(12-01-2014 05:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-01-2014 04:54 PM)NoodleOwl Wrote:  

(12-01-2014 04:40 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-01-2014 04:13 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  You're comparing Nebraska to Rice? Didn't Bailiff win, like, the most important game in recent Rice history - blowout win over Marshall in the conference championship game a year ago? Or did he lose other conference championship games that I missed?

We will have to agree to disagree on what the most important game is in recent history. To me, every game we play against UT, aTm, ND etc. is far far more important than the Marshalls, Western Michigans, Louisiana Techs etc.

The Marshall game was huge, don't get me wrong but I would trade it for beating even a 8-4 UT any day of the week.

I think we can agree that the Marshall game was the most important victory of the DB era. The only other contenders would be the bowl victories over AF & WMU, and the '08 win over #50 UH (DB's only win over an end-of-season top-50 team, and that just barely).

I agree with Antarius that there have been several games over the past 8 years which would have been much more consequential for the program had we won them - starting with ND/A&M this year, and going back through nearly every 'name' P5 team we've played (no, not Purdue & Kansas).

I'm honestly torn on this.

I think the conference championship carries tremendous weight when you are recruiting, because it shows that throughout a season you are THE team to reckon with, which helps bring in better players.

But to the outside fan, it means very little to win C-USA, but it means a lot more to pull of an upset, even once, of one of the big boys.

So it depends on how you look at importance.

I don't think every game against A&M has been more important than the C-USA championship game (like this year, in the end it would have probably meant less than knocking off JFF). But there are certain games, like UT in '08 or A&M last year, where, when you combine our success with the other program's stature, a victory over those teams trumps the trouncing of Marshall last year.

If our program were at the point where we were even competitive in games against good P5 schools, much less winning those games, championships in a watered-down CUSA would take care of themselves. However, the converse is clearly not true.

(12-01-2014 07:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-01-2014 06:46 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(12-01-2014 03:07 PM)ruowls Wrote:  In all seriousness, if a team is giving you the pass, take it and do it every down until they show that they can take it away. If they adjust by increasing their secondary allocation, then you run every play because you can generate leverage there. You generate leverage anywhere on the field based on the defensive alignment that makes it easiest to do so. The trick is being able to generate production with the run or pass and using them to accentuate each other.

At the risk of offending the skill position gurus, I think that bossing the game through the air or ground would frankly require better line play than Rice has had this year.

Few things help a line more than having the defense out of position for the play....

I'll note the JJ Watt plays. The first time, they lined him up to block... They expected the defense to ignore him as a pass catcher and focus on the run and they did. The next time, they put a linebacker on him as they would a TE and covered him... so they split him out and ran a fade against a less skilled defender of the fade and it worked. The next time, they ran what I would call a back shoulder, again against a player not as skilled at covering the back shoulder. He's now a credible threat for the pass and because the plays are quick, the line play isn't as important. They have now effectively taken a LB out of run support and they still have an advantage. If they ever put a safety on him to stop the traditional goal line passes, I suspect they will motion him and run at him (he would block and set a massive edge and now the RB is against a safety rather than an LB trying to get a yard). They will have effectively taken a linebacker off of the board which makes the run more effective.

This is why JT could be so effective for us if we were more diverse. Obviously they can't effectively cover him with a LB... and he should be competent at blocking most LBs, helping to chip an end and certainly a safety. Go double tights with him standing or as a wing. The end either has to widen to account for him as a blocker (which brings the coverage inside) or he puts himself at risk of being sealed if we want to run... Now we're optioning off of the safety in space, not the end.

I think, in summary, you are basically saying that we misused JT this year. He seems like such a weapon that I am not sure how many teams (particularly those we play) could stop him. Yet he seemed to be uninvolved a lot to my not so trained eye.

(11-29-2014 03:46 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Well that was embarrassing. I vote for no post game thread. What more can be said?

(11-29-2014 03:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-29-2014 03:47 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  2 votes for no post game thread

3 votes.

We're so fortunate y'all prevailed. :-)

Was perusing some tweets from former Rice football players and found this gem from during the LaTech game:

@WizardOfBoz09 Wrote:We have the slowest play calling in the country

LT played all three of the 7-5 Bowl Bound teams.

They beat UTEP by 52
They beat WKU by 49

The Owls at least kept it close®

(12-01-2014 07:57 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(11-29-2014 03:46 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Well that was embarrassing. I vote for no post game thread. What more can be said?

(11-29-2014 03:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-29-2014 03:47 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  2 votes for no post game thread

3 votes.

We're so fortunate y'all prevailed. :-)

It was worth a shot.