New cut at an old argument

[razorsharphawg]

"2) His passing game was anachronistic in its simplicity, his offense fatally limited by predictability, and he turned severely conservative in many big games arguably turning possible victory into defeat."

While I hate to excuse Nutt for his poor play calling and handling of the offense, hasn't this been the problem with just about every coach/offensive coordinator that we've had for quite a while.  When was the last time we had an offense that just wowed opponents and the fans with it's creativity?

Never.  And the common thread for all these past coaches with predictable offenses?  JFB. 

WAKE UP, people. 

[RazorsEdge]

John Blake pulled in way better recruiting classes to Oklahoma during 90's but Texas Tech whipped them in those years with far inferior recruiting classes.  So I wouldn't say that it was hopeless.

I doubt there is a team in that conference (besides OU) who doesn't wish John Blake was still the Sooners' head coach.

Terrible, terrible coach but a great recruiter.  While I think that Bob Stoops is an exceptional coach, it's hard to say he came in with a bare cupboard.

Nope, you could never win a National Championship in your second year if you had a bare cupboard when you came.

[hogsanity]

Interestingly, I note in todays Morning News of NWA that even Pea Ridge has abandoned the Dead T for a new spread offense.  Most high schools in NWA run some version now of Gus' spread offense.  It's the wave of the future...heck it's the here and now....and most players want to play that kind of ball.  Only the ancient JFB, DMW, MSM and the Nuttzis want to think it's 1965 and keep living in the past.

Not only is it fun to play in, that offense is just plain fun to watch!

Did any of you catch the interview on ESPN radio yesterday with the Coach of Boise St? It was interesting as the announcer mentioned something about them needing to go to a more traditional, less innovative offense now that "they've arrived at the big time". The coach just said, we will continue to run the offense we've always run, the players have bought into the system AND ITS A WHOLE LOT MORE FUN TO RUN.

Let me ask you...what is a high school stud going to want to do....play in a plodding offense, or one that is fun? We have tradition, we have the support (I'm not talking about the coach), we just don't have any fun. Bring the 21st century to our team and I expect we'll all be surprised at how well it does.

TT runs a "fun" offense.  Only problem, it gets killed whenever they play a half decent defense.

Are you suggesting they would be better off without it?

TT would be better off with a balanced offense.  Nobody is afraid of their run game, just like nobody is afraid of our passing game.  When Texas Tech plays against a good defense, they can't win...the same goes for us.  You can't run the type of offenses that Texas Tech and Arkansas run and expect them to take you significant places.

I would never suggest a balanced offense isn't the best option.  I will suggest that since TTech is up against it in terms of recruiting (they will never out recruit Texas or A&M) the high flying circus offense gives them a better chance to win than a conventional offense. 

Mike Leach has a 63% winning record and has been to 7 straight bowl games (I add that part for the Nutt backers who like to crow about 6 straight)  They have been in the top 20 twice in Leach's 6 years.

Spike Dykes had a 55% winning percentage in 14 years.  Most of those years were in the SWC which people are quick to point out had few strong teams.  Spike had them in the top 25 twice during that time.

When you can't out-athlete someone, you have to out-strategy them.  You can't just line up with weaker athletes and expect to push the other team around.  Do you think Baylor would be willing to hire Leach and his offense?  They are 0-7 against Leach. 

As to being handled by OU and Texas every year, it's true.  I don't think you can only blame the offense.  At least they have a chance to always put some points on the board and a shot at winning.  Tech is 1-6 against those two teams.

Yep they will never out recruit Ou and TX.  I dont think we will ever out recruit LSU/GA/FLA  so both situations, as they pertain to winning titles, is hopeless?

John Blake pulled in way better recruiting classes to Oklahoma during 90's but Texas Tech whipped them in those years with far inferior recruiting classes.  So I wouldn't say that it was hopeless.

We used to beat Texas every once in a while too. 

We won 13 SWC football titles (tied for 3rd) and 22 SWC basketball titles (tied for first with Texas).  I don't know if the phrase "once in a while" really applies to our situation and Texas Tech's situation.  By the way, Texas Tech won 2 SWC football titles and 6 basketball titles.

What was our SWC record against Texas?  It was horrible.

[311Hog]

Interestingly, I note in todays Morning News of NWA that even Pea Ridge has abandoned the Dead T for a new spread offense.  Most high schools in NWA run some version now of Gus' spread offense.  It's the wave of the future...heck it's the here and now....and most players want to play that kind of ball.  Only the ancient JFB, DMW, MSM and the Nuttzis want to think it's 1965 and keep living in the past.

Not only is it fun to play in, that offense is just plain fun to watch!

Did any of you catch the interview on ESPN radio yesterday with the Coach of Boise St? It was interesting as the announcer mentioned something about them needing to go to a more traditional, less innovative offense now that "they've arrived at the big time". The coach just said, we will continue to run the offense we've always run, the players have bought into the system AND ITS A WHOLE LOT MORE FUN TO RUN.

Let me ask you...what is a high school stud going to want to do....play in a plodding offense, or one that is fun? We have tradition, we have the support (I'm not talking about the coach), we just don't have any fun. Bring the 21st century to our team and I expect we'll all be surprised at how well it does.

TT runs a "fun" offense.  Only problem, it gets killed whenever they play a half decent defense.

Are you suggesting they would be better off without it?

TT would be better off with a balanced offense.  Nobody is afraid of their run game, just like nobody is afraid of our passing game.  When Texas Tech plays against a good defense, they can't win...the same goes for us.  You can't run the type of offenses that Texas Tech and Arkansas run and expect them to take you significant places.

I would never suggest a balanced offense isn't the best option.  I will suggest that since TTech is up against it in terms of recruiting (they will never out recruit Texas or A&M) the high flying circus offense gives them a better chance to win than a conventional offense. 

Mike Leach has a 63% winning record and has been to 7 straight bowl games (I add that part for the Nutt backers who like to crow about 6 straight)  They have been in the top 20 twice in Leach's 6 years.

Spike Dykes had a 55% winning percentage in 14 years.  Most of those years were in the SWC which people are quick to point out had few strong teams.  Spike had them in the top 25 twice during that time.

When you can't out-athlete someone, you have to out-strategy them.  You can't just line up with weaker athletes and expect to push the other team around.  Do you think Baylor would be willing to hire Leach and his offense?  They are 0-7 against Leach. 

As to being handled by OU and Texas every year, it's true.  I don't think you can only blame the offense.  At least they have a chance to always put some points on the board and a shot at winning.  Tech is 1-6 against those two teams.

Yep they will never out recruit Ou and TX.  I dont think we will ever out recruit LSU/GA/FLA  so both situations, as they pertain to winning titles, is hopeless?

John Blake pulled in way better recruiting classes to Oklahoma during 90's but Texas Tech whipped them in those years with far inferior recruiting classes.  So I wouldn't say that it was hopeless.

We used to beat Texas every once in a while too. 

We won 13 SWC football titles (tied for 3rd) and 22 SWC basketball titles (tied for first with Texas).  I don't know if the phrase "once in a while" really applies to our situation and Texas Tech's situation.  By the way, Texas Tech won 2 SWC football titles and 6 basketball titles.

What was our SWC record against Texas?  It was horrible.

i think most people agree

Texas #1

Arkansas #2

[Oliver]

Interestingly, I note in todays Morning News of NWA that even Pea Ridge has abandoned the Dead T for a new spread offense.  Most high schools in NWA run some version now of Gus' spread offense.  It's the wave of the future...heck it's the here and now....and most players want to play that kind of ball.  Only the ancient JFB, DMW, MSM and the Nuttzis want to think it's 1965 and keep living in the past.

Not only is it fun to play in, that offense is just plain fun to watch!

Did any of you catch the interview on ESPN radio yesterday with the Coach of Boise St? It was interesting as the announcer mentioned something about them needing to go to a more traditional, less innovative offense now that "they've arrived at the big time". The coach just said, we will continue to run the offense we've always run, the players have bought into the system AND ITS A WHOLE LOT MORE FUN TO RUN.

Let me ask you...what is a high school stud going to want to do....play in a plodding offense, or one that is fun? We have tradition, we have the support (I'm not talking about the coach), we just don't have any fun. Bring the 21st century to our team and I expect we'll all be surprised at how well it does.

TT runs a "fun" offense.  Only problem, it gets killed whenever they play a half decent defense.

Are you suggesting they would be better off without it?

TT would be better off with a balanced offense.  Nobody is afraid of their run game, just like nobody is afraid of our passing game.  When Texas Tech plays against a good defense, they can't win...the same goes for us.  You can't run the type of offenses that Texas Tech and Arkansas run and expect them to take you significant places.

I would never suggest a balanced offense isn't the best option.  I will suggest that since TTech is up against it in terms of recruiting (they will never out recruit Texas or A&M) the high flying circus offense gives them a better chance to win than a conventional offense. 

Mike Leach has a 63% winning record and has been to 7 straight bowl games (I add that part for the Nutt backers who like to crow about 6 straight)  They have been in the top 20 twice in Leach's 6 years.

Spike Dykes had a 55% winning percentage in 14 years.  Most of those years were in the SWC which people are quick to point out had few strong teams.  Spike had them in the top 25 twice during that time.

When you can't out-athlete someone, you have to out-strategy them.  You can't just line up with weaker athletes and expect to push the other team around.  Do you think Baylor would be willing to hire Leach and his offense?  They are 0-7 against Leach. 

As to being handled by OU and Texas every year, it's true.  I don't think you can only blame the offense.  At least they have a chance to always put some points on the board and a shot at winning.  Tech is 1-6 against those two teams.

Yep they will never out recruit Ou and TX.  I dont think we will ever out recruit LSU/GA/FLA  so both situations, as they pertain to winning titles, is hopeless?

John Blake pulled in way better recruiting classes to Oklahoma during 90's but Texas Tech whipped them in those years with far inferior recruiting classes.  So I wouldn't say that it was hopeless.

We used to beat Texas every once in a while too. 

We won 13 SWC football titles (tied for 3rd) and 22 SWC basketball titles (tied for first with Texas).  I don't know if the phrase "once in a while" really applies to our situation and Texas Tech's situation.  By the way, Texas Tech won 2 SWC football titles and 6 basketball titles.

What was our SWC record against Texas?  It was horrible.

I tried looking for it but couldn't find it.  It probably was a losing record but since we were their major competition pretty much year in and year out, our winning percentage against them couldn't have been worse than 2nd or 3rd in the league.  I won't argue that Texas dominated the SWC more than any other team in the SWC, but I wouldn't say that we would occasionally beat Texas.  TCU would occasionally beat Texas.

[oldbooniehog]

While folks may have said that Hatfield's offense was "boring" I think it was their way of summing up, in one word, the following set of ideas about Hatfield's offense.

It was one-dimensional.

It was conservative.

It's one-dimensional and conservative nature made it almost impossible for Arkansas to rally from behind, as somebody else pointed out on this thread.

When Hatfield's offense came up against really good, legitimate teams (Miami in Little Rock, UCLA in the Cotton Bowl, Tennessee in the Cotton Bowl, ) Arkansas typically lost.

That was the big knock on Hatfield.....that he couldn't win "The Big One" when it mattered.

If Hatfield beats Miami that day in Miami, or beats UCLA in the Cotton Bowl, or beats Tennessee in the Cotton Bowl, nobody cares that his offense is "boring."

But "boring" offense combined with never ever quit winning the big one.......well...........to paraphrase Hogsanity......sound familiar?

obh

[Pignominious]

You know what would be nice?

A 2:00 minute offense that was more imaginative than giving the ball to D-Mac and hoping he'll break an 80-yard run. Or two 40-yards runs. That would be nice.

That's why I knew we had absolutely no chance on the last possession against LSU last year.

If at any time this fall you see that there is approximately 2:00 on the clock and we need to go the length of the field to score, the smartest thing for you to do is to look at the person sitting next to you and say, "We're beat."

It would be great to have a passing offense sophisticated enough and a quarterback competent enough to be in that situation - one where the other team KNOWS we have to pass to win - and still be able to get the job done. 

Wow that's right on.  I remember thinking that same thing.

[Oklahawg]

Now, this is a thread worth a bump.

What UA has to envision and evolve towards is a power passing game. Not a prissy passing game, ala TTech. Something that allows you to get the ball back with 4 minutes on the clock, at your own 20 yard line, and up by a point. An offensive philosophy that throws creatively and efficiently, but can still plow a road down the field to seal a game.

There are plenty of examples of how that works. Doesn't require anything short of pedestrian passing effectiveness. Ohio State the year they had Clarett comes to mind. Even Oklahoma's system with Peterson was designed to have a power passing game that leaned on AP's ability to control a game.

This isn't heady stuff in the realm of scientific rockets, folks.

[razorbass]

Interestingly, I note in todays Morning News of NWA that even Pea Ridge has abandoned the Dead T for a new spread offense.  Most high schools in NWA run some version now of Gus' spread offense.  It's the wave of the future...heck it's the here and now....and most players want to play that kind of ball.  Only the ancient JFB, DMW, MSM and the Nuttzis want to think it's 1965 and keep living in the past.

Not only is it fun to play in, that offense is just plain fun to watch!

Did any of you catch the interview on ESPN radio yesterday with the Coach of Boise St? It was interesting as the announcer mentioned something about them needing to go to a more traditional, less innovative offense now that "they've arrived at the big time". The coach just said, we will continue to run the offense we've always run, the players have bought into the system AND ITS A WHOLE LOT MORE FUN TO RUN.

Let me ask you...what is a high school stud going to want to do....play in a plodding offense, or one that is fun? We have tradition, we have the support (I'm not talking about the coach), we just don't have any fun. Bring the 21st century to our team and I expect we'll all be surprised at how well it does.

TT runs a "fun" offense.  Only problem, it gets killed whenever they play a half decent defense.

Are you suggesting they would be better off without it?

TT would be better off with a balanced offense.  Nobody is afraid of their run game, just like nobody is afraid of our passing game.  When Texas Tech plays against a good defense, they can't win...the same goes for us.  You can't run the type of offenses that Texas Tech and Arkansas run and expect them to take you significant places.

I would never suggest a balanced offense isn't the best option.  I will suggest that since TTech is up against it in terms of recruiting (they will never out recruit Texas or A&M) the high flying circus offense gives them a better chance to win than a conventional offense. 

Mike Leach has a 63% winning record and has been to 7 straight bowl games (I add that part for the Nutt backers who like to crow about 6 straight)  They have been in the top 20 twice in Leach's 6 years.

Spike Dykes had a 55% winning percentage in 14 years.  Most of those years were in the SWC which people are quick to point out had few strong teams.  Spike had them in the top 25 twice during that time.

When you can't out-athlete someone, you have to out-strategy them.  You can't just line up with weaker athletes and expect to push the other team around.  Do you think Baylor would be willing to hire Leach and his offense?  They are 0-7 against Leach. 

As to being handled by OU and Texas every year, it's true.  I don't think you can only blame the offense.  At least they have a chance to always put some points on the board and a shot at winning.  Tech is 1-6 against those two teams.

And none of them had JFB to boss them around. Frank has been great at getting donations, so he hasn't been all bad, but he just can't let go of controlling the football program!!!

[Cartoon Man]

Amen

[porkurina]

IMO it's not the amount of passes, it's the quality of the passing game.  You must practice it for it to be good.

[slopinhogs]

that's why he goes to see the old coach every week .to get his instructions. :razorback:

[BigHog396]

saying we've never  been a consistant powerhouse isn't an arguement it is a fact...

a fact that I would like to see changed and I don't think Nutt can get it done....

That completely depends on your definition of "consistent."  Most people that know anything about the history of college football will tell you that Arkansas was once a "consistent" college football powerhouse.

But again.. that depends on your definition of consistent.  What exactly would you deem the requirements to be to be considered a consistent powerhouse?

[Conway Cool Daddy]

Some people like to claim that Arkansas's never been exceptionally good at football for very long, so we shouldn't have very high expectations, know our lot in life, etc.

Winning %:

1970-74 63.4%
1975-79 78.0%
1980-84 64.4%
1985-89 78.7%
1990-94 39.3%
1995-99 55.9%
2000-04 58.1%
2005-06 56.0%

Arkansas did sustain a higher winning percentage from 1970-89 when most of that time the SWC was one of the top three conferences in the country.

But that alone is not what irks many Hog fans.  Why was Ken Hatfield disliked by so many despite his obvious success?  Because when his Hogs did lose, it had a lot to do with three recurrent factors:

1) His recruiting approach left the team chronically thin on depth and heavily dependent on a few anchor stars.
2) His passing game was anachronistic in its simplicity, his offense fatally limited by predictability, and he turned severely conservative in many big games arguably turning possible victory into defeat.
3) His special teams deteriorated until they were inferior to those of his predecessors.

Razorback fans have been waiting since the 1970s to see their team move back toward college football's offensive mainstream, instead of lying out on the conservative fringe.  Jack Crowe was overpromoted in a Broylesean panic, but the old head coach seemed to indict all modernism for that failure.  Danny Ford was a massive swing back to thudball.  Four years of that, and Broyles was so keen on getting back to the future, he forced a wildass CFL offensive coach onto Ford's back.

Houston Nutt was supposed to be the guy who added the blend of old and new to the Arkansas offensive stables.  For three years, he did just that.  But he never recruited for it, and when Ford's skill players were gone we had mostly pluggers to go with some huge run-blockers, fine tailbacks and a running QB.

Nutt's fateful mistake in his early seasons as Arkansas coach was his failure to stock up the passing game.  In some cases, he and recruiting coordinator Fitz Hill were hoodwinked on player evaluation.  In others, they whiffed in pursuing blue-chips.  When it came to QBs in particular, Nutt was slow to recognize the urgency of his situation.  Ford had loaded the roster with a long list of what would turn out to be duds.  Robbie Hampton transferred in, and Gary Brashears got Parade hullabaloo.

On top of all this, Hill left for a head coaching job late in recruiting the 2001 crop, which was good but would have been awesome had Hill managed to land the stud receivers he was chasing.  When Hill left, Nutt hired George Pugh in order to sign Ahmad Carroll.  The offensive side of the class largely poofed, and Pugh turned out to be a serious liability as chief of recruiting.

It's not often that a coach gets a second chance to revolutionize the offense of a major college football program.  Credibility is the main problem: Even Joe Paterno had trouble persuading prospects that he was going to modernize the offense, after years of staidness.

Eight years in, Nutt was recruiting for his career, yet he was prepared to walk away from most of the Springdale 5, including the hottest in-state QB recruit in generations, Mitch Mustain.  Key boosters forced Nutt to hire Springdale coach Gus Malzahn and allow him to bring in his blue-chip stars, Mustain, Damian Williams and Ben Cleveland.

The big disconnect here is that Nutt no longer was committed to modernizing the Razorback offense, but many fans had lived through this many times before.  It's such a simple dream, to never lose another game for want of a timing pattern.

When Malzahn, Mustain, Williams, Cleveland and Andrew Norman came in, most Razorback fans thought the long-awaited revolution was at hand.  Little did they know the circumstances of Malzahn's hiring, that their head coach and most of his staff were aligned against the intruders, that this bloc viewed the Springdale intrusion as an anti-Nutt conspiracy from the "North."

It has been a very, very long time since Arkansas was significant on the college football horizon.  For once, just once, I'd like to see someone in Fayetteville try building toward an offense that is within earshot of state of the football art.  One more lip service effort won't ever be viewed as credible.

Every time I see the offense of any coach at Arkansas I can see one common influence. Frank Broyles.
He has had his stamp on Arkansas for over 50 years and our offense reflects his personal style.

I remember a certain game (LSU or MSU) in which our tailback carried the ball something like 40 times on a muddy field. We physically pounded the other team. This was back around 2000.
It seems like our offensive philosophy changed from that game forward. No more deep passes, we want
long time consuming drives with physical o linemen that punish defenses.

It's been a total change from Nutt's original philosophy. I blame Frank.


Where I've seen the biggest change under Nutt is actually our defense. We had regressed steadily until RH was brought on
in 2005. Nutt severly neglected recruiting defensive players and it cost us games.

[Albert Einswine]

For those in the thread who were wondering about our record against Texas, here it is.

We are 21-55 all time vs. Texas.

We are 2-1 vs. Texas since leaving the SWC so our record vs. them was 19-54 while we were SWC members.

Texas was the only school in the SWC we did not have a winning all time record against.


http://www.mcubed.net/ncaaf/series/ark/tx.shtml

[HognotinMemphis]

For those in the thread who were wondering about our record against Texas, here it is.

We are 21-55 all time vs. Texas.

We are 2-1 vs. Texas since leaving the SWC so our record vs. them was 19-54 while we were SWC members.

Texas was the only school in the SWC we did not have a winning all time record against.


http://www.mcubed.net/ncaaf/series/ark/tx.shtml

Horns hooked the Hogs a lot.

[jabohog]

Interestingly, I note in todays Morning News of NWA that even Pea Ridge has abandoned the Dead T for a new spread offense.  Most high schools in NWA run some version now of Gus' spread offense.  It's the wave of the future...heck it's the here and now....and most players want to play that kind of ball.  Only the ancient JFB, DMW, MSM and the Nuttzis want to think it's 1965 and keep living in the past.

Not only is it fun to play in, that offense is just plain fun to watch!

Did any of you catch the interview on ESPN radio yesterday with the Coach of Boise St? It was interesting as the announcer mentioned something about them needing to go to a more traditional, less innovative offense now that "they've arrived at the big time". The coach just said, we will continue to run the offense we've always run, the players have bought into the system AND ITS A WHOLE LOT MORE FUN TO RUN.

Let me ask you...what is a high school stud going to want to do....play in a plodding offense, or one that is fun? We have tradition, we have the support (I'm not talking about the coach), we just don't have any fun. Bring the 21st century to our team and I expect we'll all be surprised at how well it does.

TT runs a "fun" offense.  Only problem, it gets killed whenever they play a half decent defense.

Are you suggesting they would be better off without it?

TT would be better off with a balanced offense.  Nobody is afraid of their run game, just like nobody is afraid of our passing game.  When Texas Tech plays against a good defense, they can't win...the same goes for us.  You can't run the type of offenses that Texas Tech and Arkansas run and expect them to take you significant places.

I would never suggest a balanced offense isn't the best option.  I will suggest that since TTech is up against it in terms of recruiting (they will never out recruit Texas or A&M) the high flying circus offense gives them a better chance to win than a conventional offense. 

Mike Leach has a 63% winning record and has been to 7 straight bowl games (I add that part for the Nutt backers who like to crow about 6 straight)  They have been in the top 20 twice in Leach's 6 years.

Spike Dykes had a 55% winning percentage in 14 years.  Most of those years were in the SWC which people are quick to point out had few strong teams.  Spike had them in the top 25 twice during that time.

When you can't out-athlete someone, you have to out-strategy them.  You can't just line up with weaker athletes and expect to push the other team around.  Do you think Baylor would be willing to hire Leach and his offense?  They are 0-7 against Leach. 

As to being handled by OU and Texas every year, it's true.  I don't think you can only blame the offense.  At least they have a chance to always put some points on the board and a shot at winning.  Tech is 1-6 against those two teams.

Yep they will never out recruit Ou and TX.  I dont think we will ever out recruit LSU/GA/FLA  so both situations, as they pertain to winning titles, is hopeless?

John Blake pulled in way better recruiting classes to Oklahoma during 90's but Texas Tech whipped them in those years with far inferior recruiting classes.  So I wouldn't say that it was hopeless.

We used to beat Texas every once in a while too. 

We won 13 SWC football titles (tied for 3rd) and 22 SWC basketball titles (tied for first with Texas).  I don't know if the phrase "once in a while" really applies to our situation and Texas Tech's situation.  By the way, Texas Tech won 2 SWC football titles and 6 basketball titles.

What was our SWC record against Texas?  It was horrible.

What is anyone's record against Texas? Not many if any, has a winning record over Texas.

[Hogginitall]

Interestingly, I note in todays Morning News of NWA that even Pea Ridge has abandoned the Dead T for a new spread offense.  Most high schools in NWA run some version now of Gus' spread offense.  It's the wave of the future...heck it's the here and now....and most players want to play that kind of ball.  Only the ancient JFB, DMW, MSM and the Nuttzis want to think it's 1965 and keep living in the past.

Not only is it fun to play in, that offense is just plain fun to watch!

Did any of you catch the interview on ESPN radio yesterday with the Coach of Boise St? It was interesting as the announcer mentioned something about them needing to go to a more traditional, less innovative offense now that "they've arrived at the big time". The coach just said, we will continue to run the offense we've always run, the players have bought into the system AND ITS A WHOLE LOT MORE FUN TO RUN.

Let me ask you...what is a high school stud going to want to do....play in a plodding offense, or one that is fun? We have tradition, we have the support (I'm not talking about the coach), we just don't have any fun. Bring the 21st century to our team and I expect we'll all be surprised at how well it does.

TT runs a "fun" offense.  Only problem, it gets killed whenever they play a half decent defense.

Are you suggesting they would be better off without it?

TT would be better off with a balanced offense.  Nobody is afraid of their run game, just like nobody is afraid of our passing game.  When Texas Tech plays against a good defense, they can't win...the same goes for us.  You can't run the type of offenses that Texas Tech and Arkansas run and expect them to take you significant places.

I would never suggest a balanced offense isn't the best option.  I will suggest that since TTech is up against it in terms of recruiting (they will never out recruit Texas or A&M) the high flying circus offense gives them a better chance to win than a conventional offense. 

Mike Leach has a 63% winning record and has been to 7 straight bowl games (I add that part for the Nutt backers who like to crow about 6 straight)  They have been in the top 20 twice in Leach's 6 years.

Spike Dykes had a 55% winning percentage in 14 years.  Most of those years were in the SWC which people are quick to point out had few strong teams.  Spike had them in the top 25 twice during that time.

When you can't out-athlete someone, you have to out-strategy them.  You can't just line up with weaker athletes and expect to push the other team around.  Do you think Baylor would be willing to hire Leach and his offense?  They are 0-7 against Leach. 

As to being handled by OU and Texas every year, it's true.  I don't think you can only blame the offense.  At least they have a chance to always put some points on the board and a shot at winning.  Tech is 1-6 against those two teams.

Yep they will never out recruit Ou and TX.  I dont think we will ever out recruit LSU/GA/FLA  so both situations, as they pertain to winning titles, is hopeless?

John Blake pulled in way better recruiting classes to Oklahoma during 90's but Texas Tech whipped them in those years with far inferior recruiting classes.  So I wouldn't say that it was hopeless.

We used to beat Texas every once in a while too. 

We won 13 SWC football titles (tied for 3rd) and 22 SWC basketball titles (tied for first with Texas).  I don't know if the phrase "once in a while" really applies to our situation and Texas Tech's situation.  By the way, Texas Tech won 2 SWC football titles and 6 basketball titles.

What was our SWC record against Texas?  It was horrible.

I tried looking for it but couldn't find it.  It probably was a losing record but since we were their major competition pretty much year in and year out, our winning percentage against them couldn't have been worse than 2nd or 3rd in the league.  I won't argue that Texas dominated the SWC more than any other team in the SWC, but I wouldn't say that we would occasionally beat Texas.  TCU would occasionally beat Texas.

Our record vs. Texas while in the SWC was 19-51.  That's a 27% win percentage.  I'd say that's OCCASIONALLY beating Texas.

http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/opp-opp.pl?start=1869&end=2006&team1=Arkansas&team2=Texas

[Hogginitall]

Texas A&M is 34-66-4 against Texas all-time.  That is a 33% win percentage and a 37% non-lose percentage.

http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/opp-opp.pl?start=1869&end=2006&team1=TexasAM&team2=Texas

TCU is 20-56-1 against Texas all-time.  That is a 26% win percentage and a 27% non-lose percentage.

http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/opp-opp.pl?start=1869&end=2006&team1=Texas+Christian&team2=Texas

Texas Tech is 14-41 against Texas all-time.  That is a 25% win percentage.

http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/opp-opp.pl?start=1869&end=2006&team1=Texas+Tech&team2=Texas

[Hogginitall]

Do y'all really think that the SWC was one of the top 3 conferences in the nation at ANY time?  I don't.  I consider the old SWC kind of like the Big East is now, a couple of really good teams most years (Texas and Arkansas), an occasional good team (Texas A&M), and a bunch of traditionally weak teams (SMU, Texas Tech, TCU).

[hogsanity]

Interestingly, I note in todays Morning News of NWA that even Pea Ridge has abandoned the Dead T for a new spread offense.  Most high schools in NWA run some version now of Gus' spread offense.  It's the wave of the future...heck it's the here and now....and most players want to play that kind of ball.  Only the ancient JFB, DMW, MSM and the Nuttzis want to think it's 1965 and keep living in the past.

Not only is it fun to play in, that offense is just plain fun to watch!

Did any of you catch the interview on ESPN radio yesterday with the Coach of Boise St? It was interesting as the announcer mentioned something about them needing to go to a more traditional, less innovative offense now that "they've arrived at the big time". The coach just said, we will continue to run the offense we've always run, the players have bought into the system AND ITS A WHOLE LOT MORE FUN TO RUN.

Let me ask you...what is a high school stud going to want to do....play in a plodding offense, or one that is fun? We have tradition, we have the support (I'm not talking about the coach), we just don't have any fun. Bring the 21st century to our team and I expect we'll all be surprised at how well it does.

TT runs a "fun" offense.  Only problem, it gets killed whenever they play a half decent defense.

Florida has a "fun" offense as well but they're doing alright.

Because they have a defense to go with it. 

[Oklahawg]

Few complaints from me when we were winning. Aubbie, USC-E, TN...I was thrilled because we won. Yes, I noted the disappearing passing game, but hoped it was not as bad as it turned out to be.

If you go 13-0 and don't throw a pass no one can beef. Go 8-4 with 4 single-score losses (ie, 7 or fewer points) and end them with 4-n-out due to no passing game and you'll have BBQ Nutt served on this board.

[311Hog]

You know what would be nice?

A 2:00 minute offense that was more imaginative than giving the ball to D-Mac and hoping he'll break an 80-yard run. Or two 40-yards runs. That would be nice.

That's why I knew we had absolutely no chance on the last possession against LSU last year.

If at any time this fall you see that there is approximately 2:00 on the clock and we need to go the length of the field to score, the smartest thing for you to do is to look at the person sitting next to you and say, "We're beat."

It would be great to have a passing offense sophisticated enough and a quarterback competent enough to be in that situation - one where the other team KNOWS we have to pass to win - and still be able to get the job done. 

Last year Nutt would run the ball to the 50, let the clock run down and heave it in the endzone, i.e. South Carolina.  I believe he also used the same tactic against one of the non-conference opponents.  His conservative approach won't cut it in the big game. 

These are the best two posts in this thread.

<ONE THING ABOVE ALL ELSE SHOULD ALERT HUGGER AND DARKSIDER ALIKE>


Why do we not have a 2 minute offense installed and "working" by the final regular season game last year?

Can anyone answer the above question for me?  Jr. High School football teams, PEWEE FOOTBALL TEAMS, can run a "2 minute drill" and yet here we are UofArkansas cant run a 2 minute drill.

Does this fact not scare anyone?

[bearcathog]

Check this out:

http://mcubed.net/ncaaf/charts/ark.shtml

Noticed how things changed when we entered the SEC.

[311Hog]

"Down by 5 with 1:55 left to go in the game Hogs have the ball on their own 28 yard line"



What is your feeling?

[Silver Hog]

"Down by 5 with 1:55 left to go in the game Hogs have the ball on their own 28 yard line"



What is your feeling?

Head for the car.

[bearcathog]

I was looking over my ESPN College Football Encyclopedia, this weekend and an Old Media Guide.

What is weird, in the old SWC, We haven't had too many seasons since 1961 that we have beaten more than one team with a winning record.  Many of those years we were 8-3, and the 8 wins were against teams with losing records and the 3 loses against teams with winning records.

For example start here and work your was through the years.

http://mcubed.net/ncaaf/1960/ark.shtml

[hogsanity]

I was looking over my ESPN College Football Encyclopedia, this weekend and an Old Media Guide.

What is weird, in the old SWC, We haven't had too many seasons since 1961 that we have beaten more than one team with a winning record.  Many of those years we were 8-3, and the 8 wins were against teams with losing records and the 3 loses against teams with winning records.

For example start here and work your was through the years.

http://mcubed.net/ncaaf/1960/ark.shtml

Arkansas has always been good at winning the games we should, and OCCASIONALLY beating a bigboy.  Usually it is a case of "what ALMOST was".

[Hollywood_HOGan45]

Interestingly, I note in todays Morning News of NWA that even Pea Ridge has abandoned the Dead T for a new spread offense.  Most high schools in NWA run some version now of Gus' spread offense.  It's the wave of the future...heck it's the here and now....and most players want to play that kind of ball.  Only the ancient JFB, DMW, MSM and the Nuttzis want to think it's 1965 and keep living in the past.

Not only is it fun to play in, that offense is just plain fun to watch!

Did any of you catch the interview on ESPN radio yesterday with the Coach of Boise St? It was interesting as the announcer mentioned something about them needing to go to a more traditional, less innovative offense now that "they've arrived at the big time". The coach just said, we will continue to run the offense we've always run, the players have bought into the system AND ITS A WHOLE LOT MORE FUN TO RUN.

Let me ask you...what is a high school stud going to want to do....play in a plodding offense, or one that is fun? We have tradition, we have the support (I'm not talking about the coach), we just don't have any fun. Bring the 21st century to our team and I expect we'll all be surprised at how well it does.

TT runs a "fun" offense.  Only problem, it gets killed whenever they play a half decent defense.

Are you suggesting they would be better off without it?

I am not a TT fans, so to say they would be better off doing something else would be for a TT to say.  I have 2 cousins that went to TT, and they hate it because they know that Texas and OU will beat them 80-95% of the time with that style of play.  TT situation is much like ours.  The average everyday fan does not care.  The "hardcore" fans are divided, at best, over Leech because they know they are limited by the offense.

do we not get shut down by good defenses that go up against our tired old one diminsional offense? (LSU, Florida, Wisconsin)

Most of us are not asking for a TT type offense, we're just asking for some balance. Something we havent had since the days of Stoerner and Lucas.
We STILL have not developed a good QB since then either. Matt Jones was just a freak athlete that not even nutt could ruin him.

[Hollywood_HOGan45]

"Down by 5 with 1:55 left to go in the game Hogs have the ball on their own 28 yard line"



What is your feeling?

Is Matt JOnes in the building?

[Hogginitall]

Interestingly, I note in todays Morning News of NWA that even Pea Ridge has abandoned the Dead T for a new spread offense.  Most high schools in NWA run some version now of Gus' spread offense.  It's the wave of the future...heck it's the here and now....and most players want to play that kind of ball.  Only the ancient JFB, DMW, MSM and the Nuttzis want to think it's 1965 and keep living in the past.

Not only is it fun to play in, that offense is just plain fun to watch!

Did any of you catch the interview on ESPN radio yesterday with the Coach of Boise St? It was interesting as the announcer mentioned something about them needing to go to a more traditional, less innovative offense now that "they've arrived at the big time". The coach just said, we will continue to run the offense we've always run, the players have bought into the system AND ITS A WHOLE LOT MORE FUN TO RUN.

Let me ask you...what is a high school stud going to want to do....play in a plodding offense, or one that is fun? We have tradition, we have the support (I'm not talking about the coach), we just don't have any fun. Bring the 21st century to our team and I expect we'll all be surprised at how well it does.

TT runs a "fun" offense.  Only problem, it gets killed whenever they play a half decent defense.

Are you suggesting they would be better off without it?

I am not a TT fans, so to say they would be better off doing something else would be for a TT to say.  I have 2 cousins that went to TT, and they hate it because they know that Texas and OU will beat them 80-95% of the time with that style of play.  TT situation is much like ours.  The average everyday fan does not care.  The "hardcore" fans are divided, at best, over Leech because they know they are limited by the offense.

do we not get shut down by good defenses that go up against our tired old one diminsional offense? (LSU, Florida, Wisconsin)

Most of us are not asking for a TT type offense, we're just asking for some balance. Something we havent had since the days of Stoerner and Lucas.
We STILL have not developed a good QB since then either. Matt Jones was just a freak athlete that not even nutt could ruin him.

We didn't get "shut down" by any of those defenses that you mentioned...not even close.

[311Hog]

"Down by 5 with 1:55 left to go in the game Hogs have the ball on their own 28 yard line"



What is your feeling?

Is Matt JOnes in the building?

no Matt Jones sad to say

[311Hog]

Interestingly, I note in todays Morning News of NWA that even Pea Ridge has abandoned the Dead T for a new spread offense.  Most high schools in NWA run some version now of Gus' spread offense.  It's the wave of the future...heck it's the here and now....and most players want to play that kind of ball.  Only the ancient JFB, DMW, MSM and the Nuttzis want to think it's 1965 and keep living in the past.

Not only is it fun to play in, that offense is just plain fun to watch!

Did any of you catch the interview on ESPN radio yesterday with the Coach of Boise St? It was interesting as the announcer mentioned something about them needing to go to a more traditional, less innovative offense now that "they've arrived at the big time". The coach just said, we will continue to run the offense we've always run, the players have bought into the system AND ITS A WHOLE LOT MORE FUN TO RUN.

Let me ask you...what is a high school stud going to want to do....play in a plodding offense, or one that is fun? We have tradition, we have the support (I'm not talking about the coach), we just don't have any fun. Bring the 21st century to our team and I expect we'll all be surprised at how well it does.

TT runs a "fun" offense.  Only problem, it gets killed whenever they play a half decent defense.

Are you suggesting they would be better off without it?

I am not a TT fans, so to say they would be better off doing something else would be for a TT to say.  I have 2 cousins that went to TT, and they hate it because they know that Texas and OU will beat them 80-95% of the time with that style of play.  TT situation is much like ours.  The average everyday fan does not care.  The "hardcore" fans are divided, at best, over Leech because they know they are limited by the offense.

do we not get shut down by good defenses that go up against our tired old one diminsional offense? (LSU, Florida, Wisconsin)

Most of us are not asking for a TT type offense, we're just asking for some balance. Something we havent had since the days of Stoerner and Lucas.
We STILL have not developed a good QB since then either. Matt Jones was just a freak athlete that not even nutt could ruin him.

We didn't get "shut down" by any of those defenses that you mentioned...not even close.

our passing game did.

[hogsanity]

Interestingly, I note in todays Morning News of NWA that even Pea Ridge has abandoned the Dead T for a new spread offense.  Most high schools in NWA run some version now of Gus' spread offense.  It's the wave of the future...heck it's the here and now....and most players want to play that kind of ball.  Only the ancient JFB, DMW, MSM and the Nuttzis want to think it's 1965 and keep living in the past.

Not only is it fun to play in, that offense is just plain fun to watch!

Did any of you catch the interview on ESPN radio yesterday with the Coach of Boise St? It was interesting as the announcer mentioned something about them needing to go to a more traditional, less innovative offense now that "they've arrived at the big time". The coach just said, we will continue to run the offense we've always run, the players have bought into the system AND ITS A WHOLE LOT MORE FUN TO RUN.

Let me ask you...what is a high school stud going to want to do....play in a plodding offense, or one that is fun? We have tradition, we have the support (I'm not talking about the coach), we just don't have any fun. Bring the 21st century to our team and I expect we'll all be surprised at how well it does.

TT runs a "fun" offense.  Only problem, it gets killed whenever they play a half decent defense.

Are you suggesting they would be better off without it?

I am not a TT fans, so to say they would be better off doing something else would be for a TT to say.  I have 2 cousins that went to TT, and they hate it because they know that Texas and OU will beat them 80-95% of the time with that style of play.  TT situation is much like ours.  The average everyday fan does not care.  The "hardcore" fans are divided, at best, over Leech because they know they are limited by the offense.

do we not get shut down by good defenses that go up against our tired old one diminsional offense? (LSU, Florida, Wisconsin)

Most of us are not asking for a TT type offense, we're just asking for some balance. Something we havent had since the days of Stoerner and Lucas.
We STILL have not developed a good QB since then either. Matt Jones was just a freak athlete that not even nutt could ruin him.

Well, we scored 4 td's against Lsu, 3 offensive against Fla, and 2 against Wisc.  I don't think that is shut down.  The point about TT is that they have no shot against a good defense.  While people here whine that we  do not either, I say Bull. 

[Hollywood_HOGan45]

Interestingly, I note in todays Morning News of NWA that even Pea Ridge has abandoned the Dead T for a new spread offense.  Most high schools in NWA run some version now of Gus' spread offense.  It's the wave of the future...heck it's the here and now....and most players want to play that kind of ball.  Only the ancient JFB, DMW, MSM and the Nuttzis want to think it's 1965 and keep living in the past.

Not only is it fun to play in, that offense is just plain fun to watch!

Did any of you catch the interview on ESPN radio yesterday with the Coach of Boise St? It was interesting as the announcer mentioned something about them needing to go to a more traditional, less innovative offense now that "they've arrived at the big time". The coach just said, we will continue to run the offense we've always run, the players have bought into the system AND ITS A WHOLE LOT MORE FUN TO RUN.

Let me ask you...what is a high school stud going to want to do....play in a plodding offense, or one that is fun? We have tradition, we have the support (I'm not talking about the coach), we just don't have any fun. Bring the 21st century to our team and I expect we'll all be surprised at how well it does.

TT runs a "fun" offense.  Only problem, it gets killed whenever they play a half decent defense.

Are you suggesting they would be better off without it?

I am not a TT fans, so to say they would be better off doing something else would be for a TT to say.  I have 2 cousins that went to TT, and they hate it because they know that Texas and OU will beat them 80-95% of the time with that style of play.  TT situation is much like ours.  The average everyday fan does not care.  The "hardcore" fans are divided, at best, over Leech because they know they are limited by the offense.

do we not get shut down by good defenses that go up against our tired old one diminsional offense? (LSU, Florida, Wisconsin)

Most of us are not asking for a TT type offense, we're just asking for some balance. Something we havent had since the days of Stoerner and Lucas.
We STILL have not developed a good QB since then either. Matt Jones was just a freak athlete that not even nutt could ruin him.

We didn't get "shut down" by any of those defenses that you mentioned...not even close.

when we needed to make the big pass plays for first downs late in the game, we couldn't make em.
Wisconsin was BEGGING us to win that game but we couldnt because of our tired old one diminsional offense.
We rushed for alot of yards against LSU but yet again, we could not make the big pass plays when we were trying to make a comeback.
Against Florida, McFadden only had 71 rushing yards on 21 carries. Maybe if we had a 21st century offense, he might have had more running lanes but there was no threat of the forward pass. We havent had a threat of a forward pass since Stoerner.

[Hogginitall]

Interestingly, I note in todays Morning News of NWA that even Pea Ridge has abandoned the Dead T for a new spread offense.  Most high schools in NWA run some version now of Gus' spread offense.  It's the wave of the future...heck it's the here and now....and most players want to play that kind of ball.  Only the ancient JFB, DMW, MSM and the Nuttzis want to think it's 1965 and keep living in the past.

Not only is it fun to play in, that offense is just plain fun to watch!

Did any of you catch the interview on ESPN radio yesterday with the Coach of Boise St? It was interesting as the announcer mentioned something about them needing to go to a more traditional, less innovative offense now that "they've arrived at the big time". The coach just said, we will continue to run the offense we've always run, the players have bought into the system AND ITS A WHOLE LOT MORE FUN TO RUN.

Let me ask you...what is a high school stud going to want to do....play in a plodding offense, or one that is fun? We have tradition, we have the support (I'm not talking about the coach), we just don't have any fun. Bring the 21st century to our team and I expect we'll all be surprised at how well it does.

TT runs a "fun" offense.  Only problem, it gets killed whenever they play a half decent defense.

Are you suggesting they would be better off without it?

I am not a TT fans, so to say they would be better off doing something else would be for a TT to say.  I have 2 cousins that went to TT, and they hate it because they know that Texas and OU will beat them 80-95% of the time with that style of play.  TT situation is much like ours.  The average everyday fan does not care.  The "hardcore" fans are divided, at best, over Leech because they know they are limited by the offense.

do we not get shut down by good defenses that go up against our tired old one diminsional offense? (LSU, Florida, Wisconsin)

Most of us are not asking for a TT type offense, we're just asking for some balance. Something we havent had since the days of Stoerner and Lucas.
We STILL have not developed a good QB since then either. Matt Jones was just a freak athlete that not even nutt could ruin him.

We didn't get "shut down" by any of those defenses that you mentioned...not even close.

our passing game did.

Only in the LSU game.  But then again, we had 298 yards rushing in that game.  In the Florida and Wisconsin games, Arkansas had more passing first downs than rushing ones.

[Hollywood_HOGan45]

Interestingly, I note in todays Morning News of NWA that even Pea Ridge has abandoned the Dead T for a new spread offense.  Most high schools in NWA run some version now of Gus' spread offense.  It's the wave of the future...heck it's the here and now....and most players want to play that kind of ball.  Only the ancient JFB, DMW, MSM and the Nuttzis want to think it's 1965 and keep living in the past.

Not only is it fun to play in, that offense is just plain fun to watch!

Did any of you catch the interview on ESPN radio yesterday with the Coach of Boise St? It was interesting as the announcer mentioned something about them needing to go to a more traditional, less innovative offense now that "they've arrived at the big time". The coach just said, we will continue to run the offense we've always run, the players have bought into the system AND ITS A WHOLE LOT MORE FUN TO RUN.

Let me ask you...what is a high school stud going to want to do....play in a plodding offense, or one that is fun? We have tradition, we have the support (I'm not talking about the coach), we just don't have any fun. Bring the 21st century to our team and I expect we'll all be surprised at how well it does.

TT runs a "fun" offense.  Only problem, it gets killed whenever they play a half decent defense.

Are you suggesting they would be better off without it?

I am not a TT fans, so to say they would be better off doing something else would be for a TT to say.  I have 2 cousins that went to TT, and they hate it because they know that Texas and OU will beat them 80-95% of the time with that style of play.  TT situation is much like ours.  The average everyday fan does not care.  The "hardcore" fans are divided, at best, over Leech because they know they are limited by the offense.

do we not get shut down by good defenses that go up against our tired old one diminsional offense? (LSU, Florida, Wisconsin)

Most of us are not asking for a TT type offense, we're just asking for some balance. Something we havent had since the days of Stoerner and Lucas.
We STILL have not developed a good QB since then either. Matt Jones was just a freak athlete that not even nutt could ruin him.

Well, we scored 4 td's against Lsu, 3 offensive against Fla, and 2 against Wisc.  I don't think that is shut down.  The point about TT is that they have no shot against a good defense.  While people here whine that we  do not either, I say Bull. 

overall in the nutt era, nutt's teams do get shut down against good defenses. But because we have the best two tailbacks in our history, that gives us at least a chance but in the big games when we need a good passing game, we usually fail (LSU, FLorida, Wisconsin).

[311Hog]

Interestingly, I note in todays Morning News of NWA that even Pea Ridge has abandoned the Dead T for a new spread offense.  Most high schools in NWA run some version now of Gus' spread offense.  It's the wave of the future...heck it's the here and now....and most players want to play that kind of ball.  Only the ancient JFB, DMW, MSM and the Nuttzis want to think it's 1965 and keep living in the past.

Not only is it fun to play in, that offense is just plain fun to watch!

Did any of you catch the interview on ESPN radio yesterday with the Coach of Boise St? It was interesting as the announcer mentioned something about them needing to go to a more traditional, less innovative offense now that "they've arrived at the big time". The coach just said, we will continue to run the offense we've always run, the players have bought into the system AND ITS A WHOLE LOT MORE FUN TO RUN.

Let me ask you...what is a high school stud going to want to do....play in a plodding offense, or one that is fun? We have tradition, we have the support (I'm not talking about the coach), we just don't have any fun. Bring the 21st century to our team and I expect we'll all be surprised at how well it does.

TT runs a "fun" offense.  Only problem, it gets killed whenever they play a half decent defense.

Are you suggesting they would be better off without it?

I am not a TT fans, so to say they would be better off doing something else would be for a TT to say.  I have 2 cousins that went to TT, and they hate it because they know that Texas and OU will beat them 80-95% of the time with that style of play.  TT situation is much like ours.  The average everyday fan does not care.  The "hardcore" fans are divided, at best, over Leech because they know they are limited by the offense.

do we not get shut down by good defenses that go up against our tired old one diminsional offense? (LSU, Florida, Wisconsin)

Most of us are not asking for a TT type offense, we're just asking for some balance. Something we havent had since the days of Stoerner and Lucas.
We STILL have not developed a good QB since then either. Matt Jones was just a freak athlete that not even nutt could ruin him.

We didn't get "shut down" by any of those defenses that you mentioned...not even close.

our passing game did.

Only in the LSU game.  But then again, we had 298 yards rushing in that game.  In the Florida and Wisconsin games, Arkansas had more passing first downs than rushing ones.

Wisc. we had one big running play with accounted for over half of our total yards we were for all intents and purposes shut down.

LSU our passing game was shut down to the point of National Media ridicule.

Florida, well Dmac was nicked up, but wasnt "shut down" i suppose.

[Mo_Better_Hogs]

You know what would be nice?

A 2:00 minute offense that was more imaginative than giving the ball to D-Mac and hoping he'll break an 80-yard run. Or two 40-yards runs. That would be nice.

That's why I knew we had absolutely no chance on the last possession against LSU last year.

If at any time this fall you see that there is approximately 2:00 on the clock and we need to go the length of the field to score, the smartest thing for you to do is to look at the person sitting next to you and say, "We're beat."

It would be great to have a passing offense sophisticated enough and a quarterback competent enough to be in that situation - one where the other team KNOWS we have to pass to win - and still be able to get the job done. 

That final drive in the LSU game really does illustrate the point (of where our O is right now). My head is so screwed up by Nutt's offense, I still believe we'd been better off doing just what Wilson mentioned above--just handing the ball to DMac in those last 2 minutes and saying "good luck". Instead we didn't give him one touch, and let Casey throw 3 straight incompletions.

[Hollywood_HOGan45]

Interestingly, I note in todays Morning News of NWA that even Pea Ridge has abandoned the Dead T for a new spread offense.  Most high schools in NWA run some version now of Gus' spread offense.  It's the wave of the future...heck it's the here and now....and most players want to play that kind of ball.  Only the ancient JFB, DMW, MSM and the Nuttzis want to think it's 1965 and keep living in the past.

Not only is it fun to play in, that offense is just plain fun to watch!

Did any of you catch the interview on ESPN radio yesterday with the Coach of Boise St? It was interesting as the announcer mentioned something about them needing to go to a more traditional, less innovative offense now that "they've arrived at the big time". The coach just said, we will continue to run the offense we've always run, the players have bought into the system AND ITS A WHOLE LOT MORE FUN TO RUN.

Let me ask you...what is a high school stud going to want to do....play in a plodding offense, or one that is fun? We have tradition, we have the support (I'm not talking about the coach), we just don't have any fun. Bring the 21st century to our team and I expect we'll all be surprised at how well it does.

TT runs a "fun" offense.  Only problem, it gets killed whenever they play a half decent defense.

Are you suggesting they would be better off without it?

I am not a TT fans, so to say they would be better off doing something else would be for a TT to say.  I have 2 cousins that went to TT, and they hate it because they know that Texas and OU will beat them 80-95% of the time with that style of play.  TT situation is much like ours.  The average everyday fan does not care.  The "hardcore" fans are divided, at best, over Leech because they know they are limited by the offense.

do we not get shut down by good defenses that go up against our tired old one diminsional offense? (LSU, Florida, Wisconsin)

Most of us are not asking for a TT type offense, we're just asking for some balance. Something we havent had since the days of Stoerner and Lucas.
We STILL have not developed a good QB since then either. Matt Jones was just a freak athlete that not even nutt could ruin him.

We didn't get "shut down" by any of those defenses that you mentioned...not even close.

our passing game did.

 In the Florida and Wisconsin games, Arkansas had more passing first downs than rushing ones.

now that tells you just how bad our offense was in those two games.

[311Hog]

You know what would be nice?

A 2:00 minute offense that was more imaginative than giving the ball to D-Mac and hoping he'll break an 80-yard run. Or two 40-yards runs. That would be nice.

That's why I knew we had absolutely no chance on the last possession against LSU last year.

If at any time this fall you see that there is approximately 2:00 on the clock and we need to go the length of the field to score, the smartest thing for you to do is to look at the person sitting next to you and say, "We're beat."

It would be great to have a passing offense sophisticated enough and a quarterback competent enough to be in that situation - one where the other team KNOWS we have to pass to win - and still be able to get the job done. 

That final drive in the LSU game really does illustrate the point (of where our O is right now). My head is so screwed up by Nutt's offense, I still believe we'd been better off doing just what Wilson mentioned above--just handing the ball to DMac in those last 2 minutes and saying "good luck". Instead we didn't give him one touch, and let Casey throw 3 straight incompletions.

actually we did,

First play we ran Dmac on a deep passing play that was incomplete, Dmac stood on the sideline for the next 3 plays.

[Hogginitall]

Interestingly, I note in todays Morning News of NWA that even Pea Ridge has abandoned the Dead T for a new spread offense.  Most high schools in NWA run some version now of Gus' spread offense.  It's the wave of the future...heck it's the here and now....and most players want to play that kind of ball.  Only the ancient JFB, DMW, MSM and the Nuttzis want to think it's 1965 and keep living in the past.

Not only is it fun to play in, that offense is just plain fun to watch!

Did any of you catch the interview on ESPN radio yesterday with the Coach of Boise St? It was interesting as the announcer mentioned something about them needing to go to a more traditional, less innovative offense now that "they've arrived at the big time". The coach just said, we will continue to run the offense we've always run, the players have bought into the system AND ITS A WHOLE LOT MORE FUN TO RUN.

Let me ask you...what is a high school stud going to want to do....play in a plodding offense, or one that is fun? We have tradition, we have the support (I'm not talking about the coach), we just don't have any fun. Bring the 21st century to our team and I expect we'll all be surprised at how well it does.

TT runs a "fun" offense.  Only problem, it gets killed whenever they play a half decent defense.

Are you suggesting they would be better off without it?

I am not a TT fans, so to say they would be better off doing something else would be for a TT to say.  I have 2 cousins that went to TT, and they hate it because they know that Texas and OU will beat them 80-95% of the time with that style of play.  TT situation is much like ours.  The average everyday fan does not care.  The "hardcore" fans are divided, at best, over Leech because they know they are limited by the offense.

do we not get shut down by good defenses that go up against our tired old one diminsional offense? (LSU, Florida, Wisconsin)

Most of us are not asking for a TT type offense, we're just asking for some balance. Something we havent had since the days of Stoerner and Lucas.
We STILL have not developed a good QB since then either. Matt Jones was just a freak athlete that not even nutt could ruin him.

We didn't get "shut down" by any of those defenses that you mentioned...not even close.

our passing game did.

Only in the LSU game.  But then again, we had 298 yards rushing in that game.  In the Florida and Wisconsin games, Arkansas had more passing first downs than rushing ones.

Wisc. we had one big running play with accounted for over half of our total yards we were for all intents and purposes shut down.

LSU our passing game was shut down to the point of National Media ridicule.

Florida, well Dmac was nicked up, but wasnt "shut down" i suppose.

In the Wisconsin game, you can take away Jones' and McFadden's longest run of the game, 76 and 45 yards respectively, and Arkansas still had 247 yards of total offense (136 yards passing).

In the Florida game, Arkansas had 132 yards rushing compared to 179 passing for a total of 311 yards.

Neither of these is being "shut down".

The LSU game is another story as far as our passing game getting shut down.  I will concede that game.  But not these two.

And really, overall, LSU's defense didn't shut us down.  Anytime a team has 298 yards rushing against another team, they did not get "shut down".

[311Hog]

Interestingly, I note in todays Morning News of NWA that even Pea Ridge has abandoned the Dead T for a new spread offense.  Most high schools in NWA run some version now of Gus' spread offense.  It's the wave of the future...heck it's the here and now....and most players want to play that kind of ball.  Only the ancient JFB, DMW, MSM and the Nuttzis want to think it's 1965 and keep living in the past.

Not only is it fun to play in, that offense is just plain fun to watch!

Did any of you catch the interview on ESPN radio yesterday with the Coach of Boise St? It was interesting as the announcer mentioned something about them needing to go to a more traditional, less innovative offense now that "they've arrived at the big time". The coach just said, we will continue to run the offense we've always run, the players have bought into the system AND ITS A WHOLE LOT MORE FUN TO RUN.

Let me ask you...what is a high school stud going to want to do....play in a plodding offense, or one that is fun? We have tradition, we have the support (I'm not talking about the coach), we just don't have any fun. Bring the 21st century to our team and I expect we'll all be surprised at how well it does.

TT runs a "fun" offense.  Only problem, it gets killed whenever they play a half decent defense.

Are you suggesting they would be better off without it?

I am not a TT fans, so to say they would be better off doing something else would be for a TT to say.  I have 2 cousins that went to TT, and they hate it because they know that Texas and OU will beat them 80-95% of the time with that style of play.  TT situation is much like ours.  The average everyday fan does not care.  The "hardcore" fans are divided, at best, over Leech because they know they are limited by the offense.

do we not get shut down by good defenses that go up against our tired old one diminsional offense? (LSU, Florida, Wisconsin)

Most of us are not asking for a TT type offense, we're just asking for some balance. Something we havent had since the days of Stoerner and Lucas.
We STILL have not developed a good QB since then either. Matt Jones was just a freak athlete that not even nutt could ruin him.

We didn't get "shut down" by any of those defenses that you mentioned...not even close.

our passing game did.

Only in the LSU game.  But then again, we had 298 yards rushing in that game.  In the Florida and Wisconsin games, Arkansas had more passing first downs than rushing ones.

Wisc. we had one big running play with accounted for over half of our total yards we were for all intents and purposes shut down.

LSU our passing game was shut down to the point of National Media ridicule.

Florida, well Dmac was nicked up, but wasnt "shut down" i suppose.

In the Wisconsin game, you can take away Jones' and McFadden's longest run of the game, 76 and 45 yards respectively, and Arkansas still had 247 yards of total offense (136 yards passing).

In the Florida game, Arkansas had 132 yards rushing compared to 179 passing for a total of 311 yards.

Neither of these is being "shut down".

The LSU game is another story as far as our passing game getting shut down.  I will concede that game.  But not these two.

And reall, overall, LSU's defense didn't shut us down.  Anytime a team has 298 yards rushing against another team, they did not get "shut down".

best thing i can say is, did we score? did we drive the football and score? or did we score on "break out" plays ?

ANd why do we play ?


TO WIN THE GAME.

You could have 1,349 total yards, and if you cant punch it in what good is it?

[Hogginitall]

We lost those 3 games for other reasons than our passing game.  One of the biggest reasons was our special teams for those 3 games.  The special teams had been great for 11 games, and then just self-destructed in the LSU, Florida, and Wisconsin games.

[Hogginitall]

Interestingly, I note in todays Morning News of NWA that even Pea Ridge has abandoned the Dead T for a new spread offense.  Most high schools in NWA run some version now of Gus' spread offense.  It's the wave of the future...heck it's the here and now....and most players want to play that kind of ball.  Only the ancient JFB, DMW, MSM and the Nuttzis want to think it's 1965 and keep living in the past.

Not only is it fun to play in, that offense is just plain fun to watch!

Did any of you catch the interview on ESPN radio yesterday with the Coach of Boise St? It was interesting as the announcer mentioned something about them needing to go to a more traditional, less innovative offense now that "they've arrived at the big time". The coach just said, we will continue to run the offense we've always run, the players have bought into the system AND ITS A WHOLE LOT MORE FUN TO RUN.

Let me ask you...what is a high school stud going to want to do....play in a plodding offense, or one that is fun? We have tradition, we have the support (I'm not talking about the coach), we just don't have any fun. Bring the 21st century to our team and I expect we'll all be surprised at how well it does.

TT runs a "fun" offense.  Only problem, it gets killed whenever they play a half decent defense.

Are you suggesting they would be better off without it?

I am not a TT fans, so to say they would be better off doing something else would be for a TT to say.  I have 2 cousins that went to TT, and they hate it because they know that Texas and OU will beat them 80-95% of the time with that style of play.  TT situation is much like ours.  The average everyday fan does not care.  The "hardcore" fans are divided, at best, over Leech because they know they are limited by the offense.

do we not get shut down by good defenses that go up against our tired old one diminsional offense? (LSU, Florida, Wisconsin)

Most of us are not asking for a TT type offense, we're just asking for some balance. Something we havent had since the days of Stoerner and Lucas.
We STILL have not developed a good QB since then either. Matt Jones was just a freak athlete that not even nutt could ruin him.

We didn't get "shut down" by any of those defenses that you mentioned...not even close.

our passing game did.

Only in the LSU game.  But then again, we had 298 yards rushing in that game.  In the Florida and Wisconsin games, Arkansas had more passing first downs than rushing ones.

Wisc. we had one big running play with accounted for over half of our total yards we were for all intents and purposes shut down.

LSU our passing game was shut down to the point of National Media ridicule.

Florida, well Dmac was nicked up, but wasnt "shut down" i suppose.

In the Wisconsin game, you can take away Jones' and McFadden's longest run of the game, 76 and 45 yards respectively, and Arkansas still had 247 yards of total offense (136 yards passing).

In the Florida game, Arkansas had 132 yards rushing compared to 179 passing for a total of 311 yards.

Neither of these is being "shut down".

The LSU game is another story as far as our passing game getting shut down.  I will concede that game.  But not these two.

And reall, overall, LSU's defense didn't shut us down.  Anytime a team has 298 yards rushing against another team, they did not get "shut down".

best thing i can say is, did we score? did we drive the football and score? or did we score on "break out" plays ?

ANd why do we play ?


TO WIN THE GAME.

You could have 1,349 total yards, and if you cant punch it in what good is it?

We had 26 points against LSU and 28 against Florida.  That should be enough to win those games.  The Wisconsin game was a complete anomoly.  I cannot explain how we did what we did to them and still lost (except for maybe penalties and special teams).

[311Hog]

We lost those 3 games for other reasons than our passing game.  One of the biggest reasons was our special teams for those 3 games.  The special teams had been great for 11 games, and then just self-destructed in the LSU, Florida, and Wisconsin games.

I disagree.

You cannot tell me the fact that with 1 minute 50 seconds to go in the game and WE DO NOT HAVE A TWO MINUTE OFFENSE, didnt lose the LSU game for us. Peewee football teams can run a 2 minute drill but we cannot.

I dont disagree that special teams failed us and prolly cost us 2 of the 3, but fact of the matter is we had the ball in perfect position to win the LSU and failed horribly.

Wiscon. Begged us to beat them we held them to NEGATIVE rushing yards, but like always our coaching staff had a hang over from the party the night before and lost the bowl game again.

[311Hog]

Interestingly, I note in todays Morning News of NWA that even Pea Ridge has abandoned the Dead T for a new spread offense.  Most high schools in NWA run some version now of Gus' spread offense.  It's the wave of the future...heck it's the here and now....and most players want to play that kind of ball.  Only the ancient JFB, DMW, MSM and the Nuttzis want to think it's 1965 and keep living in the past.

Not only is it fun to play in, that offense is just plain fun to watch!

Did any of you catch the interview on ESPN radio yesterday with the Coach of Boise St? It was interesting as the announcer mentioned something about them needing to go to a more traditional, less innovative offense now that "they've arrived at the big time". The coach just said, we will continue to run the offense we've always run, the players have bought into the system AND ITS A WHOLE LOT MORE FUN TO RUN.

Let me ask you...what is a high school stud going to want to do....play in a plodding offense, or one that is fun? We have tradition, we have the support (I'm not talking about the coach), we just don't have any fun. Bring the 21st century to our team and I expect we'll all be surprised at how well it does.

TT runs a "fun" offense.  Only problem, it gets killed whenever they play a half decent defense.

Are you suggesting they would be better off without it?

I am not a TT fans, so to say they would be better off doing something else would be for a TT to say.  I have 2 cousins that went to TT, and they hate it because they know that Texas and OU will beat them 80-95% of the time with that style of play.  TT situation is much like ours.  The average everyday fan does not care.  The "hardcore" fans are divided, at best, over Leech because they know they are limited by the offense.

do we not get shut down by good defenses that go up against our tired old one diminsional offense? (LSU, Florida, Wisconsin)

Most of us are not asking for a TT type offense, we're just asking for some balance. Something we havent had since the days of Stoerner and Lucas.
We STILL have not developed a good QB since then either. Matt Jones was just a freak athlete that not even nutt could ruin him.

We didn't get "shut down" by any of those defenses that you mentioned...not even close.

our passing game did.

Only in the LSU game.  But then again, we had 298 yards rushing in that game.  In the Florida and Wisconsin games, Arkansas had more passing first downs than rushing ones.

Wisc. we had one big running play with accounted for over half of our total yards we were for all intents and purposes shut down.

LSU our passing game was shut down to the point of National Media ridicule.

Florida, well Dmac was nicked up, but wasnt "shut down" i suppose.

In the Wisconsin game, you can take away Jones' and McFadden's longest run of the game, 76 and 45 yards respectively, and Arkansas still had 247 yards of total offense (136 yards passing).

In the Florida game, Arkansas had 132 yards rushing compared to 179 passing for a total of 311 yards.

Neither of these is being "shut down".

The LSU game is another story as far as our passing game getting shut down.  I will concede that game.  But not these two.

And reall, overall, LSU's defense didn't shut us down.  Anytime a team has 298 yards rushing against another team, they did not get "shut down".

best thing i can say is, did we score? did we drive the football and score? or did we score on "break out" plays ?

ANd why do we play ?


TO WIN THE GAME.

You could have 1,349 total yards, and if you cant punch it in what good is it?

We had 26 points against LSU and 28 against Florida.  That should be enough to win those games.  The Wisconsin game was a complete anomoly.  I cannot explain how we did what we did to them and still lost (except for maybe penalties and special teams).

Didnt a portion of those points come from special team's TD's and long break away TD's from Dmac and Felix? i think so

I dont think we had more then a hand full of TRUE legit DRIVES for touchdowns all season, because we cant, we lack the ability to drive the football the length of the field either running or throwing it. All we have is a miracle maker in Dmac, if he doesnt take it to the house, we dont score or monk deep etc.

[Hogginitall]

Interestingly, I note in todays Morning News of NWA that even Pea Ridge has abandoned the Dead T for a new spread offense.  Most high schools in NWA run some version now of Gus' spread offense.  It's the wave of the future...heck it's the here and now....and most players want to play that kind of ball.  Only the ancient JFB, DMW, MSM and the Nuttzis want to think it's 1965 and keep living in the past.

Not only is it fun to play in, that offense is just plain fun to watch!

Did any of you catch the interview on ESPN radio yesterday with the Coach of Boise St? It was interesting as the announcer mentioned something about them needing to go to a more traditional, less innovative offense now that "they've arrived at the big time". The coach just said, we will continue to run the offense we've always run, the players have bought into the system AND ITS A WHOLE LOT MORE FUN TO RUN.

Let me ask you...what is a high school stud going to want to do....play in a plodding offense, or one that is fun? We have tradition, we have the support (I'm not talking about the coach), we just don't have any fun. Bring the 21st century to our team and I expect we'll all be surprised at how well it does.

TT runs a "fun" offense.  Only problem, it gets killed whenever they play a half decent defense.

Are you suggesting they would be better off without it?

I am not a TT fans, so to say they would be better off doing something else would be for a TT to say.  I have 2 cousins that went to TT, and they hate it because they know that Texas and OU will beat them 80-95% of the time with that style of play.  TT situation is much like ours.  The average everyday fan does not care.  The "hardcore" fans are divided, at best, over Leech because they know they are limited by the offense.

do we not get shut down by good defenses that go up against our tired old one diminsional offense? (LSU, Florida, Wisconsin)

Most of us are not asking for a TT type offense, we're just asking for some balance. Something we havent had since the days of Stoerner and Lucas.
We STILL have not developed a good QB since then either. Matt Jones was just a freak athlete that not even nutt could ruin him.

We didn't get "shut down" by any of those defenses that you mentioned...not even close.

our passing game did.

Only in the LSU game.  But then again, we had 298 yards rushing in that game.  In the Florida and Wisconsin games, Arkansas had more passing first downs than rushing ones.

Wisc. we had one big running play with accounted for over half of our total yards we were for all intents and purposes shut down.

LSU our passing game was shut down to the point of National Media ridicule.

Florida, well Dmac was nicked up, but wasnt "shut down" i suppose.

In the Wisconsin game, you can take away Jones' and McFadden's longest run of the game, 76 and 45 yards respectively, and Arkansas still had 247 yards of total offense (136 yards passing).

In the Florida game, Arkansas had 132 yards rushing compared to 179 passing for a total of 311 yards.

Neither of these is being "shut down".

The LSU game is another story as far as our passing game getting shut down.  I will concede that game.  But not these two.

And reall, overall, LSU's defense didn't shut us down.  Anytime a team has 298 yards rushing against another team, they did not get "shut down".

best thing i can say is, did we score? did we drive the football and score? or did we score on "break out" plays ?

ANd why do we play ?


TO WIN THE GAME.

You could have 1,349 total yards, and if you cant punch it in what good is it?

We had 26 points against LSU and 28 against Florida.  That should be enough to win those games.  The Wisconsin game was a complete anomoly.  I cannot explain how we did what we did to them and still lost (except for maybe penalties and special teams).

Didnt a portion of those points come from special team's TD's and long break away TD's from Dmac and Felix? i think so

I dont think we had more then a hand full of TRUE legit DRIVES for touchdowns all season, because we cant, we lack the ability to drive the football the length of the field either running or throwing it. All we have is a miracle maker in Dmac, if he doesnt take it to the house, we dont score or monk deep etc.

They're part of our offense.  You want to start taking away credit for plays that were called, executed correctly, and went for long yardage?  McFadden, Jones, Monk, Hillis, etc. are all on our team and part of our offensive team that we put on the field.  Why wouldn't you count long, quick-strike plays?

That just doesn't make sense.  I think we had plenty of both short and long drives.  One that comes to mind is the first offensive drive of the LSU game.  I think we drove 80 yards and McFadden scored from inside the 10 yardline.

[Hogginitall]

And no, I don't think we had a special teams TD in the LSU, Florida, or Wisconsin games.  At least I can't remember one.  We gave up a few.

[Hogginitall]

We lost those 3 games for other reasons than our passing game.  One of the biggest reasons was our special teams for those 3 games.  The special teams had been great for 11 games, and then just self-destructed in the LSU, Florida, and Wisconsin games.

I disagree.

You cannot tell me the fact that with 1 minute 50 seconds to go in the game and WE DO NOT HAVE A TWO MINUTE OFFENSE, didnt lose the LSU game for us. Peewee football teams can run a 2 minute drill but we cannot.

I dont disagree that special teams failed us and prolly cost us 2 of the 3, but fact of the matter is we had the ball in perfect position to win the LSU and failed horribly.

Wiscon. Begged us to beat them we held them to NEGATIVE rushing yards, but like always our coaching staff had a hang over from the party the night before and lost the bowl game again.

Yeah, we had the ball in "perfect position" to win against LSU.  Are you kidding?  We were down by 5 points and had less than 2 minutes to drive 73 yards against one of the best defenses in college football.  We really had them right where we wanted them, didn't we?