(09-20-2016 04:17 PM)raptorsareout Wrote:  One of the reasons the coaches may have opened up the offense is in the hope that it will attract some better players. They probably realize that high school kids aren't going to be excited about running the Mearkat or Triple Option. They do love playing within spread offenses though, and maybe there's something more to this than we realize.

There's a LOT to this...

However.... If you look at most successful college spread offenses, you see far more pistol, motion, two and even three backs.

You can run a triple option type attack out of the spread... and many of them do... in fact, the options are arguably even greater than in the wishbone because you can change the attack angles more... while still engaging the 'wide open' passing options out of it. We run what appears to be a very basic zone read spread. Sure, there are some nice wrinkles... these ARE professional coaches... but this is with what has been a relatively stable coaching staff. I've seen teams with new coaches install far more complex (appearing) offenses. All I've really heard (on more than one occasion) since Clement and co were here (when it was said that they could do even more than the coaches were asking) is that the players aren't grasping the system and we had to scale it back.

Our stable of running backs would be perfectly happy with a triple option out of the spread... which WOULD undoubtedly improve our passing game... and when we have receivers like we've had in the past, we can make them heroes. When we talk about round pegs and square holes, this is actually what I mean.

Right now, we seem to have a plethora of solid backs (a new freshman each year seems to come in and impress) and we seem thin at WR. I'd expect our spread to involve far more multi-back sets and running triple options as a result. If we had the opposite issue, I'd expect the opposite focus. If we could be balanced, we could do anything. THAT is what makes an offense effective. When on 3rd and 3, they can be successful running any of numerous plays in their arsenal... attacking the line, the edge, the middle or even deep. They can show 5 wide and then shift into double-tights and 2 backs... or anything in between. With our penchant for 'tweeners'... I would think this would be a mainstay of our offense. When you can split guys out, or put him at TE or even at FB, you should be able to beat most teams on 3rd and short.

(09-20-2016 10:24 PM)raptorsareout Wrote:  Then we need to get much more athletic. Let's call it whatever we want. There's obviously something wrong, and it can't all be blamed on coaching. We look slow against top 60 competition. There's a clear disparity in athleticism. It's especially obvious on television. Our guys look small and slow.

How is that not on coaching?

1) recruit more athletic players.
2) use a system that doesn't require superior athleticism.
3) make those players you CAN recruit more athletic (usually S&C)

Whom would you put such a task on/charge with fixing such an issue?

(09-21-2016 11:13 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 04:17 PM)raptorsareout Wrote:  One of the reasons the coaches may have opened up the offense is in the hope that it will attract some better players. They probably realize that high school kids aren't going to be excited about running the Mearkat or Triple Option. They do love playing within spread offenses though, and maybe there's something more to this than we realize.

There's a LOT to this...

However.... If you look at most successful college spread offenses, you see far more pistol, motion, two and even three backs.

You can run a triple option type attack out of the spread... and many of them do... in fact, the options are arguably even greater than in the wishbone because you can change the attack angles more... while still engaging the 'wide open' passing options out of it. We run what appears to be a very basic zone read spread. Sure, there are some nice wrinkles... these ARE professional coaches... but this is with what has been a relatively stable coaching staff. I've seen teams with new coaches install far more complex (appearing) offenses. All I've really heard (on more than one occasion) since Clement and co were here (when it was said that they could do even more than the coaches were asking) is that the players aren't grasping the system and we had to scale it back.

Our stable of running backs would be perfectly happy with a triple option out of the spread... which WOULD undoubtedly improve our passing game... and when we have receivers like we've had in the past, we can make them heroes. When we talk about round pegs and square holes, this is actually what I mean.

Right now, we seem to have a plethora of solid backs (a new freshman each year seems to come in and impress) and we seem thin at WR. I'd expect our spread to involve far more multi-back sets and running triple options as a result. If we had the opposite issue, I'd expect the opposite focus. If we could be balanced, we could do anything. THAT is what makes an offense effective. When on 3rd and 3, they can be successful running any of numerous plays in their arsenal... attacking the line, the edge, the middle or even deep. They can show 5 wide and then shift into double-tights and 2 backs... or anything in between. With our penchant for 'tweeners'... I would think this would be a mainstay of our offense. When you can split guys out, or put him at TE or even at FB, you should be able to beat most teams on 3rd and short.

One of the disappointing things with this staff is that for many years, we have not taken advantage of our best players, which seemingly have been RB's and TE's, rather have forced 4 WR's on the field, regardless of relative skill. JD Clowney is really a 4-3 DE, but the Texans on defense have put their 11 best for each situation on the field and found a way for Clowney and Mercilius and Watt to be on the field at the same time. I guarantee that is the way Rhodes does it.

(09-21-2016 11:15 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 10:24 PM)raptorsareout Wrote:  Then we need to get much more athletic. Let's call it whatever we want. There's obviously something wrong, and it can't all be blamed on coaching. We look slow against top 60 competition. There's a clear disparity in athleticism. It's especially obvious on television. Our guys look small and slow.

How is that not on coaching?

1) recruit more athletic players.
2) use a system that doesn't require superior athleticism.
3) make those players you CAN recruit more athletic (usually S&C)

Whom would you put such a task on/charge with fixing such an issue?

It will be interesting to see how the next coach solves those problems. 1&3 are pretty obvious.

For #2, other than the triple option offense that the service academies use and that we discarded, what offenses and defenses work that don't need superior athleticism?

(09-21-2016 11:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 11:15 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 10:24 PM)raptorsareout Wrote:  Then we need to get much more athletic. Let's call it whatever we want. There's obviously something wrong, and it can't all be blamed on coaching. We look slow against top 60 competition. There's a clear disparity in athleticism. It's especially obvious on television. Our guys look small and slow.

How is that not on coaching?

1) recruit more athletic players.
2) use a system that doesn't require superior athleticism.
3) make those players you CAN recruit more athletic (usually S&C)

Whom would you put such a task on/charge with fixing such an issue?

It will be interesting to see how the next coach solves those problems. 1&3 are pretty obvious.

For #2, other than the triple option offense that the service academies use and that we discarded, what offenses and defenses work that don't need superior athleticism?

Answer to #2 - see any post from ruowls.

(09-21-2016 12:06 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 11:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 11:15 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 10:24 PM)raptorsareout Wrote:  Then we need to get much more athletic. Let's call it whatever we want. There's obviously something wrong, and it can't all be blamed on coaching. We look slow against top 60 competition. There's a clear disparity in athleticism. It's especially obvious on television. Our guys look small and slow.

How is that not on coaching?

1) recruit more athletic players.
2) use a system that doesn't require superior athleticism.
3) make those players you CAN recruit more athletic (usually S&C)

Whom would you put such a task on/charge with fixing such an issue?

It will be interesting to see how the next coach solves those problems. 1&3 are pretty obvious.

For #2, other than the triple option offense that the service academies use and that we discarded, what offenses and defenses work that don't need superior athleticism?

Answer to #2 - see any post from ruowls.

Precisely.

Use physics and geometry to overcome athleticism. This is what the wishbone does, but so does rugby and soccer and lacrosse and basketball. A 180lb guy can block a 280 lb guy if he comes from the side. He can't if he comes from in front. You can complete a pass more easily if the defender is behind, not in front of you.

The ideal WR is probably 6'3, 215, 4.4, big vertical and great hands.

I'd focus on the hands first. Doesn't matter if you're open if you can't catch it, and the difference between 4.4 and 4.5 over 10 -15 yards is nothing, and neither is the 'catch radius' of someone 6'3 vs 5'10. Of course, if you can get the other guy, so much the better.

We've all played some form of 'tag'. I want shifty runners, not necessarily fast ones. Guys who can avoid being tagged/jammed at the LOS and catch the ball. We can teach that kid to get open. Think Danny Amendola as opposed to Amari Cooper. We are more likely to get 5'10, 4.5 Amendola than 6'2 4.4 Cooper.

The common thought is that you can't teach size, so that is what most people go for... Like Navy, I'm going for the guy who most places would see as too small. Not diminutive of course, and there is also need for bigger WRs... but on 3rd and 3 or on the goal line, the fade is a tough throw and requires all sorts of athleticism. The quick slant or stop requires is the ability to get inside the defender and recognize who has the passing lane and adjust. 4.2 doesn't help there, and 6'2 can be defeated by 6'3 on the fade.

I'm putting a premium on QBs who can throw slants, stops and swings (momentum going forward, recognizing where the 'threat' is, and it's NOT the guy behind our receiver)... not fades.

Similarly on defense, better use of disguises and unusual packages... i.e. drop an end into coverage (changes the passing lane) and then blitz the backer who NORMALLY would have covered that lane. Focus your athleticism here. Other teams WILL move the ball... You're not going to win 7-3 without athleticism... but you might win 31-24.

(09-21-2016 01:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 12:06 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 11:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 11:15 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 10:24 PM)raptorsareout Wrote:  Then we need to get much more athletic. Let's call it whatever we want. There's obviously something wrong, and it can't all be blamed on coaching. We look slow against top 60 competition. There's a clear disparity in athleticism. It's especially obvious on television. Our guys look small and slow.

How is that not on coaching?

1) recruit more athletic players.
2) use a system that doesn't require superior athleticism.
3) make those players you CAN recruit more athletic (usually S&C)

Whom would you put such a task on/charge with fixing such an issue?

It will be interesting to see how the next coach solves those problems. 1&3 are pretty obvious.

For #2, other than the triple option offense that the service academies use and that we discarded, what offenses and defenses work that don't need superior athleticism?

Answer to #2 - see any post from ruowls.

Precisely.

Use physics and geometry to overcome athleticism. This is what the wishbone does, but so does rugby and soccer and lacrosse and basketball. A 180lb guy can block a 280 lb guy if he comes from the side. He can't if he comes from in front. You can complete a pass more easily if the defender is behind, not in front of you.

The ideal WR is probably 6'3, 215, 4.4, big vertical and great hands.

I'd focus on the hands first. Doesn't matter if you're open if you can't catch it, and the difference between 4.4 and 4.5 over 10 -15 yards is nothing, and neither is the 'catch radius' of someone 6'3 vs 5'10. Of course, if you can get the other guy, so much the better.

We've all played some form of 'tag'. I want shifty runners, not necessarily fast ones. Guys who can avoid being tagged/jammed at the LOS and catch the ball. We can teach that kid to get open. Think Danny Amendola as opposed to Amari Cooper. We are more likely to get 5'10, 4.5 Amendola than 6'2 4.4 Cooper.

The common thought is that you can't teach size, so that is what most people go for... Like Navy, I'm going for the guy who most places would see as too small. Not diminutive of course, and there is also need for bigger WRs... but on 3rd and 3 or on the goal line, the fade is a tough throw and requires all sorts of athleticism. The quick slant or stop requires is the ability to get inside the defender and recognize who has the passing lane and adjust. 4.2 doesn't help there, and 6'2 can be defeated by 6'3 on the fade.

I'm putting a premium on QBs who can throw slants, stops and swings (momentum going forward, recognizing where the 'threat' is, and it's NOT the guy behind our receiver)... not fades.

Similarly on defense, better use of disguises and unusual packages... i.e. drop an end into coverage (changes the passing lane) and then blitz the backer who NORMALLY would have covered that lane. Focus your athleticism here. Other teams WILL move the ball... You're not going to win 7-3 without athleticism... but you might win 31-24.

I would be glad to have ruowls as coach, and wouldn't mind having Ham and Tomball on his staff.

If ruowls is not available, who do you think might be a good candidate to run the type of offense you are advocating? Kendall Briles?

(09-21-2016 01:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 01:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 12:06 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 11:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 11:15 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  How is that not on coaching?

1) recruit more athletic players.
2) use a system that doesn't require superior athleticism.
3) make those players you CAN recruit more athletic (usually S&C)

Whom would you put such a task on/charge with fixing such an issue?

It will be interesting to see how the next coach solves those problems. 1&3 are pretty obvious.

For #2, other than the triple option offense that the service academies use and that we discarded, what offenses and defenses work that don't need superior athleticism?

Answer to #2 - see any post from ruowls.

Precisely.

Use physics and geometry to overcome athleticism. This is what the wishbone does, but so does rugby and soccer and lacrosse and basketball. A 180lb guy can block a 280 lb guy if he comes from the side. He can't if he comes from in front. You can complete a pass more easily if the defender is behind, not in front of you.

The ideal WR is probably 6'3, 215, 4.4, big vertical and great hands.

I'd focus on the hands first. Doesn't matter if you're open if you can't catch it, and the difference between 4.4 and 4.5 over 10 -15 yards is nothing, and neither is the 'catch radius' of someone 6'3 vs 5'10. Of course, if you can get the other guy, so much the better.

We've all played some form of 'tag'. I want shifty runners, not necessarily fast ones. Guys who can avoid being tagged/jammed at the LOS and catch the ball. We can teach that kid to get open. Think Danny Amendola as opposed to Amari Cooper. We are more likely to get 5'10, 4.5 Amendola than 6'2 4.4 Cooper.

The common thought is that you can't teach size, so that is what most people go for... Like Navy, I'm going for the guy who most places would see as too small. Not diminutive of course, and there is also need for bigger WRs... but on 3rd and 3 or on the goal line, the fade is a tough throw and requires all sorts of athleticism. The quick slant or stop requires is the ability to get inside the defender and recognize who has the passing lane and adjust. 4.2 doesn't help there, and 6'2 can be defeated by 6'3 on the fade.

I'm putting a premium on QBs who can throw slants, stops and swings (momentum going forward, recognizing where the 'threat' is, and it's NOT the guy behind our receiver)... not fades.

Similarly on defense, better use of disguises and unusual packages... i.e. drop an end into coverage (changes the passing lane) and then blitz the backer who NORMALLY would have covered that lane. Focus your athleticism here. Other teams WILL move the ball... You're not going to win 7-3 without athleticism... but you might win 31-24.

I would be glad to have ruowls as coach, and wouldn't mind having Ham and Tomball on his staff.

If ruowls is not available, who do you think might be a good candidate to run the type of offense you are advocating? Kendall Briles?

In the interest of preserving the program, I respectfully decline. As I said in another thread, I don't understand 95+% (maybe more than that) of what ru says, but I like it!

(09-21-2016 01:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If ruowls is not available, who do you think might be a good candidate to run the type of offense you are advocating? Kendall Briles?

I can make RU available.

NightOwl on defense. Clement or Hollas on offense. I don't know if they currently run such schemes, but I know they succeeded at Rice because they understood it.

As to whom else, I honestly don't know. Kendall Briles hasn't seemed to have focused on getting more out of less because he hasn't had to.

I'm sure other people do this... but the ones whom we all know about don't need to because they can get the guy who does it. We probably haven't heard of the guys who NEED to do it.

It's not really the plays at all. The plays we run are just as good as anyone else's... That's 80% of it. It's a philosophy about the other 20%. Some guys in FCS or even 6 man football probably use it. Rugby and Soccer coaches use it.

Teach guys how to get open within a play... how to identify the threats and minimalize them. Teach guys how to confuse and manipulate offenses.

The reason more don't do it is not because it doesn't work, but because the professional development of coaches leads to schools/places where you can get whatever talent you need... either because you can recruit literally anyone, or take unlimited transfers, or because you have the budgets for it.

Why would you build an offense around 5'10, 4.5 guys who can catch if you can get 6'2 4.4 guys who can catch? Why would a team build an offense around an inaccurate QB when they can sign an accurate one?

That's what 98% of coaching is designed to do. Identify, develop and utilize the best athletes.

What if you're in a self-imposed situation where that is almost NEVER the case?

It's not that there aren't numerous Rice guys who could play on ANY team, but its that there aren't 22 of them every year... and it's fairly easy for a team to scheme against 2-3 guys.

Why are we mad at the coaches? They're working as hard as they can, it's just hasn't been good enough lately. It's a Rice problem that's to blame. Good programs cost a lot of money, and Rice hasn't been willing to pay for it. You've got to pay to have the best coaches. You've got to invest millions into stadium and facility infrastructure. In Rice's case, it needs to ease off of the academic restrictions for football players. There aren't nearly enough good athletes in our program. If it isn't willing to bend on the academics, it better have everything else perfect.

(09-21-2016 04:28 PM)raptorsareout Wrote:  Why are we mad at the coaches? They're working as hard as they can, it's just hasn't been good enough lately. It's a Rice problem that's to blame. Good programs cost a lot of money, and Rice hasn't been willing to pay for it. You've got to pay to have the best coaches. You've got to invest millions into stadium and facility infrastructure. In Rice's case, it needs to ease off of the academic restrictions for football players. There aren't nearly enough good athletes in our program. If it isn't willing to bend on the academics, it better have everything else perfect.

I don't know anyone who is "mad at the coaches" . It has been stated 1000 times the lack of institutional support for sports, and football in particular. However, Bailiff makes ~ 900k a year and only ~ once every 2 years defeats a team w a ranking of better than ~ 75-80. Why are we essentially never the team that pulls off the upset of a respectable P5 team? . JK still says he expects to at least compete for conference . We are irrelevant, and need to stir the pot in a hurry if Rice football is to survive

Bailiff's accomplishments are far from stellar, but he has won more games than anyone else at Rice in a long time. We've had two 10-win seasons. He knows what to do with talent on the rare occasion he has it.

Who is mad at the coaches?

They are employees failing to meet the expectations of most of us. If you're satisfied, that's fine. You're in the overwhelming minority. Part of their job is to recruit the talent. You're admitting that they're failing.

We've been down this 'won more games' debate before and you're comparing apples:oranges... of course you know this. Our 3-8 SWC teams would have been in bowls in CUSA. Our 7-4 SWC and WAC teams would have won 10+ (and been in bowls).

but we weren't, so it doesn't matter.

It's not enough... it's not even close.

(09-21-2016 06:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Who is mad at the coaches?

They are employees failing to meet the expectations of most of us. If you're satisfied, that's fine. You're in the overwhelming minority. Part of their job is to recruit the talent. You're admitting that they're failing.

We've been down this 'won more games' debate before and you're comparing apples:oranges... of course you know this. Our 3-8 SWC teams would have been in bowls in CUSA. Our 7-4 SWC and WAC teams would have won 10+ (and been in bowls).

but we weren't, so it doesn't matter.

It's not enough... it's not even close.

I agree that conference affiliation has a lot to do with this, and it's just as much Rice University's responsibility to help recruit players as the coach. He needs assets to sell other than education. He finally has one, after all this time.

(09-21-2016 07:07 PM)raptorsareout Wrote:  I agree that conference affiliation has a lot to do with this, and it's just as much Rice University's responsibility to help recruit players as the coach. He needs assets to sell other than education. He finally has one, after all this time.

Willis Wilson and his predecessor had 50 year old locker rooms and didn't have air conditioning and they were competitive and that wasn't enough. I don't disagree that more can be done, but you're arguing two sides of the coin.

First you argue that he's won 10 games twice, without facilities... and then you argue that he will now be able to recruit because he has facilities. Didn't he have 10 win seasons and NFL players and a conference championship to recruit to? Every one of THIS years recruits certainly saw the heavy equipment.

Have you seen Old Dominion's facility? UNT had brand new $150mm facilities and a 'hot' coach and they couldn't pull it off WITH the facilities. SMU too... even with a $2mm coach.

If you can't recruit against CUSA and use academics as an advantage, then you have ZERO business coaching at Rice.

You're trying to argue to retain Bailiff, but you're actually arguing that he's not the right coach for Rice. That is YOUR argument.

We need a coach who can recruit to our educational advantages. Apparently I think David is better at this than you do.

I definitely think it's time for a new direction. We need someone with some energy who can instill some fire into this program. For his part, Bailiff has done a very good job of embracing what Rice stands for and selling that to recruits, but most of our failures in recruiting come down to conference membership, facilities, and an aging coaching staff. It's just time for a change. Hopefully we win six games and Bailiff can go out on top.

Bailiff wins six games and goes "out on top." Hmmmmm.

(09-21-2016 08:05 PM)raptorsareout Wrote:  I definitely think it's time for a new direction. We need someone with some energy who can instill some fire into this program. For his part, Bailiff has done a very good job of embracing what Rice stands for and selling that to recruits, but most of our failures in recruiting come down to conference membership, facilities, and an aging coaching staff. It's just time for a change. Hopefully we win six games and Bailiff can go out on top.

Dozens of fans here.