Horns247 Board

Great writeup. Statistically, the poor performance in the red zone (both offense and defense) and the negative turnover margin are surely the main culprits. In fact, statistically, we held our own in almost every other category. Hard as it is to believe, we outgained our opponents by 82 ypg. Even harder to believe, we outgained our opponents in both rushing and passing yardage. In other words, we weren't dominant, but not nearly as awful as we seemed. But, when you can't score inside the 20, and can't stop your opponent inside the 20, you're going to lose.

On the turnover side, you might claim that we had incredibly bad luck. We lost 2 out of every 3 fumbles on offense, while our opponents recovered 3 out of every 4 that they fumbled. Some luck was surely involved, but lack of playmakers is also partially to blame here.

The cultural issues are very valid. Just as Will's hiring at once seemed to energize the defense, some new offensive coaches should, short term, have the same impact on that side. Longer term, you have to have players and playmakers on both sides of the ball to be a championship caliber team. For some years, we have noted that Mack goes after players who want to be Longhorns. Now, those players have to prove that getting a scholarship wasn't their only goal, and that they are ready to "bleed' for the program.

BTW, with regard to your offseason workout comments, I actually believe it is against NCAA rules for coaches to even get attendance reports. Apparently, since the workouts are voluntary, it is feared that coaches "taking roll" would intimidate players. It's a fine line between business and education.

Greet post and good call on your lead, echeese. The team desperately missed playmakers, and you can even substitute leaders for playmakers. Back after the summer practices, questions were being asked about who the leaders were. And there were too many answers, which means there wasn't one.

I think we all know that teams are made during the heat of 7 on 7's. If no one "owned" the summer, no one was there to " own" the fall. Again, you are 100% right, players have to own the team, and they didn't step up during the practices.

And the question that Will would not (could not?) answer about who would line up next to Randall this year ultimately killed the defense. No DT run stopper and we could not win.

But may I make a suggestion? Add special teams. I was embarrassed by the punt returns at the end of the year. A team with the ridiculous talent of Texas telling the PR to fair catch every ball? Really? That is SO much worse than making mistakes of aggression to me.

That's a good catch and why I want one of the new hires to have strong STs background but our STs really hurt us this year.

Thanks for the comments.

I only have one point of contention with your post. One red zone TD against Baylor, A&M and Iowa State don't "win" those games IMO. Texas was much further "away" from winning those games IMO than people want to admit.

If A&M doesn't have their own special teams issues, what do you think the score would have been?

The Texas offense was inept the entire season.

The reason they were inept is because they were inconsistent. And that's why they had issues in the red zone, where spaces get tighter and plays have to happen quicker.

The Texas quarterback was as bad as bad gets. All year long, even against Nebraska where he was 4 for 16. He doesn't see the field, he doesn't feel the rush and he doesn't have the feet, accuracy or acumen to make it happen.

Add in the fact that his receivers are not very good with the exception of Mike Davis, and his running backs wouldn't start at UTEP, you get the idea.

This offense is an epic failure. And it's not just red zone scoring. It's inconsistent everywhere on the field.

The first four possessions of the second half against A&M?

Two turnovers followed quickly by two three-and-outs.

They were nowhere near the red zone. Yes, they need to get better in the red zone, but my guess is they all set Mack Brown records for offensive turnovers and three-and-outs. I mean, the offense was so bad this year, you can't even pretend that it was just in the red zone.

Sorry for being so long winded, but you get the idea. I think Mack trying to push it on red zone acumen is not the whole or correct picture.

I'm not sure Giles should be retained. He's one of the worst recruiters and evaluators on the staff.

If Houston is truly his area, then he has done a horrible job. Especially when one considers Texas hired him from UH.

My biggest complaint about aggy was Kelley not getting any time that I recall.

I have some hopes that a new OL coach combined with the return of Kelley-Allen-Snow-Walters-Hopkins will actually be a prove to be a great starting point. That would be 2 seniors, 2 RS Sophomores, and a true sophomore. Then you have Espinosa and Porter in the rotation on the interior.

The big question is what can the new OL and S&C coach do with Buchanan, Ashcraft, Poehlmann, and Kriegal. How far their development goes this offseason will determine whether or not Westermen and Flowers get to RS.

I've thought about Giles as well...& his HOU recruiting/evals need to improve...but with Orakpo, Kindle, Jeffcoat, Acho, & hopefully Wilson, I suspect Giles returns

When guys like Jackson Jeffcoat mention Giles' development of Brian Orakpo as a reason for coming to Texas, that says something to me.

good thought provoking post echeese.

some thoughts...

#1 lack Playmakers: I think they were there but either were not ready for the season (developed) or werent utilized; eg, monore, goodwin, hales, williams, fitzhenry, etc.

#2 lack development: spot on

#3 offense changes: I am not sure this is as big of a deal as it appears. This is fundamental to football and shouldnt be as huge deal to the OL as it appears.

#4 Lack leadership: Way overblown,IMO - just like offense changes - it goes back to development, motivation and coaching. Part of the coaches job is to develop leaders and the amount of effort they put into that endeavor depends on the quality of natural leaders on the team.

#5 Lack R/Z scoring: ABSOLUTELY... but that is normally emblematic of a poor offense. You have to have core, high percentage plays in a tighter space (R/Z). I cant think of any "core" plays the Horns had this year. They were so inefficient that the only real play they could come up with in the red-zone was Cody up the middle and a Tucker FG.
.
Not to pile on but some I would add to why they had a poor season....
.
Offensive identity? The coaches failed miserably to change the offensive identity this past off season but they HAVE to be better this off season. If GG is your main man, then most of the cute offenses will not work. GG needs to be in a type of spread or pro offense. If you add a running game to the mix with Malcom Brown, you almost have to go with a pro style offense. A Jim Harbaugh scheme would work well with GG, Malcom, Cody, etc. This is also the type of offense that I believe Will Muschamp really wants to install when he becomes HC so... why wait? it fits

Defensive line? at least there werent any DL injuries for the most part but most of us knew the DT was going to be an issue this year. Muschamp needs to get some of the players beefed up to be a Roy Miller mauling type of NT. Randall would make a dominant DT (3tech) and a difference maker in my opinion.

Middle Linebacker? Hicks should concentrate on putting about 10 lbs of muscle on starting this month. He needs to get up to about 230+ lbs.

Safety? They have to develop a FS. They cannot afford to have two strong safeties (Scott/Gideon) on the field at the same time again next year.
..............

#1 "Culture?" The warm and fuzzy, tickle me bunny GD culture is... Mack Brown.

#2 Commitment? I'd sit every COACH down and ask him what is he going to commit to in order to get TEXAS back to the National Title.

#3 S&C program? agreed... change the culture

#4 nutritionist? ok... start with the S&C coach and Taylor Bible

#5 7 on 7? If they are going to goof around and play out of position, I am not sure that the 7 on 7 is that big of a deal. If it is not important to the coaches, it will not be important to the players... that is teenagerology 101. That goes back to the adult leadership issue. I would rather hear that they are involved in weight training, getting in shape, and fundamental drills the players can do themselves.

#6 study hall? good idea... Muschamp is a leader

#7 ST coach? should be a priority.

New board, same old echeese.

"It was comical. Many on the net went wild when Mack had the "audacity" to point out (near the end of his press conference) that we weren't forcing enough turnovers (well no shit, anyone who knows football knows great D's get turnovers).

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THROWING MUSCHAMP UNDER THE BUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Was the scream of the hysterical chicken Little's. How could Mack impose such an "astronomical" standard on the D (forget the fact everyone of the Top 25 takeaway teams was at or near that standard). "

Wrong, and you're not even close. Mack said: "We only forced two turnovers, and we have to have a minimum of three per week we feel like to win the game." Translation: 2 is not enough, we need 3 (or more) to win a football game.

No team in college football this season averaged 3 or more turnovers per game. The closest were Hawaii and Toledo, at 2.75 per game. The top two teams in the BCS averaged 2.58 and 1.5 per game.

To get into the "Top 25," which you claimed were all "at or near" Mack's standard, a team would need to average 2.08 takeaways per game. Mack said that 2 isn't enough. So... how exactly can you justify your ridiculous claim that "everyone [sic] of the Top 25 takeaway teams was at or near [Mack's] standard?"

"Go back to the START of the press conference. Most people begin with what is most important and work backward. "

First of all, I dispute your simple equation of the order in which a topic is addressed during a press conference to the subjective importance to the coaching staff. But your factual claim really isn't even true (shockingly!).

Let's see what Mack said was important at the beginning of his presser. You can read it here: http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/110110aaa.html

After a few pleasantries, Mack started his analysis of the team with a discussion about penalties and third down performance. Mack moved on from there to "Red zone and turnovers," which he implied were the biggest concerns ("Red zone and turnovers is what we've said"). He then made a few comments about red zone performance followed immediately by his analysis of turnover margin (including a criticism of the defense's failure to gain takeaways). So, Mack treated red zone performance on par with turnover margin. And, it appears that he views these as a bigger concern than the two he addressed first (penalties and third down efficiency).

echeese,

You didn't address the point I made. No one is arguing that generating turnovers isn't important. The point is that the SPECIFIC goal Mack set for the defense (at least 3 turnovers per game) is ludicrously high to the point that it's almost impossible to reach.

Sure, Mack has criticized both the offense and the defense. But the standards have been asymmetric - the defense is held to a nearly-impossible standard, while the offense is held to depressingly low standards (which it somehow has managed not to meet). Any rational fan can see clearly that the offense was a much bigger problem than the defense this season. If Mack was indeed criticizing the two units equally (as opposed to merely presenting a public face to that effect), then that's a problem.

Brick, I don't think "goals" have been unfair toward the defense.

He mentioned the three turnovers per game one time in all his pressers this year that I remember.

Some have latched on to that as some sort of unfair ideology toward the defense. While unfair to the defense, he probably has similarly unfair goals to the offense, i.e. a goal for his offense to score TDs 75% or 80% of the time in the red zone.

Coaches have things like that. All of them do.

But I watched all of Mack's pressers this year that were publicly available. I don't think there was a single one where I felt he had more issues with the defense than the O outside of UCLA.

That's just my take, watching and listening to everything from specific words, to intonation to how he acted when he described both.

There is no question in my mind he "feels" the defense is a heck of a lot closer to success than the offense.

I think he's truly perplexed by the problems of the O because the issues are so numerous, everything from player evaluation, to the scheme, to the acumen of position coaches.

Just saying, I watched them all and never once did I get the feel he put the onus of the poor season on the defense. And I think some have latched on to the 3 turnover comment as some way to build their argument that Mack won't make a change on offense. I have to say that I didn't get that from him at all, all year long.