The word from TFM Steele on the 2008 Horns

I nominate kchorn's post for post of the year... or at least the off-season.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think this year's OU game is going to be a grit-your-teeth-and-bear-it kind of affair.

Then again, I thought we'd get killed last year, and the team really left it all out there. Too many mistakes (and the wrong personnel were on the field too much, i.e. defensive players of some repute). But they fought hard. In years past I think they would have given up. That might count for something, maybe, when this year's game rolls around.
 
I still respect TFM's opinions because nearly all their writers/contributors are Texas sportswriters who really know their football. By contrast, mags like Athlon's & Phil Steele's will just get some tennis guy from the Kansas City Star to write the Big 12 section after reading each team's media guide. They rarely tell me anything I don't already know.

So I can see being rated 2nd behind OU by the writers. But Tech at #8 nationally? I must've been asleep when Leach signed all those 4-* defensive recruits.
wtf.gif
 
mackfan1 - those are interesting observations.

If the Texas sportswriters who contribute to Texas Football Magazine "really know their stuff" -- apparently, some of us who are readers are more impressed by that factor than the editors of Texas Football Magazine.

Otherwise, how do you account for the fact that TFM's preseason ranking for Tech (in the Big-12 South Division) contradicts the results of the magazine's own poll of those same writers?

As for comparing Steele's College Football Preview to Athlon (or any of the other annual national college-football preseason publications), that arguably is like comparing apples to cow chips. Regardless of who helps Steele with his publication, it remains the only one (imo) on the market (Country-wide) that actually has an integrated, comprehensive system of evaluation that enables the reader to compare teams (and players) to each other at the national level -- on the basis of objective analysis supported by detailed data that is unavailable elsewhere.

Steele at least attempts to explain on a rational basis why the current trend for UT football is going South, and he does so from a national (rather than a provincial) perspective that is designed to reflect where the Horns' football program fits -- from a wide variety of interesting angles -- in the national power structure of college football.

One obvious example is that The University of Texas football program -- for whatever reasons, however valid -- has not capitalized under Mack, both before and after Vince, on the player-talent advantage we should have (on paper) from Mack's successful recruiting. The reference to "capitalizing" relates to winning Conference titles and BCS-level postseason games -- to match our national-level recruiting success.

It is an interesting conundrum with Mack (that the player-talent he recruits, when we use a "passing" QB, does not translate to titles), which arguably demonstrates a fatal flaw in our offensive philosophy, i.e., a critical lack of a substantive running game -- when we use a "passing QB" such as Major, Chris, Chance & Colt ... and, perhaps down the road, GG -- vs. quality opponents in our key games.

Mack & Greg had the same problem (a "soft" offense that could not run the football effectively vs. the Big Dogs) at North Carolina. That changed at Texas with Vince -- when we had "two" viable running threats on the football field at the same time -- but we appear to be right back in the same totally-predictable "one-man" running-game rut now.

We'll see what happens in the RRS this Fall.

Hook 'em.
cow.gif
 
I haven't followed DCTFM consistently for the last few years, although I used to read it religiously. It's certainly not unheard of for the writers of the magazine to predict a different outcome in the conference race than the editor.

The smart money in any given year would be on Oklahoma, because they've proven they'll do about anything to win and we've pretty much conceded the title to them. Since Mack Brown's arrival at UT, the powers-that-be in our athletic hierarchy have decided that generating revenue is more important than winning titles. Hence, Mack hasn't been called to account for his abysmal record in the Red River Rivalry.

So, if we're not going to win it, it certainly wouldn't hurt my feelings if Tech or anyone else but aggy could interrupt OU's dominance of the Big Twelve. Maybe if someone else did, we would modify our own expectations.

As for our ineffectiveness in running the football, see paragraph two, above. We're not going to change philosophy as long as Mack is our coach. Mack will be our coach as long as he wants.
 
Thanks, Slick16 - that is an interesting point.

Mack Brown may be the "P. T. Barnum" of college football coaches -- he certainly appears to be focused, as you have suggested, on the "entertainment" aspect of the Horns' football program ... as distinguished from winning Conference titles and BCS-level bowl games.

The following quote attributed to Mack in this year's Texas Football Magazine illustrates the point:

"Texas fans are hard to entertain sometimes, so we need to keep their attention. And kids love trick plays, so we will run them consistently."

Apparently, Mack may have The University of Texas confused with Boise State ... although even Boise State arguably ran the football better against Oklahoma than the Horns have in this millennium with a "passing QB" (i.e., Major, Chris, Chance and Colt -- with GG next on the agenda) and our totally-predictable and Charmin-soft "one-man" running game.

At least Boise State played in and won a BCS-level postseason game ... something no Mack Brown-coached football team ever has accomplished (with a "passing QB" and Mack's "one-man" running game) in his entire intercollegiate coaching career. In fact, none of Mack's football teams (other than those with Vince as a starter for the full season) has even "played" in a BCS-level postseason game ... much less won the game or a Conference title.

As P. T. Barnum supposedly said: "There's a sucker born every minute" ... and maybe Mack thinks most of those suckers live in Texas.

The Horns are 57-40-5 vs. Oklahoma, overall, in our head-to-head series with the Sooners ... but we're 4-6 vs. OU under Mack & Greg, with two of those wins coming in the first two RRS games played after Mack & Greg arrived in Austin, one year ahead of Stoops' arrival in Norman. In this millennium, Texas trails Oklahoma, 2-6, in the RRS -- and there is no sign of relief (in the form of a viable running game) in sight for the Horns.

Vince Young played only one game vs. Oklahoma, in 2005, as an established starter at QB after Mack & Greg had their renowned "coaching epiphany" following the 2004 Missouri game and decided to turn Vince loose to play QB at Texas aggressively with a vertical running and passing game. Apart from Vince, The University of Texas football team has averaged only 51.6 yards rushing per game (and just 1.87 yards rushing per carry) vs. Oklahoma in this millennium.

The record indicates that our anemic running-game approach won't work for the Horns if we want to win the RRS on any consistent basis, but Mack & Greg appear to have done nothing (as Slick16 has noted) to make any effort to develop a stronger running game "scheme" -- that incorporates substantive misdirection on a regular basis -- when we utilize a "passing QB" at Texas.

As a result, we may "out-pass" Oklahoma (as the Horns did last year), but they "out-rush" us (as the Sooners did last year) ... and no Mack-coached Texas team or Stoops-coached Oklahoma team ever has won the RRS when being out-rushed by its opponent.

Now Mack is telling us that he hopes to "entertain" us with trick plays ... offering that approach as a placebo, instead of actually doing something constructive to fix the Horns' broken "one-man" running-game scheme. If our past history in the RRS is any indication, that means we can watch our "passing QB" fill the air with "entertainment" while Oklahoma runs over us in Dallas.

Maybe it's time for GD (and his "soft" offensive philosophy that consists of nothing but air vs. Oklahoma) to "see the Great Egress" -- to borrow another phrase from P. T. Barnum.

Even if we're "suckers" at Texas, it may be difficult for Mack to entertain us in perpetuity by alternating the Horns' bowl-game trips between San Diego and San Antonio.

We'll see what happens in the RRS (on October 11) this time around.

Hook 'em.
cow.gif
 
UT was able to exploit some weaknesses in OU's defense last year which stacked the line against the run and was exposed in the secondary. However they just didn't make the adjustments in the 2nd half that OU did and the big fumble cost them dearly.

I like UT being underrated by some. This should give them something to rally behind. There has been a big change for UT on defense this year as well that doesn't seem to be factored in some of these predictions. UT acquiring a new DC that will bring fire and energy to a defense that has lacked that the past 1-2 seasons is going to make a huge difference. It will be this type of defense that can make a game changing play or 2 which UT completely lacked last season. I think this year's RRS will be won by the defensive play.
 
IMO the bottom line is going to be QB play. Outside observers don't have much faith in Colt after last year. In fact, there is quite a bit of disagreement here on that topic as well. If he plays like last season these are pretty fair picks and might be generous, if he returns to some of that form from two years ago, then we will do better than predicted.
 
(1) HousHorn09 - amen.

we need, at least in principle, to do more of the same -- and perhaps we will (with Muschamp's coaching leadership) -- in the 2008 RRS.

(2) Tecolote - your point is well taken, imo, that it could help the 2008 Horns for Colt to "return to form" this Fall.

It also seems fair, however, to suggest that the key issue with our offense in the coming football season is not just Colt's performance ... but, perhaps more importantly, what our overall offensive scheme will be this Fall.

Asking Colt (like we arguably did last year) to do everything -- this time around without Jamaal Charles and Jermichael Finley -- may not be the answer, no matter how well Colt plays. Not only is Colt more limited in athletic ability than Vince (so, of course, are Graham Harrell and Sam Bradford), but it may be worth remembering that Vince had an outstanding OL, excellent receivers, perhaps the best TE ever at Texas, and three RBs currently in the NFL.

If we want to emulate the success that Vince realized against Oklahoma (in the 2005 RRS), then we are going to need a "team" effort that has as its foundation an offensive scheme that actually works.

For example, either Colt is going to run with the football on designed plays, or he is not. You can't say that Colt is a dual-threat QB vs. Arizona State, but not vs. A&M and Oklahoma ... where does that leave the team when we play the Aggies and the Sooners?

If Colt is not going to run with the football vs. the likes of Ohio State (substitute, this season, Arkansas), Oklahoma and A&M ... then the team's offense likely will flounder in those games ... unless we are honest about the situation, tell the team not to count on Colt as a runner, and devise an offensive scheme that can work effectively without requiring Colt to run with the football in those games.

We need an offensive scheme, imo, that is based on the reality of the situation. If Colt is not going to run with the football vs. Arkansas, Oklahoma or A&M -- then who will be the Horns' second viable running threat in those games?

(3) hornpharmd - appreciate your point and agree with you in principle.

A strong defense definitely will help the 2008 Horns, and it also could help us to be underrated going into this season. Even so, the ideal would seem to be to have "both" an effective offense and an effective defense in the 2008 RRS.

After all, we managed (with a totally inept running game) to lose the 2001 RRS ... even with the No. 1 defense in the Country.

It will be interesting to see what happens this Fall.

Hook 'em.
cow.gif
 
Thanks, Slick 16 - appreciate your observations.

The point you've made regarding the local sports media is an interesting one -- supposedly, journalists are more aggressive now than they used to be ... but, ironically, the only "tough questions" they're asking in the local sports coverage usually relate to the players' off-the-field personal issues ... not the on-the-field game plan.

For example, it would be interesting to hear Mack & Greg explain why the Horns waited until the fourth quarter of the 2007 Nebraska game to run with the football (with our option-read play) on any substantive basis vs. the Huskers -- who had the No. 116 rushing defense (out of 119 teams) in major-college football.

Mack & Greg never have fielded a running game that worked for the Horns vs. the Big Dogs (with Conference titles on the line), and yet Mack can switch the subject to "trick plays" and the sports media seems to swallow the placebo whole ... without a single question regarding what is going to be done on any substantive basis to change our running-game "scheme" and get different results in the RRS this Fall.

Up until Vince left, Mack's favorite stat arguably was the one indicating that the Horns had won virtually every game (during his coaching tenure at UT) in which Texas out-rushed its opponent. Now, Mack seldom, if ever, mentions that stat ... and, instead, he has told the sports media that the only issue is putting points on the board -- not having a balanced offense.

So, when the Horns' offense flounders (like it did in the 2007 A&M game for the first three and a-half quarters, and in the entire 2006 A&M game), Mack can just say we didn't score enough points -- or, better yet, blame the Horns' defense -- and completely ignore the fact that Texas could not run the football effectively vs. the Aggies.

Meanwhile, the University of Texas is working on its fifth Defensive Coordinator during Mack's coaching tenure with the Horns ... while GD continues, with impunity, to coach our running game into the ground.

Apparently, as the song says: "That's entertainment".

Hook 'em.
cow.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top