Myth Busting: 2006 Texas Football

by Peter Bean on Dec 31, 2006 4:45 PM CST in Texas Longhorns Football

Let's just cut right to the big issues, set aside the myths and dive into the realities of the situation at Texas.

Myth Texas was a national title contender this season.

Reality It's natural to feel that way after the kind of invincible run we were on with Vince Young, but the expectation was misplaced. Now that all these games have played out, I think it's totally unreasonable to say Texas was going to beat Ohio State. They have a veteran quarterback, elite receivers, and a very solid offensive line. Beating them in game two, or game thirteen, wasn't going to happen this year.

The Lesson We have to measure the team's success in realistic terms. Some years, you're contending. Other years, you're building toward a run in another year. This was a building year. Let's just keep that in mind.

Myth Greg Davis doesn't know offense... Before you get upset, make sure you read the rest of this. Greg Davis -does- know offense; far, far more than most folks want to credit him for. This year's offense was - as it is every year - above average. Let's make sure criticisms of Greg Davis are placed in their proper context (see below).

Reality Greg Davis had a bitch of a task this season in replacing a VY-led offense. He did exceptionally well in some regards, and poorly in others. I love analysis and love to get into the nitty gritty of what worked and what didn't. But bring your A-game analysis, BON-ers. Saying "Greg Davis sucks" is hollow. The level of discourse here is higher than that.

The Lesson Davis failed in two important areas: speeding up the adjustment of the offense to an ideal VY-less attack and, more fundamentally, in being too predictable. Let's start with the first criticism: face it, folks - the guy was between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, the whole juggernaut was built around the quarterback playing from the gun. That wound up hurting our running game (see: horizontal running plays with no QB threat to run), but helped our passing game flourish. Trust me - if Davis had abandoned that for a more pro-style attack, Colt's effectiveness would have plummeted. He basically had to choose - abandon the gun and risk giving up this aerial prowess or stick with it and watch the running game suffer. I, for one, don't really fault him for choosing the latter.

To the other criticism: his predictability. Davis, like all of us, has blind spots. Close followers of this football team can predict what Davis is going to call, based on down, distance, and game situation. I think Davis has a very good offensive mind, but his self-awareness is limited. More so, I think it's fair to argue, than others. The consequence of that is his strengths are diminished significantly.

Now, the proper lesson is important here. It's not instructive to say "Greg Davis sucks and doesn't know offense." The man -does- know offense. It's more important that we take the more sophisticated analysis - that is, "Greg Davis is not overcoming his blind spots. He would benefit greatly from some fresh perspective to help mix up his play calling." There's a huge difference between the two criticisms, and it's one I insist we make. Calling out Davis' limitations is fine, so long as you're actually citing the right problems. Excessive generalizations about his competence are without merit and useless.

Myth The biggest area of concern is the running game... Well, the running game wasn't all that it could be this season, but I've already discussed the limitations of that critique. Further, we absolutely have to acknowledge that Greg Davis knows how to implement a power running attack. Davis had no trouble picking up yards on the ground when Cedric Benson was the tailback. Davis had to make a choice this year - and a tough one at that. I'm confident that he'll make positive adjustments to get the running game back to where it should be next season.

Reality The biggest concern for this Texas Longhorn football team is at safety. After 27 years watching football, I become more and more convinced that it's the most important position on the entire field - at least on defense. Mike Griffin, who was an oustanding free safety with Michael Huff, failed to convert into an adequate strong safety. His brother Marcus, I'm convinced, isn't gifted enough to play at this level. That leaves a gaping hole at the most vital position on defense. Robert Joseph looks like he'll be a good one, but he's green. Who steps in alongside him? Melton? Jackson? Oduegwu? I think we can all agree that it's a huge question mark heading into 2007.

The Lesson As we acknowledge Greg Davis' blindspots - we must be sure to recognize our own. As frustrating as it was that the running game never developed, that deficiency often blinded us from the real problem this year - which was on defense. Lashing out to point blame at folks is tempting when you don't win all your games, but it pays to think critically about what the team's worst problems were.

Myth Beating Iowa was nothing to be proud of...

Reality Horseshit. Iowa came to play. They got healthy and they played at the level that we expected that team to for most of the season. That's a talented, experienced ball club that's well-coached and battle tested. Records can be deceiving, and you can throw out Iowa's 6-6 record.

The Lesson We took a close look at Iowa at BON and it was clear that a good football team lurked beneath the problems of their 2006 season. Analysis that begins and ends with a team's record is best left for folks that are only casually observing what's going on. Most of us here believe ourselves to be close observers of Texas football. I think that's true. But that brings an added responsibility to avoid the fantasies that beleaguer lesser fans. Texas beat a good football team - one that could have, with a few breaks the other way, gone 10-2 - not 6-6. Don't discredit Iowa or pretend that the win was meaningless. That was a good football game between two very good teams. Texas was a little better on paper, and they won. That's how it was supposed to go. The blowout fantasies were just that - wishful thinking.

--PB--

Tweet Comment 37 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Jamaal

Correct me if I'm wrong, but was the 72 yard TD pass to Jamaal the first pass he's caught this year. If so, where was that play all year? He's only the fastest guy on the field and most dangerous when he can run in space.

I don't think there's any question Greg Davis knows how to coach offense. I just don't like his play calling. It's way too predictable and with UT's talent, he could really put opposing defenses on their heels. But it always seems like we have to score the hard way by out-talenting the other team instead of out-smarting them.

The pass to Jamaal was an awesome surprise and obviously Iowa wasn't ready for it because they left a "feet in the cement" linebacker alone to cover Charles. But why can't we get more wrinkles like that and why wait until a nothing bowl game to unveil it?

And why Davis keeps calling the zone read when everyone knows Colt is going to keep the ball is beyond me. It's essentially a draw play out of a running formation and it went for negative yardage almost everytime Davis called it against Iowa.

by 54b on Dec 31, 2006 5:05 PM CST reply actions

Agree

And that's one of Davis' mistakes this season - the zone read had to disappear quickly, given Colt's inability to run the play properly.

I'll also agree - as was written above - that Davis is too predictable. It's a blindspot, and it's on Mack and Davis to work around it. I don't blame folks that aren't confident it'll happen.

Last, the wheel route to Jamaal was a thing of beauty, and one of those flashes of offensive ingenuity that gives me hope that Davis is evolving. I'm as skeptical as most, but Davis does manage to succeed in spite of himself more often than not. What I'd really like to see is for him to take the next step and evolve past his weaknesses.

Old dog, new tricks... I know - not likely.

by Peter Bean on Dec 31, 2006 5:09 PM CST up reply actions

Mark 10/13/07 on your calendar

I agree also, but he'd better evolve quickly or his predictability could be a loss AT Iowa State.

by LonghornWillie on Dec 31, 2006 5:47 PM CST up reply actions

Colt's pass ...

That pass was absolutely perfect. As I recall, the linebacker in coverage wasn't that far off of Charles but had no chance because the pass went right into the breadbasket with Charles in stride.

My memory might be clouded, it was a drinking night after all, but I remember McCoy going through at least one read before going to Jamaal. And, the line did a good job giving Colt time and space.

All around that was an awesome play - the route, the blocking, the read, the pass and the catch.

I would love to see Charles drop into the slot every now and then. He would create mismatches and it would at the very least cause confusion for the opposing defense.

by CyHorn770 on Dec 31, 2006 6:04 PM CST up reply actions

More slotback plays would be nice...

Couldn't agree with CyHorn more with regards utilizing JC in the slot, a la RT last year. JC has the hands and the wheels to do a great job out of the slotback position, as does Jordan Shipley. Lots of talk about GD being too predictable...I'm more of the mind he's too conservative. With the wheels we have on this team, we need to open 'er up.

by Horns757 on Dec 31, 2006 8:33 PM CST up reply actions

GD

"I'm more of the mind he's too conservative"

I used to think this too. But there were definitely times this year he was not at all conservative. I can't remember on how many occassions he chose to pass the ball deep on first and second down when I was pleading for him to establish a running game (Ohio St. comes to mind, and also our recent habit of throwing the ball on 3rd and inches). This is not the sign of a conservative coach.

I think Peter's closer with the predictable angle, but I think, more precisely, GD is a man who rarely adjusts to the game he's watching. He has his scheme, and I think a fatherly arrogance (or stubbornness) clouds his judgement in big games and he sticks with a statistical approach when many coordinators will get creative. Case in point, I saw a lot of creativity from Georgia during their come back the other night. I would be shocked, shocked I say, if ever we saw such adjustments from Davis.

Still, last Saturday was the first time in a while that I think GD had a lot to do with a victory. If we can't get rid of him, lets hope he improves, or at least finds the parts necessary to make his tired schemes work.

by BrooklynHorn on Jan 1, 2007 3:29 AM CST up reply actions

Your wrong

Remember in the early part of this year when we were bitching about too many flair passes and dumps to the running backs? That was the first deep ball to Jamaal.

I dont think they have run the zone read in months. Just because they are running from the shotgun does not mean they are running the zone read.

by Wells on Jan 1, 2007 8:14 PM CST up reply actions

Sorry to disagree so vehemently but...

you're just flat out wrong about myth #1. Just look at the talent on this team. I think you're using the tail to wag the dog in your assertion. Several members have commented, in the wake of ksu and tam's bowl massacres at the hands of rutgers and cal respectively, that our late season losses look even more inexplicable now. Not so. The explanaton is simple: Mack did a poor job-his worst job,yet. Yet Mack is going to skate for two reasons: the national title delivered by vince and the putrid performances of mcwilliams and mackovic before him. Bill Simmons makes a similar analogy in explaining the success of "rocky balboa": its predecessor was so horrible that it succeeeded by virtue of lowered expectations

by mento on Dec 31, 2006 5:20 PM CST reply actions

Read the text

Do you think Texas could beat Ohio State?

Hell, how about Michigan?

We should have beat KSU and A&M - I agree. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a myth that this was a title-contending team.

Seriously.

by Peter Bean on Dec 31, 2006 5:27 PM CST up reply actions

The only reason

we were even in the MNC talk was because we won it last year. Other then that, I honestly don't think that we are much better then say Boise State.

(I know we are probably better then Boise but they are the first team that comes to mind.)

by bamfor on Dec 31, 2006 8:30 PM CST up reply actions

Speaking of having to disgree so vehemently, but..

Loads of talent, yes. But still a RS Freshman quarterback, and still w/o Ramonce Taylor. (We had a lot of "fun" with RT's departure, but don't forget his contributions and the fact he was a threat to take it to the house every time he touched the ball.) I've said it before...the expectations were entirely, and unrealistically, too high for this year. We ALL got caught up in the magic that was VY and his Rose Bowl heroics...and promptly fooled ourselves into thinking it would carry on forever. I think Mack did a tremondous job...10-3 and a bowl game victory in 1 AV (1 year After Vince) leaves no one with any basis for running him into the ground.

by Horns757 on Dec 31, 2006 8:54 PM CST up reply actions

I hear the tallent level arguement alot

Not all recurits turn out to be as good as their star rating. Also, I think people have a distorted image of the level of tallent we have compared to the rest of the nation. We have great tallent, on the level of the great programs, but our tallent level is so much better that we should win like we do against Rice against every opponent.

by Wells on Jan 1, 2007 8:17 PM CST up reply actions

yes, with better coaching and a healthy colt

read the text of my comment. compare the job that tresel did to the job that mack did. again, its the tail wagging the dog- you're looking at the results and trying to find a way to rationalize them. This was a national title caliber team-the only missing piece-experience at qb. well, holy dog crap, the qb played like an all-american. and the two games for which he was hurt were games we should have anyway as double digit favorites. correct me if i'm wrong, but the horns were within a hairs breadth (questionable penalty nullifying a long td for iowa to make it 21-3) of losing 3 straight games as a double-digit favorite. This team had the talent to compete with osu and mi, and the did not compete. they did not compete-the talent was there. ANd that's on the head coach.

by mento on Dec 31, 2006 5:39 PM CST reply actions

I'll kindly disagree

The issue went well beyond Colt - that's just too simplistic an explanation, mento.

Further, let's say Colt doesn't get hurt. Well, we beat KSU and beat A&M. I'm sure of that.

What, then? We're still on the outside looking in. No way we jump Michigan or Florida for #2 in the BCS. I promise you that.

So, what? What's that leave us with? A better bowl, sure. But still inferior to Ohio State. I'm just not buying that the talent on this year's team beats Ohio State. Did you watch our secondary? Ohio State slammed the brakes after getting up big and beat us by 17. After watching them shred Michigan, I'm pretty sure there's no way Texas keeps OSU under 40 if they're pressing the whole time.

You really think Texas was simply done in by coaching this year?

I find that naive.

by Peter Bean on Dec 31, 2006 5:44 PM CST up reply actions

your entire bullshit entry is naive

you're acting like one of mack's waterboys. please,get a spine.

by mento on Dec 31, 2006 5:58 PM CST up reply actions

And there goes the civility

by Peter Bean on Dec 31, 2006 6:13 PM CST up reply actions

Wow

went from arguemenative to winny bitch in two posts.

by Wells on Jan 1, 2007 8:19 PM CST up reply actions

also...

That "questionable call" was actually a cut-and-dried ineligible receiver penalty.

Just to clarify.

by aorist9 on Dec 31, 2006 6:10 PM CST up reply actions

You're over-analyzing

Imagine how many times I looked at my television set this season and thought "man, this team is bad." Kst, A&M, the first half against Baylor, the first half against OU, etc. The coaches didn't get burned by the receivers or drop any passes. Our problems this year were mostly personnel-based.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a great fan of GD or DA, but this is not the season to blame them. I'll fight to the death the GD was costing us championships earlier this decade, because we did have the talent and personnel back then, and we were mostly losing only our big games. But this year was different. The coaches may not have been doing their jobs, but we'll never know because we had a talent deficiency at several key positions which served as the primary reason for our losses.

And really, after having said all that, you'd think I was talking about a losing season. We had three losses!

by BrooklynHorn on Jan 1, 2007 3:41 AM CST up reply actions

Lots of talent

and lots of newbies. Never underestimate the importance of experience. Don't ya think MI and OSU get their fair share of superstars as well? Texas isn't the only state in the union with a load of talented high schoolers.

by Hornbud on Jan 1, 2007 10:33 AM CST up reply actions

jsut to clarify and sum up

I'm not a greg davis basher at all, and I"m not really even bashing mack. I think he's a really good coach overall and i dont think his job is or should be in any way threatened. he just did a poor job this year. players have bad games and bad stretches and so do coaches. thy're human.
but it is what it is. and by undersselling the talent on this team, you're white-washing the crappy job that mack did. the kstate loss is sort of understandable-road game, at night, back-up qb-ok,fine things just didn't go their way. but the a&m loss- senior day against a physically inferior one dimensional team-no way. running the football is about imposing your will on the other team-this team showed no will. Loads of talent but no will. AND THAT ON THE HEAD COACH.

by mento on Dec 31, 2006 5:54 PM CST reply actions

Losses happen

A&M games are close because they are rivals. Blame the coaches for the loss if you want, but realize that Mac loses less than almost anyone else and if a ten win season is his worst year, then understand you are lucky to have him.

by Wells on Jan 1, 2007 8:25 PM CST up reply actions

Disagree

We lost to the #1 ranked team, put up 40 some odd points against KSU with our backup QB and had an injured QB playing against A&M when he shouldn't probably have been playing (yes the running game is lousy) but let there be no doubt...it the words of James Carville...ITS THE DEFENSE STUPID!!!

by kellen on Dec 31, 2006 6:07 PM CST reply actions

Marcus

Marcus was very banged up this season. I don't think it's fair to say he can't play at this level. He may not play in the NFL, but I don't see anyway he is not starting next season if he stays healthy.

Greg Davis: seriously, what fans do not bitch about their offensive coordinator? He really isn't that bad. Get over it. Texas scores lots of points every year. Davis develops his QBs very well and builds his offense around his talent (rather than stubbornly sticking with a "system.")

For next season he needs to either find someone that can be a power running back for this team or start using 5 eligible recievers every down and open up the passing game even more. I'm confident something will happen and this will be one of the 2-3 best offenses in the country. I just hope somebody can do something about the defense.

by Matt @ Burnt Orange Nation on Dec 31, 2006 6:32 PM CST reply actions

THE REAL REASON......

We are all so frustrated, is because of the talent level on this team, and the last three or four as well. The core issue is getting the talent to play at or above that level. No one can argue Mack's recruiting abilities....the best in the country. Where we pull our hair out is when average teams (KSU,IOWA, A&M) make us look bad.

How many All Americans and award winners do we have on our defense, and yet average teams can pass at will and run on us occasionally.

Look at our offensive line and who is better runner than Charles, yet we have a pathetic running game. FRUSTRATING to say the least.

We are 55-9 the last 5 years, which I believe is the best in the nation, and we are proud....However, when you look at the talent during those 5 years, you wonder how we could have lost 9.....did our talent play at full potential? Its obvious the coaching staff has not been able consistently to get the players to perform...except the year VY took over the team.

So is it realistic to expect an OC and a DC at the same level as our recruiting ?

HELL YEAH !

Lets expect and demand the best from Mack and not let go till we get it. GD and DA are not the best.

OLD SCHOOL 70

by MeatchickenHorn on Dec 31, 2006 7:30 PM CST reply actions

Unrealistic expectations

Even if we had the #1 class every year, expecting teams to never lose is unrealistic.

Sometimes players dont live up to their potential or teams and players have bad games.

by Wells on Jan 1, 2007 8:29 PM CST up reply actions

Lots of viewpoints on this thread

Heres mine...

I knew at the beginning of the season that repeating was going to be harder than chinese algebra. Thats just being a realist. VY is a phenomenal athlete and hardly replaceable. But the defense lost alot of talent that had to be carrying more weight than their position gave credit for. Prime example, the Michael Huff/Michael Griffin duo. MichaelG showed some greatness this year but wasnt as consistent as Huff. I know thats an uderstatement but i say it to illustrate this point. Huff/Griffin covers the field alot better than Griffin/Griffin. Especially when is seems that Michael Huff was carrying more than his share of the load.

But more than the Secondary woes i noticed a major amount of inconsistency at linebacker. There were BRIEF moments when the LB's were flying to the ball and molesting HB's like last year but not as much as we needed.

The D-line was the most consistent this year and did harrass offenses pretty well early on. But later it seemed they had a hard time against teams that they shouldnt have.

My only complaint about the offense was the running game. Jamaal Charles is so talented and by all rights should have done much better this year. Dont even get me started on Selvin Young. Much love for the Sr who has produced well for us in the past. But this year was not good. 591 net yards for the year is hardly anything to be proud of.

I love the Colt/Limas combo, but i equally love the Colt/Quan combo as much. Quan is to Colt what DavidThomas was to VY. Extremely reliable second choice if Limas is covered. Quans biggest asset is maturity, he makes excellent decisions once he has the ball. Should make for some great targets next year for Colt.

LETS DEBATE!!!

by lalonghorn on Jan 1, 2007 12:13 AM CST reply actions

Is Chinese Algebra

different from western algebra?

by BrooklynHorn on Jan 1, 2007 3:45 AM CST up reply actions

Che Si

"Just a little"

Just Remember, No Matter What Happens, ou SUCKS.

by ouALWAYSsux on Jan 2, 2007 10:35 AM CST up reply actions

"Talent level"

Just because we get lots of recruiting stars doesn't mean we are a complete team with superstar players at every position. We don't have a RB that is capable of breaking tackles and running with power and our line does not run block worth crap. Thats just how it is.

by Matt @ Burnt Orange Nation on Jan 1, 2007 3:50 AM CST reply actions

Talent Level

My point exactly.....We have a team of "SUPASTAHS" who do not perform as a team or to their capabilities....do you remember our defensive lineman rushing the QB with their arms in the air and linebackers and DBs trying to strip the ball ? I do....I wonder why they stopped doing this around midseason......COACHING (or lack there of).

Look in the dictionary under "overachieve" getting the most out of what you have and I hate to say this (see Bob Stoops).A BCS Bowl without QB AND AP ? HUH?

We need a pair of fire breathing young coordinators.

OLD SCHOOL 70

by MeatchickenHorn on Jan 1, 2007 8:54 AM CST reply actions

Reality?

Reality is that if Greg Davis scores 13 points in the 2004 OU game and 2006 A&M game, our Longhorn seniors leave the 40Acres with 3 consecutive Big-XII Championships. Opportunities lost.......

1st-year HC 1, Mack Brown 0

Jeff Tedford 45, Greg Davis 7

--- We have pansies scheduling our patsies. ---

by HornChamps on Jan 1, 2007 2:42 PM CST reply actions

Why do people think we have so

much talent? I keep reading people implicating this massive talent at Texas. Scrap the star rankings (BTW they indicate talent is down) and forget the hype you hear from your Burntorange neighbor.
The injuries and inexperience exposed the lack of talent in a major way this year.

I think Mack closes the gap quickly with the last two recruiting classes, but this team might be the low water mark for depth and talent since Mack has been around. They are all great kids, great people, they play hard and eat their veggies, but this isn't an ubber talented team by any stretch. Many of them are playing well above themeselves right now and the coaches deserve some credit for that. The kids deserve some credit for working hard (i.e Pittman, Sweed, Derry).

If Texas can get a part-time power running game and fix the LBs they will be fine. I disagree with myth 3 on the safety position. The LBs couldn't stop the run and couldn't cover, so it requires the safeties coming up and doing both. Injuries and inexperience hurt the Texas D, not M. Griffin(s). They were asked to do too much when Kelson and Muck went down. Look no further than Iowa exposing the middle of the field and UT's soft spot with LB coverage.

Cats and dogs sleeping together.

by EYESofBEVO on Jan 1, 2007 7:39 PM CST reply actions

Fair point, EOB

The LBs were a weakness all year. We needed Muckelroy to stay healthy and develop. Ouch. We wound up playing an overachieving Derry, a wildly inconsistent Bobino, and an idiot in Killebrew. I think you're right that the safeties got hurt compensating for them, to some degree.

Still, Marcus Griffin just sucks. Mike Griffin is best as a roaming support guy; he's not capable of being a Reggie Nelson/Mike Huf pass helper, too.

by Peter Bean on Jan 1, 2007 9:11 PM CST up reply actions

Good news

The secondary can't get any worse.
The LBs should be healthy.
The back-up safeties look pretty studly, IMO. I'm sometimes easily impressed, but Joseph and Jackson look pretty darn good to me.

I think having one DC next season could also help. Co-coordinator is just too confusing for the players.

Cats and dogs sleeping together.

by EYESofBEVO on Jan 2, 2007 10:04 AM CST up reply actions

Maybe it was the Rivals and Scout ratings......

Sorry, I could have sworn Mack has had top recruiting classes, from a national perspective, for at least the last 5 years. Besides being favored in everygame we play based on our talent by position, we do seem to have lots of All Americans, All Big 12 and other award winners, and I'm pretty sure we were better than KSU, A&M and Iowa in these categories.

Smell the coffee....we are not getting our team to play anywhere near our potential.

PS
Isn't fun to watch Boise State push the soonies around !

OLD SCHOOL 70

by MeatchickenHorn on Jan 1, 2007 8:51 PM CST reply actions