Do you guys work?

(11-25-2015 01:24 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Do you guys work?

This may be my favorite post here ever.

(11-25-2015 01:24 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Do you guys work?

(11-25-2015 01:24 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Do you guys work?

Not me.

But that doesn't I don't things to do and laces to be.

I wonder how long it will take after Saturday's game for us to know if Bailiff will be back next year. It's not like schools typically announce a coach isn't being fired. Along with that, will this conversation stop and everyone stand behind Joe's decision? Or will this be a continue to be a constant point of debate?

(11-25-2015 02:49 PM)BufflOwl Wrote:  I wonder how long it will take after Saturday's game for us to know if Bailiff will be back next year. It's not like schools typically announce a coach isn't being fired. Along with that, will this conversation stop and everyone stand behind Joe's decision? Or will this be a continue to be a constant point of debate?

A. Probably Sumday
B. No, if Bailif stays.
c. Yes, if Bailiff stays.

(11-25-2015 09:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 09:51 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 07:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  ... The piling on of falsehoods or unsubstantiated claims (like how Nordstrom and Covington must have left because they saw the writings on the wall, or recently, how Luke Willson apparently couldn't wait to leave Rice) does make it seem like those who are inclined to dislike Bailiff have one track minds.

Per the comment in bold above, please STOP linking me to those types of preposterous comments because they have NEVER come from me. EVER.

Sorry if you feel like I have linked you to those specific claims - not my intention, which is why I mentioned how some posters do this, and not how Walt does this. ...

FTR, AFAICT, the "writing on the wall" comment was made by KTOwl on 10-07-2015/07:56 PM:

KTOWL Wrote:Perhaps Covington and Nordstrom saw the writing on the wall and did not want to endure another 7-5 season. It was a big risk for Covington if you think about it. ...

My quick seach did find a source for the Willson comment.

(11-25-2015 02:49 PM)BufflOwl Wrote:  I wonder how long it will take after Saturday's game for us to know if Bailiff will be back next year. It's not like schools typically announce a coach isn't being fired. Along with that, will this conversation stop and everyone stand behind Joe's decision? Or will this be a continue to be a constant point of debate?

Well, the complaining about this season started within the week following our convincing bowl win.

(11-25-2015 03:34 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 02:49 PM)BufflOwl Wrote:  I wonder how long it will take after Saturday's game for us to know if Bailiff will be back next year. It's not like schools typically announce a coach isn't being fired. Along with that, will this conversation stop and everyone stand behind Joe's decision? Or will this be a continue to be a constant point of debate?

Well, the complaining about this season started within the week following our convincing bowl win.

And with hindsight, quite presciently.

I was impressed with the Hawaii Bowl result and thought this year would be much better than it turned out. I was wrong, and those who thought otherwise were right. I'll admit that rather than cast about for any reason I can find to avoid conceding that Bailiff's critics were right.

(11-25-2015 03:39 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 03:34 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 02:49 PM)BufflOwl Wrote:  I wonder how long it will take after Saturday's game for us to know if Bailiff will be back next year. It's not like schools typically announce a coach isn't being fired. Along with that, will this conversation stop and everyone stand behind Joe's decision? Or will this be a continue to be a constant point of debate?

Well, the complaining about this season started within the week following our convincing bowl win.

And with hindsight, quite presciently.

I was impressed with the Hawaii Bowl result and thought this year would be much better than it turned out. I was wrong, and those who thought otherwise were right. I'll admit that rather than cast about for any reason I can find to avoid conceding that Bailiff's critics were right.

Specifically what are they right about? I'm sure they are right about some things, maybe a lot. they weren't predicting we'd be 4-7 right now though.

That he never plays freshmen?

That he always runs on first down?

That our pass defense without Gaines and Callahan will drop until we get experience or high quality replacements? that would be a check.

That Covington and Nordstrom weren't coming back, and their replacements would be a drop off this year? OK, if someone said that.

That our turnover differential would go from one of the best in the country to one of the worst? It's happened.

(11-25-2015 03:51 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 03:39 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 03:34 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 02:49 PM)BufflOwl Wrote:  I wonder how long it will take after Saturday's game for us to know if Bailiff will be back next year. It's not like schools typically announce a coach isn't being fired. Along with that, will this conversation stop and everyone stand behind Joe's decision? Or will this be a continue to be a constant point of debate?

Well, the complaining about this season started within the week following our convincing bowl win.

And with hindsight, quite presciently.

I was impressed with the Hawaii Bowl result and thought this year would be much better than it turned out. I was wrong, and those who thought otherwise were right. I'll admit that rather than cast about for any reason I can find to avoid conceding that Bailiff's critics were right.

Specifically what are they right about? I'm sure they are right about some things, maybe a lot. they weren't predicting we'd be 4-7 right now though.

That he never plays freshmen?

That he always runs on first down?

That our pass defense without Gaines and Callahan will drop until we get experience or high quality replacements? that would be a check.

That Covington and Nordstrom weren't coming back, and their replacements would be a drop off this year? OK, if someone said that.

That our turnover differential would go from one of the best in the country to one of the worst? It's happened.

They were right that he isn't getting the program to where it needs to go. Every specific you mentioned has been parsed already, and we could do it again but we would be back to the same place - the current staff has lots of good points but they aren't good enough.

I will say this: this season has made me realize how much of the team's success was due to NFL-caliber talent succeeding in spite of inadequate preparation and lousy play calling.

(11-25-2015 03:59 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 03:51 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 03:39 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 03:34 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 02:49 PM)BufflOwl Wrote:  I wonder how long it will take after Saturday's game for us to know if Bailiff will be back next year. It's not like schools typically announce a coach isn't being fired. Along with that, will this conversation stop and everyone stand behind Joe's decision? Or will this be a continue to be a constant point of debate?

Well, the complaining about this season started within the week following our convincing bowl win.

And with hindsight, quite presciently.

I was impressed with the Hawaii Bowl result and thought this year would be much better than it turned out. I was wrong, and those who thought otherwise were right. I'll admit that rather than cast about for any reason I can find to avoid conceding that Bailiff's critics were right.

Specifically what are they right about? I'm sure they are right about some things, maybe a lot. they weren't predicting we'd be 4-7 right now though.

That he never plays freshmen?

That he always runs on first down?

That our pass defense without Gaines and Callahan will drop until we get experience or high quality replacements? that would be a check.

That Covington and Nordstrom weren't coming back, and their replacements would be a drop off this year? OK, if someone said that.

That our turnover differential would go from one of the best in the country to one of the worst? It's happened.

They were right that he isn't getting the program to where it needs to go. Every specific you mentioned has been parsed already, and we could do it again but we would be back to the same place - the current staff has lots of good points but they aren't good enough.

I will say this: this season has made me realize how much of the team's success was due to NFL-caliber talent succeeding in spite of inadequate preparation and lousy play calling.

Interesting, and probably accurate, observation regarding the team's past success.

(11-25-2015 04:29 PM)Ranger Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 03:59 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 03:51 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 03:39 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 03:34 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Well, the complaining about this season started within the week following our convincing bowl win.

And with hindsight, quite presciently.

I was impressed with the Hawaii Bowl result and thought this year would be much better than it turned out. I was wrong, and those who thought otherwise were right. I'll admit that rather than cast about for any reason I can find to avoid conceding that Bailiff's critics were right.

Specifically what are they right about? I'm sure they are right about some things, maybe a lot. they weren't predicting we'd be 4-7 right now though.

That he never plays freshmen?

That he always runs on first down?

That our pass defense without Gaines and Callahan will drop until we get experience or high quality replacements? that would be a check.

That Covington and Nordstrom weren't coming back, and their replacements would be a drop off this year? OK, if someone said that.

That our turnover differential would go from one of the best in the country to one of the worst? It's happened.

They were right that he isn't getting the program to where it needs to go. Every specific you mentioned has been parsed already, and we could do it again but we would be back to the same place - the current staff has lots of good points but they aren't good enough.

I will say this: this season has made me realize how much of the team's success was due to NFL-caliber talent succeeding in spite of inadequate preparation and lousy play calling.

Interesting, and probably accurate, observation regarding the team's past success.

Obviously, and inherently, a team will benefit from players who are NFL ready, and will play better than the same team with said players replaced by non-NFL ready players.

I think it is rarer for a football team to succeed in spite of its coaches, as compared to say, basketball, when one player can take over a game. For example, I can point to a team like Miami last year, that had 7 players draft, but only went 6-7, as a team that can have significant NFL talent and not perform well. Or I can point to all of the other CUSA teams that had players drafted at the same time as we had players like Gaines drafted and yet didn't perform as well as us.

It is almost certain that with a better coach the 2008 and 2013 teams perform better, but I do't think they performed as they did in spite of Bailiff - the sheer talent wasn't there to go 10-3 in any conference by, in essence, working against their coaches.

I do think this shows, though, that Bailiff's coaching is more limited by the talent of his players, as opposed to a systems coach like Leach.

What I meant was the really good players were playmakers: they could succeed regardless of the playcalling. If your tall beast of a tight end can sky for the overthrown ball and break a pair of tackles, then he can turn that across-field throw into triple coverage into a touchdown when defended by mere mortals. I didn't mean that they defied the coaches.

(11-25-2015 04:45 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  What I meant was the really good players were playmakers: they could succeed regardless of the playcalling. If your tall beast of a tight end can sky for the overthrown ball and break a pair of tackles, then he can turn that across-field throw into triple coverage into a touchdown when defended by mere mortals. I didn't mean that they defied the coaches.

I think working against their coaches would be the same as succeeding in spite of poor coaching, right? I didn't mean that they were openly defying them.

What you're arguing is that the players were so good, that the bad play calls, bad prep, etc, didn't affect them, right? Well, my argument is more that the coaching has to at least be decent enough to leverage those resources to get a result like 2008 and 2013. You're right that these players could make plays out of nothing, but if you can't at least get the rest of the team to play decent, those few plays won't help you win 10 games in a season.

Like I said, there are other teams with more NFL talent that arguably performed worse than our 2008 and 2013 teams, which indicates to me that our coaches were doing something right. I just think they struggle mightily when they can't rely on a player making plays if they aren't naturally gifted at it. But they don't seem to make players worse, which other coaches can be guilty of.

(11-25-2015 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 04:45 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  What I meant was the really good players were playmakers: they could succeed regardless of the playcalling. If your tall beast of a tight end can sky for the overthrown ball and break a pair of tackles, then he can turn that across-field throw into triple coverage into a touchdown when defended by mere mortals. I didn't mean that they defied the coaches.

I think working against their coaches would be the same as succeeding in spite of poor coaching, right? I didn't mean that they were openly defying them.

What you're arguing is that the players were so good, that the bad play calls, bad prep, etc, didn't affect them, right? Well, my argument is more that the coaching has to at least be decent enough to leverage those resources to get a result like 2008 and 2013. You're right that these players could make plays out of nothing, but if you can't at least get the rest of the team to play decent, those few plays won't help you win 10 games in a season.

Like I said, there are other teams with more NFL talent that arguably performed worse than our 2008 and 2013 teams, which indicates to me that our coaches were doing something right. I just think they struggle mightily when they can't rely on a player making plays if they aren't naturally gifted at it. But they don't seem to make players worse, which other coaches can be guilty of.

Well of course the coaches are present and actively managing the game, but I wonder now how much of their playcalling was geniune strategy as opposed to getting the ball in the vicinity of the playmakers and hoping something would come of the talent differential. I'm also not sure who was the primary inspiration for team morale and chemistry - the locker room meeting after the Memphis loss was allegedly the players deciding to do better (though of course any or all of that may be apocryphal).

(11-25-2015 03:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 02:49 PM)BufflOwl Wrote:  I wonder how long it will take after Saturday's game for us to know if Bailiff will be back next year. It's not like schools typically announce a coach isn't being fired. Along with that, will this conversation stop and everyone stand behind Joe's decision? Or will this be a continue to be a constant point of debate?

A. Probably Sumday
B. No, if Bailif stays.
c. Yes, if Bailiff stays.

I very much doubt it will on a Sunday of Thanksgiving weekend. Much more likely, late Monday or Tuesday, after JK and DB have spoken, and (if a decision to move on is made by JK), he has an opportunity to communicate with other key players (e.g., Bobby, Bucky, Leebron).

(11-25-2015 05:01 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 04:45 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  What I meant was the really good players were playmakers: they could succeed regardless of the playcalling. If your tall beast of a tight end can sky for the overthrown ball and break a pair of tackles, then he can turn that across-field throw into triple coverage into a touchdown when defended by mere mortals. I didn't mean that they defied the coaches.

I think working against their coaches would be the same as succeeding in spite of poor coaching, right? I didn't mean that they were openly defying them.

What you're arguing is that the players were so good, that the bad play calls, bad prep, etc, didn't affect them, right? Well, my argument is more that the coaching has to at least be decent enough to leverage those resources to get a result like 2008 and 2013. You're right that these players could make plays out of nothing, but if you can't at least get the rest of the team to play decent, those few plays won't help you win 10 games in a season.

Like I said, there are other teams with more NFL talent that arguably performed worse than our 2008 and 2013 teams, which indicates to me that our coaches were doing something right. I just think they struggle mightily when they can't rely on a player making plays if they aren't naturally gifted at it. But they don't seem to make players worse, which other coaches can be guilty of.

Well of course the coaches are present and actively managing the game, but I wonder now how much of their playcalling was geniune strategy as opposed to getting the ball in the vicinity of the playmakers and hoping something would come of the talent differential. I'm also not sure who was the primary inspiration for team morale and chemistry - the locker room meeting after the Memphis loss was allegedly the players deciding to do better (though of course any or all of that may be apocryphal).

I think the thing is that either of those are valid coaching strategies, but one is obviously much more connected to the quality of the players on the team.

Some coaches use a system and can almost plug in players indiscriminately - a coach like this would appear to be the one that would thrive the most at Rice, and doesn't appear to be what DB and Co do. Instead, I think DB and Co. do the latter, and have had some success with it, but they obviously struggle when they don't have the type of playmakers they need to thrive. They try to win by out recruiting the competition, and in 2015, they have failed miserably at that.

I think that if you took both the 2008 and 2013 teams and gave them to other coaches, some would have taken them and done better, and others would have taken them and done worse. The fact that I think some coaches would have done a worse job at leveraging the talent those teams had makes me believe that the teams did not succeed in spite of the coaching, but were helped, but perhaps not maximized, by the coaching.

(11-25-2015 05:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 05:01 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 04:45 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  What I meant was the really good players were playmakers: they could succeed regardless of the playcalling. If your tall beast of a tight end can sky for the overthrown ball and break a pair of tackles, then he can turn that across-field throw into triple coverage into a touchdown when defended by mere mortals. I didn't mean that they defied the coaches.

I think working against their coaches would be the same as succeeding in spite of poor coaching, right? I didn't mean that they were openly defying them.

What you're arguing is that the players were so good, that the bad play calls, bad prep, etc, didn't affect them, right? Well, my argument is more that the coaching has to at least be decent enough to leverage those resources to get a result like 2008 and 2013. You're right that these players could make plays out of nothing, but if you can't at least get the rest of the team to play decent, those few plays won't help you win 10 games in a season.

Like I said, there are other teams with more NFL talent that arguably performed worse than our 2008 and 2013 teams, which indicates to me that our coaches were doing something right. I just think they struggle mightily when they can't rely on a player making plays if they aren't naturally gifted at it. But they don't seem to make players worse, which other coaches can be guilty of.

Well of course the coaches are present and actively managing the game, but I wonder now how much of their playcalling was geniune strategy as opposed to getting the ball in the vicinity of the playmakers and hoping something would come of the talent differential. I'm also not sure who was the primary inspiration for team morale and chemistry - the locker room meeting after the Memphis loss was allegedly the players deciding to do better (though of course any or all of that may be apocryphal).

I think the thing is that either of those are valid coaching strategies, but one is obviously much more connected to the quality of the players on the team.

Some coaches use a system and can almost plug in players indiscriminately - a coach like this would appear to be the one that would thrive the most at Rice, and doesn't appear to be what DB and Co do. Instead, I think DB and Co. do the latter, and have had some success with it, but they obviously struggle when they don't have the type of playmakers they need to thrive. They try to win by out recruiting the competition, and in 2015, they have failed miserably at that.

I think that if you took both the 2008 and 2013 teams and gave them to other coaches, some would have taken them and done better, and others would have taken them and done worse. The fact that I think some coaches would have done a worse job at leveraging the talent those teams had makes me believe that the teams did not succeed in spite of the coaching, but were helped, but perhaps not maximized, by the coaching.

Ok, but if you're right then there's a remaining problem: with good recruiting a coach can at least sometimes out-talent much of the G5, but he will never get that signature win and will get crushed in a big bowl game, because in those situations the talent will be equal. IMO, whatever the talent we need a coach, like Rhoades, who will patiently build a system and plug what talent he gets into the appropriate socket as it emerges from the pipeline.

(11-25-2015 05:26 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 05:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 05:01 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 04:45 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  What I meant was the really good players were playmakers: they could succeed regardless of the playcalling. If your tall beast of a tight end can sky for the overthrown ball and break a pair of tackles, then he can turn that across-field throw into triple coverage into a touchdown when defended by mere mortals. I didn't mean that they defied the coaches.

I think working against their coaches would be the same as succeeding in spite of poor coaching, right? I didn't mean that they were openly defying them.

What you're arguing is that the players were so good, that the bad play calls, bad prep, etc, didn't affect them, right? Well, my argument is more that the coaching has to at least be decent enough to leverage those resources to get a result like 2008 and 2013. You're right that these players could make plays out of nothing, but if you can't at least get the rest of the team to play decent, those few plays won't help you win 10 games in a season.

Like I said, there are other teams with more NFL talent that arguably performed worse than our 2008 and 2013 teams, which indicates to me that our coaches were doing something right. I just think they struggle mightily when they can't rely on a player making plays if they aren't naturally gifted at it. But they don't seem to make players worse, which other coaches can be guilty of.

Well of course the coaches are present and actively managing the game, but I wonder now how much of their playcalling was geniune strategy as opposed to getting the ball in the vicinity of the playmakers and hoping something would come of the talent differential. I'm also not sure who was the primary inspiration for team morale and chemistry - the locker room meeting after the Memphis loss was allegedly the players deciding to do better (though of course any or all of that may be apocryphal).

I think the thing is that either of those are valid coaching strategies, but one is obviously much more connected to the quality of the players on the team.

Some coaches use a system and can almost plug in players indiscriminately - a coach like this would appear to be the one that would thrive the most at Rice, and doesn't appear to be what DB and Co do. Instead, I think DB and Co. do the latter, and have had some success with it, but they obviously struggle when they don't have the type of playmakers they need to thrive. They try to win by out recruiting the competition, and in 2015, they have failed miserably at that.

I think that if you took both the 2008 and 2013 teams and gave them to other coaches, some would have taken them and done better, and others would have taken them and done worse. The fact that I think some coaches would have done a worse job at leveraging the talent those teams had makes me believe that the teams did not succeed in spite of the coaching, but were helped, but perhaps not maximized, by the coaching.

Ok, but if you're right then there's a remaining problem: with good recruiting a coach can at least sometimes out-talent much of the G5, but he will never get that signature win and will get crushed in a big bowl game, because in those situations the talent will be equal. IMO, whatever the talent we need a coach, like Rhoades, who will patiently build a system and plug what talent he gets into the appropriate socket as it emerges from the pipeline.

Most importantly, he will recruit guys who specifically fit into his system, and who enjoy playing his style of play.