That's what I'm confused about. You're supposed to add 2.5kg per week under the Texas Method. So unless you started with an empty bar, you weren't actually running the Texas Method for a year. I suppose you could have crashed and burned a few times, but presumably you also ran a linear progression on the squat before transitioning to the Texas Method (as per PPST)...so 120kg is still very, very low.
Let's do this...what's your training history for the past two years? Programming, progress, starting/ending lifts, etc. And also your age (and I assume you're a male).
Back angle is an isometric function of the hamstrings, not a concentric function of the quads. The quads extend the knee and flex the hip. Greg Nuckols is a pretty able writer on these areas, but his language is way too sloppy in the article for something that requires precision.
Weak quads *could* cause you to shoot your butt back out of the squat, instead of up, which would cause your back angle to change. Perhaps that's what Nuckols really meant in the article--I don't know, because he didn't say. But that's not what you said is happening to you, since you said your legs extend and your back folds over. Further, I've always been able to correct the squat-morning problem with coaching cues rather than corrective exercises. It's very, very rare that one's quads will be so weak that they can't avoid a squat-morning--especially if that person is deadlifting substantially more than squatting.
To help you see where I'm coming from, I don't take things on faith when it comes to this stuff. Here's why--I've been on this forum for six years, and been an SSC for nearly five of those. An OP's representations of his lifts seldom reflect what actually is happening in a video. I'd be very wealthy if I got $10 for every person who said their form was "perfect" or "near perfect" when it wasn't even close. I'd be less wealthy, but still happy, if I got $10 for every person who said their form looked like shit and it was actually pretty good.You'll have to trust me on this, I don't have a video at the moment. But I feel it hapenning and people around me also noticed.
And believe it or not, I've had people say that they are having trouble with a squat-morning when their back angle was either (A) completely fine, or (B) still too upright. And I've had the converse as well.
As a result, I take things based on what I can see, not subjective perceptions or non-descript statements that "other people" have "noticed." So if you want my help, or the help of others on here who refuse to engage in abject speculation, you'll need a video.
I'm guessing there is. But I can't fix it without seeing a video.Perhaps there is something wrong with my form (and yet I have watched every form video on Youtube), but then again that's why I'm asking for help.
I don't know what a "runner's knee" problem is--could you be more specific?I should also mention that I have a runner's knee problem. I don't know if that breaks my form.
Nuckols is completely right that weak quads can cause extending the knees WITHOUT (thats what some here missed) moving the COG of the barbell against gravity: load simply gets shifted temp. to the hips or simply the movement stalls.
Try it yourself: squat down, squat up to your usual sticky point, now flex your hips (changes back angle) - now you can easily extend your knees. Problem is you can overload your hips and not finish the rep (though your quads probably wouldnt have done that either, if theyre weak).
The quads can be very strong in the DL, but usually the bottom of the squat is below the starting point of the DL - and as strength is specific for ROM, you could have a weak quad in the squat but no problems in the DL.
That being said... Im with Brodie that first simply adress technique before implementing specific exercises. Youre just too novice not to try this - in technically proficient lifters, there can be muscle imbalances that need to be addressed by extra work.
Also, more generally, I second more precise infos - a vid is sooo helpful and can save you a lot of time.
Id also stop speculating what exactly went wrong, what your numbers "should be" or if you did any program right or wrong - nobody´s blaming programs; you may have done something not optimally. But it is what it is and we only can work from here.