Editing to focus on a few points
(01-20-2014 02:09 PM)ruowls Wrote: As you go up in coaching levels, the perception is that sophistication increases. The "system" may become more sophisticated but the dynamics of the game remain constant. So, one has basically developed a more convoluted way of dealing with a fixed issue.
Bingo. And demonstrable increased sophistication requires more money, unless you have an 'in'.
Quote:What is the one thing a defense can never take away? An offense's ability to think. Therefore, if that is what you do best, the defense can never take away what you do best.
Something where Rice should ALWAYS have a recruiting advantage. I'm not saying other schools don't have some smart kids... I'm saying that players who CHOOSE the tougher academic path by playing at Rice (whether their alternative is UH in the AAC, MSU in the SEC, N Tx in CUSA or Sam Houston in the Lone Star) have demonstrated a superior RELIANCE on and willingness to focus upon their intelligence. Further, I think our alums and fans, not only of Rice but those who simply share our academic interests would enjoy and appreciate a more 'academic' discussion about sports in these terms. When Duke somewhat sells-out their academics in basketball to put a better product on the court, it doesn't really attract people from say U-Chicago to Duke... but when Rice USES their academics to put a better product on the field, it might.
Quote:I'll use a play from last night's Seahawk-49er game as another illustration.
The called play had no one in the flat to hold the flat coverage and the QB and receiver didn't recognize this.
If the receiver had just looked in as he released, he could have seen the flat defender flying out and then extend his route vertically and create a throwing lane further inside instead of doing what he did. This is the problem with teaching football. The emphasis is on the play and what route you run. The emphasis isn't on the elements that you are attacking.
You don't have to change schemes or even nomenclature to be more effective. Honestly, I could come in and learn the Rice playbook in about half a day. I could use their same nomenclature and plays and still make it a more productive offense. The problem is that most coaches don't think my way. The emphasis is on the plays and their adjustments as opposed to emphasizing the basic elements of a defense and how you defeat these.
Leaving these together because they make my point. You don't need to change the plays whatsoever. The only
necessary difference between Reagan or RU at 'OC' is how the play is run... whether the ball is thrown 7 yards down field and to the sideline or 11 yards down field and closer to the numbers. That, plus the increased probability of success based on putting the players in better spatial relationships.
My point being that it isn't the play being called that MUST change (though it certainly CAN be)... but if we focus on the elements being attacked and change that one part, then the effectiveness of the offense changes dramatically.
[/quote]An OC's real job is to unify the elements into a cohesive package for the players to understand and exploit.
I have an honest question. How many here would trust me to be the OC at Rice? I know I don't have the resume for it. However, I know I have the intelligence for it.
[/quote]
While that is OFTEN the OC's job, is it necessarily? Of course you know I trust your abilities... but for those that don't... you've already (and often on here) taken an existing play-call and adjustment and verbally demonstrated a better adjustment that would have been more effective. If this took us from say a 50% completion rate to a 60% one (not an impossible number) it is likely that lots of OTHER details change as well. Instead of 30% on 3rd and 5+'s, maybe we are 40%. Instead of 60/40 TD/FG we're 70/30. That alone would change our effectiveness and competitiveness... WITHOUT necessarily changing one single play-call. This sounds to me as if it could be done by the passing game coordinator or even WR coach. Now I fully believe that you have the skills to call the plays as well... but Bailiff obviously likes to rely on people he knows well, even if they lack the sort of complex understanding that would really help him out...
In no small part (imo) because a big part of David's charge to the OC is to help make his defense more effective by (among other things) controlling the clock, even sometimes it appears at the risk of completing fewer passes and scoring somewhat less.
If the passing game were more effective, David could throw less and run more. I think he'd like that a lot.
