Sark - the honeymoon is officially over

[HornDawg1957]

Well put, but my faith in the DC getting quality DL to sign on the bottom line is limited. If you were a top DL you'd have serious doubts about this staff after watching Saturday. Just as bad was the film vs ark.

A quick Google search indicates seven University of Washington defensive linemen who played for Kwiatkowski in his seven years there are on NFL rosters this year, plus 12 other defensive players.

His first UW defense gave up 35 or more points three times. The next six years it only happened twice. I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt and hope he'll get things turned around.

 

[SabreHorn]

The players are here.

Made my appointment with Jeffery Whitsett, MD. My eye surgery isn't working, at least not from Section 107, row 8. I wish I could have seen even ONE OL or DL or LB in a Burnt Orange jersey. We have RBs, WRs, DBs, but I was for changing the defense to a never seen 0-0-11, featuring 11 DBs

 

[Statalyzer]

With all due respect, 662 yards of total offense means we were never dominating their offense

No it doesn't. Without the bad call, they go the entire 1st quarter without achieving a first down and with about 11 yards of offense. We were dominating their offense in the first 15 minutes. Getting dominated after that doesn't retroactively change the 1st quarter.

 

[2003TexasGrad]

With all due respect, 662 yards of total offense means we were never dominating their offense

28-7. 43-21. We WERE dominating. I don't care how many yards they ended up with. However I'll add to my comment. We were unable to adjust once Caleb Williams played. That's still execution though. We didn't luck our way to big leads in this game. We simply were unable to adjust to what OU did. That's still execution.

 

[horninchicago]

No it doesn't. Without the bad call, they go the entire 1st quarter without achieving a first down and with about 11 yards of offense. We were dominating their offense in the first 15 minutes. Getting dominated after that doesn't retroactively change the 1st quarter.

You know, when we take off the burnt orange glasses, the call may not have been incorrect. There was the slightest contact that the replay officials probably saw. The rules expert said any contact whatsoever is grounds for the player to have been deemed to be forced out of bounds.

 

[Run Pincher]

Jesus, with this roster of linemen on both sides of the ball who couldnt knock a drunk ***** off a pisspot..........lets pump the brakes and let this season play out first and then get at least 2 full recruitment cycles before we pass judgement.

Until our OL/DL play is much better we aint going to see a dramatic improvement in overall record.

Better play, better players or better coaching? From what I've seen returning OL and DL were better last year than this year.

 

[SabreHorn]

The officiating left a lot to be desired, but its' Big XII, Bowelsby & Walleye Burks. We have the worst officials in P5, and maybe the non P5 conferences.

We know how we got here with Donnie Duncan and Walt Anderson. Our officials are rejects from BigSky Conference and a few from MWC. The guy Saturday is a real estate broker in Hershey. PA and the BigSky.

I have been bitching for years about the selection of officials. Bowelsby doesn't know anyone and can't get competent officials to want to work in Big XII.

FWIW, the kid was NOT pushed out of bounds, but it was on the OU sideline.

 

[horninchicago]

Sabre, the way it was explained on TV was that he doesn't have to be pushed per se. Any contact, brushing up against the jersey, for example, is enough to deem the player was forced out. Stupid rule, but that's the way it is.

 

[SabreHorn]

Sorry, but that rule was written for a reason, and the sideline is the DBs friend. You ride his *** onto or over the line, not "Mr SJ, the DB has really bad breath and caused me to go out of bounds trying to get away from him".

Another bastardization of a rule. Like "targeting"; a good rule that is being bastardized to keep players off the field.

 

[horninchicago]

Let's all say that it was a bad call. I found the rule, it sounds like it was technically the correct call. Nonetheless, would Texas had gone up 35-7? 28-0? I mean, how many points did Texas need to go up by at that point to not give up the rest of the 600+ total yards?

Was that one play the momentum shift in the game that Texas was unable to recover from?

I guess we'll never know.

 

[jmac11234]

If Texas is up 38-13 at half time that completely changes the calculus going forward. OU probably has to go it on fourth down multiple times in the red zone instead of kicking field goals. It's too much of a lead for OU to overcome.

 

[horninchicago]

If Texas is up 38-13 at half time that completely changes the calculus going forward. OU probably has to go it on fourth down multiple times in the red zone instead of kicking field goals. It's too much of a lead for OU to overcome.

Who knows? Maybe that call goes Texas's way. What happens then? Do we have an untimely turnover? I mean, to put the outcome of this game on a play is kind of silly.

 

[Statalyzer]

I mean, how many points did Texas need to go up by at that point to not give up the rest of the 600+ total yards?

Crazy to think we would have likely been up 41-16 without that call, but the way we collapsed, I wouldn't be surprised if we still lost anyway.

 

[horninchicago]

Crazy to think we would have likely been up 41-16 without that call, but the way we collapsed, I wouldn't be surprised if we still lost anyway.

Right, because you can't just assume we get the ball and score. Turnovers, penalties, anything can and usually does happen in that game.

 

[Statalyzer]

Right, because you can't just assume we get the ball and score.

I wasn't though, I was just assuming they don't score (since they'd have surely punted on 3rd and long) and that the rest of the possession went the same way.

If anything that's generous to OU, since that gives us a couple of more minutes before halftime to get a TD instead of FG. But then they have time to answer and we couldn't stop them most likely, so I figured those two even out and just left it the same.

So probably all it did is mean we blew a 28-7 i.e. 21 point lead, rather than a 41-16 i.e. 25 point lead. Yay?

 

[horninchicago]

I wasn't though, I was just assuming they don't score (since they'd have surely punted on 3rd and long) and that the rest of the possession went the same way.

If anything that's generous to OU, since that gives us a couple of more minutes before halftime to get a TD instead of FG. But then they have time to answer and we couldn't stop them most likely, so I figured those two even out and just left it the same.

So probably all it did is mean we blew a 28-7 i.e. 21 point lead, rather than a 41-16 i.e. 25 point lead. Yay?

I see, but of course, being a statalyzer, you know one play changes what happens with the next, and so on.

 

[old65horn]

Who knows? Maybe that call goes Texas's way. What happens then? Do we have an untimely turnover? I mean, to put the outcome of this game on a play is kind of silly.

No body is saying that was a pivotal play. it was a factor. How big a factor we will never know. Notably, All your possible projections were negative. I know it does not fit your outlook, but it could have possibly been a major positive factor. Every OU series that resulted in a punt got out D off the field. Give it a rest.

 

[horninchicago]

No body is saying that was a pivotal play. it was a factor. How big a factor we will never know. Notably, All your possible projections were negative. I know it does not fit your outlook, but it could have possibly been a major positive factor. Every OU serious that resulted in a punt got out D off the field. Give it a rest.

Why don't you give it a rest? There was mention of it being a bad call. I, much to your chagrin, said it was probably the correct call.

If you don't like my comments, put me on Ignore, please.

 

[horninchicago]

Naturally, had the play gone the way of the Longhorns, sure, great things may have happened. There, is that better?

 

[MajorRules00]

Arky was a beat down. But this one should have been won. Lots of problems to correct...IMO the two biggest being defensive scheme and tackling.

 

[mchammer]

We have RBs, WRs, DBs, but I was for changing the defense to a never seen 0-0-11, featuring 11 DBs

Our QB’s and TE’s are not bad either. P/K been solid too the last few games. Uh, what do we have left ?

 

[SabreHorn]

Uh, what do we have left ?

Any trainers or managers that can play LB?

 

[old65horn]

Why don't you give it a rest? There was mention of it being a bad call. I, much to your chagrin, said it was probably the correct call.

If you don't like my comments, put me on Ignore, please.

“There was mention of it being the correct call”, by who? The notorious “they”?

You were correct though, I do not agree with your comments but I was unaware you had been appointed the message monitor. Sorry.

 

[Texas Lone Star]

My take:

For the first time in a long time, I thought we had a vastly superior gameplan, on both sides of the ball. Yes -- on defense as well.

The staff and players knew what OU as going to do (key on Bijan) and they picked out the players they wanted to target and had innovative plays designed to exploit those weaknesses.

The defensive scheme was designed for Spencer Rattler -- because they knew that Spencer Rattler is 10% points more accurate throwing on the run than in the pocket and he tends to hang the ball up. Which is exactly what he did. We dropped DLs into coverage, confused his reads, got turnovers. And they did such a good job that their reward is a QB who was oblivious to the circus environment and the scheme was not designed for him.

I did think that the TOP would be an issue for the defense, given the heat and the time getting battered by Brooks. And I agree that the LBs (especially the one who cannot shed blocks) require more coaching and I have to think you have people on the bench who can at least pursue at the point of attack.

Finally, that was a different Texas team than I have seen (exception 2018) since 2008/9 -- tough, hungry, ready to fight. So much better prepared than battering Sam and hoping he can will you to points.

That was a brutal loss -- one I will remember forever. But I like this staff and people calling for coaches jobs -- that is part of the problem -- always changing coaches, no continuity, panic in the House of the Burnt Orange. Since Bob Stoops showed up, we are only winning 1/3 of the Texas/OU games -- and part of it are whiners on the board with knee-jerk reactions, rolling up into the staff and to the AD so they do not lose tickets. No continuity for Texas, same system for OU.

 

[horninchicago]

“There was mention of it being the correct call”, by who? The notorious “they”?

You just quoted me and then misquoted me all at one time, Professor.

I said there was mention of that being a bad call.

 

[MeatHeadHorn]

Clearly, we had an effective game plan for Ratler and it worked. The lack of adjustments is un-nerving. I thought as soon as Caleb came in we’d throw the house at him and blitz every play. Based on presser today, it would seem like Kwit got an *** chewing from Sark about not affecting him. And since we are speculating on game changing plays, I thought the fumbled snap turned into dart TD in corner of the end zone was up there. I will also note I posted in the game thread 20 seconds before the long run and overturned strip by Deshaun that a turnover on that series would have been the dagger. I stand by that.

 

[GV Longhorn]

My take:

For the first time in a long time, I thought we had a vastly superior gameplan, on both sides of the ball. Yes -- on defense as well.

The staff and players knew what OU as going to do (key on Bijan) and they picked out the players they wanted to target and had innovative plays designed to exploit those weaknesses.

The defensive scheme was designed for Spencer Rattler -- because they knew that Spencer Rattler is 10% points more accurate throwing on the run than in the pocket and he tends to hang the ball up. Which is exactly what he did. We dropped DLs into coverage, confused his reads, got turnovers. And they did such a good job that their reward is a QB who was oblivious to the circus environment and the scheme was not designed for him.

I did think that the TOP would be an issue for the defense, given the heat and the time getting battered by Brooks. And I agree that the LBs (especially the one who cannot shed blocks) require more coaching and I have to think you have people on the bench who can at least pursue at the point of attack.

Finally, that was a different Texas team than I have seen (exception 2018) since 2008/9 -- tough, hungry, ready to fight. So much better prepared than battering Sam and hoping he can will you to points.

That was a brutal loss -- one I will remember forever. But I like this staff and people calling for coaches jobs -- that is part of the problem -- always changing coaches, no continuity, panic in the House of the Burnt Orange. Since Bob Stoops showed up, we are only winning 1/3 of the Texas/OU games -- and part of it are whiners on the board with knee-jerk reactions, rolling up into the staff and to the AD so they do not lose tickets. No continuity for Texas, same system for OU.

I take your point that the defensive scheme was designed for Spencer Rattler. However, just a few more blitz packages after Rattler was pulled would have been good. We've got to be able to make game time adjustments.

Yes, the loss was brutal. BRUTAL!

 

[I_Dont_Exist]

Clearly, we had an effective game plan for Ratler and it worked. The lack of adjustments is un-nerving. I thought as soon as Caleb came in we’d throw the house at him and blitz every play. Based on presser today, it would seem like Kwit got an *** chewing from Sark about not affecting him. And since we are speculating on game changing plays, I thought the fumbled snap turned into dart TD in corner of the end zone was up there. I will also note I posted in the game thread 20 seconds before the long run and overturned strip by Deshaun that a turnover on that series would have been the dagger. I stand by that.

Are you referring to the long run by Brooks? He was clearly down. Not saying you think otherwise but no way we got screwed on that one.

 

[GV Longhorn]

Clearly, we had an effective game plan for Ratler and it worked. The lack of adjustments is un-nerving. I thought as soon as Caleb came in we’d throw the house at him and blitz every play. Based on presser today, it would seem like Kwit got an *** chewing from Sark about not affecting him. And since we are speculating on game changing plays, I thought the fumbled snap turned into dart TD in corner of the end zone was up there. I will also note I posted in the game thread 20 seconds before the long run and overturned strip by Deshaun that a turnover on that series would have been the dagger. I stand by that.

Agree that the overturned strip would have probably sealed the deal... The blitz should have been worked in from the first play. Too much time for Caleb, which created space for the WRs to get open enough and improvise to the point of backyard ball.

 

[MeatHeadHorn]

Are you referring to the long run by Brooks? He was clearly down. Not saying you think otherwise but no way we got screwed on that one.

Correct, But I just mean that before the drive, I said a turnover would have ended the game… and then we almost got one. Obviously he was down.