Post in Football; ended up being a complimentary to Sampson

I replied in a Football forum to a football coaches praise/scorn thread, and ended up praising what we are so grateful for in CKS. I thought it might be better appreciated here.

We do seem to be a diamond in the rough sort of University so far… in football anyway.

Established greats are out of our price range or otherwise determined to go to one of the “uppity” universities.

Our history, post Yoeman, has been get an unknown, have some success, and lose the coach to $$ and prestige elsewhere.

In MBB we had Guy V, some in between, including some good names, but now we have someone special. From what I read and hear, it is a second chance for him but probably his greatest legacy for Sampson and he is approaching that for my Alma Mater.

Sampson has held fast to culture and development of players with potential and character. Judas as I recall said we had the toughest training and development culture but was, in the end, pretty fake. I think the ideology is the best. Remember SMU and many others flopping late in the game because they couldn’t handle the intensity, pace, and never ending pressure?

Sampson has beaten some very good teams with endurance and intensity. THAT IS his culture. Blue collar. Notice though as we approached the final four how much better teams could hang with us. Winners have that culture.


Bill Yeoman is credited with being the father of the veer but it was the defense that won games. The veer would sputter, turn the ball over and look like crap but the defense would hold and keep the Coogs in the game until the offense would get things together. Once the the offense got clicking, combined with the Mad Dogs, the Coogs were not a lot of fun to play.

Sampson and Yeoman are the same coach. Play rock solid defense until the offense gets going. Our shooters don’t have to play a great game, they just have to play well in spurts. It was the same dang thing with the Veer. The veer would look like crap for parts of the game and then explode.

I am big believer we have had this offense first mentality in football for way too long. Yeah we will have a good year and coach will be anointed an offensive genius and move on. But it doesn’t build a program. It all starts with defense. I think it is good to have an explosive offense but without the defense you get Kevin Sumlin football and Tom Penders Basketball which produces a good year sometimes but not a good program.

Just my humble opinion. I am not close enough to the baseball program to say, but I suspect that if they focused on pitching first they would win more games.

One thing I have seen over the last few years which bothers me is the Mad Dogs were not only good they were physical. Those were some bad boys with equally bad intent. You didn’t want to mess with them. Sampson’s Coogs are very physical, you dont want to mess with them either. Our football team has been very soft. I have seen recievers quit on routes and aligator arm catches and I have seen defensive players quit on plays. They have been some really weak sauce. That needs to change.


We are blue collar and not blue blood. Pretty much sums up our culture - athletics and alums.


Which is why I thought Orlando would have been a much better choice than Applewhite.


One of our old-timers summed it up best in reference to Dave Williams. Bless these guys. They’ve always done so much with so little.

That’s really who we are in this community. Not poor but often unappreciated and under-supported. But we press on to amazing results.

1 Like

I thought the same at the time, delmar. The fact that Orlando still doesn’t have a head coaching job may be an indication that you and I are wrong. Or it may just indicate that ADs pick the flashy guy who can sell himself in an interview instead of the solid coach sometimes. I don’t know.

Yeah, in hindsight , and if Applewhite and Orlando
are your only choices due to $$$, it would have been interesting to give Orlando a shot. But hey, I hoped Apple would be the 2nd coming of Yeomen with his Texas connections etc… And I bought what Judas was selling too :woozy_face:; because I wanted to believe.

But the bigger point may be, go after the defensive minded guy to build your program. Maybe that very
nature will make them less likely to be on constant interview up mode of thinking.

The problem with Orlando was he wasn’t a very good recruiter.

I think eyes have to open up as well that establish the run first mentality does not work if you cannot run all game and never open up with passes. It goes both ways and different teams and situations require different and FLEXIBLE approaches.

Too many games in the last years have been banging our heads against the wall for 4 quarters.


I think the very, very best recruiter is success! Especially consistent year to year success.

1 Like

Coach Yeoman told me that one of the many things that people got wrong about the Veer was that it was a run first offense. He said it was a passing offense.

I have never understood the “establish the run” mentality.

In my opinion make them defend the entire rectangle and then take advantage of the individual matchups. To do that though it starts up front.

1 Like

The veer was a passing offense? Coach Yeoman would say some interesting things. We averaged 14 passes per game in '79, 17 in '78, 16 in '76, 13 in '74, and 16 in '73, arguably our best years under Yeoman. We did average 25 passes per game in '69, which was a great year as well.

Bo Burris led the nation in passing touchdowns.

Elmo Wright had 1,000 receiving in 10 games twice. He was 3rd in the nation in receiving yards twice.

The Houston Veer threw the ball.

Did it get conservative near the end? Yes it did.

©Copyright 2017