(09-09-2018 08:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 08:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 02:33 AM)elw4796 Wrote:  I'm just exuberant to see that we made legitimate and effective defensive adjustments midway through the game. Let's hope these type of close games turn into wins as the season moves along.

I too am happy to see adjustments being made. I just wonder why we were not ready for those kinds of plays to begin with. We gave up 14 quick points, and ended up losing by 14.

I think that's a fair question. I think that's probably because this is a new staff implementing a new system, and it will take some time to evaluate fully what we have. It's not like anybody else has started out strong against them.

If we could make an adjustment during the game, and we had film, why were we not ready? Were they doing something at the beginning that surprised us? Serious question, as I don't have the technical expertise to analyse, nor did I see the game live.

In any case, glad to see the adjustments, glad to see the fight, glad to see the attitude. Good game, and indicative of better things (wins) to come.

What adjustments were made at half time? Any insight?

(09-09-2018 08:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 08:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 02:33 AM)elw4796 Wrote:  I'm just exuberant to see that we made legitimate and effective defensive adjustments midway through the game. Let's hope these type of close games turn into wins as the season moves along.

I too am happy to see adjustments being made. I just wonder why we were not ready for those kinds of plays to begin with. We gave up 14 quick points, and ended up losing by 14.

I think that's a fair question. I think that's probably because this is a new staff implementing a new system, and it will take some time to evaluate fully what we have. It's not like anybody else has started out strong against them.

Tough to be ready when guys are just getting beat. The first 14 points we never got to their qb and their best receiver just blew past our guys 7 times for 100 yards.

We started to disguise our blitzes after that. If I remember right we pretty much blitzed every down the next time Hawai’i got the ball and we were bringing it from everywhere while dropping other guys back. Our first sack was a freshman (chamberlain) coming from the LB spot. If I remember right he got to come to Hawaii because of his special teams play.

Freshmen I remember making plays:
Moreno
Chamberlain
Calderon
We have a couple Oline freshmen
Bull
(A Myles Adams made a stop but it was probably the junior?)

(09-09-2018 08:49 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 08:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 08:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 02:33 AM)elw4796 Wrote:  I'm just exuberant to see that we made legitimate and effective defensive adjustments midway through the game. Let's hope these type of close games turn into wins as the season moves along.

I too am happy to see adjustments being made. I just wonder why we were not ready for those kinds of plays to begin with. We gave up 14 quick points, and ended up losing by 14.

I think that's a fair question. I think that's probably because this is a new staff implementing a new system, and it will take some time to evaluate fully what we have. It's not like anybody else has started out strong against them.

Tough to be ready when guys are just getting beat. The first 14 points we never got to their qb and their best receiver just blew past our guys 7 times for 100 yards.

The point is, after getting down 14 we did something then to adjust to whatever they were doing. I don't know what it was, but my question is why didn't we start the game with it?

Their first two drives were 7 plays each, and netted 140 yards and two TDs. Somebody made the comment that that receiver would end up with 1,000 yards. (He actually ended u with 133). What everever we were doing to start the game was not working. I am very glad we adjusted, but was there a need to adjust? Was UH doing something unexpected?

(09-09-2018 08:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 08:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 08:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 02:33 AM)elw4796 Wrote:  I'm just exuberant to see that we made legitimate and effective defensive adjustments midway through the game. Let's hope these type of close games turn into wins as the season moves along.

I too am happy to see adjustments being made. I just wonder why we were not ready for those kinds of plays to begin with. We gave up 14 quick points, and ended up losing by 14.

I think that's a fair question. I think that's probably because this is a new staff implementing a new system, and it will take some time to evaluate fully what we have. It's not like anybody else has started out strong against them.

If we could make an adjustment during the game, and we had film, why were we not ready? Were they doing something at the beginning that surprised us? Serious question, as I don't have the technical expertise to analyse, nor did I see the game live.
In any case, glad to see the adjustments, glad to see the fight, glad to see the attitude. Good game, and indicative of better things (wins) to come.

I would defer to Nightowl for his thoughts on this, since he knows far more about DB play than I ever will.

But part of my thinking is that it's partly personnel related. A new staff doesn't know exactly what they have until they've seen them going against different colored jerseys a few times. You think something may work starting the season, but you learn maybe it doesn't work as well against other people as it did against your own guys. So you evolve over time to what works best with your personnel.

One of my big complaints about Bailiff and his staff is that they never really evolved in this area. They kept trying to do the same thing better and better (the square pegs in round holes), when it was clear that it wasn't going to work. It is going to be interesting to me to watch Mensa at Texas U, because I kinda thought he was one of the more hard headed ones. Where he has had good talent, he's great. Where his talent has not been so dominant, he has struggled. He doesn't have the Yellow Belly talent level of old. Whether and how he adjusts will largely tell the tale of how he does.

I have confidence that this staff will figure out what they do best and evolve to it. Like Nightowl, I'd be having auditions right now in the secondary. Not only backup DBs, but also if you're a backup RB or WR who has speed and can tackle, we just might get you a lot more playing time. A pass rush would obviously help, but that's probably a long term project.

(09-09-2018 08:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 08:49 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 08:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 08:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 02:33 AM)elw4796 Wrote:  I'm just exuberant to see that we made legitimate and effective defensive adjustments midway through the game. Let's hope these type of close games turn into wins as the season moves along.

I too am happy to see adjustments being made. I just wonder why we were not ready for those kinds of plays to begin with. We gave up 14 quick points, and ended up losing by 14.

I think that's a fair question. I think that's probably because this is a new staff implementing a new system, and it will take some time to evaluate fully what we have. It's not like anybody else has started out strong against them.

Tough to be ready when guys are just getting beat. The first 14 points we never got to their qb and their best receiver just blew past our guys 7 times for 100 yards.

The point is, after getting down 14 we did something then to adjust to whatever they were doing. I don't know what it was, but my question is why didn't we start the game with it?

Their first two drives were 7 plays each, and netted 140 yards and two TDs. Somebody made the comment that that receiver would end up with 1,000 yards. (He actually ended u with 133). What everever we were doing to start the game was not working. I am very glad we adjusted, but was there a need to adjust? Was UH doing something unexpected?

??? Buddy, by this logic no one-- college or pros-- would ever have to make adjustments in a game. Yes, you can study film and prepare for a certain set of offensive formations and plays, but you don't know before the whistle blows how your personnel will stand up against their personnel. Bloom and Smith probably assumed going in our DL would hold up a bit better against Hawaii's OL, and put at least some non-blitzing pressure on their QB. That didn't happen. Consequently, the defensive adjustments were made to start blitzing, and from a variety of formations so as to hide it.

(09-09-2018 10:33 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 08:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 08:49 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 08:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 08:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I too am happy to see adjustments being made. I just wonder why we were not ready for those kinds of plays to begin with. We gave up 14 quick points, and ended up losing by 14.

I think that's a fair question. I think that's probably because this is a new staff implementing a new system, and it will take some time to evaluate fully what we have. It's not like anybody else has started out strong against them.

Tough to be ready when guys are just getting beat. The first 14 points we never got to their qb and their best receiver just blew past our guys 7 times for 100 yards.

The point is, after getting down 14 we did something then to adjust to whatever they were doing. I don't know what it was, but my question is why didn't we start the game with it?

Their first two drives were 7 plays each, and netted 140 yards and two TDs. Somebody made the comment that that receiver would end up with 1,000 yards. (He actually ended u with 133). What everever we were doing to start the game was not working. I am very glad we adjusted, but was there a need to adjust? Was UH doing something unexpected?

??? Buddy, by this logic no one-- college or pros-- would ever have to make adjustments in a game. Yes, you can study film and prepare for a certain set of offensive formations and plays, but you don't know before the whistle blows how your personnel will stand up against their personnel. Bloom and Smith probably assumed going in our DL would hold up a bit better against Hawaii's OL, and put at least some non-blitzing pressure on their QB. That didn't happen. Consequently, the defensive adjustments were made to start blitzing, and from a variety of formations so as to hide it.

Good adjustments. Glad to have them


But I have heard so much here about being prepared or being unprepared, and it seems to me that needing to make adjustments in the first quarter means we were not prepared for what they did. If we had been, we should/would have been blitzing from the git-go. Or something different from what we did. But we were down 14 PDQ. What did Hawaii do on those first two drives that surprised us, and why did it surprise us? If it was something new they hadn't shown before, I can understand that. If not, then I am, as you say, ???

If giving up 14 quick points on two 7 play drives to start the game means we were prepared, then I need a new definition of prepared.

I don’t think we were all that prepared for Hawaii’s quick slant passes and the fact that their QB got the ball away very quickly... in the first Q.
We got better. But we were rocked back pretty good at first.

(09-09-2018 11:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 10:33 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 08:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 08:49 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 08:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think that's a fair question. I think that's probably because this is a new staff implementing a new system, and it will take some time to evaluate fully what we have. It's not like anybody else has started out strong against them.

Tough to be ready when guys are just getting beat. The first 14 points we never got to their qb and their best receiver just blew past our guys 7 times for 100 yards.

The point is, after getting down 14 we did something then to adjust to whatever they were doing. I don't know what it was, but my question is why didn't we start the game with it?

Their first two drives were 7 plays each, and netted 140 yards and two TDs. Somebody made the comment that that receiver would end up with 1,000 yards. (He actually ended u with 133). What everever we were doing to start the game was not working. I am very glad we adjusted, but was there a need to adjust? Was UH doing something unexpected?

??? Buddy, by this logic no one-- college or pros-- would ever have to make adjustments in a game. Yes, you can study film and prepare for a certain set of offensive formations and plays, but you don't know before the whistle blows how your personnel will stand up against their personnel. Bloom and Smith probably assumed going in our DL would hold up a bit better against Hawaii's OL, and put at least some non-blitzing pressure on their QB. That didn't happen. Consequently, the defensive adjustments were made to start blitzing, and from a variety of formations so as to hide it.

Good adjustments. Glad to have them


But I have heard so much here about being prepared or being unprepared, and it seems to me that needing to make adjustments in the first quarter means we were not prepared for what they did. If we had been, we should/would have been blitzing from the git-go. Or something different from what we did. But we were down 14 PDQ. What did Hawaii do on those first two drives that surprised us, and why did it surprise us? If it was something new they hadn't shown before, I can understand that. If not, then I am, as you say, ???

If giving up 14 quick points on two 7 play drives to start the game means we were prepared, then I need a new definition of prepared.

I think you’re being slow on purpose, but again we had guys there but the top receiver for Hawaii was just too quick. Our defensive line couldn’t get pressure without blitzing so we brought more guys after the first 2 series. It’s not unreasonable for our game plan to have been “our Dline can get pressure on their young Oline so let’s help our secondary by dropping more guy”. Well that didn’t work because we didn’t get pressure without a blitz and it doesn’t matter how many guys we have in the secondary when their receivers are faster.

(09-09-2018 12:31 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 11:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 10:33 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 08:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 08:49 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  Tough to be ready when guys are just getting beat. The first 14 points we never got to their qb and their best receiver just blew past our guys 7 times for 100 yards.

The point is, after getting down 14 we did something then to adjust to whatever they were doing. I don't know what it was, but my question is why didn't we start the game with it?

Their first two drives were 7 plays each, and netted 140 yards and two TDs. Somebody made the comment that that receiver would end up with 1,000 yards. (He actually ended u with 133). What everever we were doing to start the game was not working. I am very glad we adjusted, but was there a need to adjust? Was UH doing something unexpected?

??? Buddy, by this logic no one-- college or pros-- would ever have to make adjustments in a game. Yes, you can study film and prepare for a certain set of offensive formations and plays, but you don't know before the whistle blows how your personnel will stand up against their personnel. Bloom and Smith probably assumed going in our DL would hold up a bit better against Hawaii's OL, and put at least some non-blitzing pressure on their QB. That didn't happen. Consequently, the defensive adjustments were made to start blitzing, and from a variety of formations so as to hide it.

Good adjustments. Glad to have them


But I have heard so much here about being prepared or being unprepared, and it seems to me that needing to make adjustments in the first quarter means we were not prepared for what they did. If we had been, we should/would have been blitzing from the git-go. Or something different from what we did. But we were down 14 PDQ. What did Hawaii do on those first two drives that surprised us, and why did it surprise us? If it was something new they hadn't shown before, I can understand that. If not, then I am, as you say, ???

If giving up 14 quick points on two 7 play drives to start the game means we were prepared, then I need a new definition of prepared.

I think you’re being slow on purpose, but again we had guys there but the top receiver for Hawaii was just too quick. Our defensive line couldn’t get pressure without blitzing so we brought more guys after the first 2 series. It’s not unreasonable for our game plan to have been “our Dline can get pressure on their young Oline so let’s help our secondary by dropping more guy”. Well that didn’t work because we didn’t get pressure without a blitz and it doesn’t matter how many guys we have in the secondary when their receivers are faster.

so in your opinion we were well prepared, just wrong?

No, I am not being slow, either on purpose or by accident. We had to make adjustments because the defense we had prepared was not working.

answer me these questions:
1. Should our defensive coaches have known we "couldn’t get pressure without blitzing"? If so, why not plan to blitz from the start instead of waiting until after we are down 14?

2. Should we have known "the top receiver for Hawaii was just too quick."? If so, should we have made plans to counter that?

It's not that we didn't have ways to counter the attack we saw on the first two possessions. We did. and we employed it...AFTER we gave up two TDS. If we employ it from the git-go, maybe we win.

(09-09-2018 01:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 12:31 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 11:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 10:33 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 08:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The point is, after getting down 14 we did something then to adjust to whatever they were doing. I don't know what it was, but my question is why didn't we start the game with it?

Their first two drives were 7 plays each, and netted 140 yards and two TDs. Somebody made the comment that that receiver would end up with 1,000 yards. (He actually ended u with 133). What everever we were doing to start the game was not working. I am very glad we adjusted, but was there a need to adjust? Was UH doing something unexpected?

??? Buddy, by this logic no one-- college or pros-- would ever have to make adjustments in a game. Yes, you can study film and prepare for a certain set of offensive formations and plays, but you don't know before the whistle blows how your personnel will stand up against their personnel. Bloom and Smith probably assumed going in our DL would hold up a bit better against Hawaii's OL, and put at least some non-blitzing pressure on their QB. That didn't happen. Consequently, the defensive adjustments were made to start blitzing, and from a variety of formations so as to hide it.

Good adjustments. Glad to have them


But I have heard so much here about being prepared or being unprepared, and it seems to me that needing to make adjustments in the first quarter means we were not prepared for what they did. If we had been, we should/would have been blitzing from the git-go. Or something different from what we did. But we were down 14 PDQ. What did Hawaii do on those first two drives that surprised us, and why did it surprise us? If it was something new they hadn't shown before, I can understand that. If not, then I am, as you say, ???

If giving up 14 quick points on two 7 play drives to start the game means we were prepared, then I need a new definition of prepared.

I think you’re being slow on purpose, but again we had guys there but the top receiver for Hawaii was just too quick. Our defensive line couldn’t get pressure without blitzing so we brought more guys after the first 2 series. It’s not unreasonable for our game plan to have been “our Dline can get pressure on their young Oline so let’s help our secondary by dropping more guy”. Well that didn’t work because we didn’t get pressure without a blitz and it doesn’t matter how many guys we have in the secondary when their receivers are faster.

so in your opinion we were well prepared, just wrong?

No, I am not being slow, either on purpose or by accident. We had to make adjustments because the defense we had prepared was not working.

answer me these questions:
1. Should our defensive coaches have known we "couldn’t get pressure without blitzing"? If so, why not plan to blitz from the start instead of waiting until after we are down 14?

2. Should we have known "the top receiver for Hawaii was just too quick."? If so, should we have made plans to counter that?

It's not that we didn't have ways to counter the attack we saw on the first two possessions. We did. and we employed it...AFTER we gave up two TDS. If we employ it from the git-go, maybe we win.

1. No. We have an experienced D line going up against a young front for Hawaii. I’m sure every defensive coordinator wants to first try to get pressure without a blitz.

2. We didn’t get burned deep. We knew he was quick and kept him in front of us and they beat us on the slant.

I’m not really sure what you’re trying to nit pick here. Our secondary is a weakness and we’re going to be able to scheme around that sometimes. The players still make the plays.

(09-09-2018 01:45 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 01:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 12:31 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 11:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 10:33 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  ??? Buddy, by this logic no one-- college or pros-- would ever have to make adjustments in a game. Yes, you can study film and prepare for a certain set of offensive formations and plays, but you don't know before the whistle blows how your personnel will stand up against their personnel. Bloom and Smith probably assumed going in our DL would hold up a bit better against Hawaii's OL, and put at least some non-blitzing pressure on their QB. That didn't happen. Consequently, the defensive adjustments were made to start blitzing, and from a variety of formations so as to hide it.

Good adjustments. Glad to have them


But I have heard so much here about being prepared or being unprepared, and it seems to me that needing to make adjustments in the first quarter means we were not prepared for what they did. If we had been, we should/would have been blitzing from the git-go. Or something different from what we did. But we were down 14 PDQ. What did Hawaii do on those first two drives that surprised us, and why did it surprise us? If it was something new they hadn't shown before, I can understand that. If not, then I am, as you say, ???

If giving up 14 quick points on two 7 play drives to start the game means we were prepared, then I need a new definition of prepared.

I think you’re being slow on purpose, but again we had guys there but the top receiver for Hawaii was just too quick. Our defensive line couldn’t get pressure without blitzing so we brought more guys after the first 2 series. It’s not unreasonable for our game plan to have been “our Dline can get pressure on their young Oline so let’s help our secondary by dropping more guy”. Well that didn’t work because we didn’t get pressure without a blitz and it doesn’t matter how many guys we have in the secondary when their receivers are faster.

so in your opinion we were well prepared, just wrong?

No, I am not being slow, either on purpose or by accident. We had to make adjustments because the defense we had prepared was not working.

answer me these questions:
1. Should our defensive coaches have known we "couldn’t get pressure without blitzing"? If so, why not plan to blitz from the start instead of waiting until after we are down 14?

2. Should we have known "the top receiver for Hawaii was just too quick."? If so, should we have made plans to counter that?

It's not that we didn't have ways to counter the attack we saw on the first two possessions. We did. and we employed it...AFTER we gave up two TDS. If we employ it from the git-go, maybe we win.

1. No. We have an experienced D line going up against a young front for Hawaii. I’m sure every defensive coordinator wants to first try to get pressure without a blitz.

2. We didn’t get burned deep. We knew he was quick and kept him in front of us and they beat us on the slant.

I’m not really sure what you’re trying to nit pick here. Our secondary is a weakness and we’re going to be able to scheme around that sometimes. The players still make the plays.

Okey-doke, i can put into one sentence what I am saying. If you give up 14 points and 140 yards in 14 plays, THEN make adjustments, maybe you were not prepared at the start of the game for what they threw at us.

I'll put you down as very satisfied with our prep. Personally I would preferred that they force two punts.

(09-09-2018 01:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 01:45 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 01:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 12:31 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 11:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Good adjustments. Glad to have them


But I have heard so much here about being prepared or being unprepared, and it seems to me that needing to make adjustments in the first quarter means we were not prepared for what they did. If we had been, we should/would have been blitzing from the git-go. Or something different from what we did. But we were down 14 PDQ. What did Hawaii do on those first two drives that surprised us, and why did it surprise us? If it was something new they hadn't shown before, I can understand that. If not, then I am, as you say, ???

If giving up 14 quick points on two 7 play drives to start the game means we were prepared, then I need a new definition of prepared.

I think you’re being slow on purpose, but again we had guys there but the top receiver for Hawaii was just too quick. Our defensive line couldn’t get pressure without blitzing so we brought more guys after the first 2 series. It’s not unreasonable for our game plan to have been “our Dline can get pressure on their young Oline so let’s help our secondary by dropping more guy”. Well that didn’t work because we didn’t get pressure without a blitz and it doesn’t matter how many guys we have in the secondary when their receivers are faster.

so in your opinion we were well prepared, just wrong?

No, I am not being slow, either on purpose or by accident. We had to make adjustments because the defense we had prepared was not working.

answer me these questions:
1. Should our defensive coaches have known we "couldn’t get pressure without blitzing"? If so, why not plan to blitz from the start instead of waiting until after we are down 14?

2. Should we have known "the top receiver for Hawaii was just too quick."? If so, should we have made plans to counter that?

It's not that we didn't have ways to counter the attack we saw on the first two possessions. We did. and we employed it...AFTER we gave up two TDS. If we employ it from the git-go, maybe we win.

1. No. We have an experienced D line going up against a young front for Hawaii. I’m sure every defensive coordinator wants to first try to get pressure without a blitz.

2. We didn’t get burned deep. We knew he was quick and kept him in front of us and they beat us on the slant.

I’m not really sure what you’re trying to nit pick here. Our secondary is a weakness and we’re going to be able to scheme around that sometimes. The players still make the plays.

Okey-doke, i can put into one sentence what I am saying. If you give up 14 points and 140 yards in 14 plays, THEN make adjustments, maybe you were not prepared at the start of the game for what they threw at us.

I'll put you down as very satisfied with our prep. Personally I would preferred that they force two punts.

What you are describing as unpreparedness is vastly and categorically different than what others meant by it when in years previous the team showed up on the field unready to play, as evidenced in the Stanford game last year. The equivalence you are coyly inferring is a false one.

(09-09-2018 01:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  so in your opinion we were well prepared, just wrong?
No, I am not being slow, either on purpose or by accident. We had to make adjustments because the defense we had prepared was not working.
answer me these questions:
1. Should our defensive coaches have known we "couldn’t get pressure without blitzing"? If so, why not plan to blitz from the start instead of waiting until after we are down 14?
2. Should we have known "the top receiver for Hawaii was just too quick."? If so, should we have made plans to counter that?
It's not that we didn't have ways to counter the attack we saw on the first two possessions. We did. and we employed it...AFTER we gave up two TDS. If we employ it from the git-go, maybe we win.

Moltke (paraphrased) - "No plan survives contact with the enemy."

It's week three of year one. Coaches are still learning personnel. Remember, the expectation coming in was that our secondary was going to get torched, badly. Even the bad start was not as bad as many were expecting, and certainly not as bad as last year would have gone against comparable opposition. Every week the staff learns more about our players. Every week those players should get better. We're already better than many thought we had a chance to be. I think we've already evolved from being more man to more zone. We've had to, because we don't have athletes that we can leave out on an island.

What will disappoint me greatly is if, as the season goes along, we don't learn and grow an adapt. That was what drove me to frustration about the last staff. If something wasn't working, they didn't change it. It's like the comment in the political arena about how socialism will work, it's just never been done right. Bailiff's approach was that his schemes could work, they've just never been done right, so stay with them until we do them right. Except the reason they've never been done right is because we didn't have the talent to do them right.

We probably knew we couldn't get pressure without blitzing, and we probably knew that their top receiver was too quick. We can probably get pressure if we rush 7, and we can probably contain the receiver of we triple-team him. But if we rush 7 and triple team the receiver, that leaves 1 person to defend the rest of the field. So we build a game plan based on what we think or maybe hope we can do, and adjust based on how it goes.

We've got a philosophy--pound the rock, run the clock, and play great defense. We've got a talent level that determines how well we can do each of those. Right now, we don't really have the talent to execute that philosophy. So we have to adapt. Every week we learn more about what works and what doesn't. Worst case, we seem a lot better in all respects than last year.

(09-09-2018 02:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 01:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  so in your opinion we were well prepared, just wrong?
No, I am not being slow, either on purpose or by accident. We had to make adjustments because the defense we had prepared was not working.
answer me these questions:
1. Should our defensive coaches have known we "couldn’t get pressure without blitzing"? If so, why not plan to blitz from the start instead of waiting until after we are down 14?
2. Should we have known "the top receiver for Hawaii was just too quick."? If so, should we have made plans to counter that?
It's not that we didn't have ways to counter the attack we saw on the first two possessions. We did. and we employed it...AFTER we gave up two TDS. If we employ it from the git-go, maybe we win.

Moltke (paraphrased) - "No plan survives contact with the enemy."

It's week three of year one. Coaches are still learning personnel. Remember, the expectation coming in was that our secondary was going to get torched, badly. Even the bad start was not as bad as many were expecting, and certainly not as bad as last year would have gone against comparable opposition. Every week the staff learns more about our players. Every week those players should get better. We're already better than many thought we had a chance to be. I think we've already evolved from being more man to more zone. We've had to, because we don't have athletes that we can leave out on an island.

What will disappoint me greatly is if, as the season goes along, we don't learn and grow an adapt. That was what drove me to frustration about the last staff. If something wasn't working, they didn't change it. It's like the comment in the political arena about how socialism will work, it's just never been done right. Bailiff's approach was that his schemes could work, they've just never been done right, so stay with them until we do them right. Except the reason they've never been done right is because we didn't have the talent to do them right.

We probably knew we couldn't get pressure without blitzing, and we probably knew that their top receiver was too quick. We can probably get pressure if we rush 7, and we can probably contain the receiver of we triple-team him. But if we rush 7 and triple team the receiver, that leaves 1 person to defend the rest of the field. So we build a game plan based on what we think or maybe hope we can do, and adjust based on how it goes.

We've got a philosophy--pound the rock, run the clock, and play great defense. We've got a talent level that determines how well we can do each of those. Right now, we don't really have the talent to execute that philosophy. So we have to adapt. Every week we learn more about what works and what doesn't. Worst case, we seem a lot better in all respects than last year.

With regards to philosophy, you're forgetting the all-important fourth pillar (which helps the defense)-- win the specialty teams play. The problem we have this year, until we get some talent reinforcement, is the play great defense part. On special teams, I'm waiting for Lembo to unleash the punt blocking scheme.

I also appreciate that Bloomgren did not come to Rice as an experienced head coach, but is new to the job, and is on a learning curve. He makes mistakes, and acknowledges them. I think he'll improve too, because he corrects mistakes rather than doubling down on them, at least so far.

(09-09-2018 02:15 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 02:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 01:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  so in your opinion we were well prepared, just wrong?
No, I am not being slow, either on purpose or by accident. We had to make adjustments because the defense we had prepared was not working.
answer me these questions:
1. Should our defensive coaches have known we "couldn’t get pressure without blitzing"? If so, why not plan to blitz from the start instead of waiting until after we are down 14?
2. Should we have known "the top receiver for Hawaii was just too quick."? If so, should we have made plans to counter that?
It's not that we didn't have ways to counter the attack we saw on the first two possessions. We did. and we employed it...AFTER we gave up two TDS. If we employ it from the git-go, maybe we win.

Moltke (paraphrased) - "No plan survives contact with the enemy."

It's week three of year one. Coaches are still learning personnel. Remember, the expectation coming in was that our secondary was going to get torched, badly. Even the bad start was not as bad as many were expecting, and certainly not as bad as last year would have gone against comparable opposition. Every week the staff learns more about our players. Every week those players should get better. We're already better than many thought we had a chance to be. I think we've already evolved from being more man to more zone. We've had to, because we don't have athletes that we can leave out on an island.

What will disappoint me greatly is if, as the season goes along, we don't learn and grow an adapt. That was what drove me to frustration about the last staff. If something wasn't working, they didn't change it. It's like the comment in the political arena about how socialism will work, it's just never been done right. Bailiff's approach was that his schemes could work, they've just never been done right, so stay with them until we do them right. Except the reason they've never been done right is because we didn't have the talent to do them right.

We probably knew we couldn't get pressure without blitzing, and we probably knew that their top receiver was too quick. We can probably get pressure if we rush 7, and we can probably contain the receiver of we triple-team him. But if we rush 7 and triple team the receiver, that leaves 1 person to defend the rest of the field. So we build a game plan based on what we think or maybe hope we can do, and adjust based on how it goes.

We've got a philosophy--pound the rock, run the clock, and play great defense. We've got a talent level that determines how well we can do each of those. Right now, we don't really have the talent to execute that philosophy. So we have to adapt. Every week we learn more about what works and what doesn't. Worst case, we seem a lot better in all respects than last year.

With regards to philosophy, you're forgetting the all-important fourth pillar (which helps the defense)-- win the specialty teams play. The problem we have this year, until we get some talent reinforcement, is the play great defense part. On special teams, I'm waiting for Lembo to unleash the punt blocking scheme.

It is still early and we only have 3 data points, but Rice's average starting field position has improved.

2018: 35 yard line (top third)
2017: 27 yard line (4th from the bottom)
2016: 29 yard line (bottom third)

Its only 3 data points, so extrapolate with a big *.

What UH did at start of game and why it worked.....
Play action to read LB. LB has gap responsibility to run shown. LB comes up to fill QB pulls and throws to slant going to space LB vacated. Corner has deep outside and didn’t come over top to cover and underneath was vacated.
Adjustment is to show LB having that gap still but stunting and bringing someone else to cover that gap and drop LB underneath. Or, drop corner underneath and put a safety over while taking safety out of gap responsibility to that gap.
So, you may not know that play is the game plan but once you see it you adjust.

(09-09-2018 02:15 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 02:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 01:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  so in your opinion we were well prepared, just wrong?
No, I am not being slow, either on purpose or by accident. We had to make adjustments because the defense we had prepared was not working.
answer me these questions:
1. Should our defensive coaches have known we "couldn’t get pressure without blitzing"? If so, why not plan to blitz from the start instead of waiting until after we are down 14?
2. Should we have known "the top receiver for Hawaii was just too quick."? If so, should we have made plans to counter that?
It's not that we didn't have ways to counter the attack we saw on the first two possessions. We did. and we employed it...AFTER we gave up two TDS. If we employ it from the git-go, maybe we win.

Moltke (paraphrased) - "No plan survives contact with the enemy."
It's week three of year one. Coaches are still learning personnel. Remember, the expectation coming in was that our secondary was going to get torched, badly. Even the bad start was not as bad as many were expecting, and certainly not as bad as last year would have gone against comparable opposition. Every week the staff learns more about our players. Every week those players should get better. We're already better than many thought we had a chance to be. I think we've already evolved from being more man to more zone. We've had to, because we don't have athletes that we can leave out on an island.
What will disappoint me greatly is if, as the season goes along, we don't learn and grow an adapt. That was what drove me to frustration about the last staff. If something wasn't working, they didn't change it. It's like the comment in the political arena about how socialism will work, it's just never been done right. Bailiff's approach was that his schemes could work, they've just never been done right, so stay with them until we do them right. Except the reason they've never been done right is because we didn't have the talent to do them right.
We probably knew we couldn't get pressure without blitzing, and we probably knew that their top receiver was too quick. We can probably get pressure if we rush 7, and we can probably contain the receiver of we triple-team him. But if we rush 7 and triple team the receiver, that leaves 1 person to defend the rest of the field. So we build a game plan based on what we think or maybe hope we can do, and adjust based on how it goes.
We've got a philosophy--pound the rock, run the clock, and play great defense. We've got a talent level that determines how well we can do each of those. Right now, we don't really have the talent to execute that philosophy. So we have to adapt. Every week we learn more about what works and what doesn't. Worst case, we seem a lot better in all respects than last year.

With regards to philosophy, you're forgetting the all-important fourth pillar (which helps the defense)-- win the specialty teams play. The problem we have this year, until we get some talent reinforcement, is the play great defense part. On special teams, I'm waiting for Lembo to unleash the punt blocking scheme.

Wow, Walt, I don't think anybody has ever accused me of underemphasizing the kicking game. I omitted it only because I was quoting the stated football philosophy of our head coach. Heck, my stated philosophy has been oft-repeated--play great defense, win the kicking game, and do something contrarian on offense--and that latter could be flexbone or Ruowls's vector passing game or something else.

But the greater emphasis on special teams has clearly been apparent, and I think we've probably won the special teams battle in each game so far. We certainly have not lost it by the margins that we did routinely under Bailiff. We may have won the special teams phase more times in three games under Bloomgren, than in 11 years under Bailiff.

Quote:We certainly have not lost it by the margins that we did routinely under Bailiff.

With the fake punt from last year as the poster child, it will be excrutiatingly hard to to lose the special teams battle as bad as last year, mind you.

I mean realistically, this is like saying "Our students this year are much better at hearing the warnings of car horns" when your school last year was the Texas School for the Deaf.