Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
6 hours ago, Carl Spackler said:

I do not agree.  He showed enough in his two starts last season with a better, more experienced line that he would do fine behind a better line.

The offensive problems, as usual, are not the result of one particular issue.  It's a combination of things.  The O-line is young and inexperienced, so it isn't a good line at this point.  Consequently, Arch is under consistent pressure.  There was a graphic on the broadcast of the game yesterday indicating that he's one of the most pressured QBs in the FBS.  And the line is also a big part of the problem with respect to the run game.  No run game puts even more pressure on Arch.  Even experienced college QBs would be having problems operating behind this line.

But Arch has also been missing easy/open throws that he would usually make and which he must make in order for this offense to be good.  He's also missing open reads occasionally.  So he is definitely part of the problem even when he's given time to do what he needs to do.

So both the line and Arch are big parts of the overall problem.  And that isn't even the entire picture.  Playcalling is an element of the problem as well.  Sark's calls and in-game decisions are sometimes headscratchers.  We lack a true gamebreaker at both running back and (at least until Wingo develops or they start using him in accordance with his strengths) WR.  We've had injuries on the O-line that have affected both depth and development.  In sum, the offensive woes are attributable to a whole host of causes.  I haven't even mentioned all of them. 

If you're an optimist, you think, "Both Arch and the line should improve as they gain experience, develop cohesion, etc."  They both looked like they might have turned a corner against OU.  That's one of the big reasons people are so upset about the Kentucky game -- the offense regressed significantly from the week before.  But with young players, development isn't always a linear thing; rather, it often happens in spurts, in "fits and starts."  There will be occasional bouts of regression combined with "Eureka!" moments when development is apparent.  As fans, it's frustrating, but we're going to have to accept the fact that this season is, to a very large degree, a developmental season.  As many on this board previously suggested, the 2026 season is the one in which this team should be a very large problem for opponents.   

Don't agree with everything but this is pure quality of thought. People don't always have to agree but you make excellent points.

Arch is just bad. Why does he have all those pressures? He holds the ball way to long. Even announcers eventually say it and show it. He isn't processing as we all hoped. Skipping every camp not named after his family crushed his development. He's never played at this level and damn it shows in every bad way. Wish it was different and he is a great kid but not even an average QB. The KY QB was damn good for a freshman and dealing with our defense. Arch is almost 3 years in and is way below average. His name is keeping as our starter because anyone on the roster that can hit a 5 yard out is better. If not, jeez Niblett has done almost every position and won 2 games for us, try him.

OL - no idea what is going on. I get the big humans thing but geez, all we take after that first year are projects at best. Sark even talked about Brooks losing what 40lbs or so to play? Turntine is 260 or so - project. Then a bunch of 3* JAG projects.

Milwee needs to be gone and a real OC/QB person asap.

Coach PK - best thing we have.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
33 minutes ago, PGFrog said:

SHOULD have talent, do we really need to go through the multitude of idiots who get paid way too mouch money based upon their physical looks? 

Physical looks counts in that business as a "talent".

Posted
35 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I'm definitely not arguing that this large complex failure is solely one person's fault. That's ridiculous. But of all the issues, Arch's sad QB performances cause the most secondary and tertiary problems.

The o-line gets more heat because they can sell out to stop the run with very little risk. Because Arch has dogshit accuracy.

Play calling is forced to be more vanilla and predictable to have a reasonable chance of getting positive yards. Because Arch has dogshit accuracy.

It's not SOLELY his fault that the team is playing like hammered dogshit on offense, but he's high up the totem pole of shit flowing downhill. All the other units don't really make a shit while Arch is shitting all over them.

Sure if Arch stops shitting, the team still has big issues. But that IF is entirely theoretical and a moot point at this time in the season

It's a bit of a "chicken and egg" situation to an extent, it seems to me.  Are the O-line's struggles attributable in part to Manning's accuracy problems because those problems allow opposing defenses to key on the run, as you have suggested?  Or are Manning's accuracy issues mainly attributable to a line that has allowed a very high rate of pressure so far this season?  I tend to think it's some of both, which dovetails with my overarching point that the cause of the offensive malaise is multi-faceted.  There have been times when Manning's inaccuracy has been caused at least in part by being under pressure.  But there have been several other occasions when the blocking gives him time and he inexplicably throws bad, inaccurate passes. 

And, of course, there are other factors relating to the offensive struggles, including some headscratching playcalls/strategy on occasion by Sark, the general lack of a consistent run game (which I don't attribute completely to Arch's struggles -- go watch some of the lackluster run blocking if you have the Kentucky and Florida games saved), and occasional drops of catchable balls by receivers.   

 When I started commenting on this issue, the two main points I wanted to make were:  (1) the cause of the offensive struggles is multi-faceted, i.e., it isn't just Manning and it isn't just the O-line, etc.; and (2) Manning's performance last season indicates that he's at least got it in him to be a proficient college QB.  My opinion on those two points hasn't changed, but I continue to be mystified as to why his accuracy has eroded even in situations when he's got a clean pocket and time to work through progressions.     

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

No, the OL is actually bad.  Arch is pressing. I don't even think his issues have been accuracy moreso than timing.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Did the Sam Houston State game demonstrate that this year? Go back and look at the tape and drives from Mississippi State. We struggled moving the ball with any consistency. Manning threw behind receivers or rushed throws in the short game. He also threw some dimes down the field, which is exactly what he has done this year.

I tend to discount the SHSU game this season one way or the other simply due to the disparity in the level of competition.  So even though Manning was generally (though not completely) sharp in that game, it doesn't really tip the scale one way or the other for me simply because it was SHSU.  I suppose I was mildly encouraged that he seemed to show some general progress in that game, but then the very next game it was a step back against a much better defensive opponent.  (Which brings up another issue -- consistency or the lack thereof, both as to Manning and the offense in general.)  

The MSU game last year?  By no means was Manning perfect in that game.  But he played at a winning level IMO, and he displayed that he can make throws that, for some reason(s), he's now struggling to make or not attempting to make.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Physical looks counts in that business as a "talent".

So does being able to deliver a halftime speech and convincing people you know what you are doing in coaching.  

  • 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...