William Gillean

Sacks have more winning effect for LSU than Tenn because those sacks are paired with a much more efficient LSU offense IMO.

gotta be hard on Gerry

TEX 24 MIZZ 13

Yep it's perplexing. My main contention is that our offense is a reflection almost completely of one person, Steve Sarkisian. When Sark is having a good day, we look amazing. I don't think anyone else's minds are really involved enough to balance out one person's ups and downs.

I think Jeff is right that Sark has FINALLY adapted the passing offense to what Arch and OL can execute - a short passing game with occasional deep shots. We probably beat OU with that formula on offense. Our defense is pretty elite so if the offense can just avoid turnovers and score 20-24 and go 6 of 14 on 3 and outs then we are probably playing net winning football. I'd like to see a similar effort to hone in on a basic running game. Losing Smothers (which is tough) might help us to focus and feed one back and tailor the run offense to his skill set. There is a positive way forward for this team this year. It's not what it should be and we really shouldn't have two losses to wounded Florida and OU but we do have the potential to make a run here.

By making the defense pay for run blitzing with RPOs where the LBs blitzed from. By making the defense pay for pass blitzing with RB draws and simple RB screens. They'll back off the OL pressure if they get burned. Adding more bodies to the OL hasn't helped. Need to let Arch audible and have the "option" to make the defense wrong.

I think Arch is a great kid and I sort of doubt the Mannings are dictating our offense. I think our offense is 1000% Sark's and Arch is not a great fit in that offense. So either change the play caller or the QB. Given the ceiling we have already hit in the running game predating Arch, I think I'd like to see a new play caller.

There are a 100 kids in the program. If the Mannings are truly dictating how the offense works, then I personally would move on. That is not good for the culture of the program.

If the Mannings want him to work on being a prototypical NFL dropback QB then that is fine. Just not on Texas's dime IMO. He flourishes whenever we call spread stuff. I don't see how it's good for UT for a player family to drive our style of offense. I think Arch is a great kid but if that is the path they want then probably go somewhere else.

Arch just does a lot better with more spread concepts in the passing game and a viable running game. I don't trust play caller Sark to deliver that consistently. If we roll with Arch, then we need a new OC/play caller with more spread game and proven running game credentials. Otherwise, Arch is better off (and we are too) going somewhere else.

So I have been and remain critical of Sark's playcalling on offense. However, I do think we should consider not framing everything through the offense. IMO this should clearly be a defense led team. And they performed pretty magnificently. Now if the offensive playcalling could continue to adjust to complementing the defense versus operating in an offensive vacuum then I think we might settle down and play some more consistent football. On Arch's second interception, I'm not sure you are helping the team out by calling a deep wheel route to your 3rd string(?) TE with a backup LT in the game. I agree Arch needs to eat that but why are we calling that play in that instance? I don't get it. I liked the commitment to the run game. I wonder why we got away from the short passing game. Those really complement our defense. There is a path to more consistency for this team but I think it means playing to win with defense and a bit of ball control. Your thoughts?

31-28 Texas hooks 'em.

I asked Steve Sarkisian how much autonomy he likes to give Arch Manning at the line of scrimmage. Sarkisian: “We're not a huge just put it all on the quarterback to audible [team].” “We do change protections, and I think [Manning] manages those things well. When we have run-run checks and things of that nature, run-pass checks. I think those things are pretty defined. He does a good job with that.” from yesterday's press conference. sounds like not much autonomy there. I've been wondering if helmet coms have led Sark to deemphasize audibles over his directions perhaps?

The running game has been in serious decline for years and that has nothing to do with Arch. Quinn was the 12th and last QB taken in that NFL draft after these other qbs Cam Ward (1) Jaxson Dart (25) Tyler Shough (40) Jalen Milroe (92) Dillon Gabriel (94) Shedeur Sanders (144) Kyle McCord (181) Will Howard (185) Riley Leonard (189) Graham Mertz (197) Kurtis Rourke (227) Not exactly a deep QB draft and that is also nothing to do with Arch. The interior OL has failed two years in a row and needed emergency roster surgery and that is nothing to do with Arch. I get Arch is playing bad but why do we think the passing game is bad BECAUSE of Arch when the rest of the offense is bad and nothing to do with him? Now could Lacey help? Maaaybe if he better fits the calls Sark always defaults to after the script. Play the best guy always. But hard to think Arch is the root cause.

I'd rather change the play caller. Milwee has called plays before. It's almost certainly the biggest problem.

if the running game is going to completely disappear after the "script" then maybe Lacey is the best fit. winning games the rest of the season is one decision and Lacey maaayyyybe helps with that which is fine. nobody is above the program. however, the offseason discussion is something else. two failed offensive offseasons have to be answered for I think. and again, nobody is above the program in the offseason either.

But his alma mater is Louisville and he spent years at UT, Lake Travis and UTSA.

Can you get a physical run game in just 1-2 game weeks when you couldn't do it all off season? I guess we find out. I think it even goes beyond physicality. I think we have a coaching bandwidth issue both with special teams and with head coach. In our program, both are only part time positions. That isn't how most programs do it.

One Big Thing I’ve learned tonight. I’m not voting for Amy Acton no matter what.

That call to run a backwards starting play on 4th and 1 at midfield is a “game management” decision. Sark is both head coach and play caller on offense. The head coach needs to say no to that type of call. Hard to say no to yourself.

Ryan Day was the same as Sark . . .until he gave up play calling. Sark has clearly elevated the program yet it also seems to have hit an offensive ceiling and we seem sort of paralyzed in some games. That fourth down call was a bad call and not just because it didn’t work. Sark needs to be the head coach evaluating the overall risk/reward not busy calling that play. This is a talented team. We are going to win a lot of games. But in the offseason, I would go get an OC Playcaller.

this from Cj is what I'm referencing, not carrying 105. It's an aggressive change from what's worked for them in the past. I'm not confident it's right or wrong. But if you want evidence of "all-in", making aggressive changes (like firing PK too) are strong evidence of it.

Seems like we are less focused on retention, we might intentionally carry fewer scholarship players to have more money to fund the 2-3 deep directly. Less money on developmental guys than in the past. Which probably means bigger portal needs going forward. It seems like a step towards the Indiana/Ole Miss philosophy or an NFL philosophy. Since most of us think we were just 3-4 players away last year (RB, 2OL, and maybe a true no.1 WR), this is a relatively aggressive strategy of change more than a tweak. The guys have been saying all-in and this change does seem aggressive not cautious. And it's on top of letting PK go. Can't say it's bad or good yet IMO.

this is a pretty good question.

Seems like this is a tough issue. You can get experience in the portal like Indiana and Tech OR maybe talent in the portal like Marad Watson or Zion BUT Getting experienced, talent from big boy programs seems very hit or miss. Whatever strategy we employ going forward probably can’t lean on picking off good Big10 or SEC starters. We will have to count on filling our needs with developmental guys like Zion or UTSA/G5/Big12 callups. So why let a Barnes leave then??? I don’t know.