Brief Thoughts: Why Greg Davis Does What He Does
by Wescott Eberts (GoBR) on Nov 5, 2009 3:33 PM CST
in Texas Longhorns Football
Email
PrintAt different times, there have been a bevy of complaints leveled against Greg Davis. For the purposes of this (relatively brief) post, it's not worth getting into all of those. The two prevalent complaints that are important here are as follows: 1) Davis does not run a variety of formations -- the base offense in most years is 11 personnel with the tight end and two receivers on the strong side of the field, and 2) Davis does not put players in motion before the snap.
Before delving into the possible reasons for those two systematic decisions, it's worth further clarifying the complaints against Davis. As for the first complaint, Mike Leach famously said in the Michael Lewis article that he likes to run the same concepts from different formations to confuse the defense and affect their coverages because it's harder to teach different plays than it is to teach players to stand in different locations -- teaching them where to stand is easy. Leach sees and, quite possibly, has experienced, no problems in lining receivers up all over the field but running the same plays from those new positions, doing so helps disguise the basic concepts he runs over and over.
The second complaint mainly centers around the fact that putting a man in motion helps the quarterback with his pre-snap read by forcing the defense to show either man or zone coverage. If a defender follows the man in motion, it's man coverage, but if a defender does not follow, it's zone coverage. One of the major takeways from this current Texas season is that Colt McCoy is an infinitely better quarterback when he can determine where he wants to go before the snap -- of course, this is also surely the case with virtually any other quarterback as well.
Back, now, to the original point. Chris Brown just posted an extremely interesting article over at Smart Football in which a friend of his ("Hemlock") who coached the run and shoot both at the high school and collegiate level provides some insights into why Davis almost always uses the same alignment and almost entirely eschews motion.
The most probable reason for Davis only using the same basic alignment is simple -- it keeps his own players from becoming confused. Though Leach apparently has few problems with his multiple formations, personal and anecdotal evidence from Hemlock suggests that it isn't as easy as the head pirate suggests:
I've coached both high-school and D-I football and I've learned the hard way that it is either impossible, in the case of high school, or or so difficult to the point of being prohibitive, as in the case of college ball, to effectively implement a multiple-formation intensive system and to consistently succeed with it. At my last D-I school we ran the true west coast offense, as my head coach was a legitimate disciple of Bill Walsh. Not only was it difficult to install all of our formations, but it made our players hesitant; they were so worried about getting lined up correctly that they were not able to concentrate on running the play. Another unintended consequence was that the different looks we installed confused our players more than the defenses we faced. It sounds odd, but our players, despite all our efforts to the contrary, deep down believed that every time we ran a route concept from a new formation we were in fact running a different play. This problem reinforces a point that June Jones made once about his former quarterback Colt Brennan. Even though they ran their "Levels package" primarily from one formation ("Early"), Brennan, for nearly a year, believed that the different level distributions constituted a different individual play. It took a year, according to Jones, until Brennan basically understood that regardless of who was the over and who was under runner that they were running the same play. Now, remember, this was all being run from one formation; imagine what it is like when you have literally a dozen different formations from which to run that one play. We found out the hard way: We had a lot of formations and our players thought we were drawing up all kinds of new plays.
As Hemlock mentions, coaches at the college level have much less time than professional coaches to spend practicing installing plays or watching film with their players. No doubt the level of maturity and brain development (the frontal lobe does not function at peak capacity until the early to mid 20's) also impacts the ability of college-age players to grasp different formations with the same route concept. When combined with the talent advantage that Texas enjoys in nearly every contest and it becomes apparent why Davis prefers keeping his formations simple -- the opposing defense often can't stop the Longhorns even when they know the play that's coming.
Hemlock also provides a possible answer for the second complaint -- not putting players in motion. While the motion man does provide the quarterback with a better pre-snap read on the surface, an original intent of using motion nearly every play in the original run-and-shoot offense pioneered by Mouse Davis, Houston's John Jenkins realized that defenses were catching up:
But, one result of the 'shoot's success was that coverages became more advanced in response. Jenkins stayed ahead of the curve and saw it happening before it actually did. He understood that that motion could actually lead to false keys that would hamper his offense's ability to execute. Consequently, Jenkins began to use leverage as a way of decoding a defense's intentions. Another reason he abandoned motion was that he understood that it could lead to sloppy route running. A big key to the run and shoot is to "stem" your route correctly - i.e. begin off the line in a particular direction to set up the routes. Motion can be a lazy man's way of dealing with press coverage. Great technique though is better and will result in a better stem, which lead to a better route. One other point in regards to this is that stemming your route means identifying who in the coverage structure you are running your route off of. Again, motion can muddy the waters.
Without the key advantage of putting a man in motion, what's the point?
Texas fans have often complained in the past about the Longhorns running the same play over and over again -- it works great, they say, against overmatched defenses, but what happens against teams with equal or greater talent level? As the Cotton Bowl match ups against Oklahoma in the early part of the decade clearly demonstrates, the results ending up being poor.
However, repetitions are extremely important at the collegiate level. With limited practice time, focusing on several key plays and concepts to make sure that each player executes his assignment well is much more important than having a complex playbook similar to those used in the NFL. Coaches jumping from the NFL to college who have experienced recent struggles include Bill Callahan, Charlie Weis, and Mike Sherman, all of whom had to simplifty their schemes in college. Well, perhaps Callahan never did, but that goes a long ways towards explaining why he was such a complete and abject failure at Nebraska.
Relatedly, Hemlock levies the complaint against Florida State head-coach-in-waiting Jimbo Fisher that his offenses don't do anything particularly well, citing that his concepts do not blend together to create a systematic whole. It's also possible that Fisher tries to be too many things at once -- instead of doing several things well, he tries to do many things well. Since I haven't watched enough of LSU or Florida State to know if that is true, I'm simply making a supposition here that supports my next point. For Texas, it's always been much more important to do several things well, like run option routes with inside receivers, the iso play with Ricky Williams, or the zone read with Vince Young, than it is to try to incorporate many disparate elements into the offense. Once again, execution reigns supreme.
After all, would Marquise Goodwin be able to contribute this season if he always lined up in a different spot on the field? A remarkably mature and quick-learning young man, it might be possible, but if the experiences of Hemlock serve as a guide, then perhaps not. The crucial late interception against Oklahoma that could have been returned for a touchdown without McCoy's saving tackle was a result of Goodwin running his slant route behind the receiver, something he should never under any circumstances do. Would motion help McCoy more often make the correct pre-snap read? Perhaps not. The struggles of the Texas offensive line this season also illustrate just how important it is that every player execute their assignment and receivers being out of position, especially on "trust' throws, where the quarterback expects a player to be in a certain place, results in a high probability of the quarterback turning the ball over.
So while the Smart Football post mainly discusses these issues within the context of a run-and-shoot offense, the problems are universal and provide excellent explanations for why the Texas offense does not make use of multiple formations or put players in motion -- for Davis, on the college level if just makes more sense to run things the way he does. And, for once, it's hard to criticize Davis for that.
71 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I thought one of the top two Davis follies would be the...
WR Screen Pass?
What’s our “success” rate on those? For 4+ yards?
both of those
drive me freaking nuts
by Infield Elephant on Nov 5, 2009 4:41 PM CST up reply actions
Already covered
Mack has discussed this multiple times in his pressers. Of course the offensive play call does not call for a 4 yard pass when 6 yards are needed, that would put our coaches in absolute moron category, which they clearly are not. These plays are called so that the main play is 6 or more yards, but in going through the options, the first and possibly second read that would give the first down are covered. Instead of taking the sack or throwing the ball away, Colt instead checks down to the secondary receiver to try something that isn’t completely covered. It isn’t very difficult to understand that a 3rd and # must call for a # yard play. Don’t assume the coaches lack this 2nd grade understanding.
Don't discount their talent
The theory behind keeping it simple for the sake of time that college players and teams don’t have makes sense, but it also discounts the talent level of the players we have. Not all teams can say this, but I feel confident that our offense could handle a little more variety in the play calling. Just imagine what they may be capable of with a more NFL-ish (not completely) style playbook.
by Infield Elephant on Nov 5, 2009 3:54 PM CST reply actions
The point here is ability to execute.
Goodwin has all the talent in the world, but didn’t execute correctly on the late interception against Oklahoma — they are completely independent. It doesn’t matter if a player has all the talent in the world if they aren’t lined up in the right place or don’t know which route they’re running.
I completely agree that the offense could use more variety, but since the team does have more talent than all but several programs in the entire country, if the talent can execute, that’s enough against nearly every opponent. The Oklahoma game was a good indication this season that the coaches are willing to add more variety when necessary, but any future wrinkles probably won’t be shown until the Longhorns possibly reach the national championship game, if they manage not to stumble here in the next four, hopefully five, games.
Given the Oklahoma game, variety shouldn’t be a major criticism right now. Compared with the conservative bed-wetting that was 2004, the game plan this year was an incredible advancement. Right now, the coaches will simply do enough to win and using the basic concepts of the offense should be enough to do that easily, with the possible exception of the game against A&M.
by Wescott Eberts (GoBR) on Nov 5, 2009 4:11 PM CST up reply actions
Perhaps talent could entail lining up correctly and knowing which route to take. Of course this comes with experience and they don’t have the advantage the NFL does of living/breathing football every waking hour. While I’m not suggesting we re-write the entire book or even the OC position, let’s spice it up a little.
And you’re right: not a whole lot to criticism to be had right now.
by Infield Elephant on Nov 5, 2009 4:21 PM CST up reply actions
Actually that is what Tech as
Leach knows he can’t get the athletes that Texas or OU have, so he goes after the the second tier talent that have high football IQs, and then runs an offense that takes advantage of that type of talent.
Leach doesn't recruit for high IQ
At least any more than any other coach does. His system actually requires less football IQ because they only run a small amount of “different” plays, but out of many formations (exactly as discussed in the post). But the more important element of Leach’s success, and what set’s him apart from an offensive coordinator standpoint, is how many reps the offense takes during practice. A Leach-coached offense will take literally hundreds of more snaps during the week than any other school, which you can tell translates into success on the field. Now deciding to do this obviously requires not spending as much time teaching other things, but it almost guarantees decent offensive execution on a week to week basis.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
Zone Blocking
Great analysis. I agree completely about execution being paramount. Inconsistent execution by both the line and the running backs has been a major impediment to a consistent running game this year. The running back position has been unstable due to Cody’s weight issues and injuries. In the case of the line I’ve recently begun to think that the current group’s skillset is not suited to successful zone blocking.
Successful zone blocking emphasizes having relatively quick-footed guys with good technique and athletic ability over brute strength. I’d wager this group is as strong as any we’ve had but lack the necessary footwork, technique and athletic ability to excel, espeicially with regards to blocking in space.
I think the reason GD switched to zone blocking to begin with is that it is actually a simpler scheme to implement because the basic blocking ruless do not change on a wholesale level based on the defensive front’s alignment. Players double team based on whether they are covered or uncovered. In a man blocking scheme twists, blitzes etc. cause the blocking rules to change requiring a multiple set of rules for the same play based on the defensive alignment. That means linemen have to learn multiple sets of rules for the same play. All the linemen have to implement the same rule. So the zone approach is relatively easier to execute.
As for motion I think some basic motion would fit nicely into this offense. It causes to defense to react mentally in some way before the snap and can create additional pre-snap reads for the quarterback. For instance, DJ at running back with the ability to motion out to the slot might cause the defense to show zone or man plus I’d love to see him matched up against any linebacker in coverage.
My favorite future possibility, a two back tandem of Cody Johnson and DJ or Fozzie or Tre creates even more possibilities in the running game leveraging Cody either running, receiving or lead blocking and the other guy in motion or not. Not going to happen I know because most of the guys are young and have a lot on their plate already but it could create some interesting matchups.
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Nov 5, 2009 10:21 PM CST up reply actions
My only gripe against Davis is...
…his absolute lack of originality. I’ve never seen a more vanilla offense than what we ran for the first 5 or so games. Up until the OU game, our offense prevailed on the basis of superior athletes and a stellar defense. He’s mixed it up some in the last few games, but man, can you imagine someone with, say, Chris Petersen’s creativity running our offense? Cripes, we would be destroying teams in the first quarter.
In-VINCE-able.
Did you not even read the article?
The whole point of it was that a vanilla offense most often works better if you execute it really well.
Wow, can I have my own personal opinion?
Is that okay I don’t agree with you, billyzane? Sheesh. If you got issues with me, go work it out with your therapist, I could give two sheets of the wind about your opinions regarding MY opinions. Douchebag.
In-VINCE-able.
by iamjackburton on Nov 5, 2009 7:44 PM CST up reply actions
Wow that was really uncalled for.
The swine flu takes a Will Muschamp shot every September.
by pleaseplaykindle on Nov 5, 2009 8:15 PM CST up reply actions
I love how much you hate me.
I can’t figure out why, but you do. I mean, I have a guess and, hypocritically of you, they seem to be precisely because I disagree with you on a lot of things. See here and here.
Regardless, the point is not that I’m right and you’re wrong. I never said anything like that. Though I’m not surprised that you didn’t respond to what I actually wrote because your first comment had exactly that same problem: GoBR went to the trouble of writing out a beautiful tome on the merits of vanilla offense executed well, and your response made it very clear that you either didn’t read it or didn’t understand it. Your response in effect was, “My only problem with Greg Davis is that he does the exact thing that you spent your entire article saying is a viable and perhaps superior way to run an offensive system in college football. No I am not going to attempt to refute any of your arguments. I’m just going to rehash my well-worn and stereotypically asinine argument.”
i havent really heard any of these complaints around town
the bubble screen and failed running game are the ones i hear most. also the lack of development of players.
i dont really buy the argument that these guys are too dumb to run a (slightly even) more complex offense. they’re in college and in theory their coursework should be harder than their playbook. i dont think anyone is asking for some hyper complicated offense, just something that the other team doesnt see everytime we play cause lord knows we all know that variety is lacking.
Yes...
while a compelling read, the original article seems to set up a mostly irrelevant straw man regarding the criticisms of Davis.
but to isolate two particularities
that I consider to be marginal in the context of Davis’ defficiencies and then to justify each of them so as to imply that criticisms of Davis are not entirely well-founded is classic straw man.
But, again, I didn’t say it wasn’t a good read, just that I don’t like how it was framed. I enjoyed reading it.
Maybe I stated this wrong
I thought they were criticisms that people had of Davis. Maybe they were just criticisms I had. Irrevelant? Not to me, because the post from Smart Football helped solidify why Davis does what he does. Hence the title. And, in fact, not irrelevant at all.
by Wescott Eberts (GoBR) on Nov 5, 2009 10:38 PM CST up reply actions
Ghost: This is high-tech stuff for somebody
who still hasn’t figured out why the triple option works.
As for Davis, he’s a genius when the Tech CB misreads and then stumbles and Malcolm Williams is 10 yards open 1.5 seconds after the snap. Davis is a bum when a WR runs the wrong way and the QB throws a Pick-6.
My problem with Davis, at this point, is the running game scheme. Most NFL teams don’t try the Broncos’ style because it takes forever to get good at it, plus it takes unique blocking skill. With Texas’ talent advantage and enough practice, a Ced Benson style attack with Johnson or McGee or Antwan Cobb would be better than what we’re doing.
Running game
Not sure if I entirely have a handle on why the team moved away from man blocking and decided to zone block almost exclusively. My guess would be that they did it because the zone scheme limits penetration because you can double team better at the point of attack rather than worrying about a single guy getting beat. As Gerald McCoy demonstrated, even in the zone scheme it doesn’t always work like that, but from my perspective, that’s a primary reason. Wanting to run the zone read more often I think also had something to do with it, as the several keepers by McCoy have shown recently — if you don’t use it much, when defenses really start flowing thinking it’s an inside or outside zone, the quarterback can pull the ball and have a lot of running room.
by Wescott Eberts (GoBR) on Nov 5, 2009 5:02 PM CST up reply actions
Curious -- when did we move away from man and start the zone style?
I’m thinking JCharles had most of his big gains out of the zone scheme. Maybe, just guessing, we put it in for 2007 because there was no big back and Charles had more chance for explosives if he could master the quick cut. Which, obviously, he did.
I don’t recall what we were running in 2005 (Charles, SYoung, Taylor) or ‘06 (Young and Charles; can’t recall a third back).
"My Too Sense"
GD is an above average coordinator by almost any measure. However, he is a “me too” guy that develops his thoughts from analysis of tape. Brilliant offensive minds like Leach are innovators that dictate to the defense, and are the ones that get studied. When you figure them out, they are onto the next wrinkle that will drive you nuts. Davis plays catch up.
Now if Davis was a brilliant, innovative coordinator – he would have prolly moved on to a HC job by now. So we do get the benefit of having a consistent OC, that is much better than average.
I thought this was the biggest knock on Davis
http://smartfootball.blogspot.com/2008/01/constraint-theory-of-offense.html
and why its so easy for opposing teams to take advantage of our tendencies
Probably
As I said, there are certainly other complaints about Davis and the ones that I mentioned might be pretty far down the list and may in fact mostly be in my mind, but this new post from today definitely helped answer some of the things I was wondering about. All those other problems are for a discussion some other time.
You are correct, though, that Davis hasn’t always been great at having constraint plays, but if Mack Brown is to be believed, Davis has been holding some of them back the last two weeks and may not use them at all for the rest of the regular season. We shall see.
by Wescott Eberts (GoBR) on Nov 5, 2009 5:35 PM CST up reply actions
if I understand correctly
It doesn’t make sense to hold back constraint plays, does it? The whole idea of constraint plays is to prevent other teams from jumping our bread and butter plays, right? So they would have exactly the intended effect if we showed them now, because defenses would have to scheme for them and honor them during a game, even when we are running bread and butter plays. I guess the surprise factor of “hey, they actually have constraint plays!” might be of some value, but other teams are basically going to know what constraint plays we would run for our base offense, that we are probably going to run some constraints, and it would not be that hard to adjust when we do run them. The most important thing to me is that I value our players’ ability to execute the plays we run over any surprise factor.
In other words, if we don’t run these plays all year, I doubt that we will run them effectively in a bowl game, even if the opposing D is a little surprised. If we don’t run them effectively, the D just gangs up more on our bread and butter. Whereas if we do run them now, our players learn to execute them, the opposing D has to scheme and respect both our bread and butter and the constraint plays, and the whole offense works better.
Concepts
This makes me wonder whether players are being taught the concepts of the game. How can it be that guys whose careers (or at least educations) depend on performance at football do not become students of the game? They make it out to be a big deal when a QB studies film on his own.
It’s not just football. A lot of baseball and basketball players seem to lack a good understanding of of their games. The best I can figure is that they have been conditioned not to “think” but to just do what they are told. Everything is learned by rote, so a new formation does seem like a different play.
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you're a mile away AND you have their shoes.
They are also
transitioning from highschool, where they could pretty much do what they wanted without learning the game, to college, where they have to have more than athleticism to make the plays.
This explains
July 15 – August 15 of your freshman year.
"I live in the tower with Coach Brown." -Bevo
I dont think you understand what I am saying
I think you saw transition from high school and just typed that response without reading the rest.
If, as I was saying, a player used his athletic abilities to preform, then he did not have to become a student of the game at that level. Once he reaches a level where his athleticism alone will not allow him to succeed he will then have to begin to study film and try to understand the nuances of the game. Some probably never make that realization and those that do, there is a steep commitment and learning curve to gain that understanding. I really don’t think that can happen in 30 days.
Horizontal game versus vertical game
As mentioned above, throwing a 3 yard pass when 4 yards are needed. WR screens. Deep pitches followed by sweeps. Failure to throw over the middle.
All come down to a horizontal game versus a vertical one. I’ve often wondered how many yards Texas gains compared to other teams if you measure in distance traveled, rather than yards on the field.
Watch out, I bite.
by EddieTheAlbinoSquirrel on Nov 5, 2009 6:39 PM CST reply actions
Mack Brown is such a horrible coach
I mean, his offense is just plain vanilla and boring. It doesn’t do anything that makes fans excited, like score touchdowns. It’s so unimaginative and predictable that opposing defenses surrender a completion percentage of less than 80% to Colt McCoy. Mack Brown sure does suck, and we should all call for him to be fired.
How long have you been a fan?
It’s a serious question. Typically, those Horns fans I’ve heard defend absolutely all that is Brown and Davis have only been fans since the championship run. They don’t have the longer-term view that helps others of us more clearly see the repetitive and habitual flaws in the game plan that, for some reason, fail to improve season after season.
Not trying to talk down. Just making an observation.
Watch out, I bite.
by EddieTheAlbinoSquirrel on Nov 5, 2009 7:35 PM CST up reply actions
I disagree
Ask around. Folks who have only followed the team since VY’s big year think Greg Davis is some kind of genius. They don’t realize that Applewhite changed more than half of the plays from the line of scrimmage. Or that VY ran the option for a reason – and improvised a huge portion of the time.
There is history. It means something. And it adds to analysis.
Watch out, I bite.
by EddieTheAlbinoSquirrel on Nov 5, 2009 8:31 PM CST up reply actions
I have been watching the horns since McWilliams and I dont agree with you
and I know plenty of other fans who don’t either.
Their is bias and thinking you know things you could not possibly know. And it add to delusion.
I've been a fan since before Major, if that's specific enough
I definitely remember the offense from those days. I definitely didn’t agree with pushing Simms, but I think Brown and Davis have learned. I think they’ve learned a number of things, in fact, and much of what they’ve learned has contributed toward the position for championships in which UT has been for much of the past 5-6 seasons.
But you know that’s not even where I was going. My intent was to highlight the apparently baseless assumption that Davis, not Brown, is the one who makes all the calls about how conservatively to run the offense, what kind of series to run, etc. I actually think more of that is Mack than Davis, but whether you agree or not, there’s no more evidence to support the anti-Davis crowd than there is to support mine. Well, at least not that I’ve seen, or that anyone else has been able to produce. Personally I think it’s a bunch of groupthink.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 5, 2009 8:56 PM CST up reply actions
Great point with the groupthink
It would be fascinating to watch as an outsider, wouldn’t it???
Wonder if Muschamp at some point might have the ability – or will – to call BS on their single-minded ways of thinking.
Watch out, I bite.
by EddieTheAlbinoSquirrel on Nov 7, 2009 12:41 AM CST up reply actions
Sounds like an ability any self-respecting omnipotent being would have, yes
by burntorangehorn on Nov 7, 2009 8:24 AM CST up reply actions
Wow, so does the continual sarcasm help you win friends and influence people?
Watch out, I bite.
by EddieTheAlbinoSquirrel on Nov 7, 2009 9:53 AM CST up reply actions
I was actually saying that with a bit of levity
didn’t mean for it to come off as snarky or a dig or anything. Sorry about that.
And yes, it helps me win friends, if you count the others at the we-have-no-friends support group.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 7, 2009 9:55 AM CST up reply actions
Not to quibble....
…. but I have seen defenses use motion to confuse the offense more than the other way around.
You drag a slot receiver to the other side, the corner follows, you’re SURE it’s man coverage…. and WHAM! Pick-6, because it’s really cover-2.
It’s easy to teach somebody to move before the snap. It’s much harder to teach them where to find the seams in a zone. It’s easy to teach people where to stand and what route to run; it’s harder to make sure their technique is good enough to make the catch even when they are completely covered.
Scheme is not totally irrelevant, of course, but it’s my firm belief that in football, as in practically everything else these days, we get far too caught up in style and ignore substance. The fundamentals of football are this: if you block better and tackle better (and in the modern game, throw better, and catch better), you win. The rest is just window dressing.
This is the essence of what is wrong with most bad football teams, most inept match teachers, most software development gone awry, most badly designed highways, most financial oversight institutions, most inept county tax auditors…. the list goes on forever. “Give me the shiny new toy!” Like my first basketball coach told me way back in 7th grade when I had the ball stolen while dribbling behind my back: “You’ve got a nice flower in your button hole… but your fly’s unzipped!”
"Confunde et vince!"
Riddle me this, GoBR
Why, if Davis is so frightened of giving our offense too much to handle, does he demand that we run the most complicated blocking scheme out there for our line? This speaks to another big complaint about Davis that you didn’t address: He seems to just plain lack focus.
Our offensive line is a hodge-podge of big maulers and nimble-footed zone guys – always has been. We don’t seem to focus on one type when recruiting for our system. In addition, if you’ve characterized our offense properly, the grand scheme is designed around giving our super-talented players a simple, sound scheme that they can execute flawlessly such that no one can stop them, and yet the heart of the offense uses the uber-complicated zone scheme, which all-too-frequently leads to blown assignments and hesitations by a line that clearly just has problems executing. Davis also is frequently criticized for abandoning the running game, not because it is an outright failure (we do have success when everything is clicking, and especially against tired defenses), but because he seems disinterested in committing to it.
Usually, I think you hit the spot in your analysis, but here I feel like you’ve put together a bit of a straw-man. The two main complaints you point out seem to me more like things that people just yell during games or in the heat of a venting thread. My biggest problem with Davis is that his offense lacks polish. I constantly get the feeling that he’s satisfied with “good enough”. The guy doesn’t have to be a genius like his defensive counterpart, but he certainly shouldn’t be happy when Colt gets sacked on third down when OSU rushes just three. Did you see the “from the film room” for the OSU game? Davis applauds Colt for taking care of the ball on that play. Now, I’m all for giving constructive criticism, but when your unit gives up a sack on third down (whoever’s fault it was), no one should get a gold star.
Davis finished last season with an offense that was well-oiled, knew their assignments, and executed beautifully (to his credit, of course), but given an entire offseason to improve, the best Davis comes up with is: We won’t let Colt run so he won’t get hurt. Defenses have narrowed the gap because Davis was content with his (dwindling) production from last season. And it’s not as though he couldn’t have had some clue – Mack spoke at length in fall camps about how the defense was “whoopin” the offense regularly. Surely Greg was taking notes on how his offense was getting stopped?
In short, I think you’ve offered good defenses for two minor quibbles that fans often grumble about when they’re in a bad mood, but I don’t feel like Davis is any smarter after having read that. Davis’s bigger flaws remain, for me.
by Horn Brain on Nov 5, 2009 10:49 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Here's something I don't understand.
I’m not trying to address every problem that people see with Davis. Not even the biggest problems. Rather, I’m simply trying to address why Texas isn’t multiple in their formations and doesn’t use a man in motion. Very simple, quite narrow in scope. I’m not criticizing Davis. I’m not commending Davis, I’m providing some possible explanations for two small aspects of the Texas offense. Are there bigger flaws? Yes. Are there available explanations for those flaws? Not so readily available.
In short, I think you’ve offered good defenses for two minor quibbles that fans often grumble about when they’re in a bad mood
Yes. That was the sole and only purpose of this post. Nothing more, nothing less.
by Wescott Eberts (GoBR) on Nov 6, 2009 11:01 AM CST up reply actions
ok.
If that was your intent, then fine, but if you say Davis wants to avoid confusion with his simple schemes, that still leaves open the question of why he chooses the most complicated blocking scheme available as the port wine reduction to go with his meat and potatoes offense.
Shovel Pass
I loved this play when Hodges Mitchell was back there running it. Seemed to work a lot, and I was excited to see it again. Unfortunately, it doesn’t really work anymore. Not sure what’s changed.
As with
most things Greg Davis, it’s impossible to tell whether he’s doing it on purpose or just falling ass backwards into it.
You say maybe he keeps things simple so as not to confuse his offensive players, I say maybe he’s lazy as hell and it’s easier than actually teaching them something and this way they’ll make less mistakes that might make him look bad. That might explain why it takes our best receivers several years in the pros to actually become halfway productive.
Hell, the Q package and the Wildhorn weren’t confusing, but they still looked like 11 drunks trying to get through a revolving door at the same time when they ran them.
On a side, but semi-related note, I love the stories coming out this week about how the offensive line loves the way CoJo runs b/c he runs over people. Yeah, if I couldn’t run block for crap I’d really love a running back that can make his own yards by running over people so I don’t look so bad.
We are lucky Colt is one tough Son of a Gun. The offense is so predictable and somewhat screaches to a grinding halt when facing equal talent. Colt took a huge beat down in the OU game this season and luckily was not injured.
I think with this current O-Line, they need to add more mis-direction in the running game and work on throwing some running back screen passes to keep a good D honest so they can’t just unload on Colt for 4 quarters.
Greg Davis/Offense
I have been watching the Horns play since DKR started and the college game has evoloved so much since then that it is amazing that people complain about the lack of offense. If I remember correctly the Horns are in the top 2 or 3 in the nation in points per game. Part is the defense and part is the offense. I agree that this year we seem more predictable and the defenses have adjusted, part is we don’t have the stud tight end or Quan who was just amazing. As fans we are spoiled with the 10 win seasons and the hype for MNC’s, there are few progams that have been consistent for many years, and UT is ranked with Michigan and Notre Dame in all time wins. Why not enjoy the ride and quit complaining.
UT59
Points/Game becomes a moot point when half your points are scored by special teams and defense
http://www.cfbstats.com/2009/leader/national/team/offense/split01/category10/sort02.html
We’re ranked #60 in yards/play, which is a measure of offensive production.
I’m not a huge fan knocking on Davis, but the start of this year saw some really bad offensive production. Much less than earlier years.
Of course, it’s less of a concern once one considers that not even close to half the points are scored by STs or defense.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 6, 2009 10:23 AM CST up reply actions
Oh relax
You think measuring our “scoring” offense as #1 is accurate as a performance marker?
OSU game – Offense ( 21 points ) , Defense/ST ( 20 points )
Mizzouri game – Offense ( 28 points ), Defense/ST ( 13 points )
OU game – Offense ( 7 points ), Defense/ST ( 9 points )
Colorado game – Offense ( 14 points ), Defense/ST ( 24 points )
You’re right, with D and ST outscoring the offense in two games, it’s not even close. My bad. Nevermind that we’re leading the nation in non-offensive touchdowns.
We don’t have the top scoring “offense” we have the top scoring “team”. All I’m saying is talk about offensive stats when you talk about the offense.
I didn't say anything about being the top-scoring offense in this thread, did I?
And you’re playing fast and loose with your breakdowns. FGs are products of the offense.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 6, 2009 2:40 PM CST up reply actions
Amen UT59
Right there with you and maybe because we are such old guys, we have a little different view.
I can remember walking into games in AUSTIN several times against A&M in the mid 80’s and early 90’s (Sherrill and Slocum) and thinking Texas does not have a prayer today of winning this game. And we did not win!
We have come a long way from back then to a win loss record over last 2 seasons of 20-1.
I Have to Speak
I haven’t logged in for a long while now…satisfied to just read, but I must contribute here.
This is unacceptable as a truly elite program. What awe’re all talking about here is fulfilling potential. Saying that I can remember the days…when we were happy for a win again against aTm or OU isn’t good enough. That is settling for good or even great, when we could be truly elite. We have the skill and talent in our players. It is nice to be able to let our defense suppress the other team, and to not be risky at all on offense, but why put yourself in that situation. Why not put it away with a slightly more creative offense? Why not put it up for your big WRs that are fast? If the defense is good enough to allow your offense to putter along, then it should be good enough to allow you to take some shots.
All of that being said, I am much happier with the offense since the OU game. The running game still blows, but I’ve given up on expecting changes in that department. Instead of being stubbornly persistent in a failed running scheme, I’d prefer we abandon it all together. 5 Wide allow you to burn defenses with hot reads if they blitz, or for Colt to take off.
We shouldn’t just want to be good enough, we should want to maximize our potential.
No team maximizes its potential
The 2005 team didn’t even do that. Every team has a floor and a ceiling. The ceiling only happens when every single player is playing at the very highest level he can all of the time and in flawless coordination with every other player on the team. That has never happened in the history of mankind, obviously.
What’s more realistic is to expect that the team draw closer toward that ceiling. Considering the ceiling is higher for UT than for Missouri, OSU, etc., playing closer to the ceiling decreases the odds that the off-game against a team that has an on-game results in a loss instead of just an ugly victory.
However, I reject the notion that this team isn’t playing closer to the ceiling than most other teams. It wins almost every single game, and has done so with offense, defense, special teams, or a combination of those factors. Sometimes one aspects falters a bit, and another aspect has to take up the slack.
The prevailing sentiment seems to be that the defense is picking up a lot of slack for the offense. That may be true this year, but it wasn’t last year, and yet people still gave Muschamp a lot more credit for a much lower-ranked unit than they ever game Greg Davis. Why? I’m not sure, but I tend to think it’s because the echo chamber of baseless assumptions about Davis is a terrific example of perpetual motion. I also think it has a lot to do with the fact that Davis is an understated fellow, while Muschamp is a very boisterous, excitable guy. A third consideration is that the standards for success on offense and defense are very, very different. People are happy if a defense suffocates the opposing offense without points being scored, while from the offense they demand not only that it score points and not be suffocated, they also require that it be done in a certain style that caters to their tastes. That’s a pretty unfair double-standard.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 6, 2009 10:32 AM CST up reply actions
Agreed
But is the desired result to win? We are 8-0 with a chance to win a Big 12 championship and a MNC.
If we do, that would be 2 MNC in 4 years. Is that not acceptable?
All we are saying is to enjoy the ride. Do I get mad at GD – yes – at the Oklahoma game I was sitting in the Cotton Bowl screaming at the play calling. But, they made the adjustments at halftime against one of the best defenses in the country and won. I loved what Payton Manning stated after the game – Colt and the coaches did exactly what a Pro QB should do – made adjustments at halftime and won the game.
I know this, the tide WILL turn – it always does.
Could have been 3...
…last year when we weren’t expected to be a MNC contender we played freely…then once we got ranked in the top 2 and had a real shot to play for it all, Greg Davis puckered up so tight you’d think he was trying to make diamonds in that old rear of his. That first half game plan against Tech last year was the result of our common curse…playing not to lose, instead of playing to dominate.
Right, right, it was Greg Davis...
…not Will Muschamp, whose defense surrendered 39pts., or Mack Brown, who is responsible for all strategic-level decisions.
For the record, I’m not blaming Muschamp alone, or even just Muschamp and Brown. I’m saying Muschamp and Brown were every bit as much to blame as Davis was.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 6, 2009 10:35 AM CST up reply actions
Strike that...
…30pts. Seven came from a pick-six, and two from a safety.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 6, 2009 10:37 AM CST up reply actions
My point was in respect to this year's offense...
…I am not interested in completely revisiting the Tech game. My point was to show that when we played loose with nothing to lose, our offense was much more consistent and productive….BUT when we feel like we are playing for a championship, we tighten up and then try to become these apologists for not living up to our potential
I'm definitely in the camp that doesn't like the first-person perspective in talking about UT
Because none of us really contribute, for better or for worse. But I digress. I really don’t get why the tightening is always attributed to Davis rather than Brown, who is notoriously conservative in big games.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 6, 2009 1:26 PM CST up reply actions
Conservative like Colt not running
It’s been a major barrier to UT’s success in opening some teams up. He alone possesses an ability to make everything into a running play if things get tight. It’s frustrating to watch him throw it away when you see he could pick up a few yards ahead of him.
At the same time I’ve noticed Colt has been unwilling to throw it away at times he absolutely should have and took sacks for major losses that should never have happened. If it’s obvious you’re about to be sacked, scramble and toss it away. I mean there was what I’m pretty sure was a 12 yard loss because Colt saw at least a couple defenders and ran backwards then appeared to just stop and surrender the yards.
I have to agree with the original sentiment that when it comes to big games, we get incredibly conservative.
TEXAS FIGHT
just two things
There is nothing wrong with texas’ passing offense. It is a robust scheme that is well thought out.
My only criticism of the running game is that there are simply too few plays. I wouldn’t go so far as to say texas doesn’t use constraint plays at all, because you do have a counter for teams pursuing too hard on the zone read.
As for people asking about why texas runs a complicated zone blocking scheme, I think they are blaming Davis for something he has little to no decision in. The offensive line coach chooses what scheme to use to block people, and I’m fairly certain the decision on who and what kind of offensive lineman to recruit is made between McWhorter (the OL coach) and Mack Brown (the head coach). I doubt Davis ever tells McWhorter who to recruit for offensive line, or what types of players to recruit for offensive line, just as I doubt McWhorter ever tells Davis what type or which QB to recruit.
Davis’ offense depends on texas having better players across the board than their opponents, and the majority of the time, that is the case. The only real criticism I would have of Davis is that he isn’t the best playcaller out there.
Of course, there are very few that are his equal as a QB coach, though, so there are trade-offs everywhere.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
