I am the least apt to believe in any conspiracy theories. I like logic, science and reason.

That said, I went to the game, and my buddy and I were irritated how we looked. Yes, of course, first game, players are being looked at, rusty, blah blah blah. But we also postulated we weren't showing our whole play book to save it for ND. Night and day difference thinking about our game vs what I saw watching So Car vs VT or Miami vs ND (players dialed in, play calling to win, etc.). And yet, we recruit very well, played "well" last year under first year head coach (no blow outs, sad we lost games we could have won, etc., but on the whole, it's reasonable to expect a better year this year than last).

So watching the replay today, I am surprised how well UTSA was able to control the line. We looked pretty bland play calling. We rotated a lot of plays to different receivers and different running backs, etc.

Do you think Elko is intentionally holding a lot back, even telling the lines to "play conservative" to avoid injury or even give LBs and DBs time to mature, etc.?

I never thought the game was out of hand or truly swinging UTSAs way. It seemed when we dialed in more, we moved it, or defended it well. But my rare conspiracy theory thoughts --- maybe they are intentionally playing conservative to not give ND tape?

We weren't going to let ND see how strong we were. Just gonna let a bunch of 2 star guys push us around and overpower our rich 4 star guys. I hope it works!

If the SEC is a line of scrimmage league (it is), we're in trouble.

Insert *Obligatory bless your heart*

No, we're just not very good in the trenches.

By the way, sometimes it takes logic, science, and reason to recognize a conspiracy.

Divining Rod said:

---

No, we're just not very good in the trenches.

By the way, sometimes it takes logic, science, and reason to recognize a conspiracy.

---

Agreed. I guess I need to spend more time with the roster and see if that's the issue. The lines really surprised me. Should be much better than what I saw.

Ah, the most classic of excuses

"Don't worry, we didn't just let a bunch of 2 Star scrubs push us around! We're just letting them make us look bad to lull [insert first big opponent] into a false sense of security about what an easy win we'll be but little do they know that THEN we'll tell the guys to stop sucking and and missing easy blocking assignments and really open up the playbook!"

Every.
Single.
Year.

You mean an Elko team came out unprepared, uninspired and flat?

Reminded me of last year. In attendance the game was pretty rough. I watch the game last night again and it did not look near as rough as in person.

That said we didn't spot UTSA 21 unanswered points in the first qtr like Elko likes to do.

Until otherwise, Elko is just meh!

I watched so many games this weekend where i thought the teams looked head and shoulders above texas a&m. literally like they were in a different division.

It was hard fir me to envision our D stopping their attack, or moving the ball consistently. I guess we'll find out in 2 weeks.

That QB draw by ND is going to be a nightmare.

OL is going to be just fine imo.

DL - going to wait and see. McCown was good at getting rid of the ball quickly so not that worried about lack of pass rush. Breakdowns in run defense are more concerning but that wasn't just on the DL.

C2 Ag 93 said:

---

I am the least apt to believe in any conspiracy theories. I like logic, science and reason.

That said, I went to the game, and my buddy and I were irritated how we looked. Yes, of course, first game, players are being looked at, rusty, blah blah blah. But we also postulated we weren't showing our whole play book to save it for ND. Night and day difference thinking about our game vs what I saw watching So Car vs VT or Miami vs ND (players dialed in, play calling to win, etc.). And yet, we recruit very well, played "well" last year under first year head coach (no blow outs, sad we lost games we could have won, etc., but on the whole, it's reasonable to expect a better year this year than last).

So watching the replay today, I am surprised how well UTSA was able to control the line. We looked pretty bland play calling. We rotated a lot of plays to different receivers and different running backs, etc.

Do you think Elko is intentionally holding a lot back, even telling the lines to "play conservative" to avoid injury or even give LBs and DBs time to mature, etc.?

I never thought the game was out of hand or truly swinging UTSAs way. It seemed when we dialed in more, we moved it, or defended it well. But my rare conspiracy theory thoughts --- maybe they are intentionally playing conservative to not give ND tape?

---

No coach will ever tell a lineman to "play conservative to avoid injury" that's the quickest way to have some one roll up a knee and tear an ACL is to "play conservative " on the line. Thats dumb

I personally think there is a benefit to having a real game to start the season. Especially as the playoff expands.

Of all the games you lose, game 1 is the best one to do so (if you have to lose one). ESPECIALLY as the playoff expands.

I think having a big first game makes the players prepare better and it gives the coaches a reason to push urgency in fall and even spring ball. I think that puts you ahead of the rest in your growth as a team through the season.

THIS is why I think we should kick off every season with LSU. It puts the game in a highlighted spot for the season along with the benefits listed above. It's also how we used to play them (in September, though maybe not always 1st game).

Start with LSU, end with tu. Every year.
Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

OL is 15 pounds over weight at each spot. Safeties & linebackers are still too slow. But we did rotate a lot of guys all over which is good long term. The warts are what they are at safety and LB.

Notre Dame showed last year that if you get pushed around against Northern Illinois, you will be able to dominate Georgia en rout to a national championship appearance.

CC00 said:

---

I personally think there is a benefit to having a real game to start the season. Especially as the playoff expands.

Of all the games you lose, game 1 is the best one to do so (if you have to lose one). ESPECIALLY as the playoff expands.

I think having a big first game makes the players prepare better and it gives the coaches a reason to push urgency in fall and even spring ball. I think that puts you ahead of the rest in your growth as a team through the season.

THIS is why I think we should kick off every season with LSU. It puts the game in a highlighted spot for the season along with the benefits listed above. It's also how we used to play them (in September, though maybe not always 1st game).

Start with LSU, end with tu. Every year.
Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

---

I'd rather start with tu and end with LSU. If we have to play them, no need to give the sips any respect.

C2 Ag 93 said:

---

Night and day difference thinking about our game vs what I saw watching So Car vs VT or Miami vs ND (players dialed in, play calling to win, etc.).

---

For what it's worth, we scored more points than any of those other teams did.

Our defense was schemed based on film from last year, and UTSA changed their approach for our game. By the second half Bateman and Elko had it figured out and with the exception of one play (where supposedly someone ran the wrong defense) we shut them down until garbage time.

Guy on a Buffalo said:

---

C2 Ag 93 said:

---

Night and day difference thinking about our game vs what I saw watching So Car vs VT or Miami vs ND (players dialed in, play calling to win, etc.).

---

For what it's worth, we scored more points than any of those other teams did.

Our defense was schemed based on film from last year, and UTSA changed their approach for our game. By the second half Bateman and Elko had it figured out and with the exception of one play (where supposedly someone ran the wrong defense) we shut them down until garbage time.

---

Whats that sound

Divining Rod said:

---

No, we're just not very good in the trenches.

By the way, sometimes it takes logic, science, and reason to recognize a conspiracy.

---

Were just not any good like we were last year. Same song same verse.

I doubt this was the case, as others have said. Even if, that's not a "conspiracy". Just a tactic.

aeon-ag said:

---

Divining Rod said:

---

No, we're just not very good in the trenches.

By the way, sometimes it takes logic, science, and reason to recognize a conspiracy.

---

Were just not any good like we were last year. Same song same verse.

---

We won comfortably. Jesus some of you are insufferable.

I think they had some stuff they wanted to work on, and worked on it, and overall were pleased. Passing game, special teams, pass defense, and player evals.

I don't think they wanted to focus on the run game. I don't think they were concerned this game about run defense.

I think the coaches are happier than this board is about the way things went.

Did they tell the players not to rush because they were focusing on pass defense?

Who is this 'Coach Tape' and what is his conspiracy?

Cubelic is a pretty solid unbiased analyst who thinks we had a solid outing with some fixable things to clean up. Maybe don't listen to the sky is falling crowd.

TEXAS A&M: Good win vs good program. Run game not as clean as you'd like. Perimeter runs felt good. Inside not as much. Can get cleaned up. Liked the extension of the run game through the air. QB still a little frantic at times. Sees pressure before it's there. But when pocket…

— Cole Cubelic (@colecubelic) September 1, 2025

When I was playing in high school, we had not won district in like 30 years. We had a big game a few weeks into the season and we did not want that team to see what we had so in our first game we suited up and sort of hid things, to mask things if you will, we put our smallest guys in the trenches, wore our helmets backwards, tied our shoelaces together, only ran five plays the whole game and won by like ten points.

This subterfuge didn't work, because in the big game they beat the **** out of us anyway.

Quote:

---

No coach will ever tell a lineman to "play conservative to avoid injury" that's the quickest way to have some one roll up a knee and tear an ACL is to "play conservative " on the line. Thats dumb

---

Been a long time since high school for me, but as I recall - "lallygagging" was the leading cause of injury on the line.

Guy on a Buffalo said:

---

Our defense was schemed based on film from last year, and UTSA changed their approach for our game. By the second half Bateman and Elko had it figured out and with the exception of one play (where supposedly someone ran the wrong defense) we shut them down until garbage time.

---

So our defense played well for parts of two quarters. Against UTSA.

one safe place said:

---

When I was playing in high school, we had not won district in like 30 years. We had a big game a few weeks into the season and we did not want that team to see what we had so in our first game we suited up and sort of hid things, to mask things if you will, we put our smallest guys in the trenches, wore our helmets backwards, tied our shoelaces together, only ran five plays the whole game and won by like ten points.

This subterfuge didn't work, because in the big game they beat the **** out of us anyway.

---

Let me guess, you played for Thrall.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

aeon-ag said:

---

Divining Rod said:

---

No, we're just not very good in the trenches.

By the way, sometimes it takes logic, science, and reason to recognize a conspiracy.

---

Were just not any good like we were last year. Same song same verse.

---

We won comfortably. Jesus some of you are insufferable.

---

We struggled for 3 of 4 quarters with a G5 team until we finally tired them out and they ran out gas

That won't work more than two more times this season

Every year you pumpers tell us to ignore how bad we looked in the first game and youve been right 3 times in the last 30 years

C2 Ag 93 said:

---

I am the least apt to believe in any conspiracy theories. I like logic, science and reason.

That said, I went to the game, and my buddy and I were irritated how we looked. Yes, of course, first game, players are being looked at, rusty, blah blah blah. But we also postulated we weren't showing our whole play book to save it for ND. Night and day difference thinking about our game vs what I saw watching So Car vs VT or Miami vs ND (players dialed in, play calling to win, etc.). And yet, we recruit very well, played "well" last year under first year head coach (no blow outs, sad we lost games we could have won, etc., but on the whole, it's reasonable to expect a better year this year than last).

So watching the replay today, I am surprised how well UTSA was able to control the line. We looked pretty bland play calling. We rotated a lot of plays to different receivers and different running backs, etc.

Do you think Elko is intentionally holding a lot back, even telling the lines to "play conservative" to avoid injury or even give LBs and DBs time to mature, etc.?

I never thought the game was out of hand or truly swinging UTSAs way. It seemed when we dialed in more, we moved it, or defended it well. But my rare conspiracy theory thoughts --- maybe they are intentionally playing conservative to not give ND tape?

---

We say this every year and it's never the case.

Divining Rod said:

---

I watched so many games this weekend where i thought the teams looked head and shoulders above texas a&m. literally like they were in a different division.

It was hard fir me to envision our D stopping their attack, or moving the ball consistently. I guess we'll find out in 2 weeks.

That QB draw by ND is going to be a nightmare.

---

Hopefully we got one of own they'll have to deal with.

We practiced all week for ND.

Then suited up the backups and let the interns call 4 plays.

All part of the process

Postulated

C2 Ag 93 said:

---

I am the least apt to believe in any conspiracy theories. I like logic, science and reason.

That said, I went to the game, and my buddy and I were irritated how we looked. Yes, of course, first game, players are being looked at, rusty, blah blah blah. But we also postulated we weren't showing our whole play book to save it for ND. Night and day difference thinking about our game vs what I saw watching So Car vs VT or Miami vs ND (players dialed in, play calling to win, etc.). And yet, we recruit very well, played "well" last year under first year head coach (no blow outs, sad we lost games we could have won, etc., but on the whole, it's reasonable to expect a better year this year than last).

So watching the replay today, I am surprised how well UTSA was able to control the line. We looked pretty bland play calling. We rotated a lot of plays to different receivers and different running backs, etc.

Do you think Elko is intentionally holding a lot back, even telling the lines to "play conservative" to avoid injury or even give LBs and DBs time to mature, etc.?

I never thought the game was out of hand or truly swinging UTSAs way. It seemed when we dialed in more, we moved it, or defended it well. But my rare conspiracy theory thoughts --- maybe they are intentionally playing conservative to not give ND tape?

---

yes and yes

C2 Ag 93 said:

---

I am the least apt to believe in any conspiracy theories. I like logic, science and reason.

That said, I went to the game, and my buddy and I were irritated how we looked. Yes, of course, first game, players are being looked at, rusty, blah blah blah. But we also postulated we weren't showing our whole play book to save it for ND. Night and day difference thinking about our game vs what I saw watching So Car vs VT or Miami vs ND (players dialed in, play calling to win, etc.). And yet, we recruit very well, played "well" last year under first year head coach (no blow outs, sad we lost games we could have won, etc., but on the whole, it's reasonable to expect a better year this year than last).

So watching the replay today, I am surprised how well UTSA was able to control the line. We looked pretty bland play calling. We rotated a lot of plays to different receivers and different running backs, etc.

Do you think Elko is intentionally holding a lot back, even telling the lines to "play conservative" to avoid injury or even give LBs and DBs time to mature, etc.?

I never thought the game was out of hand or truly swinging UTSAs way. It seemed when we dialed in more, we moved it, or defended it well. But my rare conspiracy theory thoughts --- maybe they are intentionally playing conservative to not give ND tape?

---

They were within reach avd had shut down our ability to create for the first half. Second half we, as MD put it, wore them out, their last score was garbage time but they might have scored twice.

I'll be honest. It wasn't as bad as it looked nor did we dominate a G5 team. Jeff Taylor has been effective at the HS and lower G5 level. And he's good enough to figure out the competition in the American.

Elko seems to copy several of our recent former coaches and not really have the team ready. It was not a loss, though, which would have made more banshees howl.