CSNbbs

Full Version: note to Dr. K: Will Muschamp now available end of this season HFC
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(11-22-2014 11:32 AM)GoodOwl Wrote: [ -> ][quote='goherd24herdfans' pid='11417801' dateline='1416672121']
Wow. Bailiff is a good coach... how spoiled have rice fans become?

Pardon us for wanting to be even better after being essentially irrelevant for most of 40+ years. You wouldn't understand as your school, Marshall, is not seen in the same light by the average football fan. This board, tears ago, used to be more "just happy to be here." Now, we're turning into more of a real college fan board, where we expect the same results, especially in light of our school's competing and succeeding at the highest levels academically. We want success across the board.

The answer to your question would be: not as spoiled as some Marshall fans. (see the whining on the main CUSA board).

We're still waiting for our string of NFL Quarterbacks like Chad Pennington, Byron Leftwich, and now perhaps Rakeem Cato (we had Tommy Kramer in the 70's. Our best QB under Bailiff, Chase Clement, was already here, recruited by Ken Hatfield, and helped Todd Graham (now HC at Arizona State after a few other stops 03-wink ) lead Rice to a winning record and it's first bowl game in decades. Graham was an SOB, but he did turn the culture around at Rice and raised expectations in his one year here).

We're still waiting for our undefeated seasons, plural. We're still waiting for our stadium improvements (which the scuttlebutt now says will hopefully be announced in January 2015). We're still waiting for fans to regularly pack Rice Stadium in proportion to how they do at Marshall. We're still waiting for the perception among the average college football fan to change from Rice as a gimme to Rice to be a feared opponent on anyone's schedule.

(11-22-2014 11:02 AM)goherd24herdfans Wrote: [ -> ]You win cusa for the first time, and now get 7 wins, maybe 8, losing some good talent and you call for bailiffs head?

It's not unreasonable to surmise, in light of each teams' respective play over the last year, that had the 2013 C-USA Championship game been at Marshall instead of at Rice Stadium in Houston, Marshall more likely would have pulled out a win. We caught you with your pants down and on a road trip your team and fans generally felt was unjustified. Very glad we won, but not unaware of the circumstances. Bailiff has admittedly often been charmed in this respect, which is part of the reason he's been here so long. Some of us consider balancing in viewing his luck in stars aligning to get him extensions along with his skills in our assessment of Bailiff more than others.

Almost everyone here agrees that Bailiff is a nice guy personally and a decent ambassador of Rice as a school.

(11-22-2014 11:02 AM)goherd24herdfans Wrote: [ -> ]No offense, but reality, its a tough sell to get a kid to want to play at Rice, where baseball is the sport, let alone the academic hurdles one must leap, and lack of fan support recruits see in the stadium.

Actually, no offense, but many of us here think Rice's superior academics are an easier sell against all other G5 schools like yours and would give any coach here at Rice a recruiting advantage against G5, not just Bailiff.

(11-22-2014 11:02 AM)goherd24herdfans Wrote: [ -> ]Florida would have traded you coaches in a snap of a finger if they could. And you would have gotten the short end of the stick. Be careful what you wish for, because you just might never see a coaching staff like this one again.
(11-22-2014 11:02 AM)goherd24herdfans Wrote: [ -> ]...With a coach like Bailiff, if you ever pickup top talent at a few positions, he will maximize that talent and you could end up having a very special year.

Many of us feel that when we had that top talent at a few positions (Chase Clement, Jarret Dillard, James Casey) that they won in spite of what Bailiff and his staff told them to do, not because of it. It is rumored that those players often took things into their own hands instead of listening to the coaches all the time. One of the most repeated assessments by one of our most all-around respected posters, Owl69/70, is that Bailiff's main problem is the distinct lack of ability to maximize talent.

I don't believe you are really sincere. Tell you what. Forget Muschamp, forget Florida.

How 'bout we trade Marshall 1 David Bailiff with his contract for 1 Doc Holliday straight up? Now how good a coach do you really think Bailiff is? (note: might want to parse his actual record a bit closer, kind of the way we do endlessly on this board.)

Everything else the exact same, I contend that if Marshall had had David Bailiff this year, they most likely would not be undefeated. If Rice had Doc Holliday this year we would not have lost to Old Dominion, and would have had a better chance against Notre dame and Texas A$M. Bailiff has a history of treating non-conference games with less consequence than in-conference (his exact words being a repeated matter of dispute on these boards.)

But you see, I don't mind that. It's why I like to read, and sometimes comment on this board. Some posters here like him as our coach, some do not. I view the very fact that we have such passionate disagreement about it as a good sign for Rice that at least some of the fandom here is no longer willing to just be happy to be here like the last 40 years.

(11-22-2014 11:02 AM)goherd24herdfans Wrote: [ -> ]Temper your expectations.

How about you go do that first, Marshall. Again, I refer you to the numerous whining posts from Marshall fans on the main conference board.

Pressure is good. "Pressure is what you perceive."--Jerry Seinfeld. Heck, pressure is one of the reasons you play and/or watch football.

Some of us want to do The Opposite of what Rice has done for 40+ years in football. Worked for George. Many at Rice are finally tired of being George. Would Marshall be satisfied with their next 40+ years being the same as Rice's last 40+?

"If every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right." --TV Jerry Seinfeld


MemOwl Wrote: [ -> ]None of those had decisive advantages in institutional resource commitment compared to Rice.

The schools were Tulsa, La Tech, Southern Miss, and UH (pre new stadium).

Tulsa's coach was The Toad. The other three schools do not impose academic standards on their athletic programs.
(11-22-2014 10:55 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote: [ -> ]I wanted to wait until we beat UTEP to post this.

Bailiff has now produced 3 straight winning seasons. That is seen by just about everybody outside of Rice as an extraordinary accomplishment. I don't think it's far-fetched at all to to think that he might get offers or at least feelers from bigger schools. Yes, his overall record is unimpressive, but I think most people who aren't Rice fans will blame his first few years on his predecessor, Rice itself, or both. And a lot of schools across the nation want a coach who can recruit Texas.

There are G5 coaches with more cachet right now, but not many of them.

I'm not saying it will happen, just that it's not inconceivable. Maybe 25% chance. If he has another winning record next year, it becomes much more likely.

I have no idea whether he would take such an offer. I wouldn't blame him if he did.

Even if he leaves, I don't think Muschamp is our guy.

I am not familiar with Bailiffs personal status, but somebody said (IIRC) that his youngest was finishing HS this year. That might influence him to listen/apply for other positions. If he goes, he has my best wishes and I hope we hire somebody as good or better.
(11-22-2014 11:32 AM)GoodOwl Wrote: [ -> ]


Best Seinfeld episode ever.
(11-22-2014 11:32 AM)GoodOwl Wrote: [ -> ]We're still waiting for our string of NFL Quarterbacks like Chad Pennington, Byron Leftwich, and now perhaps Rakeem Cato (we had Tommy Kramer in the 70's. Our best QB under Bailiff, Chase Clement, . . . . . . . . . .


It's not unreasonable to surmise, in light of each teams' respective play over the last year, that had the 2013 C-USA Championship game been at Marshall instead of at Rice Stadium in Houston, Marshall more likely would have pulled out a win. We caught you with your pants down and on a road trip your team and fans generally felt was unjustified. Very glad we won, but not unaware of the circumstances.

Actually, no offense, but many of us here think Rice's superior academics are an easier sell against all other G5 schools like yours and would give any coach here at Rice a recruiting advantage against G5, not just Bailiff.

First paragraph - - we've had a number of NFL caliber QB's although you have to go back further than Kramer -- - Tobin Rote, King Hill, Frank Ryan for starters and Donald Hollas and Bert Emmanuel (granted he played WR for the Falcons) later.

Second paragraph - - is a slap in the face of last year's team. They played a great game and frankly our fan base doesn't confer much of a 'home team advantage'. I disagree with this paragraph completely. If Marshall had come down here and won, or played closely than they might have an argument they should've hosted last year, but they didn't and I see no basis for an argument we didn't deserve to host. We lost Gaines (who I'm guessing was the best DB in CUSA last year) and a lot of others. I believe we were the better team last year, and I'm more than willing to agree that Marshall is clearly the better team this year. Next year, we'll see. I wish you were the only one on the board who felt this way about last year's Marshall game, but you're likely not. At least I feel confident that you're in a distinct minority.

Third paragraph - The makeup of Rice's student body is very, very different from your average D1 school. It's different from when I was in school, and very, very different from when we were winning Cotton Bowls in the 1940's and 1950's. This is not a complaint, just an observation. Rice students were mostly from Texas and surrounding states in the past. Many changes have been good (breaking of the will to desegregate, evening out gender distribution), but with the US News rankings of the 1980's, we became more popular, more selective and more eclectic. The variety of classes/majors we have available are different than the average D1 school and certainly than state schools who have a wider variety of majors and curricula at the undergraduate level.

The football players we recruit are exceptional in that they graduate at some of the best rates in the NCAA, they have strong academic backgrounds and they're willing to take on the challenges that come from being a student-athlete here at Rice. There are great advantages to a Rice education.

But I think the oft-quoted belief that our academic standing is a great recruiting advantage is actually baseless for the majority of high school athletes, and for football and basketball players in particular. There are schools, P5 schools, larger schools, like Stanford, who offer many of the same benefits. And an athlete can go to a school like Texas, get a good education and join a student body that has diversity (as does Rice), and also has a segment of the student population that is closer to the 'mean' of the Texas population. I certainly don't think the Marshall poster was out of line when you look at the entirety of prospective football recruits.
If Marshall would have won at home in 2013, that means their home field advantage is at least 17.
(11-22-2014 01:02 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: [ -> ]Second paragraph - - is a slap in the face of last year's team. They played a great game and frankly our fan base doesn't confer much of a 'home team advantage'. I disagree with this paragraph completely. If Marshall had come down here and won, or played closely than they might have an argument they should've hosted last year, but they didn't and I see no basis for an argument we didn't deserve to host. We lost Gaines (who I'm guessing was the best DB in CUSA last year) and a lot of others. I believe we were the better team last year, and I'm more than willing to agree that Marshall is clearly the better team this year. Next year, we'll see. I wish you were the only one on the board who felt this way about last year's Marshall game, but you're likely not. At least I feel confident that you're in a distinct minority.

Thanks for your response, Rick. I can understand your initial reaction at first glance to my comment, but read it more carefully, please. I'm trying hard. I thought I was very careful to bend over backwards to not slap the faces of last year's team in how I worded that part of my post.

I very much left the door open that Rice would still have won. I didn't say Marshall would have kicked our butts like they did this year, I said: "It's not unreasonable to surmise...Marshall more likely would have pulled out a win. We caught you with your pants down and on a road trip your team and fans generally felt was unjustified. Very glad we won, but not unaware of the circumstances."

It was no secret last year on this board, on the conference boards, or in some of the media that Marshall felt down and shafted by having to go down to Houston to play Rice for the Championship instead of the opposite. Teams have gotten dominated by supposedly lesser teams in similar circumstances before.

Again, I said they more likely, i.e. may have pulled it out, not that they definitely would have. Pulling out a win is different in my book than dominating. Also, many around the country felt Marshall would have been the better attended location as well (we did have a good number of fans come out in spite of the weather vs many of our usual crowds.) They definitely underestimated Rice last year. They sure didn't this year. And our guys played a hell of a championship game for a change start to finish, something I do think the players are capable of doing more often.

You are free to disagree, that's why we have opinion boards. I respectfully stand by my assessment of that game.

(11-22-2014 01:02 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: [ -> ]First paragraph - - we've had a number of NFL caliber QB's although you have to go back further than Kramer -- - Tobin Rote, King Hill, Frank Ryan for starters and Donald Hollas and Bert Emmanuel (granted he played WR for the Falcons) later.

Hey, Rick, don't be slapping the Falcons in the face.......actually they do suck so go ahead. :)

Hollas and Emmanuel, while good, were not Pennington and Leftwich. Chase Clement should have at least been given a chance to play, but was not. As to the others you mentioned, I'm trying to keep it somewhat contemporary, but I'm glad they played at Rice.

(11-22-2014 01:02 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: [ -> ]Third paragraph - -But I think the oft-quoted belief that our academic standing is a great recruiting advantage is actually baseless for the majority of high school athletes, and for football and basketball players in particular. There are schools, P5 schools, larger schools, like Stanford, who offer many of the same benefits. And an athlete can go to a school like Texas, get a good education and join a student body that has diversity (as does Rice), and also has a segment of the student population that is closer to the 'mean' of the Texas population. I certainly don't think the Marshall poster was out of line when you look at the entirety of prospective football recruits.

Rick, if you re-read that part of my post, you'll see I was only talking specifically to the Marshall poster about Rice's plusses vs other G5 schools. I never mentioned the P5 schools as far as recruiting. I agree with you that the Marshall poster was not out of line when you look at the entirety of prospective football recruits, but I was only looking at G5, not all of them.

(note: yes, I took them out of order, cutting and pasting can be cumbersome!)
(11-22-2014 01:52 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-22-2014 01:02 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: [ -> ]Second paragraph - - is a slap in the face of last year's team. They played a great game and frankly our fan base doesn't confer much of a 'home team advantage'. I disagree with this paragraph completely. If Marshall had come down here and won, or played closely than they might have an argument they should've hosted last year, but they didn't and I see no basis for an argument we didn't deserve to host. We lost Gaines (who I'm guessing was the best DB in CUSA last year) and a lot of others. I believe we were the better team last year, and I'm more than willing to agree that Marshall is clearly the better team this year. Next year, we'll see. I wish you were the only one on the board who felt this way about last year's Marshall game, but you're likely not. At least I feel confident that you're in a distinct minority.

Thanks for your response, Rick. I can understand your initial reaction at first glance to my comment, but read it more carefully, please. I'm trying hard. I thought I was very careful to bend over backwards to not slap the faces of last year's team in how I worded that part of my post.

I very much left the door open that Rice would still have won. I didn't say Marshall would have kicked our butts like they did this year, I said: "It's not unreasonable to surmise...Marshall more likely would have pulled out a win. We caught you with your pants down and on a road trip your team and fans generally felt was unjustified. Very glad we won, but not unaware of the circumstances."

It was no secret last year on this board, on the conference boards, or in some of the media that Marshall felt down and shafted by having to go down to Houston to play Rice for the Championship instead of the opposite. Teams have gotten dominated by supposedly lesser teams in similar circumstances before.

Again, I said they more likely, i.e. may have pulled it out, not that they definitely would have. Pulling out a win is different in my book than dominating. Also, many around the country felt Marshall would have been the better attended location as well (we did have a good number of fans come out in spite of the weather vs many of our usual crowds.) They definitely underestimated Rice last year. They sure didn't this year. And our guys played a hell of a championship game for a change start to finish, something I do think the players are capable of doing more often.

You are free to disagree, that's why we have opinion boards. I respectfully stand by my assessment of that game.

(11-22-2014 01:02 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: [ -> ]First paragraph - - we've had a number of NFL caliber QB's although you have to go back further than Kramer -- - Tobin Rote, King Hill, Frank Ryan for starters and Donald Hollas and Bert Emmanuel (granted he played WR for the Falcons) later.

Hey, Rick, don't be slapping the Falcons in the face.......actually they do suck so go ahead. :)

Hollas and Emmanuel, while good, were not Pennington and Leftwich. Chase Clement should have at least been given a chance to play, but was not. As to the others you mentioned, I'm trying to keep it somewhat contemporary, but I'm glad they played at Rice.

(11-22-2014 01:02 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: [ -> ]Third paragraph - -But I think the oft-quoted belief that our academic standing is a great recruiting advantage is actually baseless for the majority of high school athletes, and for football and basketball players in particular. There are schools, P5 schools, larger schools, like Stanford, who offer many of the same benefits. And an athlete can go to a school like Texas, get a good education and join a student body that has diversity (as does Rice), and also has a segment of the student population that is closer to the 'mean' of the Texas population. I certainly don't think the Marshall poster was out of line when you look at the entirety of prospective football recruits.

Rick, if you re-read that part of my post, you'll see I was only talking specifically to the Marshall poster about Rice's plusses vs other G5 schools. I never mentioned the P5 schools as far as recruiting. I agree with you that the Marshall poster was not out of line when you look at the entirety of prospective football recruits, but I was only looking at G5, not all of them.

(note: yes, I took them out of order, cutting and pasting can be cumbersome!)

Good responses. Fair enough, even where we disagree.
(11-22-2014 10:55 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not saying it will happen, just that it's not inconceivable. Maybe 25% chance. If he has another winning record next year, it becomes much more likely.

I would put the chances this year closer to 10%. Obviously, no matter what happens, we can both be right because we are expressing our thoughts as percentages.

I would think it would climb to 25% if we were better next year, like winning the conference championship again. Of course, there is still a mathematical chance (as I write this) that we win the conference this year, in which case I think that 10% probably jumps to your 25%.

Suppose we continue having winning records and going to bowls every year, and winning the conference championship every third or fourth year (and I'm aware that I'm saying "continue" about something which we haven't actually done yet, but which is within our reach). If that happens, then at some point in the not too distant future, Bailiff is gone. But we would be hiring his successor into a program that has a consistent winning track record and would appear poised to make the next step. That's light years away from where we were when we hired Bailiff (or Todd Graham). Do you really think that in that scenario the best names we would attract would be the likes of Coker, Bailiff, and Graham?

Now you may ask, would I trust the coach-hiring process that we have used in the past to produce someone better than it has produced in the past? No, I would not. But I would say that Dr. K and Rhoades appear to be examples that our process has gotten a lot better too. And I would tend to trust the process that we now seem to have in place, particularly given that we would be offering a much more attractive job than we've had to offer at any time since maybe when we replaced Jess. And I'm quite certain the process now in place won't be hiring any Bo Hagans.

I don't think Muschamp is the guy. We need a guy who can recruit to the unique requirements of Rice, and who can overachieve with the talent he gets. Muschamp is a knowledgeable guy, but he certainly has not overachieved anywhere.
(11-22-2014 01:55 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: [ -> ]Good responses. Fair enough, even where we disagree.

Thank you, Rick. I enjoy and welcome the discussion with you.
(11-22-2014 01:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think Muschamp is the guy. We need a guy who can recruit to the unique requirements of Rice, and who can overachieve with the talent he gets. Muschamp is a knowledgeable guy, but he certainly has not overachieved anywhere.

Owl69/70 and board:
FTR- I'm not championing Muschamp specifically as much as I am championing more rapid improvement. I just made some quick reactionary assessments of some facts when I saw his name in the morning news and in light of how we lost to Marshall.

I also agree with your assessment about exactly what Bailiff has done to improve Rice's situation so far, as well as sharing your oft-stated doubts about his ability to maximize the good talent he does recruit and some of his in-game decisions.

I did notice that after a difficult first half by the offense (and a good first half by the defense) in the UTEP game, that he and his staff seemed to make some good halftime adjustments, and was happy he finally decided to open things up and quicken the tempo by a large margin. I personally hate the meer-catting, though I am aware of the idea of trying to shorten the game against a superior opponent (my High School team, which has sent a few players to Rice in the past (Robbie Beck, for one) just beat last year's state champ on the road last night in the playoffs by doing the very same thing!)

While the UTEP game wasn't smooth start to finish, Bailiff and staff seemed to throw a bit of "The Opposite" in there, so maybe he's learning a bit, or maybe Dr. K has been talking to him, or maybe he watched a Rhoades basketball game.
(11-22-2014 01:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]If that happens, then at some point in the not too distant future, Bailiff is gone. But we would be hiring his successor into a program that has a consistent winning track record and would appear poised to make the next step. That's light years away from where we were when we hired Bailiff (or Todd Graham). Do you really think that in that scenario the best names we would attract would be the likes of Coker, Bailiff, and Graham?

Yeah, 25% this year might have been high. Obviously it depends a lot on who's hiring and what exactly they're looking for.

If/when he does leave...

What TCU did, and what Boise repeatedly did, was promote a coordinator, or in the case of Harsin, bring back a former coordinator of the same regime.

In Rice's case, I think that list would be Thurmond, Herman, and maybe Beaty. Herman now would be a bigger "get" than our '06 and '07 candidates. He's getting a lot of publicity and might not even be an option. Beaty is becoming a name too, though I'm skeptical of head coaches who are known mostly as recruiters, and the 2010 Rice offense wasn't really an overachiever. I don't know whether Thurmond is head coach material, but I'll put it this way: if Karlgaard gives him the job, I'll be fully supportive.

If we do bring in somebody from outside, he will not have the luxury of a multi-year losing-record transition period.
(11-16-2014 04:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I'd be fine bringing him in as DC, but I would absolutely mortified if we fired Bailiff for a guy like Muschamp. No reason for us to settle for a coach who hasn't proven anything when we have a coach right now that is at least keeping us bowl eligible.

04-jawdrop

Quote:ATHENS, Ga. (AP) — Israel Mukuamu returned the first of his three interceptions 53 yards for a touchdown and South Carolina took advantage of Jake Fromm's four turnovers to beat No. 3 Georgia 20-17 in double overtime on Saturday.

South Carolina (3-3, 2-2) took its first win over a ranked opponent since beating No. 18 Tennessee in 2016. It was an important signature win for coach Will Muschamp over his alma mater.


Yeah, I know, but I'm just sayin' I was just sayin' back then.
(11-22-2014 03:17 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-22-2014 01:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]If that happens, then at some point in the not too distant future, Bailiff is gone. But we would be hiring his successor into a program that has a consistent winning track record and would appear poised to make the next step. That's light years away from where we were when we hired Bailiff (or Todd Graham). Do you really think that in that scenario the best names we would attract would be the likes of Coker, Bailiff, and Graham?

Yeah, 25% this year might have been high. Obviously it depends a lot on who's hiring and what exactly they're looking for.

If/when he does leave...

What TCU did, and what Boise repeatedly did, was promote a coordinator, or in the case of Harsin, bring back a former coordinator of the same regime.

In Rice's case, I think that list would be Thurmond, Herman, and maybe Beaty. Herman now would be a bigger "get" than our '06 and '07 candidates. He's getting a lot of publicity and might not even be an option. Beaty is becoming a name too, though I'm skeptical of head coaches who are known mostly as recruiters, and the 2010 Rice offense wasn't really an overachiever. I don't know whether Thurmond is head coach material, but I'll put it this way: if Karlgaard gives him the job, I'll be fully supportive.

If we do bring in somebody from outside, he will not have the luxury of a multi-year losing-record transition period.


03-shhhh
(10-13-2019 10:57 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-16-2014 04:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I'd be fine bringing him in as DC, but I would absolutely mortified if we fired Bailiff for a guy like Muschamp. No reason for us to settle for a coach who hasn't proven anything when we have a coach right now that is at least keeping us bowl eligible.

04-jawdrop

Quote:ATHENS, Ga. (AP) — Israel Mukuamu returned the first of his three interceptions 53 yards for a touchdown and South Carolina took advantage of Jake Fromm's four turnovers to beat No. 3 Georgia 20-17 in double overtime on Saturday.

South Carolina (3-3, 2-2) took its first win over a ranked opponent since beating No. 18 Tennessee in 2016. It was an important signature win for coach Will Muschamp over his alma mater.


Yeah, I know, but I'm just sayin' I was just sayin' back then.

My goodness, are you recalling digging up posts from 2014 to try and elicit shock? Hindsight is 20/20 regarding removing Bailiff earlier, rather than later, so I have no idea what your point is with this.

In 2014 Bailiff was keeping us bowl eligible and had won a conference championship the year before. Muschamp was coming off some rather unsuccessful work at UF as head coach and was not a heading coaching candidate I was interested in. His win over Georgia wasn’t one where he outcoached Kirby Smart - I think one player of his had 3 INTs and Georgia’s normally automatic kicker had to miss 1 or 2 FGs to make things happen. Still not a big fan of Muschamp.
I'd urge anybody who thinks Muschamp is a good coach to watch the last two minutes plus overtime of the Georgia game. One of the worst crunch-time coaching jobs I've seen this year.
Muschamp is a heck of a defensive coordinator who does not understand how to put together an offense. The folks on this board who are all about offense, offense, offense would hate him.
(10-14-2019 09:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Muschamp is a heck of a defensive coordinator who does not understand how to put together an offense. The folks on this board who are all about offense, offense, offense would hate him.

He also tried a 58-yard field goal on 4th and 3 with a kicker whose career long was 49 (earlier in the game).

And then pulled a Bloomgren conservative special a drive later by running it up the middle three times to set up the same kicker for a 33-yard winner...which he promptly missed.
#AnybodyButBailiff
(10-14-2019 10:27 AM)elw4796 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-14-2019 09:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Muschamp is a heck of a defensive coordinator who does not understand how to put together an offense. The folks on this board who are all about offense, offense, offense would hate him.
He also tried a 58-yard field goal on 4th and 3 with a kicker whose career long was 49 (earlier in the game).

I didn't follow the game closely, so not sure when this took place. This is the kind of thing you might do on the last play of a half or of a game if tied. Didn't work so well for Alabama a few years ago, but might have been worth a try.

In the middle of a quarter or half, it's much harder to justify.

Quote:And then pulled a Bloomgren conservative special a drive later by running it up the middle three times to set up the same kicker for a 33-yard winner...which he promptly missed.

That's probably a lot more common strategy. The thinking would be, you have the FG, don't lose it. Except when you don't have it.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Reference URL's