observations from afar

[hisaw]

1. The defense was bound to have an "off" night. All teams do. It is the offenses job on nights like this to carry the defense. They didn't do it. Oklahoma's D had a very bad game against Missouri, but the offense and special teams (RISKY fake field goal-but necessary) carried them on the day. I think Tech's D has been much improved this year (take away the points given up by the offense [directly, and drives less than 50 yards off of a turnover and see what the D gives up a game-I might do that and post it] and I think the D is doing a great job).

2. Tech must develop a running game, and Tulsa and SMU are in no way indicative of our running "attack." Run blocking must improve, play selection must improve (when to run, when not to run, how not to become predictable in every situation), 4th and 1's have to be attempted-if they are succesful they are a confidence boost. Oklahome has creamed Texas 2 of the last 3 times they played-the difference in the two big wins and the narrow defensive struggle was OU's running game. Griffin (Griffith?) rushed for over 200 yards in the big wins, and was invisible in the 14-3 game. Florida, under Steve Spurrier (mr. fun'n'gun himself) was unbeateble when they rushed for over 150 yards, very beatable when they didn't. Last year Florida lost the 2 games Ernest Graham didn't play. Against Ole Miss this season Florida couldn't or wouldn't establish a running game and lost the game bacause Ole Miss went after Grossman on every play.

Both Oklahoma and Florida operate out of the shotgun on virtually every down.

3. Head coach, smed coach. Head coaches are overrated. They recruit, schmooze the alumni, and take interviews at the half. Assistant coaches make or break a head coach. They are the ones with specific responsibility for an aspect of a teams play. Some body asked Bear Bryant once if he was worried that an assistant coach was smarter than he. Bryant responded that he only hired assistants that were smarter than himself, if they weren't Bryant should be the one coaching that position. Tech has got to start paying assistants more, and start hiring assistants who have college coaching experience. Two members of the coaching staff were graduate assistants last season. It might be time for Conroy Hines to delegate the academic liason post to another coach, the offensive coordinator should not have any other duties. The assistants are the ones who must make the adjustments at the half, that is not the head coach's job.

4. Bicknell needs to be more assertive. Maybe he's trying to deflect criticism from specific areas of the team by being frustrated about this and that, not knowing why or why not things aren't going well, but 7 weeks into a season if something isn't working (THE WHOLE ENTIRE OFFENSE) call it out, challenge them to prove you wrong. There seems to be no sense of urgency coming from the head coach and that filters down to the entire organization. Leadership comes from the top.

5. One quote from McNown that bothered me was "it's always the little things." Are they changing from week to week, or is it one specific identifiable problem that can be dealt with? Are receivers not running routes correctly, are they dropping too many balls? Can the offensive line run block? Can McNown not throw certain passses or deep? etc... Those seems to be correctable mistakes. If not it's either a lack of talent, or lack of talented coaching.

[Gooddawg]

Not to be argumentative, but the defense has not lived up to expectations this year, but for that matter neither has the offense. They have 8-9 seniors who have loads of experience. Is coach smith's defensive scheme that hard to learn or execute? To me defense is about playing hard and running around like you're crazy trying to kill the ball carrier and for whatever reason we don't seem too inspired. 34 points is more than enough to win a game especially against 0-7 smu with a terrible offense. Rice was one dimensional- triple option we stuffed it completely last year and this year they run for 1,304 yards in one game. I'm just mentioning the games we should have won-the last 2. We could have played better in every game save Tulsa but early in the year they were put in terrible positions OSU, Clemson, PSU.

I tend to agree with your assesment about HCs. The assistants are far more important than the head coach. Our HC apparently is a pretty good recruiter but not a good motivator b/c it doesn't seem like the team is playing hard for him? How does that happen? I've said all along that the assistants and the coordinators are the ones that make adjustments during the game and at halftime.

Tech has got to run the ball more you say and you are right. I didn't see one play but I always listen to road games I can't make and this is obvious to everyone but the person calling plays. JB said he had the final say in changing plays on the growl. He could call running plays or make sure Hines was. If we don't run at least 30-35 times a game the rest of the way out then I don't know what we are thinking especially with the way we are turning the ball over, over throwing WRs who are suppossedly open, and dropping the ball when we get good throws.

[Bill Pup60]

Well, considering the talent we currently have at running back, I tend to agree with you, . But running the ball 30 -35 times a game isn't going to do any better if that is as predictable as our passing game is already.

A big problem is in the very few and very predictable sets we run from. We simply don't disguise things very well!! And regardless of who's calling the plays, the HC is where the buck stops. He is responsible for what his assistants do!!!!