Ketch's 10 Thoughts From the Weekend (What the UT QB situation really looks like...)

[Ketchum]

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...

That wasn't the conclusion at all. Sam was barely mentioned.

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?

As I mentioned earlier when someone suggested something similar, that's a good column for the future.

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?

a. It's relevant because the majority of people don't understand the season he truly had.
b. I used bench marks of quality quarterback play and Texas history, as you mentioned. I think the freshman component of this discussion is overplayed IMO.

 

[Dog from Duck Hunt]

That wasn't the conclusion at all. Sam was barely mentioned.



As I mentioned earlier when someone suggested something similar, that's a good column for the future.



a. It's relevant because the majority of people don't understand the season he truly had.
b. I used bench marks of quality quarterback play and Texas history, as you mentioned. I think the freshman component of this discussion is overplayed IMO.

You think the fact that Buechele was a true freshman last year is overplayed in terms of discussing his performance?

 

[Ketchum]

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.

You're not keeping up or paying attention.

 

[bkrichmd1]

He pained himself into a corner on that front.

Painted too

 

[Ketchum]

You think the fact that Buechele was a true freshman last year is overplayed in terms of discussing his performance?

I think having the discussion through that prism is overplayed vs. discussing it in terms of a defined level of quality play.

At some point, I'll do the analysis you are asking for because it'll be interesting to see the data on a historical basis.

 

[Ketchum]

Painted too

indeed.

 

[Dog from Duck Hunt]

I think having the discussion through that prism is overplayed vs. discussing it in terms of a defined level of quality play.

At some point, I'll do the analysis you are asking for because it'll be interesting to see the data on a historical basis.

Fair enough. I hear you. I fully agree with your premise that people overrate what we saw on the field last year from SB. Part of it might be due to the fact that a lot of people mentally checked out from seriously analyzing games once the season went off the rails, and focused all mental energy on the Charlie debate, but it was clear that Buechele's performance was very up and down (and mostly down) after the first 2 games.

I guess I just think the true freshman piece of it is a huge angle and would be interested to see the numbers as to how his 136 bodes for next year (I'm sure the answer is - it depends), and how likely it is that another, different true freshman is able to jump in with something higher than 136.

I know your article was not to advocate for Shane vs. Sam, or vice versa, but that's the logical next step of discussing QB performance, so it would be cool to see it explored further.

Anyway, thanks for the column. Particularly #10. I donated early and hope others due the same.

 

[dirtlawyer]

your post was dead on. it just doesn't fit his narrative, so he'll disregard it now. his agenda to convince people that buechele was a "pretty average" qb last season, regardless of all the facts people dumped on him in the war room and other pinned thread, is in full spin mode. the kid dealt with and played through injuries most of the season and if someone felt like taking the time, you can find plenty of threads by mods from the season that talk about it. he got injured during either okie st or oklahoma and after that you could tell he was having problems throwing the deep ball and medium passes the rest of the year. most people on this board know buechele performed well above average last season.. especially when you factor in him being a true freshman and the shitty play calling. you don't even have to mention him playing through injury as those other two are enough to have limited him. there's no reason to continue to bring logic or facts to this though as everyone knows ketchum isn't gonna admit being wrong about anything. it sells more subs to create a quarterback controversy anyway.. amirite?

Good points. I got the feel that the mods thought he was hurt but we never heard the extent of it. I sure would like to get the straight skinny from inside the program but I guess that ain't happening! So we are left to rely on speculation... welcome to Orangebloods!

 

[86Horn]

Neither. Come on. There's a big ol' conversation taking place with nuance. Feel free to jump in.

Nuance is a word used to call someone else stupid and promote your own assumed intelligence more often than not. Someone who disagrees is too dumb to see the nuance you smarter types get.

Not meant as dig at you Ketch. I just really dislike what that word has come to mean recently.

 

[Ketchum]

Nuance is a word used to call someone else stupid and promote your own assumed intelligence more often than not. Someone who disagrees is too dumb to see the nuance you smarter types get.

Not meant as dig at you Ketch. I just really dislike what that word has come to mean recently.

Not the way I was using the word.

 

[Ketchum]

Good points. I got the feel that the mods thought he was hurt but we never heard the extent of it. I sure would like to get the straight skinny from inside the program but I guess that ain't happening! So we are left to rely on speculation... welcome to Orangebloods!

 

[matamoroshorn]

Hurts was SEC Offensive Player of the Year.

Buechele didn't beat a winning team and was substandard in at least seven of his last 10 games.

This conversation is close to jumping the shark.

What is jumping the shark is you thinking Hurts won those games by himself.

 

[Ketchum]

What is jumping the shark is you thinking Hurts won those games by himself.

That's not jumping the shark, that's just something that has never been said, by myself or anyone else.

 

[dirtlawyer]

@Ketchum The "hurt Shane" theory is out there for a reason... close the door on it with inside information and not just conjecture and cool Gifs.

 

[bbussell1]

It's fair to compare the passing yards of freshmen QBs, the same way it's fair to compare passing yards of rookie QBs. Do you think Hurts would have been the same QB at Texas with conservative play-calling, receivers dropping balls, and Foreman carrying the offense?

Anwar - the point is that it is a huge reach to say: "Alabama won with a similar passer rating/statistics Freshman QB ... so our problem must not have been the QB". Alabama won in spite of their passing game ... not because of it. What do you think Saban and Kiffin were fighting about all the time? Their ridiculous dominance in all other aspects of the game, including running by the QB, was needed to cover for a bad passing attack.

There is no angle for linking Hurt's passing statistics to Alabama's success, but to admit that they won in spite of having a bad passing attack.

 

[Ketchum]

@Ketchum The "hurt Shane" theory is that there for a reason... close the door on it with inside information and not just conjecture and cool Gifs.

I've said this at least three or four times in this thread.

No one is disputing that he was banged up. What I would take exception to is the idea that all of his poor play this season when it occurred, occurred for nothing but reasons that remove responsibility from the player.

Lot of people claiming injuries, coaching, teammates, etc...

Yes, all of those are pieces of the discussion, but so is the unmistakable areas of improvement that need to take place that Buechele is responsible for.

 

[EastTexasLonghorn]

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?

he doesn't want to acknowledge common sense things like this that everyone else is screaming.. yet he claims not to have an agenda or to be trolling.

 

[MBarnett]

In for $100

Thanks for letting us know about that great cause

 

[Ketchum]

he doesn't want to acknowledge common sense things like this that everyone else is screaming.. yet he claims not to have an agenda or to be trolling.

by everyone, you mean four or five posters that can't even specifically identify a section in the article that they can point to as taking exception to...

 

[Ketchum]

In for $100

Thanks for letting us know about that great cause

Good man. We'll keep everyone updated.

 

[EastTexasLonghorn]

What is jumping the shark is you thinking Hurts won those games by himself.

just as he has stated several times that shane was 5-7 like it was all on him.

 

[Ketchum]

just as he has stated several times that shane was 5-7 like it was all on him.

 

[matamoroshorn]

That's not jumping the shark, that's just something that has never been said, by myself or anyone else.

But you refuse to compare teammates from Bama and Texas. The two players played in the exact same situations all year long. Same defense, same offensive line, same coaching, same scoring conferences.

 

[txfight]

Wow, nobody beats a dead horse like us!

Ketch wrote a pretty damn good piece and I thought the QB rating magical number of 140 was great. But maybe we're putting too much responsibility on Shane for posting lower QBR's later in the season. It's possible, a QBR rating has more to do with the passing attack, than just the QB. For instance, if you've got a clown calling the offensive plays, the QBR rating will suffer. If your heralded receivers drop very timely 3rd down passes that hit them in the hands, your QBR will suffer. If your QB is playing undersized, and can't take a D1 punishment because there's no other QB on the roster that gives your team the slightest chance of winning, that could affect the QBR.

I don't believe Ketch was trying to say SB was terrible and doesn't give us a chance to win, he actually says the opposite when writing about SB specifically.

But it's hard to argue that without a surrounding cast of 5 stars like Bama has, we're going to need a better QBR (from the team and not just the QB) to win 8, 9 or 10 games in the future and compete for conference championships.

 

[PaulieD]

indeed.

(State Farm voice)

 

[Ketchum]

But you refuse to compare teammates from Bama and Texas. The two players played in the exact same situations all year long. Same defense, same offensive line, same coaching, same scoring conferences.

When you can't address the truth, make up some other silly line of reasoning to distract from that reality...

 

[Ketchum]

Wow, nobody beats a dead horse like us!

Ketch wrote a pretty damn good piece and I thought the QB rating magical number of 140 was great. But maybe we're putting too much responsibility on Shane for posting lower QBR's later in the season. It's possible, a QBR rating has more to do with the passing attack, than just the QB. For instance, if you've got a clown calling the offensive plays, the QBR rating will suffer. If your heralded receivers drop very timely 3rd down passes that hit them in the hands, your QBR will suffer. If your QB is playing undersized, and can't take a D1 punishment because there's no other QB on the roster that gives your team the slightest chance of winning, that could affect the QBR.

I don't believe Ketch was trying to say SB was terrible and doesn't give us a chance to win, he actually says the opposite when writing about SB specifically.

But it's hard to argue that without a surrounding cast of 5 stars like Bama has, we're going to need a better QBR (from the team and not just the QB) to win 8, 9 or 10 games in the future and compete for conference championships.

Consistency from week to week, rather that super elite play is what this team needs fro its quarterback play the most, in part because it's the most reasonable expectation to establish at this point.

Once someone gets there, the bar can be raised again.

 

[BrushCountryHorn]

Wow, nobody beats a dead horse like us!

Ketch wrote a pretty damn good piece and I thought the QB rating magical number of 140 was great. But maybe we're putting too much responsibility on Shane for posting lower QBR's later in the season. It's possible, a QBR rating has more to do with the passing attack, than just the QB. For instance, if you've got a clown calling the offensive plays, the QBR rating will suffer. If your heralded receivers drop very timely 3rd down passes that hit them in the hands, your QBR will suffer. If your QB is playing undersized, and can't take a D1 punishment because there's no other QB on the roster that gives your team the slightest chance of winning, that could affect the QBR.

I don't believe Ketch was trying to say SB was terrible and doesn't give us a chance to win, he actually says the opposite when writing about SB specifically.

But it's hard to argue that without a surrounding cast of 5 stars like Bama has, we're going to need a better QBR (from the team and not just the QB) to win 8, 9 or 10 games in the future and compete for conference championships.

Finally! A voice of reason. 99% of us read it the same way, but a few... Hell, I'm just thrilled we have at least two viable quarterbacks, and look forward to good QB play on a team playing well.