EmailPrintOpen Extended ReactionsWhat is and isn't true about the epic hype that has surrounded the latest Manning prodigy?At this stage, however, what is the Arch Manning myth? That he's dramatically overhyped? That, after the pushback to last year's hype, he's actually underhyped now? That he's the best college quarterback and a surefire No. 1 pick? That he's barely even a top-10 NFL prospect amid a loaded batch of college QBs?The Texas QB suffered a mediocre start to last season, including a meek 14-7 defeat to Ohio State, an 11-for-25 performance against UTEP, a pair of interceptions in a devastating upset loss to Florida and a 23.7 Total QBR in a near-loss against Kentucky. But he and the Longhorns rallied, averaging 35 points while winning five of their last six, including a win over Texas A&M, and nearly snagging a College Football Playoff berth. Head coach Steve Sarkisian surrounded him with star transfers this offseason, thinning out the Texas skill corps a bit but adding blue-chip receiver Cam Coleman and a pair of standout running backs in Hollywood Smothers and Raleek Brown.Did that bring the hype all the way back? Or did the average college football fan write him off for good last year? I'm honestly not sure, but I know that Manning and the Horns looked spectacular in a Week 1 blasting of Texas State, and they host top-ranked Ohio State on Saturday night in the biggest game of the early season. Whatever the current Arch myths are, let's test them out. Can we confirm them or bust them?Myth No. 1: Arch is a bustVerdict: Busted!Yes, this one's been busted for a while, but it picked up major steam last October. Through eight starts in 2025, Manning's Total QBR was just 58.6, 74th in FBS and behind other struggling former blue chippers such as UCLA's Nico Iamaleava (70th), Nebraska's Dylan Raiola (71st) and Auburn's Jackson Arnold (72nd). Texas was lucky to be even 6-2 after narrowly surviving against two eventual five-win opponents (Kentucky and Mississippi State).Once the calendar flipped to November, however, Manning began to produce. He posted the best Total QBR in the country from that point, charging up to finish 17th overall. He produced a Total QBR of 91.9 or higher in four of his last five games of the season, and he began this season with a 96.0 against Texas State. In these past six games, he's improved in basically every important category.While that latter sample does include Saturday's start against a shaky Texas State defense, it also includes games against two CFP teams from last season (Georgia and Texas A&M) and two more teams that finished ranked (Vanderbilt and Michigan). The competition has been solid, but Manning has been great.Where has he improved?There's no single category that tells the story here -- as you can see above, he has improved just about everywhere. He's running more selectively (and explosively), and he's completing a few more of his passes for slightly bigger gains.Honestly, the biggest thing seems to simply be that his decision-making has sped up. It would make sense if the game began to slow down for a talented QB after a few starts, and two telling statistical shifts hint at that. First, he has thrown 12.0% of his passes to players running vertical routes over these past six games, compared to only 7.5% in his first eight starts. He's been more aggressive and less willing to settle for checkdowns, but even though vertical routes can take more time to develop, he's also improved his average time to throw, from 2.93 seconds over the first eight starts to 2.77 since. For obvious reasons, that helps in the sacks department.In theory, this is the best kind of improvement because it's incremental -- it's not some new trick or huge strategic shift. He's simply improved because he's improved.At this point, what are his biggest strengths?You cannot underestimate the importance of athleticism in his game. Manning might not run much, but his ability to steal huge chunks of yards with his legs is a hell of a difference-maker. Not including sacks, Manning rushed 69 times last season, and 21 of those carries gained at least 10 yards. Six gained at least 20, and interestingly, all six of them came in the second half. His 35-yard touchdown run against unbeaten Texas A&M gave the Longhorns a 10-point lead in the fourth quarter (they ended up winning by 10), and his 60-yard scoring run against Michigan in the Citrus Bowl gave them an 11-point advantage (they won by 14).He seems to pick his spots when it comes to running, and he picks extremely useful, high-leverage times. But even if it's selective, the rushing is key because the passing numbers alone are merely good, not elite.Among the 60 power-conference quarterbacks who have started at least four games since Nov. 1 (including players who left college after the 2025 season), Manning ranks eighth in yards per completion, eighth in interception rate, eighth in sack rate, 10th in passing success rate and 32nd in completion rate.Because Sarkisian's offense is always going to be built around stealing quick yards when possible, Manning still throws far more passes at or behind the line of scrimmage than most -- 31.6% of passes in this sample, compared to 21.7% for Ohio State's Julian Sayin or 20.0% for Ole Miss' Trinidad Chambliss. So the fact that his completion rate remains that low is a sign that he's not the most accurate guy in the world. But if you can combine fast, sharp decision-making, a low mistake rate (either INTs or sacks) and fast running, you're probably going to do well for yourself.Myth No. 2: Arch is an elite college QB and a likely NFL starVerdict: Plausible but inconclusiveCollege football is loaded with star quarterbacks in 2026. Manning is certainly one of them, but in our preseason CFB Player Rank, he was the No. 6 QB on the list (and 13th overall) behind Chambliss (fifth), Notre Dame's CJ Carr (seventh), Sayin (eighth), USC's Jayden Maiava (ninth) and Oregon's Dante Moore (11th). While Manning runs better than anyone on that list except Chambliss, his passing stats mostly lag behind those five and another top-25 QB, Miami's Darian Mensah.Manning's biggest weakness is a rather confusing one. While he can throw and he can run, he can't really throw well on the run. From a piece I contributed to in April: "Among QBR-eligible passers in 2025, Manning ranked just 94th in completion rate (48.6%) and 75th in catchable ball rate on the move. He ranked just 82nd in completion percentage outside the pocket (49.2%), too. ... His technique still falters when he goes off script."The best example of this comes from the A&M game. Midway through the third quarter, Manning took off to scramble but kept his eyes downfield, spotted Ryan Wingo wide open in the end zone and improvised his way into a go-ahead touchdown pass. However, he very nearly airmailed a ridiculously open receiver.Manning's numbers are also well below average when he faces pressure. They're improving, so maybe this is another case in which he simply needed more reps and things will soon slow down for him. But even the improved numbers lag behind college football's best. Looking specifically at his past six games, he still ranks only 33rd among 60 power-conference quarterbacks for completion rate under pressure (47.2%), 25th in yards per completion (13.1), 18th in passing success rate (33.9%) and 16th in yards per dropback (5.0). He's good against zone coverage in these situations, but when pressured against man coverage, he has gone just 5-for-14 for 67 yards with three sacks. Yards per dropback: 3.7.He has dramatically cut the negative plays, however. In his first eight starts, he took sacks 17.1% of the time when pressured, and he threw a couple of interceptions. In these past six starts, the sack rate has dropped to 10.2% (seventh in this 60-QB sample), and he hasn't been picked.The secret to Manning's improvement over his past six starts has come primarily from improving weak points more than leaning on any overt strengths. Of course, if he continues to do that, those strengths will only get stronger.What did we learn in Week 1?A star-studded supporting cast could certainly assist with that improvement. Manning basically began 2026 on easy mode against Texas State on Saturday. His first pass of the season was a short, easy pitch-and-catch to one star transfer (Coleman) after another (Smothers) had ripped off a 45-yard run.Manning was able to mostly nibble against an outmanned opponent. Eight of his 27 passes were thrown behind the line of scrimmage, and one of his four touchdown "passes" was basically a handoff to Wingo. But he did throw six passes at least 15 yards downfield, and he completed five of them -- three to Wingo, two to Coleman -- for a massive 146 yards.In terms of known weaknesses, last week was an A grade, too: He threw three passes on the move and completed all three for 48 yards, and while he did take one sack, his other two pressures resulted in completions of 19 and 11 yards. On third and fourth down, he was a ridiculous 9-for-10 for 170 yards. He did throw a poor red zone interception into double coverage, and the sack came after he had rolled out of the pocket and could have thrown the ball away. But this was an excellent performance, punctuated by a second, far more difficult touchdown pass to Coleman.Of course, we'll learn infinitely more against an Ohio State defense that treated Ball State's offense as rudely as Texas treated Texas State's defense.Now comes the first huge test of 2026Ohio State visits Austin on Saturday, giving Manning the first revenge attempt of his career. In last season's loss in Columbus, he went 17-for-30 for 170 yards, one touchdown, one interception and one sack from 15 pressures. The Buckeyes finished 2025 comfortably No. 1 in defensive SP+ and had three defenders selected in the top 11 of the NFL draft (and seven drafted overall), so this wasn't a particularly poor performance from Manning. But it didn't set the season or Manning's starting tenure out on the best foot either.With eight new defensive starters, the Buckeyes have plenty of questions in 2026. They throttled Ball State as one would expect, allowing 2.8 yards per play and a paltry 21.7% success rate. Key newcomers such as freshman nickel Jay Timmons and transfer outside linebacker Christian Alliegro were good -- Timmons was phenomenal, actually -- and starting corners Jermaine Mathews Jr. and Devin Sanchez allowed completions on just three of nine targets for 27 yards. We don't know much about the depth of Texas' receiving corps, but we do know that Wingo and Coleman will give Mathews and Sanchez a far stiffer test, and if Ohio State can't pressure Manning at the same rate as last year, he could find far more favorable matchups.Just like last season, this game will set the tone of the narrative for weeks to come. We can't help but overreact when a Manning is involved, so prepare yourself for one of these two myths to be full steam ahead by Sunday morning. But even if he has improved himself in a pretty boring way -- by trimming negative plays and slowly improving without some sort of Vince Young-style "the lightbulb comes on, and suddenly he's brilliant" moment -- he has still improved.Even from his high school scouting reports, you could tell people were looking at Manning with assumptions that, in part because of his last name, he had major developmental potential. Here's his evaluation in a 2022 recruiting piece before his senior year in high school: "Tall, lean build. Late bloomer in terms of strength and bulk. He will take off and improvise out of the pocket like his granddad. Sneaky good mobility and awareness to evade pressure. Makes throws off balance and can change arm angles. Above average arm strength, but it's early. Flashes some upside to drive the ball. Quick release can be a bit unorthodox at times, but the ball comes out with zip. Excellent poise and feel for the game."That doesn't necessarily scream "ALL-TIME GREAT PROSPECT" -- and in retrospect, it was pretty accurate -- but he still ended up the No. 5 prospect in the 2023 class. And if he continues to shore up his weakest links and take advantage of a better supporting cast, those assumptions could still turn out correct.
