(10-08-2018 11:29 AM)Rice FB Fan Wrote:  I feel terrible for the players and coaches who I am sure are working as hard as they can to repeatedly look helpless against teams like UTSA. I thought the defense played a good game. I really do think the players are trying as hard as they can.

I worry that too much is made on just recruiting better players is the answer, rather than a reality check on what the players we have and are likely to get can execute. Here are the QB rankings for the QBs on our roster coming out of high school who committed to Rice (I am leaving Stankavage out because he did not commit to Rice out of HS): Glaesman 74 PRO QB, Towns 87 PRO QB, Blosser 115 PRO QB, Tyner 126 ATHLETE, Green 133 PRO QB, Marshman NR. Miklo Smalls was 133 ATHLETE. The commit we have for 2019 is not much different than what we already have: 72 PRO QB. Between academic requirements, conference affiliation, campus environment and recent on field performance, I do not see a top 25 QB in our near future. Here is Stanford's roster of QBs out of HS to see what Bloomgren is used to working with: Mills 1 PRO, Costello 9 PRO, West 12 PRO, Plautz NR, Richardson NR.

Similarly, here is Stanford's o-line this season vs. Rice:
Stanford: Little 1 OT, Fanaika 15 OG, Burkett 45 OG, Herbig 53 OG, Hall 60 OT.
Rice: Osuji 177 OT, Greene 154 OG, Baker 55 OC, Dill 99 OG, Pierce 138 OT.

I know nothing about o-line schemes, but it doesn't seem to me that it is a linear equation to say that simply because we are in CUSA, that lesser talented o-linemen can run the same schemes that better talented players run at Stanford against P5 schools. If you can't dunk, you can't dunk on middle schoolers either. I'm not criticizing our guys, but there is a reason they aren't at Bama.

Do I think/hope we can recruit better players - yes, of course. But results help recruiting and we need to get results with what we have and what we are likely to get near future if we want to attract better recruits. I trust this staff and support them 100% to find a way to do this, but not sure trying the same thing over and over is going to change the result because the awesome players who could execute this aren't here and aren't on the way except for the occasional diamond in the rough (like our RBs have been, and I think a couple of these freshman defensive players may be). I feel bad for Cephus, who is a great talent squandered thus far.

Yes, I recognize this is a rambling mess. I really thought this team could win 6 games this year. I don't see a real talent change coming in the next 2-3 years, if ever. So feeling a little down this morning, as I am sure the players and coaches are.

I agree of most of what you're saying here. I know I've been beating this drum a lot lately, but I just don't see premium talent committed to us (which is what we need to be successful in this system).

Going through our current commits, we've got some good ones (Bycznski, Floyd (saw him play in person and was very impressed), Moore)... But a lot of JAGs that I don't think will get us where we need to be. For example, I just watched Garrett Braden's highlights and he isn't dominating the CT competition. He's good and definitely above average for HS, but looks more like an Ivy player than an FBS player. A guy like Zane Knipe isn't even in the top two of receiving for an under-performing Lamar squad.

(10-07-2018 10:05 AM)Antarius Wrote:  As posted in the game thread. My Grades:

UTSA: F
Rice : F-
Broadcast: F-
Camera work : F
Uniforms : B (Helmet decal needs work)
Rice ST : A

As for UAB, they are 4-1 and ranked 84 in Massey. Which puts them around UHawaii. Our projected chance of a win is 11%.

UAB also has 113 ranked offense, which is pretty poor. They have 67th ranked defense however, and given that we scored 3 against the 126th ranked one, we're on track for a shutout barring some major changes. UAB also held LaTech to 7 points last night, winning 28-7.

UAB holds the 11th rank defense in the NCAA. A far cry from 67. Saying that, we struggle on the road, and my fear is that will be amplified with a letdown, sandwiched between a huge road win at LaTech and homecoming vs UNT.

(10-09-2018 08:19 AM)Pavy78 Wrote:  

(10-07-2018 10:05 AM)Antarius Wrote:  As posted in the game thread. My Grades:

UTSA: F
Rice : F-
Broadcast: F-
Camera work : F
Uniforms : B (Helmet decal needs work)
Rice ST : A

As for UAB, they are 4-1 and ranked 84 in Massey. Which puts them around UHawaii. Our projected chance of a win is 11%.

UAB also has 113 ranked offense, which is pretty poor. They have 67th ranked defense however, and given that we scored 3 against the 126th ranked one, we're on track for a shutout barring some major changes. UAB also held LaTech to 7 points last night, winning 28-7.

UAB holds the 11th rank defense in the NCAA. A far cry from 67. Saying that, we struggle on the road, and my fear is that will be amplified with a letdown, sandwiched between a huge road win at LaTech and homecoming vs UNT.

I'm using Massey for my ranking. They are 11 by total defense, but that doesnt take into account any form of weighting by schedule, opponent etc.

Either way, UAB has a much better defense than opponents like UTSA have had.

I like the combined postgame/pregame thread for the alphabet soup opponents. Very fitting!

I think Alexa is also confused about UAB. My son asked Alexa yesterday when Rice would play, and it replied: this Saturday, versus the UAB Blazers, in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Despite being generally criticized, Miko Smalls was a step up from what we have now at QB. Better thrower, better runner and playmaker, and was a true freshman. He had upside at least. Of all the losses we had to transfers, maybe he was the biggest one (may have been academic reasons, not sure).

I don't see any answers for the offense. The O-line is not good enough to execute this predictable scheme when other defenses focus on stopping the run, and the QB's aren't good enough right now to have an effective passing game. No scheme is going to work without a decent QB play. What we have to avoid is putting too much on the QB, and that's what happens when the o-line can't dictate the tempo with the run game. Does Bloomgren double down on his offense and just try to improve the execution with Stank at the helm? Will Tyner get more opportunities? Or will major changes be made to the playbook? Will the 3rd string walk on get a chance at QB? Does Glaesmann get another shot at QB with his superior speed? Some options plays were incorporated into the offense this past game, which to me seemed like an admission that we can't just pound the rock ala Stanford. With a fast QB, our run game could get another dimension. But this brings up the question, was Hatfield's system the best fit at Rice, assuming we can't get great passing QB's on a regular basis? Didn't Bloomgren basically invent the NFL version of the Wildcat? Could the WildOwl make a comeback? Bailiff made the spread work only when he had above average QB play (Clement, McHargue, Jackson), the rest of the time the offense looked almost as bad as it did vs UTSA. I'm confident Bloomgren can recruit the right QB for his offense, but there's not a lot of room for error - almost every team is searching for the same type of pro-style QB that this offense works best with.

Have to be more unconventional within our current conventional scheme for it to work.

One frustrating part of Stank's recent performances are his misses on short throws in the flat to RB's. They have technically been catchable passes (and quite a few have been caught), but I do not remember any that really hit the RB in stride to give him an opportunity to make plays (which is the whole point of the route). I believe one was bobbled and then intercepted, but I felt most of the fault was in Stank's pass, which was a little low and behind the RB. Others have ended up just short of a 1st down because the RB didn't have time to really turn upfield after the off-target pass. If this isn't something that Stank can execute regularly, then the coaches should shelve it.

Also, I have been amazed at how poorly Rice has executed RB and TE screens throughout the Bailiff era and now into the Bloomgren era. Seems like it should be a staple for run-heavy teams without a great downfield passing attack, but Rice rarely executes RB or TE screens. For the football experts out there, why doesn't Rice throw more RB and TE screens, and why is Rice so unsuccessful when we do attempt them?

(10-09-2018 09:57 AM)Buho00 Wrote:  Does Bloomgren double down on his offense and just try to improve the execution with Stank at the helm?Yes Will Tyner get more opportunities? NoOr will major changes be made to the playbook?no Will the 3rd string walk on get a chance at QB? noDoes Glaesmann get another shot at QB with his superior speed?no

(10-09-2018 10:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-09-2018 09:57 AM)Buho00 Wrote:  Does Bloomgren double down on his offense and just try to improve the execution with Stank at the helm?Yes Will Tyner get more opportunities? NoOr will major changes be made to the playbook?no Will the 3rd string walk on get a chance at QB? noDoes Glaesmann get another shot at QB with his superior speed?no

And there you have it! Short and sweet! LOL!

(10-09-2018 10:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-09-2018 09:57 AM)Buho00 Wrote:  Does Bloomgren double down on his offense and just try to improve the execution with Stank at the helm?Yes Will Tyner get more opportunities? NoOr will major changes be made to the playbook?no Will the 3rd string walk on get a chance at QB? noDoes Glaesmann get another shot at QB with his superior speed?no

Agree. Double down and push the offensive plan. Tyner only plays due to injury or massive turnovers by Stank. Only offensive change is to try and go tempo and throw which in that case is scary due to Stank's inability to throw. Tyner can throw but didn't get it done last week. Came in late against UH and threw well but with less than 40 live snaps on the season hard to say what Tyner can and cannot do in this system. Glaesman move is permanent. I see Stank and Tyner (more Stank) struggling through the next 3 games. Green makes a debut against UTEP in reserve. I think the main focus now is on improving the play up front and hoping those guys are vastly improved for next year making the offense go much smoother. Wouldn't be opposed to a "make it, take it" rotation the next two weeks with Stank and Tyner. Rotate each time one of them doesn't score. Probably the strategy that we should have started with.

(10-09-2018 09:57 AM)Buho00 Wrote:  Despite being generally criticized, Miko Smalls was a step up from what we have now at QB. Better thrower, better runner and playmaker, and was a true freshman. He had upside at least. Of all the losses we had to transfers, maybe he was the biggest one (may have been academic reasons, not sure).

I don't see any answers for the offense. The O-line is not good enough to execute this predictable scheme when other defenses focus on stopping the run, and the QB's aren't good enough right now to have an effective passing game. No scheme is going to work without a decent QB play. What we have to avoid is putting too much on the QB, and that's what happens when the o-line can't dictate the tempo with the run game. Does Bloomgren double down on his offense and just try to improve the execution with Stank at the helm? Will Tyner get more opportunities? Or will major changes be made to the playbook? Will the 3rd string walk on get a chance at QB? Does Glaesmann get another shot at QB with his superior speed? Some options plays were incorporated into the offense this past game, which to me seemed like an admission that we can't just pound the rock ala Stanford. With a fast QB, our run game could get another dimension. But this brings up the question, was Hatfield's system the best fit at Rice, assuming we can't get great passing QB's on a regular basis? Didn't Bloomgren basically invent the NFL version of the Wildcat? Could the WildOwl make a comeback? Bailiff made the spread work only when he had above average QB play (Clement, McHargue, Jackson), the rest of the time the offense looked almost as bad as it did vs UTSA. I'm confident Bloomgren can recruit the right QB for his offense, but there's not a lot of room for error - almost every team is searching for the same type of pro-style QB that this offense works best with.

Have to be more unconventional within our current conventional scheme for it to work.

What was *extremely* frustrating was that Stank couldn't even execute the option well! He just pitched the ball almost immediately, at least twice from what I saw, forfeiting any benefits the play may have had over a pure run. So, we got a guy who can't make the easy throw to the running back coming out the flat, can't execute the option, and can't hit the deep ball. And he's the best we got.

I would be curious about more designed runs for Stank. He seems serviceable as a runner, or, rather, ineffective but maybe less ineffective than other play designs.

Agree very much re: Smalls. Both Smalls and Glaesmann would be upgrades over what we're getting now.

(10-09-2018 11:14 AM)RiceOL83 Wrote:  

(10-09-2018 10:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-09-2018 09:57 AM)Buho00 Wrote:  Does Bloomgren double down on his offense and just try to improve the execution with Stank at the helm?Yes Will Tyner get more opportunities? NoOr will major changes be made to the playbook?no Will the 3rd string walk on get a chance at QB? noDoes Glaesmann get another shot at QB with his superior speed?no

Agree. Double down and push the offensive plan. Tyner only plays due to injury or massive turnovers by Stank. Only offensive change is to try and go tempo and throw which in that case is scary due to Stank's inability to throw. Tyner can throw but didn't get it done last week. Came in late against UH and threw well but with less than 40 live snaps on the season hard to say what Tyner can and cannot do in this system. Glaesman move is permanent. I see Stank and Tyner (more Stank) struggling through the next 3 games. Green makes a debut against UTEP in reserve. I think the main focus now is on improving the play up front and hoping those guys are vastly improved for next year making the offense go much smoother. Wouldn't be opposed to a "make it, take it" rotation the next two weeks with Stank and Tyner. Rotate each time one of them doesn't score. Probably the strategy that we should have started with.

I'd be in favor of this as well

At some point, you have to see what you have. Bloomgren talked up Marshmann in the Spring and in Fall camp. Give him a series to see what he can do.

(10-09-2018 11:17 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(10-09-2018 11:14 AM)RiceOL83 Wrote:  

(10-09-2018 10:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-09-2018 09:57 AM)Buho00 Wrote:  Does Bloomgren double down on his offense and just try to improve the execution with Stank at the helm?Yes Will Tyner get more opportunities? NoOr will major changes be made to the playbook?no Will the 3rd string walk on get a chance at QB? noDoes Glaesmann get another shot at QB with his superior speed?no

Agree. Double down and push the offensive plan. Tyner only plays due to injury or massive turnovers by Stank. Only offensive change is to try and go tempo and throw which in that case is scary due to Stank's inability to throw. Tyner can throw but didn't get it done last week. Came in late against UH and threw well but with less than 40 live snaps on the season hard to say what Tyner can and cannot do in this system. Glaesman move is permanent. I see Stank and Tyner (more Stank) struggling through the next 3 games. Green makes a debut against UTEP in reserve. I think the main focus now is on improving the play up front and hoping those guys are vastly improved for next year making the offense go much smoother. Wouldn't be opposed to a "make it, take it" rotation the next two weeks with Stank and Tyner. Rotate each time one of them doesn't score. Probably the strategy that we should have started with.

I'd be in favor of this as well

Would have been more of a competition than we were told was happening. Game one Tyner had I believe 19 snaps to Stanks 71 snaps. Hardly a competition.

Judging by Bloomgren's comments in the press conference, it sounds like Tyner has been supplanted for now at the #2 spot by Marshman. Bloom suggested that Marshman will get some snaps Saturday.

(10-09-2018 12:42 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  Judging by Bloomgren's comments in the press conference, it sounds like Tyner has been supplanted for now at the #2 spot by Marshman. Bloom suggested that Marshman will get some snaps Saturday.

Good. Let's see what he's got.

(10-09-2018 12:42 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  Judging by Bloomgren's comments in the press conference, it sounds like Tyner has been supplanted for now at the #2 spot by Marshman. Bloom suggested that Marshman will get some snaps Saturday.

Given that Marshman already used his RS, I am still not clear why he didn't mop up against Wake Forest.

If he moves up to #2, this is the exact same trajectory that led us to "lightning in a bottle". What if Stankavage gets hurt or gets pulled and we throw a guy in who hasn't played ever. That has signs pointing to a meltdown waiting to happen.

Assuming the RS argument stands (can be discussed later), this still doesn't explain why Marshman is now #2 and still hasn't touched the ball.

(10-09-2018 03:31 PM)Antarius Wrote:  That has signs pointing to a meltdown waiting to happen.

That's already happened.

It's not going to get worse because it can't.

(10-09-2018 03:31 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-09-2018 12:42 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  Judging by Bloomgren's comments in the press conference, it sounds like Tyner has been supplanted for now at the #2 spot by Marshman. Bloom suggested that Marshman will get some snaps Saturday.

Given that Marshman already used his RS, I am still not clear why he didn't mop up against Wake Forest.

If he moves up to #2, this is the exact same trajectory that led us to "lightning in a bottle". What if Stankavage gets hurt or gets pulled and we throw a guy in who hasn't played ever. That has signs pointing to a meltdown waiting to happen.

Assuming the RS argument stands (can be discussed later), this still doesn't explain why Marshman is now #2 and still hasn't touched the ball.

Predict Smoke and mirrors. Tyner still backup in event of injury. Marshman playing a wildcat role for a possible spark. Tell your opponent Marshman battle for #2 but when he comes you see a different package than ever seen this year.

(10-09-2018 04:02 PM)RiceOL83 Wrote:  

(10-09-2018 03:31 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-09-2018 12:42 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  Judging by Bloomgren's comments in the press conference, it sounds like Tyner has been supplanted for now at the #2 spot by Marshman. Bloom suggested that Marshman will get some snaps Saturday.

Given that Marshman already used his RS, I am still not clear why he didn't mop up against Wake Forest.

If he moves up to #2, this is the exact same trajectory that led us to "lightning in a bottle". What if Stankavage gets hurt or gets pulled and we throw a guy in who hasn't played ever. That has signs pointing to a meltdown waiting to happen.

Assuming the RS argument stands (can be discussed later), this still doesn't explain why Marshman is now #2 and still hasn't touched the ball.

Predict Smoke and mirrors. Tyner still backup in event of injury. Marshman playing a wildcat role for a possible spark. Tell your opponent Marshman battle for #2 but when he comes you see a different package than ever seen this year.

Sure hope this not the case and it would make no sense. Looking for improvement at QB play, if this pushes #1 and #2 it's a good thing. Don't bank on a melt down, no short cuts taken...walk on, buy into the program, hard work, and patiences

(10-09-2018 03:47 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(10-09-2018 03:31 PM)Antarius Wrote:  That has signs pointing to a meltdown waiting to happen.

That's already happened.

It's not going to get worse because it can't.

Every week of the same is worse, IMO. But were splitting hairs.

What I dont want to see is a meltdown akin to Smalls mess against Army. I didnt like how we threw him to the wolves and I hope we dont do that again. Especially when we have had plenty of options to play Marshman already.