I'm encouraged. Missing that field goal before halftime hurt, but the two turnovers to begin the second half really killed our chances to make it close. No pressure on the quarterback all game long, but we'll not face an OL that big again all season long. Same for the DL. Those are big, physical SEC linemen. That being said, I do see the talent/size/athleticism gap closing. We look athletic now.

It could have been a closer game and the offense left the defense on the field too often. They got plenty tired toward the end of the third quarter.

This was a good game to "get better" in and I think our guys did that. They improved. I think the experience yesterday will really help us against Kansas and UH. I see us being favored to win both. I like our chances at winning ten games or more this season.

As it stands today I could see us possibly being slight underdogs against five of our upcoming opponents: Kansas, at Houston, at Tulsa, at UAB, and at N. Texas. Of the other six games we will probably spit the bit against at least one of them (hello Memphis 2012) and go 5-1. Of the other five games we'll probably play one really great game and split the other four. That puts us at 8-4, not what most of us are hoping for but about as good as it gets for the last 60 years of Rice football. We have a chance to win all of them, but it will take effort like we saw yesterday, a little luck, and no more injuries to key personnel. It's going to be a fun season.

(09-01-2013 09:34 AM)wrysal Wrote:  As it stands today I could see us possibly being slight underdogs against five of our upcoming opponents: Kansas, at Houston, at Tulsa, at UAB, and at N. Texas. Of the other six games we will probably spit the bit against at least one of them (hello Memphis 2012) and go 5-1. Of the other five games we'll probably play one really great game and split the other four. That puts us at 8-4, not what most of us are hoping for but about as good as it gets for the last 60 years of Rice football. We have a chance to win all of them, but it will take effort like we saw yesterday, a little luck, and no more injuries to key personnel. It's going to be a fun season.

As it stands today, how in the world do you see us as home underdogs to Kansas in 2 weeks?

(09-01-2013 09:34 AM)wrysal Wrote:  As it stands today I could see us possibly being slight underdogs against five of our upcoming opponents: Kansas, at Houston, at Tulsa, at UAB, and at N. Texas. Of the other six games we will probably spit the bit against at least one of them (hello Memphis 2012) and go 5-1. Of the other five games we'll probably play one really great game and split the other four. That puts us at 8-4, not what most of us are hoping for but about as good as it gets for the last 60 years of Rice football. We have a chance to win all of them, but it will take effort like we saw yesterday, a little luck, and no more injuries to key personnel. It's going to be a fun season.

For this team to go 8-4 against that schedule would be a disappointment to me. First thing, eliminate the game where we spit the bit. Second thing, get rid of the mental errors and execution errors. Third thing, come out every game intense and focused. That should get us to 10-2.

Of course, I suppose my first, second, and third things are sorta saying the same thing three different ways.

Kansas will be such a weird team to figure out. They don't return many letterwinners and I think they have something like eight JUCO starters on their current depth chart (plus other transfers like Jake Heap, who is their QB from BYU and the nation's top QB recruit 4 years ago).

They do have some solid running backs returning (including one who gained 120 yards on us last year and then their top RB didn't play against us because he was suspended). Based on how we looked against the run yesterday, I could see a pick-em game if Kansas does okay against South Dakota next week. If their newcomers aren't impressive, then I imagine we'll be favored by up to a touchdown.

(09-01-2013 09:34 AM)wrysal Wrote:  As it stands today, how in the world do you see us as home underdogs to Kansas in 2 weeks?

Did anyone forsee Rice outgaining TAMU?

Yes defensive suspensions contributed a lot; maybe JFF suspension contributed some.

I imagine that for many or most of us, the 2% Rice wins scenario involved turnovers, maybe a blocked punt, and multiple 50+ yard field goals.

The mistakes--busted plays, two picks, the 3rd down drops, and the bad fair catches--had a lot more to do with us losing than did the officials. Those are disappointments but also opportunities for improvement.

To me it is immeasurably more satisfying than last year's opener vs. UCLA, where we did nothing early except 3-and-out, turnovers, and yielding 1 or 2 play TD drives. The margin of defeat was only 4 points less, but to me the two games are not really comparable. This was on the road against a more talented opponent.

After one game, we are way ahead of last year in my book. The key now is to beat Kansas convincingly at home; recall last year's came in somewhat improbable fashion.

(09-01-2013 07:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-31-2013 11:11 PM)JOwl Wrote:  But in the same vein, I was a bit disappointed that we punted twice from the 50. Our punting game is poor, and if your expected game outcome is a loss, then you're best served by doing what you can to increase the variance in the outcome (up to a point). Going for it on fourth downs increases variance, and with less-than-usual cost since we can't count on our punting for much.
Unfortunately, I disagree a bit with your later comment about coaches wanting to do what gives them the best chance to win. My opinion is that coaches are less likely to take good risks if it's likely to open them to criticism. E.g., some coaches really seem to buy into the idea that it doesn't matter when they choose to go for two when down by 15 late, even though the knowledge of the outcome of the two-point conversion is much more valuable to the trailing team than the leading team.

We don't actually disagree here. I think coaches do what they think gives them a better chance to win. Unfortunately, the best play statistically is not always the one that the coach thinks is best. One place this is particularly true is fourth down, where statistically there are a lot of situations where coaches routinely punt, even though statistically it makes far more sense to go for it.

And those odds shift depending on your team's talent. Sort of like how in baseball the intentional walk (or offensively the sacrifice bunt) varies quite a bit in desirability depending on whether the batter is Miguel Cabrera or Wandy Rodriguez. A team which punts the ball well, covers punts well, and plays good defense should punt the ball more often. TCU is probably better defensively than offensively, and last night against LSU they punted from about midfield, down two TD's in the 4th quarter, killed the punt on the LSU 1, recovered an LSU fumble at the 6, and scored from there in two plays. That's an example of the strategy working. We are a poor punting team and not a good defensive team, but our offense was moving the ball relatively well yesterday. The odds probably favored our going for it more often on fourth down.

Bill Belichick goes for it on 4th down far more than other coaches, and he got blasted a few years ago for a fourth down gamble that failed, but the odds in that case were hugely in his favor.

I guess I just think the motivation is a bit different than you do. I figure coaches probably understand the best play more than it appears. If you have say a 20% chance of winning, then employing an unorthodox move that (by simply employing it) would improve your a priori chance of winning to 25% would be a great idea. But if the move only has, say, a one in three chance of success, I think many coaches would eschew it. Why? Because odds are the move is going to fail. And coaches get hammered for failed unorthodox moves (like Belichick vs Indy), even if they were a smart gamble.

In short, I think many coaches would be pick the 20% chance of a win playing it straight rather than pick the 25% chance of a win going unorthodox given that they're likely to get killed in the media for that unorthodox move. It's the incentive of avoiding a firestorm of criticism rather than a lack of creativity or understanding that I think drives so much conservatism.

(09-01-2013 10:00 AM)JOwl Wrote:  I guess I just think the motivation is a bit different than you do. I figure coaches probably understand the best play more than it appears. If you have say a 20% chance of winning, then employing an unorthodox move that (by simply employing it) would improve your a priori chance of winning to 25% would be a great idea. But if the move only has, say, a one in three chance of success, I think many coaches would eschew it. Why? Because odds are the move is going to fail. And coaches get hammered for failed unorthodox moves (like Belichick vs Indy), even if they were a smart gamble.

In short, I think many coaches would be pick the 20% chance of a win playing it straight rather than pick the 25% chance of a win going unorthodox given that they're likely to get killed in the media for that unorthodox move. It's the incentive of avoiding a firestorm of criticism rather than a lack of creativity or understanding that I think drives so much conservatism.

I think what drives most conservatism is that in the vast majority of cases the conservative play is the better option. I think the big mistake most coaches make is that they gamble in really stupid ways at really stupid times, and then when it fails they say, "OK, I learned my lesson, I'm going conservative." There is a certain appeal to rolling the dice for the sake of rolling the dice, like the Leo Durocher approach to managing a baseball game, in that it creates unpredictability that is useful.

I do think a lot of conservatism arises because coaches don't prepare their teams well enough to execute properly, and they know it, so they're afraid to take a chance because they fear screwing it up. Mike Leach is a proponent of having a small playbook (using the term figuratively, as Leach generally doesn't actually use a conventional playbook at all). Why? Because he believes that he can get the team prepared to execute a small number of plays well enough that he can call any one of them at any time. He believes that execution is more important than scheme. And he thinks most coaches try to run way too many different plays, with the result that their teams don't execute any of them perfectly.

(09-01-2013 09:59 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  Did anyone forsee Rice outgaining TAMU?

Yes defensive suspensions contributed a lot; maybe JFF suspension contributed some.

I imagine that for many or most of us, the 2% Rice wins scenario involved turnovers, maybe a blocked punt, and multiple 50+ yard field goals.

The mistakes--busted plays, two picks, the 3rd down drops, and the bad fair catches--had a lot more to do with us losing than did the officials. Those are disappointments but also opportunities for improvement.

To me it is immeasurably more satisfying than last year's opener vs. UCLA, where we did nothing early except 3-and-out, turnovers, and yielding 1 or 2 play TD drives. The margin of defeat was only 4 points less, but to me the two games are not really comparable. This was on the road against a more talented opponent.

After one game, we are way ahead of last year in my book. The key now is to beat Kansas convincingly at home; recall last year's came in somewhat improbable fashion.

This is the same BS that is in every story about the game. Rice wouldn't have gained all those yards if A&M had those 6 starters. Rice didn't have Shahin (starting DT), Nwosu (starting LB), Gaines (starting DB), and we lost Radcliffe (starting LB) in the middle of the 1st half. But no one says maybe aggy and JFF don't score 52 and get their 450+ yards with our starters being able to play. And if there is a drop off between 1's and 2's on the aggy roster shouldn't the same drop in performance show up with the Rice substitutes? I didn't expect to hear ESPN talk about this given their JFF lovefest agenda or anyone not a Rice fan or staff but I sure as heck didn't expect to see this lame stuff here.

(09-01-2013 10:41 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(09-01-2013 09:59 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  Did anyone forsee Rice outgaining TAMU?

Yes defensive suspensions contributed a lot; maybe JFF suspension contributed some.

I imagine that for many or most of us, the 2% Rice wins scenario involved turnovers, maybe a blocked punt, and multiple 50+ yard field goals.

The mistakes--busted plays, two picks, the 3rd down drops, and the bad fair catches--had a lot more to do with us losing than did the officials. Those are disappointments but also opportunities for improvement.

To me it is immeasurably more satisfying than last year's opener vs. UCLA, where we did nothing early except 3-and-out, turnovers, and yielding 1 or 2 play TD drives. The margin of defeat was only 4 points less, but to me the two games are not really comparable. This was on the road against a more talented opponent.

After one game, we are way ahead of last year in my book. The key now is to beat Kansas convincingly at home; recall last year's came in somewhat improbable fashion.

This is the same BS that is in every story about the game. Rice wouldn't have gained all those yards if A&M had those 6 starters. Rice didn't have Shahin (starting DT), Nwosu (starting LB), Gaines (starting DB), and we lost Radcliffe (starting LB) in the middle of the 1st half. But no one says maybe aggy and JFF don't score 52 and get their 450+ yards with our starters being able to play. And if there is a drop off between 1's and 2's on the aggy roster shouldn't the same drop in performance show up with the Rice substitutes? I didn't expect to hear ESPN talk about this given their JFF lovefest agenda or anyone not a Rice fan or staff but I sure as heck didn't expect to see this lame stuff here.

+1,000

there was a tweet on ESPN from our Nick Elder, saying that he was one of those Manziel was talking to. Said that JFf said "Nice hit, Nick". FWIW.

RE: Aggie suspensions. We aren't going to get our side told until it is news, and for that we need to get a lot better.

BUT, FTR, I would like to note that only 3 suspensions were defensive starters, so we played against 8/11 of their starting defense, and their backups aren't exactly chopped liver. No need to downplay our 500 yds that much.

(09-01-2013 11:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  there was a tweet on ESPN from our Nick Elder, saying that he was one of those Manziel was talking to. Said that JFf said "Nice hit, Nick". FWIW.

That was an earlier play. You can see him say something to Nick after the tackle. Mouchantaf was saying something to manziel right after that when manziel made his first autograph signal. The clip where Manziel gets the flag I think he was talking to Hill.

(09-01-2013 01:19 AM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  

(09-01-2013 12:26 AM)At Ease Wrote:  If even our play-calling is reactionary and slow, what surprise is that the offense too often plays the same.

This was the first game in a while where I had no real complaints with the playcalling (and the offense, I thought, looked much crisper than usual at this time of the season, if not halfway through). You didn't like the playcalling?

I was more referring to the reactionary nature of our play calls with the meerkat, and the tone that sets for the team.

I thought the play selection was generally fine, with good production (that might have been more if Moore and Petersen come up with some 3rd down catches). Some criticisms would be that... I would have preferred a little less play-action with Driphus in, so he could better watch the coverage unfold. And I don't think we came out running nearly enough in the 2nd half, after the success we had in the first half. Our first 3 drives in the 2nd half, McHargue went 3 for 8 with 2 INTs and only 8 yards. The 4th and 1 failed Ross rush in the 4th Q was terrible, everyone knows what's coming, the Aggies have the line stacked, so we run a slow-developing play from a shotgun set..

All play calling is reactionary. You know score, time remaining, down, and distance. You anticipate what the defense will do. You know your strategic and tactical objectives, philosophy, and plan. You select a play call from among the options that fit within those constraints. That's about as reactionary as it gets.

What matters is how well you can execute. The better your execution, the more options you have that can succeed in any situation. The same for the quality of your athletes. As Bum Phillips said, get better players or get the ones you have to play better. That expands your play-calling options.

69 has made the most important points about our team. Preparation and fundamental soundness are critical, and in spite of all the good that came out of yesterday's game, Rice made many mistakes that were indicative of lacking preparation/focus in some key areas. False starts (including one coming out of a timeout), some awful judgement on return catches, one bad snap, and poor special teams all played a part in our undoing. We need to get those things sorted out, pronto.

For comparison, Oregon State was able to score almost at will on their "lesser" opponent. They lost.

I'm not saying that we should've beaten a$m; the game just should have been closer in the end.

The mental errors that hurt us yesterday are expected in the first game. Those errors are magnified because we can't make any mistakes at all to beat a team like A&M. I was frustrated like everyone else because I knew the game would have been closer without them. I expect that all the small mistakes will be cleaned up before we play Kansas. I think we'll see a very fired up squad that comes out hard against the Jayhawks and one that looks to put them away quickly.

(09-01-2013 12:43 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  The mental errors that hurt us yesterday are expected in the first game. Those errors are magnified because we can't make any mistakes at all to beat a team like A&M. I was frustrated like everyone else because I knew the game would have been closer without them. I expect that all the small mistakes will be cleaned up before we play Kansas. I think we'll see a very fired up squad that comes out hard against the Jayhawks and one that looks to put them away quickly.

When occurrences of these kinds of errors are a pattern for a program, when minimizing them should be a point of emphasis for a coaching staff, they are neither expected nor acceptable in any game.

Comparatively speaking, the errors we saw yesterday were far fewer than in the past. It's a good sign.

(09-01-2013 12:56 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Comparatively speaking, the errors we saw yesterday were far fewer than in the past. It's a good sign.

It's a step in the right direction. I want to see more and bigger steps in that direction.