Matt Hall update

[SquidBilly]

Why do we have to do anything? He has an offer and Petrino is heavily recruiting him. If he doesnt want to be a hog then see ya. The fans shouldnt have to get down on our knees and beg him.

Not get down on our knees and beg him but not crap on the kid either as some like to do.

[SquidBilly]

We want HALL as a HOG!



howse that?

That's a good start.  +1

[Boarcephus]

+1 back at ya. 

I'm the last person who will defend our passing game the last 8-10 years, especially the last 3 or so.  Its been wretched.  I just want to see arguments with facts, not emotions.  Can't wait to see what we look like next year, and especially the year after that.

We'll continue to get better.  Let's be honest, at this level the kids want to get to the pros, pure and simple.  In Petrinos system, they'll be able to put up stats that get the pros attention and they'll be drafted.  This will open the floodgates to the level of talent we've never seen at this school in terms of skill players.  Instead of ranking 2nd or 5th in the nation for fewest sacks allowed, we may rank 2nd or 5th in terms of total offense or scoring or perhaps having #'s of players drafted.   All the stats we've accomplished under Nutt ie, leading the SEC in rushing, fewest sacks allowed are meaningless when compared to others. 

[ArKan5a5 KiD]

I sure hope we can sign this kid. We need to keep all these instate kids in the state.

[UAMS_Hog_Fan]

I really don't care either way about the argument for/against Markuson, but I hate to see people argue without facts.  So here are the facts, so let them speak for themselves

2006:

Alabama = 392 pass attempts, 28 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 14.0 attempts
Arkansas = 302 pass attempts, 9 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 33.55 attempts (2007 = 313 pass, 13 sacks = 24.07)
Auburn = 282 pass attempts, 35 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 8.06 attempts
Florida = 399 pass attempts, 23 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 17.38 attempts
Georgia 342 pass attempts, 17 sacks allowed =  1 sack every 20.11 attempts
LSU = 368 pass attempts, 19 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 19.37 attempts
Kentucky = 436 pass attempts, 39 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 11.18 attempts
Ole Miss = 280 pass attempts, 29 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 9.66 attempts
Miss St = 360 pass attempts, 29 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 12.41 attempts
South Carolina = 389 pass attempts, 24 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 16.21 attempts
Tenn = 415 pass attempts, 19 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 21.84 attempts
Vandy = 337 pass attempts, 19 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 17.74 attempts

I think these numbers show that Markuson can coach OL to pass block.  Until some can show me facts that prove that he can't coach pass blocking (instead of hypothetical arguments like "we never throw the ball" or "we run max protection a lot") I'll stick with the facts.  These numbers have been adjusted for the lack of passing, and still show that Arkansas had the best pass blocking OL (not to mention led the SEC in rushing yards) in the SEC in 2006.  As far as the "max protection" argument, there is really no way I can counter that with facts but I bet just as often as we ran max protection they stacked the box and blitzed to neutralize the running game.  IMO, these two arguments cancel.  Like I said earlier, I couldn't care less about Markuson but I cannot see how this is even a debate? 

[hawgwash]

We'll continue to get better.  Let's be honest, at this level the kids want to get to the pros, pure and simple.  In Petrinos system, they'll be able to put up stats that get the pros attention and they'll be drafted.  This will open the floodgates to the level of talent we've never seen at this school in terms of skill players.  Instead of ranking 2nd or 5th in the nation for fewest sacks allowed, we may rank 2nd or 5th in terms of total offense or scoring or perhaps having #'s of players drafted.   All the stats we've accomplished under Nutt ie, leading the SEC in rushing, fewest sacks allowed are meaningless when compared to others. 

I agree with you 100%.  I'm not worried about the offense, either recruiting, or scheme, or performance on the field.  I just hope we can get a defense and special teams to match.

[ArKan5a5 KiD]

Did Matt Hall totally cancel his visit or is he rescheduling???

[hawgwash]

Did Matt Hall totally cancel his visit or is he rescheduling???

It was reported earlier he is rescheduling to next weekend.  I guess we'll have to wait and see, though.

[want2be]

It was reported earlier he is rescheduling to next weekend.  I guess we'll have to wait and see, though.

        He went to Mizzu this weekend and to the hill next weekend.

        Hopefull he is saving his home school to the last and best

[SquidBilly]

Those are good numbers but UAMS_Hog_Fan but it would be interesting to have a break down of our passing game.  What I mean is this:  How many screen passes were thrown?  Sacks usually don't happen on screens.  How many of our passes come off of play action?  Since all teams had to gear up for the run against us running plays from play action is much more effective for slowing down the pass rush.  We didn't have a traditional passing game.  If you look at our interception per attempt numbers I bet those look good as well because of the type of passing game we had.  Nobody is going to say that is because we had a great QB coach.  We had a passing game that was more geared toward keeping it simple for the QB and slowing down the rush through play action. 

[Hawgballz]

Did Matt Hall totally cancel his visit or is he rescheduling???

Rescheduled

[IronHog]

I really don't care either way about the argument for/against Markuson, but I hate to see people argue without facts.  So here are the facts, so let them speak for themselves

2006:

Alabama = 392 pass attempts, 28 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 14.0 attempts
Arkansas = 302 pass attempts, 9 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 33.55 attempts (2007 = 313 pass, 13 sacks = 24.07)
Auburn = 282 pass attempts, 35 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 8.06 attempts
Florida = 399 pass attempts, 23 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 17.38 attempts
Georgia 342 pass attempts, 17 sacks allowed =  1 sack every 20.11 attempts
LSU = 368 pass attempts, 19 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 19.37 attempts
Kentucky = 436 pass attempts, 39 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 11.18 attempts
Ole Miss = 280 pass attempts, 29 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 9.66 attempts
Miss St = 360 pass attempts, 29 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 12.41 attempts
South Carolina = 389 pass attempts, 24 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 16.21 attempts
Tenn = 415 pass attempts, 19 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 21.84 attempts
Vandy = 337 pass attempts, 19 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 17.74 attempts

I think these numbers show that Markuson can coach OL to pass block.  Until some can show me facts that prove that he can't coach pass blocking (instead of hypothetical arguments like "we never throw the ball" or "we run max protection a lot") I'll stick with the facts.  These numbers have been adjusted for the lack of passing, and still show that Arkansas had the best pass blocking OL (not to mention led the SEC in rushing yards) in the SEC in 2006.  As far as the "max protection" argument, there is really no way I can counter that with facts but I bet just as often as we ran max protection they stacked the box and blitzed to neutralize the running game.  IMO, these two arguments cancel.  Like I said earlier, I couldn't care less about Markuson but I cannot see how this is even a debate? 

What we are talking about is a recruit playing for a coach, and IF playing for that coach will prepare players for the next level.

Since the NFL is a passing league, and the scouting report on Arkansas players has been lacking in pass blocking skills there is some doubt to the skills taught to UA linemen.

A line that can pass block as a unit IS NOT the same thing as a linemen with excellent pass blocking skills.

[ArKan5a5 KiD]

Rescheduled

Well thats good. I sure hope he signs with the Hogs and whatever happend with his Mother and whoever can get solved so we can get this kid on the Hill.

[Hawgballz]

Well thats good. I sure hope he signs with the Hogs and whatever happend with his Mother and whoever can get solved so we can get this kid on the Hill.

I agree, I hope this kid can live out his dream on the hill.

[flagstaffhog]

:razorback: :razorback: :razorback: Get used to this. That is a good thing. If Matt leaves, so be it, there are bigger and better fish out there.
     Petrino appears to be instituting a high pressure game of recruiting, and I like it. This is what the big time programs do, and we are on our way. If Petrino thinks Matt is Razorback material, go get him! If not, see you later.
      The facts at this point are that Matt is still committed to U of A. Signing Day is right around the corner and we will see all of Petrinos efforts come to fruition at that point. Be patient , my friends! :razorback: :razorback: :razorback:

Well, I'm not sure about bigger fish to fry.......

[VenturaHog]

Auburn had 35 sacks allowed?? They passed even less than us this year??? Thanks for posting those stats.

[SquidBilly]

Auburn had 35 sacks allowed?? They passed even less than us this year??? Thanks for posting those stats.

But there QB was like a statue and was very indecisive, had happy feet.  Also had a lot of freshman playing on the offensive line due to injuries etc and a somewhat inconsistent running game.  Add all that up and that is why they gave up 35.

[The real Hogules]

Don't disagree the passing game was piss poor.  But we didn't have 8 to protect  For one thing, Hillis was the leading receiver last year.  Also, with fewer going out it means easier to cover, so the OL may have to hold their blocks longer.

Not when you're throwing a quick out on 3rd down (for about 5 yards when 8-9 are needed for a first down) or a simple screen pass.

I honestly wish we had statistics for actual "down the field" throws, because that would shoot you out of the saddle very quickly!

Nutt's offense was what it was, run, run, and run some more, then when they're least expecting it hit the opposing defense with a side ways pass for half the distance necessary to achieve a first down and hope that the person catching the ball can ...................................you guessed it, RUN for the rest of the yardage needed for a first down.

[4razorbacksinky]

if i am not mistaken wasn't burlsworth a walk on? man i say nutt and company could really judge talent when they saw it. we are lucky the kid even attended the u of a and it wasn't because of nutt and markuson that he did. it was because of his love for the u of a  and that's the only reason.

You need to get some facts straight. Burls was a Hog before Nutt came on the scene (Nutt showed up Burls senior year at Arkansas). Also, when Burls walked on for Ford, he weighed a whopping 220-230 pounds (wholehog92 can probably get a little closer on weight). Brandon had started one year of High School. He was truly a late bloomer. Oh, but what a bloom. I'd take him on my team any day!

P.S. Not a Nutt supporter, just get your facts straight!

[UAMS_Hog_Fan]

Since the NFL is a passing league, and the scouting report on Arkansas players has been lacking in pass blocking skills there is some doubt to the skills taught to UA linemen.

A line that can pass block as a unit IS NOT the same thing as a linemen with excellent pass blocking skills.

If the fault is with the coach, then shouldn't all the players across the OL have the same problems??  If they all have the same problems with pass blocking skills, wouldn't that make the line bad as a whole??  How could 5 guys that all have bad pass blocking skills function amazingly well as a unit in pass blocking?? 

I went through and read the scouting reports of every razorback OL drafted from Shawn Andrews on and the consensus does seem to be that they are all excellent run blockers, but need some polish in the pass protection.  However, I think that the fact that they are getting drafted at all shows that he is not a bad coach.  Markuson's job was to coach the Arkansas OL, not serve as a development coach for an NFL team.  He did his job according to the stats.  I don't like Nutt or his staff anymore than the next guy, but I think claiming that Markuson is not a good OL coach is just sour grapes.

[Tortfeasor]

This comment is not about Matt Hall.  Nor is it about Houston Nutt, who I think is an extremely small human being whose ego was his undoing and I'm incredibly glad he's gone.  This is about Mike Markuson.  I really get tired of posts spewing opinions when the only "fact" is that the poster's hatred for HDN is so great they can't objectively judge anything that had any connection to the man.  The facts do not support the argument that Markuson is not a good OL coach or that his lines couldn't pass block.  A couple of days ago there was a thread in which a poster claimed there were 25 college teams or OL coaches with more NFL starters than Markuson.  He was challenged to name them.  The last I saw he hadn't named one.  You can't minimize his accomplishments by saying the players were big time recruits to begin with unless you look at all other OL coaches and their successful recruits the same way.  You can't say we outnumbered people at the line of scrimmage when most every team we faced had 8 (or more) in the box.  You can't simultaneously argue Peters doesn't count for Markuson because he played tight end but also criticize Nutt for using Peters as a third tackle (which I would certainly agree he was).  I didn't watch practices, but I would bet Peters' blocking drills were largely led by Markuson.  If not, you have to believe his development is due to Shiebest, which I doubt.  You can't say Markuson's pass blocking success was due to keeping backs in to block when our leading receiver was the fullback.

In 2006 we were 2nd in all of Division 1 for fewest sacks allowed per game.  See link below.  And while I can't find the data to support it, I remember hearing we were also extremely high in fewest sacks allowed per pass attempt in 2006.
http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/natlRank.jsp?year=2006&div=4&rpt=IA_teamsacksallowed&site=org

In 2007 were tied with 4 other teams for 5th in all of Division 1 for fewest sacks allowed per game.
http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/natlRank.jsp?year=2007&div=4&rpt=IA_teamsacksallowed&site=org

So bash Markuson for being a Nutt crony, or not nice to Gus, or anything you have facts for.  But you can't credibly argue he hasn't been a good on-the-field OL coach.

Your logic is skewed dude.  -1 for having to read your nonsense.

[UAMS_Hog_Fan]

Those are good numbers but UAMS_Hog_Fan but it would be interesting to have a break down of our passing game.  What I mean is this:  How many screen passes were thrown?  Sacks usually don't happen on screens.  How many of our passes come off of play action?  Since all teams had to gear up for the run against us running plays from play action is much more effective for slowing down the pass rush.  We didn't have a traditional passing game.  If you look at our interception per attempt numbers I bet those look good as well because of the type of passing game we had.  Nobody is going to say that is because we had a great QB coach.  We had a passing game that was more geared toward keeping it simple for the QB and slowing down the rush through play action.

I agree you have a point.  I doubt I could find those stats, but If I do I will post them.

[IronHog]

How could 5 guys that all have bad pass blocking skills function amazingly well as a unit in pass blocking?? 

I think claiming that Markuson is not a good OL coach is just sour grapes.

When you have 7 people blocking 4 to 5 rushers on most plays you better freaking protect the passer.  Nutt's entire passing game was set up to not turn the ball over (max protect, short dinky routes on EVERY play) instead of successfully moving the ball down the field.

I do not know MM and have no bone to pick.  I just know the UofA OL has had some flaws that many do not want to address due to looking at stats that are skewed due to style of play.

[hawgwash]

Your logic is skewed dude.  -1 for having to read your nonsense.

Well, that's certainly a convincing argument.  Good use of facts and reasoning.  I guess I was wrong all along.  I'd smite you back but it looks like the line is too long.

[hawgwash]

I really don't care either way about the argument for/against Markuson, but I hate to see people argue without facts.  So here are the facts, so let them speak for themselves

2006:

Alabama = 392 pass attempts, 28 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 14.0 attempts
Arkansas = 302 pass attempts, 9 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 33.55 attempts (2007 = 313 pass, 13 sacks = 24.07)
Auburn = 282 pass attempts, 35 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 8.06 attempts
Florida = 399 pass attempts, 23 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 17.38 attempts
Georgia 342 pass attempts, 17 sacks allowed =  1 sack every 20.11 attempts
LSU = 368 pass attempts, 19 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 19.37 attempts
Kentucky = 436 pass attempts, 39 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 11.18 attempts
Ole Miss = 280 pass attempts, 29 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 9.66 attempts
Miss St = 360 pass attempts, 29 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 12.41 attempts
South Carolina = 389 pass attempts, 24 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 16.21 attempts
Tenn = 415 pass attempts, 19 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 21.84 attempts
Vandy = 337 pass attempts, 19 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 17.74 attempts

I think these numbers show that Markuson can coach OL to pass block.  Until some can show me facts that prove that he can't coach pass blocking (instead of hypothetical arguments like "we never throw the ball" or "we run max protection a lot") I'll stick with the facts.  These numbers have been adjusted for the lack of passing, and still show that Arkansas had the best pass blocking OL (not to mention led the SEC in rushing yards) in the SEC in 2006.  As far as the "max protection" argument, there is really no way I can counter that with facts but I bet just as often as we ran max protection they stacked the box and blitzed to neutralize the running game.  IMO, these two arguments cancel.  Like I said earlier, I couldn't care less about Markuson but I cannot see how this is even a debate? 

Uh oh.  You done gone and used facts.  +1

[Petrinos Pigs]

I really don't care either way about the argument for/against Markuson, but I hate to see people argue without facts.  So here are the facts, so let them speak for themselves

2006:

Alabama = 392 pass attempts, 28 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 14.0 attempts
Arkansas = 302 pass attempts, 9 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 33.55 attempts (2007 = 313 pass, 13 sacks = 24.07)
Auburn = 282 pass attempts, 35 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 8.06 attempts
Florida = 399 pass attempts, 23 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 17.38 attempts
Georgia 342 pass attempts, 17 sacks allowed =  1 sack every 20.11 attempts
LSU = 368 pass attempts, 19 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 19.37 attempts
Kentucky = 436 pass attempts, 39 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 11.18 attempts
Ole Miss = 280 pass attempts, 29 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 9.66 attempts
Miss St = 360 pass attempts, 29 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 12.41 attempts
South Carolina = 389 pass attempts, 24 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 16.21 attempts
Tenn = 415 pass attempts, 19 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 21.84 attempts
Vandy = 337 pass attempts, 19 sacks allowed = 1 sack every 17.74 attempts

I think these numbers show that Markuson can coach OL to pass block.  Until some can show me facts that prove that he can't coach pass blocking (instead of hypothetical arguments like "we never throw the ball" or "we run max protection a lot") I'll stick with the facts.  These numbers have been adjusted for the lack of passing, and still show that Arkansas had the best pass blocking OL (not to mention led the SEC in rushing yards) in the SEC in 2006.  As far as the "max protection" argument, there is really no way I can counter that with facts but I bet just as often as we ran max protection they stacked the box and blitzed to neutralize the running game.  IMO, these two arguments cancel.  Like I said earlier, I couldn't care less about Markuson but I cannot see how this is even a debate? 

I agree we always were in max protect, but facts are facts.

[IronHog]

I agree we always were in max protect, but facts are facts.

SEC rankings for 4th down conversion:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/confsortables?stat=teammisc&group=8&sort=4thdownpct&order=&qual=&season=&year=2007&max=&lite=false

1.   LSU   14   316   22.6   104   223   46.6   13   16   81.3   117   880
2.   Auburn   13   260   20.0   67   183   36.6   13   19   68.4   80   619
3.   Vanderbilt   12   229   19.1   73   184   39.7   12   21   57.1   59   479
4.   Kentucky   13   335   25.8   94   195   48.2   12   22   54.5   83   717
5.   Florida   13   305   23.5   78   146   53.4   7   13   53.8   107   805
   Georgia   13   251   19.3   82   183   44.8   7   13   53.8   91   760
7.   Tennessee   14   284   20.3   81   202   40.1   9   17   52.9   74   641
8.   Alabama   13   290   22.3   75   198   37.9   6   12   50.0   59   453
9.   South Carolina   12   245   20.4   55   157   35.0   8   17   47.1   69   532
10.   Mississippi State   13   216   16.6   72   190   37.9   6   15   40.0   77   678
11.   Arkansas   13   273   21.0   84   195   43.1   7   19   36.8   82   707
12.   Mississippi   12   224   18.7   60   158   38.0   7   21   33.3   77   586


Well, if MM has such a great running OL why cannot Arkansas not convert on 4th down? (normally a short yardage running play)

Statistics are only part of any story.

[Petrinos Pigs]

SEC rankings for 4th down conversion:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/confsortables?stat=teammisc&group=8&sort=4thdownpct&order=&qual=&season=&year=2007&max=&lite=false

1.   LSU   14   316   22.6   104   223   46.6   13   16   81.3   117   880
2.   Auburn   13   260   20.0   67   183   36.6   13   19   68.4   80   619
3.   Vanderbilt   12   229   19.1   73   184   39.7   12   21   57.1   59   479
4.   Kentucky   13   335   25.8   94   195   48.2   12   22   54.5   83   717
5.   Florida   13   305   23.5   78   146   53.4   7   13   53.8   107   805
   Georgia   13   251   19.3   82   183   44.8   7   13   53.8   91   760
7.   Tennessee   14   284   20.3   81   202   40.1   9   17   52.9   74   641
8.   Alabama   13   290   22.3   75   198   37.9   6   12   50.0   59   453
9.   South Carolina   12   245   20.4   55   157   35.0   8   17   47.1   69   532
10.   Mississippi State   13   216   16.6   72   190   37.9   6   15   40.0   77   678
11.   Arkansas   13   273   21.0   84   195   43.1   7   19   36.8   82   707
12.   Mississippi   12   224   18.7   60   158   38.0   7   21   33.3   77   586


Well, if MM has such a great running OL why cannot Arkansas not convert on 4th down? (normally a short yardage running play)

Statistics are only part of any story.

Because everyone at home, in the stands, and watching the game knew exactly what was coming: we were so predictable it was pathetic. That's why. It's called common sense.

[hawgwash]

SEC rankings for 4th down conversion:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/confsortables?stat=teammisc&group=8&sort=4thdownpct&order=&qual=&season=&year=2007&max=&lite=false

1.   LSU   14   316   22.6   104   223   46.6   13   16   81.3   117   880
2.   Auburn   13   260   20.0   67   183   36.6   13   19   68.4   80   619
3.   Vanderbilt   12   229   19.1   73   184   39.7   12   21   57.1   59   479
4.   Kentucky   13   335   25.8   94   195   48.2   12   22   54.5   83   717
5.   Florida   13   305   23.5   78   146   53.4   7   13   53.8   107   805
   Georgia   13   251   19.3   82   183   44.8   7   13   53.8   91   760
7.   Tennessee   14   284   20.3   81   202   40.1   9   17   52.9   74   641
8.   Alabama   13   290   22.3   75   198   37.9   6   12   50.0   59   453
9.   South Carolina   12   245   20.4   55   157   35.0   8   17   47.1   69   532
10.   Mississippi State   13   216   16.6   72   190   37.9   6   15   40.0   77   678
11.   Arkansas   13   273   21.0   84   195   43.1   7   19   36.8   82   707
12.   Mississippi   12   224   18.7   60   158   38.0   7   21   33.3   77   586


Well, if MM has such a great running OL why cannot Arkansas not convert on 4th down? (normally a short yardage running play)

Statistics are only part of any story.

The reason we sucked on 4th down is because we always ran the same play.  Hillis up the middle.  And everyone knew we were running it.

[IronHog]

Because everyone at home, in the stands, and watching the game knew exactly what was coming: we were so predictable it was pathetic. That's why. It's called common sense.

NooooooooooWayyyyyyyyyyyy


Facts are Facts now!

j/k but this just proves how statistics are only part of any story.  Yes, the line could protect with 7 total blockers, but when the other team bowed up on 4th and short we failed.

Statistics without analysis are worthless.

[311Hog]

My thoughts on Markuson and pass blocking.


1. Sacks usually come from pass plays that are 5 step drops or more, or play action passing
     
     -  we pass the ball on avg. of 20 times a game more then half of those passes are screens and short passes that are under 10 yards and are 3 step drops in max protect.

2. It is obvious that many an O lineman that left this school had to be "coached up" on pass blocking in the pro's it has been documented this is because they got so little exposure to "big time passing game" in college.  is this the OL's fault or the OC HC ?


3. You can quote "stats" all you want but anyone who has seen the Hogs play over the last decade knows that we gave up very few sacks, and ran for alot of yards in a TERRIBLY FLAWED system, it is sorta like the Time of Possession stat. sometimes it is a good thing but often it really doesnt illustrate shiet.

We could NOT protect the QB when we needed to using just the Base 5 OL that is why we didnt run more complicated passing plays with multiple WRS in the pattern, because we HAD TO HAVE an extra TE and TB in the game to "pass block". We have all witnessed these facts.

[311Hog]

One more thing.


All the people who say this line, " IF nutt did this people would be up in arms, but if Petrino does it ...blah blah blaH"

Need to STFU and stop being so damn dense.  OF COURSE PEOPLE LET PETRINO DO IT KNOW WHY?


BECAUSE HE DOESNT HAVE TEN YEARS OF FAILURE BEHIND HIM.  We ALL KNEW that if Nutt made a choice often it was going to WORK OUT FOR THE WORST. We do not know that about Petrino with regards to his recruiting.  So far it looks like Petrino's recruiting strategy has paid off LARGE every where he has been (college). The same CANNOT be said about HDN.


So until Petrino has some history as a Hog could all you closet Nutthuggers please zip it.

[shshark00]

I'm not buying the "max protect" angle. Everyone knew when Arkansas was going to pass, and the majority of the time they blitzed on passing downs. So more than 4 or 5 people were coming on passing downs. Not to mention "max protect" takes a hit when you leading receiver was in the backfield. And I don't remember any of Hillis' receptions coming from a screen pass. Markuson isn't great, but he is better than some people are giving him credit for.

[IronHog]

I'm not buying the "max protect" angle.

So you have seen HDN's offense send 4 or more receivers down field on a regular basis?

[shshark00]

So you have seen HDN's offense send 4 or more receivers down field on a regular basis?

Nope. But someone had to teach those 7 to block. If anyone thinks the O-line coach does not help in the techniques taught to the TEs on blocking you are sadly mistaken. Sorry, smite me if you will, but trying to use "max protect" as a reason to say Markuson was not a good O-line coach just doesn't float with me.

[311Hog]

Nope. But someone had to teach those 7 to block. If anyone thinks the O-line coach does not help in the techniques taught to the TEs on blocking you are sadly mistaken. Sorry, smite me if you will, but trying to use "max protect" as a reason to say Markuson was not a good O-line coach just doesn't float with me.

That isnt the point. The point is it is EASY to pass block when you outnumber the defenders, but what ISNT easy is actually converting because the 2ndary outnumbers your recievers.  At some point 1 on 1 man on man pass blocking has to occur, and that did not happen.

[Petrinos Pigs]

Nope. But someone had to teach those 7 to block. If anyone thinks the O-line coach does not help in the techniques taught to the TEs on blocking you are sadly mistaken. Sorry, smite me if you will, but trying to use "max protect" as a reason to say Markuson was not a good O-line coach just doesn't float with me.

I never said MM wasn't a good OL coach; you don't have two RB's rush for over 1100 yards, and get drafted in the top 5 without a great OL.

[IronHog]

Nope. But someone had to teach those 7 to block. If anyone thinks the O-line coach does not help in the techniques taught to the TEs on blocking you are sadly mistaken. Sorry, smite me if you will, but trying to use "max protect" as a reason to say Markuson was not a good O-line coach just doesn't float with me.

Arkansas was either unwilling or unable to send enough people down field and block concurrently in the passing game to be effective in modern football.

After watching the Hogs struggle to protect the passer in TWO SEC championship games there is evidence it was the latter.

[shshark00]

I never said MM wasn't a good OL coach; you don't have two RB's rush for over 1100 yards, and get drafted in the top 5 without a great OL.

But that is what's going on here. It's gone from a Matt Hall thread, to a Summers is better than Markuson thread, to a let's bash Markuson thread. I'm not saying he's the best O-line coach out there, or even the best one to coach at UA. But when you talk about the deepest, most talented, and best area on this team the past 10 years, its pretty much been 1. RB and 1a. O-line. And now all of a sudden he's a bad o-line coach? The problem is too many people on here are blinded with hatred of Nutt and want to bash anyone associated with him. I'm glad they're all gone, but he was a good coach in my book, who just happens to have a prick for a friend and boss.

[UAMS_Hog_Fan]

SEC rankings for 4th down conversion:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/confsortables?stat=teammisc&group=8&sort=4thdownpct&order=&qual=&season=&year=2007&max=&lite=false

1.   LSU   14   316   22.6   104   223   46.6   13   16   81.3   117   880
2.   Auburn   13   260   20.0   67   183   36.6   13   19   68.4   80   619
3.   Vanderbilt   12   229   19.1   73   184   39.7   12   21   57.1   59   479
4.   Kentucky   13   335   25.8   94   195   48.2   12   22   54.5   83   717
5.   Florida   13   305   23.5   78   146   53.4   7   13   53.8   107   805
    Georgia   13   251   19.3   82   183   44.8   7   13   53.8   91   760
7.   Tennessee   14   284   20.3   81   202   40.1   9   17   52.9   74   641
8.   Alabama   13   290   22.3   75   198   37.9   6   12   50.0   59   453
9.   South Carolina   12   245   20.4   55   157   35.0   8   17   47.1   69   532
10.   Mississippi State   13   216   16.6   72   190   37.9   6   15   40.0   77   678
11.   Arkansas   13   273   21.0   84   195   43.1   7   19   36.8   82   707
12.   Mississippi   12   224   18.7   60   158   38.0   7   21   33.3   77   586


Well, if MM has such a great running OL why cannot Arkansas not convert on 4th down? (normally a short yardage running play)

Statistics are only part of any story.

Tennessee = 1/3 on 4th: Hillis up the middle on 4-1, Dick incomplete pass on 4-12, Emert complete pass on 4-7 (conversion)
LSU = 1/2: Dick incomplete pass on 4-1, Dick complete pass on 4-10 (conversion)
Miss St. = 0/1: McFadden rush on 4-8
S. Carolina = 0/0
FIU = 0/1: Emert incomplete on 4-5
Ole Miss = 0/1: Dick incomplete pass on 4-14
Auburn = 0/0
Chattanooga = 0/2: Jones up the middle on 4-1, Barnett rushes to left on 4-3
N. Texas = 1/2: Dick incomplete on 4-2, Barnett up the middle on 4-2 (conversion)
Kentucky = 0/1: Dick incomplete on 4-11
Alabama = 0/0
Troy = 1/1: McFadden to the right on 4-2 (conversion)

Here are the stats game by game for 4th down conversion (I'm not sure where ESPN got 19 attempts because I count 13 going game by game, unless they are including the bowl game which was not available on hogwired.com) going by www.hogwired.com stats.  I have us at 4/13 on 4th down conversion, and here is the breakdown:

We had 3 4th-1 opportunities and we passed on 2 of those downs
We had 7 4th and shorts (less than 3 yards), we passed 2 times and had 5 runs (only 1 by Hillis).  As a matter of fact we only ran Hillis once on 4th down all year. 
We passed 8 times on fourth down (8/13 = 61.53%)

You are right, facts are misleading.  You should look into them more closely before you post them.  It was a stretch to begin with to say the inability to convert on 4th down was an indication of a poor OL because most 4th down conversion are short-yardage situations.  When actually almost half of our 4th down attempts were over 5 yards.  The facts you posted proved nothing other than you jumped the gun and made an assumption that a fact supported your case, when in actuality it did not.

[Boarcephus]

I think most of our dissatisfaction with Markuson stems from the fact our views of his coaching ability are clouded by the fact he's a prick.  I'd venture the majority on this board despise the way he treated Gus.  We don't like what he says or how he says it and based on that, we're critical of his coaching whether justified or not.

[tophawg19]

max protect was used because we couldn't use our 5 linemen to block their 4 d-linemen .out technique and style of play forced us into this .due to poor pass blocking we were never able to spread the field . the cotton bowl was a perfect example of what a good offensive line should look like  . the tigers o-line whipped our asses with a spread formation and their line didn't have to 'max protect ' and they ran the ball down our throats. THAT GENTLEMEN IS WHAT A GOOD WELL COACHED LINE LOOKS LIKE, WE HAVE BEEN SO LONG WITH CRAPPY COACHES WE CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE . ok enough yelling. guys we should have had more than3 o-linemen go pro . we have had some good ones come here .

[oldhawg]

Markuson was a good offensive line coach under Nutt's "run first, pass in desperation offense."  He may be a good o-line coach in a more wide open offense, something we will never know for sure as long as he stays with Nutt.

However, in 1998 and 1999 (Stoerner years) the Razorbacks allowed only 18 sacks and 14 sacks respectively.  During these two years the Hogs are considered to have had a more wide open offense than subsequent years, so here is one little piece of evidence that Markuson knew (and taught) something about pass blocking. 

Of course one could also argue that the lineman for those teams learned their individual pass blocking skills from the previous staff.

[IronHog]

Tennessee = 1/3 on 4th: Hillis up the middle on 4-1, Dick incomplete pass on 4-12, Emert complete pass on 4-7 (conversion)
LSU = 1/2: Dick incomplete pass on 4-1, Dick complete pass on 4-10 (conversion)
Miss St. = 0/1: McFadden rush on 4-8
S. Carolina = 0/0
FIU = 0/1: Emert incomplete on 4-5
Ole Miss = 0/1: Dick incomplete pass on 4-14
Auburn = 0/0
Chattanooga = 0/2: Jones up the middle on 4-1, Barnett rushes to left on 4-3
N. Texas = 1/2: Dick incomplete on 4-2, Barnett up the middle on 4-2 (conversion)
Kentucky = 0/1: Dick incomplete on 4-11
Alabama = 0/0
Troy = 1/1: McFadden to the right on 4-2 (conversion)

Here are the stats game by game for 4th down conversion (I'm not sure where ESPN got 19 attempts because I count 13 going game by game, unless they are including the bowl game which was not available on hogwired.com) going by www.hogwired.com stats.  I have us at 4/13 on 4th down conversion, and here is the breakdown:

We had 3 4th-1 opportunities and we passed on 2 of those downs
We had 7 4th and shorts (less than 3 yards), we passed 2 times and had 5 runs (only 1 by Hillis).  As a matter of fact we only ran Hillis once on 4th down all year. 
We passed 8 times on fourth down (8/13 = 61.53%)

You are right, facts are misleading.  You should look into them more closely before you post them.  It was a stretch to begin with to say the inability to convert on 4th down was an indication of a poor OL because most 4th down conversion are short-yardage situations.  When actually almost half of our 4th down attempts were over 5 yards.  The facts you posted proved nothing other than you jumped the gun and made an assumption that a fact supported your case, when in actuality it did not.

It supported the fact that Arkansas could not convert on 4th down indicating that the OL either failed on previous plays OR could not get it done on 4th down.

If you really want to do some research find how many passing plays Arkansas blocked with 7-8 then either ate the ball because no one was open or dumped it off to a back they hoped could run for yardage.

Arkansas could not pass protect with its 5 down linemen and struggled in most short yardage situations.  The line was totally whipped on almost every run play vs. Auburn, Mizzou, and Tenn Chatt.

[Boarcephus]

It supported the fact that Arkansas could not convert on 4th down indicating that the OL either failed on previous plays OR could not get it done on 4th down.

If you really want to do some research find how many passing plays Arkansas blocked with 7-8 then either ate the ball because no one was open or dumped it off to a back they hoped could run for yardage.

Arkansas could not pass protect with its 5 down linemen and struggled in most short yardage situations.  The line was totally whipped on almost every run play vs. Auburn, Mizzou, and Tenn Chatt.

Not so sure that can be totally dropped in the OL's lap.  In their defense, 75,000 fans plus the opposing team had a pretty good idea which play was coming, which side it was going to, and who would be getting the ball either by run or pass.

[UAMS_Hog_Fan]

It supported the fact that Arkansas could not convert on 4th down indicating that the OL either failed on previous plays OR could not get it done on 4th down.

Now you are just reaching here.  First your argument was the a low 4th down conversion proved that we had a bad OL cause we couldn't convert on short yardage.  Now it means that we could not move the ball on downs 1-3?  Over half of the 4th down conversions were long attempts (most of those in games where we trailed or at the end of the half).  You have no case here.

If you really want to do some research find how many passing plays Arkansas blocked with 7-8 then either ate the ball because no one was open or dumped it off to a back they hoped could run for yardage.

As I stated earlier, I am actively looking for those stats but they are almost impossible to find.  In the mean time, I will use the stats that I do have.

Arkansas could not pass protect with its 5 down linemen and struggled in most short yardage situations.  The line was totally whipped on almost every run play vs. Auburn, Mizzou, and Tenn Chatt.

That is the observation, and I will be happy to accept that stance if you show me some facts.  I've proven my point with facts... why can't you???  You have the same internet as me?

[IronHog]

Now you are just reaching here.  First your argument was the a low 4th down conversion proved that we had a bad OL cause we couldn't convert on short yardage.  Now it means that we could not move the ball on downs 1-3?  Over half of the 4th down conversions were long attempts (most of those in games where we trailed or at the end of the half).  You have no case here.

As I stated earlier, I am actively looking for those stats but they are almost impossible to find.  In the mean time, I will use the stats that I do have.

That is the observation, and I will be happy to accept that stance if you show me some facts.  I've proven my point with facts... why can't you???  You have the same internet as me?

Now surely at UAMS you learned that statistics are simply numerical observations subject to manipulation and the entire subject being studied must be considered before making a conclusion.

If you find statistical significance in a study, yet you know that significance may be caused by a factor other than the event you are trying to correlate AND YOU IGNORE THAT FACTOR you did bad research.

In this case you are trying to use sports statistics to prove MM was a good line coach and you want to ignore scheme in the argument.

The only "fact" you have proven is that Arkansas gave up fewer sacks compared to peers.  OK I'll give you that, it is a fact.  That fact does not mean that UA linemen have superior skills or perform at a high level at any one facet of the game.

[UAMS_Hog_Fan]

Now surely at UAMS you learned that statistics are simply numerical observations subject to manipulation and the entire subject being studied must be considered before making a conclusion.

If you find statistical significance in a study, yet you know that significance may be caused by a factor other than the event you are trying to correlate AND YOU IGNORE THAT FACTOR you did bad research.

In this case you are trying to use sports statistics to prove MM was a good line coach and you want to ignore scheme in the argument.

The only "fact" you have proven is that Arkansas gave up fewer sacks compared to peers.  OK I'll give you that, it is a fact.  That fact does not mean that UA linemen have superior skills or perform at a high level at any one facet of the game.

The scheme is ignored in this particular case because it cannot be quantified.  There is no statistical means at this time to break the # of sacks down into max protection plays, spread formation plays, etc....  I wish there were because I am interested in how they would break down.

You are right, stats are subject to manipulation.  But you must prove that they have been manipulated.  Until this is proven, the most concrete evidence is accepted.

You seem to know a lot about science/data, but you fail to acknowledge that you cannot simply dismiss an argument because you feel that the data is skewed.  It happens all the time in research, an erroneous specimen emerges and you are stuck with some bad data.  You cannot simply throw it out.  The only way that you can prove the data is skewed is by running another experiment that quantifies/proves that the previous data was skewed.  I can give you real life examples of how this is done in real life scientific research, but I wouldn't dare bore the readers of this thread.

Once again, I state that I am not necessarily saying you are wrong... I'm just saying that you have not supported your case.  Show me some stats.  I don't like HDN or his staff any more than the next person, but there are no stats out there right now to support that Markuson is a bad OL coach.

[IronHog]

The scheme is ignored in this particular case because it cannot be quantified.  There is no statistical means at this time to break the # of sacks down into max protection plays, spread formation plays, etc....  I wish there were because I am interested in how they would break down.

You are right, stats are subject to manipulation.  But you must prove that they have been manipulated.  Until this is proven, the most concrete evidence is accepted.

You seem to know a lot about science/data, but you fail to acknowledge that you cannot simply dismiss an argument because you feel that the data is skewed.  It happens all the time in research, an erroneous specimen emerges and you are stuck with some bad data.  You cannot simply throw it out.  The only way that you can prove the data is skewed is by running another experiment that quantifies/proves that the previous data was skewed.  I can give you real life examples of how this is done in real life scientific research, but I wouldn't dare bore the readers of this thread.

Once again, I state that I am not necessarily saying you are wrong... I'm just saying that you have not supported your case.  Show me some stats.  I don't like HDN or his staff any more than the next person, but there are no stats out there right now to support that Markuson is a bad OL coach.

I don't think MM is a "bad" OL coach.  However, looking at the sack stats and saying a recruit will develop pass blocking skills is misleading when one reads the NFL scouting reports on those OL who have moved on to the NFL.

Since there are no collected stats on the number of receivers sent down field on a play the max protect argument comes from observation.  This link:

http://www.cfbstats.com/2007/team/31/receiving/index.html

indicates that 3/4 of the top receivers were RB's in a low risk passing format.

What are the chances of giving up a sack when your passing game is an extended handoff?

[UAMS_Hog_Fan]

I don't think MM is a "bad" OL coach.  However, looking at the sack stats and saying a recruit will develop pass blocking skills is misleading when one reads the NFL scouting reports on those OL who have moved on to the NFL.

Since there are no collected stats on the number of receivers sent down field on a play the max protect argument comes from observation.  This link:

http://www.cfbstats.com/2007/team/31/receiving/index.html

indicates that 3/4 of the top receivers were RB's in a low risk passing format.

What are the chances of giving up a sack when your passing game is an extended handoff?

I can buy that.  You are right the scouting reports do suggest, Arkansas OL pass blocking skills do need polishing.  You also have a point with the receivers argument.  I don't think these stats "prove" your point, but they do support your point.