Strong has to win 9 games next season

[jsto60]

It's really not shocking. It was a deliberate strategic choice. It's not like the coaches were simply unaware that they were running an outnumbered front or something. I'm not saying that it was the best possible strategic choice, either, and we obviously can't prove anything one way or the other. In the end, though, it worked well enough, and if the offense had done anything in the second half, it would look pretty damn smart in hindsight.

Bedford simply wasn't going to allow freshmen making freshman mistakes -- and with no help behind them -- to give up a big gain or quick TD. At one point we had seven freshmen (six true freshmen) in the back seven. I can very well understand the fear of giving up the big play in those circumstances -- and that doesn't have to come only by way of a long pass. That's not an unreasonable fear at all. Yes, maybe we shut Baylor down completely if we don't let them outnumber us, but there's also no denying that the risk would have been far higher that a BU player tear off a long TD run. Making Baylor burn clock to get yards on the ground doesn't look as bad in that light.

If the offense had managed even just a single TD (or even two FGs) instead of only a single FG in the second half, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Instead, we only managed to run 15 total plays in the four drives aside from the FG drive.

Respectfully disagree.

I understand the deliberate choice to start the game. And then when BU comes out and makes a halftime adjustment to running the wildcat.....we needed to adjust back. It was not the best possible strategic choice or even a good choice to let them gash us for all 17 of their points in the second half.

First drive they went 8 plays for 69yds for a TD
Then 18 plays for 82 yds held to a FG thanks to our goalline D set and a drive killing penalty.
Then 9 plays for 61 yds and a TD.
Then we got lucky they fumbled the ball to us on the 4th drive they were mounting again which would have probably taken the lead or at least tied the game with a FG.
Then they went 10 plays for 49 yds as time ran out and they were gashing us again with just the run. They attempted all of 4 passes in the second half. And half of that was on hail marys at the end.

We never stopped them in the second half. They only stopped themselves. That is not brilliant, it was obstinate and almost cost us the game. I understand that set to start the game. But you adjust when they adjust. If a team isn't even attempting to pass the ball, you don't continue to let them gash you in the run because you stay in a heavy pass D and just pray they slow themselves down.

 

[jsto60]

It was like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

And I don't buy the O let us down argument. The D's job is to stop you, no matter what the O is doing. Neither the O or the D was effective in that second half.

On O all the coaches did was try to run out the clock and keep putting BU in long field disadvantages. And the O accomplished that. I thought the O was too conservative. And didn't at all like the play calling at all.

But that doesn't mean the D didn't fail miserably. They in fact let BU run it all over us.....when all they were doing was running the ball in the wildcat. Not making an adjustment there was damning. It makes no sense to decide to let them do so by running a 3-3-5 and pushing corners and safeties back and not at all even bringing a run blitz. And it almost cost us the game. And when the O spots you a 4 score lead, your D gets the blame for losing if they give it up....especially when it was long field scenarios and BU was with a 4th string QB and really a 5th string QB/RB running a wildcat RB offense.



And this sort of thing happened quite a bit last year. At times the coaches made good adjustments. And in some games its like they just decided to bang their head against the wall and run the same things that WEREN'T working at all.
I blame some of that inconsistency on lack of experience on the field (especially at key positions like QB and the OL), but it is also heavily on the coaches when it persists from game to game and then disappears for say the OU game and then rears its ugly head again.

 

[oldhorn2]

I guess I am in the minority, but I think the defense we played against BU in the second half was wise strategy.So what if they over loaded us and could rip off 9 and 10 yards a carry?....we were pinning them deep and they had a long way to go. Thge clock was winding down. If they run the ball the clock never stops except tto move the chains. Yeah.....they ran and ran.....................and ran out of time. We chose to take away the passing game. BU simply didnt have time to score enough by running the ball. The goal was to win the game, not shut down the running game. Had we tackled well (now THAT is ALL on the coaches)we would have stopped them plenty. In the end, we did what we had to do, and that was to win. Besides all that Art Bryles can kiss my burnt orange ass.

 

[jsto60]

So what if they over loaded us and could rip off 9 and 10 yards a carry?....we were pinning them deep and they had a long way to go.

The punter and the O getting a few first downs here and there is what pinned them back. The D just stood there and let them gain the 8 or 9 ypc and romp all the way down the field to score. Each and every possession of the second half. Save the fumble at midfield with a few minutes left. And the hail mary possession at the end of the game, where the D let them get the ball in to scoring range in like less than 30 seconds. The D literally did not stop them in the second half and they were being as one dimensional as it comes. Nor did it do anything to pin them back. When you let the other team score, the O is responsible for pinning them back after a kickoff and a drive. This wasn't a field position battle. We weren't holding them down on D and flipping the field thanks to the D.


We literally let them drive down the field and score a TD right out of the gate. I could excuse not adjusting to wildcat on that first drive. Then we let them do it again, except a penalty near the goalline, put them in a long down/distance and they kicked a FG. Then they drove it down our throats on a long field again (the D didn't put them in this long field, again it was our O moving the ball a small amount). And then the drive where they were going in to win and fumbled past midfield. And the last drive they were moving it again and ran out of time.

 

[oldhorn2]

jtso....I said I was most likely in the minority on this....I dont even disagree with your reasoning. My feeling is just that had the clock not been winding down we would have defended differently. In fact is was and it must have worked, because they did in fact run out of time.

 

[BringBackRoyal]

Respectfully disagree.

I understand the deliberate choice to start the game. And then when BU comes out and makes a halftime adjustment to running the wildcat.....we needed to adjust back. It was not the best possible strategic choice or even a good choice to let them gash us for all 17 of their points in the second half.

First drive they went 8 plays for 69yds for a TD
Then 18 plays for 82 yds held to a FG thanks to our goalline D set and a drive killing penalty.
Then 9 plays for 61 yds and a TD.
Then we got lucky they fumbled the ball to us on the 4th drive they were mounting again which would have probably taken the lead or at least tied the game with a FG.
Then they went 10 plays for 49 yds as time ran out and they were gashing us again with just the run. They attempted all of 4 passes in the second half. And half of that was on hail marys at the end.

We never stopped them in the second half. They only stopped themselves. That is not brilliant, it was obstinate and almost cost us the game. I understand that set to start the game. But you adjust when they adjust. If a team isn't even attempting to pass the ball, you don't continue to let them gash you in the run because you stay in a heavy pass D and just pray they slow themselves down.

I never said it was the best possible choice. But I disagree that it was necessarily a terrible choice. I was tearing my hair out and cursing the TV as much as anyone watching the game during the second half, but after my blood cooled off, I could understand what the coaches were doing. By the time you have seven freshmen in your back seven -- and six true freshmen -- I don't think it's indefensible to decide that you're not going to allow yourself to be put in a position where an inexperienced player, prone to sub-par tackling and bad angles, has no one behind him to provide insurance against his mistakes and to help prevent a five-yard play from turning into a 65-yard play.

It's not the strategy I would have chosen if I had a vote, but I don't think it qualifies as shocking or insane either.

 

[swVAHorn]

I guess I am in the minority, but I think the defense we played against BU in the second half was wise strategy.So what if they over loaded us and could rip off 9 and 10 yards a carry?....we were pinning them deep and they had a long way to go. Thge clock was winding down. If they run the ball the clock never stops except tto move the chains. Yeah.....they ran and ran.....................and ran out of time. We chose to take away the passing game. BU simply didnt have time to score enough by running the ball. The goal was to win the game, not shut down the running game. Had we tackled well (now THAT is ALL on the coaches)we would have stopped them plenty. In the end, we did what we had to do, and that was to win. Besides all that Art Bryles can kiss my burnt orange ass.

A FUMBLE saved the Texas Longhorns bacon in that game....they had plenty of time to beat Texas just running.

 

[swVAHorn]

I never said it was the best possible choice. But I disagree that it was necessarily a terrible choice. I was tearing my hair out and cursing the TV as much as anyone watching the game during the second half, but after my blood cooled off, I could understand what the coaches were doing. By the time you have seven freshmen in your back seven -- and six true freshmen -- I don't think it's indefensible to decide that you're not going to allow yourself to be put in a position where an inexperienced player, prone to sub-par tackling and bad angles, has no one behind him to provide insurance against his mistakes and to help prevent a five-yard play from turning into a 65-yard play.

It's not the strategy I would have chosen if I had a vote, but I don't think it qualifies as shocking or insane either.

Why not make a NON PASSER pass though? Wouldn't it have made more sense to take away their best option at winning? To make them do something they were NOT comfortable doing? Their best chance of winning was EXACTLY what they did the second half. The tackling thing is the same AFTER the RB breaks the line of scrimmage......which he did over and over and over. And if not for a fumble Texas probably loses that game.

I am on the side calling it a bad choice. But Texas won and that is the most important thing.

 

[jsto60]

jtso....I said I was most likely in the minority on this....I dont even disagree with your reasoning. My feeling is just that had the clock not been winding down we would have defended differently. In fact is was and it must have worked, because they did in fact run out of time.

We aren't talking about a 2 min prevent D here.

We are talking about a game plan coming in to a game that was probably a good one. And then circumstances changed. And BU completely shifted their O to be one dimensional. And we made ZERO adjustment to this.

My point is that this happened a few times this year. Like ISU, when our game plan wasn't working. And we stubbornly never made an adjustment. Other games, I actually liked in game adjustments. But to me, BU was GLARING. That they made no attempt to pass the ball and we sat back in a 3-3-5 soft coverage, prevent D. No run blitz. No stuffing the line. There wasn't even a semblance of coaches teaching how to keep outside contain. I mean you can sit back in a 3-3-5 and still at least set the edge.

And no it didn't work. They gashed us with the run. We never stopped them. Is it really a working strategy to let a team score 3 drives in a row in short order, on 3 long fields....and when they are essentially out of the game to let them back it in?

They were gifting us a wildcat set as their base O, which we chose not to attempt to defend. And they scored quickly. This wasn't force them to get 2 yds and a cloud of dust. They were gashing us for 9.7 ypc.

(hint our O controlled the T.O.P with its conservative choices, the D simply just sat there and let them almost win the game and they would have with plenty of time on their last two drives where they messed up unprovoked once and then ran out of time, 30 more seconds or that one time out the coach burned early in the half....and they have enough time).

That is not good coaching or strategy to almost blow a game that was sewn up early. Just sit back and don't defend and pray they run out of time.

 

[DHHorn]

Looks like North Carolina is having the problem stopping the wildcat. It'll be interesting to see how they adjust.

 

[DHHorn]

North Carolina has no answers. Playing 4 down linemen, bringing the safety up, etc.. Nothing is working, Baylor has also broke several big gains because there was no safety back. Any of you defensive gurus have any clue what they should do now?

 

[4MNChampsHorn]

The linemen and linebackers have to fill the gaps-gap control. The ends and corners have to force everything to the middle of the field-to the heart of the defense.

 

[swVAHorn]

North Carolina has no answers. Playing 4 down linemen, bringing the safety up, etc.. Nothing is working, Baylor has also broke several big gains because there was no safety back. Any of you defensive gurus have any clue what they should do now?

Well then what should a defense do?......Let bailor score and hope to keep up with them since NO DEFENSE can possibly stop bailors run??? I don't get why you even said this....trying to prove Texas did the right thing? or what?

 

[DHHorn]

Well then what should a defense do?......Let bailor score and hope to keep up with them since NO DEFENSE can possibly stop bailors run??? I don't get why you even said this....trying to prove Texas did the right thing? or what?

Just pointing out that North Carolina tried to do what some on here thought Bedford should have done and it absolutely didn't work. Baylor rushed for 600+ yards. Maybe Bedford and Strong aren't so incompetent and played it right.

 

[jsto60]

Just pointing out that North Carolina tried to do what some on here thought Bedford should have done and it absolutely didn't work. Baylor rushed for 600+ yards. Maybe Bedford and Strong aren't so incompetent and played it right.

Bedford/Strong didn't play it at all. They let BU score each and every time. How is that playing it right?


Defending the wildcat is simple. Gap control, setting the edge, run blitzing, pinching down on the corners and rolling the safeties up to add more in the box. And most of all, stay disciplined in your lanes and stick with solid tackling fundamentals. Football is made to be much easier when you eschew an entire phase of Offense ie the pass and only run it. It is the reason the wishbone died. People learned how to defend it. The wildcat works as a gimmick here and there, but when someone goes to it as their sole offense....it really is pathetic to not be able to stop it. And it is unforgivable to not even try.

Do you think Cal should have just not bothered playing gap control and run blitzing while playing Air Force and just let them score every time?


Just because UNC failed, doesn't mean it was a smart move. It just means they failed. And it says nothing about Texas.

 

[jsto60]

It really is surprising that some are so stubborn and don't want to say anything bad about Strong that they can't admit the obvious.

When a team is trying to gift you on defense by totally eschewing the pass....and the defensive staff chooses not to play the run.....this is not a winning strategy. It not even close to being a decent fundamental decision.

Your whole argument is like we made them run out the clock. But we didn't. We had the game and tried to give it back to them. By doing nothing in the 3rd quarter. To start the 4th quarter, up by 10, we let them run the wildcat for 9 rushing plays, totaling 61 yds and a TD in 4 mins. Now they are only down by a FG with 10mins left to play. How is that smart defense?

I mean you can almost write off the 8 plays for 69yds TD in 2 mins they had running the wildcat coming out of the half, because it surprised us. You can argue that if we made them score on long drive and held them to 2 yd per rush, it was a smart strategy. But we sat idly by and let them gash us and get back in a game that was over, because we did nothing to defend a very basic offense who was trotting out no passing game because they had no QBs left.
The only smart move was getting in to a goalline D this one time in the redzone and holding them to a FG. A TD there and we probably lose that game. Crazy that we actually could defend the run when we lined up and tried, unlike your UNC argument which is irrelevant anyway.



Look I support Strong. I love that he finally made the offensive hires I wanted when he came along. That being said, I am worried at how our D fell off this year. BU is an example of bafflingly bad D coaching. I am glad we won the game. But work needs to be done. On both sides of the ball. I hope his staff notices and they get to work. Because if we do what we did in the BU or ISU or other games again next year....and just refuse to adjust in games or refuse to get out of our base D (there are other examples of games where we misplayed passing teams and they gashed us to win games)....we will have another losing season.

 

[DHHorn]

What in the hell makes you think we could have stopped them with the players we had available? We played in goal line because we were near the goal line, and you don't have to worry about anyone getting behind you. If you don't understand their strategy during that game by now then it's hopeless. I might as well argue with a stump. The North Carolina game does matter because it shows what can happen if the runner gets behind a defense that is playing up. Strong and Bedford didn't want that to happen so they played conservative when we had a lead and the clock was on our side. They had a cushion and the absolute worst thing that could happen in that game was for Baylor to score fast. Which they didn't.

 

[TexExSpur]

Funny stuff!

 

[jsto60]

What in the hell makes you think we could have stopped them with the players we had available?.

Because we did stop them, the one time we actually tried. And on 3 or 4 other plays. Once when Bonney was in the slot and instead of backing off at the snap, he pinched down, set the edge, and we held the RB on that play.

I don't want to hear the players excuse. We did stop them, when we nutted up and played the run. We didn't have to worry about WRs getting behind us. Not only did they not attempt to pass the ball at any point on the field.

But the most damning video from that game is them running the wildcat, our 3 down linemen not holding contain, our LBs stacking up behind the line and missing tackles and not setting the edge....and our Safeties 20 yds back doing NOTHING and here is the best part....their WRs standing around when the ball was snapped and our CBs standing 10 yds deep and then at the snap moving up right next to them and then sitting there hands on their hips.


The film doesn't lie. And spin it all you want. It was bad defense. Bad coaching. And out of all that happened last year......this sort of thing is what worries me the most. Because that decision making leads to other problems. I always thought Strong was a technically sound guy. An X's and O's guy. And once again, in our last game of the year. I didn't see it. Same goes with random games throughout his 2 yr tenure so far. TCU, ISU, Arky, etc. You can blame players, lack of execution, out talented by the opponent, etc.....but this is the part that scares me the most and I simply see no excuse for it.


Its not Mack Browns fault. And it wasn't some brilliant strategy. And it makes no fundamental sense. And it can't keep happening. I hope they see that in their evaluation of last year.

 

[oldhorn2]

our LBs stacking up behind the line and missing tackles and not setting the edge

If this is going on it doesnt matter what kind of defense you are running.....It wont work! If you are missing tackles you might as well just line up and yell Stop That!....are you suggesting that had we not missed tackles we would not have let them run off those long drives?.....because I am.

 

[jsto60]

If this is going on it doesnt matter what kind of defense you are running.....It wont work! If you are missing tackles you might as well just line up and yell Stop That!....are you suggesting that had we not missed tackles we would not have let them run off those long drives?.....because I am.

Oh tackling could have been better. But bottling the play up in the backfield by better scheming for it and allowing for gang tackles, couldn't have hurt. I mean simply playing the run and putting more tacklers in the game is what most teams do when the other team is going run heavy. Simple math. If you put in another DT, the RB doesn't have a head of steam running in to our secondary. Or if you set the edge, he isn't out running full speed on the boundary and having a LB attempt to catch his shoe string from behind.



Bottom line on this is that a big part of what I liked about the Strong hire was his discipline, player development, and him being more of X's and O's coach. I like that we seemed to have fixed the mistakes in offensive hires by adding better scheme and hopefully a play caller with recent hires. I was pleasantly surprised at how well Charlie recruited and especially closed. Looks like it might happen again this year. I like his passion. And was simply perplexed at how we lacked passion on D in the BU game. And how we lacked a basic X's and O's adjustment to a really easy scheme to adjust to stop.


I still like Strong. And hope it gets fixed. But am surprised that certain posters can't admit the obvious, like this BU plan being a bad one, because they just don't want to say anything bad about Charlie.

Sticking your head in the sand or flat out lying to yourselves about how bad it was, isn't going to affect positive change. Don't take the negativity for me wanting a head on a spike. I just want it to be addressed and fixed. And I'm not going to blame Mack Brown for a game in 2015 where a defensive scheme was so difficult to watch because it was blatantly the wrong scheme for what the offense was doing.