Thoughts on GD's and DA's performance
by zamm on Nov 3, 2007 9:16 PM CDT
35 comments
I thought GD rebounded nicely. Most of the offensive problems were related to poor execution. I know nearly everyone has had it with him, but year after year the offense's numbers have always ranked among UT's best.
On the other hand, I thought Akina was abysmal today. God, how we just served up those screens and play-action throw-backs. We were lucky the OSU staff went into a shell in the 4th. I think he's in over his head at this point.
What y'all think?
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
0 recs |
35 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I said this in one of the game day threads
But it bears repeating.
I hope Dodds is feeling the pressure from the alumni and boosters to replace Davis with some fresh talent. I'd love to bring back Major, but I don't think he's making a lateral move from Bama. Still, we need to mix it up.
As for our defensive coaches, I'd like to see Akina and Mac Duff gone. We need to bring in someone ambitious with a mean streak and pay them enough to stay for more than a year or two.
by chief on Nov 3, 2007 9:21 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
You also threw in the towel...
in one of your game day threads. Dodds have a coach with a zillion year contract making a zillion dollars a year - he ain't gonna be telling Mack what to do about his assistants.
Having said that, Major would move to his alma mater in a heartbeat - are you nuts??? Would you rather work for Saban or Mack Brown???
Personally, I think Major needs a little more seasoning; if Davis decides it is time to retire, I could see Major coming in and working for a season with Davis as a co-coordinator.
by jwill on Nov 3, 2007 10:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You don't know your Major facts.
Major has always been a Bama fan. He wanted to play there, but wasn't given a scholarship.
The only way he's coming back to UT is as a head coach.
Dodds is in charge. I don't give a good god damn if he's scared of telling Mack what to do; he answers to the alumni, the boosters, the fans, and the University... not Mack Brown.
And yeah, I thought we were done in the 3rd quarter today. I'd wager that 90% of the nation did too. I don't think that makes a difference.
by chief on Nov 3, 2007 10:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Injuries on Defense
We lost a lot of players on defense before the game and during the game today. That is not an excuse for poor tackling, but it definitely hurt some.
by JohnsonUT on Nov 3, 2007 9:35 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I find it really hard
to criticize a coaching staff who was able to rally a team back to victory after being down 21 with 14 minutes left. Mack said it best in his post game comments - he has an experienced staff that has been in tough spots and they didn't panic. Contrast that to the OSU staff which puckered up when Texas started making its push. It's a good thing that we have an experienced staff who doesn't come to this website for advice or McCoy and Charles, the two heros of today's game, would have been benched. Cooler heads prevailed today.
Of the two sides of the ball, I thought the defense was weakest, but they were playing a pretty high powered offense that was going to make some yards and put up some points and they made some stops in the end when they had to.
When you consider the youth of this team and all of the injuries, and to win a game like this on the road, you have to be a stubborn fool not to give some credit to the coaching staff - including the devil-with-horns Greg Davis.
by jwill on Nov 3, 2007 9:38 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Wow
the somewhat blatantly obvious premise that we wouldn't have been down by 21 points in the first place had we a better all-around coaching staff apparently still has not dawned upon you.
My problem with the GD apologists is that they're defense is based firmly in loyalty and a sense of of what they perceive to be decency, as opposed to practical evidence.
by BrooklynHorn on Nov 4, 2007 1:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
As opposed to Davis Haters
who will blame GD for everything and discount any positives as the players making up for GD's faults.
by Wells on Nov 4, 2007 10:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sigh... oh Wells.
the difference is that there are various kinds of Davis haters. Some are snap-judgment haters, others are thoughtful Davis haters, and some are reluctant haters who want to be loyal to the team and don't want to appear to be too rash but they can see that Davis is hurting the team.
But I tend to see only one type of Davis apologist. None seems to think GD is a particularly great coordinator, they just feel that we as a community are too rough on him, and thus they overcompensate by supporting him, possibly to bring balance to this community, or possibly to appear more reasonable and therefore more credible.
But in the end, the apologists serve a counter-productive purpose. What tends to happen is the "reluctant haters" and the people on the fence, instead of weighing the evidence and coming to an accurate or useful conclusion, are morally bullied into giving Davis an eleventh or twelfth chance.
I don't think its a given that the apologists have the moral high ground. But the tone of their posts indicates how clear it is to them that they do.
by BrooklynHorn on Nov 4, 2007 8:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you see
differences in your own group, that you should be seeing in both groups, but it is easier lump all people who disagree with you into Davis apologists.
by Wells on Nov 5, 2007 8:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not really a response
so much as an accusation. You're making my point for me.
"its easier to lump all the people who disagree with you"
Most of your posts on this topic are little more than thinly masked insults. I don't doubt your intelligence, but you substitute arrogance for discourse when Greg Davis is criticized, and instead of scoring points, you prefer to talk down to people.
Your assumption that you are more reasonable about this topic is incorrect, and it alone is not enough to win you this debate. An entire year of discussing this with you has yielded me no progress in getting through your wall of self-richeousness.
by BrooklynHorn on Nov 5, 2007 10:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I have
given up with trying to reason with GD haters a long time ago, so I really don't care about winning points in a debate.
By the way, this whole comment thread started with someone making a positive comment about GD and you responding with this:
Wow
the somewhat blatantly obvious premise that we wouldn't have been down by 21 points in the first place had we a better all-around coaching staff apparently still has not dawned upon you.
My problem with the GD apologists is that they're defense is based firmly in loyalty and a sense of of what they perceive to be decency, as opposed to practical evidence.
So thinly masked insults, arrogance, talk down to people, self-richeousness. High pot, this is kettle, you are black.
by Wells on Nov 5, 2007 11:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm
I rarely talk down to people. The exceptions are when they call me out (which you are nearly the only person to have done so), or when I feel like they are not arguing a valid point so much as they are trying to push an agenda.
What ticks me off about this argument is that it has totally abstracted from the original issue. It has become about who is the bigger man.
Even at this point, when I call you out for being self-richeous and not logical, you respond by attacking my person and calling me a hypocrite.
If I may, let me sum up the great Greg Davis debate:
Most Texas fans fall into the "irrational hatred" category. The rest are divided pretty evenly into reasonable haters and Greg Davis defenders. But the defenders use the "irrational haters" as an excuse to feel like the bigger man, and that becomes the principle driving force behind their arguments. This makes for an impossible debate for those that have valid reasons for wanting Greg Davis replaced.
Further, the notion that the defenders are more reasonable is easily perpetuated because, superficially, it appears to be true. If the haters are so irrational (which most are), then it is easy to imagine the people who disagree with them in principle are more rational. But that is not really the case, and the defenders thrive off of that assumption.
My contention is that the snap-judgment haters and the apologists are both irrational, and the people who reasonably disagree with Greg Davis are correct. But it is very difficult to assert such a contention, when the opposition assumes the moral high ground and is not prepared to listen.
This very much reflects the state of political discourse in America in general. I would like for this debate to be about GD's merits as coach, but I hear very little of those, I hear only ad hominem attacks.
My original intention in responding to Jwill's post was very similar to what your intention normally is on these threads. I find the tone of most apologists to be ridiculous just as you find the tone of most haters to be ridiculous. The difference is that I fear that the majority of readers can clearly recognize that a thoughtless post about Greg Davis from a hater is easily disregarded, but I'm not as sure they are as quick to disregard the blind loyalty shown by most apologists. I think both types of posts are equally laughable, and so I am trying to bring some pull back toward other side of this debate.
You can imagine the built-in disadvantage I am facing in that it is generally assumed that defenders are more reasonable.
by BrooklynHorn on Nov 5, 2007 11:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess the problem is perception
I agree with what you say above, but I guess it just depends on which category we perceive each other as being in.
by Wells on Nov 5, 2007 11:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
After all this
you still view me as rushing to snap-judgments? Is it impossible to convince you that I have good reasons for my beliefs?
Before you give me your right-back-at-you response, you have given very little evidence to suggest that you think Davis is a great or even an above-average coordinator. I charge that your defense of Davis is mostly a reaction to the haters. In other words, your hatred of the haters defines your role in this discussion.
I would think that, at this point, the apologists would want Davis gone just so we don't have to debate this anymore. It seems shear stubbornness to want to keep what you seem to believe is a very average coordinator just to stick it to the haters.
I imagine your response might be that the haters will simply hate whomever we bring in to replace him, and in that you would probably be correct.
But even still, doesn't a reasonable person have a responsibility to form his position based on his own beliefs and not based on the beliefs of his opposition?
Come on Wells, I know there's a GD hater in there somewhere. He's been locked up a long time. Let him breathe, for gods sake, let him breathe!!!
by BrooklynHorn on Nov 5, 2007 12:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That is the thing
Ask PB, I have been saying for years that GD needs to be relieved of game day play calling duty.
I just think he has positives as well. If it were up to me, I would have brought in a Co-Coordinator to take over the game day duties, allowing Davis to concentrate on QB coaching and overall scheming/data mining.
Maybe your belief that all of the success that UT has had at QB under GD is in spite of him, not becuase of him has clouded my judgment of you.
by Wells on Nov 5, 2007 12:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I do believe that
all of of Texas' success has been in spite of him. I can only dream of what the last decade might have brought if we had anyone else but GD running our offense (something to the effect of what BurntinNy was getting at in his "doctor BON" post).
But I don't think I should be judged for that.
by BrooklynHorn on Nov 5, 2007 1:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I am not judging you
Just your ability to be rational in this one topic.
by Wells on Nov 5, 2007 1:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I am not an irrational Greg Davis defender
My defense if based simply on results. I don't judge him play-by-play, series-by-series, or even, necessarily, game-by-game. I see Davis and Mack Brown as one in the same, because Davis is Mack's guy and no amount of belly-aching by posters on this site or anyone else is going to get Mack Brown to fire Greg Davis. There is simply too much history between the two of them, including, most significantly, winning the national championship.
But, even forgetting for now the wonderous 2004 and 2005 campaigns (which the Davis haters simply dismiss as all due to VY) I must put the Davis-Brown years in the context of what came before. Now, I will not say that Davis is superior to Mackovic - I think Mackovic was a brilliant offensive coach, but not a very good long term head coach. But, I must say that Davis is vastly superior to anyone before Mackovic running our offense back to the retirement of Darrell Royal. And, I also put it in the context of our winning seasons, averaging 10 wins a season, winningest program the last ten years, yada, yada, yada. Whenever you talk about Texas Longhorn history from an offensive perspective, you have to include at the top of the discussion, Vince Young, Major Applewhite, Chris Simms, Colt McCoy, Cedric Benson, etc.
I must also put it in context of last season which might be his best performance as OC, in the way he took a redshirt freshman QB and put together a very effective offense until said QB was injured. And, just to illustrate the irrationality of the Davis haters, he gets blamed for his QB getting a stinger on a QB sneak! I've watched a lot of football and I have never seen a QB injured on a QB sneak - it is one of the safest plays in football.
So, having said all of this, if the motivation for the Davis haters is simply to vent, go ahead, vent all you want, no matter how irrational your thoughts. But you are delusional if you think that your constant bitching and moaning is going to somehow make Mack Brown wake up and decide to can Greg Davis. I don't see that happening.
by jwill on Nov 5, 2007 12:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
My original problem with your post
was that you wanted us to give credit to Davis after he called a decent game. At first glance, this seems a reasonable request.
But it is illogical to me. An extreme analogy is coming, forgive me, but imagine a criminal commits a felony 4 days in a row, and on the 5th day, he doesn't. It seems absurd to say that after 6 horribly-called games that we should be giving credit to Davis because on one particular day he didn't screw us over and actually effectively used the talent he has at his disposal. Truly absurd. I would save such assertions for when he has put together the majority of a career in which he hasn't been a liability to his team. If and when that happens, then I will gladly change my opinion about Greg Davis
But to me, to put forth such an assertion after one game among many bad games suggests loyalty. Not the worst of traits, but it doesn't do me any good as a pragmatist.
by BrooklynHorn on Nov 5, 2007 12:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Davis' zone read
While many people hated that GD stuck with this zone read option after VY, it ended up being the key in the 4th quarter of the NU game and this game.
Even without VY, it's still opening up holes for Charles, and JC has completely transformed from a total failure to a Heisman-type running back.
But of course, lots of credit also goes to McCoy's ability to gain positive yardage on designed runs and scrambles. He actually made some very nice moves to elude himself from defenders today. I couldn't believe some of the stuff he was pulling.
by goingforthecorner on Nov 3, 2007 10:22 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
He is having to improvise a lot
due to the banged-up, inexperienced offensive line and he is doing a great job.
by jwill on Nov 3, 2007 10:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wish...
I could pick Davis as my adopted kid, sometimes he looks so god damn cute trying to call plays all by himself.
the zone read isn't my favorite system, persay, actually I think the only reason VY worked so well with the system was because he is superman in disguise...or is VY disguised as Superman? Or Chuck Norris?
But I do think Charles is good in it, although I think he would be even better in a spread that utilizes his speed, but hell, who can argue with 6 tds and 470 yrds in the past 2 games.
by Romo9 on Nov 3, 2007 11:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Chiles
Not sure how much of this is GD's or Mack's decision, but while I can't complain about the offensive performance late, I'm curious why we decided to stop using Chiles permanently. Not even the occasional zone read play where Chiles runs and Colt plays WR.
And remember that the only reason why he made an appearance in the Nebraska game was because Colt got hurt.
If we end up not using Chiles at all for the remainder of the season, I might start to agree with those that were against burning Chiles' red-shirt.
by goingforthecorner on Nov 3, 2007 11:40 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think burning
his redshirt was a necessity. With Harris hurt early, I don't think there was a choice.
by zamm on Nov 4, 2007 1:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
disagree..
Since, in the game his shirt was burned was also Harris' first appearance.
If they didn't intend to do much more with Chiles (and much earlier...), they should have just left the redshirt on. In a couple of years, we may really regret the handful of plays he's been in on this year...
by agent orange on Nov 4, 2007 3:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Colt's feet
I think the thing that is (too) slowly dawning on the coaching staff is that McCoy can be an effective runner out of the zone read. While he may not have take-it-to-the-house speed, he is deceptively quick. Hence all the discussion about dance moves in the newspaper write-ups. I remember a quarterback for Air Force, Beau Morgan, who only ran a 4.6 forty but was quick and did an awesome job running the option for a run-only offense. Aside from JC's explosion the last two weeks, to me the revelation has been that Colt can be a planned runner.
We need to stop thinking about him as this fragile pocket passer who will be beat up if he tries to run. At least when he runs he can try to make the tackler miss as opposed to standing in the pocket like a pile of bread dough waiting to be pounded. I think if his threat to run could slow the pass rush, he might be less likely to be injured.
by burnt in ny on Nov 4, 2007 5:39 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't understand...
Why some people think Colt has to be able to outrun everyone on the defense to run with the ball. All he needs to be is a threat to move the chains (which he definitely is). A slow death by a white-QB at a 6 yard clip is just as frustrating to a defense as a 60 yard beating by Superman every three series. You have to account for Colt, and that's all JC needs.
by Horn Brain on Nov 4, 2007 11:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i think the difference is that you never need
to spy Colt and keep your focus on JC. I would give Colt the option to beat me with his feet any day. With a Chiles, you have to respect eachboth runners which improves the effectiveness of both. Once teams accept that Colt will run, the DE will stay home and make the tackle more times than not. With Chiles, you increase the chance that he can make a guy or 2 miss.Our passing game is below average so why not commit to the weapons that make your running game most effective. It doesnt mean you forget Colt but I think this team is an example of a situation where the 2 headed QB works.
by thanos on Nov 4, 2007 3:57 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
All you need
Is for the teams to keep their pass rushers back to protect against the run to give Colt a chance to throw without getting the s*** kicked out of him. There is no way that Colt's running does not help you, because it makes the defense change its gameplan.
I also don't understand how switching back and forth between Chiles and McCoy like some are proposing is supposed to help the running game with McCoy in there. Unless we are scrimmaging against our own defense, we aren't going to get teams to play the same defense against Colt as agaisnt Chiles, and it's not reasonable to have them both in for more than a few snaps a game. I don't think it makes sense that Nebraska started worrying about Colt because Chiles came in for one play; They worried about him because when he came back in, he ran for 24 yards. Colt makes people miss quite a bit, actually. Go watch that highlight video from OSU in the Jamaal Charles 75 yard TD run diary.
by Horn Brain on Nov 4, 2007 11:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If the DE stays home
and doesn't rush with wreckless abandon, Colt can beat him in the air. Although he hasn't been as good apasser this year as I had hoped, Chiles still needs to develop in this area.
I do think we need to use him some though, and hopefully he is being groomed in practices to be something special next season and in future seasons.
And even in the few spots he has come in... valuable experiences that give savvy (spelling?)and confidence for the future.
by SwimTexas on Nov 4, 2007 6:27 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
The way GD plans
the offense would be effective for Chiles. Short, safe routes and the occasional deep ball. Deep balls are one of the easiest throws for a young QB.
by thanos on Nov 4, 2007 6:47 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
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.
