Jump to content

Texas O-line talk


Coach pop a bitch

Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Lolathon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Codaxx
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

ImageImage

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

ImageImage

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 by Atticus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

ImageImage

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?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Arky.thumb.png.8bc24e068acaf1e69a9e21fa225ffa43.png

 

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.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by RoyalBevo21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Arky.thumb.png.8bc24e068acaf1e69a9e21fa225ffa43.png

 

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.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Codaxx
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Schulz2.0
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Codaxx
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...