Lam Dinh

We’re halfway through the college football season, and the biggest surprise in the SEC might just be the quarterbacks. Takeaways 1) Preseason All-SEC QBs have underwhelmed. The preseason All-SEC QBs were Garrett Nussmeier (1st Team), LaNorris Sellers (2nd Team), and DJ Lagway (3rd Team). None of them have hit double-digit passing touchdowns through the first half of the year. Their collective QB rating hovers around 135, which is below the SEC average for starting quarterbacks. 2) Jackson Arnold is still Jackson Arnold at Auburn (and OU still sucks). Jackson Arnold has been sacked 21 times—twice as many as Arch Manning (10 sacks), and that’s saying something given our own O-line’s struggles. The issue isn’t just protection; his slow processing has been obvious since his first snaps at OU. I never understood the hype. 3) Biggest Surprises: Ty Simpson and Joey Aguilar. Alabama’s Ty Simpson (16 TDs, 1 INT) and Tennessee’s Joey Aguilar (14 TDs, 5 INT) have been revelations. I didn’t have either name on my preseason Bingo card, but both deserve credit for steadying their programs after losing last year’s starters. Honorable Mention: Trinidad Chambliss (Ole Miss). Hook 'em!

@Gerry Hamilton - What's the football equivalent for what Shohei is doing? I might liken it to a QB throwing for 500 yards and also playing DE and getting 3 sacks/6 TFLs in a game? No offense to Travis Hunter, but WR/DB is no way near as hard as Starting Line pitcher and Top line hitter in baseball.

I completely agree on Jake Majors. He was a much bigger loss as a leader/communicator/blocker/player than most people gave him credit for.

If John Mills was our starting LG and Michael Fasusi was starting at RT, I think our line would then at least match the 3 NFL drafted linemen of 2024 (Banks, Williams, Conner). I'm not sure we have an NFL draft pick on the O-Line outside of Trevor Goosby (unless Nick Brooks develops much quicker).

I wrote this as a diehard Longhorn fan just trying to understand what’s really behind our offensive line struggles — not to pile on with lazy “we suck” takes. This isn’t about blame; it’s about figuring out why the line looks so different this year and what can actually be done to fix it. I’m not an expert — just a fan who wants to start an honest discussion so we can all better understand the root causes (and maybe sleep a little easier before the OU game). And if Big Tony Hills or @Jeff Howe are out there — the true Offensive Line experts over at OTF — I’d love to hear your takes. You guys know this stuff infinitely better than I do (hint hint: keep the great content coming 🙂). 1. Offensive Line Execution Last year, Texas’ offensive line was a strength — ranking roughly 28th nationally in pressure rate allowed (~25.5% of dropbacks). That group even earned Joe Moore Award semifinalist honors. This year? A complete collapse. Texas now ranks 128th in pressure rate allowed, giving up pressure on over 40% of dropbacks (CBS Sports / ESPN). That’s a 100-spot swing. We replaced four of five starters, and it shows: five false starts vs. Florida, blown pickups, and almost no consistent run push. Possible Fix: Left Guard (Stroh) and Center (Hutson) are the weakest links right now. I’d try either Hutson at LG (where he was serviceable in 2024) and Conner Robertson at C, or continue letting Nick Brooks develop at LG (with 2026 in mind) while giving Robertson a shot at Center (since he gets more push IMO). 2. Quarterback Time-to-Throw (and Scheme Design) In the Florida game, Arch averaged 3.5 seconds before releasing the ball — roughly a full second longer than Quinn Ewers’ 2.58s average last year (PFF / CBS). That extra second is everything. It’s the difference between a tackle maintaining leverage and giving up a sack. But it’s not purely on Arch. Sark has clearly emphasized more vertical routes and deeper progressions this year, which naturally extend the play clock. So it’s likely a mix: a scheme built for deep shots plus a quarterback hunting them too often. Possible Fix: Speed up the reads. Call more quick-game and one-read concepts. Mix in rollouts, including Arch's favorite roll right waggle play. Let Arch build rhythm before chasing chunk plays, just like Quinn did last year. 3. Recruiting & Depth Misses This problem started years ago. Texas has missed on nearly all the Top offensive lineman recruits after the 2022 class. Some examples: John Mills (now Washington’s starting left guard) and Michael Fasusi (now OU's starting LT). The result: thin depth, raw backups, and too much hope in youth. But it’s not just about who we missed — it’s about how we evaluate. As Gerry Hamilton pointed out on the defensive side of the ball, Byron Murphy was a 3-star, undersized recruit who became a first-round NFL pick. The current staff probably wouldn’t have recruited him based on measurables alone. That’s the lesson. Texas doesn’t need more so-called “Big Humans” — we need "TOUGH humans". Guys with a mean streak, an edge, a dog in them. Linemen who finish blocks, not just measure well in spring. Until Texas recruits to that identity relentlessly — we’ll keep ending up with size without bite. Possible Fix: There’s no real in-season fix for this one. Texas needs to hit the portal hard this winter for veteran linemen who can anchor the group right away, and rethink its high school recruiting philosophy — prioritizing tough humans, not just big humans. Hook 'em!

Biggest Disappointments on Offense and What to Change Now 1. The Offensive Line: We talked about the O-Line in pre-season as if we wouldn't miss a beat from having to replace 4 out of 5 starters from a Top 5 O-Line in the country. That was extremely naive in retrospect. This O-line could end up being very good in 2026 or 2027, but this 2025 iteration is simply not good enough. Change Needed: 1) Start Nick Brooks at LG going forward so we can at least prepare him for 2026. Stroh and Neto are already in year 4 and have had multiple chances, and they clearly do not meet the bar. 2) Start Conner Robertson or Daniel Cruz at Center. Cole Hutson is already in year 4 and he is who he is - a liability at Center and a serviceable backup at Guard. 2. The Offensive Skill Positions: We need more playmakers on the field, and should roll the dice with more talented young players rather than older more "reliable" players. Change Needed: 1) Stop playing Ryan Niblett (at WR, RB, or punt returner). He goes down too easily on first contact, has no wiggle/bounce, and has track speed but not football speed...enough already with his high snap counts. Replace him with Jonah Williams on PR, and give Daylon McCutcheon his snaps at WR. 2) James Simon and Jerrick Gibson need to play ahead of Christian Clark (and even take some load off of Tre Wisner). We need RBs who run violently, make one cut, and go upfield and lean on people for 3-4 yards. This is even more important because our OL doesn't maul people - so we need RBs who can do more of the mauling and give us an identity on the ground. Let's let the young bucks get more run.

I’ve been thinking the same thing. I think Robertson gets more push than Cole in short yardage, and I still think Stroh gets beat off the snap way too easily for guys who do not have elite BGO (i.e. Sam Houston, UTEP). I’m also wondering if maybe Conner Robertson and Neto at LG is an even better combo. I get that Hutson has been a vocal leader on the team, but he has usually graded out very poorly in PFF, even going back to when he started some games as a true freshman.

We’re gonna be fine but we also don’t have the red zone receivers with the same wiggle/separation as Bond and Golden last year. We got bigger bodies but they don’t get separation in close quarters.

Are Kobe Black and Graceson Littleton starting? They’ve been out there already.

Yes that is still in effect, but lots of smaller deals are likely to go through since most athletes will be getting less than 100k from NIL, which should not (in theory) raise as many flags.

It looks like CSS (governing body of NIL) just reversed course and will now allow NIL deals from booster-backed collectives — as long as they involve real activities like merch, autographs, or appearances. This fixes a major issue where valid deals were previously being blanket rejected (just because they were being facilitated by a collective), threatening the main way non-star athletes get paid. Now, schools like Texas with strong collectives can legally support more athletes, giving them a major NIL edge moving forward. Most athletes not named Arch Manning rely on collectives to source NIL opportunities. Only the superstars like Arch likely negotiate directly with big brands like Vuori, Red Bull, etc, and therefore don't necessarily need the help of a collective. This should open the door for the Texas One Fund (our collective) to flex its muscles to help us separate from the pack financially.

https://x.com/CFBKings/status/1945957863727268276

Sark not being phased by the Aggie War Hymn was most likely because he didn't even recognize what the Aggie War Hym was. Sark has spent most of his life in California and out of Texas, and that war hymn is not recognized by anyone outside of the state of Texas. Do I know the Michigan fight song? Yes (thank you EA sports). Do I know the Ohio State song, unfortunately that has been imprinted in my head after years of ESPN. The Oklahoma song, again, unfortunately yes its' beat is undeniable. The "Aggie War Hym"? I couldn't pick it out of a lineup, and obviously neither could Sark 🙂

Haha, I do have kids and now you got me thinking about how I can better allow my hate to grow and develop so that hate is not a zero sum game. This is why OTF is the greatest community 🙂

It doesn’t take artificial intelligence to come to the conclusion that A&M is not a real rival in anyone’s head other than theirs, haha.

I love the imagery of this response, haha. It’s true when one side of the “rivalry” cares so much more than the other, it feels almost like having an unwanted stalker. I hope we develop a new rivalry with Georgia or Alabama over the next decade because we are constantly competing for national championships, not for who gets more top in state recruits.

I appreciate the history of the two schools and it makes sense that A&M was more a threat in the 90s. My point is just that if we are truly one of the blue bloods of college football, we can’t let a program whose biggest accomplishment came prior to World War 2 to still suck this much oxygen out of the room when discussing Texas football. We should be talking way more about Georgia and Alabama, then care about what goes on in college station.

Yes, it seems like a lot of the hatred/rivalry is passed on through family over the generations, which I can appreciate. My hatred has always burned hotter for OU because they actually won Big 12 titles, competed in the CFP, and brought home Heismans. However, since joining the SEC last year I have felt my hatred grow for A&M (and my OU hate subside slightly) because we now have to share the same room, even though A&M has still achieved nothing to actually earn my hate, since going 8-4 and not winning conference champions is something that many lesser programs accomplish regularly. In a weird way, I feel almost sorry to OU that I have had to split my overall hate tank with A&M now, when OU has done so much more to deserve it, LOL. Maybe as a thought experiment, Is there a more lopsided "rivalry" that Texas vs. A&M? I can't think of one.

Hey Longhorn family, UT alum here (Class of 2011), born and raised in California, and I’ve got an honest question: Why is Texas A&M considered one of our main rivals? I’m not trying to start a fight—genuinely asking. Because when I look at what usually fuels a real rivalry, it comes down to some combination of envy driven by: Football success Academic standing Location appeal A true rivalry needs some give-and-take—each school should be able to claim superiority in at least one area. When one school checks every box, it starts to feel less like a rivalry and more like a one-sided plea for attention. Let’s look at a few examples: Michigan vs. Ohio State – OSU has had the edge in the last 20 years in football, but Michigan still has national titles, tradition, and academic clout. They each count national titles and are the flagship public universities for their respective states. USC vs. UCLA – USC dominates football, but UCLA wins on academics and location (Westwood vs. South Central). This causes Trojan fans to want to desperately win the crosstown rivalry each year because it still reminds them of the areas where they are still inferior. Army vs. Navy – Equal footing in tradition and national respect. Now compare that to Texas vs. A&M… and I’m having a hard time seeing it. 1. Football success? By any objective football metric, Texas is clearly superior. I understand the OU rivalry—they’ve got 7 AP titles, more conference wins, and are a top-5 all-time program. But what does A&M have that elevates them above the Baylors and TCUs of the world? Metric Texas Texas A&M AP National Championships 3 (1963, 1969, 2005) 1 (1939 — yes, really) Total Wins (All-Time) 968+ 770+ All-Time Win % ~.705 ~.602 Conference Titles 32 18 2. Academics? Texas is a Public Ivy with top-ranked programs across the board. A&M has its strengths, but unless you're majoring in animal science or cadet marching, it’s not a comparison. 3. Location? Come on. Austin vs. College Station? One is a major cultural and tech hub. The other... has a Tractor Supply and a Whataburger. As someone who didn’t grow up in Texas, I can tell you: Nobody outside the state even knows what state A&M is in unless you spell out “Texas A&M.” It’s not hate—it’s just obscurity. So I ask sincerely: What exactly does A&M bring to the rivalry equation besides proximity and resentment? Is it because RC Slocum had a good decade in the '90s? Because 8–4 is now a celebrated tradition? Because someone has to be UT’s in-state foil? I don’t see A&M as a true rival. I see them like Baylor, TCU, or SMU—regional programs with occasional flashes but no sustained national presence. Heck, at least those three other programs have at least made a CFP. A&M is still waiting on that despite a 10 year lead in the biggest conference in America. I’m open to being educated here. So please, explain it to this naive California Longhorn. Hook ’em 🤘

Does having the #1 2025 recruiting class (and great young depth from the 2024 class) actually hinder our ability to recruit a Top class in 2026? I think the answer could be yes with regards to two specific positions where the fanbase is most nervous about so far in recruiting: Offensive Tackle and Tight End. 1) Offensive Tackle - OTF is already claiming that true Freshman Nick Brooks is a future NFL 1st rounder at offensive tackle. If he locks up the left tackle position for the 2-3 years post Trevor Goosby in 2025, would that not cause other top tackle recruits to second guess if they will get a legit shot to start at LT in the future? Sam Roseborough chose A&M, Malakai Lee chose Michigan, Turntine and Ojo are not yet sealed and delivered despite us being heavy favorites for a while. I'm sure these guys pay attention to the depth chart of Texas more than us fans since their future earnings depends on it. Plus, offensive tackles don't rotate so if one guy has a position locked up for years, there might not be much upside to come in behind him. 2) Tight End - Who has received more mentions by OTF on the offensive side of the ball (despite not being enrolled in Spring ball) than Nick Townsend ? Combine that with Spring Ball surprise newcomer Emaree Winston, not to mention a RS Freshman in Jordan Washington who projects as a multi-year starter, and the room already looks loaded with youth ready to start for the next few seasons. I'm not saying Mark Bowman was scared of competition, but I have to think when your projected starters are either Freshman or RS Freshman, that is a more difficult situation to recruit into than where the starters are already upper classmen.

Per Bobby's comments on Coffee and Football today, I also believe Texas is under-ranked in transfer portal rankings but I believe it is due to 3 factors: 1) Transfer Portal class sizes vary tremendously. Texas' transfer class was ranked #17 by On3. Of the teams ranked above them, many schools had transfer class sizes much larger than Texas - Kentucky (26 players), UCLA (30 players), North Carolina (42 players)...Texas only had 11 players in its transfer class and the ranking services dinged them for this. 2) Recruiting Services give more weight to High School rankings than actual on field College production. Case in point: Look at Micah Hudson from Texas Tech (5-star prospect who had 8 catches on the season and couldn't win a starting job at Tech) vs. Emmitt Mosely V (3-star prospect who had 48 catches as a true Freshman at Stanford). Who was ranked as a higher transfer prospect? Micah Hudson. Recruiting services need their transfer rankings to weigh actual college production more than what somebody did in 5A High School football at Lake Belton. Seems obvious but these recruiting service guys watch more HS football than actual College football tape (except for the estimable Gerry Hamilton). 3) Transfer Recruiting Rankings don't weigh whether actual Team Needs were met. If you're a top program like Texas or Ohio State, you're not going to take as many players from the Portal, and that's a GOOD thing. What you really need is to fill the actual needs you have, not to try to accumulate a bunch of 4 stars just to fill up a class. Texas did an incredible job of filling the key positions of need at WR, TE, D-line+++, and specialists (Kicker + Punter). This is not reflected in their grade. Hook em'!

This would have been the 12-team playoff for this past 2024 season if this seeding had been used. TLDR: Texas would have had a 1st round bye, but would likely have played Ohio State in the Quarterfinals in the Fiesta Bowl (instead of the semi-finals this year in Peach Bowl). First Round: #12 Clemson at #5 Notre Dame #11 Arizona State at #6 Ohio State #10 SMU at #7 Tennessee #9 Boise State at #8 Indiana Quarterfinals (New Year's Six Bowls - teams with byes await winners): Winner of #9 Boise State / #8 Indiana vs. #1 Oregon (e.g., at Rose Bowl) Winner of #10 SMU / #7 Tennessee vs. #2 Georgia (e.g., at Sugar Bowl) Winner of #11 Arizona State / #6 Ohio State vs. #3 Texas (e.g., at Fiesta Bowl) Winner of #12 Clemson / #5 Notre Dame vs. #4 Penn State (e.g., at Peach Bowl)

Mistakes Declaring for 2025 1. Cam Williams - If he comes back he is likely an All SEC 1st or 2nd team Right Tackle (playing along DJ Campbell for the second straight year). He is then a 1st or 2nd round pick in 2026 instead of a 6th round pick in 2025. 2. Quinn Ewers - In retrospect, Quinn would have been a Top 100 pick if he would have left last year in 2024. His deficiencies showed more clearly with a full year of football in the SEC with elite NFL like competition. If he transferred to another school in 2025 instead of declaring for the draft, he would have also made ~$5M in NIL, but it wouldn't have helped his draft stock as he likely would be drafted in a similar late round position in 2026. Remember, this 2025 Draft was a weak QB class and Quinn still only got drafted in the 7th round. The 2026 QB crop is much stronger so his draft position would not likely have improved. 3. Jayden Blue - He basically maximized his talent but his only mistake was declaring during a historically strong 2025 RB Class (Jeanty, Hampton, Judkins, on and on). If he stayed 1 more year and enters the 2026 draft (where the RB class overall is weaker), he likely gets drafted in the 2nd or 3rd round. Maybe not a huge change in the grand scheme of things because he gets to stay in the state of Texas and play for the Cowboys, but he was a victim of an extraordinarily strong 2025 RB draft class.

# of NFL Draft Picks by School (last 10 years, 2014-2023) 1. Alabama (90) 2. Ohio St. (78) 3. LSU (73) 4. Georgia (68) 5. Clemson (55) 6. Michigan (54) 7. Oklahoma (51) 8. Penn St. (49) 9. Notre Dame (48) 10. Auburn/UCLA (42) Texas: 26 (including 2 seasons with 0 players drafted). Takeaway: This 2024 draft of 11 players surpassed the previous high of 8 players (only counting drafts since 1997 when the NFL draft changed to 7 rounds). If we are to be a Top 5 national program consistently, we should expect to average ~7 players drafted per year over a sustained period of time.

The best thing that comes from this news is that the current mid-December signing window moves to the first week of December, clearly separating the Transfer Window with the HS Recruiting Period. This will allow coaching staffs to evaluate Transfer Window needs after setting the roster with "early" HS additions. This should lead to a cleaner evaluation process (i.e. HS kids with offers are less likely to get them pulled because of transfer additions, as coaches can more accurately forecast scholarship availability). I'm a little less clear about what adding a June signing window actually does from a final roster perspective. In this past recruiting cycle, 85% of players signed in the December period (vs. 15% in February period), so the de-facto national signing day has already become December. With these new rules, my guess is that the ~85% of kids that sign in December will now be spread across both the June and December signing periods. This benefits coaches not having to worry about some kids flip flopping in-season. However, as Gerry mentioned today on OTF, most Texas coaches don't recruit during the season anyways, so I'm not sure if this actually saves them any time - but I get the mental relief of knowing a kid is officially signed. In the end, I can see this change benefiting college programs that end up underachieving in season, because the players who signed in June would technically still be committed to that school (assuming there is an ironclad structure to prevent easy de-commitments). However, that is likely a one-time benefit since if you are constantly underachieving, you aren't going to be getting top recruits. For a program that is on the rise like Texas, I don't currently expect the new structure to lead to a materially better roster or recruiting advantage for Texas.