CFP Semifinal: Texas vs Washington - 7:45pm on ESPN

[troph 25220]

3 minutes ago, The_Great_Hornsby said:

Makes me feel less bad about what happened. But when they go out and fuckstomp Michigan, choking 4 chances to win the game from the 12 is going to hurt that much worse. 

[troph 25220]

The redzone offense which iessentially caused Texas to shit the bed the last two drives versus WA has to be the number 1 issue to fix. I’m going to think Sark’s identity of accountability and transparency means he knows this and addresses it. 
 

the number 2 issue has to be third quarter complacency. I think a lot of that is inexperience with underclassmen not in the way you think but simply a lack of experience to turn the intensity up a notch right after half. I recall we had the same problem last year but it resulted in 5 losses. This year it resulted in a CFP loss. 
 

fix those two things and plug a few holes with departures from the two deep and Texas vs Georgia is #1 v #2 and the horns have a legit shot at going undefeated.
 

 

Edited January 4 by troph

[USNALonghorn 5175]

11 minutes ago, The_Great_Hornsby said:

Makes me feel less bad about what happened. But when they go out and fuckstomp Michigan, choking 4 chances to win the game from the 12 is going to hurt that much worse. 

I think I see it differently than most people. UW stomping Michigan would make me feel better about how we played. It would make our game seem like the real championship game.

What would make me rage is Michigan grinding out a narrow win by owning TOP and keeping Penix on the sidelines. Like I said in another thread: I really like Sark as HC, but his reluctance to establish the run in some games is baffling.

[Codaxx 6247]

3 minutes ago, troph said:

The redzone offense which iessentially caused Texas to shit the bed the last two drives versus WA has to be the number 1 issue to fix. I’m going to think Sark’s identity of accountability and transparency means he knows this and addresses it. 
 

the number 2 issue has to be third quarter complacency. I think a lot of that is inexperience with underclassmen not in the way you think but simply a lack of experience to turn the intensity up a notch right after half. I recall we had the same problem last year but it resulted in 5 losses. This year it resulted in a CFP loss. 
 

fix those two things and plug a few holes with departures from the two deep and Texas vs Georgia is #1 v #2 and the horns have a legit shot at going undefeated.
 

 

Texas scored 4 TDs on 6 redzone drives. Normal redzone offense was actually quite good. The last 2 redzone trips were not normal situations. The run game was off the table. 

[troph 25220]

11 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

Texas scored 4 TDs on 6 redzone drives. Normal redzone offense was actually quite good. The last 2 redzone trips were not normal situations. The run game was off the table. 

4/7 fumbled in the redzone too if I’m not mistaken. And the run game was not off the table in the FG drive. Furthermore, get to the 5 yard line on the last drive and a run play is not off the table - high risk - but not off the table.

Edited January 4 by troph

[Hookem2147 22029]

5 minutes ago, troph said:

4/7 fumbled in the redzone too. And the run game was not off the table in the FG drive. Furthermore, get to the 5 yard line on the last drive and a run play is not off the table. 

Eh, we got down to the 7 yard line with 1:15 left. The run game was definitely off the table if you wanted to leave time for a miracle if the onside kick wasn’t recovered. we needed to throw to keep what little paths we had to victory alive.

Edited January 4 by Hookem2147

[Dahobbs 18317]

3 minutes ago, Hookem2147 said:

Eh, we got down to the 7 yard line with 1:15 left. The run game was definitely off the table if you wanted to leave time for a miracle if the onside kick wasn’t recovered. we needed to throw to keep what little paths we had to victory alive.

Yeah, I think the minor miracle of the injury stopping the clock allows some to forget that we really should have only had 15 seconds at the end. 

[Codaxx 6247]

13 minutes ago, troph said:

4/7 fumbled in the redzone too if I’m not mistaken. And the run game was not off the table in the FG drive. Furthermore, get to the 5 yard line on the last drive and a run play is not off the table - high risk - but not off the table.

Blue's fumble was recovered on Washignton's 24 yard line and the play started at the Texas 43 yard line, so it is only 6 trips.. 

You can try to run the ball, but it has to be successful or you lose (that is on both drives). It is a big risk. My point was normal red zone offense is off the table in those last 2 drives. This is was not normal Texas red zone issues. This does highlight the drop back red zone issues Texas has had all year. Once the run game is not present in the defense's mind (defense is not going to fire out fast at run action from the 7 or 12 in those situations), the RPO and play action game is much less effective. That throws out most the playbook. 

Edited January 4 by Codaxx

[Dahobbs 18317]

18 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

Blue's fumble was recovered on Washignton's 24 yard line and the play started at the Texas 43 yard line, so it is only 6 trips.. 

You can try to run the ball, but it has to be successful or you lose (that is on both drives). It is a big risk. My point was normal red zone offense is off the table in those last 2 drives. This is was not normal Texas red zone issues. This does highlight the drop back red zone issues Texas has had all year. Once the run game is not present in the defense's mind (defense is not going to fire out fast at run action from the 7 or 12 in those situations), the RPO and play action game is much less effective. That throws out most the playbook. 

Yeah, our red zone offense was actually quite good. We were able to pretty much punch it in at will with our run game. Maybe Sark can do some more to install a 2 minute drill redzone offense, but really I think a lot of that just comes down to experience at the QB position. Those two fumbles completely changed the complexion of the game, which had been, up until that point, a back and fourth affair with us answering each of their drives. 

[troph 25220]

I disagree our redzone offense was good enough. I'm fine y'all disagree. it was a problem all year, against OU it cost us the game (arguably) and in a game with little room for error it wasn't good enough against WA. I don't think the run game was off the table to the point the defense could ignore it on the penultimate drive (with 1:15 knowing we had to onside kick it we had plenty of time). and even if it was, the weapons we had, a TD should be something a "mastermind" like Sark, a 5 star QB and NFL talent at WR/TE should be able to convert. fact remains, redzone offense was 1/2 in the final two possessions and 0/2 for TDs.  That doesn't cut it. Given redzone offense was a major issue all year - and I'm acknowledging it did get better down the stretch - it was not good enough in two games we lost.  I just don't see how you can argue that.

Edited January 4 by troph

[Dahobbs 18317]

1 minute ago, troph said:

I disagree our redzone offense was good enough. I'm fine y'all disagree. it was a problem all year, against OU it cost us the game (arguably) and in a game with little room for error it wasn't good enough against WA. I don't think the run game was off the table to the point the defense could ignore it. and even if it was, the weapons we had, a TD should be something a "mastermind" like Sark, a 5 star QB and NFL talent at WR/TE should be able to convert. fact remains, redzone offense was 1/2 in the final two possessions and 0/2 for TDs.  That doesn't cut it. Given redzone offense was a major issue all year - and acknowledging it did get better down the stretch - it was not good enough in two games we lost.  I just don't see how you argue that.

When we got in the red zone with the ability to run the ball, we scored. While maybe the run game had to be defended those last two drives, we couldn't actually use it without risking everything on a fairly low likelihood scoring scenario. That means it all came down to a sophomore QB, and I just don't think Quinn is quite there. This didn't appear to be our normal red zone issues at all. We weren't beating ourselves with penalties in the red zone. We weren't getting negative plays that killed our changes in the red zone. We were blowing them off the line and running the ball in. We just didn't have that option really available the last two drives. IF the penultimate drive had been for the lead rather than merely making it a one score game, I have no doubt we get a TD there with the run game. 15 more seconds and we also get a TD the last drive.  

[kevwun 16437]

It's not redzone as much as it's the end of game with no timeouts so you can't run the ball or use the middle of the field offense.

[troph 25220]

none of that changes the fact that our offense - supposedly one of the best - with a play caller extraordinaire - had 2 chances in the redzone to score a TD and couldn't. you can explain it, but it's still a fact. and redzone offense excluding the last 2 minutes of the first half and end of the game because circumstances are less than ideal is silly. those are some of the most important redzone drives of the game.

as for the run game - no, with 1:15 left if you get the TD and the onside kick (which was the only plan) then you have plenty of time to make sure you get the TD. so the run game was not off the table if done correctly. second, everyone hated on the check down to blue, but if that or an out to JW or whatever gets to the 4-5 then the run game is not off the table. in both instances it's a HUGE risk, but it's on the table to the point the WA defense has to be disciplined. The key isn't calling a run, it's putting the defense in a position where they have to account for it. 

I've defended some of the play calls at the end of the game for the reasons y'all stated (though I think the jump ball should have been a comeback to the pylon or a back shoulder throw, a roll out, shit something. In any case, we still went 0/2 for TDs in the redzone at the end of the game. that is a fact. it's not subject to debate, only the reasons why we didn't score can be debated.

Edited January 4 by troph

[kevwun 16437]

How do you make the defense account for the run when they know you can't run the ball?  This wasn't a situation where you could gamble inside the 2.  We were at the 10.

[BurntOrange&White 41848]

3 minutes ago, troph said:

none of that changes the fact that our offense - supposedly one of the best - with a play caller extraordinaire - had 2 chances in the redzone to score a TD and couldn't. you can explain it, but it's still a fact. and redzone offense excluding the last 2 minutes of the first half and end of the game because circumstances are less than ideal is silly. those are some of the most important redzone drives of the game.

as for the run game - no, with 1:15 left if you get the TD and the onside kick (which was the only plan) then you have plenty of time to make sure you get the TD. so the run game was not off the table if done correctly. second, everyone hated on the check down to blue, but if that or an out to JW or whatever gets to the 4-5 then the run game is not off the table. in both instances it's a HUGE risk, but it's on the table to the point the WA defense has to be disciplined. The key isn't calling a run, it's putting the defense in a position where they have to account for it. 

I've defended some of the play calls at the end of the game, but we still went 0/2 for TDs in the redzone at the end of the game. that is a fact. it's not subject to debate, only the reasons why we didn't score can be debated.

What exactly would you have done differently here from the redzone? I show the each play that got us to the redzone.

 

[Dahobbs 18317]

6 minutes ago, troph said:

none of that changes the fact that our offense - supposedly one of the best - with a play caller extraordinaire - had 2 chances in the redzone to score a TD and couldn't. you can explain it, but it's still a fact. and redzone offense excluding the last 2 minutes of the first half and end of the game because circumstances are less than ideal is silly. those are some of the most important redzone drives of the game.

as for the run game - no, with 1:15 left if you get the TD and the onside kick (which was the only plan) then you have plenty of time to make sure you get the TD. so the run game was not off the table if done correctly. second, everyone hated on the check down to blue, but if that or an out to JW or whatever gets to the 4-5 then the run game is not off the table. in both instances it's a HUGE risk, but it's on the table to the point the WA defense has to be disciplined. The key isn't calling a run, it's putting the defense in a position where they have to account for it. 

I've defended some of the play calls at the end of the game for the reasons y'all stated (though I think the jump ball should have been a comeback to the pylon or a back shoulder throw, a roll out, shit something. In any case, we still went 0/2 for TDs in the redzone at the end of the game. that is a fact. it's not subject to debate, only the reasons why we didn't score can be debated.

I just don't know what you're wanting here. The issue in this game on those two drives was that we had a sophomore QB and couldn't rely on the running game due to clock issues. It wasn't our normal red zone issues (which we didn't have in the game). I don't think there is a magical play calling solution other than having a QB that can make quicker/better reads. Maybe it fixes itself next year with Quinn having another year under his belt.   

[Codaxx 6247]

29 minutes ago, troph said:

I disagree our redzone offense was good enough. I'm fine y'all disagree. it was a problem all year, against OU it cost us the game (arguably) and in a game with little room for error it wasn't good enough against WA. I don't think the run game was off the table to the point the defense could ignore it on the penultimate drive (with 1:15 knowing we had to onside kick it we had plenty of time). and even if it was, the weapons we had, a TD should be something a "mastermind" like Sark, a 5 star QB and NFL talent at WR/TE should be able to convert. fact remains, redzone offense was 1/2 in the final two possessions and 0/2 for TDs.  That doesn't cut it. Given redzone offense was a major issue all year - and I'm acknowledging it did get better down the stretch - it was not good enough in two games we lost.  I just don't see how you can argue that.

We will disagree. Knowing you have a slim shot at an onside kick isnt a great situation and reason to risk taking the clock down to 30 seconds. You are over-looking the importance of the defense having to respect the run (again from the 7 and from 12). Yes, you can run a quick pitch and pray he scores or gets out of bounds. My point was people love to hold on to simple memes., like "Texas struggles  in the red zone". You can not simply say  it was the red zone that hurt Texas in this game. Texas was 4-4 scoring TDs in the red zone coming into the final 2 drives. Hard to say that the red zone offense was poor in this game. There were far bigger issues in this game than the redzone performance. If we are being honest with ourselves, it was a minor miracle that Texas even got that last opportunity to win the game. That was due to luck (Washington injury) and poor clock management from Deboer

Edited January 4 by Codaxx

[troph 25220]

23 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I just don't know what you're wanting here. The issue in this game on those two drives was that we had a sophomore QB and couldn't rely on the running game due to clock issues. It wasn't our normal red zone issues (which we didn't have in the game). I don't think there is a magical play calling solution other than having a QB that can make quicker/better reads. Maybe it fixes itself next year with Quinn having another year under his belt.   

I wanted a touchdown, duh.

great y'all think redzone offense was good enough. I don't.

last two redzone drives 0/2 for TDs.

we lost needing a TD to win from the redzone. definition of not good enough.

explanations are for losers.

[Dahobbs 18317]

7 minutes ago, troph said:

I wanted a touchdown, duh.

great y'all think redzone offense was good enough. I don't.

last two redzone drives 0/2 for TDs.

we lost needing a TD to win from the redzone. definition of not good enough.

explanations are for losers.

Ok. I've already told you the fix for this, a better and more experienced QB. No idea why you're being an ass about it. Go get some coffee. 

[USNALonghorn 5175]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Ok. I've already told you the fix for this, a better and more experienced QB. No idea why you're being an ass about it. Go get some coffee. 

Or a more experienced RB (JB’s absence hurt) and a more decisive version of Sark could have made this argument moot. They couldn’t stop our run game at the goal line. They weren’t going to stop it had we driven to inside the 10 more frequently.

[CoTex 1177]

The 4th down play/last play of the game - wide open playbook, right?  Run/pass/option/reverse whatever, right?  Clock doesn't matter, getting tackled in bounds doesn't matter.  Run 1 play to get 13 yards?

What play do you call?  Something with QE rolling out looking for receivers and a chance to make it happen?  I know we had some misdirection plays where we roll right and throw back left to running back.  Do you run that?  

It is clear to me that Sark thought J Whitt and AD were the best options in that situation.  They were the first reads for those 4, right?

In 2005 the play on 4th down was to give VY a zone read, right?  That was about 8 yards but I bet that same play would have gone for 15?  Oh, and rewatching it, Selvin was open.  Somebody named Young was going to score on that play.

 

[Skipper 6411]

1 hour ago, USNALonghorn said:

UW stomping Michigan would make me feel better about how we played. It would make our game seem like the real championship game.

What would make me rage is Michigan grinding out a narrow win by owning TOP and keeping Penix on the sidelines. Like I said in another thread: I really like Sark as HC, but his reluctance to establish the run in some games is baffling.

Fuck it.  I'm on to next year.   I certainly have not done a deep dive on Michigan's roster but a Michigan win likely means more underclassmen turning pro + more likely for Harbaugh to leave.   Ann Arbor is going to be a tough W under any circumstances so I'm at if a Michigan win on Monday shifts those odds in '24 slightly, then Go Blue!

[Codaxx 6247]

16 minutes ago, troph said:

I wanted a touchdown, duh.

great y'all think redzone offense was good enough. I don't.

last two redzone drives 0/2 for TDs.

we lost needing a TD to win from the redzone. definition of not good enough.

explanations are for losers.

That is not what I said. I said the normal red zone offense was damn good. 4/4 in the red zone scoring TDs.. The situation exposed the drop back red zone offense. Red zone is also far down the list of issues that lost Texas the game. 

[troph 25220]

44 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Ok. I've already told you the fix for this, a better and more experienced QB. No idea why you're being an ass about it. Go get some coffee. 

 

hey man, not being an ass. I just disagree. not mad or upset at all with anyone. we didn't score, we have 4 chances from the 12. drive before settled for a FG. sorry that's not good enough in my book. it's fine you and others disagree with me, I'm not part of the great enshitification of the web, disagreement is fine.

 

 

33 minutes ago, CoTex said:

The 4th down play/last play of the game - wide open playbook, right?  Run/pass/option/reverse whatever, right?  Clock doesn't matter, getting tackled in bounds doesn't matter.  Run 1 play to get 13 yards?

What play do you call?  Something with QE rolling out looking for receivers and a chance to make it happen?  I know we had some misdirection plays where we roll right and throw back left to running back.  Do you run that?  

It is clear to me that Sark thought J Whitt and AD were the best options in that situation.  They were the first reads for those 4, right?

In 2005 the play on 4th down was to give VY a zone read, right?  That was about 8 yards but I bet that same play would have gone for 15?  Oh, and rewatching it, Selvin was open.  Somebody named Young was going to score on that play.

 

 

that's not what I said.  with 1:15 on the clock, knowing you have to recover an onside kick and where you would have the the ball if you did, there was enough time to make the run game a threat WA had to account for. running the ball vs. it being at least a possibility the defense has to react are not the same thing. one is a huge risk, the other gives more options on the passing game.

 

as for the last drive, no by the time you got to that point in the game no run option was available from the 12. But the DBs were playing off the receivers, get to the 4-5 yard line on first down (it's why the check down didn't bother me as much as most - though I think a designed play to get to the 4-5 would have been better - or QE panicked and shouldn't have, etc.), then you have a threat of a run play. shit we were averaging 7 yards a carry, from the 4 a run play is absolutely a risk the D has to account for. from the 12, no. but from the 4-5 after a quick out to JW or someone else, you could call a run play, I probably wouldn't but again, if you get to the 4-5 you can run quick slants, shallow outs, roll out with a QB scramble as an option if things break down, just so much more available. and yes, the jump ball at the end of the game was certainly in the decision set available but probably not as good as a come back to the pylon or something else. so yeah, play calling wasn't great.

 

 

31 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

That is not what I said. I said the normal red zone offense was damn good. 4/4 in the red zone scoring TDs.. The situation exposed the drop back red zone offense. Red zone is also far down the list of issues that lost Texas the game. 

 

D played well enough to win given what Penix and his receivers really are. D outcomes for 11 drives for WA:

4 TDs

3 FGs

4 stops (3 punts / 1 TO on downs)

1 fumble recovery (off a Texas punt).

Of course the D could have done more but that would be in response to the offense doing less. Had the offense done what it's capable of, Texas wins. The loss was on the offense. why?

slow start (punt, TD, punt)

disappearing act in the third quarter - 1 fumble, 1 punt, 1 fumble to start the fourth quarter

failure to convert last two drives.

 

Edited January 4 by troph

[Codaxx 6247]

1 minute ago, troph said:

 

hey man, not being an ass. I just disagree. not mad or upset at all with anyone. we didn't score, we have 4 chances from the 12. drive before settled for a FG. sorry that's not good enough in my book. it's fine you and others disagree with me, I'm not part of the great enshitification of the web, disagreement is fine.

 

 

 

that's not what I said.  with 1:15 on the clock, knowing you have to recover an onside kick and where you would have the the ball if you did, there was enough time to make the run game a threat WA had to account for. running the ball vs. it being at least a possibility the defense has to react are not the same thing. one is a huge risk, the other gives more options on the passing game.

 

as for the last drive, no by the time you got to that point in the game no run option was available from the 12. But the DBs were playing off the receivers, get to the 4-5 yard line on first down (it's why the check down didn't bother me as much as most - though I think a designed play to get to the 4-5 would have been better - or QE panicked and shouldn't have, etc.), then you have a threat of a run play. shit we were averaging 7 yards a carry, from the 4 a run play is absolutely a risk the D has to account for. from the 12, no. call a run play, I probably wouldn't but again, if you get to the 4-5 you can run quick slants, shallow outs, roll out with a QB scramble as an option if things break down, just so much more available. and yes, the jump ball at the end of the game was certainly in the decision set available but probably not as good as a come back to the pylon or something else. so yeah, play calling wasn't great.

 

 

 

D played well enough to win given what Penix and his receivers really are. D outcomes for 11 drives for WA:

4 TDs

3 FGs

4 stops (3 punts / 1 TO on downs)

1 fumble recovery (off a Texas punt).

Of course the D could have done more but that would be in response to the offense doing less. Had the offense done what it's capable of, Texas wins. The loss was on the offense. why?

slow start (punt, TD, punt)

disappearing act in the third quarter - 1 fumble, 1 punt, 1 fumble to start the fourth quarter

failure to convert last two drives.

 

The defense was OK.. They gave up 37 pts on 10 possessions. (i am not counting the last Washington drive, that was in grind the clock mode)

Inconsistent offense and the fumbles were far bigger issues, than the last 2 drives. Had the offense been more consistent, Texas wouldnt have been in miracle mode. Hard to get too upset that Texas didnt go 69 yards in 41 seconds and score a TD. I wish it happened, but it was never likely

Way too many offensive penalties. 

This is why the game was so frustrating. I dont think the offense or the defense had a good game. Nothing worse than finishing your season without throwing your best punch. 

 

[BurntOrange&White 41848]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

What exactly would you have done differently here from the redzone? I show the each play that got us to the redzone.

 

@troph hello?

[troph 25220]

30 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

The defense was OK.. They gave up 37 pts on 10 possessions. (i am not counting the last Washington drive, that was in grind the clock mode)

Inconsistent offense and the fumbles were far bigger issues, than the last 2 drives. Had the offense been more consistent, Texas wouldnt have been in miracle mode. Hard to get too upset that Texas didnt go 69 yards in 41 seconds and score a TD. I wish it happened, but it was never likely

Way too many offensive penalties. 

This is why the game was so frustrating. I dont think the offense or the defense had a good game. Nothing worse than finishing your season without throwing your best punch. 

 

we aren't that far of in our view of what cost Texas the game. fact is, Texas could have been up two scores instead of down two with a fast start and no TOs. Given WA's run defense, I would expect Texas to be able to manage the clock in that situation. Extremely frustrating yes.

[troph 25220]

29 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

@troph hello?

read my posts. I've answered the question repeatedly.  I would have probably run the ball at least once on the penultimate drive once Texas was at the 10 yard line (probably to the short boundary to get out of bounds).  I also would have made sure Texas got to the 4-5 yard line on 1st and 10 from the 12. Probably with an out route disguised as a deeper out or slant.

Texas from the 4-5 is a much more dangerous team against that defense than from the 10-12. play action from the 12 is dumb. play action from the 4 is not. roll outs from the 12, meh. roll out from the 4 puts a ton of pressure on the D. 4 yard slant or out route is hard to defend, from the 12, meh.

sark's play calling in the redzone is not his strength, at least not this year.

 

Edited January 4 by troph

[Rimbo 27010]

3 hours ago, troph said:

The redzone offense which iessentially caused Texas to shit the bed the last two drives versus WA has to be the number 1 issue to fix. I’m going to think Sark’s identity of accountability and transparency means he knows this and addresses it. 
 

the number 2 issue has to be third quarter complacency. I think a lot of that is inexperience with underclassmen not in the way you think but simply a lack of experience to turn the intensity up a notch right after half. I recall we had the same problem last year but it resulted in 5 losses. This year it resulted in a CFP loss. 
 

fix those two things and plug a few holes with departures from the two deep and Texas vs Georgia is #1 v #2 and the horns have a legit shot at going undefeated.
 

 

Yep. Those are the challenges on offense.

On defense, we have a front 7 to mostly replace, and a secondary... to also mostly replace.

I know we've been recruiting well, but who's up next on D?

[dcar00 14951]

3 hours ago, Hookem2147 said:

Eh, we got down to the 7 yard line with 1:15 left. The run game was definitely off the table if you wanted to leave time for a miracle if the onside kick wasn’t recovered. we needed to throw to keep what little paths we had to victory alive.

this.  I don't fault him at all for not running there.  If we had 2 min or so different story.

I fault him for not running in the first quarter/half and having Ewers fire balls into LB's and DT's chests...the inside zone is the basis for his offense and it was there.

I do think he needs to work on red zone passing game though.  needs to be way more creative.

[Irish Wrist Watch 1501]

54 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

The defense was OK.. They gave up 37 pts on 10 possessions. (i am not counting the last Washington drive, that was in grind the clock mode)

Inconsistent offense and the fumbles were far bigger issues, than the last 2 drives. Had the offense been more consistent, Texas wouldnt have been in miracle mode. Hard to get too upset that Texas didnt go 69 yards in 41 seconds and score a TD. I wish it happened, but it was never likely

Way too many offensive penalties. 

This is why the game was so frustrating. I dont think the offense or the defense had a good game. Nothing worse than finishing your season without throwing your best punch. 

 

Nobody was upset at the failure to go 69 yards in 40 seconds. They're mad at our failure to go 15 yards in 15 seconds.

[bullet 1630]

Looking at those plays again, if Whittington could have kept his balance, he walks in.

[elguapo 4620]

18 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

I fault him for not running in the first quarter/half and having Ewers fire balls into LB's and DT's chests...the inside zone is the basis for his offense and it was there.

 

Some of those were RPOs right? I haven't rewatched but I was curious if UW was doing something on defense to confuse Quinn with his RPO reads.

[CoTex 1177]

The play that was called was three receivers left side to clear out, running back goes out into the flat, and ADM alone on the right.

That play is designed (I think) to get a 1 on 1 for Mitchell.  It looks like he is the first read.

Ewers go/no go is probably "if Mitchell is 1 on 1 throw it - if there are two purple shirts there, look left and crank it to the open guy."

Seems like it was very effective because he was... 1 on 1.

Seems like Ewers did his job because the ball was in Mitchell's catch radius.  Maybe not perfect - 2 feet lower would have been nice - but not a wild miss.  After all the batted balls, I could see the qb throwing everything a little high.

What is success rate of that play for 13 yards?  50%?

Maybe some football expert can help with this - why is that play to the right/short side of the field and not left/wide side of the field?  Shorter pass?

 

[NeverMarryAStripper 22294]

18 hours ago, Ignatius said:

They had one guy about 15 or so yards behind the front wall; it might have been worth kicking it deep and toward one sideline to make it a 4 on 1 foot race. We did that against OU in 2010 and came within a step of recovering the kick…

I finally found a replay on the onside kick.  They had nobody more than a couple of yards behind the front line.  A pooch kick over their heads in the middle and it's off to the races for our guys.

 

Edited January 4 by NeverMarryAStripper

[troph 25220]

folks have said the fade is not 50/50 as a general rule. I actually didn't have that much of a problem with the 4th down call. outcomes are catch, DPI, incomplete. call was incomplete, but the DPI could have been called - though I hope sark wasn't playing it that way because these refs were not gonna call that. AD is your guy for contested catches like that. I think there coulda been a better call but that's quibbling.  I think the bigger issue is 1st, 2nd, and 3rd down. I think three plays were utterly wasted.

Edited January 4 by troph

[Tex Long 4661]

4 hours ago, USNALonghorn said:

... I really like Sark as HC, but his reluctance to establish the run in some games is baffling.

That, and the apparent insistence on going back to the pass when the run game is clicking and kicking ass... 

I was gruntled all to hell when Harbaugh waved his dick in Penn State's face and threw not so much as a single pass in the whole second half of that game.

I'm not a big fan of Harbaugh, but I appreciate good coaching. And that was more than good.

[gofuckyourself 9083]

7 minutes ago, Tex Long said:

That, and the apparent insistence on going back to the pass when the run game is clicking and kicking ass... 

I was gruntled all to hell when Harbaugh waved his dick in Penn State's face and threw not so much as a single pass in the whole second half of that game.

I'm not a big fan of Harbaugh, but I appreciate good coaching. And that was more than good.

Sure, but Harbaugh wasn't there.

[Tex Long 4661]

7 minutes ago, gofuckyourself said:

Sure, but Harbaugh wasn't there.

User name checks out.

[jw4381 3249]

43 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

I finally found a replay on the onside kick.  They had nobody more than a couple of yards behind the front line.  A pooch kick over their heads in the middle and it's off to the races for our guys.

 

Probably need the ball on a T but yes I agree. 

[gofuckyourself 9083]

8 minutes ago, Tex Long said:

User name checks out.

I'm an Internet tough guy but with a soft gooey center.

For the record I agree 100%. Watching Baxter, Blue and even Ewers gouge them for 6+ yards a pop but only 1 play a series was maddening.

[sith_horn 2509]

3 hours ago, Codaxx said:

We will disagree. Knowing you have a slim shot at an onside kick isnt a great situation and reason to risk taking the clock down to 30 seconds. You are over-looking the importance of the defense having to respect the run (again from the 7 and from 12). Yes, you can run a quick pitch and pray he scores or gets out of bounds. My point was people love to hold on to simple memes., like "Texas struggles  in the red zone". You can not simply say  it was the red zone that hurt Texas in this game. Texas was 4-4 scoring TDs in the red zone coming into the final 2 drives. Hard to say that the red zone offense was poor in this game. There were far bigger issues in this game than the redzone performance. If we are being honest with ourselves, it was a minor miracle that Texas even got that last opportunity to win the game. That was due to luck (Washington injury) and poor clock management from Deboer

The only caveat I'd inject here is the OL isn't dominant. And the pass protection was certainly subpar in that closing series, and much of the night as well. Ewers might have completed a game winning pass otherwise. I sure hope the OL takes a step forward next season.

[Tex Long 4661]

3 minutes ago, gofuckyourself said:

I'm an Internet tough guy but with a soft gooey center.

For the record I agree 100%. Watching Baxter, Blue and even Ewers gouge them for 6+ yards a pop but only 1 play a series was maddening.

I personally am neither an internet, nor a Real World, tough guy. But I am older than the Boomers, so toughness is not an issue for me any more.

For the record, I am a believer in having an OC who can translate the HC's strategy into tactical reality. I think you try the things your guys can execute, and when you find something that works, you keep right on doing it until they figure out how to stop it. With enough wrinkling (or constraining, or whatever you like to call it), you can keep them off balance and laugh at them after the game.

[Beau Vine 55863]

59 minutes ago, jw4381 said:

They had nobody more than a couple of yards behind the front line.  A pooch kick over their heads in the middle and it's off to the races for our guys.

Except the two guys a couple of yards behind the front line are Odunze and McMillan, and either of those guys are going to win that race.

Would've been more fun to watch, though.

Edited January 4 by Beau Vine

[Rimbo 27010]

How is it y'all are still yapping about this shit?

Nothing that happened on Monday was surprising if you were paying any attention.

It's time to move on.

[Ignatius 4141]

3 hours ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

I finally found a replay on the onside kick.  They had nobody more than a couple of yards behind the front line.  A pooch kick over their heads in the middle and it's off to the races for our guys.

 

I think there’s one guy just off-camera; that’s only 10 guys….

[NeverMarryAStripper 22294]

Count again

[The_Great_Hornsby 3594]

6 minutes ago, Ignatius said:

I think there’s one guy just off-camera; that’s only 10 guys….

Thats all 11 guys

[troph 25220]

5 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

Count again

[Ignatius 4141]

1 minute ago, The_Great_Hornsby said:

Thats all 11 guys

Hah yeah I missed the guy on the very end growing out of the back of the guy in front of him.

I was told there would be no math….