Football Articles
Our Running Game
Posted by Scipio Tex on November 16th, 2008 under Football
So can we all come to some agreement that it’s not about the goddamn back?
Hi! I rushed for 204 yards in a Super Bowl. And I’m talentless
Seriously. This is important. It is my crusade. We’re 10-1, we’re having a great year, playing our asses off, we’re happy with our coaches, and there’s no better time to have this conversation.
Can we engage our critical thinking processes for just a moment?
Fozzy Whitaker is a solid back. Vondrell McGee is a solid back. Chris Ogbonnaya is a solid 3rd down back. Cody Johnson is a solid short yardage back. We can all quibble about who is better or offers the best upside. All are capable of delivering within their sphere of competence and doing so in a way that would give us a running game, if a competent running back was the sole qualification for a running game. It’s not. A running game is much more than the back. It’s OL, it’s scheme, it’s the blocking of the WRs if you’re running out of 3 and 4 wide. The back may deliver the mail, but the scheme and blockers are the post office. It’s the necessary infrastructure. A great back in a poor scheme with a poor line is just another guy who shows the occasional flash – and spends most of his time on a trainer’s table and is often branded an underachiever. See Cedric Benson pre-Vince. A poor back in a great scheme with a great line is a Pro-Bowler and a trade bait when it’s realized that his overinflated value may actually yield a good player.
I’m Reuben Droughns and I approve this message
Over the last nine years, the Denver Broncos have had seven different rushing leaders and six different 1,000-yard rushers. They’ve sent five of them to Pro Bowls. All of them, except Clinton Portis and the somewhat overrated Terrell Davis, ranged from sorry to average. It’s like reviewing recruiting tape on Hornfans – a kid runs through a massive hole untouched for a 70 yard TD and everyone wants to sign him up. Another kid gets hit at the LOS, spins, shakes off a tackler, stiff arms another, keeps his balance and surges forward for five yards and people yawn. Not decisive. Doesn’t show burst. Thankfully, some of these people end up as NFL GMs where people like Scott Pioli rape them every year.
I’m Olandis Gary and I approve this message
I don’t know about you, but Ricky Williams looked pretty awful against KSU in ‘98 running against a nine man front. Backs who get holes generally look good. Backs who do no generally look bad. In fact, when you’re anticipating a hole and you find a linebacker waiting for you filing his nails with an emery board you will look tentative, unsure, not elusive, soft, and uncommitted to running North-South. Why is he trying to bounce everything outside? Because the hole looks like a Lindsey Lohan gangbang, that’s why. And runners under duress resort to high school form and survival instinct. I’ve weathered a decade and a half of reading and listening to comments about a back sucking because a D lineman hit him sometime around the handoff and it’s tiresome.
What we have are an array of backs who – under real schemes – could run effectively in our offense. Or more precisely, an offense similar to ours. This is the same stuff I called out Tim Nunez for back in ‘00 and ‘01 and was roundly criticized for only to find those critics silent when we shitcanned him. Sadly, I’ve since learned that our OL coach doesn’t draw up our schemes. The offensive coordinator does. And the head coach signs off on it. McWhorter is an implementer, not an architect.
There is no shining knight that will fix the running game. If you think Chris Whaley is going to be the answer I snicker. Unless you think it’s his blocking as a TE in which case we’re getting on the same page. If you mention Jeremy Hills breaking a nice run at the end of the game as your next great hope, I demand you re-read my first few paragraphs until their wisdom penetrates your calcified thought processes. If you need a super-elite RB to have a credible running game, you don’t have a credible running game. Let’s all say that together. Would an elite RB help our running game? Por supuesto. They don’t grow on trees. And some of the backs you think are elite, aren’t. They’re beneficiaries of a great running game, not its creator.
I’m Ron Dayne and I approve this message
Kansas has a below average but big and physical DL. Two out of their three LBs run like Larry Flynt flung out of his wheelchair and their secondary is as eager in run support as a basset hound on an August porch. However, they do have access to film and charting our running game took one of their GAs about as long as watching an episode of Night Hawk. With similar plot complexity as well.
Fozzy Whitaker started against Kansas. Fozzy is the answer, we’re told! Except that he had 13 carries for 15 yards. Look, I like Fozzy. He is a boat on our executional & schematic tide. He will rise and fall accordingly.
Vondrell McGee had 2 carries for 14 yards and a TD. Last week his statline was identical to Fozzy. Coincidence? Now I see posts all over the internet asking for more McGee. From the same people clamoring for Fozzy four weeks ago. If you harbor these feelings, you must reread my first few paragraphs again. This is your Choose Your Own Adventure – continue to persist in the belief that you’ll be carried out of the factory by Richard Gere, and I will keep sending you back to the top to read.
We have five problems:
1. Scheme. We have four running plays that aren’t a Colt draw or scramble. A zone read that we don’t like to run because it puts hits on Colt. I understand that. A half-hearted option play executed out of a reach blocking zone scheme that generally gets Colt lit up while he runs laterally and can’t protect himself. The third is a counter play with two pulling linemen, somewhat comparable to the famous Redskin counter trey. I actually like this play. Sadly, we don’t execute it consistently – in fact, we don’t offer the counter step delay in the backfield so our timing is often irrevocably fucked and our blocking doesn’t get set. Our fourth run is a zone play which asks our OL to perform a game of Duck, Duck, Goose on every snap.
2. Execution of scheme. The timing in our zone play is subpar. The backs don’t really understand the pace of its development or the whole plant and go concept, the OL don’t pass defenders off to each other well (see Whitlock, Colby), and we default reach block our zone play with eternal extension on 85% of our carries rather than seeking to turn and seal. We grabbed it from the Broncos because Davis saw it as a quick cure-all to the running game without Vince. Its simplicity doesn’t take precious practice snaps from the passing game. However, it’s the most rep intensive chemistry dependent blocking scheme in football if you want to do it well. Our counter play (that isn’t a counter) can be decently executed though on a half dozen occasions I’ve witnessed the back attempt to hit the hole as the guard gets there for the kickout on the playside DE. Or runs directly into the back of the pulling tackle before he’s even had a chance to square his pads on the inside pursuit. That doesn’t happen at Austin High after their second week of two-a-days. If we want to run up a lineman’s ass before he even has a chance to block the defender, why don’t we just throw down some soap in the shower? This is roughly equivalent to hitting a triple and then trying to pass John Kruk on the basepaths. We know you can. But it’s bad for your offense.
3. Variation. We’ve got four plays. We run two of them consistently. The zone play has two fairly obvious creases we’re looking for – a quick cut inside the OT/OG gap and in an extended alley outside with a seal (see all Jamaal Charles long runs). That’s a read easier than Curious George. If you don’t study it (see Missouri’s D) we can have success. Or if you’re just freaking tired (see OU, CU) we can break one. You can also stop it by automatically slanting your line opposite the side the back lines up on. That’s why reverses work so frequently for us. We’re primarily a passing team yet we have no lead draw play. No base play where we let our guys fire out and drive block.
4. Personnel & Scheme. Tech and OU have a consistent vision for their OL. OSU has a vision for their OL. Do we? Tanner is a finesse guard with solid mobility and athletic ability but is not great at the point of attack. Cedric Dockery is a mobile athletic guard with decent feet and is OK at the point of attack. Ulatoski is a pass protection specialist who isn’t great at the point of attack – he’s got good feet and is solid at screening though. Hix is a mauler with limited lateral mobility who hates reach blocking. Huey is a mauler with limited lateral mobility who hates reach blocking. Hall is a mauler with limited mobility. If we want to go zone blocking, get a bunch of 290 pound dudes with great feet and active motors. If we want to be a physical base block team, let’s fire out and move piles with big bastards: Huey & Hix are your guys. We’re a mixed bag of personnel without a cohesive philosophy. The same thing extends to our running backs – we recruit Jerrell Wilkerson, Vondrell and Fozzy; yet we also recruit Darrell Scott and Whaley. That’s like recruiting a running QB one year and a passing QB the next. Oh. We’ve done that too.
5. Willingness to Change. Greg Davis loves the passing game. Mack Brown loves the running game. I’m cool with either. I just want to be able to run just enough – in short yardage, when teams don’t play us honestly, to slow the pass rush. McWhorter is caught somewhere in the middle. McWhorter is not Tim Nunez – he understands major college OL coaching. He’s competent. However, he is also an old school no dissension stiff upper lip guy unlikely to challenge Davis and tell him what what we’re asking our kids to do is philosophically incoherent and robbing them of their natural aggression. Applewhite is an extremely bright guy who might just have that conversation, but I don’t have a gauge for his understanding of the mechanics of the running game and he may need more skins on the wall in order to challenge his mentor.
I don’t have an easy solution. Despite this, we’re certainly having a great year. Clearly, we’re a pass first football team and I’m comfortable with that. However, I am confident that we won’t reach our full potential as a program until we learn to run the ball without a Heisman trophy winner at HB or Jesus-in-cleats running option at QB.
Your thoughts?
Mike Anderson salutes my analysis
Share This
67 Responses
Leave a Reply
Related Articles
-
32
Running Back Optimism
By The General on September 17th, 2009 -
9
The Texas running game in the second half
By HenryJames on September 9th, 2007 -
15
The Texas Longhorns: Running Game Home Edition
By HenryJames on November 9th, 2009 -
65
How the Texas Longhorns coaches measure the running game
By HenryJames on November 5th, 2009 -
28
Spring Game Post-Mortem
By Scipio Tex on April 5th, 2009
Activity
-
Nordberg commented on the blog post Texas finishes sweep of Iowa 15 minutes ago
Green and then Workman I’d imagine.
-
J Rog wrote a new blog post: Bienvenidos a Miami: Heat Preview 21 minutes ago
If we can score, we have a chance. The Heat are a poor team in a mediocre conference this year and don’t come with a lot of fire power. The one thing they can do is play defense, holding teams to 95.2 points per game, 5th best in the NBA. Dorrell Wright returns from a
SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
-
Nate Heupel commented on the blog post Things To Do While Not Watching OU in the NCAA Tourney 29 minutes ago
coloradoag:
First of all, I’ve very seriously thought your proposal #9 over. See: Calipari, John. People don’t seem to care if you buy basketball players. Only if you do it blatantly (USC) or you call/text them too much.
Oklahoma (outside of Oklahoma City and Tulsa metropolitan areas) is a lot of fun if you’re
SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
-
Sailor Ripley commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The South is a Bear of a Bracket 30 minutes ago
Ha ha ha ha! It’s Joel Osteen’s world. You just live in it.
SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
-
admin commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The South is a Bear of a Bracket 30 minutes ago
Ha ha ha ha! It’s Joel Osteen’s world. You just livesin in it.
SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
-
admin commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The South is a Bear of a Bracket 30 minutes ago
Ha ha ha ha! It’s Joel Osteen’s world. You just live sin in it.
SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
-
ghostofagroundgame commented on the blog post Beat the Barkers NCAA Tourney Bracket 38 minutes ago
I will own that tote bag. And it will hold my porn.
-
James commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The South is a Bear of a Bracket 53 minutes ago
Baylor has the horses to make it to Indy, but Scott Drew is the Mike Gundy of college hoops. He’ll find a way to blow it.
SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
-
HenryJames commented on the blog post Robinson can, no? 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
Yes, it sounds like he is planning on hitting Texeira third.
SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
-
Kevin Berger commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The South is a Bear of a Bracket 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
“And I can understand the Longhorn fan thinking mighty Baylor goes all the way. After they bitch slapped the Horns three times this year, they are the basketball equivilent of the three foot long rat my wife saw in the garage.”
I actually like Baylor based on how they played Kansas and to an extent KSU.
SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
-
Ag_in_TX commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The South is a Bear of a Bracket 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
Of course not.
Here is another bold claim – all 7 Big XII teams bolt out the gate and win their first round games.
SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
-
Kevin Berger commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The Wild West Regional 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
Work, I love Xavier. Really athletic team that feeds off of mismatches that superstar guard Jordan Crawford creates. Hell, he’s good enough to carry X past Minnesota and even Pitt if he’s hot.
The problem for XU is that they don’t defend as well as they have in the past. They’ll have
SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
-
Kevin Berger commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The South is a Bear of a Bracket 2 hours, 6 minutes ago
Ag, cool, I agree with pretty much everything you say except your claim that you dictated tempo to UNM. But no biggie.
The reason I like Siena is that it’s basically the same team that beat Ohio State in the tourney last year and then played a 1 seeded Louisville team down to the wire.
SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
-
Mister Mike wrote a new blog post: State of the Union – NU Basketball, Part 1 (or Why We Are Where We Are) 2 hours, 8 minutes ago
NU’s Ugly Duckling Program
Read that and you’ll say to yourself “State of the Union of…what??”
I know that’s what most of you will say. It’s not really shock or surprise that NU has a basketball program, though. It’s that sense of shock and surprise to anyone (especially our Barking Brethren over at OBK) that
SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
-
Hiphopopotamus commented on the blog post We talkin’ ’bout brackets 2 hours, 18 minutes ago
I’ll say the same thing I did at March to March…
I love this Baylor team. They’ve got all the pieces for a run and they’re in a ridiculously underwhlemingly regional, BUT…
It’s Baylor. They haven’t won a tournament GAME since I think 1950…now we’re expecting them to go out and win 4 in a row?
Certainly those
SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
-
Hiphopopotamus commented on the blog post We talkin’ ’bout brackets 2 hours, 18 minutes ago
I’ll say the same thing I did at March to March…
I love this Baylor team. They’ve got all the pieces for a run and they’re in a ridiculously underwhlemingly regional, BUT…
It’s Baylor. They haven’t won a tournament GAME since I think 1950…now we’re expecting them to go out and win 4 in a row?
Certainly those
SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
-
Kevin Berger commented on the blog post March Madness Brackets Rackets: Can Las Vegas Pick The Champion? 2 hours, 26 minutes ago
Triston, wow, that’s a great number. Nice work.
SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
-
Kevin Berger commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The South is a Bear of a Bracket 2 hours, 32 minutes ago
Speaking of history, when was the last time Duke got out of the round of 16?
Villanova has something going on underneath the surface. They look beatable.
Baylor’s playing really good ball with really good players. I guess that’s why I picked them, but I’m probably overthinking things and should have written Duke in.
SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
-
Kevin Berger commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The South is a Bear of a Bracket 2 hours, 36 minutes ago
Ag in TX, have you watched them play?
SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
-
Sailor Ripley commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The South is a Bear of a Bracket 2 hours, 36 minutes ago
Exactly, HipHop. It’s a brand recognition issue.
That’s a truckload of pressure. Maybe they have it. Maybe Scott Drew is the man. I just wouldn’t bet my house on it. But I’d love to see it.
SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
-
texasengr commented on the blog post All Signs Point to March Madness Expanding to 96 Teams 3 hours, 8 minutes ago
I started watching the NCAA tournament in 1997 or 1998 and in 1998, Valpo’s incredible run to the sweet 16 hooked me for life. Since then, I’ve completely ruined a spring break cruise because, let’s face it, the NCAA tournament is way better than sitting by a pool. Now I fully intend to crush my
-
Kevin Berger commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The South is a Bear of a Bracket 3 hours, 9 minutes ago
Why? Three seeds make it all the time? Put them in a bracket with the weakest 1 seed and one of the weaker 2 seeds and they have a great shot. Especially with two games in Houston.
SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
-
dutchhorn commented on the blog post All Signs Point to March Madness Expanding to 96 Teams 3 hours, 15 minutes ago
nordberg said:
March 16th, 2010 at 8:32 am
“Sometimes, I watch the 4th quarter of the title game.”The best is when it’s tied at the end of regulation, and they have a shoot-out. And if they’re still tied at the end of that, they play an extra 18 holes the next day. “Extra innings” is what they
-
Sailor Ripley commented on the blog post All Signs Point to March Madness Expanding to 96 Teams 3 hours, 16 minutes ago
Fire Bob Wetlick!
-
BrickHorn commented on the blog post All Signs Point to March Madness Expanding to 96 Teams 3 hours, 17 minutes ago
From the perspective of designing a tournament that will efficiently crown the best team as “champion,” expansion is ludicrous. Over the 25-year history of the 64-team field, the statistics clearly show that the tournament is already bloated beyond need. For instance:
Only 6.5% of teams participating in the Elite Eight round are seeded lower
-
admin commented on the blog post All Signs Point to March Madness Expanding to 96 Teams 3 hours, 19 minutes ago
Fire Bob Wetlick!
-
Sailor Ripley commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The South is a Bear of a Bracket 3 hours, 21 minutes ago
Dude, Baylor to the Final Four? I just don’t see it.
SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
-
Magnus Bleuveigner commented on the blog post NFL Draft: A Mockery 3 hours, 22 minutes ago
Bradford has plenty of arm strength. He’s not Stafford in that department, but he throws darts, or bb’s, or whatever small object one uses to describe zip.
Of all the attributes you look for in a QB, intelligence has to be the most important. Not the Wonderlic type, the improvisational type. He’s got that. If he
-
Texoz commented on the blog post Texas finishes sweep of Iowa 3 hours, 45 minutes ago
theoretically, what’s the rotation for the next 4 games?
Tonight – Dicharry
Friday – Jungmann
Sat – ??
Sun – ?? -
Magnificent Bastard commented on the blog post Bush Paves the Way for Henderson? 3 hours, 50 minutes ago
Layla? But, I thought Lane Kiffin was the Sexiest Woman Alive.
beowulf said:
November 16th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Jamaal Charles would be doing very well this year with the same sceme and personnel based on last year’s results. But he would also be a Heisman candidate along with Colt.
Not sure where this fits into your observations because I think they’re spot on.
bat said:
November 16th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I’d add a sixth. Practice reps. We’re dedicating almost all practice reps to the passing game. (Maybe these two go to execution and variation.)
hardlymarvin said:
November 16th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
GD has made some improvements over the last few years but damn this consistantly piss poor running game drives me nuts. thanks for the write-up
t1climb1 said:
November 16th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Please for the love of all things holy, somebody get this writeup in front of GD, duct tape him to a chair and put those spring-loaded Clockwork Orange style eye openers on him and force him to read this. Beethoven’s ninth optional.
Okhorn said:
November 16th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
If a davis wants to keep it simple that fine
but can we just have a one on one blocking scheme where the lineman fire out and we hike the ball directly to CJ wearing number 7.
Call this the new Q package?
based on what I saw on the fake FG this play alone should net up 5 plus yards a play.
Scipio Tex said:
November 16th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
beowulf:
Jamaal is an elite college back.
We also ran a lot more zone read with him. We also considered benching him too, you’ll recall, blaming him for our inconsistencies in the run game.
Scipio Tex said:
November 16th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
bat:
I think I covered that above under execution.
We grabbed it from the Broncos because Davis saw it as a quick cure-all to the running game without Vince. Its simplicity doesn’t take precious practice snaps from the passing game. However, it’s the most rep intensive chemistry dependent blocking scheme in football if you want to do it well.
Musburger said:
November 16th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
“Your thoughts.”
Those are my thoughts. Well done.
Parlin Hall said:
November 16th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Excellent analysis, Scip.
Applewhite has clearly helped Colt and the short passing game that’s now our de facto run scheme. But he’s too new (as you suggest) to be expected to implement major improvements. It may not be the case that this is an area he’s particularly good at coaching: we’ll probably know in a couple years.
TXinDC said:
November 16th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
But hey, how about that Jeremy Hills? He sure shows some flash.
Scipio Tex said:
November 16th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Very funny, TXinDC. Very funny.
bat said:
November 16th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Scipio, are you saying that we’re systemically dedicating practice time to the passing game at the expense of the running game across the board, and given those constraints, we’ve picked the wrong set of plays for the offense? That’s an interesting premise. Four plays could work if they were built with logical counters in the overall offensive system. Davis has never really worked this way, and that’s my primary criticism of him.
We will continue to allocate practice reps this way given the talent and experience on hand. The basic problem is that we are limited in running game practice snaps, and we have to use some of them for our backup quarterback, who will need the two plays that Colt doesn’t run to succeed. At this point in the season, I certainly wouldn’t be investing in the running game. (Well, maybe now that we’ve gone through the credible threats on the schedule, we could add something specifically for Missouri, for example.)
I think we’re caught in transition. We saw what a mobile quarterback and a zone read-based offense could do for us with Vince Young, and started to move that way. Then, Colt McCoy happened. He was a recruiting backup plan to Peri-loser. We then landed Chiles while we were still committed to the zone read. Colt just wasn’t supposed to be this good. Combine that with the way they’re enforcing holding this year, and we’re back to a throw-first philosophy. So after we’ve spend a few plays on goal line offense (they’re not really dedicated to the overall first or second down running games), you’re down to a dozen or so practice reps to dedicate to the running game, and you have to split those across the first team offense (pass-based new guard) and the second-team offense (zone-read based old guard), and we get predictable results.
53 Veer Pass said:
November 16th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Prediction: Mack will make noises in the spring about wanting a better running game. Come the fall of ‘09, we’ll be seeing pretty much the same problems. Again.
Trips Right said:
November 16th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Damn you for making me chuckle out loud and then consequently having to explain to my wife why I’m laughing. I don’t like talking to her about football. It usually pisses her off to the point of costing me sex.
The problem I see with our Denver Bronco stretch is a difference in coaching philosophies. The Giant Rat teaches his backside to cut knees, we appear to teach our kids to cut gaps. Watch a Bronco game. The backside will engage and then drop down on the side of the knee/ankle. Our kids just leap into a gap and hope that’s enough. It’s no wonder that our kids don’t hold in pass pro.
Brad said:
November 16th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
I think that our scheme, if you can call it that, requires a between the tackles, big, bruising back. I’m talking Adrian Petersen style, who is willing to lower his shoulder and will punish people in the open field. We don’t have that right now. We will next year.
Provided he’s not redshirted, I actually truly believe that Chris Whaley fits our system perfectly, and could be the answer. I’ve seen him play in person and he has breakaway speed and is enormous. Thoughts?
Musburger said:
November 16th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Brad, did you even read the post?
RansomStoddard said:
November 16th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Your basic premise seems to be that Greg Davis is an incompetent moron and for that you get no argument from me. But if you think we have an rb on this team that is capable of running for 750+ yards in any scheme then we have been watching two different teams this year.
Your comment about confused philosophies is dead-on. Time after time you see our OL standing around looking for someone to block while the rb is being swarmed under for a tfl. Something is not right when that happens.
Good column.
houstonearler said:
November 16th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Scip,
Great analysis. Davis has improved his playcalling — it’s no longer run, run, pass to Roy or Brett Robin on third down. And we have a competent O line coach now. Thus, even though our run game isn’t dominating, it’s light years better than the crap we through out during the Simms years.
Believe me, I’m not an echeese who defends everything staff. But I also get annoyed with some people who still think we suck running against any decent defense and only score against patsies. (And you of course did not do that.) Our running game is average this year, it was pretty damn good in 2007, it was also good in 2006 until the last part of the season when injuries to McCoy, Charles, and Dockery really killed us against aggy, K state, and Iowa (note we ran the ball very effectivey in 2006 against very good Ohio State and Mobilehoma defenses — especially when you factor out sacks which the NCAA stupidly counts as rushing attempts and lost yardage).
Our running game needs to improve. We need more misdirection. We need to scrap the TE this year and just spread it out as much as possible. Our backs will have more space and Colt will have more space if we spread it out more.
Keeping a TE basically brings in an extra defender to spy Colt and the backs because the tight ends we have are not good blockers and are no threat to catch anything
Also, we have had a little bad luck this year. Our pure rushing stats sure would look better but for several long runs getting called back due to questionable calls that had no impact on the game — Chiles had two, Cody had 1, Fozzy had 1.
Facebook User said:
November 16th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
dedfischer said:
November 16th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Well, I think you covered about everything there. I haven’t seen enough of Florida’s DL yet, to know much about them, but their depth chart appears young. I don’t think Dockery or Hall want any piece of Cody.
UTfan1 said:
November 16th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Practice man, practice. We’re talkin talkin practice….
Hook’Em
Dude said:
November 16th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
In college there is not enough practice time to have a line made up of mostly underclassmen who can do all the things you want them to do. If they devoted enough time to fire-off blocking, you would be griping about pass protection or pulling. I’m happy with our offense. We are two experienced DB’s away from 11-0.
OU has had trouble run blocking this year. They got it turned around, but it took a line full of seniors half the year. It’s tough to do it all and do it well.
t1climb1 said:
November 16th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Dude,
Those reasons you just listed are exactly why our scheme makes no sense…Well that and we are trying to do it with the wrong personnel.
Scipio Tex said:
November 16th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Dude, I couldn’t agree with you more. Except that we don’t have four different run plays – we have four completely different running philosophies – with one play from each:
Stretch(Zone blocking – I’ll keep terminology consistent)Zone Read
Pull Blocking
True Option (you can argue that’s a subset of Zone read)
I’m endorsing that we pick one (maybe two) systems and run the 2-3 base plays within each and do them well.
Make sense?
Scipio Tex said:
November 16th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Ransom:
Our backs have a lot more talent than you think. You don’t need great backs to be effective running the ball.
This isn’t about calling Greg Davis an incompetent. It’s an observation that we’re trying to do a lot of different things in the run game and none of them very well.
hopefulhorn said:
November 16th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
I like the idea of accepting that we are a pass-first team and choosing a running philosophy and two to three b&b plays off of it that suit our personnel. Eliminate zone read and true option due to hits on Colt. Eliminate reach/zone because it is “the most rep intensive chemistry dependent blocking scheme in football if you want to do it well.”
Sounds like we are down to either the counter/pull blocking scheme that our best young OL (Hix and Huey) aren’t well suited to or a drive blocking scheme that we don’t currently have that the older OL aren’t good at. This is the personnel/scheme conundrum you get at.
Given these problems it is a testament to the ability of our backs and linemen that we manage to run the ball as well as we do.
t1climb1 said:
November 16th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Scip,
Would you really classify any of our run plays as a “stretch” play? I always thought of the classic stretch play as having to come out of a formation where your RB is lined up behind the QB not standing next to him. I thought the point of the stretch was the QB bolts back to the RB for the handoff thus setting up all kinds of play action opportunities (see the Colts for the last decade until Manning’s knee surgery). Do I have my football terminology screwed up here?
SlickStreet said:
November 16th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Scip, I fully agree with your and UTFB’s analysis on the running game deficiencies. And your noting that a below average back can look great behind an excellent OL with competent scheme is something I’ve always felt (and said).
I’ve often defended Jamaal Charles, too, recognizing players like him and Selvin were hamstrung by scheme as much as (or more than) any kind of mental funk.
I tended to think Ced was in a bit of one before the light came on, but you reminded me of Vince’s time at QB coinciding pretty closely. I think, too, Ced was banged up awhile and was a different back when mended.
Scipio Tex said:
November 16th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
t1climb:
I use stretch play and outside zone interchangeably. You’re absolutely right – the Colts are the classic example of the stretch play and play action. I wrote it that way trying to illustrate how completely different that is philosophically from man blocking or the option game. I’m just thinking about the blocking here, not the backfield action. Sorry for any confusion.
We’ll just call it zone blocking, which it is. I’ll note that above so we all don’t get lost in the trees.
Brad said:
November 16th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
I did read the post, in fact. I don’t wholly agree with everything, though. Yes, running backs are essentially a dime a dozen, and you do NOT need a super-elite running back to execute a great running game. I agree that our vision for the line and offensive coaching and play calling leaves much to be desired, however having seen Whaley play in person (and knowing that it’s unlikely that most people reading this post have) I can tell you that while he will not be the magic cure, he is the style of runner we need.
He is not a finesse guy. He is a bruiser. He will be able to block very well and he will physically wear defenses down. Right now, we have no way of doing that. Everyone will get tired as the games go on, sure, but when you look at teams like Bama, they are able to punish opposing defenses with their powerful running game. That allows for their average quarterback JPWilson to make key throws later in the game and it forces defenses to hold off on blitzing the QB.
So yes, Musberger, I did read the post. And as I said, I do agree with a lot–especially finding a vision for our offense (which will have to be closer to pro-style once Garret Gilbert arrives, which should have been discussed in this post, I believe). But nobody will convince me that bringing in a star RB can’t alleviate the problem a good deal–especially if it’s an RB who can run, block and physically abuse defenses. Whaley, from what I have seen, can be that guy.
Kafka said:
November 16th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Yeah, the running scheme has been really frustrating for many years. Greg Davis is an ex QB who loves the passing game. Mack is an ex running back who loves the running game. My guess is that Mack has a lot of influence over the horns running game and that Greg is fine with it.
If you are going to go with 4 WRs, at least a couple of them need to be big dudes (eg: Malcolm Williams types) who are ferocious blockers and can block an LB.
The horns running game is way too slow developing. The longer it takes for a back to hit a hole, the longer the D has to fly to the point of attack. This works to the benefit of the D because they are faster than the O blockers. Predefine the hole and hit as quickly as possible. Always force the D to react quicker than they want to.
Get some misdirection into the running game by using the WRs as an integral part of the running game (not a once per game surprise).
Could not agree more with any point you made than simplifying the blocking/running schemes by reducing the number of philosophies. I vote for pull blocking.
The counter play is a great play (the favorite play of the OL last year from what I’ve heard). Would love to see more of it.
There are zero quick pitches to the outside in horn offense. That is a mistake.
TEs like Blaine Irby are a huge challenge to the D. They can chip block a DE, double team a DT, can block an LB, and still can’t be covered by your typical LB 1 on 1.
Supplement the running game by really learning how to run screen plays (i.e. study Tech screen technique). That will make the D’s front 7 less aggressive (thus easier to block).
UT needs more running plays that are options off the roll out (i.e. sprint draws and reverses). One more way to get some misdirection into the running game and confuse the opposition D (at least momentarily).
Probably the biggest problem, as somebody said, is that practise time is limited. This means that a bunch of obvious improvements to the running game are not being made because there simply isn’t enough time to practise them.
RansomStoddard said:
November 16th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
I have also seen the opposite of what you propose occur: Barry Sanders ran behind one of the worst offensive lines in modern college football history and almost singlehandedly carried OSU to a top five finish. But the coaching staff there figured out what they could do and they did it over and over. There are other examples. I’m not disagreeing with the premise of the analysis, I’m just saying it’s not set in stone. Our problem is we have a worthless, confused scheme and average rb’s.
DBH said:
November 16th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
All five problems point to issues with coaching, particularly at the coordinator level. So, if you’re saying Greg Davis’ running scheme sucks, I can sure get onboard with that.
retrobater said:
November 16th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Major is now the running backs coach – where does that fit
into the equation? Our overall coaching on the O-side is
markedly improved from last year – remember 3 true offensive
points going into the 4th quarter against a shitty Aggie squad
last year? Bet that doesn’t happen this year – I attribute the
new energy and improvement to Major. GD is still an abortion
waiting to happen – left to his own devices. So why can’t we
run? Major is a quarterback and Davis can’t coach.
Big Satan said:
November 17th, 2008 at 5:16 am
I’ll call greg davis incompetent.
TG said:
November 17th, 2008 at 6:17 am
How about a draw play? Kansas knew everything we were going to do. When we offered play-action, Kansas LBs didn’t hesitate and were already in pass coverage. I don’t understand.
RolloTamasi said:
November 17th, 2008 at 6:21 am
The lack of a good draw play in our playbook confuses me all the time. The shovel pass is the closest we seem to have, and we should probably run it more (not just 3rd and long). If you watch the NFL you’ll see teams run a variety of good draw plays all the time with great effectivess. Check out the Colts-Bears super bowl, or watch the Patriots who we should be watching film of every week for clues on offense and defense. They use the draw as a base play in the shotgun.
BatesHorn said:
November 17th, 2008 at 6:24 am
Didn’t we used to feature a draw when Hodges Mitchell was the running back? Am I insane?
GoHornsGo90 said:
November 17th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Essentially a perfect analysis. We could be so good if the coaches would just wake up and do what’s right for the running game, I.E. not zone blocking.
Line up 5 guys and blow those bitches back to next Easter. Texas used to be a tough team on both sides of the ball. They lost both sides since for the last two years, and have gotten the defensive intensity back this year with Muschamp. We need a guy on the offensive side that is going to inspire them like Will does for the defense. That’s what it’s going to take, and it’s not going to change as long as Davis is the OC :(
Levander Williams said:
November 17th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Well said. Again.
You show remarkable perseverance with these analyses. Unfortunately, your dedication to technical analysis & critical commentary is very unlikely to piercing the Belmont Bubble. Mack is clearly very resistant to change – some of that hard-headedness serves him well, but at times it’s proven to be a hindrance to addressing real opportunities for improvement that can only come from introspective evaluation and a willingness to admit that you don’t have all the answers.
My hopes – as naïve as they may be – are that continuing to infuse young, aggressive and creative coaches like Major & Muschamp into the program will ultimately allow some of these seemingly obvious changes to work their way into Mack’s thought process. Time will tell.
BatesHorn said:
November 17th, 2008 at 9:32 am
I don’t think it’s that Mack is some fool who refuses to change. My seven year old noted we couldn’t run the ball:
“Daddy, that guy didn’t get far”
Mack and GD have repeatedly noted the running game is not acceptable. I think Scip makes a very valid point that GD, McWorter, and Mack may not be connecting the dots between our OL talent, our scheme, and our practice routines. Or, this may be the best we have, and it’s just who we are, which is a failure of recruiting more than anything else.
Levander Williams said:
November 17th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Bates – I think we’re saying basically the same thing. My point was that Mack/Greg have lots of viable parts (players, plays, techniques, etc.) with which to construct a running game, but they seem unable to figure out how to put them all together in a way that functions well.
It seems to me – and I think many of us see this – that they believe that putting a bunch of good players in the game and having them run plays that work well for others should generate a good running game. When it doesn’t, the attitude seems to be “let’s tweak a few things, work harder and keep trying” instead of trying to step back and understand why the players, scheme and techniques aren’t doing as well as we all want.
Several others made a great point about limited practice time – it has to be tough for 18-22 year old to balance school, practice, managing your life/schedule without mom & dad, and attempting to get laid within only 168 hours each week.
jonestopten said:
November 17th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
So, Scip, here’s a question:
Would a fullback help? OK, I know we don’t have one, but what happens if we roll out the jumbo package off-schedule, say first and ten at mid-field? Or third and two? Seriously, the probability of gaining five or six yards with it is far higher than with the four running plays we do run. Plus we have shown a willingness to run a variety of plays (some of them really stupid) out of it. The opposition would have to totally shift course to defend it a couple of times a game.
Or is this simply a bizarre suggestion borne of frustration?
Drunken Rooster said:
November 17th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
The best straight ahead blocking I’ve seen the line do in quite a few years , was the 4th down fake punt to Shipley vs. Kansas this past Sat. I don’t know who the lineman were on that play, but they definitely got a hell of a push.
Facebook User said:
November 17th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
I assume that’s because the defense was setting up for the block.
HenryJames said:
November 17th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
It was a fake field goal.
Drunken Rooster said:
November 17th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Yes it was a fake field goal and the ol push was something I’d like to see more often.
he hate me said:
November 17th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
How ’bout our abhorent predictablity…like NOT running on second and short? (;>)
Scipio Tex said:
November 17th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Gang:
Some great discussion. Reading it has helped synthesize some of my own thoughts.
Levander, we’re on the same page.
jones:
That’s an interesting idea. Actually, we run pretty well in short yardage out of our jumbo package precisely because we’re not reach blocking – it’s dick on dick and best man wins. The presence of the FB isn’t really what makes our jumbo go – Ogbonnaya is the seal outside, Miller just delivers the coup de grace. What’s interesting to me is that our OL gets such a consistent push on the LOS – particularly when it’s Huey/Hix on the right side.
GoHornsGo:
I’m not necessarily saying we must go man blocking. I like zone blocking too, if you’re slick at doing it. My contention is simply pick one or two core philosophies and devote the reps necessary to do it well.
We’ve done that in the passing game. Let’s apply a similar premise to the run.
Bates:
Yeah, we absolutely had a draw with Hodges. Two in fact: a sprint draw and a lead draw.
Guy Who Watches TV With The Sound Turned Off said:
November 17th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Could I be the first to point out that Shipley looks a little bit like an airplane on that dive?
Less like a ship than an airplane?
That if we put some wings on him he could fly back to Austin?
Action said:
November 18th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Recently, many of us have discussed the merits of Davis throwing an assortment of schemes at the offense and the OL in particular. Should we be diverse, or should we realize an offensive identity that fits our personnel? That conversation will continue.
Having said that, I gotta give Davis his props this year. In fact, if Texas would have beaten Tech this year, I think he might have been up for Asst. Coach of the year again this year.
Tech. That’s the thing. Davis isn’t stupid, he just seems to have an incredible short memory, especially when it comes to playing Tech. It’s not just that though. The thing about it to me is that I never seem to know when the guy walks onto the field with a snot bubble on his nose. Yes, yes, when will that happen? Who knows? Texas gets the ball on the 3. Davis is diverse. Dust off that I formation and give it to the deep back. Yea, we know the result. Did the snot bubble burst? No, not yet. Only later, after failed blocking and dropped passes to rookie TE’s did the snot bubble burst.
Yes, then we saw the frozen, if not astonished look of the basset hound when the snot bubble burst on his nose. By then, it was the second half and almost too late. In fact, it was too late, because Tech played a better overall game and still maintained some semblance of momentum.
Now for credit. I watched the Kansas game and actually saw pre-game planning. Remember, how over the years under Brown we have bitched about there being no screen pass in the repertoire? Coach Brown would brush it aside because, “it just took too much practice time to implement.” Really? Texas busts out the screen pass to Fozzy for an easy 20 yards, right when we needed it. How about the draw play? That one went big for a TD. Hey Greg, remember how you worked the offense to make Hodges Mitchell into a serious threat for everyone after Ricky? For a moment, I think he did.
My beef is that from TV, or from Section 106, on any given Saturday, you can’t tell when Greg Davis walks onto the field and has a snot bubble on his nose.
Gene Claude said:
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Scip, this might be asking a lot, but have you seen enough Mizzou to give a similar, very quick, very dirty analysis of our running game?
I had many similar criticisms of our running game 2 years ago. Christensen has gotten very creating with trying to be multiple, usually involving Maclin end arounds (against the flow of the zone read) and using Rucker and now Maclin and Washington to take direct snaps. We’ve implemented a lead zone play that is not a read. I just don’t have the skills necessary to understand it all. Turns out while you were getting a minor in Football Logistics in high school, I was, unfortunatley, double majoring in debate and getting my ass kicked.
Poor Aggies said:
November 24th, 2008 at 6:26 am
One undiscussed benefit to having a good running game would be in blowout wins. Mack won’t pass (classy? – you decide). However, if we could run at will, we could get style points without appearing to run up the score.
earmuffs said:
November 24th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Great post but damn it get’s my blood boiling. You would have to be an idiot to not see that our annual problems with the run game is coaching. Go back and watch the tape of our pathetic run offense and try to find who missed their block. When you can point to a particular player it is almost ALWAYS a guy who was reach blocking and just didn’t get there. But 60% of the time you can’t even figure out who was supposed to block the guy because nobody was even in the vicinity. When that happens you know it’s a shitty scheme.
Did anyone watch Georgia Tech on espn last week? That was some really fun O line watching. They fired off the ball on every play. They had 250lb back up tackles in the game and they were manhandling Miami.
Scipio Tex said:
November 24th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Gene Claude:
Without speaking to Mizzou specifically, as I haven’t made a real study of your running game, generally speaking it’s pretty tough to have a consistent running game out of the shotgun without using your QB as a running option. Missouri does do that, but I also notice a reluctance to stick with it against higher quality opponents for fear of injuring Daniel.
I’ll try to watch the KU game and the Big 12 title game and share my thoughts….
Phenomenal Smith said:
November 25th, 2008 at 6:56 am
Scipio, your observation re the hesitancy to let Daniel run is something GC and I have discussed in the past – it takes a credible threat away and makes it easier for defenses to gameplan our run game. I know Daniel is valuable, but he’s also tough and can take a hit. I’d be interested in your thoughts post-KU and B12CG.
There’s been talk that next year, with a young QB, the Tigers will restructure the offense to rely heavily on D Wash and the running game. Whoever the QB is will be able to run and hopefully the coaches will let him. ’tis a shame we will have very little depth there.
Tracy Sutton said:
November 26th, 2008 at 7:39 am
I like the write up but I’m not sure that the basis for your argument has changed over the years. Denver can run the ball but what has it really gotten them over the years? Same with Washington. Back when people’s passing games were very simple, this might be the case. As passing schemes have gotten exponentially more complex and receivers more plentiful because of it, the need for an elite passing game seems as or more important to the overall offense than a run first mentality. As someone who observes a lot of football, not a coach, it seems as if spreading out the defense requires some things that don’t necessarily foster a power running style. The first and foremost is the protection of the quarterback so that he can make the proper reads. If that is done well you have an advantage on the defense on almost every play. There is no shame in working on that the most in practice for a passing team, which we are. Second, the quarterback must be able to run, when the pass is defended well the quarterback is uncovered. Third, most running plays designed for the back to find a hole from a mostly pass protect scheme, i.e. run past the defender who is going after the QB. So backs must be able to pick up the blitz, and in their skill set see the hole and hit it. It is a brave new world my friend, and GD is really out front with it and unapologetic for it. I like the way this offense works because the majority of the time we win, and if we don’t we still move the ball and are able to come back from large deficits. When was the last time any team had the ability to do this as well as the Longhorns over the last few years, not in my lifetime. We are consistent, powerful, explosive, exciting, frustrating, maddening, fun, and I have loved every minute of it (with a solid defense which I think is 2/3 of what makes a great team. Let go of the running game first mentality, it leads to boredom, less good receivers, less exciting offense, and 13-7 games. High School and College football are the best things in sport right now.
chuck said:
November 26th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
a good read.
Not sure if it was mentioned but with limited practice time and the clear success of the passing game, I’m curious how much the time wasted on teh Q package potentially impacted spending more time on the running game.
Of course I also wonder how much different our running game looks with a healthy Fozzy all year.
Texas versus Texas A&M Thoughts & Pictures | BrianCombs.net said:
November 28th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
[...] than Colt McCoy, our running game is horrible. Scipio of Barking Carnival had a fantastic analysis of the Texas running game a couple of weeks ago. It’s a must [...]
chitown horn said:
January 3rd, 2009 at 11:06 am
Best analysis I have ever read about the recent Longhorn run offense. Kuddos to you.
abraxex said:
January 4th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Many people have touched on this but to put it in my own words, an offense should have some base plays it wants to establish. Run them unless and until the defense finds a way to stop them. Here’s the key: the offense should anticipate what the defense will (or hopefully must) do to stop the base series, and design another set of plays that will take advantage of whatever the D does to neutralize the base plays. For inspiration, think of the old wing-T belly series. My gripe with Texas’ offensive scheme under Mack B. and Greg D. is that it often seems to lack coherence – the running game just seems to be a grab-bag not particularly designed to take advantage of how the defense will react to our bread-and-butter plays.
Gate_of_Horn said:
January 14th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Does anyone have thoughts about the “Wildcat, wildhog, wildrebel, wild______” formation and it’s place in the running games of college football?
Is that a scheme that would allow us to more effectively resolve problems related to 1. Scheme, 3. Variation, and 4. Personnel?
As you noted, Greg Davis is not a talented innovator of offensive theory, which was more or less proven by his Q-formation experiment this year. Rather, as you more directly stated, he is a fairly studious mimic of people that are like that, “We grabbed it from the Broncos because Davis saw it as a quick cure-all to the running game”
So as long as we’re better at plagiarizing a running game instead of inventing one, why or why not adopt the WildX style when we have Chiles, a mixed but experienced o-line, a stable of backs, and some very elusive speed merchants like Hales coming up in the roster?
jinx said:
January 19th, 2009 at 6:20 am
Just curious if you guys have any insider info that might lead to a follow up on this. Of course the rumors are that The Major wants to do some things to the running game and GD himself said that Colt would be under center more….
Just curious. I know there isn’t much to go on until spring practice starts.
ecurbmanchild said:
March 29th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Damn out shitty team and coaches. They suck and all we really want to do is average around 40 a game. I think we should fire the bastards!
Barking Carnival — Blog — Post-Mortem: Texas Longhorns @ Wyoming Cowboys said:
September 13th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
[...] running back personality cults. Mack Brown has trained you well: always looking for another player to solve the underlying problem. First, you’re infatuated with Fozzy. Then it’s Cody Johnson. Then it’s Vondrell. [...]
sizzlechest said:
October 11th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Hi!
Scipio Tex said:
October 11th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Hi, indeed.
It makes me laugh. This is out there for anyone with an IQ north of 90, but I still have to wade through the same dumbshit comments every week.