Five And Five
by Peter Bean on Sep 2, 2007 12:18 PM CDT
in Football
28 comments
Each week we'll conclude the post game reaction with five things I liked and didn't like about the game. You're encouraged to submit your own in the comments, as well.
Five Things I Liked
1. Jamaal Charles is every bit as special as we think. The running game was a major disappointment last night, but it really would have sucked if Charles were anything short of a brilliant tailback. He broke tackles, he used his superior speed to make plays, and he protected the football. It was a masterful performance, especially when you consider how many of his short gains should have been tackles for loss.
2. This is the best receiving corps Texas has fielded in the Mack Brown era. Limas Sweed is a dominant, dominant player. Nate Jones? He's arrived. Quan Cosby is one of the most versatile weapons in college football. Jermichael Finley (incompetently used last night) is special. Our receivers were great last night, even with Colt struggling. That's good.
3. We saw what a healthy Frank Okam can do. My goodness he was disruptive last night. Okam, who fell short of big expectations in 2006, looked like the Top 10 NFL Draft pick last night. As many disappointments as there were last night, we at least saw how good Okam can be. Let's hope he stays healthy.
4. Akina is willing to use a blitz. We didn't exactly execute the blitzes as well as you'd like to see. (A better team would have eaten us alive.) All too often, the pressure would come, while Palmer and Foster sat 10 yards off their receivers. Better teams can and will beat that. Still, part of the point is that college players aren't good enough to beat blitzes with consistency. You pay a dear price for an ill-conceived blitz in the NFL. In college? Teams fail to exploit it with regularity. While adjustments need to be made to how we blitz, I'm at least encouraged with Akina's willingness to use them.
5. We won. The quality of the win was piss poor, and Mack Brown owes Lloyd Carr a case of fine wine. 'Cause if Michigan doesn't suffer the worst loss in the history of college football, there's no way this could make my list of things I liked. As is, I feel fortunate to be 1-0. That's a bad omen for the rest of the year, but damnit, last night could have been worse. Wow.
Five Things I Didn't
1. Our running scheme sucks. Lateral running plays? Still? After the mess of 2006? Do I need to elaborate? I don't think I do. It's broken. Badly, badly broken.
2. Young players were underutilized. Not a single snap for John Chiles. Not a single snap for Vondrell McGee. Too few snaps for Chykie Brown and Deon Beasley. Across the board, Texas' mistake-prone veterans from the 2006 defense showed their same limitations in 2007. And all that talk about getting the backup QB some real work? Just that - talk.
3. Our linebackers have not improved. This one's the scariest problem, because there's no obvious solution. Jared Norton isn't ready to play better than Bobino. Sergio Kindle is disqualified. Rodderick Muckelroy showed great speed and athleticism early on, but disappeared after that. What do we do? This secondary needs the front seven to shield it a little bit. That's not gonna happen with such shoddy linebacker play. I'm officially pessimistic. Which sucks.
4. Our red zone offense continues to lack imagination. We didn't score a single point in the final 45 minutes of the game. How bad is that? Worst of all, Davis seemed content with mediocre. You expect to see changes made after, say, a disappointing three-loss season in which the problems were obvious ones. There were none. None at all. That's the real crime here.
5. The time for change has passed. Perhaps worst about all this is the fact that we've had eight months to fix all this stuff. What I'm really depressed about right now is not the poor quality of play. I can live with a disappointing game. The problem is that the poor quality of play was of exactly the same nature as the poor quality of play in 2006. That shows an unwillingness (or inability) to adjust and learn on the coaches' part. And if they didn't make any changes in eight months, why should we believe that there will be changes over the next six days?
I'm not sure that we should.
--PB--
0 recs |
28 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Re: Our running scheme sucks
Agreed in as much as the zone read should not be the bread and butter anymore. I think it could still be used to good effect if mixed up with some I and Ace formations, but the main thing is we need more variation.
Mack and GD keep pointing to the fact that JC's career YPC is higher out of the zone read than out of more traditional formations. I haven't scrutinized that stats, but it seems apparent to me that this is only because his zone read YPC is heavily inflated by the presence of Football Jesus in the backfielf during his freshman season. Mack and GD thus shouldn't even be thinking of those plays when calculating YPC averages, determining scheme, and gameplanning.
It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. I don't understand why Mack and GD can't accept it.
by kiev482 on Sep 2, 2007 12:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Reaction from the Game
I was at the game and agree with PB's analysis. Main things I saw on offense:
- Run blocking was terrible. There were no holes for JC. None.
- Pass blocking was a strong point. There were few instances when Colt was rushed to make a decision...so why was he locking in on one reciever? Who knows.
- Limas Sweed is everything you think he is and then some. If he stays healthy, he may end up as the best in the nation.
Defense:
- Our secondary is a joke. If BIG changes aren't made immediately, we're going to give up a lot of points this year.
- LBs have potential, but need to play smarter. Focus on angles and positioning.
- Okam is a monster.
by roywilliamsisgod on Sep 2, 2007 12:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
things...
I liked winning.
JC seems to have been running well.
Limas seems as advertised.
Liked Colts 1st qtr.
I also liked that the game wasnt on TV. Because if anybody else actually saw this nonsense, they'd laugh at the #4 ranking.
Did not like Colts 2-4th qtrs.
Did not like the fact that we gave up 400 yards.
QUIT RUNNING OUT OF THE GODDAMN SHOTGUN GD!!!
OR INSTEAD OF RUNNING EAST/WEST OUT OF THE SG, RUN NORTH/SOUTH....NOT THAT HARD.
Foster needs to ride the bench. Period.
Too many Personal Fouls.
by bleed burnt orange on Sep 2, 2007 1:16 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
awesome comment
BBO, your comment kicks some serious ass. I love how docile it seems and out of nowhere comes the blowup. And it helps that I agree wholeheartedly with the comments, especially the part in caps.
This is a systemic issue on offense, not a personnel thing.
by Kool Hand on Sep 2, 2007 5:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Some problems fixed, some not.
Lasts years problems with various aspects of play continue.
It's good to see a better defensive rush but like mentioned above, they gotta move the corners up to stop the short dump off as the rush comes. Mack Brown is way to conservative, he mentioned the secondary playing back and not getting burned deep. So they die the death of 1000 6-8 yard passes infront of them as the defensive line gets exhausted when it cant get to the QB in 1.5 seconds.
The really bad linebacker play stood out. Either Arkansas St. has some great O-linemen or none of this group can fight off a block. All this talk about their speed but the outside backers had a hard time with outside containment. How many times did the group get faked out and bite on a run fake. As a group they fell for just about all the mis-direction plays. If you want the DE's to go full steam the Outside backers have to contain outside, never got done.
I can't for the life of me figure out why this Offensive line can't push the defense back 3 yards on every play? It does not bode well for the rest of the season. It means trouble inside the 10 yard line and most touchdowns are going get scored on passes from outside the 15 yard line.
by Xerxes on Sep 2, 2007 1:21 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
it's called zone blocking
I can't for the life of me figure out why this Offensive line can't push the defense back 3 yards on every play?
it's zone blocking, the OL isn't supposed to be driving people.
How many times did the group get faked out and bite on a run fake. As a group they fell for just about all the mis-direction plays. If you want the DE's to go full steam the Outside backers have to contain outside, never got done.
this led to a LOT of Leonard's yardage. Killabrew, in particular, was horrible.
by cortexas on Sep 2, 2007 4:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
One more point
Penalties, 10 for 90 yards and it gave Arkansas St. 5 first downs. It lead directly to the last score.
Hopefully it was first game jitters and some thing that can fixed pretty quickly. A better team would have scored an other touchdown at least because of them.
by Xerxes on Sep 2, 2007 1:31 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
maybe it's time...
to give Mack another raise.
by mento on Sep 2, 2007 2:07 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
A Little Perspective
We need to keep this "bad" win in perspective. Yeah, we won ugly. Yeah, there is a lot of improvement needed in a lot of areas.
But, keep in mind, Arkansas State would have never scored their last points had Killebrew not been called for a blatant facemask penalty against their QB on AK State's last possession.
If the facemask hadn't occurred, we would have won 21-6. No onside kick scare. Nothing else. Not pretty, still, but a 15 point win looks better than an 8 point victory.
Additionally, everyone is concerned about next week's game against TCU. While I agree that we would have lost yesterday had we played the way we did yesterday against TCU, the most improvement a college football team realizes is typically between the first and second week of the season.
TCU is a media darling right now because they are a mid major school that happens to be pretty good. That is all, though. They are only pretty good. Yes they are capable of beating Texas but I think a lot of TCU's ranking is hype. Don't allow yourself to get caught up in the media hype. We have better athletes than they do and the game is at DKR. It isn't like we are playing the 2005 or 2006 Ohio State Buckeyes next week. We are playing TCU at home and we should win the game pretty easily.
by Top Jimmy on Sep 2, 2007 2:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
21-6
I'm sorry but 21-6 doesn't give me anymore confidence than 21-13.
I'm curious (not to pick on you) but what are they going to fix that they couldn't correct in the last seven months?
by UTeed on Sep 2, 2007 5:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My thoughts exactly
by usaf49 on Sep 2, 2007 6:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, do you happen to be trapped
at a small engineering college?
by DogTown on Sep 2, 2007 6:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Trapped...
by usaf49 on Sep 2, 2007 7:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Point Taken
I agree. 21-6 isn't much better but that final score (as far as a national perspective might interpret that score) would be more indicative of a poor performance by Texas; not a nail biter that came down to an onside kick. People who didn't see the game would not be thinking Texas almost lost the game. They might be wondering why we won by 15 instead of 35 but that would be about it.
As far as fixing things goes, I agree with you that they definitely aren't going to correct major schematic/structural issues in the next week. I am only contending that I don't think TCU is as good as the media is hyping them up to be and that Texas should handle them as long as we play like we did in the first quarter yesterday.
I think this team is capable of playing an entire game like we did in the first quarter. If that is the case we will outscore a lot of teams; even with the suspect defense that we saw yesterday.
I am having a hard time accepting that our defense is truly as bad as what we saw yesterday. Maybe I have blinders on but I will chalk it up to our first game action of the season. Maybe in a week or two I will come to my senses but I really think we just played poorly as a defensive unit this week and we will make the proper adjustments moving forward (even if that means we need to play the younger kids more and yank those two stiffs playing cornerback). I liked what I saw from Beasley yesterday. Maybe yesterday's performance will earn him some more playing time.
by Top Jimmy on Sep 2, 2007 9:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed...
It's either a trend or an aberration. Right now, I'm willing to chalk it up to the latter. While our play against Arkie St looked way too much like our late games last year, it's better that we got the gameday jitters out of the way in this one rather than have them surface against TCU. I fully expect Mack and co. to have the changes they need to be successful implemented in next week's game. Yet if they lose, that'll definitely be a sign of a bigger problem.
by jc25 on Sep 2, 2007 3:37 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
OK^
"It isn't like we are playing the 2005 or 2006 Ohio State Buckeyes next week. We are playing TCU at home and we should win the game pretty easily."- MENTO
But wasn't that the forecast for last night and if their(TCU) quarterback has arms then we might as well play 8 deep and then again I don't know if that will help. The thing that was most scary was our secondary,we will get the Sh*t beat out of us if something drastic doesn't change and thats just the truth.
by JRBTX on Sep 2, 2007 3:37 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I see your point,
but, I am only trying to point out that TCU isn't as good as they're being made out to be. I have heard this TCU hype for years. It's the same old thing. "Oh, TCU is undefeated. Wow, if they win out, should they get a shot at the National Championship game?"
Of course, the week after we hear this stuff, they usually lose to an Eastern Carolina team that they were favored by 2 touchdowns to beat and then we have the end of the "TCU is a great team" discussion.
This isn't Ohio State or USC we're playing next week. If we play well next week, we win the game. If we don't play well, we still might win a close one. TCU's only chance is to play well and to have Texas play poorly.
I don't mean this as a slap in TCU's collective face. I really don't. I just think we have better players at almost every position and if we execute, we win the game.
Unlike Michigan, we are fortunate because if we put together a couple of impressive wins against the likes of TCU, Oklahoma, and Nebraska, nobody will remember our struggles in the season opener against Arkansas State.
by Top Jimmy on Sep 2, 2007 9:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
4. red zone offense continues to lack imagination
I don't necessarily agree with this.
The 16 yd wheel route to Cobb, who lined up at FB, was pretty nifty.
Otherwise, our red zone offense sucked. However, is that really the coaches
fault?
At some point the players have to line up and make a yard on an ISO play from the 1. At some point, Derek Lokey has to knock one or two people on their ass and open a crease.
I thought the toss play on 4th down was a good call, it just didn't work. Is a play that doesn't work necessarily a "bad" call?
also...
1. Our running scheme sucks
It's not clear to me what your advocating then, PB. If you want us to run a 4-5 wide "pass-first" offense, what kind of running game do you expect? More draw plays on passing downs?
My 5 and 5 -
- First 18 minutes of the game.
- Eddie Jones
- Okam
- North End Zone
- Free replays on texassports.tv
***********************************************************************
- Robert Killabrew
- Rashad Bobino
- JC's blitz pick-up
- Colt's 2nd, 3rd & 4th quarters
- those seemingly lobotomized birds that were hanging around
the 20 yd line that must have escaped from the Animal Resource Center.
by cortexas on Sep 2, 2007 4:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Observations
I have a few comments on the game:
- A fish stinks from the head down - It was obvious that the gameplan and the players were not ready for this one. The stink starts with the coaches. They need to step up and accept the fact that their performance was woeful. You have to question the combination of Akina and Mac Duff. In this case two halve don't make a whole. Brown has to see that he needs a strategist that can design a gameplan and adapt.
- The players with all of their off-field antics have laid waste to team unity and focus.
- Greg Davis, once again, wove his magic during the off season and introduced a new level of stale unimaginative ineptitude - four attempts up the middle at the goal line. The stink runs deep!
- Thankfully we were not playing Applachacian State with their passing game. Like Michigan, we would be eating crow today.
- Brown in his comments seems to think it is a wakeup call for the players. Let's hope this was a wakeup call for the COACHES.
by valonghorn on Sep 2, 2007 4:22 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Insane...
Isn't the definition of insane trying the same thing over and over again but expecting different results?
by sharkbait101 on Sep 2, 2007 8:05 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Greg Davis
On offense, there is a simple explanation for a vast majority of the problem.
Greg Davis generally puts up a decent basic scheme. And nothing more.
When his quarterbacks (mainly Applewhite, VY and Colt)have a GOOD day, they can take the plain-jane lemons and make incredible lemonade.
When they have a BAD day, the whole thing falls apart. For whatever reason, Colt couldn't pull it together after the first quarter. And GD was shown up for what he is ... a coach who has looked good solely because of the ability of great players.
by EddieTheAlbinoSquirrel on Sep 2, 2007 8:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
ETAS....
Can I call you ETAS? I'd call you Eddie, but for the female thing. I'm going with ETAS.
Regardless, I think this is one of the more reasonable explanations for Texas' occasional struggles that I've heard. Obviously, it's more complicated than this with regards to play-calling, etc.
But as far as scheme goes, I tend to think GD really does know what he's doing. He realizes that Texas has better players than 90% of the teams that it plays. And against those teams, there's no need to get fancy. A basic scheme with superior players is enough to win.
Fancy is inherently risky. I love Mike Leach's offensive scheme. I think it's a phenomenal way for teams with inferior talent to compete with the big boys. But it's inherently risky. Sometimes it just doesn't work. It tires out your defense, etc.
So Greg Davis puts out there what his team is comfortable with and lets them use their talent to win. Jim Tressel does the same thing. It almost always works against inferior opponents and works about half the time against comparable teams. But when the boys have bad days, there's not a lot you can do about it.
by billyzane on Sep 2, 2007 8:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
fancy does one other thing...
it gets the players excited if it works. From the 2nd quarter on last night, everything seemed lackluster.
Maybe a halfback pass or even something as small as a reverse wouldve gotten both the offense and the crowd excited.
by the other Andrew on Sep 2, 2007 11:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A very accurate....
...assessment BZ. Solid stuff. Greg Davis has always delivered the exact offense expected by Mack Brown. That is why he's been at Mack Brown's side for going on twenty years now.
by HornChamps on Sep 3, 2007 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh shit almost forgot ....
space dock for direct tv (thanks to edbs radio for expanding my knowledge of youth slang).
they blacked out the first quarter of the ppv broadcast to everyone out of state.
by cortexas on Sep 3, 2007 1:03 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
So, I have one question,..
For those who actually watched the game(I couldnt find anywhere to watch it).
Is there any thought that the coaches wanted to kinda keep the offense "vanilla" so they didnt show TCU too much? I mean, I understand that even if the coaches picked 4 or 5 plays and ran those against ASU, we still should have beat them by 35, so I'm not saying that thats why we didnt play well. What I am asking though, and again, I didnt watch the game, is if Mack didnt want to show too much or was it ONLY poor execution and play call?
I am in no way sticking up for GD, but asking if anyone has thought that it could be other factors to the play calling.
by kirk1005 on Sep 3, 2007 5:32 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I have hoped ...
... that this was the case for going on FOREVER now. But GD freakin' RARELY pulls anything spectacular or exciting out of the play book.
Remember that daisy wheel play, where Vince got the ball to Ramonce Taylor and he scored EVERY TIME? They ran it like 4 times in two years. That's it. It was NEVER spotted or covered by the opposing defense. But I guess since it was exciting and resulted in quick scores, GD wasn't interested. <insert eye roll here>
by EddieTheAlbinoSquirrel on Sep 4, 2007 4:41 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
