The Horns' strategy in recruiting quarterbacks

Texas Taps - that arguably is the problem.

We seem to be looking at the Horns' passing game in a vacuum (like the 7-on-7 tournaments), as if the passing game is all there is to our offense ... or, specifically, all there is to quarterbacking our offense.

Meanwhile, Texas arguably is just "inches" away on the ground (during Mack's coaching tenure here) from winning Conference titles with a passing QB ... and yet we repeatedly shower the Horns' running game with benign neglect ... despite the fact that, with Mack & Greg, UT is:

96-3 when out-rushing our opponent, as compared to
85-13 when out-passing our opponent, and

62-0 when rushing for more than 200 yards.

Not to mention that neither Texas nor Oklahoma has won the RRS (during the Mack Brown/Bob Stoops era) when being out-rushed in the contest.

It doesn't have to be a dual-threat QB (although that is the one solution that has worked, so far, for Mack & Greg at Texas), but if we do use another passing QB (and it certainly appears that we plan to do so with Colt and GG), let's hope that someone improves the Horns' running-game scheme before the start of the 2009 football season.

Then we'll see what happens this Fall -- when Texas plays football with eleven players on offense.

Hook 'em.
cow.gif
 
Texas Taps - those are interesting observations.

It is a perennial "given" that each time the Horns enter Spring Practice (after the Texas running game has struggled again with a passing QB and our predictable "one-man" running-game scheme), Mack & Greg indicate they are not happy with our running game and will be working on it.

Then, in the Fall, we see exactly the same running-game problem occur again -- e.g., most recently in the 2008 TTech and Ohio State games.

To solve the problem (which may not be easy with a pass-happy offensive coordinator, coupled with a passing QB serving as our ostensible "RBs coach"), there are a wide variety of alternatives -- none of which includes returning to the Wisbone offense.

The 2009 University of Texas football team can emphasize the passing game while still implementing a complementary running-game scheme that is effective enough to work against the likes of the TTech defense.

For example, we know that the 2005 MNC Horns could both run and pass the football effectively, but they were not running the Wishbone. And the 2006 & 2008 MNC Florida Gators were not running the Wishbone. When West Virginia trampled Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl at the end of the 2007 football season (during which the Sooners defeated Texas in the RRS), the Mountaineers were not running the Wishbone. What those successful teams did have was some substantive misdirection in their running-game scheme, with more than one viable running threat on designed running plays.

We don't have that substantive misdirection with our "one-man" running-game scheme on designed running plays. With a very few exceptions from Colt (who made most of his rushing yardage this past season on what Mack describes as "impromptu" or unscripted running plays), the 2008 Horns had, as usual when Greg Davis utilizes a "passing QB", only one viable threat to carry to the football on any given running play.

During Mack's coaching tenure at UT, that kind of predictability in our running-game scheme (when we utilize a passing QB) has not worked for the Horns with all the chips on the table.

We need to resolve that problem, but the point here is not for the Horns to emphasize the running game "more" than the passing game. Instead, the point is simply to suggest that the Horns find a way (if not a dual-threat QB, then what?) to create some unpredictability in our running-game scheme ... so that, for example, we don't hand TTech a safety on our first running play of the game.

In our 2005 MNC season, we fixed our perennial running-game problem (under Mack & Greg) by utilizing a dual-threat QB. Now we apparently have decided to no longer recruit dual-threat QB prospects -- for example, in that regard, if the object is to recruit the best QB prospects available, Russell Shepard (who is from Houston, Texas, and wanted to join the Horns as a QB candidate) would seem to fit that category -- in fact, Rivals has LSU's recruiting at the QB position (with Shepard) ranked No. 1 in the Country for the 2009 recruiting class.

So, if we're not going to recruit dual-threat QBs, then what is the plan to address the concerns (voiced each Spring by Mack & Greg) regarding our predictable "one-man" running-game scheme?

Since it hasn't been fixed yet (in a decade), it appears that if we are not going to recruit any more dual-threat QB prospects ...

... then any hope of resolving our one-man running-game problem (with a passing QB) may be tantamount to "waiting for Godot".

We'll see what happens this Fall.

Hook 'em.
cow.gif
 
This horse died a long time ago...can we quit beating it, and move on? I know it's the off-season, but still.....
rolleyes.gif
 
coolhorn - some of us in the Horns' camp (and others in the national sports media) disagree with your suggestion that this issue is passe'.

During Mack's coaching tenure at The University of Texas, it arguably is documented by the results on the football field that the Horns' one-man running-game problem (when GD utilizes a passing QB) has not yet been solved, apart from utilizing a dual-threat QB ... and, in fact, that documented running-game problem has contributed directly in each season to key losses (e.g., the 2008 TTech game) that have cost nationally-ranked Texas football teams Conference titles since the first year (1998) that Mack & Greg arrived in Austin.

The fact that the Horns' running-game problem still exists (after a decade), coupled with the apparent indication that Mack, Greg & Major no longer intend to recruit even the highest nationally-ranked dual-threat QBs (from the State of Texas) -- who can run with the football effectively on our designed running plays -- arguably underscores the validity of the point described in the initial post of this thread.

You may disagree with that point, which certainly is your prerogative, but no one involved in this discussion has offered (imo) any rational basis for concluding that the Horns' running-game problem will be addressed effectively in the 2009 football season without a dual-threat QB seeing meaningful playing time for Texas this Fall.

Just this past week, an ESPN writer (Mark Schlabach, whose article is linked and discussed in a current thread on the HornFans football board) moved Oklahoma ahead of Texas in his preseason national rankings, while making this observation:

"Texas Longhorns Quarterback Colt McCoy and four offensive linemen will be back to lead a high-octane passing offense, but the Longhorns have to run the football better in the coming season."

This issue is very much alive, and arguably is the key to the Horns' hopes for a Conference title and an MNC in the 2009 football season.

We'll see what happens this Fall.

Hook 'em.
cow.gif
 
For some people it seems like a dual-threat QB is defined by what they are not:

not 70% passers
not 3,000 yard passers
not white

If you are any one of these three, the football secret police will double check your ID, highlight reels, and 40 time to make sure they classify you properly...lest message board fans get the wrong idea.

Colt blows past Arkansas on the speed option

Colt's TD against Ohio State...so sweet

Colt's Zone Read TD against A&M

Colt thinks he's Earl destroying a Rice safety on a TD

Colt's Zone Read TD against Missouri

Colt's 44 yard TD run

Colt looking like Steve Young against the Vikings

These aren't runs from just a "scrambling" QB. And true pocket passers, like Major and Chris, could only dream of making plays like these. Colt, however, does these things all the time (more than even Tebow). These are runs from a ball carrier with serious speed, elusiveness, and vision.
 
It is interesting to compare Colt's running ability to that of dual-threat QBs Tim Tebow and Vince Young ... or, say, Eddie Phillips, Pat White and Roger Staubach.

This past season, Colt had outstanding games running the football vs. Florida Atlantic (in our 2008 season opener), Rice and Arkansas ... and in our other ten games that season, he rushed for 289 yards on 107 carries for an average of 2.7 yards-per-carry ... including a 1.2 yard apc in the TTech game and a minus-1.5 yard apc in the Ohio State game.

During his three-year intercollegiate career at Texas, Colt has run with the football 318 times for 1,223 yards and 17 touchdowns -- an average of 3.8 yards-per-carry. In the same three seasons, Tim Tebow (who arguably has a more significant role than Colt in his team's designed running-game plays) has run with the football 475 times for 2,037 yards and 43 touchdowns -- an average of 4.3 yards-per-carry. In terms of the one common opponent they faced this past season, Colt rushed for 31 yards on 14 carries (2.2 ypc) vs. Oklahoma ... and Tebow rushed for 109 yards on 22 carries (5.0 ypc) vs. the Sooners.

There is no question, imo, that Colt has good (arguably very good) running ability for a QB at the major-college level of intercollegiate football competition; however, it also seems fair to suggest that although Colt has shown some relatively isolated instances in which he ran well on our designed running plays, he has not -- in his first three seasons at Texas -- consistently shown the ability to run with the football effectively on our designed running plays, particularly against our toughest opponents. On the other hand, Colt clearly has shown the ability to be an effective scrambler with his "impromptu" (using Mack's own description) runs on broken passing plays.

The mobility that Colt has demonstrated, both in escaping the pass rush and in scrambling downfield, certainly is a benefit to the Horns' offense and also indicates that we are fortunate to have at Texas a more mobile passing QB than, say, Sam Bradford, Todd Reesing or Graham Harrell.

Here is how orangebones -- in his earlier post on the first page of this thread -- addressed the issue regarding Colt's running ability:

"I understand where his (kchorn's) gripe is coming from (hard to win the conference when the running game sucks). An east/west zone running game needs misdirection to be consistently effective. If the QB seldom keeps on designed runs, you have no reason to play him honest and are free to blow up the rb instead.

"I think Colt is completely capable of doing this, but GD and Mack are afraid of getting him hurt. As good as we were passing the ball last year, everyone should agree that the lack of a credible running game hurt. I don't give a rip about the formation. I just want something we can count on when we need it."

It may be that in the coming football season (2009), Colt will be given the opportunity by the UT offensive coaches to find his stride (that he already has demonstrated on his scrambles) on the Horns' designed running plays (e.g., the zone-read play) and get more involved in keeping the football on those plays ... so that we can force the opposing defense to honor Colt as a viable running threat on our basic designed running plays. If that happens this Fall, and it certainly could, then any arguments regarding the issue of whether it is accurate to describe Colt as a true "dual-threat" QB would be put to rest, happily.

Let's hope for that, since we all want to see Colt and the 2009 Horns succeed.

Hook 'em.
cow.gif
 
KC,

To summarize your arguments in this thread, you suggest that the current Texas coaches have abandoned the recruitment of dual-threat quarterbacks, that the lack of conference championships is due to the lack of dual-threat quarterbacks, and that the only way to overcome the deficiencies in the running game is with a dual-threat quarterback.

First of all, I reject your first argument. By choosing Garrett Gilbert over Russell Shepard (which appears to be the thing that has you so worked up) does not mean the coaching staff has stopped recruiting dual-threat quarterbacks. How do you explain John Chiles? I think the coaches made a strategic decision going with GG. They got one of the three best quarterback prospects in the nation. If you can get one of the best by promising that you are recruiting only one at the position, wouldn’t you do it? I don’t know that this happened, but it’s certainly plausible. I’ve heard/read no statement by Mac or his staff that they would not recruit a dual-threat quarterback. One example does not establish a trend.

I think your second argument is wrong. The lack of conference championships is as much the fault of the defense as the offense. Fixing the blame of a poor running game entirely on the lack on a dual-threat quarterback is simplistic. I submit that improved line play would more likely improve the running game (also simplistic, I must admit). Wouldn’t you agree that the best offensive line to play for UT in the past fifteen years was blocking for Vince Young? If you count the number UT linemen now playing in the NFL, you will see that most were playing in 2005. I don’t believe last year’s O line was anywhere close to being comparable to the one in 2005.

I’m optimistic that the coaching staff has made strides in addressing the problems in the running game by upgrading the offensive line. 2007 and 2009 were banner recruiting years for the O line. Let’s hope we start seeing the results next season. If we don’t see a better running game in the next three years, I might be more receptive to your arguments.

I’ve enjoyed reading your posts in years past, but I think you’ve stepped over the obsessive line on this subject.
 
That Texas hasn't won a bunch of Big XII championships has a lot more to do with defensive deficiencies than it does the style of quarterback we've had, or the lack of a dominant running game.

For the last time, modern college football has gotten away from the "three yards and a cloud of dust", "when you pass, three things can happen and two of them are bad" days.

UT under Mack was actually at the forefront of making the Big XII a passing conference. Mack brought a modified west coast offense with him, and a year later, Stoops and Leach introduced OU to the spread. Wide open passing is the way to play in the Big XII now, and the league isn't likely to go back to a grind it out offensive philosophy anytime soon.

All of this is not to say Texas won't ever recruit a stud running back or dual threat quarterback. Matter of fact, two "dual threat" quarterback types are on the roster right now, but neither is gonna beat out Colt, who's pretty much a dual threat quarterback himself.

Sorry, but Vince ain't walking back through that door as a player...and I think the argument that lacking a Vince-type quarterback keeps Texas from winning the conference just doesn't hold water. I noticed that okie HAS won a bunch of Big XII titles, and last time I checked, it's been a while since they've had a really dominant running attack (Adrian spent too much time injured.), and okie has NOT had a so-called dual threat quarterback.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top