(09-14-2014 02:56 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Our TD (DJ to Hull) was a work of art. That was a perfect play call and execution was excellent as well.

This was the immediate positive I thought of. Beautiful move by Hull and just a fun play to watch.

(09-14-2014 10:17 AM)jhruzek Wrote:  

(09-14-2014 09:16 AM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  I'm a little behind this morning but any word on Covington?

Chronicle reports just a sprained knee. It looked worse than that last night, as he had trouble half way off the field and had to get help. I hope they are right!

A sprained knee is not minor. I've had that injury (incurred during an intramural game at Rice), and it took over a month before I had full strength back in my knee.

(09-14-2014 01:17 PM)Viejobuho Wrote:  From Rice Webletter: "...how do you outgain your opponent (481-477), achieve more first downs (28-23), decidedly win third down (10-of-20 vs. 3-of-8), win the turnover battle (1-0), dominate time of possession (43:17 vs. 16:43), and lose 38-10? How does that happen?"

Unconventional wisdom

(09-14-2014 06:12 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-14-2014 01:17 PM)Viejobuho Wrote:  From Rice Webletter: "...how do you outgain your opponent (481-477), achieve more first downs (28-23), decidedly win third down (10-of-20 vs. 3-of-8), win the turnover battle (1-0), dominate time of possession (43:17 vs. 16:43), and lose 38-10? How does that happen?"

Unconventional wisdom

+1

The offensive line played solid. DJ looked good and keep the ball in his hands on third down and short. Cole looked good.

Driphus showed us what he is capable of. I expect to see this team hang 40-50 points on some of our CUSA opponents now. I don't think the playcalling was especially bad. It seems that way, but our overall offensive stats, including 3rd down conversions were pretty good. I'm not sure if I can put it into words, but it seems like our playcalling is uncreative when we need something on the opponent's side of the field. Ie, we are over the 50 yard line in their territory, their defense stiffens up a little and we ran the same plays that got us there, but don't work as well when the defense has a shorter field. Does that make sense?

Anyways, I thought pass protection was pretty good, DJ was not running for his life all game. The receiving was decent without JT. I think ATM receivers dropped more passes than we did. Our running game actually showed some power. Nothing flashy but good solid runs all game.

As for winning, I'm all about us getting a signature win over a name school like many here. Unfortunately, it seems like the football gods have played a cruel joke with our schedule. To me, what this program is capable of right now, is winning against a name school that is having an off year. Think of a school that has a great national reputation, but is not as good right now as they would like to be, ie someone in the 20-40 rank range with a great name. It's sad that UT fell apart within 2 years of our last game against them, and that ATM got good within 2 years of our current arrangement. Realistically, we're not at a point where we can beat a top 5 ranked team(which is what ATM looks like right now), but I'd like our chances against the UT of the last 2 years :\.

(09-14-2014 09:49 PM)owl95 Wrote:  Driphus showed us what he is capable of. I expect to see this team hang 40-50 points on some of our CUSA opponents now. I don't think the playcalling was especially bad. It seems that way, but our overall offensive stats, including 3rd down conversions were pretty good. I'm not sure if I can put it into words, but it seems like our playcalling is uncreative when we need something on the opponent's side of the field. Ie, we are over the 50 yard line in their territory, their defense stiffens up a little and we ran the same plays that got us there, but don't work as well when the defense has a shorter field. Does that make sense?

Anyways, I thought pass protection was pretty good, DJ was not running for his life all game. The receiving was decent without JT. I think ATM receivers dropped more passes than we did. Our running game actually showed some power. Nothing flashy but good solid runs all game.

As for winning, I'm all about us getting a signature win over a name school like many here. Unfortunately, it seems like the football gods have played a cruel joke with our schedule. To me, what this program is capable of right now, is winning against a name school that is having an off year. Think of a school that has a great national reputation, but is not as good right now as they would like to be, ie someone in the 20-40 rank range with a great name. It's sad that UT fell apart within 2 years of our last game against them, and that ATM got good within 2 years of our current arrangement. Realistically, we're not at a point where we can beat a top 5 ranked team(which is what ATM looks like right now), but I'd like our chances against the UT of the last 2 years :\.

I think you're giving A&M way too much credit. I thought ND and Golson look far superior to A&M and Hill.

Second, the play calling most definitely changed once we got into Aggie territory; it suddenly went much more conservative and we'd abandon the hurry up entirely. Same old, same old-- let's stop using what has worked to get us in scoring position. IMO, we were not outplayed by the Aggies, even after losing Covington and White. Rather, we were outcoached. Badly. Sumlin never took the foot off the accelerator, even when he had a 4 TD lead. Bailiff and Edmondson were content to milk the clock and settle for FG attempts knowing full well that approach was not going to keep us in the game.

(09-14-2014 10:21 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I think you're giving A&M way too much credit. I thought ND and Golson look far superior to A&M and Hill.

Second, the play calling most definitely changed once we got into Aggie territory; it suddenly went much more conservative and we'd abandon the hurry up entirely. Same old, same old-- let's stop using what has worked to get us in scoring position. IMO, we were not outplayed by the Aggies, even after losing Covington and White. Rather, we were outcoached. Badly. Sumlin never took the foot off the accelerator, even when he had a 4 TD lead. Bailiff and Edmondson were content to milk the clock and settle for FG attempts knowing full well that approach was not going to keep us in the game.

Walt, the worst a Texas A&M recruiting class has been rated since 2012 is #15. Their incoming class is rated #5. Loki posted the lengths of their scoring drives a few posts up; the longest was 3:50. They are ranked top #10 in every poll. I don't understand how in light of these talent differences you do not think we were out-talented, and put it all on the coaches.

(09-14-2014 10:48 PM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  

(09-14-2014 10:21 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I think you're giving A&M way too much credit. I thought ND and Golson look far superior to A&M and Hill.

Second, the play calling most definitely changed once we got into Aggie territory; it suddenly went much more conservative and we'd abandon the hurry up entirely. Same old, same old-- let's stop using what has worked to get us in scoring position. IMO, we were not outplayed by the Aggies, even after losing Covington and White. Rather, we were outcoached. Badly. Sumlin never took the foot off the accelerator, even when he had a 4 TD lead. Bailiff and Edmondson were content to milk the clock and settle for FG attempts knowing full well that approach was not going to keep us in the game.

Walt, the worst a Texas A&M recruiting class has been rated since 2012 is #15. Their incoming class is rated #5. I don't understand how in light of these talent differences you do not think we were out-talented, and put it all on the coaches.

Who ever said we were out-talented? Not I. I said that, IMO, we were not outplayed on the field last night. Rather, we were badly outcoached...and never had a chance given our coaches were not making every effort to win.

(09-14-2014 10:51 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-14-2014 10:48 PM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  

(09-14-2014 10:21 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I think you're giving A&M way too much credit. I thought ND and Golson look far superior to A&M and Hill.

Second, the play calling most definitely changed once we got into Aggie territory; it suddenly went much more conservative and we'd abandon the hurry up entirely. Same old, same old-- let's stop using what has worked to get us in scoring position. IMO, we were not outplayed by the Aggies, even after losing Covington and White. Rather, we were outcoached. Badly. Sumlin never took the foot off the accelerator, even when he had a 4 TD lead. Bailiff and Edmondson were content to milk the clock and settle for FG attempts knowing full well that approach was not going to keep us in the game.

Walt, the worst a Texas A&M recruiting class has been rated since 2012 is #15. Their incoming class is rated #5. I don't understand how in light of these talent differences you do not think we were out-talented, and put it all on the coaches.

Who ever said we were out-talented? Not I. I said that, IMO, we were not outplayed on the field last night. Rather, we were badly outcoached...and never had a chance given our coaches were not making every effort to win.

"Never had a chance"
Agree.

"Given our coaches..."
I wonder how our coaches could've given our D-line more size, our secondary more size and speed, fixed Covington's knee, etc.

(09-14-2014 10:57 PM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  

(09-14-2014 10:51 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-14-2014 10:48 PM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  

(09-14-2014 10:21 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I think you're giving A&M way too much credit. I thought ND and Golson look far superior to A&M and Hill.

Second, the play calling most definitely changed once we got into Aggie territory; it suddenly went much more conservative and we'd abandon the hurry up entirely. Same old, same old-- let's stop using what has worked to get us in scoring position. IMO, we were not outplayed by the Aggies, even after losing Covington and White. Rather, we were outcoached. Badly. Sumlin never took the foot off the accelerator, even when he had a 4 TD lead. Bailiff and Edmondson were content to milk the clock and settle for FG attempts knowing full well that approach was not going to keep us in the game.

Walt, the worst a Texas A&M recruiting class has been rated since 2012 is #15. Their incoming class is rated #5. I don't understand how in light of these talent differences you do not think we were out-talented, and put it all on the coaches.

Who ever said we were out-talented? Not I. I said that, IMO, we were not outplayed on the field last night. Rather, we were badly outcoached...and never had a chance given our coaches were not making every effort to win.

"Never had a chance"
Agree.

"Given our coaches..."
I wonder how our coaches could've given our D-line more size, our secondary more size and speed, fixed Covington's knee, etc.

Everything bad is due to the coaches. Everything good is in spite of the coaches.

Rice: Conventional Wisdom

Our coaches obviously did something right, as we hung up a lot of yards on A&M and kept the game mostly interesting. Our coaches obviously did something wrong as we couldn't turn those yards into points, and even DB said how he regretted his decision to kick the FG to start the game. But at least he recognized that mistake and made amends for it by going for it later in the game. But we still had overly conservative play calling on third down inside Aggie territory.

(09-14-2014 10:51 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-14-2014 10:48 PM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  

(09-14-2014 10:21 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I think you're giving A&M way too much credit. I thought ND and Golson look far superior to A&M and Hill.

Second, the play calling most definitely changed once we got into Aggie territory; it suddenly went much more conservative and we'd abandon the hurry up entirely. Same old, same old-- let's stop using what has worked to get us in scoring position. IMO, we were not outplayed by the Aggies, even after losing Covington and White. Rather, we were outcoached. Badly. Sumlin never took the foot off the accelerator, even when he had a 4 TD lead. Bailiff and Edmondson were content to milk the clock and settle for FG attempts knowing full well that approach was not going to keep us in the game.

Walt, the worst a Texas A&M recruiting class has been rated since 2012 is #15. Their incoming class is rated #5. I don't understand how in light of these talent differences you do not think we were out-talented, and put it all on the coaches.

Who ever said we were out-talented? Not I. I said that, IMO, we were not outplayed on the field last night. Rather, we were badly outcoached...and never had a chance given our coaches were not making every effort to win.

Just keep singing that same song Walt.

I love the Owls, but there is no way our team matches up with the Aggies in terms of talent/athleticism at each position. Sure, we are comparable at some spots, but across the board, no.

We didn't execute well enough in A&M territory. However, there was improvement from the ND game and hopefully the team continues to grow against ODU. Just hope the injuries on defense aren't too serious.

(09-14-2014 01:46 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(09-14-2014 01:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-14-2014 01:17 PM)Viejobuho Wrote:  From Rice Webletter: "...how do you outgain your opponent (481-477), achieve more first downs (28-23), decidedly win third down (10-of-20 vs. 3-of-8), win the turnover battle (1-0), dominate time of possession (43:17 vs. 16:43), and lose 38-10? How does that happen?"

Pretty easily: your opponent doesn't need much time or many third downs to score touchdowns and their defense bends, but doesn't break (and you have off play calling and missed FGs).

Aggie scoring drives
TD 3:50
TD 1:10
TD 2:42
TD 1:34
TD 0:33
FG 0:55

This is the biggest problem we had beating them. Our defense lacks the speed to prevent their big plays. In that situation, a hurry-up offense and throwing a bunch of incomplete passes is the worst thing we could do. Going three and out and not burning any clock in doing so is how you fall hopelessly behind in a hurry.

AS for play calling, what plays would have been better? Why? What defenses did we expect/get? How do we beat those defenses with our offense? Were the plays called the ones that had the best chance of success against those defenses? I don't like our play calling because I don't like our scheme. I'd have called different plays because I'd have had a different ready list to choose from. But within the constraints of our scheme, and against the defense we were facing, I don't know that the calls were that bad. It's easy to say a good play call is one that works and a bad play call is one that doesn't. But there are many good play calls that don't work because of execution errors. I saw more execution errors than bad play calls. But I've seen that for a long time. Not sure what the problem is with execution.

A lot of execution errors may have come because we were so late getting play calls in that we were right up against the play clock, so we had to hurry to get the play off, and hurrying leads to communication errors. We knew it was going to be loud and hard to communicate. Since we were not hurrying up, it might have made more sense to huddle.

(09-15-2014 07:06 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  AS for play calling, what plays would have been better? Why? What defenses did we expect/get? How do we beat those defenses with our offense? Were the plays called the ones that had the best chance of success against those defenses? I don't like our play calling because I don't like our scheme. I'd have called different plays because I'd have had a different ready list to choose from. But within the constraints of our scheme, and against the defense we were facing, I don't know that the calls were that bad. It's easy to say a good play call is one that works and a bad play call is one that doesn't. But there are many good play calls that don't work because of execution errors. I saw more execution errors than bad play calls. But I've seen that for a long time. Not sure what the problem is with execution.

A lot of execution errors may have come because we were so late getting play calls in that we were right up against the play clock, so we had to hurry to get the play off, and hurrying leads to communication errors. We knew it was going to be loud and hard to communicate. Since we were not hurrying up, it might have made more sense to huddle.

Worth noting that the TV commentators repeatedly pointed out that they thought the playcalling in some of those early 3rd-/ 4th-and-short situations was problematic. They also repeatedly make the comment, that I agree with, that Driphus was making great decisions all game and that the play call should have been something that put the ball in his hands with the opportunity to make an important read or decision. Many of those runs up the middle looked like straight hand-offs, not even zone reads. And as much as everyone likes to criticize TV commentators at times, those folks live football and I have no problem admitting that under most situations, they probably know more than me.

Here are my observations. I may repeat somethings that have already been stated so bear with me.

1. In my opinion, there isn't any other opposing fan base I have consistently had fun watching a game with. The Aggies I was surrounded with were cordial, friendly, and complimentary. I didn't make it to the Notre Dame game, but I heard that the Notre Dame fans were equal to the task.

2. I can see us not losing again this year. A.) Road Games - We've been on the road for two big name and talent teams. Marshall will be a walk in the park compared to Notre Dame and Texas A&M. B.) Talent Differential - UTSA, UNT, and UTEP have a good defense, Marshall has a good offense, La Tech seems to have both. Army will present the usual test of defensive discipline, and Hawaii will present challenges, but all of those teams are beatable and none of them represent the same glaring talent differential that A&M and Notre Dame present.

3. Speaking of Talent Differential - Some of those Aggie touchdowns don't happen if the pass rush gets to Hill a fraction of a second earlier. I am impressed with our *undersized* Defensive line. We have put pressure on A&M and Notre Dame. Keep in mind that both A&M and Notre Dame have a tremendous offensive lines. I did not watch the Purdue game, but Michigan's pass rush was virtually none existent. You have to excited about our prospects going forward.

4. QB play. First, DJ. I expect that the Rice Marshall game will be marketed at the DJ Cato shootout. I expect that DJ is about to have a tremendous 2014 and 2015. I'm also starting to like what we have with Stehling. I can't help but wonder, do you let German stay at QB and see if he can beat out Stehling in 2015? Or do you move German to WR to take advantage of his speed and get him on the field?

5. Offensive line. Somebody help me, but is this the best Offensive line we have had in a sometime? Coach Vink needs a raise/extension.

6. Depth. A lot of young guys got playing time. Luvender, Destri White, Espinosa, Fuhrmann, Peterson. And for the most part, they all played well.

7. I don't know if anyone is talking about the masterful execution of the 53 yard field goal. Yes, we all know the insanity that followed. But wow, Rice never would have pulled this off 4 years ago. This team is so close to getting to that Top 25 window of performance.

8. Signature wins. We have just played two top 10 teams and in some areas represented ourselves well. But we have a ways to go before we beat top 10 teams. We need to win CUSA and win our bowl games. 12-2 is attainable.

9. Offensive Production - I'm stoked that we have competed better than other teams have against A&M and Purdue. A&M was looking to make a defensive statement by holding us to 100 yards or less.

Rice vs ND 367 Total Yards (141 R / 226 P)
Mich vs ND 289 Total Yards (100 R / 189 P)
Purdue vs ND 290 Total Yards (56 R / 234 P)

SC vs A&M 433 Total Yards (66 R / 366 P)
Lamar vs A&M 243 Total Yards (90 R / 153 P)
Rice vs A&M 481 Total Yards (240 R / 241 P)

Now, we just need to score...and go for it on 4 and 3 or less anywhere past our opponent's 35.

(09-15-2014 09:47 AM)Pan95 Wrote:  Rice vs ND 367 Total Yards (141 R / 226 P)
Mich vs ND 289 Total Yards (100 R / 189 P)
Purdue vs ND 290 Total Yards (56 R / 234 P)

SC vs A&M 433 Total Yards (66 R / 366 P)
Lamar vs A&M 243 Total Yards (90 R / 153 P)
Rice vs A&M 481 Total Yards (240 R / 241 P)

Now, we just need to score...and go for it on 4 and 3 or less anywhere past our opponent's 35.

Thanks for doing the research! Those are interesting and impressive stats and hopefully point to good things the rest of the way for the Owls.

(09-15-2014 09:47 AM)Pan95 Wrote:  8. Signature wins. We have just played two top 10 teams and in some areas represented ourselves well. But we have a ways to go before we beat top 10 teams. We need to win CUSA and win our bowl games. 12-2 is attainable.

You raise a great point here. Yes, we lost to superior opposition, but we looked respectable for the most part. Not something we have done in years past.

We have a long ways to go, but this is a good step forward. Now we need to take care of business in C-USA.

(09-14-2014 10:21 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I think you're giving A&M way too much credit. I thought ND and Golson look far superior to A&M and Hill.

Second, the play calling most definitely changed once we got into Aggie territory; it suddenly went much more conservative and we'd abandon the hurry up entirely. Same old, same old-- let's stop using what has worked to get us in scoring position. IMO, we were not outplayed by the Aggies, even after losing Covington and White. Rather, we were outcoached. Badly. Sumlin never took the foot off the accelerator, even when he had a 4 TD lead. Bailiff and Edmondson were content to milk the clock and settle for FG attempts knowing full well that approach was not going to keep us in the game.

I don't think I'm giving ATM too much credit. I wouldn't say that ND looked better, I would say that we looked WORSE against ND. Sagarin has ATM at #4 and ND at #12. They are both great teams this year and if we could beat them...well we'd be a lot things that we aren't yet as a program. I just hope that we can bring this same level of solid, mistake-free play to CUSA, with the addition of scoring a ton more points. If we can, then we will have a pretty good season.

(09-15-2014 10:15 AM)owl95 Wrote:  

(09-14-2014 10:21 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I think you're giving A&M way too much credit. I thought ND and Golson look far superior to A&M and Hill.

Second, the play calling most definitely changed once we got into Aggie territory; it suddenly went much more conservative and we'd abandon the hurry up entirely. Same old, same old-- let's stop using what has worked to get us in scoring position. IMO, we were not outplayed by the Aggies, even after losing Covington and White. Rather, we were outcoached. Badly. Sumlin never took the foot off the accelerator, even when he had a 4 TD lead. Bailiff and Edmondson were content to milk the clock and settle for FG attempts knowing full well that approach was not going to keep us in the game.

I don't think I'm giving ATM too much credit. I wouldn't say that ND looked better, I would say that we looked WORSE against ND. Sagarin has ATM at #4 and ND at #12. They are both great teams this year and if we could beat them...well we'd be a lot things that we aren't yet as a program. I just hope that we can bring this same level of solid, mistake-free play to CUSA, with the addition of scoring a ton more points. If we can, then we will have a pretty good season.

Yeah, that is something that I agonized over while at the game. Not quite on the level of "Rice beating Rice mantra," but procedural penalties and that holding penalty during Callahan's punt return were devastating at key moments of the game.