• Facebook StumbleUpon
• Email

1. Trips Right said:

   August 16th, 2009 at 7:07 pm

   One observation on the photography. Patrick McNamara’s girlfriend must work for the SID’s office. Kid gets more run than Sergio Kindle.

2. BEHorn said:

   August 16th, 2009 at 7:19 pm

   I wish I wasn’t too dumb to make the videos work.

3. ed said:

   August 16th, 2009 at 7:33 pm

   I look forward to the data on comeback wins.

   My feeling is that depth was unquestionably a factor in several of the notable comebacks. Oklahoma State in 2007 is the best example I can think of, and depth was a factor in wins over the Cowboys in ‘04 and ‘05. Probably Tech in ‘06. Nebraska in ‘07, maybe. Last year’s Tech game was strongly impacted by depth (Rak was out, Cosby was out, Chykie was out and ‘Horns still got the lead late after trailing by, 19? Maybe 16).

   Several of the other comebacks were pure Vince (USC, Ohio State in ‘05, Kansas and Michigan in ‘04).

4. 8straight said:

   August 16th, 2009 at 8:33 pm

   BEHorn- If you don’t have an intel chip then the CBS link will not work.

5. bighornfan32 said:

   August 16th, 2009 at 10:22 pm

   Why the AI tag?

6. bighornfan32 said:

   August 16th, 2009 at 10:26 pm

   And Colt looked dead ass tired in that video.

7. Parlin Hall said:

   August 17th, 2009 at 3:42 am

   This morning’s Statesman outed Austin’s extreme water users, with this unexpected twist:

   “Other notable people on the list include NFL running back and former UT star Cedric Benson, who is credited with using the second highest amount of water in February.

   Jack Brennan, a spokesman for the Cincinnati Bengals, said Benson did not realize ‘that he used an excessive amount of water.’

   Brennan said Benson ‘will try to investigate it.’”

   http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/2009/08/17/0817water.html

8. HenryJames said:

   August 17th, 2009 at 5:36 am

   Why the AI tag?

9. Cedric Benson said:

   August 17th, 2009 at 5:41 am

   Yeah, I drink a lot of water. So? You got a better way to fight a massive hangover?

10. Frank said:

    August 17th, 2009 at 6:30 am

    They are forcing the TE/under center issue to quell some negative recruiting and help their chances with Malcolm brown and Aaron green. I doubt it works.

11. Takes one to know one said:

    August 17th, 2009 at 6:45 am

    Bengal spokesman Jack Brennan is actually a member of the burnt orange media conspiracy . . . graduated from Texas in 74 before water actually existed.

12. BEHorn said:

    August 17th, 2009 at 7:17 am

    8straight – thanks, my laptop has an AMD.

13. BatesHorn said:

    August 17th, 2009 at 8:39 am

    Is it wrong that these reports are making me a bit horny? No homo.

14. Kafka said:

    August 17th, 2009 at 8:52 am

    Colt McCoy on the tight ends:
    “We definitely need to have a tight end in our offense to be able to run what we want to run. We definitely need to be able to establish our running game, and we want to play underneath the center, so if you want to do that, you need someone to step in and play tight end.”

    HJ:
    “I don’t really see the need to play underneath the center, but the coaches are apparently convinced that they need to in order to run the ball. And they think we’ll need a tight end or two for that same reason. We’ll see.”

    Mack and GD want to run under center when in the hurry up offense. The idea is to make the running attack more downhill/powerful to try to force the defense to put in run stoppers (bigger, slower players who are better at stopping the run than defending the pass).

    Once the defense puts in the run stoppers, the horns can then keep those run stoppers on the field for the rest of the drive via the hurry up offense. This enables Colt to pass against those run stoppers for the bulk of the drive. It is just a way to force the matchup that you prefer.

    The horns are just copying the extremely effective OU hurry up offense. There are two keys to the hurry up offense. One key is just to line up quickly and get the play in and initiated quickly (obvious enough). This keeps the defense from substituting and tends to reduce the impact the DC can have on the game.

    The other key (much more difficult to accomplish) is to be able to run both a power running offense and an efficient passing offense with the same personnel. If you can do that, the hurry up permits you to create/attack mismatches consistently.

    To be multiple (i.e. be able to run powerfully and pass efficiently) you need players who are multiple (can contribute to both the passing and running attacks). UT was hurt last year by TEs who were devastating run blockers while still being dangerous pass receivers. 180 pound wide receivers don’t tend to contribute that much to the power running game as blockers.

    One dimensional offenses are easier to defend than balanced offenses. Obvious, right?

    Having said all that, if the traditional TEs don’t step up, using one or two Flex TEs would still be an improvement over playing only small WRs.

    UT was successful with the 4 small WR approach last season but it required extraordinary skills (especially by Colt, Ship, and Quan). Quan is gone and UT would like to keep Ship mostly out wide this season so that he does not take such a vicious beating (like he did last season in the inside WR position).

15. Lo Primero said:

    August 17th, 2009 at 8:53 am

    Benson did not realize ‘that he used an excessive amount of water.’

    Ced’s keeping that bong water fresh.

16. Bornahorn said:

    August 17th, 2009 at 10:33 am

    OU’s hurry up offense, at least in the Cotton Bowl, was just a no-huddle. After the play, they would quickly line up and then kill off 15 seconds for the booth to assess the defense and signal in a play. Often, in the course of lining up, Bradfod would step under center as if to run a play and then stand up and look to the sideline for the play as described above.

    I could never tell if Bradford was actually prepared to call a play if the good guys were not ready but he never did. It appeared that the quick line up was meant to eliminate substitutions. I don’t recall if later in the season OU would run on quick snaps.

17. WB_Heaven said:

    August 17th, 2009 at 11:03 am

    “I don’t recall if later in the season OU would run on quick snaps.”

    At times they did and it would catch the defense unprepared and misaligned, mainly due to not having the correct personnel on the field. Quick snaps are most effective for OU in drives when they would make a change from having Bradford in the shotgun with 3 WR, a TE and Brown/Murray in the backfield on one play to having Bradford under center to run a stretch or off tackle on the next without having to substitute.

    OU had success doing this because they had a flexible utility blocker (Elridge) who could line up in the slot and motion to fullback to lead block or into a two tight end set to seal off the edge, and a true fullback (Clapp) who they could keep on the field for a whole drive to pass protect or lead block. OU also didn’t have to sacrifice its vertical passing game when Elridge or Clapp, who were seldom receiving targets, were on the field. That would probably be the tricky part for UT should their offense incorporate under center formations into a no-huddle offense using a tight end or fullback.

    When Wilson or Heupel saw an opportunity to exploit a defense, say whenever it had a nickel or 3-downlineman dime personnel package that included one less linebacker or lineman on the field, or when the defense would be gassed from not being able to substitute, they would send the signal for Bradford to make a quick snap and hand-off. Having Elridge or Clapp on the field makes this strategy quite effective, as well as going no-huddle all the time while being selective about when to go hurry-up.

    They had some success with quick-snap run plays against Florida. It was when drives approached the Red Zone and the defense would bunch up where OU had less success.

18. WB_Heaven said:

    August 17th, 2009 at 11:27 am

    “The other key (much more difficult to accomplish) is to be able to run both a power running offense and an efficient passing offense with the same personnel. If you can do that, the hurry up permits you to create/attack mismatches consistently.”

    Yesh. Elridge has currently been working as the emergency backup center in OU’s practices and he has apparently been holding his own, despite being about 30-pounds underweight.

    It goes unsaid that Stoops never wants Bradford take a single real-game snap where his tender, skinny fingers warmly caress Brody Elridge’s gluteus max, but it’s not some useless practice situation either to try to prove Elridge’s worth as a blocker. His size (6-foot-5, 265), strength, excellent technique and experience might make his presence on the field more important than a third WR this season with his ability to be an effective pass blocker and to seal edges or lead-block on run plays.

19. dasmithjones said:

    August 17th, 2009 at 6:02 pm

    BEHorn

    Assuming you are using Internet Explorer as you browser: Tools/Manage Add-Ons/Make sure Microsoft Silverlight is enabled.

20. Kafka said:

    August 17th, 2009 at 6:34 pm

    WB_Heaven:
    Great stuff, really interesting.

    Could you write a little about OU’s running attack? How much does OU use zone blocking and zone running? OU’s running plays seem to be more downhill and quicker hitting than UT’s so I was wondering what difference in approach explains that.

21. BEHorn said:

    August 17th, 2009 at 8:05 pm

    dasmithjones – thanks, I had checked that (it is enabled). As someone noted above, the content seems to be exclusive to Intel chips (so my slack-ass AMD processor ain’t cuttin’ it).

22. WB_Heaven said:

    August 17th, 2009 at 9:22 pm

    Kafka: your post encouraged me to dive deeper and little bit further into the past than I normally would as an observant fan.

    Since Kevin Wilson was brought on staff in ‘02 to be the run game coordinator and (co) offensive coordinator, OU’s running game has involved a heavy scheme of zone blocking that has favored the running back with superior vision regardless of his speed, strength or size. Excellent examples of these types who excelled in his scheme are Quentin Griffin and Chris Brown – both of whom were/are undersized, stocky backs who lack elite quickness and breakaway speed but were highly productive and consistent players because of their patience and technique (always low to the ground, excellent ball security). In Quentin Griffin’s soph. & jr seasons in ‘00 and ‘01, he ran for a combined 1,667 yards with a mediocre avg of around 4 yards per carry. In ‘02, he ran for 1,884 yards while averaging 6.5 ypc in a similar spread offense but with completely different emphasis and execution than before involving delayed draw hand-offs, counter traps, quick draws deep into the LOS, stretch sweeps off the edge and other fancy ways of saying that Wilson, once he was hired, stopped doing what Mangino did the year before, which was call running plays from the shotgun up the middle of the defense, taking away the offense’s ability to stretch the defense horizontally. In ‘01, OU averaged 389 yards of total offense – only the ‘05 team has been similarly bad in recent memory.

    Coming over from Northwestern, Wilson brought an analytical and somewhat reformed emphasis on the I-formation power running game at OU that was absent Stoops’ first three years, in addition to his reputation for developing, along with James Patton at NU, a dynamic and aggressive zone-blocking spread offense, something most OU fans feel was underdeveloped while Chuck Long served as co-offensive coordinator.

    I don’t know how to post a YouTube video, but watching one video (if you have the stomach) of successful OU run plays from last season will show three simple, but important observations related to OU’s power running game.

    1) OU always tried to seal the edge. OU did not run off tackle unless it was a counter with a pulling guard or if there was a tight end over the tackle’s shoulder. Robinson and Walker were effective, quick guards who got downfield fairly fast and finished off blocks with a mean streak, so pulling traps that caught a frozen or late defender were common, especially in a hurry-up scenario where fatigue or urgency felt by the defense was a factor. Like I said above, having a powerful, versatile blocker off the edge like Eldridge is conducive to this tendency in the OU run game.

    2) Under center, Bradford rarely dropped back to pass – it was predominantly to hand off or playaction. I can count on one hand the number of times I remember a drop back pass by OU that wasn’t from the shotgun. OU intentionally developed this tendency, I think to create a dominant pattern in game film in hopes that it would bait opponents into committing more people at the LOS and inviting more one-on-one man coverages when they saw that OU was snapping the ball from under center.

    3. OU’s offensive linemen sustained blocks, but rarely moved defenders by overpowering them. They blocked by creating movement away from the LOS to make running lanes. This is probably a normal technique for a zone-blocking scheme – moving toward a space in unison with a teammate and finding a nearby defender, often with double-team blocking help on the side where the back is going. This is just a solid, consistent scheme and an emphasis on coaching technique that has worked more times than not.

23. Kafka said:

    August 18th, 2009 at 7:18 am

    OK, but how do the OU backs hit the crease so quickly? UT backs tend to take quite a while before they decide where to cut. UT running plays tend to take quite a while to develop. OU running plays tend to be quick hitting. The OU backs must have a pre-defined “hole” that they aim for. This makes sense because your extra blockers (compared to UT) are double teaming defenders in the expectation that the runner is hitting a particular hole (off tackle, for example).

    It sounds like the zone blocking by OU and UT are pretty similar in terms of sustain your block (for maybe a long time) but no requirement to actually move the blockee.

    Differences include: OU runs much more from under center, passes seldom from under center but play action passing when under center is likely to fool the defense for a big play, plays big TEs and FB much more than UT, and has predefined target holes to speed up the TB’s decision making and to tell the extra blockers (TEs and FB) where to block.

    It is no surprise that OU can run the ball well, OU makes the formational concessions to do so. The big accomplishment is that OU can pass effectively with these same personnel.

    UT, on the other hand, optimizes everything for the passing game so it is no surprise that UT cannot run the ball that great.

24. WB_Heaven said:

    August 18th, 2009 at 11:11 am

    “OK, but how do the OU backs hit the crease so quickly? UT backs tend to take quite a while before they decide where to cut. UT running plays tend to take quite a while to develop. OU running plays tend to be quick hitting.”

    OU run plays develop north-south. The OU backs seem like they’re taught to spot the first hole and cut upfield as soon as they find it. The plays appear quick-hitting, you’re right, because there’s not much action in the backfield from the snap to the hand-off – no fake step in the opposite direction on a counter run to make the defense go the wrong way, no dancing, no hesitation, no lateral movement. The back just looks for some semblance of a hole and make one cut to accelerate upfield. When OU ran that misdirection pitch after the fake to the FB a dozen times in the 2004 RRS, Peterson was running downhill, north to south, as soon as he caught the pitch.

    From the discussions here and elsewhere, I get the gist the UT run game develops slower because there’s more lateral action in UT’s zone-blocking scheme where the Olinemen blocks toward the sideline. For example on a handoff from the shotgun on a sweep play, I remember the back would move progressively from the center to guard to tackle in order to find the hole, and the backs would get in trouble when even a five or six-man front bunched up to the side where the back is going because there’re so few cutback lanes from this running scheme. From watching Jamaal Charles run at UT, I remembering seeing some counter traps that pull both the guard and the tackle, something OU doesn’t do.

    From the :33 mark on this video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=y3VWT8deALE

    The playside tackle and guards – looks like #78 and #72 (?) – double down on an interior lineman while letting the DE rush into the backfield, where’s he’s picked up by a pulling guard. This time, it could be by design to open up the hole inside, but Charles is already making a cut 3-4 yards behind the LOS. Eventually, his explosive quickness and ability to make defenders whiff allow him to make a big run (Charles was also an extremely patient runner, I remember him meticulously working the stop-and-go flawlessly while waiting for running room). Still, I remember that between the 70 and 80 yard runs he had, there were numerous moments of frustration where he had to make several guys miss in the backfield just to get a minimal gain from few or no holes developing from the sideline-to-sideline blocking. I believe the same frustrations existed last season, in part because UT had no running back who had Charles’ quickness and ability to make multiple defenders miss on one play.

25. Kafka said:

    August 18th, 2009 at 12:58 pm

    The first choice for a hole must be predefined in the OU scheme. On a quick hitting/downhill running play, that is the only way to do the split second coordination between the TB, blockers, and QB fast enough. It also eliminate paralysis by analysis while the TB is initially trying to figure out where to go. Of course, the TB can always go to another hole if that looks more promising.

26. CurrentLonghornStudent said:

    August 19th, 2009 at 9:10 am

    “UT, on the other hand, optimizes everything for the passing game so it is no surprise that UT cannot run the ball that great.”

    I’m surprised the trade-offs are necessarily that stark. No middle ground, huh.

Leave a Reply