The flip side - where Notre Dame thinks they underperformed (or in the spirit of the thread, where we took advantage).

http://www.uhnd.com/articles/football/5-...ice-18289/

(09-02-2014 10:44 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I used to complain about this, believing the younger guys were better. And maybe a few of them are, but they have to be much better to make it worth losing the extra year of eligility.

But that is the test, right? if we are truly upgrading recruiting, then we should have several true freshmen press for playing time every year.

(09-02-2014 10:28 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 10:44 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I used to complain about this, believing the younger guys were better. And maybe a few of them are, but they have to be much better to make it worth losing the extra year of eligility.

But that is the test, right? if we are truly upgrading recruiting, then we should have several true freshmen press for playing time every year.

And how are they "losing an extra year of eligibility"? If they're good enough to play as true Freshman, they're still giving us 4 years of playing time.

Do we have any examples do players who should have played as true freshman that didn't? Who came in their second year, absolutely stood out, and for a position that was under served the year before? Or is this just conjecture?

(09-03-2014 05:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Do we have any examples do players who should have played as true freshman that didn't? Who came in their second year, absolutely stood out, and for a position that was under served the year before? Or is this just conjecture?

Maybe Callahan, Covington, or McHargue.
Callahan has always been talented, but remember he had Jammer ahead of him on one side and Gaines ahead of him on the other side, both of whom started as true freshman.

Covington could have helped as a true freshman, but we would be looking at his Senior year right now instead of a RS Junior year.

And I don't want to bring up the QB fiasco of 2009, but rumors abound that the staff very nearly pulled McHargue's redshirt in 2009.

Otherwise, Talent + Physical maturity = playing time. I would cite the list of Freshman that have seen the field immediately, but I don't think that it is necessary. One person I did not mention is Bob. Bob saw immediate playing time his freshman year. He is a huge reason we almost beat Tulsa in 2012.

Bottom line, if the talent is there, and the physical maturity is there, the kid will play. Some of the recruits have had both at 18. Some take longer to mature. Zach Patt and Ian Gray played at a high level on Saturday, but it took sometime for them to put it all together. James Mayden for his position is physically and talent wise ready to contribute now. And we saw the results.

(09-02-2014 11:15 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 10:28 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 10:44 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I used to complain about this, believing the younger guys were better. And maybe a few of them are, but they have to be much better to make it worth losing the extra year of eligility.

But that is the test, right? if we are truly upgrading recruiting, then we should have several true freshmen press for playing time every year.

And how are they "losing an extra year of eligibility"? If they're good enough to play as true Freshman, they're still giving us 4 years of playing time.

If they are good enough to be starters, agree. But why trade a year as a starter in five years for a year as a reserve now?

Getting back to the punt returner, I think we probably have others on the squad who could do a good job at that. What evidence do we have that one or the other Walter twins is the best available on campus?

I think DB's philosophy on punt returns is ball security and field position vs. the guy who may break a few but also may muff a few. No fumbles/drops on the return and know when to fair catch vs. let it roll for extra yards. My understanding is that Callahan is the best on the team at this. May be more explosive guys who can do more things in space w/ the ball in their hands but the risk of muffs and other bad decisions is higher. I think we have seen this (e.g., Hull) over the years.

(09-03-2014 11:14 AM)owl40 Wrote:  I think DB's philosophy on punt returns is ball security and field position vs. the guy who may break a few but also may muff a few. No fumbles/drops on the return and know when to fair catch vs. let it roll for extra yards. My understanding is that Callahan is the best on the team at this. May be more explosive guys who can do more things in space w/ the ball in their hands but the risk of muffs and other bad decisions is higher. I think we have seen this (e.g., Hull) over the years.

The main problem with this is unless DB has given strict instructions to fair catch EVERYTHING, this is putting Callahan had risk...and we can ill-afford to lose him in the defensive backfield. Surely we have at least one other guy on our roster who can reliably fair catch punts without fumbling.

I re-watched the game last night and noted a few things that I have not seen discussed here so far but are worth mentioning:

Christian Covington was double-teamed almost the entire game and consequently was not much of a factor in the game directly, (although the constant double teaming may have allowed some penetration and plays by other defensive lineman and linebackers). Rice better get used to Covington being double-teamed this season.

Other than the (3?) delay of game penalties (infuriating), the game was very clean. It reminded me of some of the better Hatfield coached teams in terms of lack of penalties. Let's hope that trend continues.

It looked to me like Ian Gray is a much better pass blocker than a run blocker, although he did allow some perimeter pressure and got beat a few times. I thought he used his hands very well as a pass blocker. I hope he develops that killer instinct at tackle and flattens some people on runs.

Rice decisively lost the field position battle, which ended up really hurting them in the game (the concern mentioned in this forum about special teams performance is significant). Coach Patterson has some hard work ahead of him to correct these deficiencies.

I kept replaying the fake punt. It looks like Turner had an option to lateral the ball outside to another player (Dillard?). If he had I think the play would still be running as there was no one from ND covering that area. Like most on the forum, I really liked the call and wish it would have worked. Not only would have have given the team new life, the ND fans would have had recurring nightmares of how they lost to Michigan State a few years ago!

I would have thought the ND 1 play 75 yard strike would have put the nail in the coffin for Rice but I saw no loss of intensity or determination on the team after than play. The team continued to fight and look for ways to move the ball effectively.

(09-03-2014 03:50 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 11:14 AM)owl40 Wrote:  I think DB's philosophy on punt returns is ball security and field position vs. the guy who may break a few but also may muff a few. No fumbles/drops on the return and know when to fair catch vs. let it roll for extra yards. My understanding is that Callahan is the best on the team at this. May be more explosive guys who can do more things in space w/ the ball in their hands but the risk of muffs and other bad decisions is higher. I think we have seen this (e.g., Hull) over the years.

The main problem with this is unless DB has given strict instructions to fair catch EVERYTHING, this is putting Callahan had risk...and we can ill-afford to lose him in the defensive backfield. Surely we have at least one other guy on our roster who can reliably fair catch punts without fumbling.

Walt- I agree. We shall see how many punts he really returns. Last year, we had the opponent punt 75 times but Bryce only had 18 returns for 114 yards (two others had 3 total returns). I don't know what the NCAA average is for a returns but to have the opponent have about 75% of their punts w/ zero return attempts is clearly an opportunity to improve field position. As an example, I believe 100% of Farrimonds punts were returned on Saturday which was a material difference maker for the Irish.

http://www.riceowls.com/sports/m-footbl/...mcume.html

With a noisy and packed house, at ND of all places, with swirling winds, on national TV, first game of the season, and a ND punter with an incredible hangtime......I was EXTREMELY happy to have Callahan back there. SURE HANDS in an extremely difficult situation is by far the most important factor of all.

For other games, in other situations, I agree with you. But there was no way we were going to return any Saturday with their punter's Sputnik launches.

On the other hand, we did precisely the WORST thing a punt team can do - drive low liners beyond our coverage.

(09-03-2014 06:30 PM)Kayjay Wrote:  I re-watched the game last night and noted a few things that I have not seen discussed here so far but are worth mentioning:

[deletia]
I kept replaying the fake punt. It looks like Turner had an option to lateral the ball outside to another player (Dillard?). If he had I think the play would still be running as there was no one from ND covering that area. Like most on the forum, I really liked the call and wish it would have worked. Not only would have have given the team new life, the ND fans would have had recurring nightmares of how they lost to Michigan State a few years ago!

I just watched it, and it's actually not so easy. ND had a player nominally in the lane and close to the pitch man. Why we had 2 pitch targets to that side, I'm not sure - was one supposed to block? It would have been a risky pitch with that guy in position. He not only had some coverage on the near pitch man, but also forced Turner in, where ND had exactly one unblocked guy who met him head up and was able to just stop him short. It was actually reasonably well blocked, though it would have been great if that player had at least been chipped or redirected somehow.

The decision not to pitch was probably right, though there was a small window to potentially try it. If he does it, there's a chance the pitch man gets tackled or the pitch gets deflected, but there's a much greater chance the outside man can't get there in time, in which case it's running a long way.

It is what it was, and it was 1-yard short of converting.

For a little perspective, 54 true freshmen started for their football team this last week, across all of D-1. Sure, many more played, but I thought this helped give a bit of context about how common/uncommon it is for teams to rely heavily on true freshmen.

(09-04-2014 04:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  For a little perspective, 54 true freshmen started for their football team this last week, across all of D-1. Sure, many more played, but I thought this helped give a bit of context about how common/uncommon it is for teams to rely heavily on true freshmen.

For off, this was Week 1 of the season....and second, many, many more of these true Freshman are going to see significant (impactful) playing time this year.

(09-02-2014 11:15 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 10:28 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 10:44 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I used to complain about this, believing the younger guys were better. And maybe a few of them are, but they have to be much better to make it worth losing the extra year of eligility.

But that is the test, right? if we are truly upgrading recruiting, then we should have several true freshmen press for playing time every year.

And how are they "losing an extra year of eligibility"? If they're good enough to play as true Freshman, they're still giving us 4 years of playing time.

Walt the tradeoff is how good are they as a true freshman vs how good are they as a fifth year senior. If there is marginal improvement then it doesn't make any difference; play him as a freshman. But I know in my playing days I was exponentially improved just between senior and fifth year (much less freshman vs 5th yr). I think it's the same for most of our athletes.

(09-04-2014 11:01 AM)davidw Wrote:  Walt the tradeoff is how good are they as a true freshman vs how good are they as a fifth year senior. If there is marginal improvement then it doesn't make any difference; play him as a freshman. But I know in my playing days I was exponentially improved just between senior and fifth year (much less freshman vs 5th yr). I think it's the same for most of our athletes.

Except that if they're difference makers.... the recruit we sign to replace them/back them up should be as good or better as RS Sophomores or Juniors than they are as RS Seniors

I obviously don't know DBs specific philosophy... but I imagine that while he may have a penchant to let anything remotely resembling a tie go to the person with more experience... and of course, we all judge talent differently... that he wouldn't knowingly keep a difference-maker on the sideline. Let's be honest... there are no guarantees in his line of work that he'll be around to enjoy the benefits of those red-shirts.

FTR, I mean that with total respect. I think we may see a kid with great hands and explosive moves and think he should be playing... but we also miss the 50% of the time he misses the read and runs the wrong route.... because the ball doesn't go to him on THOSE plays. Despite the incredible potential, that kid needs to learn to make better reads... and the guy who is merely dependable may be a better option... today.

(09-04-2014 12:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-04-2014 11:01 AM)davidw Wrote:  Walt the tradeoff is how good are they as a true freshman vs how good are they as a fifth year senior. If there is marginal improvement then it doesn't make any difference; play him as a freshman. But I know in my playing days I was exponentially improved just between senior and fifth year (much less freshman vs 5th yr). I think it's the same for most of our athletes.

Except that if they're difference makers.... the recruit we sign to replace them/back them up should be as good or better as RS Sophomores or Juniors than they are as RS Seniors

I obviously don't know DBs specific philosophy... but I imagine that while he may have a penchant to let anything remotely resembling a tie go to the person with more experience... and of course, we all judge talent differently... that he wouldn't knowingly keep a difference-maker on the sideline. Let's be honest... there are no guarantees in his line of work that he'll be around to enjoy the benefits of those red-shirts.

FTR, I mean that with total respect. I think we may see a kid with great hands and explosive moves and think he should be playing... but we also miss the 50% of the time he misses the read and runs the wrong route.... because the ball doesn't go to him on THOSE plays. Despite the incredible potential, that kid needs to learn to make better reads... and the guy who is merely dependable may be a better option... today.

We?

(09-04-2014 05:13 PM)ruowls Wrote:  We?

Mortals