Talkin' Texas Football: Two Down, Ten To Go (Part 1)

by PB @ BON on Sep 19, 2008 12:13 AM CDT in Football Comment 13 comments

Following up from my mid-August conversation with an equally Texas-obsessed friend in Austin, we had a long chat about Texas football. Here in Part 1: Blake Gideon’s surprising role as the secondary’s anchor… My Guys are slow out of the gates… and a reminder that Mack Brown should be focused on titles and titles alone.

SEE? I TOLD YOU SO. (SORT OF.) ((NOT REALLY.))

PB: Looking back at our earlier conversation, do you know what stands out as funny?

TS: Blake Gideon?

PB: Exactly! We both said, essentially, "I doubt he plays much this year, but, you know, I really kinda like him."

TS: Earl Thomas got all the hype, but Gideon's been the freshman godsend back there.

PB: Nothing flashy, but he clearly gets what's going on and what he's supposed to do. I can see why Muschamp went with him as a starter.

TS: I wonder if Muschamp sees some of himself in Blake.

PB: Maybe, but I'd wager Gideon's a significantly better athlete than Muschamp was when he walked on at UGA.

ALL I TOUCH TURNS TO... WELL, NOT GOLD.

TS: Probably true. Now… I'd be neglecting duty if I didn't point out that Your Guys aren't setting the world on fire yet..

PB: Ugh. You’re not kidding. I feel like I'm cursing people left and right lately. Watching the Kansas State mess tonight, I jumped in the BOTC game thread to post a quick comment that Freeman looked pretty good in the first quarter; on the next play Freeman throws a pick and the Wildcats subsequently collapse. I'm like the opposite of King Midas. Everything I tout as gold turns to crap.

TS: If you predicted a breakthrough year for VY, then this curse is official.

PB: I said nothing about VY on the record. But I did pump up Malcolm Williams, who apparently was recruited to run 3-yard routes. That may not be his fault, but when he does get the ball, he looks tentative, and that’s on him.

TS: You also built a shrine to Lamarr Houston, who's been… jailed?

PB: I did. But I stand by him, both as a young man and football player. On the former, he seems genuinely remorseful, and on the latter, well... his presence was noticeably missed in El Paso.

TS: The lack of depth at DT is the least talked about potential sinkhole of this '08 team.

PB: You’re right. I wrote in EOT 2008 that the D-Line would be a team strength up until the point when Miller or Houston was lost for any stretch of time—after which noticeably inferior players would be taking over and dragging the whole unit down.

TS: Okay, one more: your boy Huey has that starter job you were insisting he'd seize at some point. Still think it's permanent after UTEP?

PB: Now you're just being an ass. Huey's fine, UTEP gaffe aside. And in any case, we're better off with him out there making occasional mistakes now, so he can be a bull down the stretch and into '09.

WHAT SPORTS BLOGGING DOES TO YOUR BRAIN

TS: Right, right—look to ’09. Your battle call.

PB: My narrative. Big difference.

TS: I thought you wrote a great article, but where my head nods, my heart is somewhere else. There’s no way I can bury an entire season of a team with as much talent as the Longhorns have.

PB: Go read it again. The argument breaks into three parts and doesn’t require any premature throwing in of this fall’s towel:

First, the Big 12 is loaded in 2008, but should soften considerably in ’09 as a wave of stars anchoring teams peaking this season graduate or head pro (e.g. Texas Tech: Harrell and Crabtree; Missouri: Daniel and Maclin; Oklahoma: entire offensive line).

Second, Texas is in the opposite situation, with a roster that looks like it will be stronger in ’09 than this fall.

Third, given the extreme challenge of winning the Big 12 this season, doing things that will help the ’09 team makes sense, except for when: (1) Texas is still undefeated and/or has a realistic chance at a conference or national title, and (2) the action that would develop for 2009 would clearly hurt the ’08 team’s chances of staying undefeated and/or winning a title.

TS: That makes sense, though it’s too calculated for this fan.

PB: See, I don’t get that. Where Mack Brown has this program right now, the only things that matter are titles—conference and national. The difference between an 8- and 10-win season is, what?

TS: Money, a little exposure (if we’re talking a BCS Bowl), perhaps some boost with recruits.

PB: Texas certainly doesn’t need the money. Our current situation recruiting is pretty stable and not likely to change because we had a ‘down’ year at 8-4. That just leaves the exposure. To begin with, Lord knows we’re all aware that a 10-win season doesn’t guarantee a BCS Bowl berth.

TS: Well, assume that it is a BCS Bowl Texas is right in the mix for. You’re saying it’s not worth the payout and exposure?

PB: Definitely not. Don’t need the money and we’re not a program trying to get and stay on the national map. Mack Brown would be foolish to pass on chances to groom the ’09 team for a title run if that’s all we’re playing for—money and exposure from a BCS Bowl.

If Texas finds itself in very strong shape to get an at-large BCS berth, I think the best argument for sacrificing ’09 development so the ’08 team can have its best shot at a BCS bowl is actually that such a game may in fact… help the ’09 team on its title quest. Titles, TS. Titles-titles-titles. Because 10 wins and a loss to OU too often just means another San Diego vacation.

TS: Tell me you don’t watch our games like some robot calculating coldly every move as relates to this drive, this game, this season, next season, next season in a leap year…

PB: No. I’m a lunatic, bargaining with the devil for a win.

TS: Ok good. Your ’09 argument is too... analytical for football Saturday.

PB: A hazard of sports blogging: the inevitable need to create content.

TS: I forget that sometimes.

PB: You don’t blog.

TS: I’d suck at it.

PB: You really would.

TS: I will stab you.

Part 2 to follow.

0 recs | Comment 13 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I don't have anything substantive to contribute

but my focus is the same as yours. We really look like the very early favorites in the Big 12 in 2009. I also contend that titles are what matters. A ten win season just doesn’t excite me by itself.

by andy_wooster on Sep 19, 2008 1:06 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

10-2

will get us a BCS game as long as we beat ou or Missouri(or both), and launch us into 2009.

by Longhorns84 on Sep 19, 2008 3:14 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

what have you done for me lately

I disagree that an 8-4 record this year would not affect recruiting. Already pundits are lining up to declare Texas as a program in a decline, even with 10 win seasons. The line would be something like this: “It’s been three years since VY left and Texas is still just going to the Alamo Bowl (or wherever). If you are a football player, you can go to Texas, be part of a great family and "coddled” (see links from GhostofBigRoy’s post yesterday) but you won’t be playing on the big stage. VY was a lucky stroke of recruiting that Mack stumbled onto. Texas is not and never will be a consistent top 5 program because they don’t recruit nationally, don’t have any offensive imagination, can’t get their talent on the field (exhibit A, Chiles), and are owned by Bob Stoops."

Now of course there are good counter-arguments to this line, but there’s no doubt that Mack feels pressure to at least show up in the top 10 at the end of each year. I also think it matters who UT would lose to if they went 8-4. Acceptable, if painful to lose to OU and Missouri and Tech or Kansas because the game’s in Lubbock, but another loss to A&M or some freak upset to Oklahoma State, Colorado, or, gasp, Baylor (it could happen with Robert Griffin), might just send the alumni that matter reaching for the UT president’s phone number.

by burnt in ny on Sep 19, 2008 5:47 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Agree with premise

First of all, I think you are referring to Michael Silver’s article that PB posted (I might write about Mack the Enabler later today).

Secondly, I agree that who Texas loses to does matter. I don’t know if losing to the teams you mentioned would really upset the alumni enough to call for Mack Brown’s job, but the fanbase would be apoplectic or something close to it. I think the bigger issue is that this offseason was supposed to be about Mack Brown attempting to address the problems that have festered in the program since VY left. Losses to mediocre teams in the Big 12 would indicate he hasn’t been successful. What’s the next step after that? Do heads roll (Greg Davis perhaps)? How would that impact Will Muschamp and his future at Texas?

I think we can all agree that even imagining the scenarios involving losing to Baylor, A&M, or OSU, etc. is not a pleasant exercise.

by GhostofBigRoy on Sep 19, 2008 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

We'll see tonight

Re:

Everything I tout as gold turns to crap.

Baylor and Robert Griffin certainly hope not.

by BigTexBD on Sep 19, 2008 10:22 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

This is a fun, and interesting, piece . . .

but I think ANY planning for 2009 is misplaced, and will be until maybe the bowl preparation period. I firmly believe the ‘05 run never happens if the 2004 team doesn’t sweat blood to rally from 28 down againist Okie State, pull off the miracle at Kansas and battle back—w/o the injured Ced Benson—to win the Rose Bowl.

THOSE wins, accoplished by firing every weapon in the arsenal without regard to building for 2005, laid the foundation for Ohio State and USC a year later.

Winning NOW, using seniors or true freshmen or walk-ons, is the way to build for 2009.

by edsp on Sep 19, 2008 11:05 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Redshirts, playing time and building for the future

I’ll preface this by saying that it’s got to be a terribly difficult task balancing all of these needs.

However, the way we have handled the safeties seems to have no rhyme or reason. Last year we redshirted all 3 talented (not necessarily ready to play, I get that) safeties, knowing we’d have zero experience going into this year. How much better would our secondary be this year if 1 or 2 of them had gotten some game experience last year? Remember, Gideon was one of the last recruits we got a commitment from and Brewster was far from a sure thing up to signing day so it’s not like the staff knew they’d have them as playmakers in 2008 when they were deciding to RS Thomas, Wells and Scott in 2007.

This year we don’t redshirt either incoming safety, I would assume because the staff thinks they need them to win now . Can’t say I know enough to disagree. Now we have 5 safeties that are all in the same class. Four years from now, when all 5 of them leave at the same time (assuming no transfers) our depth is going to take a huge hit. I just can’t see any other incoming recruits getting any legitimate playing time with 5 established players ahead of them.

by Horncasting on Sep 19, 2008 11:32 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

This is a great point,

and the only explanation I can come up with is that with the seniors at safety last year, the staff felt playing freshmen only sporadically would just be a wasted season.

But I think the current situation is WIDELY separated from the decision-making that went into last year.

Remember, the staff has changed (notably the coordinator). My instinct tells me the 2007 staff had in mind a safety rotation this fall of Ishie and one of the cornerbacks, who would have trained at safety last spring. Injury KO’d the first of these, the staff change the second. And the need to play five and even six DBs at the same time is another product of the staff change.

Having five safeties in the same class is wasteful. I can’t imagine that one of the backups won’t leave in January. Muschkamp/Akina need to be really creative down the stretch if they’re going to prevent Wells or Scott from bailing.

by edsp on Sep 19, 2008 11:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

Good points on why it all happened the way it did.

the only explanation I can come up with is that with the seniors at safety last year, the staff felt playing freshmen only sporadically would just be a wasted season.

In general I would agree with this philosophy, but in this specific case it really didn’t make much sense since we really only had 3 healthy safeties most of the year. Plus, they basically wasted Curtis Brown’s redshirt and he played even less than sporadically (and we had more depth at CB than S last year and this year).

In the end, if we really start playing more 4-2-5, then it may turn out to be the right move. If not I guess it’s possible one of the safeties, maybe Brewster, move to OLB.

by Horncasting on Sep 19, 2008 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't recall

where I heard it and don’t care to research it, but the talk that Brewster was going to move to linebacker was shot down by Mack Brown at some point recently. He said he would stay at safety, but I imagine the coaching staff could be forced re-evaluate that at any time if there are injuries or ineffectiveness.

by GhostofBigRoy on Sep 19, 2008 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i'd expect

that Brewster gets onto the training table diet and Mad Dog’s lifting and stuff and bulks up 10-15 lbs. Then, and esp. after ‘09 when Sergio, Muck and Norton are gone, he’d be a good bet to become OLB.

I checked on one of the recent signing classes, mighta been 2006, and every player but one gained weight — often 25 lbs. or more — from August check-in date to the following spring. The exception was a kicker.

by edsp on Sep 19, 2008 2:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not a huge revelation, but take Mack's comments with a huge grain of salt

On signing day he specifically said DJ Monroe would play CB and Ryan Roberson would play TB and FB.

by Horncasting on Sep 19, 2008 2:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No need for a grain of salt

Mack has been very adamant that he will allow a player to choose where they want to play and then, if they just don’t fit, the player might be moved. It’s one of the things that Mack does to keep players happy and I think it’s noble and I also don’t find it to be a detriment to the team. That’s inarguable. It’s why Chiles is still a quarterback, even though he doesn’t seem to have much of a future at Texas playing quarterback. Monroe wanted to play offense, personally making that decision and after his performance in the all-star game, which was ridiculous, I’m sure the coaches didn’t have a problem with it. Roberson knew there wasn’t any chance he would play running back, so he voluntarily made the decision to switch to defense, where there is much less depth at linebacker, as edsp points out. Smart decision by Roberson.

by GhostofBigRoy on Sep 19, 2008 3:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs