Texas Tech 2011 compared 2012

[Tedcyclone]

Texas Techs stats are awesome but due to powder puff scheduling I'm sure we all can agree on that.
However they pretty much played the same schedule last season. Two of the same teams as last season New Mexico and Texas State. This season they replaced Nevada with Northwestern State.
Tech fans and the media will say that last year though the defense gave up more yards etc to those same teams.
Here are the rushing attempts per game by techs opponents 2011-2012 comparison
2012 teams
NW St - 28 carries 13 yards
Texas State - 30 carries 129 yards 4.3 avg
New Mexico - 35 carries 84 yards. 2.4 avg

2011 teams
Texas State - 50 carries for 256 yards. 5.12 avg
New Mexico - 37 carries for 109 yards. 2.9 avg
Neveada - 46 carries for 312 yards
Iowa State - 67 carries for 368 yards

Tech has changed to a 4/3 d to help against the run based on stats above they have approved slightly in ypc avg but have not played anyone with a pulse. Also this season the two comparable teams didn't give the ball to any one rb more then 10 times which leads me to believe they didn't really have a good rb to give it to. Replacing Nevada with northwestern state really skews stats in techs favor.

The main difference this year for the cyclones is Jantz as the starter. To me this results in less rushing yards and attempts for us as jb was clearly the better zone read guy. Tech LBs had major issues with that last season. However if jantz makes sound decisions we could easily still have 200+ on the ground. As the tech dlineman in this new 4/3 have nit played anyone with any physical skill what so ever and should not be able to control gaps. I expect a closer game then last season but also fully expect the cyclones to be the better and more physical team. Less than 2 turnovers and we still win by 10+​

 

[CYlent Bob]

This is some good stuff. Thanks for doing all that work.

 

[ttraiderbacker]

Texas Techs stats are awesome but due to powder puff scheduling I'm sure we all can agree on that.
However they pretty much played the same schedule last season. Two of the same teams as last season New Mexico and Texas State. This season they replaced Nevada with Northwestern State.
Tech fans and the media will say that last year though the defense gave up more yards etc to those same teams.
Here are the rushing attempts per game by techs opponents 2011-2012 comparison
2012 teams
NW St - 28 carries 13 yards
Texas State - 30 carries 129 yards 4.3 avg
New Mexico - 35 carries 84 yards. 2.4 avg

2011 teams
Texas State - 50 carries for 256 yards. 5.12 avg
New Mexico - 37 carries for 109 yards. 2.9 avg
Neveada - 46 carries for 312 yards
Iowa State - 67 carries for 368 yards

Tech has changed to a 4/3 d to help against the run based on stats above they have approved slightly in ypc avg but have not played anyone with a pulse. Also this season the two comparable teams didn't give the ball to any one rb more then 10 times which leads me to believe they didn't really have a good rb to give it to. Replacing Nevada with northwestern state really skews stats in techs favor.

The main difference this year for the cyclones is Jantz as the starter. To me this results in less rushing yards and attempts for us as jb was clearly the better zone read guy. Tech LBs had major issues with that last season. However if jantz makes sound decisions we could easily still have 200+ on the ground. As the tech dlineman in this new 4/3 have nit played anyone with any physical skill what so ever and should not be able to control gaps. I expect a closer game then last season but also fully expect the cyclones to be the better and more physical team. Less than 2 turnovers and we still win by 10+​

Pretty fair assessment, I think. Now, my observations.

1) I wouldn't look past Northwestern St. I'm not going to say they are world beaters, by any means, but they did get almost 600 yards (585 to be exact) @ Nevada. Nevada ended up winning, but it was closer than some would think. So, either Nevada is really bad, or NWS is fairly decent. I guess we really won't know until a little later on.

2) I think, with our new defensive coaches, you can take the stats from last year, and throw them all out the window...unless you are trying to show Tech has improved. You can have talent, and either by scheme, coaching wrong/bad technique, or youth (and Tech a little of all 3 last season), still have a bad defense.

3) Last season, Tech started 2 true freshman at LB, and had 3 walk-ons starting (or playing significant minutes) in the secondary. This season, we don't have that, although we do have a first year JUCO starting at MLB (Will Smith), and a JUCO CB who will either start, or receive significant minutes in Bruce Jones. Secondary is a big concern for us, because we don't really know what we have. Our LB's (Smith, Bullitt, and Winbush) are much faster, and more physical than what we had last year.

4) Our DL is bigger, and faster this season. Hyder has added weight, and has really excelled with the new coaches, and Delvon Simmons is very talented at the other DT position. Though only a Sohomore, Simmons was a very highly touted recruit coming out of high school in Pennsylvania (#80 in the Top 100). Front seven should be able to hold their own...I would guess, but we will see.

5) Tech's offense is so much more diverse this year. We have a deeper, and better WR corp than we had last season. We have added Javon Bell, Jakeem Grant, Tyson Williams, and Jace Amaro...all of which are upgrades from last season.

6) Last season, Tech had to use 2 true freshman RB's in Deandre Washington (still recovering from knee injury, so he won't play), and Kenny Williams (true sophomore, who is a hoss, and will run people over). Williams goes about 5'10, and 220, and was another 4* coming out of high school, along with Eric Stephens. You will also see Sadale Foster, who is a JUCO transfer, and has done very, very well so far this season. He's small, but we can line him up in the back field, or put him in the slot. He's a very good all-purpose back with quite a bit of speed.

7) Doege is in his second full season as a starting QB, and most people just don't realize anything about him. Last seasons experience did more for him than probably anybody on the roster. Last season was the first time he's started a full season since his Sophomore year in High School (he started one game as a RS freshman in '09, and threw 4 passes in 2010). He blew out one knee in his JR season, and then blew out his other knee before his SR season...and was still rated as a Top100 Texas recruit. That's impressive since he hadn't played in 2 seasons.


Really, the wideouts ISU will really have to be concerned about are: Eric Ward, Torres, Moore, Jakeem Grant, Bradley Marquez, and Jace Amaro. Amaro is our TE, but we also like to flex him out...especially in the red zone. He poses match up problems because of his size, and speed. He should be a Jermaine Gresham type player, but he's only a true sophomore, and he's still learning.

Jakeem Grant might be our most electrifying player, but he's very, very small (only about 5'6, and 165-170). His best 100m time in high school was a 10.41, so he's obviously very fast. I'd guess he's a true high 4.3-low 4.4 40 type player.

Our OL will have to be able to give Doege time to go through his progressions, which he's done pretty good so far this season. If he can do that, he should have a very good day.

ISU will have to be able to put pressure on him with the front 4 to really be able to slow our offense down.

 

[The_Architect]

The main difference this year for the cyclones is Jantz as the starter. To me this results in less rushing yards and attempts for us as jb was clearly the better zone read guy. Tech LBs had major issues with that last season. However if jantz makes sound decisions we could easily still have 200+ on the ground. As the tech dlineman in this new 4/3 have nit played anyone with any physical skill what so ever and should not be able to control gaps. I expect a closer game then last season but also fully expect the cyclones to be the better and more physical team. Less than 2 turnovers and we still win by 10+
​

You also need to factor in that we lost our two best run blockers from the O-line and that we havent been dominating the LOS in the run game nearly as much as last season. KO and Hicks (and the other 3) were destroying the extremely undersized Tech D-line last season in the run game. I'll be shocked if we manhandle them again in that facet of the game.

 

[Tedcyclone]

Thanks. To many 3 and outs this season and we may be in trouble. We ran 93 plays last season compared to 64 for tech.
So far this year tech has has
93 plays, 67 plays, 90 plays.

 

[ttraiderbacker]

You also need to factor in that we lost our two best run blockers from the O-line and that we havent been dominating the LOS in the run game nearly as much as last season. KO and Hicks (and the other 3) were destroying the extremely undersized Tech D-line last season in the run game. I'll be shocked if we manhandle them again in that facet of the game.

You noticed our DL was extremely undersized, too? I think Hyder, last season, went about 265...as a DT. He's now up to about 285, and Simmons goes about 290-300. Depth isn't quite there yet, so that may be where ISU can take advantage of Tech's DL. String some plays together, and tire those guys out.

 

[VeloClone]

You noticed our DL was extremely undersized, too? I think Hyder, last season, went about 265...as a DT. He's now up to about 285, and Simmons goes about 290-300. Depth isn't quite there yet, so that may be where ISU can take advantage of Tech's DL. String some plays together, and tire those guys out.

Great point. There is a huge contrast between the depth on the DL for Tech and ISU. But you have to keep them on the field to exploit that. Can this O do this?

 

[bigsag]

Let's just play this game and get this "point", "counter-point" stuff put to bed.

 

[ttraiderbacker]

Let's just play this game and get this "point", "counter-point" stuff put to bed.

But, that's the fun part of being a fan.

 

[ajk4st8]

ISU's run game needs to kick it into the next gear as well. Our rushing stats in the Iowa game, and WIU game for Steele, Shontrelle, and James White (othr than his 60 yard run) were pretty poor. Being inconsistent running the ball almost cost us the Iowa game, as well as causing an offensive lull in the WIU game.

Our scoring defense is ranked 9th nationally, so that easily shows you how skewed those stats can be this time of the year.

 

[ttraiderbacker]

ISU's run game needs to kick it into the next gear as well. Our rushing stats in the Iowa game, and WIU game for Steele, Shontrelle, and James White (othr than his 60 yard run) were pretty poor. Being inconsistent running the ball almost cost us the Iowa game, as well as causing an offensive lull in the WIU game.

Our scoring defense is ranked 9th nationally, so that easily shows you how skewed those stats can be this time of the year.

ISU ran the ball on everyone last year. From 1st game of conference on, ISU ran for over 120 in every game, except against Rutgers. Even in some of your losses, you ran the ball well (over 150, and up to about 190, I believe).

The problem ISU had last year, was not being able to stop people. ISU gave up over 500 yards in all of the losses, except for KSU, UT, and Rutgers. Even in your win against OSU, you still gave up 536 yards, and then ISU got about 570 yards.

UT-- TO's killed ISU, with 3
BU--gave up over 600 yds...still ran for 180 (TO's even at 2 apiece)
MU--gave up 583 yds...TO's even at 3 (ISU still ran for 157)
ATM--gve up 510 yards...ran for 125...1 TO.
OU---gave up 509 yards...ran for 120...TO's even at 4 apiece
KSU---ISU ran for 215 in a loss...had 2 TO's and KSU played their game by not having any

ISU, for the most part, really didn't run much better in their wins, than they did in their losses.

 

[GMackey32]

ISU ran the ball on everyone last year. From 1st game of conference on, ISU ran for over 120 in every game, except against Rutgers. Even in some of your losses, you ran the ball well (over 150, and up to about 190, I believe).

The problem ISU had last year, was not being able to stop people. ISU gave up over 500 yards in all of the losses, except for KSU, UT, and Rutgers. Even in your win against OSU, you still gave up 536 yards, and then ISU got about 570 yards.

UT-- TO's killed ISU, with 3
BU--gave up over 600 yds...still ran for 180 (TO's even at 2 apiece)
MU--gave up 583 yds...TO's even at 3 (ISU still ran for 157)
ATM--gve up 510 yards...ran for 125...1 TO.
OU---gave up 509 yards...ran for 120...TO's even at 4 apiece
KSU---ISU ran for 215 in a loss...had 2 TO's and KSU played their game by not having any

ISU, for the most part, really didn't run much better in their wins, than they did in their losses.

I think part of that problem was that our defense was gassed due to the offenses knack for giving the ball away. We also didn't have the depth on the D-line last year as we do this year so we weren't effective at stopping people as the games went on.

 

[ttraiderbacker]

I'm not sure which matchup I'm more excited to see. Tech offense against ISU defense, or ISU offense against Tech defense?

I think Tech gets their yards, and points, but I want to see how ISU's offense does against our defense.

 

[GMackey32]

I'm not sure which matchup I'm more excited to see. Tech offense against ISU defense, or ISU offense against Tech defense?

I think Tech gets their yards, and points, but I want to see how ISU's offense does against our defense.

Honest question, why do you think they'll get their yards and points?

 

[VeloClone]

From 1st game of conference on, ISU ran for over 120 in every game, except against Rutgers. Even in some of your losses, you ran the ball well (over 150, and up to about 190, I believe).

ISU, for the most part, really didn't run much better in their wins, than they did in their losses.

Since you brought up how ISU ran the ball in conference check this out:

ISU average in 6 conference losses: 154.33 yards per game
ISU average in 3 conference wins: 270.33 yards per game

I would say a difference of 116 yards per game is much better.

And since you said "from first conference game on" with the bowl game that difference goes up to 125 per game.

That being said, I think turnovers were the largest problem.

 

[ajk4st8]

ISU ran the ball on everyone last year. From 1st game of conference on, ISU ran for over 120 in every game, except against Rutgers. Even in some of your losses, you ran the ball well (over 150, and up to about 190, I believe).

The problem ISU had last year, was not being able to stop people. ISU gave up over 500 yards in all of the losses, except for KSU, UT, and Rutgers. Even in your win against OSU, you still gave up 536 yards, and then ISU got about 570 yards.

UT-- TO's killed ISU, with 3
BU--gave up over 600 yds...still ran for 180 (TO's even at 2 apiece)
MU--gave up 583 yds...TO's even at 3 (ISU still ran for 157)
ATM--gve up 510 yards...ran for 125...1 TO.
OU---gave up 509 yards...ran for 120...TO's even at 4 apiece
KSU---ISU ran for 215 in a loss...had 2 TO's and KSU played their game by not having any

ISU, for the most part, really didn't run much better in their wins, than they did in their losses.

Exactly my second point. Our defense will give up a ton of yards this year, eventually. We are not that great of a defense, yet we are ranked 9th nationally.

It was my point that it doesn't concern me that Texas Tech has such a highly ranked D. Do I think their defense is better this year, Im sure it is. In fact might be quite a bit better. But it is still nothing to be concerned about.

This game isn't going to be so much about how good the Tech D is, but rather if the ISU offense can stay on the field.

 

[ttraiderbacker]

Since you brought up how ISU ran the ball in conference check this out:

ISU average in 6 conference losses: 154.33 yards per game
ISU average in 3 conference wins: 270.33 yards per game

I would say a difference of 116 yards per game is much better.

And since you said "from first conference game on" with the bowl game that difference goes up to 125 per game.

That being said, I think turnovers were the largest problem.

When you average it out, it looks huge, but when you look at the individual games, it's not really. When you win 3 conference games, and run for 350+, and 250+ in two of those...against 2 of the worst defenses, then you will come up with those kind of numbers.

 

[ttraiderbacker]

Honest question, why do you think they'll get their yards and points?

Honest answer: I think Tech's offense is too good, too talented, and too deep to be shut down (<30 points) by anybody in this conference.

I think Tech gets about 510 yards, and 34 points (more if ISU turns the ball over) in this game. If we give up more, then so be it, but I don't think we will.

 

[VeloClone]

When you average it out, it looks huge, but when you look at the individual games, it's not really. When you win 3 conference games, and run for 350+, and 250+ in two of those...against 2 of the worst defenses, then you will come up with those kind of numbers.

Well the other number was 192 which was also high; higher than the total in all but one of the games that ISU lost. So yes, I agree, when you average three high numbers you are going to get a high number.

The point he made and you attempted to refute was that ISU's rush game needs to kick it up a notch. You chose to put stats up for games from the start of the conference season on last year and said that ISU's rushing wasn't significantly different in wins and losses from that point on. Those stats support his assertion and not yours.

 

[GMackey32]

Honest answer: I think Tech's offense is too good, too talented, and too deep to be shut down (<30 points) by anybody in this conference.

I think Tech gets about 510 yards, and 34 points (more if ISU turns the ball over) in this game. If we give up more, then so be it, but I don't think we will.

So you add a couple of receivers and it automatically gives you 27 more points than last year? I have no doubt that Texas Tech's offense can move the ball, but ISU's defense made Tech's offense their ***** last year. ISU's defense has improved from last year too. I just don't see how you think Tech will be able to move the ball at will. like you imply. Saying "they will get their points" doesn't mean it'll happen.