Ketch's 10 Thoughts From The Weekend (Kool-Aid, Lemons and Salt)

[Manolo]

This team is really flawed, but even with that, it's difficult for me to picture anyone holding it under 30 or 35 points the rest of the way. Maybe those three road games are all against defenses that have a chance to. But do any of those teams have the firepower to put up 40?

I guess Baylor did against WVU, who seems to have a solid defense, which Texas does not. I might be answering my own question.

 

[Ketchum]

Do you think Texas lets the Oklahoma game beat them twice? Also, I know you haven't gotten to know Sark that well with it early in his tenure, but where do you think his head is at right now?

To be honest, he's not exactly a proven head coach with a ton of head coaching experience, and it feels like this is a moment he'll write down and learn from.

a. We'll find out. I tend to think not. I think Texas wins this weekend.

b. The entire program is evolving. It just depends on how long it takes to fully evolve.

 

[Ketchum]

WTF, no Jay+Silent Bob movies. At least Dogma.

Dogma warrants consideration, for sure.

 

[Manolo]

a. We'll find out. I tend to think not. I think Texas wins this weekend.

b. The entire program is evolving. It just depends on how long it takes to fully evolve.

The 2-3 year thing on the OL is hard to accept.

I got to think just getting improvement from a few spots there from bad to average or above average would help Sark fully weaponize his offense. Whether that comes from development, transfers or recruiting, it doesn't have to take that long. It doesn't have to be a vintage Alabama dominant OL- just an average one would make a world of difference.

 

[Ketchum]

I guess my whole point is that if you want to characterize that game that OU owned overall, you can point to the final score and say checkmate, but it's not really what it looked like overall- especially in the first half.

That's not true. That's not something that I'ver said.

There's just not getting around the fact that OU outscored Texas 45-20 in the final three quarters of the game.

They weren't dominated throughout those three quarters, but there wasn't good enough football being played throughout.

Not playing well enough during that time allowed Oklahoma to get away with a ton of sins.

 

[Ketchum]

This team is really flawed, but even with that, it's difficult for me to picture anyone holding it under 30 or 35 points the rest of the way. Maybe those three road games are all against defenses that have a chance to. But do any of those teams have the firepower to put up 40?

I guess Baylor did against WVU, who seems to have a solid defense, which Texas does not. I might be answering my own question.

When you have sketchy defense, games that shouldn't be close tend to sometimes go that way.

Texas has a few more fourth quarter affairs in it this season on the road IMO. Gotta win your coin flips.

 

[Ketchum]

The 2-3 year thing on the OL is hard to accept.

I got to think just getting improvement from a few spots there from bad to average or above average would help Sark fully weaponize his offense. Whether that comes from development, transfers or recruiting, it doesn't have to take that long. It doesn't have to be a vintage Alabama dominant OL- just an average one would make a world of difference.

I think that might work until... Texas plays someone that isn't masking its flaws in those areas.

At best, Texas is the kind of team that can win the Big 12, make the playoff and then get dump-trucked in the playoffs. It'll take a few years before it can be better than that.

 

[Manolo]

That's not true. That's not something that I'ver said.

There's just not getting around the fact that OU outscored Texas 45-20 in the final three quarters of the game.

They weren't dominated throughout those three quarters, but there wasn't good enough football being played throughout.

Not playing well enough during that time allowed Oklahoma to get away with a ton of sins.

This makes sense and is totally fair- thanks for this clarification.

 

[Manolo]

I think that might work until... Texas plays someone that isn't masking its flaws in those areas.

At best, Texas is the kind of team that can win the Big 12, make the playoff and then get dump-trucked in the playoffs. It'll take a few years before it can be better than that.

Yeah, this is also fair. And I can live with that.

 

[samthehorn]

B/S Is this job too big for Sark currently? HC, OC, lead recruiter? Not to mention the media and booster demands. Good topic for a modcast perhaps.

I am a rather skeptical guy, but I REALLY believe Sark is the right coach to take us championship level football. Sarkisian has experienced everything from high to low in life, and has been inside the circle of Saban and Pete Carroll. My firm belief is that he won’t get rattled and will get this program where we all expect it to be. In Sark I trust (for now)

 

[Ketchum]

Yeah, this is also fair. And I can live with that.

Yeah, that's not the most damning fate of all-time by any stretch.

Everyone just needs to be prepared for the occasional stinker when it actually happens and know that the issues that caused it aren't going to be solved soon.

 

[heygents]

Bijan is a generational talent and in my view the best back in the country by a large margin. That he was only able to get 27 yards rushing in the second half of that game said everything. 18 point lead, with the best back in the nation, that is when you run clock and impose your will. And Texas was physically unable to do that upfront against an OU D-Line that really is legit (not just Big 12 legit). I don't think that will be the case the rest of the schedule, and when they can run the ball, Sark's offense is pretty much unstoppable.

 

[Ketchum]

Bijan is a generational talent and in my view the best back in the country by a large margin. That he was only able to get 27 yards rushing in the second half of that game said everything. 18 point lead, with the best back in the nation, that is when you run clock and impose your will. And Texas was physically unable to do that upfront against an OU D-Line that really is legit (not just Big 12 legit). I don't think that will be the case the rest of the schedule, and when they can run the ball, Sark's offense is pretty much unstoppable.

There are other teams in the Big 12 that play good defense.

 

[RLong68]

The lack of Keilan and RoJo the last 2 weeks along with their general lack of work against Arky has me wondering a bit about Sark’s ability to work them In against good teams.

 

[Iceman]

Hammer meet nail, right on the head. The talent and depth issues are starting to show.

Appreciate you busting out the stats, you know your every day fan doesn't actually care to investigate what's really going on. Instead they take the easy route and shout "FIRE X COACH!", when that's what would continue to plague Texas.

I am naturally wired to be a contrarian. That doesn't mean I always take the counter-argument, but if someone states an opinion or fact, my first instinct is always to see if there's data that supports that position. There's nothing I take at face value, even if it sounds logical.

There's no question different aspects of the 1st year have been disappointing, whether it's recruiting, the OL, the DL, the pass rush, the D as a whole. If Sark is the wrong guy, or PK is the wrong guy, or Flood is the wrong guy, I want to see data that shows me that historically great coaches performed better in their 1st year after taking over a program that wasn't a perennial Top 10 team. Saban took over an Alabama program 1 year removed from a Top 10 season. And 22 of the 42 players that started in the 2009 National Championship game, were already on the roster, having been recruited by his predecessor. So he had talent on campus. He had experience from winning 2 SEC titles and a National Championship at LSU, from being the HC at the Dolphins & DC at the Browns, and from being the HC at Michigan St & Toledo. And even with that wealth of experience & a significant amount of skins on the wall, he still went 7-6 his first year, lost to ULA-Monroe & Miss State, and closed the season on a 4 game losing streak. And it's almost the same thing when you look at other programs with a strong pedigree, but that had been down.

If the greats largely had walked into new jobs at underperforming programs, and instantly turned them around, it'd be one thing. But very few had what would be considered a great 1st season. And if you go back and read what was written about the programs during that 1st year, they all complained about uneven performances, poor OL play, poor tackling, poor pass rush, et al. That tells me it's a lot harder than we believe it should be to turn around a program. History shows that year 2 is when you see the fruit (Mack is one of the few that really didn't show fruit until year 4). And year 3-4 is usually when the greats usually win their 1st NC at a school. So I'm willing to be patient and chalk year 1 up to the unpleasant growth process that makes a stellar year 2 possible. We just need to get some difference makers on the OL and DL!

 

[DKinnamon]

Potentially, I agree.

FYI, the number we talked about all year was 8.5, not 7.5.

Just looked it up Vegas at 4 different books had the number at 8. We can all agree that is a floor and the over will be achieved. The question is whether it will be 9 or 10. You and Anwar might have had it at 8.5 I won't debate your memory. I was pretty sure I heard 7.5. Regardless I would say the over of your number 9 is still far more likely than 8 with the best offensive trio in Big XII.

 

[Ketchum]

The lack of Keilan and RoJo the last 2 weeks along with their general lack of work against Arky has me wondering a bit about Sark’s ability to work them In against good teams.

That's completely fair, especially after Saturday.

 

[Ketchum]

Just looked it up Vegas at 4 different books had the number at 8. We can all agree that is a floor and the over will be achieved. The question is whether it will be 9 or 10. You and Anwar might have had it at 8.5 I won't debate your memory. I was pretty sure I heard 7.5. Regardless I would say the over of your number 9 is still far more likely than 8 with the best offensive trio in Big XII.

we spent the entire summer debating each side of 8.5

I eventually took the over and he took the under. I had the team at 4-2 through six games. It's 4-2 through six games.

I think it goes 5-1 the rest of the way.

 

[Iceman]

Bijan is a generational talent and in my view the best back in the country by a large margin. That he was only able to get 27 yards rushing in the second half of that game said everything. 18 point lead, with the best back in the nation, that is when you run clock and impose your will. And Texas was physically unable to do that upfront against an OU D-Line that really is legit (not just Big 12 legit). I don't think that will be the case the rest of the schedule, and when they can run the ball, Sark's offense is pretty much unstoppable.

What OU did in the 2nd quarter (and for the rest of the game) wasn't revolutionary. They brought all 11 defenders within 7-8 yards of the LOS. They shut down the run & made the windows for short & intermediate throws much smaller. That then left them vulnerable to the deep ball, but given that UT's OL couldn't pass protect more than a few seconds, the risk was limited. I would expect teams to follow OU's blue print. As long as you have CBs that can do a passable job covering UT's WRs deep, and you can get pressure on drop-back passes, you're going to be able to shutdown UT's offense. And that's going to put more pressure on the UT D, b/c they'll have shorter rest breaks, as the O's drives take up less time.

 

[oldspur]

Why do so many people look to replace a coach and his staff when he’s working with Herman personal ? Give this staff 4 years . Sark knows what it takes to win big time , it’s a multi year process .

Agree. "Multi year process," "rebuild the culture," "install a new program" are all euphemisms for recruiting better players.

 

[DKinnamon]

we spent the entire summer debating each side of 8.5

I eventually took the over and he took the under. I had the team at 4-2 through six games. It's 4-2 through six games.

I think it goes 5-1 the rest of the way.

I agree that 5-1 is extremely likely. I believe 6-0 has more of a chance than 4-2 the rest of the way. 9-3/10-2 would beat the Vegas odds of 8 and with CCG and Bowl Game I believe a 10 win season is likely. I see the team ranked 8-15 to finish the year. As you have said Sark was hired to elevate the Offensive game he has....but I agree even with a potential transfer we are still 2-3 years away from the trenches being where we want UT. But I believe the trend is in the right direction 8 edge/DL recruits. Need at least 2-3 more OL recruits/transfers.

 

[Juarez Your Problem]

I am naturally wired to be a contrarian. That doesn't mean I always take the counter-argument, but if someone states an opinion or fact, my first instinct is always to see if there's data that supports that position. There's nothing I take at face value, even if it sounds logical.

There's no question different aspects of the 1st year have been disappointing, whether it's recruiting, the OL, the DL, the pass rush, the D as a whole. If Sark is the wrong guy, or PK is the wrong guy, or Flood is the wrong guy, I want to see data that shows me that historically great coaches performed better in their 1st year after taking over a program that wasn't a perennial Top 10 team. Saban took over an Alabama program 1 year removed from a Top 10 season. And 22 of the 42 players that started in the 2009 National Championship game, were already on the roster, having been recruited by his predecessor. So he had talent on campus. He had experience from winning 2 SEC titles and a National Championship at LSU, from being the HC at the Dolphins & DC at the Browns, and from being the HC at Michigan St & Toledo. And even with that wealth of experience & a significant amount of skins on the wall, he still went 7-6 his first year, lost to ULA-Monroe & Miss State, and closed the season on a 4 game losing streak. And it's almost the same thing when you look at other programs with a strong pedigree, but that had been down.

If the greats largely had walked into new jobs at underperforming programs, and instantly turned them around, it'd be one thing. But very few had what would be considered a great 1st season. And if you go back and read what was written about the programs during that 1st year, they all complained about uneven performances, poor OL play, poor tackling, poor pass rush, et al. That tells me it's a lot harder than we believe it should be to turn around a program. History shows that year 2 is when you see the fruit (Mack is one of the few that really didn't show fruit until year 4). And year 3-4 is usually when the greats usually win their 1st NC at a school. So I'm willing to be patient and chalk year 1 up to the unpleasant growth process that makes a stellar year 2 possible. We just need to get some difference makers on the OL and DL!

Preach. I've been saying it since the summer that this team will be experiencing growing pains, but no one wanted to listen. One, in context of what you've highlighted and two, hearing about how practices were going.

But yeah, someway somehow we need to get some immediate impact dudes in the trenches. The skill position guys will be fine.

 

[DKinnamon]

Yes.

However, Texas won't be the only attractive option for all of these dudes. Texas didn't land transfers this year that truly had other options. Big other options.

Last offseason we were coming off a mediocre Tom Herman offense. We have the Big 3 to sell next year. I think that makes some difference.

 

[Iceman]

we spent the entire summer debating each side of 8.5

I eventually took the over and he took the under. I had the team at 4-2 through six games. It's 4-2 through six games.

I think it goes 5-1 the rest of the way.

The humor in Texas going 5-1 the rest of the way is that'll put Texas 2nd or 3rd in the Big 12 standings and ranked 13th to 19th. And then, you'll have all the hand-wringers overreacting the other direction and crowing about Texas being at the cusp of being "back", etc.

A 9-3 regular season would put Sark amongst the better 1st year seasons over the last 30 years.

 

[texhorns12]

I am naturally wired to be a contrarian. That doesn't mean I always take the counter-argument, but if someone states an opinion or fact, my first instinct is always to see if there's data that supports that position. There's nothing I take at face value, even if it sounds logical.

There's no question different aspects of the 1st year have been disappointing, whether it's recruiting, the OL, the DL, the pass rush, the D as a whole. If Sark is the wrong guy, or PK is the wrong guy, or Flood is the wrong guy, I want to see data that shows me that historically great coaches performed better in their 1st year after taking over a program that wasn't a perennial Top 10 team. Saban took over an Alabama program 1 year removed from a Top 10 season. And 22 of the 42 players that started in the 2009 National Championship game, were already on the roster, having been recruited by his predecessor. So he had talent on campus. He had experience from winning 2 SEC titles and a National Championship at LSU, from being the HC at the Dolphins & DC at the Browns, and from being the HC at Michigan St & Toledo. And even with that wealth of experience & a significant amount of skins on the wall, he still went 7-6 his first year, lost to ULA-Monroe & Miss State, and closed the season on a 4 game losing streak. And it's almost the same thing when you look at other programs with a strong pedigree, but that had been down.

If the greats largely had walked into new jobs at underperforming programs, and instantly turned them around, it'd be one thing. But very few had what would be considered a great 1st season. And if you go back and read what was written about the programs during that 1st year, they all complained about uneven performances, poor OL play, poor tackling, poor pass rush, et al. That tells me it's a lot harder than we believe it should be to turn around a program. History shows that year 2 is when you see the fruit (Mack is one of the few that really didn't show fruit until year 4). And year 3-4 is usually when the greats usually win their 1st NC at a school. So I'm willing to be patient and chalk year 1 up to the unpleasant growth process that makes a stellar year 2 possible. We just need to get some difference makers on the OL and DL!

Ho Lee Fuk. Pin this post and make everyone read it. Thank you.

 

[Ketchum]

What OU did in the 2nd quarter (and for the rest of the game) wasn't revolutionary. They brought all 11 defenders within 7-8 yards of the LOS. They shut down the run & made the windows for short & intermediate throws much smaller. That then left them vulnerable to the deep ball, but given that UT's OL couldn't pass protect more than a few seconds, the risk was limited. I would expect teams to follow OU's blue print. As long as you have CBs that can do a passable job covering UT's WRs deep, and you can get pressure on drop-back passes, you're going to be able to shutdown UT's offense. And that's going to put more pressure on the UT D, b/c they'll have shorter rest breaks, as the O's drives take up less time.

This was always going to be the blue print. It has just taken a little time for it to unfold this season.

There are teams in the Big 12 with the personnel to copy what OU did.

 

[Ketchum]

The humor in Texas going 5-1 the rest of the way is that'll put Texas 2nd or 3rd in the Big 12 standings and ranked 13th to 19th. And then, you'll have all the hand-wringers overreacting the other direction and crowing about Texas being at the cusp of being "back", etc.

A 9-3 regular season would put Sark amongst the better 1st year seasons over the last 30 years.

Well, he basically took over a 9-3 type program.

 

[utguz]

I agree to an extent. Texas has to prove that it can compete at a higher level in the portal.

Cool daddy. Miss those 360 days and late night tala on hookem.

 

[utguz]

I agree to an extent. Texas has to prove that it can compete at a higher level in the portal.

Cool daddy. Miss those 360 days and late night talks on hookem

 

[Ketchum]

Cool daddy. Miss those 360 days and late night tala on hookem.

Man, that was a long time ago.

I lived in those KEYE offices so that I can be in a chat room all day. 😂

 

[tlcdownunder2]

That's your hope. I get that. Texas is more vulnerable IMO than you believe.

Ok. Well where are the losses remaining on the schedule? I don’t think there are any. Like I said WV scares me on the road with that d-line but can they score enough to win? I doubt it. I just don’t think we will face the lines of an Oklahoma or an Arkansas again, and that’s what lost us those games. What am I missing?

 

[styrbjorn]

I mean, who the F puts Jett Bush out there play after play?

A coach with no other viable options puts Jett Bush and Luke Brockermeyer out there. If that's the talent level in three years we will need a new DC, HC, and staff. But right now we are dealing with the roster that got Tom Herman fired.

Why would a quality OL even enter the portal? Maybe a few guys from G5 programs?

Ketch responded earlier but I'd say a good OL on a bad line/team is going to have significantly better pro prospects if he can upgrade. UT has massive advantages in exposure, some real opportunities to start immediately, a great offensive mind at HC and (this one is huge) the best RB in the country returning next year.

My pitch to OL in the portal would be that they can come block for a guy that'll win the Heisman and get themselves noticed.

PK defense feels too much of a gimic, get back to the 4-3 and stuff the run.

I don't know that we've even seen the real PK defense. I recall reading somewhere that most of his playbook hasn't really been repped hard because they are having to do so much remedial work on things like tackling, gap control, coverage etc.

I'm not saying PK is great, but I'm not sure anyone in the country would be able to do much with some of the glaring issues we've got. Folks calling for him to be fired are about as premature as that kid from American Pie.

Great work with the numbers. Ideally we have longer, more controlled drives but don't think the OL is cut out for that against good teams.

Agree - what it really points up is how the OL woes (and DL woes, which nobody expected) have combined to put a lot of stress on our defense.

ps: I don't think a Matt Damon list is complete without "Team America: World Police" It may be the greatest performance of his career. The critics may say his acting was a little wooden, but I think he really captured the essence of Matt Damon.

 

[Ketchum]

Ok. Well where are the losses remaining on the schedule? I don’t think there are any. Like I said WV scares me on the road with that d-line but can they score enough to win? I doubt it. I just don’t think we will face the lines of an Oklahoma or an Arkansas again, and that’s what lost us those games. What am I missing?

Every road game the rest of the season has blinking warning lights in front of it.

 

[Ketchum]

A coach with no other viable options puts Jett Bush and Luke Brockermeyer out there. If that's the talent level in three years we will need a new DC, HC, and staff. But right now we are dealing with the roster that got Tom Herman fired.


Ketch responded earlier but I'd say a good OL on a bad line/team is going to have significantly better pro prospects if he can upgrade. UT has massive advantages in exposure, some real opportunities to start immediately, a great offensive mind at HC and (this one is huge) the best RB in the country returning next year.

My pitch to OL in the portal would be that they can come block for a guy that'll win the Heisman and get themselves noticed.


I don't know that we've even seen the real PK defense. I recall reading somewhere that most of his playbook hasn't really been repped hard because they are having to do so much remedial work on things like tackling, gap control, coverage etc.

I'm not saying PK is great, but I'm not sure anyone in the country would be able to do much with some of the glaring issues we've got. Folks calling for him to be fired are about as premature as that kid from American Pie.


Agree - what it really points up is how the OL woes (and DL woes, which nobody expected) have combined to put a lot of stress on our defense.

ps: I don't think a Matt Damon list is complete without "Team America: World Police" It may be the greatest performance of his career. The critics may say his acting was a little wooden, but I think he really captured the essence of Matt Damon.

good stuff... all of it.

 

[tlcdownunder2]

Every road game the rest of the season has blinking warning lights in front of it.

Yeah that’s true.