Forget UH. Let's start the Prairie View thread. I'm ready to predict a win.

The Big 12 sucks. Are they really a Power 4 conference? What a joke.

(09-06-2025 09:24 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(09-06-2025 09:05 PM)dragon2owl Wrote:  

(09-06-2025 09:02 PM)Ourland Wrote:  I'm encouraged. I predicted a 35-17 loss, so losing to UH comes as no surprise to me. We all know that they're more talented, and that we're only in year 1 with our new coach and new offense.

Other than Memphis, UH is the most talented team we face this season. I think we're doing fine. The defense is great, and the offense will only get better. Naysayers get your digs in now.

How about USF?

I was thinking the same thing. The Bulls upset Florida today, 18-16, in Gainesville.

Also, Army just tipped and intercepted a K-State pass to seal its 24-21 upset (in Manhattan, KS). So the Black Knights are likely far from an automatic Owl win.

(But maybe those two teams are not as talented, which was Ourland's assertion.)

I don’t think the Big 12 sucks - they may actually be the third best conference in the country this year. But the gap between the top two and number three is massive.

11 SEC teams in the top 25. 4 Big 10 schools in the top 10. FSU and Miami look solid.

And then huge gaps to everyone else.

(09-07-2025 08:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-06-2025 11:04 PM)picrig Wrote:  I listened to most of the game on the radio. Was driving. My general impressions after two games.

1) I'm generally impressed by the defense. Defense game up 28 points today, 12 last week. This week we played a former #1 QB recruit (and a starter at Texas A&M). Last week was against a former #5 QB recruit (who I saw is out for the season injured; hate to hear that). We've played talented QBs, and for large stretches held them in check. We've given up < 300 yards passing TOTAL in two games. Even the run defense held up well. Outside of the Connors TD run at the end of the half, UH had 37 carries for 150 yards. That'll play most weeks. We should continue to have a defense that keeps us in most games.

2) The offense has been mildly disappointing so far. I'm no scheme expert. Some on the board seem disenchanted already w/Abell's offense. People have also complained about Jenkins' throwing. The two seem they could be related to me. In the (youtube) videos I watched of Davidson's offense, there was a fair amount of chunk plays downfield throwing. Last year, Davidson averaged 8.8 yards per attempt passing. So far this year, we're at 4.5. How much of the lack of consistency running is simply due to to our current inability to pass (and is that scheme or talent)? It also seems like Jenkins has not been a factor running the ball yet, which has surprised me a little.

The amount of ink spilled on Abell's timeout before the half seems ridiculous (admittedly the vast majority is from WRC). For years, the complaint was that Bailiff, then Bloomgren played too conservatively. So Abell gets UH way behind the sticks, D has been lights out the entire half and decides to take a chance. Stop them, we get a decent return on the punt and maybe end up w/the ball w/in 25 yards of FG range w/1:00 left. Seems reasonable enough of a risk. Definitely not something that is just clearly an idiotic move.

In the end, most folks would've pegged us at 0-2. I would've liked to hang w/UH longer. I would like the offense to play better. Given Abell's history of successful rushing, I'm willing to have some patience there, and I would hope we start to see some more prolific rushing outputs over the next month. But man...tough customers here.

The TO to end the half wasn’t really consequential as UH had one to burn still.

Now, had out TO allowed them to run an extra play…

The first mistake was when Rice got the ball on their 20 after the UH punt at the 2 minute timeout. After a gain on first down, Rice snapped the ball with 25 seconds left on the play clock, lost yards, and UH called a timeout. Obviously, that cost over 20 seconds. UH appeared content to run the clock out after they got the ball and had the penalty if Rice had not called the timeout. I don't know what the Rice offense has shown in two games made the coaching staff think they could start on their own 20 with under 2 minutes to play and score before the end of the half. Time management by the coaching staff cost Rice 7 points in the first half.

For those who say we used to complain about the coaching staff not trying to score in these conditions, that was with an offense that threw the ball downfield and had WRs like Luke McCaffrey. Unless I missed it, I think all passes by this offense were within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage except one which missed the target by at least 5 yards. This offense had 228 total yards against UH and 247 against UL.

(09-07-2025 09:33 PM)Owl Is In Chains Wrote:  The first mistake was when Rice got the ball on their 20 after the UH punt at the 2 minute timeout. After a gain on first down, Rice snapped the ball with 25 seconds left on the play clock, lost yards, and UH called a timeout. Obviously, that cost over 20 seconds. UH appeared content to run the clock out after they got the ball and had the penalty if Rice had not called the timeout. I don't know what the Rice offense has shown in two games made the coaching staff think they could start on their own 20 with under 2 minutes to play and score before the end of the half. Time management by the coaching staff cost Rice 7 points in the first half.

For those who say we used to complain about the coaching staff not trying to score in these conditions, that was with an offense that threw the ball downfield and had WRs like Luke McCaffrey. Unless I missed it, I think all passes by this offense were within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage except one which missed the target by at least 5 yards. This offense had 228 total yards against UH and 247 against UL.

All correct.

(09-07-2025 09:56 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(09-07-2025 09:33 PM)Owl Is In Chains Wrote:  The first mistake was when Rice got the ball on their 20 after the UH punt at the 2 minute timeout. After a gain on first down, Rice snapped the ball with 25 seconds left on the play clock, lost yards, and UH called a timeout. Obviously, that cost over 20 seconds. UH appeared content to run the clock out after they got the ball and had the penalty if Rice had not called the timeout. I don't know what the Rice offense has shown in two games made the coaching staff think they could start on their own 20 with under 2 minutes to play and score before the end of the half. Time management by the coaching staff cost Rice 7 points in the first half.

For those who say we used to complain about the coaching staff not trying to score in these conditions, that was with an offense that threw the ball downfield and had WRs like Luke McCaffrey. Unless I missed it, I think all passes by this offense were within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage except one which missed the target by at least 5 yards. This offense had 228 total yards against UH and 247 against UL.

All correct.

I'd prefer a coach who believes he can move the ball than one who doesn't. Again, it seems pretty low risk to call the timeout. Maybe UH makes a bad snap, maybe we get a good return, maybe we chunk the ball down field three times and just try to get lucky.

When you're the underdog, especially a heavy one, I think you need to create some high variance plays over the course of the game. Turnovers, a trick play, etc. Calling a timeout to try to steal some points falls in the high variance situation to me. It's a risk I'm happy to take. One you clearly are not.

(09-08-2025 12:45 AM)picrig Wrote:  

(09-07-2025 09:56 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(09-07-2025 09:33 PM)Owl Is In Chains Wrote:  The first mistake was when Rice got the ball on their 20 after the UH punt at the 2 minute timeout. After a gain on first down, Rice snapped the ball with 25 seconds left on the play clock, lost yards, and UH called a timeout. Obviously, that cost over 20 seconds. UH appeared content to run the clock out after they got the ball and had the penalty if Rice had not called the timeout. I don't know what the Rice offense has shown in two games made the coaching staff think they could start on their own 20 with under 2 minutes to play and score before the end of the half. Time management by the coaching staff cost Rice 7 points in the first half.

For those who say we used to complain about the coaching staff not trying to score in these conditions, that was with an offense that threw the ball downfield and had WRs like Luke McCaffrey. Unless I missed it, I think all passes by this offense were within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage except one which missed the target by at least 5 yards. This offense had 228 total yards against UH and 247 against UL.

All correct.

I'd prefer a coach who believes he can move the ball than one who doesn't. Again, it seems pretty low risk to call the timeout. Maybe UH makes a bad snap, maybe we get a good return, maybe we chunk the ball down field three times and just try to get lucky.

When you're the underdog, especially a heavy one, I think you need to create some high variance plays over the course of the game. Turnovers, a trick play, etc. Calling a timeout to try to steal some points falls in the high variance situation to me. It's a risk I'm happy to take. One you clearly are not.

Agree again.

I remember one coach, for whom one of the complaints was that he did not go for it enough on fourth down. But when a subsequent coach tried, and failed, there were lots of complaints about how he should have punted.

Hope to see the PV game this weekend work on stretching the field horizontally and vertically.

The whole premise of the Abell offense was about creating space and how space and angles can create advantages when the personnel may be at a disadvantage relative to opponent. I was excited as something a G5 team needs to compete against superior athletes vs. 'intellectual brutality' or some other vanilla FBS spread scheme.

To date, basically zero vertical stretch and limited horizontal. That means opponent loads the box and results are (and will be) self-evident. Not sure if this is a Abell playcalling issue, a Jenkins can't throw issue, or no WR weapons that can catch/get open or all-the-above. But until you have playcalling and a QB that stretches the field, look for more-of-the-same. I hope that we don't use our better athletes to run between tackles against PV and conclude that offensive woes are fixed.

(09-08-2025 08:17 AM)owl40 Wrote:  Not sure if this is ... no WR weapons that can catch/get open or all-the-above.

Don't think this is it. Ransom-Goelz showed a lot of talent before his injury.

(09-08-2025 12:45 AM)picrig Wrote:  

(09-07-2025 09:56 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(09-07-2025 09:33 PM)Owl Is In Chains Wrote:  The first mistake was when Rice got the ball on their 20 after the UH punt at the 2 minute timeout. After a gain on first down, Rice snapped the ball with 25 seconds left on the play clock, lost yards, and UH called a timeout. Obviously, that cost over 20 seconds. UH appeared content to run the clock out after they got the ball and had the penalty if Rice had not called the timeout. I don't know what the Rice offense has shown in two games made the coaching staff think they could start on their own 20 with under 2 minutes to play and score before the end of the half. Time management by the coaching staff cost Rice 7 points in the first half.

For those who say we used to complain about the coaching staff not trying to score in these conditions, that was with an offense that threw the ball downfield and had WRs like Luke McCaffrey. Unless I missed it, I think all passes by this offense were within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage except one which missed the target by at least 5 yards. This offense had 228 total yards against UH and 247 against UL.

All correct.

I'd prefer a coach who believes he can move the ball than one who doesn't. Again, it seems pretty low risk to call the timeout. Maybe UH makes a bad snap, maybe we get a good return, maybe we chunk the ball down field three times and just try to get lucky.

When you're the underdog, especially a heavy one, I think you need to create some high variance plays over the course of the game. Turnovers, a trick play, etc. Calling a timeout to try to steal some points falls in the high variance situation to me. It's a risk I'm happy to take. One you clearly are not.

I'm only going to beat the dead horse one more time. The low risk timeout cost Rice 7 points. In regards to preferring a coach who believes he can move the ball, I prefer a coach who is realistic in what he has and what their capabilities are. I like to believe I can go out and rip 300 yard drives on the golf course, but reality is that is not going to happen.

(09-08-2025 08:58 AM)Owl Is In Chains Wrote:  

(09-08-2025 12:45 AM)picrig Wrote:  

(09-07-2025 09:56 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(09-07-2025 09:33 PM)Owl Is In Chains Wrote:  The first mistake was when Rice got the ball on their 20 after the UH punt at the 2 minute timeout. After a gain on first down, Rice snapped the ball with 25 seconds left on the play clock, lost yards, and UH called a timeout. Obviously, that cost over 20 seconds. UH appeared content to run the clock out after they got the ball and had the penalty if Rice had not called the timeout. I don't know what the Rice offense has shown in two games made the coaching staff think they could start on their own 20 with under 2 minutes to play and score before the end of the half. Time management by the coaching staff cost Rice 7 points in the first half.

For those who say we used to complain about the coaching staff not trying to score in these conditions, that was with an offense that threw the ball downfield and had WRs like Luke McCaffrey. Unless I missed it, I think all passes by this offense were within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage except one which missed the target by at least 5 yards. This offense had 228 total yards against UH and 247 against UL.

All correct.

I'd prefer a coach who believes he can move the ball than one who doesn't. Again, it seems pretty low risk to call the timeout. Maybe UH makes a bad snap, maybe we get a good return, maybe we chunk the ball down field three times and just try to get lucky.

When you're the underdog, especially a heavy one, I think you need to create some high variance plays over the course of the game. Turnovers, a trick play, etc. Calling a timeout to try to steal some points falls in the high variance situation to me. It's a risk I'm happy to take. One you clearly are not.

I'm only going to beat the dead horse one more time. The low risk timeout cost Rice 7 points. In regards to preferring a coach who believes he can move the ball, I prefer a coach who is realistic in what he has and what their capabilities are. I like to believe I can go out and rip 300 yard drives on the golf course, but reality is that is not going to happen.

I don't agree that the timeout cost us 7 points.

Rice giving up a 54 yard TD run is what cost us 7 points. And before that, UH hitting their TE for a 21 yard gain on 2 and 15 cost us 7 points.

That came after an 8 yard run on 1 and 23. UH had another timeout to burn. I bet they have the same calculus of calling a pass on 2nd and 15, even if we don't burn our TO. And that's because it's low risk for them to throw in that situation. Even with good position, we're not a threat for a quick score.

And since we still got the ball back with 34 seconds and UH still had a timeout, I just don't see UH changing anything that they do.

(09-08-2025 12:45 AM)picrig Wrote:  

(09-07-2025 09:56 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(09-07-2025 09:33 PM)Owl Is In Chains Wrote:  The first mistake was when Rice got the ball on their 20 after the UH punt at the 2 minute timeout. After a gain on first down, Rice snapped the ball with 25 seconds left on the play clock, lost yards, and UH called a timeout. Obviously, that cost over 20 seconds. UH appeared content to run the clock out after they got the ball and had the penalty if Rice had not called the timeout. I don't know what the Rice offense has shown in two games made the coaching staff think they could start on their own 20 with under 2 minutes to play and score before the end of the half. Time management by the coaching staff cost Rice 7 points in the first half.

For those who say we used to complain about the coaching staff not trying to score in these conditions, that was with an offense that threw the ball downfield and had WRs like Luke McCaffrey. Unless I missed it, I think all passes by this offense were within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage except one which missed the target by at least 5 yards. This offense had 228 total yards against UH and 247 against UL.

All correct.

I'd prefer a coach who believes he can move the ball than one who doesn't. Again, it seems pretty low risk to call the timeout. Maybe UH makes a bad snap, maybe we get a good return, maybe we chunk the ball down field three times and just try to get lucky.

When you're the underdog, especially a heavy one, I think you need to create some high variance plays over the course of the game. Turnovers, a trick play, etc. Calling a timeout to try to steal some points falls in the high variance situation to me. It's a risk I'm happy to take. One you clearly are not.

Agree. Try to extend your lead. Most coaches would have done the same thing. If UH hadn't scored, no one would've mentioned it. Hindsight vision is always 20/20.

(09-08-2025 09:54 AM)Ourland Wrote:  If UH hadn't scored, no one would've mentioned it. Hindsight vision is always 20/20.

Nope -- I've watched Rice games for over 50 years, and I knew this was a mistake as soon as it happened.

(09-08-2025 08:17 AM)owl40 Wrote:  Hope to see the PV game this weekend work on stretching the field horizontally and vertically.

I hope that we don't use our better athletes to run between tackles against PV and conclude that offensive woes are fixed.

Indeed.
We'll pound the running game to an easy win over PV I imagine, and everyone will say we're good there. Then we'll come into the Navy game with exactly the same offense that we saw Saturday.
I hope not.

Something that did give me heart Saturday was seeing Jenkins getting more comfortable with the classic, true optioning outside -- waiting and juking to make the defense commit.

(09-08-2025 10:49 AM)Barney Wrote:  

(09-08-2025 08:17 AM)owl40 Wrote:  Hope to see the PV game this weekend work on stretching the field horizontally and vertically.

I hope that we don't use our better athletes to run between tackles against PV and conclude that offensive woes are fixed.

Indeed.
We'll pound the running game to an easy win over PV I imagine, and everyone will say we're good there. Then we'll come into the Navy game with exactly the same offense that we saw Saturday.
I hope not.

Something that did give me heart Saturday was seeing Jenkins getting more comfortable with the classic, true optioning outside -- waiting and juking to make the defense commit.

Noticed that too. Toward the end Jenkins would wait a bit longer and really make it seem like he was gonna keep before pitching and suddenly we were getting yards on the pitches.

(09-08-2025 10:41 AM)Barney Wrote:  

(09-08-2025 09:54 AM)Ourland Wrote:  If UH hadn't scored, no one would've mentioned it. Hindsight vision is always 20/20.

Nope -- I've watched Rice games for over 50 years, and I knew this was a mistake as soon as it happened.

Sure you did

(09-08-2025 08:17 AM)owl40 Wrote:  Hope to see the PV game this weekend work on stretching the field horizontally and vertically.

The whole premise of the Abell offense was about creating space and how space and angles can create advantages when the personnel may be at a disadvantage relative to opponent. I was excited as something a G5 team needs to compete against superior athletes vs. 'intellectual brutality' or some other vanilla FBS spread scheme.

To date, basically zero vertical stretch and limited horizontal. That means opponent loads the box and results are (and will be) self-evident. Not sure if this is a Abell playcalling issue, a Jenkins can't throw issue, or no WR weapons that can catch/get open or all-the-above. But until you have playcalling and a QB that stretches the field, look for more-of-the-same. I hope that we don't use our better athletes to run between tackles against PV and conclude that offensive woes are fixed.

We'll start seeing more and more of the offense. It takes time to install. It was more basic against Louisiana than UH. We'll see more new wrinkles against Prairie View.

I have to give Jenkins some credit, he's doing well with the short passes. His throw on the two-point conversion was on the money, just dropped.

(09-08-2025 09:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-08-2025 08:58 AM)Owl Is In Chains Wrote:  

(09-08-2025 12:45 AM)picrig Wrote:  

(09-07-2025 09:56 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(09-07-2025 09:33 PM)Owl Is In Chains Wrote:  The first mistake was when Rice got the ball on their 20 after the UH punt at the 2 minute timeout. After a gain on first down, Rice snapped the ball with 25 seconds left on the play clock, lost yards, and UH called a timeout. Obviously, that cost over 20 seconds. UH appeared content to run the clock out after they got the ball and had the penalty if Rice had not called the timeout. I don't know what the Rice offense has shown in two games made the coaching staff think they could start on their own 20 with under 2 minutes to play and score before the end of the half. Time management by the coaching staff cost Rice 7 points in the first half.

For those who say we used to complain about the coaching staff not trying to score in these conditions, that was with an offense that threw the ball downfield and had WRs like Luke McCaffrey. Unless I missed it, I think all passes by this offense were within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage except one which missed the target by at least 5 yards. This offense had 228 total yards against UH and 247 against UL.

All correct.

I'd prefer a coach who believes he can move the ball than one who doesn't. Again, it seems pretty low risk to call the timeout. Maybe UH makes a bad snap, maybe we get a good return, maybe we chunk the ball down field three times and just try to get lucky.

When you're the underdog, especially a heavy one, I think you need to create some high variance plays over the course of the game. Turnovers, a trick play, etc. Calling a timeout to try to steal some points falls in the high variance situation to me. It's a risk I'm happy to take. One you clearly are not.

I'm only going to beat the dead horse one more time. The low risk timeout cost Rice 7 points. In regards to preferring a coach who believes he can move the ball, I prefer a coach who is realistic in what he has and what their capabilities are. I like to believe I can go out and rip 300 yard drives on the golf course, but reality is that is not going to happen.

I don't agree that the timeout cost us 7 points.

Rice giving up a 54 yard TD run is what cost us 7 points. And before that, UH hitting their TE for a 21 yard gain on 2 and 15 cost us 7 points.

That came after an 8 yard run on 1 and 23. UH had another timeout to burn. I bet they have the same calculus of calling a pass on 2nd and 15, even if we don't burn our TO. And that's because it's low risk for them to throw in that situation. Even with good position, we're not a threat for a quick score.

And since we still got the ball back with 34 seconds and UH still had a timeout, I just don't see UH changing anything that they do.

It was the worst timeout I can recall by Rice football. It didn't decide the game, but it was going to be 3-0 Rice at halftime if that timeout wasn't taken. The risk/reward didn't make sense with our offense, under a minute to go, and seemed to go against the gameplan. It's not why we lost but it changed the entire tone of the first half.

I agree with the late first half timeout, in principle.

I can see that in this situation, when we are playing with house money( leading inside 2:00 1H as a 2TD underdog) that playing to accelerate the clock (get out of 1H with that lead) vs tacking on, can also be justified.

But in short, we need to tactically roll the dice regularly when playing UH, Memphis, USF, and others, where we are or will be double digit underdogs.


As for the offense… my theory is we are “setting up the open game” with the conservative inside game… long term (October success benefits from September basics). Our opponents sure won’t be ready for it when we roll it out in AC play.

(09-08-2025 12:22 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  

(09-08-2025 09:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-08-2025 08:58 AM)Owl Is In Chains Wrote:  

(09-08-2025 12:45 AM)picrig Wrote:  

(09-07-2025 09:56 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  All correct.

I'd prefer a coach who believes he can move the ball than one who doesn't. Again, it seems pretty low risk to call the timeout. Maybe UH makes a bad snap, maybe we get a good return, maybe we chunk the ball down field three times and just try to get lucky.

When you're the underdog, especially a heavy one, I think you need to create some high variance plays over the course of the game. Turnovers, a trick play, etc. Calling a timeout to try to steal some points falls in the high variance situation to me. It's a risk I'm happy to take. One you clearly are not.

I'm only going to beat the dead horse one more time. The low risk timeout cost Rice 7 points. In regards to preferring a coach who believes he can move the ball, I prefer a coach who is realistic in what he has and what their capabilities are. I like to believe I can go out and rip 300 yard drives on the golf course, but reality is that is not going to happen.

I don't agree that the timeout cost us 7 points.

Rice giving up a 54 yard TD run is what cost us 7 points. And before that, UH hitting their TE for a 21 yard gain on 2 and 15 cost us 7 points.

That came after an 8 yard run on 1 and 23. UH had another timeout to burn. I bet they have the same calculus of calling a pass on 2nd and 15, even if we don't burn our TO. And that's because it's low risk for them to throw in that situation. Even with good position, we're not a threat for a quick score.

And since we still got the ball back with 34 seconds and UH still had a timeout, I just don't see UH changing anything that they do.

It was the worst timeout I can recall by Rice football. It didn't decide the game, but it was going to be 3-0 Rice at halftime if that timeout wasn't taken. The risk/reward didn't make sense with our offense, under a minute to go, and seemed to go against the gameplan. It's not why we lost but it changed the entire tone of the first half.

This is predicated on the idea that UH went from not trying to get into field goal range before the half to trying to get into field goal range before the half based on our timeout use.

Again, I don't see any evidence that our decision to use the timeout significantly changed their gameplan. It was the first explosive play (which got them a first down) that likely changed their decision making significantly.

The bigger issue was giving up big plays, not letting UH keep a timeout.