I suppose we can and ought to start by adjusting the thermostat. Losing to the team that’s now ranked No. 10 and is one of two handfuls of teams left in the FBS without a loss isn’t necessarily Bad. Yet losing by 10 after leading by 11 despite trailing by 13 earlier isn’t exactly Good, either.

Dana Holgorsen believes his team should have beaten Texas Tech Saturday, and I think a lot of people are down with that. Yet I think a lot of people wonder whether that’s the basement or the ceiling right now. Does one take solace in that or is it a solemn occasion? Holgorsen’s third West Virginia team is in that tricky position where playing hard and well in a loss to what qualifies as an elite team eight weeks into the season is right on the edge of encouraging and irrelevant. You should either feel good about that, and bemoan what went wrong, or you should wonder what went wrong and bemoan a team that can’t possibly feel good about such a defeat.

And that little slice of nowhere, I think, is where things are right now. I think the boundaries are clearly defined — play good defense, get above average quarterback play, catch a break and victory is very attainable; if not, look the heck out — and I think WVU can jump from one side to the next on the flip of a coin, or a gust of the wind. The team flashes. It has potential. It doesn’t have heavy enough hands or feet to land the big blows or to accelerate away from the opposition.

That’s neither Good nor Bad, but it feels like reality and it sort of makes you choose your own adventure for what follows, both here and during the much-more-manageable sequence of games that ends the season. WVU is 3-4 overall and 1-3 in the Big 12 after Saturday’s 37-27 loss to the Red Raiders. How did we get here? Let’s take a look by examining the good and the bad of WVU v. Texas Tech.

Good: Ingenuity
OK, so I realize I’ve been the bad guy when it comes to WVU’s special teams. I don’t think it’s been much more than pointing out the obvious and wondering why the obvious is the reality, but I’ve been told it is at times heavy-handed. I think my big problem is that things never change. Changing players doesn’t quite do it for me because, believe it or not, sometimes it is the scheme. Example: Wendell Smallwood was very good on kickoff returns against Baylor. He was decidedly not against Texas Tech. The player changed before the Baylor game. The plan didn’t change after Baylor until he’d been tackled inside the 15-yard line for the sixth or seventh time Saturday — I lost count, which isn’t good. Then he was better and it was because he wasn’t slicing through the horizon. He went vertical.

WVU’s plans on special teams haven’t changed a lot the past two-plus years and I don’t think it’s a reach to say that has a lot or everything to do with substandard statistics.

Yet this play was interesting and maybe even encouraging because it was something. Fielding punts had been a problem for WVU this season. Joe DeForest changed players. Changed players made the same errors. Then this happened and it was something new and it was great. At some point in the past three weeks, DeForest coached his players to fake out the opposition when the ball was in that awkward area between the 15 and the goal line. He effectively made Jordan Thompson remember one rule to cover two. Thompson recognized the ball was in the demilitarized zone, so he ran away and acted like he was going to catch it, because WVU has made everyone believe its players will catch it. The ball bounced far away and rolled into the end zone. There was no risk and a lot of reward and it was new and effective. That’s good.

Bad: Ickey start
I feel like Darwin Cook can make that play. It happens fast, so you think that maybe he wasn’t ready, but WVU saw many things coning Saturday because Davis Webb was known to see-and-throw many things. He’s good at getting rid of the ball, but a defensive coordinator like Keith Patterson can plot and scheme and tell his guys what to look for. This looked like that. Cook was where he was supposed to be and WVU was this close to that momentous Ickey Banks-like play it enjoyed so much against Oklahoma State.

Bad: Blame game
Here’s a simple rule in pass coverage: Be deeper than their deepest and wider than their widest. WVU had the widest covered. It didn’t remember the deepest. I’m not quite sure what happened here, and I’ll be I was in Kansas City tonight  last night when Patterson could (have) explain(ed) it to me in Morgantown.

Patterson’s baffled me in a good way a few times with things he’s done, so for all I know Cook was supposed to sink and cover the inside play here — maybe Webb sees Bradley Marquez’s man let him go and decides to throw for the first down, but Cook springs the trap and gets the pick — and Brandon Golson forgot to play deep, which might seem like a lot to ask a linebacker, but isn’t in the red zone. Or maybe Cook saw Marquez sweep across the middle because maybe freshman Daryl Worley had a bad moment and that made Cook react.

Whatever. Something odd happened here and it’s really bad form because this was immediately after a timeout and I also acquired this transcription from Patterson’s Saturday morning reminder meeting: “Yo, N0. 22 is 6-5, 260 and he gets open. He has nine catches each of the last four games and eight in the one before that started. The QB will find him. Let’s make sure we do, too.”

True story.

Good: Formula
So the Mountaineers were once atrocious on third down … before last week, when they are an ordinary 7-for-17. But ordinary is better than atrocious and when WVU was clicking, it was converting third downs, even though it kept encountering third and long.

Still, I thought WVU balanced the aggressive play calls that were required against the Texas Tech defense with some smart play calls that made things doable on second and thus third down. Seriously, why haven’t we seen this quick pitch-and-catch to Daikiel Shorts, or to anyone, more often? It was so good to see that play again. It chunks up yardage, and at it’s best WVU’s defense chunks up yardage, stacks first downs atop one another and creates situations that allow for easy first-down conversions. I feel like we haven’t seen a lot of that, and maybe because Shorts is stuck in the odd-even-odd-even rut.

Either way, third-and-2 is a carnival and WVU had a blast here. The formation and the personnel are the same on second down as they are on third down and the defense has to acknowledge that. WVU nods its head and sweeps Shorts back across the formation,which occupies the back end defenders and gives the defenders on the play side just enough cause for pause. Cody Clay, who was great, blows out a defender and clears a hole for Sims. That’s optimal.

Good: Yes!
Previously on The Good and the Bad, I wondered if some things on film would perhaps compel WVU to let Clint Trickett run the ball. You can forget the Baylor game and any designs the coaching staff had for that night. The best plans were gone by the time Travis Bell reached the bench.

But this is something we haven’t seen. It’s a designed draw play out of an empty set that utterly fools the defense. Bravo.

Bad: … the hell?
Got to work on the sliding, though.

Bad: While we’re here, there’s no faking this.
Trickett does have some physical abilities neither Paul Millard nor Ford Childress possess. He has some shortcomings, too, and his penchant for the playaction pass is lacking. It’s a big part of the WVU offense that wants to run the ball, rope in the safeties and go over top of the exposed defense. If three games is an indication, Trickett can struggle.

Here are but a few samples from the Texas Tech game. A lot happens on a playaction pass. You get the snap — sometimes under center, which adds additional steps to the process — and you extend the ball. Hard, ideally, but as you can see, not always. Then you pull it in and snap your head up to see the field. You scan the field. You make your throw. It seems like there’s a short in Trickett’s clock and it expires quickly. Whatever the reason, he’s not aligned, he’s not balanced and he’s not stepping into this throws.

On the first one, he has a pocket, but he doesn’t use all of it. He steps into the throw, but that’s a throw he should make, though I believe that’s a play that requires a bit more from Ronald Carswell, too. Either way, it’s a miss. The second one is soft. He’s flat-footed and uses all arm. Since he’s not driving the throw, he can’t aim it into an open area for Mario Alford. The ball sails and he’s lucky it’s not intercepted.

On the third, he’s off balance and still going backward after the fake when he long-arms one deep. It’s a bad throw and a worse decision with a defender underneath who, honestly, has no business being in the vicinity of the play. (Aside: The worst part of this play is the pass interference by Texas Tech. Just brutal. That secondary is going to get smoked soon.) The feet and the balance are again out of sorts on the fourth. While this is complete, it’s an instant away, which here is just a little more loft, from a break up or worse.

The fifth is perfect, and just look at Trickett tick off the check list here. He does everything he has to and steps into the throw and completes a pass in an impossibly tight spot. That’s the way it should look.

Good: Not all bad!
You can’t do this much better. Trickett is not a lost cause. He can do things, but especially things in the short to  intermediate range.

 

Bad: #TeamGoForIt

Not a fan of this at all. I listened to Holgorsen’s explanation and I just disagree. He’s where he is and I’m where I am, but I love three points, or even a look at three points, in the first quarter when I’m down 10-0.

I know a meal is being made of Holgorsen saying it was fourth-and-2, but I think he just misspoke. I sought to clarify afterward and walked away the same way I walked in — slip of the tongue. And look at the play. It’s a fourth-and-14 play, not a fourth-and-2 play. The problem is not the throw, as errant as it seems. Shorts cuts his route off way too early and way too short. You have to look closely, but as the camera follows the ball into the vacant space in the end zone, Shorts is running out of bounds at the first-down marker. Probably not a good tactic on fourth down.

Bad: Boos? Who?
Honestly, I have no idea who the fans are booing here. Was it the officials? Why? Cook was lucky he wasn’t ejected. I’m not saying the officials should have. In fact, they should not have. But Cook is fortunate he didn’t run in seconds after the play was over and catch Jace Amaro flush. Then he would have been ejected.

And though the clip doesn’t show it, the Red Raiders were pretty mad about this. For specific reasons that I won’t go into, they were looking for that.

Bad: Interpretation
Patterson has told me that he likes his guys to bring a message when they hit, and I think we can all endorse that. But he’s also said that it’s not wise for players to break down and square up in the open field and that he’d rather guys bring said message in those spots. On one hand, it makes sense. If you stop your feet in space, you’re robbing yourself of your best tools to give chase if a fast player does something special in that space. But leaping, lunging and launching doesn’t always work.

I have to think Patterson is OK with Cook or anyone squaring up and form tackling Amaro here. Amaro is not going to Barry Sanders anyone in this spot. But Cook pulls the trigger and surrenders a lot of critical yardage.

(By the way, what was Webb up to here? That looked really interesting…)

Good: That said …
Hey, Webb was very organized and very calm Saturday and he frankly did what I doubted he could do, but you can’t tell me he wasn’t worried on this run or that he wasn’t thinking of this play when he flicked the ball out of bounds on the run near his end zone later.

The kid’s running for a spot that Cook and Karl Joseph are converging on and, oh, crap, here comes Isaiah Bruce. I can forgive the fumble here and the panic later, but those plays are definitely related and definitely a byproduct of WVU’s propensity to hit people really hard this season.

Bad: Good enough
Now this might strike you as unfair because it got WVU off its goal line and keyed a touchdown drive, but, man, shouldn’t this be a 99-yard touchdown run? I would argue yes. It’s set up to be one, too. The Red Raiders are selling out to stop the run. WVU blocks is very well. (Aside: WVU was in shotgun on first and second down. Tyler Orlosky was the center. Pat Eger came in on third down when WVU went under center. Read: WVU has concerns about Eger’s shotgun snaps in the end zone.) Eger makes a nice double-team block and everyone does everything to do what the play is supposed to do, which is set Charles Sims up 1-on-1 with a safety.

Sims loses.

It’s a good enough play to keep the drive going, but it’s not a great play. WVU doesn’t make enough great plays. It made three good enough plays just to score on this drive — the Sims rum, the 40-yard pass to Kevin White and the Dreamius Smith touchdown, but that’s asking WVU’s offense a lot. That’s three very good plays for one score. It’s a burden to ask an offense like WVU’s to do that again and again and again.

Good: Texas Tech safeties
A year ago, Cody Davis made 13 solo tackles and just owned the defense backfield during the game before he owned the Mountaineer afterward. He’s gone, but true freshman Tanner Jacobson filled in nicely with nine solo stops against WVU, including that one against Sims. I’m not sure what he had to say following the game because the Red Raiders don’t let freshmen talk to the media.

Good: 7NA!
Don’t lie: You did not see that coming.

Bad: Did you ask me about kickoffs?
Bad timing for a breakdown and a 52-yard return after working so hard and so long to not only get back in the game, but take the lead. Did you see who missed the tackle early in the play?

Good: This poll
Do take a few minutes after this to answer some questions for Morgantown Magazine. I’m not involved with the poll or the magazine. I just like the magazine when I’m on a flight or in an airport or hotel room. It would be cool to be in it, of course, but I just like the magazine.

Good: Mack’s nickname
Answer to the above question is this: Who should have made an impact on this play? The blitzing linebackers, Darwin Cook and And Also Avery Williams. That was a gigantic play and Jordan Davis is not — is not — a downfield threat.

Good: Word Up magazine
I’m not sure I ever made much of Smallwood supplanting Smith on the depth chart because I’m not sure Smith isn’t their best ball carrier. Best receiver? No. Best blocker. Notuh. Most explosive runner? Well, let’s stop there. He’s had the best runs of the season at the position and I don’t think there’s any arguing that.

He was pretty good inside and outside and outside after he started inside Saturday. This was fun, and I know some people were mad at Ronald Carswell for his blocking (stay tuned!), but this was exceptional work. It’s definitely part of his vocabulary.

Bad: Thoughts on Kevin White?
The tall, fast and physical junior college transfer was a big part of the game plan. He had many, many inches on Texas Tech cornerback Bruce Jones. He had five catches for 77 yards, but one of those was a 40-yard play not against Jones. Part of me feels like it’s asking a lot for a receiver to win jump balls consistently, especially a receiver still as raw and new to this level as is White, never mind that the throws could be better most of the time, too. Another part of me feels like he could have caught both of these balls. If he’s a weapon and you want to brandish him, it would behoove you if he could get consistent throws and make consistent plays.

Now, after all that, I will say say this. Between the almost-catches and the pass interference penalties, I never saw Texas Tech figure out how to cover White. Maybe WVU or White could have done more with White Saturday, but maybe that’s yet to come. Circle it!

Good: Amaro
I’m not not a guy who believes he’ll be a great pro, but who cares? He’s a treat to watch in college. He has answers for whatever questions a defense asks and right now all we have to concern ourselves with is he’s too good for what you use against him. That’s fun to watch. WVU tried a lot in this game, but he was good.

In this spot, I don’t think Nick Kwiatkoski is mismatched, but I think Amaro is better than Kwiatkoski … though I wonder if a safety was perhaps supposed to be more toward the middle to start and then closer to Amaro to finish.

Bad: Reverse
I hated this play. It came on a first down after WVU gained a first down, which I suppose is a good spot to try some trickery, but it derailed the drive. WVU earned one first down on it’s final five possessions and it was right before this play. This felt like WVU was trying to fool Texas Tech as opposed to out-execute or out-play Texas Tech, though, in fairness, maybe that wasn’t a bad idea. The offense wasn’t exactly loading up reasons to believe in the out-execute or out-play ideas before this.

But the reason this didn’t work was Terrance Bullitt. WVU used Clay a lot in this game and when he was in the backfield Bullitt typically, I don’t know, spied him. I guess it was a safe bet that WVU would run with Clay when Clay was in the backfield — and, by the way, WVU used Clay as a shoulder-on-the-tackle tight end more than I’ve ever seen before, and mostly on the left side, which is not insignificant.

So Bullitt is minding Clay and that casually brings him into the backfield to detonate this play. It’s part good defense and part bad luck for the offense, but Alford never had a chance here.

Bad: Concluding sequence
This is the end. The benefit of a big lead is having chances to make amends for miscues. After going up 27-16, WVU had three drives and one first down before taking over down 30-27. Conceivably, the Mountaineers had a good idea what would and would not work.

First down: Screen to Shorts that you saw previously. Carswell kills the play by just not blocking. It looks like he forgot, and I’d love to know what Lonnie Galloway said. Or what Carswell said when he threw up his hands.

Second down: Pass in the flat to Sims. Bullitt flies in and Sims can’t make him miss. Again, Bullitt had his eyes in the backfield all day.

Third down: White and Shorts can’t sync up a sly … sshhh … pick play and White’s defender is on his tail and makes the play.

WVU punted, Texas Tech drove and scored and that — that penultimate possession — was your game.