Let’s dismiss the idea that some of you keep floatingbthat there were people here who expected an upset. If you want to believe that things will be better when we go from too25 teams to bottom 25, that’s fine and perhaps true... but there is a WHOLE LOT between those two. You’re arguing in the absurd to dismiss the very real and visual opinions of others.

There is a difference in being competitive....

And competing

Our players competed. I’m not sure our offensive schemes can be competitive.... even with bottom 25 teams. Lots of teams in CUSA can score 21+, even against top teams. We aren’t a top 25 defense and I don’t know if we can score 21+ With this offense

Green was passing before the game. I would expect to see him back soon.

There are a couple of positives.

Totals Through three games:

1 turnover

6 penalties for 37 yards

Considering the competition, I think those numbers are outstanding.

During the Bailiff years, turnovers and penalties were considered indicators of an unprepared squad.

So I guess these indicate we are prepared, just not able.

So far, I am not pleased with Bloom, but not totally displeased either. In any case, we owe him three years.

All of you who are complaining about the offense, what would you do instead?

I do give Bloom (and most all NFL/D-1 offensive coaches) a pass when you are forced into using your 2nd string QB. So will grade the offensive performance with a 'incomplete' . What was more concerning is the regression to prior DB teams on giving up big plays, inability to get off the field on 3rd down, and poor Special Teams. Those bothered me more than the inept offense. We should get Green back for Baylor game and expect to see more offensive production but if we get the same ST and Defense we saw last night, Baylor will hang 60 as they will run it up (should say pass it up) and maybe we score 28-31 with a better playmaking QB at the helm.

(09-15-2019 08:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  There are a couple of positives.

Totals Through three games:

1 turnover

6 penalties for 37 yards

Considering the competition, I think those numbers are outstanding.

During the Bailiff years, turnovers and penalties were considered indicators of an unprepared squad.

So I guess these indicate we are prepared, just not able.

So far, I am not pleased with Bloom, but not totally displeased either. In any case, we owe him three years.

+1

Well said.

On the positive side I liked our unis last night.

(09-15-2019 08:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  All of you who are complaining about the offense, what would you do instead?

More even split between throwing and running. I'd rather see our last two drives yesterday become the norm. It's too easy for teams to stack the box on first and second down against us. Sure, that makes them vulnerable to the early down shot, but we seemingly don't ever take it. Just open up the playbook a little. Throw the ball on first down. I feel like we actually have three decent receivers in Rozner, Trammel, and Pitre who could all be weapons in the right system.

Generally just less predictability. I'll probably be fine with this style of play come conference games (even though it's boring) because the physical battle won't be as lopsided, but we needed to wrinkles against Wake, Texas, and Baylor and we haven't seen enough.

(09-15-2019 08:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  All of you who are complaining about the offense, what would you do instead?

ANYTHING BUT THIS:

Here are the Rice possessions to open the game:

(1) run (first down); run, run, pass attempt, punt

(2) run, run, pass attempt, punt

(3) run, run, pass attempt, punt

(4) sack, run, run, punt

(5) run, run, pass attempt, punt

By the time Rice had its next possession, it was Texas 31-0.

Rice had 8 possessions in the first 3 quarters. Only once did a possession start with a pass attempt.

Painfully disappointing! Feel for the defense who stayed on the field too long.

Don't be sad. What you expect when you have a university that didnt care about athletics until the last few years. Same as everyone, I do not understand why Bloom didnt try to pass on first down a few times. Stewart looked okay but he telegraphs where he is passing too. I don't think Stewart was our first choice of bringing an experience quaterback but probably no choice when you win only two games.
Did we ever run a zone defense or always man to man?

(09-15-2019 08:17 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Our players competed. I’m not sure our offensive schemes can be competitive.... even with bottom 25 teams. Lots of teams in CUSA can score 21+, even against top teams.

Ok, I'll bite: which teams in CUSA can score 21+ on a top-15 or even top-25 team? (not in garbage time)

(09-15-2019 08:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  All of you who are complaining about the offense, what would you do instead?

More pre-snap movement to help the team identify coverage schemes, then adjust based on those schemes.

More passes to RB, FB, and TE that are not in the flat.

The occasional deep shot. I only remember 3 or 4 yesterday. One hit the open WR in the face and he couldn’t make the catch. One long one to Trammel. Another long one where the WR had a step or 2 and Stewart overthrew him. I know a few of the sacks were probably because Rice was trying to go downfield, but a team like Rice has to take those shots to have a whisper of a chance against the UTs of the world.

Route patterns and combos like what ruowls writes about.

More play-action on 1st and 2nd down.

Against a team like UT, occasionally move the pocket around with bootlegs and designed rollouts.

It seems the debate, to the extent there is one, is over two strategies

A. "Minimize spread" -- run-heavy offense soaks up time, gives UT fewer possessions, limits what new QB has to do, in line with our overall philosophy. Tiny chance that you keep the game close into 4th and a turn-over or two can make it competitive late.

B. "Go down swinging" -- more passing creates potential for more big plays, more exciting to watch, higher "variance" in that it can minimize spread in a few cases but, on average, probably underperforms (A). But once you're down 3 TDs it's the only strategy that gives you any chance of competitiveness.

Bloom et al. clearly opted for (A) at least for the first 3 quarters, and it clearly did not work well. I don't really blame them for choosing (A) initially, as a priori it's unclear how things will unfold. But coming out at the half should've been all (B).

(09-15-2019 10:51 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(09-15-2019 08:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  All of you who are complaining about the offense, what would you do instead?

More pre-snap movement to help the team identify coverage schemes, then adjust based on those schemes.

More passes to RB, FB, and TE that are not in the flat.

The occasional deep shot. I only remember 3 or 4 yesterday. One hit the open WR in the face and he couldn’t make the catch. One long one to Trammel. Another long one where the WR had a step or 2 and Stewart overthrew him. I know a few of the sacks were probably because Rice was trying to go downfield, but a team like Rice has to take those shots to have a whisper of a chance against the UTs of the world.

Route patterns and combos like what ruowls writes about.

More play-action on 1st and 2nd down.

Against a team like UT, occasionally move the pocket around with bootlegs and designed rollouts.

Works for me

(09-15-2019 11:17 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  It seems the debate, to the extent there is one, is over two strategies

A. "Minimize spread" -- run-heavy offense soaks up time, gives UT fewer possessions, limits what new QB has to do, in line with our overall philosophy. Tiny chance that you keep the game close into 4th and a turn-over or two can make it competitive late.

B. "Go down swinging" -- more passing creates potential for more big plays, more exciting to watch, higher "variance" in that it can minimize spread in a few cases but, on average, probably underperforms (A). But once you're down 3 TDs it's the only strategy that gives you any chance of competitiveness.

Bloom et al. clearly opted for (A) at least for the first 3 quarters, and it clearly did not work well. I don't really blame them for choosing (A) initially, as a priori it's unclear how things will unfold. But coming out at the half should've been all (B).

Sure it is.
Offense is all predicated on increasing the probability of success. If you try to do something knowing it has a low probability of success, then you know exactly how bad it is going to be.

(09-15-2019 08:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  All of you who are complaining about the offense, what would you do instead?

How much time do you have?

(09-15-2019 06:48 AM)TFW Wrote:  I would have liked to have seen Marshman get a series or two. I would not have put Jovani Johnson in at QB; no reason to put him in a game like this.

Why does Stewart not know the full offense yet, or at least most of it? The announcers said he has a limited playbook. For a grad transfer, from Harvard, with game experience... I expect him to know the playbook by now. For the “football guys” here, is that unreasonable?

Any idea when our injured kicker will be available?

Honestly, this is just a means of deflection. For some reason, this is a myth that is perpetuated by many. It is a means to excuse poor performance.
For the record, if you go back and read a couple of newspaper articles from the mid-80s, this issue is actually referenced to the opposite. Rice had an offensive transfer come in and despite a 223 page offensive playbook, he had it down pat in a mere 2 days. However, the next year with the same playbook and coaches, he walks out of an offensive meeting and his position coach tells him he will be running after practice for not taking notes during the meeting. After letting the coach know just how asinine that would be, the player had to spend the next 20 minutes diagramming the playbook against a variety of defenses. He even diagrammed plays against defenses that weren't even in the playbook. Fortunately, he didn't have to run.

So, yes a transfer player should be able to learn a playbook very quickly. Yet, coaches still think it is some in depth key to life that takes years to decipher. And announcers parrot this misconception.

I've never seen a team so physically overmatched as I did last night. It was like a varsity high school team scrimmaging against it's freshmen. We are world's away from them in physical ability. Texas could have beaten us 95-0.

(09-15-2019 11:38 AM)ruowls Wrote:  

(09-15-2019 08:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  All of you who are complaining about the offense, what would you do instead?

How much time do you have?

Don't worry. I know you know what you are talking about. It's some of the others that I wonder about.