In (sort of) defense of Greg Davis

by edsp on Oct 21, 2009 11:10 AM CDT Comment 44 comments

On Sunday, I commented briefly on one aspect of PB’s terrific Texas-OU wrapup. His post centered on Greg Davis’ failings; I responded, “My view on Greg Davis’ performance is somewhat different than yours.” PB answered (well, kind of challenged) with, “Look forward to your take on GD.”

With that background, anything I say about Davis is certain to be looked at as a defense of the oft-criticized offensive coordinator. That’s not my intent. But I do feel that too many of us are looking at the half-empty side of Davis’ performance – and specifically his play-calling. This is an attempt at taking the half-full side. Does Davis frustrate me? Sure. Absolutely. I cuss him (or the play he just called). I throw (foam rubber) bricks at the TV when one of his calls results in a drive-killing abortion of a play.

But I see a bigger picture to the issue of “Davis’ play-calling.” There are two ways to look at it: (1) An overall view of UT’s offense, and (2) the specific calls and decisions made in Saturday’s (it still feels good) win over OU and other recent games. The first of these is worth an in-depth post; if another deep-thinker doesn’t beat me to the topic, I’ll deal with it in a week or two. As to the second . . . Like you, I cringed when the Longhorns lined up in a five-wide set on third-and-short situations against the Sooners. We can all agree (maybe even the coach nobody criticizes since 41-38) that those were bad decisions. As to the rest . . . Please look after the jump.

The short pass is the bread and butter of the offense. Has been since Florida Atlantic in 2008. Texas hasn’t employed a run-oriented offense since Jamaal Charles’ last game. In only one season (2007) since Cedric Benson’s last game can UT’s offense be described as run-first. We’ve adopted the “We Are Texas” mantra this season. Well . . . what we are is a passing team. Short to intermediate length passes aimed at a variety of receivers running quick routes. Often, there’s no true tight end on the field. Sometimes, there’s no running back next to Colt McCoy. Davis’ game plan for OU reflected that. This was the time to change, to become run-oriented or try deeper passes? Against OU? I figured Texas’ biggest concern would be achieving ANY rushing success against the Sooners’ terrific front four, and linebackers generally regarded as better at stopping the run than pursuing and tackling in space. Taking the game beyond them seemed like a good plan .

Any play will be successful if it’s executed properly. Many (most) of the first-half plays against OU were not well executed. Repeating: They were not well executed. Blockers whiffed or failed in their 1-on-1 matchups. Receivers (you know which ones) didn’t get open. The one receiver proven capable of getting open was so blanketed that his roommate couldn’t see him. And, as McCoy said postgame, OU came with blitzes he’d never seen. Two points here: You can’t blame the Sooners for going all-in to stop the short passing game with kamikaze blitzes and tight initial coverage on the receivers. And you can’t blame UT’s coaches (Davis, if you prefer) for going largely with the same plays that have produced an 18-1 record over the last 1½ seasons. Regardless, you gotta execute. That means block, achieve separation from DBs, make the right reads. Everybody failed there. The everybody includes Davis. But it includes way more players/coaches than just Davis.

Any play-caller makes his decisions within certain parameters. For example, you don’t run a bunch of dive plays if you’re down 20 just before halftime. To counter OU’s pass rush, Davis could have inserted a top-notch blocker at running back to buy McCoy some extra time. But Chris Ogbonnaya used up his eligibility last year. Davis could have replaced tight end Greg Smith with a better receiver. But David Thomas isn’t a Longhorn these days. My point is that when there’s no complete tight end, no real blocking option among the running back stable, you’re limited in what plays will work. You can call ‘em (as Davis did), but their chances of working aren’t real high. And there was McCoy’s physical status. We learned later he was not 100 percent healthy leading up to the game. Then, he ripped his thumb on a helmet so badly that he wouldn’t let reporters see it two days later. Might this have impacted the execution of some plays? Which plays were called?

Davis is paid the big bucks to adjust on the fly. Again, we can all agree this isn’t achieved rapidly or efficiently. Poor starts are more than a nuisance; they’re part of the DNA of this team. (And, lest we forget, last year’s.) But adjustments ARE made. Usually at halftime. That’s soon enough. The misdirection plays, the greater emphasis on running the ball, the substitution of Marquise Goodwin for John Chiles, are among the adjustments Davis (or the staff) made in-game.

Davis’ play-calling on Saturday wasn’t of the jaw-dropping, where’d-that-come-from variety. In a tight, defense-dominated game, you might have wished for something unexpected. Why take silly gambles when the LAST THING you want to do is take the game out of the hands of your defense? If your defense (and special teams) can win the game for you, let ‘em. Help ‘em out. Don’t get in the way.

Give me a moment here to adjust my suit of armor, and fire your best shots. I’m a man. I’m (sadly) well over 40. I can take it.

All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.

0 recs | Comment 44 comments | Add comment

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Nice writeup, edsp.

For what it’s worth, while I cannot defend GD’s playcalling, I think he is a fine coach in many other respects. I’d love to have him as a QB coach instead of OC. And for as much as we’ve all bashed him in these parts, I think the adjustments to the depth chart, and hopefully the ensuing schematic changes indicated by those adjustments, should lead to a much improved offensive performance against MIzzou. Hell, just being able to use the whole playbook now that the OU game is out of the way is a huge bonus.

I also think that Mack and GD are building this team as the season goes on. They’ve tried to ease the youngsters in, and we are just starting to see that working. My guess is that this offense should start to gel and really get it’s identity over the next two weeks. If we can, at any point, approximate last year’s offensive production, with this defense, there’s not a team in the country that can hang.

by ctex80 on Oct 21, 2009 11:22 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Holy run-ons! Sorry. /nt whills.

by ctex80 on Oct 21, 2009 11:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice post

I agree on almost everything you said. After all, none of my teams ever had a OC that I loved EVERYONE of his calls.

There is a reason Davis has been the OC this long, he is a smart football mind. He is also a great teacher of the game.

Now if the questionable play calling continues now that there is no reason to hold anything back since we beat OU, then I will jump back on the GREG DAVIS SUCKS bandwagon, but much like my opinion on ranking (if you are undefeated you should be ahead of 1 loss teams because WINNING IS EVERYTHING) Until GD’s play calling costs us a game he gets a pass.

"Texas Till I Die"

by Texas4Life on Oct 21, 2009 11:43 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

So all of the games he's cost us in previous years don't count?

I never understand the amnesia of Texas fans. Its as if I’m stuck in an episode of the Twlilight Zone in which every September, people are surprised at how bad of an OC Greg Daivs is, as if they haven’t been watching the exact same thing for 11 seasons.

And to say no coordinator gets EVERY call right is a ridiculous sentiment. Nobody expects every call to be a good one, but I have never seen an OC with worse instincts regarding which play to call in what situation than GD. Ever. Anywhere. Period.

And he won’t change a bit this year either, and next September, everyone will have the same amnesia, asking why wasn’t the running scheme changed in the offseason, why are we calling these plays, etc. ARGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!! The bane of my existence!. This cycle is so old!

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 21, 2009 1:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Which recent games did GD cost us?

Tech 2008?
A&M 2007?
OU 2007?
K State 2007?
A&M 2006?
K State 2006?
tOSU 2006?

or are you talking about pre-2005?

by BMG on Oct 21, 2009 4:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would say

Easily both A&M games. There’s no question in my mind those losses came by way of a baffling, stagnant offense and an inability to score (and against a horrible defense). An argument can be made for tOSU (while tOSU was the better team, GD was AWFUL in that one, the offensive players looked confused and handcuffed on every play) and and an argument could be made for Tech. Tech was understandable, but consider that the defense held Tech below their averages, while the offense suffered GD’s patented slow start and predictable playcalling, much the way they have these past two weeks, but in that case the hole was just dug too deep.

Neither K-state game, nor OU 2007 were particularly Davis’ fault, each of which I was relatively fine with. Its almost become that, because a loss caused by GD is so hard to swallow (as its practically a voluntary loss), whenever we do lose for other reasons its almost a relief.

But yes, there were several more egregious examples before 2005.

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 21, 2009 4:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

my point

Tech 2008 – Considering we had this game won with 6 seconds to go its tough to pin entirely on the offensive coordinator. To me this game was a confluence of things (1) really, really poor execution in the first half, (2) lots of dropped and tipped balls including a pick-6, (3) both Quan and Orakpo getting hurt, (4) a miraculous play by Crabtree. The offense got its act together late and gave us a chance.

A&M 2007 – I think the team came out completely flat for this game which was the entire staff’s fault. Obviously Chizik’s interviewing for a head coaching gig didn’t help matters. The offense was anemic and failed to execute.

Ohio State 2006 – McCoy’s 2nd game as a starter. You can’t fault GD and Mack conservative approach.

The rest of the losses post 2005 (K-State x2, A&M, OU) were due to a horrendous defense, giving up big plays in special teams, or the effects of Colt’s injury.

Prior to 2004, GD was on my hit list because we seemed to routinely underperform with the talent we had and the offense played uninspired in big games. However, I think the midpoint of the 2004 season — when the coaches had their great awakening with VY — turned the corner for Mack and GD on offense.

by BMG on Oct 21, 2009 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is why I think VY saved his job

They had an “Awakening” and let Vince be Vince. His greatness kept drives alive even when the play calling was bland and predictable.

I think if we did not have VY, Greg Davis would have been on the hot seat and gone by 2006.

Think we have won many more games “in spite of” not “Because of” GD.

"A lot of people look for the easy way to do anything, in swimming there is no easy way." - Eddie Reese

by SwimTexas on Oct 21, 2009 5:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

your right GD would have probably been on the hot seat

But VY did his thing we succeeded. Something changed with regard to Texas because we have not regressed after the VY era. VY was certainly the catalyst, he taught Mack to loosen up and he showed up what having a QB and guys with character who could inspire their teammates could do to the team.

by BMG on Oct 22, 2009 1:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like how you put ...

the most unarguable example in the “obviously not his fault” category. Uh, the score of the 2006 A&M game was 12-7. We didn’t lose because we gave up big plays. Do you even know what you’re talking about?

Between the 06 and 07 games, GD produced 1 touchdown in some 6-7 consecutive quarters against the Aggies. The Aggies. Who have no defense. And almost no fight in them. Ridiculous. Those losses were clearly GD’s doing.

And you can’t keep telling me that GD almost digs himself out of the very holes that he unnecessarily digs and expect to persuade me that he’s earned his position here, as you are essentially doing with your Tech analysis . “The offense got its act together late and gave us a chance.” Equally ridiculous. As if they weren’t the unit that put us in that position in the first place.

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 21, 2009 11:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

2006 Aggie game

I was at that game. That loss was due to Colt’s shoulder. It was the game he shouldn’t have started. And yes, the defense played a hand in that one. A&M controlled the clock in the 4th quarter because we couldn’t get their offense off the field. They had a 7 or 8 minute drive and we got the ball back with very little time.

So basically your argument is that 1 or possibly 2 losses in that 5 years were GD’s fault. I’ll be nice and give you 2 losses. So less than 1/3rd (28%)of the losses were his fault by my calculations. The rest of those losses were either caused by an injured QB or a really bad defense. Yet, GD is the scapegoat. Isn’t that a little ridiculous?

by BMG on Oct 22, 2009 9:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And how many games has he won over that period.

Muschamp admits last year’s OU is one.

by billb on Oct 22, 2009 10:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wow

I swear to freakin god I’m in the Twilight Zone.

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 22, 2009 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So you're basically saying

that we should continue to staff an unnecessarily risky liability because it only bites us in the ass every once in a while (although it frequently ALMOST bites us in that ass).

That’s like saying I’m going to fire mortar rounds at my house from 1000 yards away FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON. And this isn’t completely, utterly stupid at all, because, although It nearly hits my house all the time, it actually hits it only once a year. So stop complaining about it. Look at all the times it doesn’t hit my house.

Again, backward and ridiculous.

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 22, 2009 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know he's not perfect.

but first, I’ll take a known commodity whose offense consistently ranks in the top 10 or 20% and has evolved since 2005 while accepting the fact that he is sometimes overly conservative. We’ve shown that if you team a good defense with a GD offense you can win the Big 12 and compete for a national championship and not to mention he recruits QBs pretty freakin’ well. After suffering through Chizik’s second season and the MacDuff/Akina debacle we have Muschamp and look where we are.

Secondly, you are completely ignoring the fact that over 70% of our losses by your admission in agreeing with me were due to our DEFENSE.

Lasty, your analogy is simply silly. The ridiculous premise has absolutely nothing to do with football. Its as if you took to most extreme, one sided situation you could think of and said “hey look here, having GD is like dropping an atomic bomb on a maternity ward. See? I win.”

by BMG on Oct 22, 2009 1:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

My point is that

GD’s failings are very public, and seem to me to be self-evident and nearly unarguable. In other words, out in the open, all of the visible evidence (ie: his gameday scheming and his playcalling) points toward his shortcomings The support for Davis tends to come from odd nuances about the OC position; so some say he develops QB’s quite well, or others will argue that it is really Mack’s conservatism that holds him back, etc. And then there are those who don’t really argue his strengths at all, they simply point out that he could be worse, or that other programs have similar problems, or that it only costs us a game every once in a while.

But there is no obvious, public evidence that he knows what he’s doing at all. Why should we ignore a mountain of evidence that the man is inept? Greg Davis is a handicap that Texas has to overcome every time it takes the field, and it is a voluntary and unnecessary handicap. I need one shred of evidence that he can scheme and playcall. Telling me he’s not responsible for literally every loss is not really a strong endorsement.

And apparently you’re unclear about the concept of an analogy (comprehension begins by acknowledging that analogies rarely ever incorporate identical situational imagery, as the very point of the comparison is to apply a near-identical principle to a different situation so as to emphasize the cogency of the principle). My analogy was apt, and was meant to indicate that your logic is faulty. That an unnecessary risk incurs damage only once in a while is not a valid justification for taking an unnecessary risk. The risk needs to provide some kind of benefit, which Greg Davis does not. He wins us no games, but loses several, and nearly loses several more.

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 22, 2009 8:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

day 3

I must say that this week has been so utterly boring that this on going argument has been pretty much my only excitement while at work.

Overall I just think you are framing your arguments and your analogy in such a way that its impossible to disagree with. Any meaningful counterpoint is completely dismissed without discussion. Case in point, you point to a lack of “obvious, public evidence” to support GD and you argue that we cannot ignore the “mountain of evidence” of his ineptness. Yet, there is a “mountain of evidence” from the standpoint of how successful his offenses have been, is there not? There are stats upon stats of how productive the Texas offenses have been. This has to be due to talent recruited, preparation, game planning, and scheming at least in part. But no, you’d surely dismiss this as another case of the offense succeeding “in spite” of GD instead of because of GD. Yet apparently you say their is a mountain of evidence to the contrary but all you site are your impressions of GD being a “handicap”, who can’t scheme or playcall or adapt.

I’m not making the case that “it could be worse” or he’s a small liablity, in fact I’m making a stronger case for our offense. Since 2004/2005 Davis and his offense have been a strength of this team. He’s recruited well, he’s maintained continuity despite losing our best player ever, arguably our best offensive line, one of our top 3 RBs of all time, and multiple WRs. In the face of that, he has maintained our offense among the top in the NCAA. What is your response to that? Oh right, you completely dismiss it. No other major program has maintained that level of consistency. But once again, if we had Jo Jo the Circus Monkey as our OC we would be infinitely better.

As far as analogies go, any time someone has to use an anology to make an argument it probably means its a weak argument. Why in the world are we shooting at our own home? Isn’t it more analogous to be shooting at someone else’s?

by BMG on Oct 23, 2009 1:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you

are satisfied with GD’s scheming and playcalling, then we can go no further with this debate, as we fundamentally disagree. My argument is based on the premis that the typical Texas fan is unhappy with both of those things. Usually a Greg Davis defense concedes both of those things, but attempts to offer alternative values that he brings to the table, most of which are not substantiated by any public evidence.

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 23, 2009 2:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also

I did not in any terms blame the remaining losses on the defense. There’s a rich tapestry of mistakes that resulted in those losses.

However, when we do lose a game for which the defense is culpable, its generally because they had an off-day. And I’m usually fine with that. But when we lose a game for which Greg Davis is culpable, it rarely has the feel of an off day so much as it feels like every other GD slow start, with bad scheming, poor preparation, and horrible playcalling, its just that on that day, we couldn’t overcome that constant handicap the way we normally can.

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 22, 2009 8:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

agree

There are a rich tapestry of mistakes to result in losses, and its not all entirely on the defense. However, our defense played a major part in our suckage in those games we lost. We did fire/demote Akina and its possible Chizik would have been shown the door had he not bolted the second it opened after all.

Furthermore, I actually believe that losing games almost never comes down to one single thing. However, I’ll accept that 2 of the 7 losses since 2004 were solely the fault of our offense simply to show that its not why we lost the vast majority of games we lost. Even if we had Buddy Ryan and Bill Walsh as coordinators, I wouldn’t expect us to win every game.

I’ll take 2 losses in 4 or 5 years due to an OC while consistently trotting out a top notch offense regardless of personnel and so would any other fan base in America (and in REALITY). This to me shows why the “GD sucks” argument is flawed.

by BMG on Oct 23, 2009 1:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

+ 1 for the Buddy Ryan reference

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 23, 2009 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you mean A&M 2006

2007 was with Akina and MacDuff. THAT was primarily the defense’s fault. In 2006, it was the offense’s fault.

by TheElusiveShadow on Oct 23, 2009 8:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

you're right

got my years confused. 2006 we had both Colt’s shoulder/neck and Chizik interviewing with Iowa State. 2007 the offense definitely misfired.

Regardless its still 2 out of the 7 losses (at most) since 2005 can be attributed to the offense.

by BMG on Oct 23, 2009 11:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great post

I agree with everything you said. Yes there are reasons to blame GD in part, but others were to blame to. Furthermore, detractors often fail to acknowledge the role GD had in righting the ship in the second half. I would also point out that GD didn’t have the luxury of arguably his top two RBs healthy going into the game which complicated the game planning.

You also cannot stress enough what impact the flow of the game has on play calling. A tight, low scoring game, will generally be called conservatively. A high scoring game will not. It sounds like a chicken or the egg situation, but in the last 1/3rd of the game, it becomes self fulfilling. Given that the chips were stacked against OUs offense from the get go (and what we learned about Colt’s health after the fact), it would make sense for Texas to put the game in the hands of its defense. I believe the conservative nature of our play calling was heavily influenced by what Mack felt the winning formula was that day — defense.

by BMG on Oct 21, 2009 12:06 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

"But adjustments ARE made. Usually at halftime. That’s soon enough."

That late adjustments are acceptable are because of two reasons alone:
1) We have an incredible defense that will ensure we don’t get in a nasty hole too deep to dig out of, and
2) Whether because of conditioning/coaching or just plumb “that’s how we do at Texas” (correct me if I’m wrong, but there’s no other team with as many 2nd half comeback wins as Texas under Mack Brown, right?), we play 4 quarters until the last whistle whereas many teams (see: last season’s OU) are used to putting up a big lead at the beginning and tapering off in the 2nd half.

As long as those two things keep happening, Davis can keep being a plodding, 2nd-half adjuster.

by TXinDC on Oct 21, 2009 12:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Its not so much that he's making adjustments

as much as it is that everyone knows what he needs to do in the first half (throwing downfield more, counter plays, not having TOTALLY PREDICTIBLE down-and-distance tendencies), and then in the second half, he finally just does what everyone knows he should have been doing.

I see it more as stubbornness. He has this algorithmic idea of how to call a football game, which never works (“But damn it,” he thinks, “Some day it will!!”), and in the second half, he finally begins to just do whats obvious. He has all of the tools that one would use to win a football and he simply chooses not to use them. Its like he spends the first half trying to open a wine bottle with finger-nail clippers, all the while saying “No! I got it! Leave me alone, this’ll work!” And then in the second half he finally says “Fine, I’ll use the damn corkscrew.”

Why should he get any credit for that? The idea that someone should continually get credit for barely digging his way out of unnecessary holes that he, himself, has stubbornly and needlessly created is asinine.

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 21, 2009 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is always a team effort

You win as a team and you lose as a team. If we’d have lost that game on Saturday, you could’ve pointed fingers at numerous players, coaches, turnovers, and questionable calls. There are just so many variables that take place each and every play in football. It’s really impossible to pinpoint one reason for ineptitude or success for that matter. Just look at the 2005 offense. In ‘05 everyone would’ve said that Vince Young was what truly made our offensive line great. But, in hindsight, we had some of the best linemen on that line that we’ve ever had at Texas in Justin Blaylock, Lyle Sendlein, Jonathan Scott, and Kasey Studdard (all of whom are still in the NFL).

by aaronlybrand on Oct 21, 2009 12:56 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Is there any other OC that has won a natl title ,10 win seasons lalala etc with there school,stayed there forever and been pinned in the corner,beating with rubber hoses,bent over with no lube, I mean just hated on by the fans ? just wondering because I cant think of anyone but maybe because I keep up with Texas and that’s it…

You here of OC from other places and if they are winning and win the big one there the IT,the next big thing…mmm

by cpabis on Oct 21, 2009 2:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Name me one top ten team....

with no problems on Offense.

Florida has to run Tebow 20+ times a game to eek out the win over arkansas.

USC can’t score 20 against UW. (when they admittedly were playing a b/up QB)

Bama can only run the ball… but yeah they are good at it.

Ohio State can’t score 20 on Purdue.

OU had trouble scoring 12 against BYU.

Yes GD sucks… but its not like the rest of the Coaching community is doing much better. At least we are winning with the #1 scoring offense in the country…

…best i can come up with…

I’m just glad we are making these kinds of wholesale changes after a win and not after a loss. GD isn’t AS bad as people like to think, but we could be so much better…. if we only had Urban Meyer as our coach… Oh Wait.

by Orangechipper on Oct 21, 2009 4:04 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

You can’t blame the Sooners for going all-in to stop the short passing game with kamikaze blitzes and tight initial coverage on the receivers.

My question then is why wasn’t GD prepared for that from outset?

by 2Cor12:9 on Oct 21, 2009 7:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Every other week, it seems...

we read a quote about how utterly surprised Greg Davis was about the looks the opposition gave him during the game. You’d think by now, you know, after like 48 times or so, the media would begin to ask him why this seems to happen so frequently. Instead the press keeps putting out stories about how Greg Davis doesn’t deserve half the crap he gets. Exactly what crap does he even get anymore? There’s a terrific discrepancy between the poor quality of work he puts forth and the lack of criticism he receives in the mainstream media.

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 21, 2009 11:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

GD is weak but not worthless, i hope

If he wasnt prepared for what OU was going to try and do, then he isnt very good at his job. Why did it take an entire half to adjust?

This short pass junk has to stop. Texas runs the ball. If they dont start running the ball, the kids who run the ball, including the linemen who block the run well, will go elsewhere, and when they do, we will suffer for it.

At least GD called a few runs for Colt and made him scramble.

Texas runs the ball. Pick the back of the week, use a TE to block and give it to the RB 20 x and Colt will find it much easier to throw.

Did you guys know the BCS Administrator went to OU? Bill Hancock Seems shady last year to me.

by sam0807 on Oct 22, 2009 3:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

EVERY UT OC I've Seen Was Guilty of Predictable Play Calling

I remember bitching at the tv back in the Mackovic era about how predictable the play calls were under any OC he had. And I remember shouting at Memorial stadium back in the McWilliams era that the play calling was maddeningly predictable and they should fire the OC. I didn’t make it to Texas until ’87 so had no history before that.

And I yelled at the tv earlier this decade about the OC, alternating that they needed to fire Mack Brown or fire Greg Davis with regularity.

But, in recent years while I hate his maddeningly predictable calls in so many games, upon reflection there’s not been one OC I’ve seen at UT that I thought was any good. I wanted all of their heads on a stick and outta town for being incompetent. Difference is, we’re winning more games than I’ve ever seen and getting into more nationally consequential games than I’ve ever seen. Even with an OC who I yell at the tv about!

by RMHorn on Oct 22, 2009 9:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I will add the most telling sign

that Greg Davis isn’t great is that he is still here with all the success Texas has had. No one else believes he is a difference maker. Maybe that is just it, Greg Davis is Tony Romo, just good enough to stay, not good enough to be truly great, but not bad enough to get rid of. Or at the office, middle management forever, the PM you need but wont promote to VP, not the up or out superstar.

by sam0807 on Oct 23, 2009 9:23 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Though I generally I agree that Davis is "just good enough (sometimes)"

He was a tragically unsuccessful head coach in his only stint, so it would be a foolishly brave AD who would give him a head coaching chance at this point.

His offense is so quarterback dependent that the NFL would have a severe allergic reaction akin to anaphylaxis and he’s now the second highest paid OC after Muschamp’s deal, and I believe has always been toward the high end of the pay scale since he came to Texas. There’s nowhere for him to go, even if someone does want him.

proud to swim home

by learned hand on Oct 23, 2009 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

As to Davis becoming a head coach

Some assistant coaches don’t want the grief of being a HC. Some know their limitations. If you’re going to be a successful college coach at a BCS or BCS-wannabe program, two factors are critical: Recruiting, and the personality to deal with boosters/media/fans. Those are things not everybody is good at. Or interested in spending a career doing.

Using the high school parallel, some really excellent coaches want to move on to the college (even NFL level). Some like teaching classes. Some love the small-school atmosphere/lifestyle. Some want to move into educational administration. I’ve worked with coaches who fit all these categories.

GD may just love game-planning, film work and 1-on-1 teaching of QBs. Nothing wrong with that. Because he isn’t an upward seeker doesn’t mean he can’t be good at what he’s doing. Have you considered this: Mack replaced Larry Mac Duff, and previously Tim Nunez. He hasn’t done so with Davis.

by edsp on Oct 23, 2009 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thats a good point that usually gets lost

Being the HC is a major change in job description than a coordinator at the college level. Less so in the pros I would imagine.

And while theres more money to be made at HC, you can do a lot worse than making his salary at Texas, with relative job security.

by BoddickerIsClutch on Oct 23, 2009 11:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Greg Davis would be Awful as a Head Coach

One of the main reasons that Greg Davis is not respected by Texas fans is that he is awful at PR. His post game interviews shows that he has no idea how to spin and he comes across as having no personality. A good bit of the HC’s job is to deal with the press and be the face of your football team, which Davis would fail miserably.
This failing is even more evident because he is compared to Mac Brown and Will Muschamp, two of the best in the business at PR.

by Wells on Oct 23, 2009 12:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Greg Davis was a highly unsuccessful head coach for non PR reasons

1988-89 Tulane 5-6 .455
1989-90 Tulane 4-8 .333
1990-91 Tulane 4-7 .364
1991-92 Tulane 1-10 .091

proud to swim home

by learned hand on Oct 23, 2009 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Highly unsuccessful is relative

in all but his last year he was just slightly under Tulane’s historical average.

by Wells on Oct 25, 2009 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't doubt a lot of that is true, particularly considering the grief he took at Tulane

I also don’t believe, as many apparently do, that Greg Davis is a terrible OC. I just think in many years he is the relative weak link in the program.

While we’re speculating (warning, opinion and conjecture follow), I believe he’s more likely a top 20-30 OC blessed with top 5 talent, combining to form a reliably good offense that fails to live up to expectations based on the talent. Actually, I think some of his best work came in the 2007 season where a horrific (for Texas) defense forced his offense into the rare position of outperforming expectations. For my own part I think that speaks to the talent of Jamaal Charles vis a vis our current running backs (undoubtedly to some extent) and some complacency on Davis’ part in many years.

I believe the opportunity cost of replacing him are higher than the Mack believes the reward would be, given his historic difficulties in maintaining stability at the defensive coordinator position. Add a personal friendship with Brown over a few decades to at least adequate coaching acumen and it’s not worth the hassle to someone with loyalty like Brown. Or at least that’s one of my theories. My other theory is that if Nick Saban were the UT coach, Davis would have been launched by catapult out of Austin on his authority.

As a side note, I’m not exactly sure that Nunez and Mac Duff are proper analogues, because Mac Duff co-helmed an abysmal defense that required Greg Davis to bail it out and Nunez is now coaching offensive line on the internet.

proud to swim home

by learned hand on Oct 23, 2009 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

We can probably agree whenever Mack retires

will likely be the ouster of Greg Davis. I dont know what their relationship is but I doubt he remains when Muschamp takes over. I agree that Nick Saban would have divested Davis as well. If we are saying that then, is Mack Bown then complicit in the below average run production in recent years and ok with it? That is just where Mack and my management styles differ though, I want a superstar and not necessarily a friend. Lastly, if the guy cant do PR, he isnt that bright and wants to hide it.

by sam0807 on Oct 23, 2009 4:09 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

:)

Wow,

I found the “amnesia” comment by one poster funny. Funny how every loss is solely at the feet of the OC and they conviently ignore such things as Defense, STs, turnover, player mistakes or sometimes, just facing a better team.

The VY made GD comment is particulary humorous. Somehow we are supposed to believe a kid who couldn’t hit water if he threw a football out of a boat in ’02 blossomed by himself into the #1 ranked passer in the nation.

Not sure I buy the “Top 5” talent on the offensive side of the ball, only guy we have right now on offense that is a 1st rounder in the NFL is Colt, that’s it, end of story. Teams with more talent: USC, Fla, LSU, Dawgs, ND, OU just for starters, most of our talent is on the other side of the ball.

End of the day it’s about production and yes, most OC’s get blamed when kids screw up and put the ball on the ground. If you are really insightful (ie: not the average fan in the stands who thinks NCAA ’09 should be on job resumes), you look beyond the glib comments and knee jerk reactions.

What you see, overall a damn good job being done.

Oh,

Bad news haters, Coach Wlll loves GD, it’s highly doubtful that is a change he makes at least right away.

Generally a good article and it brought up some very interesting thoughts but I have another critisim,

Why does it have to be “glass half full” “glass half empty”, why can’t we look at the game for what it is, leave the old biases behind and report what happened?

by echeese on Oct 24, 2009 9:44 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs