Can't Change? Or Won't?
by Peter Bean on Nov 26, 2007 5:30 PM CST
in Football
57 comments
Last night right at 11:30, Scipio Tex at Barking Carnival and I threw up posts on our respective sites. As it turned out, there was a good bit of overlap to portions of our posts. Scipio, arguing that the oft-heard "Mack Brown is a good CEO" line is a gross mischaracterization, had this to say:
Mack does one of those things well (bringing different camps together) and the rest horridly. He ricochets between micromanagement and absentee delegation (The classic Hersey S1/S4 managerial swing), hires within a narrow comfort zone of yes-men, can’t bear to make the tough call, indulges nepotism in himself and his staff, has skin as thin as onion paper, evidences shoddy results in grooming others, stifles staff dissent and necessary creative tension, and values tenure over talent.
These aren’t the hallmarks of an effective senior manager. Unless you’re a Ken Lay devotee.
(I encourage you to read the entire post, which is excellent.)
Meanwhile, I was posting about the apparent comfort level Mack Brown's slipped into, and why it might not be serving him well:
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.
Where our posts diverge is in the final framing of the big issue: where I suggest Mack Brown may well be capable of making adjustments that help cure much of which ails him, Scipio's conclusion suggests that such a transformation is not within Mack's capabilities at all.
Talking about all this meta stuff can get tiresome very quickly, but if ever there were a time for it, surely it's now, at the close of a disappointing season that reflected glaring systemic weaknesses. And I think there's a very real divide among Texas fans about those systemic problems: some believe they're not only a reflection of Mack Brown's weaknesses, but that the chatter about systemic change is in large part a waste of time. That is, Mack isn't capable of making the requisite changes.
The other segment of the fanbase remains hopeful that meaningful change is within Mack Brown's grasp. I'd guess that the motivations for this optimism are myriad (ranging from his national title, to his sincerity as a man, all the way to needing a coping mechanism for one's sports fandom), but the fact remains that there are a lot of us who don't want to believe that Texas football is confined to good-not-great for the rest of Mack's tenure.
Can we say that there's a right or wrong way to look at this? I'd argue that it's a little too soon to pen in ink the story of Mack's final seasons at Texas, but I think almost everyone agrees - on both sides - that Mack's track record lends itself to skeptical viewing. Though his accomplishments are many, the systemic weaknesses we've all been talking about have more or less come to define his reputation.
For now, we're each left to choose what we want to believe about the future at Texas under Mack Brown. Me? I think the Hallmark Card in me wants to believe that this year's struggles might lead Mack Brown to make the sort of evaluation - self and otherwise - with which he's heretofore been uncomfortable. Is that naive? I dunno; I'm not exactly counting on it, and you won't find me among the suprised if Texas football has plateaued. I know as well as anyone that people rarely change at the fundamental level - generally, we are who we are.
And yet, it does happen. I recently finished editing a book of interviews from a Washington D.C.-based radio program and I'll never forget listening to and editing the interview with former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. By the end of the interview he was crying softly as he talked about the lessons he'd learned since the Vietnam War. The one thing that stood out above all else in that interview was that, with age and experience, McNamara had fundamentally changed. More than that, there had come a distinct moment in time where he made a conscious decision that doing so was necessary.
His legacy and Mack Brown's are two completely different beasts, but like the heart attack victim who decides to eat well and exercise, the convict who renounces violence and finds religion, or the workaholic father who finally decides to prioritize his family, there do exist transformational moments in a man's life and career that can profoundly affect how he conducts his business.
Is the disappointment of this season the kind of low point that might prompt Mack Brown to make a similar self-evaluation? Maybe, maybe not, but hey - sometimes life delivers a Hallmark ending.
Keep hope alive!
--PB--
0 recs |
57 comments
Email
Print
Comments
first, a little historical context....
Royal was before my time, so I can't go there. Akers seemed OK, but I was a kid at the time.
I was a student at UT during the McWilliams era, and thankfully we're not nearly that bad. I also wouldn't want to go back to the Mackovic era.
The Brown tenure is still a work-in-progress, but I don't think anyone can question the talent level has improved, the product is selling, the money is pouring in, the stadium is being expanded, etc.
The question is: is it good enough?
by brentmcd on Nov 26, 2007 6:11 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
then, measures of success....
I acknowledge that our mindset as alumni and fans likely differs from the real decision-makers who are undoubtedly more concerned with image and marketing (dollars). Having said that, here are my criteria for success for UT football (in order, more or less):
Win rivalry games -- these include (in decreasing priority) A&M, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and other former Southwest Conference foes. I'm not saying the team must win every rivalry game, but we should win more than half and at least be competitive in all of them. If the team can't get up for a rivalry game, then there is a big problem.
Project a good image. This is probably what the bigwigs are most concerned about and where Mack scores well. However, criminal incidents like we saw last summer hurt. Unfortunately the image Board of Regents types desire could very well be quite different from the image a fan or an 18 year-old prospective player wants to see. For the stuffed shirts and DeLoss Dodds of the world, Mack is probably ideal -- a father figure spouting platitudes and cliches. Hardcore fans and competitive athletes would probably rather see a Les Miles, Bob Stoops, Bob Knight, or even Dennis Erickson. No matter what you think of these coaches individually, you must admit that they bring a very different deameanor to the table than Mack does.
Recruit well. Again, a Mack strong suit, although one could argue he should be doing even better. For example, a team assembled from all the Texas high school players who have left the state in the past decade would be eye-opening indeed (and if I had more time I would put it together). I acknowledge that players have always gone out-of-state, but I for one thought Mack would have kept more elite guys at home. And after the National Title year, Texas had an opportunity to go nationwide and cherry-pick athletes from around the country (see USC). For better or worse, Mack stuck with the in-state program.
Win championships. Obviously, this isn't going to happen every year. Injuries are a huge issue. Scheduling is important. Other schools have up and down seasons. But all things considered, Texas should be able to compete for the Big-XII conference title every year. Win that, and if you're lucky, the National Title can be within reach.
To a certain extent, these criteria are interrelated. I'm sure I'm forgetting some things, but this is off the top of my head. I did not intend this post to be a criticism of Mack Brown, although it could have easily veered into that territory. Perhaps others can add their criteria and/or grade Mack on meeting these....
by brentmcd on Nov 26, 2007 6:47 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Recruiting
This again. I wonder, what IS the Mack Brown recruiting pitch?
by Caradoc on Nov 26, 2007 10:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Les miles
Is basically an asshole version of Mack Brown. I have lots of friends who are LSU fans and they're about as happy with him as most of us are with Mack. Some of them are really hoping he takes the Michigan job because they can do better.
by SaintBevo on Nov 27, 2007 8:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Rather see Les Miles and Bob Stoops?
Really? If either of those coaches get hired by UT, I would be a letter writing irrational coach hating fan until they were fired, no matter what they achieved on the field.
Bob Knight on the other hand, I respect and think is a great coach, but I don't know how well he would make the transition from basketball to football.
by Wells on Nov 27, 2007 8:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the ol ball coach
would be a great fit at Texas.
by Texas Our Texas on Nov 27, 2007 9:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That would be interesting
Not that I would chose him over Mack Brown right now, but if a change were made, I could see that.
Austin golf is really getting a lot of national recognition right now.
by Wells on Nov 28, 2007 9:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Perspective
First of all, Scipio is dead wrong on most counts.
"hires within a narrow comfort zone of yes-men, can’t bear to make the tough call, indulges nepotism in himself and his staff"
That's pure bunk. He canned Carl Reese, who had been his DC for seven years and brought in Robinson (with whom he had no prior connection) and Tomey and turned the defense over to them to revamp to great success. That's not hiring yes-men, or staying within a comfort zone, or failing to make a tough call. Then, when Robinson left, he brought in another high-profile, upwardly mobile DC. And now, I predict, in the same mold (not as some new revamped personality) he will determine that Akina is not the man to restore the defense to where it needs to be and will bring someone new in from outside to shake things up (just as he did when Reese "retired."
Also, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if someone new isn't brought in to compliment Davis on offense - I could see Major coming in as QB coach for a year or two to season until GD retires. If I were him, I would do it to get away from Saban.
Now,for a little perspective:
- Which programs have been better than Texas the past 10 years? Simply put, the past ten years have been the most successful in Texas football history and one of the most successful programs in the country.
- MB recruited and coached players who were good enough to beat quite possibly one of the best college football teams of all time to win the national championship. Face it folks, the 2005 team was one of the best teams of all time (No. 3 on Billingley's list of 200 best) and MB recruited it and he and his assistant coaches coached it. Case closed, give the man a break! Scipio has him puttering around like Ken Lay, clueless to what is happening around him.
- LSU - Les Miles - need I say more?
- Penn State, Florida State, Tennessee - ????
- Saying that MB isn't that great of a coach because he won the MNC only because he had VY and a strong supporting cast of players is not a convincing argument. Of course he had great players - otherwise, he wouldn't have won. Vince friggin Lombardi wouldn't win a MNC without extremely talented players. Greg Popovich wouldn't have won 4 titles without Tim Duncan - but does that mean he can never be considered a great coach? You can't penalize a coach who wins by saying he only won because he had great players.
by jwill on Nov 26, 2007 9:48 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Only problem...
Face it folks, the 2005 team was one of the best teams of all time (No. 3 on Billingley's list of 200 best)
I completely agree that that team was dominant to a degree that we may not see again until we are very old, but you don't use Billingsley to prove it. Not around here, anyway. Believe me, Billingsley is the mayor of crazyville.
by Horn Brain on Nov 26, 2007 10:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I know the list is controversial...
But I don't mind the ranking one bit.
by jwill on Nov 26, 2007 10:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think
I think the point that's worth latching onto is that Mack doesn't do several things well that good managers need to do. It's the same stuff we've talked about here: the kind of success we want from Mack Brown requires him to make decisions he's not been comfortable making.
I'm among those who think Mack Brown rescued Texas football from a really dark era of mediocrity and am grateful for what he's done. I also think he's at a point where he's got to do some things he's not been comfortable doing. I think that's fair to say.
by Peter Bean on Nov 26, 2007 10:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Nobody is comfortable firing their friends
Only an evil, Sabanite would relish firing his friends. How could he be "comfortable" doing that.
by jwill on Nov 26, 2007 10:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not about relishing it
The point is that a good manager does what he has to do. Separating business from friendships is part of the job. You're not paid $3m per year to protect buddies.
by Peter Bean on Nov 26, 2007 10:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And all I am saying is wait and see
He let Reese go when Reese needed to go - and we started the march to the 2004-05 seasons. Why so little faith that he won't stir things up again? He certainly is not going to talk about it in a press conference two or three days after losing to A&M.
by jwill on Nov 26, 2007 10:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The point
I think the point is that Brown won with VY by NOT coaching. He put his OC on the sideline and let Vince run his high school offense.
by Caradoc on Nov 26, 2007 10:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I dont agree
It is not like they just stopped teaching how to block, catch, make reads, run routes, etc. They created an offense that allowed Vince to use his talents to the fullest, which is something that it seems the greatly esteemed Norm Chow is unable to do.
Do the Colt's coaches NOT coach because they allow Manning to make the calls at the line of scrimmage?
by Wells on Nov 27, 2007 8:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Vince was the OC in 2005
Come on, Davis was up in the booth eating a hot dog and drinking beer during the entire 2005 season. I admit, it was excellent coaching on his part to do nothing.
The problem is, he did something before Vince, and he is doing something again after Vince. That leads to 9-3 regular seaons, not beating a single ranked opponent, and having an offense that would be complimented by calling it lackluster.
I would bet all my dollars that unless another Vince comes along, or unless OU sinks off of the face of the earth, we will not win another conference (much less national) title as long as GD is our OC.
by Texas Our Texas on Nov 27, 2007 9:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So Vince
actually coach each skill position, drew up the plays in the huddle and called out the blocking schemes for each play. Man that is incredible. I bet he even called the defensive plays as well, no wonder Gene Chizik left, without Vince, he was exposed.
by Wells on Nov 28, 2007 9:03 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
this is good
I saw this joke online and i just had to post it.
Little David was in his 5th grade class when the teacher asked the children what their fathers did for a living. All the typical answers came up -- fireman, policeman, salesman, etc... David was being uncharacteristically quiet and so the teacher asked him about his father.
"My father's an exotic dancer in a gay cabaret and takes off all his clothes in front of other men. Sometimes, if the offer's really good, he'll go out to the alley with some guy and make love with him for money."
The teacher, obviously shaken by this statement, hurriedly set the other children to work on some coloring, and took Little David aside to ask him, "Is that really true about your father?"
"No," said David, "He coaches at the University of Oklahoma , but I was too embarrassed to say that in front of the other kids."
by Hook'em13 on Nov 26, 2007 10:50 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Great. Now VY was designing the offense...
and calling the plays. He was probably drawing the passing routes on his hand in the huddle (like we used to do in our front yard games). "Okay, Limas, you run just past the pom pom girl, then do a hard right." He was also probably calling the defense too.
And, sorry PB, I think you are going overboard on this Mack is not a good manager thing - that is exactly his strength - managing the aspects of this program to be one of the best in the nation. He is never going to criticize his staff or players in the media or let us peek inside - that is not his style and I appreciate that. But, 2004-05 showed us that Mack understands exactly what it takes to win a national championship - and we would be foolish to think that he is not willing to do what it takes again - unless we all think that he just doesn't care if he wins another one or not - and I, for one, don't think he is to that point.
by jwill on Nov 26, 2007 10:51 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Well
My point, if you read my post, was that I'm holding hope that the changes he needs to make are forthcoming. But I don't blame those who are skeptical. Mack's got some bad habits that he has not kicked. I know it's hard to criticize a coach who's done so much for this program, but that's big business. Mack's getting paid $3 million per year; the standard's gonna be high.
by Peter Bean on Nov 26, 2007 10:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Jwill
I have looked at most of your posts the last couple of days and I seem to agree with the theme of most all of them. However, I don't think PB has taken this to his too far with his questions and suppositions. Whereas you (jwill) are sure that Mack will make the necessary changes (and I am too), PB is not so sure, but wants to think Mack will do so... he is just not convinced it will happen, but hopes it will. I say to that, "Fair enough"... the very fresh disappointments of this season naturally lead to skepticism of this sort.
PB, If I am mischaracterizing or oversimplifying what you are saying , please forgive me.
That being said I am of the same mind jwill is... Mack will make the changes, and he will not publicly embarass anyone like Akina as he does it, and I think that is admirable as well. Good managers don't rip on anyone in public, they do it quietly behind closed doors. They allow others to retain their dignity in a difficult situations. That fits with Mack's character, and its a great trait.
Frankly, I think Akina probably knows he's messed up big. Unless there is something we don't know about or have not seen evidence of, for the performance of the defense this year, Akina will not be the DC next year.
by HornsFan87 on Nov 27, 2007 2:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Your sarcastic comment is not far from the truth
VY - just like Major - called audibles or otherwise improvised on an incredibly large percentage of plays. Go back and watch the tapes.
When they changed the calls, that's when good things happened. GD may set up a decent scheme, but his game-time play-calling SUX. When did the team win? When uber-smart or freakishly talented QBs could take over, question GD's calls and change them.
No offense, but did you watch Texas football pre-VY? Frankly, most of the folks who like GD seem to be those who jumped on the bandwagon the year of or year prior to the National Championship. They don't see the mirror image of frustrating, lousy play-calling that seems to ignore the individual talents on the field that happened both before and after Vince. For many of us who have been watching UT football much longer, we have a longer frame of reference for comparison. Our patience with GD has worn thin - or disappeared.
by EddieTheAlbinoSquirrel on Nov 27, 2007 12:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Audibles at the line of scrimage
doesn't mean that the QB is questioning the calls that were made. I would say that it is actually indicative of a QB who has bought into the system and know it well enough that the coach allows him to change to play to what he reads on the field.
Wouldn't any scheme benefit from uber-smart or freakishly talented QBs?
by Wells on Nov 27, 2007 8:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
QBs under Greg Davis
Fact: Every quarterback we've had has noticeably regressed under Greg Davis. Every single one. Yes, I'm including VY. I don't know if it's bad teaching, lack of confidence, coddling, overcomplicated schemes, poor blocking, bad receivers, or what. Even almighty Vince didn't really improve as a passer at Texas. Go back and watch the tapes. He bailed us out over and over again scrambling and ad-libbing. I think the best example is Simms who had all the talent in the world, but definitely got worse under Davis's tutelage. Quarterbacks should improve over the college careers. This does not happen at Texas.
Name one Texas QB who has starred in the NFL. There are none. (BTW, the jury is still very much out on Vince's success as a pro.) Why is that? QB is the most important position on the field. Why can't Texas recruit and develop quality QBs? Why did Ryan Mallett go to Michigan? Think about it.
by brentmcd on Nov 27, 2007 11:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Mallett went to Michigan
when Texas did not initially make him the offer of being the number 1 QB in his recruiting class.
Year PASSING GP Effic Cmp-Att-Int Pct Yds TD Lng Avg/G
2005 Young, Vince 13 163.95 212-325-10 65.2 3036 26 75 233.5
2004 Young, Vince 12 128.37 148-250-11 59.2 1849 12 49 154.1
2003 Young, Vince 12 130.64 84-143-7 58.7 1155 6 67 96.2
Funny, my facts show improvement, and your opinions you claim as facts don't actually have any facts in them.
by Wells on Nov 27, 2007 11:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Re:
Why, I am thinking about it! Why the hell did Ryan Mallett go to Michigan? After all, Lloyd Carr's track record is as follows: Chad Henne (the ultimate four-year starter whose fans hate with a passion, a la Erik Ainge), John Navarre (Chad Henne-lite), Drew Henson (the all-everything guy who Carr couldn't convince to give up baseball), Tom Brady (the one "QB who has starred in the NFL," only Carr didn't even want him to start, preferring Henson), Brian Griese (who somehow won a National Championship and made the Pro Bowl; yes, this is the same Brian Griese who now can't beat out Sexy Rex Grossman), and the forgettable Scott Dreisbach (Carr's first QB).
In fact, that sounds a lot like Texas:
Major Applewhite : Tom Brady (albeit Brady had a little more NFL success, but they had fairly similar college careers)
Chris Simms : Drew Henson (5 stars doesn't always equal great production)
Vince Young : Brian Griese (great college careers, leading to National Championships, both developed quite well)
Colt McCoy : Henne/Navarre (I'm seeing Colt's future as a much maligned, mostly productive, never great four year starter)
Chance Mock : Scott Dreisbach (whatever)
So this isn't perfect, but it's something to think about. Thank you for your time.
by jc25 on Nov 27, 2007 11:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Henne and Colt
Didn't Henne also have a huge freshman season, and then the next year not live up to the huge expectations?
by Wells on Nov 27, 2007 12:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
WHAT??!!
"Even almighty Vince didn't really improve as a passer at Texas. Go back and watch the tapes. "
What are you smoking? Vince basically couldn't pass - at all - when he first played. "Go back and watch the tapes." His senior year, he led the nation in passing effenciency. VY will probably never be the pure passer that other QBs are, but he did improve, every year, under GD. Wells' post displays that nicely in statistic form.
This one things drives me crazy about all of the GD hate - and I'm not a GD fan either - how can we pound on him for sticking with the zone-read with colt who doesn't fit the system and give him no credit AT ALL for trashing our old pro-set offense to suit VY's talents. It makes no sense.
by SaintBevo on Nov 27, 2007 12:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
have to disagree
VY progressed a ton while at Texas, in this case the stats do show it all. As a junior he made MUCH better reads in the defense and especially progressed as a passer.
by Hook'em13 on Nov 27, 2007 5:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, Eddie, I watched Longhorn football pre-VY
I watched it during Fred Akers and David McWilliams - when we didn't even know what a forward pass was.
by jwill on Nov 27, 2007 2:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
does anybody know
if mack did his Monday morning press conference? I cant find it on his site.
by Hook'em13 on Nov 26, 2007 10:55 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I guess.....
I was just a year early in pointing out what had become obvious to this Longhorn fan. I'm glad you fella's are beginning to catch up.
Disruptive, hard-nosed defenses are not built in a coddling environment. Notice we lost 2 DCs in 3 years, as they promptly caught the first train out of town. Mack's meddling must come to an abrupt end, or this program is destined for things I don't want to discuss.
by HornChamps on Nov 27, 2007 1:40 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
To be fair
Robinson and Chizik didn't exactly leave to manage B&Bs - they left to be head coaches! Saying that they "caught the first train ourt of town" is a little disingenious.
by SaintBevo on Nov 27, 2007 8:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That was a good one - manage B&B's - HA!
by jwill on Nov 27, 2007 2:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
if chizik had actually caught the first train
out of town, he would have been gone after the 2005 season with his personal 20+ game winning streak in tow. instead, he came back for another season. that doesn't reek of anyone driving anyone else off.
And when we hired Chizik it was well known that he wanted to take a head coaching job in the near future. He was using the Texas DC position as a springboard to a HC job because he saw that the opportunity for such a subsequent job was great after the departures of both Robinson and Tomey for HC jobs. It's not like when Chizik left Auburn to take the same position at Texas. That's a slap in the face to Auburn. He left to be a head coach, which was his well-publicized goal all along.
I'm not saying that Mack's clubhouse environment is ideal for developing defenses (i'm not sure the clubhouse environment matters at all, actually, but I'm not sure because I never played), but I think it's a bit unfair to use these three guys leaving their jobs as assistants to be head coaches as evidence of some systemic problem with Mack that drives good talent away from him.
by billyzane on Nov 27, 2007 11:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Re:
This is actually a good idea: let's put Duane Akina on the first train to State U, get him a head coaching job, and chalk it up to yet another successful springboard stint as Texas defensive coordinator. Gold medals all around!
I was wondering where you had been HC; this would seem like the perfect time for you to bring up your talking points about dissent and disgust for our coaching staff. The masses are ready and willing to listen.
by jc25 on Nov 27, 2007 11:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
When you...
by HornChamps on Dec 3, 2007 12:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Mack's group hug
This is an excellent point. Mack's family, feel-good atmosphere is at odds with a game where the object is to intimidate, dominate, and basically kick-ass on your opponent. Especially on defense. The only teams that have played smash-mouth football were Vince's teams. Once VY left, we reverted to Mack's affable, squishy style of competition.
Where do you think ABC got that "friendly rivalry" crap? Straight from Mack, that's where. I understand trying to sympathize with A&M after their bonfire fell over, but that was years ago and it's time to rekindle the hatred. Ever listen to their yells? Mack, quit trying to play nice with the enemy. Football is war.
by brentmcd on Nov 27, 2007 11:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Football is not war.
It's a game. Let's be clear about that.
by billyzane on Nov 27, 2007 11:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I bet you are one of those
liberal pot smoking hippies, with that kind of attitude.
by Wells on Nov 27, 2007 11:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
and THAT
is the Mack Brown coaching philosophy that gets us whooped by A&M, OU, and any other ranked team we play. It's the, "lets all hug and be friends" strategy that makes our teams soft. Fortunately, Vince had enough balls of his own to drown out the sissy shit, get everyone fired up, and win us an MCN!
by Texas Our Texas on Nov 27, 2007 9:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
"Sissy shit"?
By all means, feel free to tell the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan that what they're doing over there is roughly equivalent to playing a football game - that when one of their friends gets killed, it's just like our running back getting tackled - and that if they think differently, they're sissies. Be my guest. I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.
And as for whether having your priorities so out of what that you think like that helps you win football games, I'd like to point you to USC. Carroll's well-known as running one of the most laid-back, fun programs in the country. How have they been doing over the last 5 years, LawDog? I haven't been paying enough attention, what with the "war" between Texas and Oklahoma senselessly claiming so many young peoples' lives...
by billyzane on Nov 28, 2007 7:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wake up, would you please?
Clearly you need to take a step back, and join us in the real world. You need a serious dose of reality if you feel the need to bring our troops fighting overseas into a conversation about football. When you used the word "war" in your original post, there was no part of me that thought you meant that literally, comparing football to engaging enemies in defense of this country is just silly. I certainly was not comparing football to actual war; rather it was you, in your second post pulling that out of thin air. The first half of your post is so incomprehensible that it didn’t deserve a response from me, but I will not have someone like you sit there and accuse me of disrespecting our troops.
Back to football: in your reference to Carroll and USC, you claim that I implied that a program can either be "fun & laid-back" or "tough," but not both. I did not say that, and I did not intend to imply that. Look at the Longhorns 2005 season: Mack had his rap in his IPod, he was dancing, and whatever else. The team was having fun, and they were laid back. Anyone who watched those games also saw that the team was tough. I think this was largely due to motivation (i.e., getting "fired up"). I also think that the current failures are due to a lack of motivation. Our team is not fired up. They are not hungry for a win, and it shows in their play. DKR famously said "only angry people win football games," and that sums up what I was saying earlier. I interpreted your original statement of, "Football is not war" not to be a literal statement (as it is a truism, and therefore, does not need to be uttered), but rather to mean that a coach needs to go into the locker room and say, "We shouldn’t be angry at our opponents. We need to tell our team to just go out there, and have fun. Win or lose, you are all winners in my book!" That may have worked in 5th grade football, but that isn’t going to get a team ready to face OU or A&M. A team can have fun, and a team can relax, but on game day, they need to take the field with the goal of dominating their opponents. That also can’t be the attitude when players make mistakes, in practice, or on the field. If someone screws up, they need to know they screwed up, and the problem needs to be rectified. Clapping ones hands vigorously and saying "good job! Don’t worry about it," is not motivation to not screw up again.
by Texas Our Texas on Nov 28, 2007 2:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not the one
who brought "war" into a conversation about football. brentmcd did when he succinctly stated, and I quote, "Football is war." I replied that it was not in fact war, but rather a game. Perhaps I should have said "sport" rather than "game" so as to avoid the confusion with, in your view, the femininity of "games" [see, e.g. "the sissy shit"].
I made this distinction not to suggest that Texas should just go out there and have fun and then "everybody's a winner, yay!" but rather to point out the absurdity of comparing a game - pardon me LawDog (you masculine man you), a "sport" - to the act of making war. I thought my point was clear because I said specifically what I meant and nothing else to imply otherwise. However, you then proceeded to call this distinction "sissy shit," which in turn led me to reply that, in fact, I believe I am simultaneously right and not a sissy, and that if you still disagree, you should perhaps take your case to someone who might know a little something about war so you two can share notes. You know, compare and contrast and what not.
I say all this now not because I believe you to be incompetent and in need of explanation, but rather because in your post immediately preceding this one that I am currently making, you proved yourself as such. I believed you smart enough to read and pick up the context clues inherent in what you are reading. You went to law school, after all, it seems. So did I! Surely we shouldn't misunderstand each other this much. But alas, you have failed to follow the clues and thus I felt the need to spell them out to you in this post so that we don't have to go through this yet again in the future.
As a matter of making things right, I do indeed apologize for implying that you had disrespected the jobs American troops are doing. Seeing as I was very specifically speaking of "war" in the sense that to compare football to war is to lose sight of the importance and cost of war, and I felt that I made that abundantly clear, and your response was, "You're a sissy for thinking it's not just like war," you can certainly see where I got confused. My apologies again for besmirching your undoubtedly fine character.
All the best, BZ
by billyzane on Nov 28, 2007 3:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Awestruck by your words
You’re right: I should have mentioned the fact that it seemed obvious that any reasonable person reading brentmcd’s post would have not taken it literally. Assuming you were a reasonable person (which you have made clear that you are not), I took your comment to again, not literally mean war, but rather what I said it was: a sissy attitude toward football. I couldn’t imagine someone who is a big enough tight-ass to take the comment about war literally, and then I read your post and was proven wrong.
More importantly, my original "sissy shit" post was made completely in jest. It was not meant to be a personal attack, but like I said earlier, you clearly aren’t astute enough to pick up on that. Just in case you need an example of a personal attack, how about your no-holds-barred: "pardon me LawDog (you masculine man you)." I love that razor-sharp wit that you must have picked up while going to law school (didn’t know University of Phoenix Online had a JD program now, but congrats). Just to clarify, the inspiration for that name came from the movie Tombstone when Ike Clanton referred to Wyatt Earp as "law dog" several times in a drunken rant. I thought that part of the movie was kind of funny, so I picked that when I signed up. It has nothing to do with law school. You might have missed Tombstone while you were filming one your manly movies Mr. Billy Zane. Perhaps Titanic? Imaginary Grace? Susan’s Plan?
I say all of this now not because I believe you to be a jackass who is full of shit, but rather because in your post immediately preceding this one that I am currently making, you proved yourself as such. I believed you a decent enough person to distinguish between friendly discussion about football and inappropriate personal attacks, but alas, you have failed to show that you have even the most attenuated connection to decency.
As a matter of accepting your apology, I accept. I am glad that if there is at least one thing we can agree on, it is ensuring that we do not disrespect our troop or belittle the sacrifices they make for us.
Have a great day, LD
by Texas Our Texas on Nov 28, 2007 5:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
glad we had this chat.
oh, and it was NYU, not University of Phoenix online. But approximately the same admission standards, so you're close.
okay, with that aside, let's stop being dicks to each other.........now.
by billyzane on Nov 28, 2007 6:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
2007
graduated in May. working at a firm in nyc now.
by billyzane on Nov 28, 2007 10:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Barely out of diapers...
...huh? 2000 for me, though still working at the same firm.
by duras on Nov 29, 2007 9:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
McNamara crying
Old men cry a lot. It is basically because their male hormone levels drop a bunch as they get older and they get more womanly. Don't read too much into an old man crying.
by Kafka on Nov 27, 2007 11:10 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Burnt Orange Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
