Expectations vs Performance

These examples, and particularly last year’s game against OU, point to my one major criticism of Leach. Despite his innovative approach to the game of football, despite some of the incredible wins we’ve pulled out over the years, deep in the bottom of my gut there’s a part of me which wonders how hard Leach actually works to prepare his team for the big games.

When opposing teams have time to prepare (even the marginal teams like Minnesota in the 2006 Sun Bowl), they seem to have an ability to solve the Tech offense.

I often get the feeling that Leach is a little over-reliant on the system.

I’ll never forget the look in the eyes of Harrell and Offensive Line last year when OU absolutely obliterated every scheme the Raiders tried to pull off. That game was the ultimate case of the ’’emporer has no clothes." The Raiders were brimming with confidence heading into that game. There is absolutely no way to argue that the players came out flat (a game for all the marbles? on national TV?). Losing a game is one thing, but to see an outcome like that, you just have to wonder how badly Leach was outcoached or how little he did to prepare.

The defensive schemes were useless. Ruffin’s theory is that simpler defensive schemes enable players to be more instinctive when they play. If you share Ruffin’s belief, then you must also accept the idea that Tech’s defensive players, unlike all the other defensive players in the country, are uniquely incapable of executing complex schemes. The only instincts the Red Raiders displayed were the ability to miss tackles, to get blown off the line and to allow receivers to catch the ball with no one within 10 yards.

Stoops is on record for saying that these sorts of base defenses are precisely the ones that he relishes playing against, because such schemes are utterly unsuited for stopping a dynamic spread offense. Given the fact that Tech’s offense is one of the best in the country for precisely the same reasons, as Stoops points out, you would think Ruffin would by now have reconsidered this now repeatedly discredited theory.

Last year, the OU defense almost seemed to know what plays (or more likely, what tendencies) Tech was likely to call on almost every down in the first half by which time the game was all but over. Despite the notion that Tech’s QBs and receivers in theory can run an infinite number of routes or patterns on any one play, the reality is that players are human beings who are vulnerable of falling into particular patterns. I have no doubt that one could watch all of Harrell’s game films and detect precisely what he is likely to do in certain situations, despite his freedom to make other decisions.

The key is to manipulate the offense into playing into those situation, and be prepared to pounce when the QB or receiver acts as predicted.

I hope last year was a huge wake up call for Leach and that he has learned not to be complacent about the effectiveness of his offense. His schemes are good, but the great coaches, particularly those blessed with phenomenal talent like OU, UT etc, aren’t imbeciles. Watch enough tape, figure out a couple of wrinkles and more athletic teams are able solve our offensive pretty effectively (OU, UT, Ole Miss, Alabama, Virginia, TCU, Missouri are all cases in point).

I love Leach’s tendency to gamble on Fourth Down, but in these big games he seems to get reckless (i.e. deep in his own territory, etc). The risk/reward for pulling stunts like that is so high, you can’t help but wonder how many of those 65 points against OU were of Leach’s own making. If the Minnesota experience showed us anything, it was the belief that no matter how bad things got, Tech had the ability to rebound almost instantly.

Given that the team has justifiably earned the right to that mystique over the years, why go for broke in the first half against OU in the manner that he did? He went 0-2 on 4th down in the second quarter. The first time, the team was in the red zone at the 15 yard line, close enough for a 32 field goal which even our guys can make. Had we made the kick, at that point down 14-0, we could have been 14-3, given our team a chance to regroup, and slightly settle the rabid energy of the OU teams and fans, not to mention give our team a bit of confidence.

 Instead OU drove down the field, and scored on the ensuing drive. You might argue that Leach was right in going for it. It was only 4th and 3 afterall. But to me there is magnitude of difference between potentially missing a field goal and turning it over on downs – particularly in that environment, and considering how spooked the entire team clearly appeared to be. I think in this instance that Leach demonstrated poor judgement.

The next 4th down play was infinitely more ludicrous. With OU up just 21-0, we get the ball on our 45 yard line, and after just three plays on the 50 yard line, Leach decides to go for it on 4th and 4. Let’s look at the trade offs in this scenario. Get the first down and sustain a drive from the 50 yard line. Punt the ball to pin OU deep in their territory. Miss the Fourth and Four and give OU’s potent offense to score against TTU’s clearly staggered defense. It may be ‘cool’ to be a gambler, but that was a completely dumbfounding decision. Either that, our Leach’s call demonstrated how little confidence he actually had in the defense. OU would then take the ball and score again in 4 plays, now up 28-0 (just four scores). Tech’s offense would regroup to score a touchdown to make it 28-7. OU would subsequently march down against Tech’s completely impotent defense (to use the phrase ‘scared shitless’ would probably be a more accurate description).

Tech’s next possession results in a Graham Harrell INT, which OU capitalizes on to make the score 42-7 at the half. An awful performance.

How many of those points do we attribute to going for it on fourth down? One touchdown for sure. Maybe two.

Harrell’s INT? Certainly another.

And the defense? Utterly unprepared. Of OU’s 47 first half plays, 15 went for 10 yards or more (including 2 plays over 30 yards). How bad was our first half performance? We didn’t even pull that kind of performance off against North Dakota. OU scored on 6 touchdowns on 7 offensive possessions.

Leach’s lack of discipline is the equivalent of Kobe Bryant saying, “my team might be down by 20 in the second quarter, and everyone knows that I could go off for 30 in the 4th quarter to erase almost any conceivable deficit and win, but screw it, Í’ll just start jacking up shots from half court now and see what happens.” Leach didn’t give his team a chance to win, and that’s what upset me so much after that game. As a result of the OU demolition, Tech seemed to be almost a different team for the remaining two games of the season. Something got left behind on the field that day.

I hope Leach will work harder to mix it up more and work harder to outsmart the other really smart guys. I hope he and his staff have learned from last year. I hope Ruffin is in the process of executing some master plan which to date has not yet been revealed.

To me the textbook game to understaning how to shut down the Tech offense remains either the 3-12 TCU loss in 2006 or the 10-13 Alabama loss in the 2006 Cotton Bowl. You might add OU to the list. Believe me when I say that everyone of Tech’s opponents will have watch those game films hundreds of time – you can include Muschamp and Brown to the list and don’t for a second think the UH coaches aren’t doing the same thing.

Leach and Ruffin had better be ready. The next two weeks defines our season.