• Facebook StumbleUpon
• Email

1. NM99 said:

   October 27th, 2008 at 7:29 am

   Great analysis. I think the net advantage is 0 in the trenches. I see both OL’s giving up 2 sacks a piece. I think the difference will be which team can spare a man from coverage to bring the blitz, in which I favor Tech. Tech has too many playmakers at receiver this year for Texas to give anything in coverage. Shipley and Cosby are solid, but after that, Texas gets a lot less reliable at receiver. I think that lets Tech play the Joker and bring an extra man and stay in the nickel versus the dime on third and long.

   My biggeest concern is that Texas will look better running than they have to this point and that Tech will not run as well. Davis knows how to run the option, and we forgot how to defend it against KU. Texas should be able to stop the Tech run because their LB’s will keep it in front of them.

2. dedfischer said:

   October 27th, 2008 at 8:35 am

   NM99, good stuff. I think if we can get our RBs to the LBs we’ll be in good shape. Scipio is high on Muckelroy, and while I think he’s a great athlete, with some speed and knows how to hit, I think he guesses a lot and shoots gaps. Norton is a bigger version of Marlon Williams, who hits a little harder and runs a little faster, maybe. If we have success running the ball, it will be to the right side behind Carter and Winn with quick hitters to Batch. Running our jumbo set with James at TE and Hale at H-back could work some. Texas will try to play the run with an honest front. We can outnumber them in this formation by running our inside trap blocking with Hale. I think Houston will get too far upfield on a few occasions and Carter would just simply have to seal him off. We’ve got the double working on the backside against Miller, and Batch will be running into a hole with Hale leading on a LB. It’s the same play we scored on against SMU except to the other side and I don’t think we’ll be able to pull a backside guard (Vasquez in this case) with Miller on Hamby one on one.

3. NM99 said:

   October 27th, 2008 at 8:59 am

   Good point on the jumbo set. I think I recall seeing 1 play action call against A&M that could throw Texas into convulsions because they aren’t used to seeing it from Tech. Combined, they could give us an edge.

   My concern is that the UT LB corp is the best Tech has faced and will not try to arm tackle Batch like others have, so he won’t pick up as many yards after contact. If they hold him to 3-4 yds/carry, I wonder will Tech get antsy and abandon the run?

4. dedfischer said:

   October 27th, 2008 at 9:09 am

   I’m just worried about getting past the line of scrimmage with regards to our run game. They’re legit up front.

5. RRR said:

   October 27th, 2008 at 9:24 am

   From what you’ve written ded, I think UT has an advantage, but not enough to be decisive. I think the deciding factor will be special teams and turnovers.

   This game looks very similar to OU-UT. OU was methodically winning in the first half except the Shipley KR for TD, and then Bradford threw a bad INT that UT turned into a FG. That was 10 points that kept the game close. Second half OU loses their MLB and leader, and suddenly they can’t stop the run.

   OU then shockingly calls a fake punt and doesn’t get it. UT only got a FG, but it flipped the momentum.

   So OU had two turnovers, and two bad special teams plays. UT had none. UT scored 13 points off those OU mistakes, and won by 10.

6. dedfischer said:

   October 27th, 2008 at 9:27 am

   My prediction is that the UT defense will be good enough to force us to punt some and we haven’t had much practice at it. They’ve got some speed on the edges and I think they win by a blocked punt for a TD.

7. dedfischer said:

   October 27th, 2008 at 9:27 am

   Plus, Mack Brown always coaches more aggressively on special teams against Tech.

8. RRR said:

   October 27th, 2008 at 9:29 am

   ded, would you say Nebraska was the best front 7 we’ve faced this year? I think they were, but they had no speed at LB. I don’t think we have much success running early, but if we’d just stick with it…I think Batch breaks a few in the 4th, not for 50, but let’s say 20.

9. RRR said:

   October 27th, 2008 at 9:31 am

   Agreed on the punting situation. I wouldn’t be surprised if they get a big play with a blocked kick, punt or FG.

   So then, can we force a couple of turnovers from Colt to even things out? Oh, and we need Graham to go ahead and keep being perfect.

10. dedfischer said:

    October 27th, 2008 at 9:35 am

    RRR, I think they probably are, and Suh is the closest thing we’ll see all year to Roy Miller. The Harold kid at KSU will be better than Orakpo over time, but he’s not there yet.

11. UTHornFan014 said:

    October 27th, 2008 at 10:10 am

    This game has my insides all tied up in knots and stuff like that. I think I’m going to have a bleeding ulcer by the time the game starts. Fuck lion

    And regarding the Texas running game… If we call running plays like we did against OSU, we will average about 1.4 yards per carry. Talk about a lack of imagination by Davis.

12. NM99 said:

    October 27th, 2008 at 10:21 am

    I agree with RRR regarding success running late. Though I will add that I think we can have some success running in the middle of drives instead of opening drives with the run. I think our passing game will give UT’s secondary fits, and we will have to use that to create run opportunities that keep UT honest in pass. Sucker the UT front into over-committing to the pass rush and then burn them on the run a couple of times.

    Let’s take a lesson from the UT-Missouri game. Mizzou actually passed fairly effectively against them. But Mizzou tried to run first and pass second, digging themselves some big holes and allowing Texas to dictate their play calling. Hopefully we won’t repeat that mistake.

13. RRR said:

    October 27th, 2008 at 10:39 am

    Agree with NM99. Short passing on first down to stay manageable and create ideal run/pass situations like 2nd and 3. ‘Course they’ll be doing the same thing, so then it becomes execution, long drives, tackling, and getting stiff in the red zone.

    Keep your tums handy.

14. Daniel said:

    October 27th, 2008 at 11:04 am

    I see some similarities between your o-line and OU’s, egregious holding notwithstanding. We (Texas) got pressure on a lot of plays, but there are also a lot of plays where Bradford had time to finish a large-print coloring book before passing (see aforementioned holding).

    The key against them was that we had a better-conditioned and deeper d-line rotation than OU’s o-line. Same story on the other side of the ball. OU’s defensive tackles are really, really good and probably solidly better than your interior tandem, unless it later comes to light that Stoops had DeMarcus Granger’s kneecaps replaced with used tennis balls to get him on the field. I’m not ruling it out.

    The thing is, I don’t know anything about your depth. If you feel confident in it, then your analysis is probably right on. If you’re depending on just your starters, you may need to reevalute what happens in the late third and fourth quarters. Just a thought.

    Side note: Since this game is already making me crazy, I literally can’t imagine the mental gymnastics that must be occuring in the head of your typical Tech fan right now.*

    * not that I could to begin with

15. dedfischer said:

    October 27th, 2008 at 11:08 am

    “The thing is, I don’t know anything about your depth. If you feel confident in it, then your analysis is probably right on. If you’re depending on just your starters, you may need to reevalute what happens in the late third and fourth quarters. Just a thought.”

    That’s a really good point. Our depth on the DL isn’t really depth. It’s more like backups and what Tech typically rolls out as starters. We need to try and keep Dixon in the game as much as we can. Also, I can’t figured out how all these guys get so tired. Fuck, they wouldn’t make it through 2 quarters of a 6-man game.

16. DR. MARK said:

    October 27th, 2008 at 11:29 am

    Somewhat off the subject, but how is Crabtree’s ankle? We need him on the field ,even if he’s just a double team decoy for Swindell,morris etc.

17. dedfischer said:

    October 27th, 2008 at 11:33 am

    I don’t know. I’m not the insider on injuries. My money would say Crabtree will be on the field and in tip top shape. Dude’s like that show up every week ready to play, unless missing an appendage.

18. LonghornScott said:

    October 27th, 2008 at 11:39 am

    dedfischer,

    schematically, I think you should look at the match-ups assuming that you will see a lot more 3-3-5 and 3-2-6 than 4-2-5 or 4-1-6… especially if Tech stays with the wider splits.

19. dedfischer said:

    October 27th, 2008 at 11:43 am

    Thanks for stopping by. I’ll try to have some plays up this week that will look at that schematics a little closer. I’m pretty sure Muschamp will use as few guys as he has can to stop the run and pressure Harrell. He’ll drop everyone else. Here’s the Tortilla Retort’s odds on the spread based on the amount of guys required to get to Harrell:

    < or = 3: UT by 28
    = 4: UT by 14
    = 5: UT by 7
    > 5 = Tech by almost as much as they want it to be.

20. dedfischer said:

    October 27th, 2008 at 11:59 am

    “Somewhat off the subject, but how is Crabtree’s ankle? We need him on the field ,even if he’s just a double team decoy for Swindell,morris etc.”

    Plus, Crab has a $3 million bet with Jeremy Maclin on this game.

21. Tim said:

    October 27th, 2008 at 12:09 pm

    Granted I think Baron Batch is the best thing that ever happened to the Texas Tech offense, I will still give a slight nod to Kendell Hunter as the better running back. Having said that, there is no way that Okie State’s offensive line is better than Texas Tech. My question why are all Horn fans thinking that they just made it through their toughest game this season?

    Is it just arrogance or pure ignorance?

22. dedfischer said:

    October 27th, 2008 at 12:21 pm

    Russell Okung is the best OL in this conference and Washington is a hell of a center when healthy. They’re a much better run blocking unit that we are. We’re better pass blockers.

23. bighornfan32 said:

    October 27th, 2008 at 12:24 pm

    It could be Tim, that Tech hasnt played a very good team yet and has even struggled against some lesser foes. Okie State is a very good team, and I think better on the OL then OU.

    And ded, Orakpo didnt exactly get shut down by Okung. He still had 6 tackles, two for loss, and a sack.

24. dedfischer said:

    October 27th, 2008 at 12:27 pm

    That’s pretty good against Orakpo.

25. bighornfan32 said:

    October 27th, 2008 at 12:30 pm

    Touche.

26. NM99 said:

    October 27th, 2008 at 12:48 pm

    Daniel:

    I’m not 100% convinced on the “your depth is better than our depth” argument. Certainly if the 2nd in line is equivalent to the starter, it would have validity, but starters are starters for a reason, and rarely are the 2nd string units playing one another. The question then becomes how much are you giving up in the rotation and will the other team take advantage. In a run heavy attack, rotating the DL could have a significant impact because now you run at the weak spot. Neither Texas not Tech are running teams this year, so I’m not sure how much that matters. As pointed out, will Texas actually use a 4 man front?

    The difference between Tech and OU is that Tech, despite their increased running in 2008, still favors the pass much more than OU. Harrell gets rid of the ball quickly on short routes making getting to him more difficult. So the Texas d-line will be doing a lot of running for naught. They’ll need all the relief they can get.

27. NM99 said:

    October 27th, 2008 at 12:58 pm

    LonghornScott:

    I’m asking this becasue I don’t know the answer – do you think anything less than a 4 man front is sufficient to stop Tech from giving Texas a heavy dose of Baron Batch for 6 yards a play? Tech heavily favors the pass, but they have shown a surprising willingess to run and have done so effectively when the pass is over-defended.

    Obvously the level of compitition to date is less (which is why I said 6 yards/play instead of 9).

28. Daniel said:

    October 27th, 2008 at 3:29 pm

    NM:

    “I’m not 100% convinced on the “your depth is better than our depth” argument. Certainly if the 2nd in line is equivalent to the starter, it would have validity, but starters are starters for a reason, and rarely are the 2nd string units playing one another.”

    Of course our starters are better than our second string. The question at issue is really more like, is our second string d-line better than your second-string o-line, and in limited action, can the second string d avoid being exploited long enough for the first team guys to get a breather. Against OU, the answer to both was yes, and it was the difference in the game.

    That’s not a judgement I can make about your team, because I don’t know anything about the seond string. I just know that based on our experience with Oklahoma, you may face problems if you’re depending on your starters alone. I’m not saying anything more definitive than that.

    “The difference between Tech and OU is that Tech, despite their increased running in 2008, still favors the pass much more than OU. Harrell gets rid of the ball quickly on short routes making getting to him more difficult. So the Texas d-line will be doing a lot of running for naught. They’ll need all the relief they can get.”

    OU passsed much, much more than they ran, and generally scored very quickly. This eventually took a toll on their d linemen, by the way. Does that game approach remind you of anyone?

    I’m familiar with Harrell’s quick release; it didn’t help Chase Daniel a whole lot, but then, he doesn’t have the pass-blocking OL that you do. Generally though, against both OU and Missouri, when we were able to successfully get pressure, it came fast. Otherwise, the QBs were far too good as decision-makers, and got rid of the ball long before something bad happened to them.

    The overall point is that line play may be a different animal in the fourth quarter than it is in the first, and if that is the case, it may favor Texas’ depth. Notice all the may’s.

29. NM99 said:

    October 27th, 2008 at 5:55 pm

    Thanks for responding, Dan.

    What I thought Texas did well against OU was force them to pass more than they wanted. Tech is used to that sort of game, and outside of Nebraska who let Tech score very quickly and had a game plan deigned to play keep-away, Tech has controlled TOP. This is much different than in years past.

    In the Mizzou game, Daniel completed ~75% of his passes according to the box score, so I’ll assume that you’re referring to the outcome of the game and not his productivity. What gave you the win was that Mizzou tried to run first and pass second. Your front was very good at stopping their run, so they were constantly in a hole. You also forced Mizzou to throw short, which is something they don’t like to do. Tech thrives on the short pass, and generally will pass first and use the run when your defensive alignment allows. I only see 2 sacks in the box score against Mizzou, which is what I predicted above for Texas in this game.

    I expect this to be a tight game. Most Tech fans will admit a drop-off in the 2nd string DL, but we use them anyway. My point above was that DL play is most important in stopping the run and less of a factor against the type of passing game that Tech employs. So while the substitutions for Texas may result in less of a drop off than for Tech (I honestly don’t know how significant it is for you either), the point is a little moot since neither team is a grind it out running team. But in a tight game every little bit helps.

30. Beergut said:

    October 28th, 2008 at 12:08 am

    I’m sorry, but why do people keep bringing up Rylan Reed versus Chris Long? I watched that game, and Chris Long was bitchslapping your OL all game long. It wasn’t until the refs decided to ignore some holding in the 4th quarter that y’all were able to do anything with him.

31. dedfischer said:

    October 28th, 2008 at 3:27 am

    Beergut, I didn’t say anything about him kicking his ass. I just said Reed’s had a bad draw two years in a row. And, that Virginia DL was one of the best I’ve ever seen in college football. Long, Fitzgerald, Sintim….those dudes can play.

32. LonghornScott said:

    October 28th, 2008 at 8:28 am

    “do you think anything less than a 4 man front is sufficient to stop Tech from giving Texas a heavy dose of Baron Batch for 6 yards a play?”

    I should say that it’s speculation on my part on what the gameplan will be… I think the 3 down linemen approach makes sense in this game based on when Muschamp has deployed it so far this year.

    The reason that Texas would favor a 3 down lineman approach is that their main goal is to get vertical penetration through the gaps with their defensive line, confuse the protections, and get pressure right up the heart of the pocket. Contain is not going to be their first priority in this game (our gameplan vs. Missouri is probably the most instructive). Having 3 down lineman allows them more flexibility with stunts without having to dedicate 5 men to rush. It also allows the defense to present a greater number of looks against the pass and makes the defense less susceptible to mismatches in the passing game.

    The 3 down is a liability against the run. If Tech had more controlling run blocking and a tight end that was a dominant blocker, they could create some real problems (but then we probably wouldn’t go with the look). I think that Muckelroy is going to have a similar role to that of the Missouri game for us… he’s going to be responsible for anything that filters through the penetrating DLine in addition to coverage responsibilities. Basically, Muck is going to be stretched thin. I do think Tech can hurts us bad if they hit us with a ton of screens early to try to put some hesitation in the penetrating lineman and also work some draws and underneath routes in the middle of the field to overextend our LBs. That would probably break our gameplan and give Tech more opportunities to work the outside of the field.

    It is entirely possible that Tech could pop off a number of 6-12 yard gains on the ground against the defense. I don’t think Muschamp would mind playing that game if Tech isn’t able to open any big plays up. Leach hasn’t really shown the patience to stick with the run in those scenarios. Maybe he will this year.

33. Austin180 said:

    October 28th, 2008 at 6:52 pm

    Ded, it’s Cedric Dockery, not Derrick.

34. dedfischer said:

    October 28th, 2008 at 7:20 pm

    Thanks, I’ll fix it.

35. truth said:

    October 29th, 2008 at 1:06 am

    enjoy your last few days in the top ten.

36. dedfischer said:

    November 5th, 2008 at 6:55 pm

    “enjoy your last few days in the top ten.”

    Will do.

Leave a Reply