Ketch's 10 Thoughts From the Weekend (What the UT QB situation really looks like...)
- Thread starter Ketchum
- Start date
he got a hit helment to helment during the kansas game and went to the locker room with a neck injury.. just some more pesky facts.
This is my answer. Feel free to quote any section from it and dispute it.
**********
The number I selected that becomes a critical point in this discussion is 140.0.
Last season, an efficiency rating of 140.0 would have ranked 41st in the nation, while a 150.0 rating would have ranked 23rd, a 160.0 rating would have ranked 10th and a 170.0 rating would have ranked just outside the top five. While the numbers can change from year to year, these numbers should provide a very basic snapshot of what represents pretty good vs. elite at the quarterback position. In my mind, a 140.0 rating in the modern age of college football offense represents approximately the minimum bar of success for slightly above average quarterback play in the passing game.
Since 2010, here’s a look at both UT's primary starting quarterback rating and the overall team quarterback rating, along with the team’s final record.
2016: 136.0/134.4 (5-7)
2015: 126.1/120.5 (5-7)
2014: 116.5/116.2 (6-7)
2013: 109.3/117-7 (8-5)
2012: 153.3/154.4 (9-4)
2011: 131.9/122.1 (8-5)
2010: 111.0/111.2 (5-7)
In the last seven years, only the 2012 version of David Ash has been able to clear the 140.0 bar for an entire season, which also just happens to be the only nine-win season during this time span for the Texas program.
What’s interesting about this note is that it goes hand in hand with the supporting data from 2002-2016, which shows that in the nine seasons in which the Longhorns won nine or more games, the quarterback play posted a 140+ rating in seven of them. The two outliers?
2007: (139.2) Colt McCoy’s worst season was just an eyelash below the mark in what was a very uneven season.
2004: (128.4) Vince Young’s superhuman running skills more than overcompensated for his passing deficiencies.
Although it has taken me awhile to get there, I hope I’ve created a picture that safely paints the 140.0 rating as a fairly safe data point that establishes a minimum bar for success in the modern passing game inside college football, at least as it relates to the Texas program. If anyone out there feel like I’ve been unfair in choosing this admittedly arbitrary number as a baseline for success… my apologies (I tried).
Follow
Chuck Carlton
✔@ChuckCarltonDMN
Tom Herman on QB signee Sam Ehlinger: "Is he going to push Shane [Buechele]? I hope so." Reiterates that there are no starters in his mind
2:34 PM - 1 Feb 2017
As we bring the discussion forward to the upcoming 2017 season, the Longhorns return second-year sophomore starter Shane Buechele, who just finished his freshman season with a 136.0 rating, which on the surface seems to indicate that he’s on the cusp of giving the Longhorns enough at the quarterback position to lead the team into the nine-win range with its quarterback play.
Yet, if you dig a little deeper, you’ll find that the quarterback position is probably more of a question mark than peripheral numbers suggest. It’s possible that Buechele was so good in his first two starts against Notre Dame (169.7 game rating) and UTEP (206.3 game rating!) that we just didn’t pay enough attention to the fact that the next 10 games were rarely like the first two.
Some Buechele numbers from the final 10 games of last season…
* Buechele only posted a 140.0 game rating in three of his final 10 games (146.0 vs Iowa State, 176.0 at Kansas State and 195.4 vs. Baylor), which means that Buechele only cleared the 140.0 rating in five of 12 games, posting a 4-1 record in those five games.
* While he posted a 136.0 rating for the entire season, Buechele posted a 127.8 rating in the final 10 games of the season, which is lower than the rating Tyrone Swoopes posted in the first 11 games of the 2014 season.
* Buechele completed only 58.6 completion percentage and a 15/10 touchdown-to-interception ratio.
If you’re thinking that I’m trying to take a shot at Buechele by pointing these facts out, you’re sorely mistaken. As I’ve said repeatedly, I think he has all-Big 12 and championship upside. On top of that, I’ve never heard anyone say a bad thing about the young man and I ranked him as the No.10 prospect in the state in my 2016 rankings.
Considering how stagnant business gets when the program goes through a seven-season rut, I’d be borderline close to selling my soul to the sports gods if it meant Buechele led Texas to the type of promised land that gets a jersey number retired.
No, the point of this entire section is to point out that while Buechele absolutely represented improvement as a true freshman against almost everything Texas had at the position in the last seven years, there are still very real steps that he needs to take before we can safely call Buechele an above-average starting quarterback at this level.
First and foremost, it’s the game-in and game-out consistency that Buechele needs to improve on. It’s not a matter of ability because he displayed that at an above-average level in five games last season, which witnessed Texas win four of them. However, he can’t be a box of chocolates, going from good to bad in yo-yo fashion over a 12-game season.
If you told me right now that Buechele won't post a single 180 game-rating this season, but never goes under a 140 game-rating, I’d suggest that the Longhorns will be very close to nine wins this season. Hell, they won 80-percent of the games in which he went beyond 140 on a 5-7 team.
What’s funny is that I’ve been discussing the talent levels/upside between Buechele and true freshman Sam Ehlinger in the last week and wondering how the staff’s view of short-and long-term projections might impact snap distribution this season, but the better question might involve which quarterback can most consistently play at a 140.0+ level. You can beat Iowa State by three touchdowns with 146.0 play, but you can’t beat TCU if the yo-yo drops down to 82.9.
That's not a answer that's called a quote/ Copy and paste but its all good you are proving my point. Another question for sense you clearly don't have answer my first one. What new plays were added to the offense by the Kansas game? Or 12th game? Any new wrinkles? Exclude the run Forman run element they added and you have nothing. It didn't take rocket science to figure out how to stop this middle school offense by taking away the deep ball and Shane never had a chance at that point. Come on ketch be better.
The correct answer is 17 of 26 for 165 yards, one touchdown and three interceptions.
Second lowest game efficiency score of the season.
Damn those pesky facts.
The tangible evidence is his film. Again a some of the incompletions were off target throws but some were also drops and throw aways. Look at the amount of throws he connected on and the big plays. He just needs more mass and consistency. Beuchele has accuracy and when I say "well" I mean considering he had us in position to win close games straight out of high school. How many games were within a touchdown?
I can't help it if you refuse to engage in conversation that requires you back up your claims with actual evidence from the article that you are making claims against.
What was the best part of my section on the quarterback discussion. What was the worst?
what? was this meant for me? i really do enjoy listening to your podcast, we just dont agree. I think you should consider Buechele's first two games just like the rest. The throws weren't that much different.
Sorry, meant Hurts and Shane. Same year, was just curious how you felt about them coming out of HS.
Actually Texas had a separate freshman team until 1972, when all D1 freshmen first became eligible to play on varsity as true freshmen.
Edit...all sports but football and basketball allowed freshmen to play in '68. Football and basketball weren't allowed till '72.
Last edited:
No doubt Sims highlights are awesome. Don't recall a lot of past ones, but Andrew Jones had a terrific one also. Sims has a chance to be better than Tristian Thompson
Looked it up my lazy self...SB #10 and JH#16. Which is it, poor evaluation by you or too critical about SB now?
google said 68. I was just trying to point out that 68 or 78 would have been the first year freshman could even play so it narrows down the total years.
He played poorly against Kansas after suffering a stinger and having to go back in and play hurt b/c Swoopes fumbled away his first snap and wasn't going in, no matter what. Shane never should have played against Okie Lite after his rib injury against Cal or against TCU after his shoulder injury/stinger.
Coaches felt they had no one else. Swoopes fumble against Baylor on his first snap after Shane's injury finished his chances of playing meaningful minutes if Shane could go at all, and he gutted it up and played hurt last year in that and several other games.
It's in the film for all to see. His passes had nothing on them with bruised ribs against Okie Lite after Cal game. They had nothing on them when he played against TCU after stinger against Baylor. Before his rib injury he threw the prettiest deep sideline of any freshman QB in Texas' history.
Sam affords a good chance as a good backup who definitely plays next year. We finally have two good QBs, with enough arm and all the moxie one could ask for. Thanks goodness Swoopes is gone and Heard is a WR and 'emergency QB' only, if that. Been a long time since Texas had two young, talented QBs with instincts at the position and all the moxie one could want.
Sam will likely develop this Spring just like Shane did last year. Coming in early is invaluable these days.
Shane has still got plenty to prove, but I admire his toughness while playing hurt and how nice his deep and intermediate throws were when healthy, and I hope he and Sam stay healthy this fall.
Key really is health. I am certain Shane and Sam will both play better if they are not injured compared to their play while injured, particularly anything like rib or stinger or hand injuries that don't allow a QB to follow thru naturally with any zip.
Sam had two serious injuries last year which cost him much of the season, hopefully it was a one time thing for both.
Wouldn't it be more relevant to benchmark Shane's performance against those of other freshman QB's historically? I feel like the entire crux of Ketch's argument is that 140 is necessary for a Texas team to be successful, and Shane didn't hit 140. Ok. Fine. But the conclusion seems to be that the job shouldn't necessarily be his, and maybe we should turn to Sam...
But how often do freshmen hit 140? I think it's generally accepted that QBs get better over the course of their careers? How were guys that we delivering the magical 140 performing when they were thrust onto the stage as true freshmen, and how much do guys typically improve their QBR rating from year 1 to year 2?
I'm not sure how relevant it is to say "Shane didn't perform at the level we need as a true freshman" if you don't also benchmark it against the performance of other true freshmen and then extrapolate it to be somewhat predictive as to his performance next year. If there is a wide range of freshmen performances and the improvement from FR to SO is not as pronounced as I would expect, then by all means, use it as evidence to roll with Ehlinger. If the data shows that freshmen very rarely hit 140, wouldn't that tell you that Ehlinger is even less likely as a true FR to deliver the 140?
Other than to say "Shane didn't play well enough last year", what are we supposed to do with the data?
But how often do freshmen hit 140? I think it's generally accepted that QBs get better over the course of their careers? How were guys that we delivering the magical 140 performing when they were thrust onto the stage as true freshmen, and how much do guys typically improve their QBR rating from year 1 to year 2?
I'm not sure how relevant it is to say "Shane didn't perform at the level we need as a true freshman" if you don't also benchmark it against the performance of other true freshmen and then extrapolate it to be somewhat predictive as to his performance next year. If there is a wide range of freshmen performances and the improvement from FR to SO is not as pronounced as I would expect, then by all means, use it as evidence to roll with Ehlinger. If the data shows that freshmen very rarely hit 140, wouldn't that tell you that Ehlinger is even less likely as a true FR to deliver the 140?
Other than to say "Shane didn't play well enough last year", what are we supposed to do with the data?
No problem, but all sports but football and basketball got the ok in '68. Football and basketball wasn't until 1972 season. I went 1970 with full schollie but freshmen team was still limited to the other freshmen teams in the conference.
- Mar 14, 2007
- 19,666
- 15,583
- 113
Obviously that's frowned upon to say that might be a better indicator and is exactly what I was trying to get at. You'll now be accused of not reading the entire piece or being upset because stats didn't say what you wanted them to say.
- Mar 14, 2007
- 19,666
- 15,583
- 113
I don't think you can run it as a welfare program, or guarantee a scholarship for five years just because you committed. Both sides should have obligations to perform, including the 18-23 year olds. It's a special situation, special benefits, special responsibilities. Of course I worked my way through UT, as did all my peer group. We had to perform.
Yeah, I was wondering the best and worst part of the column we're discussing about this subject matter.
I also find it sad that Texas fans, of all people, fail to see total weakness of a true freshman QB.
Smh
Neither. Come on. There's a big ol' conversation taking place with nuance. Feel free to jump in.
