(09-24-2017 05:56 PM)OldOwl Wrote:  Yes true. Why is Lynch still here?

(09-24-2017 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Thank you. If we can improve on offense a bit, we will have a shot. As usual, I will take it one game at a time, and hope for a good outcome each time.

Are you wanting to take over as Parliament Optimist? I warn you, it is not an honored position, finding silver linings.

Because Opie isn't good enough at his job to coach anywhere else. Maybe a local high school will hire him after this year a la Edmondson.

(09-24-2017 09:20 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(09-24-2017 05:38 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-24-2017 05:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-24-2017 03:43 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I'm not ready to sing praises for our defense. Sure, we looked good against UTEP and decent against FIU, but those are two of the absolute worst teams in the FCB division. STanford and UH pulverized our defense. UH could have and would have scored 70 against us had Applewhite not called off the wolves just before the end of the first half...and the Coogs have struggled a bit on offense this year (save for our game).

To be fair, or offense gave UH the ball twice within our own 10 yard line (or right around that) and could never sustain a drive.

UH moved he ball at will every time they had the ball until Applewhite put in the scrubs. I suggest you take a look at UH's first half offensive stats.

The coverage in the first half was bad. Allen missed only 2 passes all game. That open middle was beyond frustrating. But let's also be honest about this - the UH starters on offense and defense were in for most of the 3rd quarter. Allen wasn't pulled until the middle of their second series of the 3rd quarter, with over half of the quarter done. And UH had defensive starters making almost every tackle until the end of the third quarter. Even in the 4th quarter, there are starters making tackles.

Box score can be found here: http://www.riceowls.com/sports/m-footbl/...l#GAME.PLY

And you can also see that our offense constantly giving our defense no rest and a short field to defend. Our defense forced UH to punt on the first series and, when faced with a very short field once, held them to a field goal.

Not saying our defense was otherworldly, just that our offense was doing everything in it's power to make life hell on them and that they are looking better, especially compared to the Stanford game.

Seems like the defense is better. It should keep us in a lot of games.

The offense incorporates a lot that the parliament has been crying for. Maybe we were wanting the wrong things. Or maybe we just need to execute better.

Strange to see somebody yearning for "McGuffie up the middle".

(09-25-2017 08:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Seems like the defense is better. It should keep us in a lot of games.

The defense looked horrible against Stanford and UH, but good against UTEP & FIU. Considering the change in schemes, I am generally hopeful that the team is legitimately better and that there were just some growing pains. Not sure it is a true strength, but maybe not quite as bad of a weakness as past years. Too bad our pre-season starting CB's are out.

(09-25-2017 08:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The offense incorporates a lot that the parliament has been crying for. Maybe we were wanting the wrong things. Or maybe we just need to execute better.

Tough to judge this. For instance I like the pre-snap movement. But I don't see any evidence that Rice is actually using this pre-snap movement in an attempt to read defenses (man or zone, identifying blitzers, etc.). Perhaps I am just not catching it, but if Rice is doing this, it is far less obvious then when NFL teams do it. So while I have been hoping for more pre-snap movement for years, it doesn't really help if it isn't purposeful. Having guys moving before the snap for the sake of having them moving doesn't make the offense better (though perhaps it slightly increases the chance that the defense will screw up).

Similarly, I find the huddles more appealing to watch than the meerkat. But this is just form over function, I realize I never would have complained about the meerkat if Rice had been good offensively.

But I am far from an expert and would really appreciate ruowls' insight, if he is around the Parliament and has had enough time to watch the games so far.

(09-25-2017 08:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Strange to see somebody yearning for "McGuffie up the middle".

I think this was me in another thread. It was a joke. I was trying to make a point about repeating the same thing over and over, despite it not working earlier in the game/season. Against FIU, there was a failure to adjust to the fact that they were doing a good job defending the outside runs (something that had been a strength for Rice against Stanford, UTEP, and UH). FIU was locking most of them down, but Rice just kept going to it, like the failed "McGuffie up the middle" of old.

(09-25-2017 09:44 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(09-25-2017 08:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Seems like the defense is better. It should keep us in a lot of games.

The defense looked horrible against Stanford and UH, but good against UTEP & FIU. Considering the change in schemes, I am generally hopeful that the team is legitimately better and that there were just some growing pains. Not sure it is a true strength, but maybe not quite as bad of a weakness as past years. Too bad our pre-season starting CB's are out.

(09-25-2017 08:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The offense incorporates a lot that the parliament has been crying for. Maybe we were wanting the wrong things. Or maybe we just need to execute better.

Tough to judge this. For instance I like the pre-snap movement. But I don't see any evidence that Rice is actually using this pre-snap movement in an attempt to read defenses (man or zone, identifying blitzers, etc.). Perhaps I am just not catching it, but if Rice is doing this, it is far less obvious then when NFL teams do it. So while I have been hoping for more pre-snap movement for years, it doesn't really help if it isn't purposeful. Having guys moving before the snap for the sake of having them moving doesn't make the offense better (though perhaps it slightly increases the chance that the defense will screw up).

Similarly, I find the huddles more appealing to watch than the meerkat. But this is just form over function, I realize I never would have complained about the meerkat if Rice had been good offensively.

But I am far from an expert and would really appreciate ruowls' insight, if he is around the Parliament and has had enough time to watch the games so far.

(09-25-2017 08:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Strange to see somebody yearning for "McGuffie up the middle".

I think this was me in another thread. It was a joke. I was trying to make a point about repeating the same thing over and over, despite it not working earlier in the game/season. Against FIU, there was a failure to adjust to the fact that they were doing a good job defending the outside runs (something that had been a strength for Rice against Stanford, UTEP, and UH). FIU was locking most of them down, but Rice just kept going to it, like the failed "McGuffie up the middle" of old.

Maybe I really did drink too much. I definitely do not remember the defense as being what looked horrible during the first half against UH. They were able to get pressure on the QB semi-regularly, didn't get beat deep regularly, made tackles and stopped UH a few times when their backs were against the wall. They weren't out of this world good, but the offense absolutely killed them by never moving the ball, turning it over in awful field position, and letting UH be in a position to do whatever they wanted on offense, without having to worry about giving us the ball back since we couldn't not score.

(09-25-2017 09:44 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(09-25-2017 08:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Seems like the defense is better. It should keep us in a lot of games.

The defense looked horrible against Stanford and UH, but good against UTEP & FIU. Considering the change in schemes, I am generally hopeful that the team is legitimately better and that there were just some growing pains. Not sure it is a true strength, but maybe not quite as bad of a weakness as past years. Too bad our pre-season starting CB's are out.

Looking good 2 out of 4 is an improvement from last year, IMO. Remember, injuries cannot be used as an excuse.

Quote:

(09-25-2017 08:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The offense incorporates a lot that the parliament has been crying for. Maybe we were wanting the wrong things. Or maybe we just need to execute better.

Tough to judge this. For instance I like the pre-snap movement. But I don't see any evidence that Rice is actually using this pre-snap movement in an attempt to read defenses (man or zone, identifying blitzers, etc.). Perhaps I am just not catching it, but if Rice is doing this, it is far less obvious then when NFL teams do it. So while I have been hoping for more pre-snap movement for years, it doesn't really help if it isn't purposeful. Having guys moving before the snap for the sake of having them moving doesn't make the offense better (though perhaps it slightly increases the chance that the defense will screw up).

Similarly, I find the huddles more appealing to watch than the meerkat. But this is just form over function, I realize I never would have complained about the meerkat if Rice had been good offensively.

But I am far from an expert and would really appreciate ruowls' insight, if he is around the Parliament and has had enough time to watch the games so far.

You are far closer to an expert than me. I just note that some of the things that parliamentarians have asked for are now included, like the QB under center, a more uptempo game, and the aforesaid pre-snap movement. We are not happy even if we get what we want. That's one reason I think a new coach won't make us happy. If whatever he does does not lead to a plethora of W's, it will be crap.

Quote:

(09-25-2017 08:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Strange to see somebody yearning for "McGuffie up the middle".

I think this was me in another thread. It was a joke. I was trying to make a point about repeating the same thing over and over, despite it not working earlier in the game/season. Against FIU, there was a failure to adjust to the fact that they were doing a good job defending the outside runs (something that had been a strength for Rice against Stanford, UTEP, and UH). FIU was locking most of them down, but Rice just kept going to it, like the failed "McGuffie up the middle" of old.

Joke noted. failure to adjust could be for a variety of reasons - failure to practice the alternate plays, lack of appropriate personnel. or just plain stubborness in the sense of "We will run this *&^@ play until they execute it correctly".

some people advocate sticking to the game plan in the face of adversity, while some advocate tossing it after the first punt. I am guessing a middle ground should be found.

(09-25-2017 10:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Maybe I really did drink too much. I definitely do not remember the defense as being what looked horrible during the first half against UH. They were able to get pressure on the QB semi-regularly, didn't get beat deep regularly, made tackles and stopped UH a few times when their backs were against the wall. They weren't out of this world good, but the offense absolutely killed them by never moving the ball, turning it over in awful field position, and letting UH be in a position to do whatever they wanted on offense, without having to worry about giving us the ball back since we couldn't not score.

I agree with you that the halftime score (38-0) was partly a cause of Rice's turnovers on offense. In that sense, the defense was not to blame and they had to deal with some short fields. However, Kyle Allen was 26/28 in the 1st half, with 247 yards passing and 2 TD. He absolutely picked Rice apart and Rice's pass defense was often leaving the middle of the field wide open. The commentators mentioned on multiple occasions how open UH receivers were in the middle of the field and how they couldn't understand what Rice was doing that was leaving UH so open. The run defense looked OK (I believe 65 yards on 17 carries). But the unit as a whole was bad, and field position turned bad into horrible.

Anyone think we would be favored (or even less than a 1 TD dog) against any of these teams? Not to mention the ones I have seen play are a whole lot more fun to watch.

I watched a replay of the Eastern Washington - Montana game last night. Both of those teams could beat Rice. I'm so sick of all the injuries every year. I'm sick of the excuses. Are our second string players really that bad? There's such a drop off after starters are lost. Rice has to recruit and coach up better talent. There are dozens of players on our sideline who couldn't play for any other FBS team. It's awful and I'm sick of it. We shouldn't be losing to anyone in CUSA at home other than Louisiana Tech no matter who's out. Enough!!!!

(09-25-2017 11:52 AM)Ourland Wrote:  I watched a replay of the Eastern Washington - Montana game last night. Both of those teams could beat Rice. I'm so sick of all the injuries every year. I'm sick of the excuses. Are our second string players really that bad? There's such a drop off after starters are lost. Rice has to recruit and coach up better talent. There are dozens of players on our sideline who couldn't play for any other FBS team. It's awful and I'm sick of it. We shouldn't be losing to anyone in CUSA at home other than Louisiana Tech no matter who's out. Enough!!!!

+1

Hmmm, where to start? I agree with your expert analysis. This all gets into the philosophical discussion as to the why. Pre-snap motion, shifts, or movement basically is an attempt to identify man coverage, change the front or front gap responsibilities, or force a specific defender into a role he is not accustomed to performing, i.e. a weak end having to play strong side. It also can be linked with a progression of plays to see how the defense responds to the movement so you can set up mismatches based on the movements. The problem with motion and movement is that if it doesn't create an advantage for you, it is a waste of time doing it.
I have been saying for some time that the key to causing stress on a defense is the ability to attack the intermediate passing area downfield. If you can successfully attack this area, then it opens up the run, the short passing game and the deep passing game. It lets you control the game and protects your defense.
There are ways to conceptualize and teach an offense that make it more effective and versatile. Looking at it from identifying coverages and fronts makes it more static and less fluid and dynamic. Because of a lack of understanding of the multiple variables and fluidity of the game, the general consensus is that you need better athletes for the play to work. And as such, you need better recruiting. And for this, you need more resources. And since the resources are being withheld, you can't hold anybody accountable for failing to succeed. You need to think differently than everyone else and learn to understand the fluidity of the game and adapt it to your advantage. And before I here it, no you won't win every battle or game, but you will be able to control enough of the game to be successful more often than you aren't.

(09-25-2017 09:44 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(09-25-2017 08:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Seems like the defense is better. It should keep us in a lot of games.

The defense looked horrible against Stanford and UH, but good against UTEP & FIU. Considering the change in schemes, I am generally hopeful that the team is legitimately better and that there were just some growing pains. Not sure it is a true strength, but maybe not quite as bad of a weakness as past years. Too bad our pre-season starting CB's are out.

(09-25-2017 08:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The offense incorporates a lot that the parliament has been crying for. Maybe we were wanting the wrong things. Or maybe we just need to execute better.

Tough to judge this. For instance I like the pre-snap movement. But I don't see any evidence that Rice is actually using this pre-snap movement in an attempt to read defenses (man or zone, identifying blitzers, etc.). Perhaps I am just not catching it, but if Rice is doing this, it is far less obvious then when NFL teams do it. So while I have been hoping for more pre-snap movement for years, it doesn't really help if it isn't purposeful. Having guys moving before the snap for the sake of having them moving doesn't make the offense better (though perhaps it slightly increases the chance that the defense will screw up).

Similarly, I find the huddles more appealing to watch than the meerkat. But this is just form over function, I realize I never would have complained about the meerkat if Rice had been good offensively.

But I am far from an expert and would really appreciate ruowls' insight, if he is around the Parliament and has had enough time to watch the games so far.

(09-25-2017 08:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Strange to see somebody yearning for "McGuffie up the middle".

I think this was me in another thread. It was a joke. I was trying to make a point about repeating the same thing over and over, despite it not working earlier in the game/season. Against FIU, there was a failure to adjust to the fact that they were doing a good job defending the outside runs (something that had been a strength for Rice against Stanford, UTEP, and UH). FIU was locking most of them down, but Rice just kept going to it, like the failed "McGuffie up the middle" of old.

And to think, ru would be willing to coach at Rice for a reasonable amount. At one point anyway.

Sigh!

(09-25-2017 04:14 PM)ruowls Wrote:  Hmmm, where to start? I agree with your expert analysis. This all gets into the philosophical discussion as to the why. Pre-snap motion, shifts, or movement basically is an attempt to identify man coverage, change the front or front gap responsibilities, or force a specific defender into a role he is not accustomed to performing, i.e. a weak end having to play strong side. It also can be linked with a progression of plays to see how the defense responds to the movement so you can set up mismatches based on the movements. The problem with motion and movement is that if it doesn't create an advantage for you, it is a waste of time doing it.
I have been saying for some time that the key to causing stress on a defense is the ability to attack the intermediate passing area downfield. If you can successfully attack this area, then it opens up the run, the short passing game and the deep passing game. It lets you control the game and protects your defense.
There are ways to conceptualize and teach an offense that make it more effective and versatile. Looking at it from identifying coverages and fronts makes it more static and less fluid and dynamic. Because of a lack of understanding of the multiple variables and fluidity of the game, the general consensus is that you need better athletes for the play to work. And as such, you need better recruiting. And for this, you need more resources. And since the resources are being withheld, you can't hold anybody accountable for failing to succeed. You need to think differently than everyone else and learn to understand the fluidity of the game and adapt it to your advantage. And before I here it, no you won't win every battle or game, but you will be able to control enough of the game to be successful more often than you aren't.

Yep.

(09-25-2017 11:36 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  Anyone think we would be favored (or even less than a 1 TD dog) against any of these teams? Not to mention the ones I have seen play are a whole lot more fun to watch.

Looks like some great places to start our HC search.

(09-25-2017 11:08 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(09-25-2017 10:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Maybe I really did drink too much. I definitely do not remember the defense as being what looked horrible during the first half against UH. They were able to get pressure on the QB semi-regularly, didn't get beat deep regularly, made tackles and stopped UH a few times when their backs were against the wall. They weren't out of this world good, but the offense absolutely killed them by never moving the ball, turning it over in awful field position, and letting UH be in a position to do whatever they wanted on offense, without having to worry about giving us the ball back since we couldn't not score.

I agree with you that the halftime score (38-0) was partly a cause of Rice's turnovers on offense. In that sense, the defense was not to blame and they had to deal with some short fields. However, Kyle Allen was 26/28 in the 1st half, with 247 yards passing and 2 TD. He absolutely picked Rice apart and Rice's pass defense was often leaving the middle of the field wide open. The commentators mentioned on multiple occasions how open UH receivers were in the middle of the field and how they couldn't understand what Rice was doing that was leaving UH so open. The run defense looked OK (I believe 65 yards on 17 carries). But the unit as a whole was bad, and field position turned bad into horrible.

When an opposing QB is 26 of 28 for 247 and 2 TDs in a half, your pass defense sucks. No other way to spin it. Offense didn't help with the short fields. Bailiff wants to play conservative football, but poor defense, turnovers, and poor field position cannot be tolerated if that is going to be your approach. We obviously tolerate them, because they have been our stock in trade for years. I find it mystifying to try to figure out what the hell we are trying to accomplish.