Outdated offense

by RolloTamasi on Aug 5, 2010 5:07 PM CDT

Football:

Texas under Greg Davis has run some of the same passing concepts with different quarterbacks generally to great effect against the rest of the league. This is the OC that made Hines Ward into a quarterback for a bowl game in which he threw for 300 yards.

He installed his own version of the 2-man "stick" concept where the focal receiver runs 4 yards deeper than your guy in NCAA does on this play (I can run this play for an automatic 3 yards but always to the tight end and it won't sustain drives) that devastated in 2008 with Shipley as the TE.

The man develops quarterbacks and he instills his passing system very effectively in practice. Unfortunately, the predominance of the spread means that the best defenses are routinely drilled to stop these passing concepts and will ravage them if they can abandon the box.

Over at Smartfootball you can find a video of Nick Saban talking about his basic strategy for stuffing Texas in the National title game where it all hinges on a simple disruption of the basic zone-read playing only 5 defenders in the box. Five.

Nebraska and OU showed similar disdain for the running game and Nebraska more than got away with it while OU took a few hits that would not have mattered save for the turnover disparity in the game.

Now all three of those defenses were particularly strong but that is the point. While Greg Davis is the fashioner of some truly great passing offenses, his mastery of only 50% of the possibilities of offensive football will not engineer greatness in the new decade of college football where programs in the near vicinity are taking part in the defensive arms race.

Now whether Texas abandons its new focus on running the ball (Mack has indicated that they will not but his word on the running game in the offseason has been virtually worthless to this point) for the spread of the last few years or not the constant for next year is Gilbert. If Texas can run on an honest front Gilbert has enough to do damage in the passing game.

But then we get quotes like this from Chip Brown:

Mack went out of his way to say the offense is not moving totally under center and into a two-back offense. UT will be out of the shotgun at least half of the time. Maybe more.

Oh. Sweet. A multiple offense we've been promised that will feature power running and play-action passing to receivers that are primarily downfield guys...almost half the time?

LT Kyle Hix said, "We're not doing a whole lot different on the line this year. We've just tweaked a few things."When I asked Hix what he thought the personality of the line would be this season, he said, "We want to be nasty."

So virtually none of the time Texas will run something that works?

On Gilbert as a runner, Mack said, "We always want to have a quarterback draw and a quarterback option. Garrett is quick and can slip the rush, but he's not a runner. Neither was Colt. Vince was a runner, a gifted, dominating runner."

Praise the Lord! The least effective 2 plays of the Texas offense will be retained...I was beginning to worry that Texas would abandon the play that Colt could never run and resulted in him being knocked out of the national championship game. Good to see also that the most effective running play for a pass-first offense will still be featuring the one player on the field that the coaches will least want to use in that capacity.

Thinks the offensive line will be good. Mack wants the running game to be better because he said the inability to run the ball "has cost us a chance at two national titles." He was referring to not being able to run the ball well enough against Texas Tech in 2008 and against Alabama in 2009.

See we would love to run the ball, in fact not being able to run the ball has been the reason we failed to completely capitalize on the last 2 seasons with the winningest quarterback of all time. So...we are going to run the exact same f-cking stuff that has utterly failed to this point.

Son of a bitch. Now we can only hope for these alleged tweaks and hope they amount to something more than "we just have Gilbert keep on the option read...actually nevermind, too dangerous." You may recall that Colt kept on the read once against OU and went for about 15 yards before someone stripped the ball away, and he kept a few times on A&M in his 175 yard romp on the celebrated field of Kyle.

It is essential for the 2010 running game that the offense feature something besides the inside zone as the base play. There is hope in the following:

1). Again, this is potentially a better interior OL than Texas has had since maybe 2006.

2). Tight End Barret Matthews. A blocking/receiving tight end makes a big difference as we all know. Use him as a hback more and confuse the likely direction of the play. Bring back the counter and run it in the 20 personnel fashion that you see at Florida or Auburn.

Additionally, it looks like we're relying on Matthews in the 2-man route, or Chiles/Davis/Hales will have to step up as a zone buster for this major Texas offensive component to continue to work.

3). The use of something, anything really, besides the inside zone as the base running play. It doesn't work from the shotgun without the threat of the quarterback keep. A trap play like OU features would make a significant difference, even if Texas is still overusing it like they do the zone. The outside zone is better, or should be used enough to actually get guys overpursuing and open up the cutback lanes for the inside zone.

The point is this, while I think the quality of this OL's pass-blocking will call for a much heavier emphasis on the run to be successful, if they can just run on the honest front and put a stop to this 5 and 6 in the box from Wyoming nonsense that will make all the difference.

Basically I've gone from a 7 in optimism for the running game to a 5. See you at open practice.

Geekdom:

Commanche vs. Mongol, for me one of the more anticipated matchups of the season. On the one hand you have the horse archers that rampaged half the world and destroyed the most advanced city of the time.

On the other hand you have the tribe that, in small bands, owned the plains and terrorized a much more populous people group who beyond them technologically not just in the manipulation of metal, but in the use of firearms.

Before the Texas Rangers and the Colt revolver came along there wasn't really a cavalry that was a match in Texas for the Commanche.

Commanche won although there is was a lot of difference made in the archery test that I found a little suspect. For one, and this is always a problem, to take 2 men who are certifiably not Commanche or Mongol warriors and use their performance in a single test to determine the quality of those warriors archery is a serious stretch.

For another, I believe the Mongol bow is supposed to have a better range than the Commanche bow and this wasn't tested at all. On the other hand the Commanche bow tested better on velocity so perhaps the buffalo hunting bow was better after all.

Another curious result was the dominance of the War Hawk over the flanged mace which was surprisingly devastating. Of course in one on one combat getting your war hawk stuck in an opponents skull is not an issue for the user of the war hawk, more of an issue for the Mongol trying to carry on with an iron spike in his brain.

At one point in the show they discussed intimidation where the Commanche experts seemed willing to concede the edge to the Mongols who drove fear into the Eastern World. I suspect this is because the Commanche were uninterested in examining the terrifying violence the Commanche meted out against frontiersmen and their daughters.

Personally I would be hesitant to boast about my ancestors raping young girls or torturing their captive fathers while totally smashed on moonshine. In reality, no one has the advantage in intimidation over a pack of skinny screaming Commanche braves.

Ultimately I think a Commanche force with the same kind of numbers as the Mongols placed in the battlefield would handle Genghis Khan just fine. Or, that the mongols would utterly fail to keep a hold on the plains where the commanche hunted. For all their steel technology they disregarded the value of steel in crafting armour and consequently would certainly fare no better, or worse, than a buffalo against a Commanche bow or lance.

And beyond the advantage of the plains bow over the Mongol bow, which I think was hardly proven, a skilled mounted lancer takes the edge in open battle over a squatty rider with a curved sword. See Southron v. Rohirrim at the pelennor fields.

Yes I went there.

Tweet Comment 32 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

You are a moron. Our running game is awesome and has been since Mack has been here. Look at the stats man. Come on, we ran all over OU last year. Greg Davis is the best offensive coordinator in the nation.

by el cheese on Aug 5, 2010 5:30 PM CDT reply actions

As a QB coach, Greg Davis is a great QB coach. As an OC, Greg Davis is a great QB coach. I can’t be all that optimistic about our running game because I have no idea what it will actually look like. I don’t really even know what it will try to look like. IMO we have a great QB to run an offense where we line up and punch people in the mouth and then throw it over their heads. No idea, though, whether any of that will actually happen.

And I’m with you on Deadliest Warrior. It has its moments but makes huge mistakes sometimes. They did a fight between Vlad Tepish and Sun Tzu and focused on the weapons more than the fact that they were dealing with the most brilliant strategist of all time (no mention at all of grand strategy).

by WanderingHorn on Aug 5, 2010 5:39 PM CDT reply actions

They did the same with Attila vs. Alexander, although that was still an interesting one. The vlad one was interesting but again, the whole idea with these guys is that they were strategists not well-armed killing machines.

El Cheese: I’m not sure where I would rank him nationally but I could probably name 5 guys off the top of my head who are better. Others here might name 10 or 15 faster than you can blink. It’s always the running game with him, he never really struggles to build a good passing game.

by Nickel Rover on Aug 5, 2010 5:47 PM CDT reply actions

GD is not the issue. MB is the primo politician. He can lie (about the running game) and get away with it. I will take MB and GD warts, lie, WINS and all.

The odds are slim that our next HC will be as good at as many aspects of the game on and off the field as MB. Or as good at WINNING. We better enjoy it while we can. I know I am.

by Whistling on Aug 5, 2010 6:27 PM CDT reply actions

So…we are going to run the exact same f-cking stuff that has utterly failed to this point.

Son of a bitch. Now we can only hope for these alleged tweaks and hope they amount to something more than "we just have Gilbert keep on the option read…actually nevermind, too dangerous."

— I has a sad.

by dasmithjones on Aug 5, 2010 6:35 PM CDT reply actions

There are some readily obvious fixes to the running game staring the staff in the face that they are ignoring. Such as, don’t build around a scheme where the quarterback has to run the ball if you have no intention of running your quarterback.
Blame whoever you want but the facts are that this failure to adjust will cripple the Gilbert offensive era like it did with Colt.

by Nickel Rover on Aug 5, 2010 6:36 PM CDT reply actions

I like that we are keeping the spread. That is what GG is used to. If only GD could craft a truly complimentary running game. It shouldn’t be that hard.

by Monahorns on Aug 5, 2010 9:02 PM CDT reply actions

I think we are just going to try and run OU’s 2008 offence
really GD is an excellent coach, but is not someone to experiment…
It is hard to come up with something new at a institution with as much talent and expectations as Texas. Many spread concepts were developed at small schools that needed an edge to survive. At Texas if he experiments and fails he is a scapegoat and is fired, if he does what everyone else is doing an fails, well he can say what more could I have done?

by wisconsinhornybadger on Aug 5, 2010 9:18 PM CDT reply actions

Bye bye, Malcolm …

by VirginiaLonghorn on Aug 5, 2010 9:19 PM CDT reply actions

by Isaiah on Aug 5, 2010 9:54 PM CDT reply actions

If we run spread primarily between the 20s (and rarely call for the QB to keep), and run the “I” in obvious running situations and in the red zone…we will be doing what NFL teams do now.

by TaylorTRoom on Aug 5, 2010 9:58 PM CDT reply actions

When it comes to an effective running game, the closest we seem to get is Mack’s annual statement of intent.

by utexex on Aug 5, 2010 10:12 PM CDT reply actions

You sure took like 10 words out of context and did a whole thing there. Kind of cool and creepy at the same time.

I will wait until like, I don’t know the first practice before I throw myself out of the window.

by Newy25 on Aug 5, 2010 10:50 PM CDT reply actions

wisconsinhornybadger,

Running OU’s 2008 offense with an inexperienced OL and a second year QB is running OU’s 2009 offense. Not exactly a recipe for success.

by soonerfan15 on Aug 5, 2010 11:47 PM CDT reply actions

I don’t know what the hell you are talking about, GD has had a number of dominate rushing offenses in his time at Texas.

Of course they coincided with the appearance of Heisman trophy winners on campus* But that’s really more of a coincidence than anything else.

*Vince Young to receive his stolen Heisman any day now.

by Roach on Aug 6, 2010 12:06 AM CDT reply actions

Wisconsinhornybadger: I wish. The 2008 Sooner offense was built around a trap play that could be executed without the quarterback doing anything other than handing off.
Newy: I’ll be watching the practice with some hope but I won’t forecast success for this team if they are basing out of the zone-read run from the shotgun.

Some of you seem to be confusing the spread with running ineptitude. Texas can stick with the shotgun spread and be great but they can’t do it with the running scheme as it has existed to this point. My frustration is not in the abandonment of the I-formation but in the abandonment of a coherent running scheme.

Anyone think Texas can match last year’s success without Shipley, Ulatoski and Colt using the same offense? Who catches the ball on 3rd down? True freshman Mike Davis? Before or after Texas drops some games? Who blocks the edge? Hix? Hix+Matthews/Newton?

We’ll see what the offense looks like next week I guess.

by Nickel Rover on Aug 6, 2010 2:36 AM CDT reply actions

When we were weak at running last year Applewhite and Mcwhorter both blamed scheme. If we don’t change that scheme for a 3rd year in a row… then why even have assistant coaches??

by Orangechipper on Aug 6, 2010 7:17 AM CDT reply actions

Amen Newy, I think I’ll save the wrist-slitting until at least halftime of the Rice game. If we can’t run on Rice then yeah we’re in a world of fuck.

by Gman on Aug 6, 2010 7:38 AM CDT reply actions

Not to be overly contrarian, but the QB draw and the zone read have hardly been the two least effective plays for the Horns. The QB draw has actually been a pretty good play, and one which Gilbert may be able to pull off a handful of times in the season.

by llogg on Aug 6, 2010 7:54 AM CDT reply actions

On the other hand, running on Rice does prove we are not fucked.

The RB Coach either cannot coach, cannot recruit or has no say in either one. Which is one way of saying he is fucked.

by Whistling on Aug 6, 2010 7:54 AM CDT reply actions

The elephant in the room is the theory that the Mack/Greg approach will get you 10 win seasons but no NC’s, barring having the greatest college qb ever. Each year, it starts to look more and more like that theory has legs.

by ransomstoddard on Aug 6, 2010 8:30 AM CDT reply actions

What? We played in the national championship game last year. And we should have played in it in 2008.

by nordberg on Aug 6, 2010 9:07 AM CDT reply actions

Come on two losses in two years, one a freak play where Colt goes down, the other a dropped interception that I don’t like to talk about, a dropped TD pass by Shipley, and a superhuman effort by Crabtree…Oh and Malcom Brown??? This is Texas, give me a break, we won a national championship without Adrian Peterson, and knocked of Espn’s jesus in cleats Reggie Bush…Gilbert is a spread Quarterback and his arm will be a bigger factor than any running back we can recruit…

by hmik on Aug 6, 2010 9:22 AM CDT reply actions

llog: the zone read is a fantastic base play if you are willing to actually have the quarterback keep the ball when the end crashes down. Texas was rarely willing to do so with Colt and I’m sure will be no more willing with Gilbert.

QB draw has been a good play for Texas as well, run effectively about once per 2 games for the same reason McCoy wouldn’t keep on the zone read.

Orangechipper: Not sure how you heard that but it seems so obvious I won’t disbelieve it. I know the coaches who watch the games over and over must realize what has gone terribly wrong even if they aren’t fixing it.

by Nickel Rover on Aug 6, 2010 9:39 AM CDT reply actions

typical spoiled longhorn fan griping about greg davis. doesn’t matter we’re in the very very top in scoring and total offense every single year. however, that’s not good enough for the elitist longhorn fan. i’ll remind you that the grass is not always greener. greg davis is more than we could ask for. stop crying out loud, be a man and find some logic.

by drankthewine on Aug 6, 2010 9:40 AM CDT reply actions

yeah guys, bring some logic, the stat sheet says GD is da man! Except when we play a defense with a pulse.

by ballrific on Aug 6, 2010 10:36 AM CDT reply actions

drankthewine: maybe you didn’t read the post and noticed I praised Davis’ ability to build a passing offense, which huckleberry tells us is most conducive to building a strong offense.

The point of the post is that other elite programs, which directly stand in the path of a national championship, are building defenses that will chew up a passing game that isn’t supported by an honest running game.

I want to win championships, do you? Do you have any logic or arguments better than a cliche or ad hominem attack?

by Nickel Rover on Aug 6, 2010 2:50 PM CDT reply actions

its all a numbers game. zone-read gives you numbers. if you have a qb thats a runnin threat. we dont.

so i think we should pull more. pulling a player gives a similar numbers advantage. Power & Counter should be staples of our running game, along with other standard running plays such as ISO and toss. simple, pro-style stuff would be best for us.

by PVogel on Aug 6, 2010 2:59 PM CDT reply actions

wisconsinhornybadger said:

August 5th, 2010 at 7:18 pm

It is hard to come up with something new at a institution with as much talent and expectations as Texas.

WHAT???

Having the level & type of talent Texas has year in and year out gives you the LUXURY of resources to come up w/ a diversified & creative offense.

The reason why the O can’t tap its head & rub its tummy at the same time is b/c the OC, given the IMMENSE talent at his disposal, is subpar. And Mack’s huge blind spot w/ respect to Davis is why he has only 2 conference titles in decades of coaching.

by Joetx on Aug 6, 2010 3:28 PM CDT reply actions

utexex said:

August 5th, 2010 at 8:12 pm

When it comes to an effective running game, the closest we seem to get is Mack’s annual statement of intent.

Sad, but true.

by Joetx on Aug 6, 2010 3:30 PM CDT reply actions

This has the feel of a year when the offense will struggle to run against Rice etc, Mack will say “we’re just learning and we’ll get better”, and then ou holds us to -49 yards rushing, and Mack says “we’re going to simplify the offense for Garrett and our rb’s” and we wind up playing in the Cotton Bowl.

by ransomstoddard on Aug 7, 2010 1:34 PM CDT reply actions