I'm more concerned about speed than size defensively. You can be small on defense and still succeed if you are quick enough. When he got to Miami, Jimmy Johnson recruited lightning fast corners, moved corners to safeties, safeties down to linebackers, and linebackers down to d-line. That worked very well. Then at Dallas he had the smallest defense in the NFL. That worked well too. Speed is more important than size, particularly if you play an aggressive, attacking style.

What I'd do if it were my decision.

1) Recruit speed and grades. That was Jess's approach. I'd rather have a 2-star who is faster than a 3-star who is slower. A lot of HS players look dominant at that level but don't have the speed to play at the faster pace at the next level. Fred liked to recruit a lot of d-linemen and move the ones who were to slow to play defense over to the o-line.
2) Another thing Jess did was recruit smaller schools. Yeoman did the same thing. We checked one of UH's SWC champions and they had more players on their two-deep from 3A and smaller schools than the rest of the conference excluding Arkansas, combined. You get guys who aren't as highly regarded because they didn't play on the big stage, and they may not have received the coaching to develop technique, but 4.4 can go to school anywhere. And a lot of those skills and techniques learned at the HS level are just things that have to be unlearned.
3) See what you have in the way of athletes on offense who can contribute on defense. We have more running backs than we can get into a game, and we must be about six deep at wide receiver. See if any of them can help on defense. Most would be happy to move to get on the field. Who knows, one of them could easily be another Nathan Bennett. I'd be particularly interested in seeing if the Walter twins could help over there.
4) Do the JJ thing and move speed down, from CB to safety, safety to LB, and LB to DE/DL. We are going to be small by most measures, might as well be as quick as possible.
5) Reorient our S&C program to emphasize speed and agility, strength without bulking up, and endurance/fitness. I have seen several comments that individuals appear to have lost speed. I wonder if we are bulking them up too much and losing speed in the process. Many of you know that I have a lot of Auburn contacts, and they have said the same thing about Yoxall there. He certainly helped develop couple of outstanding teams, but the last couple of years they bulked up, slowed down, couldn't ply defense, and went from national champion to losing record and fired coach. To clarify, S&C coaches do what head coaches tell them to do, so this is not necessarily on Yoxall. But he may be the go-to guy if you want the bulk up approach.
6) Go with a more aggressive, attacking style. I played under the Bryant philosophy which I still like. Three elements, 1) prevent the big play, 2) stop the run, meaning less than 3 yards per carry, since 3x3 is not a first down, and 3) attack the pass, meaning sacks and interceptions. The key to me was always being willing to give up 2-3 yards per rush, since that gives you some flexibility to attack other areas. Basically, force you to pass and then blow up your passing game. I don't know what our current defensive philosophy is, and I certainly can't discern one from watching us play. I'm fairly certain it's not the Bryant philosophy, since we clearly don't do 1 or 3. I'd be really interested in knowing what it is.

I totally agree with Owl 69. As usual.
As I recall... A Bryant philosophy was to recruit speed. It was the one aspect of football that couldn't be coached.

Banker, a Marshall poster, just posted on the conference board that Rice returns 17/22 starters for next season.

(12-29-2015 07:29 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  I totally agree with Owl 69. As usual.
As I recall... A Bryant philosophy was to recruit speed. It was the one aspect of football that couldn't be coached.

It seems to me that Rice does recruit speed, and a lot of it. Every year I get to hear about how fast our recruiting class is. Maybe it's just me.

(12-29-2015 09:24 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 07:29 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  I totally agree with Owl 69. As usual.
As I recall... A Bryant philosophy was to recruit speed. It was the one aspect of football that couldn't be coached.

It seems to me that Rice does recruit speed, and a lot of it. Every year I get to hear about how fast our recruiting class is. Maybe it's just me.

A lot of them are described as fast during the recruiting process, but don't seem to play as fast on the field. I've heard two things that may be factors. One, that our S&C process may be focused on building bulk, with corresponding losses in speed and agility. Two, that we are asking our secondary to do too much, which slows down our reading and recognition and pursuit. These are things that I've heard from multiple sources, and they appear to be consistent with what I am seeing on the field, but I can't confirm their accuracy. I would like it if someone closer to the program, who knows the extent to which these are true or not, could confirm or deny them. I'm not trying to spread rumors, particularly false rumors, but I see a situation that begs an explanation, and I worry what that explanation might be.

(12-30-2015 03:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 09:24 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 07:29 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  I totally agree with Owl 69. As usual.
As I recall... A Bryant philosophy was to recruit speed. It was the one aspect of football that couldn't be coached.

It seems to me that Rice does recruit speed, and a lot of it. Every year I get to hear about how fast our recruiting class is. Maybe it's just me.

A lot of them are described as fast during the recruiting process, but don't seem to play as fast on the field. I've heard two things that may be factors. One, that our S&C process may be focused on building bulk, with corresponding losses in speed and agility. Two, that we are asking our secondary to do too much, which slows down our reading and recognition and pursuit. These are things that I've heard from multiple sources, and they appear to be consistent with what I am seeing on the field, but I can't confirm their accuracy. I would like it if someone closer to the program, who knows the extent to which these are true or not, could confirm or deny them. I'm not trying to spread rumors, particularly false rumors, but I see a situation that begs an explanation, and I worry what that explanation might be.

....or maybe too much bar-b-que after they get into the coach's system.

(12-30-2015 03:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 09:24 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 07:29 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  I totally agree with Owl 69. As usual.
As I recall... A Bryant philosophy was to recruit speed. It was the one aspect of football that couldn't be coached.

It seems to me that Rice does recruit speed, and a lot of it. Every year I get to hear about how fast our recruiting class is. Maybe it's just me.

A lot of them are described as fast during the recruiting process, but don't seem to play as fast on the field. I've heard two things that may be factors. One, that our S&C process may be focused on building bulk, with corresponding losses in speed and agility. Two, that we are asking our secondary to do too much, which slows down our reading and recognition and pursuit. These are things that I've heard from multiple sources, and they appear to be consistent with what I am seeing on the field, but I can't confirm their accuracy. I would like it if someone closer to the program, who knows the extent to which these are true or not, could confirm or deny them. I'm not trying to spread rumors, particularly false rumors, but I see a situation that begs an explanation, and I worry what that explanation might be.

Speed and quickness are essential in the secondary, and to a lesser extent, among the linebackers, especially in our system. Everyone runs the spread now. On the DL, you need linemen that are more "athletic" than fast. They need quick hand speed and agility, but they don't necessarily need to be "fast" on their feet.
For example, you want linemen who are also good basketball players.

You can be effective at this level if you have decent speed with good size. You can't be too successful being small and having only decent speed. DB seems to favor size, perhaps for this reason, but I think it has more to do with what we can get. Speed is the most coveted attribute in college football. By the time we get to pick, so to speak, most of the speediest guys are gone. The academics make the pool even smaller. How many of UH's speedsters would even qualify for Rice? Seems like schools like Stanford, Northwesterm, Vandy aren't exactly known for their speed. But they're P5 so they can get adequate speed easier than Rice. That's not to say we don't have speed, but not as much, and the way it's spread out on our roster is not very helpful. Our fastest WR is likely to be a QB next season. Walter and Stewart have very good speed but they're too good to be moved to defense. I don't think speed will be a strength of Rice most years. It's jut not the way we're built, and I don't mean DB, it'll be like that always unless Rice makes some drastic changes in their admissions and/or football budget.

This is not an excuse. I feel we can be successful but in other ways. I just wouldn't count on out-speeding other teams.

(12-31-2015 12:52 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  You can be effective at this level if you have decent speed with good size. You can't be too successful being small and having only decent speed. DB seems to favor size, perhaps for this reason, but I think it has more to do with what we can get. Speed is the most coveted attribute in college football. By the time we get to pick, so to speak, most of the speediest guys are gone. The academics make the pool even smaller. How many of UH's speedsters would even qualify for Rice? Seems like schools like Stanford, Northwesterm, Vandy aren't exactly known for their speed. But they're P5 so they can get adequate speed easier than Rice. That's not to say we don't have speed, but not as much, and the way it's spread out on our roster is not very helpful. Our fastest WR is likely to be a QB next season. Walter and Stewart have very good speed but they're too good to be moved to defense. I don't think speed will be a strength of Rice most years. It's jut not the way we're built, and I don't mean DB, it'll be like that always unless Rice makes some drastic changes in their admissions and/or football budget.

This is not an excuse. I feel we can be successful but in other ways. I just wouldn't count on out-speeding other teams.

I couldn't agree more, and you're right, it isn't an excuse. It's a fact. For things to get better, a decision for change will have to be made at the institutional level. Rice will have to decide that it's going to lower admission requirements a bit and also pump millions of dollars into the program. Many millions. I don't see Rice deciding to do that, and I really don't know if I would want them to do that. Rice has a lot of integrity, and I'd hate to see the university sacrifice any of that for a couple more wins in football every year. Being a Rice football fan is supposed to be hard.

(12-27-2015 07:09 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(12-27-2015 07:05 PM)Antarius Wrote:  we are 5 deep at QB?

Yeah, if you count German as a QB... Tyner is also an interesting situation because he unquestionably has the best arm on the team but may play baseball this spring (and lacks any game experience).

From what I heard Tyner is by far a better QB than Granato however Bailiff will go with Granato based on relationships.

(12-28-2015 10:49 AM)greyowl72 Wrote:  We have a ton of talent at RB, and a lot of them. That's where our speed is. I'd like to get the ball in those hands as much as possible. Put them in the slot and throw to them.

Agree but too much rotation hurt this year. Dillard and Stewart are more of third down running backs. They run straight up and don't make anyone miss. Davis and Walter are the key guys. Davis needs to see more carries this year.

(12-31-2015 02:25 PM)KTOWL Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 10:49 AM)greyowl72 Wrote:  We have a ton of talent at RB, and a lot of them. That's where our speed is. I'd like to get the ball in those hands as much as possible. Put them in the slot and throw to them.

Agree but too much rotation hurt this year. Dillard and Stewart are more of third down running backs. They run straight up and don't make anyone miss. Davis and Walter are the key guys. Davis needs to see more carries this year.

Walter needs to be in the slot. He could be very effective there. He's perfect for short yardage situations. Throw the ball to him quickly and let him make the majic happen. Throw it to him out of backfield. Whatever it takes. Edmondson is wasting a lot of talent. I don't like him.

(12-31-2015 12:52 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  You can be effective at this level if you have decent speed with good size. You can't be too successful being small and having only decent speed. DB seems to favor size, perhaps for this reason, but I think it has more to do with what we can get. Speed is the most coveted attribute in college football. By the time we get to pick, so to speak, most of the speediest guys are gone. The academics make the pool even smaller. How many of UH's speedsters would even qualify for Rice? Seems like schools like Stanford, Northwesterm, Vandy aren't exactly known for their speed. But they're P5 so they can get adequate speed easier than Rice. That's not to say we don't have speed, but not as much, and the way it's spread out on our roster is not very helpful. Our fastest WR is likely to be a QB next season. Walter and Stewart have very good speed but they're too good to be moved to defense. I don't think speed will be a strength of Rice most years. It's jut not the way we're built, and I don't mean DB, it'll be like that always unless Rice makes some drastic changes in their admissions and/or football budget.
This is not an excuse. I feel we can be successful but in other ways. I just wouldn't count on out-speeding other teams.

I'm sorry, but that still sounds too much like, "Losing is okay if you have a good enough excuse." Rice is not going to make drastic changes in admissions or football budget. We need someone who can find a way to win in spite of that. I just got through watching a team that we beat not that long ago, and by all rights should have beaten two years ago, put a serious beating on a team that was in the national playoff semi-final a year ago. It can be turned around. That's what we need to do. As for blaming it on admissions and recruiting, Navy doesn't get better athletes than we do, but they are a top-20 team. And that's top 20 in the nation, whereas we are top-20 in the second 100.

Fred really stressed speed in recruiting. He had at least one class where every player, including the o-linemen, ran better than a 5.0 40. Under Bailiff, we've recruited several big o-linemen that run 5.2 or 5.3 or slower. Fred liked to recruit excess d-linemen, who tend to be faster and more athletic, and move the slower or less athletic ones over to the o-line. That's a difference in philosophy to some extent, and a difference in no longer being P5 to some extent. We're not going to get 5-stars, and probably not 4-stars, unless and until we can establish our program to the extent that Tom Herman has established UH. So we are looking for 3-stars at best and mostly 2-stars. Guys who are big and fast are going to the P5's. We have a choice of guys who are big enough but not fast enough, or fast enough but not big enough. I take speed every time. Given a choice between two 2-stars, one who is bigger and the other who is faster, I'd take the faster one. Given a choice between a 2-star who is faster and a 3-star who is slower, that would come down to our evaluation on other points. Obviously, we should do our own evaluations, and not rely on somebody else's star rankings, but here I am using stars as surrogates for ability in order to illustrate points.

As far spreading speed around the roster, my general rule of thumb would be speed to defense, size to offense. You make exceptions for people with special skills, like quarterbacks, but in general that's the way I would go, particularly when you don't have enough speed to go everywhere. You can make an offense work without great speed or great athleticism. Ruowls certainly believes he can. You need speed and athleticism to play defense.

The fact that Stewart and Walter are, in your words, "too good to be moved to defense" is exactly why I'd take a look at both of them on defense. Of course, I'm still not at all convinced that our defensive speed problems are more reading and reacting speed than foot speed. That is hard to explain. The only options would seem to be 1) the players are stupid (highly unlikely), 2) the coaches are incompetent, or 3) as owl40 has suggested, the schemes are simply demanding things that we can't.

I think we need a change of schemes on both sides of the ball. On offense, I think we need to use some sort of contrarian scheme that presents preparation problems for a defense, instead of simply lining up in the same shotgun spread and running the same plays as 75% of the teams in D-1. That makes it nothing but a game of who has the best athletes, and that's not going to be us most of the time. On defense, we need more speed on the field and a more aggressive approach. I'm not a fan of the 4-2-5, I prefer the 3-3-5 to get more speed on the field. As ruowls noted, the 4-2-5 is nothing but the old 4-4 with faster tandems replacing two of the LBs. By the same token, the 3-3-5 is just the old 5-3 with the tandems replacing two defensive ends. But if we played the 4-2-5 the way TCU does, which is attack and read on the run, instead of our read-and-react approach, I think we would get better results. That seems strange to me because Bailiff was supposedly in on the development of TCU's 4-2-5. But I think we would do better if instead of having so many reads, we have one assignment and execute it flawlessly.

Rice already has 1 Walter (Aston) in the slot, I do not see any reason to move Austin there as well. I also don't favor moving Austin Walter or Stewart to defense. Both have shown elite offensive skills in HS and looked great their first year at Rice. They are some of the best offensive recruits Rice has had the last decade (out of HS, obviously their collegiate story mostly still has to be written). Stick them both in the backfield in a 2 RB set and that will take a lot of pressure off the QB, whomever he is.

I think Rice can get more speed on the field by recruiting more CBs and moving them to safety, as well as selectively moving offensive players to defense (like was done with Hill and White and others). And again, I'm not convinced that Rice's defense isn't fast enough already to succeed, they just put themselves 1-2 steps behind receivers on deep balls based on when they turn their hips and start running. That coincides with the comment that the safeties have too much responsibility for run support.

(12-31-2015 05:48 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Rice already has 1 Walter (Aston) in the slot, I do not see any reason to move Austin there as well. I also don't favor moving Austin Walter or Stewart to defense. Both have shown elite offensive skills in HS and looked great their first year at Rice. They are some of the best offensive recruits Rice has had the last decade (out of HS, obviously their collegiate story mostly still has to be written). Stick them both in the backfield in a 2 RB set and that will take a lot of pressure off the QB, whomever he is.
I think Rice can get more speed on the field by recruiting more CBs and moving them to safety, as well as selectively moving offensive players to defense (like was done with Hill and White and others). And again, I'm not convinced that Rice's defense isn't fast enough already to succeed, they just put themselves 1-2 steps behind receivers on deep balls based on when they turn their hips and start running. That coincides with the comment that the safeties have too much responsibility for run support.

I find it incredible that a defense could achieve the levels of ineptitude that ours did this past season, particularly considering that it's the ninth year of a program headed by a former defensive coordinator. That's just mind-boggling. I would expect a DC to demand his team play better defense. And by year nine of a program, your player recruiting pipeline should be established to the point that you don't have to start 4 freshmen in the secondary. It might be excused if the cupboard is bare and you have to do the in year 1 or 2, but not in year 9.

Fixing the deep secondary would be my first priority. Without that we're just kidding ourselves. I don't know whether it's scheme or personnel or coaching. I think it's scheme, since it's been bad from day one under Bailiff, with different coordinators and position coaches and different players. Scheme is pretty much the constant, obviously along with pretty consistently awful results. Thurmond made some changes, and they have had some positive effects, but the deep secondary was awful under Driesbach and has been awful under Thurmond.

To the extent that it is personnel, then if either of the Walters or Stewart could help back there, I would move them in a heartbeat. Defense would always be priority #1 for me, and preventing the long pass or run would be priority #1 on defense. As I've said before, you can be good on offense with scheme and execution, but defense takes athletes. So if I'm head coach, with exceptions for players with special skills like quarterbacks, I put my best athletes on defense until we are good there, and then I tell my OC, "Ruowls, find a way to move the ball and score with what you have." And I would do that with no doubt that he could get it done.

(12-31-2015 01:41 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  I couldn't agree more, and you're right, it isn't an excuse. It's a fact. For things to get better, a decision for change will have to be made at the institutional level. Rice will have to decide that it's going to lower admission requirements a bit and also pump millions of dollars into the program. Many millions. I don't see Rice deciding to do that, and I really don't know if I would want them to do that. Rice has a lot of integrity, and I'd hate to see the university sacrifice any of that for a couple more wins in football every year. Being a Rice football fan is supposed to be hard.

Rice is not going to do that, at least not in any major way. What it is going to take is somebody who can succeed within those constraints. I don't think David Bailiff can. If he can't, then we need to replace him with somebody who can. If nobody can, then we need to go to D-3.

(12-31-2015 06:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Defense would always be priority #1 for me, and preventing the long pass or run would be priority #1 on defense. As I've said before, you can be good on offense with scheme and execution, but defense takes athletes. So if I'm head coach, with exceptions for players with special skills like quarterbacks, I put my best athletes on defense until we are good there, and then I tell my OC, "Ruowls, find a way to move the ball and score with what you have." And I would do that with no doubt that he could get it done.

I'm on board with this approach.

(12-31-2015 06:51 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 06:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Defense would always be priority #1 for me, and preventing the long pass or run would be priority #1 on defense. As I've said before, you can be good on offense with scheme and execution, but defense takes athletes. So if I'm head coach, with exceptions for players with special skills like quarterbacks, I put my best athletes on defense until we are good there, and then I tell my OC, "Ruowls, find a way to move the ball and score with what you have." And I would do that with no doubt that he could get it done.

I'm on board with this approach.

+1!

(12-31-2015 06:51 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 06:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Defense would always be priority #1 for me, and preventing the long pass or run would be priority #1 on defense. As I've said before, you can be good on offense with scheme and execution, but defense takes athletes. So if I'm head coach, with exceptions for players with special skills like quarterbacks, I put my best athletes on defense until we are good there, and then I tell my OC, "Ruowls, find a way to move the ball and score with what you have." And I would do that with no doubt that he could get it done.

I'm on board with this approach.

It sounds good, but it's not that simple.

(12-31-2015 10:10 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 06:51 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 06:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Defense would always be priority #1 for me, and preventing the long pass or run would be priority #1 on defense. As I've said before, you can be good on offense with scheme and execution, but defense takes athletes. So if I'm head coach, with exceptions for players with special skills like quarterbacks, I put my best athletes on defense until we are good there, and then I tell my OC, "Ruowls, find a way to move the ball and score with what you have." And I would do that with no doubt that he could get it done.

I'm on board with this approach.

It sounds good, but it's not that simple.

Nobody said it was simple.