Morning Coffee Is Ready To Talk Criticism
by Peter Bean on Nov 25, 2007 11:41 PM CST
in Texas Longhorns Football
Email
Print
If you're not spinning from Texas' inexplicable 9-3 season that featured defeats to Kansas State, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M (arguably the only three games which mattered), fear not - a quick perusal of the official Longhorn football channels should provide you with all the spin you need.
***For starters, the home page of Texas Sports on late Friday afternoon was a feature on the men's basketball team and their evening tip with New Mexico State. Nominally, not a huge deal, except that Texas basketball is #6 on the athletic department's agenda on a normal weekend, right behind: (1) Texas football recap, (2) Texas football box score, (3) Texas football photos in action, (4) Texas football postseason look ahead, and (5) Texas football commentary from Bill Little.
***Speaking of Bill Little, he's done an especially nice job of spinning the embarrassing loss to A&M. I wish I'd thought of it myself, honestly:
Nothing was as it seemed, and reality appeared to be an illusion. In a universe where everything thing is constantly changing, what all of us yearn for is consistency in something. And that, in the end, was the most frustrating thing for Mack Brown and his Texas Longhorns last Friday in College Station. In fact, the toughest part to understand about this season is that too often, it appeared the only consistency was inconsistency.
But then, that wasn’t just about Texas; it was about everything related to this 2007 season in college football.
For a while, it appeared that there were three potentially great teams—Southern Cal, LSU, and Oklahoma. Now, barring unforeseen circumstances, all three will not be playing in the National Championship game.
If you're not fluent in Spin, I'll be glad to translate that for you: "My dear Longhorn fans, lest ye be too disappointed in the struggles of 2007, let us remember that it's been a crazy year for LOTS of teams!"
In other news, you should plan on asking your professor to ignore the tardiness of your paper because there were a half dozen of your classmates who also failed to turn in the assignment on time. Because failure is relative, right?
***And last, though I can't confirm this one just yet, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that we're in for a repeat of 2006 and no Monday press conference from Mack Brown. As more than a few of you have pointed out, the strategy from Bellmont when things aren't going well is to hunker down, let the storm pass, and jump back in for the next phase of the news cycle.
"I'll be back in a week. Or two. Did you see that LSU lost?"
Okay, now that I've got the Cynical Asshole Segment out of the way, let's talk a little more concretely about what's got to happen from here forward. At the end of the day, I don't totally blame Mack Brown or Bellmont Hall for trying to spin damage control; though I'd rather they didn't, it's more or less par for the course. There aren't many big NCAA athletic departments who are going to get out in front of the storm, and with big money stakes come big money corporate maneuvers. That's just how the game is played.
And in fact, I'd note that the one message that was repeated at BON more than any other over the last three days was that, "This is what Mack will do. This is how things will go. Nothing will ever change."
Accepting, then, that this is the SOP, it might be more beneficial to ask: "What can be done?" After all, we aren't the first group of disgruntled stakeholders who feel like the decisionmakers are all too content with the status quo. So if you're really displeased with the way things are going, consider one of the following:
Contact the Longhorn Foundation. You know as well as I do that with matters like these, money talks. If you're a donor to the program, let the Longhorn Foundation know that you're unhappy with the way the money is being spent. Considering the overall health of Longhorn athletics in general, and Longhorn football in particular, I'd suggest finding a tactful way to note your desire for change, but I can't say I see anything wrong with noting that you've been voting with your dollars and will continue to do so, based on the responsiveness of the recipient. [Longhorn Foundation Fax Number: (512) 471-7706 / Email, Director of Longhorn Foundation, Craig Helwig: craig.helwig@athletics.utexas.edu]
Pen a letter to the Statesman. It may not be the world's premier newspaper, but we do know for a fact that the folks at Belmont read it. We can also be sure that those who are writing the AAS Texas content will be more likely to ask critical questions if they know they're backed by a swell of fan (reader) discontent. [Send a letter to the AAS Sports Desk.]
Make your voice known here at BON. I can't promise you that anyone in the know will read your take if you post it here, but I do know that when movements - even grassroots one - reach critical mass, decisionmakers take notice. Though posting here is an indirect way of letting your opinion be known, it's a good start. Pen a diary. Make an argument. Be persuasive. Offer solutions. If I could suggest one course of action to someone who had a strong opinion, it would be to do your best to persuade others to your point of view. There are lots of reasons why "heady" discourse is so strongly encouraged here, but chief among them is that anyone can bark about general failure - few can articulate persuasive ideas to fix them. If you've got a good idea for fixing the problems Mack Brown's dealing with right now, let us know. We all know something's broken, but it's hard to put a finger on what should be done. Lead the way.
With all that said... there's a segment of the UT fanbase out there that's reacted a bit defensively about all this unrest. Some of it is justified, but some (I'd argue) is not. To those who think there's too much complaining, I note that there are two lines of criticism that need to be addressed (and which don't merit the same response):
I don't blame some folks for stepping up to defend Mack Brown against the first line of criticism. I count myself among those who think swinging the angry axe at Mack Brown's head would cause more problems than it would solve. And I think that Mack Brown - warts and all - is consistently underrated as a problem solver. The man may drive fans mad with the way he deliberately works through things his way, but he gets the benefit of the doubt for his overall body of work, which includes a national championship. Calling for Mack Brown's head strikes me as myopic as blitzing Robert Killebrew.
However, those unhappy with the unrest right now do need to articulate a different line of reasoning against the second criticism. As a fan who generally supports Mack Brown and is grateful for what he's done at Texas, I do think we've reached a point where he's surrounded by too much that is comfortable.
I think most of us can look at our line of work and think about a time when plowing forward with "what we know" is no longer sufficient to keep us at the top of the game. Whether that's learning the ins and outs of new media marketing, or figuring out how to increase your direct sales to customers, or adjusting the branding of your product to an evolving marketplace, the lesson in every business is the same: you have to stay out at the forefront of the curve if you want to remain ultra-competitive. More often than not, that means integrating new people and ideas to help you evolve from what it is you know best.
Mack Brown doesn't need to teach himself the Xs and Os of the newest, sexiest offensive or defensive schemes. But there comes a time when being surrounded by that which you're comfortable with no longer serves you well. Mack can choose to ride that comfortable horse into the sunset, or he can choose to invigorate his staff with some hungry young talent who will help challenge the way he coaches football for the remainder of his career.
If he decides to stick with what he knows? I think most of us agree that it's more likely than not that Texas football will continue to be very good, but not necessarily elite. But Mack Brown might want to think long and hard about whether he wants his coaching finale to include another push for greatness. And if, as he says, that's what he wants to do, then making some uncomfortable changes right now seems like the prudent thing to do. Duane Akina has proven an unsuitable hire. And Greg Davis may represent too much of a comfort food for this program to jump out of its current slump.
Mack's got this program in the right position to field great teams. But turning that positioning into top market value is going to require some innovation. And I don't think that's an unfair criticism to make.
By the way, I'd like to note that if anyone's been watching Tennessee Titans games this season, you'll have to agree that succeeding with Vince Young is not simply a matter of inevitability. The Texas coaching staff deserves credit for putting together the team and scheme that it did to lead to that national title. I know it's sexy to say that the only reason Mack Brown won the national title was because of Vince Young, but it always has (and still does) struck me as a lazy argument. For all the criticism I'm happy to direct towards the UT staff right now, I can't find it in me to take anything away from the job they did in 2004-05 with Vince Young and his teammates.
Do we win a national title without Vince? Clearly not. But is it instructive to talk about a coach not winning a national title "without the help of his superstars"? Not really. If winning these things were a simple matter, we'd not have had nine national champions in the nine years since Mack Brown arrived in Austin. The BCS came to being in 1998, Mack Brown's first in Austin. In order, Tennessee, Florida State, Oklahoma, Miami, Ohio State, LSU, USC, Texas, and Florida have won the title. If Missouri and West Virginia win next week, we'll have our tenth different national champion in ten years.
Cheapening Mack Brown's national championship strikes me as a bit petty, and an unfortunate distraction from the real issues. Mack Brown deserves every bit of glory he's received for that crystal trophy.
The most instructive criticism of Mack Brown will focus on his inability to win conference championships. I have no interest in taking away what he did with Vince Young; he did that era right - winning a conference and national title. What I'm concerned about is picking up conference titles without Vince Young. That... has been a problem.
I don't understand those who want to take away from Mack's national title; I agree wholeheartedly with those who expect better Big 12 results from Mack Brown. Keeping the two separate is, in my opinion, for the best.
--PB--
34 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Learning from history
The thing which I initially failed to grasp but seems to be so evident now, is the importance of the conference title. When the BCS first arrived on the scene, I kind of thought conference titles would be useless. To be fair in using that line of thinking, look at the sweet deal Notre Dame gets for not having a conference and getting into BCS games. The perception for me was schedule some decent non-conference opponents, take care of the south and you're probably all set for a BCS spot. This year especially has awoken me to the need to dominate your conference and win your conference championships. This is the most compelling argument I hear over and over on why Texas needs to change it's culture in it's leadership. Plain and simple, you win the Big XII Title, you'll always get a date for BCS. Sure Mack has a Crystal Ball sitting on the shelf, but the lack of conference titles are a glaring hole in a pretty amazing resume. I hope Mack figures it out.
by anonyMoose on Nov 26, 2007 12:23 AM CST reply actions
things which need to change
Your defensive recruiting:
I don't care what star ranking a CB has, 5'9 is 5'9. In the day of 6'0+ WRs, a 5'9 speed demon just won't get it done.
Example: Earvin Taylor, who torched your secondary for over 100 yds receiving Friday, is 6'3, 231 lbs.
Brandon Foster is 5'9, 185.
Who do you think is going to win that matchup?
On the plus side, I would say your LB corps needs to be re-worked, but with the loss of your seniors, I think that will happen by default. That's a good thing.
I'm not sure if Akina will be demoted or fired, and I'm not sure he deserves either. Did texas defense play poorly, sometimes pathetically at times? Yes. Did you set records for school all-time defensive worsts? Yes (and that is impressive, considering that Gary Darnell used to work at texas).
But I also think you knew before the season that the secondary was going to be poor, so I don't know if you can lay all of that at Akina's feet.
What you can lay at his feet is the incessant reliance on the seniors at LB, but I'm not sure how much of that is keeping in players who know the scheme and how much of it is unfettering loyalty.
Senior LBs
It has been posted here and elsewhere that Akina wanted to start the younger LBs and was overruled by Mack (Kindle's suspension didn't help) in favor of the seniors. This frequently resulted in giving our opponent a score on their opening drive.
Frustrating
You know when I knew the A&M game was lost? It was pretty evident that when Stephen McGee ran in the touchdown that the game was over. In fact, I almost left right then because I knew we didn't stand a chance. Why? The Aggies just wanted it more. They played to win, and we played not to lose. McGee was hit by two of our defenders at the 4 yard line and a few more at the 2 yard line, and still managed to push his way into the end zone. Was his forward progress stopped at the 1? Possibly, but it wasn't called and didn't really matter. It all came out on that play - A&M was playing with everything they had, and Texas was just there.
I wandered onto this site looking for entertainment (I actually googled "fire greg davis") while avoiding studying. This season has been really frustrating, because it's clear that our team possesses the talent to be one of the best teams in the country, but they never seem prepared. As a senior, it sucks to come in riding the VY wave, win a national title, then go out on back to back losses to A&M, a loss to OU and another crappy bowl. I'll still probably road trip to the (insert non-BCS bowl name here) bowl game because it's my last opportunity, but I certainly won't be buying season tickets next year. Why should I put myself through another season of this now that I won't be in Austin?
I agree with being tired of the front office spin. I hope Mack makes some changes for the better. And after watching Bama lose to Auburn (again), do people really want Major to come home to UT? His resume isn't really looking that hot right now to me. I'd rather see him go to SMU and really win some football games before putting confidence in him at UT. I can't imagine Mack hiring him to his staff anyhow, if he's not better than sub-par Chris Simms at QB, why would he replace Greg Davis?
by loonatic on Nov 26, 2007 2:32 AM CST reply actions
You are going to be able to afford season tickets
one year out of college?
I should have studied what you did.
Looking at the rankings now
We did not beat a ranked team all year.
by goingforthecorner on Nov 26, 2007 3:06 AM CST reply actions
The last game
What did the Texas staff expect from A&M?
2004 Tx 26, A&M 13 Texas trailed at halftime 13-6. They got that lead when VY tried to reach over the goal line and A&M swatted the ball away and Jonte Buhl returned it 98 yards for a TD. A&M was ranked 22nd; tough game that defense tied with Michael Griffin blocked punt and led the way for the win (8 sacks) and the chance for the Rose Bowl date with Michigan. Seemingly forgotten that the Horns had a tough first half.
2005 Tx 40, A&M 29. McGee led Aggies in powerful effort, outplaying VY, and getting a 21-15 lead at halftime. Ground game led by jLane ate up clock. Horns rallied the second half, although the Aggies would out gain the Horns 395-336 in Vince's last regular season game. Great first half by Aggies and strong game.
2006 A&M 12, Tx 7 Half game goes whole game.
2007 A&M 38, Tx 30 Rinse and repeat.
The A&M pattern was inspired play by the whole team, good QB play, strong running game which ate up clock, and a tenacious defense that wasn't that well ranked. Just the basics. This year they passed more, but all the same elements were in play.
If A&M was a one-year anomaly, a fanatical performance and/or great luck, that's one thing, but this game was anything but an anomaly. This was so clearly a direct projection from the other games that blind man could see it. Or good men were blinded.
Or they saw it and couldn't do a damn thing about this: that if A&M could pass, especially if they could pass off play action, they could beat us like cheap pinata.
Whatever the game plan was, we were not even remotely ready for A&M - and when we realized what they were doing, we didn't adjust in any meaningful manner on either side of the ball.
Texas did not aggressive attack on either side of the ball. Their game plan stunk. Their adjustments were nil. This is the epitome of the current complaint. Hidden deep within this is not the present but the expectation for the future.
I agree with about all being said here. . .
. . .which isn't difficult since we ended the year on a negative note and about everything being said here is negative.
A week ago I was feeling good about being wrong in my end-of-the-year prediction: in the final four games--one certain loss but blowing away A&M. Well, we were looking really good for awhile, but the A&M pasting wiped out all the good stuff we had accumulated from a disappointing year. (Including, by the way, a top recruit who will be climbing out of our pocket!) Ironically, perhaps, we were seriously outcoached by a coach being canned for being a poor coach. . .that "insider newsletter" thing was just a dried cowpatty tossed onto the fire to make it a little hotter.
Coaching-wise little has really changed, but it has to if we are to excel. Fire Mack? Hell, no. He doesn't deserve that. His biggest fault is that he's predictable. Besides, there is no one better out there. (Major is far from ready. Patience, children.) And how can you fire someone batting .750-plus. No, we can't change the Coach, but the Coach, and a minion or two, does have to change.
Wasn't Missouri great? Aren't they No. 1? Isn't it largely due to their quarterback? Didn't he use to be a Texan? Is there any way in the world to keep quality from leaving Texas and going to Missouri? Kansas? Michigan? Ohio State? Oklahoma? Et.al.? Does anyone really choose to leave Texas and go to Kansas or Missouri? (Not that there's anything wrong with going to Kansas or Missouri, et.al., yada-yada-yada.)
Colt is. . .well. . .better than your average quarterback.
Jamaal should kick ass next year (sigh!), even unto being a Heisman finalist.
Speaking of next year (sigh!), with a solid bowl win to bid adieu to 2007 (a 50-50 chance), we will begin next year (sigh!) in the top twenty; the team's core will be young, experienced, and, hopefully, hungry enough to take down K-State, A&M, and most of the other powerhouses we will be facing; we will finish up in the top ten.
. . .but that's just one man's opinion.
by cabalnamedclyde on Nov 26, 2007 3:40 AM CST reply actions
Perriloux and McCoy committed
so we passed on Daniels, who probably would have come to Texas if offered initially. When Texas got word of rumors that Perriloux was wavering on his commitment, they inquired with Todd Dodge (Daniels' high school coach at Carroll) about Daniels, but Dodge said he was rock-solid for Mizzou by that point, primarily because the spread offense they were running suited his talents very well. Once again, Perriloux ruins everything he touches.
all in all, I don't think you can blame Texas for the Daniels situation, unless they knew from the get-go how bad a person Perriloux was and went for it anyway. Obviously, hindsight is 20-20, but it's not like Daniels had a million blue-chip programs beating down his door and Texas passed. OU didn't offer him, if memory serves. Missouri was his best option out of high school, not USC.
Monday press conf
Texas usually has them after A&M game when there's a Big 12 title game. Reason for press conference is for the press to start working on stories or upcoming game.
No presser in '06
'05 had Big 12 game
'04 there was none
If there IS a Big 12 title game for UT, they'll have one the following Monday (win or lose) like they did in '01 to get start on the upcoming bowl game
Maybe in the old days
I know you're right, but if you spend any amount of time on MB-TF.com these days, the landscape has clearly changed. The press conferences are as much a vehicle for communicating directly with the fans as they are prepping the press for stories. We get all sorts of fan contact throughout the year as the athletic department tries to communicate directly with fans. And it will seem odd for there to be no Monday contact this week - ESPECIALLY this week, when fans are upset.
As I said in the post: I don't blame 'em. But the alternative is, in an ideal world, preferable. Get out in front of the storm.
Right, but ...
That's why they have post-game press conferences and breakout rooms to individually grab players.
Now saying that, reporters also like to use the Monday presser as a means of asking questions that have bugged them over the last day and a half.
The presser usually starts with Mack giving tight brief from previous game and shifting focus to the upcoming week. How they'll prepare, strengths and weaknesses of upcoming team, who's still hurt, etc. It gets the reporters asking questions about upcoming game and they ventually swing it back around to the previous game. There's no upcoming game until bowl pairings are announced
I totally understand the "got to have it now technology" and upset fans. But fans aren't at these. "Unbiased," professional reporters are.
Agreed
And like I said before - you're right, there's no need for a Monday presser as there is after most weeks. At least in terms of being there for the press.
What's a bit odd, though, is that these have transformed into something MORE than just conferences for the press corps. They've turned into updates for fans. And it's going to be odd when there's silence at a time like this.
That's all I'm really getting at.
Credit for MNC
Great analysis. However, the repeated efforts to not give Mack alot of credit for the MNC are based on three things, I believe. First, it is usually given as part of a counter-argument, not out of thin air. Person A criticizes Mack. Person B attacks the criticizer, insisting Mack is an elite coach because he won the MNC. Then person A insists that was solely due to a "super hero" player. A second factor that has led to this argument is that it seems like a fluke when you have a bunch of years of not even winning the conference championship, then win a MNC, and after that certain player leaves, then go back to not even winning your conference division. A third factor in this is that VY and UT didn't start winning until, by their own admission, Mack and the coaches stopped trying to change VY's angle of release on his passes and finally let "Vince Young be Vince Young." That leads to the arguement that you can give Mack credit for being smart enough to get out of the way, but not much else that year.
Regarding spin on MB-TF
Realistically, they're not going to post things like "Texas really sucked against A&M," or "Entire fanbase demands firing of all assistant coaches," even if those things are true. If they try to put a positive spin on it, that's just because they have to post something and being overly negative on that site serves no purpose.
You're right on...
...with the importance of conference championships. The major thing that separates our program and OU right now is the number of Big XII titles won (because we can't beat them). Saturday was tough for me not only because we lost Friday, but because OU won Saturday. And their game with Okie Lite summed up the too programs. Last year we were going into a home game with our rival and just needed a win for the South title. And, well, we all know what happened. This year OU has the exact same situation and they come out and dominate from the beginning and never leave any doubt. It was frustrating because I don't understand why we couldn't/can't do that. I think those 2 games alone go to show the different state our programs are in.
better assistants
Mike Leach, Mangino, Venebel...all these guys are better than what Texas has as assistants. Stoops constantly is bringing in fresh talent to coordinate.
by Michael Bean on Nov 26, 2007 9:14 AM CST up reply actions
better offense, too.
One of my favorite stats is a simple one: total offensive yards divided by the number of TDs produced, resulting in the number of yards per TD. The same could be done for total yards defensive yards allowed and opponents TDs scored. To be definitive, special teams numbers should also be included, but in general I just use this as a guide to relative strength.
The offensive numbers really express the rate of scoring efficiency. From experience, I would expect OU to have the most efficient and quick striking offense - and they do. Except for two years (Bomar and the Un-Bomar), OU has been powerful in this regard. It could be deduced that the more effective the offense, the less pressure is put on the defense and vice versa.
I worked this up last week and have not updated for the games this weekend.
Here these stats would support sandie because not only does OU bring in talented coaches, the OU offense constantly redefines its edge.
Team Yds per TD (rounded)
- OU 77
- Kansas 85
- Mizzou 93
- TT 98
- KSU 99
- Texas 102
- OSU 108
- NU 109
- A&M 113
- CU 125
- ISU 145
- Baylor 145
The only surprise here is KSU. I did double check on that but none of the rest; didn't expect to have a direct use until this popped up.
Where does the buck stop?
I am not advocating firing Mack because I don't know there is anyone better available at this time. However, if you have a good defense and good special teams, but your offense sucks, you fire the OC. If your offense and special teams are great but your defense is poor, you replace the DC. If special team are the problem, you get rid of the special teams coach. However, if your team plays poorly and below expectations on all sides of the ball, in every aspect of the game, and furthermore all too often seems unmotivated, sluggish, and uninspired even in rivalry and revenge games, even in games where everything is on the line, then you must look at the head coach rather than say fire everyone under him but keep him.
The thing about the VY-championship offense
Absolutely Mack and GD get credit for winning the championship. I've long been a staunch defender of Mack and a periodic defender of GD. I think they deserve every bit of recognition they get for that championship and perhaps even more. They recruited Vince to Texas, they built an offense around him, and they let him make that team his own. Would Mack have won that championship without Vince? Probably not. Would Vince have won that championship without Mack and GD? I doubt that also. Sometimes, it's all about the combination of elements.
But the thing about that is: the very thing that made that combination work is that the system that Mack and GD built for Vince, and that Vince thrived in, was premised on the transfer of responsibility for offensive decision-making from the coaches to Vince.
So while you have to give credit to the coaches for developing a system in which their star player thrives and leads you to a championship, you simultaneously have to wonder whether that can ever be recreated without a player like Vince. Mack and GD have shown a propensity to micro-manage offenses in which they don't trust the QB completely (basically everyone but VY).
And seemingly most of Colt's best plays come off of improvisations when the called play breaks down. I've stated before and I'll state again now that I believe Colt is a better playmaker than he is a "system" QB. But I'm not convinced that GD and Mack will ever trust him enough to simplify the structure of the offense and transfer the responsibility for decision-making to him. And I'm also not sure that Mack/GD can ever be completely successful unless they do.
Really?
"Would Vince have won that championship without Mack and GD? I doubt that also"
What if this year's Missouri team had Vince? Or this year's Kansas. Good teams in their own right-Vince would have made them favorites to win the national title. Given the proliferation of the zone read and spread offenses, I think Vince, as unstoppable as he was toward the end of his junior year, could have won a title at any number of viable programs.
by mento on Nov 26, 2007 4:10 PM CST up reply actions
Look at the players
At the risk of swimming against a riptide of opinion with 50 pound weights on my legs, I beg to differ that the Texas season lays at the feet of the coaches. Before I get into why, I will make two concessions. One, Texas was not emotionally ready to play A&M, and that is one on the coaches, particularly Mack Brown. Two, regardless of personnel, the Texas LB's and DB's do not know how to play the defense they are playing, and that is at the feet of the defensive coaches
OK, now that you know I'm not giving the coaches a free pass, let's consider the players.
On NFL teams, with 45 players, 40% of the payroll goes to 12% of the 6 players: QB,RB,WR,LT,and CB, and DE. So let's check how UT was doing talentwise on that one for the A&M game.
QB - Colt McCoy he's tough, accurate on short-medium passes, and a good improviser, but lacks arm strength and quickly gets the yips (throwing off his back foot) and happy feet when the line is not protecting well.
RB - Jamaal Charles, no problems there - without him UT would have had no chance whatsoever in many games this year
WR - Ding, ding, ding. Limas Sweed, out. Not sure who the best UT wide receiver is, and there is no one that scares the other team. Incidentally the WR's dropped 4 passes that would have led to first downs in the A&M game.
LT - Ding ding, ding. Tony Hills - out. Chris Hall, a journeyman, recruited to play guard, in. The A&M game was never a better example of why NFL teams pay players $10 million a season for a LT. Every McCoy fumble and interception and every failed third down could be directly attributed to a consistent overwhelming rush from McCoy's blind side, which gave him the yips and happy feet from the second quarter on.
CB - a glaring weakness, despite a few big tackles from Palmer and some interceptions from Foster, all season long. UT had no choice, with its slow outside LB's and petrified deep safeties, but to give up the 8 yard out or curl pattern all season long.
DE - supposedly a strength, but Orakpo went down with a sprained knee, Jones was lost and Lamarr Houston was double-teamed, and QB's just rolled away from Lokey/Miller/Okam.
I know UT recruits came in with lots of stars attached to their names, but this year, those players were not playing at the six most important positions. The three conference losses all were to teams that could exploit those weaknesses with great wide receivers and strong pass rushers and just sitting the safeties back. In fact if Nebraska had done that in the 4th quarter, they likely would have won because Charles wouldn't have broken all those runs.
Let's face it, with injuries to Hills and Sweed, subpar players at CB and good but not scary players at WR, UT is a one trick pony (Charles).
I think the players simply weren't good enough to win more than 9 games.
Just can't agree
We can't separate the numbers from the context, although that is becoming the fashionable thing to do (to me it works much better for baseball than football). Your analysis is compelling from a theoretical standpoint, but if you watch the actual games, most of our struggles, particularly on offense, were more likely from scheming than lack of talent. And where we did lack talent, it was the coaches job to compensate for it.
First, I should say I think the defense is a bigger enigma, considering that we had a terrible secondary, terrible line-backers, and several injuries. But the scheme also sucked. So did the lack of talent create the schemes, or did the schemes make the players look even worse than they are? Neither would surprise me.
But on offense, we had enviable talent all over the place. I disagree with your take that losing Sweed was so significant. He was, in fact, our best deep threat, but the reality was that we had at least 5 excellent WR's on this roster and one helluva tight-end. And yet the coaching staff simply couldn't find an effective way to use them.
Again, if you watch the games, and ignore the numbers (like Jwill's stat about our offense being ranked 18th in scoring), then it becomes clearer that the numbers don't tell the real story. The real story is better told by the repeated failure of the offense to score in the first half each week (indicating poor gameplan), after which the team is forced into a frenzied 4th quarter comeback (which indicates that adjustments are coming too late - adjustments that most feel should have been the gameplan in the first place).
I'm basically talking about the eyeball test. Yes, Texas [eventually] put up some serious offensive numbers each week, but the storyline should really be the baffling, illogical original gameplan that forced the team into a 4th quarter frenzy. This happened not once or twice, but most of the season, and nothing changed week to week.
I just can't blame the players. Maybe this talent is only 10-2 talent, but we'll never know because the coaches lost the games before the players had the chance to.
by BrooklynHorn on Nov 26, 2007 3:20 PM CST up reply actions
Much excellent commentary
Particularly the post from PB and the notably incisive comments from billyzane and burnt in ny.
Mac and GD do deserve enormous credit for the success in the VY years but the nature of their contribution has to be kept in perspective. Burnt makes excellent points on our personnel deficiencies but does not let the coaches of the hook. I would, on balance shift a little more blame to the coaching failures because while the problems at key positions may have kept us from contending for an MNC, they need not have produced such consistent mediocraty, evident in most of the wins as well as the losses.
On a related personnel issue, Mattyj contrasts our success, or lack of such, with that of OU. Sure, Stoops is a great coach who keeps hiring new, good OCs and DCs., etc. The bottom line, however is that OU has an excellent, experienced (and young - damn it!!) O-line and a healthy Malcolm Kelly. Think for a moment where we would be with last years's line, a healthy Limas Swee AND Jamaal on his present form.
We would be...
... wondering why we still failed to control the clock at all because of the horrible game plan. Not to mention complaining about fielding a defense that would have trouble with the IM football champions. COOOOAAAACCHHIIINNNGGG!!!!
In that case...
...these would be no wondering to be done, whatsoever. The deficit would be appalingly clear cut. It wouldn't exactly take geniuses with the upgrade in personnel to squeeze out at least one more win (KSU, Colt, happy feet, 4 interceptions...).
My point relates more to the superiority of the coaching at OU (and, yeh, I risk, sounding like Bill Little by trying "to put our problems in perspective" and saying everyone else sucks so its ok that our coaches such) but lets look at OU for a moment (although we shouldn't get too sidetracked from analyzing what's wrong in Austin). Generally speaking, Sooner fans have had few complaints about their coaching staff. Stoops has alway been regarded (and compensated) as one of the best coaches in the country (in a way Mack has not) and his assistants have been highly regard. In the wake of their success at the beginning and middle of the decade they had a veritable recruiting bonanza (and to think, Adrian Peterson went to OU to win National Championships - of course Perrilloux was going to win 4 Heismans's at LSU). Still, in '05 with an inexperienced O-line and problems at QB, OU had a thoroughly mediocre season. This year, with all the talent in the world on offense and pretty good health (excpet for an encounter with a certain pirate whom we actually crushed - go figure) they've squeezed out two looses and some notably unimpressive performances, particularly at ISU. Sure, on balance they crushed OSU and beat us (although we actually showed up for that game). On balance they have generally performed better but given their level of talent AND the superiority in coaching can it not be argue that they also have underperformed.
Again, I don't deny that our coaching bears significan blame for our season and meaningful changes in some form need to be made. However, the deficiencies in personnel cannot be completely discounted.
Not accurate that MB is unwilling to make changes
I posted this in a comment to another post, but Carl Reese "resigned" as defensive coordinator after the Longhorn defense took a nosedive. Here is the story for those who forgot:
Reese resigns as Texas defensive coordinator
Jan. 6, 2004
SportsLine.com wire reports
AUSTIN, Texas -- Texas defensive coordinator Carl Reese resigned Tuesday following his sixth season and one in which the Longhorns again failed to win the Big 12 or make it to a BCS game.
The defense had been ranked in the top 10 three of the past four years but this season finished at No. 25, allowing 329.9 yards per game.
"I just felt it was in everyone's best interest for me to move on," Reese said. "I think it will be good for Mack to get some fresh blood in here with some new ideas who can help them take it to the next level."
Speculation about Reese's job began following a 65-13 loss to rival Oklahoma in October. Texas ended the season 10-3 and ranked No. 12 after a 28-20 loss to Washington State in the Holiday Bowl.
Reese, 60, had been at Texas since 1997 and said it was "the best job I've ever had."
Coach Mack Brown said he did not anticipate any further staff changes and that a search for Reese's replacement would begin immediately.
In 2002, Texas ranked 8th in scoring defense, but fell to 32nd in 2003, including giving up 65 to Oklahoma. Reese promptly "resigned."
This year, we are ranked 45th in scoring defense. I sense a "resignation" in the works.
Last, while it is fashionable to pile on GD and the offense, we rank a respectable 18th in the nation in scoring offense. There have been numerous, significant injuries on both sides of the ball, but I would say that the offense has progressed and adapted much better this season than the defense. Even against A&M, we scored 30, which should be enough to beat them.
I genuinely do not expect to see Akina left in place considering the significant deterioration of the defense during the past two seasons.
by jwill on Nov 26, 2007 1:57 PM CST reply actions
Offense rank
Needed to score a bunch of points coming from behind not only to beat the mediocre teams, but get that high in the offensive scoring rankings
Offense vs defense
"Even against A&M, we scored 30, which should be enough to beat them."
Offense didn't score until garbage time, at which point A&M was already ahead 38-17 in the 4th quarter. The first two scores came on a pick and then on a kick return.
GD put up only 7 on the Aggies last year, and then only 3 on them this year before A&M was finally far enough ahead to let up.
Offense is worse than defense.
Akina has about 35 excuses for his crummy defense, while Davis is a seasoned veteran with plenty of talent at his, uh, disposal.
Offense is worse than defense.
by BrooklynHorn on Nov 27, 2007 2:03 AM CST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
