UTSA 2-deep looks familiar

[UNT90]

It depends. I had a chance to speak with someone close to the situation about UTSA a week before the game. (not a player) he told me UTSA does some things that will give us (defense) some trouble. He did not predict a loss, but he wasnt his usual confident self. We did not go into specifics.

I watched enough of this season to know our weaknesses so he didnt have to go into detail. We are going to stop the run with numbers. The safeties are coming up. Play action can hurt us. Our corners are playing safe. Very rare that they are able to come up and jump a short route with no safety help. The corners are going to give up 5 yards and come up and make the tackle. Its a bend dont break defense and we are waiting for a mistake or errant throw. We are not going to force the issue a lot.

With soza, they were prepared for this. If the next qb has a nice play action that can freeze our safeties and backers, and if he has a quick release where he can get the ball out, then we COULD have trouble again. Depends. Our defense may be faster next year at certain positions. A faster, quicker defense can shut a lot of that dinking and dunking down. Im sure we will be better prepared for that style next time.

You seem to forget that UTSA had 20 third downs, of which they converted 14. Many of these were 3rd and long, as I recall. Not exactly dinking and dunking.

Also, Soza's ability to make something out of nothing with his feet was also a BIG weapon for them.

Edited May 6, 2014 by UNT90

[GOMG2013]

Can't run the ball with 8 and sometimes 9 in the box all the time. If the vertical passing game is not improved from last year, the running game problems will remain. With a dropoff at QB, they may even be worse.

We ran into 8 and 9 man fronts and won 9 games. The good teams are going to shut it down and we will be pissed. Theres going to be some teams where we will have some sucess. Im basing my prediction on the fact that it cant get any worse than facing 8 and 9 man fronts. Our passing game did not scare anyone. Our wrs didnt have the speed to keep them from cheating up and keying on the run. A veteran line and faster backs should get better results, even if we see the same exact defense. Only a few teams had the secondary that was good enough to just disrespect our passing game from the very beginning.

[UNT90]

We ran into 8 and 9 man fronts and won 9 games. The good teams are going to shut it down and we will be pissed. Theres going to be some teams where we will have some sucess. Im basing my prediction on the fact that it cant get any worse than facing 8 and 9 man fronts. Our passing game did not scare anyone. Our wrs didnt have the speed to keep them from cheating up and keying on the run. A veteran line and faster backs should get better results, even if we see the same exact defense. Only a few teams had the secondary that was good enough to just disrespect our passing game from the very beginning.

Like Tulane?

We have to be not only able but also willing to exploit the 8 or 9 man front. Our defense will not be what it was last year, like it or not.

[MeanGreenTexan]

Like Tulane?

We have to be not only able but also willing to exploit the 8 or 9 man front. Our defense will not be what it was last year, like it or not.

Tulane was more-or-less lost on one play... the blocked FG returned for a TD. That's a 10-point swing. (DT's pick-6 didn't help either). Everything else during that game was going as normal.

We were grinding down Tulane's D with the run game. Recall, Tulane ran a 4-2-5 defense. That's a glaring weakness for a road-grading O-line, like we have. Granted, they had that LSU D-line transfer clogging the middle, but we were still able to get to the 2nd level often.

And, I know you know this: Whenever DT threw an INT, the red flag went up in coach McCarney's mind, and the passing game suffered the rest of the game.

The Mean Green beat themselves that day.

[GOMG2013]

Like Tulane?

We have to be not only able but also willing to exploit the 8 or 9 man front. Our defense will not be what it was last year, like it or not.

If we play a team that can cover our wrs, then expect 8 & 9 man fronts and we wont do anything about it till we have to. As long as the game is close we are going to run. Its just the way we are and the way the qbs are coached.

Just looking at the spring game, we were looking for blown coverages and what the defense gives you. Even with backups and third stringers in there. It was known one had a bad hamstring. We never tested him. We never saw if kidsy could beat those backups one on one. Even if he had a step on one of them. If the coverage is close, we wont be throwing.

Only hope is if they trust the talent of the 2014 wrs. I doubt it though. They may get a few catches in the slot like kidsy did, but thats about it. Hopefully they are fast enough to where there is obvious seperation, then we might throw it.

[UNT90]

We didn't wear down anything. We scored through the vertical passing game. In the second half.

Good Lord, does revisionist history ever happen quickly!!

Maybe if we had done one thing on offense in the first half, we would have won the game.

[SilverEagle]

We didn't wear down anything. We scored through the vertical passing game. In the second half.

Good Lord, does revisionist history ever happen quickly!!

Maybe if we had done one thing on offense in the first half, we would have won the game.

....or all the rest for that matter.

[Mean Green 93-98]

Could someone please start a thread on one of the other 11+ games we will be playing next season?

[MeanGreenTexan]

Your memory of Tulane is different than mine regarding the run game. We only ran 20 times (throwing 42) and did't do so successfully at all.

NET YARDS RUSHING 34 Rushing Attempts 20 Average Per Rush 1.7

But it was the pick-6 that killed us (or the blocked FG, take your pick).

Tulane was a good team last year. We ran all over alot of bad teams last year. Just because we weren't running it down their throats for 200-300+yds like what we did to MT,LT, USM, UTEP, doesn't mean the O-line isn't wearing down the opposing defense. I understand a 1.5yd avg is horrible.

Of course, when you're down 21-7 in the 4th quarter, it's time to abandon the run & throw. That's always true. And, very true that the comeback to tie in the 4th quarter came from passing the ball... but I don't know if we would have had to do that if we didn't spot them 14 points on 2 botched plays. Without giving up those 14 points, maybe the running game becomes more fruitful than 1.5yds/carry. Tulane's offense wasn't all that stellar either.

Guess we'll never know. But, we do know that this is McCarney's bread and butter, so get used to it. It's old-school, and it works for the most part. On the flipside, there could be another Tulane game in store for us this year.

[UNT90]

Your memory of Tulane is different than mine regarding the run game. We only ran 20 times (throwing 42) and did't do so successfully at all.

NET YARDS RUSHING 34 Rushing Attempts 20 Average Per Rush 1.7

But it was the pick-6 that killed us (or the blocked FG, take your pick).

Go back and look at how many of those rushing attempts were in 1st and 2nd down on the 1st half.

They stacked the box all game long and we pounded our head against it in the first half.

Edited May 6, 2014 by UNT90

[UNT90]

Tulane was a good team last year. We ran all over alot of bad teams last year. Just because we weren't running it down their throats for 200-300+yds like what we did to MT,LT, USM, UTEP, doesn't mean the O-line isn't wearing down the opposing defense. I understand a 1.5yd avg is horrible.

Of course, when you're down 21-7 in the 4th quarter, it's time to abandon the run & throw. That's always true. And, very true that the comeback to tie in the 4th quarter came from passing the ball... but I don't know if we would have had to do that if we didn't spot them 14 points on 2 botched plays. Without giving up those 14 points, maybe the running game becomes more fruitful than 1.5yds/carry. Tulane's offense wasn't all that stellar either.

Guess we'll never know. But, we do know that this is McCarney's bread and butter, so get used to it. It's old-school, and it works for the most part. On the flipside, there could be another Tulane game in store for us this year.

The only thing we ground down with our run game against Tulane was the chance for a victory.

When you average 1.5 yards per carry through three quarters of fruitless offensive football and then are successful throwing the ball vertically when you finally make the attempt, you haven't ground anything down. You are simply late to adjust to the defensive game plan of the opposition. Easily the worst coach offensive game of the year for UNT.

Stop buying the "wear them down" BS that some people put out. We weren't successful against Ohio until we finally started throwing vertically. Defenses can take things away. If we were really playing "take what they give us", we would take the vertical pass when it is presented on a golden platter. With notable few exceptions, we didn't last year, and some good teams were able to figure that out and use it against us.

The only teams you are going to be able to "grind down" are teams with either inferior talent or depth, or both. By all means, if it's working keep it up, but if it's not make an adjustment. We were late to the adjustment party in at least 2 games last year, and it cost us victories.

Edited May 6, 2014 by UNT90

[Ben Gooding]

The "wear down" approach is BS. I agree with UNT90 100%. A balanced attack to keep the defense guessing and/or on their heels is the best approach. Running at 9 man fronts should NEVER happen, ever. There is no point in that unless it is inches a team is trying to get. If a team is stacking the box, throw. the. football. This is where McCarney brings a sense of egotistical football to the game. He thinks he can run on 8 or 9 man fronts and the truth of the matter is that most G5 schools, if not all, are not going to have consistent success running at 8 or 9 man fronts. Soften up the D by throwing the football if they come out in some kind of monster set on defense. I don't care if its the first play of the game. Why waste an offensive possession by pounding your chest for a 1.5 x 3 yards to just punt the ball away. Ohio, Tulane, and utsa was lost because of the "wear down" philosophy. Coach Mac's philosophy needs to be do WHATEVER it takes to walk away from the field with a W. That's the bottom line. It doesn't matter how the game is won, just win it. Running at 8/9 man fronts is stupid. It's the other team saying "your QB sucks, so yeah, this is what we are going to do." I like Coach Mac and I like what he has done at North Texas, but 18-19 is 18-19. I don't care how bad of shape the program was in when he took over. I have said this before and I will say it again, this is his fourth year at this university. It's time for him to coach his players that he recruited to wins. It's his philosophy, players, coaching staff, and now some momentum. It's put up or shut up time for Coach Mac and his staff.

[UNT90]

I sure would like to see a deep ball on the first play of any game. I haven't seen it since Mac has been here (I know we did it against USM, but I missed the first series of that game, damnit!!)

[MeanMag]

Somebody's paying attention...I didnt want to just come out and say they were faster than us, but there it is...and they will be fast next year.

This is exactly how I felt about it. Their offense was able to move chains, convert and control the ball with intermediate passes. They did the same things against Oklahoma State earlier in the year, and knowing our defense, it was plain to see we were going to have trouble.

Only one other conference team that was able to score more points against us than UTSA was Tulane (24).

It didn't look to me like the play calling was bad all day, just that Chico wasn't able to get through the last half of our offensive game plan, because of UTSA or because of ourselves. Yes, that's on Chico. However, I like his offense. Last year was the best offensive output I've ever seen from this team as long as I've followed them. I cannot call it bumbling. It is a calculating and pragmatic approach to play calling and it makes a lot of sense to me.

[MeanMag]

Go back and look at how many of those rushing attempts were in 1st and 2nd down on the 1st half.

They stacked the box all game long and we pounded our head against it in the first half.

The Game Split Pass/Run was about 44/20.

1st Half: 13/12

2nd Half: 31/8

1st Down Total Pass/Run: 20/9

1st Half: 4/5

2nd Half: 16/4

2nd Down Total Pass/Run: 12/7

1st Half: 3/5

2nd Half: 9/2

Not a bad split considering you'd like to keep things fairly balanced until halftime when you make adjustments and already have a good idea of what's working and what isn't. However, I too, would like to see us with a game plan that is less reactionary and balanced, and maybe more aggressive from the start when you consider how many games we've been playing from behind in. I think we have a good indication of the makeup of our team this year. It's safe to say we won't have any national rushing champions on our roster.

20 Runs all game:

5 for negative yds (2 of those negative because of holding)

5 were for no gain

Our longest run also happened to be the only one over 10 yds; It was for 12 yds near the end of the 3rd qtr.

I'd say we only really had around 5 running plays that would have kept us ahead of the chains.

We had 13 possessions in this game.

10 started with passes, 3 were runs. All 3 of those were in the first half.

3 of the 6 possessions in the first half were 3 and outs. (1 of those began with a run, the other 2; passes)

2 of those 3 had 0 yds on first downs thanks to penalties.

1 Series in the first half was 6 runs in a row before having to punt. It was the only time we obtained a first down conversion with a run.

1 3 and out in the second half.

The Obvious:

The Pick 6 was killer,

The blocked FG was killer

At one point in the 2nd half, we ran 3 straight running plays with 1 yd to pick up at the goalline:

A good line/TEs could get 1 yd for the back in 3 tries

A good back could get 1 yd for the line in 3 tries

A combination of a so-so line/TEs and a so-so back could probably get 1 in 3 tries

Something is really wrong here.

Edited May 7, 2014 by MeanMag

[UNT90]

We also played the short passing game in the first half. Throwing WR screens and other short routes against an 8 man front is almost the same as running.

You have to take the vertical passing game when the defense presents it on a golden platter.

[Ben Gooding]

We also played the short passing game in the first half. Throwing WR screens and other short routes against an 8 man front is almost the same as running.

You have to take the vertical passing game when the defense presents it on a golden platter.

I wouldn't call it the same thing. Throwing the football against 8/9 man fronts forces the D to chase and creates open space for the receiver. Granted throwing tunnel screens at 8/9 man fronts is really dumb. Vertical passing game is great and all, I just want to see the O be a little more consistent throwing the football at a more consistent rate. If coach wants to run the football then great, run the hell out of it. But if coach can't realize that 1.5 ypc will get us beat 9/10 times then he simply needs to go or he needs to hand the offense and his philosophy over to Chico and let him do whatever he wants, in the literal sense. If I watch us run, run, pass on consecutive plays again I might find a piece of rope and a tree limb.

[tommybohama]

Drove by UTSA this weekend as we went to eat in the Mercado. Reminds me alot of a fancier CCCC - Plano Campus.

I think you drove by The UTSA Downtown campus if you were by the Mercado. That is a satelitte campus that does look very much like a CC. The main campus is on the far northwest side of town and looks more like a shopping mall than a college campus.

[correcamino]

Aww, you guys are still bitter. Poor mean weenies. Yall need a hug?

Oh and btw you guys have no room to criticize other campuses:

http://www.complex.com/art-design/2013/09/ugly-college-campuses/university-of-north-texas

Edited May 7, 2014 by correcamino

[bleedgreen4ever]

Aww, you guys are still bitter. Poor mean weenies. Yall need a hug?

Oh and btw you guys have no room to criticize other campuses:

http://www.complex.com/art-design/2013/09/ugly-college-campuses/university-of-north-texas

I can also tell that beyond having an inferior campus, many of you have inferior logic. We have "no room" to criticize other campuses because of a grossly biased and badly researched article? Written by some lady who hasn't even been to a quarter of the campuses she lists??? Haha...if you're going to bring something up against us, don't back it up with laughable 'evidence'

[Ben Gooding]

Yeah, the author was the first thing I looked at. I clicked through a couple of the other universities to see if she held any cred and she listed Maryland and Tennessee on her list. I have been to both of those campuses and they are beautiful. So she obviously has no idea what she is talking about. She also lost cred when she used old Fouts Field as our "campus" picture. The article was written in 2013. She literally googled pictures and threw names together. I have personally not been to utsa's campus. I am making a trip down there on the 13th. I will get on here while standing there on the campus and give me 2 cents.

[bleedgreen4ever]

Yeah, the author was the first thing I looked at. I clicked through a couple of the other universities to see if she held any cred and she listed Maryland and Tennessee on her list. I have been to both of those campuses and they are beautiful. So she obviously has no idea what she is talking about. She also lost cred when she used old Fouts Field as our "campus" picture. The article was written in 2013. She literally googled pictures and threw names together. I have personally not been to utsa's campus. I am making a trip down there on the 13th. I will get on here while standing there on the campus and give me 2 cents.

I haven't been to UTSA either, but I know their campus is inferior regarding athletic facilities. Regarding our overall campus, the woman from the article also mentions the campus having no centralized location and central-collegiate feel...that is absolutely incorrect. The heart of UNT's campus is vibrant and has a good central-colleagiate feel...she clearly has never been on campus. She also mentions the dorms are hated. Dorms are very diverse like in most campuses...not sure how they can collectively be hated--did she just run out of reasons and came up with that? She also lists the University of Cincinnati, which made Forbe's list of the world's most beautiful campuses. While these measures of "ugly" and "beauty" are all biased, an article like this would gain more credibility if the author would have done more research about the actual campuses listed.

[forevereagle]

You were all warned.