(10-03-2017 10:53 AM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 10:30 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 10:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 07:12 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 06:30 AM)greyowl72 Wrote:  Yes

+1. Do it today and start looking for a new coach.

OK, I'm fine with that but a little puzzled. Haven't we been complaining about the defense here?

Maybe this is just me remembering the most recent post I've read, but I've been under the impression that we've complained less about the defense as compared to the offense (although we've certainly complained about every aspect of this team). Still, the only initial positive for me about Bailiff getting fired midseason is the fact that Bailiff would finally be gone. A 50+ year-old coach who hasn't been a head coach at any level isn't exactly my pick for a full-time coach, however.

Huh, 50 year old? Not quite:
http://www.riceowls.com/sports/m-footbl/...ony00.html

Brian Stewart, our D.C., graduated from N. Arizona in 1995. That would make him about 44-46 if my math is correct ... and he didn't have any delays or detours in his academic career

(10-03-2017 12:26 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 10:53 AM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 10:30 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 10:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 07:12 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  +1. Do it today and start looking for a new coach.

OK, I'm fine with that but a little puzzled. Haven't we been complaining about the defense here?

Maybe this is just me remembering the most recent post I've read, but I've been under the impression that we've complained less about the defense as compared to the offense (although we've certainly complained about every aspect of this team). Still, the only initial positive for me about Bailiff getting fired midseason is the fact that Bailiff would finally be gone. A 50+ year-old coach who hasn't been a head coach at any level isn't exactly my pick for a full-time coach, however.

Huh, 50 year old? Not quite:
http://www.riceowls.com/sports/m-footbl/...ony00.html

Brian Stewart, our D.C., graduated from N. Arizona in 1995. That would make him about 44-46 if my math is correct ... and he didn't have any delays or detours in his academic career

He was actually a GA there in 1995, but had graduated/finished his playing career for them in 1987. I actually think Stewart is by far the most accomplished coach on our staff, but just not sure he's the right move as a full-time coach. Just my opinion, though.

(10-03-2017 10:30 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 10:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 07:12 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 06:30 AM)greyowl72 Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 12:37 AM)Bailiff_Lingo_Bingo Wrote:  the D coordinator

Yes

+1. Do it today and start looking for a new coach.

OK, I'm fine with that but a little puzzled. Haven't we been complaining about the defense here?

Maybe this is just me remembering the most recent post I've read, but I've been under the impression that we've complained less about the defense as compared to the offense (although we've certainly complained about every aspect of this team). Still, the only initial positive for me about Bailiff getting fired midseason is the fact that Bailiff would finally be gone. A 50+ year-old coach who hasn't been a head coach at any level isn't exactly my pick for a full-time coach, however.

Less, probably. a lot, certainly. especially the pass D.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...e-nervous/

Finally. Bailiff is on the list. He's also been around #16 on coacheshotseat.com

(10-04-2017 09:59 PM)WIowl Wrote:  https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...e-nervous/

Finally. Bailiff is on the list. He's also been around #16 on coacheshotseat.com

We are so not on the radar that what many of us have known for too long is now apparent to the rest.

Wouldn't hurt my feelings to see the toad get squashed....

(10-03-2017 01:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 10:30 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 10:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 07:12 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 06:30 AM)greyowl72 Wrote:  Yes

+1. Do it today and start looking for a new coach.

OK, I'm fine with that but a little puzzled. Haven't we been complaining about the defense here?

Maybe this is just me remembering the most recent post I've read, but I've been under the impression that we've complained less about the defense as compared to the offense (although we've certainly complained about every aspect of this team). Still, the only initial positive for me about Bailiff getting fired midseason is the fact that Bailiff would finally be gone. A 50+ year-old coach who hasn't been a head coach at any level isn't exactly my pick for a full-time coach, however.

Less, probably. a lot, certainly. especially the pass D.

The Pass D stats have not improved that much but I do feel better about it.

Except for Destri White getting faked out by the double move against Pitt, the Pass D large chunks of yardage are not due to guys getting burned. They have been in position due to combo of better pressure and position coaching/schemes but they are just not making the 1:1 plays when ball is in the air.

So as one datapoint, I am complaining less than prior years where it appeared the combo of poor schemes and no QB pressure resulted in guys being on islands getting torched on deep balls over-and-over which was maddening Groundhog Day stuff. That seems to have stopped this year (queue the knock on wood) and do I give Stewart credit for that.

Now we just need better athletes who can make plays when it is a 1:1 play for the ball.

(10-05-2017 06:20 AM)owl40 Wrote:  The Pass D stats have not improved that much but I do feel better about it.

Except for Destri White getting faked out by the double move against Pitt, the Pass D large chunks of yardage are not due to guys getting burned. They have been in position due to combo of better pressure and position coaching/schemes but they are just not making the 1:1 plays when ball is in the air.

So as one datapoint, I am complaining less than prior years where it appeared the combo of poor schemes and no QB pressure resulted in guys being on islands getting torched on deep balls over-and-over which was maddening Groundhog Day stuff. That seems to have stopped this year (queue the knock on wood) and do I give Stewart credit for that.

Now we just need better athletes who can make plays when it is a 1:1 play for the ball.

I tend to agree. Rice has given up a ton of points and yards against Stanford, UH, and Pitt. But I do feel some optimism about the defense compared to the previous 2-3 seasons.

(10-05-2017 09:45 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 06:20 AM)owl40 Wrote:  The Pass D stats have not improved that much but I do feel better about it.

Except for Destri White getting faked out by the double move against Pitt, the Pass D large chunks of yardage are not due to guys getting burned. They have been in position due to combo of better pressure and position coaching/schemes but they are just not making the 1:1 plays when ball is in the air.

So as one datapoint, I am complaining less than prior years where it appeared the combo of poor schemes and no QB pressure resulted in guys being on islands getting torched on deep balls over-and-over which was maddening Groundhog Day stuff. That seems to have stopped this year (queue the knock on wood) and do I give Stewart credit for that.

Now we just need better athletes who can make plays when it is a 1:1 play for the ball.

I tend to agree. Rice has given up a ton of points and yards against Stanford, UH, and Pitt. But I do feel some optimism about the defense compared to the previous 2-3 seasons.

+100. The problems don't appear to be schematic.

(10-05-2017 10:51 AM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 09:45 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 06:20 AM)owl40 Wrote:  The Pass D stats have not improved that much but I do feel better about it.

Except for Destri White getting faked out by the double move against Pitt, the Pass D large chunks of yardage are not due to guys getting burned. They have been in position due to combo of better pressure and position coaching/schemes but they are just not making the 1:1 plays when ball is in the air.

So as one datapoint, I am complaining less than prior years where it appeared the combo of poor schemes and no QB pressure resulted in guys being on islands getting torched on deep balls over-and-over which was maddening Groundhog Day stuff. That seems to have stopped this year (queue the knock on wood) and do I give Stewart credit for that.

Now we just need better athletes who can make plays when it is a 1:1 play for the ball.

I tend to agree. Rice has given up a ton of points and yards against Stanford, UH, and Pitt. But I do feel some optimism about the defense compared to the previous 2-3 seasons.

+100. The problems don't appear to be schematic.

I'm not sure I agree with that. The difference in our pass defense is we're better covering the downfield passes. However, against any team that can pass, we leave the middle of the field wide open, and essentially give the opposing team the short out patterns (as our DBs give far too much space to the wideouts coming off the snap). Both UH and Pitt killed us in the 15 yards and under passing game.

(10-05-2017 03:33 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 10:51 AM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 09:45 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 06:20 AM)owl40 Wrote:  The Pass D stats have not improved that much but I do feel better about it.

Except for Destri White getting faked out by the double move against Pitt, the Pass D large chunks of yardage are not due to guys getting burned. They have been in position due to combo of better pressure and position coaching/schemes but they are just not making the 1:1 plays when ball is in the air.

So as one datapoint, I am complaining less than prior years where it appeared the combo of poor schemes and no QB pressure resulted in guys being on islands getting torched on deep balls over-and-over which was maddening Groundhog Day stuff. That seems to have stopped this year (queue the knock on wood) and do I give Stewart credit for that.

Now we just need better athletes who can make plays when it is a 1:1 play for the ball.

I tend to agree. Rice has given up a ton of points and yards against Stanford, UH, and Pitt. But I do feel some optimism about the defense compared to the previous 2-3 seasons.

+100. The problems don't appear to be schematic.

I'm not sure I agree with that. The difference in our pass defense is we're better covering the downfield passes. However, against any team that can pass, we leave the middle of the field wide open, and essentially give the opposing team the short out patterns (as our DBs give far too much space to the wideouts coming off the snap). Both UH and Pitt killed us in the 15 yards and under passing game.

It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

If you press them then they burn you over the top because our guys aren’t very fast.

(10-05-2017 04:21 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 03:33 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 10:51 AM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 09:45 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 06:20 AM)owl40 Wrote:  The Pass D stats have not improved that much but I do feel better about it.

Except for Destri White getting faked out by the double move against Pitt, the Pass D large chunks of yardage are not due to guys getting burned. They have been in position due to combo of better pressure and position coaching/schemes but they are just not making the 1:1 plays when ball is in the air.

So as one datapoint, I am complaining less than prior years where it appeared the combo of poor schemes and no QB pressure resulted in guys being on islands getting torched on deep balls over-and-over which was maddening Groundhog Day stuff. That seems to have stopped this year (queue the knock on wood) and do I give Stewart credit for that.

Now we just need better athletes who can make plays when it is a 1:1 play for the ball.

I tend to agree. Rice has given up a ton of points and yards against Stanford, UH, and Pitt. But I do feel some optimism about the defense compared to the previous 2-3 seasons.

+100. The problems don't appear to be schematic.

I'm not sure I agree with that. The difference in our pass defense is we're better covering the downfield passes. However, against any team that can pass, we leave the middle of the field wide open, and essentially give the opposing team the short out patterns (as our DBs give far too much space to the wideouts coming off the snap). Both UH and Pitt killed us in the 15 yards and under passing game.

It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

If you press them then they burn you over the top because our guys aren’t very fast.

Our problems in past years were the positioning of our safeties in the defensive schemes. That appears to have been corrected, but opposing receivers have been wide open in the short game all game long.

(10-05-2017 04:23 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 04:21 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 03:33 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 10:51 AM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 09:45 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I tend to agree. Rice has given up a ton of points and yards against Stanford, UH, and Pitt. But I do feel some optimism about the defense compared to the previous 2-3 seasons.

+100. The problems don't appear to be schematic.

I'm not sure I agree with that. The difference in our pass defense is we're better covering the downfield passes. However, against any team that can pass, we leave the middle of the field wide open, and essentially give the opposing team the short out patterns (as our DBs give far too much space to the wideouts coming off the snap). Both UH and Pitt killed us in the 15 yards and under passing game.

It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

If you press them then they burn you over the top because our guys aren’t very fast.

Our problems in past years were the positioning of our safeties in the defensive schemes. That appears to have been corrected, but opposing receivers have been wide open in the short game all game long.

I think our problem is no matter where our safeties are positioned the WR for the other team is much faster. Placement can only help so much. I'd have to give a D1 receiver 20 yards of cushion to not get burned over the top (at least). Well our guys have to give 10+ and go figure that leaves short passes open.

Our OK defenses had NFL starting corners and safeties and were still bad compared to a P5 team.

(10-05-2017 04:40 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 04:23 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 04:21 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 03:33 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 10:51 AM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  +100. The problems don't appear to be schematic.

I'm not sure I agree with that. The difference in our pass defense is we're better covering the downfield passes. However, against any team that can pass, we leave the middle of the field wide open, and essentially give the opposing team the short out patterns (as our DBs give far too much space to the wideouts coming off the snap). Both UH and Pitt killed us in the 15 yards and under passing game.

It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

If you press them then they burn you over the top because our guys aren’t very fast.

Our problems in past years were the positioning of our safeties in the defensive schemes. That appears to have been corrected, but opposing receivers have been wide open in the short game all game long.

I think our problem is no matter where our safeties are positioned the WR for the other team is much faster. Placement can only help so much. I'd have to give a D1 receiver 20 yards of cushion to not get burned over the top (at least). Well our guys have to give 10+ and go figure that leaves short passes open.

Our OK defenses had NFL starting corners and safeties and were still bad compared to a P5 team.

Yeah, to my (untrained) eye, Stewart is absolutely maximizing the performance that can be had with the ~~available talent~~. Remember, our D talent is probably no better than on the offensive side, and the offense is among the worst in the nation. We can't get much pressure from the line or win almost any 1-on-1 battles, downfield or short, so what do you do? "Giving up" the short/medium passing game seems like the least bad option.

(10-05-2017 05:48 PM)Bailiff_Lingo_Bingo Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 04:40 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 04:23 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 04:21 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 03:33 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I'm not sure I agree with that. The difference in our pass defense is we're better covering the downfield passes. However, against any team that can pass, we leave the middle of the field wide open, and essentially give the opposing team the short out patterns (as our DBs give far too much space to the wideouts coming off the snap). Both UH and Pitt killed us in the 15 yards and under passing game.

It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

If you press them then they burn you over the top because our guys aren’t very fast.

Our problems in past years were the positioning of our safeties in the defensive schemes. That appears to have been corrected, but opposing receivers have been wide open in the short game all game long.

I think our problem is no matter where our safeties are positioned the WR for the other team is much faster. Placement can only help so much. I'd have to give a D1 receiver 20 yards of cushion to not get burned over the top (at least). Well our guys have to give 10+ and go figure that leaves short passes open.

Our OK defenses had NFL starting corners and safeties and were still bad compared to a P5 team.

Yeah, to my (untrained) eye, Stewart is absolutely maximizing the performance that can be had with the ~~available talent~~. Remember, our D talent is probably no better than on the offensive side, and the offense is among the worst in the nation. We can't get much pressure from the line or win almost any 1-on-1 battles, downfield or short, so what do you do? "Giving up" the short/medium passing game seems like the least bad option.

Our defense is not ranked much better, and the only reason it's not worse is becuase (1) Houston called off the dogs after just one half of fottball against us, and (2) we played two of the worst offensive teams in the FBS division.

(10-05-2017 07:31 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 05:48 PM)Bailiff_Lingo_Bingo Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 04:40 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 04:23 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 04:21 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

If you press them then they burn you over the top because our guys aren’t very fast.

Our problems in past years were the positioning of our safeties in the defensive schemes. That appears to have been corrected, but opposing receivers have been wide open in the short game all game long.

I think our problem is no matter where our safeties are positioned the WR for the other team is much faster. Placement can only help so much. I'd have to give a D1 receiver 20 yards of cushion to not get burned over the top (at least). Well our guys have to give 10+ and go figure that leaves short passes open.

Our OK defenses had NFL starting corners and safeties and were still bad compared to a P5 team.

Yeah, to my (untrained) eye, Stewart is absolutely maximizing the performance that can be had with the ~~available talent~~. Remember, our D talent is probably no better than on the offensive side, and the offense is among the worst in the nation. We can't get much pressure from the line or win almost any 1-on-1 battles, downfield or short, so what do you do? "Giving up" the short/medium passing game seems like the least bad option.

Our defense is not ranked much better, and the only reason it's not worse is becuase (1) Houston called off the dogs after just one half of fottball against us, and (2) we played two of the worst offensive teams in the FBS division.

What is your "much?"
http://csnbbs.com/thread-828786-post-146...id14642118

(10-05-2017 09:20 PM)Bailiff_Lingo_Bingo Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 07:31 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 05:48 PM)Bailiff_Lingo_Bingo Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 04:40 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 04:23 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Our problems in past years were the positioning of our safeties in the defensive schemes. That appears to have been corrected, but opposing receivers have been wide open in the short game all game long.

I think our problem is no matter where our safeties are positioned the WR for the other team is much faster. Placement can only help so much. I'd have to give a D1 receiver 20 yards of cushion to not get burned over the top (at least). Well our guys have to give 10+ and go figure that leaves short passes open.

Our OK defenses had NFL starting corners and safeties and were still bad compared to a P5 team.

Yeah, to my (untrained) eye, Stewart is absolutely maximizing the performance that can be had with the ~~available talent~~. Remember, our D talent is probably no better than on the offensive side, and the offense is among the worst in the nation. We can't get much pressure from the line or win almost any 1-on-1 battles, downfield or short, so what do you do? "Giving up" the short/medium passing game seems like the least bad option.

Our defense is not ranked much better, and the only reason it's not worse is becuase (1) Houston called off the dogs after just one half of fottball against us, and (2) we played two of the worst offensive teams in the FBS division.

What is your "much?"
http://csnbbs.com/thread-828786-post-146...id14642118

Ranking 92 out of 128 teams is not much of an accomplishment...and, again, that ranking is as "good" as it is because Applewhite called off the dogs after just one half.

Better recruiting would help but good luck to that.

(10-05-2017 04:21 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 03:33 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 10:51 AM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 09:45 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 06:20 AM)owl40 Wrote:  The Pass D stats have not improved that much but I do feel better about it.

Except for Destri White getting faked out by the double move against Pitt, the Pass D large chunks of yardage are not due to guys getting burned. They have been in position due to combo of better pressure and position coaching/schemes but they are just not making the 1:1 plays when ball is in the air.

So as one datapoint, I am complaining less than prior years where it appeared the combo of poor schemes and no QB pressure resulted in guys being on islands getting torched on deep balls over-and-over which was maddening Groundhog Day stuff. That seems to have stopped this year (queue the knock on wood) and do I give Stewart credit for that.

Now we just need better athletes who can make plays when it is a 1:1 play for the ball.

I tend to agree. Rice has given up a ton of points and yards against Stanford, UH, and Pitt. But I do feel some optimism about the defense compared to the previous 2-3 seasons.

+100. The problems don't appear to be schematic.

I'm not sure I agree with that. The difference in our pass defense is we're better covering the downfield passes. However, against any team that can pass, we leave the middle of the field wide open, and essentially give the opposing team the short out patterns (as our DBs give far too much space to the wideouts coming off the snap). Both UH and Pitt killed us in the 15 yards and under passing game.

It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

If you press them then they burn you over the top because our guys aren’t very fast.

(10-05-2017 09:53 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 09:20 PM)Bailiff_Lingo_Bingo Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 07:31 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 05:48 PM)Bailiff_Lingo_Bingo Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 04:40 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  I think our problem is no matter where our safeties are positioned the WR for the other team is much faster. Placement can only help so much. I'd have to give a D1 receiver 20 yards of cushion to not get burned over the top (at least). Well our guys have to give 10+ and go figure that leaves short passes open.

Our OK defenses had NFL starting corners and safeties and were still bad compared to a P5 team.

Yeah, to my (untrained) eye, Stewart is absolutely maximizing the performance that can be had with the ~~available talent~~. Remember, our D talent is probably no better than on the offensive side, and the offense is among the worst in the nation. We can't get much pressure from the line or win almost any 1-on-1 battles, downfield or short, so what do you do? "Giving up" the short/medium passing game seems like the least bad option.

Our defense is not ranked much better, and the only reason it's not worse is becuase (1) Houston called off the dogs after just one half of fottball against us, and (2) we played two of the worst offensive teams in the FBS division.

What is your "much?"
http://csnbbs.com/thread-828786-post-146...id14642118

Ranking 92 out of 128 teams is not much of an accomplishment...and, again, that ranking is as "good" as it is because Applewhite called off the dogs after just one half.

- I'll take 90s over 120s any day
- The same can be said about the offense - it is as "good" as it is because those points, however few, get scored against other teams' 3rd stringers

(10-06-2017 09:40 AM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  - I'll take 90s over 120s any day
- The same can be said about the offense - it is as "good" as it is because those points, however few, get scored against other teams' 3rd stringers

That is factually incorrect. Only 10 of Rice's 58 points this season were in "garbage time" -- the 7 against Stanford and 3 against Houston.

(10-06-2017 11:25 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(10-06-2017 09:40 AM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  - I'll take 90s over 120s any day
- The same can be said about the offense - it is as "good" as it is because those points, however few, get scored against other teams' 3rd stringers

That is factually incorrect. Only 10 of Rice's 58 points this season were in "garbage time" -- the 7 against Stanford and 3 against Houston.

and the other 31 were against UTEP. So that leaves 58 - 31 - 10 = 17 points scored in "prime time." Ok guys.