Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, Bevo14 said:

This. Winning out is the only outcome good enough to make a lack of change palatable.

I think you need to see very major changes even if we win out or go 9-3 and make the playoffs as the 11 seed. Which is probably a better than 50% chance to happen if we got to 9-3.  I'd still want major changes.  Doesn't matter what the final record ends up imo. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I think you need to see very major changes even if we win out or go 9-3 and make the playoffs as the 11 seed. Which is probably a better than 50% chance to happen if we got to 9-3.  I'd still want major changes.  Doesn't matter what the final record ends up imo. 

Agree completely but I don't think that'll happen unless the team finishes very poorly, like 5-7 or 6-6. I thought he shouldve brought in an oc even last year.

Edited by Bevo14
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, westexhorn said:

How was Washington's offense with Sark as HC/OC?  It's easy to just do OC duties only vs both.

Per Google AI:

Washington Huskies offensive statistics under Steve Sarkisian

Offensive ratings and rankings fluctuate, but here is a summary of how the offense performed and developed during his tenure:

2009 (5-7): After the Huskies' 0-12 season in 2008, Sarkisian's offense was immediately an improvement. One source called the overall offensive grade for the season a "B," noting it was good enough to keep the team in most games.

2010 (7-6): The offense took another step forward. In the early part of the season, the offense was ranked 36th nationally in total offense, averaging 436 yards per game. It was also ranked 20th in the nation in passing offense (287 yards per game), a significant jump from the previous season.

2011 (7-6): Sarkisian's system continued to build on the foundation he established, which featured a pro-style offense that balanced the run and a short-pass, play-action game.

2012 (7-6): The offense showed consistency and stability, demonstrating that it could remain effective even after the departure of first-round NFL quarterback Jake Locker. It continued to develop under quarterback Keith Price.

2013 (8-4): In his final season, the offense's passing game was ranked 39th nationally in passing yards per game (270.0) and 31st in pass efficiency (148.23). The yardage per passing attempt was 7.9, which ranked 41st. 

Damn.  That's fire

4 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I think you need to see very major changes even if we win out or go 9-3 and make the playoffs as the 11 seed. Which is probably a better than 50% chance to happen if we got to 9-3.  I'd still want major changes.  Doesn't matter what the final record ends up imo. 

Don't think 9-3 gets us in anymore.  We've looked like ass

Posted
Just now, Wulaw Horn said:

They went from winless to 8-4 or 9-3 or something like that and his shitty QB (Jake Locker I think) got taken in the top 10 in the draft, so, just fine? All the 1000 yard runners. I wasn't paying any attention to them at that time so know nothing beyond boxscore. 

Yeah he certainly isn't Lane Kiffin or Kalen Deboer level of offensive geniuses, thats for sure.

Kalen DeBoer's offensive ratings at Fresno State and Washington show significant improvement, though the data is more complete for Washington. At Fresno State, his offense went from 125th in scoring to 77th in his first year and 26th in his second year, with passing offense improving from 120th to 72nd to 47th in total yards per game. Washington had an average of 36.0 points per game (13th) and 343.7 passing yards per game (2nd) in 2022-2023. 

Fresno State

2017 (1st season): Scoring offense jumped from 125th to 77th nationally, and total offense improved from 120th to 72nd.

2018 (2nd season): Scoring offense ranked 26th nationally with 34.6 points per game, and total offense improved to 47th. 

Washington

2022-2023: Finished the 2022 season with a 11-2 record and 2023 with a 14-1 record.

2022-2023 Stats (Official):

Total Offense: 12th in the nation (462.1 yards per game).

Scoring Offense: 13th in the nation (36.0 points per game).

Passing Offense: 2nd in the nation (343.7 yards per game).

Rushing Offense: 104th in the nation (118.4 yards per game). 

 

Lane Kiffin's offensive rating at Ole Miss

2020

National rank: 14th in points per game (39.2).

Total offense: Averaged 555.9 yards per game.

Context: Kiffin's first year was highlighted by a high-powered offense featuring quarterback Matt Corral, despite a 5-5 overall record. 

2021

SEC rank: 1st in total offense, for the second consecutive season.

National rank: 6th in total offense with 492.5 yards per game.

Scoring offense: Ranked 10th nationally (38.4 points per game). 

2022

SEC rank: 1st in offensive efficiency (ESPN).

National rank: 2nd in offensive efficiency (ESPN).

Scoring offense: Ranked 5th nationally (41.1 points per game).

Total offense: Ranked 8th nationally with 496.4 yards per game.

Total rushing: Ranked 3rd nationally (256.6 yards per game). 

2023

SEC rank: 2nd in offensive efficiency (ESPN).

National rank: 4th in offensive efficiency (ESPN).

Scoring offense: Ranked 5th nationally (40.1 points per game).

Total offense: Ranked 13th nationally with 461.9 yards per game.

Key offensive stats: Also ranked 12th in passing efficiency and led the nation in fewest turnovers. 

2024

SEC rank: 3rd in offensive efficiency (ESPN).

National rank: 12th in offensive efficiency (ESPN).

Scoring offense: Ranked 3rd nationally (38.6 points per game).

Total offense: Ranked 2nd in the FBS (560.7 yards per game) as of mid-October.

Passing offense: Ranked 3rd nationally (360.1 yards per game) as of mid-October. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Im_smarter_then_you said:

Damn.  That's fire

Don't think 9-3 gets us in anymore.  We've looked like ass

Just depends on the rest of the country. I'd call it 51% shot at it.  I can't imagine like- a 10-3 GaTech or big 12 loser going over a 9-3 texas regardless of how bad we've looked. Or what- a 9-3 Nebraska or USC? Nah. We go every time.  Or- you going to take a 9-3 TN or LSU that we finished ahead of in the SEC standings?  Also not likely.  

Posted
1 minute ago, westexhorn said:

Yeah he certainly isn't Lane Kiffin or Kalen Deboer level of offensive geniuses, thats for sure.

Kalen DeBoer's offensive ratings at Fresno State and Washington show significant improvement, though the data is more complete for Washington. At Fresno State, his offense went from 125th in scoring to 77th in his first year and 26th in his second year, with passing offense improving from 120th to 72nd to 47th in total yards per game. Washington had an average of 36.0 points per game (13th) and 343.7 passing yards per game (2nd) in 2022-2023. 

Fresno State

2017 (1st season): Scoring offense jumped from 125th to 77th nationally, and total offense improved from 120th to 72nd.

2018 (2nd season): Scoring offense ranked 26th nationally with 34.6 points per game, and total offense improved to 47th. 

Washington

2022-2023: Finished the 2022 season with a 11-2 record and 2023 with a 14-1 record.

2022-2023 Stats (Official):

Total Offense: 12th in the nation (462.1 yards per game).

Scoring Offense: 13th in the nation (36.0 points per game).

Passing Offense: 2nd in the nation (343.7 yards per game).

Rushing Offense: 104th in the nation (118.4 yards per game). 

 

Lane Kiffin's offensive rating at Ole Miss

2020

National rank: 14th in points per game (39.2).

Total offense: Averaged 555.9 yards per game.

Context: Kiffin's first year was highlighted by a high-powered offense featuring quarterback Matt Corral, despite a 5-5 overall record. 

2021

SEC rank: 1st in total offense, for the second consecutive season.

National rank: 6th in total offense with 492.5 yards per game.

Scoring offense: Ranked 10th nationally (38.4 points per game). 

2022

SEC rank: 1st in offensive efficiency (ESPN).

National rank: 2nd in offensive efficiency (ESPN).

Scoring offense: Ranked 5th nationally (41.1 points per game).

Total offense: Ranked 8th nationally with 496.4 yards per game.

Total rushing: Ranked 3rd nationally (256.6 yards per game). 

2023

SEC rank: 2nd in offensive efficiency (ESPN).

National rank: 4th in offensive efficiency (ESPN).

Scoring offense: Ranked 5th nationally (40.1 points per game).

Total offense: Ranked 13th nationally with 461.9 yards per game.

Key offensive stats: Also ranked 12th in passing efficiency and led the nation in fewest turnovers. 

2024

SEC rank: 3rd in offensive efficiency (ESPN).

National rank: 12th in offensive efficiency (ESPN).

Scoring offense: Ranked 3rd nationally (38.6 points per game).

Total offense: Ranked 2nd in the FBS (560.7 yards per game) as of mid-October.

Passing offense: Ranked 3rd nationally (360.1 yards per game) as of mid-October. 

And that's ok. He does a good overall job of managing the program in my opinion, but he needs to take the next step as a coach and become confident enough to dole out the offensive responsibilities.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Newy25 said:


Vanderbilt might be the best team left on our schedule and will definitely score points on us. That’s the least likely win left on our schedule IMO. 

lol wut

Vanderbilt at home is a significantly more likely win for us than at UGA or home against A&M. We'll be underdogs in all three, but that's out best shot for sure.  Vandy's defense is not good. They're still very limited athletically on defense and they don't tackle well, either. We have a way better chance of scoring 20+ on Vandy than either of the other two.

LSU's offense is ranked right around where our offense is per advanced metrics and they put up 325 yards and 24 points at Vandy, which was their best offensive performance of the season against an FBS school. 

Edited by Burt Macklin
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

All 11 starters on last year's team are either in the NFL now, or will be. Ewers was playing yesterday in Miami. Blue was playing for Dallas. 

Not to be too dramatic but I'm kind of thinking Sark is a straight up fraud. That 100% NFL offense was struggling to score points against mediocre defenses. Ewers looked unplayable for much of the year but he's getting NFL snaps as a rookie?

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Red Five said:

All 11 starters on last year's team are either in the NFL now, or will be. Ewers was playing yesterday in Miami. Blue was playing for Dallas. 

Not to be too dramatic but I'm kind of thinking Sark is a straight up fraud. That 100% NFL offense was struggling to score points against mediocre defenses. Ewers looked unplayable for much of the year but he's getting NFL snaps as a rookie?

You mean the guy nicknamed 7 win Steve might not be good?

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

lol wut

Vanderbilt at home is a significantly more likely win for us than at UGA or home against A&M. We'll be underdogs in all three, but that's out best shot for sure.  Vandy's defense is not good. They're still very limited athletically on defense and they don't tackle well, either. We have a way better chance of scoring 20+ on Vandy than either of the other two.

LSU's offense is ranked right around where our offense is per advanced metrics and they put up 325 yards and 24 points at Vandy, which was their best offensive performance of the season against an FBS school. 

We likely will not be dogs against Vandy. We may not be against atm. 

Posted
11 minutes ago, Im_smarter_then_you said:

Damn.  That's fire

Don't think 9-3 gets us in anymore.  We've looked like ass

At 9-3 we jump 10-2 programs with less of a resume.  Going through the SEC, having the talent we do, and playing @ OSU is a big bump in our resume.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
12 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Just depends on the rest of the country. I'd call it 51% shot at it.  I can't imagine like- a 10-3 GaTech or big 12 loser going over a 9-3 texas regardless of how bad we've looked. Or what- a 9-3 Nebraska or USC? Nah. We go every time.  Or- you going to take a 9-3 TN or LSU that we finished ahead of in the SEC standings?  Also not likely.  

Wouldn’t brush off usc like tha. Glamour school for sure. Exciting style of play.  Some games their offense scored 21+

Posted
17 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I think you need to see very major changes even if we win out or go 9-3 and make the playoffs as the 11 seed. Which is probably a better than 50% chance to happen if we got to 9-3.  I'd still want major changes.  Doesn't matter what the final record ends up imo. 

All of this.

I've been critical of Sark at times, but I am overall a believer, still.

But I don't understand how you let this offensive line happen in the transfer era with almost unlimited NIL resources.  What is the point of all the 5- and 4-star skill guys when you're going to lose in the trenches every weekend?  How does an offensive guru not understand that if you can't block, you can't do anything else?

The same way that a misplayed poker hand can sometimes still win the pot, all of this needs to be reevaluated no matter how it turns out.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
Just now, ztejas said:

We likely will not be dogs against Vandy. We may not be against atm. 

If they put out a line today, we would probably be favorites over Vandy. After next week? We shall see.  A&M would be a no doubt favorite against us.

Posted
3 minutes ago, ermahgerdhorn said:

At 9-3 we jump 10-2 programs with less of a resume.  Going through the SEC, having the talent we do, and playing @ OSU is a big bump in our resume.  

Agreed , 9-3 would likely mean 2-1 vs the aggies, UGA and Vandy.  This team cannot play worse on O, right!? Got to click at some point.

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

Wouldn’t brush off usc like tha. Glamour school for sure. Exciting style of play.  Some games their offense scored 21+

I mean- look at the resumes if we are both 9-3.

Texas losses:  @ OSU, @ Florida, @ Georgia.  Not a bad loss on there.

Wins:  Ranked (all top 10 at the time): Aggy, OU, Vandy.  

Compared to USC:

Losses- @ ILlinois, @ Notre Dame, @ Oregon

Wins:  Michigan, @ Nebraska, Iowa

 

I mean- Texas is way better on all 3 on the comparissons. Better losses.  Better wins.  Higher ranked in the computers by a lot.  I guess if you think the big 10 can get a 4th team in ahead of a 9-3 texas what you'd need to see is them finishing 10-2.  The following teams could finish with 2 losses with parenthesis being hard games left:

Northwestern (Nebraka, USC, Michigan, Illinois, MN)

USC (Oregon, Nebraska, Iowa)

Iowa:  (MN, Oregon, @ UsC, @ Nebraska)

Michigan (Ohio State.).  

MN:  (Iowa, @ Oregon, Northwestern)

Illinois:  (at Washington, v Northwestern)  We should probably root for Illinois to lose- even though I think we'd get in over them at 10-2- maybe not? Their best win would be by 2 against USC and they lost by 53 to indiania and our common opponent in Ohio state they lost by 18 points and got them at home)

NEB:  (northwestern, USC, at UCLA, PSU, Iowa). This ain't happening. They might finish 1-4

Washington (Illinois, @ UCLA, Oregon)

 

Basically, root for Washington against Illinois but they are the only one with a legit likelihood to get to 10-2.  Even still- that is pretty awful as far as schedule and just took 2 absolute buttfuckings by the only two teams with a pulse they played. 

 

 

Posted
15 minutes ago, ermahgerdhorn said:

At 9-3 we jump 10-2 programs with less of a resume.  Going through the SEC, having the talent we do, and playing @ OSU is a big bump in our resume.  

I honestly don't think we should be entertaining any hope for the playoffs absent sustained improvement on offense.

We did not evidence competence on offense against Kentucky. If we show up like that at Starkville, we could definitely lose to the lesser Mississippi.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, Tired Horn said:

I honestly don't think we should be entertaining any hope for the playoffs absent sustained improvement on offense.

We did not evidence competence on offense against Kentucky. If we show up like that at Starkville, we could definitely lose to the lesser Mississippi.

We have only showed offensive competence vs SHSU and OU

Posted
56 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I think you need to see very major changes even if we win out or go 9-3 and make the playoffs as the 11 seed. Which is probably a better than 50% chance to happen if we got to 9-3.  I'd still want major changes.  Doesn't matter what the final record ends up imo. 

 

21 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I mean- look at the resumes if we are both 9-3.

Texas losses:  @ OSU, @ Florida, @ Georgia.  Not a bad loss on there.

Wins:  Ranked (all top 10 at the time): Aggy, OU, Vandy.  

Compared to USC:

Losses- @ ILlinois, @ Notre Dame, @ Oregon

Wins:  Michigan, @ Nebraska, Iowa

 

I mean- Texas is way better on all 3 on the comparissons. Better losses.  Better wins.  Higher ranked in the computers by a lot.  I guess if you think the big 10 can get a 4th team in ahead of a 9-3 texas what you'd need to see is them finishing 10-2.  The following teams could finish with 2 losses with parenthesis being hard games left:

Northwestern (Nebraka, USC, Michigan, Illinois, MN)

USC (Oregon, Nebraska, Iowa)

Iowa:  (MN, Oregon, @ UsC, @ Nebraska)

Michigan (Ohio State.).  

MN:  (Iowa, @ Oregon, Northwestern)

Illinois:  (at Washington, v Northwestern)  We should probably root for Illinois to lose- even though I think we'd get in over them at 10-2- maybe not? Their best win would be by 2 against USC and they lost by 53 to indiania and our common opponent in Ohio state they lost by 18 points and got them at home)

NEB:  (northwestern, USC, at UCLA, PSU, Iowa). This ain't happening. They might finish 1-4

Washington (Illinois, @ UCLA, Oregon)

 

Basically, root for Washington against Illinois but they are the only one with a legit likelihood to get to 10-2.  Even still- that is pretty awful as far as schedule and just took 2 absolute buttfuckings by the only two teams with a pulse they played. 

 

 

Playoffs, playoffs, playoffs - by Jon Arnold

 

 

 

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

Florida is a terrible fucking loss. 

Cool.  Computer has them as like 24th in the country. They've played the hardest schedule in college football and they will finish 6-6. That's a better "bad" loss than any other team would have as their worst or most inexcusable loss. And absolutely nobody would have wins of the qualty of OU, aggy and Vandy.  It's a dumb argument to say Texas at 9-3 would have no shot.  That's obviously a huge IF the way this team played 2 of the last 3 weeks. 

Posted
Just now, Wulaw Horn said:

Cool.  Computer has them as like 24th in the country. They've played the hardest schedule in college football and they will finish 6-6. That's a better "bad" loss than any other team would have as their worst or most inexcusable loss. And absolutely nobody would have wins of the qualty of OU, aggy and Vandy.  It's a dumb argument to say Texas at 9-3 would have no shot.  That's obviously a huge IF the way this team played 2 of the last 3 weeks. 

We aren't going 9-3 so you don't have to worry!

Posted
1 hour ago, Vertigo said:

The plays aren't the problem, it is our ability to block them and complete basic routes. 

true

also true: the head coach needs to tell the offensive coordinator that the 1st down run for a 3-yard loss that creates 3rd and 13 was proven not to work after failing 23 times in a row

  • Haha 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

We aren't going 9-3 so you don't have to worry!

We might. We probably won't.  Again, I'm not saying we will. What I'm saying is if we did we would have as good an argument (better than absolutely most) as anyone in the country for the 11 seed. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Why would you take 8-4 though?  I'm not saying that we won't finish worse- but that's a fail for the season the same as 7-5 or 6-6 or 5-7.  Point being, there's nothing good that comes from 8-4, and it's possible that 8-4 might lead to less soul search than some lesser record.  

No QB has gotten better. Arch seems to be much worse.  It's bizarre. He's been good at the whole offense thing in the past. 

the money funding the program will demand change unless a miracle occurs (10-2)

way too much money has spent for the current state of the offensive product (/double entendre)

Posted

Since we are talking computers now, here's the top 15 of SP+

image.png.111be358071d54522d4da4a9f5ab650f.png

Texas at 11 with near identical rating to Georgia is pretty funny.  But offense at 58 is damn pathetic, although oddly not too surprising given the play at interior OL and QB.

We got to the semifinals two years in a row on the strength of the defense, and defense remains great.  It is Sark's side of the ball that has been limiting the ceiling of the team three years running.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
10 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Cool.  Computer has them as like 24th in the country. They've played the hardest schedule in college football and they will finish 6-6. That's a better "bad" loss than any other team would have as their worst or most inexcusable loss. And absolutely nobody would have wins of the qualty of OU, aggy and Vandy.  It's a dumb argument to say Texas at 9-3 would have no shot.  That's obviously a huge IF the way this team played 2 of the last 3 weeks. 

If Texas goes 4-1 in the next 5 games, there is very good chance Texas is in the playoffs. 4-1 means Sark figured out the offense and the media would fall in love with Texas again. This is not happening, but it is good to have a dream. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, El Hornarino said:

Since we are talking computers now, here's the top 15 of SP+

image.png.111be358071d54522d4da4a9f5ab650f.png

Texas at 11 with near identical rating to Georgia is pretty funny.  But offense at 58 is damn pathetic, although oddly not too surprising given the play at interior OL and QB.

We got to the semifinals two years in a row on the strength of the defense, and defense remains great.  It is Sark's side of the ball that has been limiting the ceiling of the team three years running.

 

Sort of wild that OU is our top team and it's all the way at 5. I think they suck and I said that before we beat them and I say that now again. We shall see. 8 of top 15 but 1 of top 5 is sort of wild. 

1 minute ago, Codaxx said:

If Texas goes 4-1 in the next 5 games, there is very good chance Texas is in the playoffs. 4-1 means Sark figured out the offense and the media would fall in love with Texas again. This is not happening, but it is good to have a dream. 

Michael Scott thank you GIF. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

If Texas goes 4-1 in the next 5 games, there is very good chance Texas is in the playoffs. 4-1 means Sark figured out the offense and the media would fall in love with Texas again. This is not happening, but it is good to have a dream. 

We’d make the sec championship 

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

I’d take 8-4, but that’s a huge disappointment. 

Sure, I guess. It feels like a fall from grace, but I've lived long enough to know that there are far more disappointing outcomes than 8-4.

1 hour ago, Im_smarter_then_you said:

With PK, I’m not sure a blowout is ever a certainty.  

That Georgia game is going to be like Fayetteville in 2021, with the offense and defense trading roles. It really doesn't take much on the road for a game against quality talent in a hostile environment to get out of hand, irrespective of how good someone's defense is. 

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Why would you take 8-4 though?  I'm not saying that we won't finish worse- but that's a fail for the season the same as 7-5 or 6-6 or 5-7.  Point being, there's nothing good that comes from 8-4, and it's possible that 8-4 might lead to less soul search than some lesser record.  

No QB has gotten better. Arch seems to be much worse.  It's bizarre. He's been good at the whole offense thing in the past. 

Why would I take 8-4? Because I prefer it to 5-7. You've made it clear in multiple threads that you don't really see how 5-7 could happen and then you start extolling the virtues of a likely 9-3 playoff team or some such, and, hey, you do you. For me? I remember 2021, 2010, 1997, 2014-2016. Some things I learned from those years include key insights like "winning poorly sure still beats the fuck out of losing" and "I enjoy watching a sport I love a lot more when Texas wins its game on Saturdays" and "offseasons suck a lot less coming off of decent seasons versus asshole-flavored seasons". 

I am not living in some fantasy realm that 10-2 will happen or that 9-3 gets Texas to the playoffs and if those things don't happen, then change needs to happen and that will only come after a 6-6 type season. I don't think a certain record is going to be the impetus for Sarkisian making some changes. He's either honestly introspective, which I think he is, or he's an idiot. There's no way he's looking at the offensive woes this season and not considering various changes. 

This team's beta is too massive to expect consistency and competency all of a sudden. Arch Knoblauch is a below average college QB who fails to get the basics right on a weekly basis. His coach goes into what the coach himself has labeled "playcallers block" at least once a game and often for entire halves. That's also indicative of poor prep and planning during the week, btw.

Beyond all of that, this offensive line is dogshit and we're back to DJ Monroe World in which we might have one playmaker every now and then and that's mostly on special teams. Fuck me, fuck you and fuck Seven Win Steve for this. I feel like I need a cigarette. 

1 hour ago, Bevo14 said:

This. Winning out is the only outcome good enough to make a lack of change palatable.

You can live with this approach and choose to be completely disappointed in the year. If this team finishes 10-2, I will kiss your bare ass in front of the tower and give you 30 minutes to draw a crowd. 

I, and clearly others, am choosing a path of far less disappointment. Give me some ugly wins and I've reset my expectations outside of 2-3 of those accordingly. 

Edited by closetojumping
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
58 minutes ago, jdhorn92 said:

Agreed , 9-3 would likely mean 2-1 vs the aggies, UGA and Vandy.  This team cannot play worse on O, right!? Got to click at some point.

Play worse? Probably not or not much worse. Score fewer points? Most definitely. We’ve been helped the last 2 weeks by punt returns and turnovers while also not turning it over the last 2 weeks. If either of those stop happening we’re turbo fucked. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

Sure, I guess. It feels like a fall from grace, but I've lived long enough to know that there are far more disappointing outcomes than 8-4.

That Georgia game is going to be like Fayetteville in 2021, with the offense and defense trading roles. It really doesn't take much on the road for a game against quality talent in a hostile environment to get out of hand, irrespective of how good someone's defense is. 

Why would I take 8-4? Because I prefer it to 5-7. You've made it clear in multiple threads that you don't really see how 5-7 could happen and then you start extolling the virtues of a likely 9-3 playoff team or some such, and, hey, you do you. For me? I remember 2021, 2010, 1997, 2014-2016. Some things I learned from those years include key insights like "winning poorly sure still beats the fuck out of losing" and "I enjoy watching a sport I love a lot more when Texas wins its game on Saturdays" and "offseasons suck a lot less coming off of decent seasons versus asshole-flavored seasons". 

I am not living in some fantasy realm that 10-2 will happen or that 9-3 gets Texas to the playoffs and if those things don't happen, then change needs to happen and that will only come after a 6-6 type season. I don't think a certain record is going to be the impetus for Sarkisian making some changes. He's either honestly introspective, which I think he is, or he's an idiot. There's no way he's looking at the offensive woes this season and not considering various changes. 

This team's beta is too massive to expect consistency and competency all of a sudden. Arch Knoblauch is a below average college QB who fails to get the basics right on a weekly basis. His coach goes into what the coach himself has labeled "playcallers block" at least once a game and often for entire halves. That's also indicative of poor prep and planning during the week, btw.

Beyond all of that, this offensive line is dogshit and we're back to DJ Monroe World in which we might have one playmaker every now and then and that's mostly on special teams. Fuck me, fuck you and fuck Seven Win Steve for this. I feel like I need a cigarette. 

You can live with this approach and choose to be completely disappointed in the year. If this team finishes 10-2, I will kiss your bare ass in front of the tower and give you 30 minutes to draw a crowd. 

I, and clearly others, are choosing a path of far less disappointment. Give me some ugly wins and I've reset my expectations outside of 2-3 of those accordingly. 

I mean, yeah, everything you said about us is exactly right, but I still don't understand choosing "fail" if pass is even theoretically on the table, b/c the fail is a better version of fail than an ugly version of fail. I consider getting a 65 as a final grade to be every bit as pointless and awful as getting a 45. YMMV I guess. 

I agree with you on Sark- that he is a guy that's willing to make change. I don't think you go through AA and do that kid of work on a personal standpoint and not have the ability to change some stuff about yourself or be introspective

Edited by Wulaw Horn
Posted
Spoiler

This may turn out to be a [dreaded] "rebuilding year."

Sark saying a year is a "rebuilding year" publicly would call down the thunder from everywhere (since saying that isn't allowed by fanbases/jeering-by-opponents'-fanbases, basically), so that's why he hasn't said it.

OTF/9.95ers may say it as much ("2025 was a rebuilding year.") at some point this year, or will say that 2025 was a "rebuilding year" when hyping next season and during next season.

 

Posted
Just now, BachelorTrek said:
  Hide contents

This may turn out to be a [dreaded] "rebuilding year."

Sark saying a year is a "rebuilding year" publicly would call down the thunder from everywhere (since saying that isn't allowed by fanbases/jeering-by-opponents'-fanbases, basically), so that's why he hasn't said it.

OTF/9.95ers may say it as much ("2025 was a rebuilding year.") at some point this year, or will say that 2025 was a "rebuilding year" when hyping next season and during next season.

 

We are so fucked. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, BachelorTrek said:
  Hide contents

This may turn out to be a [dreaded] "rebuilding year."

Sark saying a year is a "rebuilding year" publicly would call down the thunder from everywhere (since saying that isn't allowed by fanbases/jeering-by-opponents'-fanbases, basically), so that's why he hasn't said it.

It's okay, it's allowed to be said... but not after August, and sure as hell not halfway into the season.

 

 

Posted (edited)

So, I've been thinking instead of working on a project I should be working on, but it's Texas football, and I'm in a bad mood. if Sark wants to keep his job, he'll have no choice but to fire Flood, so that should give us warm tummies. If he doesn't, he'll have been a coach at his third school and if fired he'll be radioactive. He has to know this. If the dipshit, apathetic monkey playing with his own feces likes getting paid generational wealth, he will fire Flood, and go out and get a qualified OL coach. And if the hamsters smoke meth, he'll toss Milwee into an Armenian gulog and go get a real QB coach. I'm laughing with you, as well as crying, don't worry. We know that won't happen. 
 

I don't know about the OC thng, but I do know CDC, as nice as he is, hates losers. He will commit mass murder before he lets this program sink to irrelevance. In jobs, you have to make tough decisions, and I fully expect he'll do what's best for this program. This season is already pretty much done for. We aren't making the CFP or CCG, except we will beat aggy because that's what we do, but that doesn't mean I'll stop watching. Flood is gone by the end of the year, I'll guarantee it. He's on season 5 and we have something like Nine 3* linemen, to four or five 4/5*, which will move down to three or four if any don't transfer.

(2026) We have exactly ONE 4/5* (depending on service) in tackle John Turntine III, and two 3* in OT Max Wright (scrub), and IOL Nicholas Robertson (I like the take, personally). We have fucking THREE linemen in this class so far, and if Flood whiffs again and doesn't land Lee or whomever, we are so, so fucked beyond our worst nightmares. 

If Sarkisian cannot see that kind of  failure, he has to go. Like, HAS TO GO TOMORROW. That's mismanagement 101. 

Recruits since Flood got here:

*They've been drafted/will be drafted/transferred or graduate

2022 - (Hutson*, Campbell*, Banks*, Cam Williams*, Neto, Connor Robertson) other than Bank, Williams, and Campbell, a complete turd thus far

2023 - (Jaydon Chatman, Payton Kirkland* on school #4, Goosby, Stroh (worst OL take in the history of Texas football. Yes, even worse than Chris Hall, Jake Raulerson, and Tristan Mickelson), Cojoe.) Chatman has gotten good reviews, let's see if he can come back. Goosby will be back unless he goes full Cam Williams. Fingers crossed Stroh leaves, and I don't know anything about how Cojoe is doing. 

2024 - (Baker, Cruz, Kibble) THREE. What. The. Fuck. At the very least Kibble will be very good, imo. Cruz, I hope. Baker is already starting and it's been rough, but he's learning. 

2025 - (Nick Brooks, Jordan Coleman, Devin Coleman, Jackson Christian) Four. Wow. Brooks looks to be the only one learning on the job. The Coleman brothers are make-a-wish at best, and Jackson Christian will probably suck, too. 

So, we have coming in 2026 - 

2026 - (John Turntine III - OT, Max Wright - OT (scrub. Shocker), Nick Robertson) THREE! Flood has been doing a lot of work! Only Turntine and Robertson will contribute in any meaningful way. If we get Malakai Lee, he'll also be a significant player. But that's still just four. Really only two at the moment since Wright will be a bench warmer until he transfers or is pushed out. So, again, IF we added Lee, we would have 3 solid contributors at the very minimum. That's fucking abysmal.

if God hates us, 15 OL, of which  6 will be true tackles, 7 IOL (most of which I can only describe as either above average starting (Campbell) or unknown (Brooks. So far bad, but it's game one and a half for him), and best case our new OL coach can actually, well, coach). So we have 5 tackles, 7 IOL and 2 Centers continuing to walk the halls and take up scholarships. But if God doesnt want to punish us, we will Hava 5 true tackles, 2 Centers, and 5 IOL, which is still punishment because of numbers. 

T - Baker (5*), Brooks (4* top 300), Turntine III (4/5* top 50), Chatman (4* top 300), Goosby, Wright - other two are 3* 

C - Robertson, Cruz - both 3*

IOL - Neto (4* top 200) Stroh, Cojoe, J. Coleman, D. Coleman, j. Christian, Robertson (I added him here since he plays both C/G) - one 4* (Neto) six 3*

For sure either gone due to graduation/draft/possible transfer:

Parenthesis are the year they arrived 

(2022) Cole Hutson - graduation

(2022) DJ Campbell - draft 

(2022) Neto - who the fuck knows?

(2023) Goosby - I put him here as a precautionary for the draft, even though he's probably coming back 

(2023) Stroh - god, please, send him on his way 

(2023) Cojoe - No clue. Maybe he contributes, maybe he transfers. I don't know shit from fuck about his progress. 

3* are Flood specials. Lazy recruiting, collecting a check, Incompetent, horrible evaluations. Outliers are Kibble, Nick Robertson, and Cruz, imo. Goosby is a known. 

We will have 14/15 OL, and unless we land Malakai Lee, we will have 6 tackles going into next season. If that isn't a pull lever in case of emergency, someone tell me what is? 

67% (closer to 70) are 3* recruits. Unbelievable. Flood should be dragged outside, and sat on top of The Judas Cradle, or even use the Scaphism method to show the next OL coach what will happen if they follow the same path. 

Edited by William Bludworth
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
43 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

Arch Knoblauch is a below average college QB who fails to get the basics right on a weekly basis

new arch thread title?

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, El Hornarino said:

Since we are talking computers now, here's the top 15 of SP+

image.png.111be358071d54522d4da4a9f5ab650f.png

Texas at 11 with near identical rating to Georgia is pretty funny.  But offense at 58 is damn pathetic, although oddly not too surprising given the play at interior OL and QB.

We got to the semifinals two years in a row on the strength of the defense, and defense remains great.  It is Sark's side of the ball that has been limiting the ceiling of the team three years running.

 

Also in FPI we are ranked the third highest in the SEC, behind only Georgia and bama.  So any trip by those teams and we move in to #1 in the SEC, which should be good enough for at least a 1st round playoff game.

Posted

I assume the team has evaluated and is using the latest technologies to perform better in games, such as Cognilize, the software Jayden Daniel’s used to win the Heisman. If they aren’t, why not? It completely transformed Daniel’s decision making.

Posted
Just now, Dbeasy said:

I assume the team has evaluated and is using the latest technologies to perform better in games, such as Cognilize, the software Jayden Daniel’s used to win the Heisman. If they aren’t, why not? It completely transformed Daniel’s decision making.

Why would you use that when your HC/playcaller/offensive coordinator is a genius guru? Silly dbeasy!!!

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...