Given our defense's inability to prevent the deep ball, even if the field goal is made, then we are falling behind.

(09-20-2014 10:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  but the FG is not totally without justification. it was not out of his range, so not hopeless. if it was made, it changes the whole last minute. i think the go for it assumes too much. it is not a given that we make itor that it leads to a TD.

It's not a game of certainties, it's a game of percentages. Given the circumstances, the chances of a favorable result were better by going for it than for kicking it. But, like you, Bailiff doesn't consider the math of the situation as it stands. He does the default thing according to anecdote and conventional wisdom.

Quote:basically, people are saying since it failed it was a bad choice.

No, people are saying it was a bad choice because it was a bad choice. No thought went into it, it was cautious, and it went against the odds.

Quote:if the players need a demonstration of trust, call three kneel downs and then go for it. that should make them feel trusted - if they make it.

You're resorting to straw men and hyperbole. It was a bad game. Why can't you accept that instead of continuing to defend an awful perfomance?

i think it is time to try another kicker, but if we are always going to go for it, what does it matter?
[/quote]

(09-20-2014 10:56 PM)Volente Beach Owl Wrote:  Given our defense's inability to prevent the deep ball, even if the field goal is made, then we are falling behind.

That's the larger point. If we can't stop the long ball, then it doesn't really matter what we do on offense.

(09-20-2014 11:49 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-20-2014 10:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  but the FG is not totally without justification. it was not out of his range, so not hopeless. if it was made, it changes the whole last minute. i think the go for it assumes too much. it is not a given that we make itor that it leads to a TD.

It's not a game of certainties, it's a game of percentages. Given the circumstances, the chances of a favorable result were better by going for it than for kicking it. But, like you, Bailiff doesn't consider the math of the situation as it stands. He does the default thing according to anecdote and conventional wisdom.

Quote:basically, people are saying since it failed it was a bad choice.

No, people are saying it was a bad choice because it was a bad choice. No thought went into it, it was cautious, and it went against the odds.

Quote:if the players need a demonstration of trust, call three kneel downs and then go for it. that should make them feel trusted - if they make it.

You're resorting to straw men and hyperbole. It was a bad game. Why can't you accept that instead of continuing to defend an awful perfomance?

i think it is time to try another kicker, but if we are always going to go for it, what
does it matter?

[/quote]

A. just because you see the math one way does NOT mean that way is correct. you act like the percentages were listed on the jumbotron and Bailiff averted his eyes. "As it stands"? You are just like every other gambler, thinking you have tye odds figured and have an overlay.

B. Whether or not it was a bad choice is a matter of opinion. Your opinion is that it is. my opinion is that maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.

C. i agree it was a bad game. why can't you accept that I am talking about ONE play and not try to put up a straw man for ME to tilt at? if the players need a vote of comfidence, they must not have much self-confidence. the only reason to decide one way or the other is to give the team the best shot at winning, not pop psychology.

You cannot give up 40+ yard TD passes on 4th and 8 or on 2nd and 25. Get rid of those two plays and our second half comeback produces a close but decently comfortable margin of victory instead of a loss. The worst two calls of the game, by far, were our defensive calls on those two plays. A close third, and actually a factor on the 4th and 8, was our complete lack of adequate preparation for the short punt formation. Heinicke had punted 5 times in the previous three games, so it could not have been a surprise. But we showed no indication of having prepared for it in any way, shape, or form--they hurt us kicking out of it, they hurt us throwing out of it, and they hurt us running out of it. I don't think there was a single time they used it that they did not get a useful result.

The field goal was probably close to a 50/50 call. 46 yards is within his theoretical range (how far he can kick it) but probably outside his actual range (how far he can kick it accurately). Why we didn't recruit a more accurate kicker, and left it to getting a grad student transfer, is one legitimate question here. Bailiff's lack of attention to the kicking game--Boswell and Martens notwithstanding--annoys me. On the other side, fourth and 4 is longer than you like to go for it. The decision to throw deep on third down was the decision to kick the field goal, because that decision was made knowing that we would be in 4th and 4 if it was incomplete. We had a very similar situation against SMU a couple of years ago where we completed the pass and that led to what proved to be a crucial TD just before the half. But that was with Boswell, and at the time I called it the TD that Boswell got us because having him let us throw long. We don't have Boswell any more, and that should change the strategy. This is where I fault a lot of Bailiff's strategic decisions. He doesn't adjust for personnel, but makes the decision you make if you assume you can execute. Lots of coaches make the decision to kick the field goal, and call it the conservative or percentage call, without regard as to whether their kicker can actually kick it.

Based on my kicker's strength, I would define an area as 4 down territory, too close to punt and too far to kick the FG. With this kicker, that's from about the +35 to the +25. I would say we are in 4 down territory before the third down play (and ODU called time out, so we had time to think it through). Then I would have called something on third down that had a high probability of picking up some positive yardage (maybe Tiki's speed option). Then if we don't convert on third down, the 4th down situation is more manageable. And we should already have picked out our planned 4th down call during the time out (actually we should have picked it out last Tuesday, but that's another issue). Note that ODU called the time out. They wanted to save time for a possible drive at the end (good move). Running on third down either burns 30 seconds or forces them to use another time out, which changes their strategy at the end. We're fine running clock. We have 2 minutes and are on their 29. If we get a first down at their 25 with over a minute left, and can stop the clock twice by calling time out, we are way ahead of schedule. Another thing Bailiff does not seem to get about clock management is squeezing as much time as possible out of the other team's end of half possessions. When you are vulnerable to the deep ball, that's a critical mistake.

...but our time management under Bailiff has consistently been embarrassingly, horrendously bad; as bad as any program in the FBS. How this very obvious problem has not been corrected in 7 years is inexcusable. And to have this problem (as well as the constant running down of the clock and having to either hurry the play or burn unnecessary timeouts) at a school with more intelligent student-athletes may be the biggest head scratcher of all. This, combined with our NEVER (under Bailiff) making halftime adjustments, is why I continue to contend that we will never move to the next level under Bailiff, regardless to the improved talent level we are bringing in. His ultra-consersative overall philosophy and seemingly tolerance for losing bugs the heck out of many of us.

Ouch.

(09-21-2014 07:59 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  ...but our time management under Bailiff has consistently been embarrassingly, horrendously bad; as bad as any program in the FBS. How this very obvious problem has not been corrected in 7 years is inexcusable. And to have this problem (as well as the constant running down of the clock and having to either hurry the play or burn unnecessary timeouts) at a school with more intelligent student-athletes may be the biggest head scratcher of all. This, combined with our NEVER (under Bailiff) making halftime adjustments, is why I continue to contend that we will never move to the next level under Bailiff, regardless to the improved talent level we are bringing in. His ultra-consersative overall philosophy and seemingly tolerance for losing bugs the heck out of many of us.

Wish he had run the clock down another minute. maybe those times we hurried up didn't burn enough clock

(09-21-2014 07:59 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  ...but our time management under Bailiff has consistently been embarrassingly, horrendously bad; as bad as any program in the FBS. How this very obvious problem has not been corrected in 7 years is inexcusable. And to have this problem (as well as the constant running down of the clock and having to either hurry the play or burn unnecessary timeouts) at a school with more intelligent student-athletes may be the biggest head scratcher of all. This, combined with our NEVER (under Bailiff) making halftime adjustments, is why I continue to content that we will never move to the next level under Bailiff, regardless to the improved talent level we are bringing in. His ultra-consersative overall philosophy and seemingly tolerance for losing bugs the heck out of many of us.

I really don't understand why and how we have managed to be so consistently bad on clock management for so long. There are some basic principles that we simply don't seem to comprehend.

I still don't agree that the philosophy is overly conservative (maybe because I don't have as much problem with conservatism in general as you do, Walt, j/k). I'd describe it as more schizophrenic. We do something that's conservative and then we turn around and do something that negates that. Strategically, we're a mess. You need to have a philosophy that drives a team personality. Alabama, you know you're going to get strong defense. Oregon, you know you're going to get great offensive speed. And you know you're going to get strategies consistent with those personalities. Conservative works for Alabama, would not work for Oregon. Rice, you don't know what the hell you are going to get, because we don't know what we are trying to be.

And I don't think it's a tolerance for losing as much as a tolerance for ill-preparedness. The short punt yesterday is a prime example. Surely we had seen it in film, surely we knew we would see it. But we looked totally bewildered by it. They kicked from it and hurt us with field position because we didn't react properly. They threw from it and scored a TD because we didn't react properly. They ran from it and picked up a first down because we didn't react properly. Take away the short punt plays and we win comfortably. Call us Ethelred, because we could hardly have been more unready.

We won the second half yesterday, so you behave to give him some credit for doing something at halftime. But I would agree that is the exception and not the rule.

(09-21-2014 08:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 07:59 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  ...but our time management under Bailiff has consistently been embarrassingly, horrendously bad; as bad as any program in the FBS. How this very obvious problem has not been corrected in 7 years is inexcusable. And to have this problem (as well as the constant running down of the clock and having to either hurry the play or burn unnecessary timeouts) at a school with more intelligent student-athletes may be the biggest head scratcher of all. This, combined with our NEVER (under Bailiff) making halftime adjustments, is why I continue to contend that we will never move to the next level under Bailiff, regardless to the improved talent level we are bringing in. His ultra-consersative overall philosophy and seemingly tolerance for losing bugs the heck out of many of us.

Wish he had run the clock down another minute. maybe those times we hurried up didn't burn enough clock

It's situational. There are times when you do one, times when you do another. We seem too often to zig when we should zag and zag when we should zig.

(09-21-2014 08:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 07:59 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  ...but our time management under Bailiff has consistently been embarrassingly, horrendously bad; as bad as any program in the FBS. How this very obvious problem has not been corrected in 7 years is inexcusable. And to have this problem (as well as the constant running down of the clock and having to either hurry the play or burn unnecessary timeouts) at a school with more intelligent student-athletes may be the biggest head scratcher of all. This, combined with our NEVER (under Bailiff) making halftime adjustments, is why I continue to content that we will never move to the next level under Bailiff, regardless to the improved talent level we are bringing in. His ultra-consersative overall philosophy and seemingly tolerance for losing bugs the heck out of many of us.

I really don't understand why and how we have managed to be so consistently bad on clock management for so long. There are some basic principles that we simply don't seem to comprehend.

I still don't agree that the philosophy is overly conservative (maybe because I don't have as much problem with conservatism in general as you do, Walt, j/k). I'd describe it as more schizophrenic. We do something that's conservative and then we turn around and do something that negates that. Strategically, we're a mess. You need to have a philosophy that drives a team personality. Alabama, you know you're going to get strong defense. Oregon, you know you're going to get great offensive speed. And you know you're going to get strategies consistent with those personalities. Conservative works for Alabama, would not work for Oregon. Rice, you don't know what the hell you are going to get, because we don't know what we are trying to be.

And I don't think it's a tolerance for losing as much as a tolerance for ill-preparedness. The short punt yesterday is a prime example. Surely we had seen it in film, surely we knew we would see it. But we looked totally bewildered by it. They kicked from it and hurt us with field position because we didn't react properly. They threw from it and scored a TD because we didn't react properly. They ran from it and picked up a first down because we didn't react properly. Take away the short punt plays and we win comfortably. Call us Ethelred, because we could hardly have been more unready.

And that falls squarly and undebatably on the coaching. As great as Bailiff is in recruiting and as an ambassador for the program and the University, he is a sub-par football coach.

(09-21-2014 07:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And we should already have picked out our planned 4th down call during the time out (actually we should have picked it out last Tuesday, but that's another issue).

Well said.

(09-21-2014 08:37 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 07:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And we should already have picked out our planned 4th down call during the time out (actually we should have picked it out last Tuesday, but that's another issue).

Well said.

My issue with comments like this are that they are pure speculation. Unless you have soneone on the sideline feeding you information about how the plays are being called, we don't have any way to know how preprepared we were for that situation, or even who the first read on the third down play is. Perhaps the short routes were covered and DJ only felt he could complete a pass to the deep man.

I just think we should avoid speculation about the mistakes Bailiff makes when it's pretty easy to just say we disagree with his decision making, or discuss the obvious mistakes (like clock management).

(09-20-2014 05:29 PM)Vegas Owl Wrote:  

(09-20-2014 05:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-20-2014 04:32 PM)Vegas Owl Wrote:  We've got very big problems on the D side, and not much depth. We don't seem to have defensive speed. Looks like we lost more from last year's class than was publicized.

DC, please stop playing press coverage when we do not have athletes than can do it successfully! It's getting embarassing.

If this is what we continue to be, from the sample size to date, I see about 4 wins on our schedule. It's a waste, because the O really looks like it knows what it is doing, and should get better as the season goes along. But that D is not going to stop anyone. And there is always a turkey or two in there for the O this season in any case.

The DC had to play close coverage because they were killing us with quick, short passes for 5+ yards to start the game. We have to put pressure on the QB and make him make the long plays.

I would rather give up the short stuff than the home run. You get more opportunities for errors on the other team, chances for TO's, etc. Force them to execute. If you give them big plays with points, well, we know the end of that story.

We stopped nothing in the passing game.

(09-21-2014 09:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 08:37 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 07:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And we should already have picked out our planned 4th down call during the time out (actually we should have picked it out last Tuesday, but that's another issue).

Well said.

My issue with comments like this are that they are pure speculation. Unless you have soneone on the sideline feeding you information about how the plays are being called, we don't have any way to know how preprepared we were for that situation, or even who the first read on the third down play is. Perhaps the short routes were covered and DJ only felt he could complete a pass to the deep man.

I just think we should avoid speculation about the mistakes Bailiff makes when it's pretty easy to just say we disagree with his decision making, or discuss the obvious mistakes (like clock management).

Fair point.

(09-21-2014 09:43 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 09:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 08:37 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 07:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And we should already have picked out our planned 4th down call during the time out (actually we should have picked it out last Tuesday, but that's another issue).

Well said.

My issue with comments like this are that they are pure speculation. Unless you have soneone on the sideline feeding you information about how the plays are being called, we don't have any way to know how preprepared we were for that situation, or even who the first read on the third down play is. Perhaps the short routes were covered and DJ only felt he could complete a pass to the deep man.
I just think we should avoid speculation about the mistakes Bailiff makes when it's pretty easy to just say we disagree with his decision making, or discuss the obvious mistakes (like clock management).

Fair point.

I'm going to take exception. No, I don't have someone on the sideline feeding me information. But I'm not speculating about what happened on the sideline.

I'm discussing what did happen on the field (which I know independently) in the context of the process that should have occurred (which again, I know independently).

(09-21-2014 11:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 09:43 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 09:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 08:37 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 07:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And we should already have picked out our planned 4th down call during the time out (actually we should have picked it out last Tuesday, but that's another issue).

Well said.

My issue with comments like this are that they are pure speculation. Unless you have soneone on the sideline feeding you information about how the plays are being called, we don't have any way to know how preprepared we were for that situation, or even who the first read on the third down play is. Perhaps the short routes were covered and DJ only felt he could complete a pass to the deep man.
I just think we should avoid speculation about the mistakes Bailiff makes when it's pretty easy to just say we disagree with his decision making, or discuss the obvious mistakes (like clock management).

Fair point.

I'm going to take exception. No, I don't have someone on the sideline feeding me information. But I'm not speculating about what happened on the sideline.

I'm discussing what did happen on the field (which I know independently) in the context of the process that should have occurred (which again, I know independently).

But you are. As I said, the decision to kick on fourth down if we didn't gain any yards could have already been decided. We also could have called for a short third down pass, but Driphus went for the long ball. I don't remember who was open and the exact routes run by all the receivers, but there is no observational evidence about what decisions were made, and when by the coaches, other than that they called a play on third down and a field go was kicked after it.

We can disagree with whether the third down routes were good/bad, or if we should/shouldn't have kicked it given the results, but I don't see any evidence that suggests our decision to kick based on our result of the play was/wasn't decided before the third down play call.

(09-21-2014 12:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 11:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 09:43 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 09:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 08:37 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Well said.

My issue with comments like this are that they are pure speculation. Unless you have soneone on the sideline feeding you information about how the plays are being called, we don't have any way to know how preprepared we were for that situation, or even who the first read on the third down play is. Perhaps the short routes were covered and DJ only felt he could complete a pass to the deep man.
I just think we should avoid speculation about the mistakes Bailiff makes when it's pretty easy to just say we disagree with his decision making, or discuss the obvious mistakes (like clock management).

Fair point.

I'm going to take exception. No, I don't have someone on the sideline feeding me information. But I'm not speculating about what happened on the sideline.
I'm discussing what did happen on the field (which I know independently) in the context of the process that should have occurred (which again, I know independently).

But you are. As I said, the decision to kick on fourth down if we didn't gain any yards could have already been decided. We also could have called for a short third down pass, but Driphus went for the long ball. I don't remember who was open and the exact routes run by all the receivers, but there is no observational evidence about what decisions were made, and when by the coaches, other than that they called a play on third down and a field go was kicked after it.
We can disagree with whether the third down routes were good/bad, or if we should/shouldn't have kicked it given the results, but I don't see any evidence that suggests our decision to kick based on our result of the play was/wasn't decided before the third down play call.

No, I'm not saying anything about how our decision was actually made. And none of what you are saying is relevant to the point that I am making. Please read and understand what I actually write before launching into your own counterpoints. What I'm saying is what SHOULD have happened, not what actually did or did not. I don't know what actually happened, and am not offering any comment on that one way or the other. I just know what should have happened. Do you not speak English?

And by the way, one thing that definitely did not happen is Driphus's going for the long ball, since Stehling was at QB due to Driphus's earlier injury.

(09-21-2014 08:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 08:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 07:59 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  ...but our time management under Bailiff has consistently been embarrassingly, horrendously bad; as bad as any program in the FBS. How this very obvious problem has not been corrected in 7 years is inexcusable. And to have this problem (as well as the constant running down of the clock and having to either hurry the play or burn unnecessary timeouts) at a school with more intelligent student-athletes may be the biggest head scratcher of all. This, combined with our NEVER (under Bailiff) making halftime adjustments, is why I continue to contend that we will never move to the next level under Bailiff, regardless to the improved talent level we are bringing in. His ultra-consersative overall philosophy and seemingly tolerance for losing bugs the heck out of many of us.

Wish he had run the clock down another minute. maybe those times we hurried up didn't burn enough clock

It's situational. There are times when you do one, times when you do another. We seem too often to zig when we should zag and zag when we should zig.

sure. a decisionto run clock or to hurry up iearly in the second pr fourth quarter has to be made without knowing at that point if you would prefer more time or less tme on the clock at the end of thenhalf. So th decision to hurry or burn should be related to the competitive situation on the down at hand. if you think you cancatch them napping, quick sanp. we tried this without success. aking the extra tme might let the dfense settle, but it also hels the offense.

at the end f both halves, I wish we had burned more clock, but that is jus how it works out. it is still the D's rspnsibility to stop them. We did not lose this game on clock manage,emt or Fg kicking. we lost it on D, and a lot of that was our D being set for a pass and getting a run, and vice-versa. who calls the defensive alignments?

(09-21-2014 01:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 12:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 11:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 09:43 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 09:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My issue with comments like this are that they are pure speculation. Unless you have soneone on the sideline feeding you information about how the plays are being called, we don't have any way to know how preprepared we were for that situation, or even who the first read on the third down play is. Perhaps the short routes were covered and DJ only felt he could complete a pass to the deep man.
I just think we should avoid speculation about the mistakes Bailiff makes when it's pretty easy to just say we disagree with his decision making, or discuss the obvious mistakes (like clock management).

Fair point.

I'm going to take exception. No, I don't have someone on the sideline feeding me information. But I'm not speculating about what happened on the sideline.
I'm discussing what did happen on the field (which I know independently) in the context of the process that should have occurred (which again, I know independently).

But you are. As I said, the decision to kick on fourth down if we didn't gain any yards could have already been decided. We also could have called for a short third down pass, but Driphus went for the long ball. I don't remember who was open and the exact routes run by all the receivers, but there is no observational evidence about what decisions were made, and when by the coaches, other than that they called a play on third down and a field go was kicked after it.
We can disagree with whether the third down routes were good/bad, or if we should/shouldn't have kicked it given the results, but I don't see any evidence that suggests our decision to kick based on our result of the play was/wasn't decided before the third down play call.

No, I'm not saying anything about how our decision was actually made. And none of what you are saying is relevant to the point that I am making. Please read and understand what I actually write before launching into your own counterpoints. What I'm saying is what SHOULD have happened, not what actually did or did not. I don't know what actually happened, and am not offering any comment on that one way or the other. I just know what should have happened. Do you not speak English?

And by the way, one thing that definitely did not happen is Driphus's going for the long ball, since Stehling was at QB due to Driphus's earlier injury.

Nope, I definitely do not speak English. So thanks for keeping things civil.

My initial comment was responding to George calling out your comment regarding planning what play should have been called on fourth down. He actually agreed with what I said and must also have agreed that I speak and understand English well enough to craft a counterpoint. George's comment highlighted a portion of text that was taken out of context and which changed the topic to planning rather than play calling.

I apologize for misconstruing your comment with what was implied in the following reply, but thanks for taking things so well.