(10-17-2017 01:55 PM)Antarius Wrote: That said, its not physically possible to be worse than we are now, so maybe the heyday of QB-by-committee may be a step up.
(10-18-2017 08:47 AM)Neelys Ghost Wrote: so... let me get this straight... The 3rd team QB now TE got all first team reps in spring and fall camp until a week before the first game. The current 2nd teamer lost a redshirt for half of a season and has about 15 game snaps under his belt, three of which were turnovers of his own doing. And the starter has been hurt. But when he did play, the game plans were...let's just say.. protective of a young player. So then, the 3rd team guy who you apparently think is a TE has to play several games in mop-up duty against a tough schedule under circumstances I would assume that were game plans and practices designed for someone else to play (ie: Houston, Pitt, Army)... So then it's pretty easy to say the 3rd teamer is "ineffective" after his 6'5" 245 lb frame is never given a called run and Pitt blitzes him every down and the OC decides to "chunk it around" for a half. If the 3rd teamer was never "the guy", why bother leaving him there last spring? You had the other two in camp. I've watched most of the games closely. The offense has a stench to it that is beyond the question of whether or not the scheme is competently implemented. It has the faint scent of "agenda". My hope is that we don't look up (yet again) and see the 3rd team guy (errrr.. Tight End) back there again because he's either: A) the only healthy one, B) the only one who can make a play, or C) the only one who doesn't fumble every 5th play.
I will be very interested to see the game plan and play calling Saturday. I hope Sam is the man. He looks like he has a chance to show some promise... If the OC can keep him upright.
But, I am optimistic. Anyone that is around enough football can re-evaluate themselves and use a bye week to creatively use the talents of any and all players that can contribute. Maybe we will see some imaginative adjustments and a healthy number one guy. After all, the number one and number three guy have also accounted for about 90% of the TD's this year.
(10-17-2017 01:55 PM)Antarius Wrote: That said, its not physically possible to be worse than we are now, so maybe the heyday of QB-by-committee may be a step up.
I think they should start 2 of Glaesmann, Smalls, and Tyner. Two of them in the backfield with Stewart running a modified wishbone. Each QB throws 7-10 times per game and runs 5-10 times per game. This includes plays where the QB who gets the snap has a run/pitch option and if he pitches it to the other QB, that QB has a run/pass option. Basically a wishbone looking offense, but where you throw the ball 15-20 times per game with 2 different QB's, and most of the throws are from outside the pocket.
Things can't get much worse, and at least my idea would be fun
(This post was last modified: 10-18-2017 10:17 AM by mrbig.)
(10-18-2017 10:15 AM)mrbig Wrote: I think they should start 2 of Glaesmann, Smalls, and Tyner. Two of them in the backfield with Stewart running a modified wishbone. Each QB throws 7-10 times per game and runs 5-10 times per game. This includes plays where the QB who gets the snap has a run/pitch option and if he pitches it to the other QB, that QB has a run/pass option. Basically a wishbone looking offense, but where you throw the ball 15-20 times per game with 2 different QB's, and most of the throws are from outside the pocket.
Things can't get much worse, and at least my idea would be fun
I'm not sure that type of imagination is welcome in the Pitt system
(10-18-2017 10:15 AM)mrbig Wrote: I think they should start 2 of Glaesmann, Smalls, and Tyner. Two of them in the backfield with Stewart running a modified wishbone. Each QB throws 7-10 times per game and runs 5-10 times per game. This includes plays where the QB who gets the snap has a run/pitch option and if he pitches it to the other QB, that QB has a run/pass option. Basically a wishbone looking offense, but where you throw the ball 15-20 times per game with 2 different QB's, and most of the throws are from outside the pocket.
Things can't get much worse, and at least my idea would be fun
I'm not sure that type of imagination is welcome in the Pitt system
But allow me to qualify my remarks: the "3rd team guy" looks like he can throw.. At least the coaches thought so... 6 of the first 7 plays at Pitt were passes and he did launch a 60 yarder on the run and on the money against Army in mop up... And last year, they obviously thought he could run. So his "perceived ineffectiveness" could be the result of a "scheme that isn't constructed to his strengths". Or, as I said in the earlier post, it's possibly an agenda that was designed on someone else playing the position no matter what from the beginning. I suppose we will see in the coming weeks. Let's hope the system and play calling suits the new Number 1 and 2 and the offense can be fixed by a simple "personnel decision". I would hate to think that the scheme is flawed by design and implementation. I mean surely a flea flicker against a blitz front was "well designed". (Note: Pop Warner coaches stay away from the flea flicker against Blitz fronts)
(10-18-2017 10:15 AM)mrbig Wrote: I think they should start 2 of Glaesmann, Smalls, and Tyner. Two of them in the backfield with Stewart running a modified wishbone. Each QB throws 7-10 times per game and runs 5-10 times per game. This includes plays where the QB who gets the snap has a run/pitch option and if he pitches it to the other QB, that QB has a run/pass option. Basically a wishbone looking offense, but where you throw the ball 15-20 times per game with 2 different QB's, and most of the throws are from outside the pocket.
Things can't get much worse, and at least my idea would be fun
I suggested this a few times over the years, but fire the OC (and Bailiff) and have a student feed the game progress into a customized Madden game.
Then have Madden call all our plays. Would be unique, would be fun and worst case, we drop from 4th last to last (big deal)
I see on the Rice Football page that the game Saturday is on CW 39.
But, in today's Chronicle it says the game is not televised.
Why is the Rice Athletic Department not insuring that these type of unforced errors don't occur?
How can we expect Houstonians to develop an interest in Rice football if basic information is not provided like how to watch the games on TV?
Granted, given the point spread and likely outcome I can anticipate the snarky response of it's better that no one sees the game.
But, all snark aside, it's little things like this that I find maddening; alongside of course all of the major things like the coaching debacle that have been already discussed.
This would go along the questionable decision to pull the plug on "Owls Insider" at the last minute this season. One less vehicle to remind the Houston area that Rice plays FBS football.
Rice provides the media outlets with accurate information all the time. They (the media outlets) are really not interested in getting it right. I was stunned when both the UH game and the HBU game were shown as "late game" in the results section last Sunday when both games started around 6:00-6:30.
It's just a sign of the times...when most sports news is either (i) following a local pro sports teams or (ii) using national services for the bulk of the remaining information.
(10-18-2017 12:49 PM)Houston Owl Wrote: Rice provides the media outlets with accurate information all the time. They (the media outlets) are really not interested in getting it right. I was stunned when both the UH game and the HBU game were shown as "late game" in the results section last Sunday when both games started around 6:00-6:30.
It's just a sign of the times...when most sports news is either (i) following a local pro sports teams or (ii) using national services for the bulk of the remaining information.
I have no doubt they sent the Chronicle the information in some form. But since this was a very recent development and the Chronicle has made this error before, more clearly needed to be done. The Chronicle may be indifferent to Rice football, but it is also a highly professional organization that doesn't like to make errors. Hopefully this will be rectified later this week.
(10-18-2017 08:47 AM)Neelys Ghost Wrote: so... let me get this straight... The 3rd team QB now TE got all first team reps in spring and fall camp until a week before the first game. The current 2nd teamer lost a redshirt for half of a season and has about 15 game snaps under his belt, three of which were turnovers of his own doing. And the starter has been hurt. But when he did play, the game plans were...let's just say.. protective of a young player. So then, the 3rd team guy who you apparently think is a TE has to play several games in mop-up duty against a tough schedule under circumstances I would assume that were game plans and practices designed for someone else to play (ie: Houston, Pitt, Army)... So then it's pretty easy to say the 3rd teamer is "ineffective" after his 6'5" 245 lb frame is never given a called run and Pitt blitzes him every down and the OC decides to "chunk it around" for a half. If the 3rd teamer was never "the guy", why bother leaving him there last spring? You had the other two in camp. I've watched most of the games closely. The offense has a stench to it that is beyond the question of whether or not the scheme is competently implemented. It has the faint scent of "agenda". My hope is that we don't look up (yet again) and see the 3rd team guy (errrr.. Tight End) back there again because he's either: A) the only healthy one, B) the only one who can make a play, or C) the only one who doesn't fumble every 5th play.
I will be very interested to see the game plan and play calling Saturday. I hope Sam is the man. He looks like he has a chance to show some promise... If the OC can keep him upright.
But, I am optimistic. Anyone that is around enough football can re-evaluate themselves and use a bye week to creatively use the talents of any and all players that can contribute. Maybe we will see some imaginative adjustments and a healthy number one guy. After all, the number one and number three guy have also accounted for about 90% of the TD's this year.
"It has the faint scent of "agenda". My hope is that we don't look up (yet again) and see the 3rd team guy (errrr.. Tight End) back there again because he's either: A) the only healthy one, B) the only one who can make a play, or C) the only one who doesn't fumble every 5th play."
I should add that what I mean here is would appear that the #3 guy might be better and "they" (for whatever reason) don't want him to be better. Nothing ever mentioned about creating plans for him..
(10-18-2017 03:00 PM)Neelys Ghost Wrote: "It has the faint scent of "agenda". My hope is that we don't look up (yet again) and see the 3rd team guy (errrr.. Tight End) back there again because he's either: A) the only healthy one, B) the only one who can make a play, or C) the only one who doesn't fumble every 5th play."
I should add that what I mean here is would appear that the #3 guy might be better and "they" (for whatever reason) don't want him to be better. Nothing ever mentioned about creating plans for him..
get rid of the forward lateral pass, option to the short side of the field, and limit the sweep. Watch OU/UT game, throw the ball North and South and let them stop the run. QBs,#1 & #3, will give you very similar results. Both are limited to the pocket, unable to rollout with any passing accuracy. Pressure is coming, the blitz hurt Fine last week but he gets the ball out. #2 is best option at this point, if it is a pass can't go through all the progressions, know where you want to go based on the defense. Limit the motion on the Oline...again OU and UT aren't doing it and the defense is not being fooled. Everyone here wants a win, today we should want competitive football.
(10-17-2017 09:13 AM)Grungy Wrote: This is The MOB's road trip for the '17 season, so we'll be there.
However, in the fashion of its much larger cousin, UTSA has both made the Rice game their homecoming, and scheduled homecoming half time events that preclude a MOB show.
We found out about the lack of performance time yesterday.
...sigh...
Given that tonight's MOB field rehearsal is now a music-only rehearsal, I'll venture that UTSA also chose to not give us any field time at pregame.
Turnabout is fair play - when they were our homecoming opponent, Rice told them there would be no time for their band to perform at halftime.
They elected not to make the trip.
Rice did tell them that months (not days) in advance, if that makes it sting less.
(10-17-2017 09:13 AM)Grungy Wrote: This is The MOB's road trip for the '17 season, so we'll be there.
However, in the fashion of its much larger cousin, UTSA has both made the Rice game their homecoming, and scheduled homecoming half time events that preclude a MOB show.
We found out about the lack of performance time yesterday.
...sigh...
Given that tonight's MOB field rehearsal is now a music-only rehearsal, I'll venture that UTSA also chose to not give us any field time at pregame.
Turnabout is fair play - when they were our homecoming opponent, Rice told them there would be no time for their band to perform at halftime.
They elected not to make the trip.
Rice did tell them that months (not days) in advance, if that makes it sting less.
Well if this is true, there will be hundreds of fans that aren't offended
(10-18-2017 11:14 AM)OwlSquared Wrote: I see on the Rice Football page that the game Saturday is on CW 39.
But, in today's Chronicle it says the game is not televised.
Why is the Rice Athletic Department not insuring that these type of unforced errors don't occur?
How can we expect Houstonians to develop an interest in Rice football if basic information is not provided like how to watch the games on TV?
Granted, given the point spread and likely outcome I can anticipate the snarky response of it's better that no one sees the game.
But, all snark aside, it's little things like this that I find maddening; alongside of course all of the major things like the coaching debacle that have been already discussed.
This would go along the questionable decision to pull the plug on "Owls Insider" at the last minute this season. One less vehicle to remind the Houston area that Rice plays FBS football.
The Rice-UTSA game is on the CW channel. Check your CW channel. It is showing that the game will be televised. It is also being shown on Facebook, if you do not receive the CW channel
(10-18-2017 11:14 AM)OwlSquared Wrote: I see on the Rice Football page that the game Saturday is on CW 39.
But, in today's Chronicle it says the game is not televised.
Why is the Rice Athletic Department not insuring that these type of unforced errors don't occur?
How can we expect Houstonians to develop an interest in Rice football if basic information is not provided like how to watch the games on TV?
Granted, given the point spread and likely outcome I can anticipate the snarky response of it's better that no one sees the game.
But, all snark aside, it's little things like this that I find maddening; alongside of course all of the major things like the coaching debacle that have been already discussed.
This would go along the questionable decision to pull the plug on "Owls Insider" at the last minute this season. One less vehicle to remind the Houston area that Rice plays FBS football.
The Rice-UTSA game is on the CW channel. Check your CW channel. It is showing that the game will be televised. It is also being shown on Facebook, if you do not receive the CW channel
The advance guide for the San Francisco Bay Area affiliate of "The CW" channel (KCBW, Channel 44) shows only "Paid Program" when the Rice-UTSA game is being played. I'll check at gametime to see if our contest is taking the place of an informercial. But in any case, I'm happy that it's on Facebook Live. The last Rice game they telecast was very well done.
As an aside, are any of our games being shown on the ("Not Really") "All-Access" Owlvision/CUSA-TV that costs $10.95/month? So far, I believe only one Rice game has been visible on this system. #itwasatypo-theyreallymeant'verylimitedaccess'
(This post was last modified: 10-20-2017 03:08 PM by Almadenmike.)
(10-18-2017 11:14 AM)OwlSquared Wrote: I see on the Rice Football page that the game Saturday is on CW 39.
But, in today's Chronicle it says the game is not televised.
Why is the Rice Athletic Department not insuring that these type of unforced errors don't occur?
How can we expect Houstonians to develop an interest in Rice football if basic information is not provided like how to watch the games on TV?
Granted, given the point spread and likely outcome I can anticipate the snarky response of it's better that no one sees the game.
But, all snark aside, it's little things like this that I find maddening; alongside of course all of the major things like the coaching debacle that have been already discussed.
This would go along the questionable decision to pull the plug on "Owls Insider" at the last minute this season. One less vehicle to remind the Houston area that Rice plays FBS football.
The Rice-UTSA game is on the CW channel. Check your CW channel. It is showing that the game will be televised. It is also being shown on Facebook, if you do not receive the CW channel
(10-17-2017 01:55 PM)Antarius Wrote: That said, its not physically possible to be worse than we are now, so maybe the heyday of QB-by-committee may be a step up.
It can always get worse.
We could be UTEP. They lost to Rice.
Well:
1. Game Plan sounds like a cluster*****.
2. Game is streamed on Facebook and "maybe" a CW39 broadcast.
3. DB's excuse for a blow out Rice loss: 'We just need more time to learn this new system.'
