Lyle Setencich Resigns, Big 12 mourns
Getting over easily on the Tech defense may have just gotten marginally more difficult than getting over on a Tech co-ed.
Setencich, now replaced by interim DC Ruffin McNeill, has long played defensive albatross to Mike Leach’s offensive genius and it should be interesting to see if Tech can cobble together a defense several steps above sub-marginal after their horrendous display against the Cowboys. This (forced) resignation is premised on the notion that if your offense amasses around 700 yards of offense, you should eke out a victory.
What does this all mean?
1. Nothing. Tech’s defenses reek because of their recruiting. Who cares who the captain is on the Titanic? The offense can’t protect a lead and you can’t get a four star defensive recruit to sniff Lubbock. In fact, who wants to sniff Lubbock, anyway? While they’re at it, Tech should install the Veer. Goddamn Sand Aggies.
2. Something. Tech may not have great athletes, but playing a bend-but-don’t-break defense is incompatible with Tech’s offense. It allows teams to dictate tempo. They need turnovers and big plays, even if they do give up some points. Any change here is a positive if they’ll put in an attacking style unconventional defense. Recruiting may even get better as they place a premium on speed and make it a fun system to play in - see TCU. The Big 12 South just got more dangerous.
3. Everything. Setencich was the sole barrier to Tech writing their names large in the annals of college football. Tech will finally make a move as a national player to be feared. Texas Tech is a sleeping giant.
Where do you fall?
September 23, 2007 at 6:10 pm
I’ll have to go with the 2nd scenario. By employing a high risk, attacking style defense, Tech would force the other team to play their game. Each team would have even a greater number of possessions, resulting in a scoring avalanche, which in turn makes QB’s and receivers the focus of the game for each team. Tech would have a big advantage here.
September 23, 2007 at 6:24 pm
It doesn’t mean anything, because you can always get snitch in Lubbock and then leave.
September 23, 2007 at 7:32 pm
I have to believe it means very little. Mike Leach is the post-modern Johnny Mac, with pirate motif added for flavor. Leach is an offensive genius. Just ask him. You know, when he’s sober. Or un-crazy. Okay, so don’t ask him, but ask other coaches and they’ll tell you, “He’s a fucking genius. He has to be. I recruited Sonny Cumbie – as our backup manager. You try and it explain Sonny to someone and tell me how Mike Leach isn’t a fucking genius.” But other than being a genius, he’s also offensively greedy. All the best athletes play on the offensive side of the ball. As long as Mike Leach is the head coach, they always will too. No respectable defensive coordinator is going to put up with that for long. Maybe Bobby Jack will, but no RESPECTABLE defensive coordinator. The only difference I see this making is who Mike Leach will be hysterically waving his sabre at next week, that is if he’s coherent. We all know it his lucid states are few and far between.
September 24, 2007 at 7:14 am
#2-Something. That’s all anyone f/m Tech could ever want for the RedRaiders. A little offensive novelty recognition and a chance to upset Cal-Berkeley (or someone like…) when they get screwed out of a BCS Bowl.
*Side-Note—I found out this weekend that not one bar in Chicago serves Crown and “purple-drank”…*(see the blog for the Miami vs A&M game)
September 24, 2007 at 5:31 pm
I’ll trade Tech’s bend-but-don’t break Defense over our (NU’s) bend-over-and-break-me Defense. Expect to see a “Wanted: Defensive Coordinator for Land Grant University. Must like Corn and Larry the Cable Guy” ad circulating the papers around Lincoln in a few months.
September 25, 2007 at 6:24 am
#1 Nothing.
I still believe that Tech’s offensive scheme is at least in part responsible for their defensive woes. Going head to head in practice every day with “Sooper Genius” Leach’s offense doesn’t allow the defense many reps against more traditional schemes. Couple that with the need for big time playmaker recruits on defense (which Tech has been unable to attract), and you have Tech’s recipe for defensive ineptitude.
September 25, 2007 at 11:45 am
It happened to us with Mackovic. We replaced him and then our defense improved dramatically over a short period of time. Top recruit signed and the rest is history. Why can’t that happen to Texas Tech? If Leach gets enough pressure form the alums and donors to get himself a decent Def. coordinator, Tech can be a powerhouse. Imagine if we have Leach as our offensive coordinator with all the talent we have. It wouldn’t be boring to say the least.
Hook’em
September 25, 2007 at 12:10 pm
I agree with Brandon here, it’s a problem for all offenses with unusual formations. Run n Gun back at UH comes to mind. And, counter to Utfan… it happened here after Mackovic because… well… “we’re Texas”, and Tech will always be behind UT, OU, and for defensive recruits, even the Aggies. So there’s a question in my mind as to whether Tech can get a decent DC. Especially now that Leach has shown such a fondness for throwing everyone else under the bus once or twice a year.
September 25, 2007 at 12:10 pm
#3 Tech will dominate the world of football shortly. They’re just waiting on me to get my penis enhancement and then they’ll be good to go.
September 25, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Let me play devil’s advocate here:
No doubt playing Leach’s offense influences the ability of your defense to prepare for a more conventional running game, but the fact is that the Big 12 is now a 3-4 wide, spread offense dominated conference. A&M is the only team that uses the spread primarily to run.
I’m not sure facing their offense puts them at the disadvantage we imagine. We’re channeling the Big 12 circa 1996 with those observations.
Your retort?
September 25, 2007 at 2:14 pm
My retort is that I’m channeling the Southwest Conference circa 1986.
(no bowl game and finally fired Fred)
But Tech fans are concerned about their defense not getting good practices in and here’s the parting shot from the outgoing DC -
“They don’t care about defense down here,” Setencich told the World-Herald. “We’re just here to practice against the offense. Mike wants to play good defense. But he’s more interested in us just getting them the ball back.”
So it may be a mentality thing that comes from the head coach as much as a practice against typical schemes thing.
September 26, 2007 at 11:27 am
The “they don’t care about defense down here” comment from Lyle was actually made to the Omaha paper over a month ago; it was not a “parting shot,” as you put it. Get your facts straight! If you wanna pick on someone, pick on me - I’m a man, I’m forty!
September 26, 2007 at 4:12 pm
“I’m not sure facing their offense puts them at the disadvantage we imagine. We’re channeling the Big 12 circa 1996 with those observations.”
Facing their offense,(and other Big 12 offenses) with inferior talent puts them at a disadvantage.
They are like Mackovic’s teams in that the people they are lining up with on defense do not have enough speed — or skills — to run any kind of “dowhnill” attacking defense.
It isn’t that they can’t tackle because they aren’t used to being run at (or over} it’s that they are quick enough or good enough to get in the proper position to make the stop.
I know a couple of their kids on defense that are starting or playing heavy minutes for them, who weren’t as good as kids who are walk ons at Texas and OU on their HS teams.
September 26, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Srr is right. Tech graduated a mediocre class of senior defensive players one year ago and has replaced them with a younger, and less talented group of players. Some of their LB’s make Killebrew and Bobino look like Butkis and Nitcshke.
September 27, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Scipio
Last time I checked most of the scout teams were running the other teams offense, not TTU’s. TTU’s defense doesn’t practice against their spread offense.
September 27, 2007 at 3:53 pm
It’s about 50% #1 and 50% #2. The scheme is shitty for our offense and anything is better than what we are running now. Our linebackers couldn’t catch AIDS. However, one starter has already been demoted off the depth chart by the new DC. We’ve got some players in some places, but not the hosses to go around. Will help against A&M’s one dimensional offense, but will still get rolled by good offenses like Mizzou, UT and OU.
September 27, 2007 at 10:07 pm
srr50:
Good point.
Brushpile Bill:
Disagree. Most scrimmaging, spring practice, summer two-a-days is all 1 vs 2’s and some 1’s vs 1’s. Season practice is two days of scout teams and one day of walk through per week.
October 1, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Definitely some #1 mixed with some #2 with a new chance in hell at #3. Over the past 2 seasons Tech has graduated a bunch of 1* and 2* talent off D and replaced then with 3*’s across the board. That’s a marked improvement, but they’re all young.
Scipio hits on the main difference when you talk about the contrasting styles of the Tech D and O. The O will generally execute on a higher level that 9/10 teams that Tech plays through the end of Harrell’s senior season in 2008. The old bend-bend-bend-then-break D killed Tech because it kept the ball away from the offense.
If the new D will at least take risks even if they don’t lower their ppg, they’ll be getting the ball the the Tech O more often. The O can score with the best of em.
October 1, 2007 at 2:08 pm
This is a response to the Setencich quote from Born a Horn.
Is it not the point of the defense to get the ball back?
October 1, 2007 at 2:18 pm
what you guys fail to notice is that techs athletes on D are equal if not superior to CU and KSU. You keep mentioning Tech’s lack of athletes on the defensive side while someone pumped TCU…good lord, go to rivals and compare TCU recruits to Techs, not close. The athletes, while not on same line as UT/OU, better than most. Compare WVu, Wisconsin, and Techs recruiting classes on rivals. It was their DC pure and simple.
October 1, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Big12 observer brings up a good point. Most of Tech’s starters on defense had offers from other BCS schools like Notre Dame, OU, Arkansas, and even Aggy (gasp) for example.
I think UT fans get a little busy counting their recruiting stars and get a little behind on other Big 12 teams not named OU or Aggy.
You act like Tech has KU’s recruiting class or something.
October 1, 2007 at 4:47 pm
The argument that Tech’s offense has something to do with its dismal defense is total bull. Our 1st team defense does not practice against our 1st team offense in preparation for oposing teams. . . .we have a scout team that simulates opposing offenses.
October 1, 2007 at 4:51 pm
You can debate how much the former DC’s gameplanning (or lack thereof) effected the outcome of games (OSU in particular, UT last year comes to mind) but his lack of ability to recruit has always hurt us. That’s gone and new effort in recruiting will help drastically. Even with our 3* players…
October 1, 2007 at 5:47 pm
You guys listen to too much announcer-talk. You have hit all of the common threads. Tech is more dangerous now than they ever were before.
Can they run the table? Maybe not, but we are certainly better positioned to take out OU and UT than anyone realized in the preseason. Coach Set was like a governor on a high-powered sports car. He always urged caution, trying to keep everything in front of the defense. It did not fit the team profile and it did not work. We are transitioning into an attack-oriented defense, built on speed. This should work.
I vote for a point somewhere between #2 and #3. More than something, less than everything.
October 1, 2007 at 8:54 pm
I’d say somewhere in between #2 and #3. Do we get the athletes with a trillion stars after their name? No. Big12observer nailed it - we DO have the athletes to play good defense. Rivals stars and fictional national recruiting championships don’t determine national championships, otherwise Mack and the boys would have won many championships in his tenure, but they haven’t. Why? Cos you have to develop the talent, and Mack hasn’t been able to and has been the most overrated coach in the country since his arrival in Austin. Let me remind you that UT was perenially playing in San Diego in the Holiday Bowl until Vince made Mack look like he actually had a clue! Now Vince is gone and the horns are back to being Mack’s horns - Struggling to beat Arkansas State, TCU and UCF (the 117th passing team in the nation!), and get yer asses WHOOPED by K State! Did those boys look like “inferior talent” on defense as they were kicking Colt McCoy’s ass up and down the field, and drilling his shoulder into the turf? Do you think those defenses were full of 4 and 5* athletes? No, their coaches took the talent they had, coached ‘em up and put them into position to make plays and be successful. Setenbitch didn’t do that, and he’s gone. I like what I’m hearing Ruff (the interim DC) is doing. They won’t become a dominant, shut down defense overnight…and Ruff may not be named permanent DC, but he’s better than what we had…ANYTHING’S better than what we had.
Will we win the Big XII South this year? Probably not. OU is the team to beat in spite of losing to Colorado. UT definitely won’t! At least OU didn’t struggle to beat the aforementioned teams that UT struggled mightily with, or get their asses kicked like UT did. We will win in Austin this year! Don’t like our chances against OU. We’ll be a force in the South this year, but ‘08 is our year!
PS. For all of you horns who are enamored with stars behind a player’s name, we will have the nos. 10 and 14 nationally ranked JUCO players coming in next year, two Defensive Ends, both 4 star players. We also have 2 more 3 star Defensive ends in that class as well. We are also one of the leaders for the services of a 4 star Defensive Tackle. We are only targeting 1 linebacker in this upcoming class, and we are a leader for a 3 star linebacker, to go along with a 3 star cornerback commit. Are those UT and OU level? Not yet, but not quite KU and TCU and whatever low level teams you are comparing our recruiting to.
October 15, 2007 at 11:17 am
I have a different take on all this. I played under “Lyle” when he first coached at Albany High in albany ca in 1975. Anything bad that happens to this man makes me smile because he is a RACIST!
October 15, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Cougar - Are you a honky?
October 20, 2007 at 7:31 am
Randy Galloway and Brian Estridge said it best on ESPN radio yesterday: If you’re a high school football player in Texas, particularly one that plays defense, you should commit to Texas Tech. You’ll get a chance to start right away. And you know you’ll be going to play for a team that can score points on offense. Go to Texas, Oklahoma or A&M and you could be warming the bench the whole time you’re there. They have too many players and too much wasted talent. It’s probably why their graduation rates are so low. Players give up after two years of watching from the sidelines and drop out.
If Tech gets this defense problem turned around, it could very well signal the changing of the guard has fully completed. Today’s game against Missouri will tell you which way this season and next season are going for Tech. The team is young and will be returning most of their players next year.
October 23, 2007 at 11:46 am
Tech got their asses handed to them