Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
USA Today picks Rice to go 6-6
Author Message
ruowls Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,894
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 86
I Root For:
Location:

Football Genius
Post: #41
RE: USA Today picks Rice to go 6-6
(08-19-2013 01:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(08-19-2013 01:39 PM)ruowls Wrote:  This will be a fun philosophical conversation.

The traditional approach to a passing offense is to change the route based on the coverage. Therefore, the complexity lies in the recognition of the coverage and choosing the correct route. The assumption is that the offense will correct to the route that best attacks a specific defensive coverage. The problem with this approach is that it can't adapt to subtle variations between teams when any given defense is identified. Basically, the more athletic the defense is individually and collectively, the smaller the margin for success is even if the correct coverage recognition is accomplished.

One can pretty much run their entire offense against a more athletic team and have it look vanilla because it is not as successful. The reason is because though the complexity of the reads and route changes are high, the ability and performance levels between defensive teams are vastly different when running any given coverage. In other words, you may call the same play sequence against team A and team B and they in turn call the same coverage sequence which results in the same changes being made. In this scenario, you wouldn't expect a statistical difference in productivity from the offense between team A and team B. Unfortunately, you do often see extreme variations in productivity between teams.

Therefore, it would be beneficial to develop an offense that can account for the coverage performance variability between teams beyond just individual receiver maturation over time. If you could accelerate the maturation process or even develop individual route adjustments, then your could augment your existing offense to make it look more complex and diverse from game 1.

Thoughts?


Question for you. The traditional criticism of young WRs going to the NFL is that they run poor routes... poor route discipline... Thus the "apprenticeship" model of coaching would imply that everyone teach the same routes. What you espouse seems to be the exact opposite... in effect, running to the open spot and/or creating an open spot by virtue of how you run the route. The obvious examples are the great QBs who always seem to have that "go to" guy who doesn't have the measurables... he just "knows how to get open". You would create an offense based around guys who know how to get open... or better said to this situation, you would augment the system they currently use to have your guys "get open" based on what the defense is doing as opposed to merely running a different route based on your best guess as to what coverage they are in, that they are clearly trying to disguise.

So you can clearly see that as a relatively minor athletic "sight" adjustment to the current scheme.

Am I following?

That's the whole point about maturation vs. athletic defenders. It isn't necessarily a poor route. It is an unproductive route against the ability level of the defenders. As you move up, the talent level improves and the varience between NFL players vs. between college players is much less. What worked in college doesn't always carry over to the next level. What works in the C-USA may not work in the SEC which may not work in the NFL. It takes time to learn what does work at any level. The variables are how long for any given individual or team and at what defender talent level before performance becomes positive. One problem is that the mindset of the NFL is that you need baseline measurables to ensure success and they don't think you can acheive success without the measurables. That then carries down to the college level with the assumption that it is the athletic ability of an individual coupled with the correct decision that predicates success. The thought is that even if you make the wrong decision the individual has enough athletic ability to make a positive play. The corollary is that if you make the right decision but don't have the measurables needed, you will fail more catastophically.

I just don't buy into the typical thought. I think there are times and positions that you can have marginal talent but still be productive by making the correct decision and then optimizing that decision.

As an example, Rice's receiver coach came to me one day in practice and asked me how it was that I could identify coverages so easily. The receiver coach from the Washington Redskins had been talking to him about receivers reading coverages. He knew Rice was running a reading passing game and the receivers could make accurate reads and route changes. He went so far as to say they were ready to fire them all and start over with a new group. In the end, they kept their entire group of receivers because to them it was more important to have the measurables than it was to find someone who could make the right read.

In the olden days, coverages were straight forward. Then the defense started to disguise them. Then they started to split them with one coverage on one side and a different one on the other. Then there were various robber and vice coverages. Putting a label on them could become difficult. Therefore, the reads could be difficult and varied from the various receiver positions. However, for a defense to be fundamentally sound, they all have to cover an individual or an area in a predictable way. You have to have a defender cover the deep area, the flat (bilaterally), the hook, the curl, the slant, and cover all eligible receivers at the snap. From there, all a receiver has to do is recognize which defender is responsible for the area they are running their route into and run the route in such a way that you threaten them early and alter their path in such a way that it becomes advantageous to the ultimate success of the play.

Make sense?
08-19-2013 04:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ruowls Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,894
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 86
I Root For:
Location:

Football Genius
Post: #42
RE: USA Today picks Rice to go 6-6
(08-19-2013 04:35 PM)At Ease Wrote:  
(08-19-2013 04:12 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  Gee didn't we have Driphus? The same Driphus everyone loved in Ft Worth and who some say should be the starter. The bottom line is if Bailiff and staff call as poor of a game as they did last year we will get beat. The difference between the UH Driphus vs the AFA Driphus is the staff and it is high time they call a game with every intention of trying to win it.

My recollection is that the bigger failing of the staff was more in preparation, than in play-calling, this time. That UH could repeatedly befuddle our QB and OL by jumping around on D is embarrassing.

That's part of what I'm saying. It shouldn't matter what a team or defense does to you because at some level you have seen it already and they have to remain fundamentally sound by covering all the areas that need to be covered.

If you prepare by learning specific plays against a specific defense, you will be lost when they aren't in that look. You may not even have any way to adjust because you didn't practice nor teach a play that could counter that defensive look. However, if you had taught the fundamentals of defensive responsibility, you can simply identify which defender is doing what and change the offensive formation and reponsibilities to negate the "new" defensive look. It shouldn't be that difficult but it is based on the general thinking of how football is taught. You have to recognize that I am an extreme outlyer in the way I think about football. As such, I'm a bit of a football heretic. So, take what I say with a grain of salt.

As to the final record, I want 14-0. I will adjust week to week happily or sadly but will always appreciate the fine people that represent my school.
08-19-2013 04:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
d1owls4life Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,030
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 62
I Root For: the Rice Owls!
Location: Jersey Village, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #43
RE: USA Today picks Rice to go 6-6
(08-19-2013 04:25 PM)Antarius Wrote:  
(08-19-2013 04:18 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  So I guess those 6 wins in a row at the end of the year were all luck since the coaches didn't try to win them? Didn't know that. Thanks for the insight.

Straw man argument aside, I think there was a marked difference between how we played the second half of the season versus the first. UH and Memphis was positively appalling in terms of the playcalling effort. Things started to turn around after that and ended up with us wrapping up with 6 straight wins.

You MAY be right that DJ was not ready when he had to step in against UH, but we will never know as the coaches didnt let him do anything in that game. All we do know is that when they gave DJ a chance to come out swinging, he did.

From my vantage point, they definitely tried to let him do things. I don't think the staff game planned well for UH's pressure. At the same time, I think Driphus got happy feet and didn't execute when he had chances to do so. That is just inexperience rearing its ugly head. Combine some in-game reps and gaining experience each week in practice with playing a defense that couldn't pressure him like UH's and you can get an amazing performance like the bowl game. Just my observations from my seat.

Also, I'd like to amend my statement above. 5 wins in a row, 6 of 7.
08-19-2013 05:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,540
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #44
RE: USA Today picks Rice to go 6-6
(08-19-2013 12:14 PM)lou Wrote:  
(08-19-2013 11:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(08-19-2013 10:55 AM)lou Wrote:  writing the "preseason" off as Ls,

The difference between a cat, and a lie? The cat has only nine lives. I will be glad to hear the end of the preseason story and its various interpretations, whether through getting a new coach or Bailiff having success in the OOC games, preferably the latter.

Cats, lies, whatever, the proof is in the games and how they're played. The widespread impression (at least amongst my group of Rice friends/fans) is the playbook is cut in half for these body bag games in the early season. The team comes out knowing they are going to lose, there is no creativity in the plays, they are horribly predictable, and nothing changes coming out after halftime.

By the time the other team has pulled their starters and we're playing their second (or third) line, we can hope to come back and show some spark enough to make the outcome not look as bad as it was and that we can finish the game with no one hurt.

I think most coaches put more emphasis on conference games than nonconference. Nobody has a goal of 4-0, 0-8.

I think every coach wants to win every game.

I think most teams add plays and formations as the season wears on, and few start with 100% of their offense put in. I understand that one of the things Bailiff has said about this team is that because we have so many starters returning and the full staff back, we are able to put it all in to start the season, something we have not been able to do before.

I think our schedule is upside down, as the toughest teams (usually OOC) are the earliest.

If I understand RUowls correctly, the defense dictates the plays that must be run, and they probably don't cover the entire playbook.

I think anytime any team loses, there will be some players who think that they could have coached the team differently for a win. Usually this entails calling their own number more.

I think that the not-caring is a myth. They care. No careers are made by throwing games, conference or not.

I think that anything less than 10 wins will disappoint me. Ten is not all that thrilling. I can see combinations of 11 wins that would be disappointing. 14 wins is unlikely but not out of the question. But if we fail, by anybody's standard, I think it will not be for lack of caring or lack of effort on the part of anybody on the Rice sideline.

That is what I think. That is largely what my group of Rice friends think.

Looking forward to this season and the first game with a lot of anticipation and high hopes. If we fail, they will be dashed. Safer to expect 6-6, but that is not my way. Go for it.

I hope we hit the 6 wins by mid-October.
08-19-2013 05:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
3-OwlsInTheNest Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 544
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 18
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #45
RE: USA Today picks Rice to go 6-6
(08-19-2013 05:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(08-19-2013 12:14 PM)lou Wrote:  
(08-19-2013 11:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(08-19-2013 10:55 AM)lou Wrote:  writing the "preseason" off as Ls,

The difference between a cat, and a lie? The cat has only nine lives. I will be glad to hear the end of the preseason story and its various interpretations, whether through getting a new coach or Bailiff having success in the OOC games, preferably the latter.

Cats, lies, whatever, the proof is in the games and how they're played. The widespread impression (at least amongst my group of Rice friends/fans) is the playbook is cut in half for these body bag games in the early season. The team comes out knowing they are going to lose, there is no creativity in the plays, they are horribly predictable, and nothing changes coming out after halftime.

By the time the other team has pulled their starters and we're playing their second (or third) line, we can hope to come back and show some spark enough to make the outcome not look as bad as it was and that we can finish the game with no one hurt.

I think most coaches put more emphasis on conference games than nonconference. Nobody has a goal of 4-0, 0-8.

I think every coach wants to win every game.

I think most teams add plays and formations as the season wears on, and few start with 100% of their offense put in. I understand that one of the things Bailiff has said about this team is that because we have so many starters returning and the full staff back, we are able to put it all in to start the season, something we have not been able to do before.

I think our schedule is upside down, as the toughest teams (usually OOC) are the earliest.

If I understand RUowls correctly, the defense dictates the plays that must be run, and they probably don't cover the entire playbook.

I think anytime any team loses, there will be some players who think that they could have coached the team differently for a win. Usually this entails calling their own number more.

I think that the not-caring is a myth. They care. No careers are made by throwing games, conference or not.

I think that anything less than 10 wins will disappoint me. Ten is not all that thrilling. I can see combinations of 11 wins that would be disappointing. 14 wins is unlikely but not out of the question. But if we fail, by anybody's standard, I think it will not be for lack of caring or lack of effort on the part of anybody on the Rice sideline.

That is what I think. That is largely what my group of Rice friends think.

Looking forward to this season and the first game with a lot of anticipation and high hopes. If we fail, they will be dashed. Safer to expect 6-6, but that is not my way. Go for it.

I hope we hit the 6 wins by mid-October.

I'd love to see 6 wins by mid-October. That will make 12-2 and 11-3 very possible. If we have 6 wins by October 12, 14 wins is most definitely "not out of the question."
08-19-2013 05:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
lou Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 470
Joined: Mar 2009
Reputation: 24
I Root For: Rice
Location: H-tine
Post: #46
RE: USA Today picks Rice to go 6-6
(08-19-2013 05:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think most coaches put more emphasis on conference games than nonconference. Nobody has a goal of 4-0, 0-8.

In our situation where we end up playing our toughest games early, I think a 4-0 start would mean we have a team MUCH better than C-USA and an 0-8 finish would be absurd.

Quote:I think every coach wants to win every game.

Certainly, but the amount of prep and creativity we've seen for early games in the Bailiff area seems to say 'Lets keep this from getting ugly and get to the games we can win'

Quote:I think most teams add plays and formations as the season wears on, and few start with 100% of their offense put in. I understand that one of the things Bailiff has said about this team is that because we have so many starters returning and the full staff back, we are able to put it all in to start the season, something we have not been able to do before.

Here's to hoping!

Quote:I think our schedule is upside down, as the toughest teams (usually OOC) are the earliest.

This is the product of being a midmajor needing body bag games to afford to play.

Quote:If I understand RUowls correctly, the defense dictates the plays that must be run, and they probably don't cover the entire playbook.

I won't argue Xs and Os with RUowls.

Quote:I think anytime any team loses, there will be some players who think that they could have coached the team differently for a win. Usually this entails calling their own number more.

McGuffie up the middle or the 3rd WR screen in the drive was never the right call. It seems like we had a set number of plays and we were going to run them whether successful or not.

Quote:I think that the not-caring is a myth. They care. No careers are made by throwing games, conference or not.

Certainly they care, but it is tough to sit in the stands and see the same unimaginative play calling over and over with no adjustments and think 'these guys are really trying to win this game'

Quote:I think that anything less than 10 wins will disappoint me. Ten is not all that thrilling. I can see combinations of 11 wins that would be disappointing. 14 wins is unlikely but not out of the question. But if we fail, by anybody's standard, I think it will not be for lack of caring or lack of effort on the part of anybody on the Rice sideline.

That is what I think. That is largely what my group of Rice friends think.

Looking forward to this season and the first game with a lot of anticipation and high hopes. If we fail, they will be dashed. Safer to expect 6-6, but that is not my way. Go for it.

I hope we hit the 6 wins by mid-October.

I am completely with you here. I do see the team we have against the schedule as an 11 win team, with an outside chance at beating A&M. I think we're going to have a really fun season. We're set up so well it's a strange place to be as a Rice fan (at least in my comparatively short tenure). However, the record of "Big Game" Bailiff tempers my expectations.
08-19-2013 05:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,540
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #47
RE: USA Today picks Rice to go 6-6
By 4-0, 0-8, I meant OOC vs. Conf. Not first four vs. last 8. All
coaches look to do well in conference, and that is not a fault.

"Seems to say"? Maybe it seems to say we are better prepared for the 10th game than the second because, say, the team has 8 more games of experience and 8 more weeks of practice under their belt. Having the 10th game against a worse team than the second doesn't hurt that "seems" at all. Be nice if we could order them from easiest to toughest, but that isn't our lot right now.

McG up the middle didn't work. Maybe should have never tried it, maybe should have changed it sooner. How many times did that happen last year? Going back a long way. More "seems to" stuff. But he wasn't making the calls because he coulodn't be bothered with trying. He was just trying the wrong stuff. Fault his decision, not his attitude.

Making wrong calls or bad decisions is not the same as not trying. That is my beef with the whole not-trying myth. No player, no coach has anything to gain by not trying. Athletes and coaches in all sports make choices that end up wrong. Being wrong is not the same as not caring. The not caring walk away.

I am looking for a good season. I expect that 8-4 will be a disappointing minimum, and 10-12 regular season wins is within reach. I can be pessimistic to the point of thinking we might blow a game we should have won, but I can't be pessimistic enough to think we will do it 5-6 times, and I won't buy into the myth of not-caring or use it as an excuse. If we fall short, ii will be because of other mistakes, not disinterest.

6-6 is just people predicting to the image, and I think this is the year we start changing that image.
08-19-2013 08:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Antarius Offline
Say no to cronyism
*

Posts: 11,959
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 87
I Root For: Rice
Location: KHOU
Post: #48
RE: USA Today picks Rice to go 6-6
Quote:Making wrong calls or bad decisions is not the same as not trying. That is my beef with the whole not-trying myth. No player, no coach has anything to gain by not trying. Athletes and coaches in all sports make choices that end up wrong. Being wrong is not the same as not caring. The not caring walk away.

There is a big difference between being wrong, playing not to lose badly and not caring. I think the DB regime has been guilty of the second one alone. Between the "preseason" comments and the expectation that Rice will lose against juggernauts such as Texas, we seem to play conservative and minimize the risk of being blown out, despite throwing away the chance to win. I differentiate this from being wrong/making mistakes as this is an attitude that seems to apply across the entire gameplan/calling (see 2010 UT second half) vs. making a mistake. If we go for it on 4th and 2 when needed and fall short, it will be unfortunate, but acceptable. If we punt it away to avoid turning it over and give away a good chance to try to win, that is not.

Anyways, we have discussed this ad nauseum. We saw less and less of the issues above last year and I expect that this year will continue that trend. What excites me the most is that our defense looks good and that is going to be huge in C-USA.
08-20-2013 09:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ricefan68 Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 77
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 2
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #49
RE: USA Today picks Rice to go 6-6
(08-20-2013 09:43 AM)Antarius Wrote:  
Quote:Making wrong calls or bad decisions is not the same as not trying. That is my beef with the whole not-trying myth. No player, no coach has anything to gain by not trying. Athletes and coaches in all sports make choices that end up wrong. Being wrong is not the same as not caring. The not caring walk away.

There is a big difference between being wrong, playing not to lose badly and not caring. I think the DB regime has been guilty of the second one alone. Between the "preseason" comments and the expectation that Rice will lose against juggernauts such as Texas, we seem to play conservative and minimize the risk of being blown out, despite throwing away the chance to win. I differentiate this from being wrong/making mistakes as this is an attitude that seems to apply across the entire gameplan/calling (see 2010 UT second half) vs. making a mistake. If we go for it on 4th and 2 when needed and fall short, it will be unfortunate, but acceptable. If we punt it away to avoid turning it over and give away a good chance to try to win, that is not.

Anyways, we have discussed this ad nauseum. We saw less and less of the issues above last year and I expect that this year will continue that trend. What excites me the most is that our defense looks good and that is going to be huge in C-USA.

I think if we have a 7 win season and win another bowl game we should clean house. Rice has a long history of playing 10 and 11 win seasons over the past 50 years. Winning 8+ games at the college level with little resources and high academic standards is easy. If this staff can't do that they are bums and should be enshrined in the Hall of Shame..... Some of you may say this staff has one of the best records in the past 50 years, had a 10 win season and won a few bowl games, but that is unacceptable at Rice. We have dominated the gridiron the past 50 years, have world class facilities, exorbitant salaries to attract and retain coaches, and numerous other things to make 10 win seasons a lay up.
08-20-2013 10:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OldOwl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,315
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: -12
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #50
RE: USA Today picks Rice to go 6-6
I think the big question is can this team and couching staff handle success. Will Bailiff go conservative like in the past and result in some upsets. If he has changed his attitude, this could a very successful year in a weak schedule.
08-20-2013 01:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gravy Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,394
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 104
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #51
RE: USA Today picks Rice to go 6-6
(08-20-2013 09:43 AM)Antarius Wrote:  Anyways, we have discussed this ad nauseum...

And through it all, nobody ever seemed to care what Bailiff actually said.
08-20-2013 02:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #52
RE: USA Today picks Rice to go 6-6
(08-19-2013 05:45 PM)lou Wrote:  
(08-19-2013 05:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If I understand RUowls correctly, the defense dictates the plays that must be run, and they probably don't cover the entire playbook.

I won't argue Xs and Os with RUowls.


Agreed on the X's and O's with RU.

OO, it's a little different. The defense doesn't dictate what play you run... they merely dictate how you run it. The best example I can give is along these lines (and RU will certainly correct my errors)... RU can influence coverages and match-ups by using formations and motion, but at the snap of the ball... the coverage may change (disguise)... If the slot receiver is supposed to run a hook and at the snap he thinks he is being covered by the safety deep of him, he would start to run it one way... When he sees the safety go away and the linebacker come over to cover the hook, then angle of the coverage is different and a different throwing lane is created... he can adjust his route to positively impact that throwing lane... either to complete the pass or to keep the guy from being able to split two zones and vicariously cover two people.

The defense doesn't dictate the play... we do. We just do it in a way that avoids them being able to adjust to what we are doing. Sure, they can stop having the linebacker cover the curl and go back to covering it with the safety... and we can not only adjust our formation to have a 6'5 guy run the curl from the slot now instead of the 5'10 guy... but we can run it differently (adjust the route) depending on which position is covering the curl.

The advantage is that the QB sees the same thing... The safety go away and the linebacker go out to the curl... so there isn't any risk of confusion between the WR and the QB on whether it was cover 2 or 3 or whatever... because "what you call it" doesn't matter. Only "where the defender is coming from" matters.

I THINK I'm close
08-20-2013 02:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ruowls Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,894
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 86
I Root For:
Location:

Football Genius
Post: #53
RE: USA Today picks Rice to go 6-6
(08-20-2013 02:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(08-19-2013 05:45 PM)lou Wrote:  
(08-19-2013 05:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If I understand RUowls correctly, the defense dictates the plays that must be run, and they probably don't cover the entire playbook.

I won't argue Xs and Os with RUowls.


Agreed on the X's and O's with RU.

OO, it's a little different. The defense doesn't dictate what play you run... they merely dictate how you run it. The best example I can give is along these lines (and RU will certainly correct my errors)... RU can influence coverages and match-ups by using formations and motion, but at the snap of the ball... the coverage may change (disguise)... If the slot receiver is supposed to run a hook and at the snap he thinks he is being covered by the safety deep of him, he would start to run it one way... When he sees the safety go away and the linebacker come over to cover the hook, then angle of the coverage is different and a different throwing lane is created... he can adjust his route to positively impact that throwing lane... either to complete the pass or to keep the guy from being able to split two zones and vicariously cover two people.

The defense doesn't dictate the play... we do. We just do it in a way that avoids them being able to adjust to what we are doing. Sure, they can stop having the linebacker cover the curl and go back to covering it with the safety... and we can not only adjust our formation to have a 6'5 guy run the curl from the slot now instead of the 5'10 guy... but we can run it differently (adjust the route) depending on which position is covering the curl.

The advantage is that the QB sees the same thing... The safety go away and the linebacker go out to the curl... so there isn't any risk of confusion between the WR and the QB on whether it was cover 2 or 3 or whatever... because "what you call it" doesn't matter. Only "where the defender is coming from" matters.

I THINK I'm close

As to the defense dictating plays,
Traditionally...yes
Optimally...no

Hambone's close...

A hook/curl is covered by the inside underneath defender. The receiver running the hook/curl must identify the defender who has this responsibility. As a side note, this read is independent of type of coverage (various coverages may limit which defender can have that responsibilty and you can see the same defender having this responsibility in different coverages). So let's say the slot receiver is running the hook/curl. He releases from the LOS and scans inward to identify the movement of the defenders. The trajectory of the defender responsible for the hook/curl coverage becomes obvious when coupled with the trajectory of the other defenders with other responsibilities (note the receiver running the hook/curl doesn't have to say what coverage it is but mearly which defender has the hook/curl responsibility). At this point, the receiver now mirrors the trajectory of the defender covering the hook/curl. If he stays in, the receiver stays out. If he goes out, the receiver goes in towards him. Once the receiver gets near the outside shoulder of the hook/curl defender coming out, the receiver then pushes vertical to threaten deep. The hook/curl defender will wheel and trail the receiver vertical as the two move through the hook/curl zone. Once the receiver reaches the appropriate depth, he breaks in and this creates separation and a throwing lane (also easy low risk throw for QB). The fun part is running the same hook/curl route by various receivers which forces the defense to adjust in a way that they have a defender covering a receiver they are not used to covering or having a defender cover a specific receiver in an area they go to infrequently. Either way, the odds of success for the offense increases significantly. And that is just one route by one receiver.

By the way, Aggies have short memories. I remember the year they finished #6 in the nation and got torched by a Rice offense consisting of at least one talentless receiver.
08-20-2013 03:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MemOwl Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,031
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation: 28
I Root For: Owls
Location: Houston
Post: #54
RE: USA Today picks Rice to go 6-6
from the dead horse department

the occam's razor explanation on DJ vs. UH:

His performance against AF shows he has ability.
he was a redshirt, not a true frosh
UH was a bad team, not an SEC defense with a bad QB

the most plausible explanation, for the DJ we saw against AF to have played as badly as he did against UH, is poor coaching,
08-20-2013 10:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,540
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #55
RE: USA Today picks Rice to go 6-6
(08-20-2013 10:47 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  the most plausible explanation, for the DJ we saw against AF to have played as badly as he did against UH, is poor coaching,

What is the most plausible explanation for the DJ we saw against UH to have played as well as he did against AFA? Good coaching.

Yep, works just as well in the reverse.

To put it another way, when did we change coaches? Is there more reason to think the coach changed or the player?

One difference between the UH DJ and the AFA DJ is two months. another is more experience. Playing the UH game helped him in the AFA game. Why must we assume he always was the AFA DJ? Players grow, learn, mature. They are not static.

there can be lots of reasons for the difference between the two performances. MemOwl's guess is just one possibility. Let's think. Hmm, has there ever been in the history of football another player who did significantly better in one game than in another? Nope, they all performed at exactly the same level in every game unless the coach effed up. Yep, that's it.

Sure hope that JFF's coach makes him have a bad game Aug. 31.

Antarius, reread your first two sentences. I think you just said Bailiff has never been wrong. I disagree. He has been wrong quite often. Maybe you are just vested in the "playing not to lose" mantra. But it does bring up a question. Is there a material difference between playing not to lose badly and playing to keep the game close? In lots of sports, being close in the late stages of the game gives the underdog a chance to win on one or two plays.

Ham and RU, at the FW Coach's Caravan, I asked Bailiff if the loss of the three big TE's would mean we would be throwing more to the wideouts. He said that AFA decided not to let the TEs beat them, so that's why Jordan had all those catches. Basically, we will throw to the guy that is the least covered. Makes sense to me. Now, if we throw to the open guy, and he drops it, of course that is because the coach doesn't care. He's playing not to lose. Duh. Take what the defense gives ya. Maybe that is an oversimplification, but it is one I have heard from lots of successful coaches.

Gravy, what did he actually say?

Friends, I think we are beating a dead horse here, just not the one you think we are beating. I think the fact that we are bitching about calls made by a long departed OC tells the tale, IMO.

Now let's reunify behind our team, and team includes the coaching staff, until we actually have something to complain about. Can't we at least get through the first coin flip? We have a bad case of premature bitchulation, it seems. We have at least some people believing in us. Let's join them. Let's all meet at the Liberty Bowl for the 14th game of the season and discuss how the season went wrong from the git-go and how Bailiff screwed it all up.

Jeez.
08-21-2013 12:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ruowls Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,894
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 86
I Root For:
Location:

Football Genius
Post: #56
RE: USA Today picks Rice to go 6-6
Just for the record, I have never said Bailff doesn't care or isn't trying to win every game. Of course he is. Nor have i said he or his assistants can't coach. Don't know how I got dragged into this quagmire.

My first line was that this would be a fun philosophical conversation. I have always been the one to question why. Coaches hated it. If the coaches said that we throw to the least covered receiver, I took it upon myself to figure out how to make it always be me. I'm serious when I say that several of my coaches have come up to me over the years and asked me to explain to them how I did what I did. All I'm doing is telling you guys what I told them. Did they get it? I doubt it. It seems obvious that you take what the defense gives you and you throw to the least covered receiver. However, that is not good enough for me. The least covered to me could mean the least crappy choice. If you asked me the same question from FW, I'd answer it completely different. My thinking is that if AFA didn't want the TEs to get the ball and this opened up the plethora of catches by the WR and they are gone and the new TEs are inexperienced and the WR that had all the catches is coming back and we throw to the least covered receiver then I'm expecting the defenses this year to make sure the returning WR with the monster game doesn't get the ball which means the inexperienced new TEs will be the least covered and will get the most balls thrown to them. So, the answer to your question is no. The wideouts won't get more passes because defenses will do to Taylor what AFA did to the TEs. Philosophically, I want to get the ball to who I want to get the ball to. I believe you can make the least covered receiver be the receiver you want it to be instead of leaving it to chance. Why? Because I taught myself how to do it. You may believe that the long list of successful coaches who think that throwing it to the least open receiver is the way to go but I don't. I happen to know that my way has worked from youth football to high school to Division 1. I'm not a professional football coach. I have a much easier job that I like.

I guess I'll stick to talking football with my co-workers when slacking off at my day job and my son's youth football team. It gets me out of the realm of the experts and is far more enjoyable.
08-21-2013 02:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #57
RE: USA Today picks Rice to go 6-6
(08-20-2013 10:47 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  from the dead horse department

the occam's razor explanation on DJ vs. UH:

His performance against AF shows he has ability.
he was a redshirt, not a true frosh
UH was a bad team, not an SEC defense with a bad QB

the most plausible explanation, for the DJ we saw against AF to have played as badly as he did against UH, is poor coaching,

I'm with OptimisticOwl in that your occam's razor explanation is a load of BS. I never played NCAA sports, but I remember how my nerves would get to me at the start of any competitive athletic event I did, and I can only imagine what they would be like starting my first game as an NCAA QB. Like OO said, players aren't static, and I'd chalk to up to nerves and inexperience rather than poor coaching.
08-21-2013 08:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Antarius Offline
Say no to cronyism
*

Posts: 11,959
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 87
I Root For: Rice
Location: KHOU
Post: #58
RE: USA Today picks Rice to go 6-6
Quote:Antarius, reread your first two sentences. I think you just said Bailiff has never been wrong. I disagree. He has been wrong quite often. Maybe you are just vested in the "playing not to lose" mantra. But it does bring up a question. Is there a material difference between playing not to lose badly and playing to keep the game close? In lots of sports, being close in the late stages of the game gives the underdog a chance to win on one or two plays.

I will rephrase to say that DB has been wrong several times, however I do not fault him for making mistakes (unless the mistake is repeated again and again)

To your question, I believe there is. Playing to keep the game close in order to win is not really different from playing to win; the only way to score more than the opponent is to first score as many as them.
08-21-2013 09:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,540
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #59
RE: USA Today picks Rice to go 6-6
(08-21-2013 09:16 AM)Antarius Wrote:  
Quote:Antarius, reread your first two sentences. I think you just said Bailiff has never been wrong. I disagree. He has been wrong quite often. Maybe you are just vested in the "playing not to lose" mantra. But it does bring up a question. Is there a material difference between playing not to lose badly and playing to keep the game close? In lots of sports, being close in the late stages of the game gives the underdog a chance to win on one or two plays.

I will rephrase to say that DB has been wrong several times, however I do not fault him for making mistakes (unless the mistake is repeated again and again)

To your question, I believe there is. Playing to keep the game close in order to win is not really different from playing to win; the only way to score more than the opponent is to first score as many as them.

Yeah, knew what you meant, just thought the phrasing was funny.

But my question was, how do you tell the difference between keeping the score close and playing to not lose big?

To use a basketball example, often the coach of an underdog will slow the game down, hoping to get to the last two minutes still in the game. Maybe the crowd would rather see run and gun, and think the slow pace "seems to" indicate a lack of effort to win, only a desire to make it look respectable. How can you tell the difference? Especially if it fails, and the superior team opens up a 17 point advantage.

Not saying this is what Bailiff has done, but if he had, would it be a bad choice?

The point is to outscore them at the exact point the clock reads 00:00. No other point in the game has much significance. Personally, I would be just as happy with a 15-13 win over A&M as a 45-43 win, even if the 15 is made up of 5 FGs.

In a way, it goes back to Hatfield's eat-the-clock strategy. Twelve plays to score instead of going for the bomb three times. Was that an effort to win or just an effort to keep the score close?
(This post was last modified: 08-21-2013 10:14 AM by OptimisticOwl.)
08-21-2013 10:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,540
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #60
RE: USA Today picks Rice to go 6-6
(08-21-2013 02:48 AM)ruowls Wrote:  Just for the record, I have never said Bailff doesn't care or isn't trying to win every game. Of course he is. Nor have i said he or his assistants can't coach. Don't know how I got dragged into this quagmire.

My first line was that this would be a fun philosophical conversation. I have always been the one to question why. Coaches hated it. If the coaches said that we throw to the least covered receiver, I took it upon myself to figure out how to make it always be me. I'm serious when I say that several of my coaches have come up to me over the years and asked me to explain to them how I did what I did. All I'm doing is telling you guys what I told them. Did they get it? I doubt it. It seems obvious that you take what the defense gives you and you throw to the least covered receiver. However, that is not good enough for me. The least covered to me could mean the least crappy choice. If you asked me the same question from FW, I'd answer it completely different. My thinking is that if AFA didn't want the TEs to get the ball and this opened up the plethora of catches by the WR and they are gone and the new TEs are inexperienced and the WR that had all the catches is coming back and we throw to the least covered receiver then I'm expecting the defenses this year to make sure the returning WR with the monster game doesn't get the ball which means the inexperienced new TEs will be the least covered and will get the most balls thrown to them. So, the answer to your question is no. The wideouts won't get more passes because defenses will do to Taylor what AFA did to the TEs. Philosophically, I want to get the ball to who I want to get the ball to. I believe you can make the least covered receiver be the receiver you want it to be instead of leaving it to chance. Why? Because I taught myself how to do it. You may believe that the long list of successful coaches who think that throwing it to the least open receiver is the way to go but I don't. I happen to know that my way has worked from youth football to high school to Division 1. I'm not a professional football coach. I have a much easier job that I like.

I guess I'll stick to talking football with my co-workers when slacking off at my day job and my son's youth football team. It gets me out of the realm of the experts and is far more enjoyable.

Sorry if you thought I had a gripe with you, same to Ham. I don't.

RU, I know you are not of the ones accusing Bailiff of whatever, didn't mean to imply that. I appreciate your insights, even if they do make my eyes cross from time to time. As a friend of mine used to say, I wanted to know what time it is, not how to build a clock. But I am sure I am outnumbered by those who understand it better. I just try to stick to the simple rules of thumb, like hit it where they ain't and dance with who brung ya.

You're still my first choice for the much harder job of Rice football coach.

If they double cover Jordan, I expect that will leave the TE a little more open. I have wondered if we might not see a big year from Eddington, a mini-Thor type of year. Depends on a lot of things, but I think it is possible.
08-21-2013 10:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.