(10-14-2014 11:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I keep wondering why people think 6-6 is our ceiling. Before the season, there was prediction thread, and I said about 8 wins. This was based on probable losses to A$M, ND, Marshall, and one random loss to a team we should beat. Well we had that loss.

some of the teams we expected to compete with us have done poorer than expected, and some we expected to have our way with are doing better than expected. Still, we don't need to set 6-6 as our goal. I won't be happy with 6-6. At this point, I expect us to have a shot at the West championship.

I think I had been eviscerated for saying that I expected this team to win around 7 games or so, largely based on a transition to a new QB who had not gotten a lot of playing experience, plus some key losses. I think the key losses more than account for losing the ODU game. And, I think I've been proven wrong on the performance at QB. Before the season (or early into it), I'd been pretty stoked on the Massey ratings that suggested we would not be favored in only three games. Even 5 losses on the season would be a big disappointment to me.

(10-15-2014 12:46 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(10-14-2014 11:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I keep wondering why people think 6-6 is our ceiling. Before the season, there was prediction thread, and I said about 8 wins. This was based on probable losses to A$M, ND, Marshall, and one random loss to a team we should beat. Well we had that loss.

some of the teams we expected to compete with us have done poorer than expected, and some we expected to have our way with are doing better than expected. Still, we don't need to set 6-6 as our goal. I won't be happy with 6-6. At this point, I expect us to have a shot at the West championship.

I think I had been eviscerated for saying that I expected this team to win around 7 games or so, largely based on a transition to a new QB who had not gotten a lot of playing experience, plus some key losses. I think the key losses more than account for losing the ODU game. And, I think I've been proven wrong on the performance at QB. Before the season (or early into it), I'd been pretty stoked on the Massey ratings that suggested we would not be favored in only three games. Even 5 losses on the season would be a big disappointment to me.

I thought 8, still think 8. I too worried that the AFA half-game for DJ was an outlier, and I too am now convinced he has the ability to win for us. I too liked the Massey ratings.

UNT and UTSA are not living up to preseason hype, LaTech is doing better than expected. No game will be easy, but I think we should win more than enough to be bowl-eligible, and should go into the LaTech game in the West hunt. yeah, 7-5 would be a bit of a disappointment for me, too.

Weird, since I have been diagnosed as being OK with mediocrity. You would think such as me would be thrilled with 6-6.

For the record, I was wrong about Driphus Jackson. But, I still would find some way to get Nate German on the field, even if it's not at quarterback.

(10-15-2014 01:26 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  For the record, I was wrong about Driphus Jackson. But, I still would find some way to get Nate German on the field, even if it's not at quarterback.

He played a few snaps at army, but iirc he only ran the option when in.

(10-15-2014 01:26 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  For the record, I was wrong about Driphus Jackson….

Bravo!

(10-14-2014 01:28 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Hawaii and Army aren't very good...

Agree, but they bound the range that spans the rest of our schedule, but for Marshall and La Tech.

So if we improve and show up for every game, we have a puncher's chance at 8-4.

(10-15-2014 06:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 01:26 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  For the record, I was wrong about Driphus Jackson. But, I still would find some way to get Nate German on the field, even if it's not at quarterback.

He played a few snaps at army, but iirc he only ran the option when in.

The next two years will bring some interesting decisions regarding the QB position.
Just as Driphus got meaningful snaps in 2012 (his freshman year), it would be critical that the next QB begin to get snaps this year as well as next. Unless that QB is not on campus yet or Stehling is the heir apparent. In that case, I would consider moving German to WR to take advantage of his speed.

We are also going to have to replace Bob. Maybe German will do so.

(10-15-2014 09:19 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  

(10-14-2014 01:28 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Hawaii and Army aren't very good...

Agree, but they bound the range that spans the rest of our schedule, but for Marshall and La Tech.

So if we improve and show up for every game, we have a puncher's chance at 8-4.

By the way, Hawaii had over 500 yards offense against Wyoming.

So, if y'all recall, back at the beginning of the year I threw a Markov chain together to simulate Rice's season based on the Massey probabilities. One of the other folks here did a spreadsheet to calculate the same, which worked better (in that it calculated the exact probabilities of each outcome).

I've been keeping it updated since then, changing probabilities on games that have happened to 0% or 100% likelihood of win based on what occurred, and updating the game probabilities as Massey does.

From that, our most likely outcome for the regular season record is 7-5 (35.033% chance), followed by 6-6 (29.855% chance). I believe this mostly has to do with the larger number of ways one can go 6-6 or 7-5 than 8-4 or 9-3.

The single most likely set of events according to Massey is winning out save for Marshall, which would put us at 8-4.

Again, these are just probabilities, and they have been shown to be wrong in the past (*cough*Old Dominion*cough*), but I think they give us a slightly better read on where we're at, just based purely on the numbers.

(10-15-2014 09:36 AM)baker-13 Wrote:  So, if y'all recall, back at the beginning of the year I threw a Markov chain together to simulate Rice's season based on the Massey probabilities. One of the other folks here did a spreadsheet to calculate the same, which worked better (in that it calculated the exact probabilities of each outcome).

I've been keeping it updated since then, changing probabilities on games that have happened to 0% or 100% likelihood of win based on what occurred, and updating the game probabilities as Massey does.

From that, our most likely outcome for the regular season record is 7-5 (35.033% chance), followed by 6-6 (29.855% chance). I believe this mostly has to do with the larger number of ways one can go 6-6 or 7-5 than 8-4 or 9-3.

The single most likely set of events according to Massey is winning out save for Marshall, which would put us at 8-4.

Again, these are just probabilities, and they have been shown to be wrong in the past (*cough*Old Dominion*cough*), but I think they give us a slightly better read on where we're at, just based purely on the numbers.

Do your calculations take in to account injury probabilities both significant and minor?

(10-15-2014 10:04 AM)Pan95 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:36 AM)baker-13 Wrote:  So, if y'all recall, back at the beginning of the year I threw a Markov chain together to simulate Rice's season based on the Massey probabilities. One of the other folks here did a spreadsheet to calculate the same, which worked better (in that it calculated the exact probabilities of each outcome).

I've been keeping it updated since then, changing probabilities on games that have happened to 0% or 100% likelihood of win based on what occurred, and updating the game probabilities as Massey does.

From that, our most likely outcome for the regular season record is 7-5 (35.033% chance), followed by 6-6 (29.855% chance). I believe this mostly has to do with the larger number of ways one can go 6-6 or 7-5 than 8-4 or 9-3.

The single most likely set of events according to Massey is winning out save for Marshall, which would put us at 8-4.

Again, these are just probabilities, and they have been shown to be wrong in the past (*cough*Old Dominion*cough*), but I think they give us a slightly better read on where we're at, just based purely on the numbers.

Do your calculations take in to account injury probabilities both significant and minor?

Not unless Massey's probabilities do, which I doubt, as it seems roughly impossible to get decent probabilities of injury for all teams (which would be required for his rankings). So, almost certainly not.

This is simply based on what's happened on the field so far this year, without taking any of the reasons for it into account. We lost to Old Dominion close; this doesn't take into account that our defense was kinda decimated when it happened.

(10-15-2014 10:07 AM)baker-13 Wrote:  This is simply based on what's happened on the field so far this year, without taking any of the reasons for it into account. We lost to Old Dominion close; this doesn't take into account that our defense was kinda decimated when it happened.

And that, along with the emergence of some new contributors on defense this year, gives me hope that the ratings (including WRC's invaluable one) are understating the strength of the Rice team at this point in time. I have not given up hope of winning on the road at Marshall, despite the 40-60+ place gap in ratings position.

(10-15-2014 09:36 AM)baker-13 Wrote:  Again, these are just probabilities, and they have been shown to be wrong in the past (*cough*Old Dominion*cough*), but I think they give us a slightly better read on where we're at, just based purely on the numbers.

The probability may have been right. That the event less likely to occur occurred does not mean the probability was wrong. Ask any parent of twins.

Just remember, an 85% probability of success is also a 15% probability of failure. Stuff happens, long shots come in. That's what makes sports interesting.

(10-15-2014 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:36 AM)baker-13 Wrote:  Again, these are just probabilities, and they have been shown to be wrong in the past (*cough*Old Dominion*cough*), but I think they give us a slightly better read on where we're at, just based purely on the numbers.

The probability may have been right. That the event less likely to occur occurred does not mean the probability was wrong. Ask any parent of twins.

Just remember, an 85% probability of success is also a 15% probability of failure. Stuff happens, long shots come in. That's what makes sports interesting.

Very true; I mis-spoke.

(10-15-2014 10:25 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 10:07 AM)baker-13 Wrote:  This is simply based on what's happened on the field so far this year, without taking any of the reasons for it into account. We lost to Old Dominion close; this doesn't take into account that our defense was kinda decimated when it happened.

And that, along with the emergence of some new contributors on defense this year, gives me hope that the ratings (including WRC's invaluable one) are understating the strength of the Rice team at this point in time. I have not given up hope of winning on the road at Marshall, despite the 40-60+ place gap in ratings position.

I agree 100%. Marshall is good, no doubt. But Marshall is not better than ND or A&M, particularly their lines or depth. So along with some of Rice's improvements, I fully expect Rice to be competitive at Marshall with a decent chance of a win. Rice will deservedly be in the underdog, but we are also the defending champs, and I think you can reasonably argue that the only positions where Rice is worse in 2014 than 2013 are CB and K. Driphus looks better than McHargue. Our WR's look better. I think both lines look better. I think the other positions look mostly the same. As usual, the game probably comes down to Rice's ability to get pressure on the opposing QB while not having big breakdowns in coverage by the safeties.

(10-15-2014 10:45 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I agree 100%. Marshall is good, no doubt. But Marshall is not better than ND or A&M, particularly their lines or depth. So along with some of Rice's improvements, I fully expect Rice to be competitive at Marshall with a decent chance of a win. Rice will deservedly be in the underdog, but we are also the defending champs, and I think you can reasonably argue that the only positions where Rice is worse in 2014 than 2013 are CB and K. Driphus looks better than McHargue. Our WR's look better. I think both lines look better. I think the other positions look mostly the same. As usual, the game probably comes down to Rice's ability to get pressure on the opposing QB while not having big breakdowns in coverage by the safeties.

The kicking position is interesting. I think that - as good as Boswell was - our conservative approach to the kicking game (i.e. long field goal attempts) meant that his strengths weren't always taken advantage of. Even with an outstanding kicker, the odds are such that sometimes the decision to go for a 4th down attempt or kick - say a 40 yard FG - may be a wash in the long run. I think at this point now, the biggest difference that we'll see from last year is the success rate from 30-40 yards, where perhaps last year we'd kick from 40-50 and make most of them, this year, we may go for it on 4th down from that range and wind up scoring touchdowns 40% by the end of the drive of the time. The other big advantage that Boswell gave Rice is the long kickoffs, and I think we have that from Hairston (21 returns for 446 yards last year, 9 for 207 this year halfway through the season). So, as much as I love and miss Boswell, and hope to see him have success in the NFL, I don't think that Rice as a team is really going to suffer this year at kicker. It will look different. And, there may be a game where a late field goal comes into play and I'll scramble to find this post and delete it before anyone notices. But, I don't think we're bad off at this stage. Punting is probably skewed by McHargue punting, but the average is better this year, the net is worse.

(10-15-2014 10:45 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 10:25 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 10:07 AM)baker-13 Wrote:  This is simply based on what's happened on the field so far this year, without taking any of the reasons for it into account. We lost to Old Dominion close; this doesn't take into account that our defense was kinda decimated when it happened.

And that, along with the emergence of some new contributors on defense this year, gives me hope that the ratings (including WRC's invaluable one) are understating the strength of the Rice team at this point in time. I have not given up hope of winning on the road at Marshall, despite the 40-60+ place gap in ratings position.

I agree 100%. Marshall is good, no doubt. But Marshall is not better than ND or A&M, particularly their lines or depth. So along with some of Rice's improvements, I fully expect Rice to be competitive at Marshall with a decent chance of a win. Rice will deservedly be in the underdog, but we are also the defending champs, and I think you can reasonably argue that the only positions where Rice is worse in 2014 than 2013 are CB and K. Driphus looks better than McHargue. Our WR's look better. I think both lines look better. I think the other positions look mostly the same. As usual, the game probably comes down to Rice's ability to get pressure on the opposing QB while not having big breakdowns in coverage by the safeties.

I'm not convinced the OL is better than last year, partcularly in pass protection. Save for the Notre Dame game, DJ has had very little time to pass before under duress. I do think our receiving corp and defensive front 7 are stronger, and Hamilton gives a boost to the kickoff return game. I also think DJ has outplayed McHargue by a considerable margin. Unfortunately, the dropoff in the secondary has been huge. Marshall will not only be the home team and arguably more motivated for the game (seeking revenge for last year's championship defeat), but with Cato at QB, their offensive strength poses a duanting and very favorable matchup against our defensive weakness. Unless we once again play Marshall in inclement weather, Cato is bound to badly expose and exploit our secondary, especially on deep balls.

"All models are wrong. But some are useful."

George Box

(10-15-2014 11:45 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 10:45 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 10:25 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 10:07 AM)baker-13 Wrote:  This is simply based on what's happened on the field so far this year, without taking any of the reasons for it into account. We lost to Old Dominion close; this doesn't take into account that our defense was kinda decimated when it happened.

And that, along with the emergence of some new contributors on defense this year, gives me hope that the ratings (including WRC's invaluable one) are understating the strength of the Rice team at this point in time. I have not given up hope of winning on the road at Marshall, despite the 40-60+ place gap in ratings position.

I agree 100%. Marshall is good, no doubt. But Marshall is not better than ND or A&M, particularly their lines or depth. So along with some of Rice's improvements, I fully expect Rice to be competitive at Marshall with a decent chance of a win. Rice will deservedly be in the underdog, but we are also the defending champs, and I think you can reasonably argue that the only positions where Rice is worse in 2014 than 2013 are CB and K. Driphus looks better than McHargue. Our WR's look better. I think both lines look better. I think the other positions look mostly the same. As usual, the game probably comes down to Rice's ability to get pressure on the opposing QB while not having big breakdowns in coverage by the safeties.

I'm not convinced the OL is better than last year, partcularly in pass protection. Save for the Notre Dame game, DJ has had very little time to pass before under duress. I do think our receiving corp and defensive front 7 are stronger, and Hamilton gives a boost to the kickoff return game. I also think DJ has outplayed McHargue by a considerable margin. Unfortunately, the dropoff in the secondary has been huge. Marshall will not only be the home team and arguably more motivated for the game (seeking revenge for last year's championship defeat), but with Cato at QB, their offensive strength poses a duanting and very favorable matchup against our defensive weakness. Unless we once again play Marshall in inclement weather, Cato is bound to badly expose and exploit our secondary, especially on deep balls.

Also, as happy as I've been with our run game, the loss of Charles Ross is noticeable

(10-15-2014 11:52 AM)07owl Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:45 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 10:45 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 10:25 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 10:07 AM)baker-13 Wrote:  This is simply based on what's happened on the field so far this year, without taking any of the reasons for it into account. We lost to Old Dominion close; this doesn't take into account that our defense was kinda decimated when it happened.

And that, along with the emergence of some new contributors on defense this year, gives me hope that the ratings (including WRC's invaluable one) are understating the strength of the Rice team at this point in time. I have not given up hope of winning on the road at Marshall, despite the 40-60+ place gap in ratings position.

I agree 100%. Marshall is good, no doubt. But Marshall is not better than ND or A&M, particularly their lines or depth. So along with some of Rice's improvements, I fully expect Rice to be competitive at Marshall with a decent chance of a win. Rice will deservedly be in the underdog, but we are also the defending champs, and I think you can reasonably argue that the only positions where Rice is worse in 2014 than 2013 are CB and K. Driphus looks better than McHargue. Our WR's look better. I think both lines look better. I think the other positions look mostly the same. As usual, the game probably comes down to Rice's ability to get pressure on the opposing QB while not having big breakdowns in coverage by the safeties.

I'm not convinced the OL is better than last year, partcularly in pass protection. Save for the Notre Dame game, DJ has had very little time to pass before under duress. I do think our receiving corp and defensive front 7 are stronger, and Hamilton gives a boost to the kickoff return game. I also think DJ has outplayed McHargue by a considerable margin. Unfortunately, the dropoff in the secondary has been huge. Marshall will not only be the home team and arguably more motivated for the game (seeking revenge for last year's championship defeat), but with Cato at QB, their offensive strength poses a duanting and very favorable matchup against our defensive weakness. Unless we once again play Marshall in inclement weather, Cato is bound to badly expose and exploit our secondary, especially on deep balls.

Also, as happy as I've been with our run game, the loss of Charles Ross is noticeable

Not sure I agree with this. I think the Davis - Dillard duo is at least on par with Ross as an overall runner (more 10+ yard runs offset by less reliability on short, power run plays), with the difference being in the OL. This year's line is solid, but IMO last year's was more experienced across-the-board and did a more consistent job.