UTSA Game Plan vs Tulsa Game Plan

Eagle1855 · December 2, 2013

Watching us destroy Tulsa (while seeing Rice go on to win as Marshall beat ECU) got me thinking about what could have been and why it wasn't. I'll say that I think that if we end up in the HOD bowl and have a HUGE showing by students, fans, and alumni, the UTSA loss may end up being a blessing in disguise as it will allow us to build a lot of buzz locally and state-wide -- and offer easy travel for recruits -- but I digress.

It seems we are a better team when we run the ball more. I realize this is an obvious statement, but I was surprised to see how much better when I looked at the respective games.

Against UTSA we attempted to throw the ball 46 times and only attempted to run it 28. - Loss

Against Tulane, we threw the ball 42 times, ran it 20. - Loss

Against Rice, we threw the ball 13 times, ran it 43. - Win

Against Tulsa, we threw the ball 26 times and ran it 50. - Win

I realize the game plan is different for each opposing defense (and UTSA is probably a better defense -- and certainly a better offense -- than Tulsa), but given the fact that a single touchdown would have tied UTSA's effort, makes you wonder if we abandoned our strength too soon and relied too heavily on our weakness.

It's all moot now. And I'm not a football coach or a football "mind"... just thought it interesting.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Eagle1855

meangreener · December 2, 2013

We have to pound the rock. The team starts off slow often because of this but the team builds off of it--see our dominating 2nd halves for proof. Early we don't have the big plays but we slowly chip away at the defense and then by halfway through the 2nd, the defense is gassed and we break the big plays.

Derek is not good enough to throw 40+ times and win.

I think we should throw more on first, but not go overboard and toss it 40 times a game like we did versus Tulane and UTSA. Those two games aren't "us" unfortunately.

Edited December 2, 2013 by meangreener

casual fan · December 2, 2013

The whole pound the ball vs throw it on first down thing has been long debated on this forum.

Pounding the ball early and often usually pays off later in the game.

It's like hitting a rock with a sledge hammer. Nothing much happens until it suddenly breaks.

It also sets up situations later in the game when your "predictable play calling" suddenly isn't.

UNT90 · December 2, 2013

Watching us destroy Tulsa (while seeing Rice go on to win as Marshall beat ECU) got me thinking about what could have been and why it wasn't. I'll say that I think that if we end up in the HOD bowl and have a HUGE showing by students, fans, and alumni, the UTSA loss may end up being a blessing in disguise as it will allow us to build a lot of buzz locally and state-wide -- and offer easy travel for recruits -- but I digress.

It seems we are a better team when we run the ball more. I realize this is an obvious statement, but I was surprised to see how much better when I looked at the respective games.

Against UTSA we attempted to throw the ball 46 times and only attempted to run it 28. - Loss

Against Tulane, we threw the ball 42 times, ran it 20. - Loss

Against Rice, we threw the ball 13 times, ran it 43. - Win

Against Tulsa, we threw the ball 26 times and ran it 50. - Win

I realize the game plan is different for each opposing defense (and UTSA is probably a better defense -- and certainly a better offense -- than Tulsa), but given the fact that a single touchdown would have tied UTSA's effort, makes you wonder if we abandoned our strength too soon and relied too heavily on our weakness.

It's all moot now. And I'm not a football coach or a football "mind"... just thought it interesting.

You do realize that when you get behind in games, you throw the ball more out if necessity, correct?

And likewise, when you are ahead in games, you run the ball to keep the clock moving.

Looking at overall numbers the way you just did tells one nothing about what actually transpired in each game.

What were our average yards per carry in each game? Did we run the ball effectively?

Eagle1855 · December 2, 2013

You do realize that when you get behind in games, you throw the ball more out if necessity, correct?
And likewise, when you are ahead in games, you run the ball to keep the clock moving.
Looking at overall numbers the way you just did tells one nothing about what actually transpired in each game.
What were our average yards per carry in each game? Did we run the ball effectively?

I do. Thank you.

It wasn't something I had a lot of time to spend working on. Sorry it wasn't perfect.

Mean_Green09 · December 2, 2013

You do realize that when you get behind in games, you throw the ball more out if necessity, correct?
And likewise, when you are ahead in games, you run the ball to keep the clock moving.
Looking at overall numbers the way you just did tells one nothing about what actually transpired in each game.
What were our average yards per carry in each game? Did we run the ball effectively?

I looked at what we did up until they scored to make it 21-6. We ran it 43% to 57% pass. Our average for the year is 56% run to 44% pass.

We had a better YPC average against UTSA then we did against Rice.

My belief is that had we stayed patient and stuck with the run game like we have all year we would have grinded out a win.

Travis · December 2, 2013

You do realize that when you get behind in games, you throw the ball more out if necessity, correct?
And likewise, when you are ahead in games, you run the ball to keep the clock moving.
Looking at overall numbers the way you just did tells one nothing about what actually transpired in each game.
What were our average yards per carry in each game? Did we run the ball effectively?

You bring up a good point though. I recall the Tulane game and we ran heavily in the first half and it wasn't working at all. Remember, this was around the time the O-line was heavily criticized for not being able to run block. It was only when we started passing more that we got back in the game.

I thought we needed to open up the playbook on the first downs of UTSA... but, beyond that I didn't think we established the run much at all that game... and there were drives that stalled once we started passing.

I agree that establishing the run is important. but, there are, and will be, games that we simply can't establish the run.

Eagle1855 · December 2, 2013

Seriously though, I realize you can't just pull out numbers and say "this is the one thing that caused ____."

We just don't win games when we can't run the ball. That was really the point of my post.

I understand that completion percentage, types of plays, when they are called, YPC, etc all factor in. As do turnovers and field position.

It's far more complex than any single number.

Green P1 · December 2, 2013

We couldn't run on UTSA. We pounded our heads against them longer than we should of IMHO.

untbowler · December 2, 2013

we could not run against UTSA or Tulane and could not really hit any passes until the 4th Q by then it was to much to play last minute catch-up then add Defense getting tired near the end of both giving up late scores when a hold was needed

Censored by Laurie · December 2, 2013

It's pretty simple...we didn't run the defense/special-teams-scores-an-important-momentum-shifting-touchdown play nearly enough against UTSA.

casual fan · December 2, 2013

we could not run against UTSA or Tulane and could not really hit any passes until the 4th Q by then it was to much to play last minute catch-up then add Defense getting tired near the end of both giving up late scores when a hold was needed

We did have some success against UTSA, rushing for 105 yds on 28 carries.

I do agree with you on the Tulane game.

DT had 19 yds rushing and the rest of the team had a total of 15. If he hadn't passed for 326 yds and 2 TDs we would have been blown out.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · December 2, 2013

And, so we're back to the time-tested formula? Stop me if you've read this before somewhere :rolleyes: :

Run the ball on offense + stop the run on defense + error-free special teams = [Tom Hicks Voice]Great Football Success[/Tom Hicks Voice]

The Fake Lonnie Finch · December 2, 2013

By the way, I love McCarney because he's not reinventing the wheel. He accepts the wheel and uses it.

Also...

...lots of complaining about an offense that is setting records both as a team and with individual players.

I guess it means our fan base is already as spoiled as the OU and Texas fan bases who continually bitch about how they win. I suppose it's a refreshing change.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · December 2, 2013

I'd like to point out, for discussion purposes alone, that it was tought to tell whether or not Tulsa was "fooled" when that idiot Canales called for a run on first down that resulted in Byrd's 91 yard touchdown run.

Come on, Mike...show some creativity for a change! Everyone knows we run on first down! How could you dare keep running on first down?

Edited December 3, 2013 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

outoftown · December 2, 2013

The problem with running the ball in the beginning is you need some modicum of success in the first half to be able to keep doing it. If you are down 20 points and keep having drives with one or no first downs you will have to pass. In that case whether you pass or not is not the cause for success, but rather the outcome of your success. At the beginning of the season we kept having slow starts with running, and then we started passing in the second halfs and were not half bad at it. When the OL started figuring out how to run block in the latter part of the season, that sure made it easier to keep pounding it in the second half. Without looking it up, I don't think we ran all that much against ball state in half number 2 either, just to give another example.

I am still not convinced Macs "old style stubborn" is always a good idea.In particular I still think that UNT still has potential to improve quite a bit in the "remaining unpredictable for the opponent" category when it comes to when do we run and when do we pass.

Mean_Green09 · December 2, 2013

The problem with running the ball in the beginning is you need some modicum of success in the first half to be able to keep doing it. If you are down 20 points and keep having drives with one or no first downs you will have to pass. In that case whether you pass or not is not the cause for success, but rather the outcome of your success. At the beginning of the season we kept having slow starts with running, and then we started passing in the second halfs and were not half bad at it. When the OL started figuring out how to run block in the latter part of the season, that sure made it easier to keep pounding it in the second half. Without looking it up, I don't think we ran all that much against ball state in half number 2 either, just to give another example.

I am still not convinced Macs "old style stubborn" is always a good idea.In particular I still think that UNT still has potential to improve quite a bit in the "remaining unpredictable for the opponent" category when it comes to when do we run and when do we pass.

In the second half against Ball St. we ran the ball 65% of the time. We just wore their defense down.

jacksondf · December 2, 2013

Watching us destroy Tulsa (while seeing Rice go on to win as Marshall beat ECU) got me thinking about what could have been and why it wasn't. I'll say that I think that if we end up in the HOD bowl and have a HUGE showing by students, fans, and alumni, the UTSA loss may end up being a blessing in disguise as it will allow us to build a lot of buzz locally and state-wide -- and offer easy travel for recruits -- but I digress.

It seems we are a better team when we run the ball more. I realize this is an obvious statement, but I was surprised to see how much better when I looked at the respective games.

Against UTSA we attempted to throw the ball 46 times and only attempted to run it 28. - Loss

Against Tulane, we threw the ball 42 times, ran it 20. - Loss

Against Rice, we threw the ball 13 times, ran it 43. - Win

Against Tulsa, we threw the ball 26 times and ran it 50. - Win

I realize the game plan is different for each opposing defense (and UTSA is probably a better defense -- and certainly a better offense -- than Tulsa), but given the fact that a single touchdown would have tied UTSA's effort, makes you wonder if we abandoned our strength too soon and relied too heavily on our weakness.

It's all moot now. And I'm not a football coach or a football "mind"... just thought it interesting.