Anyone else see Bailiff's quote in ESPN's write-up on the game?

"We came in here expecting to win," Rice coach David Baliff said. "We believe we had the better team."

http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=400763413

(09-13-2015 03:50 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 03:22 PM)talon owl Wrote:  I'll give the one turnover as inconsequential (negated by UT's lone turnover), but the other 4? Nope.

The -4 TO margin was real and impactful. Also they were all unforced.

Really, a pick by their literal 4-th team defense, by a guy not even on their depth chart, in the last 30 seconds is consequential?

Real and impactful? Sure. But the claim that we were winning this game without them is specious.

It depends on how/if you look at them in isolation. One truly was erased inside of the same play by a direct offset.

You remove a turnover earlier in the game and it changes the particulars of the subsequent.

It's very unlikely in any game to have a -4 TO margin and it not be consequential to outcome. Impact goes beyond just the direct possession change.

(09-13-2015 06:42 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  If you watch the replay of Daje's first return, Hamilton was within a foot or two of totally destroying him. That was followed up by Ellerbee missing a tackle. That was followed up by Joe Ballard getting juked. Definitely coaching right there folks!

On the second return, I think the coverage breakdown was more apparent, Ty Carter missed a tackle, but other people were out of position. With that said, that return was complicated by the fact that Duke Thomas was the up-man, not the planned returner.

On the Burt touchdown, Pollard simply got burned. Burt was #14 receiver in the country this year. Ryan Pollard was not even rated at his position coming out of high school. Guess you could have had some safety help, but that may've opened other holes, we'll never know.

Overall, you guys put way too much blame on the coaches. Players make plays.

Sure, the Pollard getting burned was an athletic difference issue but the other two? Would not have happened on a very good team.

As for the coverage on the first TD? That was a complete floater that should have been picked off or batted down. The INT before the half thrown into triple coverage. The fumbles? The fact that we gave up 250 yards on the return game? How about DJ not seeing wide open receivers and instead getting pressure and taking a sack?

Sorry, there can be an occasional mistake or let down due to players but when the whole team looks out of sorts against a mediocre team? Thats on the coach.

Well coached teams make occasional mistakes. Not so well coached teams are defined by them.

(09-13-2015 06:09 PM)owl40 Wrote:  Classic Parliament. Get the pitchforks out already.

I know it is religion here not to call out players but coaches are fair game. However in this instance, this loss was on the players, not the coaching.

a) Coaches had the punt coverage in position to make plays and they were missed. Yes after the missed tackles there were lane breakdowns but the tackles were missed at the point-of-attack.
b) Coaches had the right coverages called on the deep balls. The CB's/DB's just did not make a play on the ball.
c) Coaches had right gameplan wrinkles called off zone read. The QB missed the throws that would have been big plays.
d) Coaches did not decide to pitch to a covered RB off speed option for a cheap TD.
e) Coaches had the 'spy' on Heard even when he broke big runs. Coaches did not lose containment.
f) Coaches had right gameplan on both O and D. Players executed it really well about 90% of the time. The 10% where it was missed, it was missed big.

While the delay-of-game call on first play of game, the meerkat while we had momentum, and the burning of timeouts were on the staff...those are nits in the scheme of why game was lost.

DB does have the legacy of having secondary burned for big plays and ST coverage mishaps...so there are arguments to be made and of course the Parliament will make them, but IMO FOR THIS SPECIFIC GAME (not the last 9 years), the guys simply did not make the plays when they had a chance. Coaches had them in position which has not always happened. Either players need to make the plays or the staff needs to put in different guys which may happen on ST, D, and O next week. But let's not start the 'fire DB' threads up again. This one was not on him.

I think DJ is a great leader and a resourceful 'dig deep' kind of kid when adversity comes at him. Glad he is at Rice. Perfect for this situation. If he plays to his capabilities last night, I think we get a W despite the other mishaps on ST and D. I do expect big things from him next week. He is a 'fight not flight' guy. But for heavens sake, let's give it a rest on the coaching. Not the root cause problem.

+1 I agree with you owl40. I get a little worn out by the anti-Bailiff rhetoric. Although I do get frustrated at times, on the whole I like him. I think he brings a lot of positives to Rice, and I'm glad he's our coach. For what we're paying him, I think we're getting a pretty good deal. Of course, if somebody were to step in and offer $5 million a year to bring in a big name coach, I wouldn't complain. Since that won't ever happen, I'll stick with DB.

(09-13-2015 06:09 PM)owl40 Wrote:  Classic Parliament. Get the pitchforks out already.

I know it is religion here not to call out players but coaches are fair game. However in this instance, this loss was on the players, not the coaching.

a) Coaches had the punt coverage in position to make plays and they were missed. Yes after the missed tackles there were lane breakdowns but the tackles were missed at the point-of-attack.
b) Coaches had the right coverages called on the deep balls. The CB's/DB's just did not make a play on the ball.
c) Coaches had right gameplan wrinkles called off zone read. The QB missed the throws that would have been big plays.
d) Coaches did not decide to pitch to a covered RB off speed option for a cheap TD.
e) Coaches had the 'spy' on Heard even when he broke big runs. Coaches did not lose containment.
f) Coaches had right gameplan on both O and D. Players executed it really well about 90% of the time. The 10% where it was missed, it was missed big.

While the delay-of-game call on first play of game, the meerkat while we had momentum, and the burning of timeouts were on the staff...those are nits in the scheme of why game was lost.

DB does have the legacy of having secondary burned for big plays and ST coverage mishaps...so there are arguments to be made and of course the Parliament will make them, but IMO FOR THIS SPECIFIC GAME (not the last 9 years), the guys simply did not make the plays when they had a chance. Coaches had them in position which has not always happened. Either players need to make the plays or the staff needs to put in different guys which may happen on ST, D, and O next week. But let's not start the 'fire DB' threads up again. This one was not on him.

I think DJ is a great leader and a resourceful 'dig deep' kind of kid when adversity comes at him. Glad he is at Rice. Perfect for this situation. If he plays to his capabilities last night, I think we get a W despite the other mishaps on ST and D. I do expect big things from him next week. He is a 'fight not flight' guy. But for heavens sake, let's give it a rest on the coaching. Not the root cause problem.

We have had what 200 something players in the last 9 years. The squad is 100% different than the one we had in 2009. There is only 1 constant in all of this.

And yes, we still make the same stupid mistakes. That is the definition of root cause problem.

If you look at this game in a vacuum, you are correct. A lot of them were poor plays by the players. But that doesn't happen on well coached teams. Offense, defense and Special teams shooting themselves in the foot repeatedly? I cannot imagine we just keep having coincidences like this happen.

To anyone who points out the supposed pitchforks - at work, would you keep an employee for 9 years if they made the same mistakes every year?

(09-13-2015 05:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It is still early and we do not know how our season (or UT's for that matter). Will play out. Maybe this loss will light a fire under the collective team's butt like Memphis in 2012 and we won't see another performance like this all season. I'm not very confident that this will occur, but that's why we play the game. And until Rice truly decides to throw in the towel regarding supporting the football program, I will remain loyal to the Blue and Grey and support the football team. Through hell And high water, through Bailiff or our yet-to-be-hiredfuture hall of fame coach.

Such a politician, implying that those of us who are dissatisfied are somehow being disloyal to Rice... What an abhorrent statement.

Sometimes, the best way (indeed, perhaps the only way) to support an enterprise that you hold dear is to just go tools-down in protest.

Some of us have been clamoring for change for years, and yet in year nine, we're getting the same poor preparation, the same catastrophic mistakes, and ostensibly the same excuses. It is time to walk away for the time being, seeing as how our exhortations are obviously falling on deaf ears.

That's it. I really hope that good things happen, whether I am right or not. I just can't see further support of Bailiff resulting in anything more than useless mediocrity; that said, I hope I am wrong, because it looks as if we're going to stick with him to the bitter end.

(09-13-2015 07:13 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 05:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 04:39 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 04:28 PM)WIowl Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 04:22 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  So Cal Poly can play with ASU, but we can't hang with a neutered UT? Ridiculous. I'm done with Rice football until Bailiff and his staff are gone.

I've already committed my support to basketball for this season, and I look forward to our further progress in that endeavor.

9 years is more than enough to make one's mark and win a big game, but I highly doubt any changes will be made.

We should evaluate the whole season regardless. The Texas game was disappointing but I am hoping we don't see an ODU or LT type game this year. One of those and it definitely would be time to start looking

Exactly. It is still early and we do not know how our season (or UT's for that matter). Will play out. Maybe this loss will light a fire under the collective team's butt like Memphis in 2012 and we won't see another performance like this all season. I'm not very confident that this will occur, but that's why we play the game. And until Rice truly decides to throw in the towel regarding supporting the football program, I will remain loyal to the Blue and Grey and support the football team. Through hell And high water, through Bailiff or our yet-to-be-hiredfuture hall of fame coach.

Such a politician, implying that those of us who are dissatisfied are somehow being disloyal to Rice... What an abhorrent statement.

Sometimes, the best way (indeed, perhaps the only way) to support an enterprise that you hold dear is to just go tools-down in protest.

Some of us have been clamoring for change for years, and yet in year nine, we're getting the same poor preparation, the same catastrophic mistakes, and ostensibly the same excuses. It is time to walk away for the time being, seeing as how our exhortations are obviously falling on deaf ears.

That's it. I really hope that good things happen, whether I am right or not. I just can't see further support of Bailiff resulting in anything more than useless mediocrity; that said, I hope I am wrong, because it looks as if we're going to stick with him to the bitter end.

I am not implying this, I am explicitly stating that those who are not supporting RICE FOOTBALL are in fact, being disloyal to RICE FOOTBALL.

Go ahead and dislike the HC all you want, some of us will agree or disagree with you on that. But when young men are suiting up and representing Rice on the grid iron, I think that everyone, regardless of their feelings about a coach because of on the field results, should still support the TEAM. These young me bleed blue and grey, and they deserve a fan base that supports them no matter what. You can clamor for change in many other ways that don't result in you "being done with Rice football until Bailiff is gone."

So I will be here, supporting the team regardless. I will still get mad when we lose, and happy when we win. But I will be here. And I am not going to be quitting on the team. This isn't some political BS. You can meet me at any home game, as I will be there, just like I have been for the past 7 years.

edit: and unless your concerns about our football program have been going up the ladder, OF COURSE THEY'RE FALLING ON DEAF EARS. Do you think The Parliament has any effect on the state of Rice Athletics other then to let us fans argue with each other or provide fodder for current/former players?

(09-13-2015 01:47 PM)At Ease Wrote:  Two of those turnovers were inconsequential (one coming in garbage time, one being immediately nullified by a fumble). I think we were outplayed in enough other facets of the game that the outcome would have likely been the same without those misplays.

Maybe. One of the turnovers resulted in 7 points for Texas and another almost certainly cost us 3.

Had we only needed 4 points on that last drive we might not have thrown the last interception.

The punt returns in synergy with the turnovers were too much to overcome.

I think our line play and running game were good enough to win, absent the two issues above. But academic discussion only, as we can't undo the issues above for the UT game.

One thing worth noting, but the past 5-8 years, the vast majority of the time Rice defenders got burned deep, it was a safety getting burned by a much faster WR. Both times yesterday were Rice CB's getting burned. To me, that is actually a good thing because it means Rice kept their safeties from getting isolated against faster receivers. The scheme was there, but Banks didn't get his head turned on one play and Pollard just had his guy run by him on the other.

I have never been a big Bailiff defender. I have blamed him and his staff for many losses in the past. Even though I have come around on him some the past few years, I am certainly not his #1 fan. But I put more of yesterday's loss on the players, a few in particular, then Bailiff. The coaching staff could have certainly done some things better, but short of doing things that would have sounded nuts (like benching DJ before the game or punting out-of-bounds from the get-go), the game was on the players executing when, for the most part, they were in a position to succeed (they coaches' job). Yesterday the failures were particularly magnified.

(09-13-2015 07:00 PM)Minnewaska Owl Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 06:09 PM)owl40 Wrote:  Classic Parliament. Get the pitchforks out already.

I know it is religion here not to call out players but coaches are fair game. However in this instance, this loss was on the players, not the coaching.

a) Coaches had the punt coverage in position to make plays and they were missed. Yes after the missed tackles there were lane breakdowns but the tackles were missed at the point-of-attack.
b) Coaches had the right coverages called on the deep balls. The CB's/DB's just did not make a play on the ball.
c) Coaches had right gameplan wrinkles called off zone read. The QB missed the throws that would have been big plays.
d) Coaches did not decide to pitch to a covered RB off speed option for a cheap TD.
e) Coaches had the 'spy' on Heard even when he broke big runs. Coaches did not lose containment.
f) Coaches had right gameplan on both O and D. Players executed it really well about 90% of the time. The 10% where it was missed, it was missed big.

While the delay-of-game call on first play of game, the meerkat while we had momentum, and the burning of timeouts were on the staff...those are nits in the scheme of why game was lost.

DB does have the legacy of having secondary burned for big plays and ST coverage mishaps...so there are arguments to be made and of course the Parliament will make them, but IMO FOR THIS SPECIFIC GAME (not the last 9 years), the guys simply did not make the plays when they had a chance. Coaches had them in position which has not always happened. Either players need to make the plays or the staff needs to put in different guys which may happen on ST, D, and O next week. But let's not start the 'fire DB' threads up again. This one was not on him.

I think DJ is a great leader and a resourceful 'dig deep' kind of kid when adversity comes at him. Glad he is at Rice. Perfect for this situation. If he plays to his capabilities last night, I think we get a W despite the other mishaps on ST and D. I do expect big things from him next week. He is a 'fight not flight' guy. But for heavens sake, let's give it a rest on the coaching. Not the root cause problem.

+1 I agree with you owl40. I get a little worn out by the anti-Bailiff rhetoric. Although I do get frustrated at times, on the whole I like him. I think he brings a lot of positives to Rice, and I'm glad he's our coach. For what we're paying him, I think we're getting a pretty good deal. Of course, if somebody were to step in and offer $5 million a year to bring in a big name coach, I wouldn't complain. Since that won't ever happen, I'll stick with DB.

Come on now 5 million. Stop the exaggeration. Tom Herman salary is 1.35 million. He's been there two weeks and has made the Coogs relevant. Getting four and five star athletes, won big game over the weekend on the road. Just got there, has not been there 9 years

(09-13-2015 07:26 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Had we only needed 4 points on that last drive we might not have thrown the last interception.

Had the scenario you discuss played out, we would almost certainly have gone for 2 after the last TD. So we would likely have been down 5 or down 3. Down 5 would have made little difference (nor would down 4). But down 3 would have been a huge difference. Of course, it probably would not necessarily have played out the same way had we kicked a FG before the half.

(09-13-2015 08:02 PM)SaintsOwl Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 07:00 PM)Minnewaska Owl Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 06:09 PM)owl40 Wrote:  Classic Parliament. Get the pitchforks out already.

I know it is religion here not to call out players but coaches are fair game. However in this instance, this loss was on the players, not the coaching.

a) Coaches had the punt coverage in position to make plays and they were missed. Yes after the missed tackles there were lane breakdowns but the tackles were missed at the point-of-attack.
b) Coaches had the right coverages called on the deep balls. The CB's/DB's just did not make a play on the ball.
c) Coaches had right gameplan wrinkles called off zone read. The QB missed the throws that would have been big plays.
d) Coaches did not decide to pitch to a covered RB off speed option for a cheap TD.
e) Coaches had the 'spy' on Heard even when he broke big runs. Coaches did not lose containment.
f) Coaches had right gameplan on both O and D. Players executed it really well about 90% of the time. The 10% where it was missed, it was missed big.

While the delay-of-game call on first play of game, the meerkat while we had momentum, and the burning of timeouts were on the staff...those are nits in the scheme of why game was lost.

DB does have the legacy of having secondary burned for big plays and ST coverage mishaps...so there are arguments to be made and of course the Parliament will make them, but IMO FOR THIS SPECIFIC GAME (not the last 9 years), the guys simply did not make the plays when they had a chance. Coaches had them in position which has not always happened. Either players need to make the plays or the staff needs to put in different guys which may happen on ST, D, and O next week. But let's not start the 'fire DB' threads up again. This one was not on him.

I think DJ is a great leader and a resourceful 'dig deep' kind of kid when adversity comes at him. Glad he is at Rice. Perfect for this situation. If he plays to his capabilities last night, I think we get a W despite the other mishaps on ST and D. I do expect big things from him next week. He is a 'fight not flight' guy. But for heavens sake, let's give it a rest on the coaching. Not the root cause problem.

+1 I agree with you owl40. I get a little worn out by the anti-Bailiff rhetoric. Although I do get frustrated at times, on the whole I like him. I think he brings a lot of positives to Rice, and I'm glad he's our coach. For what we're paying him, I think we're getting a pretty good deal. Of course, if somebody were to step in and offer $5 million a year to bring in a big name coach, I wouldn't complain. Since that won't ever happen, I'll stick with DB.

Come on now 5 million. Stop the exaggeration. Tom Herman salary is 1.35 million. He's been there two weeks and has made the Coogs relevant. Getting four and five star athletes, won big game over the weekend on the road. Just got there, has not been there 9 years

For comparison, Bailiff is paid barely over half of that, at $700,000, which ranks him as the 94th highest paid college coach (http://www.coacheshotseat.com/SalariesContracts.htm).

(09-13-2015 08:02 PM)SaintsOwl Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 07:00 PM)Minnewaska Owl Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 06:09 PM)owl40 Wrote:  Classic Parliament. Get the pitchforks out already.

I know it is religion here not to call out players but coaches are fair game. However in this instance, this loss was on the players, not the coaching.

a) Coaches had the punt coverage in position to make plays and they were missed. Yes after the missed tackles there were lane breakdowns but the tackles were missed at the point-of-attack.
b) Coaches had the right coverages called on the deep balls. The CB's/DB's just did not make a play on the ball.
c) Coaches had right gameplan wrinkles called off zone read. The QB missed the throws that would have been big plays.
d) Coaches did not decide to pitch to a covered RB off speed option for a cheap TD.
e) Coaches had the 'spy' on Heard even when he broke big runs. Coaches did not lose containment.
f) Coaches had right gameplan on both O and D. Players executed it really well about 90% of the time. The 10% where it was missed, it was missed big.

While the delay-of-game call on first play of game, the meerkat while we had momentum, and the burning of timeouts were on the staff...those are nits in the scheme of why game was lost.

DB does have the legacy of having secondary burned for big plays and ST coverage mishaps...so there are arguments to be made and of course the Parliament will make them, but IMO FOR THIS SPECIFIC GAME (not the last 9 years), the guys simply did not make the plays when they had a chance. Coaches had them in position which has not always happened. Either players need to make the plays or the staff needs to put in different guys which may happen on ST, D, and O next week. But let's not start the 'fire DB' threads up again. This one was not on him.

I think DJ is a great leader and a resourceful 'dig deep' kind of kid when adversity comes at him. Glad he is at Rice. Perfect for this situation. If he plays to his capabilities last night, I think we get a W despite the other mishaps on ST and D. I do expect big things from him next week. He is a 'fight not flight' guy. But for heavens sake, let's give it a rest on the coaching. Not the root cause problem.

+1 I agree with you owl40. I get a little worn out by the anti-Bailiff rhetoric. Although I do get frustrated at times, on the whole I like him. I think he brings a lot of positives to Rice, and I'm glad he's our coach. For what we're paying him, I think we're getting a pretty good deal. Of course, if somebody were to step in and offer $5 million a year to bring in a big name coach, I wouldn't complain. Since that won't ever happen, I'll stick with DB.

Come on now 5 million. Stop the exaggeration. Tom Herman salary is 1.35 million. He's been there two weeks and has made the Coogs relevant. Getting four and five star athletes, won big game over the weekend on the road. Just got there, has not been there 9 years

When Herman was here, wasn't there a contingent on the Parliament that was more than happy when he left? I think the set of fans glad that Herman left us and the set of fans who want Bailiff gone would produce a large percentage with commonality in both.

(09-13-2015 08:18 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:02 PM)SaintsOwl Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 07:00 PM)Minnewaska Owl Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 06:09 PM)owl40 Wrote:  Classic Parliament. Get the pitchforks out already.

I know it is religion here not to call out players but coaches are fair game. However in this instance, this loss was on the players, not the coaching.

a) Coaches had the punt coverage in position to make plays and they were missed. Yes after the missed tackles there were lane breakdowns but the tackles were missed at the point-of-attack.
b) Coaches had the right coverages called on the deep balls. The CB's/DB's just did not make a play on the ball.
c) Coaches had right gameplan wrinkles called off zone read. The QB missed the throws that would have been big plays.
d) Coaches did not decide to pitch to a covered RB off speed option for a cheap TD.
e) Coaches had the 'spy' on Heard even when he broke big runs. Coaches did not lose containment.
f) Coaches had right gameplan on both O and D. Players executed it really well about 90% of the time. The 10% where it was missed, it was missed big.

While the delay-of-game call on first play of game, the meerkat while we had momentum, and the burning of timeouts were on the staff...those are nits in the scheme of why game was lost.

DB does have the legacy of having secondary burned for big plays and ST coverage mishaps...so there are arguments to be made and of course the Parliament will make them, but IMO FOR THIS SPECIFIC GAME (not the last 9 years), the guys simply did not make the plays when they had a chance. Coaches had them in position which has not always happened. Either players need to make the plays or the staff needs to put in different guys which may happen on ST, D, and O next week. But let's not start the 'fire DB' threads up again. This one was not on him.

I think DJ is a great leader and a resourceful 'dig deep' kind of kid when adversity comes at him. Glad he is at Rice. Perfect for this situation. If he plays to his capabilities last night, I think we get a W despite the other mishaps on ST and D. I do expect big things from him next week. He is a 'fight not flight' guy. But for heavens sake, let's give it a rest on the coaching. Not the root cause problem.

+1 I agree with you owl40. I get a little worn out by the anti-Bailiff rhetoric. Although I do get frustrated at times, on the whole I like him. I think he brings a lot of positives to Rice, and I'm glad he's our coach. For what we're paying him, I think we're getting a pretty good deal. Of course, if somebody were to step in and offer $5 million a year to bring in a big name coach, I wouldn't complain. Since that won't ever happen, I'll stick with DB.

Come on now 5 million. Stop the exaggeration. Tom Herman salary is 1.35 million. He's been there two weeks and has made the Coogs relevant. Getting four and five star athletes, won big game over the weekend on the road. Just got there, has not been there 9 years

When Herman was here, wasn't there a contingent on the Parliament that was more than happy when he left? I think the set of fans glad that Herman left us and the set of fans who want Bailiff gone would produce a large percentage with commonality in both.

That's what I am thinking.

(09-13-2015 08:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 07:26 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Had we only needed 4 points on that last drive we might not have thrown the last interception.

Had the scenario you discuss played out, we would almost certainly have gone for 2 after the last TD. So we would likely have been down 5 or down 3. Down 5 would have made little difference (nor would down 4). But down 3 would have been a huge difference. Of course, it probably would not necessarily have played out the same way had we kicked a FG before the half.

Correct.

(none of the following is directed at you - I've agreed with the vast majority of what you've said in this thread)

The bottom line is that we seemed to try and rely on things that seemed to work for us. When you do that and still lose, it may be natural to wonder if a different approach would've worked.

But some of the things we complain about (play-calling that put up over 400 yards and 200 more than our opponent, while controlling the ball for 3/4 of the game) are piling on, and can detract from the issues that really lost the game.

(09-13-2015 08:18 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  When Herman was here, wasn't there a contingent on the Parliament that was more than happy when he left? I think the set of fans glad that Herman left us and the set of fans who want Bailiff gone would produce a large percentage with commonality in both.

As usual, Gerlach with the insidious remark.

You're basically trying to seed the notion that all of us who are anti-Bailiff are just a bunch of malcontents who will pillory any available target. Wow.

Rick, you are indeed a special person.

(09-13-2015 07:39 PM)mrbig Wrote:  One thing worth noting, but the past 5-8 years, the vast majority of the time Rice defenders got burned deep, it was a safety getting burned by a much faster WR. Both times yesterday were Rice CB's getting burned. To me, that is actually a good thing because it means Rice kept their safeties from getting isolated against faster receivers. The scheme was there, but Banks didn't get his head turned on one play and Pollard just had his guy run by him on the other.

I think the primary explanation is not about the safeties or the scheme, but simply that our current CBs are not Gaines and Callahan.

(09-13-2015 08:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:18 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  When Herman was here, wasn't there a contingent on the Parliament that was more than happy when he left? I think the set of fans glad that Herman left us and the set of fans who want Bailiff gone would produce a large percentage with commonality in both.

That's what I am thinking.

There was, and the complaint was pretty specific. Basically he had one scheme and he tried to force everyone into it, whether it matched their individual capabilities or not. At Ohio State, that's not a problem, you have all the talent you could ever need. If the talent at UH fits his scheme, he will succeed. If it doesn't, he will have problems, unless he changes his approach.

(09-13-2015 03:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 03:42 PM)OldOwl Wrote:  Herman has been at UH one year and already has his signature win. Bailiff been at Rice 9 years and has no signature win. The special teams coach should be the first to go. The team did not look prepared as always in September. We got beat by a mediocre Texas team. I be curious how many games they will win this year.
Why did we not pass to the tight end more? He was open all night but maybe that is too much to ask this coaching staff. DJ looked bad this game but the OC sucked too. Time out on the first play! Great coaching.

I thought the time out on the first play was due to confusion on DJ's part? Or was it called from the side line?

And wouldn't the TE being open all night be good play calling by the OC, but bad decision making by the QB? The OC draws up the play to get the man open and the QB makes the decision not to throw it there, right?

Special teams was poor. Offensive decision making and execution (with exception of o-line and RB) was poor. And you could easily argue that preparation for this environment was poor, as it really seemed like the team wasn't prepared to play in front of this crowd and seemed nervous/shaken to start the game.

This is exactly right. That first time out was on Driphus: the play got called in, and he started messing around and changing things at the line. The tight ends were open, throw it to them! The WRs were OPEN, throw it to them. He got stuck on Dennis, and that was it, he didn't see anybody else (and they were open). Why didn't he get rid of the ball? We probably lost 50 yards on 2 plays alone. He was out of the pocket, but he just ate it.
Special teams was awful. No containment, overrunning, slow and timid. Punting was awful.
You can't blame this one on the coaches, NO WAY.