(07-10-2017 11:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  just about everybody has written off the Stanford game as a sure or nearly certain loss.

Given a 99% chance of losing that game, should we:

a. Hold back on some plays and formations, etc., and save them for UTEP and/or UH?

b. Throw the book at Stanford in an all-out effort to win?

(07-10-2017 03:31 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Play to win, but the coaches should be mentally prepared to give guys down the depth chart snaps in the 2nd half if Rice pulls way ahead.

(07-10-2017 04:22 PM)Baconator Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 03:31 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Play to win, but the coaches should be mentally prepared to give guys down the depth chart snaps in the 2nd half if Rice pulls way ahead.

(07-10-2017 11:48 PM)owl40 Wrote:  Of course you play all games to win. But we had this debate many times on other threads but IMO, a respectable performance of competitive game against a top P5 opponent > C-USA win(s) later in season.

When on national stage, more people are judging your program quality. I'd rather go 4-8 and beat a Stanford/lose a nail biter in 4Q compared to a 6-6 season that includes getting blown-out badly against Stanford but get a trip to whocares.com bowl game to play a MAC team.

This game matters even more than other early season body bag games as we will have national stage to ourselves and our brand/quality of play is being judged more than all the other games combined. Outside of Parliament, getting blown-out 56-17 or something to that effect make national/casual audience check-out for rest of season with 'same old Rice' takeaway. However, a 24-21 like game gets people to pay attention to Rice Football and bring hope back to a better lot in life.

We have shown ability to beat bad/mediocre FB teams. Have not shown ability to be even competitive against top competition. That matters more right now. Throw the kitchen sink at a W. Love to see all the tricks, gadgets, unconventional wisdom that we have at this game.....

(07-10-2017 11:48 PM)owl40 Wrote:  Of course you play all games to win. But we had this debate many times on other threads but IMO, a respectable performance of competitive game against a top P5 opponent > C-USA win(s) later in season.

When on national stage, more people are judging your program quality. I'd rather go 4-8 and beat a Stanford/lose a nail biter in 4Q compared to a 6-6 season that includes getting blown-out badly against Stanford but get a trip to whocares.com bowl game to play a MAC team.

This game matters even more than other early season body bag games as we will have national stage to ourselves and our brand/quality of play is being judged more than all the other games combined. Outside of Parliament, getting blown-out 56-17 or something to that effect make national/casual audience check-out for rest of season with 'same old Rice' takeaway. However, a 24-21 like game gets people to pay attention to Rice Football and bring hope back to a better lot in life.

We have shown ability to beat bad/mediocre FB teams. Have not shown ability to be even competitive against top competition. That matters more right now. Throw the kitchen sink at a W. Love to see all the tricks, gadgets, unconventional wisdom that we have at this game.....

(07-11-2017 08:34 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 11:48 PM)owl40 Wrote:  Of course you play all games to win. But we had this debate many times on other threads but IMO, a respectable performance of competitive game against a top P5 opponent > C-USA win(s) later in season.

When on national stage, more people are judging your program quality. I'd rather go 4-8 and beat a Stanford/lose a nail biter in 4Q compared to a 6-6 season that includes getting blown-out badly against Stanford but get a trip to whocares.com bowl game to play a MAC team.

This game matters even more than other early season body bag games as we will have national stage to ourselves and our brand/quality of play is being judged more than all the other games combined. Outside of Parliament, getting blown-out 56-17 or something to that effect make national/casual audience check-out for rest of season with 'same old Rice' takeaway. However, a 24-21 like game gets people to pay attention to Rice Football and bring hope back to a better lot in life.

We have shown ability to beat bad/mediocre FB teams. Have not shown ability to be even competitive against top competition. That matters more right now. Throw the kitchen sink at a W. Love to see all the tricks, gadgets, unconventional wisdom that we have at this game.....

Correction-- we have not shown the ability to be even competitive against any team ranked within the Top 75 (Top 60 percentile) of D1. It's not only top teams; it's any team with even a steady heart rate.

(07-11-2017 09:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 08:34 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 11:48 PM)owl40 Wrote:  Of course you play all games to win. But we had this debate many times on other threads but IMO, a respectable performance of competitive game against a top P5 opponent > C-USA win(s) later in season.

When on national stage, more people are judging your program quality. I'd rather go 4-8 and beat a Stanford/lose a nail biter in 4Q compared to a 6-6 season that includes getting blown-out badly against Stanford but get a trip to whocares.com bowl game to play a MAC team.

This game matters even more than other early season body bag games as we will have national stage to ourselves and our brand/quality of play is being judged more than all the other games combined. Outside of Parliament, getting blown-out 56-17 or something to that effect make national/casual audience check-out for rest of season with 'same old Rice' takeaway. However, a 24-21 like game gets people to pay attention to Rice Football and bring hope back to a better lot in life.

We have shown ability to beat bad/mediocre FB teams. Have not shown ability to be even competitive against top competition. That matters more right now. Throw the kitchen sink at a W. Love to see all the tricks, gadgets, unconventional wisdom that we have at this game.....

Correction-- we have not shown the ability to be even competitive against any team ranked within the Top 75 (Top 60 percentile) of D1. It's not only top teams; it's any team with even a steady heart rate.

so back to my question - if we have no shot against a top 75 team, why show all our cards in a vain attempt to slay a dragon? why not save a surprise or two for the opponents in the bottom 40%? What is your opinion on how we should approach this Stanford game? Should we play the back ups as soon as we fall 14 behind?

Not saying this is my opinion. Just asking.

maybe somebody can ask the coach at the Caravan when is the right time to give up.

(07-11-2017 10:04 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 09:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 08:34 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 11:48 PM)owl40 Wrote:  Of course you play all games to win. But we had this debate many times on other threads but IMO, a respectable performance of competitive game against a top P5 opponent > C-USA win(s) later in season.

When on national stage, more people are judging your program quality. I'd rather go 4-8 and beat a Stanford/lose a nail biter in 4Q compared to a 6-6 season that includes getting blown-out badly against Stanford but get a trip to whocares.com bowl game to play a MAC team.

This game matters even more than other early season body bag games as we will have national stage to ourselves and our brand/quality of play is being judged more than all the other games combined. Outside of Parliament, getting blown-out 56-17 or something to that effect make national/casual audience check-out for rest of season with 'same old Rice' takeaway. However, a 24-21 like game gets people to pay attention to Rice Football and bring hope back to a better lot in life.

We have shown ability to beat bad/mediocre FB teams. Have not shown ability to be even competitive against top competition. That matters more right now. Throw the kitchen sink at a W. Love to see all the tricks, gadgets, unconventional wisdom that we have at this game.....

Correction-- we have not shown the ability to be even competitive against any team ranked within the Top 75 (Top 60 percentile) of D1. It's not only top teams; it's any team with even a steady heart rate.

so back to my question - if we have no shot against a top 75 team, why show all our cards in a vain attempt to slay a dragon? why not save a surprise or two for the opponents in the bottom 40%? What is your opinion on how we should approach this Stanford game? Should we play the back ups as soon as we fall 14 behind?

Not saying this is my opinion. Just asking.

maybe somebody can ask the coach at the Caravan when is the right time to give up.

Starters should play at least the entire first half and into the 3Q regardless to the score. They need the early game competition. As for "surprises", since when has a Bailiff-coached team included surprises or innovative plays in their playbook?

(07-11-2017 10:13 AM)franklyconfused Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 10:04 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 09:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 08:34 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 11:48 PM)owl40 Wrote:  Of course you play all games to win. But we had this debate many times on other threads but IMO, a respectable performance of competitive game against a top P5 opponent > C-USA win(s) later in season.

When on national stage, more people are judging your program quality. I'd rather go 4-8 and beat a Stanford/lose a nail biter in 4Q compared to a 6-6 season that includes getting blown-out badly against Stanford but get a trip to whocares.com bowl game to play a MAC team.

This game matters even more than other early season body bag games as we will have national stage to ourselves and our brand/quality of play is being judged more than all the other games combined. Outside of Parliament, getting blown-out 56-17 or something to that effect make national/casual audience check-out for rest of season with 'same old Rice' takeaway. However, a 24-21 like game gets people to pay attention to Rice Football and bring hope back to a better lot in life.

We have shown ability to beat bad/mediocre FB teams. Have not shown ability to be even competitive against top competition. That matters more right now. Throw the kitchen sink at a W. Love to see all the tricks, gadgets, unconventional wisdom that we have at this game.....

Correction-- we have not shown the ability to be even competitive against any team ranked within the Top 75 (Top 60 percentile) of D1. It's not only top teams; it's any team with even a steady heart rate.

so back to my question - if we have no shot against a top 75 team, why show all our cards in a vain attempt to slay a dragon? why not save a surprise or two for the opponents in the bottom 40%? What is your opinion on how we should approach this Stanford game? Should we play the back ups as soon as we fall 14 behind?

Not saying this is my opinion. Just asking.

maybe somebody can ask the coach at the Caravan when is the right time to give up.

Starters should play at least the entire first half and into the 3Q regardless to the score. They need the early game competition. As for "surprises", since when has a Bailiff-coached team included surprises or innovative plays in their playbook?

We did run that double-trips formation with a tackle split out wide to great success against New Mexico State in 2013. I think we ran it one other time that year for two points.

(07-11-2017 10:10 AM)Buho00 Wrote:  Stanford is not a team we should be afraid of. It's not a terrible match up for Rice. And I rather play them the first game of the year, in an unusual setting.

Final score last season was 41-17, but other than unacceptable tackling on a first drive 60 yard QB scramble, they had 2 guys who hurt us - their RB's. One of them was possibly the best player in college football and he's gone to the NFL, the other I'm guessing will be heavily featured and has incredible speed. Our front 7 could be our strength, so not as bad a match up as some of the spread offenses we'll face in CUSA. Their passing game was nothing special, the real weapons there seem to be TE's. It's not crazy to imagine a good defensive effort by Rice keeping the game low scoring. We're a good QB away from making it a competitive game.

(07-11-2017 10:32 AM)RiceFootball2K5 Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 10:10 AM)Buho00 Wrote:  Stanford is not a team we should be afraid of. It's not a terrible match up for Rice. And I rather play them the first game of the year, in an unusual setting.

Final score last season was 41-17, but other than unacceptable tackling on a first drive 60 yard QB scramble, they had 2 guys who hurt us - their RB's. One of them was possibly the best player in college football and he's gone to the NFL, the other I'm guessing will be heavily featured and has incredible speed. Our front 7 could be our strength, so not as bad a match up as some of the spread offenses we'll face in CUSA. Their passing game was nothing special, the real weapons there seem to be TE's. It's not crazy to imagine a good defensive effort by Rice keeping the game low scoring. We're a good QB away from making it a competitive game.

Agreed. Our Front 7 looks fairly formidable this year (at least if we can stay relatively healthy). Adding Stewart and his more aggressive scheme has me more optimistic about being able to stop the run and step up our pass rush some. But our secondary does not inspire any confidence at all. Our safeties look particularly weak, and they have been pretty bad for most of the Bailiff era. Any team with a good passing game should be able to light us up pretty good. But as you said, Stanford is not one of those teams.

(07-11-2017 10:32 AM)RiceFootball2K5 Wrote:  Adding Stewart and his more aggressive scheme has me more optimistic about being able to stop the run and step up our pass rush some. But our secondary does not inspire any confidence at all. Our safeties look particularly weak, and they have been pretty bad for most of the Bailiff era. Any team with a good passing game should be able to light us up pretty good. But as you said, Stanford is not one of those teams.

(07-11-2017 11:20 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 10:32 AM)RiceFootball2K5 Wrote:  Adding Stewart and his more aggressive scheme has me more optimistic about being able to stop the run and step up our pass rush some. But our secondary does not inspire any confidence at all. Our safeties look particularly weak, and they have been pretty bad for most of the Bailiff era. Any team with a good passing game should be able to light us up pretty good. But as you said, Stanford is not one of those teams.

The good news is that Rice has a new defensive coordinator and CB coach (Stewart), as well as a new safety coach (Vestal). I have always thought (and frequently mentioned in Parliament threads) that to my amateur eyes, our safeties had enough speed and quickness to play better than they actually looked. To me, it always looked like they overplayed the run and were too late getting their momentum changed to follow receivers in coverage. So they would get beat by a step (or more) not because they weren't fast enough, but because they waited a split second too long before really engaging the WR on pass plays. I could always be wrong, but I'm hopeful that I am correct and that this is a focus of the new defensive regime.

(07-11-2017 01:05 PM)OldOwl Wrote:  How many top 25 teams has Bailiff beat? Now you know why we will loose.

(07-11-2017 11:20 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 10:32 AM)RiceFootball2K5 Wrote:  Adding Stewart and his more aggressive scheme has me more optimistic about being able to stop the run and step up our pass rush some. But our secondary does not inspire any confidence at all. Our safeties look particularly weak, and they have been pretty bad for most of the Bailiff era. Any team with a good passing game should be able to light us up pretty good. But as you said, Stanford is not one of those teams.

The good news is that Rice has a new defensive coordinator and CB coach (Stewart), as well as a new safety coach (Vestal). I have always thought (and frequently mentioned in Parliament threads) that to my amateur eyes, our safeties had enough speed and quickness to play better than they actually looked. To me, it always looked like they overplayed the run and were too late getting their momentum changed to follow receivers in coverage. So they would get beat by a step (or more) not because they weren't fast enough, but because they waited a split second too long before really engaging the WR on pass plays. I could always be wrong, but I'm hopeful that I am correct and that this is a focus of the new defensive regime.