The bottom line is that you have to do what you can execute.

You can take a little bit more risk with the score tied, because in the event of failure you have the overtime to fall back on. But the primary idea, if possible, is to run the clock so that only one team can score, and that is our team. Second, you want to maximize your scoring potential consistent with that primary objective.

Our clock management before the half violated that first principle. Without that gaffe, had the second half gone the same way (bad assumption, I know, but you have to assume something, and that's as reasonable as any), we don't need the kick at the end.

Was the way we did it a bit ballsy? Absolutely. Obviously the staff felt that the risk was justified because of some combination of 1) the kick was easier from the other hash, and 2) avoiding having to kickoff to PV was worth the gamble. Was it as ballsy as Todd running one more play with 20 seconds left, no time out so the ball had to be spiked after the play, and trailing by one so there was no margin for error? Not quite. But that team executed that sequence and we won that game too.

Bottom line. We did what we could execute, it worked, and we won. The key is that we could execute it. My complaint with the prior staff is that I'm not sure they had ever their teams prepared to execute this kind of thing. There are NFL teams that screw this up.

(08-25-2018 10:20 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(08-25-2018 10:09 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(08-25-2018 10:06 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(08-25-2018 09:48 PM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(08-25-2018 09:44 PM)OldOwl Wrote:  Our biggest problem is the quarterback. Both ,so far, seem below average but time will tell. However, they did not throw any interceptions which is a plus.

Agreed.

Biggest question marks are QB and on defense, scheme for secondary

Coaching deserves a question mark also. The team came out well, then went on a complete walkabout for the next 40 minutes. And the decision to snap the ball the play before the final FG, on 3rd down with the clock running under :10, was simply idiotic.

Why? We had time to kick the winning FG. Lots more to complain about besides something that worked. FYI run plays don’t take 10 seconds

If the play had been strung out a bit more to the outside, it's very possible Eskupa could have run out the clock in regulation on that one play. I would have lined up for a FGA on 3rd down.

I also thought out decision to throw a couple of passes right before half was also odd (and cost us 7 points). Three runs and we would have gone into the half with a 19-14 lead (and the ball to begin the 3rd quarter).

Positives - RB's and the two OT on offense. Austin Trammell too. Defensively I thought the DL and LB played well at times, but not all the time. The secondary was way worse than I expected.

We're lucky CUSA isn't anything special.

Rice did kick on third down. I don't fault running the play, but Rice was on or near the ten with over a minute to play. They ought to have been able to run twice (once to center the ball between the hash marks, once to try for the TD) and casually stop the clock with however much time they wanted. Needs work, but I think they had the right idea.

No you're wrong, check the box. Esukpa ran on all 3 downs (and I've been wrong in this thread with his name so apologies there - it's Esukpa, not Eskupa). Fox's game winning field goal was on 4th down. As I said already, I would have tried the FG on 3rd down.

(08-27-2018 08:43 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  No you're wrong, check the box. Esukpa ran on all 3 downs (and I've been wrong in this thread with his name so apologies there - it's Esukpa, not Eskupa). Fox's game winning field goal was on 4th down. As I said already, I would have tried the FG on 3rd down.

You are right... the kick was 4th down. Rice had two timeouts, PVAM had one, and Rice got to the 11 yard line with over 100 seconds on the clock. First down started on the left hash, went to center the ball, second down went out to the right hash. That may have played into the decision to run on third down to again center the ball. IMHO, that has more value (albeit not much value) than giving you an extra down to kick the ball, as that rarely comes into play. But, second down ends with 40 seconds, you have two timeouts ... it really shouldn't come down to scrambling to get a TO called with one second on the clock. Even if they lined up with 20 seconds on the clock and let it run down to start the play with 8 seconds left, it would've looked better. But, they were scrambling to get into position with less than 10 seconds on the clock. That didn't look good, but I don't have any problem with running the ball three times in that situation.

(08-26-2018 09:51 PM)Seventyniner Wrote:  

(08-26-2018 04:24 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(08-26-2018 02:05 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(08-26-2018 11:52 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(08-26-2018 11:20 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  Ross was very much underutilized. He got in the dog house for some reason and Bailiff barely played him. I still remember his run against ECU for 80 yards up the middle. He could really move for someone that big.

I think you are thinking of Eddington?

Ah ya you’re right I think. Same teams but I think eddington was the one who got in the doghouse and never played much.

Yeah, Eddington was in and out of the doghouse, and he ripped off that kickoff return against ECU, going straight up the middle of the blocking untouched. Was actually very impressive straight-line speed for such a big guy. But never consistently put it together as a RB.

Eddington also had a KOR for a TD in 2012 at UTEP - in a game that made Rice bowl eligible.

Ross actually has the team record run from scrimmage, if I recall, against Houston. And that one was also pretty impressive - something like 95 yards. He was a much more successful RB, though the 2 kickoff returns that Eddington had certainly shows a good skillset that Rice otherwise hasn't been able to find.

IIRC that was a standard offensive play, not a KO return. He never deviated from the hash, just a straight line to paydirt.

Correct me if I'm wrong, though, that's just what I remember.

You are correct. It was a running play. Getting my Eddington plays confused.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/box...-rice.html

(08-27-2018 08:57 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(08-27-2018 08:43 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  No you're wrong, check the box. Esukpa ran on all 3 downs (and I've been wrong in this thread with his name so apologies there - it's Esukpa, not Eskupa). Fox's game winning field goal was on 4th down. As I said already, I would have tried the FG on 3rd down.

You are right... the kick was 4th down. Rice had two timeouts, PVAM had one, and Rice got to the 11 yard line with over 100 seconds on the clock. First down started on the left hash, went to center the ball, second down went out to the right hash. That may have played into the decision to run on third down to again center the ball. IMHO, that has more value (albeit not much value) than giving you an extra down to kick the ball, as that rarely comes into play. But, second down ends with 40 seconds, you have two timeouts ... it really shouldn't come down to scrambling to get a TO called with one second on the clock. Even if they lined up with 20 seconds on the clock and let it run down to start the play with 8 seconds left, it would've looked better. But, they were scrambling to get into position with less than 10 seconds on the clock. That didn't look good, but I don't have any problem with running the ball three times in that situation.

Centering the ball can be huge at the college level when you're that close to the goalline. It's the difference between having 8.77 degrees (leeway) between posts for a 26 yard field goal on the right hashmark and 15.32 degrees between the posts when centered for a 23 yard field goal (what Fox kicked).

Yes, I went to Rice, was an engineer, so I did the math.

Why the second down call was to the boundary is probably a fairer question, given that if you don't score, you're giving yourself a bad angle unless you can get the ball centered again. The defense may be overplaying the run to the middle, but you just have to manage the risks.

PV A&M's big receiver Tristen Wallace was their main weapon in shredding the Rice secondary for big plays and 147 yards, and I felt better about the game after finding out that he was a four-star recruit out of DeSoto, fought over by Oregon and Ohio State. One scouting service had him as the #7 ATH in the nation. He transferred from Oregon to Prairie View. Without Tristen Wallace, Prairie View's offense wouldn't have been as potent.

https://247sports.com/Video/Analysis-of-...?View=Full

Rice's defensive secondary clearly remains a big issue and the impediment of a good season, but even most C-USA teams don't have players like Tristen Wallace.

I think my biggest disappointment with the result was the lack of efficiency by Rice's passing game. In 2016 against PVAM, Tyler Stehling had the best day of his career, going 22/31 for 407 yards and 5 TD. Saturday's 12/24 for 87 yard performance was a gigantic step down. And it isn't like the 2016 Rice team was known for its elite passing attack.

(08-27-2018 03:44 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I think my biggest disappointment with the result was the lack of efficiency by Rice's passing game. In 2016 against PVAM, Tyler Stehling had the best day of his career, going 22/31 for 407 yards and 5 TD. Saturday's 12/24 for 87 yard performance was a gigantic step down. And it isn't like the 2016 Rice team was known for its elite passing attack.

It is easy to forget that Tyler was a very underrated QB at Rice. Heck, he recently was offered a tryout for the Texans. If Tyner has some arm talent, Tyler had it in spades. Part of the issue was that Stehling got sacked a lot in 2016.

(08-27-2018 03:42 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  PV A&M's big receiver Tristen Wallace was their main weapon in shredding the Rice secondary for big plays and 147 yards, and I felt better about the game after finding out that he was a four-star recruit out of DeSoto, fought over by Oregon and Ohio State. One scouting service had him as the #7 ATH in the nation. He transferred from Oregon to Prairie View. Without Tristen Wallace, Prairie View's offense wouldn't have been as potent.

https://247sports.com/Video/Analysis-of-...?View=Full

Rice's defensive secondary clearly remains a big issue and the impediment of a good season, but even most C-USA teams don't have players like Tristen Wallace.

The teams we play in CUSA do have guys like that. Our conference takes the P5 rejects left and right. Kiffin or Davis wouldn’t blink an eye at why Oregon kicked someone out. Not to mention we play a Briles again at Rice stadium this weekend.

And in the alternate scenario where he didn’t have the grades to get into a P5 school our conference would also take him (ask Marshall/UTSA/UTEP).

Point is we will be playing teams with athletic receivers like him every week. In spread offenses. With better QBs than PV had.

Quote:The End: With the win, Rice snapped a 10-game losing streak overall and a five-game losing streak at home as well as a three-game losing streak in debut games for head coaches.

From the Rice Recap. Oof. Glad it is over

I’m surprised no one has mentioned this, because it’s what jumped off of the stats page to me:

Tyner: 4.9 yards per attempt
Stankavage: 2.9 YPA

Stankavage was actually better running at 5.2 YPC (skewed by one 18-yard run), for a combined 3.5 YPP. Tyner had no carries, so his YPP is also 4.9.

The schedule gets tougher, so hopefully Bloomgren was holding a lot back.

[quote='Gravy Owl' pid='15457858' dateline='1535567147']
I’m surprised no one has mentioned this, because it’s what jumped off of the stats page to me:

Tyner: 4.9 yards per attempt
Stankavage: 2.9 YPA

Stankavage was actually better running at 5.2 YPC (skewed by one 18-yard run), for a combined 3.5 YPP. Tyner had no carries, so his YPP is also 4.9.

The schedule gets tougher, so hopefully Bloomgren was holding a lot back.
[/quote

Those stats were on 10 series for Stank compared to 2 series for Tyner

(08-29-2018 01:25 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  I’m surprised no one has mentioned this, because it’s what jumped off of the stats page to me:

Tyner: 4.9 yards per attempt
Stankavage: 2.9 YPA

Stankavage was actually better running at 5.2 YPC (skewed by one 18-yard run), for a combined 3.5 YPP. Tyner had no carries, so his YPP is also 4.9.

The schedule gets tougher, so hopefully Bloomgren was holding a lot back.

I mean, we only had 87 yards of passing offense, so all the stats are pretty meek on that front.

Tyner's stats are boosted by 1 23 yard pass. Beyond this, I don't believe Stankavage or Tyner completed a pass longer than 10 yards all game.

Hoping we were holding back too.

I'll just shoot it straight because I'm a Tyner guy... The world don't make bodies like that with arms like that except maybe in Pittsburgh.... The day that dawns where Tyner decides his arm is a weapon for "good" and gets past "being too careful and scripted" (btw: I don't blame him because of what the ABO did to his confidence and general psyche) will be the day that there won't be a QB competition.... To my "non-expert" eye, he plays 70% of the game like he's afraid his gifts are a harm to mankind and fears to unleash them. But I've seen snaps where he let's it rip and goes into "playmaker" mode.... Coaches love "coachable"... They love "do it like the white board drew it up guys"... But they love a guy that just makes big plays too...He's all Jekyll and no Hyde to date.. Time to unleash the monster.... I've seen enough skill and talent in that big ass body to carry a team... I'd love to see him seize his moment Saturday and do "football field stuff" as opposed to "football meeting room stuff".... Of course, it wouldn't hurt to not get three tight ends on 3rd and 12 to work with also FWIW...

(08-29-2018 01:40 PM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  I'll just shoot it straight because I'm a Tyner guy... The world don't make bodies like that with arms like that except maybe in Pittsburgh.... The day that dawns where Tyner decides his arm is a weapon for "good" and gets past "being too careful and scripted" (btw: I don't blame him because of what the ABO did to his confidence and general psyche) will be the day that there won't be a QB competition.... To my "non-expert" eye, he plays 70% of the game like he's afraid his gifts are a harm to mankind and fears to unleash them. But I've seen snaps where he let's it rip and goes into "playmaker" mode.... Coaches love "coachable"... They love "do it like the white board drew it up guys"... But they love a guy that just makes big plays too...He's all Jekyll and no Hyde to date.. Time to unleash the monster.... I've seen enough skill and talent in that big ass body to carry a team... I'd love to see him seize his moment Saturday and do "football field stuff" as opposed to "football meeting room stuff".... Of course, it wouldn't hurt to not get three tight ends on 3rd and 12 to work with also FWIW...

First, I am not an ABO guy (sorry). However, I remember scratching my head when I alighted upon a fall practice and saw Jackson Tyner taking snaps at QB instead of reps at TE. So I agree with you. Jackson has all of the tools. So, like you, I hope he decides that that, "...enough is enough, I'm leading this team!" Otherwise, start taking some reps at TE, because he is wasted on the sidelines holding a clipboard.

I thought Tyner ran the option extremely well when I first saw him at QB under Bailiff. His decision making more than anything, but did show good athleticism as well. Surprised to see some discuss him now as not having any mobility. I would've liked to see more from him in the 3rd quarter especially. Definitely has the better arm. I guess he hasn't showed enough for the coaches to trust him down the field - only saw fades or swing passes, and if that's the case, they will prefer a QB that manages and minimizes mistakes over the upside.

(08-29-2018 04:00 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  I thought Tyner ran the option extremely well when I first saw him at QB under Bailiff. His decision making more than anything, but did show good athleticism as well. Surprised to see some discuss him now as not having any mobility. I would've liked to see more from him in the 3rd quarter especially. Definitely has the better arm. I guess he hasn't showed enough for the coaches to trust him down the field - only saw fades or swing passes, and if that's the case, they will prefer a QB that manages and minimizes mistakes over the upside.

Stronger arm - yes. More accurate arm - not demonsrated on Saturday.

(08-29-2018 04:00 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  I thought Tyner ran the option extremely well when I first saw him at QB under Bailiff. His decision making more than anything, but did show good athleticism as well. Surprised to see some discuss him now as not having any mobility. I would've liked to see more from him in the 3rd quarter especially. Definitely has the better arm. I guess he hasn't showed enough for the coaches to trust him down the field - only saw fades or swing passes, and if that's the case, they will prefer a QB that manages and minimizes mistakes over the upside.

I am unclear as to how anything you saw relating to the option could be describe as "extremely well". Especially 2016-present.

Not a slight on Tyner, but Rice most certainly did not execute anything well during that time period, and barring special teams and the secondary, the option was high on that list.