide open receivers. This irrational belief that we just need to call different plays and Manning will look good is ridiculous. For whatever reason, some games he can perform and other games he can't. The only one that can fix this Manning (or a different QB). 

I'm sorry you can't look a little deeper into it. 

Arch is a part of the problem. But he would have to be elite for this offense to be functional and consistent. There is so much failure and lack of execution all over the offensive side of the ball, and two things can be true at once. 

 

Posted (edited)

arch is off awful, not sure if he just is bad or if sark / milwee is failing him.  

doesn't really matter though, because it all falls on sark. sark has the power to bench him and hasn't.

 thus sark is a fucking retard.  we are paying 11 million a year to a fucking retard.

fuck him. fuck sark 

Edited by FORTY NINE TO ZERO
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, gurt said:

I’m not sure that Caldwell will be an improvement but there is literally no harm in trying.

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.

Edited by Derka
Posted
1 minute 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 if 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 then i probably shouldn’t waste the keystrokes trying to explain it.

ill just say this: imagine if we did bench arch after 7 whole games as the starterC 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.

Manning isn't the best QB on the roster. He is barely a QB. 

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Red Five said:

We could do this all day. It's a horrific combo right now.

Insert all the videos and clips of wide open receivers not being seen. While he has no pressure untiL he holds the ball long enough

Edited by BurntOrange&White
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I'm sorry you can't look a little deeper into it. 

Arch is a part of the problem. But he would have to be elite for this offense to be functional and consistent. There is so much failure and lack of execution all over the offensive side of the ball, and two things can be true at once. 

 

We had the same problems last year and we blamed the quarterback. 

Posted
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.

So your position is that it is more important to preserve the very slim odds of the idealized scenario working out next year over trying to win games now? You’re scenario is completely hypothetical. I want to see what we might be able to do now. If Caldwell proves he can’t do any better after the next couple games, you go back to Arch.
This also sends the message (which is long overdue) that positions are earned, not ordained.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 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...