The Good and Bad: Thoughts on Texas Tech 43, Texas 59
As I struggle to find a format that I'm happy with after a game, much like the Texas Tech defense struggles to stop the run.
I apologize for the lack of content today, but personal life sometimes interrupts blogging life. We'll discuss more tomorrow.
Without further delay, I submit to you the good and bad from yesterday:
- The Good
- Graham Harrell: I thought he was outstanding, in fact I thought he was one of the only reasons this game was close. Harrell completed 75% of his passes, had 9.7 yards per attempt and 9.6 attempts per touchdown which are all good numbers. In fact, to put up those types of numbers on the road against a traditionally strong defense says something about Harrell not showing up for the big games.
- Crabtree was Crablicious: Crabtree was good yesterday and for the life of me I can't figure out whether or not it's Leach's play calling, Crabtree not putting forth the same type of effort he did earlier in the year or perhaps a little bit of both. The thing about this offense is that there is always opportunity for a player to get open and be dominant and I can't imagine that Crabtree wouldn't be able to create that opportunity on his own. Granted, you can't account for double coverage, but Crabtree is talented enough to get open and he finally did it against what is supposed to be top-flight competition. It was good to see him on track, and there's no doubting his passion.
- The Offensive Line: Harrell was rushed a bit (8 hurries) but he was only sacked once. Of course, the one hit was brutal, but Harrell picks himself up off the ground and does his job. I think this line is willing to do whatever it takes to protect Harrell, at any cost and sometimes they result in penalties, but for the most part this line is incredibly good. Marlon Winn is perhaps the weakest link, and he's still really good. I like this group and I hope that Reed isn't injured.
- Trlica Hits A Few: Alex Trlica got back on track yesterday, hitting two field goals on what has been an up and down season for Trlica. This could prove to be incredibly important as the season winds down next week.
- We Have A Fighter: I'm not sure that I agree with all of Leach's assertions, but I agree with the sentiment and I love having a guy who's willing to fight for his team. For those of you who bemoan that Leach wasn't that upset about it when the shoe was on the other foot (see OU two years ago), so what. Was he supposed to forfeit the game? Call a timeout and ask for a replay (I realize that replay hasn't been around that long)? No, but I certainly appreciate the fact that he's willing to stick his neck out there and fight for his team. Leach's response was reasoned and intended to create some sort of reaction. I'd rather him say something than not say anything at all. He certainly blamed the officials on Saturday, but that doesn't mean that his own team isn't to blame as well, and we don't know what he said behind closed doors to the defense. Hell, for all we know, he was probably angry at the offense for having to punt once and not being able to convert the lone 4th down. Leach's response to the officiating was intentional and purposeful, if he mentions anything other than the officials then whatever response he is intends to get this week will be diminished. The interesting part is what happens from this point forward.
- The Bad
- Time of Possession: Texas doubled up Texas Tech in terms of time of possession. Texas had 40:12 on the clock, while Texas Tech managed 19:48 (and still was able to get 43 points). Here's the rub, the offense was incredibly efficient yesterday, in fact, it was almost too efficient passing the ball. The running game suffered with only 7 attempts (one of those being a Harrell sack) and was virtually non-existant. Part of saving the defense includes running the ball some in order to keep the opponent off of the field. Leach needs to run the ball more, bottom line.
- The Defensive Line: Nothing earth-breaking here, the defensive line needs to play better, much better, if there's going to be any shot at stopping OU. There's a couple of things working against this group, youth and strength. It's easy to see that Colby Whitlock was over-matched yesterday, but I still get the feeling that this is Whitlock's baptism-by-fire season. Throw him to the wolves, give him an offseason to get bigger and stronger and he should be markedly improved next year. As beleaguered as Whitlock was yesterday, he's the only one of the group that showed up and fought through to make a stop, leading the team with 10 tackles for the day. Yes, the tackles he made are down the field, but he's still fighting and that says a lot. I know, that's no consolation for Red Raider fans now, but that's what's happening. It's not just Whitlock though, Henley only managed 3 tackles, Brandon Williams only managed 3 tackles, Richard Jones had 2 tackles and the rest is inconsequential. That's only only 21 tackles made by all defensive tackles and defensive ends. Texas ran the ball 62 times yesterday. That's the problem.
- No Defensive Creativity: I get really conflicted when I talk about Ruffin. I keep asking myself whether the mess that is the Texas Tech defense is really his fault? He was a mere assistant coach for Setencich who was incredibly passive and it must be incredibly difficult to get a defense to completely change it's tune during the middle of the season. I just have a hard time blaming McNeill for all of the defensive woes, but at some point I need for McNeill to think outside the box and try and try something, anything. Of course, on the other side of the fence you've got McNeill who must decide to play it straight, close to the vest and hope that the offense can do what needs to be done. Perhaps he realizes, better than most of us, the defensive limitations in the talent on the defensive side of the ball and perhaps, he's doing the only thing he knows how to do to keep the defense from completely falling apart. Perhaps he knows that there's plenty of talent coming in the way of recruits next year, but to try and do too much this year just isn't smart. McNeill is in a no-win situation because the idea that a switch at defensive coordinator, which was completely warranted, wasn't going to be a cure-all this season and the responsibility will also unfortunately fall at the feet of McNeill.
- Missed Tackles: McNeill can take credit for the lack of an ability to make a decent tackle, especially in the second half. Granted, this less than smash-mouth attitude has been prevalent much longer than McNeill's been in charge, and for the most part the fundamentals has been better. Chris Parker had a really bad day yesterday and up until Saturday's game I thought he had been the most consistent defensive back to date. Missed tackles are correctable and I hope that changes by this week.
Participation:
- Quarterback: Graham Harrell
- Running Back: Aaron Crawford, Koby Lewis and David Schaefer
- Receivers: Eric Morris, Michael Crabtree, Danny Amendola, Edward Britton, Grant Walker, Detron Lewis, Adrian Reese, Lyle Leong, and L.A. Reed
- Offensive Linemen: Rylan Reed, Louis Vasquez, Shawn Byrnes, Brandon Carter, Marlon Winn, Chris Olson, Justin Keown and Stephen Hamby
- Defensive Line: Richard Jones, Colby Whitlock, Rajon Henley, Brian Williams, Sandy Riley, Daniel Howard, Tyler Yenzer, Alex Hamilton and Jake Ratliff
- Linebackers: Brian Duncan, Paul Williams, Marlon Williams, Julius Howard, Blake Collier, Victor Hunter and Kellen Tillman
- Secondary: Jamar Wall, Joe Garcia, Darcel McBath, Chris Parker, Marcus Bunton, Daniel Charbonnet, Anthony Hines, Lance Fuller, LaRon Moore, Pete Richardson, Jordy Rowland, and Steven Harris
16 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Another bad loss
So not get me wrong here. McNeill is a damn good coach and should remain with Tech as the assistant head Coach.
However, Tech needs despirately a new DC. Some new blood from a program which is known to be an attacking and killer one. Its ok to suggest names.
Its still ok to suggest McNeill remain as DC.
But to not talk about an obvious issue is stupid and moronic.
I personally think that Tech needs a new DC at then end of the season and to bring in a totally new unseen defense for next year. I also hope to hell we will get a couple of DL in this years recruiting class that is 6-3 280 to 315lbs. Not converted DEs but true Nose tackles. I am tired of seeing our tackles get blown 10 to 15 yards down field or PCed because they are not big and strong enough against teams which have 300lb offensive lines. Face it, a 250lb tackle is going to get his but kicked against teams who have large offensive lines. Thus the need for bigger and stronger. We are finally seeing this in DE. But we need to start recruiting in naturals for this position rather than convert players who never played that position before. Only about 1/3 of converted players do good and half of those become great. Something to consider.
The other position is LB. Tech needs to recruit LBs who are agressive! Natural LBs are needed. Tech does not have a single natural LB in its lineup. It shows on certain plays because they do not have the experience yet. But Tech needs to recruit in some natural LBs who are agressive and are somewhere around 230 to 250lb that can run a 4.5 40. That is all that is needed in general. The rest is ability and coaching.
Lastly, Tech needs a big as in both size and height TE. a 6-6 to 6-9 270 to 285lb who runs a 4.5 to 4.6 40. This is the lacking element needed in the offense that we had two years ago with Reed who was recruited as a TE and did well as a TE but was converted to an offensive linemen. We need a TE that can punish the secondary and LB. In this, it opens up the inside reciever because an active heavy TE who catches balls always draws double coverage or priority coverage by a LB in most systems.
We just have not recruited in a big TE. Personally, I think having Reed go back to TE is not a bad thing. yea he is 310lbs but he runs a 4.75 40. which is still damn fast for his size. at 6-7 310. Imagine a 235lb LB or a 180lb DB having to tackle Reed today! I say damn it would be a good sight to see. Hell I would think that Reed would get an extra 5 yards by size alone if he would have stayed a TE. But Reed has had some injuries which happen to linemen who are new at the position. Converted linelmen have 70% more injuries than true linemen in general. This is because in the trenches things happen. Those who have been exposed for many years have seen it before and they learn early not to get in that position again or they just do not have play smarts as to what is happening around them.
But Tech needs to change its defensive system totally at seasons end. Something new and exciting is called for. With having the youngest team in the NCAA this year, Imagine bringing in a new DC who can inspire and bring in a Defense that will dominate.
If Tech does that, Then damn look out. Tech can score 40+ a game. We just need a new defense that will prevent teams from scoring more than 17 and can force the 3 and outs and shut down the run!
by pablo @ Double-T Nation on Nov 11, 2007 8:26 PM CST reply actions
I just don't get your comments.
Man
Not even UT can pick and choose to get the 6'3 280-310 DT, the 6'6 275 TE that can still run a 4.5, and the "aggressive" 230 LB 4.5 speed LB all in the same year. Do you really think that TTU isn't recruiting these guys? (Hint: there aren't many of them.)
ps: These guys close enough? (straight from tech.com roster)
68 Britton Barbee RS FR 6-2/293 Defensive Tackle Abilene, Texas (Wylie)
95 David Neill FR 6-5/270 Defensive Line Flower Mound, Texas (Marcus)
99 Richard Jones SO 6-1/277 Defensive Tackle LaMarque, Texas (LaMarque)
91 Rajon Henley SO 6-3/265 Defensive Tackle Galveston, Texas (Ball)
93 Colby Whitlock FR 6-2/281 Defensive Line Noble, Okla. (Noble)
Recruiting is not quite like the pros. You need a good DT, you draft one or pick one up in free agency (adalius thomas?). You need a spare LB? same deal. Recruiting, on the other hand, is much more difficult: 1) you don't know which of these players is real and which are just posers 2) you're competing for the best of recruits with every other school in the nation 3) you can't (or at least "can't") pay these players, so the draws have to be more than money. TTU doesn't have a history like Notre Dame, Michigan, Florida and Ohio State. Nor does it have a huge athletic budget and a mess of recent success like USC, UT, LSU, and even Virginia Tech.
Actually, if you really want to look at things, we're in better shape than VT was when Beamer was about at this stage in his career there. Before his 8th year, he had had 1 9 win season, 1 8 win, and 6 seasons without a bowl game (winning record in 2 of those). His 8th season was a breakout 10-2 season and VT was thereafter established as a national program. Mike Leach should have had a 10 win season (though he didn't thanks to another instant replay failure and the wonkiest kick to ever cross the uprights) in 2005.
Give it time. If TTU starts sliding down and finishes 6-6 or 5-7 a few seasons in a row or has a single notre dame-like season, then we can talk about canning Mike. But there is no other program in the nation that has been as stable as TTU has.
Sorry, that post directed at your unreal recruiting desires turned into a rant on all those who have started to grumble about wanting a new head coach. Just give me a fresh defensive coordinator and I'll be happy.
We have
Reed now an offensive lineman was a 6-7 285lb TE for two years before they converted him to offensive line. Reed did well as a TE and personally I think even at 310lb would still be a damn good TE.
Its just that since Reed the position of TE has been filled with just tall 210- 230lb WR.
That was the comment. Tech has recruited in the past exactly what I have referred to.
As for Defensive tackles... Do not confuse DEs with Nose tackles. Some DEs are called defensive linemen but are in reality DEs and used primarily as DEs.
What Tech has not recruited in a while is a true Defensive tackle with size. What we have is converted players to the position of Defensive Tackles much like our LB corps is all converted players.
Converted players are ok. However, there is a huge learning curve that may take up to 3 years to develop. What I would like to see is natural and true position players. Its not like you get a player that can play almost any position like Crabtree. However most linemen have played in HS both sides of the ball.
What you seem to miss is that most of the offensive line we have were also available for defensive line. Most of these guys played both sides of the ball. It would not hurt to have the third/4th string offensive player to be allowed to convert to Defensive nose tackle especially when he is 300lbs. That would give us the size I am referring.
So you missed the point and really have not paid that much attention to recruiting over the last 8 years.
The issue is that we have a nose tackle currently that is 265lbs maybe soaking wet getting blown totally off the ball 10 to as much as 15 yards deep if he is not PCed. That is a major problem all season long. DO not get me wrong, this player has heart and plays extremely hard. But he is just too under sized for the job he has to do. This is especially noticed against teams that have larger offensive lines like OSU, Texas, OU, Missouri and Colorado. Its just that we have to have a bigger force at the nose positions. Most of the time Tech plays two nose tackles. Only in the red zone do they insert a third. What gets me is that only in the red zone do we insert the size factor. Its only in the red zone that we use nose tackle size. And if you have noticed that Tech does damn well when we have size in at the nose position.
Even against Texas, those series where Tech did well against the run it was with the younger and bigger sized nose tackles. They did not stop Texas but the play was better. I just suggest that recruiting in natural players at the position would be better than converting players then developing them which takes time.
Remember that those 300+lb offensive linemen were also possible Defensive tackles. So it not like we can not recruit the size I am referring here.
As for those two you listed that are true tackles. Jones has been slow to develop but I expect him to be a starter next year. Barbee is RS FR so he may not be available next season as a starter. The point is that we are super thin in a position that is of major priority to fix. We only have two true Defensive tackles of size. I am not saying that Henley is no good. Not that! I am suggesting that he is better used in speed rush plays and not against the run.
by pablo @ Double-T Nation on Nov 12, 2007 10:31 AM CST up reply actions
and i'm saying
Its not the
So if I understand you correctly, is that we just make due without even addressing the positions which we need the most help! I would accept your position after the signing day deadline for 2008 recruits. But until that day comes, there is opportunity to improve the selection and pick up players we need in positions which we are sorely in severe need.
Hell for the right defensive players they could be starting as Freshman on a team that should win the Big 12 next year if not contend for the national championship. I am not blowing smoke here.
Tech is on the verge of taking it to that level. We have the offense to do it. All we need is defense. Its not like we have to fix the total defense either. The secondary is #1 in the Big 12 at pass defense. We simply just can not stop the stinking run! The core of stopping the run rest mainly on 7 positions. The highest priority being defensive tackles followed by Linebackers then the DEs. Those are the the seven primary postions which has to shut down the run. When we have tackles getting PCed and blow as much as 15 yards down field, that is a huge problem!
The first fix is to prevent the tackles from getting blown off the ball and PCed. In this, it gives the LBs room to move down the line and not get cut off by the linemen getting blown off the line of scrimage. Then you have to have LBs to know how to fill the gaps. But right now there is no gaps because the tackles are getting blown off the line.
Thus you have to fix the problem from the core out. Which for the Tech defense is getting bigger and stronger Defensive tackles who can hold their own from gun to gun in a game.
by pablo @ Double-T Nation on Nov 12, 2007 8:07 PM CST up reply actions
All I know is that
It was
Your a little to sensitive after my last email exchange. This is not even remotely simular to the other issue.
The comment was made that its not wrong to talk about a new DC for Tech when the position is considered available for a hire at seasons end or today for that matter!
Do not be so jumpy and over sensitive. What I said in my last e-mail is still true even if you disagree. You prove it time and again when you do not confront certain people who only post to tear down the program even if it is venting about a loss. There is always a good and bad way to vent. No one should vent to tear down young players or the program in general. Especially when this program has the youngest team in the NCAA tied with Temple!
However, its more than ok to discuss what is broken and how to fix it. There is nothing wrong with that.
If you are suggesting it means more than that, then you will have to explain further why you think it means more than what I said!
by pablo @ Double-T Nation on Nov 11, 2007 9:19 PM CST reply actions
Whatever . . .
I would
by pablo @ Double-T Nation on Nov 11, 2007 9:36 PM CST up reply actions
I find it strange that you
I do not suggest
As for censoring, that is last resort. removing posts which could harm recruiting and cause problems is that next step after confrontation is ignored.
But you seem to misunderstand what I have requested. I just ask that you confront people who post only to tear down players who do well on game day for no reason and post to tear down the program in general where the post is only about how bad Tech is or every will be. That is what I asked you to confront.
Censoring is only for those who go out of their way and ignore your requests. Do not be so naive to think that recruits and their familes or even current players and their families do not look at these boards. I have already given you three exact examples of recruits who have pointed to boards for why they changed their minds about the school of choice. Face it we live in an internet society. I even gave you one example of a Tech player who transferred because of board posts.
Just confront people like you have done to me. You seem to have no problem confronting me. So confront those who are harming the Tech program through their postings. You have to draw a line somewhere. You have with me. So why not about those who are promoting harm to the program? where is the line there?
by pablo @ Double-T Nation on Nov 12, 2007 10:46 AM CST up reply actions
Pablo,
The only line that I've drawn with you is that I've asked you not to call other people names. I had to delete a comment by a very loyal DTN reader as he called eddyc555 a name that I won't re-type and I asked him, as I asked you, to refrain from calling people names.
He understood why I had this rule and we're fine, but when you told me that if I didn't censor those types of readers who may have opposing opinions then I should shut down DTN and I thought that was without merit.
I give more time to Texas Tech, without being a paid employee, than 99% of Texas Tech fans. That's not supposed to make me some sort of martyr, but I just don't think that it's appropriate to question where my allegiance lies.
Bottom line, just don't call people names and we're cool and it's all water under the bridge. I usually have to mediate between clients during my day job and I don't really want to have to do it with my readers.
I think it was Ruffin's chance to earn a job
If I'm going to withstand some coaching growing pains on defense, it needs to be with someone who has been with the team for less time. If Ruffin's the D Coordinator next year, I'm not like rioting or anything, but I wouldn't mind getting some fresh blood at all. We need someone who can schematically even the uneven playing field (because of our recruiting deficit) just as Coach Leach has done offensively. We just need a good defense.
by Red Blooded @ Double-T Nation on Nov 11, 2007 10:44 PM CST reply actions
Also...
by Red Blooded @ Double-T Nation on Nov 11, 2007 10:48 PM CST reply actions

by 














