(01-02-2014 10:45 AM)talon owl Wrote: (01-02-2014 10:10 AM)d1owls4life Wrote: Two, you want to know why he made that choice? More than likely, he didn't have the budget to make any other choice.
This is such a load of crap and I've confronted you on this before.
We just had our highest paid assistant leave, right? His salary and any other comp were vacated. That amount of comp (and conceivably more now with likely overall staff raises) is now available to be allocated (assuming the same budget). That is more than enough money to go out and hire someone from the outside. No, we won't be able to lure an OC from a BCS program, but certainly could entertain a BCS position coach, non-BCS coordinator, highschool head coach or coordinator, etc.
If Bailiff has already made up his mind or is even already strong leaning towards Edmondson then there was never a legitimate effort to consider outside candidates, which would be very disappointing and all on DB.
It's not a load of crap. We aren't anywhere NEAR the highest paid coaching staff, and as things are probably pro-rated, while we may have had some extra money for the next 6 months... MOST of the guys we would want are still coaching.
I don't think Bailiff wanted to rush into a decision, nor does he want to upset his recruiting pipeline by having a vacated OC position AND a failed replacement a month before signing date. Edmonson IS the OC. It remains to be seen if he retains that position, and that will likely depend on budgets, contracts for guys like Thurmond and who is/will be available. You can't just bring someone in for a game in 3 weeks (with a Christmas break in there) and change the offense. You CAN do that in spring, summer and especially fall. We need to pay a bit more. Not an earth-shattering amount like SMU, but more like UH. It's not that there aren't good guys out there making less... it's that there is MORE to being a coach at Rice than coaching football for guys, 40% OR MORE of whom won't ever graduate. State has a 60% grad rate.... and that is a credit TO them, not a knock on them.
(01-02-2014 11:31 AM)Vegas Owl Wrote: (01-02-2014 11:25 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: (01-02-2014 11:14 AM)Mademen Wrote: I know nothing about the coach in question, but judging anyone off the game with Miss State seems a little unfair. Texas A&M and LSU were the only schools that had any consistent success against the Bulldogs this year. That includes some pretty damn good offenses in Auburn and Alabama. It is impossible to simulate the difference in line play coming from CUSA to an SEC team. Rice got outmanned more so than they got out schemed IMO.
And we knew we were outmanned physically and athletically on the lines going in. Consequently, the game calling and schemes should have compensated for that...and, certainly, we should have made some in-game adjustments. Our game calling was as predictable as it was conservative and, IMO, we all but gave up by early in the 3Q. (When you're down by 20+ points with less than a half remaining, you don't call a direct RB handoff up the middle on 1st down for 3 consecutive series (as Edmondson did). As has been the case all year long, the aggressiveness and imagination in our offensive play calling ended after the first 3 series (and 15 or so plays) of the game. (I think we had 2 first downs the final three quarters of the game.) We had an early successful 20-yard completion to Cella over the middle on our second series again, yet not another pass was targetted to Cella the rest of the game. Again, deja vu all over again. Hardly any short or intermediate passing routes over the middle-- to take advantage of MSU loading the box against the run and allow McHargue to beat the pressure. Sound familiar?
Again, we knew going in we were going to be badly outmanned in the trenches, yet we didn't prepare a game plan to counter that and give ourselves a chance.
+100
Agree with both of these statements. We were outmanned, and lacked the 'ingenuity' to counter them. That's okay. It's a painful lesson, but a lesson nonetheless. Frankly, I'm glad it happened here at the end of the year where we are supposedly playing well as opposed to us patting ourselves on the back after demolishing directional U and then starting off next season with the same sort of situation, only to do better when the manpower advantage is less and THINK/convince ourselves that it is purely because we start slow. Mississippi State was a bad player match-up for us... with a HUGE defensive line.... and the game got ugly forcing us to pass and they just pinned their ears back. ND and A&M will try and do the same thing.
As good as we are, we cannot YET compete with solid p5 schools. We need more innovative schemes on Offense. I've said this for years. NOT to win CUSA, but to beat teams that can consistently out-athlete us. We need to try and be recent Oregon or A&M or Baylor and not Old-school UT or Nebraska or Oklahoma. With Bailiff and Edmonson's defense, we could compete.
The scheme when you are outmanned is quick drops, positioning, route adjustments and accuracy. None of that has been our forte.
The good news is, this is actually a pretty easy fix (relatively). It takes a different set of understanding... i.e. it takes understanding where the defense is coming from/where they are relative to whom they are covering... and not throwing to the guy who has coverage inside or underneath him.... but to the guy who is in front of his defender, and for him to adjust to keep himself there and 'come back' to the ball.
Frankly, this is more a QB/WR coach fix if you ask me than a play caller/schemer.
With 6'7 Jordan Taylor, We didn't have a fade or back shoulder play to him until week 10 or so. With Donte Moore, we don't have much of a quick slant play to him. Kubiak had great hands and decent frame, but not superior speed and we threw to him on the move more than using his frame and hands and sitting him down in a zone, or positioning his body against man.
This loss was painful, no doubt... but I actually see it as an opportunity... If we are simply bold enough to step through
