Let's Talk About: Texas Tech
by billyzane on Jun 17, 2008 12:32 PM CDT
in Texas Longhorns Football
Email
PrintOver in the diaries, errr... "fan posts", a debate is taking place over the merits of Texas Tech's lofty preseason internal aspirations and external expectations. The general consensus seems to be that Tech will probably be better this year than they have been since 2005, they're still Tech: that weird school with the weird coach that upsets a better team every year and loses to inferior team every year.
While this has been true in the past, I don't think that reflects poorly on Mike Leach as a coach, as some seem to. It's the nature of the beast he has created in Lubbock. Leach could have been content with Tech being a mediocre team that loses to good teams with better players and beats the teams it's supposed to. But he instead created a system that allowed his inferior players to beat the best on any given Saturday. Unfortunately for Leach, however, if his offensive system isn't working, Tech can lose to teams that have even more inferior talent than it. Why? In short, no damn defense.
 No longer the starting nose tackle. |
Some people seem to think that there's something inherent about Leach or his offensive system that ensures a lack of defensive prowess at Tech. He doesn't coach them well; he doesn't care about that side of the ball; his offensive system doesn't give them enough rest. While bits and pieces of those explanations might be true, I don't buy them as anything more than small components of why Tech's defense is bad.
I believe it runs much deeper than that. I have touched on this topic before, but not as it exclusively relates to Tech. Essentially, the theory goes: (1) offenses can be enginnered to take advantage of inferior athletes much more easily than defenses. (2) defenses require great athletes to be great. (3) it's very hard to recruit great athletes to Lubbock, Texas. (4) therefore, Leach's offenses have outpaced his defenses. Look around college football at the mid-level programs that have over-achieved in the past 10 years. What do they all have in common? Explosive offense; spotty defense. There's nothing inherent to Mike Leach's offense that makes his defenses bad; it's the fact that he coaches at Texas Tech and not Texas.
If any of you have read the Blind Side by Michael Lewis, you'll recall his discussion of Bill Walsh's innovative West Coast offense. Well, NOW it's called innovative. Back when it was introduced, it was thought of as gimmicky and voodoo. Sound familiar? Then Walsh (who himself said that defensive prowess depends primarily on having great athletes and smart football players, not a scheme) and his 49ers got a defense and won a few Super Bowls and now teams freely use the West Coast Offense as a viable system.
The question is, can Tech get the athletes on defense necessary to be an elite team (even if just for a year or two)? Well, with success comes better recruiting. And Texas Tech has been having quite a bit of success the last 8 years. Not Texas-level success certainly, but a type of success that leads to progressively better recruits who might not choose Tech over Texas, but who would choose Tech over Missouri or Kansas State or Okie State or even perhaps A&M. And once those recruits succeed, he gets better ones. He's never going to get the types of athletes that Texas and OU get, but I don't think he has to.
Texas Tech has beaten OU twice and Texas once under Leach and has a 6-2 record vs. A&M. And he's fairly consistently challenged Texas even in the losses. And he's doing this with a TERRIBLE defense. Imagine what his teams could do with even a mediocre defense. If Tech held Texas to 35 points a game, Tech would win more than half the time, most likely. If Tech had a good defense, not even a great one, I think they could be a top 10 team every year. And I tend to think that it's not impossible for that to happen.
Now, does that mean that Tech can compete for the national championship this year? Probably not. The defense isn't there yet, but it's a whole lot better than it used to be. So can they win the Big 12? Absolutely. Will they? Who the hell knows. The only problem I have with Leach's system is that it's like the knuckleball of offensive systems. When it's working, it's practically unhittable. When it's not, well, it just hangs up there waiting to get hit out of the park.
The question I have is whether Harrell and Crabtree, et al. are good enough football players to make the offense more consistent in a way that all those mediocre offensive players before them were not. That is what's going to make this seson, I think.
105 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
state of TT football
You pretty well nailed it — my compliments, and they don’t come lightly.
Coupla points on Tech football: The school has always done better than anyone in the state when it comes to attracting and developing walk-ons, and this is good because Leach’s program has awfully high attrition among its scholarship players (I have theories on this, but not now).
Also, I don’t think the defense is as weak as you portray it. ANY wide-open offense is going to be feast or famine. When the latter happens, the defense is either stuck with poor field position or given too little time to rest. Even when the former happens, the defense may have to return to the field quickly after the offense scores a long TD. Defense is best played with 75-80 yards to defend, not 40, and after its offense has held the ball a few minutes.
As for Red Raiders ever winning the Big 12, I doubt it (unless Mack and Stoops leave their jobs). Tech won’t win in Norman this year and won’t win in Austin next year, and so it goes. Also, the more times a program plays Leach’s offense, and the more copies of Leach’s attack that other schools employ, the less effective that offense will be.
by edsp on Jun 17, 2008 1:33 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
nicely written
It also makes you wonder why the big name programs (Miami, UCLA, et al) refused to consider Leach’s services. He comes off as rambunctious at times, but he’s a hell of a character and would be at the very least, an interesting face of a program. Pair him with a halfway decent defensive coordinator and an easily recruitable school, and you should have yourselves a winnar.
PS: It appears that recruitable isn’t a word. Although it sounds like it should be.
it isn't a mystery
It also makes you wonder why the big name programs (Miami, UCLA, et al) refused to consider Leach’s services.Unless you are a great, great coach who is going to possibly win a multiple conference titles and/or national titles, most programs don’t want alcoholics representing them. Leach made a run at Miami; they didn’t want him.
Off the top of my head
I’ve heard a lot of the alcohols jokes for Gillispie at UK.
And for what it’s worth, I believe my post was insinuating that Leach at a major program (like UCLA or Miami) could “possibly win multiple conference titles and/or national titles.”
they're probably true
I’ll never deny that Gillispie likes to gallavant. The point of having potential to win multiple conference/national titles was actually made with Gillispie in mind.
I also believe that Leach’s disdain for the defense also keeps him from advancing to a major program. If he was to ever have a shot, I think Miami was that chance. Instead, they hired a defensive coordinator from within (taking nothing from Randy Shannon, who I think will eventually do well there, if he ever gets a competent QB, but hiring a coordinator is not the same as hiring a head coach from another BCS program, prestige-wise).
Should be a word. I'm surprised it's not. nt whills
It's a Horns' world. Even Aggies play hoops with a burnt orange ball.
Is it football season YET?
I dub it our own BON football colloquialism.
Dictionaries just play catch-up any way.
We live on the front of the wave here, not the back.
Well, take out Tech's 476 yards last year
and we have the edge.
Of course, if you take out our 551 yards and 59 points the Horns scored, they have the edge, but still are losers.
So that ain’t much of an ouch as a signifier of how poor our D was.
KSU ouch a&m ouch
the problem with this statement
Imagine what his teams could do with even a mediocre defense.Peole have been saying that since he arrived in 2000; if he doesn’t field a stellar defense by now, it is b/c he isn’t willing to make the changes necessary (i.e. move some athletes off of the offense) to do so.
heres my problem with UT and Beergut's take on Tech
Particularly in the case of UT fans, this just wreaks of Big Brother Syndrome. Great, we’re better than Tech. We all know that. Why the need to belittle what they’ve done in the Big 12. Again, for the close minded, Tech’s the only school in Big 12 history w/o a losing record. And winning either 8 or 9 games per year for 6 years is no joke.
They have the best WR in the country, the preeminent sports journalist in the country wrote an expose on him in the NYT, records are set each and every year. Why not celebrate what they’ve done? So what if they haven’t won any championships. They’re a unique story and program and it’s good for the game, and good for the Big 12.
Teams like Louisville aren’t considered mediocre, but Tech has had just as much success basically, in a much tougher conference, and have been more consistent. There’s nothing mediocre about the program right now. I don’t get the Big Brother need to disparage them.
And here’s one final thought for those who say they don’t play anybody OOC. Well, why the hell would college coaches want to play them? There’s nothing to gain. You won’t see an offense like that really the rest of the year. If you win, meh, solid win. If you lose, you’re in trouble. I can see why nobody wants to play them, ever, even at home.
If it makes you feel better
I consider Louisville to be mediocre.
by BoddickerIsClutch on Jun 17, 2008 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
heres my problem with BLITZBURGH's take on Tech
Particularly in the case of Tech, this just wreaks of…. ok I’m kidding.
But seriously, I am one of those close minded people that you speak of. I do not think that winning 8 or 9 games a year for 6 years is good. College football is about Championships!
What do Purdue, Iowa, Penn St, Washington, Washington St, Maryland, Kansas St, Colorado, and Wake forest have in common???? Since 2000, all of these teams have at least one Conference Championship. Now, right now I’m sure you consider your team better than all these teams, almost every single year, with your 8-9 wins….. But these guys are CHAMPIONS.
50 years from now when a teenage boy is researching schools to attend for football he is going to see that all those teams had a Championship during 2000-2007….... he will not even read anything about Tech.
But hey if those 8-9 wins suits you. then good for you! :)
So why do you care...
if the rest of us do think winning 8 or 9 games a year for 6 years is good, especially if it’s done with inferior talent in a recruiting blackhole with no programmic history to speak of (which is hardly Mike Leach’s fault). I think PB made an excellent point, which I’d add by stating:
If you think Texas Tech should be better than Texas every year, you aren’t being fair to the inherent differences between the two schools. If you think Texas Tech should do considerably better than they have under Leach, than you probably have unrealistic expectations for what it is we are capable of doing.
We’re a program on the up-and-up and you guys think we’re mediocre. If your definition of mediocre involves Texas Tech, then we’re simply having a vocabulary discussion. I don’t think it’s mediocre.
Beergut's take
may be from concern that Tech is supplanting A&M as second best team in Texas.
by Wells on Jun 18, 2008 5:17 PM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
"Has supplanted"
Maybe Wells was just showing Beergut some mercy.
A 6-2 head to head since Leech came on board, combined with a notably higher in conference win percentage over that time frame? Advantage: Pirates.
That said, Tech really needs to get better at winning games outside of Lubbock.
by learned hand on Jun 18, 2008 6:52 PM CDT up reply actions
I'll give you "is supplanting"
While right now, Tech has certainly passed A&M in terms of football prowess, the position is not cemented. If Sherman turns out to be an ok coach, you can expect to go to at least splitting your games with the Aggies starting next season. A&M still out-recruits you by a hell of a lot each year, but since you’ve gotten in their heads with some embarrassing blowouts, they almost literally shit themselves every time they have to play you – Hence the Darnell 1-0-10 defense. If Sherman flops as badly as Fran did, and Leach stays on course, you may start to see recruiting even out a bit between you (That’s a big maybe. I don’t know how expensive the gap is between A&M’s and your facilities, tennis ball cannons not withstanding.) At that point, you will “have supplanted” the Aggies, as it will take a period of rebuilding for A&M to dig itself back to respectability with recruits. Right now, it could end at any time.
Re:
I will dispute that “A&M still out-recruits you by a hell of a lot each year” which can’t be true in years like 2006 (because they didn’t out-recruit us) and probably not true in years like 2002 or 2004 where the difference was marginal. I’m not certain we have to beat A&M in recruiting to beat them on the field anyways, as that hasn’t been necessary at all through the Leach years. But, let me add, that I’m of the opinion that Ruffin is a much, much better recruiter for the D than Leach ever was, and Leach’s program speaks (to the kids) for itself on offense.
Now, to your last point, if supplanting a program means beating them in recruiting (only), then I’m not at all worried about supplanting A&M, ever. I’m more worried about beating them.
Not trying to put down Tech in favor of Aggies by any means...
... I was just noting that A&M could turn it around starting this year if they made the right changes. I’m all for you guys supplanting them, which I did not say means recruiting only. I said that:
At that point, you will "have supplanted" the Aggies, as it will take a period of rebuilding for A&M to dig itself back to respectability with recruits.
referring to out-recruiting them consistently or thereabouts. What I meant was that you already beat them every year, but you could solidify that position if you cut into their recruiting base to the point where it will take them a lengthy period of success (much like the one you’re enjoying now) against you to get things back to the old hierarchy. It’s like you have to win the war (done) but then you have to win over the population (doing). Keep it up, by all means, I’m not trying to marginalize your success by any means.
some corrections
A&M still out-recruits you by a hell of a lot each year, but since you’ve gotten in their heads with some embarrassing blowouts, they almost literally shit themselves every time they have to play you – Hence the Darnell 1-0-10 defense.
How well we recruit doesn’t mean a damn thing if we don’t develop the players; Fran proved that in spades. I think we had better material to work with as far as talent, but Tech had better coaching than Fran and his staff. I don’t think anyone would dispute that.
As far as blowout wins for Tech goes, that only happens in Lubbock, where Fran was scared to play Tech (what was reason enough to fire him, if you ask me). Leach’s one loss to Fran was in College Station, and the last game came down to the last few seconds (not to say that it is good to barely lose the game, losing is still losing). I do think that if we win two games in a row against Tech (beating them in College Station and Lubbock in consecutive years), people will forget about them.
The 1-10 defense was actually run by Carl Torbush, not Darnell. Darnell was more in favor of playing prevent all game long.
I’m not worried about Tech supplanting A&M. Reality is, they don’t have the alumni base or financial resources to do so. I’d wait until Tech can actually win a division title in football before I’d even start talking about this subject.
Tech fans may protest otherwise, but when you consistently perform at an average level, and never take the next step up to be a good or great team, you are mediocre. Tech is incapable of taking the next step and winning the South Division, forget about playing for the Big 12 Championship, but they’ll consistently crank out 7-8 win seasons, and they’re okay with that. This is why they are mediocre.
I personally love Tech (second to UT, of course)
but if it makes you feel better, I consider Louisville to be mediocre as well.
louisville
Maybe not best comparison. Name just came to my head. How about Clemson? They have a very similar record since Leech joined Tech. Point is, his career record in Lubbock is far from mediocre. If you take out his first two years (7 wins a piece I believe), his record’s on the cusp of being top 15 over that span. There’s just nothing mediocre about them. They’re not contenders really for titles against the likes of UT and OU, but for the resources and (lack there of) tradition, they’re really doing great things.
And as you said jc25, who the hell doesnt enjoy watching them play? Even if its comical how they compromise their defense at times, it’s pure entertainment.
I consider Clemson mediocre
For the record though, I dont consider Tech mediocre. They scare the crap out of me every year, and are my favorite Big 12 team, save Texas of course, to watch during bowl games.
by BoddickerIsClutch on Jun 19, 2008 11:15 AM CDT up reply actions
Mr. Crabtree, I'm going to water my lawn now....
I like Mike Leach. You never know what’s going to come out of his mouth next. The whole pirate thing that he’s been doing the past couple of years is working I think. It’s Lubbock, out in the middle of nowhere, no one gives them a shot (at winning). I think Sand Aggies rally around that mentality. The whole “us against the world” thing can be very motivating. He’s done that very well. That and the fact that you cannot stop Michael Crabtree, you can only hope that he’s tired from the last touchdown bodes well for future Sand Aggies. But yeah, the defense has to step up and make it’s mark to win the Big 12, without it they’re just a track team without a finish line.
...and ou still sucks.
I've always said...
That with Leach there, they will never contend seriously for a national title, and probably not a Big 12 title. They can and will field good teams that can threaten bigger college football powers and win 10 games, but with his coaching philosophy, I just don’t see it. You don’t win championships by ignoring defense and special teams.
I will disagree a little with this post: Better defensive players don’t come to Lubbock not only because Texas and OU are better places. Any smart person KNOWS that Leach doesn’t focus on defense. Why come to a school where they won’t help you improve? Even players who would be guaranteed starting defensive jobs at Tech would be wiser to go to Oklahoma, Texas, LSU, and even A&M, even though they would risk competition.
This even hurts Leach on offense. Another big reason I don’t think Leach will ever win big prizes is his refusal to develop a consistent run game. I’ll give him props for his gimmick offense, and it can be entertaining. However, there are always times when you need to grind out tough yardage, and Tech can never consistently do that. What top runningback wants to go there? Leach may attract decent QB recruits (even the great ones are wary, because no Tech quarterback is ever successfully prepared for the NFL and Harrell was the first non-fifth year QB in a while) and good WR recruits, but the other key parts of the football team will always be lacking as long as he sticks with his current philosophy.
I think it’s way too simplistic to say that if Tech had a good defense, they’d be awesome. They need a change in culture, in philosophy, and with that will come a natural sacrifice to offensive numbers. Part of the reason they often have gaudy stats is because their defense can’t stop anyone and it turns into a Wild West shootout. They also need a better run game; this past season, our shootout game featured something like 10 measly yards on the ground from Tech. That’s not going to cut it. When they brought that crap against our national title team of ‘05, they got annihilated as they had to settle for dinking and dunking for measly yardage against our fast secondary.
Leach is funny, and his Raiders are a dangerous team on Saturdays. I am not trying to rain down on Tech right now. However, I can’t simply say that if we stuck a good defense in Lubbock, they’d be great. I think the problems are inherent to the very culture Leach has brought. If they want better D, a better kicking game, and a better run game, Leach has to leave. But if he does, there goes his wacky offense… and then this discussion doesn’t make much sense anymore.
by TheElusiveShadow on Jun 17, 2008 4:13 PM CDT reply actions
To clarify
When I said “any smart person,” I mean the players themselves who are looking for a college to go too. I did not mean billyzane or anyone, who made a very thoughtful and good post that brought up good discussion.
by TheElusiveShadow on Jun 17, 2008 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions
Though I agree with all points...
...and find the post to be a logical, and potentially accurate portrayal of what may come, I rec’d it primarily for the “I will defend mike leach to the death tag”.
by learned hand on Jun 17, 2008 4:27 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
I appreciate the attention you gents give to the details
by learned hand on Jun 18, 2008 1:18 PM CDT up reply actions
The defense has gotten better
Other than one comment about Tech having better total defense numbers there isn’t one statistic cited in this thread. It’s just assumed Tech’s defense sucks balls. That’s possibly because Texas has scored 240 points over the last five Tech games (48 ppg) and that’s all that has been watched. Why don’t we dig a little more deeply.
These are the ranks of Texas Tech with respect to the Big XII in total defense and scoring defense the past five years:
Total D Scoring D
2003 12 9
2004 7 9
2005 5 2
2006 6 8
2007 3 5In fact, in 2005, Texas Tech was #18 in scoring defense, #15 in pass efficiency defense, and #30 in total defense nationally. By all rights, they had a good quality defense that year. Apparently it’s been forgotten by everyone because something special was happening in Austin in 2005.
They have finished in the top half of the conference in total defense 3 years running and were in the top half in scoring defense 2 of the past 3 years. I’m not arguing that they’re great. They aren’t. But they aren’t terrible and I’d say they have been at the least mediocre the past 3 years.
I have left one statistic out however. In rushing defense the past five years they rank 10, 11, 10, 10, and 10 in the Big XII. In every other way, they’ve improved pretty significantly except for this and I actually think this is where the Leach offense has a drawback. They just don’t get a chance to practice against a physical punishing running team because the Leach offense isn’t physical and punishing. I’d consider it similar to how option teams often struggle against sophisticated passing attacks. They just don’t see it done at a high enough quality in practice to get maximum value out of those team practice reps.
That being said, I don’t think Leach should change the offense. He has to find a way to make his rushing defense less of a liability. And in that respect I agree with the original post. He has to make that offense not just great, but almost historically great in terms of consistency and points. His best running defense is probably his own passing offense.
I think you're right
But also let’s not forget that what is any old-guard coach’s response to some wacky offense that puts up a million points a game? Run it down their throats. You burn clock, you score consistently once you’ve worn their defense down by keeping it on the field for 45 minutes, and you frustrate the crap out of them. I think a lot of teams try to keep the offense off the field with the running game, and I’ll bet that’s a sizable part of their running D stats. You should look at yards per carry, in that case.
You're absolutely right, but
it’s hard getting accurate ypc information. The NCAA includes sacks in the total which can deflate the actual running game portion by nearly a yard. A few quick calculations show that teams have been pretty consistently averaging around 4.4 or 4.5 ypc against Tech the past 4 years (they were abysmal in 2003). I’m not sure that’s would rank them consistently 10th in the conference, but I’d be surprised if it put them above 8th.
Your point is well taken, but if a team is playing Texas I’m sure they’d like to do the same thing (keep UT’s offense off the field). But if a team doesn’t have any success, they have to turn to a different strategy (and for the most part they don’t). Against Tech, team’s are having good enough success to continue running the ball. In short, if Tech could stop them team’s would look elsewhere to move the ball. Tech’s not stopping them enough to make team’s do that.
Schedule
Let’s also not forget the weak teams Leach loves to play and bit to a pulp. Every team has their whipping boys, but Tech really does often play no-names that they run up the score on and generally try to humiliate. That gives a big boost to their defensive and offensive numbers. Also, beyond stats, I’ve simply watched several Tech games a year. Their defensive never impresses.
I agree, though, that Tech will certainly have “okay” defenses from time to time. But “okay” defenses aren’t going to win titles, at least not in the Big 12. There will be times they are good, as I said in my post above. They’ll win ten games and knock off a top team or two. But I really believe they’ll never compete for the big prizes with Mike Leach there.
by TheElusiveShadow on Jun 18, 2008 9:27 AM CDT up reply actions
Who knew Pirates "bit to a pulp" their prisoners! ;-) nt whills
It's a Horns' world. Even Aggies play hoops with a burnt orange ball.
Is it football season YET?
it is an axiom of football
In order to win, you have ot be able ot run the ball and stop the run. The inability to do either is why Tech doesn’t get much respect as a team or program capable of winning championships.
Also, I think defensive statistics for passing against Tech are misleading. Because teams can run at will on their defense, there is no reason for them to pass the ball, so pass defense numbers loof good. Also, because of the desire to run the ball and keep Tech’s offense off the field, very little passing is done. I’ve always found it amusing that Tech likes to trumpet their stats on pass defense when their run defense is always proportionally awful.
Well that chart didn't quite come out
That didn’t work very well. In total defense Tech ranked 12, 7, 5, 6, and 3 the past five years versus the Big XII. In scoring defense Tech ranked 9, 9, 2, 8, and 5.
Leach and moderation
I think the flow here indicates that if Leach should moderate the offense, shift some emphasis to defense – both recruiting and allocating players – the team might have better balance and have an improved defensive posture.
I think the odds of this happening are about the same as the winds dying down in Lubbock for six months.
DKR put the best athletes on defense.
Fred did too.
Mackovic put them on offense. Our general recruiting ability helped his defenses early on but couldn’t save it in the long run. Although we did get a residual taste for wine (see FP).
It was the Spiker who started pushing Tech to the passing edge before he lost “institutional control” as they say. Spike knew Texas football and understood, with the coming of the Big 12, that Tech had to have defense. And he parlayed the Bill Yoeman facility for local recruiting into West Texas style football. It wasn’t a big empire, it certainly wasn’t Houston, but it was part of the basis for Leach. Maybe he should cast a wider net nationally although I recommend blindfolding recruits who actually visit.
Leach just amped up the offensive side and let the defense take what was left. He can’t let the defense moderate much because that’s his recruiting siren song. Pirates plunder people who don’t have much defense; they studiously avoid well-armed opponents. Unfortunately, the Big 12 schedule isn’t made for pirates. Aaaaargggggghhhhh.
The real gamble for the future is if he is willing to moderate the offense, come down 100-150 yards and 10-15 points a game and invest that in the defense. Does he want to get serious? Has he looked at his team in light of the kind of teams he’d being playing at the BCS top level? (Now that’s an ouch.) Certainly he can rationalize that as well as he rationalizes the current situation. He’s a fricking lawyer (no offense to lawyers) and a pro rationalizer, and obviously an offensive detailer of the most obsessed sort.
So, while I like BZ’s post and agree with most of it, I think Leach is maximizing his early advantage right now – which will probably be a 7-0 start – to get TV and recruiting attention.
And I also see they are two injuries from oblivion.
please explain this statement
And he parlayed the Bill Yoeman facility for local recruiting into West Texas style football.Are you saying Yeoman focused his recruiting on the local area, an approach Dykes duplicated?
Dykes’ genius was that he knew that small high school in West Texas would take their best athletes and put them at RB and QB, and run the option. He would mine those schools in recruiting, sometimes bringing in 6 RBs in one class, and then move those kids to the secondary or LB, and let them use their speed to shut down opposing offenses. Dykes used an aggressive 4-4 defense and the running game to win games; he coached in the SWC and the early Big 12 at a time when offenses were running-dominant, and his approach worked. He would have had to adjust his defensive and offensive schemes in today’s Big 12.
by Beergut on Jun 18, 2008 3:22 AM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
Recc'd
For correct usage of quotes.
/golfclap
by BoddickerIsClutch on Jun 18, 2008 10:21 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree that's worth applauding.
But BiC don’t you see it happening to a few other BONers this week?
It's a Horns' world. Even Aggies play hoops with a burnt orange ball.
Is it football season YET?
Yeah I think I even did it once - Stupid BBC tags...
At least if the most consistent offender can fix it, there’s hope for the rest, right?
by BoddickerIsClutch on Jun 18, 2008 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions
Spike didn't change W. Tex football, he mined it
in a similar manner.
Yeoman’s faced an earlier but similar problem recruiting for UH against Texas, LSU, OU and A&M. His facility for recruiting in the Houston area – and UH’s somewhat lower standards – was successful is building up the Coogs around a lot of local talent. He seldom grabbed the big names but he put good talent on the field.
In this respect, Spike, who was a beloved West Texas son from Ballinger, had an inside route in West Texas; it wasn’t as fertile as Houston and Spike did recruit the whole state. Spike took advantage of proximity, reputation and a incredible storehouse of good will. (And there still is; they talk about him in Ballinger like he lives down the street.)
Your analysis of how West Texas teams deployed their talent is accurate. Tech did center around running and good defense with RBs like Byron Hanspard. But if you remember, as the Big 12 began to form up, he started moving toward the passing game and even scheduled OU, Penn State and other stronger teams trying to build up the program. He knew he still didn’t have the horses that Texas, OU and A&M did.
Spike got them as far as he could before he ran into NCAA trouble trying to play catch-up (and those problems wentt specifically went to recruiting academically sub-standard athletes). He was lucky to have loyal assistant coaches.
Loyalty
Nothing like having your son(s) run your offense!
Rick now co-owner of the Lubbock Renegades (af2)
Sonny didn’t overlap with Spike at TTU?, now Ariz OC
Rick was our star QB for the fierce Pearce Jr. High Pirates! arrggggghhhh Spike held him out a year so he’d be more “developed”. Their sister Bebe developed nicely as well. heh heh
He lives up here at Horseshoe Bay now.
Heard Fran just moved here, too.
I don't understand.
You spend all this time shitting on Mike Leach and Texas Tech, all while saying:
Dykes’ genius was that he knew that small high school in West Texas would take their best athletes and put them at RB and QB, and run the option. He would mine those schools in recruiting, sometimes bringing in 6 RBs in one class, and then move those kids to the secondary or LB, and let them use their speed to shut down opposing offenses. Dykes used an aggressive 4-4 defense and the running game to win games; he coached in the SWC and the early Big 12 at a time when offenses were running-dominant, and his approach worked.
Ok… In the Big 12 he never won more than 7 games, which you’ve elsewhere categorized as mediocre. He had two 9 win seasons, both in the SWC. He qualified for 7 bowl games in his entire 14 year tenure at Tech (Leach is already at 8) and won just 2 of them (Leach is at 5-3). Dykes finished the season ranked twice, at 16/19 and 20/23 (Coaches/AP). Leach has finished ranked three times in the last four years.
I’m not saying this to dog on Spike Dykes, but to point out that you obviously have a grudge against Leach or else you wouldn’t be praising Dykes for accomplishing considerably less when you take into account the entire body of work of both coaches. Either Spike Dykes is great and Leach is also by comparison, or neither is.
Nice comment.
Spike was an organic expression of West Texas in so many ways, and sometimes as rough and windy.
Leach is an expression and projection of himself.
And come to think of it, except for the dryness, the distance and the frickin’ wind, West Texas is sorta defenseless. Except against aggies.
you're reading waaaaaaay too much into one word
Saying Spike is a genius for finding a way to get talent to Lubbock and saying he is a great coach are two very different things. Spike had flaws as a coach, too, just like Leach, but that isn’t what this thread is about. The only reason I even mentioned Dykes is b/c whills brought him up in his comment. That comment is really irrelevant to the rest of this thread, b/c it is a separate topic.
As for saying his approach worked, I was addressing his defensive scheme. With the proliferation of passing offenses in the Big 12 today, a 4-4 scheme would get shredded worse than texas’ ‘07 secondary.
Let's talk about TECH's Q-B
Let’s talk about M. Crab-tree
Let’s talk about spreadin’ em out and lettin’ em fly and
TECH
Let’s talk a-BOWt TECH.
They talked like this in '95. Zebbie. 48-7.
They talked like this when they had All-American Donnie Anderson, especially his senior year. Gonna stomp our ass but good. Anderson got 15 yards. 33-7.
Let ‘em talk. Maybe they got it.
Thanks
Response from an actual Techsan because I’m waiting on a program to finish and my usual SN blogger is out of town:
Fair assessment of the Tech program in the OP. I’m big on fostering a good relationship with UT (hell, I live in Austin now). I don’t mind the big-brother little-brother relationship that we’ve got going on and for the most part the “rivalry” is super friendly (as long as you don’t try to sit in the general admission student seating at Jones).
For the longest time, TTU has had a defense that CAN hold up against many opponents but against one or two it will collapse and get destroyed. This year that happened against OSU, UT, and Missouri. Missouri was an exception, though: the offense gave the defense no help and actually put the defense in horrible positions repeatedly. Once Lyle Setencich was replaced with Ruffin McNeil as our defensive coordinator, things started getting much better. After the OSU game when he was replaced (last 7 Big XII matchups), even with the near 600 yards in our collapse against UT, TTU’s defense was #1 in yardage and #3 in scoring.
We’ve been wondering for years when Leach was going to feel like he had the talent level on offense to spend time building the talent on defense. It’s been long in coming, but we’re finally getting to that point, I think. We only took 16 players, but we also only lost 4 players to graduation and I think we only had 18 scholarships left to give. Of those players, 7 defense, 4 are offensive linemen, 1 is a kicker and 1 will probably end up on defense. The primary criticism of leach’s recruiting is that he takes too many wr’s. This year he took one, along with 1 running back and his yearly QB. 5 of the defensive players are defensive linemen. Early recruiting says that he’s going after more defensive players this year, though we have a hard time getting players to commit as early as they do for UT.
To some of the other allegations: From the inside I’m happier with consistency than one great year and many years of bad play. I haven’t seen this “player retention” problem that Leach has. We don’t loose many players yearly and if we do, it’s usually because Leach comes down hard on miscreants (though not on bar-room/parking spot brawlers).
And the number 1 reason why Tech’s defense has sucked all these years: Lyle Setencich. The guy just couldn’t coach and was worthless on the recruiting trail.
Anyway, that’s my post. How you guys?
by kayakyakr on Jun 18, 2008 11:09 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
How you guys?
It's a Horns' world. Even Aggies play hoops with a burnt orange ball.
Is it football season YET?
We will not discriminate against Native Americans on this blog
Unless they’re Sam Bradford, but then we’re just discriminating because he’s a Sooner.
How you guys!
It's a Horns' world. Even Aggies play hoops with a burnt orange ball.
Is it football season YET?
How you guys.
It's a Horns' world. Even Aggies play hoops with a burnt orange ball.
Is it football season YET?
Good, thanks for asking!
kayakyakr, how you guys?
hb, how you guys?
It's a Horns' world. Even Aggies play hoops with a burnt orange ball.
Is it football season YET?
decent enough
can’t wait for this bloody heat wave to end, though. 95 degree high today! hallelujah, it’s a miracle!
So you want us to call you Dumps?
How you guys, Dumps?
It's a Horns' world. Even Aggies play hoops with a burnt orange ball.
Is it football season YET?
I guess my take is...
I don’t think Texas Tech has done anything recently to warrant being treated as a giant, but then again, I’d have to agree with BillyZane’s post that we’re having to do more with less. The football team is currently staring at A&M in the rear view mirror despite that school’s recruiting, facilities, budget, and historical edge over Tech. I don’t see us moving any direction but away from them going forward.
Mike Leach’s defenses have been bad, but I’m not convinced it is systemic or a result of Leach “hating” the D. He simply isn’t focused on it. What he needs - what many great defenses in the history of College Football have needed - is a good defensive coordinator. (Texas fans should appreciate that, no? Aren’t you excited about Muschamp?) Lyle wasn’t one. We hope Ruffin is, and the defense looked considerably better with him at the helm. Word is that he’s also a great recruiter which, admittedly, Leach has never been.
What Leach has done is used scheme to even the playing field (to a degree) with more talented teams. For those of us who think Football is not just a game of luck but of strategy, scheme, and ingenuity, Leach should be applauded for what he has done. Texas Tech is recognizable because of our offense. People are familiar with some of the things we’re doing on the football field in a small town in West Texas, and the reason is Mike Leach (who also happens to be an entertaining character).
One of the results of having this wacky offense is that, eventually, players start deciding that Texas Tech might be the kind of place where they can turn great CFB careers into great NFL careers.
I guess it’s taken for granted, now, that Tech will have great quarterback recruits. Consider the words of recent 4-star Tech QB commit Jacob Karem:
“It was just a great fit as far as the offense goes,” said Karam. ” I am really looking forward to getting up there in Lubbock next fall and be a part of Coach Leach’s program where they throw the ball 50-60 times a game.
You’d think, duh, but it wasn’t always like that. Sonny Cumbie was a walk-on. Was Cody Hodges so good? Where are BJ and Kliff Kingsbury, now? Josh Heupel was good enough to play at Weber State University before Mike Leach turned him into an eventual Heisman trophy runner up. Somehow OU went from one of the worst offenses in the Big 12 prior to Leach to one of the best… they scored over 20 more points per game with Leach than they had prior to his arrival.
Now it’s taking hold elsewhere, I hope, starting at receivers. Michael Crabtree could be just the beginning, though, again, I hope Welker has an impact on the program by proving that good receivers can come here and then go on to thrive in the NFL.
What does all this do for the defense? Nothing, but that’s what happens when your DC isn’t very good. Ruffin appears to be miles ahead of where Lyle was, and the defense was best in total defense in the Big 12 after he took over.
In any event, I’ve run out of time. Let me just say that I don’t think Texas Tech is the best team in the Big-12, but at least one Tech fan is excited about the program and pleased with the results under Mike Leach. You guys think it’s “mediocre”; everyone is entitled to their opinion.
reply
You’d think, duh, but it wasn’t always like that. Sonny Cumbie was a walk-on. Was Cody Hodges so good? Where are BJ and Kliff Kingsbury, now? Josh Heupel was good enough to play at Weber State University before Mike Leach turned him into an eventual Heisman trophy runner up.
Only problem with this theory is that Tech was allegedly getting good QB recruits before. Didn’t Cumbie beat out some juco All-American QB who you eventually moved to WR? Leach was able to get QB recruits to come to Lubbock before Harrell, but I don’t think they were able to mentally digest the offense (Spurrier had the same problem with elite prospects at Florida). B.J. Symons actually was recruited by several programs, and it was a coup for Tech in signing him. He is still the best QB Tech has ever had, imo, especially under Leach.
The football team is currently staring at A&M in the rear view mirror despite that school’s recruiting, facilities, budget, and historical edge over Tech. I don’t see us moving any direction but away from them going forward.
Sorry, but until you can actually win a division or conference title in football, you’re still behind A&M. Right now, you’re just gutty little spoilers, ala Oklahoma State. Okie State fields teams with gaudy offenses and no defense, too. The thing is, if Tech was ever going to take that next step up as a program, they had ample chance to do it during the Franchione regime. They squandered that opportunity. If Sherman does well at A&M, Tech will just remain a second-tier program.
Re:
Only problem with this theory is that Tech was allegedly getting good QB recruits before. Didn’t Cumbie beat out some juco All-American QB who you eventually moved to WR?
You’re talking about Robert Johnson, right? I wouldn’t say Cumbie beat him out, rather that Johnson failed to beat out Cumbie, though I guess that’s approaching a distinction with no difference. Or, alternatively, Leach decided he was better off with Johnson as a WR rather than with Cumbie as a backup QB. However that went down, it worked out; our offense continued humming.
Leach was able to get QB recruits to come to Lubbock before Harrell, but I don’t think they were able to mentally digest the offense (Spurrier had the same problem with elite prospects at Florida).
I assure you that isn’t the case, as Leach’s offense is surprisingly simple. But if you won’t take my word for it, trust in the fact that he had little trouble teaching it to a new person for four consecutive years (Symons, Cumbie, Hodges, Harrell). I’ll throw in Josh Heupel and Tim Couch as people who were likewise easily taught. Besides Robert Johnson… who is it you think had trouble “mentally digest[ing] the offense”?
There is no question that Symons was the best QB the team has had under Leach, but that’s the point; Cumbie, Hodges, and Kingsbury were not that highly recruited. Even Symons turned out to be not nearly as good as his numbers, as his career fizzled after college. But if you give Mike Leach a competent CFB QB you get comically good numbers, in fact, the most productive season in the history of the sport.
My point was that Leach does more with less. You reply with “Well he had Symsons and Robert Johnson”; I snicker at the latter, I say you’re righta bout the former, but he also had Hodges and Cumbie, and he also won a lot of football games with them.
Sorry, but until you can actually win a division or conference title in football, you’re still behind A&M.
That’s a fairly convenient metric for a team that’s won exactly one more Big 12 championship than Texas Tech, and that was 10 years ago. Congrats on a great 1998, but you’re still 3-9 against us in the Big 12 era and you haven’t won in Lubbock in 15 years. Somewhere else you said “well all we need to do is beat Tech twice in a row and everyone will forget”... isn’t that a bit presumptuous? Why don’t you focus on beating us once.
Team A won a conference championship in 1998. Team B is 9-3 against Team A. Who is better?
Call it “gutty little spoiler” or call it “mediocre” but whatever it is Tech is right now, I’d much rather be us than you. A&M isn’t going anywhere, fast.
by Skin Patrol on Jun 20, 2008 9:18 PM CDT up reply actions 4 recs
reply
I assure you that isn’t the case, as Leach’s offense is surprisingly simple. But if you won’t take my word for it, trust in the fact that he had little trouble teaching it to a new person for four consecutive years (Symons, Cumbie, Hodges, Harrell). I’ll throw in Josh Heupel and Tim Couch as people who were likewise easily taught. Besides Robert Johnson… who is it you think had trouble "mentally digest[ing] the offense"?
Maybe I shouldn’t have said “mentally digest the offense” and instead said “read a defense”. There were other QBs, like Phillip Daugherty(?) and Chris Todd who were supposed to be studs, but couldn’t cut it, for whatever reason.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t Symons, Cumbie, and Hodgers 5th year seniors? It isn’t like he was teaching it to them in one year.
You reply with "Well he had Symsons and Robert Johnson"; I snicker at the latter, I say you’re righta bout the former, but he also had Hodges and Cumbie, and he also won a lot of football games with them.
You seem to think I’m trying to say Leach’s success is due to him having superior talent; I’m not saying anything of the sort. I’m simply saying that this argument that Leach’s success would lead to improvements in recruiting and therefore a super-charging of his offense has been made for years, without tangible results. According to Tech fans, (I have to preface this by saying I rarely follow recruiting, especially Tech recruiting), both Todd and Daughterty were two QBs who were highly thought of. Neither could make it happen at Tech, despite their recruiting pedigree.
Johnson is one person I would point to as someone who couldn’t read a defense well enough to execute Tech’s offense, despite its simplicity, but I’ve also heard other reasons why he was moved to WR (it wasn’t b/c of Cumbie’s physical skills, that’s for sure).
That’s a fairly convenient metric for a team that’s won exactly one more Big 12 championship than Texas Tech, and that was 10 years ago.
I’m not even requiring you to win a conference title, it is ludicrous to say you’ve “surpassed” A&M as a program when you can’t even win your division. Texas Tech joined the SWC in 1960; since then they have NEVER won an outright conference title. You’re talking about A&M winning one 10 years ago, when you’ve NEVER won one. If history has taught us anything, it is that Tech is incapable of winning conference titles, and is mediocre. If winning a conference title 10 years ago is to be scorned, what does that say about a program that has NEVER won one?
Somewhere else you said "well all we need to do is beat Tech twice in a row and everyone will forget"… isn’t that a bit presumptuous? Why don’t you focus on beating us once.
We don’t have a problem beating you once. We did it in ‘98, 2000, 2004. We seem to have a problem beating you in College Station and following it with a win in Lubbock. Of course, we’ve also had Fran as our head coach the last few years, so we’ve pretty much been facing you with one hand tied behind our backs, as far as coaching goes.
Team A won a conference championship in 1998. Team B is 9-3 against Team A. Who is better?
If just beating a team was all that was required to claim one program has surpassed another, then people would be saying A&M has surpassed texas. That isn’t the case.
One of Tech’s biggest problems, imo, is that they consider any season that they beat A&M as a success, and that is the aim of their season. The last three years in a row, they’ve followed wins over A&M with losses in their very next game. In ‘06 and ‘07, they followed their win over A&M with two straight losses (‘05 would have been the same if not for the referee help against OU in Lubbock). Until Tech gets over this habit of blowing their wad on the A&M game, and decides the rest of the season actually matters, they will never be more than a mediocre program that is a gutty little spoiler, ala Oklahoma State.
Re:
Maybe I shouldn’t have said "mentally digest the offense" and instead said "read a defense". There were other QBs, like Phillip Daugherty(?) and Chris Todd who were supposed to be studs, but couldn’t cut it, for whatever reason.
“for whatever reason”? How about: Teams can only start one quarterback at a time. I think it’s strange you’re tyring to convince others that Chris Todd couldn’t grasp the Tech system even though you link an article titled: Still not settled: Red Raiders quarterback battle pushes limits. Wouldn’t you have been better served by one that said: “Chris Todd can’t hack it, can’t read defenses”?
What you seem to be saying is that every single backup quarterback in CFB history has been unable to cut it. There’s an alternative explanation; someone else was simply better.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t Symons, Cumbie, and Hodgers 5th year seniors? It isn’t like he was teaching it to them in one year.
The point I was trying to make was that the offense can’t be that difficult to digest if you’ve never had a single season where a quarterback has failed to digest it, especially if you include the fact that you’ve had many quarterbacks (we have) at least one of whom was not even offered a scholarship. If it is so difficult, who has this offense been difficult for? Who has tried, but failed, to make it hum? Has Tech had a bad offense under Leach?
I’m simply saying that this argument that Leach’s success would lead to improvements in recruiting and therefore a super-charging of his offense has been made for years, without tangible results.
Michael Crabtree was the first freshman in CFB history to win the Biletnikof (sp). Graham Harrell was th first blue chip recruit Mike Leach has had in Lubbock. We just got a 4 star QB. We have 10 commits already, which is more than I’m used to remembering at this time of the year. I’m very, very pleased with the direction of recruiting in Lubbock.
Without tangible results? We have the highest preseason ranking we’ve ever had since I’ve been following Tech. Maybe that turns out to be hype, but we’re sitting higher (in an admittedly meaningless poll) now than we ever have. If you think there haven’t been any tangible results, you’re alone.
According to Tech fans, (I have to preface this by saying I rarely follow recruiting, especially Tech recruiting), both Todd and Daughterty were two QBs who were highly thought of. Neither could make it happen at Tech, despite their recruiting pedigree.
Of course he would say this, but Chris Todd doesn’t think his time was poorly spent in Lubbock:
Was (your decision) centered around playing time? “Playing here for a year, or whatever I would have started, that would have been good if that’s the way things would have panned out. Given a chance to play somewhere for two, good solid years, another year of experience is just huge. It’s something you can’t replace.”
What do you expect of the guy that he failed to accomplish? He joined a team deep at his position (with Harrell) and, at least per the link you provided, gave good chase towards the starting spot. Not everyone on the roster can start at QB. Players can be backups without failing to “make it happen.” Sometimes circumstance is unfortunate.
Also: After you’ve just said that Leach’s success hasn’t led to improvements in recruitment or any tangible benefits, you point out that we, for the first time since I’ve followed the team, had not one but TWO heavily recruited quarterbacks on the roster. Having a guy like Chris Todd as your backup QB is phenomenal—unfortunately, he left.
Johnson is one person I would point to as someone who couldn’t read a defense well enough to execute Tech’s offense, despite its simplicity, but I’ve also heard other reasons why he was moved to WR (it wasn’t b/c of Cumbie’s physical skills, that’s for sure).
We’re now hundreds, thousands of words into this discussion and you’ve provided an example of exactly one player who definitively could not read defenses (Chris Todd I ain’t buying) sufficient to lead the team, and he happens to have been an athletic quarterback out of JuCo who somehow was too dumb to learn the offense at quarterback but not so dumb that he couldn’t learn it at wide receiver.
Given that we hummed right along without RoJo at QB, why do you think Tech’s offense is too difficult to teach? Have we not taught it to enough kids yet? How many consecutive, consistently powerful offensive seasons do we need to have before you are convinced that this offense is both powerful but also teachable? Give me a number, so I can postpone this conversation until that date.
I’m not even requiring you to win a conference title, it is ludicrous to say you’ve "surpassed" A&M as a program when you can’t even win your division.
Ok, so have we passed Baylor? Are you suggesting that you can ONLY rank Big-12 teams that have won division championships?
If that’s your point, then just admit that Texas Tech could be 100-0 against Texas A&M over the next 100 years, and independent a division championship you’d still say, in 2108, that 1998 is the reason Texas Tech cannot possibly supplant Texas A&M. I doubt that’s your position.
I happen to think 9-3 is sufficiently similar to 100-0 to claim, quite unashamedly, that Texas Tech football has surpassed Texas A&M football. And if we never lose another game to the Aggies but also never win a division championship, that will still be true. None of that discussion relies on the mounds of other evidence that suggests Tech has surpassed A&M, such as postseason rankings and Bowl game records and appearences.
Once more, though, to save both of us some time: How long will A&M have to be horrible before you will admit that 1998 is too long ago to matter? Can we return in 2050 if A&M has done much of the same (nothing) and finally put to rest 1998? I doubt it, given how much slobbering I see at A&M message boards and elsewhere over a pre-WW2 NC.
If your position is that the past permanently and forever buys your program an excuse, just say it out in the open. Just admit there is nothing that Texas A&M can ever, for the rest of time, possibly do to change the fact that they are really super cool awesome. That’s not the position of most fans, but you’re entitled to yours. I, like most fans, cheer for my team in the present.
You’re talking about A&M winning one 10 years ago, when you’ve NEVER won one. If history has taught us anything, it is that Tech is incapable of winning conference titles, and is mediocre. If winning a conference title 10 years ago is to be scorned, what does that say about a program that has NEVER won one?
What I am saying is that winning a conference championship 10 years ago, under a different regime, with different players, says as much about a team in 2008 as does having won a CC in 1917, which says the same about a team in 2008 as having never won one at all. I’m not the one saying: Texas Tech has a stronger program history than Texas A&M. I’m saying that Texas Tech is a better team today, has supplanted Texas A&M right now (and will soon in head-to-head) to which you respond: But how can that be if they haven’t done what A&M did 10 years ago? The simplest answer, that you obviously can’t stomach, is that my definition of right now doesn’t include 10 years ago. Yours does, and it’s convenient, which is why I can’t blame you.
I would rather be better than Texas A&M right now than have won a conference championship in 1998 but be worse than you. (Indeed, I would sacrifice any amount of historical relevance if it could be traded for a National Championship next year. I think that’s true of many, probably most, fans, present company notwithstanding since UT does have a pretty impressive history.)
We don’t have a problem beating you once. We did it in ‘98, 2000, 2004. We seem to have a problem beating you in College Station and following it with a win in Lubbock.
Well, you’re the one who talked about history, so let me just say: You’ve had a problem winning in Lubbock since 1994. To quote a great man (slightly edited):
If history has taught us anything, it is that [Texas A&M] is incapable of [beating Texas Tech more than once in a row].
I doubt you think THAT particular bit of history is determinative, though. Texas Tech has been incapable of winning a CC and thus will be forever. Texas A&M has been incapable of beating TT twice but will do so anyways. You tell me how that works.
If just beating a team was all that was required to claim one program has surpassed another, then people would be saying A&M has surpassed texas. That isn’t the case.
Well, duh, because A&M isn’t 9-3 against UT. If you want to go back to the 19th century, you’re winning at below a 31.6% clip. Why that makes you guys football rivals is absolutely beyond me, but whatev. You’re 2-4 over the last 6 games; I haven’t the foggiest what you are over the last 12, but I imagine it’s much closer to 3-9 than 9-3. I’ll let you do that research.
One of Tech’s biggest problems, imo, is that they consider any season that they beat A&M as a success…
Why the fuck is that OUR problem? That sounds like YOUR problem. I like beating teams.
The last three years in a row, they’ve followed wins over A&M with losses in their very next game. In ‘06 and ‘07, they followed their win over A&M with two straight losses (‘05 would have been the same if not for the referee help against OU in Lubbock).
Uh, yea, that wouldn’t have anything to do with us playing ranked Missouri in ‘06 and ‘07. I don’t need to know who our previous week’s opponent is to know that we’ll struggle against good teams.
That we were even in the game late in 2005 against OU (AND IN MY OPINION WE WON OUTRIGHT, REFS DID NOTHING TO INFLUENCE THAT GAME GO TECH—RAIDER POWER) kind of deflates your theory that playing A&M has some kind of mental influence over us.
Until Tech gets over this habit of blowing their wad on the A&M game, and decides the rest of the season actually matters, they will never be more than a mediocre program that is a gutty little spoiler, ala Oklahoma State.
And we’re back to the fundamental question at hand: Would you rather be a a “mediocre” team, a “gutty little spoiler” a flakakalaiakakashabmoookamoo or Texas Tech by any other name, or would you rather be Texas A&M right now? The answer is Texas Tech as far as I’m concerned. You can call us whatever the fuck you like, but however you say it, it’s spelled 9-3, only team without a losing season in the Big-12 era, considerable Bowl appearances with wins, etc. I love, love, love where the program is at. It takes 2 minutes on TexAgs to know the same isn’t true at your school. And neither was your AD, either, since he went after a new coach.
Wreck Em.
by Skin Patrol on Jun 21, 2008 7:06 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
You're succumbing to delusions
or something.
I think it’s strange you’re tyring to convince others that Chris Todd couldn’t grasp the Tech system even though you link an article titled: Still not settled: Red Raiders quarterback battle pushes limits.
You reference me linking an article on Chris Todd. I did no such thing. Go back and look at my reply again; there aren’t any links regarding Todd. Serious question: Were you drunk or high when you replied to me?
The point I was trying to make was that the offense can’t be that difficult to digest if you’ve never had a single season where a quarterback has failed to digest it, especially if you include the fact that you’ve had many quarterbacks (we have) at least one of whom was not even offered a scholarship. If it is so difficult, who has this offense been difficult for? Who has tried, but failed, to make it hum?
Can you explain to me why the offense didn’t “hum” against New Mexico under Sonny Cumbie? Why couldn’t Harrell make it “hum” against TCU for more than 3 points? 2004 was Leach’s 5th season in Lubbock. If his recruiting has been so out of sight b/c of his offense, why couldn’t you find someone better than a walk-on to QB your team?
If that’s your point, then just admit that Texas Tech could be 100-0 against Texas A&M over the next 100 years, and independent a division championship you’d still say, in 2108, that 1998 is the reason Texas Tech cannot possibly supplant Texas A&M.
I’m simply saying that you can’t claim you have surpassed a program when you are consistently as mediocre as Tech is. Tech has never won a conference title outright, and consistently features mediocre teams under Mike Leach. Until Tech can win at least a divison title, it is ludicrous to compare them to other programs who have won division titles and conference championships.
Texas Tech has been incapable of winning a CC and thus will be forever. Texas A&M has been incapable of beating TT twice but will do so anyways. You tell me how that works.
I have 40 years of history to back up the first statement. I only need go back to 1993-94 to refute the second.
you respond: But how can that be if they haven’t done what A&M did 10 years ago?
I’m not saying “How can that be?”, I’m flat-pout stating it hasn’t happened. We’re talking about THe PROGRAM overall, not the team. You seem to think that maintaining a steady level of mediocrity is enough to surpass a program which has a down season (or a few down seasons in a row). Let me ask you something: Tech has obviously had a better record overall over the last 3 years than Miami. Do you think Tech as a program has surpassed Miami?
There are certain programs that have resources and traditions that make them the haves of college football, regardless of their record. Regardless of having a losing season (or two or three), they are always the programs which never have a shortage of people anxious to coach there. This is a reason why Oklahoma can go through years of mediocrity in the ‘90s, and then hire Bob Stoops, and be back on top again. The media respects their program as a traditional winner, and when OU began winning again under Stoops, they were all too happy to put them back on the top of the rankings. If Miami begins winning again under Shannon, they will race back to into the polls, too. Those are two “have” programs.
Tech is a have-not, and until they begin winning championships, they will always be a have-not.
Why the fuck is that OUR problem? That sounds like YOUR problem. I like beating teams.
Because until they start focusing on not defining their season by just one game but on actually winning championships, they will always be a mediocre program.
Uh, yea, that wouldn’t have anything to do with us playing ranked Missouri in ‘06 and ‘07. I don’t need to know who our previous week’s opponent is to know that we’ll struggle against good teams.
You’ve just proven my point. Mediocre teams lose to ranked teams. You yourself just admitted that mediocre Tech will “struggle against good teams”.
What is your excuse for Colorado ‘06, who was the worst team in the conference that season?
The answer is Texas Tech as far as I’m concerned.
Of course you’re gonna say Texas Tech, you’re a Tech fan, you’re happy with mediocrity.
I love, love, love where the program is at. It takes 2 minutes on TexAgs to know the same isn’t true at your school. And neither was your AD, either, since he went after a new coach.
Here, we come to the definitive differences between the two programs. At Tech, a 7-5 season is reason for celebration and a contract extension for the coach. At A&M, the coach is fired. One program expects, accepts, and celebrates mediocrity, the other program wants to win championships. I would rather be at a program that is down, and is making the changes necessary to move back up, than be at a program where other programs down cycles are considered the highmark of your history.
Re:
You reference me linking an article on Chris Todd. I did no such thing. Go back and look at my reply again; there aren’t any links regarding Todd. Serious question: Were you drunk or high when you replied to me?
Serious answer: Drunk.
Ignoring my mistake on you not linking to Todd, I will say that he competed for a starting spot at Tech and there was never indication that he lost the starting job for failure to understand the offense. He played, he just didn’t play as well as Harrell.
Can you explain to me why the offense didn’t "hum" against New Mexico under Sonny Cumbie? Why couldn’t Harrell make it "hum" against TCU for more than 3 points?
Regarding New Mexico… it kind of did. We outgained them by over 150 yards and lost the turnover battle, yet still managed to keep it within three. You fumble your opening drive and your kicker boots two field goals, it’s tough to win close games on the road, yea? New Mexico had a top 25 defense in 2004 and we had 480 yards against them. They had a top 25 defense that gave up just 320 yards a game and 20 points per game that year. We exceeded both in the game. If you’re really arguing that our offense wasn’t humming in 2004, I’d just remind that:
11th scoring
6th total yards
1st passing yards
And we call that an off year at Tech.
I think if you’re looking at the statistics of a team over the course of a decade, it’s pretty simple to cherry pick a bad game. You won’t name a National Champion over that time period that hasn’t laid an egg at some point, so I hardly think the fact that Tech only had 480 yards against New Mexico in 2004 is indicative of a weak offense. Were I selecting statistics on which to measure that fact, I’d look to the team’s entire body of work over that period which, incidentally, is unrivaled in College Football.
2004 was Leach’s 5th season in Lubbock. If his recruiting has been so out of sight b/c of his offense, why couldn’t you find someone better than a walk-on to QB your team?
I’ll trust Mike Leach over you when it comes to evaluating Tech quarterbacks, and though Cumbie was a walk-on he happened to (at the time) finish as the 6th most productive quarterback in NCAA history. Either RoJo was a fantastic QB prospect or he wasn’t, you brought him up, and Leach evaluated the two against each other and chose Cumbie.
My premise throughout this argument is that Leach’s recruiting HAS NOT “been so out of sight” hence my heightened appreciation for what Leach has done relative to, say, Texas A&M. I would suggest to you that recruiting has improved as a result of Leach’s success. Topically, Graham Harrell, first blue chip qb recruit under Leach, was recruited around the time Cumbie was throwing passes for Tech.
I’m simply saying that you can’t claim you have surpassed a program when you are consistently as mediocre as Tech is.
So your position is that no matter how many times Texas Tech beats A&M, it’s logically impossible for us to pass them sans a division or conference championship. That’s an interesting position, but simply not one I can adopt. Somehow, because of the way Texas Tech plays, Texas A&M is unsurpassable. This in spite of the fact that you’ve had exactly three winning seasons since 2002 (7-5 and 7-6 included) and embarrassed the conference in your bowl games. 35 point loss to Cali? 31 point loss to Tennessee? Are we supposed to hope you make a bowl so that the Big-12 shows up or hope you don’t lest the rest of the nation see how fucking bad we are?
Basic issue with your position is that Texas A&M could go 0-12 for the next 8 seasons and would still be, in your opinion, higher than Texas Tech so long as Tech fails to win a division championship. You’ve essentially designed a metric that organizes your team over mine in such a way where your team can’t fail; my team can only fail it for you (by not beating UT and OU). That’s neat.
Tech has never won a conference title outright, and consistently features mediocre teams under Mike Leach. Until Tech can win at least a divison title, it is ludicrous to compare them to other programs who have won division titles and conference championships.
But, whether or not you think Tech should be compared to A&M or not, we play every year and we win. I’ve not met an A&M fan who prefers your moral victory (go 1998!) to our actual victory on the field.
What I think is ludicrous is that Texas A&M gets compared to Texas Tech. We’re not talking about comparable teams over the last decade. We’re in agreement that Texas Tech and Texas A&M football cannot logically be compared with one another. Since 2002 we’ve lost to A&M as much as you’ve lost to Baylor. (And the closest they’ve come to beating us is ~ 30 points, as opposed to a 16-13 home victory, yeehaw.)
So we agree, this comaprison is nuts.
I have 40 years of history to back up the first statement. I only need go back to 1993-94 to refute the second.
I guess I should thank you for being clear; if A&M hasn’t beaten us in Lubbock by 2034 I’ll expect you to admit they never will.
You seem to think that maintaining a steady level of mediocrity is enough to surpass a program which has a down season (or a few down seasons in a row).
What about a down decade?
It’s so frustrating to see you make distinctions between PROGRAM and TEAM now that we’re this far along in the conversation. I made it clear that I felt Texas Tech, the TEAM, had supplanted Texas A&M, the TEAM in football. I’m not saying that beating you 9-3 erases all of A&M’s history. I’m saying that it suggests Tech is > A&M over the course of the last twelve seasons which is hardly a controversial statement. Do I think Tech has a more storied history than Texas A&M? No. Do I think we’re a better football team? Without question. Do you disagree?
Let me ask you something: Tech has obviously had a better record overall over the last 3 years than Miami. Do you think Tech as a program has surpassed Miami?
Of course not. Because behind those three years Miami has a 9-3 season (bowl victory) 11-2 season (bowl victory) and a NC appearance. Texas A&M doesn’t look anything at all like Miami. Even in their worst season they still curb stomp the shit out of you by 17 points. Texas Tech is better than A&M because we beat you every year and we finish with more wins. And it’s been like that for more than three seasons.
This is a reason why Oklahoma can go through years of mediocrity in the ‘90s, and then hire Bob Stoops, and be back on top again…
Yea no shit, the reason being they also hired Mike Leach as offensive coordinator the same year Stoops showed up. My point is that he has that kind of effect on programs, hence why I love him so much. Awesome!
Because until they start focusing on not defining their season by just one game but on actually winning championships, they will always be a mediocre program.
We should focus less on beating A&M? I’m sure you’d like that, but I hardly view it as a weakness that we are 9-3 against Texas A&M. While I have heard Tech fans say things like “So long as we beat A&M, it’s a successful season” that theory has never really been tested since, under Leach, we’ve never had a losing year. We go to Bowls. We win. The one loss to A&M since 2002 was in 2004, and we ended up beating Cal in the postseason. That year was a success independent what happened against A&M. Conversely, 2007 wasn’t a success because we beat A&M, it was a success because we beat Virginia.
And while you may think our success is tied to our ability to beat you, no one else does. We’re not highly ranked preseason because we ended a Javorskie Lane guarantee.
You’ve just proven my point. Mediocre teams lose to ranked teams. You yourself just admitted that mediocre Tech will "struggle against good teams".
You act like I’ve just admitted the case cracker: Tech does worse against good teams than it does against bad teams. So does every other team, ever, in the entire history of sports. That’s how we distinguish “good” from “bad” teams.
What is your excuse for Colorado ‘06, who was the worst team in the conference that season?
In 2006, after we beat you, we played Missouri, not Colorado.
If your point is that we struggled against a bad Colorado team two years ago, I can only concede game set point match. The truth is, many teams in the NCAA struggle against less accomplished teams with regularity. See, for instance, Texas vs. Texas A&M in 2006 and 2007.
Of course you’re gonna say Texas Tech, you’re a Tech fan, you’re happy with mediocrity.
And you’re apparently thrilled to be our bitch, so long as you won a CC in 1998. We’re both grinning ear to fucking ear, I ‘spose.
At Tech, a 7-5 season is reason for celebration and a contract extension for the coach. At A&M, the coach is fired.
Are you even aware of your own program? And I quote:
DALLAS – Texas A&M coach Dennis Franchione will get a contract extension and a raise after leading the Aggies to the Cotton Bowl in his second season…"He’s done a great job with the talent we have and I look forward to a great future at Texas A&M," Byrne said before the Aggies (7-5) finished their season with a 38-7 loss to Tennessee. "We want to make sure Dennis Franchione continues to coach our football team."
You guys are so hardcore, so standard oriented, that you let Franchione run you into 4-8 and 5-6 seasons before you fired him after an embarrassing scandal. He was 7-5 when you gave him a raise in 2004.
Why am I even arguing with you about this? Your dumb program fired Slocum at 6-6 so they could get… Fran? I can only agree that the difference between Tech and A&M is that you can have a coach who goes 14 years without a losing season and fire him for Dennis Franchione yet we keep our winner. You’ve certainly cornered me on that one; thank God for your team’s unwillingness to “celebrate[] mediocrity”.
In sum: We run you, and the degree to which we’ve done so exceeds even the most delusional Aggies’ definition of “fluke”. We are a better football team. You were when I was 15 years old.
by Skin Patrol on Jun 22, 2008 12:52 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
tryng to shorten my answer
I’ll try to condense my points:
-Regarding Todd/Harrell, I think the reason Harrell was chosen over Todd was b/c Harrell did a better job reading the defense and making the correct decisions in your offense. I don’t think the difficulty in playing QB for Tech is simply in knowing the playbook, it is in being able to read the various defenses thrown at you, and making the correct decision. I think this is one of the main reasons Cumbie (a 5th year senior) was chosen over Johnson (a juco transfer), b/c Cumbie had spent more time in the offense and made fewer mistakes.
-My point on recruiting is simply that, according to Tech partisans, they have been bringing in blue-chip recruits to play under Leach (Daugherty, Johnson being the most obvious two I know of) who couldn’t cut it. Since they habe brough tin blue-chip recruits before and they couldn’t cut it, I have no reason to believe that continuing to bring in blue-chip recruits at QB is going to change the cycle of mediocrity that Tech is in.
-Regarding the team vs. program issue: If you were only trying to argue that Tech has had a better team than A&M over the past several years, I misinterpreted your argument. I thought you were saying Tech, as a program, has surpassed A&M, which is ludicrous. Has Tech had a better team than A&M during the last 5 years? Absolutely. The fact that you had Leach and we had Fran pretty much assured that.
-Regarding Oklahoma: They had a better team and offense after Leach left the program. With Mangino at the helm as offensive coordinator, they actually had a running game, and won the national title. To try to credit the whle turnaround to Leach is a little presumptuous.
-Focusing on one game a year: Don’t define your season one whether or not you beat A&M, and you might have a chance to win a division or conference title. The goal should not simply be “beat A&M”, it should be “win the division and win the conference”. To win the division and win the conference, you most likely need to beat A&M,so it isn’t like the latter precludes the former.
-In 2006, you lost to Colorado after you lost to Missouri, which was two straight losses after beating A&M, hence my point that you put too much focus on the A&M game, and not enough on the remaining season. You said you lost to a good Missouri team in ‘06; my question then was what was your excuse to losing to a bad Colorado team?
-The contract extension for Fran was written into his original contract if he achieved certain goals within his first two seasons (one of them being playing in a New Year’s Day bowl game), which they don’t mention in the article. The raise was Byrne’s idea, one of many which I think have justified his firing.
-We fired RC b/c the program was falling into mediocrity under him. We wanted more than just simply finishing above .500 in a season, and it was time for him to go. I know some fans don’t understand that, but when your goal is to win championships, you can’t just continually settle for a lot less. RC did many good things for A&M, but it was time to move on. You will notice that no other program has hired him, despite his desire to coach again.
-Regarding Franchione, the big problem with him wasn’t a lack of desire to fire him after two losing seasons, it was a contract that was written representing only his interests. Whoever represented A&M on that contract should be sued for malpractice, b/c the contract was solely in Fran’s favor, which is why we had to wait for him to violate NCAA rules before we could fire him w/o having to pay out the full value of the contract.
Re:
I will likewise shorten my answers.
Regarding Todd/Harrell, I think the reason Harrell was chosen over Todd was b/c Harrell did a better job reading the defense and making the correct decisions in your offense.
I don’t disagree. What you seem to think that means is that Chris Todd couldn’t hack it in our offense, and my only response is that someone has to be the backup. There has yet to be a quarterback who has failed in our system.
My point on recruiting is simply that, according to Tech partisans, they have been bringing in blue-chip recruits to play under Leach (Daugherty, Johnson being the most obvious two I know of) who couldn’t cut it. Since they habe brough tin blue-chip recruits before and they couldn’t cut it, I have no reason to believe that continuing to bring in blue-chip recruits at QB is going to change the cycle of mediocrity that Tech is in.
RoJo couldn’t cut it? Are you sure about that? Because someone needs to tell him that 11 receiving touchdowns is apparently a waste of time. Graham Harrell was a blue chip recruit, is he cutting it? Who is this Michael Crabtree guy we keep hearing about?
You keep saying Phillip Daugherty. Good player, hardly a blue chip or can’t miss recruit though; he was a 3 star qb like five years ago. Turns out he wasn’t very good, see for yourself. Why do you think Phillip Daugherty is indicative of all future Tech recruits, anyways? Is Lubbock the only place 3 star QBs don’t pan out? Have we or have we not hit more than miss on QBs?
They had a better team and offense after Leach left the program. With Mangino at the helm as offensive coordinator, they actually had a running game, and won the national title. To try to credit the whle turnaround to Leach is a little presumptuous.
I was joking, but only partially. They were horrible before Leach got there, and weren’t when he was there. Whatever happened afterwards was in no small part a result of him turning the program from dogmeat offensively to the prettiest girl of the dance, overnight.
Don’t define your season one whether or not you beat A&M, and you might have a chance to win a division or conference title. The goal should not simply be "beat A&M", it should be "win the division and win the conference". To win the division and win the conference, you most likely need to beat A&M,so it isn’t like the latter precludes the former.
You seem to think Texas Tech is psychologically married to beating the Aggies and thus can’t win after beating them. I’m saying your sample size is tiny on that theory, not to mention it makes sense we’d lose games against ranked teams. Since 2002 Texas A&M has a losing record the week after beating Baylor… does that mean anything to you? It doesn’t to me.
Tech fans don’t need to define their season on beating A&M. We go to Bowl games. We beat OU. We win Bowl games. We are, generally, a successful program. That we beat A&M is really more your problem than ours, and I still don’t understand why you think we need to focus less on winning football games.
In 2006, you lost to Colorado after you lost to Missouri, which was two straight losses after beating A&M, hence my point that you put too much focus on the A&M game, and not enough on the remaining season. You said you lost to a good Missouri team in ‘06; my question then was what was your excuse to losing to a bad Colorado team?
The answer is that there is no excuse, but that doesn’t mean it has anything at all to do with Texas A&M. Are you so self important (Aggie trait!) that you really think us losing to Colorado had anything at all to do with us beating A&M two weeks prior? Dream on, guy.
We fired RC b/c the program was falling into mediocrity under him.
And without him, incidentally.
We wanted more than just simply finishing above .500 in a season…
And your program paid the price.
I know some fans don’t understand that, but when your goal is to win championships, you can’t just continually settle for a lot less. RC did many good things for A&M, but it was time to move on. You will notice that no other program has hired him, despite his desire to coach again.
Your desire to win a championship has played right into the hands of all your opponents. You fired the man who actually took A&M to a championship so you could hire one that never would.
Anyways, pointless discussion since Leach never had as bad a season as either Slocum or Fran. We’ve won 8-9 games the past six years and are currently ready, if the talking heads are to be believed (which they might not), for what is supposed to be our best season to date. Maybe it won’t pan out, but Mike Leach has more than earned his pay in LBK as he’s continued to improve the team.
Our goal is, was, and has always been to win championships. As Texas A&M fans must know, sometimes it takes years to accomplish that. The difference between our two football teams is that we’re moving closer, and you’re moving farther away.
to finish this up
Our goal is, was, and has always been to win championships. As Texas A&M fans must know, sometimes it takes years to accomplish that. The difference between our two football teams is that we’re moving closer, and you’re moving farther away
This is a matter of interpretation. You think you’re moving closer to winning championships, I think Tech is spinning their wheels, still stuck in the same place. Will you be surprised if Tech beats someone they shouldn’t, loses to someone they shouldn’t, wins 7-8 games in the regular season, and goes to a minor bowl and wins it? That would just be a repeat of what Tech has done the past several years.
I think A&M definitely made the correct decision in getting rid of Fran, but it remains to be seen if we picked the right person to lead our program. We’ll have to wait and see what happens. I don’t think Fran left us in the best if shape on defense, but we’ll see.
Regarding Crabtree, IIRC, he wasn’t considered a blue-chip recruit primarily b/c of grade issues. I give Leach credit for believing in him, signing him, and being patient while he sat out a redshirt year as a partial qualifier, but to try to paint him as a can’t-miss blue-chip recruit is misleading.
Now, a football question: Will you have the production at WR around Crabtree this year to let him loose for a 2000 receiving season? Tech’s offense works best when the load is spread around all receivers. I think in their best seasons, Tech’s four leading receivers will all have 1000 yd seasons, in a good year, there will be a 1000 yd receiver, and 3 other guys in the 700-900 range. I got the impression last season (although I have not looked at the stats to back this up, so my impression may be wrong), that the receiving load wasn’t as balanced as it has been in the past. Now, some of that is b/c Crabtree is just that badass, but I also think some of it was the offense depending too much on Crabtree to carry the load, b/c other receivers weren’t producing. Just my impression as an outsider who saw some of your games.
Re:
You think you’re moving closer to winning championships, I think Tech is spinning their wheels, still stuck in the same place. Will you be surprised if Tech beats someone they shouldn’t, loses to someone they shouldn’t, wins 7-8 games in the regular season, and goes to a minor bowl and wins it? That would just be a repeat of what Tech has done the past several years.
Yes, but not as surprised as I’d be if Tech went 7-5 and then lost a bowl game. That’s the kind of thing we did in 2000, the kind of thing Texas A&M did last year. Not as surprised as I’d be if Tech went 5-6, which Leach has never done but is the kind of thing you did three years ago. Not as surprised as I’d be if Tech got embarrassed in two bowl games losing by a combined total of 56 points, because that’s the kind of thing A&M does (2004, 2006), not us. Finally, I’d be more surprised if we lost to A&M than if we won 7-8 games, because I think we’ve got a great chance at 10 this year.
You’re proud that your team has the great expectations to fire Dennis Franchione… after how many years? I’m proud that my team has been better than yours over that stretch. I really hope this is the year.
Regarding Crabtree, IIRC, he wasn’t considered a blue-chip recruit primarily b/c of grade issues.
Not disagreeing, but you need to also include the fact that he was pretty insistent on being a two-sport athlete, which likewise scared a lot of people away.
Now, some of that is b/c Crabtree is just that badass, but I also think some of it was the offense depending too much on Crabtree to carry the load, b/c other receivers weren’t producing. Just my impression as an outsider who saw some of your games.
We had four receivers over 600 yards, three over 700 yards, and two over 1200 yards. Seven guys had 30 receptions.
In 2006, by comparison, we had one guy over 1000 yards, two players over 700 yards, and just three over 500.
In 2005…
It goes on. Last year was a really phenomenal year, no matter how you slice it. 2003 was the only comparable year, so that’s probably what you were thinking of (we had three 1,000 yard receivers, not four, with Mickey Peters at 975). Graham Harrell was a hire rated passer than BJ Symons, which is the first time anyone has even come close to comparing to that season’s performance.
reply
Not as surprised as I’d be if Tech went 5-6, which Leach has never done
I’d be shocked if Tech went 5-6, too, considering you play a 12 game schedule.
Regardless, Leach has never had a losing season b/c y’all never play a competitive non-conference schedule, which basically guarantees you 4 wins. Beat Baylor and a Big 12 North patsy (Iowa State these last two seasons) and you have 6 wins, your all-important non-losing season streak is intact, and you’re bowl eligible. That really isn’t an accomplishment, although I see a lot of Tech fans bragging about it.
everyone has at least a couple patsies on their schedule..(ie Montana State and Baylor on yours last year), so I don’t think that should be included
by vy til i die on Jun 23, 2008 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions
but you included them as an easy win….should you discredit them just because they sucked (ie take away from your win total)
by vy til i die on Jun 25, 2008 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions
Re:
Or 5-7 or 6-6, etc. 5-6 was from an earlier Aggie record, prior to the 12 game season (2005).
We never play a competitive non-con? In 2002 we played #2 ranked Ohio state, SMU, Ole Miss, and #17 NC State—we won 9 games that year, including our bowl game and victory over #9 Texas. Texas A&M hasn’t come close to facing a comparably difficult non-con schedule since then.
In 2003 it was: SMU, New Mexico, NC state and a #18 Ole Miss. We won 8 games. including our bowl game and victory over the SEC in non-con.
Our ‘05 schedule was an admitted joke, but in ‘06 we played a ranked TCU on the road.
Last year we didn’t have a DIAA team on our schedule, which is more than A&M can say… we won 9 games, including wins over #4 OU and #20 Virginia in our Bowl game.
Am I happy with the coming schedule? No, but I wanted LSU after Tulsa bought out of our game.
A&M hasn’t played a decent non-con since 2004. Easy non-con schedule of Clemson, Texas State, and SMU wasn’t enough to save you in ‘05 from a losing season…
If we were 7-6 every year I wouldn’t be bragging about having a winning season every year. However, we’re doing that AND winning our bowl games AND beating ranked opponents AND finishing the season ranked.
You won 9 games in 2002 b/c you played in 14 games
A 5-loss season isn’t something to brag about.
I don’t see how getting beat down by Ohio State and North Carolina State is something to brag about. If you had beaten those teams in your non-conference schedule, then you’d have a case for saying you play a competitive non-conference schedule, and win games. You don’t.
TCU sucks, ranked or unranked. Your ‘05, ‘06, and ‘07 non-conference schedules have been a joke.
Last year we didn’t have a DIAA team on our schedule, which is more than A&M can say…
Really? You might want to consult with Northwestern State on that, b/c last time I looked, they’re I-AA.
I would rather lose 5 games in 14
than 6 games in 12.
Beat down by NC State? We lost by 3 in 2002. We beat a ranked Ole Miss in 2003.
You said we NEVER played a competitive non-con schedule. You were wrong. I am not bragging about losing to Ohio State.
TCU sucks, ranked or unranked.
Well that’s deep analysis, Beergut. Thanks for that.
Really? You might want to consult with Northwestern State on that, b/c last time I looked, they’re I-AA.
Granted, I didn’t catch them because we played them after Okey State.
Re:
Beat Baylor and a Big 12 North patsy…
Uhhh, 7-5 Iowa State beat A&M by nearly 30 points in ‘05. And between the two of us who has had to actually worry about beating Baylor? 2004?
One big difference between us is that when you play Tech, Texas, and OU, you’re good for one win. When we play A&M, Texas, and OU, we’re good for two, typically.
hmmmm
a Big 12 North patsy (Iowa State these last two seasons)
reading.is.fundamental.
There is a reason I highlighted the last two seasons.
Beating Baylor? You’re serious? We’ve lost to them once in the last 23 years, and that means we’re “worried” about them? Over that same time span, Tech has dropped 6 games to Baylor. Tech just went over the .500 mark in the all-time series against Baylor LAST YEAR. Tech has lost to UNT more often in that time period than we’ve lost to Baylor.
One big difference between us is that when you play Tech, Texas, and OU, you’re good for one win. When we play A&M, Texas, and OU, we’re good for two, typically.
Under Leach, you’ve beaten texas once (2002) and OU twice (‘05 and ‘07). That makes you 1-7 against texas and 2-6 against OU. That hardly makes you “typically good” for two wins when you play A&M, OU, and texas.
Hell, A&M has beaten texas twice and Tech twice in the same time period, so by your logic, we’re “typically good” for two wins out of those three games, too. [/sarcasm]
Baylor:
You lost to them in 2004. You had to kick a field goal with 56 seconds left in 2005 just to keep the game going into overtime. In 2006 the game was tied in the 4th quarter.
Question: Which sample size do you think is more relevant in today’s game, 23 years or 4 years?
Under Leach, you’ve beaten texas once (2002) and OU twice (‘05 and ‘07). That makes you 1-7 against texas and 2-6 against OU. That hardly makes you "typically good" for two wins when you play A&M, OU, and texas.
Yea, it makes us good for two wins against those three in 3 of the past 6 years? In the past 6 years, A&M has beaten Texas Tech once. Against the three since 2002 you were…
1-2
0-3
1-2
0-3
1-2
1-2
Or 4-14
Tech is:
2-1
1-2
0-3
2-1
1-2
2-1
Or 8-10
Very quickly, do you think Tech has improved since 2000 and 2001?
reply
You lost to them in 2004. You had to kick a field goal with 56 seconds left in 2005 just to keep the game going into overtime. In 2006 the game was tied in the 4th quarter.
So, you’re counting moral victories for Baylor? “Oh, but it was so close!!”
I don’t buy moral victories, and until now, I didn’t think anyone else did except Baylor fans.
Tech needed overtime to win in ‘02, lost in ‘04 (to the same team that lost to Baylor), and trailed in the 4th quarter, needing a TD pass w/26 seconds left to win in ‘06. It doesn’t matter if the games are close, a loss is a loss is a loss, there are no moral victories.
I find it amusing that you keep starting your stat comparisons from 2002; does Leach’s first two seasons at Tech not count?
I also find it interesting that you don’t comment on your overall record with Baylor. Do you realize that during a period in the 1980s and into the ‘90s, Tech WAS Baylor in football?
Re:
Naw, the 2002 thing is because that’s how far back ESPN goes. If I want to get stats in 2001 and 2000, it takes a lot more digging. It’s a time constraint thing.
I don’t count moral victories as victories. I consider close games as something fans have to worry about; I was certainly worried that A&M was going to win in 2006, until Graham Harrell scored that touchdown.
I doubt that you find it interesting that I don’t discuss Tech’s overall record with Baylor. I don’t find it interesting that you haven’t discussed your overall record vs. Texas.
Let’s agree to disagree, as we aren’t going anywhere fast.
agree to disagree
Naw, the 2002 thing is because that’s how far back ESPN goes. If I want to get stats in 2001 and 2000, it takes a lot more digging. It’s a time constraint thing.
Here are two sites I use:
Texas Tech season statistics archives
College Football Data Warehouse Texas Tech page
I was certainly worried that A&M was going to win in 2006, until Graham Harrell scored that touchdown.
You have more faith in Fran and Gary Darnell than I did. I was cursing both of them before that TD, Fran for being dumb enough to hire Darnell, Darnell for running a #$%!ing prevent defense.
Man.
This is BOOOOOOORRRIIIIIIINGG!
If you guys can’t flame each other in two or three paragraphs, then just email me (both of you need to say it’s ok, my email is at the bottom of this page) and I’ll give you each other’s email addresses. If you absolutely must have this conversation in public, then maybe you should reevaluate your reason for arguing in the first place, it may be a pride issue. In that case, there are forums for long, penetrating flame sessions in the dark of night.
Re:
My reasons for having this conversation on the website are the same as they would be if I were discussing a playoffs with BillyZane, or Tech’s QBs with Peter, or the strength of the Big-12 generally with whomever, etc. I visit this website daily because it’s extremely well done and filled with engaging people who write more intelligently generally speaking than other internet watercoolers. And as much as I disagree with him on this particular issue, I count Beergut among people worth engaging, as I’ve seen him before make reasoned arguments in the past. Besides some naughty language and a marginal amount of pissing contest above (like my last line in the last post; probably unnecessary) it’s largely been a discussion about facts and history supported with names named, statistics, quotes from articles, and the like.
In other words, I’d much prefer having that discussion here than at one of the forums you cite, if only because there I’m less likely to have an intelligent discussion with someone about the merits of Texas Tech vs. Texas A&M.
Having said that, if your position is that our discussion is boring and inappropriate for this place since this is a Texas Longhorns website, I’ll concede the point and walk away, though it is in a FanPost devoted almost exclusively to Texas Tech football.
I hope the above didn't sound contentious.
Wasn’t intended to. I just felt inclined to defend my motives for making loooooooooong boring posts. There is no nefarious intent, I’m not here to cheerlead for Texas Tech (even if that’s what I end up doing) or to otherwise be an annoying dissenting voice. In so far as you’ve accused me of having pride in my program enough to hopelessly defend it in internet arguments (which makes me retarded); guilty as charged.
by Skin Patrol on Jun 22, 2008 10:01 AM CDT up reply actions
For the record
This kind of discourse is not at all discouraged. Though it was contentious, and very rivalristic, it was certainly the kind of water cooler talk we encourage here.
--PB--
This is fascinating, but...
As esteemed Tech and A&M fans, perhaps unloading on each other on either a Red Raider or Aggie forum would make more sense. Then others can join in and really start throwing crap at each other.
by TheElusiveShadow on Jun 24, 2008 5:12 PM CDT reply actions
eh, i started it.
it’s on topic with the content of the post and other than Beergut’s occasional asshole comment, it’s largely civil. it doesn’t have to be just longhorn talk here and the talk doesn’t just have to be about texas.
I was just surprised
that nobody commented on my fellow LBJ HS buddy Danny Whisenhunt (the pictured Red Raider #51 “nose tackle”). Not even one jab at his Dick Butkus jersey number or anything!
Sadly, now when anyone googles Danny, they’ll get this thread. Oh well.
yeah, i actually got it from an LBJ website
Didn’t really recognize the name. What position did he play?
I don't remember
I guess 30 years is a long time ago? Now he is an asst coach/video coordinator at Air Force.
In his class and the one after, in the SWC, we also had Eric Holle and Mike Chapman (Texas) and Donnie Richard (TCU). Those three made it to the NFL, with Holle finishing at the Oilers.
There have been decades of speculation about what ‘could have been’ had they not split Reagan HS to form LBJ.
I was just being difficult
Of course I don’t mind them duking it out there. It’s amusing.
by TheElusiveShadow on Jun 26, 2008 11:14 AM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
