Five Reasons Texas Tech Will Lose // Rice Owls Edition

by Seth C on Sep 9, 2009 12:00 PM CDT in Texas Tech Football

This weekly feature considers five reasons why Texas Tech will win and five reasons Texas Tech will lose to each opponent. Check back tomorrow for "Five Reasons Texas Tech Will Win // Rice Owls Edition".

Reason #1 :: Short Rice Passing Game: Texas Tech was somewhat plagued by North Dakota's short passing game, which took advantage of a defense that was more than willing to give up the short yardage with the expectation that the defense will stop said opponent and additionally that the Texas Tech offense will outscore. The key of course is that the the opposing team can't control the clock (i.e. Nebraska 2008) or have an offense where the balance means that the Texas Tech defense is off-balanced and unable to adjust. A short passing game with Nick Fanizzi at the helm could certainly take advantage of that soft defense. The key of course is that if the defensive line can get to the opposing quarterback, then all is forgiven.

Reason #2 :: Running QB: Not so much Nick Fanuzzi, but J.T. Shepherd is a running quarterback and he's quite capable. In fact, it was talked about prior to last week's game against UAB that Shepherd would return punts should S Andrew Sendejo be injured. Shepherd didn't have the best performance against UAB last week, in large part because his arm let him down, but he could burn Texas Tech if there's no containment within the pocket and Texas Tech should be ready for Shepherd to make an appearance especially in a Wildcat type of formation. I think the defense is going to have to prepare for Shepherd whether they like it or not and he's a dangerous runner, something this team has historically had problems with containing (i.e. see Zac Robinson and Robert Griffin).

Reason #3 :: Lackluster O-Line: I'm somewhat astounded by the inability of the offensive line to block the Fighting Sioux. Yes, there's something to be said for the huge offensive lineman being unable to block a much quicker defensive linemen, but really that shouldn't matter. Besides, if that's the case then we're going to have issues against Rice as well. As stated before, it really shouldn't matter. I think more importantly, there's this idea, that reloading on the offensive line isn't that difficult and so long as there's talent available, then you should be fine. Just ask the Oklahoma Sooners about that. It's not that easy and despite stellar play the last two year from the offensive line, it must be better. If there's not significant improvement along the entire offensive line, and there's no reason to think that there won't be significant improvement, then you'll see the running game continue to struggle and Potts will continue to throw off of his back foot, despite his promises otherwise. Keeping this somewhat simple, if the offensive line doesn't get better, then you can expect a similar result to last week, but Rice is a better team than UND.

Reason #4 :: Soft Secondary: We talked about the short passing game of Rice, but I think the soft secondary bears mentioning again here. There's talent in the secondary and I think the players are coached to play soft (soft in the sense that they're not on the line of scrimmage giving some opponents a cushion), but as the talent level increases, and I believe that it has, then the I think McNeill's options should increase on what he can and cannot do with the secondary. Again, to espouse my theory from years past, is that I believe that McNeill and Leach essentially determine if they believe the offense can win the game and plan the defense accordingly. If Leach believes he can win on offense alone, then McNeill plans accordingly to give, but not give up any quick-strike touchdowns. That same soft defense can be a momentum killer for the offense and especially if Rice is patient. One other thing, and I wasn't at last week's game to confirm this, but if McNeill stayed in a fairly standard front on Saturday, playing 3 linebackers most of the night, then it stands to reason that the short UND would take advantage of the short passing game because Texas Tech stayed in it's standard package.

Reason #5 :: Penalties: This was a reason last week and it's a reason this week as well. History shows that the Red Raiders improve on the penalties from game to game, especially early in the season. Last year against Eastern Washington, Texas Tech rolled up 18 penalties for 169 yards. In the second game, Nevada, Texas Tech managed only 9 penalties for 81 yards. Leach doesn't have much of a problem with penalties, especially defensive penalties as I get the feeling that he wants guys that are pushing the envelope a bit. That still doesn't mean that the Red Raiders can't lose if the penalty situation doesn't improve.

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

tech basketball...

defintely

by Freneau on Sep 9, 2009 12:04 PM CDT reply actions

-1

by logan5555 on Sep 9, 2009 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions

Reason #1 :: Short Rice Passing Game:

This irritated me the entire game. I know they were playing bend/don’t break and let the Dline get some pressure but it is hard to watch completions all day long.

"56,000 screaming crazies in The Jones rockin' as it has never rocked before" - Terry Bowden

If you not having fun....then your not playing the game right.

by texastfan on Sep 9, 2009 1:05 PM CDT reply actions

That's what I'm talkin' about

in my previous comment on the position matchups post. This bend don’t break think Ruff does is somewhat effective, but fundamentally differs from (it would seem) the direction most fans would like to see our D go. I know it is ultimately up to Leach and Ruff, but is it so much to ask for our guys to go out and play to dominate just one entire game?

by jdeeTTU on Sep 9, 2009 1:17 PM CDT up reply actions

This is probably more than 50% of the fans of Texas Tech’s problem with our team every year since Leach began coaching. Bend don’t break is fine sometimes. Its a good strategy at times. But we make no adjustments during the game. What happens if UT is up 2 touchdowns in the 3rd quarter in two weeks. Bend don’t break may give us only a 2 or 3 touchdown loss but is very unlikely to give us a win unless they don’t hit the short passes. I guess I could expand on this more but you all know what I’m talking about. This bend dont break is fine sometimes. But its horrible other times. Screw if you don’t have the “athletes”. If what happened last year against Nebraska is happening you have to try something else. My problem is not the initial strategy with our current roster on D. Its that we never adjust when we need to during the game. Surely others agree to this.

by logan5555 on Sep 9, 2009 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions

+1

Lack of in game adjustment is what bothers me the most. Last year the only time I saw change was between first and second half… and not even then every time it was necessary imo.

by jdeeTTU on Sep 9, 2009 4:47 PM CDT up reply actions

An obsevation often noted here

by TechFirst on Sep 9, 2009 6:16 PM CDT up reply actions

Penalties and the Defense

I kind of agree with Mike Leach. A team that does not get penalties is playing too safe, they are playing to avoid penalties rather than playing to stop the other team.

Having said that, there remains a group of penalties that are simply dumb, these are the ones that disciplined players do not get. The retalitory penalty, late hits, movement on the line by the O, not lining up right, lining up off-sides. I am sure there are others.

I am intrigued by the thought that the game plan might include input from the HC to the DC that we can win this game with our offense, so play to contain and to avoid quick scores. The contain thought allows patience on defense and for the opposing O to make a mistake so they have to kick. If a team normally completes only about 50% of its passes, then this does make sense, stop the run, force the pass, they will fail within three first downs or so. That does put the load on the offense’s ability to execute and to score td’s more frequently than the opponent….it also compensates for a program’s ability to not be able to attract first rate talent on D.

I really enjoyed watching last season’s defense make int’s, create fumbles, and simply stop another team…there is little sweeter than a three and our by your D.

by TallMike on Sep 9, 2009 2:02 PM CDT reply actions

Start the Season in Base on D

I don’t really like it but coach’s really don’t seem to want to show too much other than Base schemes early in the year especially when they have much better talent. This was true last saturday and I think that will change somewhat this week but Ruff probably will go with Base as long as he can, then call a timeout, have a “come to Ruff” meeting and then begin to change schemes then. I hate this but it is what coaches seem to do. Wreck’em Tech

by techgolf44 on Sep 9, 2009 3:49 PM CDT reply actions

Change: You guys mention the bend-no-break defense, I have to bring up the fact that we blitzed in front of that bend-don’t break defense this week. Lotta plays bringing 5-6.

by kayakyakr on Sep 9, 2009 5:51 PM CDT reply actions

And man do I love to see some blitzing. Now if we can just get our corners to move closer to the line of scrimmage on 3rd and 3 we will be alright.

by logan5555 on Sep 9, 2009 7:25 PM CDT up reply actions

I want to see one all-out blitz.

On a 3rd and short with the game in hand (up 10+), I want to see Ruff bring 9. Just to see if we can get enough pressure to make plays on 3rd and short.

Additionally, our offense has been successful, because it is in a way, high-risk. For example, when we’re past the 50 and have a 4th and 5 or less we generally go for it. We pass about 70% of the time (passes are proven to result in more turnovers). Why don’t we take risks on defense. In the games that were either close or we lost (OU, Ole Miss, Nebraska, and the 2nd half of the Texas game come to mind) the D was way too conservative. I feel that if we would have taken risks and blitzed every now and then, instead of waiting for the offense to make a mistake (and then hope our offense can score), we would have won the Ole Miss game, Nebraska wouldn’t have hung with us after the 3rd quarter, and Texas wouldn’t have gotten back in the game. When the defense is playing well, the offense is generally unstoppable (Kansas, K State, Ok. St.). However, when the D struggles, the offense generally struggles (2nd half of the UT game, OU, Ole Miss, we actually played well offensively against Nebraska, though we only had 5 offensive possessions).

What I’m trying to say is that Ruff should take some risks every now and then. Sure, We’ll most likely give up some more points and maybe 20 more big plays over the course of the season, but the offense will get more opportunities to be on the field, and we will get more pressure on the opposing offense.

It’s hard to force turnovers or even make a big play on defense in the base 4-3. I know it’s early on in the season and we haven’t seen the whole picture (we don’t want UT seeing all of our schemes before we play them), but taking risks leads to big plays, whether a turnover, sack, or a play being blown up in the backfield. Either way, all it takes is one big play to get the defense hyped up. On the contrary, a “sit and wait” (aka “bend but don’t break”) defense rarely creates turnovers, especially against an offensive team (Texas, OU, Okie State, and the rest of the B12).

I would rather give up some more big plays and create some turnovers than let the defense try to get a stop while playing conservatively.

by techfan5730 on Sep 9, 2009 10:15 PM CDT reply actions