Jump to content

Hey PK -- What would you say you do here?


LTtxfan

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, SarkAfterDark said:

Why are we complaining about the safeties after a game where they weren’t really the issue and one of them made a huge play that essentially put the game out of reach for ISU.

I wouldn't go that far. It was a safety that just watched the TE go by him on the 4th and 1. Granted, same safety that got the int. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The defense was great overall. ISU doesn’t have much to threaten Texas. If there is one play that got me riled up, it is as the slant against Watts. WR is lined up outside the numbers. Watts lines up outside shade to him. WTF!! Obviously, he gets beat on the slant.  I am starting to think they are teaching that. That is just bad football awareness 

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

Why are we complaining about the safeties after a game where they weren’t really the issue and one of them made a huge play that essentially put the game out of reach for ISU.
They weren’t going to beat us throwing slants all day either.

Looked like the WR was pretty open before Thompson finally got close and then made that pic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Frank Drebin said:

Is Sanborn okay?  Seems like since the blocked punt against K State he is not booming the ball like he was.  His average ended up okay tonight, but that was aided by ISU not fielding punts and letting them roll.

image.png.7f05e20d6ae2bec6c615789bac6a331b.png

1st punt downed at the 10 

 

image.png.1fe05748e33c33f8004599846984789c.png

Second punt downed at the 20 after a 45 yard punt



image.png.d5f69cf343f193233735dfdb6964f7de.png

 

39 yard punt to the 10 

 

image.png.8c785886d026bf33534061ea22aeac49.png

 

4th punt bad

 

He had a good night last night. I think our protections haven't been as good lately. 

 

 

Edited by BurntOrange&White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You damn people. The incessant blaming is something else.

I’d suggest reasonable expectations. We’re far from perfect on the roster. I’m not sure the University of Texas has ever had the roster some of you wish we had.

We are fortunate to have Sweat and Murphy. They make it all go. But still bitching about safety play. That 4th and 1 was terrible, but that’s as much on PK. He was going for the killshot, but that’s the type of play that keeps them in the game. Don’t bring the S that tight to the LOS and ask him to not be aggressive. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t crappy play but understand why it happened.

Every game we’ve struggled it’s for varied and really different reasons. But damned if we don’t mess our drawers over our pass coverage and never think to compare to how open our receivers are every game.

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

You damn people. The incessant blaming is something else.

I’d suggest reasonable expectations. We’re far from perfect on the roster. I’m not sure the University of Texas has ever had the roster some of you wish we had.

We are fortunate to have Sweat and Murphy. They make it all go. But still bitching about safety play. That 4th and 1 was terrible, but that’s as much on PK. He was going for the killshot, but that’s the type of play that keeps them in the game. Don’t bring the S that tight to the LOS and ask him to not be aggressive. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t crappy play but understand why it happened.

Every game we’ve struggled it’s for varied and really different reasons. But damned if we don’t mess our drawers over our pass coverage and never think to compare to how open our receivers are every game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The defense was great overall. ISU doesn’t have much to threaten Texas. If there is one play that got me riled up, it is as the slant against Watts. WR is lined up outside the numbers. Watts lines up outside shade to him. WTF!! Obviously, he gets beat on the slant.  I am starting to think they are teaching that. That is just bad football awareness 

I’d like to know our percentage breakdown of coverages. Our alignment could be to disquise coverage. Could be we feel more vulnerable outside than inside. I’ve read quite a bit about slants. Those have not been killers this year. And they weren’t last night.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The defense was great overall. ISU doesn’t have much to threaten Texas. If there is one play that got me riled up, it is as the slant against Watts. WR is lined up outside the numbers. Watts lines up outside shade to him. WTF!! Obviously, he gets beat on the slant.  I am starting to think they are teaching that. That is just bad football awareness 

I’d like to know our percentage breakdown of coverages. Our alignment could be to disquise coverage. Could be we feel more vulnerable outside than inside. I’ve read quite a bit about slants. Those have not been killers this year. And they weren’t last night.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Had Enough said:


I’d like to know our percentage breakdown of coverages. Our alignment could be to disquise coverage. Could be we feel more vulnerable outside than inside. I’ve read quite a bit about slants. Those have not been killers this year. And they weren’t last night.

That is just bad football IQ. The football field is 53.3 yards wide. Aligning outside shade on a WR that is outside the numbers takes away the really hard throw in that 5-6 yards between the numbers and the sideline and makes you vulnerable to the easy throw in the other 47.3-48.3 yards of the field. Akina would have a heart attack watching that 

Edited by Codaxx
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is just bad football IQ. The football field is 53.3 yards wide. Aligning outside shade on a WR that is outside the numbers takes away the really hard throw in that 5-6 yards between the numbers and the sideline and makes you vulnerable to the easy throw in the other 47.3-48.3 yards of the field. Akina would have a heart attack watching that 

Did it hurt us? Not really. The PI on Watts down the field kept a drive alive and led to points.

I can’t imagine our CBs are not doing as instructed. I can allow for reasons for differences in instruction. Take away the 4th and 1 TD, we allowed 9 points. I can live with that. Our 3rd down defense was again on point.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Had Enough said:


Did it hurt us? Not really. The PI on Watts down the field kept a drive alive and led to points.

I can’t imagine our CBs are not doing as instructed. I can allow for reasons for differences in instruction. Take away the 4th and 1 TD, we allowed 9 points. I can live with that. Our 3rd down defense was again on point.

I didn’t say it killed Texas vs ISU, but Babers said opposing offenses are completing over 70% (think it was close to 80%) on in breaking routes on the season coming into ISU game.  You think there is correlation there? Kelson and Babers were talking about this on the post game show. Babers actually said he thinks that might be what the coaches are teaching. Then him and Kelson juxtaposed that with how Akina taught leverage. I am not saying there are 0 situations to play outside leverage, but they are in the vast minority 

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

11 minutes ago, Had Enough said:


Did it hurt us? Not really. The PI on Watts down the field kept a drive alive and led to points.

I can’t imagine our CBs are not doing as instructed. I can allow for reasons for differences in instruction. Take away the 4th and 1 TD, we allowed 9 points. I can live with that. Our 3rd down defense was again on point.

Last night Ron Babers in that On Texas live reaction ranted about this and how it has to be deliberate since it goes against every stage of defensive teaching you get since middle school. Was an interesting take. 

Edit: oops I see this was posted two posts up. It helps to read before replying!

Edited by The Ace of Aces
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are playing cover 2 (2-Read) the majority of snaps the last few games.  I don't have a breakdown, that just an educated guess.

The way alignment is taught in the spread era is that every coverage has a default leverage and a reference point on the field.  If your WR gets too far from the reference point, you start cheating your default leverage.  For example, in cover 2 your default leverage may be outside shoulder and the reference point the top of the numbers.  If the WR is like 5 yards inside the numbers, you might shift 1 yard outside his frame and for midpoint of sideline and numbers, you might be kn the inside eye.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn’t say it killed Texas vs ISU, but Babers said opposing offenses are completing over 70% (think it was close to 80%) on in breaking routes on the season coming into ISU game.  You think there is correlation there? Kelson and Babers were talking about this on the post game show. Babers actually said he thinks that might be what the coaches are teaching. Then him and Kelson juxtaposed that with how Akina taught leverage. I am not saying there are 0 situations to play outside leverage, but they are in the vast minority 

Things evolve. I would expect in breaking routes to be completed at a relatively high rate. What’s the average completion rate - 60-65%? Deep down the field and outside the hashes doesn’t build that up.

In just the last week, I’ve scanned probably half if not more P5 QBs and their pass distribution. I did not put it to paper but every QB attacked the middle of the field more than outside either hash. Number of attempts and completion percentage. Many of those QBs do not go to their backside from their throwing side.

As a stand alone stat, completion percentage means little to me. And if there are limited relative comparisons, then it is less so.

For QBs, crossing routes are easier throws than go routes. Middle of the field throws are easier than sideline throws. Better sight sidelines. Less air time which allows for less defensive reaction time. Receivers aren’t running away from you.

If we’re running a ton of cover 4 or cover 2 in combination, you’re not going inside leverage. If you believe your corners are more vulnerable down the field in man, I could see outside leverage given the perceived risks. If you’re trying to disguise, inside leverage may be an indicator for the offense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Had Enough said:


Things evolve. I would expect in breaking routes to be completed at a relatively high rate. What’s the average completion rate - 60-65%? Deep down the field and outside the hashes doesn’t build that up.

In just the last week, I’ve scanned probably half if not more P5 QBs and their pass distribution. I did not put it to paper but every QB attacked the middle of the field more than outside either hash. Number of attempts and completion percentage. Many of those QBs do not go to their backside from their throwing side.

As a stand alone stat, completion percentage means little to me. And if there are limited relative comparisons, then it is less so.

For QBs, crossing routes are easier throws than go routes. Middle of the field throws are easier than sideline throws. Better sight sidelines. Less air time which allows for less defensive reaction time. Receivers aren’t running away from you.

If we’re running a ton of cover 4 or cover 2 in combination, you’re not going inside leverage. If you believe your corners are more vulnerable down the field in man, I could see outside leverage given the perceived risks. If you’re trying to disguise, inside leverage may be an indicator for the offense.

It’s about situational awareness. When outside WR aligns on the hash, you can align outside. Inside the numbers, you can align outside. When WRs are outside the numbers, you don’t align outside.  Your help inside is now farther away. Aligning outside only takes away a small window throw, that you want the QB to attempt. We all understand that there are exceptions like cover 2. That said you can’t be a slave to the blackboard. You have to ask yourself, why is the WR aligning wider than normal? Offenses generally have tells. Spread people out to attack the middle of the field. Use compressed formations to attack the outside. 

Edited by Codaxx
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JBJ said:

We are playing cover 2 (2-Read) the majority of snaps the last few games.  I don't have a breakdown, that just an educated guess.

The way alignment is taught in the spread era is that every coverage has a default leverage and a reference point on the field.  If your WR gets too far from the reference point, you start cheating your default leverage.  For example, in cover 2 your default leverage may be outside shoulder and the reference point the top of the numbers.  If the WR is like 5 yards inside the numbers, you might shift 1 yard outside his frame and for midpoint of sideline and numbers, you might be kn the inside eye.

I think what they are referring to is on a receiver who is outside the numbers but we are still giving inside leverage.

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

7 hours ago, Codaxx said:

That is just bad football IQ. The football field is 53.3 yards wide. Aligning outside shade on a WR that is outside the numbers takes away the really hard throw in that 5-6 yards between the numbers and the sideline and makes you vulnerable to the easy throw in the other 47.3-48.3 yards of the field. Akina would have a heart attack watching that 

Yup....that's the bad part....alignment like that. Kelson and Babers were going on about it last night in post game. They said it's like they're being taught that....because everytime you have someone at the numbers or outside you should shade inside. Drew said he learned that from a Texas camp then went back to school and coached all the other DB's to do the same.

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

It’s about situational awareness. When outside WR aligns on the hash, you can align outside. Inside the numbers, you can align outside. When WRs are outside the numbers, you don’t align outside.  Your help inside is now farther away. Aligning outside only takes away a small window throw, that you want the QB to attempt. We all understand that there are exceptions like cover 2. That said you can’t be a slave to the blackboard. You have to ask yourself, why is the WR aligning wider than normal? Offenses generally have tells. Spread people out to attack the middle of the field. Use compressed formations to attack the outside. 

Since you have all the answers please reach out to the coaches and inform them they are screwing up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pass defense is still an issue. I did a quick check on the 2nd half passing of the last 2 games (apologize if I am slightly off). Rocco Becht 12-13 for 204 yards (1 pick). Howard 18-26 230 yards (1 pick). Overall its 30- 39 (77%) with 434 yards for 11.13 yards per attempt. .

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

1 hour ago, Jkwellborn said:

Corners are playing a lot closer to the line of scrimmage. Doesn’t seem like anyone is afraid of the pass tonight.

Lot more bump and run from the field side tonight (watts usually presses). It was nice. This was far and away the best the secondary looked this season. That was with Muhammad out there (who had a hell of a game). 

Edited by Codaxx
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

Lot more bump and run from the field side tonight (watts usually presses). It was nice. This was far and away the best the secondary looked this season. That was with Muhammad out there (who had a hell of a game). 

Tech's WRs are complete ass (especially without Price). This should surprise no one. I was shocked to see people saying Tech's offense was going to throw for 300+ yards on us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tech's WRs aren't bad at all. They struggled to handle the physicality of our DBs. The most surprising play by the secondary was Jerrin Thompson picking up a WR on the boundary during a corner blitz. He was in phase, but he didn't have to defend for long. 

Tech couldn't block our front and that made it impossible for their guys to get anything going consistently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Atticus said:

Tech's WRs aren't bad at all.

Their WRs are fucking awful. They don't have a single WR over 500 yards receiving this year. 

I'm not hating. We did what needed to be done but anybody that thought this passing offense was going to give us issues simply wasn't paying attention. Our 3rd string WRs would be getting reps at Texas Tech. 

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...