Army CB dies in a car crash Saturday night/Sunday AM:

https://www.seccountry.com/sec/army-foot...r-accident

RIP

(09-12-2016 06:03 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  Unusual characterization of "succeeded". I hardly consider a 20-yard punt to the Army 16 yard line as "pinning" Army inside the 20. Any decision to punt in that scenario MUST be made while taking into account the ability of one's punter to carry out a coffin corner punt. There certainly was no prior game evidence of Fox's ability to do so.

Read what I wrote. All that I said that it succeeded in doing was pinning them inside their 20, which clearly did. Last time I checked, the 16 was inside the 20. It failed to pin them inside the 5, or 10, or 15.

And we might not have evidence of Fox's ability to pin them deep, but at this point the coaches who made the decision should clearly have a pretty good idea from practice performance.

Overall, this strategy failed because our defense could not stop them. In the not dissimilar situation in the third quarter, kicking succeeded because we got the stop, short punt back, and TD. This brings up one other critical variable--our defense's ability. If your defense can't stop anyone, it makes no sense to play for field position.

Fox has been great so far. He's the last person I'd attack for this teams performance.

That said, it would've been better to pin them on the 6, not the 16.

(09-12-2016 07:17 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(09-12-2016 02:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-11-2016 11:51 PM)raptorsareout Wrote:  At a more micro level, I find Bailiff's decision not to go for it on fourth down against Army on Saturday as indefensible. Some of those conservative decisions obviously work out more times than not, but it wasn't the message that this team at this time needed to be sent. We're on the road and trying to steal a win. Even if you don't have faith that the offense can gain two yards, you act like you know that they can. You go!

I would presume that you are talking about Rice's second possession, 4th and 2 from the Army 36, middle of the first quarter, score tied, 7-7. I think that's the perfect example of exactly what Hambone and I are talking about. That decision is hardly indefensible. 99 out of 100 football coaches probably punt there. But statistics say that's pretty close to a 50-50 call. I would go for it there as a philosophical decision, one I would have made at the latest before fall practice started, and worked on during fall practice, with the team knowing we were going for it in that situation and working on execution of plays for that specific purpose. It would be part of our personality, who we were as a team, and we (and presumably our opponents) would know that was exactly what we were going to do.

Interestingly, the punt succeeded in pinning Army inside their 20, and 4 plays later Army went for 4th and 1 on their own 25. They made it, and continued the drive to score the touchdown that gave them a lead which they never relinquished. That 4th down was probably the play of the game. Now, Army runs the option, which is the epitome of conservative football in the eyes of many. But option teams tend to go for it on 4th and short more often than others. In large part, that is because their offense is built around a bread and butter play--the fullback dive--that is ideal for picking up 1 or 2 yards. That points up a key principle of offensive football in the minds of just about every successful offensive coordinator that I have ever known--you need a bread and butter play that you KNOW you can execute successfully, and that you can go to in key situations and make the defense stop you. I don't have a clue what is the bread and butter play in Rice's offense, or if we even have one--the zone read, maybe, but we certainly don't execute it at the level of success required by the principle.

It's an interesting contrast. Bailiff punts from plus field possession, and Monken almost immediately thereafter goes for it from negative field position. And that probably turns out to be the key sequence of the game.

I don't think you make play calls to send a message. At least, not if you want to win many games. You make play calls that are sound and consistent with your philosophy. I find it interesting that an otherwise very conservative option philosophy leads to going for it more often on 4th and short. I remember Ken's going for it on 4th and short from our own end against SMU and failing, and that was the key play in a game we lost to an inferior opponent. I was sitting with a sportscaster friend, and we both agreed that in the particular circumstance it was not just the right call but a call he absolutely had to make. If you can't make one yard, you don't deserve to win the game. I also remember Ken's going for it on 4th and short from our own end against BYU, succeeding, and turning the game in our favor against a superior opponent, and going for it on 4th and short in overtime against UH, instead of kicking the tying FG, and scoring a TD on the play to end the game.

Interesting follow-up. On our ensuing possession, now down 14-7, we ended up with 4th and 3 from our own 42. Do you go for that or punt? The odds are not as good as with the preceding situation, in terms of both distance and field position, but with the right bread and butter play to either call or fake, it's one that I would go for.

There are two other situations later in the game that are interesting. First possession of the third quarter, down 21-7, on 4th and 6 from their 42, we line up in an offensive formation and pooch kick it, killing it on their 1 yard line. I like that call, distance is a bit long for the odds to favor going for it, and we got exactly what we hoped for. Defense holds, they punt it short, and we score in one play. Fourth quarter, 5 minutes remaining, down 31-14, 4th and 8 from our 41, we go for it and pass downfield incomplete. What I might question there is the third down call, also a pass downfield that went incomplete. That's where you might have tried either a run or some kind of screen on 3rd down, with the idea that you were in a 4-down situation, and if you didn't make it you would likely still pick up 3-5 yards and open the playbook a bit wider on 4th down.

Finally, down 31-14 with 2:30 left, we punt on 4th and 9 from our own 17. All I can say about that one is that if you want to win, finding a way not to trail by 17 with two minutes left is probably more important than what you call in that situation.

Long story short, I would have gone for it in the situation you reference, and probably the one on the ensuing possession as well. In between those two, Monken did go for it in less favorable circumstances, and that may very well have won the game for Army. But Bailiff's decisions in both cases are hardly indefensible. They were the right calls per the conventional wisdom, but conventional wisdom isn't going to win football games at Rice.

Good post, but on 4th and 2 from the +36 I'd say 50 % of coaches would go for it. 4th and 4+ and you're numbers are right. Given that we had been moving the ball well at that point I was really surprised we punted. While I wouldn't advocate being reckless, there are times when a mentality/attitude gets communicated to your team- and I didn't like the message that was sent at that time. As you said, tactically it's probably 50/50 so why not send a message to your team that we are going to be the aggressor?
As for the last punt- I had big problems with that decision for similar reasons. As a player that felt like giving up. There was 2:42 left and we are down 17- so 3 scores. That's not impossible. Highly improbable yes, but possible. I want my team to think I'm trying to score, onside kick, score, onside kick, and score again to win. What's the downside? They get the ball on our 17 and score again. So we get beat 38-14? So what? At least the team feels like you're never giving up. I mean RFND? Isn't that something we say?

I just don't get the decision to punt at that first opportunity. The most likely outcome from that situation is you push Army back ~16 yards because of a touchback, a bad kick, a return, etc. The best scenario is that you give them the ball at their 1 yard line, but trying to get a safety for a triple option team is very difficult. Worst case scenario is you give Army the ball with a 60+ yard field, which isn't exactly putting us in a bad situation.

The reward though of converting, keeping the drive going, and putting us into a situation where we have the chance for at least three points was great enough in my mind to warrant at least attempting to move the chains.

But oh well, not surprised at the decision after watching similar decisions happen for 10 years. That experience did lead me to call the pooch punt before we did it, so I've got that going for me.

(09-12-2016 07:17 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  Good post, but on 4th and 2 from the +36 I'd say 50 % of coaches would go for it.

Not on the second possession of the game. Later in the game it might be 50/50, but not that early. But even if it is 50/50, that certainly doesn't make the call indefensible. It would probably get a much higher level of support from coaches than Monken's decision to go for it.

As for the punt at the end, I thought about it listening to the broadcast driving to Dallas, and I found it somewhat questionable for the reasons you cite, but not indefensible. What I would have done differently in that sequence is that it would have been Granato or German taking those snaps. Not throwing in the towel, but trying something different. We had been stopped 9 times in our last 10 possessions. Time for a different look. On Sirius, I was getting the Army feed, and their announcers were surprised that it was not Granato. Of course, from Bailiff's perspective, suppose you make the sub and we score a quick TD, get the ball back, and score another. Now he has a QB controversy, which he avoids as long as neither Granato nor German takes a snap at QB.

(09-12-2016 08:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I just don't get the decision to punt at that first opportunity. The most likely outcome from that situation is you push Army back ~16 yards because of a touchback, a bad kick, a return, etc. The best scenario is that you give them the ball at their 1 yard line, but trying to get a safety for a triple option team is very difficult. Worst case scenario is you give Army the ball with a 60+ yard field, which isn't exactly putting us in a bad situation.

I see the odds the same way you do. That's why I go for it there. The 60+ yard field is a big consideration. By not punting, you are giving up about 2 points worth of field position. If your scoring opportunity is worth 2 points or more, you go for it. Field position at the +40 is worth generally about 4 points. Most coaches don't see it that way.

To win at Rice, I think you have to go against the grain, and this is one time that I would do so. But it would not be an on the spot decision. It would be a philosophical decision, made long before that game, and communicated to the team and practiced often, including defensive practice in handling the short field if we fail.

Would I take Monken's gamble? With the right offense, and a defense that I thought could respond well to a short field if I failed, yes. The Army commentators felt that confidence in his defense was a big factor in Monken's decision. We don't have that.

Against a ball control team like Army, I think you do whatever you can to keep you offense on the field and minimize the time your defense is on the field. I would have gone for it.

McGuffie up the middle anyone? Seriously, run the wheel route to Dillard.

(09-12-2016 07:17 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(09-12-2016 02:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would presume that you are talking about Rice's second possession, 4th and 2 from the Army 36, middle of the first quarter, score tied, 7-7. I think that's the perfect example of exactly what Hambone and I are talking about. That decision is hardly indefensible. 99 out of 100 football coaches probably punt there. But statistics say that's pretty close to a 50-50 call.

Good post, but on 4th and 2 from the +36 I'd say 50 % of coaches would go for it. 4th and 4+ and you're numbers are right. Given that we had been moving the ball well at that point I was really surprised we punted. While I wouldn't advocate being reckless, there are times when a mentality/attitude gets communicated to your team- and I didn't like the message that was sent at that time. As you said, tactically it's probably 50/50 so why not send a message to your team that we are going to be the aggressor?

I'm with Middle Ages. Even in the 1st quarter, I think a significant number of coaches go for it. Heck, I'm pretty sure Bailiff has gone for it in similar situations and I was very surprised when he didn't. I'd say ~5% of teams kick a FG (what Bailiff might have done with Boswell on the roster). Then half of the remaining coaches (maybe more!) go for it. No way 99/100 coaches punt there, especially against a (presumably) athletically inferior opponent.

(09-12-2016 02:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  On our ensuing possession, now down 14-7, we ended up with 4th and 3 from our own 42. Do you go for that or punt? The odds are not as good as with the preceding situation, in terms of both distance and field position, but with the right bread and butter play to either call or fake, it's one that I would go for.

Punt in this situation, and in most 1st-half scenarios. Decision in the 2nd half would depend on a lot of variables, but would result in a punt more often then not. Since Fox was a QB in high school, I was hoping Bailiff would go for a fake punt here. That would have been a fun aggressive call.

(09-12-2016 02:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  There are two other situations later in the game that are interesting. First possession of the third quarter, down 21-7, on 4th and 6 from their 42, we line up in an offensive formation and pooch kick it, killing it on their 1 yard line. I like that call, distance is a bit long for the odds to favor going for it, and we got exactly what we hoped for.

I also like this call. Still plenty of game left and down 2 scores, this wasn't the time to get stupid with 6 yards to go. Although I would have been intrigued with a Fox fake punt as an alternative.

(09-12-2016 02:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Fourth quarter, 5 minutes remaining, down 31-14, 4th and 8 from our 41, we go for it and pass downfield incomplete. What I might question there is the third down call, also a pass downfield that went incomplete. That's where you might have tried either a run or some kind of screen on 3rd down, with the idea that you were in a 4-down situation, and if you didn't make it you would likely still pick up 3-5 yards and open the playbook a bit wider on 4th down.

Finally, down 31-14 with 2:30 left, we punt on 4th and 9 from our own 17. All I can say about that one is that if you want to win, finding a way not to trail by 17 with two minutes left is probably more important than what you call in that situation.

Both of these I thought it was the right call to go for it. The last punt was really annoying because that raised the white flag. If you make it ... you probably still lose, but at least you have some shot (maybe 1%). Punt and you are basically at 0%. Punting this situation is basically the equivalent of trying to keep the score closer. It tells me Bailiff already thought Rice's chances of winning were 0% before the punt, which is little sad and disappointing.

(09-12-2016 08:51 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Against a ball control team like Army, I think you do whatever you can to keep you offense on the field and minimize the time your defense is on the field. I would have gone for it.

McGuffie up the middle anyone? Seriously, run the wheel route to Dillard.

Especially with it being a scorcher. I saw a tweet somewhere that said field temps were well above 100 degrees during the game.

(09-12-2016 09:14 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(09-12-2016 07:17 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(09-12-2016 02:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would presume that you are talking about Rice's second possession, 4th and 2 from the Army 36, middle of the first quarter, score tied, 7-7. I think that's the perfect example of exactly what Hambone and I are talking about. That decision is hardly indefensible. 99 out of 100 football coaches probably punt there. But statistics say that's pretty close to a 50-50 call.

Good post, but on 4th and 2 from the +36 I'd say 50 % of coaches would go for it. 4th and 4+ and you're numbers are right. Given that we had been moving the ball well at that point I was really surprised we punted. While I wouldn't advocate being reckless, there are times when a mentality/attitude gets communicated to your team- and I didn't like the message that was sent at that time. As you said, tactically it's probably 50/50 so why not send a message to your team that we are going to be the aggressor?

I'm with Middle Ages. Even in the 1st quarter, I think a significant number of coaches go for it. Heck, I'm pretty sure Bailiff has gone for it in similar situations and I was very surprised when he didn't. I'd say ~5% of teams kick a FG (what Bailiff might have done with Boswell on the roster). Then half of the remaining coaches (maybe more!) go for it. No way 99/100 coaches punt there, especially against a (presumably) athletically inferior opponent.

+1000. Again, look at the situation. 4th and 2 from the opposing team's 36 yard line. Score tied 7-7 on the road. You do NOT have a good defense. (Gross understatement there!) You've been moving the ball well early. Odds are reasonably good-- at least 50-50 you get the first down....but if you fail, Army still gets the ball back in not bad, but not great field position. If you punt, at least 50-50 odds you punt in end zone, and Army takes over at their 25 yard line (a net gain for Rice of only 10 or 11 yards had they gone for it and missed the first down).

Given all this, I'd say 75+% of college coaches would have gone for it in that situation, and probably closer to 85%. Not going for it then sends an unambiguous message to the team...and the fan base. Just another example of Bailiff almost ALWAYS taking the conservative option.

Another question ... if Rice is punting from the 36, why not take a delay-of-game penalty to give your punter an extra 5 yards? Gives him a larger margin of error to pin the opponent deep. As a side note, I don't consider a punt where the opponents start at the 16 "pinning them deep" in that situation. "Pinning" when punting from inside the 50-yard-line is, to me, downing the punt inside the 10.

Sad-- Army's starting CB died in a car crash in the wee hours of Sunday morning....

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...-car-crash

(09-12-2016 07:55 AM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  Army CB dies in a car crash Saturday night/Sunday AM:

https://www.seccountry.com/sec/army-foot...r-accident

RIP

Oh no! My condolences to the team and his family. Just to think, having started 2-0, no one would have thought that such a tragedy was near. Cherish your friends and loved ones. Tomorrow is not promised.

(09-12-2016 10:01 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Another question ... if Rice is punting from the 36, why not take a delay-of-game penalty to give your punter an extra 5 yards? Gives him a larger margin of error to pin the opponent deep. As a side note, I don't consider a punt where the opponents start at the 16 "pinning them deep" in that situation. "Pinning" when punting from inside the 50-yard-line is, to me, downing the punt inside the 10.

I don't even think this option has ever occurred to Bailiff. I've never seen us do that, and I've seen us punt through the end zone for a touchback dozens of times over the last decade...

Edit: Just looked up the stats for the past few years to make sure I'm not mis-remembering things. 1 touchback punting so far this year, only 2 touchbacks punting in 2015, but 8 in 2014 and 10 in 2013...

(09-12-2016 08:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-12-2016 06:03 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  Unusual characterization of "succeeded". I hardly consider a 20-yard punt to the Army 16 yard line as "pinning" Army inside the 20. Any decision to punt in that scenario MUST be made while taking into account the ability of one's punter to carry out a coffin corner punt. There certainly was no prior game evidence of Fox's ability to do so.

Read what I wrote. All that I said that it succeeded in doing was pinning them inside their 20, which clearly did. Last time I checked, the 16 was inside the 20. It failed to pin them inside the 5, or 10, or 15.

And we might not have evidence of Fox's ability to pin them deep, but at this point the coaches who made the decision should clearly have a pretty good idea from practice performance.

Overall, this strategy failed because our defense could not stop them. In the not dissimilar situation in the third quarter, kicking succeeded because we got the stop, short punt back, and TD. This brings up one other critical variable--our defense's ability. If your defense can't stop anyone, it makes no sense to play for field position.

I have to agree w WRC. Though clearly having them start w in their own 20 is fine, the 4 yard diff between a TB and the 16 is hardly a great call, but not if this team had the confidence that Hat's teams had in their better years, they have gone for it

Too many variables to nit pick... HOWEVER, what I didn't see was a team hell-bent on winning. Certainly early you can understand that as we started off well and might have assumed at that point that this would continue... but it wasn't long before we should have realized that Army could do what they wanted, and we were sputtering more.

I honestly don't see the difference (for an option team) in 1st and 10 on the 20 and 1st and 10 on the 5, Sure, the pooch worked out... but there is no way that we planned it that closely. Odds were pretty good that the ball would be in a place where the yard line made no difference to an option team. I would have tried the field goal or gone for it... OR a third choice would have been to take the delay and punt it high or OOB with the regular kicker. I just hate the QB pooch, even when it works. If you can create that much pocket, you should be able to complete a 5 yard pass. Just way too many things can go wrong there. No, that doesn't make me right and him wrong at all... just my mentality.

Yes, Rice should have 1-2 'bread and butter' plays... The 2 point conversion plays... the 3rd and 6 'must' plays... With Dillard, it was the jump ball/back shoulder. With Hatfield it was the option/dive. With Willson and Taylor et al, it should have been a dig route/comeback or jump ball. No way they had big DBs or LBs who could effectively cover all of those guys and stop them from 'posting them up' for 5 yards or out-jumping them on the corner.

Set a formation that gets you the match-up you want and run your play that the QB and WR have run 1,000 times on their own. Go 'heavy' with 'Bob' or Thor.

Yes, an identity of some sort.

(09-12-2016 11:59 AM)HawaiiOwl Wrote:  

(09-12-2016 08:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-12-2016 06:03 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  Unusual characterization of "succeeded". I hardly consider a 20-yard punt to the Army 16 yard line as "pinning" Army inside the 20. Any decision to punt in that scenario MUST be made while taking into account the ability of one's punter to carry out a coffin corner punt. There certainly was no prior game evidence of Fox's ability to do so.

Read what I wrote. All that I said that it succeeded in doing was pinning them inside their 20, which clearly did. Last time I checked, the 16 was inside the 20. It failed to pin them inside the 5, or 10, or 15.
And we might not have evidence of Fox's ability to pin them deep, but at this point the coaches who made the decision should clearly have a pretty good idea from practice performance.
Overall, this strategy failed because our defense could not stop them. In the not dissimilar situation in the third quarter, kicking succeeded because we got the stop, short punt back, and TD. This brings up one other critical variable--our defense's ability. If your defense can't stop anyone, it makes no sense to play for field position.

I have to agree w WRC. Though clearly having them start w in their own 20 is fine, the 4 yard diff between a TB and the 16 is hardly a great call, but not if this team had the confidence that Hat's teams had in their better years, they have gone for it

I'm not taking issue with any of that. I'm merely pointing out that the 16 is inside the 20. I've already said that I would have gone for it. But I don't think a majority of coaches would, at least not that early, and at least not the coaches I've talked with over the years. Punting is the incorrect call IMO, but it's not by any means indefensible.

I don't like the call. I would have gone for it. But on my list of objections to Bailiff's approach, it's pretty far down the line.

(09-12-2016 12:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Yes, Rice should have 1-2 'bread and butter' plays... The 2 point conversion plays... the 3rd and 6 'must' plays... With Dillard, it was the jump ball/back shoulder. With Hatfield it was the option/dive. With Willson and Taylor et al, it should have been a dig route/comeback or jump ball. No way they had big DBs or LBs who could effectively cover all of those guys and stop them from 'posting them up' for 5 yards or out-jumping them on the corner.

Set a formation that gets you the match-up you want and run your play that the QB and WR have run 1,000 times on their own. Go 'heavy' with 'Bob' or Thor.

Yes, an identity of some sort.

The optimist in me wants to say we just need to identify the individuals on this team who can serve in that 'go to' capacity the players you named so often performed in the past (none of them are around now).

Part of me wonders whether someone will stand up and grab those roles. None of the guys you named did it all on their own, but when they were put in the position with the help of others, they executed, at least a good portion of the time.

(09-12-2016 02:16 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-12-2016 12:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Yes, Rice should have 1-2 'bread and butter' plays... The 2 point conversion plays... the 3rd and 6 'must' plays... With Dillard, it was the jump ball/back shoulder. With Hatfield it was the option/dive. With Willson and Taylor et al, it should have been a dig route/comeback or jump ball. No way they had big DBs or LBs who could effectively cover all of those guys and stop them from 'posting them up' for 5 yards or out-jumping them on the corner.

Set a formation that gets you the match-up you want and run your play that the QB and WR have run 1,000 times on their own. Go 'heavy' with 'Bob' or Thor.

Yes, an identity of some sort.

The optimist in me wants to say we just need to identify the individuals on this team who can serve in that 'go to' capacity the players you named so often performed in the past (none of them are around now).

Part of me wonders whether someone will stand up and grab those roles. None of the guys you named did it all on their own, but when they were put in the position with the help of others, they executed, at least a good portion of the time.

Agreed. Only Dillard's play was (imo) really a 'go to'. The others were examples where we COULD have had such a thing, but never really established it (again, imo).

Coaches have to call those plays... players can't.