Seven Win Steve Rides Again!

[lilMAC25 3777]

1 hour ago, WinningIsHard said:

Seven win steve needs to: not be the OC, make better in game adjustments, not be a pussy, not let his wife dress him, not lose more than 2 games or he's a failure with this roster and get a hold of PK so we don't run anymore prevent to give the game away(we weren't running prevent). Did I miss anything?  He needs to not suck, even though his history says he sucks, and there's no reason to believe he won't continue to suck. Oh also, we demand big 12 titles because we won (checks notes) 3 of them in 22 years. If the posts weren't still here to read this thread would almost be unbelievable lulz. Last but not least the fucking psycho who started it picked Texas to go to the college football playoff. 

Win the BigXii? Let’s just try getting to the BigXii CG first.

[lilMAC25 3777]

1 hour ago, gmr548 said:

Ding ding ding

This board is composed of degenerates. Most people check in and out a few Saturdays a year.

Edited October 11, 2023 by lilMAC25

[WinningIsHard 4016]

3 minutes ago, lilMAC25 said:

Win the BigXii? Let’s just try getting to the BigXii CG first.

well...we fired a guy who got us there lol. So the guy who can win enough isn't likable, the guy who is likable doesn't win enough. Would we put up with Urban's shit like ohio state and florida did if he won at the same clip? Me thinketh not lol 

[troph 24560]

1 hour ago, Thatguy said:

then don't beat Bama on the road by two scores... wait, wut?

[Nicole44 22027]

38 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

JFC this thread is a fucking beating.  

 

A fucking beating is actually losing to OU. even if @closetojumpingis just fucking with us for his own personal amusement or conducting an experiment losing to OU is worse than people being ticked off at Sark. 

[WinningIsHard 4016]

41 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

A fucking beating is actually losing to OU. even if @closetojumpingis just fucking with us for his own personal amusement or conducting an experiment losing to OU is worse than people being ticked off at Sark. 

If you opened a door 25 times and 17 of those times somebody slapped the fuck out of you, would you open it that 26th time thinking “it’s my gosh damn right not to be slapped the fuck out of”, “I’m mad and I better not get slapped the fuck out of” or would you kinda expect it and be really happy when it didn’t happen? @ChiTownDoc has said it ad nauseam, those sister fuckers come into that game wanting to beat Texas as bad as they want to breathe. Texas walks in wanting to win badly but not willing to sacrifice their mother at the football gods altar for it. Every time stoops walked out on that field I felt like they had way more confidence than we ever did. I like the shit out of sark, but exercising Mack’s demons ain’t gonna be easy lol. 

[BevoAbyss 2057]

CTJ's post, for amusement or not, remains accurate. The very winnable OU game was lost twice, with 4 shots from the 1, lost again when playing for FG at the end. Classic choke, one of the biggest/saddest in UT history.

Cause of choke: over coaching via over design. Here me out.

Sark (whether he is consciousness of it or not) thinks of himself as a football artist or flashy play-calling architect, enamored of the aesthetics of play design and play calling. His personal fashion taste even suggests as much. (Not a judgment, I like fashion, coolness, avant-garde designs, and know it is part of human culture.)

Architects, unchecked with no budget constraints or timid clients, will often over-design buildings such that the form can overtake or supersede the function. The seduction of the aesthetics (in appearance or structural design) can be utterly irresistible. This does not mean the entire building sucks, but it can venture into ridiculous and distract from the function/appearance of the structure.

Such aesthetic over-design is why @Nicole44 and others are correct, Sark is either HC or OC, but likely not both. As it is, there is no one to reign in his aesthetic impulses. That's what can make ridiculous buildings, that's what can make ruined seasons. 

Just concepts to think about. 

 

 

Edited October 11, 2023 by BevoAbyss
clarity

[Eskimohorn 5610]

well...we fired a guy who got us there lol. So the guy who can win enough isn't likable, the guy who is likable doesn't win enough. Would we put up with Urban's shit like ohio state and florida did if he won at the same clip? Me thinketh not lol 

The 2018 runner up campaign was not what got Herman in trouble. The 2019 team underperformed badly. One of the worst coaching jobs I’ve ever seen* Derailed the program. Led to massive coaching and player attrition.

*LSU’s 2019 offense was far better than anyone here imagined at the time. Think it crushed the D’s confidence and Herman’s confidence in Orlando. Then the offense regressed to the point where we were outmatched against Iowa St and Baylor. At one point lost 4 of 6, which including a last minute win at home against Kansas.

Then in the Alamo Bowl we curb stomped Utah behind a healthy Ehlinger and Ingram and a simplified defensive scheme featuring Joseph Ossai rushing the passer. Showcases what happens when coaches get out of their own way and when Big12 refs are not tipping the scales.

[Levi 2576]

5 minutes ago, BevoAbyss said:

CTJ's post, for amusement or not, remains accurate. The very winnable OU game was lost twice, with 4 shots from the 1, lost again when playing for FG at the end. Classic choke, one of the biggest/saddest in UT history.

Cause of choke: over coaching via over design. Here me out.

Sark (whether he is consciousness of it or not) thinks of himself as a football artist or flashy play-calling architect, enamored of the aesthetics of play design and play calling. His personal fashion taste even suggests as much. (Not a judgment, I like fashion, coolness, avant-garde designs, and know it is part of human culture.)

Architects, unchecked with no budget constraints or timid clients, will often over-design buildings such that the form can overtake or supersede the function. The seduction of the aesthetics (in appearance or structural design) can be utterly irresistible. This does not mean the entire building sucks, but it can venture into ridiculous and distract from the function/appearance of the structure.

Such aesthetic over-design is why @Nicole44 and others are correct, Sark is either HC or OC, but likely not both. As it is, there is no one to reign in his aesthetic impulses. That's what can make ridiculous buildings, that's what can make ruined seasons. 

Just concepts to think about. 

 

 

There was nothing over complicated, flashy or being described as “aesthetic” with the play designs on the goal line. First 3 runs were pure power. Our bigs vs their bigs, get 1 yard. Same with the throw to Worthy. Our best outside blocker and quickest wr. Get 1 yard. We failed on both. 

[BevoAbyss 2057]

11 minutes ago, Levi said:

There was nothing over complicated, flashy or being described as “aesthetic” with the play designs on the goal line. First 3 runs were pure power. Our bigs vs their bigs, get 1 yard. Same with the throw to Worthy. Our best outside blocker and quickest wr. Get 1 yard. We failed on both. 

Thanks. I screwed up and left out this very example. Tried to insert, but was too late! My bad. 

Aesthetic designs/decisions can be very subtle, not always flashy. Such was the goal-line calling at OU 1.

After Whittington got to the 1, Sark trotted out the specially designed goal-line offense rather just lining up and scoring with the players on the field, while OU was on the rebound from the big play. Instead, OU had a chance to regroup, which they did. 

The aesthetic impulse was to have a specially designed "smash mouth" team try to score, rather than the team that got to the 1-yard line. That's an aesthetic design decision, in essence. The play calling on the next three plays reflected that aesthetic/design commitment, a commitment only abandoned with the 4th down pass to Worthy. Too late. The form superseded the function. No TD. No win.

Edited October 11, 2023 by BevoAbyss
clarity.

[Blotto 23424]

1 hour ago, WinningIsHard said:

 but exercising Mack’s demons ain’t gonna be easy lol. 

[Thatguy 8492]

33 minutes ago, BevoAbyss said:

CTJ's post, for amusement or not, remains accurate. The very winnable OU game was lost twice, with 4 shots from the 1, lost again when playing for FG at the end. Classic choke, one of the biggest/saddest in UT history.

Cause of choke: over coaching via over design. Here me out.

Sark (whether he is consciousness of it or not) thinks of himself as a football artist or flashy play-calling architect, enamored of the aesthetics of play design and play calling. His personal fashion taste even suggests as much. (Not a judgment, I like fashion, coolness, avant-garde designs, and know it is part of human culture.)

Architects, unchecked with no budget constraints or timid clients, will often over-design buildings such that the form can overtake or supersede the function. The seduction of the aesthetics (in appearance or structural design) can be utterly irresistible. This does not mean the entire building sucks, but it can venture into ridiculous and distract from the function/appearance of the structure.

Such aesthetic over-design is why @Nicole44 and others are correct, Sark is either HC or OC, but likely not both. As it is, there is no one to reign in his aesthetic impulses. That's what can make ridiculous buildings, that's what can make ruined seasons. 

Just concepts to think about. 

 

 

 

[lilMAC25 3777]

17 minutes ago, Blotto said:

Edited October 12, 2023 by lilMAC25

[LTtxfan 48952]

2 hours ago, BevoAbyss said:

The very winnable OU game was lost twice, with 4 shots from the 1, lost again when playing for FG at the end. Classic choke, one of the biggest/saddest in UT history. Cause of choke: over coaching via over design. 

 

[BevoAbyss 2057]

Hey thatguy:  When you take a break from from the stupor of Adam Sandler's Top 10 films, spend a few minutes in Amazon. There are numerous books on topics like "Sports and Philosophy" and "Aesthetics and Sports." Nah, never mind, that might make you smarter.

Aesthetics and philosophy have long been topics in sports analysis and appreciation. Even came up in a philosophy course I took at UT. If there is no analogy between architecture/aesthetics/design and football, then why are so many long bombs and great plays called "beautiful"? 

The anti-intellectualism and closed minds among some in the football threads is truly amazing. And depressing. 

[lemonandaturd 4285]

Philosophy and football.  Like way back when Friedrich Nietzsche started at middle linebacker for the Packers.  Oops, my bad, that was Ray.  

[Incredulity 11541]

1 minute ago, lemonandaturd said:

Philosophy and football.  Like way back when Friedrich Nietzsche started at middle linebacker for the Packers.  Oops, my bad, that was Ray.  

Friedrich was a beast of a 3 technique 

[LTtxfan 48952]

Went down a rabbit hole on smart football players... Fitz showed up multiple times

#1  Ryan Fitzpatrick – New York Jets

That thumping noise you just heard might have been the casual NFL fan’s jaw hitting the ground after seeing Ryan Fitzpatrick take the top spot on this list. Fitz is best known as the hard-nosed gunslinger who always seems to fire it away in the hands of opposing defenders. The only other way you’d recognize the Harvard graduate is by his signature beard. He’s been a middling starting quarterback, one that teams usually sign to be a stopgap until their young quarterback waiting in the wings is ready to step in. He hasn’t turned any heads with his quarterback play, but Fitz does hold the highest Wonderlic grade of any quarterback in league history, with a score of 49. In his first career start in 2005 with the St. Louis Rams, Fitzpatrick became the fifth quarterback in league history to throw for 300-plus yards in his debut.  

[Nicole44 22027]

9 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Friedrich was a beast of a 3 technique 

 You know what Nietzsche said about animals? "They were God's second blunder."

[Ignatius 4000]

11 minutes ago, LTtxfan said:

Went down a rabbit hole on smart football players... Fitz showed up multiple times

#1  Ryan Fitzpatrick – New York Jets

That thumping noise you just heard might have been the casual NFL fan’s jaw hitting the ground after seeing Ryan Fitzpatrick take the top spot on this list. Fitz is best known as the hard-nosed gunslinger who always seems to fire it away in the hands of opposing defenders. The only other way you’d recognize the Harvard graduate is by his signature beard. He’s been a middling starting quarterback, one that teams usually sign to be a stopgap until their young quarterback waiting in the wings is ready to step in. He hasn’t turned any heads with his quarterback play, but Fitz does hold the highest Wonderlic grade of any quarterback in league history, with a score of 49. In his first career start in 2005 with the St. Louis Rams, Fitzpatrick became the fifth quarterback in league history to throw for 300-plus yards in his debut.  

That article is incorrect. He threw for 300 yards in his debut (against the Texas), but he wasn’t the starter, Jamie Martin was. Fitz didn’t come in until the 2nd quarter…

[GreenspointTexas 9559]

Time to lock this thread @immamac

[Eskimohorn 5610]

Time to lock this thread [mention=397]immamac[/mention]

Well he still needs to win 3 more games…

[cmontexas 3248]

What NFL fan would be surprised to learn Ryan Fitzpatrick is smart? They mentioned him going to Harvard every single time he's been on screen for the last decade

Edited October 12, 2023 by cmontexas
Can't type

[Brothahorn 10085]

Win the BigXii? Let’s just try getting to the BigXii CG first.

[Nicole44 22027]

29 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:

Well he still needs to win 3 more games…

 

[Thatguy 8492]

1 hour ago, BevoAbyss said:

Hey thatguy:  When you take a break from from the stupor of Adam Sandler's Top 10 films, spend a few minutes in Amazon. There are numerous books on topics like "Sports and Philosophy" and "Aesthetics and Sports." Nah, never mind, that might make you smarter.

Aesthetics and philosophy have long been topics in sports analysis and appreciation. Even came up in a philosophy course I took at UT. If there is no analogy between architecture/aesthetics/design and football, then why are so many long bombs and great plays called "beautiful"? 

The anti-intellectualism and closed minds among some in the football threads is truly amazing. And depressing. 

  The irony is I am literally a Philosophy major, but fuck it I will bite. Your posts are writhe with over-analyzations of something you know little about-Football. You speak of coaching as if it's chess and as simple as moving pieces around on the board. However, in football the pieces are flawed and prone to be ineffective from time to time. So when you use The Queen's Gambit it doesn't always work regardless of setting it up perfectly.

  On 1st down on the goal line there is a big, gaping, walk-in hole to the right that Brooks doesn't see. You see for all Brooks' talents he is a sophomore, and has really only seen action this year. So you try to run outside. Campbell pulls, but when he does, he retreats backwards about 3 yards and then loops around outside, giving the edge rusher enough time to stack him and Murphy up and blow up the play. He is young. He will learn to take a more direct route. 40 seconds to make a decision. Your quarterback has already thrown a pick down here and its even heavier traffic for eyes of a guy who is 20 yrs old and played exactly 15 college games to navigate. Let's try that first play again since there was a big hole on the right side. You run it again and Sweat muscles his guy 3 yards into the endzone. Brooks, instead lowering his pads, taking the ball and running right up Sweat's backside, dances in the backfield and gets swarmed. Now its 4th down and you realize you need to throw it. You don't have a jump ball guy. You have a basket catcher(Worthy), a guy who is contact shy and a loafer(Mitchell), and a guy who is very physical but otherwise not blowing you away with athletic ability. So you use the physical player to block for the basket catcher and don't get in.

  RPO slants don't work on the 1 yrd line because the time it takes to run them will get your QB killed. Too many defenders around the LOS firing off the ball. We don't have a jump ball guy to throw fades to, and throwing over the middle is not something you wanna do with a kid who threw two picks in a game already. Guys like you, who don't understand the game at a basic level, are always pontificating about what a coach should've done in hindsight. Any play that worked was a great call. Any play that failed and the coach is a moron. Hindsight is 20/20.

 

Red threw a perfect ball to Helm. Great call. If the throw was errant, "What a fucking stupid call, Sark. Just run the football". You guys would be killing Sark if this play didn't work. It did so it was a genius call. Creative. Aggressive. Gutsy. Everybody is chest-bumping in their livingroom.

 

 

  This is the first down look that Brooks had on the goal line. What coach wouldn't go back to that when that was the look you got? Huge hole on the right and if Brooks puts his foot in the ground he walks in.

 

  3rd down, and at this point in the still Brooks is already dancing. Sweat and Campbell destroy their men, and had Brooks just put his head down and run right behind them he would be in. Then we would all be here talking about what a great call that is by Sark.

 

    Sark comes out throwing the football. Run the damn ball Sark!!! Then he runs the damn ball and we are pissed that he doesn't throw it. Meanwhile, if after 1st down and goal he threw it incomplete three times all of you would be here yelling about how we didn't run the damn ball on the 1 yard line. It's just like our last drive. All these motherfuckers here(you included) saying slow the ball down don't know what the fuck they are talking about. Go back and watch the last drive. Every time Ewers snaps the ball OU is still looking for the call from the sideline and struggling to get set. Then OU has a player "get hurt", and then the very next play they sack Ewers. They basically made a timeout for themselves to get the defense situated. Anyone who said "well you can hurry back to the line and still burn clock". Well, the defense can still get their play in and run all kinds of exotics. When you are going fast they have to stay in a base call. You allow them to get calls in and you get what you got on the sack play. If going fast gets you down the field you go fast. We are not trying to "Turtle Tom" here, we are trying to be aggressive and go score. If the motherfucker went slow and got his QB sacked or pressured and we couldn't get up the field you guys would be in here talking about how tempo was working and why would he slow it down when Quinn was 22 for 23 up to that point and blah blah blah. 

  In 21 we went 5-7 but 5 of those losses were one score games. In 22 we went 8-5. Quarterback gets knocked out for Bama and we lose 2 games with the backup, also one score, and then three one score games, including our bowl games with our two RBs out. Now we are 5-1, and while losing to OU sucks you can see the team getting better from on field production to overall roster. Yet here you are talking out the side of your neck when this team is headed in the right direction. Now carry on with your bullshit.

[Rimbo 25766]

15 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

  The irony is I am literally a Philosophy major, but fuck it I will bite. Your posts are writhe with over-analyzations of something you know little about-Football. You speak of coaching as if it's chess and as simple as moving pieces around on the board. However, in football the pieces are flawed and prone to be ineffective from time to time. So when you use The Queen's Gambit it doesn't always work regardless of setting it up perfectly.

  On 1st down on the goal line there is a big, gaping, walk-in hole to the right that Brooks doesn't see. You see for all Brooks' talents he is a sophomore, and has really only seen action this year. So you try to run outside. Campbell pulls, but when he does, he retreats backwards about 3 yards and then loops around outside, giving the edge rusher enough time to stack him and Murphy up and blow up the play. He is young. He will learn to take a more direct route. 40 seconds to make a decision. Your quarterback has already thrown a pick down here and its even heavier traffic for eyes of a guy who is 20 yrs old and played exactly 15 college games to navigate. Let's try that first play again since there was a big hole on the right side. You run it again and Sweat muscles his guy 3 yards into the endzone. Brooks, instead lowering his pads, taking the ball and running right up Sweat's backside, dances in the backfield and gets swarmed. Now its 4th down and you realize you need to throw it. You don't have a jump ball guy. You have a basket catcher(Worthy), a guy who is contact shy and a loafer(Mitchell), and a guy who is very physical but otherwise not blowing you away with athletic ability. So you use the physical player to block for the basket catcher and don't get in.

  RPO slants don't work on the 1 yrd line because the time it takes to run them will get your QB killed. Too many defenders around the LOS firing off the ball. We don't have a jump ball guy to throw fades to, and throwing over the middle is not something you wanna do with a kid who threw two picks in a game already. Guys like you, who don't understand the game at a basic level, are always pontificating about what a coach should've done in hindsight. Any play that worked was a great call. Any play that failed and the coach is a moron. Hindsight is 20/20.

 

Red threw a perfect ball to Helm. Great call. If the throw was errant, "What a fucking stupid call, Sark. Just run the football". You guys would be killing Sark if this play didn't work. It did so it was a genius call. Creative. Aggressive. Gutsy. Everybody is chest-bumping in their livingroom.

 

 

  This is the first down look that Brooks had on the goal line. What coach wouldn't go back to that when that was the look you got? Huge hole on the right and if Brooks puts his foot in the ground he walks in.

 

  3rd down, and at this point in the still Brooks is already dancing. Sweat and Campbell destroy their men, and had Brooks just put his head down and run right behind them he would be in. Then we would all be here talking about what a great call that is by Sark.

 

    Sark comes out throwing the football. Run the damn ball Sark!!! Then he runs the damn ball and we are pissed that he doesn't throw it. Meanwhile, if after 1st down and goal he threw it incomplete three times all of you would be here yelling about how we didn't run the damn ball on the 1 yard line. It's just like our last drive. All these motherfuckers here(you included) saying slow the ball down don't know what the fuck they are talking about. Go back and watch the last drive. Every time Ewers snaps the ball OU is still looking for the call from the sideline and struggling to get set. Then OU has a player "get hurt", and then the very next play they sack Ewers. They basically made a timeout for themselves to get the defense situated. Anyone who said "well you can hurry back to the line and still burn clock". Well, the defense can still get their play in and run all kinds of exotics. When you are going fast they have to stay in a base call. You allow them to get calls in and you get what you got on the sack play. If going fast gets you down the field you go fast. We are not trying to "Turtle Tom" here, we are trying to be aggressive and go score. If the motherfucker went slow and got his QB sacked or pressured and we couldn't get up the field you guys would be in here talking about how tempo was working and why would he slow it down when Quinn was 22 for 23 up to that point and blah blah blah. 

  In 21 we went 5-7 but 5 of those losses were one score games. In 22 we went 8-5. Quarterback gets knocked out for Bama and we lose 2 games with the backup, also one score, and then three one score games, including our bowl games with our two RBs out. Now we are 5-1, and while losing to OU sucks you can see the team getting better from on field production to overall roster. Yet here you are talking out the side of your neck when this team is headed in the right direction. Now carry on with your bullshit.

This is a fucking masterpiece.

[Hookem2147 20926]

9 hours ago, Thatguy said:

Now its 4th down and you realize you need to throw it. You don't have a jump ball guy. You have a basket catcher(Worthy), a guy who is contact shy and a loafer(Mitchell), and a guy who is very physical but otherwise not blowing you away with athletic ability. So you use the physical player to block for the basket catcher and don't get in.

Don’t think it’s fair to call Worthy contact shy. But otherwise great post.

Edit: nevermind, can't read

Edited October 12, 2023 by Hookem2147

[mannewers 549]

7 hours ago, Thatguy said:

  The irony is I am literally a Philosophy major, but fuck it I will bite. Your posts are writhe with over-analyzations of something you know little about-Football. You speak of coaching as if it's chess and as simple as moving pieces around on the board. However, in football the pieces are flawed and prone to be ineffective from time to time. So when you use The Queen's Gambit it doesn't always work regardless of setting it up perfectly.

  On 1st down on the goal line there is a big, gaping, walk-in hole to the right that Brooks doesn't see. You see for all Brooks' talents he is a sophomore, and has really only seen action this year. So you try to run outside. Campbell pulls, but when he does, he retreats backwards about 3 yards and then loops around outside, giving the edge rusher enough time to stack him and Murphy up and blow up the play. He is young. He will learn to take a more direct route. 40 seconds to make a decision. Your quarterback has already thrown a pick down here and its even heavier traffic for eyes of a guy who is 20 yrs old and played exactly 15 college games to navigate. Let's try that first play again since there was a big hole on the right side. You run it again and Sweat muscles his guy 3 yards into the endzone. Brooks, instead lowering his pads, taking the ball and running right up Sweat's backside, dances in the backfield and gets swarmed. Now its 4th down and you realize you need to throw it. You don't have a jump ball guy. You have a basket catcher(Worthy), a guy who is contact shy and a loafer(Mitchell), and a guy who is very physical but otherwise not blowing you away with athletic ability. So you use the physical player to block for the basket catcher and don't get in.

  RPO slants don't work on the 1 yrd line because the time it takes to run them will get your QB killed. Too many defenders around the LOS firing off the ball. We don't have a jump ball guy to throw fades to, and throwing over the middle is not something you wanna do with a kid who threw two picks in a game already. Guys like you, who don't understand the game at a basic level, are always pontificating about what a coach should've done in hindsight. Any play that worked was a great call. Any play that failed and the coach is a moron. Hindsight is 20/20.

 

Red threw a perfect ball to Helm. Great call. If the throw was errant, "What a fucking stupid call, Sark. Just run the football". You guys would be killing Sark if this play didn't work. It did so it was a genius call. Creative. Aggressive. Gutsy. Everybody is chest-bumping in their livingroom.

 

 

  This is the first down look that Brooks had on the goal line. What coach wouldn't go back to that when that was the look you got? Huge hole on the right and if Brooks puts his foot in the ground he walks in.

 

  3rd down, and at this point in the still Brooks is already dancing. Sweat and Campbell destroy their men, and had Brooks just put his head down and run right behind them he would be in. Then we would all be here talking about what a great call that is by Sark.

 

    Sark comes out throwing the football. Run the damn ball Sark!!! Then he runs the damn ball and we are pissed that he doesn't throw it. Meanwhile, if after 1st down and goal he threw it incomplete three times all of you would be here yelling about how we didn't run the damn ball on the 1 yard line. It's just like our last drive. All these motherfuckers here(you included) saying slow the ball down don't know what the fuck they are talking about. Go back and watch the last drive. Every time Ewers snaps the ball OU is still looking for the call from the sideline and struggling to get set. Then OU has a player "get hurt", and then the very next play they sack Ewers. They basically made a timeout for themselves to get the defense situated. Anyone who said "well you can hurry back to the line and still burn clock". Well, the defense can still get their play in and run all kinds of exotics. When you are going fast they have to stay in a base call. You allow them to get calls in and you get what you got on the sack play. If going fast gets you down the field you go fast. We are not trying to "Turtle Tom" here, we are trying to be aggressive and go score. If the motherfucker went slow and got his QB sacked or pressured and we couldn't get up the field you guys would be in here talking about how tempo was working and why would he slow it down when Quinn was 22 for 23 up to that point and blah blah blah. 

  In 21 we went 5-7 but 5 of those losses were one score games. In 22 we went 8-5. Quarterback gets knocked out for Bama and we lose 2 games with the backup, also one score, and then three one score games, including our bowl games with our two RBs out. Now we are 5-1, and while losing to OU sucks you can see the team getting better from on field production to overall roster. Yet here you are talking out the side of your neck when this team is headed in the right direction. Now carry on with your bullshit.

[Francisco 2.0 32313]

7 hours ago, Thatguy said:

  The irony is I am literally a Philosophy major, but fuck it I will bite.

  3rd down, and at this point in the still Brooks is already dancing. Sweat and Campbell destroy their men, and had Brooks just put his head down and run right behind them he would be in. Then we would all be here talking about what a great call that is by Sark.

 

 

You should also activate Windows.  

 

 

 

 

[BurntOrange&White 39567]

8 hours ago, Thatguy said:

  The irony is I am literally a Philosophy major, but fuck it I will bite. Your posts are writhe with over-analyzations of something you know little about-Football. You speak of coaching as if it's chess and as simple as moving pieces around on the board. However, in football the pieces are flawed and prone to be ineffective from time to time. So when you use The Queen's Gambit it doesn't always work regardless of setting it up perfectly.

  On 1st down on the goal line there is a big, gaping, walk-in hole to the right that Brooks doesn't see. You see for all Brooks' talents he is a sophomore, and has really only seen action this year. So you try to run outside. Campbell pulls, but when he does, he retreats backwards about 3 yards and then loops around outside, giving the edge rusher enough time to stack him and Murphy up and blow up the play. He is young. He will learn to take a more direct route. 40 seconds to make a decision. Your quarterback has already thrown a pick down here and its even heavier traffic for eyes of a guy who is 20 yrs old and played exactly 15 college games to navigate. Let's try that first play again since there was a big hole on the right side. You run it again and Sweat muscles his guy 3 yards into the endzone. Brooks, instead lowering his pads, taking the ball and running right up Sweat's backside, dances in the backfield and gets swarmed. Now its 4th down and you realize you need to throw it. You don't have a jump ball guy. You have a basket catcher(Worthy), a guy who is contact shy and a loafer(Mitchell), and a guy who is very physical but otherwise not blowing you away with athletic ability. So you use the physical player to block for the basket catcher and don't get in.

  RPO slants don't work on the 1 yrd line because the time it takes to run them will get your QB killed. Too many defenders around the LOS firing off the ball. We don't have a jump ball guy to throw fades to, and throwing over the middle is not something you wanna do with a kid who threw two picks in a game already. Guys like you, who don't understand the game at a basic level, are always pontificating about what a coach should've done in hindsight. Any play that worked was a great call. Any play that failed and the coach is a moron. Hindsight is 20/20.

 

Red threw a perfect ball to Helm. Great call. If the throw was errant, "What a fucking stupid call, Sark. Just run the football". You guys would be killing Sark if this play didn't work. It did so it was a genius call. Creative. Aggressive. Gutsy. Everybody is chest-bumping in their livingroom.

 

 

  This is the first down look that Brooks had on the goal line. What coach wouldn't go back to that when that was the look you got? Huge hole on the right and if Brooks puts his foot in the ground he walks in.

 

  3rd down, and at this point in the still Brooks is already dancing. Sweat and Campbell destroy their men, and had Brooks just put his head down and run right behind them he would be in. Then we would all be here talking about what a great call that is by Sark.

 

    Sark comes out throwing the football. Run the damn ball Sark!!! Then he runs the damn ball and we are pissed that he doesn't throw it. Meanwhile, if after 1st down and goal he threw it incomplete three times all of you would be here yelling about how we didn't run the damn ball on the 1 yard line. It's just like our last drive. All these motherfuckers here(you included) saying slow the ball down don't know what the fuck they are talking about. Go back and watch the last drive. Every time Ewers snaps the ball OU is still looking for the call from the sideline and struggling to get set. Then OU has a player "get hurt", and then the very next play they sack Ewers. They basically made a timeout for themselves to get the defense situated. Anyone who said "well you can hurry back to the line and still burn clock". Well, the defense can still get their play in and run all kinds of exotics. When you are going fast they have to stay in a base call. You allow them to get calls in and you get what you got on the sack play. If going fast gets you down the field you go fast. We are not trying to "Turtle Tom" here, we are trying to be aggressive and go score. If the motherfucker went slow and got his QB sacked or pressured and we couldn't get up the field you guys would be in here talking about how tempo was working and why would he slow it down when Quinn was 22 for 23 up to that point and blah blah blah. 

  In 21 we went 5-7 but 5 of those losses were one score games. In 22 we went 8-5. Quarterback gets knocked out for Bama and we lose 2 games with the backup, also one score, and then three one score games, including our bowl games with our two RBs out. Now we are 5-1, and while losing to OU sucks you can see the team getting better from on field production to overall roster. Yet here you are talking out the side of your neck when this team is headed in the right direction. Now carry on with your bullshit.

 

 

Hayden Conner fucks this up on 3rd down and 4th down IMO.

you're at the 1/2 yard line, your helmet should never be the direction his is facing on 3rd down

[HuntinHorn 975]

 
 
Hayden Conner fucks this up on 3rd down and 4th down IMO.

you're at the 1/2 yard line, your helmet should never be the direction his is facing on 3rd down

Hayden Connor fucks up a lot of shit on the Oline

[Had Enough 2056]

Don’t think it’s fair to call Worthy contact shy. But otherwise great post.

Don’t believe he’s calling Worthy contact shy.

[Hookem2147 20926]

5 minutes ago, Had Enough said:

Don’t believe he’s calling Worthy contact shy.

Got it. He was referring to Mitchell. Just reread. 

[WinningIsHard 4016]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

 

 

Hayden Conner fucks this up on 3rd down and 4th down IMO.

you're at the 1/2 yard line, your helmet should never be the direction his is facing on 3rd down

that play is a wash, Banks gets shrugged by number 40 there. 

[gmr548 16481]

2 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

 

 

Hayden Conner fucks this up on 3rd down and 4th down IMO.

you're at the 1/2 yard line, your helmet should never be the direction his is facing on 3rd down

3rd down dive call had no chance.

As mentioned above, Banks got worked, and Texas is using four guys to block two OU DT's. The Lehman/Ikard video actually has a good breakdown of the whole series, but they pointed out that OU had a subtle shift in DL angles here that made this same dive call DOA. They bet on Sark going back to the first down call and they were correct. That Brooks got to the two here is an achievement.

First down maybe gets in if Brooks makes a jump cut. Second down even maybe had a chance with better execution on the pull/lead from Campbell/Murphy, or if the OU DT is tied up long enough for Texas to push the pile.  Fourth down, game of inches and there was of course the facemask. This third down play was permafucked form the start.

[mannewers 549]

It's 1 yard to go, I need 1.001 yards from you and nothing more. If you don't see a hole elsewhere as you are grabbing the rock, hit the hole in which the play is designed to go. Even then, I would rather you hit the designed hole 10 out of 10 times if it is the only way to get you going downhill full steam ahead. Don't think, just go. Outside of Red, I feel like our backs think too much in this situation... and I mean this for any location on the field.

Even when they work, I absolutely hate pitch plays when everyone is packed around the goal line. Too much to think about and too many variables for a successful play.

 

[Wilcox Cummingtonite 2859]

[Had Enough 2056]

Looks like everyone is blocking right.

If your ball carrier is 4.5 yards from paydirt and one defender is 2-3 deep in your backfield, it is not likely to be successful.

Brooks is a patient runner. That will work occasionally on the goal line, but your best chance of consistent success is to hit it hard. He needs to know who the unblocked guys are and account for his nearest threat.

[LTtxfan 48952]

15 hours ago, Rimbo said:

This is a fucking masterpiece.

Agree... Outstanding post by @Thatguy

[gmr548 16481]

Finished re-watching the OU game (attended live so it’s a new perspective) and I wish I hadn’t. The losing mentality from Sark to not go for it on that last 4th and 4 is nearly beyond words.

Yes the clock management was bad once they crossed midfield and Bowman got hurt, but they still wound up with the chance to get 4 yards to win the game - or in terms Sark would understand, not lose the game in regulation - and declined to take that chance.

To do that, with the way Ewers had rebounded and was feeling it, with Brooks getting his way against OU, with Xavier Worthy at your disposal… all against OU’s kick block team. Just wow. They called the TO with 12-15 seconds left, plenty of time to check into a better play.

Unbelievable.

[Thatguy 8492]

6 hours ago, gmr548 said:

3rd down dive call had no chance.

As mentioned above, Banks got worked, and Texas is using four guys to block two OU DT's. The Lehman/Ikard video actually has a good breakdown of the whole series, but they pointed out that OU had a subtle shift in DL angles here that made this same dive call DOA. They bet on Sark going back to the first down call and they were correct. That Brooks got to the two here is an achievement.

First down maybe gets in if Brooks makes a jump cut. Second down even maybe had a chance with better execution on the pull/lead from Campbell/Murphy, or if the OU DT is tied up long enough for Texas to push the pile.  Fourth down, game of inches and there was of course the facemask. This third down play was permafucked form the start.

You are looking at it from a still. Watch full speed. Brooks jump-cuts twice before getting tackled. Conner's man comes across his face, but Murph blows him up and he is falling backwards into the gap. No chance he can make a play with his back to him. Furthermore, if you look at where he was when Brooks gets the ball. if Brooks hits the B gap between Sweat and Campbell full speed he blows right by any would be tacklers. Here is the still as Brooks is getting the ball and in the middle of his first jump cut. Plenty of space to get there.

[Thatguy 8492]

6 hours ago, Had Enough said:

Looks like everyone is blocking right.

If your ball carrier is 4.5 yards from paydirt and one defender is 2-3 deep in your backfield, it is not likely to be successful.

Brooks is a patient runner. That will work occasionally on the goal line, but your best chance of consistent success is to hit it hard. He needs to know who the unblocked guys are and account for his nearest threat.

  That's the problem. Our backs tip toe looking to hit homeruns instead of lowering their head and hitting the hole hard.

[Had Enough 2056]

  That's the problem. Our backs tip toe looking to hit homeruns instead of lowering their head and hitting the hole hard.

I’m with you. Hit it hard and see what happens.

If you trust Red in the wildcat, you should trust him here either as the RB or Qb.

[Newdoc 3429]

15 minutes ago, Had Enough said:

I’m with you. Hit it hard and see what happens.

If you trust Red in the wildcat, you should trust him here either as the RB or Qb.

That would have been interesting. It gives Texas another blocker bc OU had figured out that 3rd down play and with the d alignment, look to be minimally concerned about anything else but an inside run.

[BevoAbyss 2057]

Attn: thatguy. So you are a "Philosophy major." Good for you. Really, that's good. Sign up for a logic course and aesthetic course when you get the chance.  

Your hyper-empiricist (movement by movement of each play and player) analysis refuted absolutely nothing I said about the aesthetics inherent in Sark and his play-calling. In fact, it reinforces it, because your analyses revealed the ugliness/ridiculousness/absurdity of the player execution. Sark's design backfired. A tragedy of errors. You called it. Spot on. 

Also, what random UT fans would have said about various Sark play calls refutes zero of anything I actually said about the inherent aesthetics in Sark's play calling, beautiful and ugly, sublime and ridiculous. Zero! 

But it is pointless for this dialogue to continue. You do your football. I know aesthetics/design in the cultural world (including football), been around it all my life, and part of my career involves aesthetics/design.

So, adios. 

[BevoAbyss 2057]

Sark, the football artiste, will be here 5-7 years from now. That's because he will recruit well and win enough (with plenty of cool well-designed plays, risky plays, and beautiful bombs to overcome the ugly WTF calls) to keep UT fans happy. 

After all, UT fans are desperate to get out of the wilderness, especially after the buffoonery of Strong and Herman. Wasn't that idiotic sledgehammer video in year 1 about all we needed to see from Tom? Talk about WTF bad aesthetic warnings!

I hope Sark wins titles, but it is unlikely as CTJ's original post made clear. 

The best hope for UT fans is that Sark becomes Mack ... not Mackovic.

[Thatguy 8492]

8 hours ago, BevoAbyss said:

Sark, the football artiste, will be here 5-7 years from now. That's because he will recruit well and win enough (with plenty of cool well-designed plays, risky plays, and beautiful bombs to overcome the ugly WTF calls) to keep UT fans happy. 

After all, UT fans are desperate to get out of the wilderness, especially after the buffoonery of Strong and Herman. Wasn't that idiotic sledgehammer video in year 1 about all we needed to see from Tom? Talk about WTF bad aesthetic warnings!

I hope Sark wins titles, but it is unlikely as CTJ's original post made clear. 

The best hope for UT fans is that Sark becomes Mack ... not Mackovic.

 

[redswingline 1057]

11 hours ago, BevoAbyss said:

Attn: thatguy. So you are a "Philosophy major." Good for you. Really, that's good. Sign up for a logic course and aesthetic course when you get the chance.  

Your hyper-empiricist (movement by movement of each play and player) analysis refuted absolutely nothing I said about the aesthetics inherent in Sark and his play-calling. In fact, it reinforces it, because your analyses revealed the ugliness/ridiculousness/absurdity of the player execution. Sark's design backfired. A tragedy of errors. You called it. Spot on. 

Also, what random UT fans would have said about various Sark play calls refutes zero of anything I actually said about the inherent aesthetics in Sark's play calling, beautiful and ugly, sublime and ridiculous. Zero! 

But it is pointless for this dialogue to continue. You do your football. I know aesthetics/design in the cultural world (including football), been around it all my life, and part of my career involves aesthetics/design.

So, adios. 

[LTtxfan 48952]

11 hours ago, BevoAbyss said:

pointless for this dialogue to continue. You do your football. I know aesthetics/design in the cultural world (including football), been around it all my life...  So, adios. 

 

Edited October 13, 2023 by LTtxfan
too slow