January 13Jan 13 38 minutes ago, Lolathon said: The down lineman almost always included Collins, Sorrell and Broughton together. The 4th lineman would be Moore/Simmons/Burke dependent upon situation. Sometimes Moore and Simmons would be in together, but that was only on obvious passing downs. This is excluding Norton who is a 0 and only used in short yardage And a 4-2-5 can look like a 3-3-5 if it employs a weakside edge that drops into coverage, but it will get hammered by outside zone all day. FWIW I think a 3-4 that employs a bear front(2 DT at the ends and a NT over center) with hybrid backers at SAM and WIll, a standard MIKE and a combo LB/SS like Derwin James at the other ILB is the best possible scheme This is exactly what we ran in HS. T-N-T with the outside backers on the LOS. The weakside backer being the most athletic that would have both pass rush and pass coverage duties. 2 inside backers. And a Sam that was pretty much 80% pass rush. Usually the biggest athletic guy. On our team it was Henry Melton.
January 13Jan 13 10 hours ago, ClubWhatever said: If so, that GM will be assuredly fired within 3 years. I never said it was a good idea, but he has the skillset to punish the 3-4 the Eagles are using to dominate and the 4-2-5 that's the base defense for 75% of the NFL 31 minutes ago, RoyalBevo21 said: It's funny how everything seems to always come full circle. I grew up playing in the late 90s early 2000s. Right in the middle of i-form/single back shifting to spread run and gun stuff. If done well, I think a wing-t would still wreak havoc on a lot of defenses with today's athletes. Shocked nobody has done more with the option game like the great Nebraska teams. Elite athletes would never go for it, priority uno is being developed for the NFL and dos is having their skils showcased. And when you think about it, it is kind of fucked up that someone like Tommy Frazier might have had NFL RB potential, but was never developed because and pushed into being option QB instead, which was a dead end post-college Edited January 13Jan 13 by Lolathon
January 13Jan 13 Popular Post 18 hours ago, Had Enough said: I just gave you stats showing you games of run production from the very best teams in the Sec and the country. You take OSUs two longest runs out versus us, and they had 22 carries for 40 yards, obviously some sacks in there. One of those was designed QB run. You say we have a C-LG problem. If we have that problem. The stats above say everyone may have that same problem. Do you know who was Tennessees best rated run blocker? The answer should make you wonder. From my seat, our biggest issue in blocking is the TE. That goes back to 2021. There are not many Rob Gronkowskis or George Kittles though so I’m not sure how you marry the pass catching threat with the dominant blocker at that position. I’m literal though so when someone says Oline, I’m think T to T. Now the Oline cannot account for the S. I don’t care if they’re in the “box” or not. Good S play downhill. Good DL play allows LBs to roam freely. If the DL can stuff some plays, then your run game struggles with all those elements present. You are not whipping Georgia or Ohio State here. At least not if they show up to play. This board, and I’d assume pretty much all fan boards, is relatively terrible at understanding what is the norm or expected in the football market place. There’s no team out there that’s had a dominant run game each time out. So expecting us to be different is off base. Hoping we’re different is ok in my opinion but don’t shit yourself when it doesn’t happen. The OU, Clemson and A&M games we were quite good against above average to very good defenses. Sark needs to evaluate himself. The QB run game needs to be incorporated. So when you’re 2nd and goal at the 1 and your opponent is playing hard run to your left, the QB keeps it and is 1 v 1 running right. If that defender takes one hard step to his right, he’s likely toast. People harp on our long ball, but our problem was the intermediate range. We attacked it too infrequently and were unsuccessful too often when we did. The numbers support this. That area keeps defenses honest. It’ll cause S hesitation. It’ll cause LBs to be more aware and likely less aggressive in the run game. It creates first down and missed tackles mean bigger plays. Last year, this was our best part of our offense. What happened? I have a theory or two, but this board isn’t really interested in ideas that don’t fit their narrative or preconceived notions. Dude it is clear your eyes aren't seeing the problems in the run game by how you post. Our problems in the run game have shit to do with second and 3rd level players. Georgia defeated us at the line. They would shift to a 50 front sometimes with a single backer behind them. They understood that by preventing double teams we couldn't win at the LOS. When we ran OZ someone would get pushed in the backfield forcing the back to cut back into the flow. Their DE would stack up the playside end and shut down any possibility of it working. A lineman was always losing the battle and blowing the play up. We were losing fights with light or equal boxes. ASU was the only one loading up the box on us. Most of the additional box defenders was because we have a love affair with bunch sets, so we invite 12 extra people in the box too. You don't have to be dominant in the run game, just outrush your opponent in a game like OSU or Georgia. Be creative running the football. Call some QB leads. Any QB with two legs can run that for a couple. Use your TEs to help get the playside DE's shoulders turned so you can prevent them from stacking up the line flow in OZ. If you run ACE out of pistol you can run it to whichever side you have the DE covered without tipping your hand. Then boot off of that look to keep teams honest. We rarely moved the pocket, but when we did it was effective. We never really ran the ole Aaron Rodgers boot off of the stretch play. We didn't do much to affect the opposing D-line's aiming points at all. Our lack of rushing is our own fucking fault and it has shit all to do with the quarterback. We run a lot of sets but run a pretty small amount of shit off of them. Once you understand that as a defense you can defend us fairly well. That, my friend, is why Steve Sarkisian didn't make it in the NFL. Too much cutesy shit and not enough down and dirty simple problem solving. Next year you are going to see the same issues unless Sark has a come to Jesus moment in the offseason. We have to stop talking about those Bama teams that literally had no flaws offensively.
January 13Jan 13 9 hours ago, Lolathon said: The down lineman almost always included Collins, Sorrell and Broughton together. The 4th lineman would be Moore/Simmons/Burke dependent upon situation. Sometimes Moore and Simmons would be in together, but that was only on obvious passing downs. This is excluding Norton who is a 0 and only used in short yardage And a 4-2-5 can look like a 3-3-5 if it employs a weakside edge that drops into coverage, but it will get hammered by outside zone all day. FWIW I think a 3-4 that employs a bear front(2 DT at the ends and a NT over center) with hybrid backers at SAM and WIll, a standard MIKE and a combo LB/SS like Derwin James at the other ILB is the best possible scheme You not listening. Colilns is considered a LB in PK's defense. He actually drops (see the long the screen TD) and is involved as a SPY. Sorrell drops occasionally also, though much less. We all remember seeing 6'7" Ethan Burke dropping. The numbers only refer to how many DL, LBs, and Secondary players there are. The typical Texas lineup is Simmons/Moore, A Collins, Broughton, and Sorrell. PK characterizes the Buck and Jack as LBs, hence it is a 2-4-5. Though it looks like a 4-2-5. A 3-3-5 looks like a 4-2-5, soon as you put a LB on the edge. You will see a 3-3-5 that looks like a 5-1-5 with 2 LBs on the edge. You see these looks all the time. When you say 3-3-5 or a 2-4-5 cannot hold up against the run, it is not correct. Lot of DC will use what is characterized as a 3-3-5 or 2-4-5 for the flexibility. You can put 5 or 6 on the LOS and drop 1-2. You can put 4 on the LOS and drop none. I believe when you say 3-3-5, you are speaking strictly of a 3-3-5 stack. Even then lot of those guys will blitz a LB to morph it into a 4-2 at the snap. PK's 2-4-5 looks like a 4-2-5. https://www.on3.com/teams/texas-longhorns/news/the-pete-kwiatkowski-defensive-glossary/ https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2015/5/1/8528407/modern-defense-and-the-2-4-5-vs-the-3-3-5\ This why I said dont get caught up how the defense is characterized, unless you want to go down that rabbit hole. Edited January 13Jan 13 by Codaxx
January 13Jan 13 5 minutes ago, Lolathon said: I never said it was a good idea, but he has the skillset to punish the 3-4 the Eagles are using to dominate and the 4-2-5 that's the base defense for 75% of the NFL Elite athletes would never go for it, priority uno is being developed for the NFL and dos is having their skils showcased. And when you think about it, it is kind of fucked up that someone like Tommy Frazier might have had NFL RB potential, but was never developed because and pushed into being option QB instead, which was a dead end post-college Oh for sure, I definitely get it for next level purposes. I just think of guys like blue and CJ Baxter, Silas Bolden sounds like misdirection hell lol.
January 13Jan 13 3 hours ago, Thatguy said: Too much cutesy shit and not enough down and dirty simple problem solving. Nutshell. When your plays only work properly when the D is fooled, the Smart Fucker will shut you down.
January 13Jan 13 4 hours ago, Thatguy said: Dude it is clear your eyes aren't seeing the problems in the run game by how you post. Our problems in the run game have shit to do with second and 3rd level players. Georgia defeated us at the line. They would shift to a 50 front sometimes with a single backer behind them. They understood that by preventing double teams we couldn't win at the LOS. When we ran OZ someone would get pushed in the backfield forcing the back to cut back into the flow. Their DE would stack up the playside end and shut down any possibility of it working. A lineman was always losing the battle and blowing the play up. We were losing fights with light or equal boxes. ASU was the only one loading up the box on us. Most of the additional box defenders was because we have a love affair with bunch sets, so we invite 12 extra people in the box too. You don't have to be dominant in the run game, just outrush your opponent in a game like OSU or Georgia. Be creative running the football. Call some QB leads. Any QB with two legs can run that for a couple. Use your TEs to help get the playside DE's shoulders turned so you can prevent them from stacking up the line flow in OZ. If you run ACE out of pistol you can run it to whichever side you have the DE covered without tipping your hand. Then boot off of that look to keep teams honest. We rarely moved the pocket, but when we did it was effective. We never really ran the ole Aaron Rodgers boot off of the stretch play. We didn't do much to affect the opposing D-line's aiming points at all. Our lack of rushing is our own fucking fault and it has shit all to do with the quarterback. We run a lot of sets but run a pretty small amount of shit off of them. Once you understand that as a defense you can defend us fairly well. That, my friend, is why Steve Sarkisian didn't make it in the NFL. Too much cutesy shit and not enough down and dirty simple problem solving. Next year you are going to see the same issues unless Sark has a come to Jesus moment in the offseason. We have to stop talking about those Bama teams that literally had no flaws offensively. You arrogant jackass. It is clear we need to be better, more consistent run game. I’ve never said otherwise. It absolutely matters that the D does not have to account for the QB in our run. It is not the end all, be all however. It has nothing to do with Quinn either. He was capable of being impactful. It was a Sark issue. As to Georgia, they and really us and Ohio State have more talent than anyone in the country. No one for the past 5 years can say they had better guys up front than them. No shit they’re good and will and have won many 1 on 1s. We have whipped the shit out of countless Olines the past 2 years. Ohio State dominated Oregon. Guess they were average on their way to being undefeated prior to that. Again, the point is don’t be surprised when your run game is not good. And again during the SEC regular season, in conference, we were on average the best per run in the conference with no QB run threat. And again, I’m not putting that at the feet of Ewers but Sark. If we’re so shitty, who else is shitty? The Ohio State Safeties were in on 12 tackles in the run game. Ransom and Downs made their tackles at an average depth of 2.3 and 0.7 yards deep. Yeah. No impact. The Oline cannot really account for those guys. And they’re good. Ultimately the play caller is responsible for getting them the hell out of there. Im sorry for whoever shit on you when you were younger.
January 13Jan 13 Popular Post On 1/11/2025 at 12:08 PM, ATLLonghorn said: I'm still perplexed by this. Texas has an unnamed #99 lined up next to Banks on the left side. Jermayne Lole is the only 99 on the roster. Teams use DL as extra run blockers pretty commonly, but if that was Lole why wouldn't his jersey have a name on it? I have no idea who that is and why there's a player with no name on his jersey on the field. He tries to get to a linebacker instead of blocking Tuimoloau and Helm doesn't do jack shit and Tui makes the play. The whole thing is confusing me. osu run 11.mp4 Nobody gives a shit, but this was legit bothering me for a couple of days. #99 is true freshman Nate Kibble. In the postgame you can see #99 but he's got #70 on his helmet. Why he was the guy in the game at that moment and why he's wearing #99 I have no idea, but I've at least discovered the mystery man so my brain can stop obsessing over it.
January 13Jan 13 6 hours ago, Thatguy said: Dude it is clear your eyes aren't seeing the problems in the run game by how you post. Our problems in the run game have shit to do with second and 3rd level players. Georgia defeated us at the line. They would shift to a 50 front sometimes with a single backer behind them. They understood that by preventing double teams we couldn't win at the LOS. When we ran OZ someone would get pushed in the backfield forcing the back to cut back into the flow. Their DE would stack up the playside end and shut down any possibility of it working. A lineman was always losing the battle and blowing the play up. We were losing fights with light or equal boxes. ASU was the only one loading up the box on us. Most of the additional box defenders was because we have a love affair with bunch sets, so we invite 12 extra people in the box too. You don't have to be dominant in the run game, just outrush your opponent in a game like OSU or Georgia. Be creative running the football. Call some QB leads. Any QB with two legs can run that for a couple. Use your TEs to help get the playside DE's shoulders turned so you can prevent them from stacking up the line flow in OZ. If you run ACE out of pistol you can run it to whichever side you have the DE covered without tipping your hand. Then boot off of that look to keep teams honest. We rarely moved the pocket, but when we did it was effective. We never really ran the ole Aaron Rodgers boot off of the stretch play. We didn't do much to affect the opposing D-line's aiming points at all. Our lack of rushing is our own fucking fault and it has shit all to do with the quarterback. We run a lot of sets but run a pretty small amount of shit off of them. Once you understand that as a defense you can defend us fairly well. That, my friend, is why Steve Sarkisian didn't make it in the NFL. Too much cutesy shit and not enough down and dirty simple problem solving. Next year you are going to see the same issues unless Sark has a come to Jesus moment in the offseason. We have to stop talking about those Bama teams that literally had no flaws offensively. Our problems in the run game have shit to do with second and 3rd level players OSU safeties had 5 TFLs in this game. I would say they made their presence felt in the run game.
January 13Jan 13 14 minutes ago, ATLLonghorn said: Nobody gives a shit, but this was legit bothering me for a couple of days. #99 is true freshman Nate Kibble. In the postgame you can see #99 but he's got #70 on his helmet. Why he was the guy in the game at that moment and why he's wearing #99 I have no idea, but I've at least discovered the mystery man so my brain can stop obsessing over it. This is legit impressive and a big clue to how they feel about Nate kibble moving forward. Good find Also, we’ll see how the line looks next year when we have a more capable creator at QB next year. Love Quinn, but his pocket presence made life tough for those guys. Edited January 13Jan 13 by Atticus
January 13Jan 13 19 minutes ago, ATLLonghorn said: Nobody gives a shit, but this was legit bothering me for a couple of days. #99 is true freshman Nate Kibble. In the postgame you can see #99 but he's got #70 on his helmet. Why he was the guy in the game at that moment and why he's wearing #99 I have no idea, but I've at least discovered the mystery man so my brain can stop obsessing over it. Notice that there wasn’t a name on his jersey. I think it may have something to do with Jersey Number rules for interior OL which must be 50-79 and you can only have five of those on the field? Am I making that up?
January 13Jan 13 Just now, MirrOlure said: Notice that there wasn’t a name on his jersey. I think it may have something to do with Jersey Number rules for interior OL which must be 50-79 and you can only have five of those on the field? Am I making that up? Think he just has to check in as a non Olineman. Agbo wore 80 rather than 67 so he didn’t have to check in. It is curious on the 99 though. Maybe to deceive them into thinking it’s Lole?
January 13Jan 13 Think he just has to check in as a non Olineman. Agbo wore 80 rather than 67 so he didn’t have to check in. It is curious on the 99 though. Maybe to deceive them into thinking it’s Lole?He doesn’t have to check in with 99 does he?
January 13Jan 13 2 hours ago, Jkwellborn said: He doesn’t have to check in with 99 does he? Looking at the rules, it refers to linemen wearing numbers 50-79 then references “each back wearing a number other than 50-79.” So yeah numbers in the 90s are eligible receivers by rule.
January 13Jan 13 3 hours ago, Had Enough said: You arrogant jackass. It is clear we need to be better, more consistent run game. I’ve never said otherwise. It absolutely matters that the D does not have to account for the QB in our run. It is not the end all, be all however. It has nothing to do with Quinn either. He was capable of being impactful. It was a Sark issue. As to Georgia, they and really us and Ohio State have more talent than anyone in the country. No one for the past 5 years can say they had better guys up front than them. No shit they’re good and will and have won many 1 on 1s. We have whipped the shit out of countless Olines the past 2 years. Ohio State dominated Oregon. Guess they were average on their way to being undefeated prior to that. Again, the point is don’t be surprised when your run game is not good. And again during the SEC regular season, in conference, we were on average the best per run in the conference with no QB run threat. And again, I’m not putting that at the feet of Ewers but Sark. If we’re so shitty, who else is shitty? The Ohio State Safeties were in on 12 tackles in the run game. Ransom and Downs made their tackles at an average depth of 2.3 and 0.7 yards deep. Yeah. No impact. The Oline cannot really account for those guys. And they’re good. Ultimately the play caller is responsible for getting them the hell out of there. Im sorry for whoever shit on you when you were younger. Since you called me an arrogant jackass now I am really going to be one. Your sample size of loaded boxes are two, Ohio State and ASU. We played a shit ton of other games where we couldn't dominate running the football against a regular box even though we were heavy 12 personnel. Arkansas rolled out with a 3-3-5 flyover. Three down linemen all game long and all we got on them was 139 yards rushing. If you are worth a shit at all in the run game and there is a Longhorn emblem on the side of your helmet, you line up in 12 personnel and run them out of that flyover. We walked out there in 12 personnel and couldn't get them to commit any extra numbers in the box. @Had Enough, the whole point of a balanced attack is to not allow a defense to gang up on any one part of your offense. Just as your passing game needs to take pressure off your running game, your running game needs to take pressure off of your passing game. If teams are still able to keep your running game under control with deep safeties when you trot out in 12 personnel then your running game isn't doing it's job. Simple as that. 4th quarter of the Arkansas game and they are facing off with your 12 personnel with a 6 man box. Not even fucking worried about it at all. You are a Blue Blood and they are treating your running game like you are Middle Tenn. All they are worried about here is stopping the passing game. You've spent 3.5 quarters of football and can't even run a 6-6 team out of this look. 7 helmets across and they aren't even worried about getting out-flanked with a 3 man front. Got-damn shame is what it is. Anyone who lines up like this vs a competent run game should get bludgeoned to the tune of 300 yards.
January 13Jan 13 4 hours ago, Codaxx said: Our problems in the run game have shit to do with second and 3rd level players OSU safeties had 5 TFLs in this game. I would say they made their presence felt in the run game. OSU plays like that all the time if you've watched them. They play that inverted Tampa look where Downs is just a rover doing whatever the fuck he feels like all game. That's why I said going in on the other thread you have to count him as a box player. But we played all season and largely couldn't stuff down teams throats when they showed us safeties deep vs heavy run personnel. It wasn't until ASU that we saw 8-9 man boxes.
January 13Jan 13 8 hours ago, Codaxx said: You not listening. Colilns is considered a LB in PK's defense. He actually drops (see the long the screen TD) and is involved as a SPY. Sorrell drops occasionally also, though much less. We all remember seeing 6'7" Ethan Burke dropping. The numbers only refer to how many DL, LBs, and Secondary players there are. The typical Texas lineup is Simmons/Moore, A Collins, Broughton, and Sorrell. PK characterizes the Buck and Jack as LBs, hence it is a 2-4-5. Though it looks like a 4-2-5. A 3-3-5 looks like a 4-2-5, soon as you put a LB on the edge. You will see a 3-3-5 that looks like a 5-1-5 with 2 LBs on the edge. You see these looks all the time. When you say 3-3-5 or a 2-4-5 cannot hold up against the run, it is not correct. Lot of DC will use what is characterized as a 3-3-5 or 2-4-5 for the flexibility. You can put 5 or 6 on the LOS and drop 1-2. You can put 4 on the LOS and drop none. I believe when you say 3-3-5, you are speaking strictly of a 3-3-5 stack. Even then lot of those guys will blitz a LB to morph it into a 4-2 at the snap. PK's 2-4-5 looks like a 4-2-5. https://www.on3.com/teams/texas-longhorns/news/the-pete-kwiatkowski-defensive-glossary/ https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2015/5/1/8528407/modern-defense-and-the-2-4-5-vs-the-3-3-5\ This why I said dont get caught up how the defense is characterized, unless you want to go down that rabbit hole. Dude stand up edges (Jack) are defensive ends. There’s a reason it’s called a Jack and not a weakside OLB
January 13Jan 13 28 minutes ago, Lolathon said: Dude stand up edges (Jack) are defensive ends. There’s a reason it’s called a Jack and not a weakside OLB Why do you think that? DEs put their hand in the dirt and are rarely in coverage. There’s also the fact that LBs have names (Mike, Sam, Will, etc) Edited January 13Jan 13 by RoyalBevo21
January 13Jan 13 11 hours ago, Thatguy said: Dude it is clear your eyes aren't seeing the problems in the run game by how you post. You don't have to be dominant in the run game, just outrush your opponent in a game like OSU or Georgia. Be creative running the football. Call some QB leads. Any QB with two legs can run that for a couple. Our lack of rushing is our own fucking fault and it has shit all to do with the quarterback. 13 minutes ago, Thatguy said: Since you called me an arrogant jackass now I am really going to be one. Your sample size of loaded boxes are two, Ohio State and ASU. We played a shit ton of other games where we couldn't dominate running the football against a regular box even though we were heavy 12 personnel. Arkansas rolled out with a 3-3-5 flyover. Three down linemen all game long and all we got on them was 139 yards rushing. If you are worth a shit at all in the run game and there is a Longhorn emblem on the side of your helmet, you line up in 12 personnel and run them out of that flyover. We walked out there in 12 personnel and couldn't get them to commit any extra numbers in the box. @Had Enough, the whole point of a balanced attack is to not allow a defense to gang up on any one part of your offense. Just as your passing game needs to take pressure off your running game, your running game needs to take pressure off of your passing game. If teams are still able to keep your running game under control with deep safeties when you trot out in 12 personnel then your running game isn't doing it's job. Simple as that. Anyone who lines up like this vs a competent run game should get bludgeoned to the tune of 300 yards. Obviously, you started telling me I don’t know what I’m seeing. Then you say get creative with designed QB runs. Guess I don’t understand why you then say the lack of QB run game has no impact on our rushing performance. Im not asking for Milroe. I’m asking to keep the defense honest with a few first down conversions, maybe a TD from the 1 on 2nd and goal. Give those back side defenders reason to pause. How dumb of me. Let’s now discuss how you say you don’t need to dominate your opponent just outrush them then the next post talk about how we had games we didn’t dominate. So which is it - we need to dominate or not? So you use Arkansas as your example. Our rushing performance is - 41 for 139 at 3.4. I’d say that is serviceable or at least met one of your qualifiers in that we outdid the Pigs. But also disappointing to this fan/me. So Ole Miss was 42-132 at 3.1 per carry. Take out the QB and you get 32-87 at 2.72. I am not arguing whether they defensed us differently. I do not know. But I would say they were choosing poorly versus Ole Miss if they conceded pass over run cause one was not like the other. I’ll also say the QB running positively impacted their run game numbers. I’m guessing they got “creative” and had some designed QB runs. If nothing else, it made their less than dominant run game a little better. One extra blocker on occasion may do that. At some point you said we had a G-C problem to which I said many others must have that too and provided you numbers in their sorry games. It included all the top SEC teams and playoff teams. I do believe Sark favors pass protection over run blocking. Which is Banks? Same for Majors and Conner. Oh and by the way former Longhorn Andrej Karic was the highest graded run blocker for Tennessee, which may support that point since we let him walk. Sure, I’d love to run right over everyone but don’t think that’s the era we live in. I prefer doing whatever it takes to win over balance. If that means throwing it 50 times or running 50 times, fine with me. Tennessee was 9th in the country in rushing yards per game. If you want to be them because their run game was more consistent, have at it. I have no interest in being them.
January 14Jan 14 14 hours ago, Thatguy said: Since you called me an arrogant jackass now I am really going to be one. Your sample size of loaded boxes are two, Ohio State and ASU. We played a shit ton of other games where we couldn't dominate running the football against a regular box even though we were heavy 12 personnel. Arkansas rolled out with a 3-3-5 flyover. Three down linemen all game long and all we got on them was 139 yards rushing. If you are worth a shit at all in the run game and there is a Longhorn emblem on the side of your helmet, you line up in 12 personnel and run them out of that flyover. We walked out there in 12 personnel and couldn't get them to commit any extra numbers in the box. @Had Enough, the whole point of a balanced attack is to not allow a defense to gang up on any one part of your offense. Just as your passing game needs to take pressure off your running game, your running game needs to take pressure off of your passing game. If teams are still able to keep your running game under control with deep safeties when you trot out in 12 personnel then your running game isn't doing it's job. Simple as that. 4th quarter of the Arkansas game and they are facing off with your 12 personnel with a 6 man box. Not even fucking worried about it at all. You are a Blue Blood and they are treating your running game like you are Middle Tenn. All they are worried about here is stopping the passing game. You've spent 3.5 quarters of football and can't even run a 6-6 team out of this look. 7 helmets across and they aren't even worried about getting out-flanked with a 3 man front. Got-damn shame is what it is. Anyone who lines up like this vs a competent run game should get bludgeoned to the tune of 300 yards. Going to 12 personnel to bring in Juan Davis as a blockers was... something.
January 14Jan 14 10 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said: Going to 12 personnel to bring in Juan Davis as a blockers was... something. I like that dude but he is a net negative. At best, an average blocker as a TE and zero threat as a receiver. Playing offense in your favorite formation with one hand tied behind your back.
January 14Jan 14 6 minutes ago, Longhornlove said: I like that dude but he is a net negative. At best, an average blocker as a TE and zero threat as a receiver. Playing offense in your favorite formation with one hand tied behind your back. Been a long time since Texas has a positive at TE in the run game.
January 14Jan 14 45 minutes ago, Codaxx said: Been a long time since Texas has a positive at TE in the run game. Geoff Swaim still in the NFL despite only recording 84 receiving yards during his collegiate career
January 14Jan 14 1 hour ago, Codaxx said: Been a long time since Texas has a positive at TE in the run game. Beck was pretty good along with Swaim.
January 14Jan 14 7 minutes ago, Longhornlove said: Beck was pretty good along with Swaim. Beck, Swaim, and Bluiett were all good, but that is going back to 2018 and longer. Would be nice if Spencer Shannon or Jordan Washington could provide some solid blocking. I highly doubt Niblack will offer an upgrade Edited January 14Jan 14 by Codaxx
January 14Jan 14 Just out of curiosity, do y’all include the TEs when considering “Oline play?” Obviously, they are related. I view them separately.
January 14Jan 14 4 minutes ago, Had Enough said: Just out of curiosity, do y’all include the TEs when considering “Oline play?” Obviously, they are related. I view them separately. separate, but definitely integral to the run game.
January 14Jan 14 Yeah if TEs are going to be running counter blocks, trap blocks, zone blocks, kick outs, etc…. Having them being a negative in the blocking game is not beneficial. It was surprising to me we didn’t try to go more 10 personnel to try and spread the field and get a speed advantage in space from time to time.
January 14Jan 14 20 minutes ago, taybo20 said: Yeah if TEs are going to be running counter blocks, trap blocks, zone blocks, kick outs, etc…. Having them being a negative in the blocking game is not beneficial. It was surprising to me we didn’t try to go more 10 personnel to try and spread the field and get a speed advantage in space from time to time. As some of us have said in this thread and others, we need to do a better job of matching our recruiting to what we want to run. Edited January 14Jan 14 by Schulz2.0
January 14Jan 14 3 hours ago, Schulz2.0 said: As some of us have said in this thread and others, we need to do a better job of matching our recruiting to what we want to run. Absolutely agree. Obviously I don’t know anything about what happens behind closed doors, but it seems we need to do better there.
January 15Jan 15 13 hours ago, Schulz2.0 said: As some of us have said in this thread and others, we need to do a better job of matching our recruiting to what we want to run. It would be amazing to see coaches evolve in this manner. Run what you have the personnel for, not what you “want” to run.
January 15Jan 15 6 minutes ago, RoyalBevo21 said: It would be amazing to see coaches evolve in this manner. Run what you have the personnel for, not what you “want” to run. gdgd was actually good at this. pretty much his best trait *ducks*
January 16Jan 16 On 1/14/2025 at 10:42 PM, RoyalBevo21 said: It would be amazing to see coaches evolve in this manner. Run what you have the personnel for, not what you “want” to run. John Wooden of UCLA basketball fame won what, 9 or 10 National Championships in 11 Years. His teams were often dramatically different from year to year - big one year, running and gunning the next, full-court pressure buzzer to buzzer the next. Asked how he did it, he said he recruited the best talent he could, and then sat down to figure out how best to play them. Worked for basketball.
January 16Jan 16 6 minutes ago, Tex Long said: John Wooden of UCLA basketball fame won what, 9 or 10 National Championships in 11 Years. His teams were often dramatically different from year to year - big one year, running and gunning the next, full-court pressure buzzer to buzzer the next. Asked how he did it, he said he recruited the best talent he could, and then sat down to figure out how best to play them. Worked for basketball. He also got the best players in the country. Texas is now recruiting at a level that the coaches generally do not need to worry about fit, not to mention the roster is basically all Sark players now. Guys like Colin Simmons and Ant hill can play in any defensive scheme. Texas has left the desert of CFB and reached the semis 2 season in a row for a reason. It is the talent being gathered on the 40. Texas had 11 drafted last year. That number may be eclipsed this year.
January 16Jan 16 2 hours ago, Codaxx said: He also got the best players in the country. ... Kinda the point - take the best guys you can, not just the best guys who fit your schemes.
January 16Jan 16 3 minutes ago, Tex Long said: Kinda the point - take the best guys you can, not just the best guys who fit your schemes. My point was 5 stars dont need to be a scheme fit. They fit pretty much any scheme.
January 16Jan 16 7 minutes ago, Codaxx said: My point was 5 stars dont need to be a scheme fit. They fit pretty much any scheme. Oh, right. Bill Walton and Kareem coulda been ass-kicking point guards. Edited January 16Jan 16 by Tex Long
January 16Jan 16 4 minutes ago, Tex Long said: Oh, right. Bill Walton and Kareem coulda been ass-kicking poiny guards. thanks for going next level stupid. They fit in any scheme, not any position. Dont tell Ian Boyd, but the more talent you have the less scheme matters Edited January 16Jan 16 by Codaxx
January 16Jan 16 3 minutes ago, Codaxx said: thanks for going next level stupid. They fit in any scheme, not any position. I'm assuming you're just working your bit, because nobody's dumb enough to believe that every ***** fits any scheme. I think you're now on record as being a bit player, or perhaps just a dumbass. From your own perspective, you've won the day. Congratulations.
January 21Jan 21 These guys were truly fucking awful on the last 4 plays. I mean especially 3rd and 4th down. 3rd down pressure right up the fucking middle and 4th down our stud tackle totally fucking whiffs and gets the QB killed.
January 23Jan 23 Hayden Conner: Texas Lineman on Playing Every Position on the Line, His Draft Journey, Charity Work
January 23Jan 23 On 1/21/2025 at 4:01 PM, Fondren & Main said: These guys were truly fucking awful on the last 4 plays. I mean especially 3rd and 4th down. 3rd down pressure right up the fucking middle and 4th down our stud tackle totally fucking whiffs and gets the QB killed. With so much talent, there is no excuse for the mediocre results of Texas o-line in 2024. Flood's guys were the most disappointing group on the 2024 team. Redzone issues fall at both Sark and Flood's feet -- Coach Flood has to solve the o-line's struggles this season.
January 23Jan 23 Is Connor Stroh not going to factor in at all? Dude looks like a beast. Every game I look and see guys on the sidelines like him and I’m thinking where the hell have these behemoths been hiding. If anything turn him into a Nose tackle just to plug up two gaps. Use him as a Mac truck blocking out of the backfield. Or line him up under center snap it through his legs have him fall forward and have Tre run up his back like a ramp, touchdown!
January 23Jan 23 45 minutes ago, LTtxfan said: Hayden Conner: Texas Lineman on Playing Every Position on the Line, His Draft Journey, Charity Work Glad he set the floor for our OL, but I’m saddened to hear that his passion for space has faded.
January 23Jan 23 I’ve always wondered why teams don’t have a goal-line package of offensive linemen with strengths suited to the more limited set of play calls. I’m sure there’s a good reason for it (continuity, communication, etc.), but you see it for other positions groups (WR/TEs, DL, LB).
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.