CSNbbs

+1... beat me to the deeper analysis of the Owl's offensive production. Not to mention 0 points from the Wild Owl but even better 0 plays from the Wild Owl.

(10-05-2017 09:53 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2017 09:20 PM)Bailiff_Lingo_Bingo Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2017 07:31 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2017 05:48 PM)Bailiff_Lingo_Bingo Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2017 04:40 PM)cr11owl Wrote: [ -> ]I think our problem is no matter where our safeties are positioned the WR for the other team is much faster. Placement can only help so much. I'd have to give a D1 receiver 20 yards of cushion to not get burned over the top (at least). Well our guys have to give 10+ and go figure that leaves short passes open.

Our OK defenses had NFL starting corners and safeties and were still bad compared to a P5 team.

Yeah, to my (untrained) eye, Stewart is absolutely maximizing the performance that can be had with the ~~available talent~~. Remember, our D talent is probably no better than on the offensive side, and the offense is among the worst in the nation. We can't get much pressure from the line or win almost any 1-on-1 battles, downfield or short, so what do you do? "Giving up" the short/medium passing game seems like the least bad option.

Our defense is not ranked much better, and the only reason it's not worse is becuase (1) Houston called off the dogs after just one half of fottball against us, and (2) we played two of the worst offensive teams in the FBS division.

What is your "much?"
http://csnbbs.com/thread-828786-post-146...id14642118

Ranking 92 out of 128 teams is not much of an accomplishment...and, again, that ranking is as "good" as it is because Applewhite called off the dogs after just one half.

I' m curious to see how far the ranking goes up now that the toughest part of the schedule is over. Hopefully all the injured players are back for UTSA.

(10-07-2017 01:02 AM)Ourland Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2017 09:53 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2017 09:20 PM)Bailiff_Lingo_Bingo Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2017 07:31 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2017 05:48 PM)Bailiff_Lingo_Bingo Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, to my (untrained) eye, Stewart is absolutely maximizing the performance that can be had with the ~~available talent~~. Remember, our D talent is probably no better than on the offensive side, and the offense is among the worst in the nation. We can't get much pressure from the line or win almost any 1-on-1 battles, downfield or short, so what do you do? "Giving up" the short/medium passing game seems like the least bad option.

Our defense is not ranked much better, and the only reason it's not worse is becuase (1) Houston called off the dogs after just one half of fottball against us, and (2) we played two of the worst offensive teams in the FBS division.

What is your "much?"
http://csnbbs.com/thread-828786-post-146...id14642118

Ranking 92 out of 128 teams is not much of an accomplishment...and, again, that ranking is as "good" as it is because Applewhite called off the dogs after just one half.

I' m curious to see how far the ranking goes up now that the toughest part of the schedule is over. Hopefully all the injured players are back for UTSA.

You do realize we've already played the two easiest teams on our schedule, right?

(10-07-2017 07:18 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-07-2017 01:02 AM)Ourland Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2017 09:53 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2017 09:20 PM)Bailiff_Lingo_Bingo Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2017 07:31 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]Our defense is not ranked much better, and the only reason it's not worse is becuase (1) Houston called off the dogs after just one half of fottball against us, and (2) we played two of the worst offensive teams in the FBS division.

What is your "much?"
http://csnbbs.com/thread-828786-post-146...id14642118

Ranking 92 out of 128 teams is not much of an accomplishment...and, again, that ranking is as "good" as it is because Applewhite called off the dogs after just one half.

I' m curious to see how far the ranking goes up now that the toughest part of the schedule is over. Hopefully all the injured players are back for UTSA.

You do realize we've already played the two easiest teams on our schedule, right?

But we have also played three of the four best teams on our schedule (since we haven't played UTSA). The moving average of our remaining opponents' rankings has trended downward, as it has since the first game of the year. Despite that, the path to 5-7 is pretty much impossible if we don't win today (which is why Bailiff needs to be fired post-game if we lose today).

(10-07-2017 08:45 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-07-2017 07:18 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-07-2017 01:02 AM)Ourland Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2017 09:53 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2017 09:20 PM)Bailiff_Lingo_Bingo Wrote: [ -> ]What is your "much?"
http://csnbbs.com/thread-828786-post-146...id14642118

Ranking 92 out of 128 teams is not much of an accomplishment...and, again, that ranking is as "good" as it is because Applewhite called off the dogs after just one half.

I' m curious to see how far the ranking goes up now that the toughest part of the schedule is over. Hopefully all the injured players are back for UTSA.

You do realize we've already played the two easiest teams on our schedule, right?

But we have also played three of the four best teams on our schedule (since we haven't played UTSA). The moving average of our remaining opponents' rankings has trended downward, as it has since the first game of the year. Despite that, the path to 5-7 is pretty much impossible if we don't win today (which is why Bailiff needs to be fired post-game if we lose today).

Pitt is NOT one of the best teams on our schedule. Their YTD performance rating is only slightly better than ours (33 vs. 30).

(10-07-2017 08:52 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-07-2017 08:45 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-07-2017 07:18 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-07-2017 01:02 AM)Ourland Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2017 09:53 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]Ranking 92 out of 128 teams is not much of an accomplishment...and, again, that ranking is as "good" as it is because Applewhite called off the dogs after just one half.

I' m curious to see how far the ranking goes up now that the toughest part of the schedule is over. Hopefully all the injured players are back for UTSA.

You do realize we've already played the two easiest teams on our schedule, right?

But we have also played three of the four best teams on our schedule (since we haven't played UTSA). The moving average of our remaining opponents' rankings has trended downward, as it has since the first game of the year. Despite that, the path to 5-7 is pretty much impossible if we don't win today (which is why Bailiff needs to be fired post-game if we lose today).

Pitt is NOT one of the best teams on our schedule. Their YTD performance rating is only slightly better than ours (33 vs. 30).

By what metric?

(10-07-2017 08:52 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]Pitt is NOT one of the best teams on our schedule. Their YTD performance rating is only slightly better than ours (33 vs. 30).

Yes Pitt IS one of the better teams on Rice's schedule. Using my rating system, only Stanford (29), UTSA (39) and Houston (44) are ranked higher than Pitt (68).

The Massey College Football Ranking Composite agrees with that assessment.

(10-07-2017 08:52 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-07-2017 08:45 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-07-2017 07:18 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-07-2017 01:02 AM)Ourland Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2017 09:53 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]Ranking 92 out of 128 teams is not much of an accomplishment...and, again, that ranking is as "good" as it is because Applewhite called off the dogs after just one half.

I' m curious to see how far the ranking goes up now that the toughest part of the schedule is over. Hopefully all the injured players are back for UTSA.

You do realize we've already played the two easiest teams on our schedule, right?

But we have also played three of the four best teams on our schedule (since we haven't played UTSA). The moving average of our remaining opponents' rankings has trended downward, as it has since the first game of the year. Despite that, the path to 5-7 is pretty much impossible if we don't win today (which is why Bailiff needs to be fired post-game if we lose today).

Pitt is NOT one of the best teams on our schedule. Their YTD performance rating is only slightly better than ours (33 vs. 30).

Who's better? On our schedule, I mean. Not many.

(10-07-2017 10:41 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote: [ -> ]Yes Pitt IS one of the better teams on Rice's schedule. Using my rating system, only Stanford (29), UTSA (39) and Houston (44) are ranked higher than Pitt (68).

The Massey College Football Ranking Composite agrees with that assessment.

Pitt looks to be one of the better teams on Rice's schedule at this point. However, the Panthers' regression from last season has been very alarming, and when all is said and done, Pitt might get passed by one or two CUSA teams. We'll see.

I've watched Pitt play against other teams. Pitt has looked below average to outright bad against everyone except Rice. The Syracuse game today should provide some useful information.

(10-07-2017 11:20 AM)Wiessman Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-07-2017 10:41 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote: [ -> ]Yes Pitt IS one of the better teams on Rice's schedule. Using my rating system, only Stanford (29), UTSA (39) and Houston (44) are ranked higher than Pitt (68).

The Massey College Football Ranking Composite agrees with that assessment.

Pitt looks to be one of the better teams on Rice's schedule at this point. However, the Panthers' regression from last season has been very alarming, and when all is said and done, Pitt might get passed by one or two CUSA teams. We'll see.

I've watched Pitt play against other teams. Pitt has looked below average to outright bad against everyone except Rice. The Syracuse game today should provide some useful information.

And actually, by my admittedly subjective eye test, Pitt looked like a below-average football team against us as well. You could just tell they're not good. And yet, we still looked much, much worse.

Being below average does not prevent Pitt from 1) being one of the better teams on our schedule or 2) blowing us out.

(10-07-2017 12:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Being below average does not prevent Pitt from 1) being one of the better teams on our schedule or 2) blowing us out.

Truth hurts.

That said, I still have a hard time believing there are nine teams on our schedule worse than Pitt. If that is the case, and we go 1-11, we should just pack it in. (Note the word "should," because I know full well that we either can't or won't.)

In related coaching change news, Oregon State has fired Gary Andersen.

(10-09-2017 03:15 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote: [ -> ]In related coaching change news, Oregon State has fired Gary Andersen.

Wow, he should have stayed at Wisconsin...

(10-09-2017 03:15 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote: [ -> ]In related coaching change news, Oregon State has fired Gary Andersen.

Looks to me like he resigned. Gave up a bunch of money remaining on his contract..

(10-09-2017 09:39 PM)DFW Owl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2017 03:15 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote: [ -> ]In related coaching change news, Oregon State has fired Gary Andersen.

Looks to me like he resigned. Gave up a bunch of money remaining on his contract..

Time for everyone here to email that article to Bailiff with a cc to leebron and JK.

The key to defensive strategy here is to pick your poison. If you can't ever get any pressure, you will ultimately get beat deep and give up the quick disheartening score, especially on 3rd and long. If you give up the underneath routes, you make a college team run 8+ plays without penalties or turnovers which some can and some can't do. IMO, that's a better bet... so you need to ULTIMATELY get someone home/force a throw. Delayed and unexpected blitzes (from unusual positions after the OL 'turn') is how I'd do it. Play more zone in the middle of the field (man in the red zone) and if you're having success ultimately getting home, start jumping those intermediate routes.

What we've done in years past is put our DBs on islands and then not gotten home, so QBs could simply wait for their guys to get open... which even against the best guys, they ultimately will.

I'd also practice with my WR and DBs a whole lot more 'jump balls'. Put them on the basketball court and tell them to get the rebounds. Put on soft helmets and masks and let them get after it hard. Maybe we do that, but i haven't seen that sort of attitude on either side of the ball. What I've seen most often makes it look like we've practiced letting the ball come to us... and 'players' make plays in front of us. I can't put that on the coaches because I doubt they teach them to lay back, but I CAN put not addressing it on them. The basketball court is a good place to do it because while certainly you can still get hurt, you aren't usually running at full speed and then battling for the rebound.

FTR, that would also work on learning better body positioning/blocking people off from the ball.... slow down and then at the last minute, extend to create the space to catch the ball. Sure, they may run you over, but you'll sometimes get that call as well.

(10-07-2017 12:34 PM)Wiessman Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-07-2017 12:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Being below average does not prevent Pitt from 1) being one of the better teams on our schedule or 2) blowing us out.

Truth hurts.
That said, I still have a hard time believing there are nine teams on our schedule worse than Pitt. If that is the case, and we go 1-11, we should just pack it in. (Note the word "should," because I know full well that we either can't or won't.)

I don't know that there are nine worse, but that isn't what I said.

I think there are probably 7 or 8 worse, which puts them into the top half.

(10-10-2017 12:35 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]The key to defensive strategy here is to pick your poison. If you can't ever get any pressure, you will ultimately get beat deep and give up the quick disheartening score, especially on 3rd and long. If you give up the underneath routes, you make a college team run 8+ plays without penalties or turnovers which some can and some can't do. IMO, that's a better bet... so you need to ULTIMATELY get someone home/force a throw. Delayed and unexpected blitzes (from unusual positions after the OL 'turn') is how I'd do it. Play more zone in the middle of the field (man in the red zone) and if you're having success ultimately getting home, start jumping those intermediate routes.

What we've done in years past is put our DBs on islands and then not gotten home, so QBs could simply wait for their guys to get open... which even against the best guys, they ultimately will.

I'd also practice with my WR and DBs a whole lot more 'jump balls'. Put them on the basketball court and tell them to get the rebounds. Put on soft helmets and masks and let them get after it hard. Maybe we do that, but i haven't seen that sort of attitude on either side of the ball. What I've seen most often makes it look like we've practiced letting the ball come to us... and 'players' make plays in front of us. I can't put that on the coaches because I doubt they teach them to lay back, but I CAN put not addressing it on them. The basketball court is a good place to do it because while certainly you can still get hurt, you aren't usually running at full speed and then battling for the rebound.

FTR, that would also work on learning better body positioning/blocking people off from the ball.... slow down and then at the last minute, extend to create the space to catch the ball. Sure, they may run you over, but you'll sometimes get that call as well.

I suspect many considered Jarrett Dillard to be the best WR we have ever had (apologies, RIP, to Buddy Dial and Froggie Williams). Jarrett attacked every ball. Will never forget some team in 08 left the db on an island against him, I immediately told my fan group that the next play was going to be a long TD as he may not been the fastest or biggest, but no one was going to stop him one on one, at least for the teams we played in that time. And yes, it was a TD.

(10-10-2017 01:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know that there are nine worse, but that isn't what I said.

I think there are probably 7 or 8 worse, which puts them into the top half.

I wasn't out to question your statement. It was more that I was using the opportunity to challenge the general notion that Stanford, Houston, and Pitt are clearly the class of our schedule. I don't think Pitt belongs in that trio; hell, even Houston may not when all is said and done.

Like you said, Pitt might be a below average team, but the Panthers are above average in terms of our schedule, and they took us to the woodshed. That sums it up.