Are we really who we think we are? I was astonished to read this quote on Texasfootball.com:

Quote:Rice: The heaviest running team in Texas in 2012…was even heavier running in 2013! The Owls’ 699 rushing attempts rank 4th in the nation, and their nearly 50 attempts-per-game average ranked 8th.

Not all that surprising or new. We ran it 48 times a game last year (9th in the nation) and 625 times total (11th in the nation). With the wealth of talent at RB and mobile QBs that aren't the most consistent of throwers (granted, I guess I should say QB since it was mostly Taylor), we've tried to maximize our strengths. Wouldn't be stunned to see this continue unless Driphus or one of the other QBs provides a significant step up in completion percentage.

What surprised me was that we were 4th in the nation. That's a return to the halcyon days of Hatfield and the triple option.

(01-27-2014 04:29 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  What surprised me was that we were 4th in the nation. That's a return to the halcyon days of Hatfield and the triple option.

Very true and I understand what you are saying. I guess the difference is the threat of the passing game is a bit more real in this offense than in the versions of the triple that I remember (the last few Hatfield years).

(01-27-2014 04:32 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 04:29 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  What surprised me was that we were 4th in the nation. That's a return to the halcyon days of Hatfield and the triple option.

Very true and I understand what you are saying. I guess the difference is the threat of the passing game is a bit more real in this offense than in the versions of the triple that I remember (the last few Hatfield years).

...But Hatfield never used four wideouts as standard practice.

What amazes me is that Bailiff and his OC have adopted a run-oriented offensive approach, yet they never considered breaking away from the shotgun-QB, four-wides scheme. Even the very notion of using multiple RBs requires a different set called the WildOwl.

(01-27-2014 05:06 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 04:32 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 04:29 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  What surprised me was that we were 4th in the nation. That's a return to the halcyon days of Hatfield and the triple option.

Very true and I understand what you are saying. I guess the difference is the threat of the passing game is a bit more real in this offense than in the versions of the triple that I remember (the last few Hatfield years).

...But Hatfield never used four wideouts as standard practice.

What amazes me is that Bailiff and his OC have adopted a run-oriented offensive approach, yet they never considered breaking away from the shotgun-QB, four-wides scheme. Even the very notion of using multiple RBs requires a different set called the WildOwl.

But it didn't really matter. We still had one of the best rushing attacks in the country, ranked 17th, at 227.4 ypg.

The issue with our offense (or what should amaze you) wasn't the way we lined up, but that we didnt adjust well when teams figure out how to slow down our rushing attack, or when we were physically manhandled.

(01-27-2014 05:06 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 04:32 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 04:29 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  What surprised me was that we were 4th in the nation. That's a return to the halcyon days of Hatfield and the triple option.

Very true and I understand what you are saying. I guess the difference is the threat of the passing game is a bit more real in this offense than in the versions of the triple that I remember (the last few Hatfield years).

...But Hatfield never used four wideouts as standard practice.

What amazes me is that Bailiff and his OC have adopted a run-oriented offensive approach, yet they never considered breaking away from the shotgun-QB, four-wides scheme. Even the very notion of using multiple RBs requires a different set called the WildOwl.

They used multiple running backs with Taylor in as QB.

(01-27-2014 05:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 05:06 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 04:32 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 04:29 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  What surprised me was that we were 4th in the nation. That's a return to the halcyon days of Hatfield and the triple option.

Very true and I understand what you are saying. I guess the difference is the threat of the passing game is a bit more real in this offense than in the versions of the triple that I remember (the last few Hatfield years).

...But Hatfield never used four wideouts as standard practice.

What amazes me is that Bailiff and his OC have adopted a run-oriented offensive approach, yet they never considered breaking away from the shotgun-QB, four-wides scheme. Even the very notion of using multiple RBs requires a different set called the WildOwl.

But it didn't really matter. We still had one of the best rushing attacks in the country, ranked 17th, at 227.4 ypg.

The issue with our offense (or what should amaze you) wasn't the way we lined up, but that we didnt adjust well when teams figure out how to slow down our rushing attack, or when we were physically manhandled.

That is where having a more consistent QB would help. Hopefully, we can find that in the group we've got.

(01-27-2014 05:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 05:06 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 04:32 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 04:29 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  What surprised me was that we were 4th in the nation. That's a return to the halcyon days of Hatfield and the triple option.

Very true and I understand what you are saying. I guess the difference is the threat of the passing game is a bit more real in this offense than in the versions of the triple that I remember (the last few Hatfield years).

...But Hatfield never used four wideouts as standard practice.

What amazes me is that Bailiff and his OC have adopted a run-oriented offensive approach, yet they never considered breaking away from the shotgun-QB, four-wides scheme. Even the very notion of using multiple RBs requires a different set called the WildOwl.

But it didn't really matter. We still had one of the best rushing attacks in the country, ranked 17th, at 227.4 ypg.

The issue with our offense (or what should amaze you) wasn't the way we lined up, but that we didnt adjust well when teams figure out how to slow down our rushing attack, or when we were physically manhandled.

It was a good attack, but 8th in attempts per game and 17th in yards per game means that at least half the teams ahead of us in YPG were more efficient.

IIRC, our 1996-2001 teams (as alluded to above) finished in the Top 5 in yards per game, and finished as high as 2nd at least once, and I thought 2 or 3 times.

The #17 is still good, and we definitely passed for more ypg, so the balance needs to be factored in. But I don't think comparing the two rushing offenses has much merit other than noting that both philosophies accentuate the run. They do so in different manners.

(01-27-2014 04:20 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  

Quote:Rice: The heaviest running team in Texas in 2012…was even heavier running in 2013! The Owls’ 699 rushing attempts rank 4th in the nation, and their nearly 50 attempts-per-game average ranked 8th.

(01-27-2014 04:29 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  What surprised me was that we were 4th in the nation. That's a return to the halcyon days of Hatfield and the triple option.

(01-27-2014 05:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But it didn't really matter. We still had one of the best rushing attacks in the country, ranked 17th, at 227.4 ypg.

Rick kind of beat me to it in reconciling those numbers, but 8th in attempts per game, 4th in overall attempts, and 17th in ypg indicates: Rice was more successful in winning games than 4 of the 7 teams that were more run-heavy than Rice, yet Rice was not terribly efficient in getting yardage out of the run.

Rice will almost certainly have fewer attempts in the coming 2-3 years (I think 2013 was a high water mark for a couple of reasons), but I have to think that coach Bailiff will always run more than pass.

(01-27-2014 05:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 05:06 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 04:32 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 04:29 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  What surprised me was that we were 4th in the nation. That's a return to the halcyon days of Hatfield and the triple option.

Very true and I understand what you are saying. I guess the difference is the threat of the passing game is a bit more real in this offense than in the versions of the triple that I remember (the last few Hatfield years).

...But Hatfield never used four wideouts as standard practice.

What amazes me is that Bailiff and his OC have adopted a run-oriented offensive approach, yet they never considered breaking away from the shotgun-QB, four-wides scheme. Even the very notion of using multiple RBs requires a different set called the WildOwl.

But it didn't really matter. We still had one of the best rushing attacks in the country, ranked 17th, at 227.4 ypg.

The issue with our offense (or what should amaze you) wasn't the way we lined up, but that we didnt adjust well when teams figure out how to slow down our rushing attack, or when we were physically manhandled.

The problem with the one-RB rushing attack is the lack of offensive variability intrinsic to having a sole RB. Defenses have had an easy time of keying on McGuffie and Ross. Weaker defenses couldn't stop Ross regardless, but the better ones could at least keep him under control. Our passing game has simply been too weak to justify four wides.

The bigger concern with Bailiff's offensive philosophy is that we can run over notably weaker teams, but we are always going to struggle against the good teams, especially the ones with solid run defenses. Stacking the box was/is a very effective strategy against us, since we have so many problems getting the ball to our receivers.