(09-19-2021 09:57 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  Bloomgren has had "success" at other places? Where has he been the head coach? Being an assistant (not even a true coordinator) has little to do with being a head coach. Rice took someone who, essentially, was an assistant department head, and made him the CEO. To date, he has failed to show any significant improvement, in spite of significant dollars being spent to support his efforts.

For those keeping score, his record is 7-26 (.212), while in Bailiff's final 33 games, Rice was 7-26. If Bloomgren finishes this season, he will have had 42 games as head coach. To do better than Bailiff's final 42 games, Rice must go 7-2 over the final 9 games.

Bloom is the opposite of Ted Lasso as a person and not a good Coach!

Did Bloom give any sort of 'post game' presser Sat, or for that manner, anytime after the UT debacle?

I went to the Rice Athletics Youtube channel where they typically are and did not see any. If they havent, will there be one shortly?

(09-19-2021 07:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-19-2021 06:57 AM)WeatherfordOwl Wrote:  I find myself wondering how coach Bailiff managed to field those handful of bowl teams, which far exceeds even what coach Hatfield was even able to field.

1) Proliferation of bowls
2) Chase Clement
3) Taylor McHargue

Works for me.

Hatfield had much more tougher schedule then Bailiff. Hatfield downfall was lack off option quarterback as great as Chad Nelson was. He did not want to alter the offense based on his player strengths, and option offense live or die.

(09-21-2021 09:54 AM)Texasowl Wrote:  Hatfield had much more tougher schedule then Bailiff. Hatfield downfall was lack off option quarterback as great as Chad Nelson was. He did not want to alter the offense based on his player strengths, and option offense live or die.

Holy cow, Chad Nelson was good! Coach Hatfield once described him as "fast as greased lightning", and Chad's timing was uncanny. That offense was a thrill to watch.

If he had been interested, I suspect that Chad could have made a nice living in Europe as a scrum half at the premier level.

(09-21-2021 09:54 AM)Texasowl Wrote:  Hatfield had much more tougher schedule then Bailiff. Hatfield downfall was lack off option quarterback as great as Chad Nelson was. He did not want to alter the offense based on his player strengths, and option offense live or die.

Richardson was pretty good but, yeah, the Chad Nelson types dried up when Texas offenses became pass happy instead of option oriented. When you combine the salty recruiting of Goldsmith with our talented backfield in a contrarian offense, we were pretty strong in the mid-90s (as we had been in the early 90s).

We did always seem to take a couple of games off each year, however. We played disastrously bad in the original Operation Sell-Out game against AF. We also rolled over against Ohio State one year 70-7.

(09-21-2021 10:06 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 09:54 AM)Texasowl Wrote:  Hatfield had much more tougher schedule then Bailiff. Hatfield downfall was lack off option quarterback as great as Chad Nelson was. He did not want to alter the offense based on his player strengths, and option offense live or die.

Holy cow, Chad Nelson was good! Coach Hatfield once described him as "fast as greased lightning", and Chad's timing was uncanny. That offense was a thrill to watch.
If he had been interested, I suspect that Chad could have made a nice living in Europe as a scrum half at the premier level.

Absolutely, although probably more fly half than scrummie. Remember, he was also a soccer player who could kick effectively with either foot.

(09-21-2021 10:15 AM)wrysal Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 09:54 AM)Texasowl Wrote:  Hatfield had much more tougher schedule then Bailiff. Hatfield downfall was lack off option quarterback as great as Chad Nelson was. He did not want to alter the offense based on his player strengths, and option offense live or die.

Richardson was pretty good but, yeah, the Chad Nelson types dried up when Texas offenses became pass happy instead of option oriented. When you combine the salty recruiting of Goldsmith with our talented backfield in a contrarian offense, we were pretty strong in the mid-90s (as we had been in the early 90s).

We did always seem to take a couple of games off each year, however. We played disastrously bad in the original Operation Sell-Out game against AF. We also rolled over against Ohio State one year 70-7.

Defenses - ours and theirs. When their defenses were able to keep our offenses from chewing clock, our defenses got shredded. Thus, 70-7. Those were the games that really fueled the parliament's demands that we move away from that "boring and outmoded" offense. Sure is remembered with fondness, though.

I'll never forget the Rice - La. Tech game in 2003 at Ruston when Ken was the coach.

I was keeping stats for the radio crew and at the end of the first quarter Matt M. said "we sure are running the ball well today"...at the time we had 190 yards rushing (in the 1st quarter) and were on a pace to gain more than 750 yards rushing in the game)...we ended up winning 49-14. When that offense got rolling, it was a sight to see.

(09-21-2021 04:28 PM)Houston Owl 2 Wrote:  I'll never forget the Rice - La. Tech game in 2003 at Ruston when Ken was the coach.

I was keeping stats for the radio crew and at the end of the first quarter Matt M. said "we sure are running the ball well today"...at the time we had 190 yards rushing (in the 1st quarter) and were on a pace to gain more than 750 yards rushing in the game)...we ended up winning 49-14. When that offense got rolling, it was a sight to see.

I remember that game.

(09-21-2021 09:54 AM)Texasowl Wrote:  Hatfield had much more tougher schedule then Bailiff. Hatfield downfall was lack off option quarterback as great as Chad Nelson was. He did not want to alter the offense based on his player strengths, and option offense live or die.

One of the top 3 (my list) option QBs:

1. Thomas Lott (Oklahoma)
2. Dee Dowis (Air Force)
3. Chad Nelson (Rice)

(09-21-2021 04:33 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 04:28 PM)Houston Owl 2 Wrote:  I'll never forget the Rice - La. Tech game in 2003 at Ruston when Ken was the coach.

I was keeping stats for the radio crew and at the end of the first quarter Matt M. said "we sure are running the ball well today"...at the time we had 190 yards rushing (in the 1st quarter) and were on a pace to gain more than 750 yards rushing in the game)...we ended up winning 49-14. When that offense got rolling, it was a sight to see.

I remember that game.

I was there.

(09-21-2021 05:05 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 09:54 AM)Texasowl Wrote:  Hatfield had much more tougher schedule then Bailiff. Hatfield downfall was lack off option quarterback as great as Chad Nelson was. He did not want to alter the offense based on his player strengths, and option offense live or die.

One of the top 3 (my list) option QBs:

1. Thomas Lott (Oklahoma)
2. Dee Dowis (Air Force)
3. Chad Nelson (Rice)

Thomas Lott and Chad were both unbelievable

(09-21-2021 04:28 PM)Houston Owl 2 Wrote:  I'll never forget the Rice - La. Tech game in 2003 at Ruston when Ken was the coach.

I was keeping stats for the radio crew and at the end of the first quarter Matt M. said "we sure are running the ball well today"...at the time we had 190 yards rushing (in the 1st quarter) and were on a pace to gain more than 750 yards rushing in the game)...we ended up winning 49-14. When that offense got rolling, it was a sight to see.

Yeah, I was doing photo on the sideline that day. Got a lot of good "photo ops". Need to check back on my storage hard drives and see if I can find them..

(09-21-2021 09:54 AM)Texasowl Wrote:  Hatfield had much more tougher schedule then Bailiff. Hatfield downfall was lack off option quarterback as great as Chad Nelson was. He did not want to alter the offense based on his player strengths, and option offense live or die.

Hatfield's downfall was that his teams stopped playing defense.

The 1994 team gave up 18.5 points/game, Rice's lowest yield in at least the last 35 years. Defensive yields stayed in the 20s through 2002, then in his last 3 years were 31.5, 34.3, and 40.6. His highest scoring team was actually 2003 (28.6), followed by 2001 and 1997 (27.8 each), 1996 (26.9), and 2004 (25.4).

Interesting perspective from the ODU board.

(09-19-2021 12:59 AM)ODU2017 Wrote:  2-9, 3-8, 6-4-1, 6-5, 5-6, 2-8-1
These are the first six season records for Frank Beamer [at Virginia Tech]. 2 wins in his sixth season included a 1-4 Big East record. No bowls, no national rankings.
He went to his first bowl game in season seven. Even then the Hokies finished fourth place in the Big East at 9-3 (4-3).
Is there any doubt if message boards existed in 1992 that panicking fans would have pressured the admin to fire him? The biggest success in his career up to that point was an NCAA I-AA tournament first round loss with Murray State the year before VT hired him.
What if VT had fired him?

Of course, those first 3 years (11-21-1) are still better than Bloomgren's first 33 games (7-26). Interestingly, the last 4 of those would be basically Fred's last 2 years and Ken's first 2.

(09-22-2021 08:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 09:54 AM)Texasowl Wrote:  Hatfield had much more tougher schedule then Bailiff. Hatfield downfall was lack off option quarterback as great as Chad Nelson was. He did not want to alter the offense based on his player strengths, and option offense live or die.

Hatfield's downfall was that his teams stopped playing defense.

The 1994 team gave up 18.5 points/game, Rice's lowest yield in at least the last 35 years. Defensive yields stayed in the 20s through 2002, then in his last 3 years were 31.5, 34.3, and 40.6. His highest scoring team was actually 2003 (28.6), followed by 2001 and 1997 (27.8 each), 1996 (26.9), and 2004 (25.4).

Yeah you've got to have a good defense to pull off the triple option. Those were great days. That offense really leveled the playing field for Rice. In my opinion, it's the only offense that will really work at Rice, given the talent on hand. We were competitive against the more talented teams because of that offense.

I'd love to have a coach come in and reinstall it, if for no other reason than to just royally piss off that big whiner WRC.

(09-22-2021 08:57 AM)Ourland Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 08:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 09:54 AM)Texasowl Wrote:  Hatfield had much more tougher schedule then Bailiff. Hatfield downfall was lack off option quarterback as great as Chad Nelson was. He did not want to alter the offense based on his player strengths, and option offense live or die.

Hatfield's downfall was that his teams stopped playing defense.

The 1994 team gave up 18.5 points/game, Rice's lowest yield in at least the last 35 years. Defensive yields stayed in the 20s through 2002, then in his last 3 years were 31.5, 34.3, and 40.6. His highest scoring team was actually 2003 (28.6), followed by 2001 and 1997 (27.8 each), 1996 (26.9), and 2004 (25.4).

Yeah you've got to have a good defense to pull off the triple option. Those were great days. That offense really leveled the playing field for Rice. In my opinion, it's the only offense that will really work at Rice, given the talent on hand. We were competitive against the more talented teams because of that offense.

I'd love to have a coach come in and reinstall it, if for no other reason than to just royally piss off that big whiner WRC.

It wasn't the offense that lost a game 70-63.

(09-22-2021 08:57 AM)Ourland Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 08:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 09:54 AM)Texasowl Wrote:  Hatfield had much more tougher schedule then Bailiff. Hatfield downfall was lack off option quarterback as great as Chad Nelson was. He did not want to alter the offense based on his player strengths, and option offense live or die.

Hatfield's downfall was that his teams stopped playing defense.
The 1994 team gave up 18.5 points/game, Rice's lowest yield in at least the last 35 years. Defensive yields stayed in the 20s through 2002, then in his last 3 years were 31.5, 34.3, and 40.6. His highest scoring team was actually 2003 (28.6), followed by 2001 and 1997 (27.8 each), 1996 (26.9), and 2004 (25.4).

Yeah you've got to have a good defense to pull off the triple option. Those were great days. That offense really leveled the playing field for Rice. In my opinion, it's the only offense that will really work at Rice, given the talent on hand. We were competitive against the more talented teams because of that offense.
I'd love to have a coach come in and reinstall it, if for no other reason than to just royally piss off that big whiner WRC.

You've got to have a good defense to win consistently with almost any offense. You simply can't plan to win every game 50-49.

The offensive approach I like is mixing the triple option with some kind of effective sophisticated passing game. I've posted some highlight films of Hawaii running a combination triple/run-and-shoot. The passing offense could be R&S, Air Raid, or Ruowls's West Coast offense. Or you could even combine the three. You'd have the complete triple running game with about 10 plays, the R&S with 6, the Air Raid with 7, and the way Ruowls teaches his scheme each receiver learns 10 patterns and then you combine them, so something like 33 plays to learn, add 2 or 3 draws and 3 or 4 screens and you are talking about a complete offense in 40 plays. That's a pretty skinny playbook.

Then practice the hell out of it so you can execute it effectively on game day. Maybe you won't execute it absolutely perfectly, but you will probably be able to execute it a lot better than a defense that has a week to prepare you will execute their assignments. And that should win you a bunch of games.

(09-22-2021 04:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 08:57 AM)Ourland Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 08:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 09:54 AM)Texasowl Wrote:  Hatfield had much more tougher schedule then Bailiff. Hatfield downfall was lack off option quarterback as great as Chad Nelson was. He did not want to alter the offense based on his player strengths, and option offense live or die.

Hatfield's downfall was that his teams stopped playing defense.
The 1994 team gave up 18.5 points/game, Rice's lowest yield in at least the last 35 years. Defensive yields stayed in the 20s through 2002, then in his last 3 years were 31.5, 34.3, and 40.6. His highest scoring team was actually 2003 (28.6), followed by 2001 and 1997 (27.8 each), 1996 (26.9), and 2004 (25.4).

Yeah you've got to have a good defense to pull off the triple option. Those were great days. That offense really leveled the playing field for Rice. In my opinion, it's the only offense that will really work at Rice, given the talent on hand. We were competitive against the more talented teams because of that offense.
I'd love to have a coach come in and reinstall it, if for no other reason than to just royally piss off that big whiner WRC.

You've got to have a good defense to win consistently with almost any offense. You simply can't plan to win every game 50-49.

The offensive approach I like is mixing the triple option with some kind of effective sophisticated passing game. I've posted some highlight films of Hawaii running a combination triple/run-and-shoot. The passing offense could be R&S, Air Raid, or Ruowls's West Coast offense. Or you could even combine the three. You'd have the complete triple running game with about 10 plays, the R&S with 6, the Air Raid with 7, and the way Ruowls teaches his scheme each receiver learns 10 patterns and then you combine them, so something like 33 plays to learn, add 2 or 3 draws and 3 or 4 screens and you are talking about a complete offense in 40 plays. That's a pretty skinny playbook.

Then practice the hell out of it so you can execute it effectively on game day. Maybe you won't execute it absolutely perfectly, but you will probably be able to execute it a lot better than a defense that has a week to prepare you will execute their assignments. And that should win you a bunch of games.

Anything 'contrarian' would work at Rice. We can't do the same thing as everyone else.