Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Army post-game thread
Author Message
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,538
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #21
RE: Army post-game thread
(10-11-2014 10:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The way TCU was defending at that point, I think they had to go for it. 1:20 was plenty of time for Baylor to move the ball the length of the field against a defense playing the way that TCU was. Field position means something when field position means something; when it doesn't, it doesn't.


I think this was one of those decisions that no matter which way you choose, if it works, it was right, and if it doesn't it was wrong.

i can see the rationale either way, and just because I favor one over another, doesn't mean the other is wrong.
10-11-2014 11:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
picrig Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 154
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation: 16
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Army post-game thread
(10-11-2014 10:56 PM)jh Wrote:  
(10-11-2014 09:28 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  - Save for the opening play of the game, and the TD pass to a wide open Taylor on the first play after the fumble recovery, every other first down call all game long was a direct handoff right up the middle-- usually for a 2 - 4 yard loss. It was beyond predictable, and it wasn't working. As a result, we faced 2nd and 11+ yard situations at least 6 times during the game; something that is inexcusable, especially since Army was giving us yardage on almost every other play we ran (save for the flat pass, which as Tiki mentioned above, we continue to go to despite it never working)-- whether it be the option or off-tackle run, or pass down field.

This simply isn't true, as a cursory examination of the play by play shows.

First Quarter: In addition to the first play of the game, there was also a first down pass and the Wild Owl at the goal line.

Second Quarter: There were three first down passes.

Third Quarter: Along with the Taylor touchdown, there were two other first down passes.

Fourth Quarter: There were three first down passes.

So there were at least 12 plays that weren't hand offs up the middle, not just the two you mentioned. Now I don't care enough to determine what type of run each was (and it's not always possible to tell), or how many yards they gained, but given how wrong you already are, I'm betting some of the runs weren't right up the middle. Like Dillard's 15 yard touchdown in the second quarter, listed as a rush right.

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-footbal...ck-knights

15 runs, 11 passes on first down. 15 runs netted 43 yards, 135 yards on the 11 passes.
10-11-2014 11:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #23
RE: Army post-game thread
(10-11-2014 11:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(10-11-2014 10:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The way TCU was defending at that point, I think they had to go for it. 1:20 was plenty of time for Baylor to move the ball the length of the field against a defense playing the way that TCU was. Field position means something when field position means something; when it doesn't, it doesn't.
I think this was one of those decisions that no matter which way you choose, if it works, it was right, and if it doesn't it was wrong.
i can see the rationale either way, and just because I favor one over another, doesn't mean the other is wrong.

I disagree.

There are decisions that are sound, whether they work or not, and there are decisions that are not sound, whether they work or not.

Here, the major consideration was that you defense had come completely unglued, and unless you felt supremely confident that whatever was wrong back there had been fixed, I think you have to give your offense a chance to win the game for you rather than counting on the defense to hold. So, going for it was sound. Being so discombobulated in how you went about going for it was not sound. The real problem, obviously, is that your defense had absolutely cratered on three consecutive possessions. Best result you are going to get punting is going to overtime, and the way your defense is playing and where the momentum is, you're going to lose that.
(This post was last modified: 10-11-2014 11:29 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
10-11-2014 11:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ChicagoOwl (BS '07) Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,252
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 15
I Root For: YOU!
Location: The frozen tundra
Post: #24
RE: Army post-game thread
(10-11-2014 09:28 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  - I saw no adjustments made defensively, despite the fact that Army's lone effective play was the QB zone read keeper off the right tackle. He gains 150+ yards on the ground on some 21 rushes. Would it really have been too difficult to have one of our LBs or safeties (given they hardly ever passed) mirror their QB whereever he went? Wasn't this a common sense adjustment?
This was Alex Lyons' job.

(10-11-2014 09:28 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  - Though Driphus made better decisions than he did last week vs. Hawaii, on pass plays he continues to hold the ball too long....and given it became evident that one of our 4 receivers when lined up in the spread formation was going to be wide open (usually Taylor or Hull), he did throw several questionable balls into double coverage. I could be wrong on this, but he appears to lock into one receiver as opposed to going through his various options.
Announcers kept praising Driphus for going through his progressions.
I thought he held on to the ball too long only once*, on the play he got sacked.

* I missed the 3rd quarter.
10-11-2014 11:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,538
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #25
RE: Army post-game thread
(10-11-2014 11:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(10-11-2014 11:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(10-11-2014 10:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The way TCU was defending at that point, I think they had to go for it. 1:20 was plenty of time for Baylor to move the ball the length of the field against a defense playing the way that TCU was. Field position means something when field position means something; when it doesn't, it doesn't.
I think this was one of those decisions that no matter which way you choose, if it works, it was right, and if it doesn't it was wrong.
i can see the rationale either way, and just because I favor one over another, doesn't mean the other is wrong.

I disagree.

There are decisions that are sound, whether they work or not, and there are decisions that are not sound, whether they work or not.

Here, the major consideration was that you defense had come completely unglued, and unless you felt supremely confident that whatever was wrong back there had been fixed, I think you have to give your offense a chance to win the game for you rather than counting on the defense to hold. So, going for it was sound. Being so discombobulated in how you went about going for it was not sound. The real problem, obviously, is that your defense had absolutely cratered on three consecutive possessions. Best result you are going to get punting is going to overtime, and the way your defense is playing and where the momentum is, you're going to lose that.

i understand the thinking, and apparently that is what Patterson ultimately thought, too. if you fail on the 4th, then you have to rely on that same D to keep them out of FG range. OTOH,
in OT,he could have theconfidence in his offense to offset the lack of confidence in his D.

good arguements on both sides. that's why I asked the question.
10-11-2014 11:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jh Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,497
Joined: May 2007
Reputation: 80
I Root For:
Location:

Donators
Post: #26
RE: Army post-game thread
(10-11-2014 09:28 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  - I saw no adjustments made defensively, despite the fact that Army's lone effective play was the QB zone read keeper off the right tackle. He gains 150+ yards on the ground on some 21 rushes. Would it really have been too difficult to have one of our LBs or safeties (given they hardly ever passed) mirror their QB whereever he went? Wasn't this a common sense adjustment?

I'm curious where you are getting your stats from, because they don't seem to match any of the box scores I've seen. According to the record books, Santiago wasn't nearly as effective as you remember. In fact, Dixon had a higher average yards per carry as well as a longer run, and Baggett also had a higher average yards per carry. So perhaps the coaches were concerned with stopping Army's offense, instead of a single player.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball..._RICE@ARMY
http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-footbal...ck-knights

It also doesn't seem to match the play by play, which shows that outside of one drive, Santiago was fairly ineffective as a runner.

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-footbal...ck-knights
10-11-2014 11:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jh Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,497
Joined: May 2007
Reputation: 80
I Root For:
Location:

Donators
Post: #27
RE: Army post-game thread
(10-11-2014 09:28 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I'm also growing tired of our giving up on 3rd and 8+ yards, and almost always calling the draw play in such situations.

You say you're growing tired of it, so that implies that this issue has been going on for at least a couple of games. Let's see what the play calls were on third and 8+ yards during the past two games. From a quick scan, the results were:

Hawaii (http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/playbyplay...period=4):
First Quarter: Pass incomplete, sack, and completed pass on third and 8+ yard plays.

Second Quarter: Possible QB draw, 81 yard TD pass, sack.

Third Quarter: No long yardage third downs.

Fourth Quarter: Possible draw (on third and 25).

So to recap, against Hawaii there was one possible QB draw and one possible RB draw out of seven third and long situations, and the only possible draw to a running back came on third and 25.

Army (it's not recognizing the link, but you can get to it through the Hawaii one):

First Quarter: Possible draw (from the 5 yard line)

Second Quarter: No third and longs

Third Quarter: 10 yard TD pass, possible draw

Fourth Quarter: No third and longs

To recap, two possible draws, one from the 5 yard line, out of three third and long situations.

Altogether there were 10 third and longs in the last two games. There were three possible draws to the running back, a possible QB draw, and six passes or pass attempts, including two touchdowns. Two of the three possible draws to the running backs were in situations where many coaches call draws--inside their own 10 and third and ridiculously long (and the third was with a 17 point lead towards the end of the third quarter).

I'm having a hard time finding this epidemic of draws on third and longs that has you so concerned. Even if all of the possible draws were actual draws, 40% is still well short of "almost always." Heck, 40% is short of usually. It is sometimes though.

Me, I'd be a little more worried about an epidemic of third and longs, not what the play call was. But fortunately there were only three third and longs in the Army game. That doesn't seem that bad.
10-12-2014 01:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
sts60 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,316
Joined: Jun 2006
Reputation: 19
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Army post-game thread
...the Army coaching staff, which insisted on going for a meaningless final second TD by using all of it's timeouts in the final minute of the game...

Geez, Walt, are you really complaining about Army trying to score at the end of the game? It wasn't meaningless to them.

Can you imagine if we were in that position and didn't do everything we could to score?
10-12-2014 03:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Buho00 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,402
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 27
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #29
RE: Army post-game thread
Ellerbee is one to watch for the future. In limited time he's made some impressive tackles.
10-12-2014 08:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,538
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #30
RE: Army post-game thread
we have one poster who thinks we called off the dogs after going up 38-21, and another who thinks it was unsportsmanlike to go for it on 4th and 1 from within FG range leading by 17. Nobody can accuse us of being monotone.

I liked the the fourth and one call.However remote, a blocked FG returned for a TD could put Army back in the game,while a turnover on downs would not. Plus we have heard that Bailiff is trying to instill an ability to close

The subsequent FG, on fourth and goal from the six, was OK, givrn the distance.

army trying to push across a last play TD that would not change the outcome is exactly what I think should be done. What is it we say? Rice fightNEVER die? If anybody should never quit, it is our futuremilitary leaders.

so, three plays I like. If you want a list of my gripes, ask different questions.
10-12-2014 09:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jh Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,497
Joined: May 2007
Reputation: 80
I Root For:
Location:

Donators
Post: #31
RE: Army post-game thread
(10-11-2014 11:52 PM)jh Wrote:  
(10-11-2014 09:28 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  - I saw no adjustments made defensively, despite the fact that Army's lone effective play was the QB zone read keeper off the right tackle. He gains 150+ yards on the ground on some 21 rushes. Would it really have been too difficult to have one of our LBs or safeties (given they hardly ever passed) mirror their QB whereever he went? Wasn't this a common sense adjustment?
I'm curious where you are getting your stats from, because they don't seem to match any of the box scores I've seen. According to the record books, Santiago wasn't nearly as effective as you remember. In fact, Dixon had a higher average yards per carry as well as a longer run, and Baggett also had a higher average yards per carry. So perhaps the coaches were concerned with stopping Army's offense, instead of a single player.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball..._RICE@ARMY
http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-footbal...ck-knights
It also doesn't seem to match the play by play, which shows that outside of one drive, Santiago was fairly ineffective as a runner.
http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-footbal...ck-knights

It's probably because our coaches can't make adjustments that Army was held 88 yards under their rushing average and their second lowest total of the season. I will give you that Stanford might have a better rushing defense than Rice.

CBS Sports Wrote:Army, which came into the game ranked No. 2 in the nation by averaging 338.2 rushing yards per game, was held to 250 yards on the ground.

It seems pretty clear that your obvious (and repeatedly expressed) disdain for Bailiff is coloring your perception of the games. Not a single one of your "frustrations" that is anything more than personal opinion has any grounding in objective fact. You are making things up to be upset about. If you would take off your blinders and watch the actual game, instead of the one in your head, perhaps you wouldn't be do frustrated.
10-12-2014 10:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OldOwl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,315
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: -12
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Army post-game thread
GREAT WIN BY THE OWLS. They were picked to loose by one. A great call by the OC of throwing to Dillard from the backfield for a touchdown. You must go to West Point when Rice plays them again in the future. Unbelievable experience and beautiful location on the Hudson.


(10-11-2014 09:28 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  - I saw no adjustments made defensively, despite the fact that Army's lone effective play was the QB zone read keeper off the right tackle. He gains 150+ yards on the ground on some 21 rushes. Would it really have been too difficult to have one of our LBs or safeties (given they hardly ever passed) mirror their QB whereever he went? Wasn't this a common sense adjustment?
I'm curious where you are getting your stats from, because they don't seem to match any of the box scores I've seen. According to the record books, Santiago wasn't nearly as effective as you remember. In fact, Dixon had a higher average yards per carry as well as a longer run, and Baggett also had a higher average yards per carry. So perhaps the coaches were concerned with stopping Army's offense, instead of a single player.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball..._RICE@ARMY
http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-footbal...ck-knights
It also doesn't seem to match the play by play, which shows that outside of one drive, Santiago was fairly ineffective as a runner.
http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-footbal...ck-knights
[/quote]

It's probably because our coaches can't make adjustments that Army was held 88 yards under their rushing average and their second lowest total of the season. I will give you that Stanford might have a better rushing defense than Rice.

CBS Sports Wrote:Army, which came into the game ranked No. 2 in the nation by averaging 338.2 rushing yards per game, was held to 250 yards on the ground.

It seems pretty clear that your obvious (and repeatedly expressed) disdain for Bailiff is coloring your perception of the games. Not a single one of your "frustrations" that is anything more than personal opinion has any grounding in objective fact. You are making things up to be upset about. If you would take off your blinders and watch the actual game, instead of the one in your head, perhaps you wouldn't be do frustrated.
[/quote]
10-12-2014 10:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
owl40 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,875
Joined: Sep 2007
Reputation: 77
I Root For: Owls
Location:
Post: #33
RE: Army post-game thread
Thanks again to ricefootball.net

Some specific answers to things in post-game presser brought-up on both Parliament Army game threads. Specifically, DB's comments on blitz and twist schemes used against Army to get more tackles for loss/pressures (yes adjustments being made...not same things as last week or from quarter-to-quarter). Radcliffe provides some additional color on that.

Also, some comments from DJ about working in bye week to get in sync w/ Parks.

http://ricefootball.net/14armypostgame.html#db
10-12-2014 10:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OldOwl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,315
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: -12
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #34
RE: Army post-game thread
I forgot to mention the New York alums did a great job with the tailgate. My only negative is where the hell was everybody? I think 200 - 300 Rice fans showed up. Our goal should be a thousand for away games
10-12-2014 11:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NYNightOwl Offline
NYOwl
*

Posts: 1,717
Joined: Jun 2006
Reputation: 8
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: New York, NY
Post: #35
RE: Army post-game thread
(10-11-2014 09:28 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  
(10-11-2014 08:48 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  



......As others noted, Bailiff and Edmondson went totally conservative once we upped the lead to 38 - 21. It almost appeared as if they decided to call off the dogs and avoid at all cost the chance of running up the score (which was not reciprocated by the Army coaching staff, which insisted on going for a meaningless final second TD by using all of it's timeouts in the final minute of the game).

Walt - great meeting you yesterday. Actually, I was really pleased to see Army never give up - even down by 20 with 1:20 left. Never mind the long but not entirely zero odds that 3 TD's could be scored in the last 1:20. This is the ARMY football team. Even down by 20 with 0:17, they kept fighting, for points, yards, and respect - not a bad analogy for what they might have to face in the military... or in life. I loved that they played the 60 minute game until it was over - no one took a knee on the Black Knights. My only quibble with them was that, with 0:17 and 0 TO's, I thought it was a bad call they they didn't throw on 3rd and goal. If they throw incomplete, 4th down. Run and get stopped, time expires.
10-12-2014 12:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NYNightOwl Offline
NYOwl
*

Posts: 1,717
Joined: Jun 2006
Reputation: 8
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: New York, NY
Post: #36
RE: Army post-game thread
(10-12-2014 11:01 AM)OldOwl Wrote:  I forgot to mention the New York alums did a great job with the tailgate. My only negative is where the hell was everybody? I think 200 - 300 Rice fans showed up. Our goal should be a thousand for away games

Thanks! And thanks to the alumni office for organizing the tailgate. There were about 225 at the tailgate, but I believe about 500+ at the game.
(This post was last modified: 10-12-2014 01:02 PM by NYNightOwl.)
10-12-2014 12:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,538
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #37
RE: Army post-game thread
(10-12-2014 12:56 PM)NYNightOwl Wrote:  Actually, I was really pleased to see Army never give up - even down by 20 with 1:20 left. Never mind the long but not entirely zero odds that 3 TD's could be scored in the last 1:20. This is the ARMY football team. Even down by 20 with 0:17, they kept fighting, for points, yards, and respect - not a bad analogy for what they might have to face in the military... or in life. I loved that they played the 60 minute game until it was over - no one took a knee on the Black Knights.

Agree.
10-12-2014 01:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,538
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #38
RE: Army post-game thread
It bothered me that the line was so close. I always felt we would win by 17 or so, but since lines are a matter of the perception of the betting public, it just shows that we still have a ways to go as far as rep goes. Can't overcome 40 years of futility in 2 or 3 years.

OTOH, if you like money, Rice ATS usually works.
10-12-2014 01:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
waltgreenberg Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,139
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 138
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Chicago

The Parliament Awards
Post: #39
RE: Army post-game thread
(10-12-2014 12:59 PM)NYNightOwl Wrote:  
(10-12-2014 11:01 AM)OldOwl Wrote:  I forgot to mention the New York alums did a great job with the tailgate. My only negative is where the hell was everybody? I think 200 - 300 Rice fans showed up. Our goal should be a thousand for away games

Thanks! And thanks to the alumni office for organizing the tailgate. There were about 225 at the tailgate, but I believe about 500+ at the game.


Yes, it was the alumni office-- and not the NY alums-- who organized the tailgate. The food was not up to the quality that we enjoyed in South Bend, but in fairness, there's only so much you can do with a 9:30am breakfast tailgate...and the breathtaking views of Hudson River made up for it.

What's funny is that in the couple speaches given by the ARA and Alumni Engagement, they acted as if the vast majority of those attending the tailgate were NY-area alums when in reality it was a 50-50 split at best.
10-12-2014 03:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Riceman2004 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 520
Joined: Apr 2009
Reputation: 5
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #40
RE: Army post-game thread
(10-12-2014 12:59 PM)NYNightOwl Wrote:  
(10-12-2014 11:01 AM)OldOwl Wrote:  I forgot to mention the New York alums did a great job with the tailgate. My only negative is where the hell was everybody? I think 200 - 300 Rice fans showed up. Our goal should be a thousand for away games

Thanks! And thanks to the alumni office for organizing the tailgate. There were about 225 at the tailgate, but I believe about 500+ at the game.

We were also pretty spread out. There were two separate sections in one of the end zones and walking around the stadium I saw a bunch of random Rice fans who had gotten general admissions tickets. Not a terrible showing given how far of a trip it is and how generally inactive the NY group is (which comes and goes and tops out at 300-400 for the holiday party)
10-12-2014 08:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.