(09-28-2016 10:30 AM)Galleria Owl Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 09:38 AM)ruowls Wrote:  So why isn't Paul Johnson doing it now if he has done it before, twice?

You don't have to blow people of the ball. You just create seams to run through (leverage). That is essentially the option running game.

Formations do more than create mismatches. They force the defensive front to adjust which creates leverage in blocking.

You don't want to create specific plays with specific formations. That is what Walsh is saying. This just gives the defense keys to recognize what you are doing (think Wild Owl). Theoretically, you should be able to call most passing plays or running plays from any formation.

I get you like what you like. Too bad you have never seen me work. It might change your mind. Just saying.

I don't dispute your choices. I just think you are still a little too focused on labeling things.

I have more thinking skills than just OC.

RUOwls,
I bought a new book a few days ago titled "The Perfect Pass" by S. C. Gwynne, the author of "Empire of the Summer Moon", and have just started reading it. If you get a chance to read it, I would appreciate your thoughts on it. It is a fascinating discussion of the evolution of the modern passing game, and looks like it focuses primarily on Hal Mumme's experiences with the passing game and with coaches like LaVell Edwards, Bill Walsh and others. What's fascinating to me is how those coaches used the concepts of space, angles, etc., to enable less athletically talented teams to win, and how just a few basic alignments can be the starting points for what looks like so many different passing plays. It seems to me that what the book is talking about is what you have been trying to tell the rest of us.

Thanks

I will give it a read and get back to you. Just give me a bit.

(09-28-2016 07:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 09:38 AM)ruowls Wrote:  So why isn't Paul Johnson doing it now if he has done it before, twice?

You don't have to blow people of the ball. You just create seams to run through (leverage). That is essentially the option running game.

Formations do more than create mismatches. They force the defensive front to adjust which creates leverage in blocking.

You don't want to create specific plays with specific formations. That is what Walsh is saying. This just gives the defense keys to recognize what you are doing (think Wild Owl). Theoretically, you should be able to call most passing plays or running plays from any formation.

I get you like what you like. Too bad you have never seen me work. It might change your mind. Just saying.

I don't dispute your choices. I just think you are still a little too focused on labeling things.

I have more thinking skills than just OC.

What do you think about packaged plays?

Not a huge fan. All it is is a QB read to either run or pass. Announcers talk about it with Baylor all the time with their Houston veer coupled with a run pass option.

This idea has gone back years. It used to be a pass and run or two different runs were called in the huddle and the QB made a check with me call to let everyone know which play would be run based on presnap defensive alignment (basically the numbers in the box game). Obviously, with up-tempo no-huddle offenses, they cant do this so this is their adaptation to their system.

In my opinion, success in the passing game sets the front by setting the coverage. Rice gets beat deep so often because they are geared to stop the run first which sets the front and gap/fit responsibilities. They never get out of this mentality. When a defense starts to adjust to the passing game by increasing coverage, you run it. I like to have two backs available for the run on any given play and a TE available. The two backs can be backs or one back and the QB. I need a TE that can run in space, a receiver that can catch and a back that can block. You give me those three things (with a QB that can think and throw as well) and I will control the game. That is my running philosophy. Throw early to set up the run by making a defense adjust and change their front. Now you throw just enough to keep the defense in their adjustment but run enough to shorten the game and eat the clock. By teaching the receivers and QB the angles to get open, you will always have success throwing the ball. Now it becomes an allocation game between rush/pressure, run defense and pass defense. And by always winning the passing battle, I can beat you. And if you try to take that away, I can beat you with the running game. And if you try to take that away, I go back to throwing. If you try to bring pressure, I bring in protection and it turns into my best 2 receivers against your best 2 cover guys. And my two guys know how to get open by manipulating the angles against anybody.

(09-28-2016 12:25 PM)ruowls Wrote:  And my two guys know how to get open by manipulating the angles against anybody.

Says the guy who was all-conference and in the top 3 in every stat while having less than ideal measurables in every category while going against 6 or 7 ranked teams (some ALL WORLD defenses and coaches) and 6 or 7 future NFL DBs using 5 different QBs in a season.

What would YOU know about getting open against good cover guys?

(09-28-2016 01:35 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 12:25 PM)ruowls Wrote:  And my two guys know how to get open by manipulating the angles against anybody.

Says the guy who was all-conference and in the top 3 in every stat while having less than ideal measurables in every category while going against 6 or 7 ranked teams (some ALL WORLD defenses and coaches) and 6 or 7 future NFL DBs using 5 different QBs in a season.

What would YOU know about getting open against good cover guys?

But but... bowl games!!!

(I jest)

(09-28-2016 01:35 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 12:25 PM)ruowls Wrote:  And my two guys know how to get open by manipulating the angles against anybody.

Says the guy who was all-conference and in the top 3 in every stat while having less than ideal measurables in every category while going against 6 or 7 ranked teams (some ALL WORLD defenses and coaches) and 6 or 7 future NFL DBs using 5 different QBs in a season.

What would YOU know about getting open against good cover guys?

I'll ask again.

Is he available on Monday?

Regarding that Paul Johnson offense I liked so much, here is a video of Tracy Ham running it at Georgia Southern:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MujKdFsM...r_embedded

Note that this video also includes some Ga Southern defensive highlights, so don't get confused watching.

And here are a couple of highlights of Garret Gabriel running it against BYU in 1989 and 1990:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwnbkqkV0VI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8hSNIjI...r_embedded

Check them out and I think you'll see why I like it. These are highlights, obviously, so they present things in their best light. But you can also see how they married the flexbone to the run and shoot. One thing that impresses me about all of the is how easily they moved back and forth from one scheme to the other, with both looking perfectly natural.

(09-28-2016 10:30 AM)Galleria Owl Wrote:  RUOwls,
I bought a new book a few days ago titled "The Perfect Pass" by S. C. Gwynne, the author of "Empire of the Summer Moon", and have just started reading it. If you get a chance to read it, I would appreciate your thoughts on it. It is a fascinating discussion of the evolution of the modern passing game, and looks like it focuses primarily on Hal Mumme's experiences with the passing game and with coaches like LaVell Edwards, Bill Walsh and others. What's fascinating to me is how those coaches used the concepts of space, angles, etc., to enable less athletically talented teams to win, and how just a few basic alignments can be the starting points for what looks like so many different passing plays. It seems to me that what the book is talking about is what you have been trying to tell the rest of us.

I got the book on your recommendation and have given it a quick read and enjoyed it.

He mentions three other books in his Note on Sources and Methods section in the back that you might find interesting if you have not read then yet--Tim Layden's Blood, Sweat, and Chalk, and Chris Brown's The Art of Smart Football and The Essential Smart Football (all 3 also listed in the bibliography). Pat Kirwan's Take Your Eye Off the Ball (listed in bibliography) is another that you might enjoy, although it is written more from the NFL perspective.

It was an interesting read. Thanks.

There is some stretching of the truth a bit which is unintentional.

It is as much a book about Mumme and Leach as it is about their "revolutionary" ideas. In a nutshell, they packaged different ideas together fro influential people. Interestingly, I am not that far removed from them which is why things have some similarity. I had to laugh when the talked about making the defender run the hypotenuse. I said the exact same thing, word for word, in 1989, to some high schoolers. They gave a diagram of a play with a right angle and how it worked. Their problem is that you can apply that principle post snap at the point of attack instead of just pre-snap route determination.

My first HS coach was a great guy. He had graduated from our HS years earlier. He was a QB. He played at Reedley College (the same JC I played at) under JR Boone. JR was a passing innovator as well. JR played at Tulsa in the 40s and played in the NFL for the Bears, 49ers and Packers as an end. JR would go on to be the HC at Fresno State and put in a passing offense. He got fired after only 2 years. The guy that took his place at Fresno State was Jim Sweeney. He ran the veer for 2 years then switched to a passing offense. Back to Bob (my JV HS coach), he went on to play QB at Montana State. In fact, he was the next QB for Montana State after Dennis Erickson and was the QB when Erickson was the GA there after he finished. Sweeney was Erickson's HC at Montana State. As a side note, Bob married JR's daughter. Erickson was OC at Fresno State under Sweeney in the 70's. JR was a contemporary of all the California passing coaches including Claude Gilbert who worked with Coryell at San Diego State. Also, there was an inaccuracy in the book. At Montana State, Erickson was the GA and coached under Joe Tiller. Montana State had Sonny Lubick and Joe Tiller on staff with Erickson the GA. Joe Tiller was at Montana State under Sweeney as well (Sweeney left for Washington State in 1969).

So growing up in Central California, I was influenced by all of the West Coast guys. I played in a high school All-Star game. We drew over 20,000 into Bulldog stadium. The 2 starting QBs in that game went on to throw for around 23,000 yards in college (Sweeney's son at Fresno State and my HS QB at San Diego State). My HS buddy's coach was Doug Scovil (BYU guy from the book and mentioned by name). His QB coach was Brian Billick.

Mouse Davis was at Cal when I was in HS. Jack Elway was the reason I ended up at Rice instead of Stanford. These guys recruited measurables. The book is a crock about how they looked for players and not measureables. As a side note, The Play in the Big Game was the trigger.

If anybody wants to sit down over a beer at the beach (from the book and I live near a beach now) and discuss the history of passing and diagram all this stuff, let me know. Ironically, Bob was my HS history teacher so we discussed history and football as well. My math teacher was my second HS coach. In fact, I had a different head coach the first 8 of my 9 years of football. It wasn't until I came to Rice that I had the same HC for 2 years in a row. By the way, I have never made a playbook. Funny story: At Rice, we had to bring our playbooks to meetings and take notes. I brought mine but left it closed. After the meeting, I was told that I would be running after practice. I asked why and was told that I didn't take notes. I said I didn't need to take notes. I spent the next 20 minutes diagramming the playbook. The coach told me to pretend to take notes next time.

(10-01-2016 11:06 AM)ruowls Wrote:  These guys recruited measurables. The book is a crock about how they looked for players and not measureables.

I still think this is a problem with Bailiff. I think we are trying to recruit too many measureables rather than football players. More importantly, I think we are plugging people into the system based on measureables rather than as football players.

As long as we are recruiting based on measureables and plugging people into the system based on measureables, we are always going to bump up against too many people with better measureables to succeed on a consistent basis. I'm not sure you could get on the field for this coaching staff, and I'm absolutely certain that you would be the best receiver on the field if you did.

This is the "Hard Knocks"-style show that has featured UNT for three seasons now. It airs on Fox Sports Southwest. This particular segment picks up at halftime of their game with Rice. I know that there is some coaches motivational ploys going on with what the UNT coach tells his team at halftime, but its not a good rep for our guys regardless. Coach Littrell walked his comments back after the game, however.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF-3ire7...e=youtu.be

(10-04-2016 04:20 PM)Pimpa Wrote:  This is the "Hard Knocks"-style show that has featured UNT for three seasons now. It airs on Fox Sports Southwest. This particular segment picks up at halftime of their game with Rice. I know that there is some coaches motivational ploys going on with what the UNT coach tells his team at halftime, but its not a good rep for our guys regardless. Coach Littrell walked his comments back after the game, however.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF-3ire7...e=youtu.be

Harsh words from the UNT coach. And tough to hear.
But as it turns out....He was right.

(10-04-2016 04:35 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 04:20 PM)Pimpa Wrote:  This is the "Hard Knocks"-style show that has featured UNT for three seasons now. It airs on Fox Sports Southwest. This particular segment picks up at halftime of their game with Rice. I know that there is some coaches motivational ploys going on with what the UNT coach tells his team at halftime, but its not a good rep for our guys regardless. Coach Littrell walked his comments back after the game, however.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF-3ire7...e=youtu.be

Harsh words from the UNT coach. And tough to hear.
But as it turns out....He was right.

Sometimes it is the little things that translates to wins and losses. I would hope that the next coach can help our guys find and discover those little things as I don't think that the cupboard is bare for the next coach.

(10-01-2016 12:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-01-2016 11:06 AM)ruowls Wrote:  These guys recruited measurables. The book is a crock about how they looked for players and not measureables.

I still think this is a problem with Bailiff. I think we are trying to recruit too many measureables rather than football players. More importantly, I think we are plugging people into the system based on measureables rather than as football players.

As long as we are recruiting based on measureables and plugging people into the system based on measureables, we are always going to bump up against too many people with better measureables to succeed on a consistent basis. I'm not sure you could get on the field for this coaching staff, and I'm absolutely certain that you would be the best receiver on the field if you did.

Don't you think he's a little past his eligibility? On the other hand, RU, do you have any eligibility left?

(09-26-2016 05:58 PM)RiceFootball2K5 Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 01:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 08:44 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  If Rice were to have a run-based offense, using one similar to Stanford's would be more practical.

If we had Stanford's athletes, which we don't--and won't for the foreseeable future. How would we run Stanford's offense with our players? How successful do you think it would be? Why?
What scheme can we run effectively with the quality of athletes that we can recruit? On both sides of the ball?
Having an offense that can score quickly in the 4th quarter is of little use if the same defense that got you 3 scores behind through 3 quarters is somehow going to have to hold them scoreless in the 4th while you score enough to catch up.
And here's the problem with that high powered passing offense. You go 3 and out a few times in the first half and you are going to be so far behind by halftime that you can't catch up no matter what you do offensively.
You want to beat a better team? Get good enough defensively to hold it to one score in the 4th quarter, and then worry about your offense. Or maybe get a big play in the kicking game.

I think it would be successful here--or at least a lot more successful than what we currently run (a watered down version of the spread offense everyone runs). We have a huge (for C-USA) line, good RBs, a history of developing TEs, and prototypical pro style QBs in Granato and Tyner. Stanford's offense seems to be built from the same pieces. Moreover, everybody else in C-USA runs a spread, and defenses are built in an attempt to stop that offense. So we'd show them something different.
Obviously this would depend on us hiring competent offensive coaches (which we currently don't have), who could implement a tough, physical, and disciplined version of that offense.

That scheme hasn't exactly worked well for Stanford the last two weeks.

By the way, I still like the Wazzu DC as a dark horse candidate to replace Bailiff. Anybody who can build a capable defense out of the players that Mike Leach allows to get away from the offensive side of the ball definitely knows something about overachieving. I really like their defensive philosophy--speed, play downhill, create turnovers. And since he worked with Chip Kelly at New Hampshire, he would be plugged into two pretty good streams of offensive philosophy from which to hire an OC. And he comes across as the kind of guy who just might give RU a slot on the staff.