-
Posts
4498 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Everything posted by Carl Spackler
-
Then I must have seen a significant percentage of the "vanishingly small" number of those incidents. I also suspect that those stats didn't include instances in which the pitcher who issued the IBB then had trouble finding the strike zone against the next hitter or two because it would be difficult to actually prove a connection between the two. But having seen it happen more than once, I'm pretty confident that there was something about having to throw 4 lollipops well off the plate that occasionally had an effect on the pitcher's ability to then hone back in on the strike zone with actual pitches against the next hitter. For me, the current rule doesn't speed the game up that much (certainly not like the pitch clock does) because the old IBB didn't take that much time. But I don't harbor much (well, any, really) hope that they'll change the rule back. Just me shaking my fist at clouds at this point.
-
Well Sir you are a cowardly son of a bitch.
Carl Spackler replied to Parliament's topic in Movies and TV
I don't recall that line in the movie -
That's great. I forgot that I've also seen a wild pitch or two on occasions when pitchers were attempting to intentionally walk a batter. There are all sorts of ways that making 'em actually throw the pitches can affect the game. I realize they changed the rule to speed up the game, but the old IBBs didn't take that much time. They should go back to the way it used to be done.
-
-
Agreed. Never liked the fact that they changed that rule. It significantly impacts strategy and the game in general. Back in the days of having to throw the pitches, it wasn't unusual that the pitcher would intentionally walk someone and then have a hard time finding the strike zone against the next hitter. In what was one of the dumber decisions I've ever seen a manager make, I saw a manager bring in a reliever when the starter was clearly done. So what does the manager do? He has the reliever issue an intentional walk to the first batter he faces. And then the reliever couldn't find the strike zone against the next two hitters -- gave up two unintentional walks, one of which walked in a run. If you were gonna intentionally walk the next hitter, why not just have the starter finish out his game by throwing four soft-tosses three feet off the plate, and *then* bring in the reliever? Maybe the reliever would have been wild anyway, but having to throw his first four pitches way off the plate certainly didn't help him. I've also seen a pitch intended to be part of an intentional walk mistakenly thrown too close to the plate and hammered for a hit similar to what Atwood did for the Lady Horns in the last WCWS.
-
Well Sir you are a cowardly son of a bitch.
Carl Spackler replied to Parliament's topic in Movies and TV
Well, he should have armed himself if he's gonna decorate his saloon with my friend. -
Negative Recruiting Your Own School: The aggy Screenshot Megathread
Carl Spackler replied to texifornia's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
I think that's part of the reason I was ignorant of how bad it was. -
Negative Recruiting Your Own School: The aggy Screenshot Megathread
Carl Spackler replied to texifornia's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
Holy crap, I had not realized how bad the holding (tackling) was by aggy on that play. -
Negative Recruiting Your Own School: The aggy Screenshot Megathread
Carl Spackler replied to texifornia's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
lulz Which play was that? -
Texas Football 2025 - Seven Win Steve Rides Again
Carl Spackler replied to closetojumping's topic in Football
Might be the all-time example of a username checking out. -
Texas Football 2025 - Seven Win Steve Rides Again
Carl Spackler replied to closetojumping's topic in Football
+1. Texas pretty much did this in last season's game, and did a decent job of limiting Pavia. He had some moments here and there, esp. early in that game, but for the most part I thought the defense did a good job of keeping him in check. However, we all know the Vandy O coaches are going to be scheming to deal with that strategy. The notion of playing to contain and/or spying Pavia is something of which they're well aware. Should be an interesting chess match between PK and Vandy's offensive coordinator, Tim Beck. -
Texas Football 2025 - Seven Win Steve Rides Again
Carl Spackler replied to closetojumping's topic in Football
Sack up, man. We are going to beat aggy. They aren't as good as their record indicates. They have a sieve of a defense. They were lucky to beat ND. All their other games were home games except Pig, which is weak this season. I give them credit for being better than they were last season, but they aren't the third best team in college football. Not even close. -
One Battle After Another, the next Paul Thomas Anderson film
Carl Spackler replied to mdmost's topic in Movies and TV
Indeed. Attention-getting. -
One Battle After Another, the next Paul Thomas Anderson film
Carl Spackler replied to mdmost's topic in Movies and TV
Can I keep the sound turned down while I watch it? -
One Battle After Another, the next Paul Thomas Anderson film
Carl Spackler replied to mdmost's topic in Movies and TV
Saw it this past weekend and definitely enjoyed it. Sean Penn was terrific in his role. I thought Teyana Taylor, who I knew nothing about, also stood out. The pacing was excellent -- at no point did I check the time or find my mind wandering away from the movie because it was dragging, etc. The underground railroad portion of the film was a highlight. And (no cloakroom intended) in today's world of ICE raids, it's a timely commentary on certain social issues. I don't know where I'd rate it in comparison to other PTA films, but it's definitely in the top half. I know it doesn't rate up with Boogie Nights for me, but that's an almost impossibly high bar to attain. -
Coach Sark Press Conference 10.20 - 11:30am (LHN and ESPN apps)
Carl Spackler replied to BigOrange1's topic in Football
Fair overall point. But . . . maybe it's just semantics, but I think Texas dominated aggy last season. A&M was lucky it wasn't a 20+ point final margin. Only a couple Ewers specials kept it at 10. I thought Arky was something other than a squeaker as well. Now Vandy? That was too close for comfort. -
Michael Taaffe wants you to stop being such fucking pussies.
Carl Spackler replied to immamac's topic in Football
Manning may have played poorly, but he never fucking quit. Stop with this bullshit. -
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.
-
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.
-
The one where he came off the bench cold with Texas already in the hole to a team that many felt was the odds-on favorite to be NC again and after Ewers took all the first team reps in practice that week? Yeah, neither he nor Ewers looked good in that game, IMO. Under those circumstances and the way the Georgia defense was playing in that game, I'm not sure that many college QBs would have looked real good in that particular situation. But OK, I'll agree that game serves as a bit of a counterbalance to his performance in his two starts last season. But if we're going to do that, we also have to take into account limited appearances like the one in the A&M game when he scored a TD with a gutsy run. In any event, it kind of avoids the greater overall point which is not that Manning's performance last year in ANY of those games meant he would be a great college QB . . . because it didn't. Rather, the point is that his performance in his two starts last season demonstrated that he had the ability to perform at a proficient level as a FBS QB. But it's been up to him, Sark, Milwee, et al. to bring all of that out this season, which hasn't happened so far. And that is concerning.
-
I said exactly what I wanted to say, i.e., he's a significant part of the problem with the offense but not the sole problem, because that is, in fact, the case. I don't disagree that accuracy is a critical attribute for any QB, which is part of the reason why I specifically mentioned his issues in that area. So it's not as if I'm trying to cover up or sugarcoat anything in that regard. But if you're suggesting that the offensive woes are solely Manning's fault because of his problems with accuracy, then I can't agree with you.
-
AZ just needs to let GB score and then go win the game with a TD.
-
I'm not sure what your first sentence is asking. But your second sentence kind of hits on the problem, i.e., that the potential and ability Arch showed last season hasn't been realized at all this season. In fact, in certain areas there has been regression, not merely a failure to realize potential. If you can't see why people on this board are referencing last season's performance as a reason for the depth of disappointment in his play (and the offense's performance in general) this season or as a reason for thinking that his performance in '25 could improve if the O-line starts blocking better and the run game starts being effective, then I can't help you. I tried to explain it.
-
It's relevant for at least three reasons. First, his performance last year helped form and establish the expectations that he's not meeting this year. Second, his performance last year indicates he can be far more accurate than he has been this season. Some of his misses when given time and a clean pocket have been absolutely headscratching this season, particularly given the absence of similarly bad misfires in his limited playing time last season. Finally, his performance last year behind a different line and with different receivers supports the proposition that he has it in him to be a proficient FBS QB if the current line starts blocking better, he cleans up his accuracy issues, the run game gets cranked up, etc. So while I understand that how Arch performed last season doesn't change the fact that he's been anywhere from meh to downright bad this season, his performance in '24 does have some relevance to what we're talking about now.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... COOKIE MONSTER!