(11-30-2014 11:36 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I also noted on the big screen that LaTech had a lineman (based on his uniform number) that had transferred from a P5 program for this season, where IIRC it said that he had started. I want to say he came from Nebraska, but I wouldn't bet money on my memory being accurate about the specific school.

Probably this guy...

72 Derek Edinburgh, Jr. 6-8 331 OT RS SO TR New Orleans, La. (LSU)

(11-30-2014 11:36 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  If they had a P5 starter transfer in, and they were able to bring in some 20-year old jucos, I could see where they might have upgraded their line to the point where the mismatch I saw on the field had some semblance of an explanation.

I had trouble reconciling 2012 - where LaTech blew out Rice en route to a very promising season that ended in disappointment, 2013 - where Rice blew out LaTech, and 2014 - where LaTech again blew out Rice.

(11-30-2014 11:56 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Rick I added the following to my last post

Quote:EDIT: Before we go singing praises about LT, they lost to NORTHWESTERN STATE which is an FCS team. Clearly their senior QB and JUCOs weren't that good. So again, we lost to a school (who put up 76 points) that lost to an FCS team and 6-6 Old Dominion.

I hear the reasoning about the Jucos but it doesn't explain how a Nicholls state equivalent and a team (ODU) that the whole parliament agreed we should have beaten managed to beat LT. I am sure they improved from last year, but does any of this justify losing by 45 points?

Our opponent was decent, I will concede that. BUt they aren't 2008 Texas or their ilk; we could and should have been able to win this one.

Their senior QB spent two years at a Juco, and two years at Iowa where he redshirted and then barely got any playing time (it's almost as if someone hacked the hawkeysports.com website and stuck his bio in there... he doesn't even show up on the 2013 roster, much less stats). He is a senior, but had no D1 game experience prior to this year.

edit: as a sidenote, going through the Iowa stats, they had one year where only one QB registered any QB stats... not even a single pass attempt from anyone else.

(12-01-2014 12:46 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 11:56 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Rick I added the following to my last post

Quote:EDIT: Before we go singing praises about LT, they lost to NORTHWESTERN STATE which is an FCS team. Clearly their senior QB and JUCOs weren't that good. So again, we lost to a school (who put up 76 points) that lost to an FCS team and 6-6 Old Dominion.

I hear the reasoning about the Jucos but it doesn't explain how a Nicholls state equivalent and a team (ODU) that the whole parliament agreed we should have beaten managed to beat LT. I am sure they improved from last year, but does any of this justify losing by 45 points?

Our opponent was decent, I will concede that. BUt they aren't 2008 Texas or their ilk; we could and should have been able to win this one.

Their senior QB spent two years at a Juco, and two years at Iowa where he redshirted and then barely got any playing time (it's almost as if someone hacked the hawkeysports.com website and stuck his bio in there... he doesn't even show up on the 2013 roster, much less stats). He is a senior, but had no D1 game experience prior to this year.

edit: as a sidenote, going through the Iowa stats, they had one year where only one QB registered any QB stats... not even a single pass attempt from anyone else.

What I would glean from all this, is that we got beat by a team that had a tremendously talented QB who transferred in at 22 or 23 from a P5 school, that transferred a lot of other Div. 1 talent in, and who uses Junior college transfers at a significant rate (I'd say alarming, but don't want to be too judgmental).

(The LSU lineman that transferred does not appear to be a small lad either)

If this has been a pattern, it might explain the highly variable results in our games from year to year.

I think it was you who noted that they had fans complaining about players going ineligible. If some of their jucos come in solely focusing on football, that may not be unexpected.

It also might help explain a down year, if ineligibility were an issue in 2013.

I may be the Lone Ranger here, but this is enough of an explanation to me as to why the results changed so much in our games from 2013 to 2014 against Tech.

This may be unfair on my part, but it all sounds very mercenary to me.

Almost like what people say is going on in NCAA basketball with transfers.

Comment from the broadcast - senior day - 22 seniors, but 11 fourth and fifth year players on this roster. Holtz referred to the team as the "land of misfit toys". This might be a transition phenomenon in Skip Holtz second year, but, as noted Dykes roster featured the same kind of numbers.

What it seems like to me is that you'd have to drop a lot of kids scholarships ... especially with - by my count 12-35-20-12-22 freshmen on the roster from 2010-2014. There has to be a lot of attrition in order to bring in that many transfers. Granted that in those 5 years, that included two separate staff transitions - Dykes first year was in 2010 and Holtz was in 2013.

Regarding the call that I relayed earlier, the comments were all about the loyalty to the school and to the team and fans, not about the players getting a degree, actually learning something, or preparing themselves for a career. It just indicates a different environment.

Skip Holtz Bio - LA Tech Official Athletic Site

http://www.latechsports.com/sports/m-foo...32367.html Wrote:In his first season he inherited a team that lost 35 seniors with seven being invited to NFL camps (two through the NFL Draft) and brought together the team as it entered a new conference (Conference USA) under a new President and new Athletics Director, going 4-8.

(12-01-2014 01:09 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  What I would glean from all this, is that we got beat by a team that had a tremendously talented QB who transferred in at 22 or 23 from a P5 school, that transferred a lot of other Div. 1 talent in, and who uses Junior college transfers at a significant rate (I'd say alarming, but don't want to be too judgmental).

Could be, but if he were that talented, I'd expect that he'd have gotten a D1 scholarship to begin with. They indicated that he went to the same JUCO as Tim Ratay. Maybe he chose that route because he wanted to play rather than sit on the bench, as he did at Iowa.

I think we've got two players on the forum who went the Juco-to-Rice route during their playing careers. I get the sense that in at least one case, it was a player that didn't have the physical tools to get a D1 offer, but his mental acuity allowed him to produce way over his head.

Guys, a little reality check here-- LaTech was NOT the power this year that you're making them out to be. They were 7-4 heading into this game, just as we were, lost the previous week to ODU, and just barely beat UTSA at home 24 - 20 several weeks back. Stop trying to sugarcoat things or make excuses. We got embarrassed by a team that was only very slightly higher ranked than us heading into the game...and let's not pretend it was only a second half melt down, as LaTech scored 28 points against us in the First Half (benefitting from only one first half turnover vs. 3 TOs in 2nd half). As others have pointed out, we stopped their offense just twice the entire game, including once on the opening drive.

We were NOT overmatched or out-talented in this game; we were decisively outplayed and outcoached. LaTech was far better prepared and motivated to play than we were...and they developed a gameplan to exploit our weaknesses. We never develop unique gameplans to fit our opponent; we run the exact same plays and schemes-- both offensively and defensively-- every single week.

(12-01-2014 09:25 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  We were NOT overmatched or out-talented in this game; we were decisively outplayed and outcoached. LaTech was far better prepared and motivated to play than we were...and they developed a gameplan to exploit our weaknesses. We never develop unique gameplans to fit our opponent; we run the exact same plays and schemes-- both offensively and defensively-- every single week.

I agree that Rice wasn't over-matched on its offensive side, and could've done a lot better, even granting that 31 points should keep you in a football game. I don't agree on the defensive side. Rice just couldn't get consistent pressure on the QB and Rice didn't have the speed to keep up with their receivers. I think different schemes could've cut down on long pass plays, but I think LaTech would've continued to find ways to exploit the defense in different ways.

(12-01-2014 10:08 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(12-01-2014 09:25 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  We were NOT overmatched or out-talented in this game; we were decisively outplayed and outcoached. LaTech was far better prepared and motivated to play than we were...and they developed a gameplan to exploit our weaknesses. We never develop unique gameplans to fit our opponent; we run the exact same plays and schemes-- both offensively and defensively-- every single week.

I agree that Rice wasn't over-matched on its offensive side, and could've done a lot better, even granting that 31 points should keep you in a football game. I don't agree on the defensive side. Rice just couldn't get consistent pressure on the QB and Rice didn't have the speed to keep up with their receivers. I think different schemes could've cut down on long pass plays, but I think LaTech would've continued to find ways to exploit the defense in different ways.

Funny, then, how that was not the case when LaTech played Northwestern State, UTSA and USM-- all of whom held LaTech under 35 points. Are you saying those three clubs (two of whom we beat handily) have more talent and athleticism than us? Sorry, I don't buy that. We were outcoached, out-motivated, out-play and out-prepared for the game; plain and simple. We weren't overmatched.

(12-01-2014 10:13 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-01-2014 10:08 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(12-01-2014 09:25 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  We were NOT overmatched or out-talented in this game; we were decisively outplayed and outcoached. LaTech was far better prepared and motivated to play than we were...and they developed a gameplan to exploit our weaknesses. We never develop unique gameplans to fit our opponent; we run the exact same plays and schemes-- both offensively and defensively-- every single week.

I agree that Rice wasn't over-matched on its offensive side, and could've done a lot better, even granting that 31 points should keep you in a football game. I don't agree on the defensive side. Rice just couldn't get consistent pressure on the QB and Rice didn't have the speed to keep up with their receivers. I think different schemes could've cut down on long pass plays, but I think LaTech would've continued to find ways to exploit the defense in different ways.

Funny, then, how that was not the case when LaTech played Northwestern State, UTSA and USM-- all of whom held LaTech under 35 points. Are you saying those three clubs (two of whom we beat handily) have more talent and athleticism than us? Sorry, I don't buy that. We were outcoached, out-motivated, out-play and out-prepared for the game; plain and simple. We weren't overmatched.

+1

Again, our defense has one weak spot and it is very weak--vulnerability to the deep pass/long play. Not everybody we play was good enough to exploit that. The ones who weren't, we defended them well. The ones who were burned us badly. Unfortunately, that's the one place where you can least afford to be bad if you are trying to be a really good football team.

Fixing this absolutely has to be priority number one. Whether it's scheme or personnel or execution or what, it simply has to get fixed.

(12-01-2014 11:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Again, our defense has one weak spot and it is very weak--vulnerability to the deep pass/long play. t everybody we play was good enough to exploit that.

I think this is something that's been obvious for probably 9 years, at least (including when TG was here). Teams that are not able to consistently complete long passes on the practice field are teams that Rice has generally defended well. Teams that can make those passes but can't stand up to Rice's pass rush are also ones that Rice can defend well. Teams that can both complete the long ball and maintain the pocket long enough to find the open man downfield will light up the Rice defense. When there is a receiver 20 yards downfield with no-one within 10 yards of him, it's pretty obvious there is a schematic problem. When receivers are consistently outrunning their coverage and losing them with fakes, I'm more inclined to say that Rice just doesn't have enough speed to defend the other team.

I will grant this - it seemed like Rice defenders were not defending shorter passes first, expecting the pass rush to help defend long passes. That seems like a tactical decision by the coaching staff to expect the pass rush to come through ... with this season's results to date, that's not unreasonable, but that's on the coaching, not the personnel. However, LaTech also beat Rice consistently with short/intermediate passes. The LaTech line dominated, and that indicates to me that they had better personnel.

(12-01-2014 01:03 PM)I45owl Wrote:  I think this is something that's been obvious for probably 9 years, at least (including when TG was here). Teams that are not able to consistently complete long passes on the practice field are teams that Rice has generally defended well. Teams that can make those passes but can't stand up to Rice's pass rush are also ones that Rice can defend well. Teams that can both complete the long ball and maintain the pocket long enough to find the open man downfield will light up the Rice defense.

To summarize, good teams beat us. Bad teams don't.

The formula to beat Rice is simple and known. We are lucky in the sense that a lot of C-USA is incapable of executing this formula.

Rice against the top HS in Texas. Would be a good draw. :)

(12-01-2014 02:02 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-01-2014 01:03 PM)I45owl Wrote:  I think this is something that's been obvious for probably 9 years, at least (including when TG was here). Teams that are not able to consistently complete long passes on the practice field are teams that Rice has generally defended well. Teams that can make those passes but can't stand up to Rice's pass rush are also ones that Rice can defend well. Teams that can both complete the long ball and maintain the pocket long enough to find the open man downfield will light up the Rice defense.

To summarize, good teams beat us. Bad teams don't.

The formula to beat Rice is simple and known. We are lucky in the sense that a lot of C-USA is incapable of executing this formula.

(11-30-2014 11:11 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  I remember them as well. I think my dad and I went three seasons without seeing a victory. It was horrible. The grandiose expectations of many on this board is unreal. How can intelligent people be so stupid?

Many? If so, then I must be one of them.

Being competitive with top 50 teams isn't a grandiose expectation.

I mean seriously... We weren't within four touchdowns of ANY team ranked in the top 50 this year, were we? How far 'out' of the top 50 is 4 touchdowns?

I think we're better than that.

(12-01-2014 03:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 11:11 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  I remember them as well. I think my dad and I went three seasons without seeing a victory. It was horrible. The grandiose expectations of many on this board is unreal. How can intelligent people be so stupid?

Many? If so, then I must be one of them.

Being competitive with top 50 teams isn't a grandiose expectation.

I mean seriously... We weren't within four touchdowns of ANY team ranked in the top 50 this year, were we? How far 'out' of the top 50 is 4 touchdowns?

I think we're better than that.

This.

if having decent expectations makes me stupid, then so be it. Sure beats living in la-la land.

(11-30-2014 11:21 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  I was at Rice for six seasons as an undergrad (slow learner). The Owls won 13 games in those seasons, total.

Ha! Those were golden years! 5 and 9 for me. And there were a hundred and sixty of us living in a small shoebox in the middle of the road.

(12-01-2014 03:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 11:11 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  I remember them as well. I think my dad and I went three seasons without seeing a victory. It was horrible. The grandiose expectations of many on this board is unreal. How can intelligent people be so stupid?

Many? If so, then I must be one of them.

Afflicted's allegiances interfere with his ability to think ambitiously when it comes to the Owls. Only coogs are allowed to aspire.

hell-my college won four games in four years in the Ivies. Stratford's 78 state champion team (Craig James and more) would have assaulted them.

Well, crap, that sounded a bit more harsh than what I intended. The basic idea is that your intelligence allowed you to far outperform your measurables. Did you have D1 offers out of high school? I know you've explained your path to Rice before, but I don't recall it...

[quote='OldOwl' pid='11471374' dateline='1417461815']
Rice against the top HS in Texas. Would be a good draw.


^^^ This is an idiotic statement.

(12-01-2014 06:26 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(12-01-2014 04:25 AM)I45owl Wrote:  Comment from the broadcast - senior day - 22 seniors, but 11 fourth and fifth year players on this roster. Holtz referred to the team as the "land of misfit toys". This might be a transition phenomenon in Skip Holtz second year, but, as noted Dykes roster featured the same kind of numbers.

What it seems like to me is that you'd have to drop a lot of kids scholarships ... especially with - by my count 12-35-20-12-22 freshmen on the roster from 2010-2014. There has to be a lot of attrition in order to bring in that many transfers. Granted that in those 5 years, that included two separate staff transitions - Dykes first year was in 2010 and Holtz was in 2013.

Regarding the call that I relayed earlier, the comments were all about the loyalty to the school and to the team and fans, not about the players getting a degree, actually learning something, or preparing themselves for a career. It just indicates a different environment.

Skip Holtz Bio - LA Tech Official Athletic Site

http://www.latechsports.com/sports/m-foo...32367.html Wrote:In his first season he inherited a team that lost 35 seniors with seven being invited to NFL camps (two through the NFL Draft) and brought together the team as it entered a new conference (Conference USA) under a new President and new Athletics Director, going 4-8.

(12-01-2014 01:09 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  What I would glean from all this, is that we got beat by a team that had a tremendously talented QB who transferred in at 22 or 23 from a P5 school, that transferred a lot of other Div. 1 talent in, and who uses Junior college transfers at a significant rate (I'd say alarming, but don't want to be too judgmental).

Could be, but if he were that talented, I'd expect that he'd have gotten a D1 scholarship to begin with. They indicated that he went to the same JUCO as Tim Ratay. Maybe he chose that route because he wanted to play rather than sit on the bench, as he did at Iowa.

I think we've got two players on the forum who went the Juco-to-Rice route during their playing careers. I get the sense that in at least one case, it was a player that didn't have the physical tools to get a D1 offer, but his mental acuity allowed him to produce way over his head.

Ouch!

I would say that my tools were more.....overlooked.