Don't let the seemingly incomprehensible yet starkly obvious disturb you RU. The facts are there... Just have to look... BTW: Did Tyner get kicked off the team or just relegated to assistant to the assistant equipment manager? Couldn't help but notice he isn't even on the depth chart... Only guy who can throw a spiral and not even on the two-deep... Just don't breathe through your nose, I'd hate for you to catch the scent.

(10-26-2017 01:10 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(10-26-2017 01:06 PM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  I don't even know what causality means...

Just remember...

I haven't even unveiled the prime data.. Awaiting a little further collection

Ok. Still delusional. It is your collection of prime data and interpretation of such that I find so comical yet disturbing. Please feel free to share when available.

As of now the prime data is pretty obvious.... At least, a couple more weeks of 3-9 and fumbles will make it so....:

Tyner: 3 career starts (one at Stanford in the rain, one at home against FIU, one at Pitt).. averaged over 25 pass attempts per start... shuffled aside as ineffective only to pick up some playing time in mop ups when the roller coaster was well down hill already

Glaesman: 4 career starts (one vs. Stanford in Sydney, one at UTEP, one at UH, one at UTSA... cannot find his passing stats on the Rice online site... But wait, I found them on ESPN.... 54 total pass attempts in four starts. That's 13.5 per game...


They never intended in grooming Tyner... They used him..Set him up for failure to passify an agenda to play guys that are not as good....

Even with almost twice the attempts, and arguably double the complexity of the playbook, Tyner is outperforming him against tougher competition.

(10-26-2017 01:14 PM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  Don't let the seemingly incomprehensible yet starkly obvious disturb you RU. The facts are there... Just have to look... BTW: Did Tyner get kicked off the team or just relegated to assistant to the assistant equipment manager? Couldn't help but notice he isn't even on the depth chart... Only guy who can throw a spiral and not even on the two-deep... Just don't breathe through your nose, I'd hate for you to catch the scent.

Oh, my comprehensibleness is vast and thus little is incomprehensible. I am sure you aren't disturbed so I should say I just think your conclusions are wacky. Coaches make the most head scratching decisions. I just have never before seen the complexity you use to construct and rationalize the stupidity of these decisions.

(10-26-2017 02:27 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(10-26-2017 01:14 PM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  Don't let the seemingly incomprehensible yet starkly obvious disturb you RU. The facts are there... Just have to look... BTW: Did Tyner get kicked off the team or just relegated to assistant to the assistant equipment manager? Couldn't help but notice he isn't even on the depth chart... Only guy who can throw a spiral and not even on the two-deep... Just don't breathe through your nose, I'd hate for you to catch the scent.

Oh, my comprehensibleness is vast and thus little is incomprehensible. I am sure you aren't disturbed so I should say I just think your conclusions are wacky. Coaches make the most head scratching decisions. I just have never before seen the complexity you use to construct and rationalize the stupidity of these decisions.

Thanks....??? I think....

(10-26-2017 02:27 PM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  

(10-26-2017 01:10 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(10-26-2017 01:06 PM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  I don't even know what causality means...

Just remember...

I haven't even unveiled the prime data.. Awaiting a little further collection

Ok. Still delusional. It is your collection of prime data and interpretation of such that I find so comical yet disturbing. Please feel free to share when available.

As of now the prime data is pretty obvious.... At least, a couple more weeks of 3-9 and fumbles will make it so....:

Tyner: 3 career starts (one at Stanford in the rain, one at home against FIU, one at Pitt).. averaged over 25 pass attempts per start... shuffled aside as ineffective only to pick up some playing time in mop ups when the roller coaster was well down hill already

Glaesman: 4 career starts (one vs. Stanford in Sydney, one at UTEP, one at UH, one at UTSA... cannot find his passing stats on the Rice online site... But wait, I found them on ESPN.... 54 total pass attempts in four starts. That's 13.5 per game...


They never intended in grooming Tyner... They used him..Set him up for failure to passify an agenda to play guys that are not as good....

Even with almost twice the attempts, and arguably double the complexity of the playbook, Tyner is outperforming him against tougher competition.

I was at that game and watched the QB performance first hand. I don't think you want to use that start to support any evidence of some nefarious QB prowess suppression.

(10-26-2017 02:32 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(10-26-2017 02:27 PM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  

(10-26-2017 01:10 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(10-26-2017 01:06 PM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  I don't even know what causality means...

Just remember...

I haven't even unveiled the prime data.. Awaiting a little further collection

Ok. Still delusional. It is your collection of prime data and interpretation of such that I find so comical yet disturbing. Please feel free to share when available.

As of now the prime data is pretty obvious.... At least, a couple more weeks of 3-9 and fumbles will make it so....:

Tyner: 3 career starts (one at Stanford in the rain, one at home against FIU, one at Pitt).. averaged over 25 pass attempts per start... shuffled aside as ineffective only to pick up some playing time in mop ups when the roller coaster was well down hill already

Glaesman: 4 career starts (one vs. Stanford in Sydney, one at UTEP, one at UH, one at UTSA... cannot find his passing stats on the Rice online site... But wait, I found them on ESPN.... 54 total pass attempts in four starts. That's 13.5 per game...


They never intended in grooming Tyner... They used him..Set him up for failure to passify an agenda to play guys that are not as good....

Even with almost twice the attempts, and arguably double the complexity of the playbook, Tyner is outperforming him against tougher competition.

I was at that game and watched the QB performance first hand. I don't think you want to use that start to support any evidence of some nefarious QB prowess suppression.

1) Is your assessment with or without the seven (7) first half drops?
2) Let's use it as evidence in a player's [b]1st start, and also use the 3-9 with two INT's and a fumble in the other player's 4th start....

I said from the beginning... Let's not get caught up in a discussion trying to decipher "good" on a 1-6 team. This discussion is about "better".

(10-26-2017 02:27 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(10-26-2017 01:14 PM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  Don't let the seemingly incomprehensible yet starkly obvious disturb you RU. The facts are there... Just have to look... BTW: Did Tyner get kicked off the team or just relegated to assistant to the assistant equipment manager? Couldn't help but notice he isn't even on the depth chart... Only guy who can throw a spiral and not even on the two-deep... Just don't breathe through your nose, I'd hate for you to catch the scent.

Oh, my comprehensibleness is vast and thus little is incomprehensible. I am sure you aren't disturbed so I should say I just think your conclusions are wacky. Coaches make the most head scratching decisions. I just have never before seen the complexity you use to construct and rationalize the stupidity of these decisions.

Look, I agree that the offense sucks. I just think that they don't have a clue as to what they are doing. There isn't some conspiracy as much is there is some serious lack of understanding. There is a lot to change and I don't think they know what to do to implement positive changes.

Just let the "Agenda Based Offense" Theory marinate... After a couple more games, I'll print up t-shirts and take orders....



Especially when you hear JK comment about "youth in our programs"....

Bottom line is that the effort should have been made last year to get game experience for the QBs that were going to be here this year, in order to hasten their development. Maybe not doing that early can be defended, but once we were clearly headed for 3-9 or thereabouts, then there is no excuse for not getting more people game experience.

What we have now managed to do is to mishandle three players and therefore achieve worse results than would probably have been attained by simply giving the job to any one of them. This is a program that is very clearly headed in the wrong direction and grasping at straws in a hopeless attempt to generate some miracle win or wins.

My goal from here to the house would be to try to get meaningful game reps for three deep at every position. Yes, that means some probably wouldn't be up to it. So what, we're not setting the world on fire with who's playing now. If everybody knows that they are going to play on Saturday, then they'll work a lot harder during the week, and that will mean better practices and faster improvement. Then in the spring, start moving people around with the goal of being at least 2 deep at every position with people who can actually play at this level. Adopt contrarian schemes on both sides of the ball, and focus on execution, execution, execution. Reorient the strength and conditioning program away from bulk (which seems to be the objective now) to speed, agility, and fitness. Be small, but be small on purpose, in order to get speed on the field. I know I've been an Alex Grinch advocate, but it's really fun to watch what he has done at Wazzu. He's got an undersized defense playing quite well because they are utilizing speed and attacking techniques.

Force people who play us to prepare for something completely different than what they see week in and week out. That will generate some mistakes on their part. And as for our side, execute, execute, execute, like we have not in the past. Play everybody tough and try to steal a couple of games on special teams. I think that approach could win 6 to 8 against next year's schedule, and then maintain that--or better--going forward.

(10-26-2017 02:35 PM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  

(10-26-2017 02:32 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(10-26-2017 02:27 PM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  

(10-26-2017 01:10 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(10-26-2017 01:06 PM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  I don't even know what causality means...

Just remember...

I haven't even unveiled the prime data.. Awaiting a little further collection

Ok. Still delusional. It is your collection of prime data and interpretation of such that I find so comical yet disturbing. Please feel free to share when available.

As of now the prime data is pretty obvious.... At least, a couple more weeks of 3-9 and fumbles will make it so....:

Tyner: 3 career starts (one at Stanford in the rain, one at home against FIU, one at Pitt).. averaged over 25 pass attempts per start... shuffled aside as ineffective only to pick up some playing time in mop ups when the roller coaster was well down hill already

Glaesman: 4 career starts (one vs. Stanford in Sydney, one at UTEP, one at UH, one at UTSA... cannot find his passing stats on the Rice online site... But wait, I found them on ESPN.... 54 total pass attempts in four starts. That's 13.5 per game...


They never intended in grooming Tyner... They used him..Set him up for failure to passify an agenda to play guys that are not as good....

Even with almost twice the attempts, and arguably double the complexity of the playbook, Tyner is outperforming him against tougher competition.

I was at that game and watched the QB performance first hand. I don't think you want to use that start to support any evidence of some nefarious QB prowess suppression.

1) Is your assessment with or without the seven (7) first half drops?
2) Let's use it as evidence in a player's [b]1st start, and also use the 3-9 with two INT's and a fumble in the other player's 4th start....

I said from the beginning... Let's not get caught up in a discussion trying to decipher "good" on a 1-6 team. This discussion is about "better".

Do you even know what my assessment is? Since when do receivers drop balls?

(10-26-2017 02:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bottom line is that the effort should have been made last year to get game experience for the QBs that were going to be here this year, in order to hasten their development. Maybe not doing that early can be defended, but once we were clearly headed for 3-9 or thereabouts, then there is no excuse for not getting more people game experience.

What we have now managed to do is to mishandle three players and therefore achieve worse results than would probably have been attained by simply giving the job to any one of them. This is a program that is very clearly headed in the wrong direction and grasping at straws in a hopeless attempt to generate some miracle win or wins.

My goal from here to the house would be to try to get meaningful game reps for three deep at every position. Yes, that means some probably wouldn't be up to it. So what, we're not setting the world on fire with who's playing now. If everybody knows that they are going to play on Saturday, then they'll work a lot harder during the week, and that will mean better practices and faster improvement. Then in the spring, start moving people around with the goal of being at least 2 deep at every position with people who can actually play at this level. Adopt contrarian schemes on both sides of the ball, and focus on execution, execution, execution. Reorient the strength and conditioning program away from bulk (which seems to be the objective now) to speed, agility, and fitness. Be small, but be small on purpose, in order to get speed on the field. I know I've been an Alex Grinch advocate, but it's really fun to watch what he has done at Wazzu. He's got an undersized defense playing quite well because they are utilizing speed and attacking techniques.

Force people who play us to prepare for something completely different than what they see week in and week out. That will generate some mistakes on their part. And as for our side, execute, execute, execute, like we have not in the past. Play everybody tough and try to steal a couple of games on special teams. I think that approach could win 6 to 8 against next year's schedule, and then maintain that--or better--going forward.

100% agree with this post. The only problem is, I would imagine this staff thinks they are still coaching for their jobs (assuming nothing has happened behind the scenes, and based on JK comments at the end of last season)- so they probably won't have such long term plans. They are sort of like the MLB teams in a game 7 situation using every pitcher they have to win one game- they desperately need to win out or come close to it (in their mind I mean...). My guess is a continued shuffling of players, young and old, in hopes of finding a spark- which has little chance of working.

It's all over but the crying. I don't see any way they pull out of the tailspin, and I don't see any way we keep Bailiff after that

(10-26-2017 01:06 PM)ruowls Wrote:  I have skills? That's news to me.

Don't get a big head over it

(10-26-2017 02:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bottom line is that the effort should have been made last year to get game experience for the QBs that were going to be here this year, in order to hasten their development. Maybe not doing that early can be defended, but once we were clearly headed for 3-9 or thereabouts, then there is no excuse for not getting more people game experience.

Haven't we collectively been saying this every time we haven't had a clear number 1?

(10-26-2017 03:08 PM)ruowls Wrote:  Since when do receivers drop balls?

I saw you drop one

(10-26-2017 03:08 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  I don't see any way they pull out of the tailspin, and I don't see any way we keep Bailiff after that

Oh, I do. In all seriousness, Bailiff should have been long gone on multiple occasions in the past. And yet he is still here. It beggars belief.

Until Bailiff hits the road, I won't believe that it can actually happen. That's how absurd this has gotten.

(10-26-2017 03:56 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  

(10-26-2017 03:08 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  I don't see any way they pull out of the tailspin, and I don't see any way we keep Bailiff after that

Oh, I do. In all seriousness, Bailiff should have been long gone on multiple occasions in the past. And yet he is still here. It beggars belief.

Until Bailiff actually hits the road, I won't believe that it can actually happen. That's how absurd this has gotten.

I thought it would happen last year, but wasn't shocked when it didn't. The language from JK when he announced Bailiff was being retained however was pretty clear to me (not to mention his general demeanor during that statement, which was a little...weird)- This is/was Bailiff's last chance. Plus as someone mentioned earlier this week- in contrast to year's past there is not really even anything this year for an optimist to point to as progress. IMO there is just no way he makes it this time barring a miracle these last 5 games, which is hard to even envision

(10-26-2017 03:56 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  

(10-26-2017 03:08 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  I don't see any way they pull out of the tailspin, and I don't see any way we keep Bailiff after that

Oh, I do. In all seriousness, Bailiff should have been long gone on multiple occasions in the past. And yet he is still here. It beggars belief.

Until Bailiff actually hits the road, I won't believe that it can actually happen. That's how absurd this has gotten.

It makes me think of Air France 447. The copilot who didn't know what he was doing was in control for too long. By the time the pilot came back and took over, it was too little too late, the aircraft was already dropping like a rock and they had too little altitude to recover.

Had we fired Bailiff years ago, we probably figuratively had 10000 feet of altitude to regain speed and stabilize. Right now, we are at 500 feet and falling.

I use this example to demonstrate that there isn't an indefinite time span to screw up and start over. We are like a stalled out aircraft dropping - course correction below a certain point still results in a crash.

I don't think that there has been anything for an optimist to point to with any degree of credibility for almost three years now. And I'm being very generous putting it that way, in my opinion.

I think it is ostensibly Bailiff that has gotten to decide whether or not Rice continues to employ... David Bailiff. That is what scares me about the decisions to come.

(10-26-2017 04:06 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-26-2017 03:56 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  

(10-26-2017 03:08 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  I don't see any way they pull out of the tailspin, and I don't see any way we keep Bailiff after that

Oh, I do. In all seriousness, Bailiff should have been long gone on multiple occasions in the past. And yet he is still here. It beggars belief.

Until Bailiff actually hits the road, I won't believe that it can actually happen. That's how absurd this has gotten.

It makes me think of Air France 447. The copilot who didn't know what he was doing was in control for too long. By the time the pilot came back and took over, it was too little too late, the aircraft was already dropping like a rock and they had too little altitude to recover.

Had we fired Bailiff years ago, we probably figuratively had 10000 feet of altitude to regain speed and stabilize. Right now, we are at 500 feet and falling.

I use this example to demonstrate that there isn't an indefinite time span to screw up and start over. We are like a stalled out aircraft dropping - course correction below a certain point still results in a crash.

I think we have already crashed. Plenty of examples around though that show that programs can be turned around- sometimes pretty quickly. I just hope that along with a new coach we get more of an institutional commitment this time.

Let's hope we get the right pilot for the next flight

(10-26-2017 04:06 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Had we fired Bailiff years ago, we probably figuratively had 10000 feet of altitude to regain speed and stabilize. Right now, we are at 500 feet and falling.

This is it, in a nutshell. Firing Bailiff may well make no difference at this point.

And there have been those of us screaming for a very long time that this would come to pass if we stuck with Bailiff. That is the most discouraging part.

(10-26-2017 04:06 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-26-2017 03:56 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  

(10-26-2017 03:08 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  I don't see any way they pull out of the tailspin, and I don't see any way we keep Bailiff after that

Oh, I do. In all seriousness, Bailiff should have been long gone on multiple occasions in the past. And yet he is still here. It beggars belief.

Until Bailiff actually hits the road, I won't believe that it can actually happen. That's how absurd this has gotten.

It makes me think of Air France 447. The copilot who didn't know what he was doing was in control for too long. By the time the pilot came back and took over, it was too little too late, the aircraft was already dropping like a rock and they had too little altitude to recover.

Had we fired Bailiff years ago, we probably figuratively had 10000 feet of altitude to regain speed and stabilize. Right now, we are at 500 feet and falling.

I use this example to demonstrate that there isn't an indefinite time span to screw up and start over. We are like a stalled out aircraft dropping - course correction below a certain point still results in a crash.

Do you work for the FAA or something?

You are constantly citing specific plane crashes as metaphors for various situations...

Not criticizing, just find it interesting... Hahah.