Wreck'Em Red
Fansided

Texas Tech football: Statistical goals for the 2020 defense

By Matthew Conner

LUBBOCK, TEXAS - NOVEMBER 23: Defensive end Eli Howard #53 of the Texas Tech Red Raiders battles past right tackle Nick Kaltmayer #77 of the Kansas State Wildcats during the first half of the college football game on November 23, 2019 at Jones AT&T Stadium in Lubbock, Texas. (Photo by John E. Moore III/Getty Images)
LUBBOCK, TEXAS - NOVEMBER 23: Defensive end Eli Howard #53 of the Texas Tech Red Raiders battles past right tackle Nick Kaltmayer #77 of the Kansas State Wildcats during the first half of the college football game on November 23, 2019 at Jones AT&T Stadium in Lubbock, Texas. (Photo by John E. Moore III/Getty Images) /
facebooktwitterreddit
Prev
2 of 6
Next
Quarterback Khalil Tate #14 of the Arizona Wildcats rushes the football past cornerback Ja’Marcus Ingram #22 of the Texas Tech Red Raiders during the second half of the NCAAF game at Arizona Stadium on September 14, 2019 in Tucson, Arizona. (Photo by Christian Petersen/Getty Images)
Quarterback Khalil Tate #14 of the Arizona Wildcats rushes the football past cornerback Ja’Marcus Ingram #22 of the Texas Tech Red Raiders during the second half of the NCAAF game at Arizona Stadium on September 14, 2019 in Tucson, Arizona. (Photo by Christian Petersen/Getty Images) /

Allow no more than 39% success rate on 3rd down

One huge area of weakness for last year’s Red Raider defense was its inability to get off the field on third down.  Allowing the opposition to convert 41.6% of the time, Tech was No. 91 in the nation in that category.

In fact, in Tech’s eight losses, the defense allowed a successful third-down conversion on 47.9% of the opportunities. That included 71.4% by Arizona, 62.5% by TCU, 60% by Kansas, and 59% by Texas.  Meanwhile, in Tech’s four wins, the opposition was successful just 23% of the time.

Part of Tech’s struggles on third down had to be attributed to mental mistakes, which were especially evident in the secondary.  That’s somewhat to be expected in the first year of a new defensive scheme and hopefully, year-two will see fewer gaffes in that respect.

Also, this is where Patterson’s aggressive play-calling can be problematic.  Frequently asking his undermanned secondary to play man coverage on third-and-long so that he could bring extra blitzes, he often took chances that the talent on his team suggested he shouldn’t.

Another factor was Tech’s lack of depth, especially along the defensive line.  Many of the backbreaking conversions came in the fourth quarter and were a direct result of a tired defense simply being unable to rise to the occasion.  The belief is that this year’s defense should be more capable of spelling the starters throughout the game in order to prevent that script from repeating in 2020.

So what should be Tech’s goal in this category this year?  If Patterson’s unit can keep the opponents from converting no more than 39% of the time, it would be a significant increase and sufficient enough to yield more victories.  (Last year, that would have been good enough to be in the top half nationally at No. 65 overall.)

We aren’t asking Tech to be top-10 here.  That’s an almost impossible ask in the offensively intoxicated Big 12.  But if the Red Raiders can be just in the top half of teams in America, it would be a huge difference this year.

Home/Texas Tech Football