Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: PHOTOS: Mike Moser's Dunk Face Is Spectacular

Richard Justice Interruption

Instead of your previously-planned programming -- a look at Terrence Cody or an Anatomy Post (undecided at the moment, but both mostly complete), there will be an brief interruption brought to you courtesy of Richard Justice, who stopped my research about Cody dead in its tracks. This is a stop-what-you-are-doing interruption -- that's what happened to me and therefore necessary for you as well, dear reader.

*Begin rant

Apparently sportswriters don't know much about sports. It's commonly said that most sportswriters couldn't diagram a play to save their lives and I wouldn't put it past our old buddy Kirk Bohls to do so, but Richard Justice says it more even be worse than we possibly imagined:

By the time Texas offensive coordinator Greg Davis finished explaining the complexities of pass protection Sunday morning, it seemed to fall somewhere between splitting an atom and carrying on a conversation with a teenage daughter. His bottom line may be that no sportswriter can understand it all. He might be right about that. (emphasis mine)

Before going on here, let's stop to understand what is going on here. Greg Davis is talking about things that I would love to have the opportunity to sit down and talk with him about -- why there are massive and systematic breakdowns with our offensive line in pass protection way too often for such an experienced group -- and the person who is supposed to be telling me about this conversation compares it to nuclear physics. Then said sportswriter out and out admits that he is worthy of Davis' condescension because he does not in fact know what Davis is talking about.

So Justice raises some questions so a blogger like me can do his job for him. Let's begin the lesson, Richard -- unlike Davis I will condescend to explain this in terms that you can understand.

Follow me and I'll let you ask some questions and start making some statements. Maybe you can even combine the two for some excellent hybrid question/statements.

Star-divide

Question 1: But if Bama runs pro-style blitzes, why can’t Texas run pro-style pass protection?

This one is pretty simple, Richard -- because Alabama is coached by an NFL-level defensive mind, like say, the type of guy who has coached in the NFL several times and is going against a team that has several interrelated problems with the offensive line.

The first problem is what happens on the field, as several times a game -- or much more often when facing good three techs like McCoy and Suh -- the offensive line goes into massive FAIL mode. Often one player, sometimes multiple players, as in the case of the attempted double team where Chris Hall knocked his teammate off of Suh. This can easily be attributed to personal suck and lack of talent and/or ability to learn to play the game at a high level. Either one is bad, as is the combination that appears to be present.

So Richard, let me refresh your memory about the most recent game and maybe this will help you understand the way that the first and second problems relate. Against Nebraska, the Longhorns often did not double team Suh, letting him variously whip Michael Huey and David Snow within an inch of losing every single last bit of their confidence as football players. Then when they did adjust, it just made things worse.

That brings up the second problem -- the schematic adjustments by the coaches to help the players. Both Brown and Davis have admitted in the weeks after the Nebraska game that they should have helped out poor Snow and Huey more often when they were matched up one-on-one with someone who was eating their friggin' lunch on every play, an unbelievable and catastrophic percentage who guys who are supposed to win the great, great majority of the time. Who knew that Davis and Brown sometimes double as Director and Coordinator of Obviousness?

There were virtually no schematic adjustments in the first half against Suh. I saw Chris Hall bouncing around on his toes looking for someone to block more times against Nebraska in the opening half than I care to even remember. No one ever blitzed, Hall just bounced and bounced, looking around. All while the destruction of Huey/Snow went down just to his right.

The fact that when the adjustment was finally made that it didn't work relates to the third problem -- the inability of the coaching staff to effectively teach these players to be any good. They haven't improved in the last several years and continue to make the same mistakes. At some point, the failure to execute on the is a teaching problem as well.

And I will have to save my 20-minute rant on why Texas can't in a month teach the mid-line option, or three-tech DT zone read play (go, BONizens, read and marinate upon this play), to one of the most experienced groups of offensive linemen in the country. Yes, Greg Davis basically admitted that in a month he could not teach his team to run a play that involves an adjustment in blocking by one player. Yes, Greg Davis, holder of pass protection knowledge comparable to nuclear physics, cannot teach his tackle to block a defensive end on the three tech zone read.

But once again, the fact that the obvious adjustment against Nebraska when it was finally made did not even work and that's an indictment for all three of the interrelated problems. An aboslute indictment.

So, Richard, long answer short -- either the coaches can't teach it, make the proper in-game adjustments, or the players have no prayer of executing what you term "pro-style pass protection." As I mentioned, though, these are interrelated, so all three of these thigns are true. Enough massive suck and epid FAIL to go arond several times. But it's not nuclear physics.

Following me still, Richard? You are the sportswriter, so why don't you just try on a statement of your own for good size. You do have a column to write and it can't all be filled with rhetorical(?) questions.

Statement 1: Texas at times seems more concerned with exotic pass routes than the basics.

Wait, what? Richard, did you just call the Texas passing game "exotic"? I don't know if I can help you, man, but I'll continue just for the enjoyment of my fellow BONizens. Richard, there is little exotic about the Texas passing game -- they run the same stuff from the same exact formation all the time. That's how Davis confounds defenses -- by looking simple and being simple. That's why Nebraska and Oklahoma pretty much owned our offense for most of the game -- they coached for our tendencies and we pretty much gave them our tendencies in the passing game. Hell, the running game was more creative than the passing game against Oklahoma and the running game displays so little idea of how to put together a coherent running scheme that it just boggles my mind because you can just copy people. Some teams do manage to have coherent schemes. Just do what they do. Anyway. No, Richard, the passing game is not "exotic" and please don't let me hear you say that ever again or I will become extremely sad. Or quite possibly extremely angry.

I can't spend any more time on something so obvious -- le's move on.

Let's try a question again, Richard, you seem to be better at those.

Question 2: Why not keep a running back in for pass protection?

They do. Tre' Newton is good at it and has had probably fewer than five major breakdowns in pass protection (if even that) all season. Do you not watch the games, Richard? Newton was spectacular in blitz pick up against Texas A&M, perhaps the most underrated reason why the Longhorns were able to move the ball so well in that game. In summary, Texas does keep the running back in and that's the least of the protection problems.

Let's try something new, Richard. Why don't you try to combine a question and a statement?

Question/Statement 1: Better still, why not have both a tight end and running back help out?

Interesting try, Richard. Not a bad effort, as these things are going for you. This time, your idea was part of the plan for Texas. I'll try to do this one in pictures for you. Here's an example from the Nebraska game:

Richard, here is the face of Greg Davis as he thinks exactly as you do, right after he calls this play on 3rd and 8, doing just as you suggest. No exotic stuff. Maybe you can understand all this!

Gd_medium

Focused. Intense. Genius.

Nuside11_medium

This is the eighth play from scrimmage for Texas. The Longhorns have already committed one turnover and had a three and out. It's going terribly so far. So Davis dials up a play the Longhorns have probably used for Jordan Shipley twice or more every game since he moved to the slot. It worked at least twice against Oklahoma State for big plays.

  1. McCoy's main read is Jordan Shipley, who will run an out to the sideline at around 10 yards.
  2. The second read is Kirkendoll, who will fake a inside stem to his route -- a slant or crossing route -- then try to get an outside release on Prince Amukamara, probably Nebraska's best cover corner.

To be safe, as Richard suggests, the Longhorns are in a max protection look here and will keep both Newton and Smith in to block, even though Nebraska is not blitzing or even showing blitz. This is pure max protection with no check releases.

Nuover1_medium

Here's a look at the defense Nebraska is playing -- Cover 2 man under, basically using the Will linebacker as a defensive back in the box masquerading as a linebacker, in this case Dejon Gomes, who normally plays corner and had an excellent game against Texas by stopping the run and twice blowing up slip screens to Shipley that could have gone for big plays.

  1. The cornerbacks are all playing man coverage taking away any quick routes, including the cornerback at the top of the screen cut out by the camera angle. 
  2. The two deep safeties and the Will backer will each take one deep third of their field in the zone. Gomes is probably also responsible for the tight end and filling his gap against the run, but as soon as he reads his key, he's bailing out for the middle deep third.
  3. The Mike backer here is responsible for the run and the running back out of the backfield.

The Longhorns have three receivers in the route going against six Nebraska players dropping into coverage -- the Mike backer doesn't count because he's playing the running back. That's one on two, in other words.

What's that you say, Richard? You have a question?

Question 3: What's the worst that can happen?

A pick six? How about the second interception in three drives?

What's what? You have another question/statement? Go for it.

Question/Statement 2: That McCoy would have no one open and throw the ball away?

Well, let's see.

Nuover2_medium

  1. Shipley slips coming off the line of scrimmage, removing any chance he had of creating separation.
  2. The protection is good initially, though, as you would expect when seven players only have to block four. Even the Texas offensive line can usually handle that for a few seconds.
  3. Kirkendoll, however, gets no separation, as Amukamara takes away the inside release and then uses the sideline to his advantage, as well as the knowledge that if Kirkendoll beats him by a step or two, he has help in that third of the field from the safety.

Nuover4_medium

  1. McCoy has the option of throwing the ball away, the smart decision here as you point out, Richard, but decides to heave it into coverage off his back foot and hope that something good happens. Nothing good happens.
  2. Kirkendoll is obviously not open and Amukamara even has inside position against him.

Nuback6_medium

Another question/statement, Richard?

Question/Statement 3:  Isn’t that better than allowing him to get his face smashed into the turf?

Um, this one really is rhetorical isn't it, Richard? Is a second interception in three series and this wonderful shot of Kirkendoll attempting to play defensive back better than getting chucked like a rag doll by Suh? Is death an option?

What really sums up the mentality by Davis and the offensive overall is the comment by the color guy on the broadcast during the second replay. Kirk Hebstreit says, "Look at the coverage and recognition right now by Nebraska's defense, it's almost like they're in the huddle with Texas and they know what's coming every time Colt McCoy goes back to throw."

First, recall once again that this is the third possession of the game for Texas and Nebraska already has two interceptions. But no, Kirk, they just watch film and chart plays, then coach to the Texas tendencies. Actually, it's quite elementary in terms of coaching. Like something even a mediocre high school coach can do. It's just a matter of having the athletes to stop it consistently. Most teams can't. Teams like Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Alabama can. This isn't a new problem for Texas, Richard, in case you hadn't noticed. It's been going on now for some time.

*End rant

Davis explains nuclear physics

Perhaps this is the section of the article where Justice shows that he really does know what he's talking about. Or maybe he just transcribed the part of the conversation with Davis that he didn't understand in the hopes that the readers would. Who knows -- the only thing knowable here is that Justice decides to really on the Kirk Bohls style of journalism. Mix in a couple stats and then just use cutesy rhetorical devices in lieu of actual analysis. Because that's what people want, dammit!

Here's Davis on maximum protection:

There’s a time and place for (maxiumum protection). If you guess right, it’s great, and we did some in the Nebraska game. You’ve got maximum protection, and you’re throwing against one-on-one coverage. If you guess wrong and they drop eight players and you’ve got three guys going out, now the advantage goes back to them. It’s something you’ve got to use and pick your spots.

Quite true, GD. And quite elementary. The other problem here is that the tight end is pretty much useless in a pass pattern, so there's that limitation. Davis clearly understand the problems with going max protection, but just didn't have many answers for the Nebraska defensive line. Fortunately, the Alabama defensive line isn't nearly as disruptive -- fundamentally sound, yes, and difficult to move, yes, but not disruptive.

When Kirby Smart wants to be disruptive, he can dial up a variety of blitzes and blitz looks. Alabama will show blitz and drop players off into coverage and still be able to confuse the Texas offensive line -- it's happened all season, why should it change now? It's not either blitz or drop back into coverage, too, the blitz look is the third option. When a team has 80 blitzes, with a couple more likely just for this game, there are certainly a ton of blitz looks that drop players into coverage. Even if Alabama doesn't blitz more often against Texas than the 30% or so they average on the season, they will get pressure with those blitzes and can do so with fake blitzes to confuse the protection schemes as well. In fact, it's a lower risk strategy and one that can still work because of all the problems with getting the proper protection call in and getting the players to execute it.

Besides blitzes, Alabama will often run twists in obvious passing situations. There isn't anything on film from the Tennessee, Auburn, or LSU games that suggests this is a major problem for opposing offensive lines, but it's something that the Longhorns have had trouble with in the past and it could happen again.

Suffice it to say, however, that using max protection on nearly every play is not the solution and neither is moving the pocket -- both looks worked out terribly at times against Nebraska. In fact, the Longhorns may have to use Dan Buckner more than they have recently in an effort to spread out the Alabama defense and stretch them horizontally and vertically.

As Justice goes on to suggest, running the ball is part of the solution -- that's not exactly nuclear physics. The problem is the incoherence of the Texas running game and the fact that the offensive line struggles with execution in the running game almost as much as they do in pass protection against blitz. Running the ball will be extremely difficult when Cody is in the game and the scheme won't help the players too much. However, stay tuned for some further thoughts on the running game.

Comment 60 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Sorry to do that so close to game time

but I promise I’ll come back with some more heartening stuff in the next day and a half.

by Wescott Eberts (GoBR) on Jan 6, 2010 9:25 AM CST up reply actions  

I'd just like to say that

Justice is a hack. Years of his worthless Astros commentary have taught me this. Of course, he gets all the face time on ESPN when they need a Houston perspective on sports.

by rubber_soul on Jan 6, 2010 7:23 AM CST reply actions  

Wow...overreact, much?

I read this article, along with the others in the Chronicle’s NCAA Football section yesterday. While I thought the "maybe we just don’t understand’ line was a little odd for a reporter to add to his story, the fact remains that the coverage yesterday was actually pretty good. The article you just wrote, while informative, is actually not what the general public wants to read about college football in the morning paper. Plus, it would’ve taken about two full pages of column space. Not gonna happen.

No, these paper guys aren’t almight bloggers, but a lot of them do what they are supposed to do, and do it passably well. Let’s leave the in-depth play-charting and analysis to the internet world, where it belongs.

If the world was a school, we'd be homecoming king...

by adt2 on Jan 6, 2010 7:29 AM CST reply actions  

A fair point, but...

I was getting ready to jump in and type all sorts of defenses for Big Roy, but your take gives Big Roy his due.

And you raise a valid point about the audience Justice is serving with his piece. So let me combine those first to things to say “Good point, sir. And well said.”

Howevah… let’s slightly rework Big Roy’s point and I think it fully stands: I can grant you that Justice is writing what he’s writing for the reasons you stated, but let’s re-package Big Roy’s underlying point slightly, and deal with the Bigger Issue that’s animating his post here. I might put it this way:

(1) That the newspaper packages its content in the way that it does says nothing about whether it normatively should.

(2) Shredding Justice’s approach is not an academic exercise in blogger bravado. The illumination by contrast is useful and enlightening.

(3) In particular, Big Roy’s showing that the way the newspaper packages its content should not be justified as justifiably constrained; the point that I like is that it shows that such constraint is useless at best, and misleading/wrong at worst. And again, the point in (1) does not justify either result.

(4) The fact is that Justice’s employer is not doing the best with what they’ve got, but doing readers a disservice by what they choose to do. There may be some percentage of the population who would be oblivious or hostile to enlightening discussion of football, but a lazy strategy that settles for pandering to the lowest common denominator should hardly be supported. And…

(5)…seems to me a defeatist assumption that people are dumb and fundamentally desire to remain so. I’d like to believe the opposite is true, and I join Big Roy in pointing out that most of today’s mainstream news publications do everyone—you, me, the general public, and themselves—a disservice by settling for this kind of content.

My 2 cents.

You ain't hurt.

by Peter Bean on Jan 6, 2010 7:50 AM CST up reply actions  

Your perspective is spot on, but give the guy some credit...

BONers need to understand that deep analysis of any topic (sports, politics, religion, or otherwise) appeals to a tiny fraction of the population. I work with journalists for a living and can say with confidence that the most well-trafficked articles contain humor, gossip/speculation or sex. Period. This type of post illustrates a broader issue – the majority of Americans don’t like to think.

Do you think that Houston Chronicle reporters want to spend their time writing superficial blog posts? I bet if you ask just about any reporter they’d tell you that their product has become commoditized and they are increasingly being asked to regurgitate information found in press releases and inconsequential quotes from news conferences. Why? Because research and experience have shown publications that they must cater to the lowest common denominator. There is a reason why the average newspaper writes to an 8th grade reading level.

Justice has been asked to be an entertainer, nothing more and nothing less, and I’d argue he’s damn good at it. He’s like an old man telling stories on a patio – they’re mostly big fish tales and gross exaggerations but enjoyable all the same. The word “journalist” implies investigative, long-form writing, and it doesn’t apply here. He shouldn’t be held to a higher standard just because we don’t agree with how the Chronicle chooses to use its resources. Say what you will about ESPN, but they’ve perfected this craft as well. It’s the art of continuously talking without saying anything. Noise and pictures, not music or art. This type of content fills the white space on the page, but it is not lasting.

PB – you argue that it is a “defeatist assumption that people are dumb and fundamentally desire to remain so.” I say it’s naive to believe anything else.

the man, the myth, the legend.

by JYarbs on Jan 6, 2010 10:54 AM CST up reply actions  

I should also mention...

That this is why I come to BON. For those of us that want something more, there’s no better destination.

the man, the myth, the legend.

by JYarbs on Jan 6, 2010 10:55 AM CST up reply actions  

PB: Again (this is getting redundant)

you nailed here with your comments on newspaper-style writeups.

They are, to be blunt, aimed at the average reader who just this week found out that this really really good safety at Texas has missed the whole season due to academic suspension but will play against Alabama. A lot of what’s published is dumbed down, not word-wise but conceptually.

It goes deeper, though. Newspaper coverage of VIRTUALLY ANYTHING, news or sports or features, is not much different than it was 2-3 decades ago. Much of the writing is sharper, actually. The wording is better. The problem is is this: Just as newspapers failed to get a handle on the evolving technology of the Internet and blogs and rapid-response to events, newspapers also failed to revamp their “coverage style.”

There are many other economic and sociological reasons the print world is suffering, but failure to keep up with its readers’ demands is a definite factor in why so many folks (a large majority, BTW, of those under 35) don’t subscribe.

This from a former newspaper guy. End of rant.

Thanks, Big Roy, for your post. Richard is a good guy, and he’s more knowledgeable than most in his field. But he’s a baseball guy. You wonder if he’s watched UT play — yes, but not the way you and I have. Thus, he evaluates at a shallower level than we do. It’s not wrong (sometimes the wording leaves a bit to be desired), but it’s definitely incomplete.

by edsp on Jan 6, 2010 11:07 AM CST up reply actions  

Fair enough

You may be right, and you make your point well. I refuse to wholeheartedly adopt so cynical a position, though. I think the majority of people respond well to intelligent (and intelligently presented) material, and for every numnut who writes an inane comment in ALL CAPS, there are two others who say, “Hey, that was interesting. I’d like to know more.”

You ain't hurt.

by Peter Bean on Jan 6, 2010 11:57 AM CST up reply actions  

There’s a time and place for (maxiumum protection).

He could at least be accountable for running friggin’ spellcheck on everything he publishes to a major metro paper. This was the first piece of his I’ve read but it wreaks of laziness and shoddy journalism. Yet another sign of the general debasement of quality that seems to be pervasive everywhere.

There are all categories of people. Some are dumb (I prefer the term ‘unmotivated’) and fundamentally desire to remain so, some aren’t and don’t. Bottom line is that it’s all driven by demographics, ratings and subscriptions (aka profits) and not by what is of high quality or good for the reader or TV viewer. Which is why I find myself watching zero prime time television and reading very little print. And spending too much time on BON :)

by SpiritOfTheFedora on Jan 6, 2010 2:44 PM CST up reply actions  

Justice is more a provacateur than an entertainer

I read Justice’s blog and columns regularly, especially those on the Astros, and find them entertaining. However, Justice seems to write more to evoke an emotional response from his audience than strictly to entertain. He flip-flops more than any politician. For example, within a week or so he can write a column very favorable to the Astros’ owner and then rip him a short time later. Between his flip-flops and his over-use of scarcasm, readers frequently can’t tell what his real position is. He will get responses from those who take his words at face value and others who take the same words as scarcasm. A couple years ago, when A&M beat us for the second time, he wrote a column about how A&M was now UT’s “daddy.” Justice has also roasted Augie Garrido is a couple of columns over the years. He frequently inserts his political beliefs into a discussion of sports for no reason than to get a rise out of those who disagree with him. Even more disturbing is his tendency to make highly insulting, personal, and unprovoked responses to commentators on his blog, usually insulting their intelligence, education, and/or mental stability. Frequently. for example, he condescendingly suggests that they forgot to take their medication. There seems to be no rhyme or reason for his hostile responses. A fairly innocuous and sincere comment will be flamed, while another hostile comment from a reader will be ignored. I myself have been a victim of Justice’s hostile comments. When he questioned my education, I responded that I had 5 degrees, including one from UT. Justice’s response was to suggest that I must suffer from insecurity if I had to point to my education. Yeah, I guess Justice is en entertainer, but along the same lines as Don Rickles and other insult comedians. He is a jerk.

"Only angry people win football games." --DKR

by OBdoc on Jan 6, 2010 5:41 PM CST up reply actions  

Targeting an audience is no excuse for lack of understanding...

A good (knowledgeable) writer can take something complicated and explain is simply while leaving out the gory details. The message should be the same though. Big Roy’s argument is not dependent on the details – how hard is it to say the offensive line struggled due to some combination of teaching, play calling, and execution and provide a couple of high-level details? I’m sure Big Roy could generalize his post for mass consumption. I’m not at all convinced that Justice could do the opposite.

by Texasrocks on Jan 6, 2010 8:40 AM CST up reply actions  

and i

feel instantly happier. Great coverage here at Burnthorns :) love texas, like your blog

Roll Tide

"There's a lot of blood, sweat and guts between dreams and success." PBB

by Pachyderm Pride on Jan 6, 2010 7:29 AM CST reply actions  

don't get to cocky

like Rolando Mcclain and Marquis Maze

by thebrat on Jan 6, 2010 10:30 AM CST up reply actions  

It's just the calm

before the storm. All part of the process.

by SpiritOfTheFedora on Jan 6, 2010 2:46 PM CST up reply actions  

I've never once heard even an attempt at blocking scheme analysis on ESPN

Or on any other TV or radio, except for Rivals Radio on Sirius. It’s just the type of thing that makes most sports journalists’ eyes glaze over, and of course it doesn’t interest the casual fan either. They just assume the line is the line, and it’s either good or bad.

So why has the line been underachieving so much in the Colt McCoy era? Is it because of the current scheme? They’re coached by the same guys who coached Justin Blalock, Jonathan Scott, Derrick Dockery, etc. but they’re just not performing all that well. So is the problem the players, who are different from during the golden years, or is the problem the coaches, who are the same as during those years? Or is it the scheme, which is much more pass-oriented?

by burntorangehorn on Jan 6, 2010 7:58 AM CST reply actions  

I think that 1) those guys had a generally pissed off attitude that helped them overcome coaching deficiencies and 2) they had a better scrambler (Colt is very good, but VY was better) and RBs who could do more on their own

by UT_BKC on Jan 6, 2010 8:55 AM CST up reply actions  

They

attempt it with NFL Matchup that comes on early Sunday mornings. But that’s about as in-depth as you’ll get. I have no doubt that someone as ESPN is more than capable of such analysis. I guess it just goes back to the same argument, would anybody watch?

I’ve never once heard even an attempt at blocking scheme analysis on ESPN

"A demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." -H. L. Mencken

by Bens4vcobra on Jan 6, 2010 12:27 PM CST up reply actions  

It may be all or some of the above.

The scheme, the players, the mix of personalities, the coaching, the turf, the wind chill factor… you name it. I’ve seen it with many different college teams in various years. The common factor in my view is that a group of guys with talent at their positions are put together and for a variety of reasons never jell. They never become more than 5-6 guys on a depth chart.

A coaching staff, no matter how good, will stick with that 1st group, and do all in it’s power to make that happen, for fear of not giving it enough time, or of tinkering too much.

Sometimes it just doesn’t happen. Auburn, for example, had a load of potential* on the offensive line one season, and those guys were all back the next year. They were a year older, but never got all that much better.

*potential, as defined by Bear Bryant: “Potential just means you ain’t done anything yet.”

by Jeff (no, the other one) on Jan 6, 2010 8:54 PM CST up reply actions  

Mark May

I don’t know if you guys remember when he first showed up at ESPN, but he was actually a pretty insightful analyst.

I remember vividly the first time he picked out his top college football plays, they weren’t the usual kickoff return for a TD in a blow out. It was a key third down stop that completely changed the momentum of a game.

Eventually ESPN had him dumb it down, but as much as you don’t like to admit it PB, it’s what the masses want. Just look at Fox News. They intentionally dumb down their coverage and are rewarded with the best ratings of any new network.

3/19/2009 - Dogus Balbay Made a Three-Pointer. Never Forget.

by burrito on Jan 7, 2010 1:44 AM CST up reply actions  

Talent level?

Aren’t Blalock, Scott, & Dockery all NFL starters? How many of them are probowlers?

by orangetower on Jan 6, 2010 8:27 AM CST reply actions  

Another masterpiece, GBR

After reading your stuff, I feel like I’ve become smarter than Richard Justice. And maybe Greg Davis too.

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 Jan 6, 2010 8:44 AM CST reply actions  

Great post GBR...

however, I want to know what happened to Cody Johnson? In the OU game, after a first half of hell on Colt, they finally brought Cody in to pick up the blitz and to also pound the ball a little. Everyone loves a missile, but every so often you need a tank to soften up the opposition. So what if the D picks up that it is either going to be pass or run up the middle. Clearly at the Big 12 Championship, that off-tackle run by our pint-sized RBs wasn’t exactly throwing Suh out of sorts. Cody has to be involved somehow in this game for us to have a chance to win.

"I've never gone into a game trying to win the Heisman Trophy; I go into a game trying to win." - Colt McCoy

by Robertpz on Jan 6, 2010 8:53 AM CST reply actions  

I was wondering why we didn’t see as much of Cody either. Newton does very good picking up blitzes, but I think he was just too small to help out this game. I remember one play where he got destroyed trying to help out with Suh. Cody is less of a threat to pass. They wouldn’t have to worry as much about covering him. But I think to make up for that we coudl have used Buckner more.

I think Buckner + Cody would have been a better combination than Newton + EBS.

Since Bama doesn’t have a Suh, we might be able to get away with Buckner + Newton.

by UT_BKC on Jan 6, 2010 8:59 AM CST up reply actions  

The deal with CJ

is versatility. The offense isn’t as multiple when he’s out there and the offense isn’t particularly complex when Newton is in there as well but the bottom line is that Newton is playing because he’s a more complete back and the ability to pick up the blitz is huge for the Longhorns. I have a ton of respect for guys like Quizz Rodgers and LaMichael James, but Texas just isn’t going to recruit guys that size to be every-down backs.

There will probably be a couple times where the Longhorns need to pick up a couple yards and Johnson will be the guy. But as far as getting 8-10 carries it’s probably unlikely.

by Wescott Eberts (GoBR) on Jan 6, 2010 9:35 AM CST up reply actions  

I know the offense is less complex/multiple when Cody is in versus Newtown, but isn’t it MUCH less complex with Smith versus buckner? If you are trying to protect McCoy from someone like Suh or McCoy_OU I don’t think it is good to have both Buckner and Newton out there. Buckner’s blocking, in my opinion, isn’t great. But it seems like we don’t need a lot of blocking from ESB. It appeared to me that the RB position would do more to help out versus a Suh type player (obviously, it is hard for a TE to chip/help out on a DT).

So, we put Cody in to “chip” (aka knock the crap out of) Suh. Then have Buckner help with the DE and release. Notice that if Greg Smith had realeased on the play above (the right tackle was right behind him doing nothing) he would have been very open around the 30 yrd marker that the Will vacated. That, or Kirkendoll wouldn’t have been doubled. Of course, there is about a 50/50 chance Smith drops or volleyball sets the pass. Buckner catches it and moves the chains.

by UT_BKC on Jan 6, 2010 10:24 AM CST up reply actions  

Cody's not the guy I'd put out there to chip Suh

Ideally one would find a way to put Leonard Davis in at running back when Suh’s on the line, but on the current roster, I’d go with Newton. He seems like the best blocker at RB.

by burntorangehorn on Jan 6, 2010 12:36 PM CST up reply actions  

Sigh...depressing nonetheless

what else can we do tho? just cross our fingers and hope that GD doesnt get too conservative and call a great game like against OU in 2008…

Personally I think its kinda ironic that we want a third of Coaching Staff to retire soon…DL, OL, OC LOL

COACH BOOM BABY!!

by hookemkp on Jan 6, 2010 9:06 AM CST reply actions  

What DL coach?

You mean Giles or Tolleson?

I for one would prefer that neither retire for a while, but the rumor is that Tolleson might. I don’t think that’s really wishful thinking, though.

by burntorangehorn on Jan 6, 2010 9:11 AM CST up reply actions  

Personally

I’m not calling for any of those coaches to retire, Tolleson in the least — there’s nothing that suggests he’s been less than excellent in his time at Texas. MacWhorter is a bit more questionable, as this post tried to illustrate though, it’s almost impossible without more information to isolate the exact source of the problem. Players, coaches, scheme, all deserve blame. Recruiting philosophy. Everything.

As far as GD, in the end I feel similarly to how I feel about MacWhorter and for the same reasons — what influence does Mack Brown really have on this football team? What does he tell GD in the meetings and how does that influence the playcalling and formations and personnel? Who knows. Davis is the easy target, so he gets targeted. In some ways, it’s not even worth wanting Davis gone because he’s here as long as Brown is the head coach, so why fight that reality?

by Wescott Eberts (GoBR) on Jan 6, 2010 9:41 AM CST up reply actions  

For all the knocks we make at the coaching staff

concerning the offensive line, the biggest issue is this:

Russell Okung, Oklahoma St., Fort Bend Bush HS (Houston area), first-team All-America
Ciron Black, LSU, Tyler Lee, second- or third-team All-America, first-team All-SEC
Trent Williams, Oklahoma, Longview, first-team All-America
Louis Vasquez, (former) Texas Tech All-Big 12, Corsicana, rookie with the San Diego Chargers (could be a fifth-year college player)

The Longhorns failed to recruit these players. Maybe they tried, maybe they didn’t. Put 1-2 of these in front of Colt and Tre and . . . oh, Ed, you dreamer.

by edsp on Jan 6, 2010 11:24 AM CST up reply actions  

Just for info

Okung 3 star did not get Texas offer
Black 3 star did get an offer
Williams 3 star did not get an offer
Vasquez 3 star did get Texas offer

In Vasquez year Texas took Hall (3) and Tanner (3), In other year Texas took Burnette (4) Moore (3), Watts (3) and Webb (4).
All info according to Rivals.

by billb on Jan 6, 2010 12:10 PM CST up reply actions  

a lot of those rankings are based on which schools offer which players.

if texas offers Okung, he might jump to a 4-star. The prep rankings are pretty circular.

by billyzane on Jan 6, 2010 6:11 PM CST up reply actions  

a few notes

-this is the ninth play from scrimmage for texas, not the eighth.

-this was on 3rd and 5, an obvious passing down, which is probably why texas chose to tag it with Lock, keeping it the back in for pass-pro

-when a linebacker ‘runs the pole’ like that and takes the deep middle of the field, it is Tampa Two coverage, not Cover 3. However, there are only 10 defenders shown in the pic here, so there may be a deep safety in the middle I’m not seeing.

- Davis said sometimes you guess right, sometimes they guess right, and this play is an example of them guessing right. texas guessed they would come with a blitz and 3rd down, Nebraska opted for blanket coverage, Nebraska guessed right and got the interception. The next time texas may opt to release the RB and TE into a pattern, Nebraska blitzes the hell out of McCoy and gets the sack, and then fans would bitch about not leaving someone in to protest McCoy.

- You will notice that Nebraska has their dime package in on this play. They are essentially running a 4-1-5, which means McCoy should have audibled to a running play. Nebraska started the game in dime, and basically gambled that texas couldn’t run the ball on their front four; they were right. Running teams dream of defenses giving them the opportunity to block only one linebacker and multiple DBs on every play, but texas couldn’t do it. This is an indictment of the offensive line and McWhorter more than it is Greg Davis.

-as to why texas can’t use “pro-style pass protection”, in the NFL, they have Jonathan Ogden; at texas, you have Adam Ulatoski; that is why.

-If Justice wants to know about pass-protection, he should ask McWhorter, the OL coach, not Davis, the coordinator and QB coach.

-your link didn’t work for me. I used this one

by Beergut on Jan 6, 2010 9:13 AM CST reply actions  

I'm so glad you caught that, Beergut!

It was totally driving me nuts that GoBR thought this was the eighth play from scrimmage

by horndude on Jan 6, 2010 9:36 AM CST up reply actions  

Well you're all kinds of butt-hurt today aren't you?

What’s the matter farmer? Nobody to play with on your own blog?

Or is there nobody left to ban?

Your tongue can't repel flavor of that magnitude!!

by UT2001 on Jan 6, 2010 10:08 AM CST via mobile up reply actions  

Call kept

both Smith and Newton in the backfield. Why not let the running back check release?

Wait, you think Texas should have run on this down? Yet, you called it an “obvious passing down” above. Which one is it? Based on the terrible Texas running game/offensive line/scheme (take your pick), how could running the ball on that down be a good idea unless it was a quarterback draw?

Yes, I did notice that Nebraska was running their dime package — that’s why I noted that Gomes had a great day basically playing a linebacker position. In fact, he was a big reason that Texas wasn’t successful when they did actually manage to get in some space as Gomes was excellent in coming up and stopping the run — the Texas offensive linemen couldn’t get to him. His performance was second or third best on that defense that day and there were some guys who had an excellent evening defensively on that unit.

Check your play-by-play data again, it was 3rd and 8. Still think Colt should have checked into a run?

by Wescott Eberts (GoBR) on Jan 6, 2010 10:08 AM CST up reply actions  

I must have looked at the wrong series

you are correct, it was 3rd and 8

The third down play in the second series was 3rd and 5.

When you have 6 blocking 5 in the box, you still run the ball, 3rd and long or not. If you pull the backside guard and tackle, all they need to do is get to the outside and shield the back from the LB and DB, not reach the DB.

Center goes down on 1 tech, playside OG and OT double 3 tech, playside DE will be picked up by pulling backside OG, TE pins DE outside, pulling backside OT curls around and takes first man who shows, probably Dillard, the Mike backer. This is basic Power, and against a five man front, it is money.

If you don’t have OL who can pull to the backside and run this play, you have to ask yourself why any of these people were given scholarships to texas.

by Beergut on Jan 7, 2010 4:00 PM CST up reply actions  

How is that 4-1-5? The will is playing the run until he see’s McCoy drop to pass.

by UT_BKC on Jan 6, 2010 10:29 AM CST up reply actions  

I thought about nit-picking that myself

But I figured the guy in deep coverage, out of the shot, was the missing one in his count, and that he didn’t want to count him without having a complete picture.

by burntorangehorn on Jan 6, 2010 12:38 PM CST up reply actions  

Man

Between this post and Scip’s debbie downer one over at BC, I’m guessing we lose by 30.

by jc25 on Jan 6, 2010 10:12 AM CST reply actions  

yeah whats with that..

I was so pumped last night when I read PB’s post on why we would beat Alabama, but now my mood is kinda low

by thebrat on Jan 6, 2010 10:36 AM CST up reply actions  

Another solution for the above situation is for Colt to break out and run

But Nebraska was doing a pretty good job of keeping him in the pocket and not letting him slip out….

Still might have been a better decision than to heave it up into double coverage, but then again, the interception is almost like kicking one of our miss-firing rugby punts.

But if I were going to heave it up into double coverage, I’d choose Ship’s direction rather than Kirk’s.

by notsofst on Jan 6, 2010 10:56 AM CST reply actions  

If McCoy takes off I think he just barely gets back to the line of scrimmage. He was being spied and I don’t think he had much room to run either direction. But it would have been better than an INT. Unless the punt sucked…

by UT_BKC on Jan 6, 2010 11:40 AM CST up reply actions  

FINALLY

Kudos to GhostofBigRoy: Finally a serious critique of the failures of Davis’ coaching. Do our players leave better than when they came in? I would definitely say ‘yes’ to Muschamp’s players and ‘no’ to Davis’s group. The buck stops with him but how many times did we witness either McCoy or a running back go straight into Suh. Was it arrogance or stupidity? Do you not give credit to the opposition’s strengths? If the schematic is as against Nebraska, full of arrogance and no creativity, we’ll all be watching some meaningless basketball game before the end of thenational title game.

by Debo G on Jan 6, 2010 11:28 AM CST reply actions  

We haven't seen Muschamp's guys leave yet

BTW, the buck stops with Mack Brown, not Greg Davis or Will Muschamp.

by burntorangehorn on Jan 6, 2010 12:39 PM CST up reply actions  

Agreed

But Brown will never fire Davis because of friendship, an absolute ludicrous criteria. Perhaps if Texas wins, Brown will feel good enough to retire and then we can get Muschamp and a whole new offensive coaching scheme, maybe one that involves running as well as passing. How unique at UT…NOT!

by Debo G on Jan 6, 2010 2:55 PM CST up reply actions  

Greg Davis for the Tech job

Talk it up, it might happen

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 Jan 6, 2010 3:41 PM CST up reply actions  

Be careful what you wish for

I know you’re anti-GD, but the fact is that there aren’t many coaches with as much success over a long period of time as GD has had. Also, I’d like to point out the GD isn’t just Mack Brown’s friend, he’s also running the kind of offense Mack Brown wants. If Mack were dissatisfied and saw someone he thinks could do a better job, he’d find another position on the staff for GD rather than just keeping him where he is.

by burntorangehorn on Jan 6, 2010 5:43 PM CST up reply actions  

To follow up:

My point there was that we have absolutely zero idea how well Muschamp will handle the head coaching duties at Texas. It’s far from a sure thing that he’ll exceed or even come close to the kind of success the program has enjoyed under MB, whoever the successor at OC might end up being.

by burntorangehorn on Jan 6, 2010 5:44 PM CST up reply actions  

I don't have inside info.

But I don’t think Carl Reese would have retired if Mack made a big deal about wanting him to stay on, and Reese had been Mack’s DC his entire time at Texas until his retirement. Mack demoted his friend Duane Akina after the 2007 disaster.

It’s not friendship that keeps GD employed; it’s the fact that he gives Mack exactly what he wants, which is a relatively conservative gameplan in games when we have a decided physical advantage and the ability to mix up the gameplan when Mack feels we need more than athleticism to win. That and we average over 33 points per game every year (check the stats: as far back as the NCAA stats go online, Texas has never finished below 16th nationally in scoring offense). In that same span, we’ve finished 18th (twice), 45th, 26th, and 32nd in scoring defense.

by billyzane on Jan 6, 2010 6:25 PM CST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Burnt Orange Nation, a blog dedicated to University of Texas athletics. Get BON updates via Twitter.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Photo_57_small
Y'all Can Still Call Me GoBR
Tabasco-gallon-jugs-9_small
Happy NSD Aggies!!!!
Jersey_front_small
A Recruiting Reminder

Recent FanPosts

Small
Texas Women's Basketball
Tabasco-gallon-jugs-9_small
Nike helmet redesign
Horns_small
Rivals 100 released
Small
Don't mess with Texas.
Superman_small
Breakdown of Each Position (Defense)
Superman_small
Breakdown of Each Position (Offense)
Small
Big 12 Expansion is Back!
Small
Miles Onyegbule...why not TE?
Photo_on_11-10-11_at_6
Early Predictions for Fall Depth Chart (Defense)
Photo_on_11-10-11_at_6
Follow the Bouncing Ball

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Site Editors

Pb3_small Peter Bean

Dark_pumpkin_small awiggo

Photo_57_small Wescott Eberts (GoBR)

Contributing Authors

Gse_multipart20834_small 40AS

Pigeons_small billyzane

Zombie_profilepic_small Horn Brain

220px-learnedhand_small learned hand

Jersey_front_small 54b

Small whills

Me_small burnt in ny

600px-lorenz_attractor_ybsvg_small pleaseplaykindle

Small TheElusiveShadow

Rosebowl_small txtwstr7

Silhouette_bull_crop_small TXStampede

Brandedbevo1024x768_small dimecoverage

Whataburger_small Hopkins Horn

Pic_small Reggieball

Debonair_pic_small GoHornsGo90

Dkr_small InDKR'sShadow

Profile_pic_small billfromlaketravis

Peterson_small ElongatedHorn

Small Cat8