The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

[hogpc]

  The Good:  BA had an all world game - again! IMO he is playing better than any QB that has put on a Razorback uniform.  He is throwing the ball well, making his reads and has poise in the pocket.  With BA at the helm our offense is prolific.  I actually expect us to score every time we get the ball.  When we got the ball back with 3 minutes to go I wasn't worried at all about scoring, my concern was we would score too quickly.  Razorback fans may never see an offense this good - ever.  Then again, if Enos is responsible for this we may see it for a very long time.  The offense is no longer committing drive killing penalties - false starts, holding etc. Our receivers and tight ends have to be among the best in the country - did anyone really see this coming? Not me that's for sure.

The Bad:   We couldn't cover anybody nor could we put pressure on the QB. For the life of me I don't understand why we didn't try something different - anything!  It was a combination of bad scheme, bad play and lack of adequate adjustments. Our defense sucked - nuff said!

The blocking by our FG team on the blocked FG was pitiful. The Defender was basically given a free shot to block the kick, it was horrible. After looking at it several times I swear it looks like our blocker gives the defender the inside rush. If I was a conspiracy theorist, and I'm not, I would opine about how our guy let him through on purpose - it looked that bad.  I'm not sure if it's bad coaching or bad execution - either way something has to change, immediately!

The Ugly: Why did we quit passing once we got inside the 20 at the end of the game?  We had just moved the ball the length of the field, as we had been the entire ballgame,  and all of a sudden we go conservative! I understand that this is a judgment call.  BB decided we would run it up the middle, force them to use their timeouts, we would kick a field goal for the lead and with minimal time remaining hold them out of FG range.  In my opinion, and I told my wife this at the time, it was the wrong decision.  First, our kicker only makes 66% of his kicks - not exactly a sure thing. Certainly not as good as our odds of scoring a TD if we had stayed aggressive.  The way BA and the offense was playing there is no way they would have kept us out of the end zone. Which means they would have gotten the ball back with about a minute to go needing to score a TD to tie or win. Even as bad as our defense was playing I think we would have held them out.

In summary, this was another winnable game that slipped away.  These "winnable games that slipped away" are starting to stack up.  In light of this being Thanksgiving week I don't want to end this post on a bad note, so let me say I think we will blow Misery out of the water Friday. they don't have the offense to eviscerate us and I don't think they will be able to stop BA and our awesome receiving corps! Go Hawgs and Happy Thanksgiving!

[hogfanmd]

Obviously knowing the field goal would be blocked, going for the TD seems a no brainer and passing to get there.    Remember the game last year ended on an interception.  The safe and sound and mathematically logical thing to do is get the field goal.    Actually I wish they would have gone for the FG on 3rd down just incase bad snap and have extra try.   Michigan state used the same strategy and beat OSU.   The field goal was the right call and was not much further then an extra point.   We just didn't block well on it.  Game-set-match. 

Now the way the D played.....horrible.   

[hogpc]

Obviously knowing the field goal would be blocked, going for the TD seems a no brainer and passing to get there.    Remember the game last year ended on an interception.  The safe and sound and mathematically logical thing to do is get the field goal.    Actually I wish they would have gone for the FG on 3rd down just incase bad snap and have extra try.   Michigan state used the same strategy and beat OSU.   The field goal was the right call and was not much further then an extra point.   We just didn't block well on it.  Game-set-match. 

Now the way the D played.....horrible.   

That's why I put it under "The Ugly" not "The Bad". It's a judgment call, and I agree that a lot of coaches would have made the same call. But, the way we were moving the ball and the way the offense was punishing them - much different than last year.  BA had thrown 7 TD passes in this game and they were  not stopping us.  Ultimately it came down to who BB would trust to win this game - BA or our shaky FG team? The proof is obviously in the pudding, he made the wrong call.

[gumbohog]

My biggest beef with the conservative strategy was EVEN IF HE MADE THE KICK, we still would have given Dak 40 seconds to go down and score a FG...which, with the way he scorched our defense all night...was an eternity.

We needed a first down and BB needs to improve his end of game management. I want him to succeed and believe in what he's building...but we've got to do a better job in this department. Against auburn we were up and had the ball and allowed them to come back and score, you all know what Happened (again) against A&M, we needed a miracle against ole miss. I think we're close but we have to be more consistent in the 4th quarter. If we Solve this, the next 10 years could be a magical ride

[Inhogswetrust]

You want bad and ugly wait until tomorrows RS post.....................

[Soooie21]

Take the points....

[redeye]

I pretty much thought the same thing on that last drive.  However, it was probably the safest call and typically the one with the highest percentage for success.  Successfully kicking a FG at that mark is almost a given, except when you struggle with FGs like we do.

There's also the matter of MSU getting the ball back and potentially kicking a game-winning FG of their own, which wouldn't be possible if we'd scored a TD.   But I don't think that would have happened, anyway.  I still wish we had gone for a TD, but I can't get angry over the decision to kick the FG.  I can, however, get angry over the unacceptable problems we've had kicking FGs this year.

What bothers me more is the decision to throw long on 4th and 1.  Score a TD there and the game is over, so why would you go with a low percentage passing play, when you only need 1 yard?  Also, we needed to run time off the clock and might have run off a few more minutes, if only we'd made a first down (even a quick TD doesn't do that).  I know I'm not the only one who went from feeling assured that we'd win, to thinking we'd probably lose, after that play occurred.

[bigdaddyhawg]

The Bad:   We couldn't cover anybody nor could we put pressure on the QB. For the life of me I don't understand why we didn't try something different - anything!  It was a combination of bad scheme, bad play and lack of adequate adjustments. Our defense sucked - nuff said!

I don't think you're paying very close attention to the play on the field.  CRS DID try different things -- LB blitzes, zone blitzes, etc., but none worked as drawn up.

The problem is you can scheme all the schemes you want until you're blue in the face, but the fact is if you don't have the athletes to actually RUN those schemes, they are ALL worthless.

[hogpc]

My biggest beef with the conservative strategy was EVEN IF HE MADE THE KICK, we still would have given Dak 40 seconds to go down and score a FG...which, with the way he scorched our defense all night...was an eternity.

We needed a first down and BB needs to improve his end of game management. I want him to succeed and believe in what he's building...but we've got to do a better job in this department. Against auburn we were up and had the ball and allowed them to come back and score, you all know what Happened (again) against A&M, we needed a miracle against ole miss. I think we're close but we have to be more consistent in the 4th quarter. If we Solve this, the next 10 years could be a magical ride

Yep, another reason to put it in the "Ugly" section.

[hogpc]

I don't think you're paying very close attention to the play on the field.  CRS DID try different things -- LB blitzes, zone blitzes, etc., but none worked as drawn up.

The problem is you can scheme all the schemes you want until you're blue in the face, but the fact is if you don't have the athletes to actually RUN those schemes, they are ALL worthless.

He tried a few things a few times, but most of the time he just rushed 4 and Prescott was as comfortable as a baby in a bed. We gave up 31 pts in the first half, most of the time rushing 4, getting no pressure on the QB and giving the receivers far too much cushion.

[FrozenHam]

I feel like the Razorbacks' lack of a run game against MSU hasn't received the attention it might have if our passing game hadn't been so spectacular.  On the last drive, many of the anti-run crowd assume that three consecutive rushing plays wouldn't achieve a first down.  I suspect the coaching staff were fairly confident Collins would earn a first down and eat up clock putting us in an even better field goal position.  But, our running attack was anemic for the entire game, achieving only 73yds total.  What are people's thoughts on the lackluster running game?

[PonderinHog]

I feel like the Razorbacks' lack of a run game against MSU hasn't received the attention it might have if our passing game hadn't been so spectacular.  On the last drive, many of the anti-run crowd assume that three consecutive rushing plays wouldn't achieve a first down.  I suspect the coaching staff were fairly confident Collins would earn a first down and eat up clock putting us in an even better field goal position.  But, our running attack was anemic for the entire game, achieving only 73yds total.  What are people's thoughts on the lackluster running game?

MSU's front seven owned the line of scrimmage for the most part.  They were in our backfield all game.

[bigdaddyhawg]

He tried a few things a few times, but most of the time he just rushed 4 and Prescott was as comfortable as a baby in a bed. We gave up 31 pts in the first half, most of the time rushing 4, getting no pressure on the QB and giving the receivers far too much cushion.

Very true, and those times he did try something different the resulting pressure on the QB was NO DIFFERENT, except now the holes in the secondary were even larger, resulting in even larger plays.

[hogpc]

Very true, and those times he did try something different the resulting pressure on the QB was NO DIFFERENT, except now the holes in the secondary were even larger, resulting in even larger plays.

There were a few times we did get some pressure on him in the 3rd quarter.  We forced a few bad throws and even sacked him.  The problem is we didn't do enough early enough. What are you suggesting?  That we play the same D the whole game?

[bigdaddyhawg]

There were a few times we did get some pressure on him in the 3rd quarter.  We forced a few bad throws and even sacked him.  The problem is we didn't do enough early enough. What are you suggesting?  That we play the same D the whole game?

I'm suggesting that he can do whatever in the hell he could possibly try, and it won't make any difference.  The holes in that defense right now cannot be schemed away.  There is no scheme or set of schemes that could ever or would ever cover up the holes we currently are playing with.  Period.

It's not that our kids weren't busting their tails to play D last night.  IMO their effort is not the issue.  But playing Brooks Ellis in the middle exposes him way, WAY too much in the passing game, and I have no doubt he's the only possibly solution at MLB.  I don't know if Brooks' deficiencies might be covered up playing him somewhere else, but he can be taken advantage of every down, pretty much, by a QB who's worth his salt.  And Dak Prescott is certainly worth his salt and much, much more.

If we had stud, smart, super active safeties, then perhaps some of our LB deficiencies could be covered up, but we're not getting good safety play either.  And that is a bad, bad combination that scheme cannot correct.

[hogpc]

I'm suggesting that he can do whatever in the hell he could possibly try, and it won't make any difference.  The holes in that defense right now cannot be schemed away.  There is no scheme or set of schemes that could ever or would ever cover up the holes we currently are playing with.  Period.

It's not that our kids weren't busting their tails to play D last night.  IMO their effort is not the issue.  But playing Brooks Ellis in the middle exposes him way, WAY too much in the passing game, and I have no doubt he's the only possibly solution at MLB.  I don't know if Brooks' deficiencies might be covered up playing him somewhere else, but he can be taken advantage of every down, pretty much, by a QB who's worth his salt.  And Dak Prescott is certainly worth his salt and much, much more.

If we had stud, smart, super active safeties, then perhaps some of our LB deficiencies could be covered up, but we're not getting good safety play either.  And that is a bad, bad combination that scheme cannot correct.

Watching them rush only 4 and seeing how comfortable Prescott was for basically the whole game was very frustrating. I think a combination of corner blitzes, run blitzes and tighter coverage would have helped.  Yes Prescott would have made plays, but, he was doing that anyway.

[bigdaddyhawg]

Watching them rush only 4 and seeing how comfortable Prescott was for basically the whole game was very frustrating. I think a combination of corner blitzes, run blitzes and tighter coverage would have helped.  Yes Prescott would have made plays, but, he was doing that anyway.

Sounds great in theory on a fan message board, but the reality of it is exactly what we saw last night.

[hogpc]

Sounds great in theory on a fan message board, but the reality of it is exactly what we saw last night.

I'm not trying to bash our coaches, but, our defense has been atrocious basically all year, we are near the bottom in pass defense stats.  We currently rank 123 out of 127 - only 4 teams in all of college football give up more yards than Arkansas. If it's not the coaches then it must be the players, which seems to be your point. So, based on what you're saying, we must have the worst defensive players in the SEC and almost all of football - because according to you the results on the field are due to the players, not the coaches. Dude, not sure why you won't admit coaching is part of the problem but it obviously is.   

[bigdaddyhawg]

I'm not trying to bash our coaches, but, our defense has been atrocious basically all year, we are near the bottom in pass defense stats.  We currently rank 123 out of 127 - only 4 teams in all of college football give up more yards than Arkansas. If it's not the coaches then it must be the players, which seems to be your point. So, based on what you're saying, we must have the worst defensive players in the SEC and almost all of football - because according to you the results on the field are due to the players, not the coaches. Dude, not sure why you won't admit coaching is part of the problem but it obviously is.   

Dude, citing every possible statistic to describe what we all already know doesn't give you some kind of insight into anything.

Here's what you need to ask yourself: Is it logical that the DC who schemed and ran last year's top 10 defense suddenly went brain dead and completely forgot how to scheme a solid pass defense?  Does that really make sense to you?

Or, dude, is there another possible answer?

[wildturkey8]

Obviously knowing the field goal would be blocked, going for the TD seems a no brainer and passing to get there.    Remember the game last year ended on an interception.  The safe and sound and mathematically logical thing to do is get the field goal.    Actually I wish they would have gone for the FG on 3rd down just incase bad snap and have extra try.   Michigan state used the same strategy and beat OSU.   The field goal was the right call and was not much further then an extra point.   We just didn't block well on it.  Game-set-match. 

Now the way the D played.....horrible.   

Last years game was completely irrelevant, that thinking is one dimensional.  Sorry just call it as I see it.

[bigdaddyhawg]

Last years game was completely irrelevant, that thinking is one dimensional.  Sorry just call it as I see it.

You are wrong, sir.

The percentages say go with the FG.

The chances of getting a TD were a lot less than Voltzke blocking his assigned player.

But game outcomes aren't determined by percentages or chances, but rather actual play on the field.

[MountieDawg]

Obviously knowing the field goal would be blocked, going for the TD seems a no brainer and passing to get there.    Remember the game last year ended on an interception.  The safe and sound and mathematically logical thing to do is get the field goal.    Actually I wish they would have gone for the FG on 3rd down just incase bad snap and have extra try.   Michigan state used the same strategy and beat OSU.   The field goal was the right call and was not much further then an extra point.   We just didn't block well on it.  Game-set-match. 

Now the way the D played.....horrible.   

Have you felt confident about any FG this year over 25 yards?

[wildturkey8]

You are wrong, sir.

The percentages say go with the FG.

The chances of getting a TD were a lot less than Voltzke blocking his assigned player.

But game outcomes aren't determined by percentages or chances, but rather actual play on the field.

Have to agree to disagree on this one.  No cookie cutter answer to this one.  Our fg unit has been inconsistent all year.  The percentages say a pass would have been more likely to succeed than a fg given everything known about our team. If the fg was good, did you really have confidence in our D to keep them out of FG range?  Even though they had no timouts?  Your conclusion is normally correct but not with the data we have on this years team.  Now, on to Mizzou.

[bigdaddyhawg]

Have to agree to disagree on this one.  No cookie cutter answer to this one.  Our fg unit has been inconsistent all year.  The percentages say a pass would have been more likely to succeed than a fg given everything known about our team. If the fg was good, did you really have confidence in our D to keep them out of FG range?  Even though they had no timouts?  Your conclusion is normally correct but not with the data we have on this years team.  Now, on to Mizzou.

They had a very short FG set up.  Although it wasn't an automatic FG, I think it would have been a game winner IF IF IF IF Alex Voltzke does his freaking job.

[hogpc]

Dude, citing every possible statistic to describe what we all already know doesn't give you some kind of insight into anything.

Here's what you need to ask yourself: Is it logical that the DC who schemed and ran last year's top 10 defense suddenly went brain dead and completely forgot how to scheme a solid pass defense?  Does that really make sense to you?

Or, dude, is there another possible answer?

Obviously I struck a nerve by calling you "Dude." Sorry about that - seriously.  I shouldn't have been so cavalier, I see how it derailed the conversation.

However, I only cited one stat - a very telling one I believe. I used it just to point out how bad our defense is and to make the comparison to our players asking simply whether our defensive players are the worst in the SEC. Using your logic they would have to be.

Now, did our defensive coaches go brain dead?  I don't think so, but, neither do I believe it is 100% on the players.  Watching us play that soft coverage with almost zero pass rush for basically the entire game does make me wonder what the heck is going on.  I've been in and around football for over 40 years and this much I've learned - if what you're doing isn't working you have to try something different, and that is up to the coaches.  Ultimately, I believe there is shared blame (coaches and players) but it is on the coaches to try something different when what you're trying isn't working.  Do you honestly believe it is 100% on the players?  If so, we will just have to agree to disagree.

[bigdaddyhawg]

Obviously I struck a nerve by calling you "Dude." Sorry about that - seriously.  I shouldn't have been so cavalier, I see how it derailed the conversation.

However, I only cited one stat - a very telling one I believe. I used it just to point out how bad our defense is and to make the comparison to our players asking simply whether our defensive players are the worst in the SEC. Using your logic they would have to be.

Now, did our defensive coaches go brain dead?  I don't think so, but, neither do I believe it is 100% on the players.  Watching us play that soft coverage with almost zero pass rush for basically the entire game does make me wonder what the heck is going on.  I've been in and around football for over 40 years and this much I've learned - if what you're doing isn't working you have to try something different, and that is up to the coaches.  Ultimately, I believe there is shared blame (coaches and players) but it is on the coaches to try something different when what you're trying isn't working.  Do you honestly believe it is 100% on the players?  If so, we will just have to agree to disagree.

I'm with everybody else on here who HATES our soft coverage. 

But I believe DUE TO VERY REAL PLAYER LIMITATIONS Robb Smith is trying his best to win with what he has to work with, and we get what we got Sat night.

Go watch CBB's Monday presser.  He talks about how we'd have everybody but one guy doing his job, but Dak would find that guy's man every time.

That's two things: 1-Hats off to Dak and his great play; and 2-Did Robb Smith just draw up schemes time after time that forgot to take one player into account??

Or is it just like I've been saying: we are lacking in talent in some critical ways, experience in some critical ways, football smarts a bit, and size in our CB's.

It all adds up to give us what we're seeing.

So, YES, it's 100% on the players, as it is the vast majority of the time, or very close to it.

But CBB also addressed our need to get some help at LB.  They know the limitations they've currently got. 

If they can't get it corrected in time the entire staff will pay a heavy price, not the players.  And that's as it should be.

P.S. I was just playing with the "dude" thing. No offense taken at all!!