Mack's vision for Texas

You mean “Mack’s Bison for Texas” ?

Thank you, I’m glad that was caught early.

Good post.

My only hope is that Mack brings in a staff steeped in talent maximazation and optimization, and that with UT’s natural recruiting advantage we can make this new strategy work. It certainly is swimming against the current of Texas high school football.

BTW, I think you meant “mano a mano” not “mano y mano.” The latter means “hand and hand.”

I appreciate the write-up, Nickel. You may be right about Mr. Oldsmobile and all things new, though he did cotton on to the rugby punt.

p.s. I’m enjoying “Todd Pinkel” mainly because it just made Phenomenal spew his morning coffee.

So a team has to run the spread to win? You should tell that to Wisconsin, Stanford and Alabama. And soon to be Florida.

Doesn’t Bama run a pro style running a attack? They vanquished us, and I think that’s where a lot of the inspiration for the move to the prostyle over the summer.

Mack has never forgotten Priest Holmes in the Sun Bowl.

It’s a strange thing to fixate on, given that it was a minor bowl game, and so many things have happened since then, but still, it is undeniable that he has fixated on what happens when an offense has a running back that a defense just can’t seem to stop, no matter what they try.

While it is undeniable that a Vince Young or a Colt McCoy can stretch a defense beyond the breaking point, it is also undeniable that the “Air Raid” has only won championships when it was employed by schools with the resources to stockpile talent — much the same charge made against the pro style offense. Mike Leach may have cause a lot of hapless front sevens to chase waterbugs, but he doesn’t have any rings to show for it.

And don’t even get me started on Pinkel or Mangino….

I don’t have a problem with running a big back out of the I-formation; if you’ve got the personnel for it, that’s what you ought to do. I would prefer to see the flexibility that (and don’t stand next to me for this next comment, because surely lightning will strike) Greg Davis showed when retooling the offense for VY. Sure, it took him too long, and yes, he stole all the concepts rather than invented them, but given his history, it was really remarkable. And most of Jimi Hendrix’s best work was originally someone else’s, too; what matters is end product, not who has the copyright.

I don’t care what scheme anybody brings with them, so long as they can recapture that, and do it on a regular basis. Davis obviously couldn’t. Fingers are crossed that our next OC can.

“Greg made him look stupid for having talked up the jack’n’jill offense only to see it sputter and be abandoned for gameplans (if you can call them that) that required more throws from Gilbert than Texas had even asked of McCoy. Goodbye old chum.”

When Mack said he “couldn’t trust his coaches” this is exactly what he meant. It took years for him to finally realize it without Vince or Colt to cover for GDGD, but at last he finally got it.

I think McCoy’s injury in the BCSCG plays a large role in this move to the “pro-style” offense. In a run/play-action offense the QB is relatively better protected than he is when he runs a lot of the time. If the QB is the key triggerman, then he needs to stay healthy. When you have an offense built entirely around a one-of-a-kind type of superman, if he goes down, you’re fucked. That’s a big reason pro teams don’t run offenses like that. They need offenses where interchangeable parts can be plugged in as needed (as much as is possible with limited rosters; obviously, franchise QBs don’t grow on trees).

Mack saw how effectively USC moved the ball on us in the BCSCG with that kind of attack. If not for VY, we would not have stood a chance in hell of winning.
Stanford this year is another good example of what such an offense can do. They lost to Oregon, and one might make a case that Oregon’s offensive style was the sole difference, but overall Stanford had great results with “smashmouth.”

If you have the right athletes with good fundamentals to run an offense, and sufficient time to train them to run the offense crisply, and have a smart scheme which gives those athletes the opportunity to make plays, then the exact offense you run doesn’t really matter much. (Single wing or wishbone excepted, possibly). Even GDGD’s offense was effective in its design in 2008 with the right guys who understood what to do.

The attractions to Mack of the pro offense are:
1. requires good athletes (NFL label attracts recruits)
2. requires good fundamentals (upgrading overall level of play)
3. interchangeable parts (helped by large roster)
3. controls the clock (when fully developed takes pressure off defense)
4. protects QB (big on Mack’s list)
5. run first (caters to Mack’s instincts)
7. psychology (impose your will)

Hopefully, Mack understands that the needed transformation will take at least two years, he is committed to that, and he will hire the right people to put it in place.

Try to ignore my Monty Python numbering scheme.

Thanks for the hat tip, Nickel. I read some of the comments and I think a lot of people still have offensive scheme undestandings from 2006. In 2010, an NFL offense has many more plays where the QB is in the shotgun than in 2006. An NFL offense will have running plays besides draws from the shotgun, without relying on the QB to run. A modern NFL offense uses pass routes and reads very similar to the Leach spread. Basically, the NFL has taken the aspects of college (and HS) spreads that they like and believe fit their game, and co-opted them.

I want a modern NFL offense for Texas. I do not want a 2005 NFL offense for Texas.

Really enjoyed this post! Thanks Nickel.

Outstanding post. My takeaway is that Mack’s thinking is pragmatic on the defensive side of the ball, yet ideological on offense. I’m guessing this is rooted in Mack’s coaching background as an OC.

TaylorTRoom captured my thoughts precisely. With all the talk the last year of “Pro Style” my fear is that we are thinking of an outdated notion of that style of play rather than what we currently see in the pros.

Finally, some football conversation worth sinking our teeth into. Good topical analysis, NR.

I have been thinking along these same lines in terms of which OC out there best provides the solution Coach Brown seeks. The name that rises to the top, imo, is Paul Chryst.

Let’s look at the numbers for the Badgers.
Year / Rush / Pass
2008 / 2745 / 2445
2009 / 2650 / 2770
2010 / 2968 / 2434

2010 Season:
Rush – 538 plays
Pass – 255 plays
YPP – 6.8
RZ % – 90.77
TO Margin – tied 3rd at +14
TO’s lost – tied for 1st in the land at only 9 for the year

And he has done this without the benefit of a 1st or 2nd round, all-america type of skill set.

Coach Brown is looking for the offensive Holy Grail of balance. Why? For starters it gets all skill players involved in the game. And as such, keeps defenses honest. But more importantly provides production touches to top talent seeking next level opportunity. Secondly, I think when he speaks of NFL he wants a “hook” for the creamiest talent.

Texas gets a good look from NFL scouts on the defensive side but can we honestly say that about the offensive side? Sure Quan, Ship, Colt, Jamaal, Oby, et al are/were playing but I think Coach Brown is concerned that the NFL pipeline might be drying up on the offensive side and GM’s might be more apt to peek elsewhere. This past season’s results only exacerbated his frustration as NR aptly pointed out that “Mack couldn’t trust his coaches.” That’s right. Couldn’t trust his coaches to put his “kids” in the right limelight to further their careers.

Is winning important? Unquestionably. But Coach Brown’s legacy will be how his “family” perceives him. And the kids he brings into his program are first and foremost his “family”. The more kids he can get into the next level, the greater the “hook” for top talent.

Finally recognizing the need to provide a sound, fundamental, football education to those that come to the 40 Acres, in his mind, will be his lasting legacy. I think at the end of the day this is his real motivation.

After Texas’ 4 BCS Bowls, of which they have won 3, he is stealing the approach of the vanquished foe.
We beat Alabama for a National Championship? Shit. I must have missed that game.

ONLY because of a fluke injury to Colt. More a lesson of not putting our eggs in one basket and not padding stats for the Heisman when we could be getting the backup reps during the season.

But yeah, the aticle lays out good reasons for going to more of a ‘Pro-style’ offense.

Beat USC and Michigan in the Rose, Ohio St in the Fiesta = 3. Maybe you’re missing fingers.

Lurker – very good LOL for a Thursday morning with your Monty Python comment. Way to dig yourself out of that debacle.

Nickle,

This was a nice breakdown. I won’t get into what Coach Brown wants or desires – I don’t know nor follow the man closely enough to answer that. I would concur with TTR that the pro offenses have matured a great deal as well. NFL OCs have learned from Belicheck (sp) and are adapting.

IMHO, good OCs are like the Borg – they are always adapting and creating new solutions to what they are facing. And this is the important point – do you want a guy who comes in with a set offense of what he’s going to do or do you want a guy who is going to craft up something that will give the talent on hand the best poossible choice of winning? At first, you’d prefer that latter but in the long run, you’d prefer the former. In a perfect world, he’d be both.

When Mike Sherman came to A&M, he wanted to run his Green Bay pro set offense. He took one look around and said “well, that isn’t going to happen” – and started creating what would work for the talent at hand with an eye towards what he wanted to do in the future. That’s one of the reasons the Ags looked so pitiful that first season – it wasn’t so much that Fran left the cupboard bare (although in some key areas, he did), but the talent on hand wasn’t well suited to what Sherman was trying to implement.

Sherman had a “free” year to do that – your new OC will not have that luxury.

Count – NR’s count is dead on. Coach Brown is 3-1 in BCS bowls. Beat the teams you mentioned and lost to Bama. I’m sure you adequately forgot about that one last January as most of us have tried to move on.

That was my point, addressed to NYB.

ONLY because of a fluke injury to Colt. More a lesson of not putting our eggs in one basket and not padding stats for the Heisman when we could be getting the backup reps during the season.

A fluke injury caused by the fact that the only semblence of a running game we had for keeping defenses honest was using Colt as a RB.

Count- you need to reread, a little slower this time, what NYB posted.

I think too much is made over Colt being a dual-threat. I think Gilbert offers just as much in the way of running as Colt, the difference is that he was not as consistant as Colt in the passing game. In fact, Gilbert would be better at running a shotgun option offense due to his size IMHO.

Nevertheless, while I agree that a “dual-threat” QB is optimal, true dual-threats are so rare that you can’t design your offense around the hope that a QB will both be an effective runner and passer. You either have to hit the jackpot, or you need a lot of patience. I think with Greg Davis, we did need to rely on broken plays to score points, but with a competent OC having a dual threat is just a bonus.

I think a modern, balanced offense can come in all shapes or sizes. The Jeff Madden question still looms, but a proper S&C program can help us adapt to whatever scheme is on the horizon.

I prefer duel threat, but that’s just me. You know, three paces and a cloud of dust?

Nice write-up, Nickel.

We may be 3-1 but you’re only as good as your last one.

Great ending.

Are you watching the same Patriots team that I am? Because the Pats are a power running team that uses two tight end sets to create their mismatches. Their scheme isn’t at all as you describe it.

One of the main premises of your article is undermined by the very example that you cite.

I think you’re on the right track with the points about the advantages of a mobile quarterback. Particularly in the college game, that’s where the big advantage is, and I agree that going that route is the most compelling. But it’s not the only way to succeed, and the example you cite (the Pats) are the best counterexample to thesis of your post.

Simple version =

BCS Mack is dead
Holiday Bowl Mack is back

All hope for a return to respectability or better in the limited time Mack has left appears to rest on the skills of the new OC to piece together a functioning version of the Pro Style Offense with the mixed bag of parts we have available or coming in the 2011 recruiting class. This cat is going to need to be one helluva coach to get it done.

Great article. But Mack will be 70 years old before this gets up and running.

Bob Stoops owns Mack Brown. Stoops won 7 conf cships and played for 4 natl cships with 4 OCs, 2 DCs, and 6 QBs. And Stoops is building a $3.3 million home in Norman. Three months ago, Stoops was 49 years old.

Unlike Deloss and Mack, I attended our University and lettered at our University. So I expect them to understand what this feels like. But accepting this kind of expected dominance of OU over us is not ok with me.

This okie sports writer summed it up yesterday:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/OU/article.aspx?subjectid=92&articleid=20101214_202_B1_THECHR622262

PB – I’m going to disagree about New England. The Patriots use three tight ends, but mostly in single tight end sets. Aaron Hernandez is a flex tight end anyway, more of a wide receiver than a traditional tight end. Their most common formation is one back, one tight end, and three wide receivers. And when Hernandez is out there it’s basically four wide.

Re: our BCS wins…..

USC — my hats off to Vince, Chizik, and all the other NFL players we had running all over the field. And to Mack and the others for signing them.

Michigan and Ohio St — glad to have won, but these were typical Big 10 teams that are never as good as their record. Watching what the SEC typically does to these Big 10 teams by destroying and dismantling them by the end of the 2nd quarter, and comparing that to these two BCS games we squeaked by, is not impressive. I’m glad we won. But it’s not impressive.

Yeah, I’m wrong about not using two TE sets. In my defense I’m generally pretty drunk during the game.

Mack is toast. Get rid of him next year or it will be a bumpy ride.

Andrew Luck (438) had more net yards rushing this year than Garrett Gilbert(380)
Wiscy’s QB barely got touched, but they had 3 backs go for more than 750 yds.

I don’t think a pro-style offense precludes running the QB. A running QB needs to be part of the scheme but not as the first option. It keeps teams honest and gives them more to think about.

pb or someone who knows more schematics than I do…tell me if what the pats are doing is close to what Boise has been doing (minus the beast that is Logan mankins of course). big te sets but also switching to spread etc et

I’m a little worried about the ability of Mack’s desired offense to score enough points in the Big 12. In the Big 10 (Chryst) or the SEC where many teams go this route, putting up 25 points a week insures you a very good record as the other teams are playing this same type of offense and aren’t going to put up many points either.

Not sure 25 points against the likes of OU, OSU, Robert Griffin, or even recently ATM is enough even if you do control the ball and clock more. In my opinion, this is partly why Auburn tore through the SEC in Cam’s first year, no team had the firepower to outscore them, even if they stopped them for a while, the dam eventually broke and the points piled up.

Dont short sell the Michigan win. That UM offense was lethal and has a few guys in the NFL right now.

I have always felt that had we gotten a 10 or 14 point lead in the Championship game last year Bama would have had to throw and there is no way they catch up. Our defense was destroying their passing game.

So had that occurred, are we still having this conversation about a power running game? I think Mack was a little scarred by that experience but he of all people should recognize the limitations of power teams when they are behind. You have seen that in Wisconsin and Stanfords losses this year. No ability to catch up.

And NE is a poor example. They go shotgun over half the time along with Indy and NO.

When I think pro-style I think 90s Cowboys. That was a very conventional timing offense that executed like a machine with superior athletes across the board. And they did it all under center.

Nobody is really running anything like that with success in the league right now. Its all shotgun single back.

Pardon me for stating the obvious, but unless/until OL play improves, any debate over scheme is academic and conjectural.

One other important thing about ditching a spread attack for a power game.

Texas has to dominate the state in recruiting to be successful. The dominant offense in Texas HS is the spread. Are you going to concede all that talent to everyone else and let them beat your ass?

I don’t think the Michigan or Ohio State teams we beat in the BCS bowls were that great either. That Michigan team was pretty young but they didn’t do shit after 2004 of course. It feels like Ohio State puts out the exact same team for the past 8 years.

Did I see someone describe the Patriots as a power running team?

Mack’s vision? I’ll settle for not sending a kid back into a hopelessly lost game after he’s already thrown 5 picks. If stubborn as a mule is a “vision” then Mack’s got it in spades.

Great or not, Michigan 2004 had loads of guys that are playing on Sundays still, on both offense and defense. Henne, Edwards, Avant, Long, Woodley etc.

And that Buckeye team in the Fiesta was very good too. Tressel had things figured out at last, he had gotten over his Bowl problems, as shown the next year when tOSU handled Oregon in the Rose.

Nice start and many nice responses on this thread. I haven’t read an entire thread on here for quite awhile because they usually contain too many clueless declarations about Ebil Mack’s Ego or other imagined personality flaws including idiocy. Mack is neither angel nor devil.

One of the shining developments of the thread is the question of which Pro-style offense Mack envisions. I wonder how much pro ball Mack even has time to watch. Maybe, since we’re not prepping for a big bowl game, Mack has had more time to watch and reflect on the pro game and that is informing his decision process.

The comments above about Stoops’ dominance over Texas may prove to be true, but OU’s victories over Texas all involved shutting down our offense. There were no shoot outs. The only near shoot out was the year the Texas OL took control and OU could not stop Obi-wan in the fourth quarter. If I recall correctly.

We’ve got a great class coming in and a cleaned up staff taking over in the Spring. I predict cautious optimism starts to bloom again by April.

I’ll take the BCS wins over Mich and Ohio state. I’m sure OU would love to have some more BCS wins as well..

Ohio State not impressive? They destroyed Oregon last year, who was pretty damn good.

“I want a modern NFL offense for Texas. I do not want a 2005 NFL offense for Texas.”

This. All the Allied general staffs in 1938 thought that the next war would be a repeat of 1914-1918 trench strategies. The Germans had other ideas.

Great article, Nickel. Compelling point of view. Nice to talk football and not staff shakeup and possible new hires.

I wonder, though, if you and some of the posters aren’t missing something: The Pro Style attack isn’t defined tightly. It encompasses about every modern mode of attack other than the option. It isn’t defined by power running, though it certainly includes that.

What Mack wants to achieve is offensive balance. Under Greg Davis, that hasn’t been the case.

We haven’t had a real RUNNING BACK threat in five of the past six seasons (the exception being Jamaal Charles in 2007). Otherwise, our leading rusher has been either a QB or a RB who gained, maybe 600 yards in a 13-game season. Mack’s logic is right-on: For all the reasons cited by others, the idea is to BE ABLE to run the ball when we want to - notably on third or fourth-and-short, in the red zone, or when leading by two scores or less in the latter stages of a game. We haven’t been able to do that against a legit team since 2004.

Our problems in that area have been (1) average running backs; (2) average offensive linemen; (3) an offensive coordinator who treated the running game as a second-class citizen. The average talent is the result of poor/lazy/unfortunate recruiting decisions. New blood, new ideas and pure hustle will cure all three. In about two seasons, maybe less, given the overall squad quality we already have.

With out a new Strength and Conditioning coach/program any ground game is going to fail. Jeff Madden has to go. It all starts with.

I actually think the switch to the pro-set/running game is smart. As more and more defenses are geared toward stopping the spread, the adjustment to defending power running teams becomes more difficult.

Look at how much trouble running teams gave Muschamp this year. We lacked the abilty upfront (at the 3 tech) and a traditional gap filling middle linebacker (Norton, we hardly knew you) and were crushed by anyone with competent run block scheme and the will to use it.

Muschamp is smart enough to know how to stop a run game, but he lacked the personnel/practice time to do it. Texas’s 2010 defense was designed to shutdown the spread (as are most Big XII defenses). I think the advantage will swing back quickly to teams able to credibly run the ball (OU demonstrated this year) and pass off of that.

Great read Nickel! And nice post TaylorT. It’s real nice to have some substantial football talk again. Exciting. It’s been awhile since I blew up a BC entry with an obnoxiously long post, so watch out.

You can win with a conservative, NFL circa 2002 offense in college, obviously last year even. It has great advantages such as lending itself to good execution, leveraging large talent gaps between the two teams, and can give you enough of a balance of run vs pass to be "unexpected" enough to beat the defense. But it is not what I want for our offense. If we go that route and execute the scheme well, we can win. But if we go another route, we can win bigger and win when our defense takes a dip that season.

Look at where offense has been going for decades. 1. More passing 2. Quicker possessions. Offense strategy is like any other philosophic system of thinking. People start out at extremes and then take the "new biggest, best idea evar!" and incorporate its strengths into tweaks within the existing system. For example the Run and Shoot. Obviously some aspects of that system are used today and it was a precursor to the spread, but when they went too strong that way, train-wreck. Another example, the old Bills’ Hurry-Up offense. That was a great offense, but because it had the weakness of letting their defense down too often when used in a too-strong manner, it’s not in widespread use. Pieces of it are tweaks here and there and are all over the place, but it’s not meant to be the end all be all. (the 46 defense comes to mind, etc…)

Back to what our offense should be: It should be balanced in pass versus run, yes. But it should be balanced between scoring a lot quickly and controlling the clock. No reason to settle for being Ohio State (not that bad, sure) when you don’t have to. I KNEW we were going to beat Alabama last year because their offense couldn’t keep up with others. (I still believe, along with Mack, that we win by double digits if Colt plays. In spite of the negative nellies here on BC at the time, I predicted us winning 31-20.) Both defenses were great, but theirs was not great enough for our offense to not outpace their defense.

That’s the most lethal weapon in college football today, imho. The quick snap, pass-set heavy but very balanced offense that dares you to keep up. Oregon this year, and to a lesser extent Cam Newton, I mean Auburn this year as well. Score quick and score a lot. Simple. Even Greg Davis got that part. It’s in how to score, there’s the rub for our former OC.

Clock control is great as well. Served us well in our ONLY good win this year. (Suck it frekin huskers, go off to the Big10 in shame and humiliation hahahahahahhha) Without clock control you get a lot of points but without the ability to put the game away. Every good team needs a closer. No reason not to have both. WE ARE TEXAS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! ha

And please, no more talk of being "multiple". Multiple is just another way of saying you want to be unexpected. If you can take versatile players and move or shift them around into different sets and plays designed to attack the particular set of defensive players on the field at that time, you win in the strategic department.

Strategy versus execution. Both are necessary, and why in the world not. We have tired to win on talent executing at a high level alone. That, reference above, is an outdated offensive system. It worked for the Green Bay Packers of the 60s. You knew the Sweep was coming, but you couldn’t stop it. Until the 70s at least.

YOU CAN’T ALWAYS WIN BY SIMPLY BEING EXTROIDNARILY EFFICENT AT WHAT YOU DO. Look, the defense is the gate keeper. You have to BEAT them. THEY stand in your way, not your own inefficiencies. In other words, don’t take what the defense gives you. Attack it where it’s weak. I could go all Art of War on you right now. But you guys already know at least 10 of his axioms that tell you to attack the enemy where it is weak, manipulate the situation to your advantage, deceive your intentions. As yall mentioned above, the NFL runs a lot out of the shutgun, because they now have the right leverage and numbers to make it work. Manipulate the angles and numbers, and be deceptive with your intentions. Got to love ancient philosophy ruling the day.

That’s what people are seeing and liking when they mention multiple. What they are really liking is a marrying of talent/execution with effective/deceptive strategy. Oregon is just beautiful to watch this year. And here is the second reason I want us to have a pass heavy, balanced, versatile offense – RECRUITING.

Obviously winning gets us more recruits and playing similar to a 2010 NFL offense, as you guys pointed out above, helps in recruiting as well. But we need to scheme to find ways to maximize all of our state’s talent. Do you think Wes Welker would have done well here at Texas in a 2002 NFL scheme? What about DJ Monroe? Chris Whaley!?

If you roll with a versatile, oh alright, multiple offense, you can find ways to incorporate what each guy brings to the table. It’s how the Saints utilize our David Thomas. He is a great HB, short possession TE in the NFL. They use him that way and win. But they bring in Shockey and others when they need a stretch the field, tall target. Same for us. Whaley, Monroe, Bergdon, and Shead were great RBs in high school. At the next level, we need Whaley to be a "Big, Moving, Running TE". Monroe to be our "Speed Back". And Joe B and Shead to be our "Running FBs". We should create specific rolls for their body types and skill sets, and then more of our excellent athletes would be hits. If your RB prospect puts on a few or isn’t an everydown back like an NFL 2002 guy, then be creative and put him in a position to excel. Simple. Easy. Effective. And NFL 2010. They do this with their running backs. Look at the Saints with Bush and the others and New England with the guy from LSU and the others. Versatile! Balltastic!

there are reasons football teams DOMINATE their opponents: control of the los. the success any scheme obtains is based on this. the two lines effectiveness must be able to dictate the opponents actions thus allowing the “skill” players the opportunity to perform their “skills”. evaluate any great team at any level of play and that great team will dominate the los. on either side of the ball every great team has this ability. the paths to greatness are somewhat varied ie; physical talent, intelligence, scheme, usually some combo of these. however one wants to approach winning football this is the key. i cannot understand why the much discussed ideas of various winning football teams doesn’t examine the dominance of the los. maybe it is too simple a concept or it is not very interesting but until the longhorns can absolutely control either or both los they will be mediocre. at all levels below pro ball this should be foundational as it fits with the limited contact time the coaches have with the players. i’m not suggesting skill or scheme don’t matter only that without control of the line s/s is diminished. how this idea fits with mack’s bison i have no insight but it should be the canon he employes, imo

tdwalsh – did a little research and here are your 2010 conference offensive scoring averages.

Big XII – 30.10
Big 10 – 30.02

Wisconsin – 43.3
Texas – 23.8

I realize it is taboo around these parts to throw in a Greg Davis quote, but is he so wrong in this statement?

“I know what causes winning and losing,” he said, his pitch rising. “Don’t talk to me about running the ball, throwing the ball. That’s the (scoring offense) No. 1 factor.”

http://www.statesman.com/sports/longhorns/davis-has-built-a-career-molding-offenses-moving-1106018.html

After finishing second to last in the Big 12 offensive scoring category, his days were numbered.

Oh, and that 43.3 scoring offense for the 2010 Badgers? That was first in the Big 10.

Having an offensive coordinator that knows how a scheme really works and why it works, knows how to implement it, and how to evaluate prospects in their ability to execute it, is what really matters.

Scheme A might have advantages over Scheme B because the pool of high school talent is better developed for it, current defenses aren’t geared to stop it, but if you can’t do the above then you’re going to have issues.

Also, of course, S&C is essential for everything. There’s no doubt that Muschamp had seething hatred for Maddog. Hopefully Mack has seen the light.

Offensive Line job posting on UT HR site:

http://utdirect.utexas.edu/pnjobs/pnjobsvw.WBX?job_nbr=10-12-16-01-0807

Back to coordination: The OL job posting is up and by my reading it appears to rule out both Bostad and Roman from Wiscy & Stanford, unless they plan on melding them together to account for bostad’s non NFL exp and Roman’s insufficient D-I time (unless I’m googling wrong)

http://utdirect.utexas.edu/pnjobs/pnjobsvw.WBX?job_nbr=10-12-16-01-0807

@TXStmpede
Chryst & Bostad would do some damage with TX talent if we are able to corral them :)

I have been thinking along these same lines in terms of which OC out there best provides the solution Coach Brown seeks. The name that rises to the top, imo, is Paul Chryst.

Let’s look at the numbers for the Badgers.
Year / Rush / Pass
2008 / 2745 / 2445
2009 / 2650 / 2770
2010 / 2968 / 2434

2010 Season:
Rush – 538 plays
Pass – 255 plays
YPP – 6.8
RZ % – 90.77
TO Margin – tied 3rd at +14
TO’s lost – tied for 1st in the land at only 9 for the year

And he has done this without the benefit of a 1st or 2nd round, all-america type of skill set

Bostad keeps the engine humming:Wisconsin lineman

Gabe Carimi, who was named first-team All-American by the Associated Press and Sports Illustrated on Tuesday, and Lance Kendricks — first-team by SI and second-team by AP – were each selected to the Sporting News’ All-American team on Wednesday.

BTW…Bostad recognition

Wisconsin offensive line coach Bob Bostad has been recognized by FootballScoop.com as its 2010 FootballScoop Offensive Line Coach of the Year

Arkansas OL coach also doesn’t fit the posting due to NFL.

…..but UCLA’s OL coach does fit the posting….

^^ NO!!!!!

Special Teams – Defensive Line coach job posting on UT HR site:

http://utdirect.utexas.edu/pnjobs/pnjobsvw.WBX?job_nbr=10-12-16-02-0807

Hmmm. the OC, DL and OL job openings appear to have very similar req’s. The DC opening had a much different set of criteria. Many on here have argued that the job postings are written after the applicant is selected. That certainly seems to be true for the DC. But now I’m beginning to wonder about the OC, OL and DL.

Doesn’t seem like Giles is being promo’d to DL/ST coach unless they’re switching him to West Texas.

So is GIles gone too? This says all d-line not just interior…crap….

The OC, OL, and DL/ST job openings all three have identical Preferred Qualifications. Either they are no longer posting job openings tailored to a preselected candidate or we are hiring one person to be three coaches.

This says one of two things to me. Bellmont was tired of people guessing the new coach before the annoucement based on the job description, or Mack still has no effing idea who he’s going to hire for any of them after more than a week and a half. I would like to believe the former, but based on recent history I’m afraid the latter may be correct.

It tells me we have already selected both an OC and DC and they have identified who they want to fill these positions. For all we know, Giles will be the new DL coach.

The Germans had other ideas.

Which worked out great for them.

Oh sure, as a short-term tactic, blitzkrieg was great. But having failed to achieve that quick knock-out, the Germans and their fancy new offense were doomed.

Also, it helped that they were achieving their results against a less-than-rigorous schedule of opponents. They rolled the equivalent of a bunch of WAC teams and a Notre Dame.

Nice post NR. I didn’t read all of the replies, because quite frankly, I am sick of the people who make nothing but negative comments about the program. I think they are simply full of themselves and far to smooth to say anything good about the most recognized brand in college football.

Fellows, the sky is falling so give up your season tickets, please! I had to give up mine in 2003 due to an unfortunate turn of events. It really isn’t the end of the world. Luckily, life is much easier again, and I would simply love to get my hands on a couple of season tickets, preferably west side, lower deck, 35 to 40 yard line. So, on with the revolt.

Please, carry on.

Hook ’em!

Nice comments all, I want to clear up a few things.

The pro-style offense can indeed be fairly diverse in formations and passing concepts but in the running game it’s basically always Inside/Outside zone, power, counter, draw. You still need to be able to build a line and stockpile running backs, X receivers, and game manager QBs with big arms.

We can do that at Texas and win championships. But is it the best way? No.

The spread: it doesn’t have to be dependent on one superman although that hasn’t seemed to slow down spread teams with superhumans from winning titles every other year. Everyone who is critical of the spread seems to dismiss the fact that Florida won 2 of 4 championships running it. It’s not just GARY Pinkel and Leach doing this at 2nd tier programs (Sorry Mizzou fans, it was late).

PB, that would have been a helpful point if you were right, but I don’t think you can sum up the manner in which the Patriots have dominated the NFL this season with “2 TE formations and power running”. If that were true it would be Ellis or another guy up for MVP and not Tom Brady.

The Pats use 2 Tight ends very frequently but they do so much in the manner of the aforementioned Pinkel, using them as inside receivers. They also do stuff like coming out in a 4 WR set (with 1 or 2 TE’s in the formation) with Wes freaking Welker as running back. Then he motions out as an inside receiver, forcing the defense to cover him with a linebacker because it’s now a 5 WR formation.

You can’t call a team that does that and throws for 300 yards/game a power running-focused team. They use spread passing concepts and screens very heavily. What Belichek is doing with that offense is more reminiscient of a Mike Leach offense than a Nick Saban one.

Whoever mentioned Boise St. had it about right. What they are doing is closest to the Pats/Saints, and other NFL teams that have successfully incorporated spread elements.

Finally, no dual-threat QBs are not hard to find. Oregon has two of them and don’t seem to miss a beat no matter which one is on the field. When you have a running game featuring the QB as a runner it’s not necessary for him to master as many passing concepts and that decreases the number of skills he must have.

NR – You’re making a lot of good points and re-reading my comment, it sounded a lot more critical than I intended. If it wasn’t conveyed before, I appreciate the thoughts and think you’re touching on some good stuff.

Returning to the details, the Patriots offense this year is a lot closer to Alabama’s than it is to the Air Raid, and it’s not even close. Let’s just get that out of the way.

I think you’re using bad comps to make otherwise good points. And maybe I shouldn’t argue with you about that, because as said before, I’m not trying to be a dick.

I think the solid, important points you’re making about being multiple, about using space, about creating the right advantages, and about being progressive – which is what I think you’re getting at (correct me if I’m wrong) – are right on point.

My point is just that we shouldn’t be narrow or sloppy about how we define how that’s accomplished. There are lots of ways to get there, and it’s not so simple as spread-and-shred. Let’s be clear about what Mack needs to internalize, and what it is that would be a weakness heading forward.

Thanks PB for the comments which have helped me to realize one point at which I’ve been fairly vague.

I think a multiple pro-style offense, like the one that they run at Boise St., would be a solid direction for Texas assuming they find position coaches, an S&C guy, and an excellent OC to implement it.

You need the top staff because you gotta find/build an awesome OL, TEs, and a savvy QB.
With this system you can draw recruits and tell them you are preparing them for NFL schemes and you can attack the whole field quite effectively.

You can also accomplish the same thing and more by putting a dual threat QB in the spread and achieve your results more consistently because you can plug in athletes at the skill positions and QB without first grooming them for years on the system and the reads.

If you can do pro-style, great, but spread is easier and arguably more effective anyways.

PB, I don’t know what you are talking about in comparing New England to Alabama. I don’t see it, maybe I need to watch more Pats games. I would argue though, that Alabama’s attack is based on running with Richardson and Ingram while the Pats rely on Brady hitting all parts of the field to Welker, Moorehead, the TE’s, etc.

We’re in agreement, for sure. Again, good thoughts.

As for the Pats, I see a team that uses power running and then pops you off of it with the pass. They’re 22nd in the NFL in pass attempts per game, and 14th in rushing attempts. It’s a lot more balanced than it sounds like when you compare it to a Mike Leach offense. A lot more Alabama than Air Raid.

Nickel, are you still taking questions? You mentioned you didn’t think a pro-style was the best offense for Texas. Would you feel differently if we had a playoff, and a team had to beat four tough teams on consecutive weeks to win a (non-Mythical) National Championship? It seems to me that the pro-style offense sacrifices explosiveness for consistency (i.e. less likely to pop an average opponent for 50 points, but also more likely to pop 20 points against elite competition).

PB, thanks. And thanks for the comments.

Taylor: Good question. I don’t see the spread as being more likely to be shut down if it’s based around a dual-threat QB while also being better suited to late-game drives. If anything, the long bowl-prep makes it easier to prepare for a spread team than a pro-style one that is based around execution and won’t shock you by making you perform tasks you are unused to as a defense.

I would argue also that the best strategy for winning championships as a power program in the current structure is to build teams around defense and the running game that are consistent year in and out so that you increase your chances of winning conference championships and thus reaching the bigger bowl. Ohio St. and OU have done it this way and while they have lost the big one more often than not, by virtue of appearances they still match Texas’ total championship output.

That’s an interesting question really, worth further investigation and discussion. What offense is best for winning championships in the BCS scenario, the Delaney-threatened old system, and the hoped for playoff. From Texas’ perspective.

Excellent information right here. I’m thrilled i discovered this, it really helped out. Stick to the great work!