Jump to content

Carl Spackler

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    4545
  • Joined

Everything posted by Carl Spackler

  1. We're gonna have to agree to disagree re: whether Manning would be better with a better line in front of him and whether he can make short/intermediate throws. But I've got the tape from his two starts last season to back me up, whereas you have . . . your faulty recollection. In that regard, I notice that you didn't bother to address the throw from last year's MSU game that I specifically called out. That was a beautiful throw, and it's proof positive that he has the ability to do more than simply (as you contend) throw it deep. The two aspects of your post with which I can agree are your statements that "[h]e isn't just the problem" and that "he is absolutely a problem . . ."
  2. That's because he did look better last season. I don't agree with much of this. Arch certainly hasn't played up to expectations, which were built at least in part on what he showed last season. The accuracy issues are particularly confounding, because he hadn't previously given indications that he had them. Whether it is a mechanical issue or more of a mental thing, I don't know -- but it needs to get fixed pronto. But he's still developing, and I do not agree that he wouldn't be playing better if he had a better line and a viable running game to help him. Suggesting that he would be the same QB even if he had last year's line in front of him is, IMO, ridiculous and belied by the evidence, because we KNOW what he looked like behind that line in the two games he started. If you think Arch doesn't have the capability of making intermediate throws, then please take a look at the throw at 3:57 of this video. That's an NFL-quality intermediate throw. (And there are other quality short and intermediate throws on just this one video from only one game.) BTW, do you see any differences between that tape and the Kentucky game from yesterday? Notice that he often had a clean pocket from which to throw? And receivers that were consistently open? Things are a lot different so far this season in those two areas. The problem is NOT just Manning. He's a significant part of the problem, esp. with his accuracy issues, but by no means is it all on him. The offensive woes are due to a complex combination of several different factors.
  3. Brooks. But, yeah, he's a true frosh trying to play a position he wasn't projected to play.
  4. 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.
  5. Step away from the ledge
  6. If you're gonna link to something from The Fog, I'd go with something like this instead.
  7. It may have been brought up, but if it was it was in passing and/or I must have missed it. There certainly was no drilling down about it in any kind of detail like there was with the impact of his father's death, his drinking, or his bodyweight. Again, this is just an explanation re: why I thought the documentary was good, but not great. Just my opinion. I certainly thought (and still think) that watching it was worthwhile.
  8. Not "upset" about anything. Just thought the documentary would have been better had it discussed Candy's drug usage and delved at least somewhat into why the man was unable to kick some of his demons -- the drinking, the smoking, the coke, the bodyweight. Don't get me wrong -- I enjoyed the documentary and would definitely recommend it. As others have mentioned, the Aykroyd eulogy was moving, as were Catherine O'Hara's words about Candy at his memorial. The fact that so many giants in the comedy and entertainment fields were willing to talk about and praise Candy on film speaks volumes about the man. (The fact that it was Colin Hanks, Tom Hanks' son, doing the documentary undoubtedly helped get people to talk, but still . . .) And I thought the film did a very thorough job of explaining the huge impact that his father's death had on Candy's life. But I thought it could/would have been better had it been a little more honest about Candy's drug usage and attempted to parse why Candy could never fully escape his vices, because his inability to do so obviously had a huge impact on his life and undoubtedly contributed to his death. There was virtually no substantive discussion of Candy's drug usage and its impact on his life. I'm not interested in that for titillating purposes; rather, I'm more interested in trying to find out what made the man tick and how drug usage factored into the equation.
  9. Punk move on his part.
  10. I see that I missed a good first half of football between KC and Det. I also see that the Chiefs were not penalized at all in that first half. What a shock that is.
  11. As I stated in another post, some of his decisions in prior games are a lot more questionable than that one play from the OU game that resulted in Texas starting at its 5 yard line, so I agree with you to an extent. He certainly hasn't been perfect as a punt returner -- and the instances in which he let punts hit the ground when he had a reasonable opportunity to field them are the biggest knock on him up to this point. But I think overall he's been solid. And my overarching point is that I think there are several other facets of the team's play that I think are bigger problems. Does he need to sharpen up his decisionmaking re: fielding punts? Yes. But at least he hasn't fumbled or muffed a punt up to this point, and he's had a few explosive returns. Hopefully he'll continue to improve.
  12. I don't think that particular play is a great example to cite if you want to criticize Niblett. Go back and review that play if you can -- I have. That was a shitty, low, line-drive punt that landed a good 20 yards in front of where Niblett had set up. Not even Deion Sanders in his prime would have tried to field that punt on the fly. The punt then bounced crazily in OU's favor. Niblett approached the ball and clearly thought about trying to field it, but at the last instant he decided to let it go past him. I suppose one could second-guess his decision not to try to field the punt on the bounce, but with the way (and speed) that ball was bouncing, I had no problem with his decision. There was a good chance that an attempt to field that punt would have led to a muff, and the last thing Texas needed at that point in time was a muffed punt and a turnover in favor of OU, which would have been a huge swing in momentum. And, as someone else has pointed out, part of the reason the drive started at the 5 yard line was because one of the punt return team got called for a penalty. Some of Niblett's other decisions re: fielding punts in prior games are a lot more questionable than that play, IMO.
  13. I don't think it's me that would need to start loading up. For the record, reading the early parts of this game thread is equal parts amusing, horrifying, and headscratching.
  14. I do not understand the criticism of Niblett. After Saturday's game, he's averaging 21.6 yards per punt return. Even if you take away the 75-yarder, he's averaging more than 14 per return. And most importantly, he's been pretty surehanded -- no fumbles. I don't think he's going to make anyone forget about the likes of Jordan Shipley or Aaron Ross, and I'd be the first one to agree that prior to the OU game most of his production had come against inferior competition, but he hasn't been nearly as bad as people on this board make it out to be.
  15. Please post the proof pics. Thx
  16. I couldn't recall, but did about 5 seconds of Googling, and apparently there was controversy in one of his bouts prior to the gold medal fight. From the always-reliable Wikipedia: In Park's quarterfinal bout against Vincenzo Nardiello of Italy, Nardiello easily won the first two rounds, but because Park won the third round by a large margin, he was given the fight. Nardiello then had to be dragged out of the ring, shouting at the judges.
  17. I thought it was good, not great. It sugarcoated certain aspects of his life, as others have noted.
  18. Dansby is lost at the plate right now
  19. PCA oh so close
  20. Seiya! Seeya!!
  21. Stockton just got absolutely leveled by an Auburn defender
Γ—
Γ—
  • Create New...