(09-06-2016 10:56 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  I would be shocked if Army decides to air it out against us. Their QB Bradshaw and their new FB Davidson (since their leading rusher, Aaron Kemper, got kicked off the team in July) will be their workhorses as they were against Temple (only passed for 15 yards). Remember, Army played us in late October last year, and had the benefit of already seeing our pass defense get smoked by Baylor, WKU and somewhat by UT. Yet, despite all this info, Army stuck with their rushing attack and passed for a combined 18 yards. This is not a team that is all of a sudden going to decide to gameplan around throwing for 300 yards.

I agree. However, after reviewing the WKU film, I'd be pretty surprised if Army chose NOT to throw it down the field against us.. Several times. Maybe not abandon their basic run attack. But taking advantage of the opportunity that our weak secondary presents.

(09-06-2016 11:48 AM)greyowl72 Wrote:  

(09-06-2016 10:56 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  I would be shocked if Army decides to air it out against us. Their QB Bradshaw and their new FB Davidson (since their leading rusher, Aaron Kemper, got kicked off the team in July) will be their workhorses as they were against Temple (only passed for 15 yards). Remember, Army played us in late October last year, and had the benefit of already seeing our pass defense get smoked by Baylor, WKU and somewhat by UT. Yet, despite all this info, Army stuck with their rushing attack and passed for a combined 18 yards. This is not a team that is all of a sudden going to decide to gameplan around throwing for 300 yards.

I agree. However, after reviewing the WKU film, I'd be pretty surprised if Army chose NOT to throw it down the field against us.. Several times. Maybe not abandon their basic run attack. But taking advantage of the opportunity that our weak secondary presents.

Last year Army saw Baylor's and WKU's passing attack destroy Rice. I felt like they responded to that by taking a few more deep shots then then usual (for them). But their QB did not have the accuracy or arm strength and their receivers didn't have the separation to complete them like Baylor and WKU. They ended up 2/10 for 18 yards. If Rice is going to win, I would expect similar results. If Army does connect on some deep shots, then Rice is in deep $h!t.

(09-06-2016 11:48 AM)greyowl72 Wrote:  

(09-06-2016 10:56 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  I would be shocked if Army decides to air it out against us. Their QB Bradshaw and their new FB Davidson (since their leading rusher, Aaron Kemper, got kicked off the team in July) will be their workhorses as they were against Temple (only passed for 15 yards). Remember, Army played us in late October last year, and had the benefit of already seeing our pass defense get smoked by Baylor, WKU and somewhat by UT. Yet, despite all this info, Army stuck with their rushing attack and passed for a combined 18 yards. This is not a team that is all of a sudden going to decide to gameplan around throwing for 300 yards.

I agree. However, after reviewing the WKU film, I'd be pretty surprised if Army chose NOT to throw it down the field against us.. Several times. Maybe not abandon their basic run attack. But taking advantage of the opportunity that our weak secondary presents.

Sure, absolutely agree. I would think they would be targeting 5 to 10 receptions, more consistent with their 2014 effort against us, where they threw for 6 receptions / 91 yards (two of those receptions accounted for 72 of those yards).

Lets not forget the weather was atrocious last year. Airing it out in hurricane like conditions rarely works....
Rice 35 Army 14

(09-05-2016 12:08 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  last year may have been a fluke for them.

Why do people say this ****?

(09-06-2016 02:04 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(09-05-2016 12:08 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  last year may have been a fluke for them.

Why do people say this ****?

Because Rhule won more games last year than in his first two years combined? It's not like Temple (or Rice, for that matter) has some revered place in college football history.

What people are recounting here about Army's passing stats (2/10 and 5/10 for less than 100 yards) are typical of option based attacks. As someone noted, two of the receptions in 2014 accounted for the 80% of their yards.

Rice fans, who followed the team from 1996-2003 or so, are well acquainted with this kind of passing attack.

I throw out the Josh LaRocca years as he wasn't the prototypical run option QB Ken preferred. And Chase Clement started quite a bit in 2005, and with Jarrett Dillard (Rice freshman record of 6 TD catches) also deviated from Ken's typical offense.

With the exception of the 2001 LaTech game, when we changed drastically at the half to force OT, we just didn't throw as much as 10 times a game. We had at least one game (with over 60 snaps) where we didn't throw a pass at all.

Two observations about run heavy offenses:

* because practice is focused on the run, QBs don't typically practice throws nearly as much, and the QB is often not all that good a passer. I think Chad Richardson may have thrown a little more often than Chad Nelson, but not by much. Both were essentially running backs in the option. Kyle Herm was the architect of the LaTech passing comeback, but we I still wouldn't classify him as a passing QB (certainly not Chase Clement or Taylor McHargue even)

* even with marginally effective passers, they often pull off long gains because the rare pass truly has the element of surprise. Wide open receivers running under wounded ducks because the secondary is focused on the run. I remember holding my breath on long passes during the Chad/Chad/Kyle days even though they often were wildly productive.

So it would shock me if Army threw more than 10 passes this Saturday. It would surprise me if they completed more than 50%, but if they do, I would expect it to be because they have wide open receivers without being challenged. It would not surprise me if they had 1 or 2 long games (25+ yards).

Army also doesn't typically have Baylor-level, or even WKU-level receivers.

If I were setting the over/under for Army pass attempts, based on the above and the posts discussing 2014-2015, I would probably set it at 11, and take the under.

(09-06-2016 12:38 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Last year Army saw Baylor's and WKU's passing attack destroy Rice. I felt like they responded to that by taking a few more deep shots then then usual (for them). But their QB did not have the accuracy or arm strength and their receivers didn't have the separation to complete them like Baylor and WKU. They ended up 2/10 for 18 yards. If Rice is going to win, I would expect similar results. If Army does connect on some deep shots, then Rice is in deep $h!t.

iirc, we won by 7.

If their bone is anything like Hatfield's, then the point of the WR is to keep one or two men out of the box. 2/10 for 18 yards with one more big play is 3/10 for 68 yards and a TD... and that's a tie game.

See 2014 where two plays were 72 yards. They throw the deep ball, but much like we had in the SWC, we simply lacked the talent to get open enough to complete it very often.

I expect them to do what they do... run the ball and throw the 'deep' (for them) ball. If we're looking in their backfield (and if there was ever a team to be looking in their backfield) then they will have that one more big play.

38-28 Rice.

(09-06-2016 02:04 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(09-05-2016 12:08 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  last year may have been a fluke for them.

Why do people say this ****?

Don't feel bad. There are people here who think our 2013 CUSA championship was a fluke (not me, as a side note since you are a guest)

31-21, Rice. We see a different team and grab a tough road win.

(09-06-2016 02:43 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(09-06-2016 02:04 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(09-05-2016 12:08 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  last year may have been a fluke for them.

Why do people say this ****?

Because Rhule won more games last year than in his first two years combined? It's not like Temple (or Rice, for that matter) has some revered place in college football history.

Are you aware of the **** Steve Addazio left us when he went to BC?

(09-06-2016 04:30 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(09-06-2016 02:43 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(09-06-2016 02:04 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(09-05-2016 12:08 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  last year may have been a fluke for them.

Why do people say this ****?

Because Rhule won more games last year than in his first two years combined? It's not like Temple (or Rice, for that matter) has some revered place in college football history.

Are you aware of the **** Steve Addazio left us when he went to BC?

FTR other Owl, I respectfully disagree with my friends here. I was shocked that you guys lost to Army. The team you had last year was solid- one of the better defenses I saw all year. I have to believe it was the Army game that was the fluke.

What did happen to your defense in the Army game? Did you lose a bunch of that defense last year to graduation?

One good thing that came out of the WKU game was the surprisingly good pass protection Stehling got. Zero sacks. I would presume the WKU D line is better than the Army D line. I could be wrong. But if the pass protection holds up as well as that would project, and our receivers are playing against DBs who are not the caliber of WKU's, then it may well be we score a lot. I not worried about Army scoring on us. They will get some long runs and 1-2 TDs rushing. They may well hit some surprise passes for 1-2 TDs. But I think we will outscore them, because we will hit passes and make our own long runs.

(09-06-2016 04:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  One good thing that came out of the WKU game was the surprisingly good pass protection Stehling got. Zero sacks. I would presume the WKU D line is better than the Army D line. I could be wrong. But if the pass protection holds up as well as that would project, and our receivers are playing against DBs who are not the caliber of WKU's, then it may well be we score a lot. I not worried about Army scoring on us. They will get some long runs and 1-2 TDs rushing. They may well hit some surprise passes for 1-2 TDs. But I think we will outscore them, because we will hit passes and make our own long runs.

RICE 38

ARMY 24

Is the Athletic Dept making Rice Football Game Notes available to the public? I looked last week and couldn't find one on any Rice website. If one was posted, my bad, but I couldn't find it. Then I saw a Parliament post with a link. Someone had found the Rice Game Notes on a WKU site. Who's the best person to contact at Rice about this?

(09-06-2016 04:42 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(09-06-2016 04:30 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(09-06-2016 02:43 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(09-06-2016 02:04 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(09-05-2016 12:08 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  last year may have been a fluke for them.

Why do people say this ****?

Because Rhule won more games last year than in his first two years combined? It's not like Temple (or Rice, for that matter) has some revered place in college football history.

Are you aware of the **** Steve Addazio left us when he went to BC?

FTR other Owl, I respectfully disagree with my friends here. I was shocked that you guys lost to Army. The team you had last year was solid- one of the better defenses I saw all year. I have to believe it was the Army game that was the fluke.

What did happen to your defense in the Army game? Did you lose a bunch of that defense last year to graduation?

Matakevich, LB, Steelers
Young, CB, Ravens
Ioannidis, DT, Redskins
Nate D Smith, DE
Walton, DT

We also lost our C and our best WR. Also, our best player, RB Jahad Thomas injured his hand, and did not play against Army, and is likely out at least 2 more games.

We lost a bunch of major contributors, but it shouldn't be an excuse. The veterans simply didn't step up. We had no answer at DT at all and our LBers were slow and couldn't tackle. Our secondary is still pretty good, but that doesn't matter much against a triple option team that basically never throws the ball.

My biggest issue is that our DL and LBers are both undersized for the most part. Our DC seems to prefer speed over anything else.

(09-06-2016 02:47 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-06-2016 02:04 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(09-05-2016 12:08 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  last year may have been a fluke for them.

Why do people say this ****?

Don't feel bad. There are people here who think our 2013 CUSA championship was a fluke (not me, as a side note since you are a guest)

Read the definition of fluke, and you'll see this fits perfectly. Here it is: A fluke is a lucky or improbable occurrence, with the implication that the occurrence could not be repeated.

We've pulled off that once in 10 years. And unlikely to be repeated, spot on.

Army 35. Rice 21

(09-06-2016 04:30 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(09-06-2016 02:43 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(09-06-2016 02:04 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(09-05-2016 12:08 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  last year may have been a fluke for them.

Why do people say this ****?

Because Rhule won more games last year than in his first two years combined? It's not like Temple (or Rice, for that matter) has some revered place in college football history.

Are you aware of the **** Steve Addazio left us when he went to BC?

JHG, the reason people say this **** is because of certain schools' (like Temple and Rice) "tradition" of stinking at football for decades. That "tradition" is very hard to shake. Whether you or I like it or not, most fans of college football are not breathlessly awaiting the results from Rice and Temple. They are usually more focused on perennial Top25 teams like Alabama, Oklahoma, oHio State, Michigan,, Georgia, Florida etc... It takes a lot more than 1 or 2 great seasons to change their interest level and perceptions. Recently, Boise State, TCU and Baylor have crossed the Rubicon of interest. Houston also has currently gained a lot of traction. Right now, the only people who care about Owls (Rice kind of Temple kind) are mostly the close fans of our two schools.

That's a pretty absurd response. I notice that you left out UT and A&M.

(09-07-2016 11:09 AM)JHG722 Wrote:  That's a pretty absurd response. I notice that you left out UT and A&M.

That's funny.