(12-04-2022 11:54 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 10:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 06:31 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 05:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 04:44 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  The Owls have a plan? Is that allowed?

From post 722:

"Only way to see a positive from this is it we fire JK during the next year and let another AD replace Bloomgren."

I believe that’s cr11owl’s plan, not Rice’s.

If Rice has a plan to improve men’s athletics, it must be so good, they can’t talk about it or maybe they just think we’re all too stupid to understand it. Cleaning up the bathrooms and putting up faux brick in HRS is not a plan. It’s a bandage.

Didn't say it was Rice's plan. I took it to be the fan's plan - hence my question of what our attitude would be if he won more than we expect

IF, I said IF.

I know lots of fans are planning on an expected 3-9 season to get him fired. Sometimes, the unexpected happens. Ask Southern Cal about that.

He should have been gone after the Charlotte game, so you’re right, the unexpected happens.

I expect 3-4 wins in 2023. Anything less than 6 should get him fired in year 6. But it likely won’t.

Sooner or later, subpar records will get him. I would think another next year would do the trick, especially one as you predict. But what if he does better? Say 6 or 7? Should we still fire him, just as he is learning to be a HC? And what would be the reason for firing him then?

I wish Karlgaard would be fired, but it won't happen. Rice likes him. He does things their way. They'll let him make the next football coach hire. Bloomgren is gone soon. There's no way we win more than four games next season. Rice is kicking the can down the road, putting off the inevitable.

If, by some miracle, he wins six games, then sign him to a new contract. I'd love to see him pull it off against better competition. LOL!

(12-04-2022 11:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm not a huge fan of having a lot of formations, for a several reasons. One, the more formations you try to get into, the more likely someone is to line up improperly. Limiting the number of formations limits such errors.

Precisely an area where a kid who chooses Rice should excel... and if we're in an unusual formation, so are they... and THEY will make the mistake. As I said, usually these changes are only dependent on 1-3 people... and of course you need a smart QB whi might also see the error if it happens.

But much like the option which was something more like 10 plays and 1 formation (which as it developed, perhaps became 8 formations) I'd have even fewer plays.... because once again, you're creating advantages through formations more than through athleticism. You're essentially creating pics, which they do all the time now anyway.

Quote:Two, unless you are very careful, you can start to develop some pretty significant formation tendencies. When you are in tis formation you run this play 60% of the time, that play 30% of the time, and a third play 10% of the time. I liked Bill Walsh's philosophy of being able to run every play in his offense from every formation. Some plays will obviously be better out of some formations than others, but the ability to run any play from any formation increases the difficulty of the recognition problem for the defense. Another Walsh formation preference is that e did not like the shotgun, because he felt the QB had to look sown for the snap when Walsh wanted him looking up and reading the defense.

Not sure I follow you as I have essentially suggested Walsh's philosophy... I just have more formations/can make formations on the fly.... because my guys understand the rules.

Although I really don't see this happening, I'm okay if they know I'm runnning 'x' play, so long as they keep allowing themselves to be placed in compromising positions. Its a bit like the bone again, where everyone knows what it coming... but you can't make a tackle if you aren't there... or if you gave the blocker a geometric advantage. The whole idea is to either create an advantage or mitigate a disadvantage. We aren't going to 'out-athlete' a bunch of schools, nor are we going to out coach them. I want to out THINK them... out-maneuver them.

Get to the line... count the number of people on the line for compliance or so you know (using RU's scheme) wether you are running the 1st, second, third or fourth route... and snap the ball while the defense is still thinking about how to adjust to this formation they didn't practice against.

You spoke of the 4 minute offense... this may cause them to burn TOs long before then...

(12-04-2022 02:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If Rice wins 8 in the AAC next year, you will be coming to my funeral because I will have a heart attack and die. Rice’s chances of winning 8 next year are only slightly better than Donald Trump’s chances of getting a do-over for the 2020 election.

Numbers stop man!

(12-05-2022 09:45 AM)Ourland Wrote:  I wish Karlgaard would be fired, but it won't happen. Rice likes him. He does things their way. They'll let him make the next football coach hire. Bloomgren is gone soon. There's no way we win more than four games next season. Rice is kicking the can down the road, putting off the inevitable.

If, by some miracle, he wins six games, then sign him to a new contract. I'd love to see him pull it off against better competition. LOL!

Finally, somebody willing to answer the question.

(12-04-2022 02:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  [b]If Rice wins 8 in the AAC next year, you will be coming to my funeral because I will have a heart attack and die.

What a dilemma! How can I root for Rice to win games if it will cost the life of Numbers?

(12-04-2022 11:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-30-2022 10:54 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'd like for them to be more innovative on offense. Know the rules and know how to exploit them for an advantage. If you routinely run unbalanced or flex a tackle or bunch formations or floods or some other 'gimmick', then teams have to prepare for that... and that means they spend less time preparing for the vanilla as well.... so your vanilla is more effective. Get defenses to spend one second thinking, which is one fewer second reacting and creates an advantage... Make them burn TOs. I'd run a smaller number of plays but from a large, almost infinite number of formations. Rather than always checking out of a play, maybe we more often check out of a formation. Use formations to create leverage. Have our guys understand not just 'whom' to block... which is what defense want... but to understand who is the real threat to the play and to block THAT guy, and leave the guy who isn't a threat to the success of the play alone... creating a numerical advantage. To recognize when you NEED to push the guy out... which he will fight... and when collapsing him in or even just shielding him off/making him go around is more effective.

I'm not a huge fan of having a lot of formations, for a several reasons. One, the more formations you try to get into, the more likely someone is to line up improperly. Limiting the number of formations limits such errors. Two, unless you are very careful, you can start to develop some pretty significant formation tendencies. When you are in tis formation you run this play 60% of the time, that play 30% of the time, and a third play 10% of the time. I liked Bill Walsh's philosophy of being able to run every play in his offense from every formation. Some plays will obviously be better out of some formations than others, but the ability to run any play from any formation increases the difficulty of the recognition problem for the defense. Another Walsh formation preference is that e did not like the shotgun, because he felt the QB had to look sown for the snap when Walsh wanted him looking up and reading the defense.

I've read where the average university-level football team runs something like 100-120 pays out of 20-40 formations. That seems to me to be way too many. I'd prefer something like 50 plays out of 10 formations and execute, execute, execute. Combining the option running game with a sophisticated passing game, the Flexbone has about 10 running plays, the Run-and-Shoot has 8-10 pass plays, the Air Raid has 8-10 passing plays, and a short passing game involves about 10 plays, that's 36-40, add 3 draws and 5 screens and you're at 45-50 plays. Or RUOwls's West Coast passing game basically has 10 plays (routes) for each receiver to learn, and the play call can combine them in infinite ways. So is it 10 plays or an infinite number? The learning can be 10 lays wile the defense has to prepare for infinite.

I've always been a fan of a two-back set. One big RB, and one quick RB. This way, the defense doesn't know which one is getting the ball. On passing situations, the larger back can block, while the quick one runs a pattern, or is there as your outlet if nothing is open. A two-back set gives an offense options, and it keeps the defense honest.

(12-05-2022 10:44 AM)Ourland Wrote:  I've always been a fan of a two-back set. One big RB, and one quick RB. This way, the defense doesn't know which one is getting the ball. On passing situations, the larger back can block, while the quick one runs a pattern, or is there as your outlet if nothing is open. A two-back set gives an offense options, and it keeps the defense honest.

Bring back Hatfield. Until Bailiff, the only Rice coach in decades to win 8 games.

(12-05-2022 10:09 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 11:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm not a huge fan of having a lot of formations, for a several reasons. One, the more formations you try to get into, the more likely someone is to line up improperly. Limiting the number of formations limits such errors.

Precisely an area where a kid who chooses Rice should excel... and if we're in an unusual formation, so are they... and THEY will make the mistake. As I said, usually these changes are only dependent on 1-3 people... and of course you need a smart QB who might also see the error if it happens.
But much like the option which was something more like 10 plays and 1 formation (which as it developed, perhaps became 8 formations) I'd have even fewer plays.... because once again, you're creating advantages through formations more than through athleticism. You're essentially creating pics, which they do all the time now anyway.

Maybe it's partly from my rugby background, where things are more unstructured and ad hoc, but I really like the option running game and RU's passing game principles because they allow creativity AFTER the play begins. I think that's where the Rice intellect really shines through.

https://twitter.com/redditcfb/status/159..._RB0KCiamQ

Wondering if Bloom realizes he’s the reason we haven’t been to a bowl game since 2014? Well, the reason for the past 4 years, at least.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(12-05-2022 12:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Maybe it's partly from my rugby background, where things are more unstructured and ad hoc, but I really like the option running game and RU's passing game principles because they allow creativity AFTER the play begins. I think that's where the Rice intellect really shines through.

I agree... but nothing I'm suggesting impacts RU's philosophy... and in fact he would certainly engage in using formations and motion to create advantages or negate disadvantages at the LOS.... including screens and pics... especially if he could have it involve them picking themselves.

I've seen a number of teams utilize what I'm describing recently... just on a limited basis.... and more about pulling tackles or centers. I'd do that, but also take advantage of those fullback types we often get who are 'tweeners' of TEs and WRs... who would be better blockers than many others, if we could give them a spatial advantage.

(12-05-2022 12:39 PM)RiceOwls2019 Wrote:  https://twitter.com/redditcfb/status/159..._RB0KCiamQ

They're already making fun of us.

(12-05-2022 02:48 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(12-05-2022 12:39 PM)RiceOwls2019 Wrote:  https://twitter.com/redditcfb/status/159..._RB0KCiamQ

They're already making fun of us.

Well, technically he just stated a fact. Feels like they're making fun of us because we're embarrassed for retaining Bloomgren. Can hardly say that they're making fun of UTSA for retaining Traylor.

(12-05-2022 03:04 PM)NYNightOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2022 02:48 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(12-05-2022 12:39 PM)RiceOwls2019 Wrote:  https://twitter.com/redditcfb/status/159..._RB0KCiamQ

They're already making fun of us.

Well, technically he just stated a fact. Feels like they're making fun of us because we're embarrassed for retaining Bloomgren. Can hardly say that they're making fun of UTSA for retaining Traylor.

True, but anyone who knows Rice, knows that we are keeping an underperforming coach.

Yes just like we kept Bailiff one year too long. Surprised the President would go along with this but I guess he is new at his job too.

(12-05-2022 03:10 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(12-05-2022 03:04 PM)NYNightOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2022 02:48 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(12-05-2022 12:39 PM)RiceOwls2019 Wrote:  https://twitter.com/redditcfb/status/159..._RB0KCiamQ

They're already making fun of us.

Well, technically he just stated a fact. Feels like they're making fun of us because we're embarrassed for retaining Bloomgren. Can hardly say that they're making fun of UTSA for retaining Traylor.

True, but anyone who knows Rice, knows that we are keeping an underperforming coach.

(12-05-2022 02:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I agree... but nothing I'm suggesting impacts RU's philosophy... and in fact he would certainly engage in using formations and motion to create advantages or negate disadvantages at the LOS.... including screens and pics... especially if he could have it involve them picking themselves.
I've seen a number of teams utilize what I'm describing recently... just on a limited basis.... and more about pulling tackles or centers. I'd do that, but also take advantage of those fullback types we often get who are 'tweeners' of TEs and WRs... who would be better blockers than many others, if we could give them a spatial advantage.

I see your point and I think you see mine. It's basically a difference of philosophy.

I see pass-oriented OC's constantly wanting to add one more formation in order to force a matchup that they want. I think you run the danger of limiting what the defense has to defend by getting into sets from which you can't run your whole offense. I tend more to favor limiting the number of formations and plays. perfecting execution, and allowing the offensive players to adjust after the snap to what the defense presents. I don't like empty sets because I don't like giving up the run threat.

(12-06-2022 01:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-05-2022 02:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I agree... but nothing I'm suggesting impacts RU's philosophy... and in fact he would certainly engage in using formations and motion to create advantages or negate disadvantages at the LOS.... including screens and pics... especially if he could have it involve them picking themselves.
I've seen a number of teams utilize what I'm describing recently... just on a limited basis.... and more about pulling tackles or centers. I'd do that, but also take advantage of those fullback types we often get who are 'tweeners' of TEs and WRs... who would be better blockers than many others, if we could give them a spatial advantage.

I see your point and I think you see mine. It's basically a difference of philosophy.

I see pass-oriented OC's constantly wanting to add one more formation in order to force a matchup that they want. I think you run the danger of limiting what the defense has to defend by getting into sets from which you can't run your whole offense. I tend more to favor limiting the number of formations and plays. perfecting execution, and allowing the offensive players to adjust after the snap to what the defense presents. I don't like empty sets because I don't like giving up the run threat.

Yes... I think we're just talking degrees... and perhaps what we mean by 'formations'.

I think we get lots of tweeners... or guys who were QBs in high school who are now WRs or what have you... an undersized/growing TE or tackle... so what I want to do is utilize formations to mitigate that disadvantage and take advantage of skills.

Walk your under-sized TE back into the FB position... or put him on the wing... or flex him out...

Hell... how about this....put the TE a step off the line by the guard (so elegible) and then flex out your tackle a foot. WHere does the DE line up? Where does the LB covering the TE? Now cross block them... so the tackle has leverage on the DE, especially if the play is coming this way... run the option... FB through the TE hole if the DE goes outside and is pinned in by the flexed tackle... QB around the end if he goes inside... and an RPO to the TE, reading the lnebacker/safety. If you do that from the NORMAL formation, you may have the tackle blocking a LB or safety, which is a poor mismatch for us in space... and your TE on a DE, which is a poor mismatch for us at the line... so we lose both ways. Swap the two and you either get a better angle or a better match up.

That's just me talking off the top of my head. There are better applications that a coach would think of... but that is the concept. 8 guys are doing the same thing. Really 9, because the QB is still reading... The TE and tackle are just reversed in position, but still have the same responsibilities.