The A&M passing offense might be too much for our safeties, but I want to see our offense do some damage to the A&M defense.

(09-03-2014 03:49 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  The A&M passing offense might be too much for our safeties, but I want to see our offense do some damage to the A&M defense.

Knowing Sumlin's past and what A&M's offense looked like last week, I would like to see our coordinators at least try to adapt. Maybe start with our dime defense as the base defense to get another CB on the field instead of a safety. Obviously this will be easier if Blasingame is back and Hill is back at safety. But I would like to see Callahan, Blasingame, Warren, and Hill on the field for most early snaps. Force A&M to beat Rice on the ground, or at least do everything possible to prevent getting killed through the air. Also drop one of the safeties deeper than we were doing against Notre Dame. If A&M starts killing Rice on the ground and with short/intermediate throws, then we can adjust accordingly. But at least try to make them beat us on our terms, rather than on their terms!

Incidentally, other teams did this to Rice last year by crowding the box to take away or limit the run and force us to throw.

(09-03-2014 04:53 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 03:49 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  The A&M passing offense might be too much for our safeties, but I want to see our offense do some damage to the A&M defense.

Knowing Sumlin's past and what A&M's offense looked like last week, I would like to see our coordinators at least try to adapt. Maybe start with our dime defense as the base defense to get another CB on the field instead of a safety. Obviously this will be easier if Blasingame is back and Hill is back at safety. But I would like to see Callahan, Blasingame, Warren, and Hill on the field for most early snaps. Force A&M to beat Rice on the ground, or at least do everything possible to prevent getting killed through the air. Also drop one of the safeties deeper than we were doing against Notre Dame. If A&M starts killing Rice on the ground and with short/intermediate throws, then we can adjust accordingly. But at least try to make them beat us on our terms, rather than on their terms!

Incidentally, other teams did this to Rice last year by crowding the box to take away or limit the run and force us to throw.

Coach Thurmond needs to watch this video:

(08-30-2014 03:51 PM)At Ease Wrote:  I need to retract my criticism, great set up for that play by the OC.

Except that trying to 'out-guess' coaches that make 3 times or more what you do... and trying to make fewer mistakes than guys who spend far more time thinking about football and far less time in the classroom... and trying to out-athlete guys who generally have better measurables isn't the way to beat a team that is better than you (on paper). I think our coaches do a great job... I just wish they focused more on making positive plays ourselves rather than counting on top 25 teams to make a bunch of mistakes that we can capitalize upon. I think that may be the single biggest difference between the top 50 and the next 150...

I'm obviously speaking hyperbolically... but I just don't think that scheming to get other guys to make mistakes is the right approach. Sure, it sometimes works... but it also means you probably wasted at least ONE play setting up that play... and now having been burned, they won't 'bite' the next time so you can't use it again. Throw in an occasional drop or fantastic defensive play and suddenly you're 1 success in 4 plays, which means you punted.

Getting a guy to make a mistake and bite on the bubble screen (what we do) so that you can beat him in the seam is entirely different from showing a vacated middle on 3rd and 8 (what ND did) so that the QB checks out to a QB draw (doing what he is taught to do) and then NOT rushing your nose guard or stunting the DL so that they can jam up the draw. In the former, you're counting on mistakes. In the latter, you're counting on the offense to do what they are taught.

(08-31-2014 07:21 AM)NicevilleWRC Wrote:  No no no! If you want to pull an upset you have to play high-risk, high-reward; playing conservatively makes the expected, median result more likely. Giving up 7 points at half doesn't matter nearly as much as trying to steal an extra 3 or 7 points. If we fail we lose by 30 instead of 20, big whoop, but if we succeed we would be going for the tie or lead to start the 2nd half instead of trying to score to "put us [back] in the game". We are a huge underdog, we can't afford to give up possessions!

No no no!

You take calculated risks, where the odds have a chance to be in your favor. We didn't steal 3 or 7 points, we gave them another 7. That seems to happen to us more often than not. Starting from your own 25 with 2:30 left in the half, it's about even money who is going to score if you gamble.

And giving up an extra 7 points right before the half most certainly does matter as much or more as getting an additional 3, if not 7. 21-10 at the half, and we get the ball first to start the third, is most definitely a game in doubt. 28-10 is getting out of hand.

First thing is that if we stay home and stop the QB draw on 3rd and 8 on the prior series, we're at worst down 17-10 instead of 21-10. Then we actually started the possession properly, short pass completed, then two runs to get a first down at our own 38 with roughly 1:30 remaining. To that point, we are doing it right. Ideally, you try to get one more first down by the 1:00 mark and then go hurry up. What we did was a terrible job of clock management. Twice we don't get lined up and get the play off in a hurry, so we take 1:01 to burn two TO's and run three plays. That puts us in a bind, we have to try to force things, so we throw the pick. Then we have no safeties home on two consecutive pass plays, luckily he dropped the first, not so luckily he didn't drop the second.

So three mistakes take us from 14-10 and winnable to 28-10 and not winnable in the last 3 minutes of the half.
1. We don't stop the QB draw,
2. We mismanage the clock and as a result hurry ourselves into the interception.
3. We don't have safeties over the top when we know they are throwing deep.

That's how you turn a winnable game into a big loss.

(09-04-2014 10:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What we did was a terrible job of clock management. Twice we don't get lined up and get the play off in a hurry, so we take 1:01 to burn two TO's and run three plays.

And year after year after year, I keep wondering: of all the skills in football, why is clock management one of the things we struggle with most?

(09-04-2014 10:19 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-04-2014 10:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What we did was a terrible job of clock management. Twice we don't get lined up and get the play off in a hurry, so we take 1:01 to burn two TO's and run three plays.

And year after year after year, I keep wondering: of all the skills in football, why is clock management one of the things we struggle with most?

I don't know, but this may have been one of our worst exhibitions of clock mismanagement ever. We looked completely disorganized and unprepared. And no apparent sense of urgency. Don't know how it looked on TV, but live it looked simply awful.

(09-04-2014 10:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-31-2014 07:21 AM)NicevilleWRC Wrote:  No no no! If you want to pull an upset you have to play high-risk, high-reward; playing conservatively makes the expected, median result more likely. Giving up 7 points at half doesn't matter nearly as much as trying to steal an extra 3 or 7 points. If we fail we lose by 30 instead of 20, big whoop, but if we succeed we would be going for the tie or lead to start the 2nd half instead of trying to score to "put us [back] in the game". We are a huge underdog, we can't afford to give up possessions!

No no no!
I
You take calculated risks, where the odds have a chance to be in your favor. We didn't steal 3 or 7 points, we gave them another 7. That seems to happen to us more often than not. Starting from your own 25 with 2:30 left in the half, it's about even money who is going to score if you gamble.

And giving up an extra 7 points right before the half most certainly does matter as much or more as getting an additional 3, if not 7. 21-10 at the half, and we get the ball first to start the third, is most definitely a game in doubt. 28-10 is getting out of hand.

First thing is that if we stay home and stop the QB draw on 3rd and 8 on the prior series, we're at worst down 17-10 instead of 21-10. Then we actually started the possession properly, short pass completed, then two runs to get a first down at our own 38 with roughly 1:30 remaining. To that point, we are doing it right. Ideally, you try to get one more first down by the 1:00 mark and then go hurry up. What we did was a terrible job of clock management. Twice we don't get lined up and get the play off in a hurry, so we take 1:01 to burn two TO's and run three plays. That puts us in a bind, we have to try to force things, so we throw the pick. Then we have no safeties home on two consecutive pass plays, luckily he dropped the first, not so luckily he didn't drop the second.

So three mistakes take us from 14-10 and winnable to 28-10 and not winnable in the last 3 minutes of the half.
1. We don't stop the QB draw,
2. We mismanage the clock and as a result hurry ourselves into the interception.
3. We don't have safeties over the top when we know they are throwing deep.

That's how you turn a winnable game into a big loss.

What risk?
You basically are saying you need to execute your offense for a sustained drive where the clock only stops with your first downs. In other words, you want the clock running if you can't succeed and to stop if you can.
And if you can execute your offense, you have increased your chances of winning. You can't win if you don't score.

This goes to what Hambone is saying. The best way to ensure execution by the offense is for the offense to create execution instead of hoping the defense doesn't. You can't replicate success if you rely on your opponent to fail.

(09-05-2014 12:08 AM)ruowls Wrote:  What risk?
You basically are saying you need to execute your offense for a sustained drive where the clock only stops with your first downs. In other words, you want the clock running if you can't succeed and to stop if you can.
And if you can execute your offense, you have increased your chances of winning. You can't win if you don't score.
This goes to what Hambone is saying. The best way to ensure execution by the offense is for the offense to create execution instead of hoping the defense doesn't. You can't replicate success if you rely on your opponent to fail.

Actually the situation was easier than you suggest, because we also could stop the clock three times by calling time out. But agree 100% on what you want--the clock to stop if your offense is succeeding and run if you are failing. And we got that part right to start the series, then totally lost it with poor clock management after we got to midfield.

As far as the risk question, you're speaking like a true offensive coordinator here. The risk is giving up the ball to them with sufficient time for them to score--which is exactly what we did through simply awful execution. I don't need to explain the risk--we saw it first hand. The risk is that exactly what happened will happen. From a head coach perspective, you have to balance the risk and reward. As you say, if you execute your offense you increase your chances of winning. Here we didn't--nor did we execute our defense--so we increased our chance of losing significantly. And that's the risk--that we won't execute. The OC's job is to fix execution. And while we should strive always for perfect execution, our strategic decisions should be based on realistic assessments of risk, not unsupported assumptions regarding performance. You are right, we should be able to execute our offense in this situation. But the fact is that we didn't, and we paid a price. And the price we paid is the risk.

Offense needs to execute better so that we score instead of turning the ball over. Defense needs to prevent the touchdown when we do give them the ball. Both sides of the ball at fault.

(09-05-2014 04:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 12:08 AM)ruowls Wrote:  What risk?
You basically are saying you need to execute your offense for a sustained drive where the clock only stops with your first downs. In other words, you want the clock running if you can't succeed and to stop if you can.
And if you can execute your offense, you have increased your chances of winning. You can't win if you don't score.
This goes to what Hambone is saying. The best way to ensure execution by the offense is for the offense to create execution instead of hoping the defense doesn't. You can't replicate success if you rely on your opponent to fail.

Actually the situation was easier than you suggest, because we also could stop the clock three times by calling time out. But agree 100% on what you want--the clock to stop if your offense is succeeding and run if you are failing. And we got that part right to start the series, then totally lost it with poor clock management after we got to midfield.

As far as the risk question, you're speaking like a true offensive coordinator here. The risk is giving up the ball to them with sufficient time for them to score--which is exactly what we did through simply awful execution. I don't need to explain the risk--we saw it first hand. The risk is that exactly what happened will happen. From a head coach perspective, you have to balance the risk and reward. As you say, if you execute your offense you increase your chances of winning. Here we didn't--nor did we execute our defense--so we increased our chance of losing significantly. And that's the risk--that we won't execute. The OC's job is to fix execution. And while we should strive always for perfect execution, our strategic decisions should be based on realistic assessments of risk, not unsupported assumptions regarding performance. You are right, we should be able to execute our offense in this situation. But the fact is that we didn't, and we paid a price. And the price we paid is the risk.

Offense needs to execute better so that we score instead of turning the ball over. Defense needs to prevent the touchdown when we do give them the ball. Both sides of the ball at fault.

A few comments...

1) I watched Top Gun. "Better to bug out than press a bad situation."
2) I know you don't hit 20.
3) Where did you buy your retrospectoscope?

Obviously, the coaches thought they were prepared for the situation and could execute their offense and did so for 3 plays. The breakdown started when they started using timeouts to prevent penalties. Timeouts are safety nets that let you use the entire offense with the ability to stop the clock if needed.

The current offensive system has a difficult time of differentiating zone versus man coverages. As Talon noted on an earlier play, the offense had a zone route against a press man defense. On the INT play, it was a man route against a zone defense. You had an inside receiver run a deep out and ND sank their flat defender. The offense didn't account for the underneath defender. It was compounded by the fact that the QBs sightline was looking from the receiver's inside to the outside break. Since the flat defender was outside this sightline, the QB never saw the defender who was sitting in the throwing lane. It is easy to see that the offense thought they were hitting 12 when they were really hitting 20. And if they thought they were playing the percentages correctly can you blame them?

What was really bizarre about this whole sequence was that we started out doing it exactly right. We have first and ten on our own 25 with two and a half left and 3 TOs. A short pass and two runs get us a first down at the 38 at about 1:30. So far almost perfectly on pace. Then the next three playstake forever to line up and run. A short pass gets us to the 43, 2nd and 5, then a pass that picks up the first down at midfield and a short sack. We end up burning a time out after the second and third, and we are down to 29 seconds at midfield, 2nd and long, one TO remaining. I'm not sure exactly what the problem was, since I looked away for a bit the first time--think I turned to look at the scoreboard to check time (only one scoreboard working at that time, and it was opposite direction from the field where I was sitting), probably saw a score being scrolled that interested me, and when I turned back we were scrambling to line up. Looked more like formation confusion than substitutions, kind of like maybe they ran some kind of long crossing routes and receivers took their time to get back to other side of field to run the next play. Perhaps somebody who had a better view can explain exactly what happened. Whatever, there's no excuse.

I don't think we were hitting 20. I think it was just very poor execution of what was really the correct strategy. As you say, we have to assume we can execute our offense, and in this case we couldn't. But the wounds were self-inflicted. I have wondered at times if Bailiff didn't take so much heat for running out the clock in the playoff game that he sometimes tries to hit 18 to make up for it--particularly just before the half, which is totally out of synch with his basic philosophy, and which has pretty consistently backfired from Nicholls forward. This time we did the strategy right but totally screwed up the execution.