(08-21-2013 12:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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.

Actually, the most plausible explanation for DJ's poor play against UH is the same as the most plausible explanation for his good play against AF--he had virtually no game reps before UH and had to come to grips with the speed of the game cold turkey, whereas against AF he had the benefit of a whole game of reps against UH plus film plus several weeks of practice and meetings to improve.

That is why I think he should have taken the second half against UCLA (depending to some extent on the severity of McH's injury) and LaTech (maybe not the whole half, but at least the 4Q). Would we have lost those two games if DJ took the second half snaps--probably, although the second half against UCLA would probably have gone at least no worse with DJ than with McH running what looked like a limited playbook, and if the UCLA experience was enough to turn DJ into the DJ against AF, then who knows about LaTech? But hey, we lost those games anyway, and 0-2 is 0-2.

Would DJ with two halves of game action under his belt have been the DJ of AF against UH? Quite possibly. Would that have been enough to beat UH? Again, quite possibly. Is 1-2 better than 0-3? Absolutely, particularly when the 1 is a conference game.

(08-21-2013 10:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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.

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 have been pretty critical of Bailiff, so thought perhaps I should clarify a couple of things.

I don't think that Bailiff doesn't care or isn't trying or that his assistants can't coach, and nothing that I have written was intended to state or imply that. I have commented that I would like to see specific coaching staff positions upgraded, but at the end of the day the staff we have is probably the best we can do for what we are willing to pay. In particular, I take specific exception with those who criticize conservative play-calling as not trying to win. Conservative play calling is exactly trying to win if the conservative call gives us the best chance to win--and it usually does.

Like RU, I have attempted to approach it as more of a fun philosophical conversation. I have philosophical disagreements with Bailiff, and I am not of the opinion that we are always PREPARED to win. What I like about RU's approach is the it's based not on "take what the defense gives us" but rather on "take what we can make." For example, on third and six the defense will give us three yards all day; if we take what they give us, we are punting on fourth down. Take what we can make means finding a way to make seven yards against that defense. It's there, if we execute properly.

The better you execute, the more ways to have to make that seven yards. That's when it really becomes fun. As I see it, our problem is that we don't execute well enough to give ourselves multiple options.

(08-19-2013 09:15 AM)owl40 Wrote:  Hard to see the 5-3 in conference. They have 1-3 non-conference which I disagree with but understand the pessimism on Houston and Kansas...however the 5-3 conference part is really hard to see what the other two losses are other than Tulsa...we have no Marshall or ECU on schedule. Very favorable match-ups in the C-USA East. Seems like the 'expert' consensus would be 8-4.

I would love to see the Owls go 8-0 or even 7-1 in conference. However, I also see them going 5-3. In addition to Tulsa, they will lose at North Texas and at UAB. Neither of those teams should be better than Rice, but they'll both be decent and will catch DB's squad on their home fields, which historically has not been where his teams play their best. And the killer is that each of these road games for the Owls will come on a Thursday night after they have played big games only 5 days earlier.

Hope I'm wrong!

6-6 would disappoint greatly, but would not surprise me. If we continue our annoying habit of showing up unready and unprepared 2-3 times a season, 6 losses is well within our capability.

I would say that anything less than 8 wins is underachieving, 8-9 is where we should be, better than 9 is a good year.

2-2/6-2 for 8-4.

(08-21-2013 12:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  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.

This is important....

That philosophy works well when you have at least a physical "draw". The problem is, as a tier 2 football program, we only have a "draw" or better against teams like CUSA and the dregs of AQ conferences. We can get manhandled by teams like UT (even when we had the big three on offense, we scored what, ten points?) because their WORST defender still has about a draw to our best. They will take away our best with their best and leave us with a disadvantage. A&M will do this same thing. It's (IMO) why we do well against CUSA and are so weak against the better teams. I mean, Vandy a few years ago wasn't THAT much better than the top teams in CUSA, yet they handled us so easily.

So while you might certainly attack where they are vulnerable... "taking what they will give you".. You STILL need to make it so that your success rate of turning that 3 yard play they are giving you on 3rd and 7 into a first down better than 50% (the draw). This is precisely what RU's philosophy does... in that it allows you to take the play to 7 yards because while the defense may know you're running a hook.... they don't know if it is going to be a flat hook, almost like an in, or a skinny hook like a comeback... or an inverse one almost an out... and what determines that is which one they are least in a position to cover.

Let me give you an example. How would our defense have covered our offense in the Air Force game?

We would have bracketed the TEs and put our all-league corners on Jordan Taylor and McGuffie forcing us to beat "us" with our 4th and 5th best weapons. Air Force didn't have anyone to match up with Taylor so we scorched them. Guess what? A&M does. In fact, their 4th and 5th best defenders are probably better than our 4th and 5th best offensive weapons... so we will have a tough time being successful "taking what they will give us". Against Air Force, Kubiak will take the swing pass on 3rd and 7 that they are giving us and turn it into a first down 70% of the time. Against A&M, he will only make it 30% of the time. Against A&M, he has to take that swing route and run it 7 yards down field.

This isn't about Bailiff and his coaching ability. The guy can CLEARLY coach and recruit and I believe he has put us in a position to out-athlete (or at least earn an across the board draw with) ANYONE in CUSA, including the ones that have left... Where he has certainly drawn closer but STILL struggles (and this is NOT a negative reflection upon him, but an acknowledgement of the obvious) is in winning games where the other team is athletically even/superior across the board. RU's augmentations of what is already happening... basically teaching guys how to get open based on recognizing only who is covering them and where they are coming from and the attack angles that creates... is a natural, but unique in the college world application of what great QBs like Manning and Brady and Favre and the others have always had in the pros. They've always had that guy who could seemingly get wide open even when everyone in the park knew they were going to them... NOT because they were great athletes who could out run or out jump the defenders, but because they knew how to put the defender where they couldn't stop the completion.

(08-21-2013 12:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 12:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  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.

This is important....

That philosophy works well when you have at least a physical "draw". The problem is, as a tier 2 football program, we only have a "draw" or better against teams like CUSA and the dregs of AQ conferences. We can get manhandled by teams like UT (even when we had the big three on offense, we scored what, ten points?) because their WORST defender still has about a draw to our best. They will take away our best with their best and leave us with a disadvantage. A&M will do this same thing. It's (IMO) why we do well against CUSA and are so weak against the better teams. I mean, Vandy a few years ago wasn't THAT much better than the top teams in CUSA, yet they handled us so easily.

So while you might certainly attack where they are vulnerable... "taking what they will give you".. You STILL need to make it so that your success rate of turning that 3 yard play they are giving you on 3rd and 7 into a first down better than 50% (the draw). This is precisely what RU's philosophy does... in that it allows you to take the play to 7 yards because while the defense may know you're running a hook.... they don't know if it is going to be a flat hook, almost like an in, or a skinny hook like a comeback... or an inverse one almost an out... and what determines that is which one they are least in a position to cover.

Let me give you an example. How would our defense have covered our offense in the Air Force game?

We would have bracketed the TEs and put our all-league corners on Jordan Taylor and McGuffie forcing us to beat "us" with our 4th and 5th best weapons. Air Force didn't have anyone to match up with Taylor so we scorched them. Guess what? A&M does. In fact, their 4th and 5th best defenders are probably better than our 4th and 5th best offensive weapons... so we will have a tough time being successful "taking what they will give us". Against Air Force, Kubiak will take the swing pass on 3rd and 7 that they are giving us and turn it into a first down 70% of the time. Against A&M, he will only make it 30% of the time. Against A&M, he has to take that swing route and run it 7 yards down field.

This isn't about Bailiff and his coaching ability. The guy can CLEARLY coach and recruit and I believe he has put us in a position to out-athlete (or at least earn an across the board draw with) ANYONE in CUSA, including the ones that have left... Where he has certainly drawn closer but STILL struggles (and this is NOT a negative reflection upon him, but an acknowledgement of the obvious) is in winning games where the other team is athletically even/superior across the board. RU's augmentations of what is already happening... basically teaching guys how to get open based on recognizing only who is covering them and where they are coming from and the attack angles that creates... is a natural, but unique in the college world application of what great QBs like Manning and Brady and Favre and the others have always had in the pros. They've always had that guy who could seemingly get wide open even when everyone in the park knew they were going to them... NOT because they were great athletes who could out run or out jump the defenders, but because they knew how to put the defender where they couldn't stop the completion.

Thanks. That helps me some.

(08-21-2013 10:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 12:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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.

Actually, the most plausible explanation for DJ's poor play against UH is the same as the most plausible explanation for his good play against AF--he had virtually no game reps before UH and had to come to grips with the speed of the game cold turkey, whereas against AF he had the benefit of a whole game of reps against UH plus film plus several weeks of practice and meetings to improve.

That is why I think he should have taken the second half against UCLA (depending to some extent on the severity of McH's injury) and LaTech (maybe not the whole half, but at least the 4Q). Would we have lost those two games if DJ took the second half snaps--probably, although the second half against UCLA would probably have gone at least no worse with DJ than with McH running what looked like a limited playbook, and if the UCLA experience was enough to turn DJ into the DJ against AF, then who knows about LaTech? But hey, we lost those games anyway, and 0-2 is 0-2.

Would DJ with two halves of game action under his belt have been the DJ of AF against UH? Quite possibly. Would that have been enough to beat UH? Again, quite possibly. Is 1-2 better than 0-3? Absolutely, particularly when the 1 is a conference game.

Makes a lot of sense, and not playing DJ more and earlier was probably a mistake, but not a result of not caring or not trying.

Had bailiff put DJ in as you suggest, what do you think the reaction on this board would have been at that time? (emphasis on the last three words). Hurray for Bailiff for preparing DJ for the future or boo for Bailiff for giving up too soon and too easily?

(08-21-2013 11:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  6-6 would disappoint greatly, but would not surprise me. If we continue our annoying habit of showing up unready and unprepared 2-3 times a season, 6 losses is well within our capability.

I would say that anything less than 8 wins is underachieving, 8-9 is where we should be, better than 9 is a good year.

I would add 1 across the board. I would also add 2 more for the postseason.

(08-21-2013 12:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  [
Had bailiff put DJ in as you suggest, what do you think the reaction on this board would have been at that time? (emphasis on the last three words). Hurray for Bailiff for preparing DJ for the future or boo for Bailiff for giving up too soon and too easily?

That's a fair question. I don't know the answer.

I'll simply assert the following

1. DJ's performance against Air Force was as effective as any that #16 has ever turned in, and far better than many.

2. Either he played way way above what he had ever done in practice (in which case we better give a 3rd QB some reps this year), or he had shown that he could really play. Cue the 2nd dead horse about our passing on Chuckie Keeton to take DJ, which is evidence that someone believes he can really play.

3. It's just not right that DJ should have been so bad in his first game. Hell, McHargue led a scoring drive against Texas in his first series as a redshirt frosh, whereas DJ couldn't get across midfield in a half. Chuckie almost beat (should have beaten but for an onside kick) defending NC Auburn on the road in his first game as a true freshman. That DJ was so bad after a full season+ of practices and two springs is very curious to me. And no, I never played past 4th grade so I really don't know anything, but I'll ask questions and make assertions.

(08-21-2013 11:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  6-6 would disappoint greatly, but would not surprise me. If we continue our annoying habit of showing up unready and unprepared 2-3 times a season, 6 losses is well within our capability.

I would say that anything less than 8 wins is underachieving, 8-9 is where we should be, better than 9 is a good year.

I concur. We should be an 8+ win team this year. Feels good to have those expectations this time of year. Our schedule sets up well this year and we have a lot of talent and experience.

(08-21-2013 12:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 10:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 12:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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.

Actually, the most plausible explanation for DJ's poor play against UH is the same as the most plausible explanation for his good play against AF--he had virtually no game reps before UH and had to come to grips with the speed of the game cold turkey, whereas against AF he had the benefit of a whole game of reps against UH plus film plus several weeks of practice and meetings to improve.

That is why I think he should have taken the second half against UCLA (depending to some extent on the severity of McH's injury) and LaTech (maybe not the whole half, but at least the 4Q). Would we have lost those two games if DJ took the second half snaps--probably, although the second half against UCLA would probably have gone at least no worse with DJ than with McH running what looked like a limited playbook, and if the UCLA experience was enough to turn DJ into the DJ against AF, then who knows about LaTech? But hey, we lost those games anyway, and 0-2 is 0-2.

Would DJ with two halves of game action under his belt have been the DJ of AF against UH? Quite possibly. Would that have been enough to beat UH? Again, quite possibly. Is 1-2 better than 0-3? Absolutely, particularly when the 1 is a conference game.

Makes a lot of sense, and not playing DJ more and earlier was probably a mistake, but not a result of not caring or not trying.

Had bailiff put DJ in as you suggest, what do you think the reaction on this board would have been at that time? (emphasis on the last three words). Hurray for Bailiff for preparing DJ for the future or boo for Bailiff for giving up too soon and too easily?

Good points on both sides of this debate. I am not sure where I shake out. Both have had moments of greatness and absolute meltdowns. If DJ plays like he did against AFA it will be tough to keep him off the field. I agree with others on the board that some early performances may have been due to nerves or lack of experience. I am hoping the recent success he has had will do the opposite. Both QB's should be helped this year by a better/ more experienced OL and receiving corps. We did lose two huge safety blankets with our stud TE's, but I think more speed experience on the outside should help along with an extra 0.5 seconds to holds the ball for routes to develop. I am hoping to have one of the QBs emerge as a clear starter, but still see backup get some PT in each game as a change of pace. Maybe an 80/20 split?

(08-21-2013 12:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 10:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 12:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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.

Actually, the most plausible explanation for DJ's poor play against UH is the same as the most plausible explanation for his good play against AF--he had virtually no game reps before UH and had to come to grips with the speed of the game cold turkey, whereas against AF he had the benefit of a whole game of reps against UH plus film plus several weeks of practice and meetings to improve.

That is why I think he should have taken the second half against UCLA (depending to some extent on the severity of McH's injury) and LaTech (maybe not the whole half, but at least the 4Q). Would we have lost those two games if DJ took the second half snaps--probably, although the second half against UCLA would probably have gone at least no worse with DJ than with McH running what looked like a limited playbook, and if the UCLA experience was enough to turn DJ into the DJ against AF, then who knows about LaTech? But hey, we lost those games anyway, and 0-2 is 0-2.

Would DJ with two halves of game action under his belt have been the DJ of AF against UH? Quite possibly. Would that have been enough to beat UH? Again, quite possibly. Is 1-2 better than 0-3? Absolutely, particularly when the 1 is a conference game.

Makes a lot of sense, and not playing DJ more and earlier was probably a mistake, but not a result of not caring or not trying.

Had bailiff put DJ in as you suggest, what do you think the reaction on this board would have been at that time? (emphasis on the last three words). Hurray for Bailiff for preparing DJ for the future or boo for Bailiff for giving up too soon and too easily?

I can only speak for myself, but I have wanted to see more DJ for a while. The difference between McH and DJ is small (if any) and not like Manning vs. Jim Sorgi; the latter case would be giving up, but in our case it is an even swap.

(08-21-2013 12:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Had bailiff put DJ in as you suggest, what do you think the reaction on this board would have been at that time? (emphasis on the last three words). Hurray for Bailiff for preparing DJ for the future or boo for Bailiff for giving up too soon and too easily?

I don't know what the reaction of the board would have been, but I know that my reaction would have been to applaud an approach that I've been calling for since long before DJ or even DB. Until we get to the point where we look to win 10+ every year, and maybe even after then, focus on winning conference games and use preseason games the way the NFL does--play to win, but plan to get 50-60 people meaningful playing time, because that's the best preparation for conference games.

If DJ against UH is the DJ we saw against AF, that probably gets us a win there, and then we could have gone with DJ at Memphis instead of having to rush McH back, and probably gotten another win there. That would get us to 8-4. Also, had DJ been ready to run the offense against Marshall, he probably gets us into the end zone on the last series in regulation there, which gets us to 9-3. Either way, Tulsa would have been for the west division berth in the championship game, and it obviously would have taken very little more to win there.

It would not have taken much for us to have been 10-2 last year. But we didn't get it and were 6-6. Will we be 10-2 or 6-6 this year?

(08-21-2013 01:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If DJ against UH is the DJ we saw against AF, that probably gets us a win there, and then we could have gone with DJ at Memphis instead of having to rush McH back, and probably gotten another win there.

I'm pretty sure someone told me DJ was unavailable for the Memphis game due to injury. If that was the case, the choice was between a limited McHargue and Billups. Using my post-hoc retrospect-o-scope, we should have gone with Billups!

(08-21-2013 02:22 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 01:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If DJ against UH is the DJ we saw against AF, that probably gets us a win there, and then we could have gone with DJ at Memphis instead of having to rush McH back, and probably gotten another win there.

I'm pretty sure someone told me DJ was unavailable for the Memphis game due to injury. If that was the case, the choice was between a limited McHargue and Billups. Using my post-hoc retrospect-o-scope, we should have gone with Billups!

I've heard the same.

(08-21-2013 02:22 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 01:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If DJ against UH is the DJ we saw against AF, that probably gets us a win there, and then we could have gone with DJ at Memphis instead of having to rush McH back, and probably gotten another win there.

I'm pretty sure someone told me DJ was unavailable for the Memphis game due to injury. If that was the case, the choice was between a limited McHargue and Billups. Using my post-hoc retrospect-o-scope, we should have gone with Billups!

Going off of memory here, but I think he played injured which limited what they could do with him. I think this kept them from letting him use his legs taking away the dual threat. I believe he had a shoulder injury (non-throwing arm).

(08-21-2013 02:25 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 02:22 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 01:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If DJ against UH is the DJ we saw against AF, that probably gets us a win there, and then we could have gone with DJ at Memphis instead of having to rush McH back, and probably gotten another win there.

I'm pretty sure someone told me DJ was unavailable for the Memphis game due to injury. If that was the case, the choice was between a limited McHargue and Billups. Using my post-hoc retrospect-o-scope, we should have gone with Billups!

I've heard the same.

I think that may be correct. But if DJ is the AF DJ versus UH, maybe he doesn't get hurt. Or if McH rests two halves against UCLA and LaTech, maybe he doesn't get hurt versus Marshall. We will never know about such specific situations. But as a general rule, resting people reduces bangs and bumps and, ultimately, injuries. When you get hit as much as our QBs, there simply must be some cumulative effect.

(08-19-2013 11:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I want to win the conference championship, not just be in it., and I want to win our bowl game, against a decent opponent.

I agree. The record doesn't mean that much to me this year. THIS is the year we need to win the conference championship. Unfortunately, the most important game of the year is AT Tulsa, and it comes after they have an off week.

Moving on to the next controversy...

DJ had one outstanding half. I am not counting the end of the first half, which culminated in a lost DJ fumble and a missed scoring opportunity, which seems to be forgotten.

He had one lousy game.

Will the real DJ please stand up?

I too hope the AFA DJ is the real DJ, as he will most likely be our #1 in 2014 and beyond. But does anyone really think he will produce 24 halves like the AFA half? If he does, he deserves the Heisman. No QB in history has been at his best every game, all game long. Expecting him to the AFA DJ from now on is just too much. And we sneer at the Aggies for putting pressure on JFF?

I want to see more of him this year. I expect to see more of him this year, as Bailiff is not as stupid as legend says, and he knows he needs DJ ready for next year. But I expect McH to be the #1 for a variety of reasons. If DJ can play his way into the top spot, more power to him. But IMO it takes more than one good half to earn that nod.

So let's start with the known quality, and see where the season takes us. If history is a guide, DJ will get his chances this year, and they will prepare him to be THE guy next year. I expect that even if McH stays healthy, DJ will get a lot of PT. And he will be the better for it.

JMHO.