So Close... So Far Away
by Peter Bean on Oct 17, 2007 12:20 PM CDT
in Texas Longhorns Football
Email
PrintIf this article doesn't make your blood boil, then nothing will. For if there was any lingering doubt that Texas football is not a meritocracy... there can be none now.
It gets really old ranting about this kind of stuff, and we're to the point where one can't reasonably escape understanding that one of Mack Brown's deepest flaws is some sort of stubborn pride that ultimately serves as a double-edged sword. Whereas I've no doubt his consistency and ability to stick to his principles serves him well in many of his head coaching duties, it's positively maddening that Mack refuses to part ways with the notion that veterans - because they've put in their time to the program and been a part of its past successes - cannot be replaced if they are being outplayed by those younger.
Perhaps most frustrating of all, it's such an easily correctable problem. I mean, if there's a finite list of things in which a coach can be strong, and if we assume that every coach has his strengths and his weaknesses, then as a fan you just hope that your coach excels at the difficult stuff and is weak in the areas where he can more easily improve.
For Mack Brown? His most fundamental weakness appears to be one that is at or near the top of "Things A Coach Can Easily Improve." It's not as though he can't identify talent, can't convince the talent to come to Austin, or can't be a first-rate CEO of a gigantic program. He does so many different things right - things which, in the aggregate, have situated Texas permanently in the Top 25 and more often than not in the Top 10. Maddeningly, though, using younger and less experienced players properly is one thing he can't seem to bring himself to do.
 |
Well, if you're Mack Brown and you're evaluating your resume, what would stick out to you? I'd be damn pleased with my consistency. I'd be exceedingly proud that I had everything come together for a magical back-to-back Rose Bowl run. No doubt I would mostly be pleased with what I saw.
The only thing that would stick out to me is the lack of conference championships. And given how integral a part of the team and fan's goals those are, I don't think I could just contentedly look at that big picture and decide that overall things are good enough. I'd ask what things within my control I should think about changing. I'd ask what realistic element of my coaching I could easily improve.
And therein lies the rub. It's just hard to imagine an easier, more justifiable change within Mack Brown's grasp. Play the best on the team, at all times, no matter the age or experience. If you're doing your head coaching job properly, that won't be a problem among the veterans. Everyone will work their hardest, everyone will be bought completely into the idea of Team, and everyone will Do Their Part to ensure the team meets its goals.
As is, a starting job is not decided on the basis of smart play, boneheaded penalties, ability to run sideline to sideline, capability of disrupting plays, or, practically speaking, any other pure evaluative criteria. It's based far, far too much on seniority. Now, I'm not a fool: experience counts and, when in doubt, should be a deciding factor between two otherwise equal players. But when an overwhelming majority of the evidence suggests another player is better?
Make the change.
Make the freaking change. You're not just short-changing the players and fans, Mack. You're short-changing yourself.
--PB--
86 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Sigh...
Killebrew is a bonehead who costs his team more yards than he prevents. Bobino's only good trait is pass-rushing, which he unfortunately cannot disguise, since in Akina's scheme, he's always exposes his blitz 3 seconds before the ball is snapped. Derry tries real hard, but that's all he's got to say about that.
So...trying to justify reasons for Mack to still play them:
- He's still trying to get to 10 wins. Flawed, I know, but like Chip Brown said, these guys have gotten him there before, and he feels like they can do it again. Ok, this is stupid reason 1.
- They're...better...players? Maybe if we exchanged the numbers of snaps between the first and second teams, we'd start to see the younger guys make all those mental mistakes. Ok, this is unlikely. Stupid reason 2.
- Play packages. The younger guys might not have the full defensive playbook down, thereby limiting Akina's crazy blitz schemes. Good thing the young guys can, you know, read the play and tackle. Stupid reason 3.
- Leadership. This is one I can actually get my head around. Mack loves Killebrew's fiery tendency, which explains why he's in. Bobino plays one of the most important "leadership" positions on defense, so maybe Mack doesn't trust Jared Norton to get the team fired up from the middle LB position. Derry...has great hair flowing out of his helmet?
So there it is. Mack is a great CEO, and his starting linebackers are following likewise. They delegate responsibility (no Marcus, you make the tackle!), know their goal (on blitzes, go straight for the quarterback, thereby allowing the running back to do whatever he wants), have a passion for the game (Killebrew's already mad that he wasn't the face rapist), and lead real good. Case closed.
Fortunately for Chip
Mack is a grown man (over 40 years old) and can take that kind of criticism...
no
Mack may be over 40 but he does not take criticism very well. He even tries to anticipate criticism and gets defensive even before he has to.
by UTeed on Oct 17, 2007 5:14 PM CDT up reply actions
Nice write up
when I saw that article I was wondering how long it would take you to put that up.
I think Mac's stubbornness has really been put on display this year, both the refusal to deal with a perception problem because he thinks the media is not doing its job to not letting their play on the field dictate which player gets the starting nod.
Did you draw that picture yourself?
Chip Brown on thin ice?
I know Chip Brown has been covering Horns for years, and he has always done a really good job. I think he has a keen perspective on most topics.
Recently, though, he seems to have taken a much more critical stance, and he hasn't let up. He's calling out the coaches with this most recent article, and it's not veiled with other nice things to say. It's a direct indictment of Mack and Akina's decision making. I love it because I agree with all of it. Everyone in the stands, in the locker room and in those film study rooms knows that the current starters shouldn't be starting. Chip Brown has mentioned the problem in multiple articles and newsletters.
Chip Brown deserves applause for this sort of football coverage. I can't help but wonder, though, is this a risky move for him? Will these criticisms of Mack and Co result in reduced access for Chip Brown?
He is obviously not doing his job
Why is he not writing articles on the majority of our starters that are playing better that their back ups?
Is this really an issue?
It's not as if Kindle, Muck and Norton aren't getting significant and meaningful playing time.
Who gives a shit who "starts".
by cortexas on Oct 17, 2007 1:07 PM CDT reply actions
Um, well, yeah. It is.
I agree that the "Start" doesn't mean much in relation to quantity of snaps, but I absolutely disagree that Kindle, Muck and Norton are getting "significant and meaningful playing time." They get some playing time, yes, but Akina's line: "There's nothing on tape that says they [Kill, Bobino, and Derry] should not [start]" says to me that they're not watching the same team play that I'm watching on Sat. If nothing else, the start should go to the young guys to tell the "veterans" that they need to get their shit together.
If Trevor Gerland can lose his job mid season, why can't Bobino? If Hunter Lawrence can lose the kicking job mid season (last year) to Ryan Bailey, why can't Derry? If they can sit Jamaal for a quarter and a half due to performance issues (fumbles), why can't they do the same for Kill (personal fouls)?
Darn right...
...it is an issue!! Just let this program get a reputation (almost certainly too late) as one that does NOT play the best players and watch how many great players pass on this program.
Oops, too late.....
Country's Top-100 recruits leaving the state of Texas:
#12 Justin Johnson - Oklahoma
#14 Jermie Calhoun - Oklahoma
#27 R.J. Washington - Oklahoma
#32 J.B. Shugarts - Ohio State
#36 Chancey Aghayere - LSU
#43 Sam McGuffie - Michigan
#66 Stephen Good - Oklahoma
#69 Andrew Luck - Stanford
#72 Daryl Stonum - Michigan
#76 Damian Square - Alabama
It's a scary..
....sight for all of Mack's enablers.
Compare this list to
the 07 and 06 lists.
One mediocre class does not mean the entire ship is sinking. And I don't think this class is really all that mediocre.
OU basically bailed completely on the 07 class to work on the 08 class a full year ahead of everyone else.
You can't cherry pick information and claim "truthiness".
Re:
Sigh...talk about having no legs to stand on...
2007
#4 Ryan Mallett - Michigan
#13 Terrance Toliver - LSU
#16 Tray Allen - Texas
#21 Curtis Brown - Texas
#31 John Chiles - Texas
#39 Michael Huey - Texas
#54 Dez Bryant - OSU
#57 Lennon Creer - Tennessee
#69 Righetti Jones - OSU
#72 Andre Jones - Texas
#80 Malcolm Williams - Texas
#88 Ben Wells - Texas
#97 Keenan Robinson - Texas
That's 8 out of 13...
2006
#5 Sergio Kindle - Texas
#6 Matthew Stafford - Georgia
#25 Eddie Jones - Texas
#32 Mike Goodson - A&M
#42 Adron Tennell - OU
#53 Chykie Brown - Texas
#57 Vondrell McGee - Texas
#61 Jevan Snead - Texas
#63 J'Marcus Webb - Texas
#67 Michael Morgan - USC
#70 Emmanuel Moody - USC
#77 Deon Beasley - Texas
#84 Anthony Lewis - A&M
#89 Jared Norton - Texas
That's 8 out of 14...
Not sure what list your rankings are off of, but here are some more (Rivals rankings)...
#42 Aaron Williams - Texas
#44 Jarvis Humphrey - Texas
#48 D.J. Monroe - Texas
#72 DeSean Hales - Texas
That's still 4 prospects out of 14. Not as good as previous years, but still decent. Mack chose not to recruit Calhoun because of grades. McGuffie is pretty damn similar to DeSean Hales, and Mack decided to take Hills. Good said no because (at the time) we had amazing OL depth. We weren't strongly pursuing quarterbacks, so no Luck. Stonum comes from Dulles High, who had just sent two kids to Michigan. Besides, we decided we had enough WR depth, so we didn't really pursue him and Fuller (not listed).
A hint for you jc25
Yours is the Texas Top-100. Think there might be a HUGE difference???
A challenge?
Oh, HC...
I used Rivals because they have the top 100 rank right next to the name; Scout's you need to count (for example, the latest Scout top 100 has Justin Johnson at 15). As for which one is more accurate, that's pretty arbitrary, unless you feel like going through all the prospects and analyzing which company did a better job "star"ing these guys. And if you can actually do that, kudos. Until you do, I'm not sure why you feel the need to point out one is better than the other, except that it better serves to prove your "point."
By the way, your list is of players from Texas in the country's Top-100. From Scout. Mine is the list of players from Texas in the country's Top-100. From Rivals. The only difference is which company is ranking them, thanks.
Wrong...
Re:
Apologies on that one, I didn't see that tab. Thanks for the link. On that list, though, Texas still has 4 top 100's: #30 Aaron Williams, #60 Dan Buckner, #79 Dravannti Johnson, and #85 David Snow. They also have 1 OOS: #83 Nolan Brewster. That's not close to OU's '07 class, but again...
Based on Scout:
2007
#5 Ryan Mallett - Michigan
#8 Tray Allen - Texas
#10 Terrance Toliver - LSU
#14 Curtis Brown - Texas
#30 Andre Jones - Texas
#31 John Chiles - Texas
#57 Ron Brooks - LSU (new)
#59 Righetti Jones - OSU
#80 Lennon Creer - Tennessee
#82 Russell Carter - Texas (new)
#86 Derrick Stephens - A&M (new)
#87 Dez Bryant - OSU
Texas not listed (as compared to Rivals):
Michael Huey - Texas
Malcolm Williams - Texas
Ben Wells - Texas
Keenan Robinson - Texas
That's 5 out of 12...
2006
#6 Sergio Kindle - Texas
#11 Matthew Stafford - Georgia
#18 Mike Goodson - A&M
#20 Eddie Jones - Texas
#23 Deon Beasley - Texas
#44 J'Marcus Webb - Texas
#68 Jevan Snead - Texas
#75 Emmanuel Moody - USC
#79 Ian Symonette - Miami (new)
#80 Perrish Cox - OSU (new)
#83 Dustin Earnest - Texas (new)
#91 Adron Tennell - OU
Texas not listed (as compared to Rivals):
Chykie Brown - Texas
Vondrell McGee - Texas
Michael Morgan - USC
Anthony Lewis - A&M
Jared Norton - Texas
That's 6 out of 12...
Those numbers aren't bad at all. Take notice that OU had 1 out of 23. A&M had 2. The second-most out of Texas, surprisingly, is OSU with 3. Add those three up and that's still 6, which is 5 less than 11, the number of Texas recruits.
Mack is awesome!
The seniors are the starters, but play less than the backups. If the juniors were the starters, the seniors would get about the same time in the field as they are getting now.
I do think this the right thing to do, and honestly I'm not saying this because of my Mack homerism. I too respect seniority.
sorry...
I think I could legitimately be accused of Mack homerism myself, but this is just indefensible.
For one thing, the seniors (although one is a junior) do NOT play less than the backups. Or maybe they do, but it doesn't seem like it because all the long, sustained drives happen when they're on the field, so it just plain seems longer. And to tell the truth, although it would be far more forgiveable, I don't think it would be right even if they started and played the first series, then sat for the younger guys. That first series going for a long drive with score is just not a good way to start every game. We have enough problems without further handcuffing ourselves purposely...
And, despite good coaches saying things like: "There's nothing on tape that says they should not (be playing)", there's a huge performance difference. You might at one point have said that the coaches see more than you do, and they're more experienced, yada, yada, yada... but the truth is, it's been long enough and there's been enough data that I read that and am left with only two choices: 1. I don't know anything at all about football, and by anything at all, I mean ANYTHING AT ALL, or 2. He's lying. And not that he owes it to us to not lie to us, but at least he could refrain from insulting our intelligence.
I truly believe that the difference between playing the young guys and playing the old guys is so immense that it will determine whether we beat OSU and TT and aTm and losing to at least two of those. That's not even mentioning the difference the additional experience would make next year.
I like Mack, I truly do. And I agree that on the whole he's been very, very, very good for this program. But there's no sugarcoating this. It's a weird combination of stubbornness and arrogance and blindness and shortsightedness, and it's NOT a good trait at this point. I think how he deals with this personal issue will largely determine Mack's legacy. Whether he's just a really nice guy who lucked out once and won it all, and got us to a certain level, or whether he can be a guy who's considered one of the all-time greats, who built us into a consistently elite team. And PB is right, this might be one of the easiest things to change ever. And that does make my blood boil...
by agent orange on Oct 17, 2007 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions
Excellent points all
A couple of days ago we were debating this very topic at the office and people mentioned how many more carries Jacon Hester gets at LSU over the much more talented Keiland Williams, Charles Sccott and Richard Murphy. The problems with that argument are 1 )whether LSU might not be better of if some of the more explosive runners gut more carries and 2) of specific relevance to our discussion here, Hester is a very effective and reliable runner who has frequently justified the carries he does get, particularly in the Florida game. In the case of the Texas linebackers the performance gulf between Babino/Killebrew/Derry and Norton/Kindle/Macleroy is so vast that it is simply impossible to justify the number of snaps they get. The purported (and probably real) advantages in experience and understanding just do not translate into performance on the field.
look at the situation Mack is in NOW
Mack's a guy who doesn't throw anyone under the bus. It's one of the reasons that he's such a good recruiter and has so many friends at all levels of football, which is nothing but a good thing for the Texas football program.
Now look at what has happened in this linebacker situation for the past year that has led up to this week, when he's making those comments. Last year, the young guys weren't ready. Kindle was hurt and a true freshman. Muck got hurt. Norton hadn't shown anything yet. Mack played who he had. They were the best three out there. So this year, he's got 3 returning upper-classmen starters and 3 guys pushing them who haven't played much at all in real games. So the returning starters keep their jobs to start the season. Was that the right choice? I don't know. The young 3 are much better playmakers, but maybe they're really not that good at dropping into coverage. Who knows. They certainly could have headed off this whole mess by making a change at this point, but I don't know if it was the right one at the time.
But as the weeks go by, and the public criticism mounts, it gets increasingly hard for Mack to make a formal change because for him to do so is for him to publicly throw these 3 upper-classmen under the bus, regardless of whether it's the right strategic move or not. Mack recruits on his loyalty and the program's family atmosphere. Once that's gone, who knows what happens. I tend to think that winning is a pretty good recruiting tool itself, but Mack seems to think (and I wouldn't necessarily disagree) that these 3 guys don't hurt us enough to warrant feeding any public perception that he threw his veterans under the bus in the face of mounting outside pressure.
All he has to do is keep Kill, Bobino, and Derry as starters and then rotate the younger guys in more frequently than he has been to avoid this problem. Here's hoping they do that. Let's be honest. This season is a lost cause in terms of anything we wanted to accomplish. It's going to take a meltdown by OU for us to win the Big 12 South. The best we can hope for is to keep the program as strong as possible for next year and beyond. To do that, we need to win games and keep the recruiting humming. If Mack thinks this is the best way to go, I'm willing to trust him, even if I disagree.
As mentioned many times below
I can't possibly see that this is good for recruiting. If anything, it sends the message that the your arbitrary arrival time and entrance into this program weighs more heavily on your playing time than performance does.
That is not what kids want to hear, especially kids who have a shot at the NFL and will be dependent upon scouts viewing an adequate body of work.
by BrooklynHorn on Oct 17, 2007 2:39 PM CDT up reply actions
i agree with you, in theory
but mack's been pretty damn good at recruiting while going the complete other direction. what makes logical sense to you and i might not be what makes up the mind of an 17-year-old kid who hasn't had a whole lot of people in his life he could trust. i don't know how these kids operate. mack seems to. that's all i'm saying.
like I said below
Mack recruits well because he's charismatic and because he's at Texas, with great location, facilities, tradition, etc. There isn't an easier school in the country to recruit at.
I've been following recruiting very closely for several years now and I can't tell you how many kids I've seen talking up USC's or Florida's policies of playing kids early and generally not red-shirting. And these are the two best programs in the country right now, recruiting-wise.
I really don't think you have a leg to stand on here.
by Old Tex29 on Oct 17, 2007 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions
You are over simplifying
and USC and Florida have equal great location, facilities, tradition, etc.
Plus you dont really dispute what BZ said, repeated what you said before, but then said he had no leg to stand on.
Re:
USC Top 100 (Rivals) recruits on the depth chart:
2007
#2 Joe McKnight - 3rd string RB
#6 Everson Griffen - 2 DE
#8 Ronald Johnson - 3 Flanker
#11 Chris Galippo - RS LB
#17 Marc Tyler - RS RB
#29 Kris O'Dowd - Injured C
#44 Aaron Corp - 4 QB
#48 Da'John Harris - 4 DT
#74 Martin Coleman - RS RT
#92 Marshall Jones - 2 FS
2006
#7 Vidal Hazelton - 2 Flanker
#9 Allen Bradford - 6 RB
#16 Taylor Mays - 1 FS
#18 Stafon Johnson - 2 RB (Injured)
#23 C.J. Gable - Injured RB
#29 Antwine Perez - not found
#33 Jamere Holland - not found
#38 Shareece Wright - 2 CB
#40 Josh Tatum - not found
#44 Butch Lewis - 3 LT
#62 Derek Simmons - 3 DT
#66 David Ausberry - 1 Split End
#67 Mike Morgan - 4 SLB
#70 Emmanuel Moody - transfer
This depth chart thing is really cool, actually. USC is starting 5 seniors, 5 juniors and 1 soph (Taylor Mays) on defense. USC is starting 7 seniors, 1 junior and 3 freshmen on offense.
Re:
Texas...
#16 Tray Allen - 2 LT
#21 Curtis Brown - 3 CB
#31 John Chiles - 2 QB
#39 Michael Huey - 2 RB
#72 Andre Jones - suspended
#80 Malcolm Williams - RS WR
#88 Ben Wells - RS CB
#97 Keenan Robinson - RS LB
2006
#5 Sergio Kindle - 2 LB
#25 Eddie Jones - 2 DE
#53 Chykie Brown - 3 CB
#57 Vondrell McGee 2 RB
#61 Jevan Snead - transfer
#63 J'Marcus Webb - transfer
#77 Deon Beasley - 2 CB
#89 Jared Norton - 2 MLB
Offense: 3 seniors, 4 juniors, 4 sophs
Defense: 8 seniors, 2 juniors, 1 soph
Re:
I'm not sure what the point of that was. I wanted to do some analysis, but I got too tired. I also can't find a suitable Florida depth chart to do those numbers. Anyways, if someone wants to expand...
Where do you get this stuff??
and USC and Florida have equal great location, facilities, tradition, etc.
.
It is well known country-wide that USC's facilities are totally sub-par. Articles are written about how amazing Pete Carroll's recruiting is, given the lack of proper facilities. There is not much to be said about the area of town either.
Gainsville, Florida is a great location? You must be kidding! It is well known that the town is their greatest obstacle.
You're just throwin' this stuff out there to see if the boat will float. Unfortunately, few here have the knowledge to challenge the stuff you flip out there as "fact".
USC is in Compton
Maybe along with Detroit, East St. Louis/St. Louis and Cleveland as the worst place in America. I almost went to school there and i honestly felt scared going to the campus.
When i was driving to the campus it felt like i was in Boyz 'N Da Hood.
by longhorn4life on Oct 17, 2007 11:44 PM CDT up reply actions
I talking to the group of items
as a whole. While UT may have facilities and location on USC, USC trumps UT in tradition and giving running backs houses.
And while Gainsville may not be the best town, the tradition and facilities are close to equal, plus they have the SEC to help sell the team, while we have the Big 12. Also, it is well known in Gainsville football players are treated with more reverence.
You're right
Mack recruits well because we're Texas and he takes advantage of it. Great facilities, winning tradition, and tons of exposure. Mack hasn't needed to recruit outside the state and has done so rarely. But with the exodus of so many players this year, what happens if Mack can't recruit Texas as well as he has? God help us if A&M ever gets good again with a good coach. Mack hasn't had to deal with that.
It seems to be pretty ignorant for a power like Texas not to recruit more nationally. I think we'd all agree that California and Florida are football talent hotbeds as well. But over the past 3 years, USC and Florida have both recruited well nationally. UF had 7 out of state recruits in '05, 9 in '06, and 9 in '07. USC had 5 in '05, 8 in '06, and 6 in '07. Texas had 2 in '05 and '06 and 1(Irby) in '07.
What happens when the competition for Texas talent heats up even more? Florida and USC are already poaching some of Texas's talent. OU is a given. Give them more ammunition of being able to sell players on early playing time, and poof, the 5-stars and 4-stars thin out a bit.
by JT Longhorn on Oct 17, 2007 3:36 PM CDT up reply actions
Limiting damage to recruiting
can be accomplished by simply giving the young guys a majority of snaps. Anyone who watched last weeks game, and presumably most prospective Texas recruits would have done will have heard Norton and Kindle's names with sufficient frequency to understand that they are, indeed getting very meaningful playing tome. The more they play the apparent this will become and give greater credence to Texas football being a meritocracy.
The benfits of layolt in recuriting and team unity can be maintained in large part by keeping the older guys as the starters.
I'm not sure what the right balance is. Perhaps we're moving in the right direction but I would hope Mac would give the yonger guys an ever increasing proportion of the snaps.
PB accurately
describres Mac's strengths and flaws. On balance they have served the program exceptionally well. As someone who has followed Texas football since the 80s, had great awareness of its tradition and left campus in the Spring of 1998 still frustrated at the downturn in the Longhorn's fortunes since the early 70s I am absolutely thrilled with what he has done for the program. He will be here a long time and I doubt we could improve on his performance significantly if he were to leave for whatever reason.
However, at this point it does seem that his flaws have been, if anything, exagerated by the achievements of the 2005 season. This triumph seems to have increased his complacency and stubburness and this is not only hurting Texas this year and perhaps to some extent in the immediate future (we'd be better of if the young guys got as much experience as possible now), but also, more disturbingly, is likely to have a negative impact on recruiting and the long term health of the program. I think people have mentioned this in earlier threads, his attitued toward playing the most talented younger cannot but have a negative impact on the desire of the very best prospects to come Texas. One of Mac's greatest strengths has been the ability to attract players like Sergio Kindle to Austin. His ability to do so has elevated Texas football and allowed us to stay in the mix for the highest honors. The very public way in which players like Kindle, Norton, Macleroy and others are beying denied playing time will make it much more difficult to maintain the talent level and stay as firmly in that mix in the future.
Too bad...
Mack wasn't so "stubborn" when he started the youthful Chris Simms over the veteran Major Applewhite.
Mack's not stubborn, he's just gun shy. I mean can you really blame him for sticking with the three vets...
- Killebrew looks like Yul Brynner. Nobody benches Yul, nobody. And his flagrant personal fouls are just his way of expressing his frustration over being typecast.
- And Babino, you got to love how he runs to the gap and instead of getting low to tackle the oncoming rusher at the line of scrimmage, leaps into the air a la Spider Man and rides the running back for a modest 7 yard gain.
- And finally, Scott Derry...his mullett flapping in the breeze makes opponents think he's faster than he actually is just like Willie Mays' cap if Willie had been tall, white, slow and awkward.
And you want to stymy that kind of talent...pshaw.
Besides, we're only 3 losses away from Mack having to pull a Bobby Bowden house cleaning.
I appreciate your logic bz
and I think you argue your point well. I guess the question ultimately is what makes more of a difference in recruiting, staying loyal to your veterans, or giving talent the chance to play if they prove their superiority? Personally, I think that talented players are more likely to appreciate a coach who is willing to play the most talented player. I know in my career as a high school tennis player, I just wanted to to be given a fair chance. Really, I think this is an argument that could be debated ad nauseum, without ever coming to a real consensus, and justifiably so.
I appreciate Mack's loyalty to the starters--Killebrew and Derry are going to be done with football after this season. So this is their swan song right now (thankfully, I believe). At the same time, we must balance our time for the young kids because they really need the reps on the field. I do believe that they have a tendency to overpursue and probably don't have the experience in the passing game. But these last few games of the season are as much for next year and the year after, as Chip Brown says, and the youngsters are the future of our linebacking corps for two seasons. That means that I would like to see the youngsters get at least equal time on the field, if not reversing the three possessions for the vets and then two for the youngsters.
Something that also hasn't been mentioned much this season is that Akina does not have any prior play-calling experience. I imagine that he's still feeling his way with what he wants to do out there now that his fingerprints are expected to be all over the defense. It's going to be another year or so before we can really evaluate how well he is doing that job, but the comments about the veteran linebackers don't make me want to give him the benefit of the doubt.
by ghostoftheplaymaker4 on Oct 17, 2007 1:50 PM CDT reply actions
A couple of things
First, in reply to 54b:
Scott Derry DOES NOT have a mullet. I've seen him walking by the stadium without a helmet on. He just has long hair. There's a difference. The definition of a mullet is "business in the front, party in the back". Derry's got the party, but he doesn't have the business. Let this be the last time Derry's "mullet" is discussed on this site. It doesn't exist.
Second, in response to ghost:
There is no question what appeals to recruits more: It's a willingness to play the most talented players, regardless of seniority. That's a huge selling-point for coaches like Pete Carroll and Urban Meyer. They both play shirtless-freshmen, and they both continue to rack up top recruiting classes despite stacked depth charts. There's just no way that recruits see UT's starting LBs as a plus. Mack recruits well because he's charismatic and because he's at UT, the easiest school to recruit at in America. Loyalty has little or nothing to do with it.
Thirdly,
It's not just recruits and fans who may get irked at depth charts. It's the players, too. I've heard rumblings that the LB and DB situation has upset a portion of the team just as much as it's upsetting BON. Like Ghost alluded to about his career as a tennis player, the players know who can play and they just want to be given a fair shake.
by Old Tex29 on Oct 17, 2007 2:15 PM CDT up reply actions
Long live...
the Derry-mullet. I'm a believer.
http://mackbrown-texasfootball.com/i...
http://www.musenashville.org/wp-cont...
It is the source of his somewhat power.
j-
by sterling on Oct 17, 2007 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions
Wow...
We all gave credit to the coaches since they "see what we see" and they'll certainly make sure the best players are playing. What tape is Duane Akina watching?? This is unreal and so disappointing. You know the players know who the best linebackers on the team are. That makes you start to distrust your coaching staff after a while. If Scott Derry really is better than Kindle, Muckleroy, or Norton, I seriously don't know crap about football.
Under this premise, does anyone think Colt ever gets benched before he graduates, regardless of how good the QB's behind him are playing? If you were John Chiles, what would you think? I think there is no way I start until I'm a senior. Colt get benched? What??
PB hit it on the head - this is obviously Mack's fatal flaw. He is too loyal, too genuine, too protective of his leaders (and former leaders) to make the tough decisions.
Mack, you are their coach, not their friend. You have to make smart decisions. Any organization that rewards loyalty, longevity and experience over talent, performance and potential is asking for problems. It happens in corporate America and it happens in sports. The repercussions of that kind of policy trickle down and then you start losing that top talent, or not getting it at all.
This is a hard pill to swallow. It's one thing to think it, but to actually hear it said is really bothersome. Mack seems more interested in coddling his players than being honest with them and maybe hurting some feelings along the way. This is business, it isn't personal. Mack doesn't realize that - he's too busy trying to be "Daddy" Mack to everyone.
by JT Longhorn on Oct 17, 2007 2:19 PM CDT reply actions
EEEEHhhhhhhhmmmmmmm
Did anyone else see Derry drop back into coverage when Oklahoma was in the red zone. That choke was almost as bad as JC's fumble.
That was painful.
He was so out of position and athletically helpless. Maddening.
Pass coverage
I don't know how the younger LB's pass coverage can be much worse than watching Derry try to cover Gresham a couple of weeks ago. The second touchdown was not a blown coverage at all, just ownage by a bigger, much more gifted athlete. At least with a younger, more talented LB, you still have hope of being able to cover a Gresham some of the time.
by HookeminOKC on Oct 17, 2007 3:26 PM CDT reply actions
Games lost b/c of this
How many games over the years have been lost b/c mack refused to put the best guys out there. Remember OU 2001 when Ced Benson had one snap. Remember the 2003 season when VY should have clearly been the starter from the beginning but put him in when the season and his job became on the line. Those are the greatest examples but there have been others as well.
by longhorn4life on Oct 17, 2007 3:53 PM CDT reply actions
revisionist history
doesn't work. who the hell knows what happens if Benson plays in that game? maybe we win, maybe we lose by 20 because he can't pick up the pass block. who the hell knows? it didn't happen, and we can't pretend to know what would have happened if it did.
and it most certainly was not apparent at the beginning of 2003 that Vince was a better QB than Chance Mock. I think everyone thought VY would eventually displace Mock, but go back and watch those early 2003 games. Vince couldn't throw worth a crap. Mack made the switch when it became apparent that Chance Mock sucked a lot more than we thought he did.
Don't know if we would have won
Don't know exactly if we would have won, but Mack should have started Benson for sure from the beginning and his pass blocking would, surely, have gotten better by the OU game.
In case you don't remember, we were such a one dimensional team that year (until the OU game) and OU's weakness was the run game, to a certain extinct. Oklahoma St. and Nebraska beat them because they had some success running the ball, where we let Chris Simms sling the ball and let them tee of on the pass. We may not have won the game but Ced certainly gave us the best chance to win.
Now about Chance, true that chance was better then VY at the beginning but the wake up call should have been during the Arkansas game when we couldn't run the ball to save our lives and we needed a spark plug. He should have put VY in that game and seen what happened. Not Until the end of the K-State game.
Then even after VY begins the legend status, he isn't rewarded with a start against OU. Chance starts the game and on his second throw it gets picked off and we are immediately chasing the game.
We all know what happens from there but my point is that those guys gave us a better chance to win than their senior counterparts. Who was even the running back ahead of Ced Benson, Ivan Williams, Victor Ike?
by longhorn4life on Oct 17, 2007 4:31 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah, just....
...because Cedric Benson averaged over 108 yards per game after the RRS, why should we believe he would have had a positive impact on that game?
who the hell knows what happens if Benson plays in that game? maybe we win, maybe we lose by 20 because he can't pick up the pass block.
You are on fire hornschamps
I sometimes just don't have the energy to go on with these guys. Thanks for backing me man.
Are you backing me up?
by longhorn4life on Oct 17, 2007 11:39 PM CDT up reply actions
Listen to what I'm saying very carefully
I'm not saying there's no way he would have had a positive impact on the OU game. I'm saying that we have NO IDEA if he would have had a positive impact on the OU game (after all, in later OU games, he didn't exactly shine -- never over 100 yards). And even if he did have a positive impact, we have no idea if that would have led to Texas winning the game.
I agree that Cedric should have played more in that game. I personally think he would have been a net positive, and I've been very critical of Mack in the past for holding some young players back too long. What I don't agree with is people saying that we absolutely would have won some game if something different had happened. If Cedric plays that game, maybe we win, maybe we don't. I have no idea. And neither do you.
VY played ALOT in 2003 vs. OU...
...and he absolutely sucked for all but 2 plays.
Benson wouldn't have done shit against OU in 2001- nobody could have run behind UT's OL vs. OU's DL that year.
by cortexas on Oct 17, 2007 6:26 PM CDT up reply actions
Good discussions...
I agree with most of PB's points, but the one thing I'm fixated on is: Why would Mack change his MO now?
- He's got the 10-win season thing going, with a chance to continue it this year.
- Outside of the gridiron, Season Ticket holders are at record levels, the Stadium has undergone several major renovations to accommodate the additional interest in the program, and he's got few extra $$$ in his own pocket to boot.
- The "play the best personnel now" theory also has a converse side in terms of recruiting: Maybe some kids avoid schools where they may only get 1-2 years of being a "starter", only to be supplanted by a newer crop of teammates later in their career. This may not bode well for their potential NFL Draft prospects, if they're worried about that kind of thing.
- If we're comparing Mack to Carroll and Meyer, and assuming they use the "play me now" strategy, who's to say where this will get them in another 5 years? I think it's fair to argue that while they may be experiencing the "highs" right now, are they really going to be able to maintain their success over time? I think we're already starting to see minor ruptures in the USC program (RB Transfers, losing to Stanford, the Reggie investigation), and Florida has 2 losses this season, just like Texas.
- I think you could also make a fair argument that Texas could be 7-0 this season from Mack's perspective, minus the turnovers and Special Teams letdown at K-State and OU. And if that was the case, you might be able to file our discontent as nitpicking more than anything else.
Again, I agree that we've most likely identified one of Mack's tendencies in terms of loyalty to upperclassmen, I just don't see any reason at this point that would make him change his stripes. I think we'd have to go 7-5 or worse for that to happen.
by LeftHandedTexan on Oct 17, 2007 3:54 PM CDT reply actions
As a recruit
These guys need to know what they sign up for. It really irrates me when guys transfer b/c of the competiton.
As a college football recruit you need to know that it is extremely competitive and serious. If that is Mack's excuse or you guys defense for him not playing the best guys than that is sad.
Its just like Dan Hawkins playing his own son or Todd Dodge playing his own son. I haven't seen dodge play but Cody just doesn't seem that good.
by longhorn4life on Oct 17, 2007 4:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Cody
has had good and bad games, as would be expected from a freshman QB. The reason he is playing is because he has no competition behind. Did you see Bernard Jackson last year?
The big question marks are 1. Can Colorado recruit receivers that can catch (I think they lead the country in dropped touchdowns)? and 2. Will his height keep him from ever improving past a certain level?
You should gain some knowledge about your examples.
Thats True
I have just have had bad experiences in my sporting life with coaches' sons. I kind have this set in sterotype and animosity towards coaches' sons.
One thing that is for sure is that i don't think he would be on starting for a major BCS school if his daddy wasn't the coach of Colorado. He might have gone to say a school like UH or a mid major school.
THIS IS BIG XII FOOTBALL!!!!!
by longhorn4life on Oct 17, 2007 4:52 PM CDT up reply actions
He went to the Elite 11 Camp
I don't think he would be starting this year as most BCS schools did not go 2 - 10, including losing to 1AA Montana State, but I am sure he could have gotten a scholarship to a BCS school.
I guess i am completely wrong
He just doesn't look that good to me.
by longhorn4life on Oct 17, 2007 5:18 PM CDT up reply actions
Mental Errors
Let me start by saying, I am not a bad linebacker apologist. I love to beat puppies, crush Budweiser, and smear players, but I have a few points that should be thrown into the fray.
I say Mack is less a traditionalist and more of a pragmatist in his linebacker rotation. See Derrick Johnson as a prime example. Freshman year, DJ had no idea what he was doing other than flying around and making big hits. The reason DJ was able to do this, besides being a complete badass, was because he was surrounded with a veteran defense that could compensate for his style of play.
This year, during competitive games, in almost every instance, with the exception of the first two series, the linebacker rotation is 2 old guys and 1 young guy or 2 young guys and 1 old guy.
The today’s Texas defense cannot support DJ’s style of play from three linebackers. The team needs at least one experienced linebacker to get the young guys lined up and to tell them where to go. The young guns are without a doubt better linebackers and more fun to watch, BUT they have to be protected and coddled.
Another unknown is how many mental errors per game we are talking about with the young group. It’s easy to watch Bobino and Mullet get eaten up by blockers and miss tackles, but it’s much harder to understand what the defense is trying to do on any given play without knowing the original intent. Who knows, but I am guessing that the young guys each make a mistake about 1 out of every 5-6 plays. The mental errors have probably decreased as the season has gone on due to experience, but, and here comes my point, the young guys playing time has increased.
Ahhh, Mack only pretends to care about feelings. As the young guys progress to a point where they can be trusted in any given situation, they will continue to increase their playing time.
by Brushy Creek on Oct 17, 2007 5:41 PM CDT up reply actions
Point #3
I just don't buy into this theory at all.
- If a recruit is scared of competition, he doesn't belong at Texas and Mack won't recruit him.
- I can't see how this is a bad thing for recruiting. I didn't play football and I wasn't very big in HS, but I was cocky as hell. I'm sure these athletes are/can be just as bad if not infinitely worse. If they see that they have a legitimate shot at playing time, how can this be a bad thing? They're not looking at 2-3 years down the road at the possibility of a kid that is currently a freshman taking their place. Their mindset is here and now.
- This concept puts the best players on the field. The best players on the field wins games. Winning games leads to championships. Championships lead to national TV time. National TV time leads to viewership. If these kids see a winning program on national TV, they want to be there. It increases their stock for the NFL.
Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe I'm missing your point, but I honestly don't see how it can possibly make a kid think "ooh, they play younger guys. I don't want to go there."
This argument isn't valid
"The "play the best personnel now" theory also has a converse side in terms of recruiting: Maybe some kids avoid schools where they may only get 1-2 years of being a "starter", only to be supplanted by a newer crop of teammates later in their career. This may not bode well for their potential NFL Draft prospects, if they're worried about that kind of thing."
This argument presupposes that a guy's ability peaks during one of his first couple of years in college and goes downhill from there. I think it's easy to say that if someone was good enough to start as a freshman at Texas, he wouldn't be too worried about being supplanted as a junior and hurting his NFL prospects. If he's thinking NFL at all, he'd be a stud and keep the starting job.
by HookeminOKC on Oct 17, 2007 4:21 PM CDT reply actions
Isn't that what we're talking about, though?
I wasn't necessarily saying that a guy would peak after 1-2 years, but you would assume for example that Killebrew & Derry have MNC experience in their resume, and that would be a building block to this year, yet we're asking that more talented underclassmen take their spot as the "starter". They themselves may think of themselves as studs and aren't worried about their prospects at the next level, but at the same time, more talented folks on the roster are pushing them (as it should be).
Maybe Mack doesn't perceive the talent and performance gap to be large enough to warrant making changes to his philosophy. I guess I personally think that if Mack was presented with a Tough choice on who should play and when, most times he'll make the call. With the amount of success he's had, I just don't see where this is keeping him up at night -- yet.
by LeftHandedTexan on Oct 17, 2007 4:35 PM CDT up reply actions
decisions on who should play...
should be 100% decided by performance. Recruits will respect decisions like that either way because that's how it should be.
Competition for positions based on performance is only going to improve playing across the board. Any player that refuses to come to Texas for fear that they'll lose their spot to a younger, more talented player is a player Texas doesn't need. I want players with talent who believe they can work hard to earn a starting spot.
As it stands right now, our LB debacle only goes to show recruits that there is little/no hope of coming to Texas and performing your way into a starting role. It gives every player, older and younger, less incentive to "earn" their job each week. Mack can run his team however he wants, and he's certainly done a great job, but it's hard to understand how he expects rewarding bad performance to benefit the team.
Wasn't the theme for this season supposed to be "earn the right?"
j-
by sterling on Oct 17, 2007 4:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Wow ! WTF !
I have always had a feeling that this is how Brown operates - but to come right out and say it !!! For some reason I just can't see Texas' main competition (Oklahoma) operating in this manner. I bet old Bobby is laughing his ass off and making a million copies of that article to hand out to recruits. WTF happened to the age old coaching mantra of "winning is all that matters", or "your play will be based on your performance"? Nothing like a little politics with our f-ed up season !
I can't see that this would be a good thing for recruiting either. I mean hell, I can hear it now - "Dad, those guys just won a title - so everyone is safe until their eligibility is up". Are you kidding me Brown !
I am once again moved to state very plainly
2005 WAS LONG AGO MACK !
by jbob on Oct 17, 2007 4:36 PM CDT reply actions
Mack the CEO?
I love Mack as much as the next guy, but this metaphor has got to go. He may run a first-rate program, but not when it comes to personnel. After 10+ years at a Fortune 5 company, here's what I know about CEOs: They'll stick with anyone as long as they perform, but when performance goes south, loyalty is not far behind.
First-team execs get one quarter, maybe two, of F-ups before they get replaced. Four quarters in a year, four quarters in a game, and no one's ego is worth the cost of being behind when the fourth quarter ends. If the CEO feels any loyalty to a longtime colleague, (s)he gets a nice job doing something relatively harmless until retirement.
If Mack were a CEO, that's how he'd manage the team.
Agree
...but just for arguments sake as a NYCHorn working at Fortune 5 company I would guess you'd have run across or are at least familiar with law firms where associates receive bonuses and partner's share profits on a pure seniority basis. The better associates at least have their merit recognized by promotion to partner. In the case of the latter it is not infrequently the case that a very junior partner making 1/3 that of the most senior partners is often the most influential lawyer on a given deal or case. Even so there is often relative harmony at such firms.
Still, these are somehwot unique situations that do not lend themselves to successfull emulation in other contexts.
I wonder what Sam Acho would say about this?
Seems like he found the field as a true freshman when he busted his ass for playing time. Michael Huey seems to have done ok for himself. Curtis Brown?
by cortexas on Oct 17, 2007 6:29 PM CDT reply actions
Sam
If you mean that Mack lets freshmen play when there is no alternative then you are correct. Using Akina terminology: I guess those upper class men did not have the "skins on the wall" like the senior LBs.
by UTeed on Oct 17, 2007 7:19 PM CDT up reply actions
Drew Kelson
He has more skins on the wall during the NC title season then these 3. Remind me again Mack when he plays?
switched positions
Evidently is still (re)learning his position at safety.
Total, Unadulterated, BS.
Here's the quote that really pisses me off:
Like a running back out of high school has problems with pass protection, young linebackers have trouble with pass drops," Brown said. "In high school they didn't worry about it. They were just attacking the ball. The discipline in pass drops takes them a little longer.
Let's play "Compare and Contrast" with the stat sheet for the defense so far this year: Link
Notice that Houston and Eddie Jones each have as many PBUs as the entire LB corps (Derry, 2). Muck has as an INT, so does Derry. I guarantee that at least one of Derry's PBUs is him running into the back of a guy after he's dropped a ball. At least Muck, Kindle, and Norton have the ability to play pass coverage. I agree with the idea that they need to have someone with experience out there with them, but that's rotating one old guy in and out until they get their act together. Bobino, Derry, and Killebrew cannot stop McGee, Goodson, and Lane come T+1. Our young guys will make piles of goop out of them. It's as simple as that. We will lose at least one, maybe two out of Nebraska, TTU, OSU, and A&M if we don't have Muck, Norton, and Kindle in most of the game. Not most series, most snaps. If BKD can't get them off the field, put in MNK and get the offense back out there.
BLOOD.
BOILING.
OVER.
I don't remember
I don't remember a a non game/discussion thread that was this long and meaningful. I can say this with full confidence that this is the best college football blog overall. We have the best community and our staff and writers are right up there with the best.
Just go to texags or some of the links to other blogs on this site and BON kicks their ass. Texags looks like something that cavemen could do better. Have never seen such a primitive blog. Its just people yelling and talking shit.
by longhorn4life on Oct 17, 2007 11:41 PM CDT reply actions
There's a better blog for...
Texags...but it'll cost ya.
I know, it's too easy, but we'll all be enjoying those for a while...
j-
by sterling on Oct 18, 2007 2:07 AM CDT up reply actions
Just got through this
Damn fine conversation all the way through.
I know this: the Horns will need everything they have for Tech and at OSU. Close to that for T + 1.
And we need that from the very beginning of those games. We can't spot those guys anything whatsoever.
I don't care what we do just so we're in the best position for those games.
So much for coaching to win the game...
Why do you coach Mack?
Maybe I'm coming from the wrong perspective. I was an NFL fan long before a college football fan. In the NFL, winning is one and only priority. Nothing else matters.
Should it be like this in college also? Looks like the fans wish it were.
The only way Mack changes is if the young guys threaten to transfer. Even then, I don't think he'd change.
by goingforthecorner on Oct 18, 2007 3:41 AM CDT reply actions
Just ridiculous
I'm sick of this inane, backward thinking. Mack is burning his bridge with common sense AND fans. There's nothing anyone can say that hasn't been said before. He seems determined to hole us up in upper-level mediocrity. Here's to more seasons without a conference championship...
by jjv78 on Oct 18, 2007 8:14 AM CDT reply actions
What is at the bottom
Something to consider about this issue. If you look at the 2007 defense what is it's greatest deficiency?
Same as last year, stopping the pass.
I think the reason why Brown is playing the older more experienced LB's is he has more confidence in them to work with a greater problem, which is a mediocre secondary.
The defense I see is really scared of the pass and all the scheming goes toward supporting a weak secondary. This means using more experienced but less talented LB's who can (in theory) lend support in pass coverage.
This was hinted at in the article but as a coach you may not want to tell the world what you see as your teams biggest weakness so you can explain your choice of players. So Mack stonewalls and spins trying to not admit that his LB choices are really covering a huge soft spot in the defense.
the weakest link...
I think it's fairly clear that our secondary, while certainly not a strength, has not been nearly as weak as our linebacking when the 'veterans' are in there.
If anything, our weak linebacking has led to problems in the secondary, even last year, when, per the NFL draft, we did not have a talent deficiency back there.
Sure, the problem may be scheme-related instead of personnel-related, but it's hard to deny that they whole defense just plain plays better when the youngsters come out to play...
by agent orange on Oct 18, 2007 9:49 AM CDT up reply actions
Look at the stats, man.
Derry has 2 PBUs, one INT. Muck has the only other pass defense stat in his one INT. 2 PBUs come from receivers dropping balls as you hit them. The best way to support the secondary is with people that are capable of covering TEs, RBs, etc. None of the older guys are contributing, and the one who is supposed to not make mistakes, Derry, is often getting beat just because he can't physically run with some people. The way we are now, teams can almost always throw the ball either to the short, 7 yard WR routes, or just dink and dunk with the TE who can't be covered. It doesn't matter if Derry blitzes or not, he's no threat to cover a fast, strong TE (see: OU game).
See: OU Game
You're exactly right, Horn Brain. OU didn't blow UT away with screaming downfield passes. They killed with the Colts v Bears formula. Dink and dunk the hell out of em. How many consecutive 8 yard passes can a team complete against Texas? It's insane. In fact, this was the same problem against Ark State in the first game of the season.
The idea that the experienced, less talented LBs are better to help defend the pass is absurd. They don't have the athletic skills to cover the short sideline/middle of the field passing game.
The secondary has proven more competent than we expected them to be. That the LBs are covering for them is wrong. It's actually the other way around. Palmer and Foster and Co end up finishing many plays that LBs should have handled.
I think this is by design
It's the bend not break idea, give up the short underneath stuff but don't let receivers get behind you. The corners sit back 7-10 yards and give up all the short passes. It's almost a prevent style of play.
give up the short zones on the edges to have better coverage in the deep sides and middle.
That played into OU's style of play with Bradford at QB, ball control passing. OU didn't go deep because those zones were covered on most plays. So they took what was given to them.
The location of the Outside LB means that either old guys or new guys can't move laterally fast enough to cover the short outside zone within the 1 or 2 seconds they have to stop that pass. And they will continue to give up that yardage.
My guess is horns coaches hope to slow up the opponent inside the 30 once the field gets shorter.
Which would work better if the offense was scoring more prolifically
Another way
to judge where the biggest flaw in the defense is, you imagine which can cause you to lose a game the most. I am guessing based on how the Coaches are reacting (not on what I think) is they seem to be afraid of being beat deep multiple times in game.
Sure the older LB aren't any better at coverage than new guys but they may show they have a better understanding of the overall scheme and how they coordinate their coverage into the line play.
Whose to say if you don't have the more experienced LB's that actually know how to switch back and forth from pass coverage, pass rush and run stopping that the secondary might be burned even more often.
I think that is what the coaches are having to decide to between more experienced players of a known and understood quality or newer less experienced players who may play better in some aspects of the game but it's unknown exactly how they will integrate into coverage that requires alot more thinking.
I think Brown has picked the more conservative approach. Because even though the the secondary may be a little better than the LBers the DB are more vulnerable to giving up game losing plays.
Personally I might take a chance and put in the new guys. But then again I don't need to worry about losing a couple of million bucks a year if I'm wrong to often.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Burnt Orange Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
