Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, NBHorn7 said:

Missing a 12-team playoff is kind of a bad look and probably hurts recruiting.

This had been pointed to as sort of a big year for Texas as Manning had been groomed to take over at quarterback and with all those stacked top 5 recruiting classes and the NIL and portal, how could we not make it.

And this too, it’s like humans can’t have complex emotions up in this bitch. Happy we punched Arkansas and OU in the dick and really disappointed playoffs are highly unlikely. 

Posted

Beating the Ags will salvage this miserable fucking season. If I had to blame one thing, I'd say that Sark took his foot off the gas. He could have demanded more of this team. They would have responded. The coaching is to blame.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

It does, but we were told that Texas had been stacking great O-line prospects and had no reason to ever have to go to the portal for them. 

It hasn't been that long ago most people thought this was an elite defense, that didn't age well.

Posted
8 minutes ago, Irish Wrist Watch said:

Only if they have the football. Our O has to control the game. No fuck ups. No penalties. Spread the ball around. Hit hard and hit fast. 

It looks like we blitzed more in the second half today and that made all the difference. If we don't blitz, Aggy will pick us apart.

Blitz with a spy, critical we get ant hill back sounds like we will. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
38 minutes ago, NBHorn7 said:

Their offense is much better now than against Texas.

It's really not. Mateer didn't suck against Texas because of his injury, that's just silly to say. His mistakes were mental. 

  • Hook 'Em 9
Posted
55 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

Schedules are made years in advance, so I don't think Sark considered how an early-season loss to OSU would hurt our playoff chances. Do y'all really think this team is championship-caliber? If so, I respectfully disagree.

They showed definitively a week ago they aren't. 

Just put everything into beating aggy in 6 days. Then ride off into the off-season with a disappointing but ultimately mostly successful rebuilding year with wins over the 3 rivals 2 years in a row. 

Then throw everything into the portal to completely the rebuild this fucking team. This portal is Sark's biggest moment yet. He has to get it right after missing too much last year. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, NBHorn7 said:

It does, but we were told that Texas had been stacking great O-line prospects and had no reason to ever have to go to the portal for them. 

It hasn't been that long ago most people thought this was an elite defense, that didn't age well.

I’m betting the D is underperforming due to locker room issues. At least that’s my hunch. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, BillyGoatHill said:

Everyone is wringing their hands over playing/losing to the OSU. This ^^^ is the loss that is really the problem. They are a bad football team, + in conference.

I mean you aren’t wrong, but a team with one loss to Florida makes the playoffs.  A team with two losses, including Florida, makes the playoffs.

A bad loss doesn’t keep you out of the playoffs.  A bad loss when you’ve lost a tough OOC game and eliminated the margin for error might.

The committee might be about to give every team clear direction to stop the fun OOC games.

Posted

 

Just now, Chuckie Finster said:

A bad loss doesn’t keep you out of the playoffs.

Bama last year says you're wrong. The bad loss to OU absolutely kept them out of the playoffs. 

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

I’m betting the D is underperforming due to locker room issues. At least that’s my hunch. 

You could be right, but the defensive woes seemed to coincide with playing teams with better offenses.

From MSU till the present.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, scramblyn said:

I’m betting the D is underperforming due to locker room issues. At least that’s my hunch. 

Nah, it's pretty clear they are very poorly schemed/taught and integrated with the rest of the D.

They don't know what they're doing, so they're playing tentative, which partly explains the tackling.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
Just now, mdmost said:

No, I'm pointing out how some on this stupid website can't just enjoy wins now because we're not going to make the playoff. This season can still be a success without making the playoff. Today was fun. Arch did something no other player has ever done at Texas. He had his best game so far. We beat a team some on here were convinced we would lose to or get blown out by. If that's strawmanning people then so be it. This site has been a miserable experience the past week because people love to swim in misery.

I agree, today was a lot of fun. So was the Miss State game. 

If checking in on the "This Is Who Sarkisian Is" thread is a miserable experience, you should avoid it. I generally don't enjoy gossip, either, but I'm trying to understand how this team underachieved and underperformed for much of the season. Losing to UF and big to UGA was a killer. Now I just want to beat aggy to finish off a good, if less than completely satisfying, season.

Posted
3 minutes ago, mdmost said:

 

Bama last year says you're wrong. The bad loss to OU absolutely kept them out of the playoffs. 

An 11-1 Bama makes the playoffs last year, even with the OU loss.  Much like us this year, their OOC loss eliminated any margin for error and turned a bad loss into a season ender.

Posted

A real game changer would be for someone on the D Line to step up and have a monster game. Was that Simmons that smothered the Arky QB and caused that fumble. Give me two plays like that against Aggy and we'll be in the driver's seat.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Horn Dogg said:

Reed is going to shit his pants when he sees Ethan Burke again

They’re all going to shit their pants because they’re aggies.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, NBHorn7 said:

You could be right, but the defensive woes seemed to coincide with playing teams with better offenses.

From MSU till the present.

 

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Nah, it's pretty clear they are very poorly schemed/taught and integrated with the rest of the D.

They don't know what they're doing, so they're playing tentative, which partly explains the tackling.

Focus, giving a shit, paying attention to film, putting in the extra effort, all show up like that too. 

im willing to be we hold aggy under 30. Im willing to bet the D plays ok. There’s enough motivation there. Today? If you don’t give a shit and aren’t focused because fuck it, maybe the coach lost your respect or he’s a pompous dick then yeah you could look like shit. 

could be scheme and coaching too but I’m still putting some money on some locker room issues.

1 minute ago, Irish Wrist Watch said:

A real game changer would be for someone on the D Line to step up and have a monster game. Was that Simmons that smothered the Arky QB and caused that fumble. Give me two plays like that against Aggy and we'll be in the driver's seat.

It’s always Simmons.

Posted
Just now, Irish Wrist Watch said:

A real game changer would be for someone on the D Line to step up and have a monster game. Was that Simmons that smothered the Arky QB and caused that fumble. Give me two plays like that against Aggy and we'll be in the driver's seat.

We're already in the divers' seat.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, scramblyn said:

 

Focus, giving a shit, paying attention to film, putting in the extra effort, all show up like that too. 

im willing to be we hold aggy under 30. Im willing to bet the D plays ok. There’s enough motivation there. Today? If you don’t give a shit and aren’t focused because fuck it, maybe the coach lost your respect or he’s a pompous dick then yeah you could look like shit. 

could be scheme and coaching too but I’m still putting some money on some locker room issues.

It’s always Simmons.

Burke had been contributing too; he was a difference maker against MSU. 

He was helping contain the run and getting a pass rush. That really helps.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

It's really not. Mateer didn't suck against Texas because of his injury, that's just silly to say. His mistakes were mental. 

Correct.  They looked pretty much like dogshit against Mizzou today and Mizzou is dogshit,   Last week their defense won that game for them against Bama ,

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

 

The committee might be about to give every team clear direction to stop the fun OOC games.

I've said this since the off-season and the usual surly goobers were brainless as usual. 

Under this system there is no incentive for Texas to play a top team OOC. A low level p4 team or 2 then 2 cupcakes is all that's needed because of the strength of the SEC conference games. 

What really should happen is the NCAA should level the field and force the p4 into cross conference matchups. Every team in the p4 has an OOC slot reserved for this matchup, and one game is determined by which conferences match up and the final standings from the previous season. 

That way all the top teams have to play another top team OOC, and every p4 team has to play at least 1 other p4 team of similar stature. They could then stagger the games on different weeks from week 1 to week 5 so the fans get multiple p4 OOC matchups to watch every week in September. 

Take it completely out of the school's hands. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
29 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

It's really not. Mateer didn't suck against Texas because of his injury, that's just silly to say. His mistakes were mental. 

And he’s still that exact same player. He’s just not that good

Posted
8 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

I've said this since the off-season and the usual surly goobers were brainless as usual. 

Under this system there is no incentive for Texas to play a top team OOC. A low level p4 team or 2 then 2 cupcakes is all that's needed because of the strength of the SEC conference games. 

What really should happen is the NCAA should level the field and force the p4 into cross conference matchups. Every team in the p4 has an OOC slot reserved for this matchup, and one game is determined by which conferences match up and the final standings from the previous season. 

That way all the top teams have to play another top team OOC, and every p4 team has to play at least 1 other p4 team of similar stature. They could then stagger the games on different weeks from week 1 to week 5 so the fans get multiple p4 OOC matchups to watch every week in September. 

Take it completely out of the school's hands. 

Sign

me

up 

Posted
12 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

I've said this since the off-season and the usual surly goobers were brainless as usual. 

Under this system there is no incentive for Texas to play a top team OOC. A low level p4 team or 2 then 2 cupcakes is all that's needed because of the strength of the SEC conference games. 

What really should happen is the NCAA should level the field and force the p4 into cross conference matchups. Every team in the p4 has an OOC slot reserved for this matchup, and one game is determined by which conferences match up and the final standings from the previous season. 

That way all the top teams have to play another top team OOC, and every p4 team has to play at least 1 other p4 team of similar stature. They could then stagger the games on different weeks from week 1 to week 5 so the fans get multiple p4 OOC matchups to watch every week in September. 

Take it completely out of the school's hands. 

Doesn't this change with the new rule of having to play a good top-level team in the non-conference and the new 9 game SEC schedule?

Posted
1 minute ago, scramblyn said:

He made contact with the helmet, his head was up but pretty sure it’s still a penalty by the rule.

Contact doesn't make it a penalty. There has to be an "indication of targeting" and there really wasn't. It was a normal football tackle where forcible contact to the head/neck area occurred incidentally.  

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Contact doesn't make it a penalty. There has to be an "indication of targeting" and there really wasn't. It was a normal football tackle where forcible contact to the head/neck area occurred incidentally.  

image.thumb.png.03316265353ced1151967cfae26bf624.png

It wasn’t an egregious call.  I recall helmet to helmet first.  Could be the first one too. 

none require a manifestation of mental intent.

Edited by scramblyn
Posted
3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Contact doesn't make it a penalty. There has to be an "indication of targeting" and there really wasn't. It was a normal football tackle where forcible contact to the head/neck area occurred incidentally.  

I agree that there didn't appear to be any "indication of targeting" with Smith's tackle. Another poster observed that the Arkansas player is only 5'6" (really?), making the helmet contact unavoidable. When in doubt, the officials will err on the side of caution. Of course, the replay official could've overruled the call, but didn't.

Posted
1 minute ago, DFW Horn said:

I agree that there didn't appear to be any "indication of targeting" with Smith's tackle. Another poster observed that the Arkansas player is only 5'6" (really?), making the helmet contact unavoidable. When in doubt, the officials will err on the side of caution. Of course, the replay official could've overruled the call, but didn't.

Y'all are both thinking it has to be some evidence of mental intent, it doesn’t. It’s the way you hit period, that’s it. Read the rule. 

Posted

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet. The crown of the helmet is the top segment of the helmet; namely, the circular area defined by a 6-inch radius from the apex (top) of the helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)

Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:

• Launch. A player leaving their feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area.

• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground.

• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area. • Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.

Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14). When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to:

• A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass. This includes an offensive player in a passing posture with focus downfield.

• A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier.

• A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.

• A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not ha

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, scramblyn said:

Y'all are both thinking it has to be some evidence of mental intent, it doesn’t. It’s the way you hit period, that’s it. Read the rule. 

Yeah, I wish the rule included "malicious intent", but it doesn't. 

Edited by DFW Horn
redundant
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet. The crown of the helmet is the top segment of the helmet; namely, the circular area defined by a 6-inch radius from the apex (top) of the helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)

Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:

• Launch. A player leaving their feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area.

• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground.

• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area. • Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.

Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14). When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to:

• A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass. This includes an offensive player in a passing posture with focus downfield.

• A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier.

• A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.

• A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not ha

No where does it say, the player seemed extra mean or hit extra hard or the offensive player looks like he coulda gotten hurt. 

The rule defines targeting by hit technique and that’s it. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

It probably literally fit either definition, maybe not crown of helmet.

The rules are intended to objectively define an element of intent to make "forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball."  But intent doesn't strictly come into it.

Still, I think some sort of discretion should exist to rule that the hit didn't exhibit that type of forcible contact and thus did not constitute targeting.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
Just now, TwiceHorn said:

It probably literally fit either definition, maybe not crown of helmet.

The rules are intended to objectively define an element of intent to make "forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball."  But intent doesn't strictly come into it.

 

It fits 3rd, could 1st and if the hit was upward it could fit the 2nd. Only the 4th one is a clear no (didn’t lead with the crown). 

player was defenseless, clearly in the act of catching. 

 

Posted

Last thing I’ll say, the rule isn’t designed to punish bad players, it’s not really like unsportsmanlike conduct. 

the rule is designed to protect players by changing tackling and hitting technique. 

so a technique based rule makes perfect sense given the goal. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, scramblyn said:

Last thing I’ll say, the rule isn’t designed to punish bad players, it’s not really like unsportsmanlike conduct. 

the rule is designed to protect players by changing tackling and hitting technique. 

so a technique based rule makes perfect sense given the goal. 

I officiated TXHSFB for ten years (by NCAA rules) when the Targeting rule was first introduced.

Truth be told, I wouldn't have called that foul today, seeing it at game speed. But, there were only 5 of us - not 8. We missed a lot of shit we probably should've flagged.

  • Hook 'Em 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...