under center
by tcuhorns on Mar 3, 2010 6:30 PM CST
Email
Print
I hope that mack is serious this time. We can't put the pressure we put on colt on gg. The last 2 years everytime we ran from under center we always got great yardage whether it was against ou or aggie. What do you guys think of the new "change".A lot of the experts think we won't do it, gobr what about you.
Your FanPost must be at least 75 words long. Right now it's only 66 words long. If you just have a quote, link, video or photo you'd like to share with the community, try creating a FanShot instead.
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
76 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
practice
from the practice it looked good. i really hope walters gets healthy and trey graham becomes a starter. teams like tech are vulnerable to a power running game cause they’re moving to a 3-3-5 without elite talent
I hope we do run some under center
I don’t think we need to do it all the time. I do think we need to make sure we are both running and passing from under center to make sure that we are not becoming predictable. I think this won’t be a worry but I also wouldn’t get to excited that we are going to be and under center, I formation team. We will still be back in the gun at least half of the time.
"I want to be remembered as the guy who gave his all whenever he was on the field."
-Walter Payton
I'm hoping with a 60-40 split
60 under center, 40 in gun or pistol or some other variation of artillery.
I hope they serve beer in hell.
+1 on artillery reference
That is what I would like to see as well. Preferably more pistol than gun as well.
"I want to be remembered as the guy who gave his all whenever he was on the field."
-Walter Payton
I say we call under center the grenade from now on.
Any takers?
" Answers -- Become Resources."
Without Questions; There are limited Resources...
Nice. I like that one.
"I want to be remembered as the guy who gave his all whenever he was on the field."
-Walter Payton
I would like to see a 60-40 split...
but, I seriously just can not see this right now. Unless the OL can get the DL off the line of scrimmage (which did not happen often last year) I think we place all the pressure on GG and all of the talented receivers we have brought in, in the past few years. Here’s to hoping I am wrong and Chris Whaley turns out to be a beast!
The way we were running out of the gun
didnt’ exactly give the lineman the best situation to get movement off of the line. Before, imho, our running game was more predicated on the RB running laterally until he found a crack in the line because all of our lineman were running laterally. Under center I don’t think we will have this same problem.
"I want to be remembered as the guy who gave his all whenever he was on the field."
-Walter Payton
A lot will depend on down and distance
We’ll see the gun in passing situations. The somewhat obvious key will be getting first down and second down yardage to set up third down for the run or play action. The more third downs we can run under center the better.
I am anxiously awaiting the first run where the tailback actually accelerates up the middle through the line. To me the most beautiful play in football is a quick hitter for a TD.
"You've got to think lucky. If you fall into a mudhole, check your back pocket - you might have caught a fish" -- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Mar 4, 2010 5:19 PM CST up reply actions
Spot on, sir
I am really looking forward to how under center works on first and second down. I am looking forward to true play action on third down as well.
"I want to be remembered as the guy who gave his all whenever he was on the field."
-Walter Payton
What's your take on the blocking scheme?
Are we going to still zone block running out of the I or ace?
"You've got to think lucky. If you fall into a mudhole, check your back pocket - you might have caught a fish" -- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Mar 5, 2010 10:58 AM CST up reply actions
It will still be zone blocking but
if you are running downhill it puts a greater emphasis on the double team. With the previous running scheme we essentially had four running plays: sweep, counter, draw/delay and zone read. All of these except draw/dealy are outside hitting plays and therefore took the focus off of the double team and more on getting big on big and creating a crease.
I am anticipating that under center you will see a great emphasis on the double team at the LOS and then one player coming off on the LB. I’m really excited to see it as I think this type of scheme benefits every kind of back from CJ to DJ whether they are pounding it or making one cut and go.
"I want to be remembered as the guy who gave his all whenever he was on the field."
-Walter Payton
I dig it
It seems that Mack and GD feel the personell they have will have more success under center in a more pro-style offense, i’ll have faith in them.
after all, thier stubborn refusal to move to the zone read and spread with VY cost us the OU game in 04. if they had made those evaluations in spring and moved in that direction earlier we win the only game we lost that season.
Changing what you do is part of the college game, we have been lucky to have started 2 QBs over the last 6 years. thats rare
"Texas Till I Die"
I'd be reluctant to make a wholesale change like that.
You recruited Garrett Gilbert, who’s been running the spread out of the shotgun for all of his HS career, and now one year in college. Suddenly switching to under center is a serious adjustment.
Beyond that, the only reason to move to a pro style offense is if the personnel unequivocally dictates the change. That is to say that you’ve got a powerful downhill runner that would benefit from a full head of steam when he gets the ball. On the other hand, if we’ve got runners with a quick first step, and can read and react in a zone blocking scheme, stick with the current scheme. I think Jeremy Hills, Fozzy, and Tre Newton can do that. I’d also like to see DJ Monroe used more as a running back, rather than only running a jet sweep.
All that said, I would like to see more no huddle. It’s what Gilbert ran in high school. Though, I’d prefer the Gus Malzahn no huddle (2 minute offense), as opposed to the “get to the LOS and look to the sideline for the play” type of no huddle.
best case
is that GG can run BOTH, and a RB emerges as that bowling ball back who can punish guy then mix in the speedster (Monroe etc) to blaze past beat up fatigued defenders and GG can take advantage as well
It is weird speculating about the offense…. its been a while since I wondered what we were going to do.
"Texas Till I Die"
Very good point.
“Though, I’d prefer the Gus Malzahn no huddle (2 minute offense), as opposed to the "get to the LOS and look to the sideline for the play" type of no huddle.”
Greg Davis – Please Please Please never give into the temptation to have your QB line everybody up and then look to the sideline for the play – ala the suckin’ sooners’ offense w/ Bradford & Landry. I don’t care what their offensive stats are, that is not football. It’s terrible too watch them do this. It’s like they’re confused half the time and, if they’re waiting 15 seconds to run the play, it’s not really surprising defenses either. It also removes the testicles of their QB & his leadership. Just run the play!
The 2-minute offense with Colt has always been quick, decisive, & effective at putting the defense in a disadvantageous position.
Mulitple looks is the best
I think Texas will do everything they were doing with a hint of power. If Texas can find a way to run under center and the spread, then Texas will keep defenses confused abd on there heals.
I say it will be 60% spread and 40% under center. Texas can score fast with the spread and wear teams down with the power.
Who are the experts that think we won't do it?
And GD does have a good history of running the offense that fits his personnel. I don’t understand where the skepticism is coming from.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
This has been a subject much-discussed in the past several seasons...
After Jamaal left, the talk has been about “making sure our running game is strong” – when it hasn’t been anything like that.
What makes you think a pro style offense would fit our personnel?
by SuperHorn on Mar 4, 2010 7:21 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Mainly Garrett
whose mobility (or lack thereof) will obviously cause a shift to a more “conventional” offense. Colt was a running threat, which dictated that we stay in the ‘gun and keep using the zone read that Vince ran, plus his sheer talent called for an offense that almost exclusively ran through him, hence more passes and option plays. Garrett will, this year at least, benefit from a stronger run game, which is easier to run from under center unless you recruit for a spread run-first offense, which we definitely haven’t, and also from better dedicated roll-outs, because his runs will need to be more scripted than Colt’s.
I thought this was all a pretty simple assumption about the upcoming year, that is why the story of our shift in offensive philosophy is such a big story this offseason. Everybody assumed it would happen, and GD has already come out and said that they are doing it, so I was just curious who all the experts were who are saying that GD is just lying, and we really are going to just keep running zone-reads and ’gun exclusively.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
I still disagree.
Few things:
Colt was a running threat, which dictated that we stay in the ‘gun and keep using the zone read that Vince ran, plus his sheer talent called for an offense that almost exclusively ran through him, hence more passes and option plays.
Gilbert allegedly runs a 4.67 40 yard dash. Colt ran a 4.79 at the combine. Straight line speed isn’t everything, but I think Gilbert deserves more credit. As for “sheer talent”, let’s not forget that Colt was a virtually unknown recruit. Everyone was caught off guard when he became a star. Gilbert, on the other hand, was Gatorade player of the year, and a top 5 recruit.
All this is to say that Gilbert is very capable of running the offense that Colt ran. In the past 4 years, we’ve been 3rd, 6th, 16th, and 6th in scoring in the NCAA. Are you aware of how remarkable that production is? And now, we suddenly want to make a wholesale change to the offense?
I just don’t get it. Yes, I’ve seen the issues with the run game. Yes, I’ve heard Greg Davis mention this. I think it’s a mistake. The offense’s role first and foremost is to score. In the past 4 years, of the top ten scoring teams only 3 teams don’t run an all out spread (OU twice, and Georgia Tech). Even then, both are variations of the spread, and neither a traditional pro style offenses.
I think the pro style offense is becoming obsolete in college. And, with three fast, one-cut backs, I don’t see the utility in changing the offense, when they can be fairly productive. The offense isn’t broken. Don’t try to fix it.
Go by points per game, not what place they were in.
In 2008, they scored 42 ppg. That was the best scoring season of the Colt era and anybody who watched the last four seasons would know they were the most efficient in that year – all the while breaking in a bunch of newcomers at running back. Colt was just that good – player of the year.
That being said, Gilbert has the tools in both running and passing to be on the same level as Colt & Vince. The only reason we all want a strong running game is to be able to pull away from the beast defenses we’ve seen ‘em struggle against lately (’09 NU & ou). Scoring hasn’t been their problem and it WON’T be their problem for the next 3 years, for sure. They just need to get their O-linemen and RBs to be a little tougher when physicality is needed.
Let’s give GD & the coaches some leeway. Since switching to the zone-read in ‘04, this offense has been unbelievably productive. They know what they’re doing.
Re:
In 2008, they scored 42 ppg. That was the best scoring season of the Colt era and anybody who watched the last four seasons would know they were the most efficient in that year – all the while breaking in a bunch of newcomers at running back.
That’s fine. It’s not relevant to the point I’m making, really. I’m not trying to differentiate which season is better, only that the offense isn’t broken. Though, I would say that, as a whole, it’s better to compare offenses as they relate to other teams in a given year (ranking) versus raw totals. It’s a better way to judge the effectiveness of a player/offense as it relate to the rest of the country.
Not broken but...
I think one thing the coaches are looking at is that the elite programs are catching up to the zone read and the spread offense. There are a lot of resources being thrown in that direction in terms of coaching visits, recruiting and planning.
We scored 50 points (total) against OU, NU and Alabama, they were all successful at stopping our zone concepts, especially the zone read. Gilbert can run but not at the same level as Colt did, which was not at the same level as VY. He may be a great runner but I agree with the coaches that too much pressure has been placed on the QB in recent years to the point where the team couldn’t succeed unless the QB had a great game. That’s not fair to the QB or the team, or the fans.
In time GD will have Gilbert throwing strikes out of the spread. The main difference in running more downs under center is that the defense won’t be able to so easily key off our formations. How many times did we convert a first down with a run on third and 3 last year? I’ll bet I could count them on one hand. Defenses, especially good ones, knew that when we lined up on third and 3 that it would out of the gun/spread and that we would throw the ball. Our offense was way too predictable and an effective downhill running game opens up all sort of options for that situation.
Also disagree with the comment above that the pro style multiple offense is obsolete in college. By definition it’s multiple, you can run out of the I or the gun or wildcat or ace or whatever. You don’t have to be stuck predictably in the gun/spread on third and 3.
"You've got to think lucky. If you fall into a mudhole, check your back pocket - you might have caught a fish" -- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Mar 5, 2010 10:54 AM CST up reply actions
Well said, sir.
"I want to be remembered as the guy who gave his all whenever he was on the field."
-Walter Payton
Still disagree.
Especially with this:
We scored 50 points (total) against OU, NU and Alabama, they were all successful at stopping our zone concepts, especially the zone read. Gilbert can run but not at the same level as Colt did, which was not at the same level as VY. He may be a great runner but I agree with the coaches that too much pressure has been placed on the QB in recent years to the point where the team couldn’t succeed unless the QB had a great game. That’s not fair to the QB or the team, or the fans.
Running an offense out of the shotgun doesn’t unilaterally dictate that you must run the zone read. On this, though, we agree. The zone read should have left with Vince Young. However, I still think the spread run out of the shotgun is the most effective offense in CFB. Recent history supports that theory.
As for the 50 total points against OU, NU, and Alabama. It’s better competition. How did we fare with Chris Simms in a pro style offense against OU? The logic that it was hard to score against good teams, so it must follow that we should install a new offensive system is ridiculous. All of those teams had excellent defenses. One of the games involved one of the best defensive performances I’ve ever seen (Suh). Pro style doesn’t fix that. And, another involved a true freshman quarterback in the biggest game we’ve played since January 4, 2006. Oh, and BTW, Nebraska and Alabama were the top two teams in points allowed in the entire country, Oklahoma was 7th. I’d also remind you that we won two of three of those games, and likely could have won the third with a healthy Colt.
In time GD will have Gilbert throwing strikes out of the spread. The main difference in running more downs under center is that the defense won’t be able to so easily key off our formations. How many times did we convert a first down with a run on third and 3 last year? I’ll bet I could count them on one hand. Defenses, especially good ones, knew that when we lined up on third and 3 that it would out of the gun/spread and that we would throw the ball. Our offense was way too predictable and an effective downhill running game opens up all sort of options for that situation.
This is another issue altogether. We can agree that predictable playcalling can be a problem at times. But, don’t blame the formation. Blame Greg Davis for calling plays that everyone knew was coming.
Also disagree with the comment above that the pro style multiple offense is obsolete in college. By definition it’s multiple, you can run out of the I or the gun or wildcat or ace or whatever. You don’t have to be stuck predictably in the gun/spread on third and 3.
The goal of the offense is to score points. Spread teams have consistently made up the top ten in scoring offense the past five years. Pro Style teams haven’t. It’s an inferior system. Instead of subjectively thowing around hypothetical reasons of why it would be better, just show me. Show me at least two “pro style multiple offenses” in the past 5 years that you’d like to emulate, and how their offensive production is better than the current offensive system in place.
The success we have had over the past 5 years comes around once every 25 years if you’re lucky. The spread has played an role in that. We all take for granted how dominant this team has been. Unless the offense is clearly broken, which it isn’t , I don’t see any reason for a change.
Its effective if you commit to it
Look at the effective running teams that use the spread. West Virginia etc etc. These teams commit to the run. They also don’t run their offense through their QB (Florida excluded though it was clear this year they were not the same team without Percy Harvin). While you can be successful running out of the spread it is in my personal opinion that either under center or out of the Pistol (the great compromise) that running is most effective.
"I want to be remembered as the guy who gave his all whenever he was on the field."
-Walter Payton
Mistaken causation
spread offenses have made up the top 10 scoring offenses because most teams run spread these days. OU’s 2008 offense, which was, let’s face it, one of the most efficient offenses in college football history, ran a lot from under center, and can only be described as spread because they frequently use 3-5 receiver sets. The best offense before that was USC’s in the Leinart/Bush era, nothing but pro-style there. For every efficiently run spread offense there is a crappy one, just like any offense. The myth that the spread is inherently better is just that, a myth, with nothing to back it up.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
Are you serious?!?
First of all….
OU’s 2008 offense, which was, let’s face it, one of the most efficient offenses in college football history, ran a lot from under center, and can only be described as spread because they frequently use 3-5 receiver sets.
What you just described is the spread, whether under center or not, the “spread” is meant to describe an offense that puts added pressure on a defense by spreading the field and forcing defenders to cover a larger area.
Second…
The myth that the spread is inherently better is just that, a myth, with nothing to back it up.
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. You start by pointing out two very good offenses among 50 that run a “pro style offense”. That’s 4% of the top 10 over the last 5 years. One of those teams actually runs a spread heavy offense to begin with, with some under center looks shuffled in.
Then, you dismiss the effectiveness of the spread, even though 45+ of the other top ten teams run it. The logic, the other teams are in the top 10 because a bunch of teams run the spread. Brilliant! I guess the reason pro style offenses aren’t in the top ten is because not many teams run it. It has nothing to do with how effective a particular scheme could be. It’s simply a numbers game. And, forget the fact that coaches continue to implement the spread. They’re just pawns; following the herd. It couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that it’s easier to put points on the board out of a spread attack.
Furthermore, across the board, a spread attack can require a little different skill set than that of a pro style offense. So, these “powerful” pro style attacks should have an advantage in recruiting, as certain players may have more value to them than they would to spread teams. Since more and more ignorant coaches are running the spread, the pro style teams should be able to cherry pick players. The perfect example would be Mark Ingram. He’d have little utility in a spread offense, but is excellent in a pro set.
Look, sorry if this is coming off as abrasive. We both have the right intentions. We want the offense to be as effective as possible. But, I’m really at a loss that you can call it a “myth” that the spread is effective, when a mountain of data says otherwise.
The last two NC game losses
have been by teams that ran the gun/spread 60+ percent of the time. I don’t deny that it will get you there but you simply have to have a running game to restore balance in the defense and-the key point- to take the pressure off the QB.
It’s unfair to ask for a 25-35-1, 275 and 2 or 3 TD every game. The QB is going to have a bad game or get knocked out and it’s good to have some other cards to play.
I’m not against using the spread, I’m against using the shotgun 90% of the time, it limits your options. Obviously the coaches agree, at least in theory.
"You've got to think lucky. If you fall into a mudhole, check your back pocket - you might have caught a fish" -- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Mar 5, 2010 3:11 PM CST up reply actions
That's all super in theory.
But, you have to remember back to the Chris Simms days. I’ve seen this system be ineffective. It still is largely ineffective college wide.
The problem I have is that make a change to 50%+ under center is an enormous change. And, in this process, it feels like people tend to only look at the “grass is greener” side. What gets lost is how effective this offense has been, and you put that at risk when this sort of a change is made.
This isn’t “NCAA Football ’10”. You can’t just start a new game and select “Pro Style offense” without reprocussions. Most important of which is that this is completely foreign to Garrett Gilbert. You can plug him into the Colt McCoy system and not miss a beat. Or, we can make a big change and hope that it’s better than consistently top ten. Best case, we get a little better ball control, and better play action. That upside is so trivial when you weigh the risk of the adverse effects this could have on our offense given the personnel in place.
One last thing:
The last two NC losses have been by teams that ran the gun/spread 60+ percent of the time. I don’t deny that it will get you there but you simply have to have a running game to restore balance in the defense and-the key point- to take the pressure off the QB.
Really? You’re going to try and sneak that jab in there. Florida handed out one of those wins (spread heavy). And, the other, well, I don’t like crying over sour grapes, but I believe we win that game if Colt doesn’t go down.
True, Florida did run the spread
but they were a running team first . Other comments below, you type faster than I do :)
"You've got to think lucky. If you fall into a mudhole, check your back pocket - you might have caught a fish" -- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Mar 5, 2010 3:44 PM CST up reply actions
i always thought
the goal of the offense is to score more point then your defense gives up, and the pro style will allow for you defense to be on the field less
Your argument first my point.
Maybe the defense is on the field less, but you’re putting the cart before the horse. You still need a powerful offense to score those “more points”. We are constantly producing a top ten scoring offense nationally and suddenly people want a change. To much risk for a very, VERY marginal reward.
SuperHorn, take it easy, bro!
I was trying to point out that you are accurate with what you’re sayin’. Maybe we’re one of the few that are not Greg Davis bashers. I love the offenses over the last 6 years (2005 & 2008 were just sublime!) and I think most of the efficiency should be credited to GD, not just terrific QBs. Yeah, I’d like ‘em to BE ABLE TO run up the gut when the situation merits but UT’s offense may be the consistently best scoring team in the country over that time period. And I think part of that is that they’re NOT a spread team and can pass AND run effectively. I think the only problem the past couple of years has been that they’re missing a Jamaal Charles or Ced Benson type of back and that they’re O-line didn’t have a good run game performance this past year. GD is going to morph the offense to fit GG’s strengths, that I know for sure. That’s GD’s track record for a long time now. I’m not willing to do the math & research but I’m fairly confident that if you averaged points scored over the last 6/7 years, UT would be top 3 in all of D-1.
Just like you said, the name of the game is to score. I don’t care of it’s pro-style or whatever, you gotta be effective against all defenses and all game situations to be able to contend for championships year-in and year-out. And they have.
Yup.
My issue with it is that there is this crusade to change the offense in the name of the run game. Well, a better run game would be nice. But, is it worth making a dramatic change to an offense that is consistently top 10 in the country? And, if it is, I’d like to see some really compelling evidence as to why it’s better. Because, recently, I haven’t seen many teams being effective in a pro style set, and all the data I’ve reviewed supports that.
True dat. Couldn't agree more.
IMO, UT is pro-style simply because they haven’t gone to the spread &/or solely no-huddle and they’re able to do a little bit of everything. How many times lately has UT & Cody Johnson been stopped in a goal line situation? Not much. We can run plenty when necessary.
I’ve seen every UT game for decades and, in my view, the offensive transition from Ricky / Major, to VY & the zone read, and on to Colt’s rifle arm was so seamless and subtle – that I hardly noticed. Save for some awful Cotton Bowl games in October, I’ve been so pleased with the offense. Up to now, the D has been the biggest problem but now that’s been Muschamped. With a motherload of talented QBs & WRs, upperclassmen RBs, and a bevy of good young O-linemen, I am so excited about the next few years of championship runs. Whatever offensive tweaks happen out there, they’re going to be very very hard to stop.
How about this?
We are something like 103-6 under Mack when outrushing opponents. We are 22-25 or so when we don’t. Strong correlation between winning games and outrushing your opponent. I mentioned this before the ’Bama game and nobody paid any attention but guess what? It still holds true.
There will be philosophical differences in these discussions but I don’t think you can credibly argue against taking pressure off the quarterback. IMHO the logical progression is that you do that with a running game and, as we’ve seen the last two years and as the next logical progression- not with a running game based on linemen and backs running parallel to the LOS out of the spread. It simply doesn’t work against elite defenses.
Not trying to sound abrasive either but it was our offensive concept that got us beaten on January 7- we put too many McCoy eggs in the basket and became too predictable. Balance between running/passing, multiple formations with multiple looks. Keep ‘em guessing, that’s how to beat an Alabama or Nebraska defense. 103-6; it’s hard to argue with.
"You've got to think lucky. If you fall into a mudhole, check your back pocket - you might have caught a fish" -- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Mar 5, 2010 3:26 PM CST up reply actions
Do you really believe that if Colt goes down, and we ran a pro style, Gilbert would have won that game?
Really? In COMPLETELY new system to him. C’mon. Everything else you’ve got in here is spot on. I don’t think we should abandon the run game. I just think we can be effective out of the shotgun. No doubt, we’d be more effective under center, but I think the passing game would suffer.
As for your statistic, here’s another one:
We’re 44-8 in the past four years, with only two losses in the past 2. And, the guy we’ve got coming in that is tailor made for this current offensive system.
Do you realize how hard that is to do? It’s remarkably elite. And, now we want to change the offense? That doesn’t make any sense. Winning is what’s important, and I think it’s a little short sighted to make such a huge change when we have only two losses in two years, and a green quarterback coming in with no experience in a pro style offense.
Yes
I think if we could have pounded away with runs it would have made GG’s job much easier and we would have won. Also if our defense had practiced more against 2 back running teams.
I strongly agree that we would have won with Colt but things happen to quarterbacks and you have to be ready when they do. Twice in his career Colt was taken out and/or had bad games (KSU, aggie in -07, NC game in ’09) and twice we lost hopes for championships. Maybe three times depending on how you look at the Tech game last year. That should not happen again, it is not fair to anyone.
I have nothing against the pass out of the spread, in fact I think it’s the best option in passing situations. I love the spread, it’s been great for us and I don’t want to abandon it, either. But I see the need for balance. 50/50 run and pass.
"You've got to think lucky. If you fall into a mudhole, check your back pocket - you might have caught a fish" -- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Mar 5, 2010 3:47 PM CST up reply actions
Whew, bad memories.
Don’t know if there’s anything UT could have done that night against KSU. A fateful night, indeed. The Horns put up, like, 45 points, right? Jevan Snead had a few INTs but still played great. The D was the prob there. You’re right on the others and you can add in a lot of close wins too that could have gone the other way.
We each have personal preferences on how to get there but I think we can ALL agree: A productive run game paired equally with an effective pass game would be the best approach. You just gotta do ’em both well no matter who you have at the QB position.
Facts don't lie.
I agree – but how many times of that 22-25 had more to do with the defense allowing high rushing totals rather than the offense breaking down? Up until Muschamp got here, UT pretty much had “issues” with stopping the run. And that’s what was getting ’em beat.
I think that UT has been able to run the ball when needed. However, I totally agree with you that RBs & the OL running laterally is NOT the way to go. If the coaches’ll get rid of that aspect of the run game and just run downhill, then I think the linemen will start thinking “Destroy” instead of just “Uh, who do I pick to block?” It’s infuriating.
There is one negative drawback of a run-first team. They have a lot of trouble coming from behind at the end of games. Colt & UT have been literally amazing in this rare skill and it has garnered wins for ‘em many times over. That’s what I love about a 50/50 run/pass offense. It can be equally effective against any type of opponent AND keep your D off the field.
And that's all the trend means
Providing more options and running the ball 50/50, ideally. Attack the LOS, we’re Texas.
"You've got to think lucky. If you fall into a mudhole, check your back pocket - you might have caught a fish" -- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Mar 5, 2010 3:52 PM CST up reply actions
It's also worth pointing out that since committing to the spread in 2004, we've only lost 9 games.
9 freaking games in 6 years. That is unreal. You don’t tinker with that.
This is definitely a golden time for UT football.
I really think that we are on the cusp of NCAA “all-time greatest eras” with what’s coming up in the next few years for the Longhorns. As good as they’ve been, they’re gonna be even better.
That's 106-3
not 103-6, my bad.
"You've got to think lucky. If you fall into a mudhole, check your back pocket - you might have caught a fish" -- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Mar 5, 2010 3:32 PM CST up reply actions
change
1st I understand your fustration and you make valid arguments all pointed out in your previous post. Here is the thing that i havent seen posted. The reason we went to the spread IMO was because of VInce Young, he was an extremely gifted athlete and it was the most effective way to utilize his talents. Especially with the zone read play when Benson and Charles were added to the equation. With that said it remains a highly effective offense because it allows qbs to be athletes, on any given play in the spread no matter down or distance the qb can become a rb & the defense has to account for that, that is something extremely hard for a defense stop. There is one proven theory in stopping the spread, blitz the qb, rough him up. Every team cant do this but the top teams (NB,BAMA, OU, SEC teams etc) have the athletes & speed on defense to do this. You take the qb out of the spread you pretty much kill the offense. We all got a 1st hand look at that against NB & BAMA. I know the argument is well if Colt plays we beat BAMA, but he WAS knocked out of the game, thats the risk you take running the spread. You cant protect the qb. Thats why we’ve only lost 3 or so games in the past few years but only have 1 championship to show. Thats not the only reason but its a big one. Now to hopefully make my point, were changing from the spread to a more balanced offense for 2 reasons.
1) We dont want to run our entire offense through 1 player, no matter how talented he is. You lose that player to ineffectivness or injury its not fair to all of a sudden ask the rest of the guys to step up or ask another player to just step in. No matter how good that other player is or those other guys are it takes time to adjust, time you may not have.
2) Malcom Brown/Aaron Green or the 2011 group of rbs. I’ll say Brown because lets face it, hes the #1 target. Brown is a downhill runner. A traditional back and if you want him to come to Texas you better make it look like he can be succesful here. You do that by giving him a fullback, massive oline, tight end and make a real commitment to the run. As far as GG is concerned he is familiar and capable in the spread but your able to ease the pressure of big games for him & offer him more protection running a more balanced offense. Not to mention his prospects of becoming an NFL qb increase because he has shown the versitlity of taking snaps under center. GG doesnt want to have to go through what Tebow is going through right now. GG is super talented and has the prototype build to be succesful in a prostyle offense.
Finally there are several other reasons pointed out by others in post that need to be taken into account IMO i just thought these few were overlooked.
I understand all this.
I just think you’re playing with fire. When you’ve only lost 9 games in 6 years, you don’t make a dramatic change like this. Tweaks are fine. This is a fundamental change to a well oiled machine that’s been, as a whole, one of the best offenses in the country over the past 5 years. Has everyone forgotten how this team performed before we installed the spread? What team runs a pro style offense currently that you think is better than our spread?
lost 9 games in 6 years
with two of the most prolific college QB’s of all time. I’d like to see us run an offense where we are not entirely reliable on one player.
"I want to be remembered as the guy who gave his all whenever he was on the field."
-Walter Payton
Coach.
Yes, they were two of the most prolific QB’s of all time. But, it’s important to point out that the offenses were designed to put them in those positions. Neither would have been nearly as great in a pro style offense, especially Vince.
Gilbert is Colt 2.0. Why change an offense that has arguably been the best in the country over the past four years? Balance is wonderful, but it’s irrelevant when you’ve been as successful as we’ve been. I don’t think there are any games we’ve lost in the past 5 years that were a direct result of us not running a pro style offense. Until that changes, let’s stick with our guns.
Way too much pressure
To piggyback off CoachEtch’s comment…It’s like looking through orange rose colored glasses to believe every QB is going to stay healthy and be as good as VY or Colt. They will be injured, they will have bad games. When this happens the team deserves a chance to win. Are you willing to drop 5 or 10 or 20 spots in the poll if the QB is lost for the season?
Don’t worry, you’ll see enough of the spread, hopefully not too much.
"You've got to think lucky. If you fall into a mudhole, check your back pocket - you might have caught a fish" -- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Mar 7, 2010 11:36 AM CST up reply actions
It's too differing philosophies.
You and coach want to install an offense to mitigate risk/create more balance.
I’d rather take the risk and design an offense around our playmaker, Garrett Gilbert.
To your point, though, you’re right. Every quarterback isn’t going to stay healthy. But, you’re the one looking through orange tinted glasses if you think that if the starting QB goes down we’re still going to be in the NC hunt. The position is too important. And, rarely is that possible.
Bottom line, I feel strongly that Garrett Gilbert’s game will suffer if you move him under center. I think his strengths are in the shotgun where he’s familiar. Run the offense through him. Yes, Vince and Colt were both great. I think Gilbert can be excellent as well. Maximize your potential now, and deal with the risk later.
Full disclosure.
I’m very pro spread in general. And a little bit of my bias comes from having to watch the Titans run a “pro style offense” because Jeff Fisher is too chicken shit to build an offense around Vince.
News Flash
We will miss Greg Davis when he’s gone and thanks will be due for all he’s done for our program. I hope he grooms a quality OCIW replacement in the meantime.
Dare we say Major Applewhite is being groomed for said role?
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." ~ Will Muschamp
""I always felt like, and I paid a price for it, that it didn't seem right for one guy to bring me down." ~ The Tyler Rose
by Mulliganville on Mar 5, 2010 10:22 AM CST up reply actions
That would bring back my faith in Mack Brown.
He lost it with the Simms / Applewhite experiment. This would make everything better for me. TO AN EXTENT……
" Answers -- Become Resources."
Without Questions; There are limited Resources...
If you have lost faith in Mack Brown then you must live on the road to perdition.
That has to be somewhere near Lubbock.
Midland actually.
Not all faith, but I for one, was pissed with that decision. Applewhite is much better that Simms. That’s all I’m saying.
Why does everybody have a problem with the part of the state? Seriously?
" Answers -- Become Resources."
Without Questions; There are limited Resources...
Nothing wrong with that part of the state
Midland, Snyder, Big Spring, Plainview, all good down home Texas towns. Did I forget Lubbock?
"You've got to think lucky. If you fall into a mudhole, check your back pocket - you might have caught a fish" -- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Mar 8, 2010 8:39 PM CST up reply actions
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.
