(09-04-2016 10:47 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Rice 34, Army 27. Rice's WR's will not drop as many passes. Army doesn't have WKU's o-line or ability to hit so many deep passes. I am not sure a victory is in the best long-term interests of Rice football, but I do think Rice will win. And Rice has done a pretty good job against run-heavy teams lately. Playing Army will mask Rice's deficiencies, just like Baylor and WKU and So. Miss and others will expose them.

For the record, I'm projecting at least one win against those three opponents this season. Of course beating USM will increase our chances of a rematch against WKU to avenge last week's loss. Regardless, win or lose, I agree that all three of those teams will expose our deficiencies.

I think this is one we should win, I have the highest respect for the Army payers, and know they will never quit or yield. I know our players will never quit or yield. I expect them to score. I expect us to score more.

You fellows have a higher expectation of Army than I do! Then again, I was scarred by many heartbreakers last year.

(09-04-2016 10:47 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Rice 34, Army 27. Rice's WR's will not drop as many passes. Army doesn't have WKU's o-line or ability to hit so many deep passes. I am not sure a victory is in the best long-term interests of Rice football, but I do think Rice will win. And Rice has done a pretty good job against run-heavy teams lately. Playing Army will mask Rice's deficiencies, just like Baylor and WKU and So. Miss and others will expose them.

Good post. True. We seem to play well against equal and lesser talent, but we're blown up by great talent. This is a very big game. Army is good.

(09-04-2016 12:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think this is one we should win, I have the highest respect for the Army payers, and know they will never quit or yield. I know our players will never quit or yield. I expect them to score. I expect us to score more.

OO, just out of curiousity and in all seriousness, why do you think we SHOULD win this game? We should have lost last year at HRS, and they've improved and have the far superior coach...and they're playing at home.

(09-04-2016 04:53 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 12:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think this is one we should win, I have the highest respect for the Army payers, and know they will never quit or yield. I know our players will never quit or yield. I expect them to score. I expect us to score more.

OO, just out of curiousity and in all seriousness, why do you think we SHOULD win this game? We should have lost last year at HRS, and they've improved and have the far superior coach...and they're playing at home.

I think way too much emphasis is placed on the "should have lost" aspect, the home field advantage, and the coach, in that order. Does anybody here ever favor us in a game because last year we should have won but didn't? Naw, in that case they would just point out we couldn't do the job last year. They maybe should have won, but they didn't. What does that tell us? That they can't lock it down? That we can come back? I don't remember the game's ending. did they just hand us the ball and get out of the way, or did we force it in?


As for the improvements from last year, I am unfamiliar with them, so hard to assess. I will take everyone's word for it until they show me.

Lastly, I see no reason to pick against my team if there is not money on the line. What is the prize for correctly predicting an Army win in this thread? Nada.

(09-04-2016 04:53 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 12:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think this is one we should win, I have the highest respect for the Army payers, and know they will never quit or yield. I know our players will never quit or yield. I expect them to score. I expect us to score more.

OO, just out of curiousity and in all seriousness, why do you think we SHOULD win this game? We should have lost last year at HRS, and they've improved and have the far superior coach...and they're playing at home.

Agree with you on points two and three, but why do you think we should have lost?

Seemed like a pretty typical close game to me... Both teams had chances to make plays at the end, and we made them. There was no "freak play" that occurred.

Yes, we fumbled with a few minutes left in our own red zone, but they couldn't punch it in the end zone. We responded with a touchdown.

I think we have a chance because we have shown to be very vulnerable to the deep ball and I don't think that is Army's strength.

I also think that our lines will have better days because, unless I'm totally off on my assumption, doesn't have as much size in the trenches as other teams.

It will be close.

Line has already moved to +8.5. WKU opened +24 @ Bama, now +27.

I hope you have good DTs, because we sure as hell don't.

(09-04-2016 08:24 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  I hope you have good DTs, because we sure as hell don't.

That was a weak spot for Temple. The other thing I noticed that Army was doing a better job getting the secondary blocks downfield more than they have in past years. That and they didn't lay the ball on the ground with the frequency they have previously.

(09-04-2016 08:32 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 08:24 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  I hope you have good DTs, because we sure as hell don't.

That was a weak spot for Temple. The other thing I noticed that Army was doing a better job getting the secondary blocks downfield more than they have in past years. That and they didn't lay the ball on the ground with the frequency they have previously.

Tackling as a whole was a weak spot. I never played organized football, but I knew what they were running. I have no idea how we weren't adjusting, because they were mostly killing us with FB dives. If they beat us on the edges, fine, so be it, but you can't give up 7+ yard runs right up the middle. You have to close the A and B gaps.

I like Rice's DT's. Abercrumbia and Thompson (both true sophomores) are 2 of Rice's best recruits in the past 3-4 years if you look at the other offers they received.

Army returns 16 starters from a team that lost 7 games last year by a touchdown or less.

They just won - on the road - against a Temple team that returns more than half of its starters after spending much of last year in the Top 25.

If we win next week, we will have earned it.

(09-04-2016 10:22 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 08:32 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 08:24 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  I hope you have good DTs, because we sure as hell don't.

That was a weak spot for Temple. The other thing I noticed that Army was doing a better job getting the secondary blocks downfield more than they have in past years. That and they didn't lay the ball on the ground with the frequency they have previously.

Tackling as a whole was a weak spot. I never played organized football, but I knew what they were running. I have no idea how we weren't adjusting, because they were mostly killing us with FB dives. If they beat us on the edges, fine, so be it, but you can't give up 7+ yard runs right up the middle. You have to close the A and B gaps.

From a Rice perspective, I think that concerns me the most is that you guys obviously had all summer to game plan against Army, and they were still able to run the ball as well as they did.

(That's not a shot at Temple ... more of an observation on how much better this Army team might be.)

Best of luck the rest of the year, If we can get our S together, hopefully we'll be a conference game in the near future.

(09-05-2016 11:39 AM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 10:22 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 08:32 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 08:24 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  I hope you have good DTs, because we sure as hell don't.

That was a weak spot for Temple. The other thing I noticed that Army was doing a better job getting the secondary blocks downfield more than they have in past years. That and they didn't lay the ball on the ground with the frequency they have previously.

Tackling as a whole was a weak spot. I never played organized football, but I knew what they were running. I have no idea how we weren't adjusting, because they were mostly killing us with FB dives. If they beat us on the edges, fine, so be it, but you can't give up 7+ yard runs right up the middle. You have to close the A and B gaps.

From a Rice perspective, I think that concerns me the most is that you guys obviously had all summer to game plan against Army, and they were still able to run the ball as well as they did.

(That's not a shot at Temple ... more of an observation on how much better this Army team might be.)

Best of luck the rest of the year, If we can get our S together, hopefully we'll be a conference game in the near future.

Thats why I'm afraid we will get curb stomped. Army looks decent and we don't know what the word "preparation" means.

(09-05-2016 12:45 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-05-2016 11:39 AM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 10:22 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 08:32 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 08:24 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  I hope you have good DTs, because we sure as hell don't.

That was a weak spot for Temple. The other thing I noticed that Army was doing a better job getting the secondary blocks downfield more than they have in past years. That and they didn't lay the ball on the ground with the frequency they have previously.

Tackling as a whole was a weak spot. I never played organized football, but I knew what they were running. I have no idea how we weren't adjusting, because they were mostly killing us with FB dives. If they beat us on the edges, fine, so be it, but you can't give up 7+ yard runs right up the middle. You have to close the A and B gaps.

From a Rice perspective, I think that concerns me the most is that you guys obviously had all summer to game plan against Army, and they were still able to run the ball as well as they did.

(That's not a shot at Temple ... more of an observation on how much better this Army team might be.)

Best of luck the rest of the year, If we can get our S together, hopefully we'll be a conference game in the near future.

Thats why I'm afraid we will get curb stomped. Army looks decent and we don't know what the word "preparation" means.

But outside of that 2009 or 2010 game against Navy, we've done well against teams that can't stretch the field vertically. We get into trouble when a team can beat us over the top. So unless Army has a QB that can sling it, I'm less worried.

But I've been proven wrong before.

(09-05-2016 12:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-05-2016 12:45 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-05-2016 11:39 AM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 10:22 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 08:32 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  That was a weak spot for Temple. The other thing I noticed that Army was doing a better job getting the secondary blocks downfield more than they have in past years. That and they didn't lay the ball on the ground with the frequency they have previously.

Tackling as a whole was a weak spot. I never played organized football, but I knew what they were running. I have no idea how we weren't adjusting, because they were mostly killing us with FB dives. If they beat us on the edges, fine, so be it, but you can't give up 7+ yard runs right up the middle. You have to close the A and B gaps.

From a Rice perspective, I think that concerns me the most is that you guys obviously had all summer to game plan against Army, and they were still able to run the ball as well as they did.

(That's not a shot at Temple ... more of an observation on how much better this Army team might be.)

Best of luck the rest of the year, If we can get our S together, hopefully we'll be a conference game in the near future.

Thats why I'm afraid we will get curb stomped. Army looks decent and we don't know what the word "preparation" means.

But outside of that 2009 or 2010 game against Navy, we've done well against teams that can't stretch the field vertically. We get into trouble when a team can beat us over the top. So unless Army has a QB that can sling it, I'm less worried.

But I've been proven wrong before.

The problem is, a lot of times, the team that cant sling it and we can contain just isnt that good. The average rank of a team we contain and beat is around 100.

We rarely play a good team that runs and runs really well. As a result, if Army plays as well as they did against Temple, we may be in trouble.