including me, that we would lose 4 or 5 games this year. We are too young and inexperienced and that will cost us some games. Then we had a very good game against Miami and many of us, including me, revised that prognostication to maybe 3 losses at worst. Our players have grown into a cohesive unit we told ourselves and has a lot of talent. Well, the loss number still could go either way mentioned above. I also think this is a very cohesive team and they ALL played hard. I believe this game was lost because of 2 things, UT's defense played well but we made easier for them than it should have been by poor offensive play calling. How many plays did we need 4 or 5 yards and we throw a 3 yard pass? 2 or 3 drives in a row in the third quarter the offense goes 3 and out. After that the defense has a hard time tackling because they are tired. Our offense needs to find an identity. Do we run to set-up the throw ala the 80s or do we throw to set up the run ala the 90s. I don't care which, but it needs to be done. With a team this young, one philosophy is best, IMO. This lack of identity is directly attributable to poor coaching. The buck always stops at the head coaches feet. He should sit Zaunbrecher down and tell him what he wants out of the offense (downfield passes on occassion would be nice). I have not ever compared Zook to Spurrier but I will now and it is the attitudes of the coaches I will compare. In his postgame comments Zook mentioned that whenever we our in a position to score we have to take advantage of it. With this I have no argument. Spurrier's attitude was any time we are on the field we are in a position to score. I believe all players like the Spurrier attitude, it shows confidence in the players. Zook's attitude, while upbeat, does not exude the same confidence and I believe the players pick up on that.