(12-07-2017 01:30 PM)At Ease Wrote:  In the spirit of the thread, I will document here that I don't expect him to be particularly successful, and the moment would be his answer to our offensive identity at yesterday's press conference.
A power rushing game and physical defense is not a dissimilar identity than what Bailiff had tried to instill at Rice to very limited success. It failed because if you want to just line up and smash people all over the field, you need the athletes to do that-- and we don't. We face some academic restrictions and are in a terrible conference with near-zero visibility. I just don't see us being able to pull off the level of recruiting necessary to make this work. Our defenses have been consistently bad for a long time for a reason.
Perhaps you can get around this by coaching and development to get guys playing bigger/faster than their measurables. But the few times I have seen Stanford play, I have always felt their offense, beyond being boring to watch, underperforms relative to its talent level. If you are bringing in phenomenal recruiting classes, which Stanford has consistently done, then that's not a big deal perhaps. But of course that's not going to be the case at Rice.
Hopefully we can revisit this in 1, 3, 5, 10 years, and remark on how foolish this take seems in the light of remarkable success from Bloomgren and the team.

That's not my favorite offense for Rice to run, either, but I don't think that will make much difference. One, schemes aren't nearly as important as execution. I expect our execution to be massively improved, and that will make the difference. Two, if we can truly play solid defense, then it really won't matter that much what our offense does. A good defense will be so contrarian in CUSA that it will make us very competitive right there. Plus, our offense will get to operate against all those horrible CUSA defenses, so we can probably move the ball with any scheme. Three, I don't see this as being the Bailiff approach. Bailiff's teams never played great defense. I'm not sure that Bloomgren's can either, at least not the initial ones, but am pretty sure we will see quantum improvement. Four, he made it pretty clear that he will adapt to what's here next year, which is very un-Bailiff-like. If he finds that he can't recruit the round pegs that he needs for his round holes, I anticipate that he would convert to a scheme with square holes.

So no, it's not my favorite idea for a scheme at Rice. But that doesn't really concern me. On the list of things that matter, your offensive scheme is pretty far down there.

(12-07-2017 01:30 PM)At Ease Wrote:  In the spirit of the thread, I will document here that I don't expect him to be particularly successful, and the moment would be his answer to our offensive identity at yesterday's press conference.

A power rushing game and physical defense is not a dissimilar identity than what Bailiff had tried to instill at Rice to very limited success. It failed because if you want to just line up and smash people all over the field, you need the athletes to do that-- and we don't. We face some academic restrictions and are in a terrible conference with near-zero visibility. I just don't see us being able to pull off the level of recruiting necessary to make this work. Our defenses have been consistently bad for a long time for a reason.

Perhaps you can get around this by coaching and development to get guys playing bigger/faster than their measurables. But the few times I have seen Stanford play, I have always felt their offense, beyond being boring to watch, underperforms relative to its talent level. If you are bringing in phenomenal recruiting classes, which Stanford has consistently done, then that's not a big deal perhaps. But of course that's not going to be the case at Rice.

Hopefully we can revisit this in 1, 3, 5, 10 years, and remark on how foolish this take seems in the light of remarkable success from Bloomgren and the team.

We can have a power rushing game if we recruit better offensive linemen. We consistently recruit decent running backs. But it boggles the mind to see how poor we have been in recruiting OL the last 20-30 years. Courtney Hall was our last NFL offensive lineman I believe. We've had NFL players in every other position since then outside of punter.

(12-07-2017 11:01 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 01:30 PM)At Ease Wrote:  In the spirit of the thread, I will document here that I don't expect him to be particularly successful, and the moment would be his answer to our offensive identity at yesterday's press conference.

A power rushing game and physical defense is not a dissimilar identity than what Bailiff had tried to instill at Rice to very limited success. It failed because if you want to just line up and smash people all over the field, you need the athletes to do that-- and we don't. We face some academic restrictions and are in a terrible conference with near-zero visibility. I just don't see us being able to pull off the level of recruiting necessary to make this work. Our defenses have been consistently bad for a long time for a reason.

Perhaps you can get around this by coaching and development to get guys playing bigger/faster than their measurables. But the few times I have seen Stanford play, I have always felt their offense, beyond being boring to watch, underperforms relative to its talent level. If you are bringing in phenomenal recruiting classes, which Stanford has consistently done, then that's not a big deal perhaps. But of course that's not going to be the case at Rice.

Hopefully we can revisit this in 1, 3, 5, 10 years, and remark on how foolish this take seems in the light of remarkable success from Bloomgren and the team.

We can have a power rushing game if we recruit better offensive linemen. We consistently recruit decent running backs. But it boggles the mind to see how poor we have been in recruiting OL the last 20-30 years. Courtney Hall was our last NFL offensive lineman I believe. We've had NFL players in every other position since then outside of punter.

It’s odd too because typically O-Lineman are some of the “smartest” guys judging by wonderlics and the like.

This guy hasn’t been here for even 48 hours and it has already snowed. Changed my preiction: undefeated next year.

(12-07-2017 01:30 PM)At Ease Wrote:  In the spirit of the thread, I will document here that I don't expect him to be particularly successful, and the moment would be his answer to our offensive identity at yesterday's press conference.

A power rushing game and physical defense is not a dissimilar identity than what Bailiff had tried to instill at Rice to very limited success. It failed because if you want to just line up and smash people all over the field, you need the athletes to do that-- and we don't. We face some academic restrictions and are in a terrible conference with near-zero visibility. I just don't see us being able to pull off the level of recruiting necessary to make this work. Our defenses have been consistently bad for a long time for a reason.

Perhaps you can get around this by coaching and development to get guys playing bigger/faster than their measurables. But the few times I have seen Stanford play, I have always felt their offense, beyond being boring to watch, underperforms relative to its talent level. If you are bringing in phenomenal recruiting classes, which Stanford has consistently done, then that's not a big deal perhaps. But of course that's not going to be the case at Rice.

Hopefully we can revisit this in 1, 3, 5, 10 years, and remark on how foolish this take seems in the light of remarkable success from Bloomgren and the team.

I strongly disagree with this assessment of a power running game being inappropriate for a school like Rice. Harbaugh would have installed this at Rice in 2006, and I think we would have done very well. Unfortunately, he installed it at a struggling Stanford (coming off a loss to UC-Davis) in 2007, and we got Bailiff...

Bailiff's scheme philosophy wasn't wrong; his approach to implementation was woefully deficient. He tried 'coaching-by-numbers', following very formulaic schemes but with no creativity, innovation, or adaptation. He only succeeded when he had talented players who could simply overcome the opposition. I expect Bloomgren to be different, and the very fact that he is seeking out working with smarter players is promising. He understands they will respond better to coaching and a disciplined strategy.

Rice should have no problem recruiting lots of smart, big-frame OLs who can be molded and coached into a high-performing unit. This is a category of player Rice should have no problem recruiting. In my experience, OLs tend to be smarter than DLs, and as a position, OLs are the most coachable group of players. Beyond simple frame size and work ethic, it's hard to project how a raw HS OL recruit will perform in college, and effective coaching and conditioning are so important in building a dominant OL line. An offensive line works as a unit, and that requires coaching to be effective. It's much harder to coach a dominant defensive line, which relies far more heavily on athletic talent and 'motor'.

Rice has never had a problem fielding good RBs, and given the simple scarcity of starting spots in D1, installing a talented QB isn't hard either. Talented TEs seem to flock to Rice, and the play-action passing takes the pressure off needing elite WRs. Average Rice WRs should get a break with the play-action passing from a real QB, as opposed to triple-option QB.

Defense is a harder challenge than the offense, but the power running game's ability to control the clock does relieve pressure on the need for defensive depth. Rice historically tends to field some good defenders, just not enough of them in the two-deep.

(12-06-2017 06:41 AM)temchugh Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 08:36 PM)Bailiff_Lingo_Bingo Wrote:  Would love this thread about halfway through next season.
But at this point... before we even have a coach...

The thread will still be available in ten months.

Last chance; just a few hours before Bloomgren era begins.

Rice will win between 6 & 9 regular season games this year and play in the postseason. Coach Bloomgren is one of the reasons.

Prediction: we win 4, and look competent and motivated in all others.

(08-25-2018 12:49 PM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  Prediction: we win 4, and look competent and motivated in all others.

That's about where I am, too. I would consider that significant progress.

Except, against CUSA, I'm not sure it's look competent and motivated without winning a bunch more than 4. That's my optimistic side.

(08-25-2018 01:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-25-2018 12:49 PM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  Prediction: we win 4, and look competent and motivated in all others.

That's about where I am, too. I would consider that significant progress.

Except, against CUSA, I'm not sure it's look competent and motivated without winning a bunch more than 4. That's my optimistic side.

I think, any CUSA loss, it's going to hard to say "But we looked good losing".

(08-25-2018 01:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Except, against CUSA, I'm not sure it's look competent and motivated without winning a bunch more than 4. That's my optimistic side.

Yup. Heck, it's possible to win a lot more than 4 without looking or being competent.

We win 4. And we will be in the conversation at the end of this season for next year''s CUSA West Division Championship.

5 wins in 2018, 6 in 2019 with a tougher OOC slate and 1 fewer games, 9 in 2020 and, if Bloom is still around in 2021, 10 wins with a 'signature' win against OSU.

4 or 5 wins this season. Simple logic here, compared to 2006, but we do not have Chase and Dillard

(08-25-2018 04:30 PM)junrice Wrote:  4 or 5 wins this season. Simple logic here, compared to 2006, but we do not have Chase and Dillard

...but we didn't know what we had with Chase and Dillard when we entered the 2006 season. A couple guys could similarly break out this year.

(08-25-2018 04:36 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(08-25-2018 04:30 PM)junrice Wrote:  4 or 5 wins this season. Simple logic here, compared to 2006, but we do not have Chase and Dillard

...but we didn't know what we had with Chase and Dillard when we entered the 2006 season. A couple guys could similarly break out this year.

There were glimmers of those two at the end of 2005 admist the shambles of that season. I have valently tried to forget anything about rice fb 2017.

(12-05-2017 07:15 PM)temchugh Wrote:  For Coach Bailiff, there was a lot of discussion about who knew what when with respect to whether he would be successful at Rice. Some folks knew the day he was hired. Other folks know at the end of year two, five, ten, or eleven.

This is your chance to document the moment you "know" whether Coach Bloomgren will succeed or fail at Rice. I don't know today. I think that JK has a good track record with hires, so I'm optimistic, but I don't know. When I do know, I'll come back and post it here so that, in the following years, other can admire my foresight or laugh at my foolishness.

If you are optimistic/pessimistic; encouraged/discouraged you can post that elsewhere. But if you "know" that Bloomgren is a keeper or you "know" that we need to look elsewhere, please clearly document that knowledge here. Then in three, five, or ten years where everyone else has caught up to you, you can point back to this thread as proof that you knew it way back when.

Bump for new thoughts as year one is close to completion.

I was very wrong about the 2018 outcome...

In the thread "Spring Football 2018" post #35, dated March 20, 2018, I predicted 2-11.

After reading through this thread, I had a couple of thoughts.
-At Ease definitely gets the soothsayer award for his pre-season take on the offense.
- In reviewing the first season W/L predictions, most of us on this Board (including me) were pretty clueless as to the team and coaching staff’s capabilities.