(10-14-2014 09:18 AM)mrbig Wrote:  . I also remember quite a few long Santiago runs, but there were enough very short runs by him to provide balance and overall success. Army and a decent ypc, but I am guessing their median carry was pretty insignificant.

Yep. Mixing in the TFLs takes the option team to more third and longs, and that is the way to end drives. I remember it well. what Army wanted, like hat's option teams, was t have long drives that ate up time and resulted in scores. The defense did not allow this to become the pattern.

As for Walt and jh, yes, I am glad they both care for Rice. I would rather have passionate owl fans I disagree with than dispassionate fans.

Following up on Santiago's running, he had 3 runs of 20+ yards. I'm guessing the reason his success sticks out in Walt's mind (and maybe others) is because on Army's 2nd drive in the 3rd quarter, Santiago had two 24-yd runs and an 8-yd run, for 56 yards in a single drive. But outside of that one drive, Rice did a great job of bottling him up. I count Santiago having 13 times where he was tackled after gaining <1-yd (this includes sacks), none of them during that 3rd quarter drive.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damne...statistics

(10-14-2014 09:24 AM)jh Wrote:  

Quote:Just a question-- did you even watch the game on TV, or are you simply looking at the ESPN or yahoo stat sheet and play by play (which is never completely accurate)?

Neither.

??? So you weren't at the game, you didn't watch on TV, or looked at the stat sheet or box score....yet you're ridiculing me on my first hand, in person observations?

(10-14-2014 11:40 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-14-2014 09:24 AM)jh Wrote:  

Quote:Just a question-- did you even watch the game on TV, or are you simply looking at the ESPN or yahoo stat sheet and play by play (which is never completely accurate)?

Neither.

??? So you weren't at the game, you didn't watch on TV, or looked at the stat sheet or box score....yet you're ridiculing me on my first hand, in person observations?

You missed some options. Not that that is surprising. You seem to miss a lot.

(10-14-2014 09:46 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Following up on Santiago's running, he had 3 runs of 20+ yards. I'm guessing the reason his success sticks out in Walt's mind (and maybe others) is because on Army's 2nd drive in the 3rd quarter, Santiago had two 24-yd runs and an 8-yd run, for 56 yards in a single drive. But outside of that one drive, Rice did a great job of bottling him up. I count Santiago having 13 times where he was tackled after gaining <1-yd (this includes sacks), none of them during that 3rd quarter drive.

Which suggests some combination of Rice having a good game plan that broke down for a drive and Army making adjustments that Rice countered. Neither supports waltgreenberg's claim that Rice was unable to make "a common sense adjustment" to the only play that was working.

The defense against an option attack is primarily assignment football. If one person misses his assignment, it can result in a long gain. Stuff will happen from time to time. But the large number of tackles for loss or for little gain disrupt the drives and force punts.

I thought the defense played well overall. Not every player on every play, but enough of both to get the job done. If we had played poorly against the option Army would have had 6 TDs and 40:00+ TOP.

(10-14-2014 12:23 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-14-2014 09:46 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Following up on Santiago's running, he had 3 runs of 20+ yards. I'm guessing the reason his success sticks out in Walt's mind (and maybe others) is because on Army's 2nd drive in the 3rd quarter, Santiago had two 24-yd runs and an 8-yd run, for 56 yards in a single drive. But outside of that one drive, Rice did a great job of bottling him up. I count Santiago having 13 times where he was tackled after gaining <1-yd (this includes sacks), none of them during that 3rd quarter drive.

Which suggests some combination of Rice having a good game plan that broke down for a drive and Army making adjustments that Rice countered. Neither supports waltgreenberg's claim that Rice was unable to make "a common sense adjustment" to the only play that was working.

I have no desire to go back to my prior comments, but I'm pretty sure my observation was that Army's lone effective play throughout the game was the QB keeper on the zone read right. It appeared that all of his sizable gains (7+ yards)-- not just that one one drive-- were on that one play call. We pretty much stuffed Santiago on every other run attempt or keeper.

(10-14-2014 12:30 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-14-2014 12:23 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-14-2014 09:46 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Following up on Santiago's running, he had 3 runs of 20+ yards. I'm guessing the reason his success sticks out in Walt's mind (and maybe others) is because on Army's 2nd drive in the 3rd quarter, Santiago had two 24-yd runs and an 8-yd run, for 56 yards in a single drive. But outside of that one drive, Rice did a great job of bottling him up. I count Santiago having 13 times where he was tackled after gaining <1-yd (this includes sacks), none of them during that 3rd quarter drive.

Which suggests some combination of Rice having a good game plan that broke down for a drive and Army making adjustments that Rice countered. Neither supports waltgreenberg's claim that Rice was unable to make "a common sense adjustment" to the only play that was working.

I have no desire to go back to my prior comments

I am not surprised.

And, now for something completely different...

(10-14-2014 03:58 PM)I45owl Wrote:  And, now for something completely different...

C'mon, it's just getting good.

(10-14-2014 05:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  C'mon, it's just getting good.

huh? There were three hours without a response... I think it's died down now...

haha i think it has gone far enough, good game by the boys its always hard to go to west point and win so the team deserves full credit for that. Jackson had probably his best game of his young career and look forward to more of the same. i think with a another full ofseason of learn his progressions your doing to see a true dual threat next year and we wont have as many of those plays were his eyes are locked in on one guy. Convigtion was simple faultess he parked himself in the army backfield and made plays all day which is great to see him coming back into his own after that injury ( lets pray for one more year of him) Dbs looked off at times but whats new. If we can mantian this level of play a chance at repeating isnt out of the question yet but i would be happy with another bowl hopefully a winable one

QQ for those watching - it seemed to me that Jackson had extra mid-section padding for this game, particularly in the lower back. I don't recall his uniform being stuffed so full in prior games. Is he possibly dealing a rib or back injury - and one that could have been impacting him in the Hawaii game, particularly that first half?

He definitely didn't seem worse for wear in the Army game, but I wonder if he's got another injury he's recovering from.

(10-15-2014 12:40 PM)gsloth Wrote:  QQ for those watching - it seemed to me that Jackson had extra mid-section padding for this game, particularly in the lower back. I don't recall his uniform being stuffed so full in prior games. Is he possibly dealing a rib or back injury - and one that could have been impacting him in the Hawaii game, particularly that first half?

He definitely didn't seem worse for wear in the Army game, but I wonder if he's got another injury he's recovering from.

I thought it was his shoulder that was ailing him? I don't think it was so much the injury that adversely impacted him in the Hawaii game, as the constant and immediate pressure he was getting from the aggressively blitzing Rainbows. Those first few series he had no time to do anything, and it appeared he played the rest of the game "scared", and understandably so.

Against Army, I did notice on one early zone read left on 3rd and relatively long, he had a huge hole had he busted it upfield...instead, he veered toward the sidelines (not at full speed) and finished a couple yards short of the 1st down. Our group felt it because he was favoring the shoulder and was told to avoid the unnecessary hit. However, on another zone read in the 2nd half, he did aggressively turn up field for his longest gain of the day. I don't remember if that one was to the left or the right. Perhaps he was favoring one shoulder (right side?). It obviously was not affecting his passing. but might have been affecting his option pitches (two totally different motions).

I know about the shoulder. I'm wondering if this was something different, because the flak jacket looked much larger than I ever remember him wearing, particularly around the kidneys/lower back. I didn't know if anyone else noticed it or had "heard" anything else. The areas this appeared to be protecting were definitely not the shoulder.

I also thought it looked like he had pads around his kidneys that had not been there previous games.

(10-15-2014 12:49 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Against Army, I did notice on one early zone read left on 3rd and relatively long, he had a huge hole had he busted it upfield...instead, he veered toward the sidelines (not at full speed) and finished a couple yards short of the 1st down. Our group felt it because he was favoring the shoulder and was told to avoid the unnecessary hit. However, on another zone read in the 2nd half, he did aggressively turn up field for his longest gain of the day. I don't remember if that one was to the left or the right. Perhaps he was favoring one shoulder (right side?). It obviously was not affecting his passing. but might have been affecting his option pitches (two totally different motions).

That smacked of deja vu with me as well - I was fairly certain that he'd been told to take it out of bounds rather than suffer the hit, like McHargue before him.

(10-15-2014 01:53 PM)gsloth Wrote:  I know about the shoulder. I'm wondering if this was something different, because the flak jacket looked much larger than I ever remember him wearing, particularly around the kidneys/lower back. I didn't know if anyone else noticed it or had "heard" anything else. The areas this appeared to be protecting were definitely not the shoulder.

(10-15-2014 02:10 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I also thought it looked like he had pads around his kidneys that had not been there previous games.

ditto.

This time of the year, if you're a quarterback, EVERYTHING hurts.