Say if you are one of the board members of Rice. With some well known difficulty to run the football program, such as high academic standard in recruiting, relative small alumni fan base, and a losing tradition(correct me if i am wrong).

To invest big (Hire good coach, buy 1st class facility) in football program need aggressive attitude, and there is a chance you invest big, but still fail.

So maybe you will do same thing as current board members, just be conservative, and dream the current coach will 'improve' the program, pretend to 'believe' next year will be better.


One of the good things of Baliff is that he never complain anything about the school(hard to recruit). Of course, all the manager/board like him, and ack the difficulty to run the program.


As a pathetic Rice fan, what could we do, maybe wait for a big donor or next president of the school change his mind. other wise, just switch the channel to watch other games. The Penn state vs Mich game is so much fun to watch, I bet ten thousand times better than 'utsa beating rice ' game.

sorry for all the typo, English is not my first language.

We paid a consulting firm 7 figures to tell us what to do, and we chose to keep football in response. IMPLICIT in the recommendation by the consultants was that we work hard with similar minded institutions to change the paradigm and be seen as leaders in doing so. At the time, I imagined that meant that we would do things differently and make constant huge mention of the fact that we are doing things differently... that we're perhaps only modestly succeeding on the field, but that we're doing it without sacrificing academics/who we are.

If that meant we'd lose like we did in the 80's, fine... but at least we'd do it with style and flair and against the best... and not against schools that aren't within 150 places of us on the USNWR. Seriously... I don't think one CUSA school is within 150 spots, and the one I recall was UAB. How is that working internally and externally across the country to be seen as leaders in changing the paradigm?

Hence I suggested at the time, and especially under 'new' CUSA that we maintain the conference affiliation, but keep the conference small and eliminate the cross-overs so that we could schedule more 'like minded institutions' whether that be Stanford or Navy or Harvard.

Instead we've ignored the most crucial element (imo) of the advice that we paid for... and I see that as something that puts the board at risk.

You guys are talking business and that's great... But in college football, not all head coaches actually coach much anymore. They're more like CEO's or front men. In that vein, Bailiff is (to Junrice's point), fine. However, there's a very important side bar to that. The Head Coach must hold the people "he has put in place to conduct the actual on field coaching" accountable.

Changing Head Coaches is the easiest thing to do for any university wanting to change their culture. But, the issue at Rice is accountability. Coach Bailiff has coordinators in place that are hired to design and implement schemes that maximize talent (relative to the level of talent that exists).

This year is a fine example. The defense has shown effort, a little moxy, and overall passes the "eye test" of what we might call "coached up". However, we now see an offense that is a "copy and paste" attempt to emulate Pitt directly on the heels of a "copy and paste" attempt to emulate Texas Tech. The players are not executing or playing particularly well. The offense in terms of production has trended downward for two straight years. And, Coach B and the OC have told us that it's about personnel. They've run down QB's and short leashed them. They've decried turnovers and made excuses for youth..... The trend line continues downward, but the OC refuses adjustment.... Just stay the course. And for Bailiff, he has placed his faith in the OC to get it to produce and that is what looks like a boat taking on more water than can be paddled out.

So...to answer the original thought.... It's not innovation or charisma or ingenuity or some X's and O's, on the chalk board answer. It's coaches doing what the term "coach" means. Taking the skill set of the people and resources he has available and building a scheme that bets suits them; then setting reasonable expectations for their performance all while showing a willingness to change to fit those resources. If a college coordinator cannot be able to do that, he should not be a college coordinator.

Worse yet, if the CEO/Head coach cannot establish accountability for what that "trend line" is doing within his program, then all the things Junerice applauds are moot and irrelevant.

I don't think any Rice fan expects Texas or LSU type results. But, I do believe they want the program to pass the "eye test". The "agenda" driven offense that I have decried certainly does not pass the "eye test" for me, and unfortunately appears to be an indictment on the program beyond just offensive football.

(10-24-2017 01:02 PM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  However, there's a very important side bar to that. The Head Coach must hold the people "he has put in place to conduct the actual on field coaching" accountable.

Changing Head Coaches is the easiest thing to do for any university wanting to change their culture. But, the issue at Rice is accountability. Coach Bailiff has coordinators in place that are hired to design and implement schemes that maximize talent (relative to the level of talent that exists).

I do not think Bailiff knows what his coordinators do and thus cannot evaluate them properly. He really looks like he got lucky with Herman. Looking at the rest of the list,
Dreisbach, Zaunbrecher, Naivar, Beaty, Reagan, Edmondson, Lynch, Thurmond (and this does not include our Special Teams), that's a who's who of who not to hire.

I agree accountability starts at the top, the BOT and President are seemingly okay with whatever garbage gets put on the field. But even within the program, some of these guys last forever.

Rice's defensive rankings under Driesbach
2007 - 120 (out of 120)
2008 - 104 (out of 120)
2009 - 115 (out of 120)
2010 - 116 (out of 120)
2011 - 89 (out of 120)

How Driesbach managed to survive 5 years is mind-blowing. The only two possibilities in my mind are 1. Bailiff likes Driesbach 2. Bailiff doesn't know what Driesbach does and therefore rubber stamps it. Because there isn't a third option as I see it.

Since being fired by Rice, Driesbach has had some positions with the Rice-of-the-NFL teams the Cleveland Browns and the Buffalo Bills. Both hires were made by Mike Pettine, who Driesbach hired way back when for Pettine's first coaching gig. When Marrone took over the Bills, he promptly fired Driesbach.

(10-24-2017 01:21 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 01:02 PM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  However, there's a very important side bar to that. The Head Coach must hold the people "he has put in place to conduct the actual on field coaching" accountable.
Changing Head Coaches is the easiest thing to do for any university wanting to change their culture. But, the issue at Rice is accountability. Coach Bailiff has coordinators in place that are hired to design and implement schemes that maximize talent (relative to the level of talent that exists).

I do not think Bailiff knows what his coordinators do and thus cannot evaluate them properly. He really looks like he got lucky with Herman. Looking at the rest of the list,
Dreisbach, Zaunbrecher, Naivar, Beaty, Reagan, Edmondson, Lynch, Thurmond (and this does not include our Special Teams), that's a who's who of who not to hire.

There's another way to look at this. What's been the constant? Bailiff. Coordinators have come and gone on both sides of the ball, with pretty much the same complaints persisting. Maybe the problem isn't the coordinators. Or maybe, to view it differently, Bailiff has micromanaged regardless of coordinators to the extent that it has been difficult to attract good coordinators. Of course, pay doesn't help either in that regard, I realize that, but mostly we've hired old guys on the back sides of careers, who maybe were just happy to have a paycheck and willing to do what they were told, instead of young up-and-comers trying to make a name for themselves.

Mensa is the interesting one to me. His offenses at Ohio State, UH, and Texas have not looked like his offenses at Rice. Rice's offenses since he left have looked more like his offenses at Rice than have his offenses since he left. Did he learn that much since leaving, or was he being held back by Bailiff? I doubt Tom would ever say anything negative about David, but I wonder. From his days at Rice until now, there have been various comments about wanting our QBs to stay in the pocket, even when that wasn't their best skill set. He has not appeared to have any kind of leash on any of his QBs since leaving Rice. It seems a bit puzzling to me. I was pretty critical of Tom when he was here, but seeing him elsewhere makes me think that he was not the problem.

If we hire next coach, i want someone raw, young, and energetic. willing to take the risk, be aggressive and novel.

For my point of view, 9-3 and 0-12 season is better than two 5-7 season. Really hate Baliff's predictable play call.

(10-24-2017 08:29 PM)junrice Wrote:  If we hire next coach, i want someone raw, young, and energetic. willing to take the risk, be aggressive and novel.

For my point of view, 9-3 and 0-12 season is better than two 5-7 season. Really hate Baliff's predictable play call.

I tend to agree.

Accountability for quality on the field rests (or should rest) on the head coach.

Todd Graham came in and won immediately. Bailiff has yet to string more than 1-2 marginally successful seasons together.

Apparently he cannot even teach his kick returners when to field and return punts and kickoffs.

The Owls are an embarrassment in most games due largely to their self-inflicted wounds... miscues and penalties.

The same excuses are trotted out week after week.

It is time for a change.

(10-24-2017 11:15 PM)owlman70 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 08:29 PM)junrice Wrote:  If we hire next coach, i want someone raw, young, and energetic. willing to take the risk, be aggressive and novel.

For my point of view, 9-3 and 0-12 season is better than two 5-7 season. Really hate Baliff's predictable play call.

I tend to agree.

Accountability for quality on the field rests (or should rest) on the head coach.

Todd Graham came in and won immediately. Bailiff has yet to string more than 1-2 marginally successful seasons together.

Apparently he cannot even teach his kick returners when to field and return punts and kickoffs.

The Owls are an embarrassment in most games due largely to their self-inflicted wounds... miscues and penalties.

The same excuses are trotted out week after week.

It is time for a change.

The bolded piece is critical. I am less concerned about the wins and losses as I am with the team passing the eye test. Where we play disciplined football, make few mistakes and appear to improve over time.

With Bailiff, he fails the eye test. Even when we win in the good seasons, you get the feeling it will all come apart at any moment. 2008 we had the Tulsa game and Army game - we simply could not play defense. 2013 we strung together a series of wins against bad opposition, and in true paper tiger style, got set on fire by Mississippi State.

IMO, if we get the fundamentals right, then the wins will come. It is why I had much more faith in Rhodes than I did with Braun or Bailiff - when I watched Rhoades' teams play, you understood the strategy and gameplan; sure we lost, but for a couple seasons (especially the first one) we were outgunned badly, yet we still had some competitive games. With Braun and Bailiff, never clear what the plan was or how we'd get better. Best I could understand is we'd out talent other teams and somehow win - a strategy that is even stupider than the Fake FG against UTSA.

(10-24-2017 02:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 01:21 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 01:02 PM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  However, there's a very important side bar to that. The Head Coach must hold the people "he has put in place to conduct the actual on field coaching" accountable.
Changing Head Coaches is the easiest thing to do for any university wanting to change their culture. But, the issue at Rice is accountability. Coach Bailiff has coordinators in place that are hired to design and implement schemes that maximize talent (relative to the level of talent that exists).

I do not think Bailiff knows what his coordinators do and thus cannot evaluate them properly. He really looks like he got lucky with Herman. Looking at the rest of the list,
Dreisbach, Zaunbrecher, Naivar, Beaty, Reagan, Edmondson, Lynch, Thurmond (and this does not include our Special Teams), that's a who's who of who not to hire.

There's another way to look at this. What's been the constant? Bailiff. Coordinators have come and gone on both sides of the ball, with pretty much the same complaints persisting. Maybe the problem isn't the coordinators. Or maybe, to view it differently, Bailiff has micromanaged regardless of coordinators to the extent that it has been difficult to attract good coordinators. Of course, pay doesn't help either in that regard, I realize that, but mostly we've hired old guys on the back sides of careers, who maybe were just happy to have a paycheck and willing to do what they were told, instead of young up-and-comers trying to make a name for themselves.

Mensa is the interesting one to me. His offenses at Ohio State, UH, and Texas have not looked like his offenses at Rice. Rice's offenses since he left have looked more like his offenses at Rice than have his offenses since he left. Did he learn that much since leaving, or was he being held back by Bailiff? I doubt Tom would ever say anything negative about David, but I wonder. From his days at Rice until now, there have been various comments about wanting our QBs to stay in the pocket, even when that wasn't their best skill set. He has not appeared to have any kind of leash on any of his QBs since leaving Rice. It seems a bit puzzling to me. I was pretty critical of Tom when he was here, but seeing him elsewhere makes me think that he was not the problem.

Wait, our offenses have looked the same as the ones in 2007 and 2008?

We have become far more of a ground game oriented offense, even when we have had competent QBs under center. When was the last time we cam close to 111 catches for a WR in a year? We attempted nearly 40 passes per game in 2008. After that, it was slow trend downward to a more run-oriented offense:

38 -> 30 -> 32 -> 31 -> 25 -> 27 -> 31 -> 34

And our rushes per game went from 35 to above 40 every year but 2009 and 2011.

We were very much a passing, air it out offense under Herman, and once he left, DB shifted his focus to winning TOP and holding onto the ball. I mean, I never once remember us talking about TOP in 2007 or 2008, and I remember those games being crazy long because of all of the stoppages in plays from first downs and dropped passes.

Yes, DB has been the constant and hired OCs that more match his offensive philosophy, but out team's offensive identity was much different under Herman than after Herman. I think Herman and the players on his offense were able to voice their opinion effectively during 2007 and 2008 and DB went along. I think the issue is that after that, DB has kept hiring OCs with a more similar idea of how to run an offense than him squelching their offensive philosophy. That's not to say that isn't problematic, but I don't see the issue being that DB is telling OCs what to do, it's just that he hasn't hired any good ones since Herman.

(10-25-2017 07:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 02:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 01:21 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 01:02 PM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  However, there's a very important side bar to that. The Head Coach must hold the people "he has put in place to conduct the actual on field coaching" accountable.
Changing Head Coaches is the easiest thing to do for any university wanting to change their culture. But, the issue at Rice is accountability. Coach Bailiff has coordinators in place that are hired to design and implement schemes that maximize talent (relative to the level of talent that exists).

I do not think Bailiff knows what his coordinators do and thus cannot evaluate them properly. He really looks like he got lucky with Herman. Looking at the rest of the list,
Dreisbach, Zaunbrecher, Naivar, Beaty, Reagan, Edmondson, Lynch, Thurmond (and this does not include our Special Teams), that's a who's who of who not to hire.

There's another way to look at this. What's been the constant? Bailiff. Coordinators have come and gone on both sides of the ball, with pretty much the same complaints persisting. Maybe the problem isn't the coordinators. Or maybe, to view it differently, Bailiff has micromanaged regardless of coordinators to the extent that it has been difficult to attract good coordinators. Of course, pay doesn't help either in that regard, I realize that, but mostly we've hired old guys on the back sides of careers, who maybe were just happy to have a paycheck and willing to do what they were told, instead of young up-and-comers trying to make a name for themselves.

Mensa is the interesting one to me. His offenses at Ohio State, UH, and Texas have not looked like his offenses at Rice. Rice's offenses since he left have looked more like his offenses at Rice than have his offenses since he left. Did he learn that much since leaving, or was he being held back by Bailiff? I doubt Tom would ever say anything negative about David, but I wonder. From his days at Rice until now, there have been various comments about wanting our QBs to stay in the pocket, even when that wasn't their best skill set. He has not appeared to have any kind of leash on any of his QBs since leaving Rice. It seems a bit puzzling to me. I was pretty critical of Tom when he was here, but seeing him elsewhere makes me think that he was not the problem.

Wait, our offenses have looked the same as the ones in 2007 and 2008?

We have become far more of a ground game oriented offense, even when we have had competent QBs under center. When was the last time we cam close to 111 catches for a WR in a year? We attempted nearly 40 passes per game in 2008. After that, it was slow trend downward to a more run-oriented offense:

38 -> 30 -> 32 -> 31 -> 25 -> 27 -> 31 -> 34

And our rushes per game went from 35 to above 40 every year but 2009 and 2011.

We were very much a passing, air it out offense under Herman, and once he left, DB shifted his focus to winning TOP and holding onto the ball. I mean, I never once remember us talking about TOP in 2007 or 2008, and I remember those games being crazy long because of all of the stoppages in plays from first downs and dropped passes.

Yes, DB has been the constant and hired OCs that more match his offensive philosophy, but out team's offensive identity was much different under Herman than after Herman. I think Herman and the players on his offense were able to voice their opinion effectively during 2007 and 2008 and DB went along. I think the issue is that after that, DB has kept hiring OCs with a more similar idea of how to run an offense than him squelching their offensive philosophy. That's not to say that isn't problematic, but I don't see the issue being that DB is telling OCs what to do, it's just that he hasn't hired any good ones since Herman.

The bolded section above..... Just sayin... The Tyner kid was asked to throw 35 times at Stanford and 32 at Pitt.... No one else asked to do that.. 3-9, 1 TD, 2 INT, fumble and 3-5, INT....

I'd like to present as exhibit B in the case against Rice Football for the penalty of driving an "agenda" based offense....

(10-25-2017 08:07 AM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  I'd like to present as exhibit B in the case against Rice Football for the penalty of driving an "agenda" based offense....

OK, I've seen your theory that there is some hidden (or not) agenda here but I honestly don't understand it. By nearly all accounts, Bailiff is "dead coach walking" if he doesn't go bowling this year. Why would a guy with his head on the chopping block **** around with his QBs' playing time for some agenda that wasn't giving him the best chance to win? Or do you not believe this narrative that Bailiff will be replaced? Even if that's the case I'm not sure I understand what the agenda is.

Well... The agenda is principled in the following:

1) The coordination: "copy and paste" scheming... This is about fit.. Let's assume for a moment that Glaesman is the best QB. Well, what made him so was his feet evidenced by his performance in the spring game. This offense does not have any designed QB runs outside of the option which isn't used much. Last year it was Tech's "Air Raid"... Well that didn't fit. So.. to your statement that the coach is "dead man walking" short of a bowl game would imply that they would have wanted to do whatever they had to do from a standpoint of scheme and experience to win six games. What did they do? Implemented a "long term building scheme" that is complex with umpteen moving parts... one that hinges on timing and execution... one that is dependant on great OL play (great not good)... one that requires the QB to be precise in decision making and seemingly handcuffed to make a play.

2) The personnel: The more veteran QB got first team reps all spring and fall and was removed just before the opener. Fine... But then he's either asked or forced into action with game plans designed for other guys in emergency duty... Fine....Then he gets the Pitt start after Glaesman is ruled out so who knows where all the practice reps went that week.... Well in that road start, the Owls throw 32 times. They complete 15... three were drops (drops happen)... three were intercepted (one was a hail mary, one was a fade that the receiver got bumped and stopped, one was a bad decision and throw)... Pitt blitzed like crazy, Rice countered with flea flicker and swinging gate. Threw for over 200 yards.... The offense, in the 3rd quarter, not only moved, but looked competitive and good. Game ends... "The QB is ineffective"... The QB.. not the OL, not the secondary that gave up over 400 yards passing.. The QB... 32 pass attempts mind you at Pitt... Pull the redshirt, start the Freshman.. absolute joke.. "Hey ineffective guy! go in there and mop this up even though you got zero practice time (assumed since he was benched)"... Now he's 3rd team but against UTSA we go 6-15 passing and have 4 turnovers that lead directly to 14 UTSA points? The "young guys" are called "young". The "veteran" (who btw has a grand total of one start in his career in which he was named the starter at the beginning of the week) was ineffective.

3) The spin- It's clear... That number three guy was the "wild Owl" guy last year. But, what is clear is "they" never wanted him to succeed at QB. "Tyner missed reads".. "Sam is going to be a great player" (in spite of his third Sanchez type fumble). .. But here's one for you: go look at the player bios online... As of the other day, his stats at QB are posted... Are the other two "young guys" stat lines posted? They want the "5A high school QB guys" to be their guy.. Fine...

The agenda is clear... If it was truly "bowl or bust", the Owls wouldn't be in this scheme nor would DB allow it to persist after six games of downward trend. They have made personnel decisions based on the notion that they think they can return so long as they play young, unproven kids that show promise.



I rest....

The new coach will be able to evaluate all three of our quarterbacks from scratch next year, so what our current coaches are doing only has a negative impact this year. Which sucks, but all of these guys have two to three more years of eligibility, so there's still time for the best one to make their mark on this program.

(10-25-2017 09:02 AM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  3) The spin- It's clear... That number three guy was the "wild Owl" guy last year. But, what is clear is "they" never wanted him to succeed at QB.

Oh, bull****. These coaches all realize they are out of jobs at the end of the season without a bowl game. Many of them have to realize that they are not going to get equivalent coaching opportunities after this too. They have everything riding on these players being successful and carrying them.

Tyner was chosen over Granato last season to get the game experience to prepare him for this season. Tyner was given every chance to seize the position in the spring and fall, but had a poor Spring Game and was outcompeted in August. You mention the Pitt game, as if Tyner hasn't also appeared in and played significant snaps in 4 other games this year, and has been ineffective in all of them, even with the luxury of facing the deep bench in some of them.

That's not all his fault. No other program thought he was an FBS-level QB (if the recruiting services are to be believed). He has no weapons on offense to work with. And he has one of the least competent coaching staffs to develop his ability and prepare him on game day. But he knew that coming in surely, and every player on the roster has to deal with that.

Acting like he is the victim of an agenda is ridiculous and wrong, and distracts from the numerous legitimate faults of this coaching staff.

(10-25-2017 12:01 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(10-25-2017 09:02 AM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  3) The spin- It's clear... That number three guy was the "wild Owl" guy last year. But, what is clear is "they" never wanted him to succeed at QB.

Oh, bull****. These coaches all realize they are out of jobs at the end of the season without a bowl game. Many of them have to realize that they are not going to get equivalent coaching opportunities after this too. They have everything riding on these players being successful and carrying them.

Tyner was chosen over Granato last season to get the game experience to prepare him for this season. Tyner was given every chance to seize the position in the spring and fall, but had a poor Spring Game and was outcompeted in August. You mention the Pitt game, as if Tyner hasn't also appeared in and played significant snaps in 4 other games this year, and has been ineffective in all of them, even with the luxury of facing the deep bench in some of them.

That's not all his fault. No other program thought he was an FBS-level QB (if the recruiting services are to be believed). He has no weapons on offense to work with. And he has one of the least competent coaching staffs to develop his ability and prepare him on game day. But he knew that coming in surely, and every player on the roster has to deal with that.

Acting like he is the victim of an agenda is ridiculous and wrong, and distracts from the numerous legitimate faults of this coaching staff.

Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

(10-25-2017 09:02 AM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  I rest....

It's my fault - I shouldn't have asked.

Your theory requires the HC: 1) Believes that he can talk his way out of losing his job even if he has a terrible season, 2) That some cockamamie story about how his QBs aren't good but one of them is very promising will actually work, 3) by connection, you think JK doesn't mean what he says, and 4) JK is an idiot.

I'm sorry, this is just silly. I would have gone with Occam's Razor but I won't argue with Hanlon's.

(10-25-2017 12:36 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(10-25-2017 09:02 AM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  I rest....

It's my fault - I shouldn't have asked.

Your theory requires the HC: 1) Believes that he can talk his way out of losing his job even if he has a terrible season, 2) That some cockamamie story about how his QBs aren't good but one of them is very promising will actually work, 3) by connection, you think JK doesn't mean what he says, and 4) JK is an idiot.

I'm sorry, this is just silly. I would have gone with Occam's Razor but I won't argue with Hanlon's.

Someone explain to me how it is that other than the points scored against UTEP our "young" QB's have accounted for 7 points in meaningful time and the other QB has put up 38 points. I figured it out they've given up 52 points. Counting what the "young" guys have given up then that would put them outscoring Tyner 59-38. Makes since to go with the strategy that gives opponents as many points as possible.

(10-25-2017 12:43 PM)RiceOL83 Wrote:  

(10-25-2017 12:36 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(10-25-2017 09:02 AM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  I rest....

It's my fault - I shouldn't have asked.

Your theory requires the HC: 1) Believes that he can talk his way out of losing his job even if he has a terrible season, 2) That some cockamamie story about how his QBs aren't good but one of them is very promising will actually work, 3) by connection, you think JK doesn't mean what he says, and 4) JK is an idiot.

I'm sorry, this is just silly. I would have gone with Occam's Razor but I won't argue with Hanlon's.

Someone explain to me how it is that other than the points scored against UTEP our "young" QB's have accounted for 7 points in meaningful time and the other QB has put up 38 points. I figured it out they've given up 52 points. Counting what the "young" guys have given up then that would put them outscoring Tyner 59-38. Makes since to go with the strategy that gives opponents as many points as possible.

Eh?

For the record, I think the whole lightning in a bottle thing with Smalls was downright retarded. If Smalls was our future, then he should have been Glaesmann's backup and gotten some experience in the Stanford game and other games in garbage time. I don't really care who our 1,2,3 are (that's not our job). Just have a plan and have a reason for the plan. Not just do a weekly rotation because we might get lucky this time.

This whole situation screams Fanuzzi, McHargue and Cook all over again.

(10-25-2017 01:06 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-25-2017 12:43 PM)RiceOL83 Wrote:  

(10-25-2017 12:36 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(10-25-2017 09:02 AM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  I rest....

It's my fault - I shouldn't have asked.

Your theory requires the HC: 1) Believes that he can talk his way out of losing his job even if he has a terrible season, 2) That some cockamamie story about how his QBs aren't good but one of them is very promising will actually work, 3) by connection, you think JK doesn't mean what he says, and 4) JK is an idiot.

I'm sorry, this is just silly. I would have gone with Occam's Razor but I won't argue with Hanlon's.

Someone explain to me how it is that other than the points scored against UTEP our "young" QB's have accounted for 7 points in meaningful time and the other QB has put up 38 points. I figured it out they've given up 52 points. Counting what the "young" guys have given up then that would put them outscoring Tyner 59-38. Makes since to go with the strategy that gives opponents as many points as possible.

Eh?

For the record, I think the whole lightning in a bottle thing with Smalls was downright retarded. If Smalls was our future, then he should have been Glaesmann's backup and gotten some experience in the Stanford game and other games in garbage time. I don't really care who our 1,2,3 are (that's not our job). Just have a plan and have a reason for the plan. Not just do a weekly rotation because we might get lucky this time.

This whole situation screams Fanuzzi, McHargue and Cook all over again.

Completely agree. If Sam and Smalls are the future then go with it from day one and utilize Tyner somewhere else. All three have value we could leverage instead of using two to signal and rotate each week. Willing to burn the redshirt in week 6 would indicate the conversation of burning the redshirt took place at some other point.

Look here Antarius... I don't even know what that means (Hanlon's Razor).. I thought I made it clear I'm not intellectual...

I would be remiss if I didn't point out that while "At Ease" made some valid points regarding "spin" using some on-field data to refute my "agenda based offense", that I couldn't help but notice he did not address the question raised about "grooming"... Vis a vie play calling... 32 pass attempts in his 3rd career start for one guy... 9 pass attempts in the 3rd career start for the other guy. I would hope "At Ease" had a refute for that incontrovertible fact. To say the one guy has some "multitude of vastly more experience" than the others is false and exaggerated.

I am simply making the argument that based on what I have seen, that while it is arguable that the one "cast aside" QB option did not show mind blowing effectiveness, it is hard to argue that with comparably as much experience that the other option has shown any more promise.... In fact, he has shown the ability to create points for the opponent....

And since this will be his fourth start this Saturday, are we to expect that he be given the breadth of the playbook that the number three guy was given at Pitt?

The facts may bear out that "At Ease" is right. Let's hope for the sake of the program they do... But what is inarguable at this point is my guy is better today. Better may not mean great or super.. But better is better than the other two... inarguably a fact as I type today. Maybe I will feel different Monday.