HogBlogged

HogBlogger Has Moved!

2006-07-24T07:19:00.000-05:00

HogBlogger has joined the RazorBloggers Network. See more details about the move here or visit the new site at www.razorbloggers.net.

HogBlogger Posts Available On.....

2006-01-13T17:01:00.000-06:00

Full up-to-date HogBlogger posts are available on the TipsterHog Blog.

On Further Review

2005-11-08T10:42:00.000-06:00

So last night I watched the South Carolina game (again) with my brother-in-law the ex-running back, making heavy use of the DVR to re-run plays we found interesting.

We focused a lot on the play of the offensive line and the type of running plays that were being called in certain situations.

We confirmed our sense from watching the game live that the running plays we used on short yardage weren't any different than the running plays we used in general situations. Many of our running plays develop a bit slowly and require either zone blocking or some serious pulling by the offensive line. In either case the offensive lineman have a tendency to be standing up rather than getting down low. When the defense is loaded up to play the run in short yardage, it was easy for us to get beat by the defensive guys going low (one just played bowling ball one time and rolled into the backfield), or get outnumbered, or just plain miss blocks. You see all three things happening. Missed blocks, especially on the back-side of the slowly developing plays, killed us. Both on the goal line just before the half, and on the 3 plays beginning with second and 2 on the next to the last possession.

It was pretty obvious that the type of running plays we were using for short yardage were as much the problem as the execution.

We also saw (again - this has been a thorn all season) that we are terrible in picking up the blitz. McFadden appeared clueless on one particular play and managed to totally not block a blitzer that was running directly at him. An offensive lineman did what I've seen them doing all year -- If they don't have a defensive lineman to block, they end up not blocking anyone. One let a defensive back that had lined up at outside linebacker ("check" please??) just go right past him as if he never saw him. We were getting sacked by one man blitzing along with a 3 man rush.

Speaking of checking off plays -- we have absolutely no offensive strategy in place to combat the blitz. Checking to a slant is not that hard. We haven't had a quarterback coached well to "think" at the line since Ferguson left.

Also noticed for the seemingly millionth time that we just can't execute the "waggle" play -- where you essentially leave a guy unblocked and throw over him to the flat. That play never works for us and should be trashed. Oh, and by the way -- note to Houston Dale -- the defense is keying on Peyton Hillis.

The way we manage the offense in "situations" -- "what" we call "when" -- is a huge part of our problem. Not having or effectively using a package of short yardage running plays hurt us Saturday. I really wish we had some real quick hitting dive plays or had seen that toss sweep that has worked fairly well all year.

Our offensive line and pass protection is also a huge problem. This year's offensive line has, overall, not played well. Short yardage and pass protection have both been poor.

Again, it was clear that we are not very good at clock management and situation preparation. The two minute drill package was not well planned. We let over 30 seconds pass between plays while we were confused about what to call, and then had to change personnel packages when we did decide what to call. Houston Dale the head coach would be reaming out any offensive coordinator not named Houston Dale for this type of performance.

For those not keeping close watch, our "one back" running package is a combination of what the Colts and the Redskins do. Watch those two teams and note the type of passing offense they mix in with the runs to get an idea of what a comprehensive offensive package could or should look like.

I know this is like beating a dead horse. The offensive coordinator position is just not getting the job done.

Getting Down to Cases

2005-11-07T09:45:00.000-06:00

Welcome to the beginning of my view to the litany of things that are wrong with the Arkansas football program and some thoughts as to what to do to make corrections.

To start with, our offense is poorly designed. In fact, it’s not designed at all. It’s a mish-mash of a few running plays with a few passing plays that Houston Dale drew up and a few passing plays (very few) that he stole out of the so called West Coast system or from what-ever NFL camp he visited last. There is no cohesive approach. That’s why it doesn’t work very well. That’s why a quarterback doesn’t seem to be able to play very well. That’s why Mitch Mustain won’t look any better than anyone else has lately.

Personnel packages and formations strongly signal the play calls. If all of us fans think we can call the plays, you know the other team can. My success rate was over 80% Saturday against South Carolina. My son's was even higher. (I called a few South Carolina plays also -- just by looking at the Arkansas defense and counting on Spurrier to have his quarterback make the right checks at the line.)

There is never an effort made to “attack the defense”. Our focus is simply on attempting to execute the plays we happen to want to run. Plays that are very limited in what they do.

What to do about this? We need an overall redesign of the offense or the adoption of some existing, proven approach to offense. We need a new offensive philosophy – one that’s hopefully not as "offensive" as what we have at present. This is not as simple as hiring an offensive coordinator or having someone else call the plays. Hiring some offensive coordinator du jour and then mixing their thoughts with the current, limited thoughts and further mish-mashing the current mish-mash. Things would just get worse. Mixing in Gus Malzahn thoughts with existing Houston Dale thoughts (or lack there-of) will simple create more frustration and failure for everyone involved.

The truth is we don’t have a clue what we really want to do.

Today we have this crazy co-coordinator thing going on. This is bad. Markuson is in charge of the running game (the “running game coordinator”), and Wittke is in charge of the passing game (the “passing game coordinator”). And never the twain shall meet, except that each supposedly recommends a play to Houston Dale on each down.

Ancient Chinese proverb says that “man with two watches not know what time it is”. (No, I have no clue where some ancient Chinese guy got one watch, much less two.) It is no wonder that we have to call time-out every time we get inside the 10 year line – a committee meeting is required to call a play. A play that will probably require a certain personnel package that has a high likelihood of tipping off the defense – and apparently we’ll line up and stand there for the last minute of the time-out so the defense can get a good look at what we are up to and be able to make any adjustments needed to stuff us. But I digress.

I’ll go back to the fundamental problem. We don’t have a clue what we really want to do. Even without Markuson and Wittke whispering in his ear on each play, Houston Dale is of at least two minds himself. There are a lot of voices going on inside of his head on every play call.

So how do we decide?

We practice running 70 percent of the time – I suppose to make sure we’ve got those 4-6 plays down really well. So we usually default and do “what we do best”, which is run.

Why do we run (usually the stretch play) after each really good play we have? This is amazingly simple. We call the stretch play to give us time to think of what we might want to do next. Unfortunately, “next” tends to be second and 8 or worse, and the defense gains the advantage in the chess match they are playing against our checkers gurus.

The truth is Markuson’s offensive line tends to let us down. Ok, I know we’ve been a great running team for years. I’ll give you that. I’ll throw back at you that we’ve been a great running team that can’t pass block on a consistent basis to save our lives. This year we are a great running team that can’t make a yard when we need to by running the ball that also can’t pass block on a consistent basis.

Markuson needs to go in my opinion even if Houston Dale stays. He has way too much influence. We will not change our offensive approach as long as Markuson is around. I think he has pictures of Houston Dale or something.

We can’t develop a quarterback along with a passing game if we practice running 70 percent of the time while also getting immensely impressed with ourselves when we “run” all over the cream-puff directional schools on our schedule.

We can’t really develop a quarterback if we don’t know what we have in mind to run when we recruit them. Do we want a “run-pass threat” like Robert Johnson supposedly is, or a passing threat like an Alex Mortenson? It seems we are constantly in a conflict between what we want to do and what the quarterback is supposedly best at.

Scrap the existing offense and start over. Take a direct approach to something new -- steal from the New England Patriots and from Charlie Weis at Notre Dame. He’s been able to take the Patriots offense to Notre Dame pretty effectively, so we know it translates to the college game. Hire a coordinator experienced with this system or one that can buy in and run that system. Oh, and don’t make a big deal publicly about what you are doing. Keep everyone guessing.

Eliminate the current separation between the passing game and the running game that we have today. A ship can only have one captain, and offense is a ship. If Markuson can’t deal with that, he must be eliminated.

Our goal on offense should be 1) to average at least 6 scores a game, with at least 3 being touchdowns. I really don't care how many yards we average running or passing. I do know that the successful team achieve more than 50% of their total yards from passing. (It is very difficult against good competition (i.e., the SEC) to run the ball all the way down the field into the end zone. It’s not going to happen very many times. This is why today it does not really bother teams if we rush for 250 yards as long as do it between the 20’s. We won’t score enough to beat them. As we proved Saturday, we are not a threat with the passing game from the opponents 20 yard line, so they can play and stuff the run.)

Can this be fixed with Houston Dale at the head coaching position? Or would be too much of a limiting factor. It is apparent his brain can function only slightly above the High School level of offense and that his coaching ability is limited in even effectively implementing that. His ego and his stubborn ways have been on display for quite while now. My bet would be on "no".

Our offense has not been consistently effective in any year Houston Dale has been here. 1998 and 1999’s success on offense was due as much to big play capability (Stoerner to Lucas, mostly on check-offs when Clint recognized man to man on Lucas) that resulted from the training as quarterback Clint received from Joe Ferguson. The success with Matt Jones, was, well . . . . due to the amazing abilities of Matt Jones in making things happen many times out of nothing.

Approach to the offense and coaching makes a huge difference. Look at what happened with Joe Ferguson his senior year after Don Breaux left. Look at what’s happened at Notre Dame their first year with Charlie Weis.

Unless we change our approach we are not going to get any better on offense. No matter the talent level of the players.

Georgia -- Passing (or lack thereof) Thoughts

2005-10-23T14:47:00.000-05:00

The Razorback tried their best General Sherman approach to march over Georgia but came up a bit short on the scoreboard.

The Arkansas defense brought it on Saturday and made an excellent showing. There are still a few things that could be criticized – but you have to admit they played well enough to deserve a win. Considering the offense and special teams provided field position to Georgia to lead to 10 of the 23 points scored, we have to feel pleased with the performance and improvement in the defense..

Yes, I know Shockley getting hurt definitely limited what Georgia tried to do. But it was obvious that we had a pretty good defensive game plan and came to play even while he was in the game.

My story remains unchanged from the past few weeks. Our offense cannot be counted on to score enough points to win a ball game. We are not going to have a drive of any significant length more than once a game. We don’t have consistency of execution at this point to even be considered much of a threat from within the red zone. We’ve had 8 trips into the red zone in the last 2 games that have delivered only 20 points. – less than a field goal per entry into the red zone.

While everyone, including me, has been down on the play of the quarterback position, the issues Saturday had as much to do with overall offensive discipline and execution as anything the quarterback did or didn’t do.

8 out of 11 completions to the running backs. We did absolutely nothing to attack the cover 2 zone. We have no passing game. It’s just that simple. Robert Johnson is not even looking down field, once missing the tight end wide open for what would have been a 25 yard plus gain. 116 yards passing is a joke.

I’ve pretty much had it with the Peyton Hillis show. He has way too big of a role in the game – RoJo / Waco seems locked into him on what little of a passing game we try to have and it appears to me to be a crutch that is simply getting in the way. Why he continues to return punts amazes me. He has been inconsistent at best, letting balls go over this head, catching the ball at the 7 yard line, one muff and one out and out “just missed it” that cost us a field goal, and then letting the final punt drop to the ground and roll. Hillis apparently is allowed mistakes that sent others in the Houston Dale era to significant bench time. Plus, I’m tired of his talking in the press.

Where’s Monk? We are doing absolutely nothing to try and get the ball to our best receiver (supposedly – it’s really hard to tell if we have a “best” receiver since it isn’t exactly apparent we have “any” receivers).

It’s time for Houston Dale to quit naming names and calling out players. He’s the coach. This is his show. He needs to take responsibility on his shoulders.

From the “it could have been important” departments: Houston Dale let 54 seconds run off the clock prior to our last possession of the game by not calling a time out after Georgia’s 3rd down play – a time out it was obvious that Reggie Herring was encouraging him to call.

Georgia had 8 of their 11 defensive starters either out or impacted by injury during the game. It was good that we ran over them pretty well – McFadden and Jones are obviously studs – but it ends up just making my point. Arkansas running for 250 yards and not doing much of anything else on offense is something opponents will live with. We can’t beat anyone doing that because we can’t score enough points.

We’ve now played both Alabama and Georgia good games. This is not about “talent” – we have some pretty good talent. Could be better I’m sure, but we have the ability to be competitive.

That said, I'm not sure we will win another game this year. South Carolina -- we'll probably get out-coached, Ole Miss -- winning in Oxford will be tough. The pressure will be on then for Mississippi State, which means more bad things can happen than good. LSU should beat us easily.

I know this was supposed to have been a "down" year, "free pass" and all of that, but this year has been and will continue to be worse that it should have been.

Nothing New at Quarterback

2005-10-17T22:28:00.000-05:00

So, unlike Tipster, I was actually ok with the play calling for the most part Saturday night against Auburn. There were a lot of things that were open that we didn’t take advantage of. The play of the quarterback had a lot to do with that. But we’ve come to expect that from a Houston Dale coached team.

Let me start by saying that it is the coach’s responsibility to put a quarterback on the field that can execute.

I felt that Houston Dale was making a mistake when he awarded the starting quarterback slot to Robert Johnson after only one week of fall practice when RoJo / Waco was supposedly only operating at 70% physically. That pretty much told me that it was never a contest in Houston Dale’s mind. No doubt the other contenders for the job felt that as well.

Robert Johnson’s response at the time gave me little confidence. I don’t remember exactly what he said, but it gave me the impression that he viewed himself as somewhat of a “made man”. I’d prefer someone operating in fear of their job on a weekly basis.

From the very first game it has been obvious that Houston Dale has not had great confidence in Robert Johnson (as well as others at times – such as the freshmen running backs against Vandy.)

Running all over Missouri State did us little good. If it really had value then why did we immediately bench the two freshmen running backs from the next game? We should’ve worked on our passing game in the game situation. Now that we need it, we don’t have it sharp and ready, and are making mistakes that appear to be due to lack of repetition and game experiences. We should have taken a look at other quarterbacks in the game situation. Surely all of them can hand off.

There are a few consistent things I’ve noted in RoJo / Waco’s performance on the field.

First, his footwork has been lacking all year. Many times his feet are just not set when he needs to be throwing. If your feet aren’t right, the throw won’t be right. It’s just that simple. Footwork is the most basic element of executing from the quarterback position on passing plays. I’ve mentioned this in a few posts already this year, and it was a theme of Houston Dale’s on his show Sunday. The feet are a big problem. It’s true in practice too.

When RoJo / Waco’s feet are in good position he tends to throw a pretty good ball – to the right. He doesn’t throw the ball well to the left or over the middle out of the pocket for some reason, feet set or not.

Against Auburn RoJo / Waco had a tendency to “rush” when under pressure. John Wooden, the great UCLA coach, had a saying – “be quick, but don’t hurry”. The only way to master this concept and have it on display in your performance is to have many repetitions under pressure.

He bails a bit early on the pocket. Needs to hang in and deliver the ball. “Happy feet” are not a passing game’s friend.

Would another quarterback do better at this point? I think it’s time we found out. Alex appeared very mechanically sound in the 2nd half of the USC game. Cole has a bit of a “gamer” look to him. Casey Dick, of the four, appears to me to have the most potential. I saw him in a number of practice drills that gets delegated to the 4th string guy and he just impressed me in a lot of ways. Footwork, receiver selection, and most of all, the ability to put the ball in very good places for the receivers. Not to be negative on Alex or Cole, “just saying”

Had Houston Dale not already had his mind made up and given everyone a good look he would have had to given Casey a shot at the job.

I would not, at this point in the season, take the redshirt off of Casey. That would be just stupid. If Houston Dale were to find his way to that decision I’d recommend he be run out of town underneath a rail.

I’ve watched enough practice this year, and over the years, of many different coaches, to have formed this opinion: Houston Dale is a lousy quarterback coach. I think one of the reasons he left Arkansas and Lou Holtz was he didn’t see the need for Holtz’s picky quarterback coaching. Holtz was very exacting in his approach to footwork. Houston Dale obviously is not a student of footwork.

Clint was coached by Joe Ferguson, not Houston Dale. Matt Jones hardly practiced, and was so lazy when he did, and was such an amazing talent, that his coaching was fairly limited at best. Ryan Sorahan was a pretty good looking fundamental quarterback, and, I believe could have been very successful if we had really wanted a quarterback.

I’ve watched Witke in practice and it’s hard to tell. The fact that we work on the passing game only about 30% of the time may be having more of an impact than his coaching ability.

The results on the field for many years from the quarterback position have been poor. I don’t count Matt, as most of his results came more from his ad lib’s and options plays than from fundamental quarterbacking.

A huge source of the problem is that Houston Dale does not know what type of offense he wants to run. Oh yeah, he “fits” it to his talent. This may sound like a really good thing, but is really a foolish idea. Doesn’t work very well when your top 4 quarterbacks have at least two if not three different “styles” of play. Which one do you choose? We need a style we want to play, and to recruit quarterbacks that can play the style we want to play. I would hate to be Robert Johnson for two years being the second string in the Matt Jones offense, getting limited repetitions in practice, and then be thrown into the fire with a fuller version of a somewhat different offense -- one that looks more like the late 90’s than like the current decade..

A defined offensive approach and recruiting and preparing quarterbacks that are able to execute and deliver on the field are a coaching responsibility.

Robert Johnson may not be playing well on the field right now, but it is the quarterback position that we have a problem with – and have had for a number of years. That is Houston Dale’s responsibility and he has not done a good job with it.

Read this article and tell me I’m wrong. Quarterback is not a new problem.

It's About the Experience

2005-10-17T09:28:00.000-05:00

It’s time to rant a bit about the state of the Razorback football program. So here goes rant number 1. (There will be more to follow)

The stadium experience is not very good. The product on the field is not the only thing that needs improvement. We've had less than a handful of games in the past few years where the crowd was really good and loud. Alabama a few years ago and Texas comes to mind. Tennessee in 1999 was an excellent crowd.

We have a beautiful stadium that should be an excellent home field advantage. Why isn’t it?

In my view some things need to done different.

First of all, it seems most people enter the stadium at the last minute before the game, or in the first minutes of the game. I sit on the end of a row at the 40 yard line 50 or so rows high. The first 7 minutes of each game are a parade of people coming in to sit down.

At the playing of the National Anthem the crowd on the East side is typically pretty sparse. By middle of the 1st quarter it will be filled in.

The crowd doesn’t come ready to play. People need to get into the stadium and be ready to go when the game starts. We need reasons for people to want to get into the stadium. Need to put on a show. However . . . .

The pre-game show has gotten old and tired. I’m all for tradition, but this no longer works very well. The band and the cheer squads appear to be just phoning it in. Hard to blame them as it is probably difficult to play to a half full stadium 20 minutes before game time. I’m not sure I would do a lot different, but someone smarter than me needs to give this some thought.

Has anyone else noticed that the visiting teams have been timing our introduction and running onto the field just before us, making sure that our team is greeted with a chorus of boos mixed into the cheers?

The stadium sound system is terrible.

The radio broadcast has gotten terrible. I usually listen to the radio during the games. I turned it off several times Saturday. Paul has lost it in the broadcast booth, if ever he even had it. His descriptions of the game are extremely lacking. ARSN needs to shorten their commercial breaks and do their part to keep the game moving. Television can stretch things out, but radio doing it is pointless. I could not believe the extra 2 commercials when we had the ball on the 5 yard line. ASRN is part of the team and they need to do their part better.

I like Keith Jackson in the booth. I used to like Quinn on the field back when he actually had something to say. “They’re running right over us” is not value added commentary in my view.

While it is clear to me the role Chuck is playing in the booth, I think needing 3 people in the booth talking borders on ridiculous. I’m not being anti-Chuck as generally I enjoy him (especially when he goes through his routine of all of the things he's "not saying"). But, if Paul can’t do his thing with a producer in his ear (rather than having to interject on the air) then we need a new Paul.

Concessions in much of the stadium are difficult to get to, especially pre-game and halftime. I don’t even bother. I would buy things when the vendors were walking the aisles, but didn’t see a one during the Auburn game. I do think selling bottled cokes for $3 is getting a bit carried away.

Halftime is too long (or at least it feels that way). Our band, unfortunately, is too small to really put on a big show. Quite honestly I’d rather watch the Springdale band.

Scores and stats are not well done on the scoreboards, and scores are often way behind. The big screen should be better utilized to provide stats during the game. There should be annoucements of other scores of interest during the game.

That spelling out “Go Hogs” at the end of the half doesn’t seem to work.

The band needs to play more and better during the game. That stretch in the third quarter the band should have been rocking between plays. Instead, we got to hear the very small Auburn band play while ours sat on its hands.

I would start the games at 7 instead of 6. I know there’s the issue of people driving back, but night games in Little Rock started at 7:30 for years.

All that said, I still believe the potential exist at Razorback Stadium to have amazing crowds. Part of that involves having something to cheer for. Early game time-outs on the goal line and less than desired results cause the Fayetteville crowd to shut off. The band and the spirit groups need to have some pieces of business worked up for these types of scenarios to help keep the crowd involved.

I think our people should consult with Jerry’s people in Dallas. Texas Stadium does a pretty good job with creating and maintaining excitement around the event. Of course, they do have those cheerleaders . . . . .

Auburn -- HogBlogger Quick Thoughts

2005-10-16T15:50:00.000-05:00

Ok, I have to admit I was both right and wrong in my pre-game assessment of the Auburn game. I feared that we couldn’t score enough points to beat them, but felt that some easy early opportunities could give us a chance.

Problem was, we had early opportunities (provided by our defense) but couldn’t take advantage.

Right off the bat (as the saying goes), we got an interception, took the ball strong right down to the 5 yard line, and promptly called time-out. Players stood on the field and waited while the last minute of radio commercials played, allowing ARSN to avoid coming in late for the play (glad we got THAT straightened out), while the crowd sat on its hands wondering why the game was not continuing. All momentum was lost. How many times have we called time-out inside of the 10 yard line this year? This indicates to me a lack of situation preparation going into the game.

RoJo then under-throws a wide open Monk in the back of the end zone on what was an excellent play call. We then throw our patented pass to Peyton Hillis out in the flat (that I’m sure no defense we play would ever expect we might throw) in lieu of our usual draw play and the result was the need kick a field goal, which fortunately we executed to perfection.

Without going into great detail, the story is this: 4 red zone opportunities, 10 points. Defense stays on the field for . . . . well, just let’s look at the official time of possession.

1st Quarter.............9:26 Auburn, 5:34 Arkansas
2nd Quarter...........8:02 Auburn, 6:58 Arkansas
1st Half................17:28 Auburn, 12:32 Arkansas

You had to know at halftime that the odds were we were about to be smashed.

Things didn’t get any better. We got the ball to start the first half and promptly made 8 yards on first down. Then, no gain on a running play, and a failure to connect on our patented pass in the flat to Peyton Hillis. (How many times a game do we run this play?)

Auburn takes the ball and drives 73 yards for a touchdown, 40 of which were on the ground.

Time of possession for the second half.

3rd Quarter.............. 9:26 Auburn, 5:34 Arkansas
4th Quarter.............. 9:56 Auburn, 5:04 Arkansas
2nd half.................19:22 Auburn, 10:38 Arkansas

Here are the things that stood out to me.

Not taking advantage of early scoring opportunities. Scoring 21 first half points instead of 10 makes it a vastly different ball game. Points on the board makes all the difference in the world. Look at how Notre Dame hung in with USC – by moving the ball and scoring early in the game.

Our quarterback and receivers combined to miss several opportunities. There were two instances I saw clearly where the quarterback and receiver read the defense differently and didn’t connect. One would’ve have been a touchdown to the tight end, where the tight end made the right read and broke to the post while the quarterback threw underneath. Another on a key 3rd down when the receiver didn’t “sit down” in the zone causing the quarterback to appear to throw behind him. This has been a problem all year, and the past several years. In both situations the play calls were great. Execution was not there.

The amount or lack thereof of time we work on our passing game in practice and in the “easy” games comes into play here. These type of failures to execute are created back on the practice field and solved by repetitions and coaching. This isn’t about “ability”. It is about play design, and having quarterbacks and receivers on the same page as to mental execution.

Our passing game is just a mess. Beyond what I mention above, I still saw several poorly designed plays. On both long throws we had only two receivers in the pattern, both to the same side, and no check down receiver. These plays have no chance of success.

It was nice to see that pass protection was more than adequate.

What happened to the defense in the second half? At least 3 things. 1) We left them on the field too long in the first half. (Our offense can’t stay on the field very long it seems. This might be ok if we were actually scoring). 2) When you do great things on defense, stop your opponent, take away the ball, and your offense then comes up flat and puts the defense right back on the field, your defense gets discouraged as well as tired. 3) Auburn decided to take our “speed” and pursuit either out of the game (by playing “smash-mouth”) or by using it against us. Truth was, they were stopping themselves in the first half by not dealing effectively with our blitzes. We are best attacked on defense by doing only a few simple things. That’s what they started to do. That’s what everyone has been doing.

I continue to believe our offense leaves our defense hanging out to dry. Not getting points early when you could and should, 3 and outs, or really short possessions really hurt a defense. It’s been that way the last few years. For all of our talk about “time of possession” and the running game, we are pitiful at controlling the clock.

For the game, our amazing rushing game had 148 yards. We passed for 174 yards. 322 yards total. Auburn had 436 yards total. Over 240 of which came on 3 drives.

Halftime adjustments – none made. This is stupid. You need to do some things differently in the second half just to give the other team something to think about if nothing else. Build tendencies in the first half that you purposely counter in the second half. It’s not like there weren’t adjustments that needed to be made, as Auburn had plenty of success in the first half with some things.

I'll have a lot more to say as the week progresses, but in general, unless we find a offense we are not going to accomplish much the rest of the year. The one we have is not getting it done at all. Not even close.

Auburn Comes Forth

2005-10-13T10:31:00.000-05:00

So here we are, the biggest game of the year. Without a win Saturday, Bowl hopes (dreams) are gone.

Practices have been “intense” according to one scribe. “A greater degree of intensity”. (subscription)

Houston Dale is 2-1 against Auburn at Razorback Stadium. The loss came in 2003 when Arkansas was ranked 7th in the nation. (yes, we were actually ranked in this decade) We got beat by a heartbreaking 10-3 score. Since then Arkansas, overall, has a 12-12 record, 6-8 in the SEC.

Liquor’ed up or not, I expect the crowd will be loud. At least up until the point where the Razorbacks find a way to let the air out (no, that was not a comment on the offense, but it does seem to apply). As was proven with the goal line stand by Vandy, this is a crowd that turns off quickly when something goes wrong. Oh yeah, don't even try to bring anything into the stadium this week. Travel light as security will be much tighter than usual.

I suspect we will end up getting beat. Why? Two reasons.

1) We are too easy to prepare for, and 2) we can’t win if our offense only runs the ball well.

How difficult are we to prepare for?

"They're going to establish the run, it's what they do," Auburn safety Eric Brock said. "They're going to run right at you and (say), 'If you can, try to stop it."

For Auburn senior weakside linebacker Antarrious Williams, knowing what is coming is one thing, stopping it is another.

"We're going to be prepared," (subscription) said Williams. "We know they're going to run the ball virtually every play. We just have to be prepared and be more physical than they are.

"It's easier to prepare (knowing they are going to run), but it's harder to go out there and whup them. It's going to be hard because they're going to be a physical team. They're going to run every play. They're going to have the same attitude against us – they'll try to whup us."

The Razorbacks know how to run the football, and Auburn defensive coordinator David Gibbs is well aware of it. "They pound everybody," Gibbs said. "They ran for 200 yards against USC and 237 against Alabama. They run the ball on everybody.

So, no great secret, we are going to place our success on our ability to run the ball. And while we are pretty good at running the ball, running the ball is our greatest weakness. How can that be? We rely on it too much.

On the other hand, if Auburn's defense can shut down the Hogs' ground attack, there won't be much left of the Arkansas offense.

"If we stop the run first, we can basically predict when they're going to pass the ball," said senior linebacker Antarrious Williams. "That will help us out -- just going out and stopping the run."

We place too much emphasis on running the ball in our offense. While it's important to have a solid running game, I'd much prefer to have a solid offense -- running and passing.

I’m not sure it would bother Auburn if we ran for 250 yards. Alabama survived our 237 ok. We’ll be lucky to pass for 150 yards (I'd be amazed actually). None of the passes will be touchdown threats. We’d be lucky to score over 17 points.

Our offense is only good when we play someone that is not evenly matched to us.

Unless we get some breaks along the way that lead to “easy” touchdowns or stop Auburn scoring opportunites, we can’t beat Auburn if we just have a good running game.

Here’s the way it seems to me people play us.

Opponents don’t necessarily “line up just to stop the run” on every play. Some teams have lined up at times more to take away the pass than stop the run, so we then will "take what the defense is giving us". (Do you ever wonder -- if teams are playing us to run, and we are always running, then how can we always be "taking what the defense is giving us?" I think teams actually encourage us to run at times and we fall into a trap.)

Our running doesn’t bother our opponents near as much as we think.

They know we can’t pass very well AND we are afraid of passing AND we won’t pass very often.

They know we’ll put ourselves in 2nd and long and 3rd and long several times in our possessions. You can almost guarantee a 2nd and 9 to follow right after we’ve made a good run or even hit a pass for a first down. Defenses pick their points to focus on the run against us because it only takes a few successes on defense to force us to punt.

We are easy to prepare for. And, even if we run well, won’t score very many points against an SEC defense.

Even if we keep the game close, odds are we won’t score enough points to win. Just like in 2003.

But, I would enjoy being wrong.

HogBlogger@hotmail.com

Mitch Mustain -- Status?

2005-10-10T11:49:00.000-05:00

After Stacey Dean's article on scout.com, picked up on foxsports.com, regarding a conversation with Beck Campbell, Mitch's mom, I checked with some of my sources. What did I hear?

Stacey Dean's story is essentially correct. The "other schools" are still calling a lot. By no means have they given up. Mitch will stay committed to the University of Arkansas as long as Houston Dale is the coach. There seems to be the expectation on Mitch's part that Gus Malzahn will come to the U of A in some capacity. If Houston Dale is not the coach, all bets are off.

For a good picture of Mitch in action, go here.

Free Pass? (3)

2005-10-03T16:23:00.000-05:00

So, is this year free? Even after the losses to Vanderbilt, USC and Alabama?

In our previous posts on the topic of the “Free Pass” I’ve stated that “I don’t think Coach Broyles is going to let Houston Dale be the fall guy for a problem that he, Coach Broyles, feels responsible for. No matter what he really thinks of Houston as a coach at this point.”

I’ve also stated that, “while Coach Broyles is not going to let Houston Dale lose his job over problems created by the NCAA investigation, he won’t have a problem with Houston Dale losing his job over problems that Houston Dale created. “Losing the fans”, fueled by the LSU situation, fueled by whatever, would be a problem that Houston Dale, not Coach Broyles, created.”

I also reminded the readers that Coach Broyles stated at the Little Rock Touchdown Club meeting that Houston Dale would have the job, “as long as I have anything to say about it.”

The questions for today are:

“When was the last time Coach Broyles really had something to say about the hiring and firing of University of Arkansas coaches?”

“What’s the “big money” and influence got on their mind?”

So, “When was the last time Coach Broyles had something to say about it?”

Think about it. The committee that hired Houston Dale chose not to be a rubber stamp for Coach Broyles when he wanted to hire Tommy Tuberville. Coach Broyles admitted at the Nolan trial that he had wanted to get rid of Nolan in 1999 because Nolan had lost his “recruiting fire” but couldn’t. According to some scribes, Coach Broyles only has his job because Jim Lindsey stepped in on his behalf with John White when White wanted Coach Broyles gone.

Coach Broyles has stated he will not hire another coach by committee. John White is going to want a committee. Or is it the Board of Trustees that will want a committee.

My point is simple. It’s been a while since I’ve had the feeling that Coach Broyles alone “had anything to say about it”.

Where’s the big money and influence?

It is probably true that Johnny Tyson would like to see his friend Butch Davis have the job. I personally can’t see that happening, as I can’t imagine the Board of Trustees, Jim Lindsey, Coach Broyles, as well as Butch Davis choosing to become beholden to Johnny Tyson at the same time. At the same time, the Tyson’s have given a lot of money to the Athletic Department and I’m certain feel due a loud voice in what goes on.

Butch Davis apparently went through a fairly traumatic experience in Cleveland with the team basically quitting on him (according to ESPN). It is difficult to see him wanting the pressure of coming back home again to be the hero as well as having Johnny Tyson looking over his shoulder as well as serving as a coaching assistant. My take is that Butch Davis is “intrigued” by the job, but is not certain he would want it.

In my view Lindsey’s voice will carry the day.

Which takes us back to the “free pass” discussion.

Lindsey and the “powers that be” that signed up for the original two year free pass commitment are more than likely to stick with it. They knew things would be bad this year; probably thought they might be worse than last year. Other than losing to Vanderbilt, the program is probably about where they expected it. Whether or not the fans think the NCAA investigation was an issue, these guys do.

The three year commitment and salary level to Reggie Herring speaks volumes. That commitment says “we are sticking with Nutt, and we are sticking with you”.

Unless Houston Dale just totally loses control of the program, or we really embarrass ourselves in regard to showing some type of progress, he will stay.

So, in answer to the original question – yes, this year is “free”.

To appease the masses, coaching changes will be made. It might even be said that Houston Dale will be required to bring in an offensive coordinator. Who will go? Best guesses are whoever doesn’t cuss and scream when they coach defense and anyone on offense with the word “coordinator” attached to their various titles.

Butch Davis may take a job or may sit out another year. I think it is a toss-up. My belief is that the Arkansas situation would be a bad one for him to step into. It’s hard to “go home again”, especially when you would be going home to be the potential punching bag in a game featuring a “lame duck” Athletic Director and established and want-to-be rich political power brokers refereed by John White and the Board of Trustees. He got pretty beat up in Cleveland. Why sign up for another fight when you don’t have to.?

The question to ponder next is, “how long do you think Houston Dale will last beyond this year?”

The dance is not over.

Free Pass? (2)

2005-09-28T10:56:00.000-05:00

So, is this year free? Even after the losses to Vanderbilt, USC and Alabama?

In my previous post I stated that “I don’t think Coach Broyles is going to let Houston Dale be the fall guy for a problem that he, Coach Broyles, feels responsible for. No matter what he really thinks of Houston as a coach at this point.”

So, it would seem “case closed”, Houston Dale will be staying for one more year.

I don’t think it is that simple. Let’s look at what else is going on right now.

Some members of the media who make their living off of Arkansas sports have now taken seats squarely on the fence while continuing to make the argument about the impact of the investigation. I’m reading them as saying a strong, “we’ll see” as to what will happen at the end of the year.

If the message boards are any indication, the hard core fans are in an uproar. If the “3 letters” to Coach Broyles are any indication, the fans don’t care. Again, the comments from Coach Broyles to the press about the letters are designed to influence the “tone” of the conversation.

As are the comments of the media.

The question is, “Is Coach Broyles trying to calm things down, or stir them up?”

Three letters indicate apathy on the part of the fan base. Apathy on the part of the fan base is not good. Remember that last December in the heat of the Houston Dale pursuit of LSU Coach Broyles made comments about the Coach losing a part of the fan base when the Coach appears to be looking at another school.

The statement by Coach Broyles about only receiving three letters is consistent with his previous point about losing the fan base. If he doesn’t receive another letter, it indicates fans are losing interest. If fans react to his comments and bombard him with anti-Houston Dale letters, all the better. Either way makes the same point he brought up in December.

So, while Coach Broyles is not going to let Houston Dale lose his job over problems created by the NCAA investigation, he won’t have a problem with Houston Dale losing his job over problems that Houston Dale created. “Losing the fans”, fueled by the LSU situation, fueled by whatever, would be a problem that Houston Dale, not Coach Broyles, created. Remember Coach Broyles said that Houston Dale would be "the one to have to suffer the consequences, if there are any."

But some would say, "remember that Coach Broyles said at the Little Rock Touchdown Club meeting that Houston Dale would be the coach next year 'as long as I have anything to say about it.'”

Good questions to think about:

“When was the last time Coach Broyles really had something to say about the hiring and firing of University of Arkansas coaches?”

“What’s the “big money” and influence got on their mind?”

Email me at HogBlogger@hotmail.com with comments . . . .

Free Pass?

2005-09-26T15:35:00.000-05:00

After Houston Dale had his fling with Nebraska and returned home to the open arms of Jim Lindsey and the Razorback faithful, the understanding that many gathered from Athletic Director Frank Broyles was that Houston Dale would have two years of grace. Is that still the case?

Recent comments by Coach Broyles would indicate that this is still so. However, let's not forget that after Houston Dale had his flirtation attempt with LSU last December Coach Broyles by-passed the opportunity to say flattering things about Houston Dale and expressed concerns publicly that he, Houston Dale, and not "the program", would “lose” some percentage of the fan base. My view at the time was that the clock had started on the dance to departure of Houston Dale.

It would appear that Coach Broyles could possibly be of two minds on this subject. But then again the Nolan trial has told us that Coach Broyles tends to play the positive supporter in public up until the last shoe drops. Also take note that we’ve not seen an announcement that the contract for Houston Dale that was on the verge of being complete last January, and then was discussed again just a few short weeks ago, has in fact been signed. Finalizing a contract in 9 months doesn’t seem to be that difficult of an adventure if you have your mind set.

Respected sports writers and commentators have again attempted to remind the Razorback faithful of the effect the long lasting NCAA investigation is currently having on the football program. Our team, according to most fans and commentators, seems to be lacking in “SEC quality” talent, particularly in the junior and senior classes.

The question that is debated by the fans is whether or not to believe that the investigation is primarily responsible for the generally agreed upon talent gap that we are currently experiencing.

I’m not sure it matters whether or not, in fact, the fans believe the investigation is the primary cause. Why does it not matter? Because I think Coach Broyles has already conceded that he believes it has been a huge factor. I believe his recent comments are just a further indication of this.

The NCAA investigation came about due to activities by one of Coach Broyles "friends". In the grand scheme of compliance I suspect this "friend" was Coach Broyles’ responsibility to keep straight. I believe Coach Broyles feels personally responsible for the investigation. The fact that Sports Rap and other media have “reminded” us time and time again of the investigation and its supposed impact indicates to me that the media is once again been asked by Coach Broyles to influence the “tone” of the conversation.

I don’t think Coach Broyles is going to let Houston Dale be the fall guy for a problem that he, Coach Broyles, feels responsible for. No matter what he really thinks of Houston as a coach at this point.

So, is this year free? Even after the losses to Vanderbilt, USC and Alabama?

What does the “big money” and “influence” have on their minds?

What are the “run of the mill” foundation donors and season ticket holders thinking?

It’s a “bye” week. Plenty of time to think more about these things. Feel free to comment with your thoughts.

Offensive Situation

2005-09-25T09:54:00.000-05:00

I took a few minutes with the unofficial play-by-play and compiled a few stats about the Arkansas offense against Alabama.

Performance on First Down.

22 runs, 7 pass attempts. 76% running plays.
Average gain per running play: 6.8 yards.
Average gain per running play, excluding the 70 yard run: 3.8 yards.
Average gain per pass attempt (including sacks): 1.6 yards.
Ark had 15 penalty yards. Alabama had 5.
Average gain, all plays: 5.6 yards.
Average gain, all plays, excluding the 70 yard run: 3.3 yards.

The end results of our first downs left the offense in 2nd and 7 or more about 75% of the time. We had 2nd and 9 or more on 8 second downs out of 23, or about a third of the time.

Performance on Second Down

9 runs, 10 pass attempts. 47% running plays.
Average gain per running play: 3.4 yards.
Average gain per pass attempt (including sacks): 1 yard.
Ark had 22 penalty yards. Alabama had 15.
Average gain, all plays: 2.16 yards.

Our second downs were horrible to say the least.

Performance on Third Down

6 runs, 11 pass attempts. 35% running plays.
Average gain per running play: 6.2 yards.
Average gain per pass attempt (including sacks): 1.7 yard.
Ark had 10 penalty yards. Alabama had none.
Average gain, all plays: 3.3 yards.

14 of our 19 pre-penalty opportunities on third down had 6 yards or further to go. 74% of the time in 3rd and 6 or greater.

Performance on fourth Down

1 run for 10 yards, 2 passes, 1 complete, for 20 yards.

This offense is a lot like any Houston Dale offense we’ve seen over the years. There is no consistency. Yardage is accumulated in the periodic “burst” plays and not in any type of consistent fashion. And, as is obvious to all, what we are not seeing are the “stretch the field” passing plays that we saw in the late 90’s that offered the occasional big gain.

First down is leaving second down in tough positions. Defenses can easily play a couple of base running plays and put pressure on the quarterback at the same time. Third down, due to ineffective second down performance, is caught in the same situation.

I know Alabama is supposed to have a pretty good defense. Everyone in the SEC is going to have a pretty good defense. I think we make it easy for people to have good defenses against us.

Coaching, scheme, talent, whatever – we just don’t have much of an offense.

We are like the golfer that hits 4 or 5 good shots a round while shooting 105.

I’m not sure this is enough to keep everyone coming back.

[If anyone wants the Excel file with all the data in it leave me an email address]

From the HogBlogger Archives

2005-09-22T13:36:00.000-05:00

Thursday, December 30, 2004
Houston Dale, we have a problem . . . .

Houston Dale Nutt, the coach of the Arkansas Razorbacks, recently declined to immediately decline the opportunity to discuss the head football coach opening at Louisanna State University, prompting Arkansas Athletic Director Frank to observe (as quoted from the Arkansas Demozette), "it's been my experience through the years in watching other coaches and so forth that if you look like you're interested in another job . . . you lose about 10 to 15 percent of your fan base."

Actually, Coach Broyles indicated that it was the coach that would lose the fan base, saying, "If Houston did lose some [fans] over this, we hope he can win them back."

Coach Broyles apparently was ready with his short list of coaching candidates and was moving to begin forming a search committee. Apparently he goes to Augusta National prepared to multi-task. I wonder what he shot on the back nine while pondering these things?

The Demozette also states, "Broyles said he had mixed emotions about how Nutt handled the situation after being contacted . .", and that Houston would be, "the one to have to suffer the consequences, if there are any."

Coach Broyles could be speaking loudly and proudly about our coach rather than expressing such concern. After all, a really good coach's name should come up in regard to high profile openings. The University of Arkansas should be proud to have such a coach, and this type of interest from a high profile University with a head football coaching vacancy should be expected every year. There should probably be no surprise if Houston's name comes up in regard to openings in professional football. Coach Broyles has used this type of positioning before regarding Arkansas head coaches in similar cases. (Nolan, many times)

But not this time. This story played loudly in the press for the better part of 48 hours. The NWA television press played the story loudly at 5, 6 and 10. Was it possible that LSU, last year's National Champion, actually wanted to take away our football coach?

Remembering how the Razorback press basically functions as an agent of Coach Broyles (yes, I grew up reading Orville . . ), I firmly believe the press play and the comments of Coach Broyles were designed to alter the "tone" of the overall conversation around Houston as coach across the Razorback nation.

So, Houston Dale, we have a problem. Actually, you have a problem. Better fix all of those second and nines at the same time you are working on your defense. Much will be expected of you in recruiting even though you have the Athletic Director expressing concern in the press with the head coach losing up to 15% of his fan base because he appears to be interested in other jobs that come open. Identifying that one player that our offense will hang its whole season on as was previously done with Matt Jones, and Cedric Cobbs before him could prove challenging in the next couple of years.

We've seen this play before. The stage is set, the lights are on and the curtain is up. Enjoy the show. This will take awhile, but you can already see where this is headed.

Moving On

2005-09-22T12:32:00.000-05:00

If you’ve ever played or coached organized sports for any length of time you probably have experienced the feeling of getting “blown out”. It is not a fun thing.

When it happens you usually know what caused it after the fact. The other team may have just been a lot better. Or sometimes you realize that your preparation was lacking and you made the other team look a lot better than it really was. Sometimes, things just don’t go your way and it is over before you know it. Sometimes you get a little cocky. Sometimes you’re so hyped up that you can’t perform, and before you settle down you are already dead. Sometimes it is a little of everything all rolled together.

The 6th grade basketball team I coached went 15 and 1. We won the league. Our average margin of victory was over 20 points a game. I mostly remember the “and 1” game because we got blown out. It happened in the middle of the season. Truthfully, it was the best thing for us. The kids had gotten cocky and didn’t listen very well, and the coach had started coasting. We had gotten predictable in what we did both offensively and defensively and the other team prepared for us amazingly well. We got pounced on and were dead by the end of the first quarter. We easily won the second half, but by then who cared?

We went back to work and no one came close to us the rest of the year.

I think all of those first paragraph potential causes of “blow outs” happened to Arkansas against USC. Those happened in the Miami game in ’87 too.

The next year we played Miami to a dead heat in the Orange Bowl, losing 14-7. It wasn’t that they were that much better than us the previous year, we had just gotten “blown out.”

Two consecutive SWC Championships and Cotton Bowl appearances while finishing each season 13th in the nation followed the years after the Miami blow-out.

Oklahoma got “blown out” last year by USC. It can happen easily when playing a really good team - especially when that team has an extra week of preparation.

As a coach, and as a team, and as fans, you need to try and understand why you got “blown out” and what you might need to do differently. Then you need to dig in and go back to work.

The measure for the Arkansas football team – coaches and players alike – is to show up for the games and play as well as we possibly can play. Good preparation and a solid strategy that gives us the best opportunity to realize our utmost potential is a must. Strong fundamental execution of that strategy is a must. If we can accomplish those things and we still get beat, we just tip our hats and try again next week. If we accomplish those things I would venture we will find ourselves in the winning column most of the time.

We simply got “blown out.” Not happy or proud about it. Didn’t like it. However, I don’t think this particular one should serve as an overall measurement of our program. In fact, it really just serves as an opportunity to better realize things that we perhaps already really knew. We will see how the coaches and team react and go from there

Let’s move on. Alabama awaits.

About the Defense

2005-09-21T10:21:00.000-05:00

Coach Broyles has come out again in support of Houston Dale. Reggie Herring has used the word “embarrassed”. I was glad to hear that word being used. Things happened we should’ve been embarrassed about. Other things happened because . . .

USC is a great team. They have an offense that is well designed. They were well prepared. They obviously took us seriously. I took some more time and reviewed the game again – mostly because I love watching great offenses.

Really good offenses are able to manipulate and attack defenses. Film study of a defense reveals the things that a defense “likes” to do. Tendencies and behaviors are revealed. Put the defense in a position where you can predict their actions and you can exploit them.

USC was well prepared for the things they expected us to do on defense. Their quarterback was coached by perhaps the best quarterback coach ever in college football, Norm Chow. His ability to recognize at the line of scrimmage of what the defense is giving you is excellent. Their preparation and ability as an offense to line up in such ways as to give him a “look” can’t be underestimated.

For a perfect combination of the two points above look at the scoring pass to Reggie Bush. Based on the alignment of the offense, and then what the defense was “showing”, that play was a “killer” play to run. Not only was the play designed to isolate Bush on the middle linebacker if everyone on defense did what they were supposed to do, the linebacker was frozen for a couple of steps by a play fake. The speed of Reggie Bush combined with the accuracy of Matt Leinart’s passing, combined with a “young” secondary of Arkansas were pretty important in it ending up as a touchdown, but you had to just be impressed with the overall design of that play and the fact that a college team was doing that. (As an aside, that play was in the play cards of the old NFL Strategy game I used to play in the early 70's, so it is not exactly a "new" thing from an offensive football perspective, so I'm only a little impressed. I doubt that was the first time USC had used it and wonder how we let ourselves get in that position since we were supposedly so aware of Reggie Bush.)

We had missed assignments on defense. No doubt. The 76 yard run by Bush was primarily due to the outside linebacker totally running out of the play. You can’t see the whole field on a non-HD broadcast, replay views weren’t coaches views, so hard to see all of the misses. I’ll just take Herring's word for it.

The USC offense also put us in positions where players had to make a choice of how to react, with either choice possibly leaving something open. That’s just clever offense. I don’t view those as “missed” assignments, although maybe the judgment of which is the better choice to make could be better. That’s a function of preparation plus experience, and we have a young secondary.

Good examples of this occurred in the late moments of the Cowboys-Redskins game on Monday night. On both Redskins touchdowns Roy Williams made the wrong choice for about two steps. That’s all it took. He has both talent and experience.

As someone who has an appreciation for clever offensive attacks, I enjoyed how USC used our pressure, pursuit and tendency to play man-to-man against us. They were well prepared for this and had specific strategies for attack. I like it when an offense attacks a defense.

My fundamental criticism of Arkansas’ offense is that we very seldom do any of the things I’ve mentioned.

Is there really anything we could have done to have prevented what happened to us? In the whole, not a lot. We could have had the best talent in the country on the field and I'm not sure it would have made a lot of difference.

Opening in “pressure” man coverage was obviously not a good idea. USC is just way too good on offense for us to do that. A look at the USC-Oklahoma film should have told us that. The alternative? Try and play “safe” zones, keep everything in front of us, and hope they make a mistake or two before they make it to the end zone. Seems a little wimpy for real he-man defense, but better safe than sorry. They would have still scored a lot, but we wouldn’t feel quite so embarrassed about it.

Our blitzing is not going to work if it remains as obvious has it has been in the last two games. A good offense will attack you in the vacated spot. Even Leinart threw a “goat ball” for a touchdown by simply going into the spot vacated by the blitz.

I've lived through several iterations of Arkasas going to this type of defense. This one is feeling a little below Don Lindsey'ish right now.

I love the tough, pressure defense. I also believe in having a sound approach to the game that gives you the best opportunity to stay in the game. The pressure and the blitz can be used in a risky fashion. We opened the USC game doing that. We played the fourth quarter against Vanderbilt doing that. That’s my criticism.

I like what Reggie wants to do on defense. I know we need more talent on the field. I just don’t like the way I see him going about things. The yelling and screaming and white board gyrations I witnessed at the Vanderbilt game aside, the fourth quarter of Vanderbilt and early game plan against USC just didn’t make sense to me from an approach standpoint. We laid ourselves out on a silver platter for USC and they ate us up quickly. We were going to get eaten, but we should’ve been tougher to swallow than we were.

Oh Well -- What'd Ya Expect?

2005-09-18T12:32:00.000-05:00

It’s good we have “Arkansas” on the front of the jerseys now. Sort of completes the “directional school” feel to our football program that we have going on.

I’m close to writing off Reggie Herring. Yeah, blame the talent, blame the execution. There are issues there. I also see dumb stuff going on out there that looks to me like it’s been coached that just doesn’t work. And, obviously we are fairly easy to figure out.

We gambled on defense. We blitzed. We played man-to-man. We died an early death. Didn't even make a game of it for five minutes. Probably would've worked if they had just ran simple running plays to start the game like a normal team.

Oh wait . . . they did. . . . .

76 yard run by Reggie Bush. Corner blitz on the off side of a simple zone blocking running play. Our play that everyone gripes about us running all of the time. Linebacker on the side of the blitz totally vacates his area and decides that the middle linebacker needs support. A simple cut back and Bush is pretty much gone.

Later, Arkansas runs the same play. McFadden makes the same cut in the backfield Bush made. Crosses the line of scrimmage and runs directly into the linebacker while the cornerback stands by and watches closely in case the linebacker needed help. He didn’t. Had the back not cut back into the linebacker I’m sure that linebacker would have gotten a “loaf” and a pink jersey in the mail from Reggie.

The next touchdown (or the second time Reggie Bush touched the ball, however you want to describe it) our scheme left the middle linebacker to cover the running back man-to-man after a simple play action fake to the fullback into the middle of the line (designed to "freeze" the linebacker -- Ya Think?). They have an offense and a smart quarterback that uses the defensive schemes and tendencies back against the defense. As opposed to our, “here’s what we are going to do, no big secret, we don't care what you do, just try and stop us” offensive philosophy. (Ok, we ran one screen pass and two draw plays. Surprise, surprise. Could’ve scouted those on the message boards since Houston Dale apparently listens to boards to some extent, ["Any freshmen running backs play this week? One started? Did he fumble?"] else those message board guys and Houston Dale are having the same brilliant ideas . . . doubt they want to claim that at this point!)

These DVR’s with the pause buttons are such fun. You can greatly compound your misery watching replays.

Simply knowing where to be is pretty important in playing defense in any sport. “Floor balance”, off-side rebounding position and the basic “stay between the man and the basket” in basketball. “Staying home” and “keeping containment” in football. Huge expanses of vacant or unaccounted for space are not good things. The people playing our defense either have no clue where they should be, or, they’ve been coached and encouraged to be in the wrong places. We are seeing a lot of people in the wrong places (where do those defensive ends go on every play?). And, they certainly are not loafing in getting to these places. Forget containment, you better be running to get somewhere or you run the risk of suffering unimaginative bombardment by the F-word tyrant.

At any rate, we punted well. Allowed zero return yardage. Did a bit of good on offense at times.

Our offensive line seemed to specialize in “look out” blocks. Our lines, both sides of the ball, simply couldn’t compete at this level. With their first or second, and possibly third string players.

For whatever reason, our coaching staff appears to boys among men in just about every aspect. Good coaches watch our films and then just kill us. They even ran a set play on the “sky-kick” kickoff.

USC didn’t need anywhere near that level of preparation to destroy us. They were that much better than us.

Take the “snake oil” wagon out of the barn and get ready to hitch up the horse. I’ve got a feeling the “salesman” may be on the look out for a new territory soon.

Live, from LA, it's . . .

2005-09-16T11:39:00.000-05:00

Can the Arkansas Razorbacks line up and play with the USC Trojans?

Not according to the Vegas line. “Only in your dreams” would be an appropriate non-numerical way of describing the Vegas line.

Can we play with them? Yes, if we. . . .

Don’t let them “jump” on us. Expect to have to take a couple of tough punches, weather a storm or two and be prepared mentally to fight back hard. We need to stay in the game and build confidence. They will score on us, no doubt. There's a reason they are number 1.

Go beyond just talking about ball control, moving chains, running clock and actually do those things. Our offense needs to dictate the pace of the game. Solid play calls, mix it up, attack their weaknesses with our strengths -- which means we should run a lot. Their defense, at this point in the season, is probably not outstanding.

Keep our defense off of the field. Play field position. Leave them a long way to go on each possession.

Don’t gamble on defense. These guys are good. They will eat us for lunch if we blitz and gamble with one-on-one coverage. We have to mix it up, though, and try and get them reacting to our defense.

Have a solid game from our Special Teams – which would be most unusual in the Houston Dale era.

Take points when we can. We will need at least 5 scores -- more than 28 points (maybe a lot more) -- to win this game.

This is a game where success will be measured on the scale of, “did we play the very best we could play?” We are playing a great team, at least on offense, and the odds are realistically against us. However, there is no reason we shouldn’t come out and represent to the best of our abilities and play these guys a good game.

For the Defense . . .

2005-09-13T09:46:00.000-05:00

So, yesterday I said it was the offense, not the defense, that was the primary cause of the loss to Vanderbilt. Threads on some message boards said that it was clearly the defense. Here’s why I disagree.

Let me lead with recognizing that Vanderbilt played a really good game. They fought to the end, never gave up, and deflected some pretty good shots from us. They deserve the credit for beating us. I do think we had the talent to win the game. It takes talent, plus scheme, plus execution, plus sometimes a bit of luck, to win.

Our defense held Vanderbilt to 3 and out on 3 out of 6 possessions in the first half, with the 6th being 2 plays at the end of the half. For the half, our offense held the ball for 17:48 versus Vanderbilt having the ball for 12:12. We scored 10 points, and left 7 points on the table. Vanderbilt was 3 and out on 6 of their first 10 possessions.

Our first 30 plays gained 206 yards, or just under 7 yards a play. Our first 24 plays gained 175 yards, or 7.3 yards a play. With 206 yards in offense on 3 drives, we scored only 10 points.

Our struggle started when our offense ran only 11 plays in the second quarter, gaining 39 yards, or 3.5 yards a play, and punting on all 3 possessions of the quarter. We lost time of possession in the 2nd quarter by just over 3 minutes.

Did the script run out, or did we just get 2 scores and get a bit happy with ourselves, or did Vanderbilt buckle down on us after goal line stand and then holding us to a field goal? (You can’t let a team you are supposed to beat hang around and gain confidence)

At any rate, we left the defense on the field for over 9 minutes of the second quarter.

After going 3 and out to start the 3rd quarter, we then ran an additional 20 plays for 136 yards, or 6.8 yards a play. Time of possession was slightly in our favor for the quarter. A little more scripting at halftime?

The 4th quarter was 3 and out, 3 and out. 6 plays, 11 yards prior to Vanderbilt scoring the winning touchdown..

In the 3rd quarter Vanderbilt was 3 and out on 3 out of 5 possessions. But, their last 3 real drives of the game, starting at 30 seconds to go in the 3rd quarter, took up 32 plays and 12:11 in possession time.

So, it is obvious to some, the defense blew the game in those last 32 plays (with help from the "bad" calls).

On the surface, and from a practical standpoint, that is true. The defense could have just stopped them and kept giving the ball back to the offense. But what did our offense do with the ball when it had it?

In the last 45 minutes of the game, our offense had the ball for 16:50, with the longest possession being 2:42. 6 punts, 2 scores, turned it over on downs once, and the game ending interception. For the possessions we punted on we ran 20 plays, or 3.3 plays per possession. 4 of the 6 were 3 and outs. We turned it over on downs after trying a very “iffy” gadget play on 3rd and 2 followed by a poor read on an option play when we should have been kicking a field goal. Conservatism, on that particular series, was not the issue. Sound decision making was. (Somebody has to call out the coaches . . . since the coaches are only calling out the players.)

My point? We were leaving the defense out to hang from the second quarter on. The touchdown we failed to make on the goal line (besides the mental effect to the teams and the crowd) plus the number of 3 and outs simply gave Vanderbilt and their NFL prospect quarterback too much opportunity. I was amazed that our defense was doing so well against Vanderbilt for much of the game and not really surprised with what happened in the 4th quarter.

I do agree with Tipster. Too much blitzing in the 4th quarter. A good offense will hit plays on a blitz when given enough opportunities. It only takes one play out of 4 to keep the chains moving. The odds were against the defense.

Still, we came within 26 seconds of winning the game, even after a bit of help for Vanderbilt on the calls.

However . . . .

We would have never gotten to the situation where that one “cut” and that one run out of bounds (Robert’s “mistakes”, per Houston Dale) was so important if we had moved the ball on even one possession in the 2nd quarter. Definitely wouldn’t have been in that situation if we had scored on the goal line in the 1st quarter.

The defense had sins. Too many penalties (so did the punt return team). Giving up a 72 yard run. Getting beat on the out and up. Other mistakes in the secondary. Giving a great quarterback too many looks at the blitz.

But the offense left them hanging out there. On 13 possessions it came away with nothing 9 times. 70% of the time with nothing. And on only 2 of the 9 empty possessions did it run over 4 plays. So, over 54% of our possessions were for 4 plays or less. Execution and decision making left at least 10 points on the table.

It wasn't clearly the defense that brought about the loss.

Monday HogBlogger Thoughts

2005-09-12T11:26:00.000-05:00

Two games down, we know more about this team and our coach. Film has been reviewed, press meetings have been had, message boards have been reviewed, sources have been questioned, so, some thoughts.

We could have have easily trounced Vanderbilt. We had plenty enough talent on the field to do that.

I saw quite a number of good things going on. Vastly improved from last year. Good improvement in some areas from the first game.

I like where we are going with this defense. Tough, pressure defense.

So, what do I think went wrong?

I think offense, not defense, was the bigger issue. I think the defense could have “saved” us, but in fairness that would have been asking a lot. The offensive performance (lack of) in the second half, particularly in the 4th quarter, simply gave Vanderbilt too many chances. Offense has a responsibility to keep the defense off of the field. Especially a running, “ball control” type of offense.

Did the defense have issues? Yes. But we’ll leave those for another day. I like our progress there, and, besides, don’t feel that those “lost” us the game.

As I stated in my post directly following the game, the goal line stand was the defining moment of the game. It changed the flow and the feel of the game. With 4 downs from the 3, you should pass on at least one of them. 2nd down was the passing down. The reason the linebackers were quickly into the backfield, as Houston Dale noted, was that they didn’t have anything else they felt they needed to do – like maybe worry about a pass. Watch the NFL. Each team has an array of plays for this situation. We do too. We’ve seen them in the overtime games. You just have to call them.

But, there are issues I see that are bigger than just the one goal line event. The top 3.

When the script ends, the imagination on offense ends. You see this happen after 15 or 20 plays each game. You see us brighten up a bit after halftime, probably because we scripted a few more plays at the half.

What is this telling us? In the heat of the game the conservatism really kicks in. We lose a bit of focus on how we intended to attack the defense and start doing things that we are just comfortable with. We do basic runs. We only throw out patterns. We get easy to predict. We are stubborn and are just going to pound the ball.

Why do we always run after a long play that results in a first down? The answer is easy. Houston Dale gets excited and can’t really think of anything else in the heat of the moment. I suspect it is also at this moment that he really doesn’t have time to listen to anyone sitting in the press box. Why 3 straight pounds into the line on the goal line? Besides being stubborn, in the heat of battle he only does the basics if he doesn’t have a script ready.

Trust issues. When you don’t trust that people will perform, then they for sure won’t. You probably won’t even let them on the field. You can’t make a field goal with your kicker on the sidelines. Felix Jones can’t break a big run sitting on the sidelines.

It’s been said, “whatever you think about people, you’ll get to be right.” At least, you’ll be right in your own eyes.

When you don’t trust people, and then you are put into a position where you have no choice but to “try” and trust them, your lack of confidence will feed into their performance. Your lack of trust will probably end up being reinforced.

As to Felix Jones and his “fumble” after being down – I saw it clearly too. He was down and relaxing when he let the ball go. My feeling at the time was that Houston Dale would use it as an excuse not to use him. He is predictable in more than just play calling.

The idea of the “Hero”, or the “chosen one”. Each year we seem to have one. It was Cobbs, it was Matt. This year it is Peyton Hillis. Peyton is a very talented Arkansas kid that could very well play at the next level. Houston Dale promised him an expanded role if he would stay around rather than transfer. Peyton is a bit spoiled it seems. Even after game 1, when asked how he “felt” about his role, he paused and gave a non-committal answer. Both the question and the answer were telling us things.

This is why, after the second fumble in game 1, he went right back in a tailback and didn’t have to suffer banishment for a while. This is why Houston Dale talked after the Vanderbilt game about him “running good”. It is Peyton Hillis that wants to score the touchdown when the ball is on the 1 yard line. He’s being “coddled” (American Heritage: “to treat indulgently; baby”) to keep him happy. He certainly has enough talent to perhaps be worth it. However, if you let Felix Jones into the game and he did really well Peyton might become even more non-committal about how he “felt” about his role.

I saw positives on offense.

D. Howard is running really well – as well as I’ve ever seen him run. I do think he had too many carries and might have gotten tired. We have fresh legs on the bench. The opportunity is there to vary the load. Especially later in a game when a defense that has little bench is apt to be tired.

The Offensive Line performed well. A great offensive line will struggle at times if the defense is zero’ed in on the right play at the right time.

Robert Johnson had some really good moments. Yes, he could’ve cut to the middle, and yes, he shouldn’t have even gotten close to the boundary. He did throw some really good passes and scrambled well at times. He managed the team very well. I saw issues with his feet on at least 3 passing plays, including the 2nd down on the last possession, that kept him from hitting open guys. I do wonder if the design and timing of the play in all 3 cases was not a factor in not having his feet ready. I do like him on sprint out passes. He can be a great pass-run threat.

Peyton Hillis played well. He was over-looked in the flat several times, finally scoring when they did hit him after giving great effort. He is an outstanding talent. The pass he threw to Monk in the end zone, from a dead run, was money. Monk was a bit lazy, waiting for it to settle into his body instead of going up and getting it with his hands.

If Houston Dale would call the whole game like he calls the first 15 plays our offense would be amazing. The balanced threat given by the passing really helps open up the running. When the passing threat drops off, the running drops off also.

I didn’t like the series that had the 2 “gadget” plays in it. True, both almost worked, but when they didn’t I thought we lost a bit and Vanderbilt gained a bit in the momentum department. Besides, I’d seen those in practice and they didn’t work there, so I can’t imagine why they would work in a game. We needed first downs to keep our defense off the field as well as another score.

When you let someone that is not supposed to win hang in the game, it has a mental effect on both teams.

All is not lost here. We have talent and we have schemes in place to be very successful on offense. Just need to be sure we make full use of these things in the heat of the game. My concern is more with our ability to do this than with the quality of our talent we put on the field on offense.

Uniforms Email

2005-09-04T23:16:00.000-05:00

Email to the Houstonnutt Contact Us Form . . .

-----Original Message-----
From: HogBlogger
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 10:40 PM
To: ********@uark.edu
Subject: Houstonnutt Contact Us Form

Info. below are from HogBlogger

Sent on Monday, November 8, 2004 at 23:39:31

Comments: I've been a fan for 40 years. It pains me to see the black trim on the uniforms of both the football team and the basketball team. The school colors are Razorback Red and White. I feel the black trim has no place on the uniforms. Besides, we've had very limited success with black trim on the uniforms. When the bball team won the national championship the uniforms had no black trim. This may sound stupid, but at least think about it. I think the classic uniform, no trim, is the best. And please get that huge stripe off of the pants while you are at it. Thanks for listening.

Response received . . .

HogBlogger,

Thanks for the email and your support for the Razorbacks. Usually, the uniforms are the decision of the head coach and the athletic director. I will give Coach Nutt a copy of your note. Thanks for caring enough to write and express your thoughts and concerns.

Sincerely....... *** name deleted ***
Football Operations
University of Arkansas

New Uniforms

2005-09-04T22:51:00.000-05:00

It's taken me 24 hours to decide how I feel about having "Arkansas" across the front of our uniforms. I've decided I'll be ok with it even though a part of me thinks it's a bit cheesy.

Removing the black trim from around the numbers is a good move -- I've never liked the black trim. I have a theory that the lack of success of our seasons, both basketball and football, is directly related to the amount of black trim and other strange stuff we do to uniforms. Note the '94 bball team mostly wore uniforms without black trim. When we're putting a lot of focus on different ways to make the uniforms look I think we are losing focus somehow.

I'm for the traditional, or close to traditional, football jerseys. I appealed strongly to Hatfield to bring them back prior to his first season, and appealed to Houston Dale via email last November to do away with the black trim around the numbers. The stripe on the pants looks much better, but could still stand to be a bit more narrow at the top. I hope we land on a look and stop worrying about it every year.

The stadium looks great except for that red'ish / pink'ish trim around the field in RRS. If we can just do something about that . . .

Missouri State -- Quick Thoughts

2005-09-03T22:41:00.000-05:00

Just back home from the game. Quick thoughts.

Fumbles. Lots. Both teams. Hurt and helped. Hillis fumbles -- was simply holding the ball loose. Every team will be swatting at the ball the rest of the year when he's got it. Monk after reception for a first down. Defense really good at times. Quickness and speed on display, linebackers and secondary. Was nice to see. Too many mistakes however. Gave up an 85 yard run, and a few other things that people will notice on film. The middle was wide open way too many times. Without the early fumbles Missouri State might have hung in longer and perhaps even put a scare in us. Never any doubt about the outcome though. I think we should be disappointed that we gave up over 300 years by the middle of the 3rd quarter.

Running game -- 3 people over 100 yards, another with 70+. Can't complain. Offensive Line was good (consider the competition). Hillis ran well and made a lot of yards after first contact. Felix Jones is a keeper. Emmitt like with speed. Good vision, good cuts through traffic. Ran over 3 guys once to get the extra 2 yards needed for a first down. By the second half Howard had plenty of motivation to perform or risk never seeing the field again. He came through pretty well, showing more speed at times than I thought he had.

Passing -- starting quarterback had 88 yards in 12 completions, total of 108 for game and Alex completed 1 for 20 yards. Do you need to hear more? Waco RoJo made a terrible decision on the first pass of the game, but did much better thereafter. Has a gun for an arm and made a few really good throws. Mostly posession stuff, but not a good completion percentage. Houston Dale has to be disappointed with this. We did have 5 receivers in the pattern on one play, but had another with only a long post and a fly pattern -- with the new feature this year of a dump off guy, so I guess that's an improvement. Saw lots of 1 back, multi-receiver sets. Will be interesting to see what that all turns into at some point. As I thought, we didn't push this much. Unfortunately, we didn't end up working on this much either, as we got more than a little concerned in the 3rd quarter.

Special Teams -- for the most part not sharp. Delay of game on a field goal attempt because we were just dragging around. Opening kickoff of the game was amusing -- never seen that before. Except for 1 instance, kick-off and coverage wasn't impressive.

First game. We saw them for real and know a bit more, but due to the level of competition we are still pretty much in the dark. Pretty much like I thought going in, except I expected to see a sharper passing game and fewer big gains given up by the defense.

New Orleans

2005-09-01T12:28:00.000-05:00

It is beyond belief what has happened to New Orleans, Gulfport, Biloxi, and that whole area from Hurricane Katrina. Our prayers go out from the TipsterHog Blog to everyone affected.

I was fourth grader when I first walked Bourbon Street. It was New Year’s Eve. Really crowded, wall to wall people, and really interesting stuff happening inside of some of those joints. I stopped often to gaze through any windows and doors I could find, only to be jerked away as we moved on down the street. We walked several blocks away from Canal Street, then turned around and walked back. I had one of those really long red plastic horns that I would periodically blow with all my fourth grade might. There was lots of yelling going on.

The next day I put on my red sports coat, red Colonel Sanders type tie that said “Go” on one side and “Hogs” on the other and sat on row 102 of Tulane Stadium at about the 20 yard line on the end where Chuck Dicus caught that touchdown pass and watched the Razorbacks surprise Georgia 16-2 in the Sugar Bowl. That night, we walked Bourbon Street again and I was even more obnoxious with that horn until it got taken away from me.

Oh yeah, I rode in the elevator with Frank Broyles.

I spent the better part of a week in New Orleans on that first trip. Discovered I loved the music there as well as the boiled shrimp.

I went back for the last Final Four that was held in New Orleans. I retraced my steps from that first trip, walking through the lobby of the hotel we had stayed in back in 1968, and, of course, walking the French Quarter, my focus this time being on how much catfish, shrimp and oysters I could eat every day.

Even though I’ve only been there 3 times, New Orleans to me has always held a fascination.

Bourbon Street, for those that haven’t been there, is somewhat of a smelly place. Not a place to go jogging in the mornings.

The food in New Orleans – I love it.

I hope it doesn’t end up being another Atlantis.

Game Day Approaching

2005-09-01T11:48:00.000-05:00

Game day Saturday. Closed practices. We’ve not seen much of the team, and what we’ve heard, some think, is only what the coaches want us to hear. What do I expect to see Saturday?

While the Razorback band has not been having closed practices, I haven’t bothered to go see them. Nothing against the band – I think we always have a fine band – it’s just that I expect the pre-game show to be essentially unchanged, but, would be delighted to be surprised a bit.

Houston Dale’s been limping more lately, so I expect he’ll get passed by the players before he makes it halfway through the “A”.

On offense I expect to see us play around a bit with things. We will play a number of people, which will make the execution spotty at times. I expect the running game to look pretty good – as much as anything due to the level of competition – and to see us “practice” different aspects of the passing game just a bit, but not too much, as I expect we want the film to get only so “rich” with the offense in the first game. I expect the passing game will have more of a “possession” type feel to it in the early games. Lots of dump offs and short, safe stuff. Lots of Hillis doing different things. We’ll still see some shots downfield, but that won’t be all we see. And, most passing plays will have more than 2 receivers available.

Defense will look good – again, mostly due to the level of competition. I expect to see many players, especially on the defensive line, as Herring will be focused on seeing who brings the speed and hustle he is looking for. Anyone taking plays off or loafing will be noticed by the coaches and will suffer in various ways. I don’t expect us to be “tested” to a great degree. I don’t expect the defense to really hit its stride until middle of the season.

Hopefully we will see solid special teams play. This is an area where I feel we’ve been lacking for several years and that has hurt us at key times. I would like to see this be a weapon instead of a “hope we don’t screw it up” occasion.

For the most part the coaches have come out of practices talking more negative than positive. It has turned the last few days with Houston Dale's comments. I've wondered - Are we poor-mouthing a bit? Adding a bit of motivation to the players? Trying to manage fan expectations? Who knows. What I've heard from the inside is that we've not necessarily looked very good for the most part.

For the year I expect our approach will continue to be ball control with a solid running game and more of a possession passing game, manage field position, limit mistakes on offense, look for the occasional big shot downfield, focus on shutting down the run on defense and trying to keep people in 2nd and 3rd and long so we can bring out the blitz packages, and hoping that special teams do their part. In other words, we’ll try and play a lot like the 98 and 99 teams. No real mystery or great observation in this paragraph.

We’ll know a bit more about this team after the first game. I don’t expect to know a whole lot more after the first game. I'm looking forward being at the game and enjoying the festivities.

Circles

2005-08-25T19:43:00.000-05:00

Bob Holt's article about Houston Nutt putting circles on the Razorback football schedule when he was a kid, along with Chuck's playing off of that on Sports Rap last night got me to thinking.

Do Arkansas fans today really have an appreciation for what being a member of the SEC has brought to us?

In his book, The Inner Game of Tennis, Tim Galloway provides the secret to never losing another tennis match. The secret? “Never, ever, play anyone anywhere near as good as you are.”

Most years that’s what we had in the SWC. We hardly ever played anyone anywhere near as good as we were. You could circle lots of wins prior to the season ever starting. But what was the story when we played someone that was supposedly good?

Coach Broyles was 5-14 against Texas. 4-6 in 10 Bowls over 19 years. 2-5 against the SEC in Bowls. Holtz was 2-5 against Texas. Beat Texas in Little Rock in '79 and the crowd wouldn't leave. Beat Texas in Fayetteville when they were ranked number 1 in one of my personal favorite Razorback games to have ever witnessed, as Texas pretty much self-destructed. Was 2-3-1 in Bowl gamess. Holtz’s most famous game was the Oklahoma Orange Bowl with Frank’s players. Of course, Holtz was jinxed by the College Football Pre-season cover of Sports Illustrated that proclaimed, “Holtz and Hogs Number 1”, and somehow forgot to recruit, took his heated chair and moved North.

We won lots with Hatfield. We went 2-4 against Texas. Played in 6 straight Bowl games, went 1-5 with 3 of the losses to SEC teams. We returned to more traditional jerseys, but otherwise people were unhappy. Many thought it was boring running all the time. We did beat Houston and Andre Ware one night in Little Rock with Quinn and an air show – that was pretty exciting. The Texas loss on the last play and the Miami slaughter in Little Rock were no fun (the only time I’ve ever left before the game was over). No matter that we played Miami to a dead heat the next year, we couldn’t quite get over the top when we played the big boys.

Our passing era, beginning with Bill Montgomery’s long incompletion on the first play of his varsity career wasn’t necessarily that successful against non-SWC teams. In the 5 years of Montgomery and Ferguson we beat Texas once. Stanford beat us prior to going on to winning the Rose Bowl, USC beat us 2 out of 3 while winning 2 National Championships, Mississippi beat us in the Sugar Bowl with “Archie Who” after our loss in the “Game of the Century”, and we lost to Texas 42-7 in Austin the next year (Sports Illustrated Cover – “Texas Slaughters Arkansas”). Ferguson’s team beat Texas in the middle of the following season and promptly phoned in a couple of games, ending up in the Liberty Bowl to lose to Tennessee. (yeah, I know, the fumble). Ferguson’s career and our days as the nation's most sophisticated passing offense ended with Ferguson being benched in the last game of his career in another “in one era and out the other” moment. We did beat Georgia a couple of times in Bowl games to somewhat book-end this period, but mostly we found ourselves disappointed in just about every “big” game we played after beating Texas in 1965.

Could the lack of strong competition week in and week out have contributed to that?

When Arkansas lost to Alabama in the Sugar Bowl during the Lou Holtz era I remember Holtz saying something like, “either our boys are going to have to get bigger, or we are going to have to get bigger boys.” Our offensive and defensive line just got dominated by Alabama.

Then we joined the SEC, prior to Houston Dale, as mostly a comedy act (due to coaching changes), but with some success, beating Alabama in Bryant-Denny and finding our way to the SEC Championship Game. The SEC has been a challenge that has called Razorback football to grow much stronger than, excepting for perhaps 2 or 3 years, it had ever been. We had to. Otherwise, we stood the chance to be totally embarrassed week in and week out.

While we’ve only been 2-4 in Bowls under Houston Dale, we have beaten Texas 2 out of 3 times. Except for the unfortunate late fumble, we had them beat in Fayetteville last year. We played Oklahoma to a standstill in the Cotton Bowl – they won the National Championship the following year. Yes, we’ve struggled against the Eastern Division of the SEC -- Georgia, Tennessee, and Steve Superior’s Florida at times. We’ve also played some really great games against these teams, particularly Tennessee.

The NCAA Probation has been a drag. No doubt. Signs of recovery are around, but recovery is realistically still a couple of years off. The schedules are the toughest that Arkansas has faced in its football history.

From the perspective of a long term fan, I like it that we can’t easily circle wins. I like it that much of our schedule is likely to be highly ranked nationally each year. I love it that all of those great teams come to Fayetteville to play in our really great stadium just to the North of our really great practice complex with its really great new weight room.

Last night on Sports Rap the talk was of how now we appeared to “own” Alabama in Bryant-Denny. Times have definitely changed.

My view is that Razorback football is stronger than ever. We are a much tougher football team on a regular basis than most any year in Razorback history you can pick out. The money, the facilities, the fan base, all stronger than ever.

It’s easy for fans to have a view of the past that is more glorious than in fact the past actually was. They question conferences and recruiting. It’s true, this could be made easier. We could move to some other conference that is not as difficult as the SEC. If we want to easily circle 8 wins each year, have maybe 2 good challenging games a year, with the strong probability that we will lose them, then we should not just consider going to the Big 12, but should pick a smaller conference with a cast much like the old SWC.

I like where we are. The opportunity to play against top competition in every conference game is a rush. The SEC is a tough conference, and our football team is much tougher than it once was. I think things are much more interesting now.

Being able to circle the majority of the games as wins in pre-season may make us feel tough and strong, but only until we play someone who is actually tough and strong. Then we just feel disappointed.

Media Guide Explored

2005-08-17T19:37:00.000-05:00

There has been much discussion regarding Arkansas offense on the various message boards. I thought it would be interesting to see how the "era of Houston Dale" looked in the record books.

All information taken from the 2005 Arkansas Media Guide.

During the time of Houston Dale, we've seen . . . .

5 out of the top 12 individual yardage rushing games.
2nd and 7th highest individual yardage rushing seasons.
The 3rd, 5th and 6th leading career yardage rushers.
5 out of the top 12 passing yardage games
5 out of the top 12 passing yardage seasons
Top 2 career passers in yardage, Clint and Matt. 2 of the top 4 if you want to eliminate Clint’s “non-Houston” years.
5 of the top 6 touchdown passes seasons, and the top 2 career touchdown passing leaders.
Clint Stoerner holds the top three positions in number of passes attempted in a season, while Matt hold position 6.
Clint is number 1 in career passing attempts, Matt is number 3.
Clint and Matt hold 3 of the top 4 games with most passes completed.
Pass completions for a season, Clint hold positions 2 and 4 (and 3, 1997), while Matt holds positions 6, 10, and 11.
Career pass completions, Clint is number 1, Matt is number 3.
Career total offense, Matt is number 1, Clint is number 2.
Career touchdowns. Matt is number 1, Clint is number 2
Clint and Matt combined had 9 games over 250 yards passing under Houston.

Looking at defense versus offense, and wins and losses in the Houston Dale era to date:

1998 -- Yards given up per game, 306.4 total, 95.5 rushing

1998 -- 9 wins, 3 losses, 4,333 yards total offense, 9th in school history (12 games)

1999 -- Yards given up per game, 302.5 total, 100.8 rushing

1999 -- 8 wins, 4 losses

2000 -- Yards given up per game, 292.1 total, 139.1 rushing

2000 -- 6 wins, 6 losses

2001 -- Yards given up per game, 376.2 total, 148.7 rushing

2001 -- 7 wins, 5 losses

2002 -- Yards given up per game, 348.1 total, 113.6 rushing

2002 -- 9 wins, 5 losses, 4,950 yards total offense, 2nd in school history (14 games)

2003 -- Yards given up per game, 344.0 total, 157.0 rushing

2003 -- 9 wins, 4 losses, 5,607 yards total offense, 1st in school history (13 games)

2004 -- Yards given up per game, 397.2 total, 180.3 rushing

2004 -- 5 wins, 6 losses, 4,337 yards total offense, 7th in school history (11 games)

29 conference wins versus 27 conference losses.

Overall record, 53 - 33.

You can draw your own conclusions. Not bad from where I sit. Obviously the poor defense in 2004 was the key stat. Average yards per game of offense in 2004 of 394 compares ok to 431 in 2003, 353 in 2002, and 361 in 1998.

You will note that the year 2000, the bridge year between Clint and Matt, had a great defensive performance but obviously the offense was lacking. Having a quarterback that can generate offense is certainly a key to success.

2005's success will depend greatly on the play of the quarterback and the improvement we see on defense. It's just that simple.

Tuesdaze -- Last Open Practice

2005-08-09T18:37:00.000-05:00

Tuesday's open practice was well attended by fans and media types alike, with appropriate set-ups for live shots, an extended cell phone call into a talk show, and the water girls staying busy due to the heat. The black tarp around the fence and the sunken nature of the West side of the practice field ensures a lack of breeze to the players were any to be available.

Reggie Herring is extremely entertaining and possibly not long for this earth if he continues to exert himself in this heat like he did today. He is colorful, explaining to one player that "Superman isn't real, he lives in comic books, and you ain't Superman."

Howard, Hillis, and company look good. I'm liking the running backs. Quarterbacks have more than a ways to go, with Casey Dick actually providing some impressive moments while serving up balls to the backs and tight ends against the linebackers and safeties. He puts the ball in good places I noticed. Robert Johnson is obviously ahead of Chris and Cole, and fortunately we have many practices days ahead for all, as it appeared many more were needed.

Monk and the other receivers have promise, but that remains a big "we'll see" with me. Cornerbacks will struggle. As it goes in football, the story will be in the offensive and defensive lines, and nothing happened today to provide any insight to that.

So there you go. No plays, alignments or schemes revealed. A fun time was had by all.

Is Closing Practices Enough?

2005-08-09T12:16:00.000-05:00

This closed practice thing has gotten a bit silly. If the media proper and the postings by various media types on message boards can be believed, we've learned that:

Houston didn't like cell phone calls into radio shows,
Reggie Herring screaming at players should be a secret,
parents are not aware that football is a rough game and players sometimes fight,
that Lou Holtz thought closing practices was a good idea, wished he had done it, and if he had to do it over again, would. (I wonder, if he had to do it all over again, would he also recruit?)

We've also been s'plained the all important role the local media plays in attending daily practices, catching and reporting each and every nuiance of practice, and druming up enthusiam for our little program stuck up here in the "Northwest corner of a poor sparsely populated state."

Now we understand that there was a network of spies posting "plays, alignments and schemes" on the Internet that were being picked up by other spies and being delivered to opposing coaches, "in some cases making sure the coaches at the school they support knew all they could" about what Arkansas would be doing on the field.

I'm thinking closing practices does not go far enough. We should be doing more. For example:

Banning our games from television and film exchanges with opponents would go far in keeping our "plays, alignments and schemes" from view.
Only paying supporters and paying customers should be allowed to view or hear of us at all, provided cell phones and cameras of any type are checked at the door.
All opponents, and all those attending games, should be required to sign non-disclosure agreements.
Ushers should be required to read Adminstering Memory Charms in Group Settings and be prepared to alter the memory of anyone at a practice or game that appears to be collecting information. They should especially be on the look-out for individuals with the appearance of being an "internet geek."
Request should be made to the appropriate authorities to block commercial and military satellite coverage of Razorback Stadium and adjoining practice field due to "security concerns".
Most importantly, we should demand that all books referencing I Formation offense, zone blocking (specifically those that mention a handoff to the I back headed off-tackle), 15 yard out patterns and flag patterns be removed from circulation.
Houston should notify his agent that his book, Offensive Football -- Strategies for Achieving Success using only 2 Receivers, is not available for pick-up.

I'm certain there is more that could be done, but why go overboard?