For the losers: 2005 Tech vs. 2008 Tech
So, I was very bored, so I gathered a bunch of stats that are undoubtedly useless regarding Texas Tech of 2005 and 2008. The last time we had such a prime matchup between these two teams was when #7 Texas Tech visited #2 Texas, only to get thrashed 52-17. I was curious how this year's version compared to that one statistically.
A few disclaimers. While I will try to give a little analysis, these are just numbers and there are tons of things you can point out that make them imperfect comparisons. For instance, Tech in '05 only played 6 games before playing us while this one is 8-0. I projected their stats to eight games IF THEY HAD PLAYED 8 BEFORE US, but that's not accurate on many levels. You can say that this year's Tech played one more conference game... or you can say this year's Tech had the luxury of beating up on one more non-conference opponent. You can argue 2005 A&M, while bad, was better than this year's version. Blah blah blah. The gist: Take this with a bucket of salt. It's just an exercise of numbers.
Anyway, here goes:
Quarterbacks
| Comp | Att | Comp% | Yards | Y/Att | TD | Int | Sacks | Rating | |
| Cody Hodges | 192 | 268 | 0.716418 | 2461 | 9.182836 | 22 | 5 | 15 | 172.13 |
| CH avg | 32 | 44.66667 | 410.1667 | 3.666667 | 0.833333 | 2.5 | |||
| Graham Harrell | 256 | 360 | 0.711111 | 3147 | 8.741667 | 28 | 5 | 3 | 167.43 |
| GH avg | 32 | 45 | 393.375 | 3.5 | 0.625 | 0.375 | |||
| CH projected through 8 | 256 | 357.3333 | 3281.333 | 29.33333 | 6.666667 | 20 |
Statistically, pre-Texas, Hodges looks slightly better, but I think Harrell is the better quarterback regardless. After all, Cody Hodges had the luxury of posting an absurd 80 points on Sam Houston State. Then again, it does show how remarkably Leach's system is when it comes to passing. If a good passer can learn his system, he can post some pretty impressive numbers. Harrell is better, in my opinion, but their stats are eerily similar.
The biggest difference is in sack total. Harrell has been dropped only three times while Hodges was dropped 15 times in 6 games, and projected to 8, he would have been sacked 20 times. That's a pretty big difference and is a testament to Tech's improved O-line and Harrell's ability to get rid of the ball.
Runningbacks
| Att | Yards | TD | Y/Att | |
| Taurean Henderson | 65 | 426 | 10 | 6.553846 |
| TH projected | 86.66667 | 568 | 13.33333 | |
| Baron Batch | 72 | 537 | 4 | 7.458333 |
| Shannon Woods | 92 | 481 | 10 | 5.228261 |
In this case, while Henderson wasn't bad and performs better than both Batch and Woods in some areas, the fact that Tech has utilized two backs effectively makes this Tech team a better running team. After all, Cody Hodges had the second most rush attempts last year, even if you adjust for sacks. How bizarre. Henderson is arguably superior to either as a receiver, but there is reason why people argue that this is the best running team under Leach. Considering Tech posted a laughable 10 yards on the ground last year, this can help them from being overly one-dimensional against us. Of course, we all expect them to pass. A lot.
Wide Receivers
| Rec | Yards | TD | Y/Rec | Rec/Game | Y/Game | TD/Game | |
| Joe Filani | 37 | 658 | 7 | 17.78378 | 6.166667 | 109.6667 | 1.166667 |
| Robert Johnson | 38 | 566 | 3 | 14.89474 | 6.333333 | 94.33333 | 0.5 |
| Jarret Hicks (5 games) | 31 | 393 | 5 | 12.67742 | 6.2 | 78.6 | 1 |
| JF projected | 49.33333 | 877.3333 | 9.333333 | ||||
| RJ projected | 50.66667 | 754.6667 | 4 | ||||
| JH projected | 49.6 | 628.8 | 8 | ||||
| Michael Crabtree | 60 | 794 | 14 | 13.23333 | 7.5 | 99.25 | 1.75 |
| Detron Lewis | 45 | 579 | 1 | 12.86667 | 5.625 | 72.375 | 0.125 |
| Eric Morris | 42 | 452 | 4 | 10.7619 | 5.25 | 56.5 | 0.5 |
I only listed the top three receivers of each team. As far as Hicks, he didn't play or didn't get a reception in the first game so I counted him as playing only five games while projected him to eight. In any case, it seems that this year's Tech is a bit more reliant on one player, and for good reason: Crabtree is sorta good. While Filani is projected to have more yards than Crabtree, it is worth noting that Filani (as well as many others in the 2005 offense) dropped off significantly as they reached the tougher portion of their schedule. However, to be fair, Tech is just about entering their challenging portion as well, but there's no question Crabtree is superior to anyone on 2005 (big duh).
The '05 Red Raiders did seem to spread the ball around slightly more while this year's Tech is slightly more "top heavy" in receiver production. Swindall has 31 receptions right now and Britton has 20. Henderson was a more productive RB in the passing game, for whatever reason, and he was the fourth leading receiver for Tech in 2005. What does all this mean? Not totally sure. This year's Tech most certainly has the best receiver and perhaps has the stronger collection of receivers between the two versions.
Scoring
| tech | opponents | tech avg. | opp. Avg. | |
| 2005 | 322 | 99 | 53.66667 | 16.5 |
| 2008 | 384 | 169 | 48 | 21.125 |
So, 2005 Tech averaged more points per game through six compared to 2008's eight and also averaged less points given up, whatever that means. They scored over five more per game and gave up five less, for a difference of about 10. That's a lot, but again, it's not a perfect comparison. Winning 80-21 against Sam Houston State will skew numbers a bit, but Tech this year certainly played some cupcakes.
Sacks
| Sacks | TFL | Sacks avg | TFL avg | |
| 2005 | 13 | 35 | 2.166667 | 5.833333 |
| 2008 | 20 | 36 | 2.5 | 4.5 |
Since this has been touted as perhaps Tech's best D-line under Leach, especially the DE's, I looked at sack numbers up to the Texas games. As you can see, this year's version is averaging about a half-sack more per game but averaging less tackles for loss. Again, conclude what you will. Brandon Williams and Dixon have combined for 14 sacks, so I'm inclined to agree that this is Leach's most impressive line, regardless of cute little numberse.
Rush defense
| rush yards | rush attempts | td | Y/Att | Y/game | Att/game | TD/game | |
| 2005 | 707 | 208 | 5 | 3.399038 | 117.8333 | 34.66667 | 0.833333 |
| 2008 | 808 | 252 | 9 | 3.206349 | 101 | 31.5 | 1.125 |
Very similar. 2008 has given up less yards per game but more TD's per game in the running game. What does this mean? You tell me. I'm getting tired.
Pass defense
| Yards | Att | Comp | Comp% | Y/Att | Int | TD | Rating | |
| 2005 | 1104 | 213 | 118 | 0.553991 | 5.183099 | 5 | 6 | 103.538 |
| 2008 | 1964 | 303 | 192 | 0.633663 | 6.481848 | 14 | 9 | 118.3749 |
2005's defense seems to have the advantage, but 2008 does have an impressive 14 interceptions so far. You can easily project 2005's numbers to 8 games if you think that is appropriate. In any case, 2008 did have to play Kansas and Todd Reesing, although he ended up throwing three picks.
Conclusions?
Not many, to be honest. Like I said, it's a stretched comparison. Both teams played a relatively weak schedule before Texas, although this year's Tech at least played a ranked Kansas team and walloped them. Texas Tech scores a lot. Mike Leach likes to pass. Etc...
I will say this. One great way to stop the spread is to simply have better athletes. In 2005, that was true. We could lock down with our DB's, disrupt with our pass rush, and shut down the run game all at the same time. Hodges threw for a lot of yards but had to throw a ton of times to do it, finishing with a paltry 5.77 yards per attempt and getting sacked six times. Here is our 2005 secondary compared to this year:
Michael Huff - Earl Thomas
Michael Griffin - Blake Gideon
Cedric Griffin - Chykie Brown (healthy?)
Tarell Brown - Curtis Brown, Deon Beasley
Aaron Ross - Ryan Palmer
Um... I love our guys right now, but not even close.
Our linebackers are arguably better than 2005's, but we did have Aaron Harris. As far as the pass rush, Orakpo is arguably superior to anyone in 2005, but the Robison/Crowder combo was pretty nice too.
I'll try a conclusion: Their offense is a bit better than 2005, offering more pass protection and running the ball better. Their D-line is better, although their back seven may remain suspect. Our defense in 2005 was better in the secondary but perhaps didn't have as good a pass rush. And of course, we had a more explosive and balanced offense in 2005. And we were in Austin. In other words... we're not winning 52-17 again. I'd be thrilled if we did, but I'm betting we're going to have to tough this one out to the very end.
There, I'm a loser. All you other losers can stare at those useless numbers now to come to the conclusions that simple observation would have told you. At the least, it is interesting to see how this Tech offense looks statistically in different years.
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
3 recs |
11 comments
Comments
Great analysis (for a loser)
One point jumped out at me immediately.
Of course, we all expect them to pass. A lot.
How many underdog, overacheiving teams have beat us in the last few years by doing something we really didn’t expect? McGee’s passing performance took all by surprise and put the agros ahead for the win. Other teams have done things like run option when they didn’t do so all year – maybe not for the win – but definitely for a good scare.
I’m starting to think Leach will go with some disquised run plays or maybe even line up with Batch and Woods in the backfield together and try some power running. With the Horn’s tough run defense, that doesn’t win it outright, but it puts the D on its heels. Then they have successfully set up the pass with the run – who’d a thunk it? Not a Mike Leach signature, but he’s tried crazier things.
by LonghorninID on Oct 29, 2008 5:36 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Wonderfully done
Rec’d fo sho
Baron Batch is a big key for Saturday night. If he’s pounding us for 7-10 yard runs to keep us honest, they could get humming.
I can.not. wait. for. this. game.
--PB--
by Peter Bean on Oct 30, 2008 2:25 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think...
the conclusion is pretty obvious (as far as goofy number projections allow).
Tech is better than 2005 in almost every category, even those you don’t mention or dismiss (like a huge and fast O-line)
Texas is not as good as 2005.
Tech plays at home, with a decided advantage in current physical condition and emotional impetus.
Tech wins by 18, like I said.
Peace
... I'm just sayin'
by antiswarm on Oct 31, 2008 9:29 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
i respect your opinion..
…but I hope that you could be humble in defeat or lose. I know that may be a tall task, but I ask that after the game, you come back to see how your predication fared. If you lose, may you be gracious. If you win, please don’t try to be all big-headed, and saying stuff like “I told you!” because there are no facts that support your claim of a blowout. Thanks.
by vy til i die on Oct 31, 2008 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll come by...
I have said all along that if both teams play great, Texas will likely win. I believe Texas has to play a virtually perfect game to win, and I don’t think they will. If Texas scores on virtually every drive, and gets a turnover or two, and gets to Harrell… they win. If not, then I think they lose. Listen, they’ve played three Super Bowls in a row and they are playing a team that will be on crack. But I will come by win or lose and thank you all for a good (but nerve destroying) week of college football talk.
I hope no one gets hurt, everyone plays well, and we win.
Peace
... I'm just sayin'
by antiswarm on Nov 1, 2008 9:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Disagree with one point...
we have not played in three Super Bowls. Three big games yes, but Super Bowls no. This is also the “biggest home game every” for a Texas opponent this year. This is what it is like being Texas because “We’re Texas” and you’re not. I think if Texas can make it though the first quarter close or ahead, we win (I don’t think we can spot 21 this year).
Should be good, you’re right, team with least mistakes should win (and whoever scores the most will).
by Bevoboy94 on Nov 1, 2008 11:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You guys rock
It’s been a great week talking with y’all, and it was a pleasure to watch such a great game. You have a great team, and you had a great comeback. I am glad to be from Texas.
“"We’re Texas" and you’re not.”
This kind of crap aside, it’s been fun and I hope you guys do great the rest of the year.
Peace
... I'm just sayin'
by antiswarm on Nov 1, 2008 11:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tech is better in every category
except for those pesky ones about points for and against. I believe Muschamp feels strongly about those two.
Seriously though this Tech team does feel like it is better even if the stats don’t necessarily jump out and lead to that conclusion. Having said that, I think the national media and Tech fans are seriously underestimating several of our defensive players and Muschamp.
by Horncasting on Oct 31, 2008 2:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I mention Tech's O-line
When I talk about the sack total briefly. But obviously, I don’t really go in depth because O-linemen don’t exactly light up the stat sheet.
I think Harrell is better than Hodges, but their stats are so similar it’s kind of eerie. Maybe we’re just suffering from the recency effect. Who knows.
by TheElusiveShadow on Oct 31, 2008 2:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
It hurts my heart
To look back at the secondary that we had that year. Could stock an NFL backfield with those guys (ex. Ma. Griffin, sorry bro)
by Tackchevy on Oct 31, 2008 4:04 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

by 




















