Jump to content

Does sark have the balls to bench arch?  

41 members have voted

  1. 1. Or does he die on the Arch hill?

    • No sark is a pussy who will die on the hill
      40
    • Yes he has gigantic balls ready to flop em out.
      1


Recommended Posts

Posted

last year when arch looked athletic, dynamic, and like someone who might live up to his otherworldly hype, we still never benched quinn even though he couldn’t move the chains against the likes of kentucky, vandy, a&m, and arizona state, and that was with a wildly superior supporting cast. he’s not going to bench arch now with absolutely nobody on the bench or in the pipeline who looks ready to take over. benching quinn would have taken balls. benching arch would take stupidity. it would basically be sark waving the white flag on his career at Texas. it’s not happening.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted

The first mistake in this hypothetical is to assume the backup QB is the answer. The second is to assume Sark will admit his inability to develop two #1 rated QBs by benching them. There is a reason some coaches never win championships despite being pretty good coaches. 

Posted
Just now, Coach pop a bitch said:

If he hasn't developed arch what makes you think he was spending time with the back ups? The real question is does he have the nuts to hire an OC and/or fire flood? 

Yeah, those are the first questions.

I kind of assume that the QB room receives instruction mostly as a group.  But I suppose the QB getting most of the practice reps also gets the most instruction on a 1 on 1 basis.

I can understand keeping Arch QB1 for the rest of the season to see if the switch ever comes on, but then opening the position to competition.

Posted

Speaking of Sark and balls...  does Loreal know that Sark had a vasectomy a couple of years ago? 

Maybe that's just another baseless internet rumor, though.

  • Haha 2
Posted

My jaw would completely hit the floor. The implications for what that would mean are hard to imagine. I think it’s very likely the case Sark and Arch are completely tied at the hip. 
 

If it was announced that Sark is sitting Arch, I would almost assume Cooper has told Sark to shelf Arch and that they’re transferring out. 

Posted
7 minutes ago, BlackCat said:

My jaw would completely hit the floor. The implications for what that would mean are hard to imagine. I think it’s very likely the case Sark and Arch are completely tied at the hip. 
 

If it was announced that Sark is sitting Arch, I would almost assume Cooper has told Sark to shelf Arch and that they’re transferring out. 

So? Who cares? Only half of 5* QBs amount to anything.

Posted
54 minutes ago, Vermin said:

So? Who cares? Only half of 5* QBs amount to anything.

A ton of money was raised to put pieces around Arch specifically. That was the pitch. It would mean we are doing a reset and a ton went into all of this. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

I think the better question is, if Arch doesn’t progress by season end to the point he can legitimately lead us to conference championship and national championship contention next year, does Sark open up the qb position for a true competition to be qb#1. 
 

I personally never believed this was the year to compete for any championship, more a transition year to get Arch and the young, but talented roster to develop around him, and to be dominant next year. After yesterday’s game and clear regression (or, maybe OU was the anomaly and this is who he really is) I’m ready for Arch to portal or not be guaranteed the starter position next year and go find a portal qb.  

Edited by Fat Bastard
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

To add, there’s not a soul anywhere who can convince me there isn’t a qb on the roster who can’t throw it more accurately or make better decisions than Arch. If that’s the case, Sark should be fired solely based off of horrible qb talent evaluation and development (which I don’t think is the case). This is 100% Simms II (favoritism/optics) except there isn’t a proven, reliable qb on the roster who should be playing in lieu of Arch. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, Fat Bastard said:

To add, there’s not a soul anywhere who can convince me there isn’t a qb on the roster who can’t throw it more accurately or make better decisions than Arch. If that’s the case, Sark should be fired solely based off of horrible qb talent evaluation and development (which I don’t think is the case). This is 100% Simms II (favoritism/optics) except there isn’t a proven, reliable qb on the roster who should be playing in lieu of Arch. 

I think the issue is trying to sort whether Arch is going to "get it" and be viable for next year or not.

 

Posted

To be “viable” for next year he needs to display otherwordly talent progression these last 6-7 games. What makes you think the light will come on that fast? His OL play this year has been abhorrent, I freely admit that, and we have no dominant stud at RB, but in the few chances he’s had every game with a clean pocket, he’s had some inexcusably errant throws

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...