Texas Tech, Baylor and the D

Cougar Football
1

What is now happening to UH and our D is nothing new to Texas Tech with Kingsbury’s O or at Baylor when Art Briles was HC. It is interesting to look at how differently each program has handled this situation of super fast O play calling and tired D’s.

Both Tech and Baylor had great O’s with talent and depth. Neither had good D’s and little depth. Tech has developed depth and has greatly improved their D. No one will confuse the Tech D with Clemson, Alabama, LSU or a few others. But for Tech’s fast paced O, Gibbs has been allowed to stay and over several years develop depth.

In 2014 Tech lost to TCU 82-27 and in 2015 they lost to Oklahoma 63-27 and Okla. St. 70-53. This year since they allowed Gibbs to recruit and develop players has seen Tech defeating a bad TCU team 17-14, Oklahoma St. 41-17 and losing to Oklahoma 51-46 with Oklahoma having one of the best scoring O’s in college FB.

Tech learned that to keep their O, they also needed to keep the DC and build a custom made D that slowed down the other team. They now have a D with quality depth, depth that they previously did not have due to a prior revolving door at the DC position.

Baylor did something unique and very different approach. They sought after the best D players they could acquire. Whether by transfer, JC or HS with little or know concern of character. They needed players that were willing to play for 85 or more plays a game. They wanted “Bad Dudes” and they got them. Unfortunately some crossed the line and Baylor took a hit in the area of public opinion.

But Baylor might play in a Bowl game this year and just like Baylor BB, what happened will be history. Fans will be going to games hoping to compete for another BIG12 championship next year

So will UH replace DC’s like Texas Tech did until they got tired of watching Baylor defeat them 63-35 in 2015. Or replace the DC’s and start recruiting questionable characters like Baylor. Players who are given a second chance and willing to play 85 - 100 snaps a game while continuing their questionable behavior that got them on the don’t recruit list of other schools.

Note both Tech and Baylor also have the advantage of being in a P5 with all the marquee games, P5 money, and media support. UH is a G5 with none of that.

UH DC will be attempting to recruit players who could play for a P5 program or who are diamonds in the rough and tell them they will be playing most of the game. That is a difficult job and even Tech realized it takes patience. Yeah they are complaining because of years of average to bad FB (5-7 to 7-5 seasons) but this season they finally have a D.

6 Likes
2

KK has also slowed pace each last 4 years…and D has gradually improved. Gibbs gave up 43 points first 2 years…it’s still 30. And TT yards per play over 6 still. Uh 5.5

1 Like
3

I think the coaching continuity allows teams to develop depth more than just recruit it. The recruiting has to be there, but without consistent and good coaching, it won’t yield good results.

The trick is finding effective coaches who will stick around.

1 Like
4

The right path forward should not be the Baylor model for sure. A combination of slowing the offensive pace and developing depth is the right path but will be hindered by our G5 status (ie ability to keep coaches long term). The need to keep coaches long term is probably the most critical issue we have for developing and sustaining depth. New coaching staffs usually lead to philosophy changes that your current players may not fit well. Difficult all the way around. Situation normal for Coog Nation.

1 Like
5

In today’s fluid college coaching especially at G5 schools, keeping a DC is difficult enough. With UH’s fast O and being a G5 makes it way more difficult.

Let’s say the DC at UAB does a great job and they upset Aggie this year. How many P5’s will be offering to double his salary with potential of having it doubled or tripled if he is successful.

Think about this. Orlando is now making in one year close to what UH’s DC will make in 3.

1 Like
6

We sometime forget that during Sumlin’s stay at UH there was another OC who became a P5 HC. Dana Holgorsen was also an OC who liked to play it fast and in his first year at WVU his team defeated Clemson 70-33 in the 2012 Orange Bowl.

But his O has slowed down and his D’s have drastically improved. Now he has just beaten UT in Austin 42-41. That was 42 point against 1.7 million dollar a year UT DC Orlando D. That is a lot of money for a DC whose team needed one stop to end the game and have a great victory in front of over 100,000 fans in Austin. Talent, depth, and a loss. Maybe stopping great O’s is more difficult than many think.

3 Likes
7

Here’s the thing…UAB offense runs 2.16 plays per minute so D plays 60 plays per game. All the DCs having good years play for slow offenses!!!
CMD was #24 last year in D efficiency with and offense that went st 2.55 ppm…a moderate to fast pace. Briles Offense is going at 3.10. Guess what pace was for TT game??? 3.78 ppm. Baylor had a load of these games from 2011-2016!under the Briles. The offense would crap out 2x a year and then win Rest 63-56. And then beat 4 cupcakes by 70-14. This is nothing new

4 Likes
8

Baylor got players they wanted on D and Phil Bennett eventually figured it out.
Bennett cane to Baylor after 2 years at Pitt where he had Top 20 defenses in all categories. But Pitt ran ball and slow pace just above 2.00 ppm.
He comes Baylor 2011 when Briles just sped up…Baylor pace was moderate 2.48 ppm in 2010…they bumped to 2.78 in 2011(went crazy after) and Bennett defense imploded for first 2 years giving up 40 ish points and allowing 51% first downs. In 2013 it improved drastically…and then gradually got a little worse each year again through 2016…but not as bad as first 2 years.

9

The biggest transition is Dana Holgorsen at WVU. His DC demanded a slower pace or he wouldn’t stay. Dana runs more than he throws. They still have quick strike capabilities and use them.

10

Just for grins, it would be really fun to see Alabama speed up their offense to say, 2.75 ppm and see what effect it would have on a defense with tremendous depth.

2 Likes
11

I am not so sure about fatigue as an excuse. The games are much slower now with the TV
advertizing. We can see numerous breaks of five minutes caused by injuries, time outs, challenges, measurements, etc.

12

If you’re going to run a Briles offense, then you better have quality depth on your defensive 2’s and 3’s…This is something we don’t have and will always struggle to achieve.

13

you are saying our defense is the symptom of our offense…

outside of the texs tech game that isnt the root of our defensive problem

  1. if pace was the issue our defense should be Worse at the end of game and strong at the beginning of games
    outside of texas tech that hasnt been the case at all…
    we have been getting torched on fresh legs
  1. texas tech can’t recruit because they are in lubbock (aka new mexico)…and played in the big 12…we are in houston (recruiting mecca) and play in the aac…we have played 1 legitimate offense all year…yet are still bottom 100 in every defensive stat

what is in the OP is a legitimate issue for uptempo, but it has nothing to do with why we are struggling this year

2 Likes
14

And rumor has it that Gibbs told KK that if you want better defense then slow it down. It seems he listened.
This doesn’t mean go at snails pace.
Mike Leach and WSU run 2.31 ppm…relatively slow…but many slower. He leads FBs in passing 390 per game

15

This is just speculation on my part, but it seems like the successful passing attacks that operate at a slower pace gain an advantage by actually taking the time to read a defense pre-snap. I think we go way too fast in that regard. We’re hoping to catch the defense still in thought, but the reality is, we’re going so fast that we’re having to guess at what they are thinking. I would like to see us go no huddle to avoid allowing the defense to sub, but actually let King/Briles take their time to read the defense and call a more effective play pre-snap. We have the athletes at WR to impose our will in the passing game without having to go at warp speed to try to catch defenses off guard. Seems like it would be worth a try at least.

16

Quantity has a quality all its own. Playing fast means you get more offensive plays in which to gain yards and score, but it’s a double edged sword. It’s not necessarily fatigue, just sheer quantity of opportunities to gain, for both teams.

Our coaches want to establish the run in every game, but our losses have come when they didn’t give up on that project in a timely manner in favor of the passing game, which works. Those offensive plays and possessions are wasted. Our best formula is to go up at least two scores early to put the opposing offense in panic mode, and keep the pressure on until out of reach. If we can run, great, but we can’t leave tools in the toolbox while opposing qb’s get comfortable.

17

When you say “D” you do mean “defense” right? I can never be too sure anymore with Baylor and all y’know.

1 Like
18

2002
We are #11 in Offense Efficiency 76.0 grade . Pace 3.10
The 10 teams ahead of us. Average Pace 2.37 ppm
Average grade 84.9
The fastest pace is Ole Miss at 2.65…Grade 80.1
Bama 98.0 2.22
Okla 97.7. 2.21

19

Alabama’s defense wouldn’t be phased especially with all those 5 and 4 stars they would rotate in and out. Now that would be the perfect defense with a team that has an up tempo offense.

20

Our defense is bad.

We are dead last in 3rd down conversions given up per game. UCLA is 129 at 7.6 and we give up 9.0 a game.

We are 112 in red zone attempts for our opponents with 4.6 a game.

We are 126 in red zone scores per game with 4.5.

Only East Carolina (100%) is worse than us at giving up points in the red zone. 97.3% of the time our defense gives up points inside the 20. That is not a good percentage.

Our offense scores 90.3% of the time in the red zone. 17th in the nation.

Our offense converts 7.2 3rd downs a game. 5th in the nation.

Our offense is not the problem with our defense. The talent is not a problem with our defense.

Our coaches are the problem with our defense.

2 Likes