(10-24-2017 12:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I questioned the execution and play call. What I agree with is the attitude of trying win. Maybe it would have been better to just line up abd run a fourth down play.

Someday, Ham, I will explain the problem with your poker example.

I thought we DID go for it on fourth from our own end.

That is the point we are making. Trying to win means you take calculated risks when appropriate and take the points when it isn't. It is akin to a tactical retreat so you can regroup to win the war as opposed to grabbing an M16 and trying to go rambo solo; you are going to die and therefore you lose.

Rice kicked a FG down 63-0 against Southern Miss on 4th and goal from the 1 (or something very similar). If you really want to argue never say die and try to win, why the hell would you opt for 3 when down by 63?

My problem is our coaching staff seem to act like a teenager. You say x and they hugely overreact and do the exact opposite with much drama, much to their own detriment. Don't like the meerkat? sure, we'll just run around on the field with no purpose because THATS WHAT YOU ASKED FOR. you want pre-snap motion, WELL HERE IT IS.

(10-24-2017 12:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I questioned the execution and play call. What I agree with is the attitude of trying win. Maybe it would have been better to just line up abd run a fourth down play.

Someday, Ham, I will explain the problem with your poker example.

I thought we DID go for it on fourth from our own end.

Clearly I'm not a poker player... sorry... but I think you got the point I was making....

and I didn't say we didn't go for it on 4th earlier... you may well be right.... I've not been one to question his every move... in fact, i'm not sure anyone has done that that Ive noticed.... I'm saying there was a time that if I was going to fake a kick, that's when I would have done it... and there was a time when we DID fake the kick and I wouldn't have... and explained the rationale, which I don't think you disagree with.

Poker is all about odds, right? Football is about odds, but also about tendencies. DBs tendency to play it safe or to run a real play (or try and draw people offside and not run a play) on 4th and 1 would have made the 4th and 2 fake punt more successful. 4th and goal from the 20 up by 14 late in the game, you can have the three points. I EXPECT you to fake it.

(10-24-2017 12:54 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 12:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I questioned the execution and play call. What I agree with is the attitude of trying win. Maybe it would have been better to just line up abd run a fourth down play.

Someday, Ham, I will explain the problem with your poker example.

I thought we DID go for it on fourth from our own end.

Clearly I'm not a poker player... sorry... but I think you got the point I was making....

and I didn't say we didn't go for it on 4th earlier... you may well be right.... I've not been one to question his every move... in fact, i'm not sure anyone has done that that Ive noticed.... I'm saying there was a time that if I was going to fake a kick, that's when I would have done it... and there was a time when we DID fake the kick and I wouldn't have... and explained the rationale, which I don't think you disagree with.

Poker is all about odds, right? Football is about odds, but also about tendencies. DBs tendency to play it safe or to run a real play (or try and draw people offside and not run a play) on 4th and 1 would have made the 4th and 2 fake punt more successful. 4th and goal from the 20 up by 14 late in the game, you can have the three points. I EXPECT you to fake it.

I checked the play by play. We went for it on 4th three times, all in the second half, all 4th and long. (made one) I guess one of those was the fake.

When and where to fake is a judgement call. Depends on a lot more than odds.
Maybe your judgement is better than David's. I don't know. I just like that he tried.

No, poker is not all about odds. That's blackjack. Boooooring. Odds are just one factor in any poker decision.

(10-24-2017 02:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I checked the play by play. We went for it on 4th three times, all in the second half, all 4th and long. (made one) I guess one of those was the fake.

When and where to fake is a judgement call. Depends on a lot more than odds.
Maybe your judgement is better than David's. I don't know. I just like that he tried.

No, poker is not all about odds. That's blackjack. Boooooring. Odds are just one factor in any poker decision.

The fake was with right at the start of the 4th quarter. We had an entire quarter to go, and were down by 13 with a chance to make it 10.

To the bolded point - I absolutely do not. There is a trend on this board of endlessly dropping standards. First we get blown out by UT and everyone's like, its ok, its UT. Then it moves to teams like Pitt and Navy and its ok, its preseason. Then it turns to teams like Tulsa, and its ok, they have a soulless coach. Then UCF, because they are huge and Rice is tiny. Next its UNT, because they have Apogee we don't have an EZF, SMU and its they have rich Boosters then its UTSA and its I'm glad we tried. Somewhere in there is a JUCO team as well.

We say Rice Fight, Never Die - but Rice seems to have the most institutionally defeatist attitude I have ever seen.

Losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse, and if you don't know where you are going, the path of least resistance will get you there--the twin mantras of Rice athletics for half a century.

There are no excuses good enough to make losing okay, and it's high time we opted out of the path of least resistance.

(10-24-2017 02:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 12:54 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 12:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I questioned the execution and play call. What I agree with is the attitude of trying win. Maybe it would have been better to just line up abd run a fourth down play.

Someday, Ham, I will explain the problem with your poker example.

I thought we DID go for it on fourth from our own end.

Clearly I'm not a poker player... sorry... but I think you got the point I was making....

and I didn't say we didn't go for it on 4th earlier... you may well be right.... I've not been one to question his every move... in fact, i'm not sure anyone has done that that Ive noticed.... I'm saying there was a time that if I was going to fake a kick, that's when I would have done it... and there was a time when we DID fake the kick and I wouldn't have... and explained the rationale, which I don't think you disagree with.

Poker is all about odds, right? Football is about odds, but also about tendencies. DBs tendency to play it safe or to run a real play (or try and draw people offside and not run a play) on 4th and 1 would have made the 4th and 2 fake punt more successful. 4th and goal from the 20 up by 14 late in the game, you can have the three points. I EXPECT you to fake it.

I checked the play by play. We went for it on 4th three times, all in the second half, all 4th and long. (made one) I guess one of those was the fake.

When and where to fake is a judgement call. Depends on a lot more than odds.
Maybe your judgement is better than David's. I don't know. I just like that he tried.

No, poker is not all about odds. That's blackjack. Boooooring. Odds are just one factor in any poker decision.

You're right that you play the player, not the cards sometimes/often... hence I don't play poker...... and I probably shouldn't have made the analogy at all.

but I never said that David never went for it on 4th... nor am I one of those who has challenged every decision he's made....

You made the comment that previous complaints about David were that he always takes the safe play... and this time he took a risk (implying that we're not happy no matter what he does)

What I'm saying (because I've said this numerous times before) is that there is a difference between taking a smart risk and simply going against the odds. I generally can't stand double reverse flea-flickers.... but they certainly are an example of 'taking risks'. They're just not good risks IMO unless you're exceptionally fast and athletic. I'd do this if I were small and fast against a big slow team.

I'm not beating him up for not faking it early in the game... It's just an example of a far better time to fake it. I AM beating him up for the fake, because it made no sense at the time that UTSA wouldn't be in 'safe' mode. The score, down and distance and time made the 3 points ALMOST immaterial.

If it had been the same situation and a 3 point game... UTSA would probably have been coming hard after it. Te fake might have been a GREAT call since there was still time for both teams to have more possessions.

(10-24-2017 03:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'm not beating him up for not faking it early in the game... It's just an example of a far better time to fake it. I AM beating him up for the fake, because it made no sense at the time that UTSA wouldn't be in 'safe' mode. The score, down and distance and time made the 3 points ALMOST immaterial.

If it had been the same situation and a 3 point game... UTSA would probably have been coming hard after it. Te fake might have been a GREAT call since there was still time for both teams to have more possessions.

With the caveat that we executed it properly. here it seemed like Glaesmann, Tobola and one lineman knew it was happening; guaranteed to fail with no blocking downfield.

My issue with Rice and trick plays is that we can't even execute an option pitch or field/not field a punt properly. Until we can execute the basics seamlessly every time, we are guaranteed to fail on the complex/crazy stuff.

its no different than flying - you don't attempt a landing let alone a Barrel roll until you can keep the wings level and maintain altitude. Fail to do the latter consistently, you likely will die.

That's fair ant, but I'm speaking more about strategy than 'this coach, this team' etc.... because that's more of what I understand the question to be.

(10-24-2017 02:22 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 02:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I checked the play by play. We went for it on 4th three times, all in the second half, all 4th and long. (made one) I guess one of those was the fake.

When and where to fake is a judgement call. Depends on a lot more than odds.
Maybe your judgement is better than David's. I don't know. I just like that he tried.

No, poker is not all about odds. That's blackjack. Boooooring. Odds are just one factor in any poker decision.

The fake was with right at the start of the 4th quarter. We had an entire quarter to go, and were down by 13 with a chance to make it 10.

To the bolded point - I absolutely do not. There is a trend on this board of endlessly dropping standards. First we get blown out by UT and everyone's like, its ok, its UT. Then it moves to teams like Pitt and Navy and its ok, its preseason. Then it turns to teams like Tulsa, and its ok, they have a soulless coach. Then UCF, because they are huge and Rice is tiny. Next its UNT, because they have Apogee we don't have an EZF, SMU and its they have rich Boosters then its UTSA and its I'm glad we tried. Somewhere in there is a JUCO team as well.

We say Rice Fight, Never Die - but Rice seems to have the most institutionally defeatist attitude I have ever seen.

If you are correct, we only had two more possessions after that. I prefer we be in a one score game than a two score game in the fourth quarter, especially with our anemic offense. A 10 point game is not much different than a 13 point game, but a 6 point game is way different.

Nor sure how trying to win equates to a lowering of standards. Can you attribute any of those statements to me other than the last? If we have a new coach new year, and we are down 13 to somebody and he tries a fake FG, I will be glad he tried to win the game. It doesn't matter what his name is.

When I was in school during the Jurassic, we had a game with SMU in Dallas. We were leading 24-21 late, and SMU lined up to kick the tying FG late. Instead they threw a pass to Jerry LeVias, and we lost 28-24. Do you consider that SMU would have lowered their standards had it failed?

No overtime in days of yore. Made a big difference in late-game decisions. SMU's decision then would be stupid now.

(10-24-2017 11:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Nor sure how trying to win equates to a lowering of standards. Can you attribute any of those statements to me other than the last? If we have a new coach new year, and we are down 13 to somebody and he tries a fake FG, I will be glad he tried to win the game. It doesn't matter what his name is.

Say they had punted, Rice gets the ball on the 50 yard line. Bailiff (or whoever the coach is) decides instead of a punt, we kick a 70 yard field goal because he wants to win.

That would be stupid. Because it would be guaranteed to fail. Same thing applies to this.

Your argument about 13 points vs 10 points vs 6 points is ONLY valid if we had a chance to get to 6 points. Trying to win the game is putting yourself in the best position for the rest of the game. Not throwing away chances on low (or zero) percent chance plays.

(10-25-2017 12:13 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 11:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Nor sure how trying to win equates to a lowering of standards. Can you attribute any of those statements to me other than the last? If we have a new coach new year, and we are down 13 to somebody and he tries a fake FG, I will be glad he tried to win the game. It doesn't matter what his name is.

Say they had punted, Rice gets the ball on the 50 yard line. Bailiff (or whoever the coach is) decides instead of a punt, we kick a 70 yard field goal because he wants to win.

That would be stupid. Because it would be guaranteed to fail. Same thing applies to this.

Your argument about 13 points vs 10 points vs 6 points is ONLY valid if we had a chance to get to 6 points. Trying to win the game is putting yourself in the best position for the rest of the game. Not throwing away chances on low (or zero) percent chance plays.

Well far be it from me to speak for Antarius here, but I think by standards (ie: lower or higher) he is referring to his preference to operate within a system or under the caveat that we may in fact have more than seven points on the board. Thus, making the decision moot..

(10-24-2017 11:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Nor sure how trying to win equates to a lowering of standards. Can you attribute any of those statements to me other than the last? If we have a new coach new year, and we are down 13 to somebody and he tries a fake FG, I will be glad he tried to win the game. It doesn't matter what his name is.

The problem is that particular fake field goal attempt was so poorly executed that it is difficult to characterize it trying to win the game. And given all the other execution errors, the game wasn't close enough for that play to win it. Cleaning up the execution errors would be trying to win the game.

And I know how you like to harp on the fact that other teams have execution errors, too. But not as many, or as severe, as we do routinely. On the fake field goal, it would appear that half our team didn't know what we were doing.

(10-25-2017 12:13 AM)Antarius Wrote:  Say they had punted, Rice gets the ball on the 50 yard line. Bailiff (or whoever the coach is) decides instead of a punt, we kick a 70 yard field goal because he wants to win.

That would be stupid. Because it would be guaranteed to fail. Same thing applies to this.

From the 50 it would only be 67, and I take offense to the prediction that it would be guaranteed to fail, lol.

Having said that, I 100% agree with the point you're making.

Fakes work when the opponent is least expecting them... or when the yardage needed is small and you've got an interesting play where they may stop you, but you can get 2-5 yards.

Fakes almost never work when you need big yardage and they're expecting it.

Let me make the point differently....

4th and goal from the 20 is so hard not because teams don't routinely have 20 yard plays, but because anything short of a 20 yard play is essentially meaningless in the context of our score.... and of course there is an extra defender (the end line)... so it is a tough play to begin with....

a fake FG is even tougher because while one can argue that it is like a QB in shotgun, you have a kicker rather than a RB or WR, and you don't usually have your star WR or RB or even QB on the field.... and if you do, they're running from a tight formation and can simply get jammed up at the LOS and you're dead.

To me it's like saying, I desperately need 20 yards... and the defense knows it and plans accordingly... and then you bring out your second team rather than your starters and line up in double-tights to execute the play.

I just think leaving your starters in for that specific instance is by far the better option. It's still a low probability play, but it's vastly better odds than with your second team.

Again, if there is reason they won't suspect the fake, like if it were a 3 or even 10 point game at the time..... or if the line to gain was only 2-3 yards...

If Boz were the kicker, I would give a lot more thought to the 70 yard FG. I certainly felt when he was here, anytime we were at the 50 or closer, we were in FG range.

Having discussed this with Ham via PMs, i see his point. The element of surprise was lacking. Maybe running a regular play would have been better. I still like the idea of going for the TD rather than the FG, one way or another, because our offense has struggled and expecting to score twice in the last quarter is about as optimistic as a 70 yard FG. In fact, we did have only two more possessions after the fail. Trying to make it a one score game was the right call. Maybe the fake was the wrong play to call. I have no doubt that kicking the FG would have been seen by many as giving up on winning. I always want to go for the win. JMHO.

A thought; Fox can kicks FGs, and he also played QB in HS. Maybe line him up and let him pass?

(10-26-2017 10:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If Boz were the kicker, I would give a lot more thought to the 70 yard FG. I certainly felt when he was here, anytime we were at the 50 or closer, we were in FG range.

Having discussed this with Ham via PMs, i see his point. The element of surprise was lacking. Maybe running a regular play would have been better. I still like the idea of going for the TD rather than the FG, one way or another, because our offense has struggled and expecting to score twice in the last quarter is about as optimistic as a 70 yard FG. In fact, we did have only two more possessions after the fail. Trying to make it a one score game was the right call. Maybe the fake was the wrong play to call. I have no doubt that kicking the FG would have been seen by many as giving up on winning. I always want to go for the win. JMHO.

A thought; Fox can kicks FGs, and he also played QB in HS. Maybe line him up and let him pass?

This is straight up false and well in line your attempted narrative that Bailiff is somehow horribly and unfairly maligned, which is, surprise! also false.

I'd love to see who would be calling kicking a FG on 4th and 15 "giving up". People would be upset that our offense was so bad that it WAS a 4th and 15, but thats a totally different issue. If you want to talk about giving up... look up the time we kicked a Field goal down 58-0 against Southern Miss - this play is probably used by Merriam Webster to define the phrase.

The issues with the offense are deeper than the play call on 4th and 15...

Pitt game

blitz blitz blitz.. Rice-- flea flicker where the guy responsible for picking up said blitz is busy pitching the ball over the 6'5" guys head

Outside zone, outside zone, seam pass to TE, hole shot fade into Cover 2... moving moving moving... BAM!!! SWINGING GATE ON A DRIVE INSIDE PANTHER 40...


The problems start on Sunday in the film room and in personnel decisions.. And culminate on Saturday with turnovers, penalties, and poor execution....

(10-26-2017 11:10 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-26-2017 10:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If Boz were the kicker, I would give a lot more thought to the 70 yard FG. I certainly felt when he was here, anytime we were at the 50 or closer, we were in FG range.

Having discussed this with Ham via PMs, i see his point. The element of surprise was lacking. Maybe running a regular play would have been better. I still like the idea of going for the TD rather than the FG, one way or another, because our offense has struggled and expecting to score twice in the last quarter is about as optimistic as a 70 yard FG. In fact, we did have only two more possessions after the fail. Trying to make it a one score game was the right call. Maybe the fake was the wrong play to call. I have no doubt that kicking the FG would have been seen by many as giving up on winning. I always want to go for the win. JMHO.

A thought; Fox can kicks FGs, and he also played QB in HS. Maybe line him up and let him pass?

This is straight up false and well in line your attempted narrative that Bailiff is somehow horribly and unfairly maligned, which is, surprise! also false.

I'd love to see who would be calling kicking a FG on 4th and 15 "giving up". People would be upset that our offense was so bad that it WAS a 4th and 15, but thats a totally different issue. If you want to talk about giving up... look up the time we kicked a Field goal down 58-0 against Southern Miss - this play is probably used by Merriam Webster to define the phrase.

Actually, I had you in mind. Not because kicking a FG on 4th and 15 is necessarily wrong, but because Bailiff did it. I would have thought it too, in this situation, but because we needed a TD, not because Bailiff did it.

Sorry you feel the need to go after me too.

Kicking FGs can be giving up, or they can be desperate attempts to win, or they can just be strategic management of the score, or they can be a lot of things, and this is true of all coaches. Kicking a FG on 4th and 15 when the score is 7-3 in the first quarter is definitely NOT giving up. If the score is 58-0, I think everybody gave up long ago and the FG is only to avert a shutout.

But, back to this situation, what does anybody(but Ant) think about having Fox try a pass from FG formation?

(10-26-2017 11:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Actually, I had you in mind. Not because kicking a FG on 4th and 15 is necessarily wrong, but because Bailiff did it. I would have thought it too, in this situation, but because we needed a TD, not because Bailiff did it.

Data doesn't agree with your opinion, so you throw a temper tantrum.

its like the Nero decree. You're losing, your'e on the wrong side of history, so you try to burn it all down.

Kicking a FG on 4th and 15 from where we were was 100% wrong. You won't admit it BECAUSE Bailiff did it.

(10-26-2017 11:14 AM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  The problems start on Sunday in the film room and in personnel decisions.. And culminate on Saturday with turnovers, penalties, and poor execution....

Agreed.

And as others have asked, what do we do in practice?