I won't argue to much other than to say... Georgia on my Mind is literally his home state's official song.
Ketch's 10 Thoughts From The Weekend (Is the coverage of Ewers too intense?)
- Thread starter Ketchum
- Start date
I suppose, ultimately, I feel like the buck stops at one person.
Paint me in the camp that wants honest takes and reality good or bad. Last year Ewers did not perform as we all expected after watching the Bama game and in some games he was putrid. Does that rustle some Jimmie’s? Perhaps but we don’t need yes men.
Most do not have the access to practices so we rely on honest and summarized information. If you can’t be honest @Ketchum then what is the point?
Stick to your guns, call em like you see them and let the chips fall where they fall. And for those who don’t like that, well go kick rocks.
Most do not have the access to practices so we rely on honest and summarized information. If you can’t be honest @Ketchum then what is the point?
Stick to your guns, call em like you see them and let the chips fall where they fall. And for those who don’t like that, well go kick rocks.
Yea…too lazy to look up exact quote.
Needless to say you keep repeating the “confidence was lost” when UT was never in a passing down the final two scoring drives. They had zero reason to throw the ball, and that is fact. Everything else is speculation and conjecture.
Man…I really wish I could be a fly on the wall sometimes for conversations y’all have.
Not really what I’m referring to. This might be completely my perception, but the coverage of Card since he stepped on campus has been drastically different than Ewers. I even vaguely remember a fun little thread where you were comparing Card’s struggles to HOF qbs. Once again this might be my perception.
I’m definitely in the camp of hearing whatever y’all can share, just pointing out the criticism of Ewers has seemed different than other players in the past.
No one in that previous thread, that I am aware of, was calling for you to only report positive news. You are doing the same thing in this thread that you attempted to do in that thread… rewrite history.
"It's just that Quinn Ewers played at a level that basically required Sarkisian to take the ball completely out of his hands in the two drives that decided this game following his fumble that allowed the Bears to take a fourth-quarter lead.
The stats will show that Ewers was pretty good, as he finished with a 176.9 efficiency rating. Yet, sometimes stats can't tell a complete story. On a day when Ewers handed the Bears 10 points on a safety/fumble combo, while also leaving four points off the scoreboard on a high throw in the red zone to Ja'Tavion Sanders, Ewers' feel for the game and what's happening around him left a lot to be desired.
A lot.
I mean ... Sark just stopped letting him do anything other than hand off and that decision probably won the game.
The scene was a giant reminder of how far this team still has a ways to go at the quarterback position. When Sark said that the team would go into the spring with an open competition, he better mean it because it's much needed."
I stand behind all of that.
Last edited:
No offense, but you can't fully word what it is you're trying to say.
Of course, Card's coverage has been different than Ewers. They are different players with different backgrounds, expectations and stories/narratives.
Yes, when young quarterbacks have tough games, I've reminded people that all quarterbacks go through struggles. It's to serve as a reminder that each quarterback's growth is a process and takes time. I reminded people of that constantly last year when Ewers had his struggles.
The criticism of Ewers IS different than every player that has before him. The circumstances of his story is different than any quarterback before him. Quite frankly, he's the first starting quarterback that I've been told wasn't putting in the level of work that is required that I can remember.
That's simply not true on multiple levels.
a. Yes, it was suggested that reporting the stuff about Ewers last fall, which wasn't positive, was too harsh. We're splitting hairs by changing the wording around to say "only report positive news".
b. I'm not re-writing history. I'm telling you what happened.
Frankly, I'm not even sure I know what you're talking about with regards to the re-writing of history.. Maybe you can be specific.
You entered the thread stating you were a defender of ewers and were a constant reminder to all that we needed to be patient with the young man. That just wasn’t at all accurate. You called for an open competition as all confidence was lost in ewers.
If you hadn’t entered the thread with a false statement about what had happened then the rest of the conversation wouldn’t have happened.
a. I was a constant defender of Ewers during his struggles last season, as I reminded people that these struggles were part of every quarterback's growing/maturation process. I called those struggles before they even happened and when people reacted harshly, I reminded them (as I did with Hudson)that you have to let these guys grow up on the fly and that sometimes requires some hard knocks.
b. I did call for an open competition based on the dynamics that were alive at the time of the comments. The fact that Ewers has changed a lot of his work habits in a positive way has been a critical piece of the puzzle.
c. His own head coach also spoke of needing an open competition.
Frankly, you don't have a firm grasp of the totality of what happened. I have receipts, videos and specifics.
You have half-assed remembered generalities.
Why would Odell sign with Baltimore for any reason other than Baltimore foolishly offering him more ($) when he does not have any real clue as to who will be his QB ? Does this tell us that Lamar is going to sign up with Baltimore after all ?
First let me say, love this website. I spend entirely too much time on it.
Your response here, the trust me I know more than you … is emotional. As I said in the other thread, you are oddly emotional on anything worthy related. I think ewers is caught in that emotion. You starting this post, seeking validation from anonymous people on a message board, is emotional.
The dynamics of the time is ewers played a great game. Another dynamic is we had the best player in college football in the backfield next to him. For some strange reason Baylor decided not to load the box and stop the run. Bijan did bijan things. You took that and turned into a slight against ewers. No one was telling you to only report positive things. We are just saying you are wrong.
You choose to not report negative info all the time. You stated such in this thread. Again, this whole thread, is some weird attempt at emotional validation.
You are good at what you do. This website is fantastic. The end.
a. I appreciate you. Love that you love the websiter.
b. I'm not being emotional. I'm merely telling you what happened in the face of claims that what happened didn't really happen.
c. I have no emotions connected to Xavier Worthy. I mean... I like him. But, I feel like I'm able to have a down the middle conversation about him. As it stands, he's the most productive receiver in school history through two seasons. That's not subjective. It's an important note in the discussions related to him.
d. You are ignoring context in the discussion of the Baylor game. It stands in comparison to how Sark previously used Ewers. You can't leave that out when discussing the 30,000 foot view of that conversation.
e. Emotional validation? Or just validation. Or transparent discussion. Those things get confused at times for each other.
Now that these kids are openly basically being paid as professionals, well paid at that, I have no issues with treating them like pros. You don’t get to have the cake without the calories.
This is a big point for a lot of people.
It's professional football without profit sharing.
That doesn't dictate how I think about these matters, but it the cloud that exists now and it's not going away.
It’s basically a job they are being paid for. I had jobs at their age and the pay always came with expectations and if I didn’t like it, I could not have that job, just as they can just become regular paying students or get a lower paying job with less expectations. They are coming to Texas for the elite benefits and with it comes a higher cost. It’s just life.
One is either 3rd or 4th; the other is either 4th or 5th. Am i reading that right?
The portion of that that I feel is misleading is that you fail to mention Sark didn’t need him to do anything else but hand the ball off. Texas was averaging over 7 yards a carry. They faced 1 third down, and it was 2 yards.
Your points would have much more validity if Sark actually needed him to throw the ball. You had the choice of how you wanted to present it. Complete distrust in a qb, OR a coach finally allowing his best two players to win the game for him. You obviously went with the first.
RB, WR, and OL seem like the most likely destinations to lose a player to the portal this spring.
You're looking at this in a vacuum. The backstory to this entire conversation is how Sark reacted to these situations in prior situations, especially in the Oklahoma State game.
Yes I do. I think at the bowl game they found out for sure he cannot be the main back or even a number 2 (25% carry) back with that performance. So who would you rather see go from the backfield?
I think they really, really like him.
They did that in the bowl game (IMO) to keep him from leaving.
I agree with you. But now that they have see Baxter and Red and Blue have seemed to step up with Brooks being more of a known quantity, how would you rank on least like to lose?
