How many times do we have to debunk this? The 2013 defense, contrary to the claims above, was #30 in Total Defense and #52 in footballoutsiders S&P+, the latter a schedule-adjusted rating.

Obviously those numbers not where we’d ideally like to be, but they were far ahead of our recruiting rankings, which have typically hovered in the 90-110 range across several coaching staffs. The presence of 2 excellent CBs says little about the overall talent level. It’s not like those guys weren’t utilized.

There is no shortage of things to criticize or even ridicule Bailiff for. At a high level, 2007 was a missed opportunity, 2009 was a year-3 disaster — which would be a big red flag for any staff at any school — and the subsequent building process was frustratingly slow. Worst of all, 2013 was followed not by continued improvement but by a painfully steady descent to the bottom of FBS. A more detailed look will produce plenty more fuel for that fire. There is no need to introduce alternative facts about 2013.

(08-09-2018 12:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(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.

Agree. His plan has to work against a backdrop of recruiting challenges and a conference that looks to be improving in football. It won't be easy. Louisiana Tech, UAB, and North Texas are serious.

(08-09-2018 01:29 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  How many times do we have to debunk this? The 2013 defense, contrary to the claims above, was #30 in Total Defense and #52 in footballoutsiders S&P+, the latter a schedule-adjusted rating.

Obviously those numbers not where we’d ideally like to be, but they were far ahead of our recruiting rankings, which have typically hovered in the 90-110 range across several coaching staffs. The presence of 2 excellent CBs says little about the overall talent level. It’s not like those guys weren’t utilized.

There is no shortage of things to criticize or even ridicule Bailiff for. At a high level, 2007 was a missed opportunity, 2009 was a year-3 disaster — which would be a big red flag for any staff at any school — and the subsequent building process was frustratingly slow. Worst of all, 2013 was followed not by continued improvement but by a painfully steady descent to the bottom of FBS. A more detailed look will produce plenty more fuel for that fire. There is no need to introduce alternative facts about 2013.

From Massey

Ranking: 70
Schedule: 87
Offense: 88
Defense: 72

https://www.masseyratings.com/team.php?t=6535&s=199231

And we played a whos who of terrible teams. The best teams we played was aTm and Miss State. Other than than Marshall and UH were also bottom half teams.

I'll stand by the bottom half assertion. As for whether or not they were better than our recruiting rankings.. if year 7 we are having that issue, well that says all we need to about the state of the staff in charge and program in general. Using recruiting numbers to justify poor play which justifies poor recruiting is a circular loop that allows Rice to retain poor hires for decades (and this extends to multiple sports at Rice). Rinse, repeat.

(08-09-2018 01:29 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  How many times do we have to debunk this? The 2013 defense, contrary to the claims above, was #30 in Total Defense and #52 in footballoutsiders S&P+, the latter a schedule-adjusted rating.

Obviously those numbers not where we’d ideally like to be, but they were far ahead of our recruiting rankings, which have typically hovered in the 90-110 range across several coaching staffs. The presence of 2 excellent CBs says little about the overall talent level. It’s not like those guys weren’t utilized.

There is no shortage of things to criticize or even ridicule Bailiff for. At a high level, 2007 was a missed opportunity, 2009 was a year-3 disaster — which would be a big red flag for any staff at any school — and the subsequent building process was frustratingly slow. Worst of all, 2013 was followed not by continued improvement but by a painfully steady descent to the bottom of FBS. A more detailed look will produce plenty more fuel for that fire. There is no need to introduce alternative facts about 2013.

The fact that our defense was above average, but still made an impression on me, goes to show how awful we have always been on that side of the ball. That 2013 defense was more than adequate, especially given the soft schedule and clock-eating offense that actually functioned as intended that year. It needed to be a good defense, and for the most part, it was. We wouldn't have won that championship with a typical Rice defense. It is quite a statement when I hear Bloomgren saying that we'll play "great" defense. I've been a fan since the late 70's, and I've seen one great defense at Rice. That was in 1994. There are too many Bailiff shortcomings to list, but let's not dump on his biggest accomplishment.

(08-09-2018 10:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(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.

Ok. Here is interesting things I heard recently.

1) Stanford has had 5 Heisman runner-ups the last 10 years or so (QB twice and 3 RB).
2) Before Harbaugh got to Stanford, Stanford had 3 10 win seasons and 6 after (Shaw has 5 of them).
3) Over the last 3 seasons, 6 teams have won 10 games each season. Most are P5. A G5 that has........San Diego St. SDSU has out Stanforded Stanford with a running based offense and serviceable defense. San Diego St. beat both Stanford and Arizona State last year.

Stanford gets some elite talent. A G5 school can out perform them doing the exact same thing. A G5 school can get the talent needed to implement this plan.

I laughed at the other thread about walking the TE. I could spend a whole bunch of time on why this is a good thing.

(08-09-2018 03:09 PM)ruowls Wrote:  Ok. Here is interesting things I heard recently.
1) Stanford has had 5 Heisman runner-ups the last 10 years or so (QB twice and 3 RB).
2) Before Harbaugh got to Stanford, Stanford had 3 10 win seasons and 6 after (Shaw has 5 of them).
3) Over the last 3 seasons, 6 teams have won 10 games each season. Most are P5. A G5 that has........San Diego St. SDSU has out Stanforded Stanford with a running based offense and serviceable defense. San Diego St. beat both Stanford and Arizona State last year.
Stanford gets some elite talent. A G5 school can out perform them doing the exact same thing. A G5 school can get the talent needed to implement this plan.

Hell, I love SDSU's approach.

From The Roost on twitter: Quarterback battle update:

Former QB Sam Glaesmann has moved to wide receiver. Plan is for Tyner and Stankavage to split reps with the ones moving forward. #GoOwls

https://twitter.com/AtTheRoost/status/10...2280792064

Interesting they're releasing all this to the Roost. Seems like they're using them as a PR machine...It looks like they're enjoying the fan-style coverage

Rice must not be thrilled with the Chronicle

(08-09-2018 09:22 PM)ricedtea Wrote:  Interesting they're releasing all this to the Roost. Seems like they're using them as a PR machine...It looks like they're enjoying the fan-style coverage

Rice must not be thrilled with the Chronicle

The Chronicle has actually had some nice articles recently.

I think Rice sees “AtTheRoost” as more of a substitute for a Rivals writer. Oftentimes a coach will feed a Rivals writer info in exchange for the writer asking the recruits questions in private interviews where the recruits tip their hand as to what way they’re leaning.

(08-09-2018 09:36 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(08-09-2018 09:22 PM)ricedtea Wrote:  Interesting they're releasing all this to the Roost. Seems like they're using them as a PR machine...It looks like they're enjoying the fan-style coverage

Rice must not be thrilled with the Chronicle

The Chronicle has actually had some nice articles recently.

I think Rice sees “AtTheRoost” as more of a substitute for a Rivals writer. Oftentimes a coach will feed a Rivals writer info in exchange for the writer asking the recruits questions in private interviews where the recruits tip their hand as to what way they’re leaning.

Never knew they did that, but guess it was naive of me to assume they didn't given the way college athletics works. I've always been a big fan of the Chronicle, but I know some fans have complaints.

Anyway, back to the QB situation, I can't say I'm surprised Bloomgren went with Tyner/Stankavage. Glaesmann's top ability is his mobility and Bloomgren is not the type of coach who wants a mobile QB.

(08-09-2018 09:43 PM)ricedtea Wrote:  Anyway, back to the QB situation, I can't say I'm surprised Bloomgren went with Tyner/Stankavage. Glaesmann's top ability is his mobility and Bloomgren is not the type of coach who wants a mobile QB.

Glaesman has the physical skills to play receiver. I don't know if either of the others could move to a new position.

But at least we won't have the three-headed QB this season.

(08-09-2018 09:43 PM)ricedtea Wrote:  

(08-09-2018 09:36 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(08-09-2018 09:22 PM)ricedtea Wrote:  Interesting they're releasing all this to the Roost. Seems like they're using them as a PR machine...It looks like they're enjoying the fan-style coverage

Rice must not be thrilled with the Chronicle

The Chronicle has actually had some nice articles recently.

I think Rice sees “AtTheRoost” as more of a substitute for a Rivals writer. Oftentimes a coach will feed a Rivals writer info in exchange for the writer asking the recruits questions in private interviews where the recruits tip their hand as to what way they’re leaning.

Never knew they did that, but guess it was naive of me to assume they didn't given the way college athletics works. I've always been a big fan of the Chronicle, but I know some fans have complaints.

Anyway, back to the QB situation, I can't say I'm surprised Bloomgren went with Tyner/Stankavage. Glaesmann's top ability is his mobility and Bloomgren is not the type of coach who wants a mobile QB.

The guy writing about Rice for The Comical is good. Way better than the writer for Astros. Talk about turgid prose. Practically unreadable.

(08-09-2018 02:06 PM)Antarius Wrote:  From Massey

Ranking: 70
Schedule: 87
Offense: 88
Defense: 72

https://www.masseyratings.com/team.php?t=6535&s=199231

https://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?s=cf2013

That is #72 out of 648, allegedly worse defensively than a 6-4 CIS team, and a 10-4 FCS team that gave up 51 to Eastern Illinois and 44 to Eastern Kentucky. Those are very close to the point totals we gave up to Texas A&M and a Dak Prescott-led Mississippi State. I’m not putting too much stock into this rating.

Look, I think we’re pretty much in agreement about Bailiff overall. I explicitly stated that, among other major problems with his tenure, the process to get to that level was frustratingly slow. I hope Bloomgren gets to that level faster and I especially hope that’s not Bloomgren’s (or his successor’s) peak.

I just don’t see the point in continuing to degrade the 2013 team.

Not to get sidetracked in a thread about the QB competition, but worth noting that the 2013 defense also had a future NFL defensive lineman in Covington. A CUSA defense with 3 upperclassmen who became NFL contributors, as well as a host of other pretty decent college players (and plenty of speed at safety) could have been better, even if the defense that year was quite good “by Rice standards”.

hate to be that guy... but the QB news is yet more proof of the validity of last season's ABO theory... But enough about last year....

(08-10-2018 08:00 AM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  hate to be that guy... but the QB news is yet more proof of the validity of last season's ABO theory... But enough about last year....

As it turns out, you ARE that guy.

Never can remember...are you the one who said he played seniors out of loyalty or the one who said he played freshmen for an excuse?

Yes... I like being "that" guy.. especially when I'm spot on... I think I definitely fell into the "play Freshman for an excuse" category....

(08-10-2018 09:56 AM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  Yes... I like being "that" guy.. especially when I'm spot on... I think I definitely fell into the "play Freshman for an excuse" category....

You weren't/aren't within 1,000 miles of spot on. I can't believe I took you off ignore, but here you go: Bailiff was put on notice by the AD that he needed to WIN. Your premise required that Bailiff and Karlgaard conspired to try to save Bailiff's job by putting less talented younger players on the field, so that when the team failed the AD would have a legit excuse to save the coach's job. That is so ******* dumb you ought to be embarrassed, but you're actually PROUD. Unbelievable. Back on ignore you go.

(08-10-2018 09:56 AM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  Yes... I like being "that" guy.. especially when I'm spot on... I think I definitely fell into the "play Freshman for an excuse" category....

So, what do you think of Bloomgren having a freshman as the starting center? preparing an excuse?

How about having a Freshmen listed #1 at 4 of the 13 offensive positions (and one defensive position)? Or how do you like the position with a soph backed up by THREE FRESHMEN?

I think your theory was an ABOrtion.

Pre camp depth chart