(10-26-2013 04:56 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  Ross just lost 15 yards off his rushing total because of that bungled play. Not even his fault, since he was just recovering Turner's bad pitch, aimed for Moore.

That's never how it works. The yardage was entirely attributed to Turner for his bad pitch. Ross gets credit for a fumble recovery and that's it.

Amazing how every negative play some people pipe in and then stay silent for the remainder of the game.

(10-26-2013 05:03 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  If you were here you'd understand.

Rice obviously has superior talent on the field. There is no reason to run the ill conceived trick plays, reverses, etc. Run over them. Throw over them. I don't care. But why bother trying to deceive them? None of those plays have worked and they are completely unnecessary against this opponent.

Agree 100%

(10-26-2013 11:11 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 05:03 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  If you were here you'd understand.

Rice obviously has superior talent on the field. There is no reason to run the ill conceived trick plays, reverses, etc. Run over them. Throw over them. I don't care. But why bother trying to deceive them? None of those plays have worked and they are completely unnecessary against this opponent.

Agree 100%

Tomball Owl's fashion footwear sense may be impaired but also completely agree with his view on our play calling.

(10-26-2013 11:11 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 05:03 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  If you were here you'd understand.

Rice obviously has superior talent on the field. There is no reason to run the ill conceived trick plays, reverses, etc. Run over them. Throw over them. I don't care. But why bother trying to deceive them? None of those plays have worked and they are completely unnecessary against this opponent.

Agree 100%

Really?

The coaching gets ripped repeatedly for being "too conservative", playing "not to lose" when they're playing teams they're supposed to beat.

They try a trick play in a game they win 45-7 (and earlier before the last scores) and they get ripped for that too?

It didn't work? So what? Trick plays don't always work. You don't run them much. When do you want to the team to try them out? As a 100-1 prayer in a tight game? You'd rather it fail then?

You realize that Boise State's famous hook and ladder play in the 4th quarter of their Fiesta Bowl win over Oklahoma was a play they had run earlier in the year during the 'regular' season?

No, it doesn't matter when the staff tried it, if it didn't work it was going to get criticized here.

But for weeks when we just win, and not blow out opponents, we're too conservative and the coaches play 'not to lose'.

Apples and oranges Rick. Play calling can be aggressive or conservative and still be smart. Running slow developing reverses when you've been running it down their throat isn't smart. Throwing to Ross from a wide out position on 3rd and 2 when he's averaging 8 yards a carry on the ground isn't smart.

Trick plays are more often desperation rather than aggressiveness. Aggressiveness is attempting a 58 yard FG rather than a pooch kick... going for it on 4th and a foot... throwing from your end zone and the deep ball when you get a good 1 on 1 match-up despite being up by 3 scores.

We were more aggressive than we usually are in this game and I was happy to see it... but that still doesn't explain our penchant to get "cute" when our base offense is working so well.

Save the trickery for when the normal stuff isn't working and you need to catch them over-committing or something. I suppose I can see the trickery as an attempt at a coup-de-grace... which is why I didn't mention it before... but I was certainly scratching my head when it happened. The biggest problem is that it completely blew up on us, and to make it worse, we seem to have run it right into a blitz that nearly intercepted the pitch. it just wasn't a good call against that defense and we didn't execute it well.

And I forgot to mention my "favorite"...

Drawing a delay of game penalty after calling a TO to avoid a delay of game penalty. Neither aggressive or smart. Simply head scratching.

(10-26-2013 11:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Trick plays are more often desperation rather than aggressiveness. Aggressiveness is attempting a 58 yard FG rather than a pooch kick... going for it on 4th and a foot... throwing from your end zone and the deep ball when you get a good 1 on 1 match-up despite being up by 3 scores.

We were more aggressive than we usually are in this game and I was happy to see it... but that still doesn't explain our penchant to get "cute" when our base offense is working so well.

Save the trickery for when the normal stuff isn't working and you need to catch them over-committing or something. I suppose I can see the trickery as an attempt at a coup-de-grace... which is why I didn't mention it before... but I was certainly scratching my head when it happened. The biggest problem is that it completely blew up on us, and to make it worse, we seem to have run it right into a blitz that nearly intercepted the pitch. it just wasn't a good call against that defense and we didn't execute it well.

Exactly

(10-27-2013 06:21 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  And I forgot to mention my "favorite"...

Drawing a delay of game penalty after calling a TO to avoid a delay of game penalty. Neither aggressive or smart. Simply head scratching.

I was going bonkers

(10-26-2013 11:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Trick plays are more often desperation rather than aggressiveness. Aggressiveness is attempting a 58 yard FG rather than a pooch kick... going for it on 4th and a foot... throwing from your end zone and the deep ball when you get a good 1 on 1 match-up despite being up by 3 scores.
We were more aggressive than we usually are in this game and I was happy to see it... but that still doesn't explain our penchant to get "cute" when our base offense is working so well.
Save the trickery for when the normal stuff isn't working and you need to catch them over-committing or something. I suppose I can see the trickery as an attempt at a coup-de-grace... which is why I didn't mention it before... but I was certainly scratching my head when it happened. The biggest problem is that it completely blew up on us, and to make it worse, we seem to have run it right into a blitz that nearly intercepted the pitch. it just wasn't a good call against that defense and we didn't execute it well.

Absolutely.

Very well said.

Well, I think everybody is right. There is certainly an element of damned if you do, damned if you don't with regard to the playcalling. just as we start to hear grumbles about the playcalling, here comes a 72 yard TD pass. Good call, right? what if it had failed? what if the receiver fell, or a DB was out of position at the right place and time? Bad call, why not give it to Ross, that's what has been working. Of course, had we givenit to Ross and had to punt, the chorus would have been "Why don't we ever pass inthese situations, they are expecting Ross now?"

i guess, despite allour patting ourselves onthe back, we are just like allthe other fan bases - what works is good, what doesn't work means fire da bum.

some of the playcalling seemed odd, but had they worked we would have no complaints. there is room for improvement, certainly, and I sure hope we see that improvement Thursday.

Well said.

My pet peeve is lack of snaps for Driphus while giving them to Luke Turner. DJ has shown that he can really run the rock.

Happy to be educated by those who know more football, but I don't understand why the Wild Owl with Turner is advantaged over DJ as the trigger. DJ has to be a more credible passing threat, and he has repeatedly shown the ability to get big runs.

I THINK that turner over DJ in the Wildowl goes back to Tebow, where you don't mind Turner lowering his head and shoulder to get the extra foot, but you don't want DJ doing it. Other than that, I agree.

Finishing the "aggressiveness" comments... yes, absolutely, success goes into the analysis... which is why "cute" things (things outside the normal scheme) are a problem for me. You aren't likely to execute them as well because yo so rarely practice them... and if you often practice them and they are successful, they should be part of your repertoire... which is one thing when other things aren't working, but something else when they are

Using a different player in a traditional formation to create a match-up in your favor is fine. I don't know UTEP well enough to know that Ross got the match-up we wanted and thus the primary target... and I have a tough time "buying" that Ross is our best receiving back to put in that formation, but maybe I'm wrong. I didn't mention it because I honestly don't know. But the reason you split him out is because it creates a mismatch... either for him, or for someone else as the other team adjusts to him.... in an obvious, but not realistic example... what would they do if we split Ross out and put Jordan Taylor in the backfield? You run the same play as before... something we've practiced 1000 times, but with a very different skillset at one or two positions to force the defense to adjust... and take advantage of (as an example) JT against a linebacker in man coverage or Ross' size and deceptive speed

(10-27-2013 06:45 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 06:21 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  And I forgot to mention my "favorite"...

Drawing a delay of game penalty after calling a TO to avoid a delay of game penalty. Neither aggressive or smart. Simply head scratching.

I was going bonkers

The playclock started way too early. We still should have been paying attention, but there was maybe 15 seconds left when the ball was set, not 25.

I am a little puzzled why we don't see more Dillard or Davis earlier in games. Both present a different problem for defenses than Ross (and Dillard instead of Ross on the much discussed pass play would have made way more sense). I would also use two backs with Ross and Dillard/Davis with Dillard/Davis being shifted to the slot at times. That would give us Ross up the middle where he is most effective and speed outside with the other two. Heck I'd even be willing to put a Hatfield package into the offense which I think McH or Jackson could run at times. To me that would do more in "giving a different look" than the Ross pass or even the reverses.

(10-28-2013 08:24 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  I am a little puzzled why we don't see more Dillard or Davis earlier in games. Both present a different problem for defenses than Ross (and Dillard instead of Ross on the much discussed pass play would have made way more sense). I would also use two backs with Ross and Dillard/Davis with Dillard/Davis being shifted to the slot at times. That would give us Ross up the middle where he is most effective and speed outside with the other two. Heck I'd even be willing to put a Hatfield package into the offense which I think McH or Jackson could run at times. To me that would do more in "giving a different look" than the Ross pass or even the reverses.

We are in the top 20 in the NCAA in rushing per game and Ross is in the top 30-40 got total yards after missing 2.5 games.

I think that answers your question. No need to fix what isn't broken.