Morning Coffee Says Turnovers Are A Red Herring
by Peter Bean on Oct 12, 2007 7:12 AM CDT
in Texas Longhorns Football
Email
Print
As was mentioned several times yesterday, Longhorn freshman hoops recruit Gary Johnson has been cleared to practice with the team. However, it's important to note that Johnson has yet to be cleared to play in games. The team is proceeding with extreme caution, moving at a step-by-step pace to ensure they don't put Johnson's health at risk. As serious as these conditions can be, it's the right thing to do.
Big 12 basketball media week continues, with coaches voting the Longhorns #2 in the conference, behind Kansas. Texas A&M and Kansas State round out the coaches' top four teams.
The Texas staff may not pay attention to what we say at BON, but it's hard to imagine they can avoid the Dallas Morning News, where Chip Brown officially takes off the nice gloves and rips Brown for not playing his top talent. Chip goes so far as to say the program is "headed in the wrong direction."
And when did moral victories become acceptable at a school less than two years removed from a national title?
The cold, hard facts are that all the momentum from the confetti dropping at the Rose Bowl is gone.
Texas has lost four straight Big 12 games. With the talent on UT's roster, this should never happen. Texas should never be a double-digit underdog to Oklahoma ... or anyone else for that matter.
Here, here.
Unfortunately, there's ample evidence that the staff is hiding from the big picture truth. Mack Brown's Wednesday press transcript suggests the coaches think things are pretty much on track.
[...]
We've had a chance in fourth quarter for the last two weeks to win and that's what you want to do and now we've got to finish. We've got to make sure that we make the plays in the fourth quarter that we've been making in the first three (quarters).
Translation? We're right there, but just haven't quite been good enough in the fourth quarter, and we've not done well enough with turnovers.
Those are half-truths. Texas was technically still alive in the fourth quarter against Kansas State, but it's disingenuous to characterize the loss as a fourth quarter slip up. Texas was outplayed from start to finish. It's true that Texas was right there with Oklahoma, but I find it discomforting that the coaches seem to think Texas' biggest problem is turnovers.
Good teams usually do well with turnovers, but there's an element of luck involved with takeaways and giveaways, too. Given that, I never want to see a coach obsessing about turnovers in characterizing why a team is losing. If we go down that road, we should probably also note that the stars have been poorly aligned this season, and Limas Sweed's lucky rabbit foot got lost in the Orlando airport.
A great coach should be prepared for a game, stretch of games, or season of bad luck with turnovers, and win anyway. Mack doesn't seem to get that.
--PB--
38 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Careful Peter...
...Wells is sure to jump in here and label you a "hater" if you're not walking his line. <wink>
I know you're just teasing
But let's not needlessly rile up others. Wells doesn't shy from criticism of the coaches, anyway. That's no more a fair characterization than Mack saying we lost to Kansas State in the fourth quarter.
Chip Brown has...
...showed himself to be one of Mack Brown's greatest supporters in the sports media. He's consistently showed Mack reasonable and accurate advice over the past 9 months (probably longer). The program is at an obvious crossroad, both on and off the field. This no time for Mack to tell his "half-truths" (Peter's word, not mine) in a hapless effort to stay "positive". Translation = ignore the problems, rather than be proactive. Two meaningless wins over Iowa State and Baylor won't correct the problems, though I fully expect Mack Brown to proclaim "problems fixed" immediately after both games.
Well - I was just funnin' with you. Sincerely.
Publicly positive
Striking a positive pose in public is probably the right move. The question is how hard he is working on the negatives. The results will show whether the problems get fixed, not what he says.
Don't worry HC
I was not offended.
Mack's media savvy which I would have said was one of the best in the business until this year, has been desperately lacking. I think that he lost his benefit of the doubt with the media before the season started when he tried to tell them they were not doing their job right.
Crossroads maybe, but I think if UT can get through this year without imploding (only lose say one or two more during the regular season) then the positive momentum next year (returning starters and the great talent level of the past couple of recruiting classes) will push this team back into the upper echelon of college teams. The odds of going the other direction, imploding and having the negative momentum of the bad season overwhelm the positive momentum I mentioned above, seems pretty remote right now.
I love Chip Brown
I mentioned before on another thread that this will at some point damage their recruiting. Players who are talented enough to play early won't want to come to Texas. Why would they? That, combined with on and off the field problems, could seriously hamper future classes.
They are headed in the wrong direction, and Mack better make damn sure it's an aberration. The Aggies will see a rejuvenation next year with a new coach and the North is rising again. The landscape is getting more competitive and sometimes it feels like we're at a disadvantage.
by JT Longhorn on Oct 12, 2007 8:21 AM CDT reply actions
Yes sir!
If Mack doesn't get his act together quick, fast, and in a hurry, we'll find ourselves sinking to the middle tier of a possibly-resurgent conference.
by jjv78 on Oct 12, 2007 8:33 AM CDT up reply actions
I hate to say it
but you're absolutely right. Mac seems to be fiddling while the cattle ranch burns - couldn't help myself. Right now there is enough talent to compete for a MNC within 2 years but if we're not careful we'll be competing to get into middle tier bowls pretty soon because we are likely to experience a drop of in talent and the conference is getting stronger.
There are problems elsewhere to be sure, USC (http://www.sundaymorningqb.com/story/2007/10/10/205435/54) being the most prominet example but we can take little solace from these developments.
Chip Brown's position grades...
ouch.
The only problem I have is labeling the linebackers as an "F" collectively. Can't we do something like "B-" or "Inc." for the youngsters, and reserved the "F triple minus" for the K-B-D line?
Okay
I officially hate this coaching staff.
Incompetence and idiocy are defensible, but I draw the line at delusional positivism and outright dishonesty.
My problem with Mack is that his attitude is not a reflection of the prevailing collective attitude of the University of Texas.
It is tiresome, to me, to cite Mack's on-field record and his general niceness as justification for his continued presence at the helm of this program. I'm pretty much deaf to those arguments because they miss the point. The head coach of the University of Texas is largely a political position. He is not only a CEO and play-caller, but he represents over 500,000 alum and well over a million fans. I'm not going to go so far as to say that Texas football is sacred or that it is active history. No, instead I will merely state this deceptively simple fact: Texas football is a really really big deal to a lot of people.
I've always viewed the coach as somewhat of an elected official. The regents serve as the electoral college, bridging the gap between the coach and the general public. And Mack's mortal sin has been to ignore his public (or worse, lying to his public) when it matters most.
The University of Texas wants a coach that reflects the attitude of the school (and its fanbase), which for better or for worse can be described by these words: arrogant, aggressive, experimental, and very angry when we lose.
Mack is none of these things. And I take great issue with those who try to quiet the dissenting opinion with talk of winning records and good natured humanism. The fact is that I've had to spend the last decade watching a coach that does not represent my way of thinking and (presumptuous as this may seem) the way of thinking of most longhorns. And that is a perfectly valid reason to criticize a man in who occupies Mack's very significant political position.
This disconnect between his way of thinking and our way of thinking fosters a deep sense of dissatisfaction among fans. And it is the kind of dissatisfaction that can not be overcome simply by winning.
To put it in other terms, Texas football is not as fun as it should be. I would rather lose several games a year, but have fun doing it. Gambling on 4th down, players flying all over the place and dripping with attitude, mixing up the personnel, etc. If each Saturday brought us these things, I could die a happy man, even if we lose 2-3 games per season. I would strongly prefer 12 weeks of kick-ass fun to 12 weeks of irritating, conservative, frustrating strategy... strategy, mind you, that is not what the vast majority of us want to see, even if that strategy does yield more wins on aggregate. We've sold our souls to devil with this coach; we'll get 10-win seasons, but damn if we'll ever have fun watching a football game again. Christ, with this staff, even when we win its annoying.
So my suggestion is just stop citing win-loss records when you support Mack Brown, it belittles the greater issue here.
Not every fan is like you
and I would say that a silent majority is probably not like you, or at least a majority of the people with the money that creates influence on who is on the coaching staff, otherwise a change would have already happened.
I'm quite sure
the majority of longhorn fans feel like our games are not as satisfying to watch as they should be, and that they have been that way, for the most part, throughout Mack Brown's tenure, with that one obligatory exception of 2005.
Wins pacify people in the long run, but thats just it, the best Mack does is pacify people, he doesn't satisfy them. How many articles do I have to read about Mack trying to "silence his critics?"
And mine is the minority opinion? Sure about that Wells?
I'm comfortably certain that if we could play the 2007 season twice, once with this staff, and once with a less conservative staff, even with comparable won/loss records, at the end of the experiment a majority (I suspect probably greater than 90%) will have found the season with the other staff a more satisfying experience.
Yours is the only unwavering, unquestioning opinion of this staff I have ever encountered, on this site, in the stadium, or in the alumni bars across this country. And you've never given me a satisfactory reason why, you instead use ad hominem arguments to imply that we are incapable of of rational criticism, and you then cite your youth as having given you an overwhelming predisposition that compels you to ignore most of what longhorn nation has to say. But those arguments are far from logical.
by BrooklynHorn on Oct 12, 2007 2:59 PM CDT up reply actions
I think you
have misjudged my opinion on the staff. I may play Devil's advocate to asinine people who overgeneralize and are constantly negative regarding UT and their coaching staff, but I have not shied away from criticizing the coaching staff where I see fit.
As for your opinions, they are just that. But you seem to take them for logical certainty, which is in itself, not very logical.
My opinions are not logic
they are only based on logic.
by BrooklynHorn on Oct 12, 2007 3:08 PM CDT up reply actions
And to respond to your point about making a chang
the reason Mack is not in danger of losing his job has absolutely nothing to do with his job approval rating. Nothing.
He will keep his job because he earns the University a lot of money, and from a business perspective, the school has nowhere to go but down, so it is a rational assertion that getting a new coach would introduce an unnecessary financial risk on the part of the University.
That is why he keeps his job, not because a silent majority loves his play-calling and his personnel choices.
by BrooklynHorn on Oct 12, 2007 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions
Lots of places
Bowl victories, merchandise, tv revenues. All of these things come necessarily when you win as many games as Mack has.
None of this changes my original point, which, again, is not about wins.
by BrooklynHorn on Oct 12, 2007 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions
Money comes from Fans and Boosters.
The Bowl and TV revenue is about equal for all big 12 teams, so it does not matter who your coach is.
Now if the fans and booster were as upset as you claim they are with the coaching staff in your original post, then they would vote with their wallets and in the case of the big boosters, the influence they have bought, to make changes.
Not that black and white
I still think Mack pacifies people. But that doesn't mean people are satisfied. From talking with Texas fans over the past few years, I tend to get the same story:
"Yeah, I'm not a big fan of Mack, but he gets the job done."
I believe this characterizes much of the fanbase, and until recently, I could even identify with that sentiment myself.
This reminds me actually a bit of Mackovic's era. I keep reading statements from longhorns who say "I remember the Mackovic days, and Mack is much better." But the thing is, I remember the 1997 season, and a lot of people were saying the same thing then that people are saying now about Mack. I read more than one column that defended Mackovic and his record at Texas - how he had just won a conference title, and how bad McWilliams had been before him. In fact I read a lot of sentiments that are very similar to yours now; suggestions that Texas is too fickle, they're firing a perfectly good coach after one bad season.
I don't hear any of those people now. In fact, history seems to have been rewritten entirely on this subject. The reason, of course, is that in retrospect, Mackovic was a winning coach but his attitude was not what we wanted, and his absence now screams it. He was too NFL, no emotion.
We got a breath of fresh air when we hired Mack, as we immediately learned Mack is more committed to the school, and he's more NCAA than NFL. But I think time has proven that Mack isn't a good fit either, and I suspect that if we hired a more aggressive coach that has the same passion for the college game, we'd see a similar advancement, and in retrospect, we'd realize Mack wasn't really what we wanted.
Yes, this is just my opinion, but I believe it is reasonably well-founded. Mack wins, and you can't expect 1 million people not to wear their T-shirts in order to get rid of their coach. Some of those people wearing those shirts are too proud not to wear them, and others wear them because they are fashionable and don't know anything about Mack Brown. Either way, the fact that they're wearing them does nothing to prove the fanbase is satisfied with their coach.
by BrooklynHorn on Oct 12, 2007 5:03 PM CDT up reply actions
I guess we hang around with different crowds
because, while I have always heard that about GD, I have heard very few Texas fans who openly dislike Mack.
Again
I don't think they openly dislike Mack.
I just think Mack shuts them up with wins. The impression I get is that in a perfect world they'd rather have a more aggressive head coach, but they cordially put that aside and applaud Mack for his record.
But that's a far cry from Mack Brown, the hero.
One thing that suggests this is how quickly people turn on Mack- your whole fickle thing. People who applaud him one day for his NC, will curse him the next day for his play-calling. You see this as fickle, but I see this as a fanbase that is pacified by coach that doesn't really satisfy them deep down.
Contrast this to how this community treated Major Applewhite. Most of the fanbase loved Major, even though his stats weren't that great all the time. In fact, he had a lot of the same troubles that Colt is having after his RS Freshman year, but most overlooked this because he had a fighting spirit that we respected and we believed represented us well and made us proud. Even those who wanted, pragmatically, to see Chris Simms play respected Major.
Mack certainly doesn't get that kind of devotion despite his national title. In a recent diary someone jokingly wrote that Major can do no wrong. Why such a sentiment? It certainly isn't because Major Applewhite brought us a lot of wins and a NC. Its because he has the attitude we all want the team to have. That (both the attitude and the devotion that follows) is something Mack will never have.
by BrooklynHorn on Oct 12, 2007 5:48 PM CDT up reply actions
The Impossible Team
I don't think they openly dislike Mack.
I just think Mack shuts them up with wins.
I have seen - and still see - this a lot among old time Texas alums and fans. (I'm older so that's who I'm around more.) Mack is a good political face for the program, very stable, but when you get into the nuts and bolts of the program, the complaints mirror what you're saying.
I was at a Texas-Ex receptions up here after Major won the Holiday Bowl. It was just amazing hero worship, from the oldest to the youngest. And Major acceded to every single request for photos or autographs. He fulfilled his role to the max. I asked him about such a level of attention and he said it was absolutely amazing to him that months after a game it was still going on unabated because it was everywhere he went, all the time. He just couldn't believe it. He fought, he endured silently and he came through when it counted. Major fulfilled the expectations people had of him as a person.
Over the years Texas fans have brought heat on every coach. In the interim years between '64 and the wishbone, DKR was scorched for having no offense.
Ole Blue Eyes had great D and a great winning percentage, but he was never completely accepted and had detractors from the word go. He could shut them up with wins but not eliminate them (if a certain punt had been caught, he'd had a real chance to do so like Mack).
Everyone loved (and still do) McWilliams but it was soon obvious he was not the coach everyone expected. His teams had many of the things Texas loved but didn't win like they should.
Mackovic brought offense but no D. He would never get beyond that even with big wins.
What Texas wants is someone as loveable as McWilliams, folksy-wise like DRK, with Mackovic's offensive propensity and great D from the days of DKR and Fred. That's it. And people are going to bitch til they get it.
Hit the nail on the head!
Brooklyn you hit the nail on the head! You speak for a strong majority of Texas fans. The only thing is that this has never been a strong coaching staff, except for recruiting players. This staff as far as gameday football is concerned has done the least with the most. This team is only among the elite when there is enough talent to overcome the lack coaching and player development.
by westwoodhorn on Oct 13, 2007 2:32 AM CDT up reply actions
wow!!!
way to prove your point that our fanbase: "can be described by these words: arrogant, aggressive, experimental, and very angry"
I'll say that I am frustrated with Mack though... not at that level or anything, but...
Almost everything he's done is defensible, even if I disagree with it, but the major exception to that is the linebacking this year (and, truth be told, last year as well). There is no defensible reason that the veterans are starting and playing the lion's share (at least it feels like the lion's share- mostly because those are the series where the opponents drive and score the most.) of the games, while the young guys who are inarguably outperforming them on the field sit and watch. If the young LBs played more, we'd be better this year, and we'd be better equipped for next year too. There is just no valid reason at this point to hear coaches talk about how "we hope to find some way to get the young guys in there more..."
by agent orange on Oct 13, 2007 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions
Re:
I know lots of people who think recruiting ranks are a bunch of crap, but could they be a strong contributor to our dismal year this season? I was looking at Mel Kiper's updated position rankings, which features four Texas seniors (Sweed #2 WR, Okam #4 DT, Hills #4 OT, Griffin #2 S), and an amazing ZERO juniors.
Looking at Rivals rankings, VY's 2002 Longhorns were ranked #1, but all those players have graduated by now. Meanwhile, the '03 class was ranked #15, and features redshirt seniors such as 5* Hills and 4* Sweed. It also features, unfortunately, players we've loved to hate: 4* Killebrew, 4* Dallas Griffin, 4* Erick Jackson, 3* Derry, 3* Brandon Foster. Along with other highly touted recruits such as 4* Erik Hardemann and 4* Steve Richardson, the disappointment soaking this class is evident.
The other half of the senior class comes from '03, which was ranked #10 by Rivals. 2 stars jump out from this class: 5* Okam and 3* Lokey. Unfortunately, our other featured seniors are 4* Drew Kelson 3* Nate Jones, and 3* Ryan Palmer. We also have the fantastic misses on 4* George Walker, 4* Greg Dolan, 4* Bobby Tatum, and 4* post-MJ Ramonce Taylor.
A quick look at the junior class: from the '04 signees, hits are 4* Dockery, 3* Ogbannaya (also could count 2* Bobino, 4* Shipley, 3* Ulatoski). The '05 class has some key juniors such as 4*'s Charles, Cosby, Aaron Lewis and Roy Miller, but the problem with this class is a distinct lack of depth (only 15 signees total). This dropped our Rivals ranking to #20 in the country.
Long story short is, while Mack can be held responsible for not playing talented underclassmen over "seasoned" upperclassmen, the (relative) dearth of talent over the '03-'05 years might also be part of the post-VY problem. So lets hope the more acclaimed '06-'07 classes help remedy this problem.
Rivals Team Rankings 2004
Texas commits 2004
Scroll in the page for other years.
Interesting Analysis
on '03-'05... and that may very well explain some of what we are seeing now. Without looking, I would bet '06 and '07 look really good.
So answer...
...me this one. While you think this is some sort of talent downdraft, think about programs like O'Leary's at UCF. In the past 5 classes combined UCF has 2 4-star recruits and 14 total 3-star recruits. Not one single 5-star.
Meanwhile Texas has 12 5-star recruits, 48 4-star recruits and 34 3-star recruits. (Obviously these numbers have not been netted against attrition - same for UCF) Now the promised question. How did a team with so little initial talent manage to play our talent rich Longhorns within 3 points???
Here is a hint. Development of talent. Coaching up. Quality teaching of the players. This staff needs a severe overhaul. Time to bring some supreme youth to this staff. Nick Saban isn't threatened by youth, but it is obvious who is in Austin, Texas.
Who would you bring in?
If you had Head Coach/AD privileges for the day, who would you replace and with who (has to be realistic, i.e. no replacing GD with Urban Meyer)?
To answer your previous question though, I think Texas has developed a bad habit of playing to the level of their competition, which I think can be attributed to lack of leadership (both coaches and players) and lack of killer instinct (what ever that means).
Re:
HC...the point of the recruiting "analysis" was to bring up exactly your points. Notice how I said "the (relative) dearth of talent." No one's saying that UCF's (or many other teams') players match the talent level that Mack brings in. While playing bad teams close has been a trend for UT this year, and not an aberration, you can't use one data point to illustrate that Mack doesn't "develop talent" or "coaches up." That would like me saying Pete Carroll is a bad talent developer because they lost to Stanford, or Coach Fran is a great quality teacher because he managed to beat Texas 12-7.
There's no arguing that Mack has been successful at developing some talent beyond their "star" potential. Bobino, while not a great (or particularly good) player has exceeded his 2*, and Colt's play in during freshman year alone bumps him above his 3*. Bringing Hills back from a devastating injury and teaching him a completely new position has got Hills aiming for a first day draft selection. Are we just calling those developments luck and not giving any credit to the coaching staff?
I'm not giving the staff any love for sticking with the "'seasoned' upperclassmen." Especially at this point in the game, it's damn near irresponsible of Mack to be playing worse guys, just because they have more letters than the younger stud recruits. But that's exactly my point. These younger recruits got far more acclaim (and far more stars) than the guys we're currently starting. And while you can attribute that to failed development, the bottom line is that our starters just weren't that good to begin with. And that's why I stated that "might also be part of the post-VY problem."
Wells: I think replacing Greg Davis (GD) would be relatively easy. If Mack can bring Gene Chizik (who was fresh off coordinator of the year honors for an undefeated Auburn team), bringing in just about any offensive mind would be a breeze. That's why we've been clamoring for Major. Is it likely to happen? No. Could it happen "realistically?" Very easily.
If you're talking about replacing Mack, that would be difficult. You're not going to get a Meyer, Stoops, Tressel, etc., for obvious reasons. The options are to go the Alabama route (hire an experienced, elite HC, a la Saban or Butch Davis), and the only candidate I can think of at the moment is Larry Coker (no thanks), steal a mid-level BCS coach (an experienced one such as Lloyd Carr...NO thanks, or an up and comer such as Jim Harbaugh), or the mid-major route (the easiest, but most risky). I can't think of a single viable candidate that would immediately exceed Mack Brown's HC capacity. And the risk that you bring "get Kragthorpe'd" would be something in the back of the AD's mind, for sure.
Obviously I agree with you on Mac
As I guess my minority opinion is that he is a great fit for Texas and would be very hard to replace.
I don't think it is as easy to replace OCs as you make it out to be. Yes, we got Chizik, but some blame him for the bad D last year, and our current Co-DCs are not exactly top level talent (this could be, as some argue, due to Mack and Cos unwillingness to go with youth). I was just wondering in general what OCs out there are available and desirable.
Wells...
The 2nd choice would be Chip Kelly the current OC at Oregon. Prior to Oregon he kicked butt at New Hampshire. Again, Bellotti really knows how to identify and develop offensive coaching talent. Just look at the job Kelly is doing with Dennis Dixon!
My 3rd choice would be Bryan Harsin the OC at Boise State. While only in his 2nd season as an OC, he has "grown up" inside the Boise State system. He's only 30, so we would have a good opportunity to hold him in Austin for a good while.
I'm not sure why you bring up replacing Mack Brown. He's here until he steps down. Personally, I believe 2009 gives him his greatest chance at a 2nd NC. Win or lose, I believe he will go through a long, hard reflection period to determine whether he has anything left to deal with his daily-mentioned "pressure." Jeff Tedford would be my first choice to replace him.
Mack's loyalty and conservatism
I agree wholeheartedly with Chip Brown's assessment of the current situation. Our teams, with the exception of VY's teams, have always always always played scared in big situations. We don't have a winning attitude generally and our schemes rarely give us an advantage that our talent does not. I have a lot of respect for Mack as a person, but much less as a coach. His loyalty to the veteran players on this team is ridiculous. What have Killebrew, Derry, and Bobino ever done to deserve loyalty? They did cost us the game last weekend, alogn with Charles. I agree that our lack of willingness to play our young players could hurt us deeply in recruiting. When recruiting talented high school players, they have to know that if they are better, they will play. That isn't the case right now. The coaching staff needs to get Vondrell McGee, John Chiles, and the young linebackers on the field. Right now. The kid gloves need to be taken off of Jamaal Charles. If he can't demonstrate better ball security, don't let him play until his does! This is just getting ridiculous. Seven fumbles in 12 games. Unacceptable. Ridiculous even. And he still runs with the ball waving out over everywhere. Our scheme on offense is generally awful. If they really want to play Chiles, decide you are going to play him for 10-15 plays and do it regardless. That's what good coaches do. Did Urban Meyer's sphincter tighten up last year in big situatins that demanded Tim Tebow? Hell no. Leave Chiles in for several plays if he is successful. None of this one good play and then come out indefinitely crap. This team has some serious issues and Mack Brown and the staff need to wake up and do something about it or, like Chip Brown says, this program is headed in a very negative direction.
by ghostoftheplaymaker4 on Oct 12, 2007 4:26 PM CDT reply actions
Where to begin...
First, I almost completely agree with Brooklyn. From my experience, people think Mack is a great recruiter, and a great figure head for the program. The criticism comes in his undeniably foolish loyalty, both to his old, inferior players, and his God-awful coaching staff. 2005 is the obvious exception to all of this criticism, but one year does of excellence does not excuse 10 of avoidable underachievement. I believe Mack could be more pleasing to the fans if he were to get some ballys coordinators. I have never met a single reasonable person who thinks that Davis is worth his weight in shit. Mack has impressed me with his choices of defensie coordinators (in the past, the current crop sucks), but his foolish loyalty to Davis is costing Texas. We can afford whomever we want at OC. As far as a suggestion of who, anything is better than Davis rubbing his 2 brain cells together to try make a spark.
I love Mack, as a person and figure head. But some of his decisions are entirely unexcuseable.
My other thought, is, are we missing something? It all seems so clear to us: play the more tallented youth, bench Colt, get rid of Davis, and grow some balls. We have seen this work in Texas history, as well as in other programs. Why is the coaching staff not taking these simple steps? Is there an answer other than incompetence or foolish loyalty?
Also, in relation to the orriginal post, giving Colt a grade of C is remarkably generous. He single handedly lost the K-State game. And, I think it is worth mentioning the Dallas game from Monday. I am a huge Cowboys and Romo fan. Despite his 5 picks and a lost fumble, when it came time to step up and rally his team to vitcory...he did it. Everyone makes mistakes. It is how you handle them that determines your calibur. Romo is a winner, Vince is a winner, Applewhite was a winner. Colt is not. The fact that he is lacking in physical ability further justifies the need to replace him.
Change is absolutely necessary on all levels for the Longhorns.
by Texas Our Texas on Oct 12, 2007 10:02 PM CDT reply actions
Not to retro comment
but I will, still want to bench Colt?
And I understand the dislike of GD, he can be completely infuriating at times, my argument is not about him, it is about Mack.
When we hire our next coach
we should hire someone like Stoops, Spurrier, Meyer or Carroll. Those guys never lose games.
by the other Andrew on Oct 13, 2007 12:18 AM CDT reply actions
true
but those other coaches have their faults just like mack.
the search for the perfect coach is a fruitless one.
by the other Andrew on Oct 13, 2007 11:15 AM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Burnt Orange Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
