Interesting.... As with last week, we are rated pretty highly when it comes to red zone efficiency.

http://coachingsearch.com/article?a=3-ch...statistics

Yeah, we just don't get there often enough.

For a team that reins back and plays for FGs after we cross the 30, we sure are scoring a large percentage of red zone TDs.

Well, this discounts the fact that all-too-often but much-less-than-previous-years, Rice doesn't make the opponent get into the red zone before they score their TDs. I think the less-important statistic of offensive TDs without entering the red zone would not see Rice fare so well.

Nevertheless, this is really a good reflection on both the offense and defense of Rice - they have really deserved credit for their work inside the red zone on both ends of the field.

(10-07-2013 10:56 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Well, this discounts the fact that all-too-often but much-less-than-previous-years, Rice doesn't make the opponent get into the red zone before they score their TDs. I think the less-important statistic of offensive TDs without entering the red zone would not see Rice fare so well.

Nevertheless, this is really a good reflection on both the offense and defense of Rice - they have really deserved credit for their work inside the red zone on both ends of the field.

Rice has 16 TDs on the year. three came from defense/ST, and 11 of the other 13 came from within the red zone.

Opponents have 17 TDs this year, NONE from defense or ST, and 10 of the 17 came from inside the RZ. Five of the seven from outside the RZ came in the two losses, although a couple of them were just barely out of the RZ.

FWIW

(10-08-2013 12:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Rice has 16 TDs on the year. three came from defense/ST, and 11 of the other 13 came from within the red zone.

Opponents have 17 TDs this year, NONE from defense or ST, and 10 of the 17 came from inside the RZ. Five of the seven from outside the RZ came in the two losses, although a couple of them were just barely out of the RZ.

FWIW

Good data. Even without normalizing for turnover differential this points to confirming my gut feel that our achilles heel is yielding big plays on defense, and an absence of big plays on offense

good news is that I believe our remaining schedule is somewhat light on big play potential and/or particularly prone to yielding them, which explains their generally low Sagarin ratings.

It would be great if at the end of the year we had a decided edge over opponents both in red zone efficiency and in big play TDs

(10-07-2013 04:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  For a team that reins back and plays for FGs after we cross the 30, we sure are scoring a large percentage of red zone TDs.

There are times when our kicker helps us score TDs. Defenses have to be concerned about the FG once we cross midfield. That forces them to take some risks that they would not ordinarily take, and to take them more often. That gives the offense opportunities to exploit. So the Boswell threat actually helps us to score TDs.

(10-08-2013 07:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 04:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  For a team that reins back and plays for FGs after we cross the 30, we sure are scoring a large percentage of red zone TDs.

There are times when our kicker helps us score TDs. Defenses have to be concerned about the FG once we cross midfield. That forces them to take some risks that they would not ordinarily take, and to take them more often. That gives the offense opportunities to exploit. So the Boswell threat actually helps us to score TDs.

Agreed. And pretty cool weapon in the threat of Boz. Hate to bring up the reality, but, um, anybody know if we have another Boz on the horizon?? I thought it was a great move to give a kicker a scholarship when they offered him. I'm all for doing it again (ditto with a punter).

The usual practice is to have the kicker walk on and only give him a scholarship later after he proves himself (which happened with Hambone in the 1980s), but I think the kickers and punters make enough of a difference in the game that scholarships should be used to attract them to begin with. Otherwise, we are stuck looking at the rugby fields to find an international student like Alan Pringle who can kick the rugby ball a long distance and then teach about American football.

(10-08-2013 06:18 PM)smackdaddy Wrote:  

(10-08-2013 07:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 04:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  For a team that reins back and plays for FGs after we cross the 30, we sure are scoring a large percentage of red zone TDs.

There are times when our kicker helps us score TDs. Defenses have to be concerned about the FG once we cross midfield. That forces them to take some risks that they would not ordinarily take, and to take them more often. That gives the offense opportunities to exploit. So the Boswell threat actually helps us to score TDs.

Agreed. And pretty cool weapon in the threat of Boz. Hate to bring up the reality, but, um, anybody know if we have another Boz on the horizon?? I thought it was a great move to give a kicker a scholarship when they offered him. I'm all for doing it again (ditto with a punter).

(10-09-2013 02:01 AM)75src Wrote:  The usual practice is to have the kicker walk on and only give him a scholarship later after he proves himself (which happened with Hambone in the 1980s), but I think the kickers and punters make enough of a difference in the game that scholarships should be used to attract them to begin with. Otherwise, we are stuck looking at the rugby fields to find an international student like Alan Pringle who can kick the rugby ball a long distance and then teach about American football.

In the first game of American football that Alan Pringle ever saw, he kicked off. And IIRC he got a procedure penalty for kciking the ball before the referee was ready, because he didn't know what the proper protocol was.

(10-08-2013 06:34 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  Even without normalizing for turnover differential this points to confirming my gut feel that our achilles heel is yielding big plays on defense, and an absence of big plays on offense

Remember that for Achilles, his heel was the one small, non-obvious, difficult-to-target weak spot in his body that was otherwise invulnerable. The weaknesses you mention would be as if Achilles's vulnerability were not just his heel, but his legs and arms too.

(10-09-2013 04:36 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-08-2013 06:34 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  Even without normalizing for turnover differential this points to confirming my gut feel that our achilles heel is yielding big plays on defense, and an absence of big plays on offense

Remember that for Achilles, his heel was the one small, non-obvious, difficult-to-target weak spot in his body that was otherwise invulnerable. The weaknesses you mention would be as if Achilles's vulnerability were not just his heel, but his legs and arms too.

ONLY on the Rice website would someone have the intelligence to make this point