(09-27-2015 02:50 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Why did we do worse than Lamar and SMU did against Baylor? Baylor needed statement wins against them too to move up for the playoff. Lamar and SMU were likely big underdogs too.

One thought. We have this chronic weakness at the back of our secondary, which is the worst possible place to have a problem against Baylor's speed.

SMU is bad defensively, but what I've seen in parts of 3 of their games is more getting pushed around up front than getting burned deep. Not familiar with Lamar, so don't know if they are similar.

But there's a good chance that a big part of it could be matchups. We simply have the worst possible weakness to go up against Baylor.

Not sure if that excuses doing worse than either SMU or Lamar, but I think it's a factor. It's also a major reason why I say we aren't good enough for a signature win. You can't beat a good team when you can't stop the big play, really no matter how good or bad you are elsewhere.

(09-27-2015 02:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 02:36 PM)CrabCake Wrote:  I think Bailiff and his staff have done a great job with the Rice program and players over the past 8 seasons.

Without disagreeing with you, I will ask, so what is it that he is trying to do? How does he plan to win football games?

I don't take your comment as disagreeing - I should have been more clear. My reference was to how well Bailiff and his staff have done with molding our players into wonderful citizens. I think they have done a tremendous job with making sure our players meet the academic rigors of Rice and becoming involved with the campus culture.

Look, no one likes to loose. I have to believe everyone on the coaching staff and the team was disappointed with not only the final score, but the play of the game. Our coaches and players can do more (and I'm sure they know that) and our fans want Rice to be successful. We need to be supportive so that everyone can move forward.

(09-27-2015 01:41 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  OK, dude, if RiceLad has a mancrush on Bailiff, then you've been sleeping with Rhoades since July before last.

Is one better than the other? Probably. Do either (or any of the coaches at Rice) deserve nearly the virulent praise/criticism in either direction? Probably not.

I openly admit to a mancrush on Coach Rhoades. I'm not embarrassed to say he's my kind of Head Coach, and Rice needs more like him. I enjoy watching his teams play even when they lose. He knows how to entertain, and he so far makes you believe he'll get'em next time. Bailiff & Co have done none of those things. I have no mancrush on David Bailiff & Co (sorry, David, but alas 'tis true.) I absolutely cannot wait for basketball season to start at Rice. I'll be ecstatic when they finally post this year's SEAL training video they've been teasing about for the last week or so. I'm already trying to organize some Watch Parties for our Mens' Basketball games in my area. I can admit it. There you go. Go Owls Cagers! WOOP! WOOP!

(09-27-2015 01:41 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  I'm ok with having Bailiff here this year and next year if it helps us get the rest of the athletic department in order. If football can be stable here while the rest of the ship rights itself, excellent. If not and JK's ready to make a change, by all means.

????? Please explain that one--I thought the Athletic Dept was Joe Karlgaard's domain, and just Football was Bailiff & Co's. I know Todd Graham ended up doing some AD-type stuff with the fund-raising and renovations, but I am not aware Bailiff has done so. I honestly don't understand what you mean here. Why can't we try to be better in football at the same time? He's been here almost a decade. How long before you expect something more from him?

(09-27-2015 01:41 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  But the complete and utter lack of self-awareness in some of the critiques of the parties involved is baffling to me. I get that these arguments are mostly emotion-based (whether people admit it or not), but...do try to at least show some self-consistency in your evaluations.

Ummmm, dude it's SPORTS. You know that, right? It's not a panel meeting of a subcommittee on widgets at ACME.



It's not a second reading of a proposed statutory change.



It's not an assembly of the Boring Gentleman's Club.




It's kinda the time you're given latitude to let go and let it all hang out.

(09-27-2015 02:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 02:50 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Why did we do worse than Lamar and SMU did against Baylor? Baylor needed statement wins against them too to move up for the playoff. Lamar and SMU were likely big underdogs too.

One thought. We have this chronic weakness at the back of our secondary, which is the worst possible place to have a problem against Baylor's speed.

SMU is bad defensively, but what I've seen in parts of 3 of their games is more getting pushed around up front than getting burned deep. Not familiar with Lamar, so don't know if they are similar.

But there's a good chance that a big part of it could be matchups. We simply have the worst possible weakness to go up against Baylor.

Not sure if that excuses doing worse than either SMU or Lamar, but I think it's a factor. It's also a major reason why I say we aren't good enough for a signature win. You can't beat a good team when you can't stop the big play, really no matter how good or bad you are elsewhere.

I'm not making excuses, but I definitely think the biggest factor was simply that BU played with MUCH more focus and intensity against us. I wasn't at the other games, but all the commentators alluded to this. Baylor was also all-out blitzing in the 4th quarter, when up by 46 pts.

(09-27-2015 02:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 02:50 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Why did we do worse than Lamar and SMU did against Baylor? Baylor needed statement wins against them too to move up for the playoff. Lamar and SMU were likely big underdogs too.

One thought. We have this chronic weakness at the back of our secondary, which is the worst possible place to have a problem against Baylor's speed.

SMU is bad defensively, but what I've seen in parts of 3 of their games is more getting pushed around up front than getting burned deep. Not familiar with Lamar, so don't know if they are similar.

But there's a good chance that a big part of it could be matchups. We simply have the worst possible weakness to go up against Baylor.

Not sure if that excuses doing worse than either SMU or Lamar, but I think it's a factor. It's also a major reason why I say we aren't good enough for a signature win. You can't beat a good team when you can't stop the big play, really no matter how good or bad you are elsewhere.

Thats likely a big factor. The other one is our propensity for meltdowns against name teams. In the last 9 years we end up looking like a JV team as soon as we play a big name or a very good team.

We routinely underperform even to our standards against name P5. Heck, if we played the way we did against Fresno or Marshall against UT and Baylor we would have won the first one and not embarassed ourselves in the second.

(09-27-2015 03:14 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Thats likely a big factor. The other one is our propensity for meltdowns against name teams. In the last 9 years we end up looking like a JV team as soon as we play a big name or a very good team.
We routinely underperform even to our standards against name P5. Heck, if we played the way we did against Fresno or Marshall against UT and Baylor we would have won the first one and not embarassed ourselves in the second.

I think our propensity for meltdowns against name teams is the result of the matchup situation. You can't beat good teams if you're bad on special teams and at the back of the secondary. Good teams will simply exploit those two weaknesses for more points than you can make up.

Fresno and Marshall can't make us pay for those weaknesses the way that Texas and Baylor can. And did.

(09-27-2015 03:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 03:14 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Thats likely a big factor. The other one is our propensity for meltdowns against name teams. In the last 9 years we end up looking like a JV team as soon as we play a big name or a very good team.
We routinely underperform even to our standards against name P5. Heck, if we played the way we did against Fresno or Marshall against UT and Baylor we would have won the first one and not embarassed ourselves in the second.

I think our propensity for meltdowns against name teams is the result of the matchup situation. You can't beat good teams if you're bad on special teams and at the back of the secondary. Good teams will simply exploit those two weaknesses for more points than you can make up.

Fresno and Marshall can't make us pay for those weaknesses the way that Texas and Baylor can. And did.

Good point.

And this alludes to your main point of trying to discern what our plan is to win. Because we hve had the same achilles heel for nearly a decade and its resulted in the same results for a decade but we don't seem to have a plan to fix it.

(09-27-2015 03:05 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 01:41 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  I'm ok with having Bailiff here this year and next year if it helps us get the rest of the athletic department in order. If football can be stable here while the rest of the ship rights itself, excellent. If not and JK's ready to make a change, by all means.

????? Please explain that one--I thought the Athletic Dept was Joe Karlgaard's domain, and just Football was Bailiff & Co's. I know Todd Graham ended up doing some AD-type stuff with the fund-raising and renovations, but I am not aware Bailiff has done so. I honestly don't understand what you mean here. Why can't we try to be better in football at the same time? He's been here almost a decade. How long before you expect something more from him?

Shrinking this down to the component that I can specifically address: last I heard, football was still under the purview of the athletic department, which would mean that it ends up falling under the purview of Karlgaard, with Bailiff reporting to him. It would appear, based on how things have been addressed so far, that Karlgaard does not think the football coaching situation is not the most important thing to address right now.

If Bailiff's performance with football is good enough to allow Karlgaard to focus instead on fixing other things (rather than worrying about fixing the football coaching situation), I am for that. If Karlgaard decides that the next big thing to fix is football and that involves replacing Bailiff, I am for that. So far, in Karlgaard I trust.

We can try to be better in football; in fact, I am all for getting better in football! As someone who only missed one game played in Houston in his four years ('09-'13), I would love to be better in football!

I just do not think it is as dire or desperate a situation to be fixed as you, especially when taking other costs (e.g. Bailiff's buyout) and potential benefits (e.g. the new EZF) into account. It appears so far that Karlgaard agrees with me.

(09-27-2015 03:36 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 03:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 03:14 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Thats likely a big factor. The other one is our propensity for meltdowns against name teams. In the last 9 years we end up looking like a JV team as soon as we play a big name or a very good team.
We routinely underperform even to our standards against name P5. Heck, if we played the way we did against Fresno or Marshall against UT and Baylor we would have won the first one and not embarassed ourselves in the second.

I think our propensity for meltdowns against name teams is the result of the matchup situation. You can't beat good teams if you're bad on special teams and at the back of the secondary. Good teams will simply exploit those two weaknesses for more points than you can make up.

Fresno and Marshall can't make us pay for those weaknesses the way that Texas and Baylor can. And did.

Good point.

And this alludes to your main point of trying to discern what our plan is to win. Because we hve had the same achilles heel for nearly a decade and its resulted in the same results for a decade but we don't seem to have a plan to fix it.

And this problem on defense perplexes me so much because our 2 DCs have had the same issue. And I am wondering why, after seeing good defensive gains under Thurmond his first few years, have we seen a regression, starting last year? The only thing I can think of is we don't have Gaines or Callahan any more.

And I find this lack of progression/change odd because our offense has obviously evolved as we have changed OCs and personnel over time. We certainly did not rely on the run nearly as much from '07 through '11 as we do now. Now, outside of relying on the run more, I'm not really sure what the overall strategy is, I just know we've rushed a lot since 2012 (I was actually surprised that we passed for 900 more yards than we rushed in 2014).

(09-27-2015 03:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 03:36 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 03:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 03:14 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Thats likely a big factor. The other one is our propensity for meltdowns against name teams. In the last 9 years we end up looking like a JV team as soon as we play a big name or a very good team.
We routinely underperform even to our standards against name P5. Heck, if we played the way we did against Fresno or Marshall against UT and Baylor we would have won the first one and not embarassed ourselves in the second.

I think our propensity for meltdowns against name teams is the result of the matchup situation. You can't beat good teams if you're bad on special teams and at the back of the secondary. Good teams will simply exploit those two weaknesses for more points than you can make up.

Fresno and Marshall can't make us pay for those weaknesses the way that Texas and Baylor can. And did.

Good point.

And this alludes to your main point of trying to discern what our plan is to win. Because we hve had the same achilles heel for nearly a decade and its resulted in the same results for a decade but we don't seem to have a plan to fix it.

And this problem on defense perplexes me so much because our 2 DCs have had the same issue. And I am wondering why, after seeing good defensive gains under Thurmond his first few years, have we seen a regression, starting last year? The only thing I can think of is we don't have Gaines or Callahan any more.

And I find this lack of progression/change odd because our offense has obviously evolved as we have changed OCs and personnel over time. We certainly did not rely on the run nearly as much from '07 through '11 as we do now. Now, outside of relying on the run more, I'm not really sure what the overall strategy is, I just know we've rushed a lot since 2012 (I was actually surprised that we passed for 900 more yards than we rushed in 2014).

I think its two fold.

1. We lost Gaines and Callahan who are pro level players. In a league such as C-USA they were talents that really stood out and could cover for the deficiencies with the rest of our Defense

2. Timing. We didn't really play any explosive teams in 2013 like we did this year. So our defense didn't look as bad since they weren't subjected to top offenses. We did play aTm although their starting QB was out for half the game. he came in and took us apart. We did play Marshall and play well though.

Also its tough to say that its been an issue with 2 DCs since everything was a problem under Driesbach. Our defense was, top to bottom, appalling with Driesbach at the helm, including the secondary.

(09-27-2015 03:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And this problem on defense perplexes me so much because our 2 DCs have had the same issue. And I am wondering why, after seeing good defensive gains under Thurmond his first few years, have we seen a regression, starting last year? The only thing I can think of is we don't have Gaines or Callahan any more.

There's a distinct difference in the approach of the two DC's. Driesbach said I don't have the speed I need back there, so we'll try bend, don't break, to minimize the big play. We got nickled and dimed to death up front, and still gave up big plays by the bushel. Thurmond has been more like we're going to give up some big plays no matter what, so we might as well attack the short stuff and stop that. That generally works against CUSA level opponents, who can't make us pay deep, but does not work against the likes of Texas, Baylor, or last year ND and aTm.

The problem in both cases is the lack of speed at the back of the secondary. Without more speed back there, I'm not sure how a coordinator can fix that. I've said it before, I wouldn't be trying to find playing time for 4 running backs at the same time that I was getting beat by a lack of athleticism in the deep secondary. I'd find players on the other side of the ball to inject speed into the secondary, then I'd do the Jimmy Johnson thing and move safeties down to LB and LB's down to DL to get more speed on the field. We'd be small, so were Jimmy's Miami teams and so were his Cowboys teams, and they seemed to do okay with it.

Quote:And I find this lack of progression/change odd because our offense has obviously evolved as we have changed OCs and personnel over time. We certainly did not rely on the run nearly as much from '07 through '11 as we do now. Now, outside of relying on the run more, I'm not really sure what the overall strategy is, I just know we've rushed a lot since 2012 (I was actually surprised that we passed for 900 more yards than we rushed in 2014).

Even teams that run a lot often get more yards passing. The passing yards come in bigger hunks, whereas running is steadier but smaller bits. The rushing yards may be more useful because of their greater reliability and consistency.

(09-27-2015 02:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One thought. We have this chronic weakness at the back of our secondary, which is the worst possible place to have a problem against Baylor's speed.

SMU is bad defensively, but what I've seen in parts of 3 of their games is more getting pushed around up front than getting burned deep. Not familiar with Lamar, so don't know if they are similar.

But there's a good chance that a big part of it could be matchups. We simply have the worst possible weakness to go up against Baylor.

Not sure if that excuses doing worse than either SMU or Lamar, but I think it's a factor. It's also a major reason why I say we aren't good enough for a signature win. You can't beat a good team when you can't stop the big play, really no matter how good or bad you are elsewhere.

Against Baylor I thought our front 6 looked as bad as -- and maybe worse than -- our secondary. Linwood and Jefferson averaged nearly 10 yards per carry (and Williams nearly 6), and that might have been worse if our safeties hadn't provided run support -- which is part of why they looked so slow in coverage. On passing plays we got very little pressure on their QBs.

I'm not too worried about relative score differential of SMU and Lamar.

(09-27-2015 03:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And this problem on defense perplexes me so much because our 2 DCs have had the same issue. And I am wondering why, after seeing good defensive gains under Thurmond his first few years, have we seen a regression, starting last year? The only thing I can think of is we don't have Gaines or Callahan any more.

Well, Gaines and Callahan (and Covington) were a huge part of it. But even when we had all of them, we gave up a bunch of yards and points to Mississippi State.

(09-27-2015 03:11 PM)Barney Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 02:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 02:50 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Why did we do worse than Lamar and SMU did against Baylor? Baylor needed statement wins against them too to move up for the playoff. Lamar and SMU were likely big underdogs too.

One thought. We have this chronic weakness at the back of our secondary, which is the worst possible place to have a problem against Baylor's speed.

SMU is bad defensively, but what I've seen in parts of 3 of their games is more getting pushed around up front than getting burned deep. Not familiar with Lamar, so don't know if they are similar.

But there's a good chance that a big part of it could be matchups. We simply have the worst possible weakness to go up against Baylor.

Not sure if that excuses doing worse than either SMU or Lamar, but I think it's a factor. It's also a major reason why I say we aren't good enough for a signature win. You can't beat a good team when you can't stop the big play, really no matter how good or bad you are elsewhere.

I'm not making excuses, but I definitely think the biggest factor was simply that BU played with MUCH more focus and intensity against us. I wasn't at the other games, but all the commentators alluded to this. Baylor was also all-out blitzing in the 4th quarter, when up by 46 pts.

and much more speed. We were not playing a Top 40 team, we were playing a Top 5 team.

(09-27-2015 03:14 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 02:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 02:50 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Why did we do worse than Lamar and SMU did against Baylor? Baylor needed statement wins against them too to move up for the playoff. Lamar and SMU were likely big underdogs too.

One thought. We have this chronic weakness at the back of our secondary, which is the worst possible place to have a problem against Baylor's speed.

SMU is bad defensively, but what I've seen in parts of 3 of their games is more getting pushed around up front than getting burned deep. Not familiar with Lamar, so don't know if they are similar.

But there's a good chance that a big part of it could be matchups. We simply have the worst possible weakness to go up against Baylor.

Not sure if that excuses doing worse than either SMU or Lamar, but I think it's a factor. It's also a major reason why I say we aren't good enough for a signature win. You can't beat a good team when you can't stop the big play, really no matter how good or bad you are elsewhere.

Thats likely a big factor. The other one is our propensity for meltdowns against name teams. In the last 9 years we end up looking like a JV team as soon as we play a big name or a very good team.

We routinely underperform even to our standards against name P5. Heck, if we played the way we did against Fresno or Marshall against UT and Baylor we would have won the first one and not embarassed ourselves in the second.

Yes, I think if we cut out 120 yards in punt returns against UT, and don't give them a TD on a turnover, we might've won.

Against Baylor? They are not a 'name' team or a 'good' team. Until proven otherwise, and it could happen, they are a Top 5 team. Their team speed and athleticism is in another league.

(09-27-2015 04:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  There's a distinct difference in the approach of the two DC's. Driesbach said I don't have the speed I need back there, so we'll try bend, don't break, to minimize the big play. We got nickled and dimed to death up front, and still gave up big plays by the bushel. Thurmond has been more like we're going to give up some big plays no matter what, so we might as well attack the short stuff and stop that. That generally works against CUSA level opponents, who can't make us pay deep, but does not work against the likes of Texas, Baylor, or last year ND and aTm.

The problem in both cases is the lack of speed at the back of the secondary. Without more speed back there, I'm not sure how a coordinator can fix that. I've said it before, I wouldn't be trying to find playing time for 4 running backs at the same time that I was getting beat by a lack of athleticism in the deep secondary. I'd find players on the other side of the ball to inject speed into the secondary, then I'd do the Jimmy Johnson thing and move safeties down to LB and LB's down to DL to get more speed on the field. We'd be small, so were Jimmy's Miami teams and so were his Cowboys teams, and they seemed to do okay with it.

I don't fully buy this "lack of speed in the secondary" explanation. Last year we had Hill and White as safeties. Those guys were blazing fast but still got beat deep. I think a fair number of this year's safeties are also fast. The problem is that they bite on play-action and play the short/mid stuff too aggressively, both of which allow them to get beat deep. And too often Rice allows the opponents fastest receivers to get matched up against Rice safeties instead of Rice CB's.

(09-28-2015 01:21 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 04:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  There's a distinct difference in the approach of the two DC's. Driesbach said I don't have the speed I need back there, so we'll try bend, don't break, to minimize the big play. We got nickled and dimed to death up front, and still gave up big plays by the bushel. Thurmond has been more like we're going to give up some big plays no matter what, so we might as well attack the short stuff and stop that. That generally works against CUSA level opponents, who can't make us pay deep, but does not work against the likes of Texas, Baylor, or last year ND and aTm.
The problem in both cases is the lack of speed at the back of the secondary. Without more speed back there, I'm not sure how a coordinator can fix that. I've said it before, I wouldn't be trying to find playing time for 4 running backs at the same time that I was getting beat by a lack of athleticism in the deep secondary. I'd find players on the other side of the ball to inject speed into the secondary, then I'd do the Jimmy Johnson thing and move safeties down to LB and LB's down to DL to get more speed on the field. We'd be small, so were Jimmy's Miami teams and so were his Cowboys teams, and they seemed to do okay with it.

I don't fully buy this "lack of speed in the secondary" explanation. Last year we had Hill and White as safeties. Those guys were blazing fast but still got beat deep. I think a fair number of this year's safeties are also fast. The problem is that they bite on play-action and play the short/mid stuff too aggressively, both of which allow them to get beat deep. And too often Rice allows the opponents fastest receivers to get matched up against Rice safeties instead of Rice CB's.

I think ruowls will tell you that at is the OC's job to create those mismatches. We do seem to get caught in a lot of them, but that may just be because we give up so many deep balls that it is inevitable that some will come on mismatches. The biting on short stuff is part of what seems to be Thurmond's approach that we're going to give up so many deep balls anyway that we might as well play aggressively and stop the short stuff. That seems to work reasonably well against teams that don't have the speed of Texas or Baylor to make us pay. We don't seem to give up any more deep balls than we did when Driesbach had us playing bend but don't break. Perhaps arguably we should be giving up fewer because we have better athletes back there than before.

Where I've thought we were really slow in the past is read and react speed. I'm not sure whether we are trying to do too much, have too many reads, or what. I look at how TCU plays the 4-2-5 and they seem to have everybody moving on the snap. It looks like they all have assigned places to go on the snap and they read on the run. That has to be a bear to coordinate, and it can look really ugly when they get it wrong, see last Saturday. I don't think we have anything near the speed we would need to do that. The other thing is that we seem to have way too many situations where the DB is in decent position but doesn't play the ball properly. I've said before, if ruowls came to Rice the first thing I would want him to do is to spend a few days with the DBs teaching them his approach.

(09-28-2015 06:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 01:21 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 04:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  There's a distinct difference in the approach of the two DC's. Driesbach said I don't have the speed I need back there, so we'll try bend, don't break, to minimize the big play. We got nickled and dimed to death up front, and still gave up big plays by the bushel. Thurmond has been more like we're going to give up some big plays no matter what, so we might as well attack the short stuff and stop that. That generally works against CUSA level opponents, who can't make us pay deep, but does not work against the likes of Texas, Baylor, or last year ND and aTm.
The problem in both cases is the lack of speed at the back of the secondary. Without more speed back there, I'm not sure how a coordinator can fix that. I've said it before, I wouldn't be trying to find playing time for 4 running backs at the same time that I was getting beat by a lack of athleticism in the deep secondary. I'd find players on the other side of the ball to inject speed into the secondary, then I'd do the Jimmy Johnson thing and move safeties down to LB and LB's down to DL to get more speed on the field. We'd be small, so were Jimmy's Miami teams and so were his Cowboys teams, and they seemed to do okay with it.

I don't fully buy this "lack of speed in the secondary" explanation. Last year we had Hill and White as safeties. Those guys were blazing fast but still got beat deep. I think a fair number of this year's safeties are also fast. The problem is that they bite on play-action and play the short/mid stuff too aggressively, both of which allow them to get beat deep. And too often Rice allows the opponents fastest receivers to get matched up against Rice safeties instead of Rice CB's.

I think ruowls will tell you that at is the OC's job to create those mismatches. We do seem to get caught in a lot of them, but that may just be because we give up so many deep balls that it is inevitable that some will come on mismatches. The biting on short stuff is part of what seems to be Thurmond's approach that we're going to give up so many deep balls anyway that we might as well play aggressively and stop the short stuff. That seems to work reasonably well against teams that don't have the speed of Texas or Baylor to make us pay. We don't seem to give up any more deep balls than we did when Driesbach had us playing bend but don't break. Perhaps arguably we should be giving up fewer because we have better athletes back there than before.

Where I've thought we were really slow in the past is read and react speed. I'm not sure whether we are trying to do too much, have too many reads, or what. I look at how TCU plays the 4-2-5 and they seem to have everybody moving on the snap. It looks like they all have assigned places to go on the snap and they read on the run. That has to be a bear to coordinate, and it can look really ugly when they get it wrong, see last Saturday. I don't think we have anything near the speed we would need to do that. The other thing is that we seem to have way too many situations where the DB is in decent position but doesn't play the ball properly. I've said before, if ruowls came to Rice the first thing I would want him to do is to spend a few days with the DBs teaching them his approach.

There were two plays that stick out in my mind during the Baylor game when talking about this.

There was one high, lobbed pass that a Baylor player caught despite having two Owl CBs right with him. It appeared as if they had the chance to make a play but didn't recognize it in time.

And then there was also another TD play where the Baylor receiver caught the ball at about toe 3 or 4 yard line, and our CB, instead of trying to make a last ditch effort to contact the WR, back peddled a bit to try and get an angle. The problem was he back peddled into the end zone and basically let the WR walk in. You could see the frustration at the end of the play when he realized what he did. I was glad he obviously recognized his mistake, but shoot, you should be fully aware of the situation and your location on the field if you're playing D-1 football.

(09-27-2015 03:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 03:14 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Thats likely a big factor. The other one is our propensity for meltdowns against name teams. In the last 9 years we end up looking like a JV team as soon as we play a big name or a very good team.
We routinely underperform even to our standards against name P5. Heck, if we played the way we did against Fresno or Marshall against UT and Baylor we would have won the first one and not embarassed ourselves in the second.

I think our propensity for meltdowns against name teams is the result of the matchup situation. You can't beat good teams if you're bad on special teams and at the back of the secondary. Good teams will simply exploit those two weaknesses for more points than you can make up.

Fresno and Marshall can't make us pay for those weaknesses the way that Texas and Baylor can. And did.

with vastly superior athletes.......

(09-28-2015 12:26 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 03:14 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 02:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 02:50 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Why did we do worse than Lamar and SMU did against Baylor? Baylor needed statement wins against them too to move up for the playoff. Lamar and SMU were likely big underdogs too.

One thought. We have this chronic weakness at the back of our secondary, which is the worst possible place to have a problem against Baylor's speed.

SMU is bad defensively, but what I've seen in parts of 3 of their games is more getting pushed around up front than getting burned deep. Not familiar with Lamar, so don't know if they are similar.

But there's a good chance that a big part of it could be matchups. We simply have the worst possible weakness to go up against Baylor.

Not sure if that excuses doing worse than either SMU or Lamar, but I think it's a factor. It's also a major reason why I say we aren't good enough for a signature win. You can't beat a good team when you can't stop the big play, really no matter how good or bad you are elsewhere.

Thats likely a big factor. The other one is our propensity for meltdowns against name teams. In the last 9 years we end up looking like a JV team as soon as we play a big name or a very good team.

We routinely underperform even to our standards against name P5. Heck, if we played the way we did against Fresno or Marshall against UT and Baylor we would have won the first one and not embarassed ourselves in the second.

Yes, I think if we cut out 120 yards in punt returns against UT, and don't give them a TD on a turnover, we might've won.

Against Baylor? They are not a 'name' team or a 'good' team. Until proven otherwise, and it could happen, they are a Top 5 team. Their team speed and athleticism is in another league.

Then how and why did SMU and Lamar better compete against Baylor, and how does this explain the similar embarrassments against Marshall and LaTech last year (a LaTech team that lost at home to Northwestern State) and just barely survived games against lowly USM and UTEP. You're continued excuses are getting really old Rick. Blame anyone and anything, BUT the coaching staff.

(09-28-2015 08:19 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 12:26 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 03:14 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 02:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 02:50 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Why did we do worse than Lamar and SMU did against Baylor? Baylor needed statement wins against them too to move up for the playoff. Lamar and SMU were likely big underdogs too.

One thought. We have this chronic weakness at the back of our secondary, which is the worst possible place to have a problem against Baylor's speed.

SMU is bad defensively, but what I've seen in parts of 3 of their games is more getting pushed around up front than getting burned deep. Not familiar with Lamar, so don't know if they are similar.

But there's a good chance that a big part of it could be matchups. We simply have the worst possible weakness to go up against Baylor.

Not sure if that excuses doing worse than either SMU or Lamar, but I think it's a factor. It's also a major reason why I say we aren't good enough for a signature win. You can't beat a good team when you can't stop the big play, really no matter how good or bad you are elsewhere.

Thats likely a big factor. The other one is our propensity for meltdowns against name teams. In the last 9 years we end up looking like a JV team as soon as we play a big name or a very good team.

We routinely underperform even to our standards against name P5. Heck, if we played the way we did against Fresno or Marshall against UT and Baylor we would have won the first one and not embarassed ourselves in the second.

Yes, I think if we cut out 120 yards in punt returns against UT, and don't give them a TD on a turnover, we might've won.

Against Baylor? They are not a 'name' team or a 'good' team. Until proven otherwise, and it could happen, they are a Top 5 team. Their team speed and athleticism is in another league.

Then how and why did SMU and Lamar better compete against Baylor, and how does this explain the similar embarrassments against Marshall and LaTech last year (a LaTech team that lost at home to Northwestern State) and just barely survived games against lowly USM and UTEP. You're continued excuses are getting really old Rick. Blame anyone and anything, BUT the coaching staff.

Once again, since I hate hollow talking points and very vague statements, I took a look at the box score. Turns out, a lot of these questions we raise can be answered if we just dig a little bit.

Lamar competed in the first half better because of 3 Baylor TOs in the first half (2 INTs and 1 fumble) and none for Lamar. But Baylor still scored 35 pts to Lamar's 21.

Following the first half, Baylor threw one more INT, but Lamar turned it over twice and the game ended 66-31.

And SMU did well in the first half because they were able to move the ball and grind down the clock while scoring. SMU had two drives that totaled about 12 minutes and both esulted in TDs. Their other drives were 8 secs (TD), 2:46 (punt), 3:40 (Int) and 2:38 (end of half). There were INTs by both teams in the first half.

After the first half, while SMU still held onto the ball, they failed to score and had 5 punts in a row followed by an INT.

It seems like in the SMU game, Baylor was able to adjust to SMU's strategy and demolish them in the second half.

Now, this has nothing to do with our performance, but it helps shed a little light into how SMU and Lamar were able to keep things close in the first half.