After worshipping and glorifying their 5 star quarterback, it appears reality is setting in with the sips.
If the quarterback was a stock, we would refer to him as a Pump and Dump.
https://247sports.com/college/texas/Article/Texas-makes-controversial-decision-with-class-of-2022-QB-161130250/

They settled on the best they knew they could get.

Time will tell, but this might be another Tyrone Swoops. Really odd throwing style and very little production. Basically, they boosted his rating based on athletic potential, and nothing more.

Maybe I don't understand the "Stars", do you get them for potential or production? The kid threw only 50 balls in his life, as a Soph, how did he become a 5 star?

Hes got real arm talent. I'm sure they get another qb.

PGAG said:

---

They'll go with 2 QB's is my guess. Sark will sell himself as a QB developer with an all gas no brakes offense. Still think Hudson Card is their guy for the next 3 years.

---

The sip boards would have a meltdown if Thompson isn't the starter over Hudson, based on the 2 quarters of play he had versus a trash Colorado team in the bowl game. I believe they've already crowned him as the next Heisman.

Remind us memory challenged olds, who are we talking about?

And that has been one of my pet peeves about ranking services all along. What is their criteria? Production? Potential, as gauged by what - SPARQ scores, camp observations or gossip, interviewing coaching sources, or things like track and field statistics or something? I know the internet loves brevity, that is why so many of my posts go unread! But it would be nice if articles on players evaluated gave some evidence of why they ranked a player as they did.

And then there is the all too obvious subscriber base bumps for tu. Scratch their itching ears and they'll keep renewing those subscriptions. You would think being sold the idea that a kid is a 5 star when he isn't would finally sour true fans. But if it keeps them yelping at their coaches and over- expecting rather than having patience for true program building - well, let the party continue!

Sonny Corleone said:

---

Maybe I don't understand the "Stars", do you get them for potential or production? The kid threw only 50 balls in his life, as a Soph, how did he become a 5 star?

---

Imagine what he'll be ranked once he throws his first TD pass.

Uncle Rico was able to throw a football over the mountains but still never won State.

Sonny Corleone said:

---

Maybe I don't understand the "Stars", do you get them for potential or production? The kid threw only 50 balls in his life, as a Soph, how did he become a 5 star?

---

It's incredible the constant moving of the goal posts with these rating services.

Haynes King tears it up in camps, Elite 11, etc... and his measurables like his 40 and shuttle are stupid for a QB. He has a down year his senior year compared to his phenomenal junior year and he plummets in the rankings.

tu had a 5 star a couple years back who was a 5* ONLY because of his measurables which they used to justify potential. Was not based on production at all.

Similar to this kid. Does well in camps and what not... barely any PT on varsity and the stats he does have are no where near 5* status.

Blows my mind.

I'm perfectly fine with the sip PR machine over hyping their talent only to walk off the actual games with the other team having a higher score on the scoreboard.

Sonny Corleone said:

---

Maybe I don't understand the "Stars", do you get them for potential or production? The kid threw only 50 balls in his life, as a Soph, how did he become a 5 star?

---

There needs to be a new classification known as the 'Sip 5-star'.

If Murphy committed to any team that is not tu, he would have been rated a 2*/3*.

If arm strength and the ability to accurately throw into a non-moving basket are only criterias to grade a qb, our own Calzada should have been a 5*. In HS, Calzada showed significantly more than Murphy at the stage.

I don't have an issue with a guy getting a big bump because of camps and sheer physical ability. That said the hype here is lunacy. He's rated as the #2 overall Pro Style QB behind Ewers yet he has literally never thrown a HS football TD and hasn't played a down for 2 years. I mean a Pro Style QB is all about a guy that can manage an offense and read defenses and execute. It goes far beyond arm talent and looking good in a camp to put him as the #2 guy over literally thousands of QB's. Cade Kubnick who just outdueled the #1 guy and also is loaded with talent is #6.

I mean compare this to Noah Thomas. Also a freak athlete that has tremendous physical skills but because he has only played a year at WR (a year where he played very well) he is only a 3*. His toolset is easily a 5*. He also plays WR which is far easier to pick up compared to QB. Thomas is downrated though because he has limited actual experience on the field though it is more recent and far more accomplished than Murphy at a position where physical talent is key.

In the end it's all a grain of salt anyway. It's rating service guys that are going to camps or going off what they have heard and rating players and examples like this just show how flawed the services can be.

micahb2002 said:

---

Can someone post his actual varsity stats?

---

Even if the kid looked like the second coming of Vince Young, I feel like I wouldn't give him that 5th star until he proved it on the field this fall. I realize that if a guy looks like Lebron James he'll probably make a damn good TE or defensive player so I'm okay with 5 stars for the non-QB positions just based on size and athleticism but it seems like QB takes a lot more than that for success so I wouldn't hand out the 5th star so easy.

Dad said:

---

Even if the kid looked like the second coming of Vince Young, I feel like I wouldn't give him that 5th star until he proved it on the field this fall. I realize that if a guy looks like Lebron James he'll probably make a damn good TE or defensive player so I'm okay with 5 stars for the non-QB positions just based on size and athleticism but it seems like QB takes a lot more than that for success so I wouldn't hand out the 5th star so easy.

---

****, I wouldn't give him a 4th star based on his stats and video. 3 would be pushing it.

Completes passes at a 46% rate.

Averages 1/2 a yard per carry.

Has accounted for zero points.


Five stars, give it to him.

Sonny Corleone said:

---

Maybe I don't understand the "Stars", do you get them for potential or production? The kid threw only 50 balls in his life, as a Soph, how did he become a 5 star?

---

I agree.
This is an absurd ranking for a kid that hasn't STARTED and single Varsity level game.
He's split time and thrown less than 50 balls in his H.S. career.

Absurd.

This is Brisket 2.0 no question. Bring on the "We're back" memes

The article says Sark is an offensive mastermind. I seem to recall a Dave Campbell's cover of another offensive mastermind at t.u. They aren't even trying to be creative in their descriptions. Same old sips...

But can Sark write backwards like the previous Mensa?