Ketch's 10 Thoughts From the Weekend (I attempt to explain what happened...)

[CS]

No you said that it would take full season to turn weaknesses into strengths. At least that's what you said yesterday afternoon.

But that doesn't fit the 10-2 prediction.

I don't remember what you're referring to from yesterday. I clarified today that "overnight" meant (over the course of) the season. Some weaknesses become strengths today, some more next week, etc. I thought it would result in 10-2. Looks like I was wrong. I'm not sure what else there is to say on that.

 

[Buda Horn]

Do we get a rewrite on the aggy note? That will make everyone feel better to read.

 

[Ketchum]

Were you misquoted in your column?

where is the quote?

 

[Ketchum]

Sorry ketch I can't for a second believe this brings any insight to the problems facing the UT program. The term talent gets thrown around way to often but this group of players has been beat down too much and doesn't know how to win. Run fast jump high only goes so far.

I don't disagree with your point.

 

[Coelacanth]

I don't remember what you're referring to from yesterday. I clarified today that "overnight" meant (over the course of) the season. Some weaknesses become strengths today, some more next week, etc. I thought it would result in 10-2. Looks like I was wrong. I'm not sure what else there is to say on that.

It's not that you were wrong. Everybody was wrong. It's that your error demolishes the overall narrative that you're still trying to maintain, which is that (1) Tom Herman is an elite coach, (2) you have some special insight into what an elite coach is.

Herman may turn out to be an elite coach. Or he may not.

But you have no idea. And you ought to admit that.

 

[Ketchum]

Spoke to early on Aggies

you're welcome.

 

[Buda Horn]

c. Holy, smokes! Texas A&M... I see you. Wow. Well done.

Dude I havent laughed so hard while reading the boards in months. Well done

 

[Ketchum]

But that kind of makes the point, doesn't it.

None of you know anything.

Tiny brains, all around.

Oh, if your point is that we all have tiny brains... well... touche.

 

[Coelacanth]

Oh, if your point is that we all have tiny brains... well... touche.

Yes, that's precisely my point. And we would all be better off if we simply admitted that none of us have any clue.

This after-the-fact revision is an attempt to save the narrative that you have a clue.

You don't have any more of a clue than CS.

 

[CS]

It's not that you were wrong. Everybody was wrong. It's that your error demolishes the overall narrative that you're still trying to maintain, which is that (1) Tom Herman is an elite coach, (2) you have some special insight into what an elite coach is.

Herman may turn out to be an elite coach. Or he may not.

But you have no idea. And you ought to admit that.

I have no idea if Tom Herman is a great coach or not.

I live in a world where sports happen in a metaphorical bar setting. It's OK to not be deadly serious all of the time.

 

[Coelacanth]

I have no idea if Tom Herman is a great coach or not.

I live in a world where sports happen in a metaphorical bar setting. It's OK to not be deadly serious all of the time.

But you are deadly serious right up until the moment when being deadly serious doesn't suit your argument.

 

[Ketchum]

Again: Where was that info on Johnson's limitations?

I read pretty closely. But maybe I missed that.

I think his situation has been talked about a lot and I know that we spoke at length about it in podcasts and or Orangebloods radio, but a couple of weeks ago when I wrote a lede about my serious questions about the offensive line, I said a source said the following:

"Gary Johnson is making progress. If he can keep improving at the rate that he has from the first week to this week, he's going to be a factor early in the season. As of today, though, he's not quite ready for a full workload."

The same source said this: ""Are there reasons to be concerned about the offense? Yes, there are reasons to be concerned about the offense. We have the definition of a work in progress on that side of the ball."

 

[Ketchum]

Do you mean on your radio show that airs in Myanmar at 2am, or in the actual write-ups here on OBs?

Please show me where that write-up has been.

Is there a reason you seem to be going out of your way to be rude?

 

[Ketchum]

That just smacks of desperation and hints that these coaches don't have the answers.

I just don't think they believe in Buechele. In fact, I feel strongly about that.

 

[daflonghorn]

I have to try and remain positive about Herman and this team, because if I don't then I will start to believe Texas will Never be any good again- and I just don't believe that's true.

Hook 'Em!

 

[Ketchum]

Yes, that's precisely my point. And we would all be better off if we simply admitted that none of us have any clue.

This after-the-fact revision is an attempt to save the narrative that you have a clue.

You don't have any more of a clue than CS.

Have a blessed week.

 

[Coelacanth]

"Gary Johnson is making progress. If he can keep improving at the rate that he has from the first week to this week, he's going to be a factor early in the season. As of today, though, he's not quite ready for a full workload."

But why did you hold back on the specific information about taking on blocks, getting off blocks, and making critical errors vs. the run game?

Clearly you had that info.

The same source said this: ""Are there reasons to be concerned about the offense? Yes, there are reasons to be concerned about the offense. We have the definition of a work in progress on that side of the ball."

But the same source said this: "I think we all need to see Buechele against another defense before we'll know what to expect from him. He won't see many Saturdays when he faces more than what he sees every day from our own defense.”

The general idea was that his struggles were a result of an outstanding defense. And if Gary Johnson "wasn't quite ready for a full workload" on an outstanding defense, then surely that meant that he was at least good for 10 to 12 plays a game. It leaves the impression that maybe he didn't fully get the whole defensive package yet, or something to that effect. It does not leave the reader with the idea that the player is deficient in the fundamentals of linebacker play.

Indeed, only a few days ago, Gary Johnson was tabbed by an OB writer as the team's "4th linebacker". It was reported that we would see him a lot. The general impression was that whenever a starter at any LB position had an injury, Gary Johnson would be the first guy up.

That's what OB has reported.

Propaganda.

 

[A-10HORN]

I think Ehlinger playing this week will be seriously considered.

Thanks Ketch. I didn't know if they went on full lock down or what.

 

[CS]

But you are deadly serious right up until the moment when being deadly serious doesn't suit your argument.

That's not true.

 

[Coelacanth]

Is there a reason you seem to be going out of your way to be rude?

O come on. You're rude from time to time. Absorb it.

 

[Coelacanth]

That's not true.

It's true.

 

[tlcdownunder2]

I just don't think they believe in Buechele. In fact, I feel strongly about that.

I'm not disagreeing. But they put that whole game on his shoulders by abandoning the run and having him sling it, what, 50-60 times? And it seemed like half of those were to Garrett Gray. If they can't find a way to win without a transcendent QB then they just won't win this year. Throwing a true freshman in there and leaning on him as heavily as they seem to want to lean on a QB would show me that the finger is far from the pulse on this one.

What I'm trying to say is if they really don't believe in Shane then why are they asking him to do so much? And if they need to put games almost entirely on a QBs shoulders to get a W then we are in deep chit.

 

[CS]

where is the quote?

In order to believe the team was going to go 9-3 or better, there needed to be enough pieces fitting together to justify that opinion. Throughout the last two weeks of camp, I've tried to be very slick in reporting that the offense had a very poor camp by dropping little snippets without giving the appearance that I was pissing on everyone's good-feel excitement.

Instead of trying to be slick, I needed to be screaming from the mountaintops, "This offense has looked like a hot mess!" I should have been more direct, but perhaps I let the potential push-back that I knew would come from reporting the struggles of the offense/quarterback (because it was significant throughout the off-season) impact the way I tried to be unassuming when dropping some of these hints (see my column from two weeks ago). I don't know what the exact answer is, but in retrospect I should have taken the heat at the expense of loud and clear disclosure.

I don't know how you simultaneously saw enough pieces fitting together to justify your 9-3 prediction and knew about offensive struggles that needed to be screamed from the mountaintops. My prediction wasn't based on more than blind faith in Tom Herman, and it looks likely to be wrong. You seem to be trying to have it both ways.

 

[CS]

It's true.

 

[Coelacanth]

I don't know how you simultaneously saw enough pieces fitting together to justify your 9-3 prediction and knew about offensive struggles that needed to be screamed from the mountaintops. My prediction wasn't based on more than blind faith in Tom Herman, and it looks likely to be wrong. You seem to be trying to have it both ways.

Well said.

 

[Coelacanth]

O great a cute gif.

 

[MrFruityNuts]

@Ketchum

Cut the crap. This was a shit show of epic magnitude. Tell your reporters to ask the hard questions and fkn hold him accountable for this shit. Designed plays to Gray in the red zone when you have a 6'6 athletic freak/specimen is dumb and arrogant as shit. Did you see how pissed/butt hurt TH was when 1 reporter had the balls to question play calling?

 

[2005NatChamps]

Honest question: How much of that awful offensive gameplay was Beck and how much was Herman?

How much of Ohio State's shutout vs Clemson was Tim Beck?

Hey Ketch, you didn't mention at any point that Beck was featuring throwing to Gray and running Shane so much.

 

[CS]

O great a cute gif.

Not everyone writes as if he is being studied by a future Philosophy 101 student. I halfway admire the megalomaniacal streak, but it can be a real beating.

 

[Ketchum]

But why did you hold back on the specific information about taking on blocks, getting off blocks, and making critical errors vs. the run game?

Clearly you had that info.

But the same source said this: "I think we all need to see Buechele against another defense before we'll know what to expect from him. He won't see many Saturdays when he faces more than what he sees every day from our own defense.”

The general idea was that his struggles were a result of an outstanding defense. And if Gary Johnson "wasn't quite ready for a full workload" on an outstanding defense, then surely that meant that he was at least good for 10 to 12 plays a game. It leaves the impression that maybe he didn't fully get the whole defensive package yet, or something to that effect. It does not leave the reader with the idea that the player is deficient in the fundamentals of linebacker play.

Indeed, only a few days ago, Gary Johnson was tabbed by an OB writer as the team's "4th linebacker". It was reported that we would see him a lot. The general impression was that whenever a starter at any LB position had an injury, Gary Johnson would be the first guy up.

That's what OB has reported.

Propaganda.

Look man, you're the only dude on this site that apparently didn't know what was going down with Gary Johnson. No one else in this thread has had that issue.

You asked for me to show you were it was reported and I did.

You've got an ax to grind and you've grinded it.You don't get to yell propaganda when the article I listed is the exact opposite of that.

I'd suggest you lave the thread at this point. You've said your piece.

 

[Ketchum]

O come on. You're rude from time to time. Absorb it.

Not really a good answer. I have done nothing but show you respect in this thread, while trying to keep it light-hearted.

 

[Coelacanth]

. . . I halfway admire the megalomaniacal streak, but it can be a real beating.

I care about words. They ought to be consistent. When they're not, and when I see that inconsistency in a person who has influence, I am compelled to say the things I say.

That's all.

 

[CS]

When they're not, and when I see that inconsistency in a person who has influence

I hope that is in reference to @Ketchum, otherwise you and I have very different understandings of message boards.

 

[Ketchum]

In order to believe the team was going to go 9-3 or better, there needed to be enough pieces fitting together to justify that opinion. Throughout the last two weeks of camp, I've tried to be very slick in reporting that the offense had a very poor camp by dropping little snippets without giving the appearance that I was pissing on everyone's good-feel excitement.

Instead of trying to be slick, I needed to be screaming from the mountaintops, "This offense has looked like a hot mess!" I should have been more direct, but perhaps I let the potential push-back that I knew would come from reporting the struggles of the offense/quarterback (because it was significant throughout the off-season) impact the way I tried to be unassuming when dropping some of these hints (see my column from two weeks ago). I don't know what the exact answer is, but in retrospect I should have taken the heat at the expense of loud and clear disclosure.

I don't know how you simultaneously saw enough pieces fitting together to justify your 9-3 prediction and knew about offensive struggles that needed to be screamed from the mountaintops. My prediction wasn't based on more than blind faith in Tom Herman, and it looks likely to be wrong. You seem to be trying to have it both ways.

I didn't see enough pieces. I admitted that. I also believed in Tom Herman.

That's explained in the article. That doesn't mean that I acted as a fan. It just means I misread the tea leaves. I was wrong. I should have handled it better.

 

[Coelacanth]

I'd suggest you lave the thread at this point. You've said your piece.

Is that a suggestion, or a command?

I don't want to get banned.

(If you give me a command, I will obey it.)