CSNbbs

It really seems to me that the test and analysis of a coach is to make things work with "what ya got". Certainly fine to want to do a particular way, but if you got a bunch of quick tall guys, putting them on the O Line doesn't make sense. Go play basketball.

It's the old Bum Phillips coach on Bear Bryant. Wishbone didn't exist in 1950 win he was the coach of Kentucky, but he won national championships with it towards the end at Alabama.

(11-17-2021 04:06 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not Bloomgren fan, but I don't really think it is fair to hold Pera's 1st season or Bloomgren's 1st season against them like this. Both cupboards were pretty bare and both coaches started from the absolute bottom of the hole.

And comparing Pera to previous coaches is rough considering how many more transfers there are nowadays than there were 10+ years ago.

I think you are oversimplifying a bit too much.

A number of our coaches have had pretty 'bare cupboards' when they arrived... transfers or not.... and measured against predecessors is one way to compare them. If you'd like to compare them to modern peers who all have the same transfer issues etc, they once again are not examples of hires that inspire a great deal of confidence. which was the question. So while I get your point and some may be overly aggressive here in their criticism, I just don't think we can argue factually that there aren't reasons for serious concern, especially given the gravity of the issue for athletics on the whole.

The only way they inspire confidence is by looking forward at what one thinks they COULD or WILL do, and not looking at what they've done so far. A few years into Langley's contract, you could see that she was doing well by those same measures. My ONLY complaint about her replacement is that as someone mentioned, we did exactly the same thing that got us Langley which is good, but I had hoped that we would have had even more to choose from, based on/building on her success. If we DID have that (and we may have) then it means JK chose the new coach over people with perhaps HC experience and demonstrable success at another place. Either way, we need to see how she works out before calling it a success. All signs thus far though are positive.

(11-17-2021 07:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Bloomgren's reliance on run, run, clock control *was* questioned here.

I thought Bloomgren was a good pick, in spite of his then-marriage to pound the line offense. I thought, coming from Stanford, that he would make the most of his most potent weapon on the team --- their brains. I assumed that that would be tried, fail, and Bloom would, being the OC genius, be able to adapt a method that would take full advantage of the best attributes of the 'ones he had'.

He refused to do so. Ostensibly even now. Im more upset about Bloom's inability to adapt to the players he has and he gets. But, season in, season out he pulls the same tired ghoulash out of the dumpster and tries to reheat it and serve it as a main course.

I thought he'd be able to recruit and build up the sort of linemen he wanted, especially from the transfer portal. A great line makes mediocre backs and QBs look better. Even the best DBs can't cover forever. THAT is my biggest issue. We're years into his plan and the OL play appears to be HORRIBLE, still. I certainly don't see anyone that I feel on 4th and inches, we're running behind 'this guy'.

(11-17-2021 07:48 PM)ruowls Wrote: [ -> ]Shameless plug for my son. He is the 6-5 QB that has the skills to throw the ball around and would love to do it at Rice.

The kid really understand the game and has a solid arm and decent feet for a lanky young man. As he continues to fill out, he will be a beast.

How does he feel about wearing #20? #10 would be a decent alternative.

(11-18-2021 12:42 AM)texowl2 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2021 07:29 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-16-2021 01:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]I want an innovative offense.

I think this is a vastly underrated point. Let's be clear ... while winning is obviously the priority, an entertaining offense should - at minimum - break all ties. We need back sides in seats and "pounding the rock" (poorly) isn't doing it.

For all of the talk about Stanford as the athletic department "model", I wonder if Georgia Tech or Wake Forest aren't better examples ... with Wake probably closer given the similar enrollment (P5 v G5 comp, of course).

If we go 11-1 with pound, I suspect the attendance would be the same as whatever is exciting. Did just playing run n shoot at uh really make a difference? Opponents, game atmosphere and winning drives attendance

I agree about GT or Wake, which is part of the reason I'm excited about Reggie.

As to Tex's comment, I don't disagree... winning with the bone against good teams drove reasonable attendance.... but you have to get there. You have to win.

I don't see us winning games against even many poor p5 teams with pound... or even many good g5 teams. If we can, that's great... but I don't see it. Because of that, I'd rather us get into a duel with a p5 team, perhaps with a rookie QB whom we can force into a few mistakes and get lucky.. I hoped with his pedigree and ability to sell an academic school, that Bloom could create an outstanding OL and that pound could work as an alternative to most offenses. That seems to have been a huge failure.

Win or lose, a 50-42 game is more fun (to more people) to watch than a 10-3 snooze fest. Even if we were down 50-28 at the end of 3 and scored 14 in the final quarter, showing the ability to score quickly and from anywhere opens the possibility that even with minutes to go, that we COULD pull it out. While technically the other game is actually closer, the lack of demonstrated ability to score doesn't inspire that same hope.

(11-18-2021 08:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2021 07:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Bloomgren's reliance on run, run, clock control *was* questioned here.

It's not so much run, run, as it is the type of run, run. "Pound the rock" is very different from the triple option, and requires very different athletes. And part of that difference is one group of athletes we can recruit and the other we can't.

Quote:I thought Bloomgren was a good pick, in spite of his then-marriage to pound the line offense. I thought, coming from Stanford, that he would make the most of his most potent weapon on the team --- their brains. I assumed that that would be tried, fail, and Bloom would, being the OC genius, be able to adapt a method that would take full advantage of the best attributes of the 'ones he had'.

Particularly when the absolute unquestioned high point of his tenure came in a game where, because of injuries, he was forced to go with a QB who was well down the depth chart and not particularly suited to his offense, so he had to change plans. Yes, that game was won primarily because the defense pitched a shutout, but at least the offense gave the defense the chance to pitch that shutout, instead of being a turnover machine. And the second highest point was arguably the next week with the same QB, until he got injured.

Quote:He refused to do so. Ostensibly even now. I'm more upset about Bloom's inability to adapt to the players he has and he gets. But, season in, season out he pulls the same tired ghoulash out of the dumpster and tries to reheat it and serve it as a main course.

He is more "square pegs into round holes" than even Bailiff was. I would expect that he can win if he has the right horses. But he's not going to get the right horses at Rice.

I have my doubts that he can win if he has the right horses. But those doubts concern in-game and program decisions. To not recognize that you have a QB who has yet to turn the ball over and has consistently demonstrated that he has the ability to put you in a position to win games is baffling. It demonstrates either a ruthless intransigence or a disturbing lack of perception.

I love that he has brought an increased toughness to the program, but for as intelligent as he is, his stubbornness is off putting and program killing.

(11-18-2021 10:09 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Win or lose, a 50-42 game is more fun (to more people) to watch than a 10-3 snooze fest. Even if we were down 50-28 at the end of 3 and scored 14 in the final quarter, showing the ability to score quickly and from anywhere opens the possibility that even with minutes to go, that we COULD pull it out. While technically the other game is actually closer, the lack of demonstrated ability to score doesn't inspire that same hope.

San Jose State 70, Rice 63. That was not a fun game for me.

But agree with the larger point.

D1 regulation record

(11-18-2021 10:09 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Win or lose, a 50-42 game is more fun (to more people) to watch than a 10-3 snooze fest. Even if we were down 50-28 at the end of 3 and scored 14 in the final quarter, showing the ability to score quickly and from anywhere opens the possibility that even with minutes to go, that we COULD pull it out. While technically the other game is actually closer, the lack of demonstrated ability to score doesn't inspire that same hope.

The most critical part of any comeback of that sort is that your defense holds them without scoring. If we are down 50-28 after three quarters, and our offense scores 28 in the fourth quarter, but our defense allows 7 or more, we still lose.

No matter what we can do offensively, if we can't stop them then we can't come back.

Of course if we have a defense that can stop them in the fourth quarter, then maybe it should have been able to stop them before then.

On the flip side, if we are the team with that 50-28 lead, and we keep scoring, then they can't beat us. This is the strongest argument against the "play not to lose" when we have a lead. If we have a 50-28 lead with a quarter left, and we don't score in that quarter, the possibility exists that we can be caught. If we score 3 TDs to get to 71, they pretty much have no reasonable chance to catch us no matter what they do.

Contrary to popular notion, when you are way behind, playing defense is critical to your ability to catch up, where if you have a considerable lead, offense is your best way to make the win certain.

Oh... and before I once again forget to say it.

JK is an extremely skilled administrator. He has a likeable (by many) personality and many other great qualities that you want in an AD. I can't explain his struggles with the big 3 relative to what seem to be successes in the minor sports... other than the fact that the minor sports 'lay' better with Rice because the value of our education trumps any potential pro prospects, so long as our training and coaching and facilities aren't completely horrible... and coming from Stanford, he has seen this in practice and brought much of it here. This is a result of Rice being Rice, which has similarities with Stanford.... and JK recognizing it... and the specific reason we hired someone from Stanford for this position.

When it comes to hiring for the big 3, I think he's got a winner in Cruz for a variety of reasons not related to JK or even Rice. The family is Baseball Royalty in Houston/Bellaire. Bragga was a complete bust. IMO, he was way too aggressive in his 'moving on' from WG if he didn't have a MUCH better option already in the wings... and if Bragga was it, that just makes it worse... because he bet so much on it. Based on my experience (limited) with Stanford Baseball, I see Bragga as more of a Stanford type hire.... Nice guy, great cheerleader... loved by his players. Chieto is a nice guy as well, but not a big cheerleader type. Baseball is his life and his BUSINESS. That's what it was for OG as well.

For Men's basketball, I just don't know. I'll defer to others that Pera is the right guy for the situation, but I still need to see wins.... That's why he's here... and not just over the dregs... we need to see meaningful improvements in the rankings and not just weak schedules leading to more wins. I don't know that Stanford Basketball gave him any insight here.

For Men's football, he again clearly tried to bring the Stanford model here and it isn't working.... at least not in terms of Bloomgren being able to bring it here... and as the OL coach there, it certainly seems that he would be... even more than the OC... whom I would think would have adapted more quickly to 'what he had'.... so while the hire made sense on paper, it simply hasn't worked. the ONLY reason to keep him now is if he can 'sell me' that the OL is really a lot better than it looks... and by that I mean, we have 2-4 all-conference guys on the field right now who have underperformed for 'fixable' reasons and/or coming off of injury. This offense, no matter what scheme we run... is heavily dependent upon better OL play. Hat had great OL play. I'm not willing to just 'keep waiting' for those guys to develop or come in 'next year'. I'll let the next guy benefit from these great young linemen (if they are here)... and let him bring in more skill people... as long as he knows/remembers how important it was to have this solid OL play.

(11-18-2021 01:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]but I still need to see wins.... That's why he's here...

Yes, yes, and (let me think) YES!!!!

(11-18-2021 12:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-18-2021 10:09 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Win or lose, a 50-42 game is more fun (to more people) to watch than a 10-3 snooze fest. Even if we were down 50-28 at the end of 3 and scored 14 in the final quarter, showing the ability to score quickly and from anywhere opens the possibility that even with minutes to go, that we COULD pull it out. While technically the other game is actually closer, the lack of demonstrated ability to score doesn't inspire that same hope.

The most critical part of any comeback of that sort is that your defense holds them without scoring. If we are down 50-28 after three quarters, and our offense scores 28 in the fourth quarter, but our defense allows 7 or more, we still lose.

No matter what we can do offensively, if we can't stop them then we can't come back.

Of course if we have a defense that can stop them in the fourth quarter, then maybe it should have been able to stop them before then.

On the flip side, if we are the team with that 50-28 lead, and we keep scoring, then they can't beat us. This is the strongest argument against the "play not to lose" when we have a lead. If we have a 50-28 lead with a quarter left, and we don't score in that quarter, the possibility exists that we can be caught. If we score 3 TDs to get to 71, they pretty much have no reasonable chance to catch us no matter what they do.

Contrary to popular notion, when you are way behind, playing defense is critical to your ability to catch up, where if you have a considerable lead, offense is your best way to make the win certain.

This is a valid point, but it misses mine.

A stifling defense is great... but one that can make a stop 'when it must' is also great.... and the latter is more likely, and more likely what we might get. As you note, it is this ability to 'get that stop' that allows the comeback.... but you STILL have to come back. Pound the Rock and consume the clock isn't how even the wishbone scored 63 points. You have to be able to score quickly when you must... AND get the stops when you must. I have more faith in an offense that can throw well, even when it is expected... to be able to run when it must... than I am in an offense that can run well, even when it is expected... to be able to throw when it must.... and as you allude to, if they load the box to stop the run and force a good passing team to throw the ball, I don't have a lot of concerns about 'scoring too much'. Only rarely is scoring too fast your larger problem.

Against a pound the rock team that can't throw well and has a questionable kicker, I'd basically GIVE them 5 yard a carry on most downs between the 20's, and then tighten the screws and make them throw once they hit the 20. Shortening the game doesn't worry a team that can score quickly and play opportunistic defense inside the 20's. I'd rather be THAT team than the one seeking to shorten the game. A great kicker moves that back to the 35 or even the 40... which is a much bigger task for a defense... but still, giving up 3 when you're scoring 7 is a recipe for a win..

(11-18-2021 02:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-18-2021 12:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-18-2021 10:09 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Win or lose, a 50-42 game is more fun (to more people) to watch than a 10-3 snooze fest. Even if we were down 50-28 at the end of 3 and scored 14 in the final quarter, showing the ability to score quickly and from anywhere opens the possibility that even with minutes to go, that we COULD pull it out. While technically the other game is actually closer, the lack of demonstrated ability to score doesn't inspire that same hope.

The most critical part of any comeback of that sort is that your defense holds them without scoring. If we are down 50-28 after three quarters, and our offense scores 28 in the fourth quarter, but our defense allows 7 or more, we still lose.

No matter what we can do offensively, if we can't stop them then we can't come back.

Of course if we have a defense that can stop them in the fourth quarter, then maybe it should have been able to stop them before then.

On the flip side, if we are the team with that 50-28 lead, and we keep scoring, then they can't beat us. This is the strongest argument against the "play not to lose" when we have a lead. If we have a 50-28 lead with a quarter left, and we don't score in that quarter, the possibility exists that we can be caught. If we score 3 TDs to get to 71, they pretty much have no reasonable chance to catch us no matter what they do.

Contrary to popular notion, when you are way behind, playing defense is critical to your ability to catch up, where if you have a considerable lead, offense is your best way to make the win certain.

This is a valid point, but it misses mine.

A stifling defense is great... but one that can make a stop 'when it must' is also great.... and the latter is more likely, and more likely what we might get. As you note, it is this ability to 'get that stop' that allows the comeback.... but you STILL have to come back. Pound the Rock and consume the clock isn't how even the wishbone scored 63 points. You have to be able to score quickly when you must... AND get the stops when you must. I have more faith in an offense that can throw well, even when it is expected... to be able to run when it must... than I am in an offense that can run well, even when it is expected... to be able to throw when it must.... and as you allude to, if they load the box to stop the run and force a good passing team to throw the ball, I don't have a lot of concerns about 'scoring too much'. Only rarely is scoring too fast your larger problem.

Against a pound the rock team that can't throw well and has a questionable kicker, I'd basically GIVE them 5 yard a carry on most downs between the 20's, and then tighten the screws and make them throw once they hit the 20. Shortening the game doesn't worry a team that can score quickly and play opportunistic defense inside the 20's. I'd rather be THAT team than the one seeking to shorten the game. A great kicker moves that back to the 35 or even the 40... which is a much bigger task for a defense... but still, giving up 3 when you're scoring 7 is a recipe for a win..

Preach!

(11-18-2021 02:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]This is a valid point, but it misses mine.

Umm, don't think so, but this is a minor difference, if any.

Quote:A stifling defense is great... but one that can make a stop 'when it must' is also great.... and the latter is more likely, and more likely what we might get. As you note, it is this ability to 'get that stop' that allows the comeback.... but you STILL have to come back. Pound the Rock and consume the clock isn't how even the wishbone scored 63 points. You have to be able to score quickly when you must... AND get the stops when you must. I have more faith in an offense that can throw well, even when it is expected... to be able to run when it must... than I am in an offense that can run well, even when it is expected... to be able to throw when it must.... and as you allude to, if they load the box to stop the run and force a good passing team to throw the ball, I don't have a lot of concerns about 'scoring too much'. Only rarely is scoring too fast your larger problem.

I want an offense that can do both. Throw to score and run to win, in the words of longtime NFL OC Ron Erhardt. I remember last year, watching Mississippi State play Arkansas, the next game after State had upset LSU. They had thrown at will against LSU, so Arkansas rushed 3 and dropped 8 in coverage, and pretty much cut off a lot of their bread and butter pass patterns. I remember sitting there and thinking, "If you only had a triple option running play, you could easily make 5 yards a snap against that defense and force them to abandon it pretty quickly."

I am not a huge fan of the, "take what the defense gives you," approach. On third-and-8, they'll give you 5 yards all night long. But I am a fan of, "take what you can make." Against that Arkansas defense, Mississippi State could have made 5 yards every play. And I would have stayed with that until I had forced them out of that defensive approach.

Scoring too fast is really only a problem in the last 2-4 minutes of a half or game, and there are some fairly well-tested formulas to guide you to minimize the risks in those situations.

Quote:Against a pound the rock team that can't throw well and has a questionable kicker, I'd basically GIVE them 5 yard a carry on most downs between the 20's, and then tighten the screws and make them throw once they hit the 20. Shortening the game doesn't worry a team that can score quickly and play opportunistic defense inside the 20's. I'd rather be THAT team than the one seeking to shorten the game. A great kicker moves that back to the 35 or even the 40... which is a much bigger task for a defense... but still, giving up 3 when you're scoring 7 is a recipe for a win..

Which is why I would never want a team that 1) couldn't throw, or 2) didn't have a solid kicker. I've gone through before on here how against SMU in 2012, the threat of Boz just before the half triggered a series of coaching decisions on both sides that ultimately resulted in Rice scoring a TD that was very significant at that point in the game that was 13-7 in favor of Rice at the time. I was sitting with Kent Rowald, and we both agreed that Rice got the TD that put them ahead 20-7 based on how both June Jones and Bailiff played it because of Boz.

Numbers,
Only really responding because this is an internet forum and we aren't speaking as clearly on here as we might in person... and I want to be clear.

(11-18-2021 07:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I want an offense that can do both. Throw to score and run to win, in the words of longtime NFL OC Ron Erhardt. I remember last year, watching Mississippi State play Arkansas, the next game after State had upset LSU. They had thrown at will against LSU, so Arkansas rushed 3 and dropped 8 in coverage, and pretty much cut off a lot of their bread and butter pass patterns. I remember sitting there and thinking, "If you only had a triple option running play, you could easily make 5 yards a snap against that defense and force them to abandon it pretty quickly."

What I'm essentially saying is that looking forward, I want to START with innovative passing. That is step one to me in terms of the focus of coaches, new or old. I don't want to start with the run. I feel as though there are enough guys who know the running game, but not many places for those guys to land... Navy, Air Force, Army... that we can hire that guy more easily than we can hire an innovative passing guy.

To the present/recent past... why I'm not on board with keeping Bloom right now, but can still 'make a plan' if for some reason he stays.... If bloom wants(wanted) to start with the OL, that's great. I would have made sure we could protect the hell out of the QB first. That makes the QB better. That makes receivers better. That makes RBs better. A great WR who doesn't have time to get open or a great QB who doesn't have time to set up or a great RB with no holes has little chance. That's why Bloom made sense, but we haven't seen it.

Quote:I am not a huge fan of the, "take what the defense gives you," approach. On third-and-8, they'll give you 5 yards all night long. But I am a fan of, "take what you can make." Against that Arkansas defense, Mississippi State could have made 5 yards every play. And I would have stayed with that until I had forced them out of that defensive approach.

The 5 yard pass on 3rd and 8 is only one thing they're giving you. What they're also giving you is that they don't want to be at 15+ yards... They want to keep you in front of them, and inside 8 yards. Lots of coaches would throw the ball 5 yards and 'hope' to get the extra 3 in a one on one battle. In my simple example, RU would have a better one... I want a coach who puts one guy at 5 yards maybe on the hash mark to keep the corner at 7, then runs two guys... one crossing at about 12 deep of that 'sitting' corner... maybe even between the two guys trying to 'rub' the corner (if they're in man) with his own man covering the crossing route.... probably on the move and one at 20+ probably on the sideline if they're in zone to force the safety to make a choice of staying inside/ near 18 to help at 12, and give up the huge play to a wide open guy.... or to keep deepening to stay in contact with him, and leaving the guy open at 12. Of course the key is to adjust the routes/manipulate the corner so that the corner can't be in the passing lane for the 12 and make you throw high or need a very accurate throw. They will likely try and blitz you to force a quicker/shorter throw... so you keep one guy in who isn't part of that manipulation.... could be a TE, a RB or even a slot guy. You mix it up to keep it available later... but its just one play... run both directions... with any combination of 3 guys. One guys job is to keep them short... the other guys job is to push them deep... and the third guys job is to get one of them open and at 8+, or be open himself at 8+.

Quote:Scoring too fast is really only a problem in the last 2-4 minutes of a half or game, and there are some fairly well-tested formulas to guide you to minimize the risks in those situations.

and its really not a problem... barring scoring 3 and giving up 7.... its just not as big an advantage as scoring, but not giving them a chance to respond. 'Delaying' scoring (other than by simply letting the clock run between plays or staying in bounds and completing passes etc etc... also creates more opportunity for them to STOP you/force a turnover.... where you might score 0 and give up 7. You'[re right that there are lots of formulas etc etc.... I've just seen some teams so intent on running clock (on their own end) that they've missed easy TDs or big plays.... and then failed to get into even FG range.

If you're on your own end and they're giving you the bomb and you really want to run clock, run sideways at the 12 yard line. Its an easy FG from there... you can still get a first down and run clock... and you stay in bounds etc etc

Not really related to Bloomgren, but definitely related to recruiting. Want to try to stay relevant? Figure out how to do something like this: https://www.si.com/college/2021/11/20/ol...on-ruling.

"The high court’s ruling makes it possible for programs to offer an assortment of educational-related benefits, including unlimited graduate school, vocational and study abroad scholarships, paid internships, computers and equipment, and tutoring. And, of course, up to $5,980 in cash for “academic awards,” says Jeffrey Kessler, the victorious attorney in the Alston case.

The Rebels will spend $2.48 million a year in the additional payments for roughly 415 athletes, Carter says. This year, the payments are being funded through football season-ticket sales. With coach Lane Kiffin guiding the 12th-ranked Rebels to an 8–2 start, the university has generated more on ticket sales than expected and will use the excess revenue to fund the additional financial support to athletes. In the future, the school will include the payments as an annual budget line item."

(11-18-2021 10:09 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2021 04:06 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not Bloomgren fan, but I don't really think it is fair to hold Pera's 1st season or Bloomgren's 1st season against them like this. Both cupboards were pretty bare and both coaches started from the absolute bottom of the hole.

And comparing Pera to previous coaches is rough considering how many more transfers there are nowadays than there were 10+ years ago.

I think you are oversimplifying a bit too much.

A number of our coaches have had pretty 'bare cupboards' when they arrived... transfers or not.... and measured against predecessors is one way to compare them. If you'd like to compare them to modern peers who all have the same transfer issues etc, they once again are not examples of hires that inspire a great deal of confidence. which was the question. So while I get your point and some may be overly aggressive here in their criticism, I just don't think we can argue factually that there aren't reasons for serious concern, especially given the gravity of the issue for athletics on the whole.

The only way they inspire confidence is by looking forward at what one thinks they COULD or WILL do, and not looking at what they've done so far. A few years into Langley's contract, you could see that she was doing well by those same measures. My ONLY complaint about her replacement is that as someone mentioned, we did exactly the same thing that got us Langley which is good, but I had hoped that we would have had even more to choose from, based on/building on her success. If we DID have that (and we may have) then it means JK chose the new coach over people with perhaps HC experience and demonstrable success at another place. Either way, we need to see how she works out before calling it a success. All signs thus far though are positive.

(11-17-2021 07:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Bloomgren's reliance on run, run, clock control *was* questioned here.

I thought Bloomgren was a good pick, in spite of his then-marriage to pound the line offense. I thought, coming from Stanford, that he would make the most of his most potent weapon on the team --- their brains. I assumed that that would be tried, fail, and Bloom would, being the OC genius, be able to adapt a method that would take full advantage of the best attributes of the 'ones he had'.

He refused to do so. Ostensibly even now. Im more upset about Bloom's inability to adapt to the players he has and he gets. But, season in, season out he pulls the same tired ghoulash out of the dumpster and tries to reheat it and serve it as a main course.

I thought he'd be able to recruit and build up the sort of linemen he wanted, especially from the transfer portal. A great line makes mediocre backs and QBs look better. Even the best DBs can't cover forever. THAT is my biggest issue. We're years into his plan and the OL play appears to be HORRIBLE, still. I certainly don't see anyone that I feel on 4th and inches, we're running behind 'this guy'.

(11-17-2021 07:48 PM)ruowls Wrote: [ -> ]Shameless plug for my son. He is the 6-5 QB that has the skills to throw the ball around and would love to do it at Rice.

The kid really understand the game and has a solid arm and decent feet for a lanky young man. As he continues to fill out, he will be a beast.

How does he feel about wearing #20? #10 would be a decent alternative.
Well 10 or 20 would be great choices. But the obvious # is 16.

(11-18-2021 12:42 AM)texowl2 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2021 07:29 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-16-2021 01:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]I want an innovative offense.

I think this is a vastly underrated point. Let's be clear ... while winning is obviously the priority, an entertaining offense should - at minimum - break all ties. We need back sides in seats and "pounding the rock" (poorly) isn't doing it.

For all of the talk about Stanford as the athletic department "model", I wonder if Georgia Tech or Wake Forest aren't better examples ... with Wake probably closer given the similar enrollment (P5 v G5 comp, of course).

If we go 11-1 with pound, I suspect the attendance would be the same as whatever is exciting. Did just playing run n shoot at uh really make a difference? Opponents, game atmosphere and winning drives attendance

I agree about GT or Wake, which is part of the reason I'm excited about Reggie.

As to Tex's comment, I don't disagree... winning with the bone against good teams drove reasonable attendance.... but you have to get there. You have to win.

I don't see us winning games against even many poor p5 teams with pound... or even many good g5 teams. If we can, that's great... but I don't see it. Because of that, I'd rather us get into a duel with a p5 team, perhaps with a rookie QB whom we can force into a few mistakes and get lucky.. I hoped with his pedigree and ability to sell an academic school, that Bloom could create an outstanding OL and that pound could work as an alternative to most offenses. That seems to have been a huge failure.

Win or lose, a 50-42 game is more fun (to more people) to watch than a 10-3 snooze fest. Even if we were down 50-28 at the end of 3 and scored 14 in the final quarter, showing the ability to score quickly and from anywhere opens the possibility that even with minutes to go, that we COULD pull it out. While technically the other game is actually closer, the lack of demonstrated ability to score doesn't inspire that same hope.

(11-19-2021 10:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Numbers,
Only really responding because this is an internet forum and we aren't speaking as clearly on here as we might in person... and I want to be clear.

(11-18-2021 07:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I want an offense that can do both. Throw to score and run to win, in the words of longtime NFL OC Ron Erhardt. I remember last year, watching Mississippi State play Arkansas, the next game after State had upset LSU. They had thrown at will against LSU, so Arkansas rushed 3 and dropped 8 in coverage, and pretty much cut off a lot of their bread and butter pass patterns. I remember sitting there and thinking, "If you only had a triple option running play, you could easily make 5 yards a snap against that defense and force them to abandon it pretty quickly."

What I'm essentially saying is that looking forward, I want to START with innovative passing. That is step one to me in terms of the focus of coaches, new or old. I don't want to start with the run. I feel as though there are enough guys who know the running game, but not many places for those guys to land... Navy, Air Force, Army... that we can hire that guy more easily than we can hire an innovative passing guy.

To the present/recent past... why I'm not on board with keeping Bloom right now, but can still 'make a plan' if for some reason he stays.... If bloom wants(wanted) to start with the OL, that's great. I would have made sure we could protect the hell out of the QB first. That makes the QB better. That makes receivers better. That makes RBs better. A great WR who doesn't have time to get open or a great QB who doesn't have time to set up or a great RB with no holes has little chance. That's why Bloom made sense, but we haven't seen it.

Quote:I am not a huge fan of the, "take what the defense gives you," approach. On third-and-8, they'll give you 5 yards all night long. But I am a fan of, "take what you can make." Against that Arkansas defense, Mississippi State could have made 5 yards every play. And I would have stayed with that until I had forced them out of that defensive approach.

The 5 yard pass on 3rd and 8 is only one thing they're giving you. What they're also giving you is that they don't want to be at 15+ yards... They want to keep you in front of them, and inside 8 yards. Lots of coaches would throw the ball 5 yards and 'hope' to get the extra 3 in a one on one battle. In my simple example, RU would have a better one... I want a coach who puts one guy at 5 yards maybe on the hash mark to keep the corner at 7, then runs two guys... one crossing at about 12 deep of that 'sitting' corner... maybe even between the two guys trying to 'rub' the corner (if they're in man) with his own man covering the crossing route.... probably on the move and one at 20+ probably on the sideline if they're in zone to force the safety to make a choice of staying inside/ near 18 to help at 12, and give up the huge play to a wide open guy.... or to keep deepening to stay in contact with him, and leaving the guy open at 12. Of course the key is to adjust the routes/manipulate the corner so that the corner can't be in the passing lane for the 12 and make you throw high or need a very accurate throw. They will likely try and blitz you to force a quicker/shorter throw... so you keep one guy in who isn't part of that manipulation.... could be a TE, a RB or even a slot guy. You mix it up to keep it available later... but its just one play... run both directions... with any combination of 3 guys. One guys job is to keep them short... the other guys job is to push them deep... and the third guys job is to get one of them open and at 8+, or be open himself at 8+.

Here is the key to playing receiver. Identify the inside underneath defender responsible for covering the inside/underneath of your route. Turn double coverage into single coverage. Basically, you read defender responsibilities and not coverages and keep defenders from getting inside/underneath you or giving them an opportunity to do so. Of course, we can expand upon this and how it gets implemented within the frame work of an offensive scheme.

Quote:Scoring too fast is really only a problem in the last 2-4 minutes of a half or game, and there are some fairly well-tested formulas to guide you to minimize the risks in those situations.

and its really not a problem... barring scoring 3 and giving up 7.... its just not as big an advantage as scoring, but not giving them a chance to respond. 'Delaying' scoring (other than by simply letting the clock run between plays or staying in bounds and completing passes etc etc... also creates more opportunity for them to STOP you/force a turnover.... where you might score 0 and give up 7. You'[re right that there are lots of formulas etc etc.... I've just seen some teams so intent on running clock (on their own end) that they've missed easy TDs or big plays.... and then failed to get into even FG range.

If you're on your own end and they're giving you the bomb and you really want to run clock, run sideways at the 12 yard line. Its an easy FG from there... you can still get a first down and run clock... and you stay in bounds etc etc

Bump

I like Mike.

(11-20-2021 08:24 PM)owl at the moon Wrote: [ -> ]I like Mike.

Jordan right?

10-31 (.244)

From Friday

https://athlonsports.com/college-footbal...l0TRwuzfSk

Rice: The "Stanford in Texas" experiment hasn't yielded results so far. Mike Bloomgren is 10-30 at a job that other G5 coaches describe as "brutally hard relative to resources versus expectation." Firing Bloomgren seems shortsighted, but with the sudden trend of Texas high school coaching connections at the college level, it's possible Rice is looking in that direction.