(11-14-2016 06:48 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 06:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:36 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 04:16 PM)allbig8 Wrote:  The earlier poster that lamented how great Hatfield was is right. He was a really good coach and a great man. He was accomplished. But.... according to some "experts", the game had passed him by and it was time to go. I would just warn against letting that sentiment repeat itself again.

Yes, those "experts" really looked like fools in 2006.

That scheme of his that the experts thought had been passed by has served Navy pretty well for the last few decades. They scored 60-something on us a few years back, and they weren't doing it with athletes that were better than ours. And Air Force and Army at times as well. Army sure blew us out with it this year.
Hatfield's problem was that his teams quit playing defense. In the game that was probably the beginning of the end for him, that antiquated offense scored 63--but the defense let in 70. If Hatfield's latter teams had played defense, they would have been okay.

If Ken hadn't lost Wally Ake in 1997 it might have continued to be a good ride. Ake's 1994 defense ranked in the Top 25 in four categories. The '94 defense was the best I had seen at Rice since the Neely era. The three consecutive games against Tech, UT, and A&M (especially A&M) were tremendous.

Agree.

Dude.... I wasn't pointing out "you all".. I'm included in the "experts" comment...I don't evaluate their personnel... I don't watch the video.. etc... To say my skin is thin expresses how little you know me... So touche I guess...

(11-14-2016 04:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 04:16 PM)allbig8 Wrote:  I knew I would get killed.... I just think the game is more complex than a message board can explain....

Killed? If you're a coach, your skin should be thicker.

Of course the game is more complex, which is why only knowing us from a message board, you can't possibly know what we do and don't know... yet you felt qualified to draw the conclusion that we didn't.

Quote:Schematically? I don't like the Air Raid... Rice WR's lack the speed to beat man coverage... Stehling has faced a ton of zero safety man coverage... Hard for him to look good when there is no separation by the WR's... To the staff's credit, his rushing numbers have been pretty decent lately (especially against Charlotte) and that's likely a bi-product of the zero man defenses and the necessity to outnumber the box where the only way to do that is run your 11th guy (QB)... So yeah... the coach in me cringes at Air Raid with this skill group... But, they've made adjustments... All I'm trying to say is unless you're sure these other "candidates" bring something you haven't already seen, then give the man who brought the only conference title in four generations a chance to right the ship in a new building. The earlier poster that lamented how great Hatfield was is right. He was a really good coach and a great man. He was accomplished. But.... according to some "experts", the game had passed him by and it was time to go. I would just warn against letting that sentiment repeat itself again. The fact is, DB has been successful, and he's a great man. Just tap the breaks a little.

This response begs a rather obvious question. Do you think Rice can consistently recruit players that can beat press man? Or a QB who can make up for that by being able to throw the ball through a keyhole and/or run for 100+ every game (and not get injured/worn out?)

I don't.

So maybe the solution is to run a different scheme.

Specifically WHAT adjustments are you talking about? Telling Stehling to run more? You think that's the answer? We're 10 years in with fundamentally the same scheme. One that even you admit doesn't fit the personnel. You think he's going to change now? I've long suggested that if he would, he could hire RU and they'd probably be unbeatable.

I've seen tweaks only through about 5 OCs. No changes in the schemes. Whether that is because Bailiff refuses or because this is essentially the only scheme that anyone runs anymore (which I believe) doesn't matter. It doesn't work for us. If I were a defense, I'd make Stehling run as well. No knock on Stehling... just that running QBs in the spread frequently get hammered.

If you can't get open against cover zero, then the ONLY way to have success against a defense is to turn your QB into a runner... Otherwise you're outnumbered in the box. 7 on 6. If Charlotte can stifle us, we have no prayer.

That's coaching 101... not some proof that these guys are world beaters.

(11-14-2016 04:17 PM)allbig8 Wrote:  Then pardon me.... maybe I'm stupid

I wouldn't know... but it certainly seems that you can dish out criticism, but not take it.

(11-14-2016 04:16 PM)allbig8 Wrote:  I knew I would get killed.... I just think the game is more complex than a message board can explain.... Schematically? I don't like the Air Raid... Rice WR's lack the speed to beat man coverage... Stehling has faced a ton of zero safety man coverage... Hard for him to look good when there is no separation by the WR's... To the staff's credit, his rushing numbers have been pretty decent lately (especially against Charlotte) and that's likely a bi-product of the zero man defenses and the necessity to outnumber the box where the only way to do that is run your 11th guy (QB)... So yeah... the coach in me cringes at Air Raid with this skill group... But, they've made adjustments... All I'm trying to say is unless you're sure these other "candidates" bring something you haven't already seen, then give the man who brought the only conference title in four generations a chance to right the ship in a new building. The earlier poster that lamented how great Hatfield was is right. He was a really good coach and a great man. He was accomplished. But.... according to some "experts", the game had passed him by and it was time to go. I would just warn against letting that sentiment repeat itself again. The fact is, DB has been successful, and he's a great man. Just tap the breaks a little.

More like its due to the ghastly quality of opposition we are facing now.

And no, DB has not been successful. An all time losing record is not successful. No where but the good ol' boys coaching fraternity. Seemingly every couple of months we get someone who shows up to defend Bailiff by trying to claim that we don't understand.

(11-15-2016 07:28 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 04:16 PM)allbig8 Wrote:  I knew I would get killed.... I just think the game is more complex than a message board can explain.... Schematically? I don't like the Air Raid... Rice WR's lack the speed to beat man coverage... Stehling has faced a ton of zero safety man coverage... Hard for him to look good when there is no separation by the WR's... To the staff's credit, his rushing numbers have been pretty decent lately (especially against Charlotte) and that's likely a bi-product of the zero man defenses and the necessity to outnumber the box where the only way to do that is run your 11th guy (QB)... So yeah... the coach in me cringes at Air Raid with this skill group... But, they've made adjustments... All I'm trying to say is unless you're sure these other "candidates" bring something you haven't already seen, then give the man who brought the only conference title in four generations a chance to right the ship in a new building. The earlier poster that lamented how great Hatfield was is right. He was a really good coach and a great man. He was accomplished. But.... according to some "experts", the game had passed him by and it was time to go. I would just warn against letting that sentiment repeat itself again. The fact is, DB has been successful, and he's a great man. Just tap the breaks a little.

More like its due to the ghastly quality of opposition we are facing now.

And no, DB has not been successful. An all time losing record is not successful. No where but the good ol' boys coaching fraternity. Seemingly every couple of months we get someone who shows up to defend Bailiff by trying to claim that we don't understand.

DB's been a mixed bag of success and failure. First bowl win in 50+ years, first conference championship, etc. But he has also guided us to two completely awful and putrid seasons (2009 and 2016), has an all-time losing record like you said, etc.

However, I think it is no longer debatable that we need to move on, and I can't believe we have some people actively arguing against that. Mind boggling.

(11-14-2016 10:20 PM)allbig8 Wrote:  ...then give (him) a chance...

This response begs a rather obvious question...are you the ghost of John Lennon? (you'll fit in on this board) Or are you a surrogate for Cocah bailiff or one of the staff?

Almost every single poster here would have long been fired for similar performances over 10 years.


No, it's time for him to go away from here now.

But when Coach Bailiff is once again patrolling the sidelines as coach at Rice next season and beyond, I believe little of what you suggested will make much difference in his team's performance. Leadership starts at the top. Plus, this season we have about the easiest conference schedule we could (in CUSA, the worst conference this season) and next year's schedule will likely be more difficult, enough so to erase any incremental gains made by yet another year in Coach Bailiff's 'system' by the players and staff, and healing from any injuries that are supposedly the real cause of the losing, according to Coach Bailiff himself. I guess next season nobody will get hurt because that never happens.

We need a head coach at Rice who can win here in spite of the restrictions and issues, not only in a perfect scenario. Coach Bailiff isn't that man. And I don't recall seeing the EZF and showers lining up on the field to stop all the easy long passes and quick scores, but then again, the EZF doesn't travel to away games for us...and neither do the new showers.

(11-14-2016 10:20 PM)allbig8 Wrote:  Dude.... I wasn't pointing out "you all".. I'm included in the "experts" comment...I don't evaluate their personnel... I don't watch the video.. etc... To say my skin is thin expresses how little you know me... So touche I guess...

How would we know you? It seems your first post was yesterday.

(11-14-2016 10:20 PM)allbig8 Wrote:  Dude.... I wasn't pointing out "you all".. I'm included in the "experts" comment...I don't evaluate their personnel... I don't watch the video.. etc... To say my skin is thin expresses how little you know me... So touche I guess...

(11-14-2016 04:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I wouldn't know... but it certainly seems that you can dish out criticism, but not take it.

Hence my use of 'I wouldn't know' and 'it certainly seems'.

You responded to rather rational responses only marginally related to you (mostly defending opinions about Bailiff) by saying you had been 'killed'.

If you consider that 'killed', then I think it a fair assessment that you have rather thin skin to be a coach. SUCCESSFUL coaches at most places get 'killed' far worse than anyone on here has killed Bailiff, much less you.

Yes, the problem with the we can not compete argument is that if we continue to play bad football it might considered that the money used should be re allocated to something we can excel in such as academics. We lose our credibility in football if we do not make a change after this terrible season.

(11-14-2016 05:16 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  we seem content to just line up and do what everybody else does, and when we out-athlete you we can win and when we don't we can't.

This is precisely how the conference title came about. It's not a coincidence that we won CUSA-Ultra-Lite immediately after it was neutered, when we had the advantage of already being established; it's also not a coincidence that just a couple years in, we've been overtaken by the hungry newcomers that have gotten up to speed.

The conference title is nice, but it is overvalued. We need someone who can compete no matter the surroundings, no matter the circumstances (within reason; still, I think a coach making $800,000 at any level should be expected to put a predominantly competitive product on the field).

Bailiff is quite clearly not our guy; I contend that he never was. And our program is now at an all-time low. That is not an overstatement. So a change is long overdue.

(11-15-2016 09:33 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  We need a head coach at Rice who can win here in spite of the restrictions and issues, not only in a perfect scenario. Coach Bailiff isn't that man. And I don't recall seeing the EZF and showers lining up on the field to stop all the easy long passes and quick scores, but then again, the EZF doesn't travel to away games for us...and neither do the new showers.

Exactly.

I'm quite confident that if he had Texas's facilities, David Bailiff could go 7-5 in CUSA, year in and year out. But we aren't going to have Texas's facilities any time soon, if ever, and 7-5 in CUSA is not going to get us anywhere but CUSA or Sunbelt or D-3.

(11-14-2016 06:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:36 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 04:16 PM)allbig8 Wrote:  The earlier poster that lamented how great Hatfield was is right. He was a really good coach and a great man. He was accomplished. But.... according to some "experts", the game had passed him by and it was time to go. I would just warn against letting that sentiment repeat itself again.

Yes, those "experts" really looked like fools in 2006.

That scheme of his that the experts thought had been passed by has served Navy pretty well for the last few decades. They scored 60-something on us a few years back, and they weren't doing it with athletes that were better than ours. And Air Force and Army at times as well. Army sure blew us out with it this year.

Hatfield's problem was that his teams quit playing defense. In the game that was probably the beginning of the end for him, that antiquated offense scored 63--but the defense let in 70. If Hatfield's latter teams had played defense, they would have been okay.

North Dakota State has a great version of this offense as well. I like it because you can recruit players to it that no one else recruits - fullbacks, shorter offensive linemen, etc, but you still have to play defense. One drawback is that you don't have a wide open passing attack for your defense to practice against during the week.

(11-15-2016 06:22 PM)davidw Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 06:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:36 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 04:16 PM)allbig8 Wrote:  The earlier poster that lamented how great Hatfield was is right. He was a really good coach and a great man. He was accomplished. But.... according to some "experts", the game had passed him by and it was time to go. I would just warn against letting that sentiment repeat itself again.

Yes, those "experts" really looked like fools in 2006.

That scheme of his that the experts thought had been passed by has served Navy pretty well for the last few decades. They scored 60-something on us a few years back, and they weren't doing it with athletes that were better than ours. And Air Force and Army at times as well. Army sure blew us out with it this year.
Hatfield's problem was that his teams quit playing defense. In the game that was probably the beginning of the end for him, that antiquated offense scored 63--but the defense let in 70. If Hatfield's latter teams had played defense, they would have been okay.

North Dakota State has a great version of this offense as well. I like it because you can recruit players to it that no one else recruits - fullbacks, shorter offensive linemen, etc, but you still have to play defense. One drawback is that you don't have a wide open passing attack for your defense to practice against during the week.

I think that's the biggest disadvantage.

That's why I always liked what Paul Johnson did at Georgia Southern and at Hawaii--flexbone running attack plus run and shoot passing attack. I had some hope that was what Hatfield was going to do at Rice, and I think I even sent you an email to that effect at some point way back when. The conventional wisdom is that it's too hard to execute--but you basically have one formation, 10-12 runs, and 10-12 passes. You can work on them until you perfect them.

Run it with a tight end, and you can recruit a lot of athletes who can be good defenders if they don't make it on offense--fullbacks, tight ends, short quick linemen. Even your halfbacks can be corners and your quarterbacks can be safeties--and Lord knows we need help there.

(11-15-2016 08:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 06:22 PM)davidw Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 06:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:36 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 04:16 PM)allbig8 Wrote:  The earlier poster that lamented how great Hatfield was is right. He was a really good coach and a great man. He was accomplished. But.... according to some "experts", the game had passed him by and it was time to go. I would just warn against letting that sentiment repeat itself again.

Yes, those "experts" really looked like fools in 2006.

That scheme of his that the experts thought had been passed by has served Navy pretty well for the last few decades. They scored 60-something on us a few years back, and they weren't doing it with athletes that were better than ours. And Air Force and Army at times as well. Army sure blew us out with it this year.
Hatfield's problem was that his teams quit playing defense. In the game that was probably the beginning of the end for him, that antiquated offense scored 63--but the defense let in 70. If Hatfield's latter teams had played defense, they would have been okay.

North Dakota State has a great version of this offense as well. I like it because you can recruit players to it that no one else recruits - fullbacks, shorter offensive linemen, etc, but you still have to play defense. One drawback is that you don't have a wide open passing attack for your defense to practice against during the week.

I think that's the biggest disadvantage.

That's why I always liked what Paul Johnson did at Georgia Southern and at Hawaii--flexbone running attack plus run and shoot passing attack. I had some hope that was what Hatfield was going to do at Rice, and I think I even sent you an email to that effect at some point way back when. The conventional wisdom is that it's too hard to execute--but you basically have one formation, 10-12 runs, and 10-12 passes. You can work on them until you perfect them.

Run it with a tight end, and you can recruit a lot of athletes who can be good defenders if they don't make it on offense--fullbacks, tight ends, short quick linemen. Even your halfbacks can be corners and your quarterbacks can be safeties--and Lord knows we need help there.

You should see the option plays Hambone drew up the other day. It had pass options and run options. Just like you like.

(11-15-2016 10:16 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 08:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 06:22 PM)davidw Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 06:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:36 PM)At Ease Wrote:  Yes, those "experts" really looked like fools in 2006.

That scheme of his that the experts thought had been passed by has served Navy pretty well for the last few decades. They scored 60-something on us a few years back, and they weren't doing it with athletes that were better than ours. And Air Force and Army at times as well. Army sure blew us out with it this year.
Hatfield's problem was that his teams quit playing defense. In the game that was probably the beginning of the end for him, that antiquated offense scored 63--but the defense let in 70. If Hatfield's latter teams had played defense, they would have been okay.

North Dakota State has a great version of this offense as well. I like it because you can recruit players to it that no one else recruits - fullbacks, shorter offensive linemen, etc, but you still have to play defense. One drawback is that you don't have a wide open passing attack for your defense to practice against during the week.

I think that's the biggest disadvantage.

That's why I always liked what Paul Johnson did at Georgia Southern and at Hawaii--flexbone running attack plus run and shoot passing attack. I had some hope that was what Hatfield was going to do at Rice, and I think I even sent you an email to that effect at some point way back when. The conventional wisdom is that it's too hard to execute--but you basically have one formation, 10-12 runs, and 10-12 passes. You can work on them until you perfect them.
Run it with a tight end, and you can recruit a lot of athletes who can be good defenders if they don't make it on offense--fullbacks, tight ends, short quick linemen. Even your halfbacks can be corners and your quarterbacks can be safeties--and Lord knows we need help there.

You should see the option plays Hambone drew up the other day. It had pass options and run options. Just like you like.

Oh, great, we've got a kicker drawing plays. Just kidding, of course.

(11-16-2016 07:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 10:16 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 08:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 06:22 PM)davidw Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 06:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  That scheme of his that the experts thought had been passed by has served Navy pretty well for the last few decades. They scored 60-something on us a few years back, and they weren't doing it with athletes that were better than ours. And Air Force and Army at times as well. Army sure blew us out with it this year.
Hatfield's problem was that his teams quit playing defense. In the game that was probably the beginning of the end for him, that antiquated offense scored 63--but the defense let in 70. If Hatfield's latter teams had played defense, they would have been okay.

North Dakota State has a great version of this offense as well. I like it because you can recruit players to it that no one else recruits - fullbacks, shorter offensive linemen, etc, but you still have to play defense. One drawback is that you don't have a wide open passing attack for your defense to practice against during the week.

I think that's the biggest disadvantage.

That's why I always liked what Paul Johnson did at Georgia Southern and at Hawaii--flexbone running attack plus run and shoot passing attack. I had some hope that was what Hatfield was going to do at Rice, and I think I even sent you an email to that effect at some point way back when. The conventional wisdom is that it's too hard to execute--but you basically have one formation, 10-12 runs, and 10-12 passes. You can work on them until you perfect them.
Run it with a tight end, and you can recruit a lot of athletes who can be good defenders if they don't make it on offense--fullbacks, tight ends, short quick linemen. Even your halfbacks can be corners and your quarterbacks can be safeties--and Lord knows we need help there.

You should see the option plays Hambone drew up the other day. It had pass options and run options. Just like you like.

Oh, great, we've got a kicker drawing plays. Just kidding, of course.

Hey, we've had a punter as our leading passer, so there is precedent.

#UnconventionalWisdom

Sent from my QTAIR7 using CSNbbs mobile app

(11-16-2016 07:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 10:16 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 08:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 06:22 PM)davidw Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 06:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  That scheme of his that the experts thought had been passed by has served Navy pretty well for the last few decades. They scored 60-something on us a few years back, and they weren't doing it with athletes that were better than ours. And Air Force and Army at times as well. Army sure blew us out with it this year.
Hatfield's problem was that his teams quit playing defense. In the game that was probably the beginning of the end for him, that antiquated offense scored 63--but the defense let in 70. If Hatfield's latter teams had played defense, they would have been okay.

North Dakota State has a great version of this offense as well. I like it because you can recruit players to it that no one else recruits - fullbacks, shorter offensive linemen, etc, but you still have to play defense. One drawback is that you don't have a wide open passing attack for your defense to practice against during the week.

I think that's the biggest disadvantage.

That's why I always liked what Paul Johnson did at Georgia Southern and at Hawaii--flexbone running attack plus run and shoot passing attack. I had some hope that was what Hatfield was going to do at Rice, and I think I even sent you an email to that effect at some point way back when. The conventional wisdom is that it's too hard to execute--but you basically have one formation, 10-12 runs, and 10-12 passes. You can work on them until you perfect them.
Run it with a tight end, and you can recruit a lot of athletes who can be good defenders if they don't make it on offense--fullbacks, tight ends, short quick linemen. Even your halfbacks can be corners and your quarterbacks can be safeties--and Lord knows we need help there.

You should see the option plays Hambone drew up the other day. It had pass options and run options. Just like you like.

Oh, great, we've got a kicker drawing plays. Just kidding, of course.

He was just trying to drum up business for himself (actually his protégé).

Don't worry. The plays were "optimized" by someone else in the room.

(11-16-2016 07:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 10:16 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 08:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think that's the biggest disadvantage.

That's why I always liked what Paul Johnson did at Georgia Southern and at Hawaii--flexbone running attack plus run and shoot passing attack. I had some hope that was what Hatfield was going to do at Rice, and I think I even sent you an email to that effect at some point way back when. The conventional wisdom is that it's too hard to execute--but you basically have one formation, 10-12 runs, and 10-12 passes. You can work on them until you perfect them.
Run it with a tight end, and you can recruit a lot of athletes who can be good defenders if they don't make it on offense--fullbacks, tight ends, short quick linemen. Even your halfbacks can be corners and your quarterbacks can be safeties--and Lord knows we need help there.

You should see the option plays Hambone drew up the other day. It had pass options and run options. Just like you like.

Oh, great, we've got a kicker drawing plays. Just kidding, of course.

Well, Paul Johnson just may be available after this season:

HOT SEAT #20

Paul Johnson-GA Tech (6-4)
HOT SEAT #19

David Bailiff-Rice (2-8)

Of course, Johnson went and beat a Top25 team in then-#14 Va Tech last week, so there's that. Still, different standards of success at GA Tech than at Rice, as many fans and alumns want Johnson gone.

FTR, he is 59 yrs old, makes $2,900,000/year, in 20 seasons he's 174-87 .667; in 9 seasons at GA Tech Johnson is 67-48 .583; last year he went 3-9 at Tech.

Kickers have lots of valuable coaching skills.

They stand on the sidelines watching the game... yelling encouragement... clapping... mentally critiquing and adjusting... and then at critical moments, being entirely to blame for things that may or may not have been of their doing.

That's all a joke

But I AM just an 'ideas' man. It's up to the S/Es to put it into action.

If Johnson hasn't been able to build a consistent winner at Tech, what makes you think he can be successful at Rice?

I know he coached Navy, but this is going to be a complete rebuild now, perhaps the biggest in the FBS. I'm not sure that Johnson would be up to that at this stage in his career.

Now, as Owl 69 has mentioned before, Johnson was on the frontier of the option-r'ns hybrid offense. We could benefit from that, because true option passing (reads during the play instead of designed play-action) in the hands of smart, disciplined players would be a huge weapon.

Johnson's contract runs through 2020, so would be surprised if they fire him after this year (considering they've gone from 3-9 to a likely 7-5), but just my opinion.

(11-16-2016 11:10 AM)Wiessman Wrote:  If Johnson hasn't been able to build a consistent winner at Tech, what makes you think he can be successful at Rice?

I know he coached Navy, but this is going to be a complete rebuild now, perhaps the biggest in the FBS. I'm not sure that Johnson would be up to that at this stage in his career.

Now, as Owl 69 has mentioned before, Johnson was on the frontier of the option-r'ns hybrid offense. We could benefit from that, because true option passing (reads during the play instead of designed play-action) in the hands of smart, disciplined players would be a huge weapon.

I would argue that Johnson has been reasonably successful at Tech. Why I could see him being successful at Rice is because we play such vastly inferior competition. Sure, he isn't going to take Rice to the level where we can beat Alabama, but he stands a chance at being successful at Rice and would be a marked upgrade from the clownshow we currently have.