Phil Steele on 790 in Houston today:

1. Tulsa isn't nearly the product it has been the last several years

2. If Rice wins, pencil them into the CUSA title game

3. I'm picking Tulsa until Rice beats them

4. Taylor McHargue is a huge issue for Rice.

(10-03-2013 07:45 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  Phil Steele on 790 in Houston today:

1. Tulsa isn't nearly the product it has been the last several years

2. If Rice wins, pencil them into the CUSA title game

3. I'm picking Tulsa until Rice beats them

4. Taylor McHargue is a huge issue for Rice.

That last one is a pretty loaded comment without context.

(10-03-2013 09:37 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 07:45 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  4. Taylor McHargue is a huge issue for Rice.

That last one is a pretty loaded comment without context.

Seems straightforward to me, and presumably context = awful performance last 2 games.

What's unclear about it?

Not loaded at all. He followed it by saying--and this is a bit of a paraphrase--that TM's completion percentage on the season was 49.7% and that he needed to be better than that.

I agree that Taylor's performance has been troubling the last few weeks. But I'm not sure, and maybe some more football experienced posters could comment, that it is all on him. Good coaches put players in positions where their talent and abilities will let them succeed. Is he a pocket passer or an option QB who can complete short passes every now and then? Have we, and this is not meant as a criticism, been calling plays that he has demonstrated proficiency in executing? Tim Tebow will never be a Drew Brees and RGIII will never be a Tom Brady.

(10-04-2013 09:29 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  I agree that Taylor's performance has been troubling the last few weeks. But I'm not sure, and maybe some more football experienced posters could comment, that it is all on him. Good coaches put players in positions where their talent and abilities will let them succeed. Is he a pocket passer or an option QB who can complete short passes every now and then? Have we, and this is not meant as a criticism, been calling plays that he has demonstrated proficiency in executing? Tim Tebow will never be a Drew Brees and RGIII will never be a Tom Brady.

Square pegs into round holes.

(10-04-2013 09:29 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  ...Good coaches put players in positions where their talent and abilities will let them succeed...

Maybe you just need the right optimization algorithm!

(10-04-2013 11:26 PM)Caelligh Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 09:29 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  ...Good coaches put players in positions where their talent and abilities will let them succeed...

Maybe you just need the right optimization algorithm!

Tell me this is not a Rice Board, eh?

Some of this performance, Steele is right. It is clearly on McH.. We all can point to a few bad decisions but it is more than that. . Seems a bit mental vs. physical now. Hope that changes later today as seems like his DNA is type of kid who is a gamer and will find a way to snap out of it.

Since Steele brought-up regarding completion % specifically, remember that McH is ranked at top of Rice all-time..so there has to be other factors causing this as well. Too much McH-specific data with hundreds of completions, > 120 pass rating, nice TD to INT ratios, etc. from last three years data to conclude it is all him.

http://www.riceowls.com/sports/m-footbl/...42101.html

I would rank them as follows:

a) Schemes/Play calling. We are asking him to do things that are not his strengths. Been discussed at length on other threads but we seem to continue to audible to the right call for our scheme/D's scheme but that call is not the right call for the personnel on the field. RESULT: Lots of long 3rd downs (where % will drop) b/c of wasted 1st and 2nd downs and/or lots of long throws where %'s are going to be lower by all QB's..McH in particular b/c we all know that is not his strength.
b) OL seems to have regressed a bit. Don't know if that is partially due to a couple key injuries but it not like he is back in the pocket w/ all day to throw. RESULT: throwing under duress where % completion goes down. McH has thrown more balls into the stands on the roll-out to sidelines while being chased this year than any other time I can remember.
c) WR's/TE's not getting open. Very little separation and McH has to throw into tight windows to get completions. We are really seeing how much Sam, VMcD, Willson, and even Cook meant to team. That has surprised me that we have not reloaded here well. RESULT: Lots of incompletions b/c margin for error on throw is reduced dramatically. When guys are open, you can miss by a bit and WR can adjust.
d) Ross not being healthy. Dillard and others are good RB's but there is a clear drop off from Ross. RESULT: Not having him in there puts more pressure on McH to do more. McH is guy who can call good game, make a play or two w/ his feet, get others involved, etc. but is not the guy who is going to strap the team on his back.

Bottom line, we all agree McH is not himself. Making a change could be a solution but you still have the exact same issues above to overcome with guy(s) that have nothing in the zip code of prior body of work to give you any confidence things will get better. One half of one bowl game is not three-years of work. It is 1/2 of a datapoint. With McH, many more datapoints. If anything, things could be much worse. McH's body of work suggests that things should regress back to the mean soon (hope today) so he deserves and has earned a much longer rope than most QB's should/could/would get.

(10-03-2013 09:52 PM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 09:37 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 07:45 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  4. Taylor McHargue is a huge issue for Rice.

That last one is a pretty loaded comment without context.

Seems straightforward to me, and presumably context = awful performance last 2 games.

What's unclear about it?

I didn't exactly say it was unclear, but it could be interpreted a lot of different ways, from completely incapable to just in a slump.

(10-04-2013 06:51 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  Not loaded at all. He followed it by saying--and this is a bit of a paraphrase--that TM's completion percentage on the season was 49.7% and that he needed to be better than that.

And there's context that barrows it down some. Did he suggest that a change at QB was needed?

Maybe "charged" might be a better word than "loaded", but they are both kind of vacuous words to beg out more information.

I see in the Chron that it is a "scheduling quirk" that resulted in our playing a second straight year in Tulsa. Seems to me that since it is Tulsa leaving the conference and, therefore, likely our last game against them, that the scheduling quirk should have been in our favor. Thanks C-USA!!

Today is simple:
bad play calling=loss, good play calling=win, barely. Tulsa has played harder competition than us, so I wouldn't take too much from their poor performance numbers. We have the team to beat them, today the coaching needs to step up.