(11-01-2015 01:03 PM)mrbig Wrote:  And for the complaints about Bailiff's clock management over the years, LaTech should have let the clock run down more on their last possession of the 1st half to make sure Rice didn't have a shot. Of course, Bailiff should have taken a defense timeout if LaTech had done this, but LaTech was snapping quickly so he didn't need to. But 50 demerits to Bailiff for not trying to score with 54 seconds left in the half, decent starting position, 3 timeouts, brief clock stoppages after 1st downs, and down big. Simply mind-blowing, especially with Driphus mostly looking very good throwing the ball. Way to be gutless coach.

Well, Big, we would only have ourselves to blame, because I recall the Board specifically had the very same observation and a resulting spirited discussion in a few threads 10 years ago when Bailiff was first hired vis-a-vis his unsatisfactory play-calling at the end of the FCS championship game while he was at Texas State in a similar game situation. Why would we expect him to do anything different? Especially when all signs seem to appear he has little to fear of any pressure or heat on his back to change.

When you've just run of 21 unanswered and most of the defensive stands were 3 and outs, things like this become less problematic.

Clock management is one of those things that makes a difference at the margin. In this case, it was perhaps worth 3 points.... but ended up being worth zero. 3 points wouldn't have made much difference and I suspect La Tech wasn't worried about those 3 points at that moment. Bailiff, being behind and with them getting the ball, should have been... but maybe he had bigger issues to worry about than those 3 points.

I'm not going to hammer him about the clock management there... my bigger concern is why the clock management didn't ultimately matter.

(11-03-2015 11:44 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  my bigger concern is why the clock management didn't ultimately matter.

Exactly.

The 42 they hung up is a much bigger problem than the 3 (or 7) that we didn't get h ere.

(11-03-2015 10:36 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 01:03 PM)mrbig Wrote:  And for the complaints about Bailiff's clock management over the years, LaTech should have let the clock run down more on their last possession of the 1st half to make sure Rice didn't have a shot. Of course, Bailiff should have taken a defense timeout if LaTech had done this, but LaTech was snapping quickly so he didn't need to. But 50 demerits to Bailiff for not trying to score with 54 seconds left in the half, decent starting position, 3 timeouts, brief clock stoppages after 1st downs, and down big. Simply mind-blowing, especially with Driphus mostly looking very good throwing the ball. Way to be gutless coach.

Well, Big, we would only have ourselves to blame, because I recall the Board specifically had the very same observation and a resulting spirited discussion in a few threads 10 years ago when Bailiff was first hired vis-a-vis his unsatisfactory play-calling at the end of the FCS championship game while he was at Texas State in a similar game situation. Why would we expect him to do anything different? Especially when all signs seem to appear he has little to fear of any pressure or heat on his back to change.

Again, that's his philosophy and he's been pretty consistent with it. Moreover, the few times he wasn't have worked out poorly for us.

The problem is that he's trying to apply a defensively-oriented philosophy on a team that isn't very good defensively. Either he needs to adjust the strategy to reflect the defensive weakness, or fix the defensive weakness so the team can properly execute the strategy. As Hambone noted, the bigger problem is not the 3 (or 7) that we didn't get here, but the 42 that we let them get.

I'd rather see him get the team to be good defensively. Then we can make a defensively-oriented philosophy work.

There was a famous NFL championship game back around 1940 in which the Chicago Bears beat the Washington Redskins 73-0. Early in the game, while the score was 0-0, a Washington receiver dropped what would almost certainly have been a TD pass thrown by Washington QB (and former TCU player) Sammy Baugh. After the game, Baugh was asked, "What do you think the score might have been if (the receiver) had not dropped that pass?" Baugh replied, "73-7." That is (unfortunately) about how much difference our strategy at the end of the first half meant last Friday night.

(11-01-2015 10:18 AM)InterestedX Wrote:  

(10-31-2015 10:49 PM)elf owl Wrote:  Ok, now it's the 7-1 Temple Owls, who lost a tight game to powerful Notre Dame. We could DO that! Everything we are doing now would have to change. We would need to abandon the path we are on. We aren't even treading water. The kids are great and I love em but we need more. Will.

What in Rice's modern-era (post-integration, post-Neely) football program makes you think the team can magically become nationally relevant?

I was having a vision. Incremental change will never work at Rice. Change must be transformational. TCU sucked. Baylor sucked. Temple was a joke. They prevailed. Rice never recovered from the post - Jerry Levias era. It does seem impossible, doesn't it, transformational change in Rice football?

(11-03-2015 12:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-03-2015 10:36 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 01:03 PM)mrbig Wrote:  And for the complaints about Bailiff's clock management over the years, LaTech should have let the clock run down more on their last possession of the 1st half to make sure Rice didn't have a shot. Of course, Bailiff should have taken a defense timeout if LaTech had done this, but LaTech was snapping quickly so he didn't need to. But 50 demerits to Bailiff for not trying to score with 54 seconds left in the half, decent starting position, 3 timeouts, brief clock stoppages after 1st downs, and down big. Simply mind-blowing, especially with Driphus mostly looking very good throwing the ball. Way to be gutless coach.

Well, Big, we would only have ourselves to blame, because I recall the Board specifically had the very same observation and a resulting spirited discussion in a few threads 10 years ago when Bailiff was first hired vis-a-vis his unsatisfactory play-calling at the end of the FCS championship game while he was at Texas State in a similar game situation. Why would we expect him to do anything different? Especially when all signs seem to appear he has little to fear of any pressure or heat on his back to change.

Again, that's his philosophy and he's been pretty consistent with it. Moreover, the few times he wasn't have worked out poorly for us.

The problem is that he's trying to apply a defensively-oriented philosophy on a team that isn't very good defensively. Either he needs to adjust the strategy to reflect the defensive weakness, or fix the defensive weakness so the team can properly execute the strategy. As Hambone noted, the bigger problem is not the 3 (or 7) that we didn't get here, but the 42 that we let them get.

I'd rather see him get the team to be good defensively. Then we can make a defensively-oriented philosophy work.

There was a famous NFL championship game back around 1940 in which the Chicago Bears beat the Washington Redskins 73-0. Early in the game, while the score was 0-0, a Washington receiver dropped what would almost certainly have been a TD pass thrown by Washington QB (and former TCU player) Sammy Baugh. After the game, Baugh was asked, "What do you think the score might have been if (the receiver) had not dropped that pass?" Baugh replied, "73-7." That is (unfortunately) about how much difference our strategy at the end of the first half meant last Friday night.

Yes, you are correct again, Owl69. I'm making an effort to distance myself from it now, as it tends to drive me crazy. Watching from afar is easier oin my stomach and gives me more time form other stuff.

I'm not sure how our defense got to this state...I know some good players left after last year, but if the recruiting was still as good as reported, wouldn't several new players have stepped in more (wasn't that the case with Nordstrom himself?)

I agree with you when you post you aren't sure of what he's trying to do. If you aren't, with your football knowledge being greater than mine, than what hope does a fan like me have of figuring it out?

I also agree that not going for it didn't really affect the outcome, but it does speak of philosophy and willingness to fight back up from the bottom when you're down. I still beleieve we'll end up 8-4 or 7-5 because that is what Bailiff is good at, beating these kind of teams remaining, but I would have thought we'd have won at least one of La Tech or Texas if things were not as bad as it does appear we are.

Interesting that the latest Bailiff justification that seems to have creeped into consciousness at this point in the season is that "we're young." Kind of a "wait until next year" thing appears to be starting as rationale. Someone posted in another recent thread that next year's potential conference schedule doesn't line up as well as this year's, with some likely tougher games on the road, and some tougher conference opponents as well, with not quite so many cupcakes (although there will likely still be enough in CUSA). So if the plan now is that we'll be one year older next season, and THAT will make us better, what about most other teams also being a year older and more experienced? I know things tend to wax and wane a bit year to year for everyone, but if we're just talking about the margins, I don't see how just that "plan" (my quotes) will make such a big difference for Bailiff and Rice next season.

I'm honestly shifting more of my time and focus to Men's basketball at this point to see what happens there. Maybe it'll implode as well, but it's the beginning of the season and I personally see zero signs of getting worse in basketball, and many positive signs of getting better, just by how much is the question.

(11-04-2015 06:38 PM)elf owl Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 10:18 AM)InterestedX Wrote:  

(10-31-2015 10:49 PM)elf owl Wrote:  Ok, now it's the 7-1 Temple Owls, who lost a tight game to powerful Notre Dame. We could DO that! Everything we are doing now would have to change. We would need to abandon the path we are on. We aren't even treading water. The kids are great and I love em but we need more. Will.

What in Rice's modern-era (post-integration, post-Neely) football program makes you think the team can magically become nationally relevant?

I was having a vision. Incremental change will never work at Rice. Change must be transformational. TCU sucked. Baylor sucked. Temple was a joke. They prevailed. Rice never recovered from the post - Jerry Levias era. It does seem impossible, doesn't it, transformational change in Rice football?

Well...some of us did have that very discussion this past off-season:

thread link here: Transformation vs Incrementalism

(these are the times I wish GTS would add a feature where you can go to a specific page number in a thread like on some other boards. I've mentioned it on the support boards a couple of times before.)

...complete with analysis of Beamer's tenure at Va Tech (now coming to a close) TCU's and Baylor's records and schedules/opponents, lots of statistical analysis of Bailiff's records/opponents, etc...

One thing is for sure, a lot of Rice people love to dissect stats.

(11-02-2015 01:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One other point, as a HC you are supposed to manage your talent pipeline. In year one or two, it is not uncommon to have a whole position wiped out. By year nine, you should be anticipating problems and dealing with them ahead of the fact.

I’m kind of brainstorming here, but I see a problem that we need to fix, and have needed to fix for a long time, but don’t seen to be making much progress toward fixing.

Good point, Owl69. Missed that sentence the first time I read through your recent posts.

(11-05-2015 04:23 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  (these are the times I wish GTS would add a feature where you can go to a specific page number in a thread like on some other boards. I've mentioned it on the support boards a couple of times before.)

You can link to a specific post. Just click on the post number. I think that's more useful than a page number. Some boards let you set posts per page so the number is not the same for everyone.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-755459-post-126...id12600640

(11-05-2015 04:16 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(11-03-2015 12:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-03-2015 10:36 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 01:03 PM)mrbig Wrote:  And for the complaints about Bailiff's clock management over the years, LaTech should have let the clock run down more on their last possession of the 1st half to make sure Rice didn't have a shot. Of course, Bailiff should have taken a defense timeout if LaTech had done this, but LaTech was snapping quickly so he didn't need to. But 50 demerits to Bailiff for not trying to score with 54 seconds left in the half, decent starting position, 3 timeouts, brief clock stoppages after 1st downs, and down big. Simply mind-blowing, especially with Driphus mostly looking very good throwing the ball. Way to be gutless coach.

Well, Big, we would only have ourselves to blame, because I recall the Board specifically had the very same observation and a resulting spirited discussion in a few threads 10 years ago when Bailiff was first hired vis-a-vis his unsatisfactory play-calling at the end of the FCS championship game while he was at Texas State in a similar game situation. Why would we expect him to do anything different? Especially when all signs seem to appear he has little to fear of any pressure or heat on his back to change.

Again, that's his philosophy and he's been pretty consistent with it. Moreover, the few times he wasn't have worked out poorly for us.

The problem is that he's trying to apply a defensively-oriented philosophy on a team that isn't very good defensively. Either he needs to adjust the strategy to reflect the defensive weakness, or fix the defensive weakness so the team can properly execute the strategy. As Hambone noted, the bigger problem is not the 3 (or 7) that we didn't get here, but the 42 that we let them get.

I'd rather see him get the team to be good defensively. Then we can make a defensively-oriented philosophy work.

There was a famous NFL championship game back around 1940 in which the Chicago Bears beat the Washington Redskins 73-0. Early in the game, while the score was 0-0, a Washington receiver dropped what would almost certainly have been a TD pass thrown by Washington QB (and former TCU player) Sammy Baugh. After the game, Baugh was asked, "What do you think the score might have been if (the receiver) had not dropped that pass?" Baugh replied, "73-7." That is (unfortunately) about how much difference our strategy at the end of the first half meant last Friday night.

Yes, you are correct again, Owl69. I'm making an effort to distance myself from it now, as it tends to drive me crazy. Watching from afar is easier oin my stomach and gives me more time form other stuff.

I'm not sure how our defense got to this state...I know some good players left after last year, but if the recruiting was still as good as reported, wouldn't several new players have stepped in more (wasn't that the case with Nordstrom himself?)

I agree with you when you post you aren't sure of what he's trying to do. If you aren't, with your football knowledge being greater than mine, than what hope does a fan like me have of figuring it out?

I also agree that not going for it didn't really affect the outcome, but it does speak of philosophy and willingness to fight back up from the bottom when you're down. I still beleieve we'll end up 8-4 or 7-5 because that is what Bailiff is good at, beating these kind of teams remaining, but I would have thought we'd have won at least one of La Tech or Texas if things were not as bad as it does appear we are.

Interesting that the latest Bailiff justification that seems to have creeped into consciousness at this point in the season is that "we're young." Kind of a "wait until next year" thing appears to be starting as rationale. Someone posted in another recent thread that next year's potential conference schedule doesn't line up as well as this year's, with some likely tougher games on the road, and some tougher conference opponents as well, with not quite so many cupcakes (although there will likely still be enough in CUSA). So if the plan now is that we'll be one year older next season, and THAT will make us better, what about most other teams also being a year older and more experienced? I know things tend to wax and wane a bit year to year for everyone, but if we're just talking about the margins, I don't see how just that "plan" (my quotes) will make such a big difference for Bailiff and Rice next season.

I'm honestly shifting more of my time and focus to Men's basketball at this point to see what happens there. Maybe it'll implode as well, but it's the beginning of the season and I personally see zero signs of getting worse in basketball, and many positive signs of getting better, just by how much is the question.

I'm not really sure if this has "creeped into the consciousnesses" so much as it has become obvious since multiple broadcasts have now brought up that we have played the highest number of freshmen in the country, and almost half of our two-deep on defense is composed of freshmen.

So whether or not this excuse is worth anything can be debated, but it isn't without merit.

(11-05-2015 04:39 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 04:23 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  (these are the times I wish GTS would add a feature where you can go to a specific page number in a thread like on some other boards. I've mentioned it on the support boards a couple of times before.)

You can link to a specific post. Just click on the post number. I think that's more useful than a page number. Some boards let you set posts per page so the number is not the same for everyone.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-755459-post-126...id12600640

Thanks, loki, but what I mean is when you bare looking at a thread that has grown to more than 15 pages and you want to jump to some of the posts somewhere in the middle, either to just read from that point on or to search back for something more specific, you seem to have to go three pages at a time repetitively clicking on the page numbers. Some boards have a box next to page numbers where you can type in "go to page ____" and it will jump to the number you fill in. So if it's a 30- or 40- or more-page thread, and you want to jump to page 18, you can just type the page number in.

I'm aware of the 'search', but sometimes you don't remember the wording or who said it, or you want to look in the posts to see if you can find what you're looking for, kind of like the analysis of Beamer's records in the "Transformation " thread. I know the discussion is posted in there, but without going through it all, I don't know exactly where.

(11-05-2015 04:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm not really sure if this has "creeped into the consciousnesses" so much as it has become obvious since multiple broadcasts have now brought up that we have played the highest number of freshmen in the country, and almost half of our two-deep on defense is composed of freshmen.

So whether or not this excuse is worth anything can be debated, but it isn't without merit.

I understand, Lad. I was trying to tread lighter on the subject. Bailiff mentioned it in his presser as well. I was recognizing in Owl69's comments that I was agreeing that perhaps he might be expected to be better able to anticipate and handle this kind of thing in year nine, as Owl69 said in his post just above, rather than if it was year 1 or 2. I was just agreeing with Owl69 on that one.

(11-05-2015 05:04 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 04:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm not really sure if this has "creeped into the consciousnesses" so much as it has become obvious since multiple broadcasts have now brought up that we have played the highest number of freshmen in the country, and almost half of our two-deep on defense is composed of freshmen.

So whether or not this excuse is worth anything can be debated, but it isn't without merit.

I understand, Lad. I was trying to tread lighter on the subject. Bailiff mentioned it in his presser as well. I was recognizing in Owl69's comments that I was agreeing that perhaps he might be expected to be better able to anticipate and handle this kind of thing in year nine, as Owl69 said in his post just above, rather than if it was year 1 or 2. I was just agreeing with Owl69 on that one.

Could be we have the highest number of Freshman who have played because we redshirt more Freshmen than other programs. Just a thought.

(11-05-2015 05:04 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 04:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm not really sure if this has "creeped into the consciousnesses" so much as it has become obvious since multiple broadcasts have now brought up that we have played the highest number of freshmen in the country, and almost half of our two-deep on defense is composed of freshmen.

So whether or not this excuse is worth anything can be debated, but it isn't without merit.

I understand, Lad. I was trying to tread lighter on the subject. Bailiff mentioned it in his presser as well. I was recognizing in Owl69's comments that I was agreeing that perhaps he might be expected to be better able to anticipate and handle this kind of thing in year nine, as Owl69 said in his post just above, rather than if it was year 1 or 2. I was just agreeing with Owl69 on that one.

I do agree GoodOwl that it is incumbent upon the staff to anticipate shortfalls and graduations. The staff knew that they were graduating 5 seniors in the defensive backfield and that is why they tried to get VJ Banks and Destri White game experience. Actually, they had no choice with Destri. Injuries in 2014 to Julius White meant that Destri had to play. What you can't anticipate or at least accurately plan for are injuries. Remember 2014? Injuries decimated the team at the beginning of the year (thanks a lot Kyle Field!). Also, the unanticipated graduations hurt: Covington and Nordstrom. I honestly believe that David thought that he would get them back for 2015 hence the optimism for 2015.

(11-05-2015 06:21 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Could be we have the highest number of Freshman who have played because we redshirt more Freshmen than other programs. Just a thought.

Possibly, but two of our corners are true freshmen (Bickham and Douglas), two of our interior defensive linemen are true freshman (Abercrumbia and Thompson), a true freshman defensive end (Padgett), and true freshman safety (Betrand). They are all seeing significant playing time. Others such as Ibe (Safety), Gordon (DL), Pierce (OL), and Anderson (OL) with Klinger (Center) backing up Reue.

No matter how you slice it, we have young guys seeing significant playing minutes. And further to that point, they are playing ahead of several scholarship seniors.


I think that another talking point is why are so many playing? Talent? Are they that much better than the seniors? If so, that really bodes well for the future. Injuries? If injuries, why are we having so many injuries that in 2014 and 2015 we are playing so much youth. What is going on with our S&C?

(11-05-2015 07:36 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  I do agree GoodOwl that it is incumbent upon the staff to anticipate shortfalls and graduations. The staff knew that they were graduating 5 seniors in the defensive backfield and that is why they tried to get VJ Banks and Destri White game experience. Actually, they had no choice with Destri. Injuries in 2014 to Julius White meant that Destri had to play. What you can't anticipate or at least accurately plan for are injuries. Remember 2014? Injuries decimated the team at the beginning of the year (thanks a lot Kyle Field!). Also, the unanticipated graduations hurt: Covington and Nordstrom. I honestly believe that David thought that he would get them back for 2015 hence the optimism for 2015.

We know we are losing Jackson to graduation. We know Stehling has one year left. We know Stehling hasn't look Stehllar at all (apologies for the pun).

And yet when down by 4 scores, Jackson continues to play and yet the demeanor and plays indicate we have thrown in the towel (example a 9 minute 34 second 4th Q drive when down 28 agAINST ut).

So, come next year - year 10- what happens? Why has German not had a decent shot to get reps and see what he can do? Does 2016 and now 2017 become convenient "rebuilding" years? due to losing our senior QB and then losing his replacement? This feels like groundhog day.

(11-05-2015 07:47 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 07:36 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  I do agree GoodOwl that it is incumbent upon the staff to anticipate shortfalls and graduations. The staff knew that they were graduating 5 seniors in the defensive backfield and that is why they tried to get VJ Banks and Destri White game experience. Actually, they had no choice with Destri. Injuries in 2014 to Julius White meant that Destri had to play. What you can't anticipate or at least accurately plan for are injuries. Remember 2014? Injuries decimated the team at the beginning of the year (thanks a lot Kyle Field!). Also, the unanticipated graduations hurt: Covington and Nordstrom. I honestly believe that David thought that he would get them back for 2015 hence the optimism for 2015.

We know we are losing Jackson to graduation. We know Stehling has one year left. We know Stehling hasn't look Stehllar at all (apologies for the pun).

And yet when down by 4 scores, Jackson continues to play and yet the demeanor and plays indicate we have thrown in the towel (example a 9 minute 34 second 4th Q drive when down 28 agAINST ut).

So, come next year - year 10- what happens? Why has German not had a decent shot to get reps and see what he can do? Does 2016 and now 2017 become convenient "rebuilding" years? due to losing our senior QB and then losing his replacement? This feels like groundhog day.

Sigh....I share your frustration. In 2012, we knew that Driphus was the QB of the future based upon his performances. But even then, his minutes were few and based upon injuries to Taylor M. Yet we knew.

Who knows. Maybe the staff is hoping that Stehling will have a senior rush and buy us time to transition to Granato. I agree that if they think that German has a chance, he needs to play QB more. The problem (a good problem) is that like Jordan Taylor, German could be a really good WR. But someone still has to throw the ball to him...hmm

(11-05-2015 07:47 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 07:36 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  I do agree GoodOwl that it is incumbent upon the staff to anticipate shortfalls and graduations. The staff knew that they were graduating 5 seniors in the defensive backfield and that is why they tried to get VJ Banks and Destri White game experience. Actually, they had no choice with Destri. Injuries in 2014 to Julius White meant that Destri had to play. What you can't anticipate or at least accurately plan for are injuries. Remember 2014? Injuries decimated the team at the beginning of the year (thanks a lot Kyle Field!). Also, the unanticipated graduations hurt: Covington and Nordstrom. I honestly believe that David thought that he would get them back for 2015 hence the optimism for 2015.

We know we are losing Jackson to graduation. We know Stehling has one year left. We know Stehling hasn't look Stehllar at all (apologies for the pun).

And yet when down by 4 scores, Jackson continues to play and yet the demeanor and plays indicate we have thrown in the towel (example a 9 minute 34 second 4th Q drive when down 28 agAINST ut).

So, come next year - year 10- what happens? Why has German not had a decent shot to get reps and see what he can do? Does 2016 and now 2017 become convenient "rebuilding" years? due to losing our senior QB and then losing his replacement? This feels like groundhog day.

To your point, Ant, a poster recently mentioned things go in cycles. Try as I might, I couldn't help thinking we might be mostly in this type of cycle, with some variation in order:

Youth
Injuries
"This one's on me"
New AD--extension year
Rinse and Repeat

with the exception of one conference championship every 10 years when the CUSA office makes a decision about a game. And (b)owl games every year as far as the eye can see (CUSA has 7 minor bowl tie ins now, I think.)

That's better than Div III or no football at all. Not sure by how much, but it is better.

if the freshmen were playing because they have so much talent, we would not look like we do in the games.



quote='Pan95' pid='12601249' dateline='1446770215']

(11-05-2015 05:04 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 04:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm not really sure if this has "creeped into the consciousnesses" so much as it has become obvious since multiple broadcasts have now brought up that we have played the highest number of freshmen in the country, and almost half of our two-deep on defense is composed of freshmen.

So whether or not this excuse is worth anything can be debated, but it isn't without merit.

I understand, Lad. I was trying to tread lighter on the subject. Bailiff mentioned it in his presser as well. I was recognizing in Owl69's comments that I was agreeing that perhaps he might be expected to be better able to anticipate and handle this kind of thing in year nine, as Owl69 said in his post just above, rather than if it was year 1 or 2. I was just agreeing with Owl69 on that one.

I do agree GoodOwl that it is incumbent upon the staff to anticipate shortfalls and graduations. The staff knew that they were graduating 5 seniors in the defensive backfield and that is why they tried to get VJ Banks and Destri White game experience. Actually, they had no choice with Destri. Injuries in 2014 to Julius White meant that Destri had to play. What you can't anticipate or at least accurately plan for are injuries. Remember 2014? Injuries decimated the team at the beginning of the year (thanks a lot Kyle Field!). Also, the unanticipated graduations hurt: Covington and Nordstrom. I honestly believe that David thought that he would get them back for 2015 hence the optimism for 2015.

(11-05-2015 06:21 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Could be we have the highest number of Freshman who have played because we redshirt more Freshmen than other programs. Just a thought.

Possibly, but two of our corners are true freshmen (Bickham and Douglas), two of our interior defensive linemen are true freshman (Abercrumbia and Thompson), a true freshman defensive end (Padgett), and true freshman safety (Betrand). They are all seeing significant playing time. Others such as Ibe (Safety), Gordon (DL), Pierce (OL), and Anderson (OL) with Klinger (Center) backing up Reue.

No matter how you slice it, we have young guys seeing significant playing minutes. And further to that point, they are playing ahead of several scholarship seniors.


I think that another talking point is why are so many playing? Talent? Are they that much better than the seniors? If so, that really bodes well for the future. Injuries? If injuries, why are we having so many injuries that in 2014 and 2015 we are playing so much youth. What is going on with our S&C?
[/quote]

(11-05-2015 07:47 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 07:36 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  I do agree GoodOwl that it is incumbent upon the staff to anticipate shortfalls and graduations. The staff knew that they were graduating 5 seniors in the defensive backfield and that is why they tried to get VJ Banks and Destri White game experience. Actually, they had no choice with Destri. Injuries in 2014 to Julius White meant that Destri had to play. What you can't anticipate or at least accurately plan for are injuries. Remember 2014? Injuries decimated the team at the beginning of the year (thanks a lot Kyle Field!). Also, the unanticipated graduations hurt: Covington and Nordstrom. I honestly believe that David thought that he would get them back for 2015 hence the optimism for 2015.

We know we are losing Jackson to graduation. We know Stehling has one year left. We know Stehling hasn't look Stehllar at all (apologies for the pun).

And yet when down by 4 scores, Jackson continues to play and yet the demeanor and plays indicate we have thrown in the towel (example a 9 minute 34 second 4th Q drive when down 28 agAINST ut).

So, come next year - year 10- what happens? Why has German not had a decent shot to get reps and see what he can do? Does 2016 and now 2017 become convenient "rebuilding" years? due to losing our senior QB and then losing his replacement? This feels like groundhog day.

Great point. Next year we will go with a fifth year QB who has never played, not very mobile and as you said has not been very impressive. When Stehing has played he has not been effective running the ball. Our offense requires for our QB to be mobile if not imagine when they game plan against him. The only option would be to change the offense into a pro-style offense. Don't see that happening. If Stehling starts you then move German back to receiver, no sense in him being a backup calling plays. This means we have a redshirt freshman who is not very mobile and honestly not very athletic as our backup. Here's where we ask ourselves why did Bailiff let Jeremy Jones walk. So you have our most athletic player catching three passes and you have two guys taking snaps that cannot outrun defensive ends. Oh boy, we need to get a new coach in here. Get a young mind that can open our offense. It's torture watching DJ looking over to the sidelines five times then calling timeouts.

(11-05-2015 10:32 PM)SaintsOwl Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 07:47 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 07:36 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  I do agree GoodOwl that it is incumbent upon the staff to anticipate shortfalls and graduations. The staff knew that they were graduating 5 seniors in the defensive backfield and that is why they tried to get VJ Banks and Destri White game experience. Actually, they had no choice with Destri. Injuries in 2014 to Julius White meant that Destri had to play. What you can't anticipate or at least accurately plan for are injuries. Remember 2014? Injuries decimated the team at the beginning of the year (thanks a lot Kyle Field!). Also, the unanticipated graduations hurt: Covington and Nordstrom. I honestly believe that David thought that he would get them back for 2015 hence the optimism for 2015.

We know we are losing Jackson to graduation. We know Stehling has one year left. We know Stehling hasn't look Stehllar at all (apologies for the pun).

And yet when down by 4 scores, Jackson continues to play and yet the demeanor and plays indicate we have thrown in the towel (example a 9 minute 34 second 4th Q drive when down 28 agAINST ut).

So, come next year - year 10- what happens? Why has German not had a decent shot to get reps and see what he can do? Does 2016 and now 2017 become convenient "rebuilding" years? due to losing our senior QB and then losing his replacement? This feels like groundhog day.

Great point. Next year we will go with a fifth year QB who has never played, not very mobile and as you said has not been very impressive. When Stehing has played he has not been effective running the ball. Our offense requires for our QB to be mobile if not imagine when they game plan against him. The only option would be to change the offense into a pro-style offense. Don't see that happening. If Stehling starts you then move German back to receiver, no sense in him being a backup calling plays. This means we have a redshirt freshman who is not very mobile and honestly not very athletic as our backup. Here's where we ask ourselves why did Bailiff let Jeremy Jones walk. So you have our most athletic player catching three passes and you have two guys taking snaps that cannot outrun defensive ends. Oh boy, we need to get a new coach in here. Get a young mind that can open our offense. It's torture watching DJ looking over to the sidelines five times then calling timeouts.

Aw, come on Saints! What's not to like?