Whither the Offense? A Review
I thought Big Roy did an excellent job last Friday of framing five big questions facing the Texas offense this season. However, since Texas proceeded to thump so handily Florida Atlantic, with Colt McCoy in his Saturday best, there's been a remarkable pacification of what had been a relatively freaked out fanbase, at least where the offense was concerned. While I count myself among the pleased with regards to Saturday's offensive showing, I keep coming back to the thought that almost all the same questions fueling the preseason panic have to be considered unresolved against Florida Atlantic.
Let's revisit each:
1. Will the offensive discover its identity before Colorado?
I think the best one could say is 'maybe,' pointing to Colt's phenomenal night as the cornerstone of a very efficient offense which gobbles up what the defense is giving them. Maybe. The truth is, Florida Atlantic was so badly outmatched that McCoy and his offensive line just did what they wanted to. That's indisputably a good thing, but what's the offense's identity against good defenses? I don't feel comfortable saying I know.
My esteemed whills gave it a shot in a comment earlier this evening, though:
Developing...With McGee in the 4.3 range and an inside runner, and Fozzy on the outside with comparable speed, I think we’re gonna see some long TDs. That’s just a hell of a threat in both places. And that doesn’t count the wide-outs.
I’m no longer worrying about having a game breaker now; we have several. I like consistent offense but we have some serious threats most everywhere. As we get more efficient – esp. with OL blocking – these will pan out quite well. We’re just discovering our goodies…
Is it possible the picture whills paints will come to be? Certainly. However, it's much more a prediction of what he thinks we can become than a statement of what we are. However pleased I may be with Saturday's showing, I think this particular question has to be considered as yet unresolved.

2. Will a deep [WR] threat emerge?
Texas tight end Blaine Irby led the team in receptions (7) and yards receiving (62) and McCoy finished averaging 7.65 yards per attempt. Jordan Shipley had a solid game with 53 yards on 4 catches, but he wasn't exactly the deep threat this question is after. There's still a lot of potential among this Texas wide receiver core, but nothing approximating an established deep threat. Take a look at McCoy's eight full drives on the game:
P = PASS / U P = UNDERNEATH PASS / R = RUSH
Only 6 of 57 plays went for over 15 yards, and of those just 3 through the air (Ogbonnaya 30, Shipley 31, Irby 17).
3. How much will the Q Package be used and how?
Texas didn't get carried away with the Q Package Saturday (a good thing), and I actually liked some of the different looks Davis gave the defense by using Chiles in ways we've not seen before. The jury's still out as to whether Texas can translate the package into tangible gain, but I'm encouraged that the operating philosophy is sound. We'll see.
4. Run-heavy or pass-heavy? Physicality or finesse?
Texas finished with 46 rushes and 35 pass attempts; take away some of the rushing attempts as McCoy scampers on pass players and the distribution was about even. I expect much of the same all year. As for power vs. finesse, I don't know that either description leaps out as appropriate just yet. Texas' offensive line did a very nice job against inferior foes, and should only get better as the year goes on, so if we had to choose, especially given the ongoing search for big play game breakers, it looks like power.
5. Good Colt or Bad Colt?
Finally, an easy one. Demolishing FAU isn't anything to get too carried away with, but I was impressed with the way Colt got it done. He stepped into all his throws, and when he ran, I thought he did so purposefully. I know some don't like the way he'll abandon the pocket prematurely at times, but if he's picking up big yardage for Texas as a rusher--as he was Saturday--that actually helps our offense quite a bit, I think.
CONCLUSIONS?
The main point of this exercise was not to diminish what Texas accomplished on offense Saturday--they were mostly excellent--but to highlight that it's still far too soon to forget about these big questions, which may not matter against FAU but will as competition stiffens.
0 recs |
32 comments
Comments
Q package
First of all I just wanted to say that you and the other bloggers/posters do a great job on this site.
Regarding the Q package – historically it seems we’ve heard quite a few great things from the staff about new things that are looking terrific in practice. A few we use against the patsies and the rest we supposedly shelve in order to not tip our hand. Problem is, it seems like we never really show the rest of the packages or any of the other new wrinkles when conference play starts (although last years OU game was a nice exception).
I’d really like the coaches to go ahead and use the full arsenal of the Q package now, so they can either feel comfortable with it and use it when it matters, know that there are still bugs and can tweak it by the time it matters, or know it is a failure and shelve it and move on. I’m just not sure Davis and Brown really ever gets to one of those places from just what they see in practice.
by Horncasting on
Sep 3, 2008 9:34 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I really hope the Q-package is just getting its trial runs these first few weeks, and that the staff is saving the blow-your-socks-off employment of that offensive set for when the team really needs it.
When preparing a new offensive set, make it look so-so and still a little bit vanilla. Save it for a rainy day. Don’t give CU, OU, Mizzou, and Kansas any more film on how you plan to maximize the new set’s success than is absolutely necessary.
—Sun Tzu
by burntorangehorn on
Sep 3, 2008 10:27 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
McGee
I’d be shocked if McGee ran under a 4.5 with pads on, never mind in the 4.3 range. That’s Jamaal Charles speed. Has Vondrell ever given any indication that he’s that fast in a game situation? He did have that long touchdown against ASU, but he’s never looked like he’s in Jamaal’s league to me.
by andy_wooster on
Sep 3, 2008 9:44 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I definitely don’t think McGee is a 4.3 player. There might be a very small handful (usually no more than 3-4) of NFL draft prospects who end up running 4.30 or faster, and not that many “inside runner” types who run from 4.31 – 4.39. It’s very chic to say a receiver has 4.2, 4.3, or even just 4.4 speed, but the overwhelming majority of receivers at the BCS level, even in elite programs, run 4.45 or slower when timed correctly (that is, electronically, not with a sympathetic coach’s stopwatch). I won’t get too far into the faulty method of timing 40s by allowing the runner to self-start rather than start on command (gun, signal, etc.), but McGee would probably run between 4.50 and 4.65 right now if timed electronically with a self-start. Whitaker might have a shot at a 4.40 – 4.45, and I don’t think more than two or three running backs in the country right now would run faster than 4.40.
All that said, NO ONE, not even a big back like Ronnie Brown was, would run a 4.3 in full pads, and definitely not smaller backs like Jamaal Charles. The fact is that some guys decrease in performance slightly more or less than others when wearing pads, and usually the ones who experience less speed loss in pads are the bigger guys. In my opinion, drills and measurables (40, vertical, standing long jump, etc.) should be done in pads. Scouting is an inexact science, but would be a little less inexact if this were done.
Today, when referring to college players who’ve never been officially timed, “4.3” and “4.4” are mostly euphamisms for “4.5.”
by burntorangehorn on
Sep 3, 2008 10:23 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
This was not from my speculation
Mack Brown, Aug. 25 press conference:
On Vondrell McGee: He’s powerful. He’s 209 pounds and he runs a 4.3.
On the team’s speed: We’re a fast team. The people that are saying we don’t have enough speed, that’s not true. Quan [Cosby] is better than a 4.5, Jordan Shipley was 4.4 in camp, Vondrell McGee ran 4.3 in camp, those guys are all real fast. I’m not saying we don’t have good players, I’m just saying they’re not all Ricky Williams and they’re not all Roy Williams, not everybody is a Shaun Rogers and a Casey Hampton, and everybody thinks we’ve got 44 of those. We don’t. They’re the best of the best, and that’s why they’re still playing.
This statement was virtually overlooked by everyone. Mack was talking present tense, as of camp. No methodology was revealed, so that is open to speculation. You can debate whether timed speed is relevant to field speed.
The case mentioned before in the comments on another thread was with Jerry Rice, who ran a 4.6 coming out of college. However, at 49ers camp he keep outrunning people allegedly much faster DBs. So the coach called things to a halt and ran timed 40s in uniform. Rice ran a 4.6. The DBs and safeties in question were the same speed or slower. Rice’s timed speed didn’t change.
So, you can debate how much difference a uniform makes. I don’t think it made much dif on VY or for typically shorter, stronger backs like Vondrell, 5-10, 209. Shipley, perhaps. Quan was once consistently below 4.29 when he was young, but baseball doesn’t emphasize speed work and age and muscularity have probably slowed him down. Last, these are good relative times for reference as to who is faster right now.
And the general question is how much faster are RBs, WRs and DBs today, where even mid-level teams have good speed all around? And last, we’re talking about a step or two between JC and McGee; the real difference is acceleration and actually time to top speed. JC had great acceleration and shifted gears so smoothly that it usually wasn’t obvious. So did VY, sideways. So there are various dynamics to speed, even if they may track near the same time in the end. Usiah Bolt has incredible mid-race acceleration which those long legs get to pumping, not great for football, but wonderful for sprints if matched with a good start.
by whills on
Sep 3, 2008 4:51 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Just for perspective
Only 4 running backs ran faster than a 4.40 at the NFL combine last year. The slowest of those 4 was J. Charles at 4.38. If McGee and Charles were to race over that distance, I’m guessing it wouldn’t be close.
Big picture – Mack, like every other coach, media outlet and recruiting service always embellishes the 40 times of players.
by Horncasting on
Sep 3, 2008 5:53 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yes
I read that when Mack said it, and I disagreed with him then. If Mack is correct, then this would be a case of track speed not translating to the football field. Regardless of what McGee’s 40 time actually is, my contention is that he’s not a homerun threat. He’s a solid, grinding back that hits the hole hard and can break tackles, but he isn’t a “gamebreaker” in the mold of Joe McKnight, Jamaal Charles, Reggie Bush, etc.
by andy_wooster on
Sep 3, 2008 7:22 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
In the FAU game at least
Colt abandoned the pocket so early because FAU was dropping everyone into coverage and leaving the field wide open for Colt to run. Could he have stood in there forever and found someone to throw to? Maybe. But he definitely could pick up 15 yards just about every time he took off, so why not? Take what they give you and force FAU to adjust.
Last year, of course, Colt had happy feet constantly as a result of the bad O-line. But I don’t think the FAU performance is necessarily a continuation of that problem.
by billyzane on
Sep 3, 2008 10:10 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Take what they give you.
Mack in the presser talked about how Colt is doing a better job of running when they drop back into coverage, or passing if they come up to meet him when he breaks the pocket.
If they keep dropping back, Im fine with 9ypc and over 100 yards for Colt. Those were a lot easier earned runs then I remember last year against OkState.
by BoddickerIsClutch on
Sep 3, 2008 10:22 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
re: scrambling
Last year, of course, Colt had happy feet constantly as a result of the bad O-line. But I don’t think the FAU performance is necessarily a continuation of that problem.
Nor is the FAU game necessarily a sign that the problem has been eliminated. Time will tell on this issue, but I worry more about his tendency to always flush right and attempt to run around pressure rather than stepping up to avoid it.
by Jason Mayer on
Sep 3, 2008 11:32 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yep, CU, OU, MU will all pick that up
just like a right handed point guard that can’t go to his left. They’ll shadow the outlet run. By then GD should have come up with an antidote, so you’d think.
by whills on
Sep 3, 2008 4:54 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Spreading the field vs deep threat
So much is said about the need for a deep threat and though the vertical game is a necessity for many offenses, I’m not sure if it is for this particular offense. While vertical passing attacks try to spread the field lengthwise with a strong armed QB, the Horm’s are intent on spreading the field horizonally in a box that starts at the line of scrimmage and extends between 5 and 15 yards. This is designed to take advantage of Colt’s accuracy and his ability to move and find the open receivers in space. Once the defense is spread across the field, Colt has open lanes to run in and he has time to find open receivers who break off of their route or drag across the field.
I don’t think we’ll see Colt take too many shotslonger than 25 yards because its just not necessary with this offense. GD loves to send speedy RBs on wheel route to pull DBs or LBs off of the line and as much as fans hate the screens they have the ability to gain big yards in the best case while still providing some positive yards in the worst case.
Mack’s definition of explosive plays is 12 yards or more, which hardly qualifies as a deep threat WR. Instead, the big play ability probably going to come from the running game (Fozzy, McGee, Johnson and McCoy) slicing up defenses once they become overly concerned with Colt’s passing ability. However, once defenses cheat up we’ll see some passing over the top to keep them honest.
by BMG on
Sep 3, 2008 11:19 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I think you have a sound argument
But as I mentioned:
Much of the 2006 offensive success was built on go routes to Limas Sweed after big turnovers. OU and Nebraska quickly spring to mind. The Longhorns pounced quickly on defenses still shocked by the quick change.
For the most part, I think the offense will revolve around the short passing game, which, as you say, takes advantage of Colt’s best asset as a passer, his accuracy. There are times in the game, particularly after quick changes, when I think the offense could really improve by having that deep threat, in order to catch the defense before they are entally ready o be on the field.
by GhostofBigRoy on
Sep 3, 2008 11:46 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Glad
several of you pointed out the idiocy of the quoted 40-yard dash speeds. If McGee is a 4.3, I can do 4.7 at an AARP age. Likewise, McCoy is no 4.5. The Fonz we don’t know about. Anyway, there’s 40 speed and football speed and they’re not the same thing.
My concern with McCoy running is the injury factor. Good defenses are gonna figure out how to cover the WRs and force the QB to run, as they did in the option days when the defense’s best chance of success was to force the QB to keep the ball and then head-hunt him.
If there is no other choice, the QB needs to keep it. VY showed that when USC stuffed the RBs, did a solid job on the WRs and finally — in the fourth quarter — started denying the TE (David Thomas) the ball. Vince had to run. There was nothing else open. But that was Superman, and that was late in the national championship game.
I have a real concern about McCoy’s ability to throw even a reasonably deep ball. I love him as a runner but I’d prefer he spend off hours in study hall, not the training room.
by edsp on
Sep 3, 2008 11:44 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I'd probably stop well short of
using the term “idiocy” when discussing 40 times. Perhaps erroneous or “mythical stopwatch related voodoo” are more apt descriptors. Mcgee was a 4.54 guy according to Scout coming out of high school, which seems relatively accurate (though probably a tad low, given the reputation of scouting services) and likely hasn’t gotten much faster.
As to the real big play threats in the offense, I think we’ll know a lot more when this team has to play from behind. A ball control based euthanasia is downright pleasurable against the Sun Belt all stars, but against real competition (re: OU, Missouri, Tech) there is legitimate chance that we’ll have to come from behind and score points in a hurry. Then we’ll separate those players with “track speed” from the difference makers, as you suggest.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on
Sep 3, 2008 1:12 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
See citations above, edsp. Argue with Mack, not me.
I should have included those in the original post, but I presumed that everyone had read all of Mack’s pressers. I’ll try not to presume so much about your informational basis in the future.
by whills on
Sep 3, 2008 4:58 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Colt
He’s not a 4.5 guy, but he’s very shifty as a runner and he’s faster than people think. I think Mack said he was a roughly a 4.7 guy as a redshirt freshmen, which isn’t bad at all for a QB.
Colt throws a better deep ball than people give him credit for. He doesn’t have a rocket arm, but really, how many times does the QB need to chunk the ball 50 yards through the air. Colt can throw a thirty yard ball just fine and I think he can hit 40 yards reasonably well. If I recall, Colt threw the deep ball to Sweed fairly well his freshmen season.
Personally, it seems we have more of a quick team than a fast team. As much as we may hate it, it may be better this season for us to hit quick, high percentage routes and let our receivers, TE’s, and runningbacks gain a few more yards after the catch, and obviously this would include much more than the oft-talked about bubble screen. I’m not saying we’re slow by any means; we certainly have players capable of breaking free if given space, but we simply don’t have anyone like Sweed or Charles that can simply run past defenses (at least, good ones) on a whim. If I’m wrong on this, I won’t mind one bit, but that’s just what I see at the moment. Our big plays will most likely come because we consistently gain 5-6 yards per play and the defense cheats up and gives us an opportunity. Sudden explosions when the offense is stagnant like JC against Nebraska and OK-state is not likely.
by TheElusiveShadow on
Sep 3, 2008 2:09 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Silver Lining
I think we can all agree that there remains a lot to see from this bunch, and the jury’s still out on a regular home run hitter emerging. But of all the years, I think the lack of a field stretcher may actually be a good thing this season. With TT and Mizzou’s ability to put points up quickly well documented, and OU touting a new no-huddle offense this year, we are going to have to control the clock and use our offense to keep their offenses off the field. I’ll be interested to see the T.O.P. stat in those 3 games and if/how it affects the outcome.
by Horndogger on
Sep 3, 2008 3:59 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
4.3 forty?
Sure, and AJ Abrams is 5’11’’ .
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you're a mile away AND you have their shoes.
by Caradoc on
Sep 3, 2008 11:59 PM CDT
reply
actions
1 recs
vince young
ran a 4.58 for the NFL scouts. Colt McCoy does NOT run a 4.5. Mack may say that he does, but he does not.
by billyzane on
Sep 4, 2008 10:38 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
colt
i’m not sure where in the 4.5 range he runs (high or low) - but it’s a 4.5 something. he ran a 4.5 four years ago and he’s only gotten stronger since then.
by dallas alley on
Sep 4, 2008 10:46 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Timed by whom?
The coaches? Football coaches usually aren’t all that worried about getting accurate times, and often times they’ll exaggerate 40yd. times, verticals, squat max, or bench max as much as they do player sizes in the team program.
In addition to my other sports ventures, I also ran track all the way from 6th grade through my senior year of college, and I continue with semi-pro track today. I’ve run close to a thousand races. I’ve also coached and participated heavily in organizing high school and intercollegiate track meets. At many of the larger meets I organized, I have joined 23 other (total of 24, for you math majors) people to time 8 athletes per heat in such races as the 100m, 200m, 110m hurdles, etc. as redundant timers in case the electronic systems failed.
Now, many times we had speedy football players competing in our track meets, especially in the 100m and 200m. Inevitably several coaches from the football team would come over and hand-time their players to see how their off-season speedwork was progressing. In almost every case, the football coaches griped at us because our electronic times and stopwatch times were often more than 1/10th of a second slower than what all the coaches had timed. One guy whose name you might recognize, Terrence Newman, was timed by a couple of K-State coaches who were recruiting him out of Salina Central, and they thought he’d run under 10 seconds in the 100m dash. Two of the three coaches had him at 9.96 and 9.99, and the other had him at a more reasonable 10.2, as I recall. I might be slightly off on those numbers, as it was about a decade ago, but they’re very close. He actually ran just under 10.40, I believe, which is still a fantastic time that rather impressively won the race finals, but is nowhere near the Olympic-quality time the football coaches had clocked.
My point? Football coaches with stopwatches are often very sympathetic to their players’ 40 times.
by burntorangehorn on
Sep 4, 2008 11:32 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Agreeing with burntorangehorn, folks without dedicated track/race experience tend to make several small errors when timing, i.e. anticipating the start/finish, not sighting down the finish line, using the thumb instead of the forefinger on a stopwatch, one stopwatch for several times etc. These may or may not be intentional, but they can create a substantial margin of error between the actual time and the “football coaches time”.
It gets worse because football coaches often use 40 times a shorthand/reference point, and may base something like “Vondrell McGee is a 4.3. guy” on something as simple as him outrunning a known 4.3-4.4 guy (hypothetically Chiles or C. Brown). In a 40, when all players are fresh, McGee may get smoked, but that single sprint when the players are in full pad and tired sticks in the coaches mind. As Whills notes above, in that situation the case is more likely that they’re all 4.6 guys. But football coaches are often optimists when speaking of their own talent.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on
Sep 4, 2008 2:01 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
re: timing error..
..i’ve never timed track, but i have timed swimming, and i know they tell you not to listen to the horn b/c it’s a “little” compared to the strobe light hooked up. So, this might account for the coaches being fast/slow on the starts.
by vy til i die on
Sep 5, 2008 10:57 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
colt
point taken — either way, Colt is faster than most people realize. he is such and athlete. forget how good he is at QB — you should have seen him play basketball at Jim Ned. Scary good. He could’ve played D1 basketball, but his heart has always been with football.
by dallas alley on
Sep 4, 2008 5:12 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
colt
p.s. I would love to get an “official” time now to check colt’s 40 yard speed and take bets on the outcome. I think I could win some $…
by dallas alley on
Sep 4, 2008 5:20 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Colt's speed
He’s much faster than most people seem to think. I know Chiles ran a 4.38 (or something) at a UT camp, but I think Colt is faster with pads on.
Yeah, I said it. Bam.
by andy_wooster on
Sep 4, 2008 11:17 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Dallas Alley, if you can get Colt to agree to it, I can probably scrounge some electronic timing equipment. When it comes to standardization, would you prefer he have a self-start or signaled start?
I’ll bet up to $1000, plus the loser pays the winner’s travel expenses. I’d be flying in from Maryland.
by burntorangehorn on
Sep 5, 2008 9:24 AM CDT
reply
actions
1 recs
burntorangehorn, what are we betting on? that colt can clock somewhere between a 4.50 and a 4.59? I would take that bet.
The problem is colt can’t sneeze without half the University of Texas’ facutly’s approval. I know Mack would never go for this. But I’ll check with Colt’s dad and see if we could do this after the season.
by dallas alley on
Sep 5, 2008 11:39 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs













