Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Starting QB
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,167
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 182
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #41
RE: Starting QB
(08-06-2018 02:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's not even that. As much as a poster or two loves to wax-poetically about how DB didn't have a plan, he did. In the last 3 or 4 years of his tenure, DB constantly said how we wanted to control possession and win the TOP battle, slowing down the play. He also reworked the defense and simplified it. He didn't go into a ton of detail, but he did tell us the broad idea of what his plans included.

The problem wasn't that he did not communicate a plan, it was was that his plans weren't executed well.

I would disagree somewhat. Controlling Posession and winning TOP with offense is a defensive tactic - one that tends to keep scoring low. When your defense is unable to stop your opponent from scoring, using such a tactic does not put you in position to compete. There is a reason that coaches like Leach, Briles, and Sumlin have built very good careers even though they rarely had strong defenses... they had a strategy of scoring on offense and trying to dispossess their opponents on defense.

If you can score predictably, then controlling TOP can work well. That's what Hatfields' teams did when at their best, and that's what Jerry Berndt's strategy was. Outside of about 3-4 years, I don't think Bailiff's teams posed a serious scoring threat.

In the words of one coach (pataphrasing), "controlling possession is like taking a woman on a date, only to have her leave the bar with another man. You can say 'but I had 70% of possession', but you still go home alone".
08-08-2018 05:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 57,726
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1209
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #42
RE: Starting QB
(08-08-2018 05:36 PM)I45owl Wrote:  
(08-06-2018 02:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's not even that. As much as a poster or two loves to wax-poetically about how DB didn't have a plan, he did. In the last 3 or 4 years of his tenure, DB constantly said how we wanted to control possession and win the TOP battle, slowing down the play. He also reworked the defense and simplified it. He didn't go into a ton of detail, but he did tell us the broad idea of what his plans included.
The problem wasn't that he did not communicate a plan, it was was that his plans weren't executed well.
I would disagree somewhat. Controlling Posession and winning TOP with offense is a defensive tactic - one that tends to keep scoring low. When your defense is unable to stop your opponent from scoring, using such a tactic does not put you in position to compete. There is a reason that coaches like Leach, Briles, and Sumlin have built very good careers even though they rarely had strong defenses... they had a strategy of scoring on offense and trying to dispossess their opponents on defense.
If you can score predictably, then controlling TOP can work well. That's what Hatfield's teams did when at their best, and that's what Jerry Berndt's strategy was. Outside of about 3-4 years, I don't think Bailiff's teams posed a serious scoring threat.
In the words of one coach (paraphrasing), "controlling possession is like taking a woman on a date, only to have her leave the bar with another man. You can say 'but I had 70% of possession', but you still go home alone".

I generally agree with I45. If you're going to adopt a conservative strategy, you need to base it around a sound defense and kicking game (by kicking game, I mean the entirety of special teams). Bailiff never seemed to emphasize either defense or kicking game (surprisingly, not even when we had great kickers). That's why I say he didn't have a plan. If you have a plan that you can't possibly execute because you don't prepare to do the things you need to do to execute it, then you don't really have a plan.

Let's say it's 4th and 5 at midfield, late in a close game. Nick Saban punts and counts on Bama's defense to get him the ball back in better field position. Leach, Briles, and Sumlin go for it because they are more confident of picking up the first down and ultimately scoring than they are of holding the other team with their defense. They each have a plan, and they execute it, because they emphasize doing the things they need to do to execute it.

Bailiff punts, which means nothing more than giving up a 3 play, 80 yard drive, instead of a 2 play, 50 yard drive. That's not having a plan, because it's making a decision that cannot work.
(This post was last modified: 08-08-2018 06:46 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
08-08-2018 06:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HawaiiOwl Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 794
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 14
I Root For: Owls
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Starting QB
(08-08-2018 06:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-08-2018 05:36 PM)I45owl Wrote:  
(08-06-2018 02:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's not even that. As much as a poster or two loves to wax-poetically about how DB didn't have a plan, he did. In the last 3 or 4 years of his tenure, DB constantly said how we wanted to control possession and win the TOP battle, slowing down the play. He also reworked the defense and simplified it. He didn't go into a ton of detail, but he did tell us the broad idea of what his plans included.
The problem wasn't that he did not communicate a plan, it was was that his plans weren't executed well.
I would disagree somewhat. Controlling Posession and winning TOP with offense is a defensive tactic - one that tends to keep scoring low. When your defense is unable to stop your opponent from scoring, using such a tactic does not put you in position to compete. There is a reason that coaches like Leach, Briles, and Sumlin have built very good careers even though they rarely had strong defenses... they had a strategy of scoring on offense and trying to dispossess their opponents on defense.
If you can score predictably, then controlling TOP can work well. That's what Hatfield's teams did when at their best, and that's what Jerry Berndt's strategy was. Outside of about 3-4 years, I don't think Bailiff's teams posed a serious scoring threat.
In the words of one coach (paraphrasing), "controlling possession is like taking a woman on a date, only to have her leave the bar with another man. You can say 'but I had 70% of possession', but you still go home alone".

I generally agree with I45. If you're going to adopt a conservative strategy, you need to base it around a sound defense and kicking game (by kicking game, I mean the entirety of special teams). Bailiff never seemed to emphasize either defense or special teams. That's why I say he didn't have a plan. If you have a plan that you can't possibly execute because you don't prepare to do the things you need to do to execute it, then you don't really have a plan.

Let's say it's 4th and 5 at midfield, late in a close game. Nick Saban punts and counts on Bama's defense to get him the ball back in better field position. Leach, Briles, and Sumlin go for it because they are more confident of picking up the first down and ultimately scoring than they are of holding the other team with their defense.

Bailiff punts, which means nothing more than giving up a 3 play, 80 yard drive, instead of a 2 play, 50 yard drive. That's not having a plan, because it's making a decision that cannot work.
Hat's teams controlled the clock by actually gaining yards( often top ten in rushing offense, at almost 300/game) Bailliff had a couple years at tghe 235-250 range, but mainly standing at the line of scrimmage doing nada

JL
08-08-2018 06:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HawaiiOwl Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 794
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 14
I Root For: Owls
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Starting QB
(08-08-2018 06:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-08-2018 05:36 PM)I45owl Wrote:  
(08-06-2018 02:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's not even that. As much as a poster or two loves to wax-poetically about how DB didn't have a plan, he did. In the last 3 or 4 years of his tenure, DB constantly said how we wanted to control possession and win the TOP battle, slowing down the play. He also reworked the defense and simplified it. He didn't go into a ton of detail, but he did tell us the broad idea of what his plans included.
The problem wasn't that he did not communicate a plan, it was was that his plans weren't executed well.
I would disagree somewhat. Controlling Posession and winning TOP with offense is a defensive tactic - one that tends to keep scoring low. When your defense is unable to stop your opponent from scoring, using such a tactic does not put you in position to compete. There is a reason that coaches like Leach, Briles, and Sumlin have built very good careers even though they rarely had strong defenses... they had a strategy of scoring on offense and trying to dispossess their opponents on defense.
If you can score predictably, then controlling TOP can work well. That's what Hatfield's teams did when at their best, and that's what Jerry Berndt's strategy was. Outside of about 3-4 years, I don't think Bailiff's teams posed a serious scoring threat.
In the words of one coach (paraphrasing), "controlling possession is like taking a woman on a date, only to have her leave the bar with another man. You can say 'but I had 70% of possession', but you still go home alone".

I generally agree with I45. If you're going to adopt a conservative strategy, you need to base it around a sound defense and kicking game (by kicking game, I mean the entirety of special teams). Bailiff never seemed to emphasize either defense or special teams. That's why I say he didn't have a plan. If you have a plan that you can't possibly execute because you don't prepare to do the things you need to do to execute it, then you don't really have a plan.

Let's say it's 4th and 5 at midfield, late in a close game. Nick Saban punts and counts on Bama's defense to get him the ball back in better field position. Leach, Briles, and Sumlin go for it because they are more confident of picking up the first down and ultimately scoring than they are of holding the other team with their defense.

Bailiff punts, which means nothing more than giving up a 3 play, 80 yard drive, instead of a 2 play, 50 yard drive. That's not having a plan, because it's making a decision that cannot work.
Hat's teams controlled the clock by actually gaining yards( often top ten in rushing offense, at almost 300/game) Bailliff had a couple years at tghe 235-250 range, but mainly standing at the line of scrimmage doing nada

JL
08-08-2018 06:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Antarius Offline
Say no to cronyism
*

Posts: 11,378
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 85
I Root For: Rice
Location: KHOU
Post: #45
RE: Starting QB
(08-08-2018 06:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-08-2018 05:36 PM)I45owl Wrote:  
(08-06-2018 02:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's not even that. As much as a poster or two loves to wax-poetically about how DB didn't have a plan, he did. In the last 3 or 4 years of his tenure, DB constantly said how we wanted to control possession and win the TOP battle, slowing down the play. He also reworked the defense and simplified it. He didn't go into a ton of detail, but he did tell us the broad idea of what his plans included.
The problem wasn't that he did not communicate a plan, it was was that his plans weren't executed well.
I would disagree somewhat. Controlling Posession and winning TOP with offense is a defensive tactic - one that tends to keep scoring low. When your defense is unable to stop your opponent from scoring, using such a tactic does not put you in position to compete. There is a reason that coaches like Leach, Briles, and Sumlin have built very good careers even though they rarely had strong defenses... they had a strategy of scoring on offense and trying to dispossess their opponents on defense.
If you can score predictably, then controlling TOP can work well. That's what Hatfield's teams did when at their best, and that's what Jerry Berndt's strategy was. Outside of about 3-4 years, I don't think Bailiff's teams posed a serious scoring threat.
In the words of one coach (paraphrasing), "controlling possession is like taking a woman on a date, only to have her leave the bar with another man. You can say 'but I had 70% of possession', but you still go home alone".

I generally agree with I45. If you're going to adopt a conservative strategy, you need to base it around a sound defense and kicking game (by kicking game, I mean the entirety of special teams). Bailiff never seemed to emphasize either defense or kicking game (surprisingly, not even when we had great kickers). That's why I say he didn't have a plan. If you have a plan that you can't possibly execute because you don't prepare to do the things you need to do to execute it, then you don't really have a plan.

Let's say it's 4th and 5 at midfield, late in a close game. Nick Saban punts and counts on Bama's defense to get him the ball back in better field position. Leach, Briles, and Sumlin go for it because they are more confident of picking up the first down and ultimately scoring than they are of holding the other team with their defense. They each have a plan, and they execute it, because they emphasize doing the things they need to do to execute it.

Bailiff punts, which means nothing more than giving up a 3 play, 80 yard drive, instead of a 2 play, 50 yard drive. That's not having a plan, because it's making a decision that cannot work.

Agree with both I45 and Owl#s. If our strategy was to out recruit Alabama and win that way, then that isn't a plan.. its fanciful thinking that is doomed to fail from the start.

Similarly, if you can't play defense and the opponent needs 1 minute 30 seconds to score, you can dominate TOP and still lose by 60 (which is exactly what happened).
08-08-2018 07:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Online
All American
*

Posts: 3,971
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 239
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Starting QB
While it is great to have a plan, it is also imperative to have a plan that fits your personnel.

Bama can put together just about any plan it wants due to the depth of players and reach.

While I give kudos to Bloomgren to have a plan to 'pound the rock and move the clock', is that *really* the best plan to implement, given both Rice's 'reach' *and* Rice's supposed advantage?

I dont have a lot of faith to be able to recruit the cornerstone of that plan: i.e. huge and strong as a Mack truck O-linemen. Further, the run/ball control always looks good and dandy -- until you find yourself down two scores with a quarter to go. I dont think I have ever seen a 'run control' team that could consistently play 'catch-up' to win those from behind games.

Honestly, Rice's advantage in reaching players was, and is, getting the most out of undersized, smart as **** players. That is the bread and butter that *can* succeed at Rice, and conversely, I think a coaching staff needs to at least somewhat emphasize this aspect. RUOwls is a perfect example of that type of player. And, to be honest, I think a smart pass oriented offense is best suited for the sweet spot that, imo, Rice has the ability and upper hand to recruit.

Look, I am glad that there *is* a plan and a philosophy moving forward. But, and time will tell, I just dont have the fuzzy feel good about that philosophy being one that is the best match for they types of players and personnel that Rice can actually compete at getting into the sallyport.

I really hope that I am shown to be wrong.
08-08-2018 08:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 57,726
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1209
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #47
RE: Starting QB
(08-08-2018 08:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  While it is great to have a plan, it is also imperative to have a plan that fits your personnel.
Bama can put together just about any plan it wants due to the depth of players and reach.
While I give kudos to Bloomgren to have a plan to 'pound the rock and move the clock', is that *really* the best plan to implement, given both Rice's 'reach' *and* Rice's supposed advantage?
I don't have a lot of faith to be able to recruit the cornerstone of that plan: i.e. huge and strong as a Mack truck O-linemen. Further, the run/ball control always looks good and dandy -- until you find yourself down two scores with a quarter to go. I dont think I have ever seen a 'run control' team that could consistently play 'catch-up' to win those from behind games.

OU in the wishbone days did it to some pretty good Nebraska teams several times. I marveled when they were able to do it.

Besides, it seems to me that if your primary consideration in selecting an offense is its ability to come from far behind, you are pretty much admitting defeat up front.

Quote:Honestly, Rice's advantage in reaching players was, and is, getting the most out of undersized, smart as **** players. That is the bread and butter that *can* succeed at Rice, and conversely, I think a coaching staff needs to at least somewhat emphasize this aspect. RUOwls is a perfect example of that type of player. And, to be honest, I think a smart pass oriented offense is best suited for the sweet spot that, imo, Rice has the ability and upper hand to recruit.
Look, I am glad that there *is* a plan and a philosophy moving forward. But, and time will tell, I just dont have the fuzzy feel good about that philosophy being one that is the best match for they types of players and personnel that Rice can actually compete at getting into the sallyport.
I really hope that I am shown to be wrong.

Not to make light of your concerns, which are also concerning to me. I don't know whether this can work or not, but at least there is a plan and we know what it is. We look at the results on the field and evaluate whether they are accomplishing it or not.

And a running attack does not necessarily mean Sherman tank o-linemen. Army and Navy are heavily run-oriented without huge linemen. Although I tend to agree with you that Bloomgren's type of running attack is more based on physicality up front.

He did make it work at Stanford, which is more like Rice that anywhere else that we've gotten a football coach from in quite a while.

But I think we need to assume that we are going to be constrained by the number and quality of athletes that we can recruit. Because offense is predetermined assignments while defense is reaction football, it takes generally better athletes to play defense--faster, quicker, more agile. That's one reason why d-linemen tend to be smaller than o-linemen. There are several ways around this. One, you can take the Jerry Berndt/Homer Rice approach and just say we aren't going to be any good on defense no matter what we do, so we're just going to try to outscore you on offense. Or you can take the Bill Peterson/Al Conover approach and say we're going to put the best athletes on defense and we can throw the ball with RUOwls types, so we will figure out how to throw the ball with what's left over. Or you can do the Ken Hatfield/Army/Navy approach and run an offense with smaller, quicker linemen and more all-around athletes than specialists at the skill positions, so pretty much anybody can play on either side of the ball, and we just put our best 22 athletes on the field. All those have worked, and all have failed. Bloomgren is doing something a bit different. We will have to see if it works.
(This post was last modified: 08-08-2018 09:05 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
08-08-2018 08:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ruowls Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,290
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 60
I Root For:
Location:

Football Genius
Post: #48
RE: Starting QB
What you need is a serviceable defense, a sound kicking game and an offense that can score early and continually flip the field. If you can have more short field opportunities than the opposition, you will likely win.

By the way, Stanford is a power running game that uses big bodies up front. It isn’t the cut blocking finesse option you see at the Acadamies.

A good offense isn’t predetermined. It is reactionary as well. Haven’t I taught you that by now? You react to vectors and not defensive “labels” or just run static plays.

I hope all goes well. I am sure things will be better. However, hailing from California, I agree with others that Rice isn’t Stanford and I don’t genuflex to Stanford superiority.
08-09-2018 01:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ourland Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,085
Joined: Apr 2017
Reputation: 14
I Root For: G5ers
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Starting QB
(08-06-2018 02:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-06-2018 11:30 AM)Antarius Wrote:  
(08-06-2018 08:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I know the situations are a bit difference, but I do laugh that one of our biggest criticisms of DB over the years, the inability to pick a QB and stick with them, is already manifesting itself with the new coaching staff.

Leaving aside the differences, which you allude to, I do not think the starting QB situation was one of the biggest criticisms. Reading the board, preparation (or lack thereof), sloppiness, discipline, under 0.500 record, never beaten a top 50 team, "preaseason" comments, clapping etc. would rank far higher.

The issue was less the inability to pick a QB and stick with it as much as an Inability to recruit a QB that we could stick with and prepare him to play.

Quote:This coaching staff should get the benefit of the doubt this year as it will be Bloomgren's first as a HC, and the staff has generally not worked together. The nice thing is, that the coaching staff has seem to have taken a much more aggressive and public-facing stance to the start of the year, giving the few fans of us that are sticking around, hope that we've got a competent staff that can do more than just clap or poorly handle QB situations.

This.

By explaining to people what they are doing and trying to do, it removes the WTF factor.

It's not even that. As much as a poster or two loves to wax-poetically about how DB didn't have a plan, he did. In the last 3 or 4 years of his tenure, DB constantly said how we wanted to control possession and win the TOP battle, slowing down the play. He also reworked the defense and simplified it. He didn't go into a ton of detail, but he did tell us the broad idea of what his plans included.

The problem wasn't that he did not communicate a plan, it was was that his plans weren't executed well.

It's much less about removing a WTF factor (you'll always have that when things are going bad), it's more about being open and transparent about all facets of coaching (from game-day decisions, to recruiting philosophy, to depth chart battles), and speaking in a technical enough manner that you seem competent and willing to stand behind your plan. We have no idea if Bloomgren's plans will be better, but he is at least selling them better than DB did by the end of his tenure.

+1. Bailiff had a plan, he just couldn't implement it. I remember him stating many times what we were trying to do. His plan was the same as Bloomgren's. Who doesn't want to keep possession of the ball and play great defense? We did exactly that in 2013. The hard part at Rice is signing enough talent to make that happen for more than one or two seasons at a time.
(This post was last modified: 08-09-2018 03:16 AM by Ourland.)
08-09-2018 03:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 57,726
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1209
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #50
RE: Starting QB
(08-09-2018 03:02 AM)Ourland Wrote:  
(08-06-2018 02:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's not even that. As much as a poster or two loves to wax-poetically about how DB didn't have a plan, he did. In the last 3 or 4 years of his tenure, DB constantly said how we wanted to control possession and win the TOP battle, slowing down the play. He also reworked the defense and simplified it. He didn't go into a ton of detail, but he did tell us the broad idea of what his plans included.
The problem wasn't that he did not communicate a plan, it was was that his plans weren't executed well.
It's much less about removing a WTF factor (you'll always have that when things are going bad), it's more about being open and transparent about all facets of coaching (from game-day decisions, to recruiting philosophy, to depth chart battles), and speaking in a technical enough manner that you seem competent and willing to stand behind your plan. We have no idea if Bloomgren's plans will be better, but he is at least selling them better than DB did by the end of his tenure.
+1. Bailiff had a plan, he just couldn't implement it. I remember him stating many times what we were trying to do. His plan was the same as Bloomgren's. Who doesn't want to keep possession of the ball and play great defense? We did exactly that in 2013. The hard part at Rice is signing enough talent to make that happen for more than one or two seasons at a time.

Bailiff had a plan, just not one that could work. In order to succeed on a consistent basis, he needed to out-athlete people. If his plan was to keep possession of the ball and play great defense, his teams never bothered to play great defense. 2013 was at best adequate defense, and most of his other teams fell well short of that mark. All I saw Bailiff do was continue to push square pegs into round holes, in the hope that some day he could recruit pegs that would fit. He couldn't.

I don't know whether Bloomgren's plan will work. It's not exactly my first choice as the route to go, but I haven't been at Stanford making it work for the last few years. Stanford isn't Rice, but it's probably a closer comparable than Texas State.
08-09-2018 10:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 57,726
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1209
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #51
RE: Starting QB
(08-09-2018 01:23 AM)ruowls Wrote:  What you need is a serviceable defense, a sound kicking game and an offense that can score early and continually flip the field. If you can have more short field opportunities than the opposition, you will likely win.
By the way, Stanford is a power running game that uses big bodies up front. It isn’t the cut blocking finesse option you see at the Academies.
A good offense isn’t predetermined. It is reactionary as well. Haven’t I taught you that by now? You react to vectors and not defensive “labels” or just run static plays.
I hope all goes well. I am sure things will be better. However, hailing from California, I agree with others that Rice isn’t Stanford and I don’t genuflex to Stanford superiority.

I think the short field part of that is hugely underrated and not widely understood. I remember Dinger once telling me, "Those two play, 20-yard scoring drives make an offensive coordinator look good."

I noted the point about power versus finesse running game, and expressed my concern. I think Ken proved that we can make the finesse running game work, but I'm not certain we can recruit enough of the right kinds of athletes to make power run work. Not sure we can't just don't know.

If the point about predetermined was directed at me, I think we are on the same page there. The two schemes that I like best--wishbone and run-and-shoot--are both based heavily on pre-snap and post-snap reads and reactions. But the offensive reactions are at least within predictable constraints, whereas defense has to react to everything. I think you can out scheme people and move the ball on offense, but it takes athletes to play defense. I would like to see us put

Agree, Rice isn't Stanford. What worked at Stanford may not work here. The fact that it did work at Stanford would tend to suggest that it could work here.
(This post was last modified: 08-09-2018 11:22 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
08-09-2018 10:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Antarius Offline
Say no to cronyism
*

Posts: 11,378
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 85
I Root For: Rice
Location: KHOU
Post: #52
RE: Starting QB
(08-09-2018 10:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-09-2018 03:02 AM)Ourland Wrote:  
(08-06-2018 02:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's not even that. As much as a poster or two loves to wax-poetically about how DB didn't have a plan, he did. In the last 3 or 4 years of his tenure, DB constantly said how we wanted to control possession and win the TOP battle, slowing down the play. He also reworked the defense and simplified it. He didn't go into a ton of detail, but he did tell us the broad idea of what his plans included.
The problem wasn't that he did not communicate a plan, it was was that his plans weren't executed well.
It's much less about removing a WTF factor (you'll always have that when things are going bad), it's more about being open and transparent about all facets of coaching (from game-day decisions, to recruiting philosophy, to depth chart battles), and speaking in a technical enough manner that you seem competent and willing to stand behind your plan. We have no idea if Bloomgren's plans will be better, but he is at least selling them better than DB did by the end of his tenure.
+1. Bailiff had a plan, he just couldn't implement it. I remember him stating many times what we were trying to do. His plan was the same as Bloomgren's. Who doesn't want to keep possession of the ball and play great defense? We did exactly that in 2013. The hard part at Rice is signing enough talent to make that happen for more than one or two seasons at a time.

Bailiff had a plan, just not one that could work. In order to succeed on a consistent basis, he needed to out-athlete people. If his plan was to keep possession of the ball and play great defense, his teams never bothered to play great defense. 2013 was at best adequate defense, and most of his other teams fell well short of that mark. All I saw Bailiff do was continue to push square pegs into round holes, in the hope that some day he could recruit pegs that would fit. He couldn't.

I don't know whether Bloomgren's plan will work. It's not exactly my first choice as the route to go, but I haven't been at Stanford making it work for the last few years. Stanford isn't Rice, but it's probably a closer comparable than Texas State.

Even when we did out athlete people, we still weren't very good. We had Gaines and Callahan in the backfield (both players who went on to play in the NFL) and managed a bottom half team in defense and lost to anyone with a pulse in 2013.

So calling the out-athleting a plan isn't even that accurate. Unless the end goal was to only beat the dregs of the country known as the Sunbelt dba C-USA.
08-09-2018 11:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 57,726
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1209
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #53
RE: Starting QB
When you have two corners who play on Sundays and you can't stop the pass, your plan sucks.
08-09-2018 11:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,274
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 74
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #54
RE: Starting QB
(08-09-2018 11:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  When you have two corners who play on Sundays and you can't stop the pass, your plan sucks.

Which gets back to my original post. In this regard, the issue with DB wasn't that he didn't communicate a plan to the fans, it's that it was bad.

The good thing Bloomgren is doing differently from DB isn't that he is communicating his plan, in this regard, it's how he's communicating it and carrying himself when he communicates it. He's also saying things that sound better to us, and that seem to make more sense, given our constraints (e.g. emphasizing that the best player will play, as opposed to giving bonus points to a player because of their experience).
(This post was last modified: 08-09-2018 12:07 PM by RiceLad15.)
08-09-2018 12:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Antarius Offline
Say no to cronyism
*

Posts: 11,378
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 85
I Root For: Rice
Location: KHOU
Post: #55
RE: Starting QB
(08-09-2018 12:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Which gets back to my original post. In this regard, the issue with DB wasn't that he didn't communicate a plan to the fans, it's that it was bad.

The definition I'd cite for plan is
A plan is typically any diagram or list of steps with details of timing and resources, used to achieve an objective to do something

Bailiff never had the last part. We had a list of steps that had no chance of ever succeeding and therefore it isn't a real plan. Its a list of steps to failure. Would you consider, if Bailiff proposed that our way to win is to recruit 400 lb linemen who run 4.3 40 yard times, to be a plan when we know we can't do it?

We are splitting hairs on the definition of plan, but my point (and I think Owl#s) is that if your plan isn't set up with a chance of success, it isn't really a plan at all.
08-09-2018 12:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ourland Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,085
Joined: Apr 2017
Reputation: 14
I Root For: G5ers
Location:
Post: #56
RE: Starting QB
(08-09-2018 11:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  When you have two corners who play on Sundays and you can't stop the pass, your plan sucks.

It would've helped a lot if Rice had a pass rush. It's a team effort. When playing against Rice, opposing quarterbacks typically have four or five seconds to wait for receivers to get open. I could complete a pass in that time.
(This post was last modified: 08-09-2018 01:44 PM by Ourland.)
08-09-2018 12:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,274
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 74
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #57
RE: Starting QB
(08-09-2018 12:35 PM)Antarius Wrote:  
(08-09-2018 12:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Which gets back to my original post. In this regard, the issue with DB wasn't that he didn't communicate a plan to the fans, it's that it was bad.

The definition I'd cite for plan is
A plan is typically any diagram or list of steps with details of timing and resources, used to achieve an objective to do something

Bailiff never had the last part. We had a list of steps that had no chance of ever succeeding and therefore it isn't a real plan. Its a list of steps to failure. Would you consider, if Bailiff proposed that our way to win is to recruit 400 lb linemen who run 4.3 40 yard times, to be a plan when we know we can't do it?

We are splitting hairs on the definition of plan, but my point (and I think Owl#s) is that if your plan isn't set up with a chance of success, it isn't really a plan at all.

K - which still support my point about Bloomgren. Let's not get overboard on heaping praise on Bloomgren because he communicates his plan. We haven't watched his team execute on the field and have no idea if the plans he has communicated will translate into anything positive. If his team executes the same way DB's teams did, then he has the exact same ability to communicate his plan/philosophy that DB did.

I'm cautious of putting Bloomgren on a pedestal simply because he isn't DB. If you think about, that's exactly what we did with DB (because he wasn't TG), and that worked out once every 5 years or so. I want to give Bloomgren credit because he earns it. And apparently, since the product on the field is integral to evaluating a coach's ability to explain their game plan, we shouldn't be praising Bloomgren quite yet.
08-09-2018 12:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ourland Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,085
Joined: Apr 2017
Reputation: 14
I Root For: G5ers
Location:
Post: #58
RE: Starting QB
(08-09-2018 12:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-09-2018 11:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  When you have two corners who play on Sundays and you can't stop the pass, your plan sucks.

Which gets back to my original post. In this regard, the issue with DB wasn't that he didn't communicate a plan to the fans, it's that it was bad.

The good thing Bloomgren is doing differently from DB isn't that he is communicating his plan, in this regard, it's how he's communicating it and carrying himself when he communicates it. He's also saying things that sound better to us, and that seem to make more sense, given our constraints (e.g. emphasizing that the best player will play, as opposed to giving bonus points to a player because of their experience).

It wasn't a bad plan. He couldn't recruit or coach at anytime during the last three years. A lot of this is on Rice. You get what you pay for. If your coaching salaries force you to take gambles on unproven coaches, that's what you do. I don't know the numbers, but I'm confident that the coaching salaries were almost doubled to land this staff. Three of them have been head coaches, and five of them have coached in the NFL. When have we ever had that before at Rice? Rice has been so cheap up until now.
(This post was last modified: 08-09-2018 12:52 PM by Ourland.)
08-09-2018 12:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,274
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 74
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #59
RE: Starting QB
(08-09-2018 12:51 PM)Ourland Wrote:  
(08-09-2018 12:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-09-2018 11:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  When you have two corners who play on Sundays and you can't stop the pass, your plan sucks.

Which gets back to my original post. In this regard, the issue with DB wasn't that he didn't communicate a plan to the fans, it's that it was bad.

The good thing Bloomgren is doing differently from DB isn't that he is communicating his plan, in this regard, it's how he's communicating it and carrying himself when he communicates it. He's also saying things that sound better to us, and that seem to make more sense, given our constraints (e.g. emphasizing that the best player will play, as opposed to giving bonus points to a player because of their experience).

It wasn't a bad plan. He couldn't recruit or coach at anytime during the last three years. A lot of this is on Rice. You get what you pay for. If your coaching salaries force you to take gambles on unproven coaches, that's what you do. I don't know the numbers, but I'm confident that the coaching salaries were almost doubled to land this staff. Three of them have been head coaches, and five of them have coached in the NFL. When have we ever had that before at Rice? Rice has been so cheap up until now.

My whole point is a lot more forward looking - we shouldn't get overly excited for Bloomgren because of what he says about how he is going to game plan because we have very little idea of how that will translate on the field.

How Bloomgren is recruiting (a national and international approach), how he is viewing the depth chart (seniority appears to play little to no role), and how he is publicly holding people accountable (I've seen press clippings where people talk about how many players were running already), are more than enough to get us excited about the coach and his staff.
08-09-2018 12:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Antarius Offline
Say no to cronyism
*

Posts: 11,378
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 85
I Root For: Rice
Location: KHOU
Post: #60
RE: Starting QB
(08-09-2018 12:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-09-2018 12:35 PM)Antarius Wrote:  
(08-09-2018 12:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Which gets back to my original post. In this regard, the issue with DB wasn't that he didn't communicate a plan to the fans, it's that it was bad.

The definition I'd cite for plan is
A plan is typically any diagram or list of steps with details of timing and resources, used to achieve an objective to do something

Bailiff never had the last part. We had a list of steps that had no chance of ever succeeding and therefore it isn't a real plan. Its a list of steps to failure. Would you consider, if Bailiff proposed that our way to win is to recruit 400 lb linemen who run 4.3 40 yard times, to be a plan when we know we can't do it?

We are splitting hairs on the definition of plan, but my point (and I think Owl#s) is that if your plan isn't set up with a chance of success, it isn't really a plan at all.

K - which still support my point about Bloomgren. Let's not get overboard on heaping praise on Bloomgren because he communicates his plan. We haven't watched his team execute on the field and have no idea if the plans he has communicated will translate into anything positive. If his team executes the same way DB's teams did, then he has the exact same ability to communicate his plan/philosophy that DB did.

I'm cautious of putting Bloomgren on a pedestal simply because he isn't DB. If you think about, that's exactly what we did with DB (because he wasn't TG), and that worked out once every 5 years or so. I want to give Bloomgren credit because he earns it. And apparently, since the product on the field is integral to evaluating a coach's ability to explain their game plan, we shouldn't be praising Bloomgren quite yet.

This I agree with. I don't think we are putting him on a pedestal, just acknowledging that by virtue of his stated plan and communication, he is easier to get behind. Similar to Rhoades as opposed to someone like Greenspan. Ultimately, Bloomgren will be judged by his results and quality of play. If we allow a 65 yard run on the opening play and follow it up with false start, false start, delay of game, I will be extremely unhappy.

Cautiously optimistic. But if we execute and continue to execute the same way as we did under DB, I assure you that Bloomgren will be receiving the same criticisms that DB did. At least from me.

Quote:How Bloomgren is recruiting (a national and international approach), how he is viewing the depth chart (seniority appears to play little to no role), and how he is publicly holding people accountable (I've seen press clippings where people talk about how many players were running already), are more than enough to get us excited about the coach and his staff.

I can't speak for the others, but this is part of the plan that I am referring to. Not just the in game plan. To execute the offense Bloomgren wants, we need discipline a wider net of players/recruiting and trying a best-man-up depth chart. And it sounds like we are acting on it.
(This post was last modified: 08-09-2018 01:27 PM by Antarius.)
08-09-2018 01:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.