(10-17-2017 02:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 02:18 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 02:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 01:55 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 01:44 PM)RiceFootball2K5 Wrote:  Glynn Hill‏ @RiceChron:

Returning against UTSA: QB @SamGlaes12, RB @SamuellStewartt, G Ken Thompson, CB @Dangelo_Ellis, K @WillHarrison_25 & WR @camcam1093

Glaesmann will start while Miklo Smalls has been promoted to the #2 QB. Bailiff said expect to see Smalls more t/o the rest of the season.

Jackson Tyner will still see time. Bailiff said the offense will employ him in a number of ways (i.e. tight end) in the coming weeks.

Does this bring back horror memories of the QB by committee approach from years past?

Actually, no. Instead of three #1s, we seem to have a clear 1, 2, 3. Looks like the plan is to give Smalls more time and experience to prep him for the future. Isn't this what we have been begging for?

I thought Ellis was out for the season.

Other than the Cleveland Browns, I literally cannot think of another example where the depth chart is less clear. Sure we have a 1,2,3 for this week but lord knows what it will be next.

You have a 1,2,3 where your 2 doesn't play unless your 1 gets hurt or the game is way out of reach. Your 3 doesn't play unless your 2 gets hurt. If we wanted to give Smalls practice and training, we could have played him as a garbage time QB for Stanford, Pitt, UTEP or the entire second half for UH.

We've been begging for a cohesive development plan - not week by week shuffling of the depth chart. I literally have no idea what we are doing now. If Smalls was our #3 and the plan was to not play him barring injury, then why did we start him against Army? Shouldn't he have been the backup? That begs the question of what are we doing in practice?

Given that Hue Jackson will probably be fired in the near future, I think Cleveland is a perfect landing spot for Bailiff. Its a match of questionable roster moves and depth charts made in heaven.

C'mon, now. At the time we played Stanford, Pitt, et al, the plan was obviously to redshirt Smalls. Then Glaesman got hurt, Tyner was not effective, and the need became so great the plan changed. Now the redshirt has been burned, and they are doing this year what they planned for next year - working him in, giving him some experience. Why is your assumption that it was always planned to use Smalls this year? I thought one of the knocks on Bailiff was that he didn't adjust to changing situations. Well, he seems to be trying to adjust to this one.

Clearly Glaesman will start, and Smalls will see some time. Tyner will be the #3 and may see some action along the way as they ease him into a new role, as TE. Not at all what we had in 2009. Now if they start alternating series within the threesome, I will retract my statement.

Tyner was 32 of 67 (47.8 cmp %) for 318 yards, 2 TD and 1 INT in 2016. This season he is 46 of 96 (47.9 cmp %) for 598 yards, 2 TD and 4 INT. With the exception of the extra 3 picks, near identical statline. His rating per ESPN is somehow higher in 2017 (?) than 2016, although not by much.

To which I ask, we saw Tyner last year we got almost the same Tyner this year. If 2017 Tyner wasn't good enough, then why was he #2 on the depth chart going into this season??? It isn't like we went from Patriots Matt Cassell or Packers Matt Flynn to their alter egos elsewhere. 2016 Tyner = Spring game Tyner = 2017 Tyner. Which means if Smalls makes sense to be #2 now and start against Army, it would have made sense to have him be the #2 going into the season.

Which is why I the issue is we do not have a cohesive development plan, or seemingly a plan at all. Its throw stuff against wall and see what sticks. Or mash the square peg into the round hole until either/both break. This is not an opinion based on just this change. Its year in year out - which makes the Cleveland Browns comparison even more appropriate.

+1 Throwing stuff against the wall is not likely or we have treated the walls so that nothing sticks.

(10-17-2017 02:46 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 02:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 02:18 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 02:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 01:55 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Does this bring back horror memories of the QB by committee approach from years past?

Actually, no. Instead of three #1s, we seem to have a clear 1, 2, 3. Looks like the plan is to give Smalls more time and experience to prep him for the future. Isn't this what we have been begging for?

I thought Ellis was out for the season.

Other than the Cleveland Browns, I literally cannot think of another example where the depth chart is less clear. Sure we have a 1,2,3 for this week but lord knows what it will be next.

You have a 1,2,3 where your 2 doesn't play unless your 1 gets hurt or the game is way out of reach. Your 3 doesn't play unless your 2 gets hurt. If we wanted to give Smalls practice and training, we could have played him as a garbage time QB for Stanford, Pitt, UTEP or the entire second half for UH.

We've been begging for a cohesive development plan - not week by week shuffling of the depth chart. I literally have no idea what we are doing now. If Smalls was our #3 and the plan was to not play him barring injury, then why did we start him against Army? Shouldn't he have been the backup? That begs the question of what are we doing in practice?

Given that Hue Jackson will probably be fired in the near future, I think Cleveland is a perfect landing spot for Bailiff. Its a match of questionable roster moves and depth charts made in heaven.

C'mon, now. At the time we played Stanford, Pitt, et al, the plan was obviously to redshirt Smalls. Then Glaesman got hurt, Tyner was not effective, and the need became so great the plan changed. Now the redshirt has been burned, and they are doing this year what they planned for next year - working him in, giving him some experience. Why is your assumption that it was always planned to use Smalls this year? I thought one of the knocks on Bailiff was that he didn't adjust to changing situations. Well, he seems to be trying to adjust to this one.

Clearly Glaesman will start, and Smalls will see some time. Tyner will be the #3 and may see some action along the way as they ease him into a new role, as TE. Not at all what we had in 2009. Now if they start alternating series within the threesome, I will retract my statement.

Tyner was 32 of 67 (47.8 cmp %) for 318 yards, 2 TD and 1 INT in 2016. This season he is 46 of 96 (47.9 cmp %) for 598 yards, 2 TD and 4 INT. With the exception of the extra 3 picks, near identical statline. His rating per ESPN is somehow higher in 2017 (?) than 2016, although not by much.

To which I ask, we saw Tyner last year we got almost the same Tyner this year. If 2017 Tyner wasn't good enough, then why was he #2 on the depth chart going into this season??? It isn't like we went from Patriots Matt Cassell or Packers Matt Flynn to their alter egos elsewhere. 2016 Tyner = Spring game Tyner = 2017 Tyner. Which means if Smalls makes sense to be #2 now and start against Army, it would have made sense to have him be the #2 going into the season.

Which is why I the issue is we do not have a cohesive development plan, or seemingly a plan at all. Its throw stuff against wall and see what sticks. Or mash the square peg into the round hole until either/both break. This is not an opinion based on just this change. Its year in year out - which makes the Cleveland Browns comparison even more appropriate.

First off, I don't follow the NFL, so all those comparisons might as well be to the Texas Rangers or New York Rangers. All Greek to me.

I am sure Bailiff - or any coach - would have preferred not to have a 48% passer as his back up QB. But that doesn't mean he should immediately plan for Smalls, a 0% passer in college to waste a year of eligibility riding the pine. I don't know how severe Glaesman's injury was, or if it was slower healing than expected, but I don't think it is reasonable to expect the coach to burn Small's redshirt unless pushed to it by circumstances. I think if we had beaten FIU, Smalls would still be a RS. JMHO, and like yours, based on speculation and an inkling of what I would if I were Coach.

One thing I like is that although Bailiff is likely gone after this year or next, he is still trying to build the program for the future, and I am sure that is why he was trying to keep Smalls in the red shirt. He could have succumbed to panic and like some have suggested he would and should do, installed Smalls immediately as the QB in an effort to win ten and save his job. He didn't, and I respect that.

I was in the stands for Tommy Kramer's first start, a 28-0 loss to ND. Future NFLer, but it's tough for freshmen.

I think you are just trying to add one more count to the indictment of Bailiff, when you already have enough for the death penalty. No need for it. No use to it.

Glad to see Glaesman back. He still needs to show us why he was the starter.

(10-17-2017 03:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  First off, I don't follow the NFL, so all those comparisons might as well be to the Texas Rangers or New York Rangers. All Greek to me.

I am sure Bailiff - or any coach - would have preferred not to have a 48% passer as his back up QB. But that doesn't mean he should immediately plan for Smalls, a 0% passer in college to waste a year of eligibility riding the pine. I don't know how severe Glaesman's injury was, or if it was slower healing than expected, but I don't think it is reasonable to expect the coach to burn Small's redshirt unless pushed to it by circumstances. I think if we had beaten FIU, Smalls would still be a RS. JMHO, and like yours, based on speculation and an inkling of what I would if I were Coach.

One thing I like is that although Bailiff is likely gone after this year or next, he is still trying to build the program for the future, and I am sure that is why he was trying to keep Smalls in the red shirt. He could have succumbed to panic and like some have suggested he would and should do, installed Smalls immediately as the QB in an effort to win ten and save his job. He didn't, and I respect that.

I was in the stands for Tommy Kramer's first start, a 28-0 loss to ND. Future NFLer, but it's tough for freshmen.

I think you are just trying to add one more count to the indictment of Bailiff, when you already have enough for the death penalty. No need for it. No use to it.

Glad to see Glaesman back. He still needs to show us why he was the starter.

The bolded part is key - If your backup is a 48% passer, then yes he absolutely should be planning for Smalls. That is the definition of planning. Otherwise we may as well just pick a guy by playing duck-duck-goose and have him start. The question must be asked, what in gods name did we do all offseason?

Regarding the NFL references - Matt Cassel was Brady's backup in 2008 when Brady got injured in the first game (and out for the season). Cassel led the team to an 11-5 record. He got a contract elsewhere afterwards and pretty much wasn't any good. Similarly Matt Flynn took over for Green bay's Rodgers and lit up the scoreboard. A feat he wasn't able to replicate elsewhere. Point was, there was a Jekyll and Hyde effect, one which we haven't seen with Tyner.

Finally, is there any proof that redshirting is beneficial to the future for a QB? Or is that something we have just come to expect and accept here? Cause lots of schools seem to start true freshmen and are successful at it. And some articles online hint that its a slowly declining practice.

To me, this screams of an inability to plan. This is throwing stuff at the wall and hoping that we catch lightning in a bottle again. Sadly, unless C-USA devolves again and becomes a D3 conference, I do not see that happening.

(10-17-2017 03:29 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 03:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  First off, I don't follow the NFL, so all those comparisons might as well be to the Texas Rangers or New York Rangers. All Greek to me.

I am sure Bailiff - or any coach - would have preferred not to have a 48% passer as his back up QB. But that doesn't mean he should immediately plan for Smalls, a 0% passer in college to waste a year of eligibility riding the pine. I don't know how severe Glaesman's injury was, or if it was slower healing than expected, but I don't think it is reasonable to expect the coach to burn Small's redshirt unless pushed to it by circumstances. I think if we had beaten FIU, Smalls would still be a RS. JMHO, and like yours, based on speculation and an inkling of what I would if I were Coach.

One thing I like is that although Bailiff is likely gone after this year or next, he is still trying to build the program for the future, and I am sure that is why he was trying to keep Smalls in the red shirt. He could have succumbed to panic and like some have suggested he would and should do, installed Smalls immediately as the QB in an effort to win ten and save his job. He didn't, and I respect that.

I was in the stands for Tommy Kramer's first start, a 28-0 loss to ND. Future NFLer, but it's tough for freshmen.

I think you are just trying to add one more count to the indictment of Bailiff, when you already have enough for the death penalty. No need for it. No use to it.

Glad to see Glaesman back. He still needs to show us why he was the starter.

The bolded part is key - If your backup is a 48% passer, then yes he absolutely should be planning for Smalls. That is the definition of planning. Otherwise we may as well just pick a guy by playing duck-duck-goose and have him start. The question must be asked, what in gods name did we do all offseason?

Regarding the NFL references - Matt Cassel was Brady's backup in 2008 when Brady got injured in the first game (and out for the season). Cassel led the team to an 11-5 record. He got a contract elsewhere afterwards and pretty much wasn't any good. Similarly Matt Flynn took over for Green bay's Rodgers and lit up the scoreboard. A feat he wasn't able to replicate elsewhere. Point was, there was a Jekyll and Hyde effect, one which we haven't seen with Tyner.

Finally, is there any proof that redshirting is beneficial to the future for a QB? Or is that something we have just come to expect and accept here? Cause lots of schools seem to start true freshmen and are successful at it. And some articles online hint that its a slowly declining practice.

To me, this screams of an inability to plan. This is throwing stuff at the wall and hoping that we catch lightning in a bottle again. Sadly, unless C-USA devolves again and becomes a D3 conference, I do not see that happening.

To me, this screams of injuries and players not playing up to expectations causes plans to change.

Well, I guess that is the difference between Coach OO and Coach Ant. I would rather have a two time all conference QB returning for his RS SR year five years from now than trade that year of eligibility for a back up this year.

Yep some schools start true freshmen - usually the 5 star and four star guys. We have a three star guy. And sometimes they do well, and sometimes they don't. Sometimes they transfer. Where did Kenny Hill and Kyle Allen start.

I don't know about proof that redshirting a QB is beneficial, just as I know of none that shows throwing him into the mix right away is the best way to get the most from him. I guess those are judgments best left to the coach. I do think that a year as a 23 year old starter is a good trade for a year as an 18 year old bench jockey. When you can make that deal, that is. I think that is what DB was aiming for at the beginning, but circumstances forced a change in plans. Nobody I know of is insisting he stick to the same plan he had at the beginning of the season. In any case, Coach Nextguy will have three seasons of Smalls to work with, not four.

(10-17-2017 03:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 03:29 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 03:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  First off, I don't follow the NFL, so all those comparisons might as well be to the Texas Rangers or New York Rangers. All Greek to me.

I am sure Bailiff - or any coach - would have preferred not to have a 48% passer as his back up QB. But that doesn't mean he should immediately plan for Smalls, a 0% passer in college to waste a year of eligibility riding the pine. I don't know how severe Glaesman's injury was, or if it was slower healing than expected, but I don't think it is reasonable to expect the coach to burn Small's redshirt unless pushed to it by circumstances. I think if we had beaten FIU, Smalls would still be a RS. JMHO, and like yours, based on speculation and an inkling of what I would if I were Coach.

One thing I like is that although Bailiff is likely gone after this year or next, he is still trying to build the program for the future, and I am sure that is why he was trying to keep Smalls in the red shirt. He could have succumbed to panic and like some have suggested he would and should do, installed Smalls immediately as the QB in an effort to win ten and save his job. He didn't, and I respect that.

I was in the stands for Tommy Kramer's first start, a 28-0 loss to ND. Future NFLer, but it's tough for freshmen.

I think you are just trying to add one more count to the indictment of Bailiff, when you already have enough for the death penalty. No need for it. No use to it.

Glad to see Glaesman back. He still needs to show us why he was the starter.

The bolded part is key - If your backup is a 48% passer, then yes he absolutely should be planning for Smalls. That is the definition of planning. Otherwise we may as well just pick a guy by playing duck-duck-goose and have him start. The question must be asked, what in gods name did we do all offseason?

Regarding the NFL references - Matt Cassel was Brady's backup in 2008 when Brady got injured in the first game (and out for the season). Cassel led the team to an 11-5 record. He got a contract elsewhere afterwards and pretty much wasn't any good. Similarly Matt Flynn took over for Green bay's Rodgers and lit up the scoreboard. A feat he wasn't able to replicate elsewhere. Point was, there was a Jekyll and Hyde effect, one which we haven't seen with Tyner.

Finally, is there any proof that redshirting is beneficial to the future for a QB? Or is that something we have just come to expect and accept here? Cause lots of schools seem to start true freshmen and are successful at it. And some articles online hint that its a slowly declining practice.

To me, this screams of an inability to plan. This is throwing stuff at the wall and hoping that we catch lightning in a bottle again. Sadly, unless C-USA devolves again and becomes a D3 conference, I do not see that happening.

To me, this screams of injuries and players not playing up to expectations causes plans to change.

Well, I guess that is the difference between Coach OO and Coach Ant. I would rather have a two time all conference QB returning for his RS SR year five years from now than trade that year of eligibility for a back up this year.

Yep some schools start true freshmen - usually the 5 star and four star guys. We have a three star guy. And sometimes they do well, and sometimes they don't. Sometimes they transfer. Where did Kenny Hill and Kyle Allen start.

I don't know about proof that redshirting a QB is beneficial, just as I know of none that shows throwing him into the mix right away is the best way to get the most from him. I guess those are judgments best left to the coach. I do think that a year as a 23 year old starter is a good trade for a year as an 18 year old bench jockey. When you can make that deal, that is. I think that is what DB was aiming for at the beginning, but circumstances forced a change in plans. Nobody I know of is insisting he stick to the same plan he had at the beginning of the season. In any case, Coach Nextguy will have three seasons of Smalls to work with, not four.

Literally nobody is saying you throw him in to the mix and expect him to kick ass. I am saying if we had a 48% guy who we know wasn't getting it done, then you bump Smalls up to #2, play him in garbage time and give him experience. That way, if #1 gets hurt, #2 is ready. Right now, #1 gets hurt, #2 we already know can't get it done so now we have to start a Freshman against Army.

Because if you don't do the above, and your #1 gets hurt, you basically are writing the season off. Thats why Bill Polian got fired from Indianapolis. He had no plan for a #2, which is basically what Bailiff is doing now.

As with the FIU game, the UTSA game will be shown live via "Stadium" on Facebook.

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

(10-17-2017 02:46 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 02:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 02:18 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 02:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Actually, no. Instead of three #1s, we seem to have a clear 1, 2, 3. Looks like the plan is to give Smalls more time and experience to prep him for the future. Isn't this what we have been begging for?

I thought Ellis was out for the season.

Other than the Cleveland Browns, I literally cannot think of another example where the depth chart is less clear. Sure we have a 1,2,3 for this week but lord knows what it will be next.

You have a 1,2,3 where your 2 doesn't play unless your 1 gets hurt or the game is way out of reach. Your 3 doesn't play unless your 2 gets hurt. If we wanted to give Smalls practice and training, we could have played him as a garbage time QB for Stanford, Pitt, UTEP or the entire second half for UH.

We've been begging for a cohesive development plan - not week by week shuffling of the depth chart. I literally have no idea what we are doing now. If Smalls was our #3 and the plan was to not play him barring injury, then why did we start him against Army? Shouldn't he have been the backup? That begs the question of what are we doing in practice?

Given that Hue Jackson will probably be fired in the near future, I think Cleveland is a perfect landing spot for Bailiff. Its a match of questionable roster moves and depth charts made in heaven.

C'mon, now. At the time we played Stanford, Pitt, et al, the plan was obviously to redshirt Smalls. Then Glaesman got hurt, Tyner was not effective, and the need became so great the plan changed. Now the redshirt has been burned, and they are doing this year what they planned for next year - working him in, giving him some experience. Why is your assumption that it was always planned to use Smalls this year? I thought one of the knocks on Bailiff was that he didn't adjust to changing situations. Well, he seems to be trying to adjust to this one.

Clearly Glaesman will start, and Smalls will see some time. Tyner will be the #3 and may see some action along the way as they ease him into a new role, as TE. Not at all what we had in 2009. Now if they start alternating series within the threesome, I will retract my statement.

Tyner was 32 of 67 (47.8 cmp %) for 318 yards, 2 TD and 1 INT in 2016. This season he is 46 of 96 (47.9 cmp %) for 598 yards, 2 TD and 4 INT. With the exception of the extra 3 picks, near identical statline. His rating per ESPN is somehow higher in 2017 (?) than 2016, although not by much.

To which I ask, we saw Tyner last year we got almost the same Tyner this year. If 2017 Tyner wasn't good enough, then why was he #2 on the depth chart going into this season??? It isn't like we went from Patriots Matt Cassell or Packers Matt Flynn to their alter egos elsewhere. 2016 Tyner = Spring game Tyner = 2017 Tyner. Which means if Smalls makes sense to be #2 now and start against Army, it would have made sense to have him be the #2 going into the season.

Which is why I the issue is we do not have a cohesive development plan, or seemingly a plan at all. Its throw stuff against wall and see what sticks. Or mash the square peg into the round hole until either/both break. This is not an opinion based on just this change. Its year in year out - which makes the Cleveland Browns comparison even more appropriate.

First off, I don't follow the NFL, so all those comparisons might as well be to the Texas Rangers or New York Rangers. All Greek to me.

I am sure Bailiff - or any coach - would have preferred not to have a 48% passer as his back up QB. But that doesn't mean he should immediately plan for Smalls, a 0% passer in college to waste a year of eligibility riding the pine. I don't know how severe Glaesman's injury was, or if it was slower healing than expected, but I don't think it is reasonable to expect the coach to burn Small's redshirt unless pushed to it by circumstances. I think if we had beaten FIU, Smalls would still be a RS. JMHO, and like yours, based on speculation and an inkling of what I would if I were Coach.

One thing I like is that although Bailiff is likely gone after this year or next, he is still trying to build the program for the future, and I am sure that is why he was trying to keep Smalls in the red shirt. He could have succumbed to panic and like some have suggested he would and should do, installed Smalls immediately as the QB in an effort to win ten and save his job. He didn't, and I respect that.

I was in the stands for Tommy Kramer's first start, a 28-0 loss to ND. Future NFLer, but it's tough for freshmen.

I think you are just trying to add one more count to the indictment of Bailiff, when you already have enough for the death penalty. No need for it. No use to it.

Glad to see Glaesman back. He still needs to show us why he was the starter.

Instead of giving into panic by installing Smalls immediately, Bailiff waited until the third game to panic. This is how he insures the future of the program?

(10-17-2017 04:17 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  As with the FIU game, the UTSA game will be shown live via "Stadium" on Facebook.

Actually, Bailiff is just executing his four-step "QB to TE" plan that he employed with Taylor Cook:

1) Recruit very tall guy from 2A/3A high school to play QB.
2) Platoon him with two other QBs, with poor results.
3) Announce he will be moved to TE.
4) Never work him into a meaningful role at that position, running his career into the ground.

(10-17-2017 05:26 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Actually, Bailiff is just executing his four-step "QB to TE" plan that he employed with Taylor Cook:

1) Recruit very tall guy from 2A/3A high school to play QB.
2) Platoon him with two other QBs, with poor results.
3) Announce he will be moved to TE.
4) Never work him into a meaningful role at that position, running his career into the ground.

Cook transferred in.

(10-17-2017 04:09 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 03:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 03:29 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 03:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  First off, I don't follow the NFL, so all those comparisons might as well be to the Texas Rangers or New York Rangers. All Greek to me.

I am sure Bailiff - or any coach - would have preferred not to have a 48% passer as his back up QB. But that doesn't mean he should immediately plan for Smalls, a 0% passer in college to waste a year of eligibility riding the pine. I don't know how severe Glaesman's injury was, or if it was slower healing than expected, but I don't think it is reasonable to expect the coach to burn Small's redshirt unless pushed to it by circumstances. I think if we had beaten FIU, Smalls would still be a RS. JMHO, and like yours, based on speculation and an inkling of what I would if I were Coach.

One thing I like is that although Bailiff is likely gone after this year or next, he is still trying to build the program for the future, and I am sure that is why he was trying to keep Smalls in the red shirt. He could have succumbed to panic and like some have suggested he would and should do, installed Smalls immediately as the QB in an effort to win ten and save his job. He didn't, and I respect that.

I was in the stands for Tommy Kramer's first start, a 28-0 loss to ND. Future NFLer, but it's tough for freshmen.

I think you are just trying to add one more count to the indictment of Bailiff, when you already have enough for the death penalty. No need for it. No use to it.

Glad to see Glaesman back. He still needs to show us why he was the starter.

The bolded part is key - If your backup is a 48% passer, then yes he absolutely should be planning for Smalls. That is the definition of planning. Otherwise we may as well just pick a guy by playing duck-duck-goose and have him start. The question must be asked, what in gods name did we do all offseason?

Regarding the NFL references - Matt Cassel was Brady's backup in 2008 when Brady got injured in the first game (and out for the season). Cassel led the team to an 11-5 record. He got a contract elsewhere afterwards and pretty much wasn't any good. Similarly Matt Flynn took over for Green bay's Rodgers and lit up the scoreboard. A feat he wasn't able to replicate elsewhere. Point was, there was a Jekyll and Hyde effect, one which we haven't seen with Tyner.

Finally, is there any proof that redshirting is beneficial to the future for a QB? Or is that something we have just come to expect and accept here? Cause lots of schools seem to start true freshmen and are successful at it. And some articles online hint that its a slowly declining practice.

To me, this screams of an inability to plan. This is throwing stuff at the wall and hoping that we catch lightning in a bottle again. Sadly, unless C-USA devolves again and becomes a D3 conference, I do not see that happening.

To me, this screams of injuries and players not playing up to expectations causes plans to change.

Well, I guess that is the difference between Coach OO and Coach Ant. I would rather have a two time all conference QB returning for his RS SR year five years from now than trade that year of eligibility for a back up this year.

Yep some schools start true freshmen - usually the 5 star and four star guys. We have a three star guy. And sometimes they do well, and sometimes they don't. Sometimes they transfer. Where did Kenny Hill and Kyle Allen start.

I don't know about proof that redshirting a QB is beneficial, just as I know of none that shows throwing him into the mix right away is the best way to get the most from him. I guess those are judgments best left to the coach. I do think that a year as a 23 year old starter is a good trade for a year as an 18 year old bench jockey. When you can make that deal, that is. I think that is what DB was aiming for at the beginning, but circumstances forced a change in plans. Nobody I know of is insisting he stick to the same plan he had at the beginning of the season. In any case, Coach Nextguy will have three seasons of Smalls to work with, not four.

Literally nobody is saying you throw him in to the mix and expect him to kick ass. I am saying if we had a 48% guy who we know wasn't getting it done, then you bump Smalls up to #2, play him in garbage time and give him experience. That way, if #1 gets hurt, #2 is ready. Right now, #1 gets hurt, #2 we already know can't get it done so now we have to start a Freshman against Army.

Because if you don't do the above, and your #1 gets hurt, you basically are writing the season off. Thats why Bill Polian got fired from Indianapolis. He had no plan for a #2, which is basically what Bailiff is doing now.

How do you know the 48% guy from last year will never improve? Isn't that what practice is for?

More to QB than just throwing it.

Practice?

(10-17-2017 05:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How do you know the 48% guy from last year will never improve? Isn't that what practice is for?

More to QB than just throwing it.

Under Bailiff (after 11 years) it's all but guaranteed. But Bailiff probably doesn't know that himself, so the endless cycle continues.

Like i said earlier, if this was a one time incident, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

(10-17-2017 06:07 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Practice?

We talkin'bout practice?

(10-17-2017 06:07 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Practice?

You know, doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

Man, you guys are jaded.

(10-17-2017 01:44 PM)RiceFootball2K5 Wrote:  Glynn Hill‏ @RiceChron:

Returning against UTSA: QB @SamGlaes12, RB @SamuellStewartt, G Ken Thompson, CB @Dangelo_Ellis, K @WillHarrison_25 & WR @camcam1093

Glaesmann will start while Miklo Smalls has been promoted to the #2 QB. Bailiff said expect to see Smalls more t/o the rest of the season.

Jackson Tyner will still see time. Bailiff said the offense will employ him in a number of ways (i.e. tight end) in the coming weeks.

+1. Great news. Lets go!

so... let me get this straight... The 3rd team QB now TE got all first team reps in spring and fall camp until a week before the first game. The current 2nd teamer lost a redshirt for half of a season and has about 15 game snaps under his belt, three of which were turnovers of his own doing. And the starter has been hurt. But when he did play, the game plans were...let's just say.. protective of a young player. So then, the 3rd team guy who you apparently think is a TE has to play several games in mop-up duty against a tough schedule under circumstances I would assume that were game plans and practices designed for someone else to play (ie: Houston, Pitt, Army)... So then it's pretty easy to say the 3rd teamer is "ineffective" after his 6'5" 245 lb frame is never given a called run and Pitt blitzes him every down and the OC decides to "chunk it around" for a half. If the 3rd teamer was never "the guy", why bother leaving him there last spring? You had the other two in camp. I've watched most of the games closely. The offense has a stench to it that is beyond the question of whether or not the scheme is competently implemented. It has the faint scent of "agenda". My hope is that we don't look up (yet again) and see the 3rd team guy (errrr.. Tight End) back there again because he's either: A) the only healthy one, B) the only one who can make a play, or C) the only one who doesn't fumble every 5th play.

I will be very interested to see the game plan and play calling Saturday. I hope Sam is the man. He looks like he has a chance to show some promise... If the OC can keep him upright.

But, I am optimistic. Anyone that is around enough football can re-evaluate themselves and use a bye week to creatively use the talents of any and all players that can contribute. Maybe we will see some imaginative adjustments and a healthy number one guy. After all, the number one and number three guy have also accounted for about 90% of the TD's this year.

The problem here isn't this year - it's what has happened with the recruitment/development of the QBs the last few years. At the end of the day, if the RS Freshman isn't a star in the making, there should have been a junior or senior (probably RS) who has 3 or 4 years in development ready to take over and at least competently run your offense. But Rice continues to fail there, and they will continue to flail because of it.

Glaesman may eventually be very good, or maybe Smalls. But the fact that Rice had to turn to either of them, given what they've shown, should be a massive indictment. Success in CUSA (and most G5 programs - heck, most college football period) so depends on having highly competent QB play. If you don't have that, you're not going to be at the top of your league. Failure to identify and develop that QB talent should be the straw that ends the tenure.

Wishing Glaesman the best, and hoping that his time on the sideline has helped him see and understand things better, so that he can be more effective this time around.

(10-17-2017 01:55 PM)Antarius Wrote:  That said, its not physically possible to be worse than we are now, so maybe the heyday of QB-by-committee may be a step up.

It can always get worse.