Since the Neely era, only Bo Hagan's teams have held opponents to under 200 points in a season ('67 and '70).

For scoring more points than the opponents, over a season, we see Goldsmith's in '92, Hatfield's in '94 and '97, and Bailiff's in '08, '12, '13, and '14.

A good defense takes very athletic players, especially now. You have to be very fast and very strong to make enough of a disruption to cause turnovers. You've got to be great all over the field. Since poor defense is such a tradition at Rice, it makes me wonder if the reason we can't be good on defense, for any extended period of time, is because we can't get the best defensive talent. These athletes that we're signing now are talented players, but talented by what standard? For a private school? For a very small private school? For a school that's in CUSA? I don't know, but you've got to have talent on defense, and I don't think we get nearly enough of it compared to the public schools. Long story short, we get talented players compared to the past, but not nearly talented enough to have what's considered a "good" defense. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that will always be the case.

(12-28-2015 07:34 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  A good defense takes very athletic players, especially now. You have to be very fast and very strong to make enough of a disruption to cause turnovers. You've got to be great all over the field. Since poor defense is such a tradition at Rice, it makes me wonder if the reason we can't be good on defense, for any extended period of time, is because we can't get the best defensive talent. These athletes that we're signing now are talented players, but talented by what standard? For a private school? For a very small private school? For a school that's in CUSA? I don't know, but you've got to have talent on defense, and I don't think we get nearly enough of it compared to the public schools. Long story short, we get talented players compared to the past, but not nearly talented enough to have what's considered a "good" defense. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that will always be the case.

Then we need to drop to D-3 immediately, because if that is always going to be the case then we are kidding ourselves if we think we can compete in D-1. We are not going to have Alabama's defense, but we can't finish outside the top 100 and have a chance for any signature wins.

We've got to be better than we have been defensively under Bailiff. No we can't recruit Alabama's defensive talent. But we don't have to stop teams with SEC talent in CUSA. We just flat have to play better defense than we have under Bailiff.

http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-...inely-less

Nice article here by Rick Gosselin of the DMN (full disclosure, he's a Mich St alum). Basically lists out some guys that Mark Dantonio has coached at Michigan State that have been two and three stars (even a walk on), yet have gone on to achieve incredible things at the collegiate or professional levels. Shows you what happens when you have a good coach at the helm (and invest money in attracting said head coach). As the post above says, we won't be getting four and five stars (and that can be a limiting factor), but Dantonio has clearly found a way to get more out of his players than the ratings systems thought he would. We've got to do a better job at coaching up the recruits we have and continuing to use our conference championship and bowl wins to recruit better guys, neither of which is happening under Bailiff.

LeVeon Bell - Big 10 rushing champion, 2nd round draft pick. Won AFC rushing crown with the Steelers in 2014.
Darqueze Dennard - Jim Thorpe Award winner, All American. First round NFL draft pick.
Trae Waynes - All American CB. First round NFL draft pick.

All were two stars.

From this year's squad:

Connor Cook - Unitas Award winner, three-time first or second All Big 10 team. Three star recruit.
Jack Allen and Jack Conklin - C and LT, both All-Americans. Allen was a three star, Conklin WALKED ON.

(12-28-2015 07:13 PM)Grungy Wrote:  Since the Neely era, only Bo Hagan's teams have held opponents to under 200 points in a season ('67 and '70).
For scoring more points than the opponents, over a season, we see Goldsmith's in '92, Hatfield's in '94 and '97, and Bailiff's in '08, '12, '13, and '14.

Hagan's teams were bad defensively for the era. 20 points were a lot to give up in a game back then.

For all of the criticisms of Bailiff, and I contribute my share, he is ten times better than Hagan was.

(12-29-2015 02:40 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-...inely-less

Nice article here by Rick Gosselin of the DMN (full disclosure, he's a Mich St alum). Basically lists out some guys that Mark Dantonio has coached at Michigan State that have been two and three stars (even a walk on), yet have gone on to achieve incredible things at the collegiate or professional levels. Shows you what happens when you have a good coach at the helm (and invest money in attracting said head coach). As the post above says, we won't be getting four and five stars (and that can be a limiting factor), but Dantonio has clearly found a way to get more out of his players than the ratings systems thought he would. We've got to do a better job at coaching up the recruits we have and continuing to use our conference championship and bowl wins to recruit better guys, neither of which is happening under Bailiff.

LeVeon Bell - Big 10 rushing champion, 2nd round draft pick. Won AFC rushing crown with the Steelers in 2014.
Darqueze Dennard - Jim Thorpe Award winner, All American. First round NFL draft pick.
Trae Waynes - All American CB. First round NFL draft pick.

All were two stars.

From this year's squad:

Connor Cook - Unitas Award winner, three-time first or second All Big 10 team. Three star recruit.
Jack Allen and Jack Conklin - C and LT, both All-Americans. Allen was a three star, Conklin WALKED ON.

In a lot of those cases, it's probably more a case that the Sparty coaches saw things that indicated to them that those players would play better than their ratings. Obviously, they were correct in their assessments.

(12-29-2015 12:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 07:34 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  A good defense takes very athletic players, especially now. You have to be very fast and very strong to make enough of a disruption to cause turnovers. You've got to be great all over the field. Since poor defense is such a tradition at Rice, it makes me wonder if the reason we can't be good on defense, for any extended period of time, is because we can't get the best defensive talent. These athletes that we're signing now are talented players, but talented by what standard? For a private school? For a very small private school? For a school that's in CUSA? I don't know, but you've got to have talent on defense, and I don't think we get nearly enough of it compared to the public schools. Long story short, we get talented players compared to the past, but not nearly talented enough to have what's considered a "good" defense. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that will always be the case.

Then we need to drop to D-3 immediately, because if that is always going to be the case then we are kidding ourselves if we think we can compete in D-1. We are not going to have Alabama's defense, but we can't finish outside the top 100 and have a chance for any signature wins.

We've got to be better than we have been defensively under Bailiff. No we can't recruit Alabama's defensive talent. But we don't have to stop teams with SEC talent in CUSA. We just flat have to play better defense than we have under Bailiff.

D3? Rice doesn't need to give up football or drop to D3 because it, historically, doesn't play defense. As I mentioned, there have been good defenses, just no consistently good defensive play. You move forward and keep fighting, not give up.

What's glaringly obvious, to me, is our lack of size on the DL. As long as I've been watching Rice football (early 80's), we've always been small up front. Always. When I look at our defensive line, compared to others, I can see that we're always at a disadvantage. That tells me that we can't get big defensive linemen. Bailiff is a great recruiter, and even he can't land them. I've heard it stated before that big linemen and good SAT scores don't go hand-in-hand. I think that's true, because we rarely get the big, physical, linemen that cause havoc on an offense. Rarely. Scott Solomon and Christian Covington are the exceptions, not the rule.

what I've heard from our coaches, going back many years, is that there really is a limited universe of big, strong, fast defensive linemen coming out of hi school....and of course the P5 programs typically sign them.

(12-29-2015 10:29 AM)davidw Wrote:  what I've heard from our coaches, going back many years, is that there really is a limited universe of big, strong, fast defensive linemen coming out of hi school....and of course the P5 programs typically sign them.

Of course they do. They grab them immediately. Rice has to find the smaller "diamonds in the rough" and then develop them into college football players. I do think we've found two of them in Abercrumbia and Thompson. I expect big things out of them next year.

(12-29-2015 10:08 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  D3? Rice doesn't need to give up football or drop to D3 because it, historically, doesn't play defense. As I mentioned, there have been good defenses, just no consistently good defensive play. You move forward and keep fighting, not give up.

Of course we don't have to drop to D3 because of anything we did historically. And that is not what I said, is it? But if we are going to use history as an excuse for not addressing problems going forward, then D3 is probably the right answer. Which is what I did say, isn't it?

Quote:What's glaringly obvious, to me, is our lack of size on the DL. As long as I've been watching Rice football (early 80's), we've always been small up front. Always. When I look at our defensive line, compared to others, I can see that we're always at a disadvantage. That tells me that we can't get big defensive linemen. Bailiff is a great recruiter, and even he can't land them. I've heard it stated before that big linemen and good SAT scores don't go hand-in-hand. I think that's true, because we rarely get the big, physical, linemen that cause havoc on an offense. Rarely. Scott Solomon and Christian Covington are the exceptions, not the rule.

Our d-line this year is really small at the ends, in part because of injuries. Historically we've been on the small side, but not extremely so. What doesn't get considered in a lot of these conversations is that d-lines are almost always smaller than o-lines because they have different jobs to do. O-lines need to dominate the LOS and push d-linemen around, but d-lines have to get off blocks and pursue. The latter takes more speed and athleticism, resulting in smaller players. When you compare our d-line to the opposing o-line, we are almost always going to be smaller. I remember a game against Baylor several years ago where much was made on here about the fact that their o-line outweighed our d-line by 30 pounds per man. I took a look at the depth charts, and our o-line outweighed their d-line by 20 pounds per man. That's pretty normal.

(12-29-2015 10:59 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 10:29 AM)davidw Wrote:  what I've heard from our coaches, going back many years, is that there really is a limited universe of big, strong, fast defensive linemen coming out of hi school....and of course the P5 programs typically sign them.

Of course they do. They grab them immediately. Rice has to find the smaller "diamonds in the rough" and then develop them into college football players. I do think we've found two of them in Abercrumbia and Thompson. I expect big things out of them next year.

DW, we both remember, I'm sure, that Fred complained frequently about this. But that didn't stop him from making dramatic improvements in our ability to play defense. That's what we need.

(12-29-2015 10:59 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 10:29 AM)davidw Wrote:  what I've heard from our coaches, going back many years, is that there really is a limited universe of big, strong, fast defensive linemen coming out of hi school....and of course the P5 programs typically sign them.

Of course they do. They grab them immediately. Rice has to find the smaller "diamonds in the rough" and then develop them into college football players. I do think we've found two of them in Abercrumbia and Thompson. I expect big things out of them next year.

It's no coincidence that those two had the most P5 offers out of any recruits we've signed in the last several years. We are not much smaller at DT than a lot of schools, but we are a lot smaller at DE. Our DE's play at 230, whereas most schools' guys play at 250.

(12-29-2015 10:59 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  Rice has to find the smaller "diamonds in the rough" and then develop them into college football players. I do think we've found two of them in Abercrumbia and Thompson. I expect big things out of them next year.

It is ridiculous to suggest that Abercrumbia and Thompson were diamonds in the rough. If you look at the 247sports composite ratings, those were the 2 highest rated players in the 2015 class. Thompson had offers from 6 P5 schools (Duke, Kansas, Minnesota, Northwestern, Vandy, Wake) and numerous G5 schools. Abercrumbia had an even more impressive list, choosing Rice over Stanford, Wisconsin, TCU, Oregon State, Texas Tech, Vandy, Wake, Washington St, Colorado, and numerous G5 schools.

(12-29-2015 12:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Our d-line this year is really small at the ends, in part because of injuries. Historically we've been on the small side, but not extremely so. What doesn't get considered in a lot of these conversations is that d-lines are almost always smaller than o-lines because they have different jobs to do. O-lines need to dominate the LOS and push d-linemen around, but d-lines have to get off blocks and pursue. The latter takes more speed and athleticism, resulting in smaller players. When you compare our d-line to the opposing o-line, we are almost always going to be smaller. I remember a game against Baylor several years ago where much was made on here about the fact that their o-line outweighed our d-line by 30 pounds per man. I took a look at the depth charts, and our o-line outweighed their d-line by 20 pounds per man. That's pretty normal.

I actually think Rice has smaller DE's because the coaching staff has done what you suggest, and is transforming faster players into DEs. Go back 3-5 years and look at the DE recruits, most of them were DEs in high school and were big guys. Rice is still getting some of those, but coming into 2015 (before injuries struck), a lot of the DEs were converted from other positions (Derek Brown was a WR, Grant Peterson a TE, Brian Womac a LB).

(12-29-2015 02:06 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 01:10 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 10:59 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  Rice has to find the smaller "diamonds in the rough" and then develop them into college football players. I do think we've found two of them in Abercrumbia and Thompson. I expect big things out of them next year.

It is ridiculous to suggest that Abercrumbia and Thompson were diamonds in the rough. If you look at the 247sports composite ratings, those were the 2 highest rated players in the 2015 class. Thompson had offers from 6 P5 schools (Duke, Kansas, Minnesota, Northwestern, Vandy, Wake) and numerous G5 schools. Abercrumbia had an even more impressive list, choosing Rice over Stanford, Wisconsin, TCU, Oregon State, Texas Tech, Vandy, Wake, Washington St, Colorado, and numerous G5 schools.


[/b]
Our d-line this year is really small at the ends, in part because of injuries. Historically we've been on the small side, but not extremely so. What doesn't get considered in a lot of these conversations is that d-lines are almost always smaller than o-lines because they have different jobs to do. O-lines need to dominate the LOS and push d-linemen around, but d-lines have to get off blocks and pursue. The latter takes more speed and athleticism, resulting in smaller players. When you compare our d-line to the opposing o-line, we are almost always going to be smaller. I remember a game against Baylor several years ago where much was made on here about the fact that their o-line outweighed our d-line by 30 pounds per man. I took a look at the depth charts, and our o-line outweighed their d-line by 20 pounds per man. That's pretty normal.

I actually think Rice has smaller DE's because the coaching staff has done what you suggest, and is transforming faster players into DEs. Go back 3-5 years and look at the DE recruits, most of them were DEs in high school and were big guys. Rice is still getting some of those, but coming into 2015 (before injuries struck), a lot of the DEs were converted from other positions (Derek Brown was a WR, Grant Peterson a TE, Brian Womac a LB).

Praise the Lord! We finally landed two stud defensive linemen! That's rare around here. I'm sure you'd agree with that.

As far as the ends are concerned, I don't think our coaching staff would be inclined to transform other players into defensive ends if they had their choice. I'm sure they'd rather land the real thing on signing day. They do what they have to do. Sometimes it works out, and sometimes it doesn't.
[/quote]

(12-29-2015 03:45 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 02:06 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 01:10 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 10:59 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  Rice has to find the smaller "diamonds in the rough" and then develop them into college football players. I do think we've found two of them in Abercrumbia and Thompson. I expect big things out of them next year.

It is ridiculous to suggest that Abercrumbia and Thompson were diamonds in the rough. If you look at the 247sports composite ratings, those were the 2 highest rated players in the 2015 class. Thompson had offers from 6 P5 schools (Duke, Kansas, Minnesota, Northwestern, Vandy, Wake) and numerous G5 schools. Abercrumbia had an even more impressive list, choosing Rice over Stanford, Wisconsin, TCU, Oregon State, Texas Tech, Vandy, Wake, Washington St, Colorado, and numerous G5 schools.


[/b]
Our d-line this year is really small at the ends, in part because of injuries. Historically we've been on the small side, but not extremely so. What doesn't get considered in a lot of these conversations is that d-lines are almost always smaller than o-lines because they have different jobs to do. O-lines need to dominate the LOS and push d-linemen around, but d-lines have to get off blocks and pursue. The latter takes more speed and athleticism, resulting in smaller players. When you compare our d-line to the opposing o-line, we are almost always going to be smaller. I remember a game against Baylor several years ago where much was made on here about the fact that their o-line outweighed our d-line by 30 pounds per man. I took a look at the depth charts, and our o-line outweighed their d-line by 20 pounds per man. That's pretty normal.

I actually think Rice has smaller DE's because the coaching staff has done what you suggest, and is transforming faster players into DEs. Go back 3-5 years and look at the DE recruits, most of them were DEs in high school and were big guys. Rice is still getting some of those, but coming into 2015 (before injuries struck), a lot of the DEs were converted from other positions (Derek Brown was a WR, Grant Peterson a TE, Brian Womac a LB).

Praise the Lord! We finally landed two stud defensive linemen! That's rare around here. I'm sure you'd agree with that.

Covington, Klare, and Skinner were all pretty good d-line recruits. Obviously, Rice has had quite a few good d-linemen that weren't highly sought recruits (Ozougwu, Solomon, Patt, Nordstrom, Bauer, etc.). I agree that Rice has had to strengthen the d-line by developing guys, rather than just being able to consistently recruit a 2-deep full of proven studs. But that is true of many positions.

(12-29-2015 04:47 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 03:45 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 02:06 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 01:10 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 10:59 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  Rice has to find the smaller "diamonds in the rough" and then develop them into college football players. I do think we've found two of them in Abercrumbia and Thompson. I expect big things out of them next year.

It is ridiculous to suggest that Abercrumbia and Thompson were diamonds in the rough. If you look at the 247sports composite ratings, those were the 2 highest rated players in the 2015 class. Thompson had offers from 6 P5 schools (Duke, Kansas, Minnesota, Northwestern, Vandy, Wake) and numerous G5 schools. Abercrumbia had an even more impressive list, choosing Rice over Stanford, Wisconsin, TCU, Oregon State, Texas Tech, Vandy, Wake, Washington St, Colorado, and numerous G5 schools.


[/b]
Our d-line this year is really small at the ends, in part because of injuries. Historically we've been on the small side, but not extremely so. What doesn't get considered in a lot of these conversations is that d-lines are almost always smaller than o-lines because they have different jobs to do. O-lines need to dominate the LOS and push d-linemen around, but d-lines have to get off blocks and pursue. The latter takes more speed and athleticism, resulting in smaller players. When you compare our d-line to the opposing o-line, we are almost always going to be smaller. I remember a game against Baylor several years ago where much was made on here about the fact that their o-line outweighed our d-line by 30 pounds per man. I took a look at the depth charts, and our o-line outweighed their d-line by 20 pounds per man. That's pretty normal.

I actually think Rice has smaller DE's because the coaching staff has done what you suggest, and is transforming faster players into DEs. Go back 3-5 years and look at the DE recruits, most of them were DEs in high school and were big guys. Rice is still getting some of those, but coming into 2015 (before injuries struck), a lot of the DEs were converted from other positions (Derek Brown was a WR, Grant Peterson a TE, Brian Womac a LB).

Praise the Lord! We finally landed two stud defensive linemen! That's rare around here. I'm sure you'd agree with that.

Covington, Klare, and Skinner were all pretty good d-line recruits. Obviously, Rice has had quite a few good d-linemen that weren't highly sought recruits (Ozougwu, Solomon, Patt, Nordstrom, Bauer, etc.). I agree that Rice has had to strengthen the d-line by developing guys, rather than just being able to consistently recruit a 2-deep full of proven studs. But that is true of many positions.

I've found that Rice players are very willing to move around to help the team. They're very unselfish.