Good. F red and joe. Sounds like Patterson is cleaning up that mess The strongs flew into Austin on hicks plane so I guess they are supportive. I think powers is trying to get out of this and leave it up to steve
Decent read here, from when Strong finally got his shot at Louisville. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/04/12/charlie-strong/
that's the big question now. Will be interesting to see who they bring in. big name? one would hope. Our defense could be incredible, but with some of the offenses in the big 12 we will need to be able to at least score some points. I trust strong with the D, but would think that he wouldn't call plays on the offensive side of the ball
If he uses Tyrone Swoopes as his QB I would assume he would use an offense similar to the one used for Tebow at Florida or even Vince and Colt at UT. Like Swoopes, Tebow & Vince never really learned how to throw a football but both were all time great college QBs. In Louisville he ran more of a pro style offense but he doesn't have Teddy Bridgwater taking snaps in Austin.
Back in the day conventional wisdom was that if you wanted to beat a high scoring offense you didn't try to out score them in a shoot out but instead you used a ball control offense that chewed up clock and kept that high scoring offense on the sideline. And then you played smash mouth defense getting them out of their comfort zone by not letting them develop a rhythm and putting them in a low scoring close game. That philosophy worked well and still works well for some teams. But so many coaches feel they have to counter a high scoring attack with one of their own these days. I see it in the pros and in college. I think Strong is going to be a little more old school with lots a balanced attack to control the clock and a smash mouth defense.
The reason it isn't a popular approach is because if you get behind for whatever reason (turnovers, special teams, etc) then you can't catch up. You need to have the personnel and the playbook to score with the best of them. At the same time, if you have a lead you need to be able to kill some clock and give your defense a blow. I'm of the opinion that first you spread it out and see how the game develops.
I'm of the oppinion that a defenses best friend is a ball control offense that keeps them off the feild and fresh for the 4th quarter. If you want to keep a high scoring offense from scoring a lot of points them keep on the bench an limit the number of offensive possesions for them by having a team that can chew up the clock. Just my oppinion.
Pretty much. Just a terrible decision for himself, the university, and the football program to go mouthing off like that. Just adds a taint they don't need, but I think it's clear to everyone: the biggest loser with those comments is Red(ass) McCombs. Just makes him look like more a has-been than ever.
Patterson should have worked more with McCombs to prevent this PR embarrassment. Doesn't mean he should have taken direction from McCombs, but you at least need to hear him out. Now McCombs is going to go behind his back sabotaging and causing problems.
Nope Patterson did the right thing. If red wants to embarrass himself only he can control that. Just waiting for joe to do something stupid now
Agreed. No way in hell UT should coddle him in any way. Whatever little influence he might have had with Patterson before yesterday is now presumably gone - best thing that could have happened. If Joe joins him, all the better.
Good Ole Red showing his true colors and "black" aint one lol I'm sure he could be a positions coach or a coordinator?? That old b*stard do know that this man won a BCS bowl game last year and back doored it with another big bowl win this year right? Of course not.....he's not right for Texas. Red is one of the issues people around the country hate texas so much. I was happy that Patterson was hired...he was going to do what was right for the PROGRAM, not the boosters. Build a winning program.....Good God Red
You can talk tough but there was a better way to approach this. Doesn't mean Charlie had to actually use McCombs' opinion, just hear him out. Common sense. Taking the "ignore approach" will cause fracturing and dissension among the ranks of the big donors.
I like that Steve Patterson did this the right way but in fairness, keeping the boosters happy is important as well and part of the job that Steve inhearited. Here is an article from 2009 Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704541004574600051780005902 another funny quote out of the article:
Oh since he doesn't like Strong, he's obviously racist. Good grief aren't you above such shallow thinking?
