Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

When it comes to success, your playcaller and QB coach should put your QB in the best position to succeed. But with if your QB is deficient mentally during games? Why are we trying so hard to make something work that obviously doesn't fit?

Right now Arch and Sark are a square peg in a round hole. It's hurting Sark, Arch, and the team. Something has to give but I'd prefer seeing how much Lacey can handle Sark's offense over some Tebow like ugly offense that would likely result in Arch getting hurt anyways. If Lacey is accurate and makes quicker decision, we can run at least 75% of Sark's offense. Right now I think Arch only fits about 25-30% of it. 

Though I don't disagree with Sark receiving a lot of the play calling blame, I think there's a limit to "dumbing down" the offense that crosses the line of "you don't have a quality QB" and I feel like we are there with Arch Manning. If he doesn't even use his hot routes or dump offs, how much of the playbook do we really want the playbook to be reduced just to make a said player the QB? 

Sark makes the big bucks. He needs to start making tough decisions that warrant that salary and stop looking like his hands are tied. 

Edited by ChanmanV
Posted

Let’s face it. Sark isn’t smart. He is a good play caller with Saban’s 5 star OL and skill guys. He is stubborn to a fault and my call is this offseason he and CDC will sit down and Sark won’t do what is asked of him and it will end bad. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 minute ago, Andrew Scott said:

Let’s face it. Sark isn’t smart. He is a good play caller with Saban’s 5 star OL and skill guys. He is stubborn to a fault and my call is this offseason he and CDC will sit down and Sark won’t do what is asked of him and it will end bad. 

To be fair, we need to start judging Sark by recency and not continue to think of him when he was Bama 7-8 years ago now. Jimbo Fisher was a good caller at one point too. Offenses revolutionize every year and a lot of people have copied the good parts of Sark's offense already so I don't know that he's "cutting edge" any more. That said, Arch and that OL don't allow him to maximize his scheme either. If Arch played for that Bama team, they'd have just as much problems except Saban would force Sark to bench him. 

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

Bad QB play has resulted in many a coach getting fired ... Sark your up. What you going to do?

Would Lacey open up more of the playbook?  It’s clear Arch isn’t keen on running much, so playbook is limited on keeping defenses guessing with Arch’s legs.  

Posted
9 minutes ago, Gerry Hamilton said:

Bad QB play has resulted in many a coach getting fired ... Sark your up. What you going to do?

Agree 1000%. If you can bench Quinn for a series in a big game you can bench Arch. Let him sit on the sidelines and gather himself too. Trying to get Arch ready for the NFL and being stubborn is hurting this team. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, Horns91 said:

Agree 1000%. If you can bench Quinn for a series in a big game you can bench Arch. Let him sit on the sidelines and gather himself too. Trying to get Arch ready for the NFL and being stubborn is hurting this team. 

Yup, I think you have to bench him if nothing else to evaluate if your offense is truly broken or Arch just isn’t fitting the system. It’s hard. Hes got a ton of gifts and is a really good kid. Unfortunately, he just may not be the best QB for UT and Sark isn’t the best QB coach for him. I’d rather admit that and part amicably than have fans turn on him like Simms. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, NTX_Horn said:

Would Lacey open up more of the playbook?  It’s clear Arch isn’t keen on running much, so playbook is limited on keeping defenses guessing with Arch’s legs.  

I doubt he has much arm strength for deep ahit hunting Sark loves. Offense would probably look more like when Ewers played, but you'd hope for more athleticism on the pocket than that.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Alex Butler said:

Yup, I think you have to bench him if nothing else to evaluate if your offense is truly broken or Arch just isn’t fitting the system. It’s hard. Hes got a ton of gifts and is a really good kid. Unfortunately, he just may not be the best QB for UT and Sark isn’t the best QB coach for him. I’d rather admit that and part amicably than have fans turn on him like Simms. 

I was just fixing to say the same.  How do you know?  Wouldn’t that be in the first 5 moves of trouble shooting the offense?  Let’s assume before today we were at least 2-3 moves in 😂

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, f1revo said:

I doubt he has much arm strength for deep ahit hunting Sark loves. Offense would probably look more like when Ewers played, but you'd hope for more athleticism on the pocket than that.

We were putting up 35-39 points per game with Quinn. We haven’t score over 24 against teams with a pulse this year. 

Posted

It would be nice if we decided to incorporate the middle of the field in the passing game.   Just saying.   I do not recall any 5-10 yard crossers at all in the last 3 games.  Maybe they were there, but I don’t see them.  Seems like we exclusively run routes outside the hashes to the boundary.  

Posted
1 minute ago, Hookem72 said:

It would be nice if we decided to incorporate the middle of the field in the passing game.   Just saying.   I do not recall any 5-10 yard crossers at all in the last 3 games.  Maybe they were there, but I don’t see them.  Seems like we exclusively run routes outside the hashes to the boundary.  

I really don’t think Arch can hit those, he needs throws he can rip.  Way too much touch and pacing required.  Quinn specialty by the way

Posted
13 minutes ago, Alex Butler said:

We were putting up 35-39 points per game with Quinn. We haven’t score over 24 against teams with a pulse this year. 

No doubt, im just talking style wise it would need to change to short/intermediate routes much more than the downfield bomb stuff we run right now.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  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...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.