First and foremost, this is a really hard day. With Coach Kingsbury, you had a head coach who cared deeply about this program and everyone involved with it, a man who worked his tail off day and night to try and win here, and a man who is in fact a good man. It’s really hard to find all three of those characteristics in a football coach, but Texas Tech had one. But this is also a big money business, and at the end of the day, through six years, you just didn’t have the results to justify keeping him on as the head coach. And I HATE that. Hate it. Kliff deserved the Ws, and things just didn’t work out. But, he’ll land on his feet. My hope is all of his assistants and support staff do the same. There are a ton of fantastic people over at the FTF that never get talked about, and they deserve to find soft landing spots. I wish success on everyone that was involved in Kingsbury's program.
So, why didn’t it work? A few thoughts:
-Kingsbury’s teams perennially trended downward as seasons went on. They didn’t ever seem to turn a corner in the back half of a season, never seemed to improve in late October/November.
-So, why is that? I think a lot of it is injury and depth related. The depth just wasn’t ever there for the team to keep up the level of play we would see through the first 6-7 games. Key injuries happen every year throughout college football, but good programs generally have the overall roster depth to at least stem off some of the drop off.
-This also comes back to recruiting. Kingsbury’s staff simply didn’t recruit well enough overall. I think the staff did a great job of identifying and plucking diamonds in the rough, whether that be at the high school, JUCO, or transfer level. A FANTASTIC job in fact. They found a lot of guys other staffs didn’t. But that can’t be your bread and butter. Your bread and butter has got to be through traditional high school recruiting, and Kingsbury’s staff simply didn’t recruit well enough in the traditional sense. If you want to consistently compete against Oklahoma State, West Virginia, Baylor, and TCU for the upper-middle tier of this conference, you have to consistently recruit at the same level as they do. Tech currently does not do that consistently.
-On the field, I think this team lacked a killer, finisher mentality and just overall mental toughness under Kingsbury. He tried to fix that in multiple offseasons, and it never materialized in any consistent way. Too often the team would crumble when facing adversity or trying to put their foot on an opponent’s throat. I think his record at home and his record when trailing at halftime show that. I thought the team showed real fight and mental toughness at times this season, something that was extremely encouraging, but that edge the team seemed to have much of this season was completely gone by the time they played K-State and Baylor.
-This team did not play enough complementary football under Kingsbury. In almost every season, it was passing game or bust. Despite the fantastic special teams, improved defense, and seemingly new commitment to a physical run game we saw through the first 5-6 games this season, everything once again devolved into an attempt to outscore people through the air. That creates erratic, inconsistent football. That simply won’t work to win in the current Big 12 landscape. You can point to Oklahoma and their flaws, but they do have a transcendent player at QB to go along with a punishing, tyrannical offensive line that assures they can score on anyone through the air or on the ground.
-Which brings me to my next point: One of the things I was most disappointed in through Kliff’s tenure was the lack of physicality and development in the trenches. I think there have been some really talented O-linemen in Kliff’s tenure (Clark, Kaster, Brown, Bruffy, Anderson, Akamnonu, Steele), but they’ve all played very up and down, particularly as a unit. A true powerful running game came to fruition in just 2015, and that’s when you had some salty vets including an NFL QB who could punish on the ground and the best RB in the Air Raid Era. Even in that season the OL had their ups and downs. I thought the biggest failing of this season and what ultimately contributed the most to Kingsbury’s firing was this 2018 team’s inability to run the ball in the final six games. It was nonexistent, even with a veteran OL and a few capable RBs. Hell, Kliff hired a guy to try and boost the run game in the offseason, and it ultimately had little effect on the field. Having a potent running attack would’ve alleviated the issues at QB, and Kliff Kingsbury would likely still be the head coach if you could run the ball.
-Defensively, I thought David Gibbs worked some true magic to pull that unit out of the depths of football hell and back into some level of semi-respectability. But at the end of the day, they didn’t quite make enough improvement. When the turnovers dried up this year, opposing offenses abused Tech through the air too much. I think much of that has to do with the lack of capable pass rushers, lack of depth in the secondary, and some confounding decisions in coverage strategy. I just don’t personally believe that giving 8 yards of cushion, particularly in the redzone, is a great recipe for success in this league, especially when you aren’t hitting the dice rolls on turnover luck.
-This all also comes back to recruiting. This staff was often just too late to offer, too late or too timid in recruiting efforts overall. I understand wanting to recruit prospects that fit your scheme and want to truly be a part of your program. I fully get that. But you still have to try and fight for prospects while selling them on being a part of your program. There simply needed to be more aggression in recruiting as a whole.
Now, to moving forward:
-Whoever Kirby Hocutt hires to replace Kingsbury, they need to be committed to establishing a culture of physicality, sound principles, and ultra-effort in every phase of the game. That’s how Chris Beard’s teams have had so much early success. They play their tail off night in and night out, and they limit mistakes. Those things can make up for talent gaps early on. Just ask Matt Campbell. All the things I’ve listed are core components to what make West Texas a special place, too. It fits the culture, and athletic programs at Texas Tech need to embrace that.
-In addition, you do still need to hire someone who can be dynamic offensively, whether that’s the head coach’s proclivity or his OC’s. That dynamism on offense needs to be grounded in spread principles that value physicality, both in the running game AND the passing game. You still have got to be able to score points in this league.
-Defensively, I think, again, you need to hire someone who cultivates a culture based on physicality, ultra-effort, and a willingness to gamble for sacks, TFLs, and turnovers when the moments call for them. They also need to emphasize competing outside the hashes against outside WRs. The specific system you use to do that doesnt matter as long as you do that.
-So, what Coach accomplishes that? Matt Campbell is who comes to mind immediately, but that’s not an option. The option I think Kirby Hocutt, Texas Tech, and those helping to secure a new coach with their pocketbooks (like @codycc64 ) should sell out for with everything they’ve got is Dana Holgorsen. His teams play nasty, physical football on both sides, they play with a real chip on their shoulder, and they fit Texas Tech and West Texas to perfection. Holgorsen’s offenses constantly evolve to fit his personnel, and they play - again - with so much physicality. The defense also plays with physicality, nastiness, and a willingness to gamble when called to do so. In addition, I think Holgorsen and whoever he would bring with him to Lubbock would recruit better than they ever have at WVU. Dana recruited Texas for Leach for years and was one of the best recruiters on staff. It just makes too much sense to not try and make Dana the next head coach at Texas Tech.
-I also think Holgorsen fits in PERFECTLY with Beard in basketball and Tadlock in baseball. That would create a trio in your top three male sports that all complement each other by fitting in culturally with Texas Tech and West Texas.
-All This said, I know that Kirby Hocutt will do everything he can to make the right hire for Tech in football. He’s the best AD we could ask for, and he’ll work day and night to get the program headed in the right direction.
So, why didn’t it work? A few thoughts:
-Kingsbury’s teams perennially trended downward as seasons went on. They didn’t ever seem to turn a corner in the back half of a season, never seemed to improve in late October/November.
-So, why is that? I think a lot of it is injury and depth related. The depth just wasn’t ever there for the team to keep up the level of play we would see through the first 6-7 games. Key injuries happen every year throughout college football, but good programs generally have the overall roster depth to at least stem off some of the drop off.
-This also comes back to recruiting. Kingsbury’s staff simply didn’t recruit well enough overall. I think the staff did a great job of identifying and plucking diamonds in the rough, whether that be at the high school, JUCO, or transfer level. A FANTASTIC job in fact. They found a lot of guys other staffs didn’t. But that can’t be your bread and butter. Your bread and butter has got to be through traditional high school recruiting, and Kingsbury’s staff simply didn’t recruit well enough in the traditional sense. If you want to consistently compete against Oklahoma State, West Virginia, Baylor, and TCU for the upper-middle tier of this conference, you have to consistently recruit at the same level as they do. Tech currently does not do that consistently.
-On the field, I think this team lacked a killer, finisher mentality and just overall mental toughness under Kingsbury. He tried to fix that in multiple offseasons, and it never materialized in any consistent way. Too often the team would crumble when facing adversity or trying to put their foot on an opponent’s throat. I think his record at home and his record when trailing at halftime show that. I thought the team showed real fight and mental toughness at times this season, something that was extremely encouraging, but that edge the team seemed to have much of this season was completely gone by the time they played K-State and Baylor.
-This team did not play enough complementary football under Kingsbury. In almost every season, it was passing game or bust. Despite the fantastic special teams, improved defense, and seemingly new commitment to a physical run game we saw through the first 5-6 games this season, everything once again devolved into an attempt to outscore people through the air. That creates erratic, inconsistent football. That simply won’t work to win in the current Big 12 landscape. You can point to Oklahoma and their flaws, but they do have a transcendent player at QB to go along with a punishing, tyrannical offensive line that assures they can score on anyone through the air or on the ground.
-Which brings me to my next point: One of the things I was most disappointed in through Kliff’s tenure was the lack of physicality and development in the trenches. I think there have been some really talented O-linemen in Kliff’s tenure (Clark, Kaster, Brown, Bruffy, Anderson, Akamnonu, Steele), but they’ve all played very up and down, particularly as a unit. A true powerful running game came to fruition in just 2015, and that’s when you had some salty vets including an NFL QB who could punish on the ground and the best RB in the Air Raid Era. Even in that season the OL had their ups and downs. I thought the biggest failing of this season and what ultimately contributed the most to Kingsbury’s firing was this 2018 team’s inability to run the ball in the final six games. It was nonexistent, even with a veteran OL and a few capable RBs. Hell, Kliff hired a guy to try and boost the run game in the offseason, and it ultimately had little effect on the field. Having a potent running attack would’ve alleviated the issues at QB, and Kliff Kingsbury would likely still be the head coach if you could run the ball.
-Defensively, I thought David Gibbs worked some true magic to pull that unit out of the depths of football hell and back into some level of semi-respectability. But at the end of the day, they didn’t quite make enough improvement. When the turnovers dried up this year, opposing offenses abused Tech through the air too much. I think much of that has to do with the lack of capable pass rushers, lack of depth in the secondary, and some confounding decisions in coverage strategy. I just don’t personally believe that giving 8 yards of cushion, particularly in the redzone, is a great recipe for success in this league, especially when you aren’t hitting the dice rolls on turnover luck.
-This all also comes back to recruiting. This staff was often just too late to offer, too late or too timid in recruiting efforts overall. I understand wanting to recruit prospects that fit your scheme and want to truly be a part of your program. I fully get that. But you still have to try and fight for prospects while selling them on being a part of your program. There simply needed to be more aggression in recruiting as a whole.
Now, to moving forward:
-Whoever Kirby Hocutt hires to replace Kingsbury, they need to be committed to establishing a culture of physicality, sound principles, and ultra-effort in every phase of the game. That’s how Chris Beard’s teams have had so much early success. They play their tail off night in and night out, and they limit mistakes. Those things can make up for talent gaps early on. Just ask Matt Campbell. All the things I’ve listed are core components to what make West Texas a special place, too. It fits the culture, and athletic programs at Texas Tech need to embrace that.
-In addition, you do still need to hire someone who can be dynamic offensively, whether that’s the head coach’s proclivity or his OC’s. That dynamism on offense needs to be grounded in spread principles that value physicality, both in the running game AND the passing game. You still have got to be able to score points in this league.
-Defensively, I think, again, you need to hire someone who cultivates a culture based on physicality, ultra-effort, and a willingness to gamble for sacks, TFLs, and turnovers when the moments call for them. They also need to emphasize competing outside the hashes against outside WRs. The specific system you use to do that doesnt matter as long as you do that.
-So, what Coach accomplishes that? Matt Campbell is who comes to mind immediately, but that’s not an option. The option I think Kirby Hocutt, Texas Tech, and those helping to secure a new coach with their pocketbooks (like @codycc64 ) should sell out for with everything they’ve got is Dana Holgorsen. His teams play nasty, physical football on both sides, they play with a real chip on their shoulder, and they fit Texas Tech and West Texas to perfection. Holgorsen’s offenses constantly evolve to fit his personnel, and they play - again - with so much physicality. The defense also plays with physicality, nastiness, and a willingness to gamble when called to do so. In addition, I think Holgorsen and whoever he would bring with him to Lubbock would recruit better than they ever have at WVU. Dana recruited Texas for Leach for years and was one of the best recruiters on staff. It just makes too much sense to not try and make Dana the next head coach at Texas Tech.
-I also think Holgorsen fits in PERFECTLY with Beard in basketball and Tadlock in baseball. That would create a trio in your top three male sports that all complement each other by fitting in culturally with Texas Tech and West Texas.
-All This said, I know that Kirby Hocutt will do everything he can to make the right hire for Tech in football. He’s the best AD we could ask for, and he’ll work day and night to get the program headed in the right direction.
