Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
3 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

It was so funny watching some analysis on OU that Klatt did. One thing he noted was "OU gets their defensive signals in super late.... Venables has a history of doing this.... make of that what you will.... I'm just saying... but teams get them very discombobulated when they run tempo."  Those fuck knobs will always be cheating in some form or fashion, it is in their #OUDNA.  

"

Sooners is the name given to settlers who entered the Unassigned Lands illegally in what is now the state of Oklahoma before the official start of the Land Rush of 1889. The Unassigned Lands were a part of Indian Territory that, after a lobbying campaign, were to be opened to American settlement in 1889. President Benjamin Harrison officially proclaimed the Unassigned Lands open to settlement on April 22, 1889. As people lined up around the borders of the Oklahoma District, they waited for the official opening. It was not until noon that it officially was opened to settlement. The name derived from the "sooner clause" of Proclamation 288 — Opening to Settlement Certain Lands in the Indian Territory, which stated that anyone who entered and occupied the land prior to the opening time would be denied the right to claim land.[1]

The designation "Sooner" had a very negative connotation.[2] While "Boomers" were merely expressing "pioneer spirit" in their desire to take and settle former Indian territory, Sooners were essentially stealing from other white settlers by cheating on the claim requirements to get better land.

  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

I feel the Texas offense is missing a component. They get shut down against teams with strong DLs. So it was interesting to hear Joel Klatt talking about the Tech offense.

He said he’s in love with what they are doing, that they’ve taken the Leach offense, combined it with the Gus Malzahn running game and the Briles deep game to create an offense that can respond to whatever a defense tries to stop.

I don’t know specifically what that means, but it sounds intriguing and now I want to watch Tech play to see what they are doing. They also won against Utah with a true freshman backup QB who supposedly played great. So it has to be an offense that isn’t too difficult to learn. 

That freshman backup is a dude. He is the Hutto kid who led the state of Texas in passing last year with almost 4,000 yards. I watched him in that game and he is going to be a problem for teams when he grows up. He is freaky accurate with a quick release and is good at reading defenses. He also has at least some functional mobility, but I wouldn't call him a dual threat.   

Posted

i won't pretend to be an expert but this is the internet so fuck it , my unsolicited opinions are 

1. when a WR is going long and the ball is short its a timing issue between the QB and WR 
2. when a WR is going long and the ball goes through the back of the end zone its a QB accuracy issue 
3. when its a short throw and the QB hits someones feet its a QB accuracy issue
4. when its a short throw and it goes behind the WR its a timing issue between the qb and the wr 
5. when it goes behind the wr near out of bands its probably a QB accuracy issue 

now a scheme could make it more difficult to line all these things up, but i don't think thats the problem we've been seeing this year so far . Receivers are open the ball just doesn't consistently get to the right WR at the right time, place, or at all . or someone drops it , which is probably the WR unless they are thrown a missile or jump ball 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
7 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

I cannot argue that it simply is luck based on the sample size of 4 games. Worthy/Ewers had an issue I believe his second year. That was fixed the following year. Just might have been one of those anomalies. Like when a pitcher puts up an uncharacteristically high ERA and the answer is simply BABIP was high (ie the hits just found the gaps). I am just wondering why throwing to one of the most talented guys on the roster is one of the least efficient plays Texas is running and hoping it gets fixed during the bye week. 

Don't get too bogged down in lagging indicators, though. Look at the trend. 

OSU - 2 catches on 8 targets (2/8 - 25%) for 35 yards and 0 TDs.

SJSU - 4 catches on 8 targets (4/8 - 50%) for 30 yards and 0 TDs.

UTEP - 3 catches on 6 targets (3/6 - 50%) for 32 yards and 1 TD. 

SHSU - 4 catches on 6 targets (4/6 - 66%) for 93 yards and 2 TDs. 

He's steadily improving in terms of receptions. Even though he stalled a bit against UTEP, the SHSU game is a positive sign and suggests he may be over the hump. A single line of statistics don't tell the story, you have to look at the trend. 

And I will readily admit that the "trend" is hardly definitive, because there is a small sample size. As I said above, my point is not that there is no problem whatsoever, just that we can't definitely say there is a problem because of the small sample size. And if there was a problem, hopefully it's fixed. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, BigHornedLurker said:

i won't pretend to be an expert but this is the internet so fuck it , my unsolicited opinions are 

1. when a WR is going long and the ball is short its a timing issue between the QB and WR 
2. when a WR is going long and the ball goes through the back of the end zone its a QB accuracy issue 
3. when its a short throw and the QB hits someones feet its a QB accuracy issue
4. when its a short throw and it goes behind the WR its a timing issue between the qb and the wr 
5. when it goes behind the wr near out of bands its probably a QB accuracy issue 

now a scheme could make it more difficult to line all these things up, but i don't think thats the problem we've been seeing this year so far . Receivers are open the ball just doesn't consistently get to the right WR at the right time, place, or at all . or someone drops it , which is probably the WR unless they are thrown a missile or jump ball 

You could kind of see Arch work his way out of the funk in the early part of that game last week. His first couple of completions were still low or off target and his receivers had to go to the ground to catch or pick it up off their shoelaces. Once they made a couple of plays for him, he suddenly started dropping dimes all over the field. Hopefully he doesn't have to work into that every week, but there was a noticeable difference as the game went on.  

Edited by Vertigo
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
3 minutes ago, Park Gothic said:

Don't get too bogged down in lagging indicators, though. Look at the trend. 

OSU - 2 catches on 8 targets (2/8 - 25%) for 35 yards and 0 TDs.

SJSU - 4 catches on 8 targets (4/8 - 50%) for 30 yards and 0 TDs.

UTEP - 3 catches on 6 targets (3/6 - 50%) for 32 yards and 1 TD. 

SHSU - 4 catches on 6 targets (4/6 - 66%) for 93 yards and 2 TDs. 

He's steadily improving in terms of receptions. Even though he stalled a bit against UTEP, the SHSU game is a positive sign and suggests he may be over the hump. A single line of statistics don't tell the story, you have to look at the trend. 

And I will readily admit that the "trend" is hardly definitive, because there is a small sample size. As I said above, my point is not that there is no problem whatsoever, just that we can't definitely say there is a problem because of the small sample size. And if there was a problem, hopefully it's fixed. 

We are not far apart. I just noticed the numbers and saw Manning to Wingo results as an anomaly and said I hope this gets fixed during the bye week, because it would dramatically help the offense. I wish I knew the answer. I certainly dont have the time to look into it. Perhaps @JBJ is on to something with the idea that Wingo is running more option routes

Posted
27 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

You could kind of see Arch work his way out of the funk in the early part of that game last week. His first couple of completions were still low or off target and his receivers had to go to the ground to catch or pick it up off their shoelaces. Once they made a couple of plays for him, he suddenly started dropping dimes all over the field. Hopefully he doesn't have to work into that every week, but there was a noticeable difference as the game went on.  

When I was growing up, we had this tiny, angry, cajun elf who lived across the street from us named Gayle. He was always bickering about our football getting onto his grass and threatening to turn us into boudin or gumbo or some shit in his dimwitted accent. We created a play where I'd throw the ball at a WR's feet and called it the Elf Gayle as an actual planned throw and route to get around a bigger defender. Maybe Manning has just been running the Elf Gayle this whole time and no one else understood the route call?

  • Haha 4
Posted
37 minutes ago, BigHornedLurker said:

i won't pretend to be an expert but this is the internet so fuck it , my unsolicited opinions are 

1. when a WR is going long and the ball is short its a timing issue between the QB and WR 
2. when a WR is going long and the ball goes through the back of the end zone its a QB accuracy issue 
3. when its a short throw and the QB hits someones feet its a QB accuracy issue
4. when its a short throw and it goes behind the WR its a timing issue between the qb and the wr 
5. when it goes behind the wr near out of bands its probably a QB accuracy issue 

now a scheme could make it more difficult to line all these things up, but i don't think thats the problem we've been seeing this year so far . Receivers are open the ball just doesn't consistently get to the right WR at the right time, place, or at all . or someone drops it , which is probably the WR unless they are thrown a missile or jump ball 

It can be a lot of things. Anything from the QB just missed, QB expected the WR to break at 10 and come back to 9 on his out and the WR broke at 10 and ended up at 13, to QB anticipated a different adjustment than the WR. 

Posted
10 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

When I was growing up, we had this tiny, angry, cajun elf who lived across the street from us named Gayle. He was always bickering about our football getting onto his grass and threatening to turn us into boudin or gumbo or some shit in his dimwitted accent. We created a play where I'd throw the ball at a WR's feet and called it the Elf Gayle as an actual planned throw and route to get around a bigger defender. Maybe Manning has just been running the Elf Gayle this whole time and no one else understood the route call?

Bored Disinterest GIF

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Posted

Anyone want to take a stab at whose Year 1 starting QB statline is below? This fucking scrub. Notice any parallels to Manning at all? Also, this guy was also throwing to WRs who apparently sucked as well. No cheating.

***

Game H/A Comp Att Comp % Yards TD INT YPA Adj/Y/A Rating Rushes Yards YPC TD
1 Neutral (top 10 opp) 11 24 45.8 140 0 0 5.8 5.83 94.8 4 14 3.5 0
2 FCS 10 20 50 151 2 0 7.6 9.55 146.4 8 20 2.5 1
3 @ 15 34 44.1 249 1 0 7.3 7.91 115.3 10 22 2.2 0
4   16 28 57.1 191 0 0 6.8 6.82 114.4 4 2 0.5 0
5 Conf Bottom Feeder 18 25 72 292 3 0 11.7 14.08 209.7 9 96 10.7 1
6 @ 19 34 55.9 192 0 2 5.6 3 91.6 10 22 2.2 0
7   15 30 50 200 0 0 6.7 6.67 106 13 66 5.1 2
8   16 28 57.1 129 0 1 4.6 3 88.7 9 8 0.9 0
9   18 35 51.4 184 0 1 5.3 3.97 89.9 12 -7 -0.6 0
10 @ 15 21 71.4 195 1 0 9.3 10.24 165.1 7 15 2.1 0
11 G6 Cellar Dweller 20 28 71.4 307 2 0 11 12.39 187.1 4 17 4.3 0
12 @ 25 38 65.8 270 3 0 7.1 8.68 151.5 29 100 3.4 3
13 N 21 34 61.8 394 4 1 11.6 12.62 192 9 24 2.7 0
Totals   219 379 57.78% 2894 16 5 7.64 7.89 133.2 128 399 3.12 7
Posted
4 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

Anyone want to take a stab at whose Year 1 starting QB statline is below? This fucking scrub. Notice any parallels to Manning at all? Also, this guy was also throwing to WRs who apparently sucked as well. No cheating.

***

Game H/A Comp Att Comp % Yards TD INT YPA Adj/Y/A Rating Rushes Yards YPC TD
1 Neutral (top 10 opp) 11 24 45.8 140 0 0 5.8 5.83 94.8 4 14 3.5 0
2 FCS 10 20 50 151 2 0 7.6 9.55 146.4 8 20 2.5 1
3 @ 15 34 44.1 249 1 0 7.3 7.91 115.3 10 22 2.2 0
4   16 28 57.1 191 0 0 6.8 6.82 114.4 4 2 0.5 0
5 Conf Bottom Feeder 18 25 72 292 3 0 11.7 14.08 209.7 9 96 10.7 1
6 @ 19 34 55.9 192 0 2 5.6 3 91.6 10 22 2.2 0
7   15 30 50 200 0 0 6.7 6.67 106 13 66 5.1 2
8   16 28 57.1 129 0 1 4.6 3 88.7 9 8 0.9 0
9   18 35 51.4 184 0 1 5.3 3.97 89.9 12 -7 -0.6 0
10 @ 15 21 71.4 195 1 0 9.3 10.24 165.1 7 15 2.1 0
11 G6 Cellar Dweller 20 28 71.4 307 2 0 11 12.39 187.1 4 17 4.3 0
12 @ 25 38 65.8 270 3 0 7.1 8.68 151.5 29 100 3.4 3
13 N 21 34 61.8 394 4 1 11.6 12.62 192 9 24 2.7 0
Totals   219 379 57.78% 2894 16 5 7.64 7.89 133.2 128 399 3.12 7

That's a young Joey Freshwater right there. Really put things together the next season to hold off Ron Mexico from taking the starting job.

Posted
2 minutes ago, gernblansten said:

That's a young Joey Freshwater right there. Really put things together the next season to hold off Ron Mexico from taking the starting job.

Joe Burrow

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, closetojumping said:

I think you're completely missing the point of what Codaxx is trying to tell the board. What he's saying is that this is all settled science. Wingo and Manning cannot functionally coexist in the same offense and that Wingo needs to be benched and later cut. There are no small sample sizes here and there can be no consideration for bouts of human frailty or a new starter's learning curve. This is over, and it is time to move on.

OK that's nice and all but when is fucking Sark going to hire a gotdam OC!

Posted
10 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

Anyone want to take a stab at whose Year 1 starting QB statline is below? This fucking scrub. Notice any parallels to Manning at all? Also, this guy was also throwing to WRs who apparently sucked as well. No cheating.

***

Game H/A Comp Att Comp % Yards TD INT YPA Adj/Y/A Rating Rushes Yards YPC TD
1 Neutral (top 10 opp) 11 24 45.8 140 0 0 5.8 5.83 94.8 4 14 3.5 0
2 FCS 10 20 50 151 2 0 7.6 9.55 146.4 8 20 2.5 1
3 @ 15 34 44.1 249 1 0 7.3 7.91 115.3 10 22 2.2 0
4   16 28 57.1 191 0 0 6.8 6.82 114.4 4 2 0.5 0
5 Conf Bottom Feeder 18 25 72 292 3 0 11.7 14.08 209.7 9 96 10.7 1
6 @ 19 34 55.9 192 0 2 5.6 3 91.6 10 22 2.2 0
7   15 30 50 200 0 0 6.7 6.67 106 13 66 5.1 2
8   16 28 57.1 129 0 1 4.6 3 88.7 9 8 0.9 0
9   18 35 51.4 184 0 1 5.3 3.97 89.9 12 -7 -0.6 0
10 @ 15 21 71.4 195 1 0 9.3 10.24 165.1 7 15 2.1 0
11 G6 Cellar Dweller 20 28 71.4 307 2 0 11 12.39 187.1 4 17 4.3 0
12 @ 25 38 65.8 270 3 0 7.1 8.68 151.5 29 100 3.4 3
13 N 21 34 61.8 394 4 1 11.6 12.62 192 9 24 2.7 0
Totals   219 379 57.78% 2894 16 5 7.64 7.89 133.2 128 399 3.12 7

Well, I don't want Manning to transfer to another school and have more success there lol.

  • Haha 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

Well, I don't want Manning to transfer to another school and have more success there lol.

Those are from his first year starting at LSU.

Posted
4 minutes ago, MuellerHorn said:

Can't be. He didn't play in a 13th/bowl game his sophomore year.

Pointing Up Morgan Freeman GIF by MOODMAN

C'mon, man. Consider the source. You've been trolled. 

It was a really good response by HJ, too, not that that's surprising.

Posted
14 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

Anyone want to take a stab at whose Year 1 starting QB statline is below? This fucking scrub. Notice any parallels to Manning at all? Also, this guy was also throwing to WRs who apparently sucked as well. No cheating.

***

Game H/A Comp Att Comp % Yards TD INT YPA Adj/Y/A Rating Rushes Yards YPC TD
1 Neutral (top 10 opp) 11 24 45.8 140 0 0 5.8 5.83 94.8 4 14 3.5 0
2 FCS 10 20 50 151 2 0 7.6 9.55 146.4 8 20 2.5 1
3 @ 15 34 44.1 249 1 0 7.3 7.91 115.3 10 22 2.2 0
4   16 28 57.1 191 0 0 6.8 6.82 114.4 4 2 0.5 0
5 Conf Bottom Feeder 18 25 72 292 3 0 11.7 14.08 209.7 9 96 10.7 1
6 @ 19 34 55.9 192 0 2 5.6 3 91.6 10 22 2.2 0
7   15 30 50 200 0 0 6.7 6.67 106 13 66 5.1 2
8   16 28 57.1 129 0 1 4.6 3 88.7 9 8 0.9 0
9   18 35 51.4 184 0 1 5.3 3.97 89.9 12 -7 -0.6 0
10 @ 15 21 71.4 195 1 0 9.3 10.24 165.1 7 15 2.1 0
11 G6 Cellar Dweller 20 28 71.4 307 2 0 11 12.39 187.1 4 17 4.3 0
12 @ 25 38 65.8 270 3 0 7.1 8.68 151.5 29 100 3.4 3
13 N 21 34 61.8 394 4 1 11.6 12.62 192 9 24 2.7 0
Totals   219 379 57.78% 2894 16 5 7.64 7.89 133.2 128 399 3.12 7

OIP.yi0WL4KNmccw9Tc1j1M-JAHaHV?pid=Api&f

  • Haha 5
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

C'mon, man. Consider the source. You've been trolled. 

It was a really good response by HJ, too, not that that's surprising.

Eh, in a rush between calls. Just responding to what I saw 🤷‍♂️

Edited by MuellerHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

Anyone want to take a stab at whose Year 1 starting QB statline is below? This fucking scrub. Notice any parallels to Manning at all? Also, this guy was also throwing to WRs who apparently sucked as well. No cheating.

***

Game H/A Comp Att Comp % Yards TD INT YPA Adj/Y/A Rating Rushes Yards YPC TD
1 Neutral (top 10 opp) 11 24 45.8 140 0 0 5.8 5.83 94.8 4 14 3.5 0
2 FCS 10 20 50 151 2 0 7.6 9.55 146.4 8 20 2.5 1
3 @ 15 34 44.1 249 1 0 7.3 7.91 115.3 10 22 2.2 0
4   16 28 57.1 191 0 0 6.8 6.82 114.4 4 2 0.5 0
5 Conf Bottom Feeder 18 25 72 292 3 0 11.7 14.08 209.7 9 96 10.7 1
6 @ 19 34 55.9 192 0 2 5.6 3 91.6 10 22 2.2 0
7   15 30 50 200 0 0 6.7 6.67 106 13 66 5.1 2
8   16 28 57.1 129 0 1 4.6 3 88.7 9 8 0.9 0
9   18 35 51.4 184 0 1 5.3 3.97 89.9 12 -7 -0.6 0
10 @ 15 21 71.4 195 1 0 9.3 10.24 165.1 7 15 2.1 0
11 G6 Cellar Dweller 20 28 71.4 307 2 0 11 12.39 187.1 4 17 4.3 0
12 @ 25 38 65.8 270 3 0 7.1 8.68 151.5 29 100 3.4 3
13 N 21 34 61.8 394 4 1 11.6 12.62 192 9 24 2.7 0
Totals   219 379 57.78% 2894 16 5 7.64 7.89 133.2 128 399 3.12 7

Shane Falco?

Posted
1 minute ago, Codaxx said:

Joe Burrow

This is correct. He was written off nationally as a loser who couldn't hit the broadside of a barn. That was being said on forums and with the talking heads all the way through the 29-0 debacle at home with Alabama in Game 9.

Some guys take a little for the game to slow down, no matter how talented. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
3 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

This is correct. He was written off nationally as a loser who couldn't hit the broadside of a barn. That was being said on forums and with the talking heads all the way through the 29-0 debacle at home with Alabama in Game 9.

Some guys take a little for the game to slow down, no matter how talented. 

Nobody argues that (well maybe a few here). I think people giving up on Arch are the minority. The counter point is that the majority of QBs that struggle in year 1 that end up as insurance salesmen. This is what makes CFB fun and infuriating at the same time. 

Posted
6 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

This is correct. He was written off nationally as a loser who couldn't hit the broadside of a barn. That was being said on forums and with the talking heads all the way through the 29-0 debacle at home with Alabama in Game 9.

Some guys take a little for the game to slow down, no matter how talented. 

Sark = Ensminger, it all makes sense now.

Posted
1 minute ago, Codaxx said:

Nobody argues that (well maybe a few here). I think people giving up on Arch are the minority. The counter point is that the majority of QBs that struggle in year 1 that end up as insurance salesmen. This is what makes CFB fun and infuriating at the same time. 

Yeah. That's basically all CFB players at all positions in year 1. They almost all struggle.

It's especially true at QB. How many true freshmen heisman winners are there? 0

RSFR? 2.

Come on.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
37 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

Anyone want to take a stab at whose Year 1 starting QB statline is below? This fucking scrub. Notice any parallels to Manning at all? Also, this guy was also throwing to WRs who apparently sucked as well. No cheating.

***

Game H/A Comp Att Comp % Yards TD INT YPA Adj/Y/A Rating Rushes Yards YPC TD
1 Neutral (top 10 opp) 11 24 45.8 140 0 0 5.8 5.83 94.8 4 14 3.5 0
2 FCS 10 20 50 151 2 0 7.6 9.55 146.4 8 20 2.5 1
3 @ 15 34 44.1 249 1 0 7.3 7.91 115.3 10 22 2.2 0
4   16 28 57.1 191 0 0 6.8 6.82 114.4 4 2 0.5 0
5 Conf Bottom Feeder 18 25 72 292 3 0 11.7 14.08 209.7 9 96 10.7 1
6 @ 19 34 55.9 192 0 2 5.6 3 91.6 10 22 2.2 0
7   15 30 50 200 0 0 6.7 6.67 106 13 66 5.1 2
8   16 28 57.1 129 0 1 4.6 3 88.7 9 8 0.9 0
9   18 35 51.4 184 0 1 5.3 3.97 89.9 12 -7 -0.6 0
10 @ 15 21 71.4 195 1 0 9.3 10.24 165.1 7 15 2.1 0
11 G6 Cellar Dweller 20 28 71.4 307 2 0 11 12.39 187.1 4 17 4.3 0
12 @ 25 38 65.8 270 3 0 7.1 8.68 151.5 29 100 3.4 3
13 N 21 34 61.8 394 4 1 11.6 12.62 192 9 24 2.7 0
Totals   219 379 57.78% 2894 16 5 7.64 7.89 133.2 128 399 3.12 7

Joe Burrow from 2018. What do I win? 

Posted

It’s weird how this thread went down the path of “Arch is the problem”, rather than discussing the Sark scheme vs what Tech is supposedly doing. My original comment wasn’t specific to this year. 

So, in the interest of getting back to the original comment by Klatt, here is what a combined Leach, Malzahn and Briles offense looks like compared to the Sark Pro/West Coast scheme, which has some complexity,according to an LLM analysis:
 

Leach (Air Raid core)

  • Philosophy: Simplicity, small playbook, repetition, high completion %.
  • Signature Elements: Mesh, Four Verts, Y-Cross, shallow crosses, spacing concepts.
  • QB Role: Quick decision-maker, distribute ball, throw accurately.

Malzahn (Power Spread tempo)

  • Philosophy: Play fast, wear out defenses, force misalignments.
  • Signature Elements: Inside zone, power, buck sweep, QB run game, jet sweeps, RPOs.
  • QB Role: Must be a run threat, making zone-read and RPO decisions.

Briles (Baylor wide-split vertical spread)

  • Philosophy: Maximize horizontal space to open vertical shots.
  • Signature Elements: Ultra-wide WR splits, deep choice routes, glance/slant RPOs, power run paired with vertical bombs.
  • QB Role: One- or two-read throws — if safety creeps, bomb it deep.

A Hybrid “Leach + Malzahn + Briles Offense”

It would look something like this:

  1. Base Identity:
    • Air Raid passing core (simplicity, repetition, QB-friendly concepts).
    • Run game from Malzahn (power spread, tempo, QB run threat, jet sweeps).
    • Formational stress from Briles (extreme splits to force defenses to declare coverage and create space).
  2. Tempo & Install:
    • Playbook size: Small (like Leach/Briles), maybe 20–25 core concepts.
    • Play speed: Malzahn-style hurry-up, one-word calls.
    • Execution: Drill same plays endlessly until automatic.
  3. How it Attacks Defenses:
    • Horizontal stretch: Briles’s extreme WR spacing widens the field.
    • Vertical stretch: Air Raid Four Verts + Briles deep shots keep safeties honest.
    • Run-game stress: Malzahn’s inside zone, QB power, and sweeps force defenses to load the box.
    • Tempo stress: Defenses have no time to sub or disguise coverages.
  4. QB Responsibility:
    • Make simple RPO/zone-read decisions (Malzahn).
    • Identify coverage leverage pre-snap using wide splits (Briles).
    • Execute quick timing throws and progressions (Leach).
    • Must be mobile enough to be a run threat.

What It Would Look Like on the Field

  • Formation: WRs spread almost to the sideline (Briles).
  • Tempo: Snap ball within 10–15 seconds of play end (Malzahn).
  • Play Call: One-word code (e.g., “Vegas” = inside zone + glance RPO + backside mesh tag).
  • Options Built-In:
    • QB can hand off (Malzahn),
    • Throw quick glance/slant to WR if DB is off (Briles),
    • Or hit a mesh/spacing route if pressure shows (Leach).

Bottom Line:

This hybrid offense would be simple to learn (like Leach/Briles), brutal to defend (like Malzahn/Briles), and adaptable across talent levels.

It would stress defenses in every dimension — width, depth, tempo, and assignment discipline.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

If it's so easy to learn and hard to defend, why doesn't everyone run i? 

because you have to be in the spirit world to run it.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 9/23/2025 at 3:03 PM, Hookem2147 said:

Late to the party here, but Sam Houston State would be favored against Kent State.

Kent State is in a close race with UMass to be the worst FBS team in the country. 

OU will be prepping Texas for the next 3 weeks.

ou started their Texas prep at practice Tuesday.. They don't care about Kent st.. All focus is in Dallas 

Posted
17 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

It’s weird how this thread went down the path of “Arch is the problem”, rather than discussing the Sark scheme vs what Tech is supposedly doing. My original comment wasn’t specific to this year. 

So, in the interest of getting back to the original comment by Klatt, here is what a combined Leach, Malzahn and Briles offense looks like compared to the Sark Pro/West Coast scheme, which has some complexity,according to an LLM analysis:
 

Leach (Air Raid core)

  • Philosophy: Simplicity, small playbook, repetition, high completion %.
  • Signature Elements: Mesh, Four Verts, Y-Cross, shallow crosses, spacing concepts.
  • QB Role: Quick decision-maker, distribute ball, throw accurately.

Malzahn (Power Spread tempo)

  • Philosophy: Play fast, wear out defenses, force misalignments.
  • Signature Elements: Inside zone, power, buck sweep, QB run game, jet sweeps, RPOs.
  • QB Role: Must be a run threat, making zone-read and RPO decisions.

Briles (Baylor wide-split vertical spread)

  • Philosophy: Maximize horizontal space to open vertical shots.
  • Signature Elements: Ultra-wide WR splits, deep choice routes, glance/slant RPOs, power run paired with vertical bombs.
  • QB Role: One- or two-read throws — if safety creeps, bomb it deep.

A Hybrid “Leach + Malzahn + Briles Offense”

It would look something like this:

  1. Base Identity:
    • Air Raid passing core (simplicity, repetition, QB-friendly concepts).
    • Run game from Malzahn (power spread, tempo, QB run threat, jet sweeps).
    • Formational stress from Briles (extreme splits to force defenses to declare coverage and create space).
  2. Tempo & Install:
    • Playbook size: Small (like Leach/Briles), maybe 20–25 core concepts.
    • Play speed: Malzahn-style hurry-up, one-word calls.
    • Execution: Drill same plays endlessly until automatic.
  3. How it Attacks Defenses:
    • Horizontal stretch: Briles’s extreme WR spacing widens the field.
    • Vertical stretch: Air Raid Four Verts + Briles deep shots keep safeties honest.
    • Run-game stress: Malzahn’s inside zone, QB power, and sweeps force defenses to load the box.
    • Tempo stress: Defenses have no time to sub or disguise coverages.
  4. QB Responsibility:
    • Make simple RPO/zone-read decisions (Malzahn).
    • Identify coverage leverage pre-snap using wide splits (Briles).
    • Execute quick timing throws and progressions (Leach).
    • Must be mobile enough to be a run threat.

What It Would Look Like on the Field

  • Formation: WRs spread almost to the sideline (Briles).
  • Tempo: Snap ball within 10–15 seconds of play end (Malzahn).
  • Play Call: One-word code (e.g., “Vegas” = inside zone + glance RPO + backside mesh tag).
  • Options Built-In:
    • QB can hand off (Malzahn),
    • Throw quick glance/slant to WR if DB is off (Briles),
    • Or hit a mesh/spacing route if pressure shows (Leach).

Bottom Line:

This hybrid offense would be simple to learn (like Leach/Briles), brutal to defend (like Malzahn/Briles), and adaptable across talent levels.

It would stress defenses in every dimension — width, depth, tempo, and assignment discipline.

This is great, we should just let Grok call plays rather than Sark, who clearly doesn't know a thing about offensive playcalling. @Grok it's 4th and goal on the 1 yard line, should we call the Malzahn play or the Briles play? 

  • Haha 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Js1 said:

If it's so easy to learn and hard to defend, why doesn't everyone run i? 

Partially because most coaches are meatheads.

But also, these offenses don't translate well to the NFL so much. You really have to do more to succeed at that level. You can do all of this, but you have to be able to do other things when the defense adjusts to what you're doing.

And that's the offense Sark coaches.

And what Sark is doing on offense isn't any different from what OU, Georgia, and Ohio State do on defense. Those are very hard defenses to learn, but they're VERY effective and absolutely fuck up even NFL-caliber QBs. They give their teams success once the players learn them, and they are a selling point to recruits: "You'll be NFL ready when you're done here."

Sark is selling offensive recruits on being prepared for the NFL. And his path to a national title goes through NFL-style defenses, staffed with NFL draft picks. That's why he coaches an NFL style offense.

Posted (edited)

Does offense translation to the nfl make it easier for Texas to win games/have an elite offense or harder? Draftable players will get drafted. NFL offenses aren’t the things they were in the 90s and 00s. They now have more in common with college. 

Edited by BurntOrange&White
Posted
36 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

It’s weird how this thread went down the path of “Arch is the problem”, rather than discussing the Sark scheme vs what Tech is supposedly doing. My original comment wasn’t specific to this year. 

So, in the interest of getting back to the original comment by Klatt, here is what a combined Leach, Malzahn and Briles offense looks like compared to the Sark Pro/West Coast scheme, which has some complexity,according to an LLM analysis:
 

Leach (Air Raid core)

  • Philosophy: Simplicity, small playbook, repetition, high completion %.
  • Signature Elements: Mesh, Four Verts, Y-Cross, shallow crosses, spacing concepts.
  • QB Role: Quick decision-maker, distribute ball, throw accurately.

Malzahn (Power Spread tempo)

  • Philosophy: Play fast, wear out defenses, force misalignments.
  • Signature Elements: Inside zone, power, buck sweep, QB run game, jet sweeps, RPOs.
  • QB Role: Must be a run threat, making zone-read and RPO decisions.

Briles (Baylor wide-split vertical spread)

  • Philosophy: Maximize horizontal space to open vertical shots.
  • Signature Elements: Ultra-wide WR splits, deep choice routes, glance/slant RPOs, power run paired with vertical bombs.
  • QB Role: One- or two-read throws — if safety creeps, bomb it deep.

A Hybrid “Leach + Malzahn + Briles Offense”

It would look something like this:

  1. Base Identity:
    • Air Raid passing core (simplicity, repetition, QB-friendly concepts).
    • Run game from Malzahn (power spread, tempo, QB run threat, jet sweeps).
    • Formational stress from Briles (extreme splits to force defenses to declare coverage and create space).
  2. Tempo & Install:
    • Playbook size: Small (like Leach/Briles), maybe 20–25 core concepts.
    • Play speed: Malzahn-style hurry-up, one-word calls.
    • Execution: Drill same plays endlessly until automatic.
  3. How it Attacks Defenses:
    • Horizontal stretch: Briles’s extreme WR spacing widens the field.
    • Vertical stretch: Air Raid Four Verts + Briles deep shots keep safeties honest.
    • Run-game stress: Malzahn’s inside zone, QB power, and sweeps force defenses to load the box.
    • Tempo stress: Defenses have no time to sub or disguise coverages.
  4. QB Responsibility:
    • Make simple RPO/zone-read decisions (Malzahn).
    • Identify coverage leverage pre-snap using wide splits (Briles).
    • Execute quick timing throws and progressions (Leach).
    • Must be mobile enough to be a run threat.

What It Would Look Like on the Field

  • Formation: WRs spread almost to the sideline (Briles).
  • Tempo: Snap ball within 10–15 seconds of play end (Malzahn).
  • Play Call: One-word code (e.g., “Vegas” = inside zone + glance RPO + backside mesh tag).
  • Options Built-In:
    • QB can hand off (Malzahn),
    • Throw quick glance/slant to WR if DB is off (Briles),
    • Or hit a mesh/spacing route if pressure shows (Leach).

Bottom Line:

This hybrid offense would be simple to learn (like Leach/Briles), brutal to defend (like Malzahn/Briles), and adaptable across talent levels.

It would stress defenses in every dimension — width, depth, tempo, and assignment discipline.

I think it’s more likely most aren’t sure what your ultimate point is with all of this. 

Posted
6 minutes ago, SarkAfterDark said:

I think it’s more likely most aren’t sure what your ultimate point is with all of this. 

That we should money whip Briles, Malzahn and the corpse of Leach to be our co-co-co-OC

  • Haha 1
Posted
29 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

It’s weird how this thread went down the path of “Arch is the problem”, rather than discussing the Sark scheme vs what Tech is supposedly doing. My original comment wasn’t specific to this year. 

So, in the interest of getting back to the original comment by Klatt, here is what a combined Leach, Malzahn and Briles offense looks like compared to the Sark Pro/West Coast scheme, which has some complexity,according to an LLM analysis:
 

Leach (Air Raid core)

  • Philosophy: Simplicity, small playbook, repetition, high completion %.
  • Signature Elements: Mesh, Four Verts, Y-Cross, shallow crosses, spacing concepts.
  • QB Role: Quick decision-maker, distribute ball, throw accurately.

Malzahn (Power Spread tempo)

  • Philosophy: Play fast, wear out defenses, force misalignments.
  • Signature Elements: Inside zone, power, buck sweep, QB run game, jet sweeps, RPOs.
  • QB Role: Must be a run threat, making zone-read and RPO decisions.

Briles (Baylor wide-split vertical spread)

  • Philosophy: Maximize horizontal space to open vertical shots.
  • Signature Elements: Ultra-wide WR splits, deep choice routes, glance/slant RPOs, power run paired with vertical bombs.
  • QB Role: One- or two-read throws — if safety creeps, bomb it deep.

A Hybrid “Leach + Malzahn + Briles Offense”

It would look something like this:

  1. Base Identity:
    • Air Raid passing core (simplicity, repetition, QB-friendly concepts).
    • Run game from Malzahn (power spread, tempo, QB run threat, jet sweeps).
    • Formational stress from Briles (extreme splits to force defenses to declare coverage and create space).
  2. Tempo & Install:
    • Playbook size: Small (like Leach/Briles), maybe 20–25 core concepts.
    • Play speed: Malzahn-style hurry-up, one-word calls.
    • Execution: Drill same plays endlessly until automatic.
  3. How it Attacks Defenses:
    • Horizontal stretch: Briles’s extreme WR spacing widens the field.
    • Vertical stretch: Air Raid Four Verts + Briles deep shots keep safeties honest.
    • Run-game stress: Malzahn’s inside zone, QB power, and sweeps force defenses to load the box.
    • Tempo stress: Defenses have no time to sub or disguise coverages.
  4. QB Responsibility:
    • Make simple RPO/zone-read decisions (Malzahn).
    • Identify coverage leverage pre-snap using wide splits (Briles).
    • Execute quick timing throws and progressions (Leach).
    • Must be mobile enough to be a run threat.

What It Would Look Like on the Field

  • Formation: WRs spread almost to the sideline (Briles).
  • Tempo: Snap ball within 10–15 seconds of play end (Malzahn).
  • Play Call: One-word code (e.g., “Vegas” = inside zone + glance RPO + backside mesh tag).
  • Options Built-In:
    • QB can hand off (Malzahn),
    • Throw quick glance/slant to WR if DB is off (Briles),
    • Or hit a mesh/spacing route if pressure shows (Leach).

Bottom Line:

This hybrid offense would be simple to learn (like Leach/Briles), brutal to defend (like Malzahn/Briles), and adaptable across talent levels.

It would stress defenses in every dimension — width, depth, tempo, and assignment discipline.

Leach and Briles needed a system that would maximize limited talent. Not that Stroh is talented, but imagine giving him more space to defend. On the flip side, imagine voluntarily giving Hill and Simmons more space to work with. Tech will probably look great against equal or lesser talent, make the playoff, and lose by 30 to OSU. 

Posted (edited)

The only point of my post was to share an observation by a pretty smart ex-player and current announcer, Klatt, that he believes Tech is really on to something to deal with really good defenses. Given Texas’ struggles the last year or so with Georgia and OSU defenses, I found it interesting. 

I think we’ve all been conditioned to believe that the Sark offense is superior because it does perform well overall, it helps recruiting, and at times looks great. Tech maybe has found another approach that looks promising. 

I would guess no one else is doing it because it’s not yet proven, and you’d have to know all three schemes to create it, which isn’t easy. 

edit: oh, and as far as using LLM’s to game plan and call plays, it’s already happening. 

Edited by Dbeasy

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...