For all the renovations, the ugliest part of the stadium might still be the concrete bench areas in the endzone. Even being used to seeing them on the broadcast, they're such eyesores.

Also, somebody might be able to correct me, but I think we've run 5 or 6 toss plays for a combined 5 or 6 yards. Nothing new, but that play needs to be out of the playbook.

Good pressure on 3rd and goal to force a FG attempt. It’s good 45-10.

Well that toss back went for about 20 yards. So I guess we’ll see more of it. Sigh!

I am really liking TJ's arm and have wondered why Otoviano isn't used more

It's being nitpicky (kind of), but outside of one or two biggish runs, our run game has been really underwhelming. Taking out McMahon's scrambles, we're at 28 attempts for 119 yards. 4.25 yards per rush (and if you take out Otoviano's long of 22, it goes down to an abysmal 3.55 yards per rush). Montana State, again setting aside their QB, ran it 42 times for 300 yards in their week 1 win against McNeese. A healthy 7.14 yards per rush. That's dominant and, realistically, you'd hope for those numbers from a team that's built around running the football. In reality, Montana State's line was much more effective against McNeese's front.

(09-10-2022 09:05 PM)elw4796 Wrote:  It's being nitpicky (kind of), but outside of one or two biggish runs, our run game has been really underwhelming. Taking out McMahon's scrambles, we're at 28 attempts for 119 yards. 4.25 yards per rush (and if you take out Otoviano's long of 22, it goes down to an abysmal 3.55 yards per rush). Montana State, again setting aside their QB, ran it 42 times for 300 yards in their week 1 win against McNeese. A healthy 7.14 yards per rush. That's dominant and, realistically, you'd hope for those numbers from a team that's built around running the football. In reality, Montana State's line was much more effective against McNeese's front.

With all due respect it's freaking 52-10!! I could give a crap

(09-10-2022 09:05 PM)owlatheart Wrote:  I am really liking TJ's arm and have wondered why Otoviano isn't used more

Dunno, but TJ has connected with 11 different receivers on his first 20 completions (20/26)

Looks like Itraish is the next guy on the depth chart.

(09-10-2022 09:17 PM)owlatheart Wrote:  

(09-10-2022 09:05 PM)elw4796 Wrote:  It's being nitpicky (kind of), but outside of one or two biggish runs, our run game has been really underwhelming. Taking out McMahon's scrambles, we're at 28 attempts for 119 yards. 4.25 yards per rush (and if you take out Otoviano's long of 22, it goes down to an abysmal 3.55 yards per rush). Montana State, again setting aside their QB, ran it 42 times for 300 yards in their week 1 win against McNeese. A healthy 7.14 yards per rush. That's dominant and, realistically, you'd hope for those numbers from a team that's built around running the football. In reality, Montana State's line was much more effective against McNeese's front.

With all due respect it's freaking 52-10!! I could give a crap

If this margin stands, it would be Rice’s largest margin of victory since the 77-20 shellacking of UNT (non-conference) back in 2008

(09-10-2022 09:23 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(09-10-2022 09:17 PM)owlatheart Wrote:  

(09-10-2022 09:05 PM)elw4796 Wrote:  It's being nitpicky (kind of), but outside of one or two biggish runs, our run game has been really underwhelming. Taking out McMahon's scrambles, we're at 28 attempts for 119 yards. 4.25 yards per rush (and if you take out Otoviano's long of 22, it goes down to an abysmal 3.55 yards per rush). Montana State, again setting aside their QB, ran it 42 times for 300 yards in their week 1 win against McNeese. A healthy 7.14 yards per rush. That's dominant and, realistically, you'd hope for those numbers from a team that's built around running the football. In reality, Montana State's line was much more effective against McNeese's front.

With all due respect it's freaking 52-10!! I could give a crap

If this margin stands, it would be Rice’s largest margin of victory since the 77-20 shellacking of UNT (non-conference) back in 2008

With Todd Dodge as UNT HC.

That’s at least 5 turnovers for McNeese. Ouch!

Damn nice win for the Owls, congrats

(09-10-2022 07:32 PM)owlatheart Wrote:  PICK 6!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That was one heck of run after the pick. He just turned on the jets and out ran the entire McNeese team.

Positives:
- Receivers got open, had good hands by and large
- I didn't like McMahon's accuracy on deep balls but he looks really good at everything else
- Secondary with the turnovers
- OL and DL
- Lack of surprises with special teams

Negatives
- attendance/atmosphere
- espn color guy opposite Salzman

No real complaints outside of missed opportunities on long passes due to inaccurate throws

I was impressed with Rice's depth yesterday. We played a ton of guys, and there were newcomers late in the 4th quarter who were very impressive (Kenny Seymour's strip sack fumble for example). It was also odd to see former starters only making their first appearance in mop-up time.

It looks like we have a few minor injuries (Green, Patterson) but our depth is about as good as I've seen it in recent years.

I was listening to the radio broadcast last weekend, and Butch Alsandor couldn't stop talking about this team's depth. I wish we had a coach who knew what to do with it.

(09-11-2022 07:30 AM)Ourland Wrote:  I was listening to the radio broadcast last weekend, and Butch Alsandor couldn't stop talking about this team's depth. I wish we had a coach who knew what to do with it.

Rolled right over McNeese State for starters

(09-10-2022 08:48 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(09-10-2022 08:41 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  This offense looks familiar…circa 2008.

And the Bloom offense rears its ugly head. 3rd and 2 and he goes back to the toss back play which loses 3. Why???

Because we averaged 5 yards a run, and running keeps the clock going, even if the play is not successful?

(09-11-2022 10:43 AM)bigowlsfan Wrote:  

(09-10-2022 08:48 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(09-10-2022 08:41 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  This offense looks familiar…circa 2008.

And the Bloom offense rears its ugly head. 3rd and 2 and he goes back to the toss back play which loses 3. Why???

Because we averaged 5 yards a run, and running keeps the clock going, even if the play is not successful?

A team, this team, can run successfully without tossing the ball backwards several yards. More negative to neutral results than positive results from the toss back play.

(09-11-2022 11:33 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(09-11-2022 10:43 AM)bigowlsfan Wrote:  

(09-10-2022 08:48 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(09-10-2022 08:41 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  This offense looks familiar…circa 2008.

And the Bloom offense rears its ugly head. 3rd and 2 and he goes back to the toss back play which loses 3. Why???

Because we averaged 5 yards a run, and running keeps the clock going, even if the play is not successful?

A team, this team, can run successfully without tossing the ball backwards several yards. More negative to neutral results than positive results from the toss back play.

The toss dive doesn't fail because the ball goes backwards. A traditional handoff takes it back, too, and so did the snaps to all our McHargue-Ross option plays in 2012-13. The theory of the toss dive is supposed to be that the ball gets to the halfback's hands more quickly, giving him more time to react to the how the blocking develops. The deficiency in the design is that it gives away the inside run call that much more quickly, letting the linebackers and secondary key in on their run fits a few steps earlier. Even if the HB has more time to read the blocking, there's likely fewer gaps to find than if the defense was concerned about whether the QB kept the ball on a bootleg coming out of the handoff. We could maybe relieve some of this pressure by having the HB try a pop pass to a tight end from time to time, but Bloomgren's (and David Shaw's) entire thesis for running this instead of a traditional handoff is the belief that the o-line is or should be so dominant anyway that the run should succeed regardless of how the HB gets the ball.