Will do.

I should say that it’s speculation on my part on what the gameplan will be… I think the 3 down linemen approach makes sense in this game based on when Muschamp has deployed it so far this year.

The reason that Texas would favor a 3 down lineman approach is that their main goal is to get vertical penetration through the gaps with their defensive line, confuse the protections, and get pressure right up the heart of the pocket. Contain is not going to be their first priority in this game (our gameplan vs. Missouri is probably the most instructive). Having 3 down lineman allows them more flexibility with stunts without having to dedicate 5 men to rush. It also allows the defense to present a greater number of looks against the pass and makes the defense less susceptible to mismatches in the passing game.

The 3 down is a liability against the run. If Tech had more controlling run blocking and a tight end that was a dominant blocker, they could create some real problems (but then we probably wouldn’t go with the look). I think that Muckelroy is going to have a similar role to that of the Missouri game for us… he’s going to be responsible for anything that filters through the penetrating DLine in addition to coverage responsibilities. Basically, Muck is going to be stretched thin. I do think Tech can hurts us bad if they hit us with a ton of screens early to try to put some hesitation in the penetrating lineman and also work some draws and underneath routes in the middle of the field to overextend our LBs. That would probably break our gameplan and give Tech more opportunities to work the outside of the field.

It is entirely possible that Tech could pop off a number of 6-12 yard gains on the ground against the defense. I don’t think Muschamp would mind playing that game if Tech isn’t able to open any big plays up. Leach hasn’t really shown the patience to stick with the run in those scenarios. Maybe he will this year.

What I thought Texas did well against OU was force them to pass more than they wanted. Tech is used to that sort of game, and outside of Nebraska who let Tech score very quickly and had a game plan deigned to play keep-away, Tech has controlled TOP. This is much different than in years past.

In the Mizzou game, Daniel completed ~75% of his passes according to the box score, so I’ll assume that you’re referring to the outcome of the game and not his productivity. What gave you the win was that Mizzou tried to run first and pass second. Your front was very good at stopping their run, so they were constantly in a hole. You also forced Mizzou to throw short, which is something they don’t like to do. Tech thrives on the short pass, and generally will pass first and use the run when your defensive alignment allows. I only see 2 sacks in the box score against Mizzou, which is what I predicted above for Texas in this game.

I expect this to be a tight game. Most Tech fans will admit a drop-off in the 2nd string DL, but we use them anyway. My point above was that DL play is most important in stopping the run and less of a factor against the type of passing game that Tech employs. So while the substitutions for Texas may result in less of a drop off than for Tech (I honestly don’t know how significant it is for you either), the point is a little moot since neither team is a grind it out running team. But in a tight game every little bit helps.

“I’m not 100% convinced on the “your depth is better than our depth” argument. Certainly if the 2nd in line is equivalent to the starter, it would have validity, but starters are starters for a reason, and rarely are the 2nd string units playing one another.”

Of course our starters are better than our second string. The question at issue is really more like, is our second string d-line better than your second-string o-line, and in limited action, can the second string d avoid being exploited long enough for the first team guys to get a breather. Against OU, the answer to both was yes, and it was the difference in the game.

That’s not a judgement I can make about your team, because I don’t know anything about the seond string. I just know that based on our experience with Oklahoma, you may face problems if you’re depending on your starters alone. I’m not saying anything more definitive than that.

“The difference between Tech and OU is that Tech, despite their increased running in 2008, still favors the pass much more than OU. Harrell gets rid of the ball quickly on short routes making getting to him more difficult. So the Texas d-line will be doing a lot of running for naught. They’ll need all the relief they can get.”

OU passsed much, much more than they ran, and generally scored very quickly. This eventually took a toll on their d linemen, by the way. Does that game approach remind you of anyone?

I’m familiar with Harrell’s quick release; it didn’t help Chase Daniel a whole lot, but then, he doesn’t have the pass-blocking OL that you do. Generally though, against both OU and Missouri, when we were able to successfully get pressure, it came fast. Otherwise, the QBs were far too good as decision-makers, and got rid of the ball long before something bad happened to them.

The overall point is that line play may be a different animal in the fourth quarter than it is in the first, and if that is the case, it may favor Texas’ depth. Notice all the may’s.

I’m asking this becasue I don’t know the answer – do you think anything less than a 4 man front is sufficient to stop Tech from giving Texas a heavy dose of Baron Batch for 6 yards a play? Tech heavily favors the pass, but they have shown a surprising willingess to run and have done so effectively when the pass is over-defended.

Obvously the level of compitition to date is less (which is why I said 6 yards/play instead of 9).