Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Marshall Post-Game thread
Author Message
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

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

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #21
RE: Marshall Post-Game thread
(11-15-2014 08:53 PM)Philoso-Owl Wrote:  Calling a draw on 3rd and 18 down by 13 in the second half in an important road game is telling your team that you don't think you can win, so they might as well give up.

Actually, that's a very legitimate call. Pick up a few yards to add to the punt is quite possibly the best thing you can do there. A lot of fans may criticize that call, but very few coaches will, because they know the odds.
11-15-2014 09:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Philoso-Owl Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 544
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 20
I Root For: Rice, UCSD
Location: Houston
Post: #22
RE: Marshall Post-Game thread
(11-15-2014 08:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Actually, I thought our play calling wan't boring and unimaginative enough. They had excellent defensive speed but had struggled against the run (to the extent that they had struggled anywhere). That being the case, I thought we should have run straight at them, which is about as boring and unimaginative as you can get.

But it would have been an adjustment to do more of what was working at the time. This coaching staff is shockingly bad at making in-game adjustments.
11-15-2014 09:02 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
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: Marshall Post-Game thread
(11-15-2014 09:02 PM)Philoso-Owl Wrote:  
(11-15-2014 08:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Actually, I thought our play calling wan't boring and unimaginative enough. They had excellent defensive speed but had struggled against the run (to the extent that they had struggled anywhere). That being the case, I thought we should have run straight at them, which is about as boring and unimaginative as you can get.

But it would have been an adjustment to do more of what was working at the time. This coaching staff is shockingly bad at making in-game adjustments.

First place, to the scheme issue, we don't really have any quick-hitting straight ahead plays, which you really need in this instance. Everything we have is slow, and that gave them time to run to the play.
11-15-2014 09:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Philoso-Owl Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 544
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 20
I Root For: Rice, UCSD
Location: Houston
Post: #24
RE: Marshall Post-Game thread
(11-15-2014 09:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(11-15-2014 08:53 PM)Philoso-Owl Wrote:  Calling a draw on 3rd and 18 down by 13 in the second half in an important road game is telling your team that you don't think you can win, so they might as well give up.

Actually, that's a very legitimate call. Pick up a few yards to add to the punt is quite possibly the best thing you can do there. A lot of fans may criticize that call, but very few coaches will, because they know the odds.

Agree to disagree. I know how I would have perceived that when I was a player. I know my coaches would never call that in that situation. And 3rd and 18s have been converted before. We were still within two scores, in the game. Bring me the guy who tries everything to win rather than making a little room for punts.
11-15-2014 09:05 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Philoso-Owl Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 544
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 20
I Root For: Rice, UCSD
Location: Houston
Post: #25
RE: Marshall Post-Game thread
(11-15-2014 09:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(11-15-2014 09:02 PM)Philoso-Owl Wrote:  
(11-15-2014 08:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Actually, I thought our play calling wan't boring and unimaginative enough. They had excellent defensive speed but had struggled against the run (to the extent that they had struggled anywhere). That being the case, I thought we should have run straight at them, which is about as boring and unimaginative as you can get.

But it would have been an adjustment to do more of what was working at the time. This coaching staff is shockingly bad at making in-game adjustments.

First place, to the scheme issue, we don't really have any quick-hitting straight ahead plays, which you really need in this instance. Everything we have is slow, and that gave them time to run to the play.

Completely agree here. Our scheme is painfully slow. It really results in a terrible one-dimensionality to the offense at times. I have to think we are a relatively easy team for opponents to prepare for.
(This post was last modified: 11-15-2014 09:08 PM by Philoso-Owl.)
11-15-2014 09:08 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
At Ease Offline
Banned

Posts: 17,134
Joined: Jun 2005
I Root For: The Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #26
RE: Marshall Post-Game thread
(11-15-2014 08:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(11-15-2014 08:21 PM)wrysal Wrote:  From the first offensive series we were in the 'save the equipment'/'preseason' mode. Boring, unimaginative, seemingly scared play calling might get you a 17-7 win against UTSA, but gets us annihilated against good competition. I'll bet if you look at every game in the Bailiff era in which we've been 20+ point dogs we've never beaten the spread by more than 3 points and have covered less than 20% of the time. We're just never competitive with good teams.
Here's a scouting tip for our opponents: EVERY time we quick snap the ball after a first down it's a run up the middle. 100% of the time. Our smart kids continue to be penalized by Edmondson's stupid vanilla offense. Bring on ruowls!

Actually, I thought our play calling wasn't boring and unimaginative enough. They had excellent defensive speed but had struggled against the run (to the extent that they had struggled anywhere). That being the case, I thought we should have run straight at them, which is about as boring and unimaginative as you can get.

What do you base their struggles vs the run on? They had only given up 6 TD on the ground all year, and a 3.6 YPC avg, and stuffed us easily through much of the competitive parts of the game.
11-15-2014 09:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
waltgreenberg Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,142
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 138
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Chicago

The Parliament Awards
Post: #27
RE: Marshall Post-Game thread
(11-15-2014 08:21 PM)wrysal Wrote:  From the first offensive series we were in the 'save the equipment'/'preseason' mode. Boring, unimaginative, seemingly scared play calling might get you a 17-7 win against UTSA, but gets us annihilated against good competition. I'll bet if you look at every game in the Bailiff era in which we've been 20+ point dogs we've never beaten the spread by more than 3 points and have covered less than 20% of the time. We're just never competitive with good teams.

Here's a scouting tip for our opponents: EVERY time we quick snap the ball after a first down it's a run up the middle. 100% of the time. Our smart kids continue to be penalized by Edmondson's stupid vanilla offense. Bring on ruowls!

I'm trying my best not to pile on here, but one would have expected-- or at least hoped-- for aggressive, imaginative playcalling in this "must win" game for us....yet, instead, it was as predictable and plain vanilla as one could possibly be. Marshall defenders were acting as if they knew the play call better than we did. Obviously, they did their homework in film study during the week, and new our tendencies to a T.
11-15-2014 09:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

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

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #28
RE: Marshall Post-Game thread
(11-15-2014 09:05 PM)Philoso-Owl Wrote:  
(11-15-2014 09:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(11-15-2014 08:53 PM)Philoso-Owl Wrote:  Calling a draw on 3rd and 18 down by 13 in the second half in an important road game is telling your team that you don't think you can win, so they might as well give up.
Actually, that's a very legitimate call. Pick up a few yards to add to the punt is quite possibly the best thing you can do there. A lot of fans may criticize that call, but very few coaches will, because they know the odds.
Agree to disagree. I know how I would have perceived that when I was a player. I know my coaches would never call that in that situation. And 3rd and 18s have been converted before. We were still within two scores, in the game. Bring me the guy who tries everything to win rather than making a little room for punts.

But the point is that adding yards to the punt is probably the best way to win at that point. And for most of the game, the punt was our best offensive weapon. Punt it and let them turn it over.
(This post was last modified: 11-15-2014 09:13 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
11-15-2014 09:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
At Ease Offline
Banned

Posts: 17,134
Joined: Jun 2005
I Root For: The Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #29
RE: Marshall Post-Game thread
(11-15-2014 09:10 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  
(11-15-2014 08:21 PM)wrysal Wrote:  From the first offensive series we were in the 'save the equipment'/'preseason' mode. Boring, unimaginative, seemingly scared play calling might get you a 17-7 win against UTSA, but gets us annihilated against good competition. I'll bet if you look at every game in the Bailiff era in which we've been 20+ point dogs we've never beaten the spread by more than 3 points and have covered less than 20% of the time. We're just never competitive with good teams.

Here's a scouting tip for our opponents: EVERY time we quick snap the ball after a first down it's a run up the middle. 100% of the time. Our smart kids continue to be penalized by Edmondson's stupid vanilla offense. Bring on ruowls!

I'm trying my best not to pile on here, but one would have expected-- or at least hoped-- for aggressive, imaginative playcalling in this "must win" game for us....yet, instead, it was as predictable and plain vanilla as one could possibly be. Marshall defenders were acting as if they knew the play call better than we did. Obviously, they did their homework in film study during the week, and new our tendencies to a T.

When you pay bottom dollar for assistants, and your HC uses that money on experienced but failed options to fill those slots, you're not going to get imaginative, aggressive play calling.
11-15-2014 09:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goherd24herdfans Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,827
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 47
I Root For: marshall
Location:
Post: #30
RE: Marshall Post-Game thread
(11-15-2014 08:41 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  
(11-15-2014 08:40 PM)At Ease Wrote:  
(11-15-2014 07:34 PM)owl40 Wrote:  I think they beat both ND and A&M.

They're improved, but not really getting this vibe.

Yep. Totally not buying that.


Your coach does. He said we are just as good as those teams in post game.
11-15-2014 09:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

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

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #31
RE: Marshall Post-Game thread
(11-15-2014 09:10 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I'm trying my best not to pile on here, but one would have expected-- or at least hoped-- for aggressive, imaginative playcalling in this "must win" game for us

Why?

Serious question.

Walt, I know you like to believe that imaginative play calling is the cure for all ills.

But we were up against an undersized defense that is extremely quick but has struggled against the run. You don't get imaginative against that, you pound it.

I will criticize the overall scheme. The play we needed was Hatfield's fullback up the middle. But we don't have anything like that in our offense.

What we needed was extremely unimaginative play calling. And a defense that could keep us in the game until we started to wear down their front.
(This post was last modified: 11-15-2014 09:38 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
11-15-2014 09:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
That Guy 2012 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,222
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 46
I Root For: Rice
Location: Row 1, Seat 1
Post: #32
RE: Marshall Post-Game thread
Marshall would take ND or A&M to the woodshed in Huntington; anywhere else, they'd be in a dogfight.
11-15-2014 09:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
At Ease Offline
Banned

Posts: 17,134
Joined: Jun 2005
I Root For: The Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #33
RE: Marshall Post-Game thread
(11-15-2014 09:40 PM)That Guy 2012 Wrote:  Marshall would take ND or A&M to the woodshed in Huntington; anywhere else, they'd be in a dogfight.

Hopefully they win out and get a chance. Would be glad to be proved wrong.
11-15-2014 09:43 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: #34
RE: Marshall Post-Game thread
(11-15-2014 09:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(11-15-2014 09:10 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I'm trying my best not to pile on here, but one would have expected-- or at least hoped-- for aggressive, imaginative playcalling in this "must win" game for us

Why?

Serious question.

Walt, I know you like to believe that imaginative play calling is the cure for all ills.

But we were up against an undersized defense that is extremely quick but has struggled against the run. You don't get imaginative against that, you pound it.

I will criticize the overall scheme. The play we needed was Hatfield's fullback up the middle. But we don't have anything like that in our offense.

What we needed was extremely unimaginative play calling. And a defense that could keep us in the game until we started to wear down their front.

Interesting point.
One should also keep in mind what happened on the aggressive call on 4th and 3..
11-15-2014 09:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HerdAlum83 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 377
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation: 17
I Root For: The Herd
Location:
Post: #35
RE: Marshall Post-Game thread
(11-15-2014 08:40 PM)At Ease Wrote:  
(11-15-2014 07:34 PM)owl40 Wrote:  I think they beat both ND and A&M.

They're improved, but not really getting this vibe.

Idk about A&M.. But I do believe we beat Notre Dame.. I've believed that since I watched ND play North Carolina.. They just aren't very good defensively. And I like our chances in a shoot out.
11-15-2014 09:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
At Ease Offline
Banned

Posts: 17,134
Joined: Jun 2005
I Root For: The Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #36
RE: Marshall Post-Game thread
(11-15-2014 09:47 PM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  
(11-15-2014 09:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(11-15-2014 09:10 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I'm trying my best not to pile on here, but one would have expected-- or at least hoped-- for aggressive, imaginative playcalling in this "must win" game for us

Why?

Serious question.

Walt, I know you like to believe that imaginative play calling is the cure for all ills.

But we were up against an undersized defense that is extremely quick but has struggled against the run. You don't get imaginative against that, you pound it.

I will criticize the overall scheme. The play we needed was Hatfield's fullback up the middle. But we don't have anything like that in our offense.

What we needed was extremely unimaginative play calling. And a defense that could keep us in the game until we started to wear down their front.

Interesting point.
One should also keep in mind what happened on the aggressive call on 4th and 3..

Yes, you wonder what the outcome would have been if we had a 60/40 run/pass split.

What should we keep in mind on the 4th and 3, that hit Taylor in the hands for a would-be TD?
11-15-2014 09:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

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

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #37
RE: Marshall Post-Game thread
(11-15-2014 08:41 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  
(11-15-2014 08:40 PM)At Ease Wrote:  
(11-15-2014 07:34 PM)owl40 Wrote:  I think they beat both ND and A&M.
They're improved, but not really getting this vibe.
Yep. Totally not buying that.

They're quicker defensively than Notre Dame and their secondary is better. ND might pound them, not sure how well they'd stand up to that. I like Cato better than Golson, but that can probably be argued either way. They would move the ball on ND. I think it comes down to how well their d-line could hold up.
11-15-2014 09:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

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

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #38
RE: Marshall Post-Game thread
(11-15-2014 09:47 PM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  
(11-15-2014 09:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(11-15-2014 09:10 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I'm trying my best not to pile on here, but one would have expected-- or at least hoped-- for aggressive, imaginative playcalling in this "must win" game for us
Why?
Serious question.
Walt, I know you like to believe that imaginative play calling is the cure for all ills.
But we were up against an undersized defense that is extremely quick but has struggled against the run. You don't get imaginative against that, you pound it.
I will criticize the overall scheme. The play we needed was Hatfield's fullback up the middle. But we don't have anything like that in our offense.
What we needed was extremely unimaginative play calling. And a defense that could keep us in the game until we started to wear down their front.
Interesting point.
One should also keep in mind what happened on the aggressive call on 4th and 3..

I would have gone for it on that 4th and 3.
11-15-2014 09:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

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

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #39
RE: Marshall Post-Game thread
(11-15-2014 09:54 PM)At Ease Wrote:  Yes, you wonder what the outcome would have been if we had a 60/40 run/pass split.
What should we keep in mind on the 4th and 3, that hit Taylor in the hands for a would-be TD?

Actually we had pretty much a 60/40 split, 35/23. The problem is that 58 offensive snaps weren't enough to have a legitimate chance to win. When you have 26 minutes of possession, it's probably not going to be good. But when you give up 581 yards, it doesn't really make much difference what you do on offense.
11-15-2014 10:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FresnoTXOwl Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 172
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 12
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #40
Marshall Post-Game thread
If fans of other schools were talking about canning their coach for being 6-4 the year after they won their first conference title in 50 years, we would call them insane (even taking into account a drop in conference strength).

If we look bad against UTEP and La. Tech, I'll join that conversation, although I still don't think it's rational to think that our coaches are all crap even if we finish 6-6 (as disappointing as that will be).

I've got no problem with people questioning whether Bailiff can take us to the "next level." If we could be guaranteed a better coach, I'd be all for pulling the trigger. But a lot of former geniuses look incompetent now -- see, e.g. Brady Hoke, Lane Kiffin, and Charlie Wiess. We've got just as much, if not more, of a chance of getting worse if we make a change. But a fun debate perhaps.

What gets me is the commenters who seem OUTRAGED that the current coaches are depriving them of some inherent Rice Football greatness. The Jess Neely era was a different time. Yeah, you can focus on the negatives and be sad about the state of Rice football, or you can look at the likes of SMU, Tulsa, and Tulane, our more recent football peers and teams that have been better than us at times recently and realize it could be a lot worse, even if 6-4 makes you miserable. (And yes, the teams we beat this year are bad, but that's true of most of the teams we beat in winning seasons, notwithstanding a few good wins over good teams some years).
11-15-2014 10:15 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.