Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Rice v UH **POST-GAME THREAD*
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
mbrindley Online
2nd String
*

Posts: 475
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 2
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #41
RE: Rice v UH **POST-GAME THREAD*
(09-01-2018 06:12 PM)Ricefootballnet Wrote:  
(09-01-2018 05:11 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  
(09-01-2018 05:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(09-01-2018 04:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think Stank establishes himself as the better QB and will be starting from here on out. Besides a few balls in the dirt, he made some decent throws.

Stank threw a boatload of ducks in the first quarter and half.

If he decides to perform consistently as he did in the 3rd and 4th quarters, you would be right.

1st quarter and a half I could swear I could hear someone yelling 'Pull' when he tossed a *number* of floaters.

The TD at the end of the half was dead bird. WR climbed tree and outmuscled the defender for it.

If first half Stank is the quarterback, I am not going to fight a taxi situation. Problem is, which Stank will be the steady-state Stank? (awesome alliteration there....)

I think there is no choice but to assume '3rd quarter Stank' is going to the norm; its his until 1st quarter Stank comes forward....

For whatever reason, this is the second consecutive week in which the run game died whenever Tyner came in. Is it not conceivable that Stank is a better ball handler and/or more adept at calling audibles to put the RB in the best position possible?

No question about it, Walt. My view from the sideline as well. We need to go with Sean. Period. Put Tyler on the field somewhere else at times, we need his size and athleticism.

Tyner didn't seem to even attempt to carry out the fake on running plays. It was clear when it was a run, and when it was a pass. Easy to defend a quarterback who gives up the moment he hands the ball off...no need to worry about the backside at all.
09-01-2018 06:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
texowl2 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,964
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 12
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #42
RE: Rice v UH **POST-GAME THREAD*
I really think that when stank went out was a real turning point. He seems to run the offense much better.

When was the last time we ran the Power I? 1988? Amazing
09-01-2018 07:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceOL83 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 176
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 4
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Rice v UH **POST-GAME THREAD*
(09-01-2018 07:01 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  I really think that when stank went out was a real turning point. He seems to run the offense much better.

When was the last time we ran the Power I? 1988? Amazing

Hard to say who runs the offense better. Tyner has taken 32 snaps in 2 games and would have only had three snaps if stank hadn’t cramped. Also Tyner hasn’t been the starter of a half which allows one to start “fresh” and establish a rhythm. Stank took 70+ snaps in week one. Believe we never had a competition once we hit the field. Decision was made weeks before 1st game so just make the announcement and move on. Two years in a row Tyner didn’t “lose” the job but we go with the other guy. At least this year the other guy can at least play and not hand the opponents points.
09-01-2018 07:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
waltgreenberg Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,582
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 135
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Chicago

The Parliament Awards
Post: #44
RE: Rice v UH **POST-GAME THREAD*
(09-01-2018 07:06 PM)RiceOL83 Wrote:  
(09-01-2018 07:01 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  I really think that when stank went out was a real turning point. He seems to run the offense much better.

When was the last time we ran the Power I? 1988? Amazing

Hard to say who runs the offense better. Tyner has taken 32 snaps in 2 games and would have only had three snaps if stank hadn’t cramped. Also Tyner hasn’t been the starter of a half which allows one to start “fresh” and establish a rhythm. Stank took 70+ snaps in week one. Believe we never had a competition once we hit the field. Decision was made weeks before 1st game so just make the announcement and move on. Two years in a row Tyner didn’t “lose” the job but we go with the other guy. At least this year the other guy can at least play and not hand the opponents points.

I honestly don't think this was the case. Following Spring practice the job was Tyner's to lose, and by all indications most of us were a bit surprised that Stank got the start last week. Yes, Sean has had the benefit of starting both weeks, and there's no question that Tyner is the better passer, with the stronger arm....however, at least to the naked eye, the offense-- especially the run offense-- runs considerably smoother under Stank, and there's no question that Stank is more mobile and fleeter afoot, which provides an incremental dimension.
09-01-2018 07:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mrbig Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,677
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 86
I Root For: Rice
Location: New Orleans
Post: #45
RE: Rice v UH **POST-GAME THREAD*
(09-01-2018 04:52 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  
(09-01-2018 04:49 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Good game overall and actually enjoyable to watch. My only complaints:
1 - the long FG tries in the 2nd half instead of being more aggressive and going for it.

Bigs, I disagree on your first point, as in all 3 of those long FG situations it was 4th and long. Different story if we had a 4th and 3 (or less), but I believe each time we were 4th and 7 or 8 yards to go.

I think 3rd down in all 3 situations should have been played as if we were going for it on 4th, so I would have called a run in all 3 scenarios on 3rd down to set up an aggressive play on 4th down if we had short yardage.

Also, Stank shot us in the foot on one by running out of bounds for a 2-yard loss instead of just throwing it away.
(This post was last modified: 09-01-2018 07:43 PM by mrbig.)
09-01-2018 07:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mrbig Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,677
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 86
I Root For: Rice
Location: New Orleans
Post: #46
RE: Rice v UH **POST-GAME THREAD*
Rice didn’t exactly make things easy on Tyner when the o-line committed a false start to set up 1st-and-15 as soon as he came into the game.

Neither Stank nor Tyner has been very consistent. Both had some big misses and some fantastic throws. Only 1 guy threw an INT.
09-01-2018 07:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,186
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 74
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #47
RE: Rice v UH **POST-GAME THREAD*
(09-01-2018 07:43 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Rice didn’t exactly make things easy on Tyner when the o-line committed a false start to set up 1st-and-15 as soon as he came into the game.

Neither Stank nor Tyner has been very consistent. Both had some big misses and some fantastic throws. Only 1 guy threw an INT.

As someone else said, Stank got better as the game went on, which definitely colored my opinion. He was shaky early and threw that awful pick, but as others have also said, it seemed like the offense ran better when he was in.
09-01-2018 07:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
waltgreenberg Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,582
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 135
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Chicago

The Parliament Awards
Post: #48
RE: Rice v UH **POST-GAME THREAD*
(09-01-2018 07:43 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Rice didn’t exactly make things easy on Tyner when the o-line committed a false start to set up 1st-and-15 as soon as he came into the game.

Neither Stank nor Tyner has been very consistent. Both had some big misses and some fantastic throws. Only 1 guy threw an INT.

Can't just look at the passing. As I've said before, we've had absolutely no running game with Tyner in. Zippo. Both games. And it's not as if we stopped trying to run with Jackson in the game.
09-01-2018 07:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
elw4796 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,372
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Rice v UH **POST-GAME THREAD*
Kind of a small note, but we're averaging something like 28 yards on KO returns this year as opposed to about 18 last year, which is something that got a bunch of complaints last season. Lembo is really a good ST coach.
(This post was last modified: 09-01-2018 08:04 PM by elw4796.)
09-01-2018 08:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NLOWL Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 230
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 2
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #50
RE: Rice v UH **POST-GAME THREAD*
Nah, Walt. Not a factor in the QB situation. The ground game sucked the entire 2nd half (after the UH adjustments). And that was when Tyner played (w/4 or 5 min left in 3rd quarter). Didn't matter who the QB was during the 2nd half the run game stalled. It happens.... we have two good QBs, but I dont think we are truly going to find the solution until week 4. After the bye week....

Sent from my SM-G935V using CSNbbs mobile app
(This post was last modified: 09-01-2018 08:16 PM by NLOWL.)
09-01-2018 08:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nightowl24 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,320
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 39
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #51
RE: Rice v UH **POST-GAME THREAD*
My analysis for whatever its worth by position and by unit:

Qb: neither are world beaters, I think we all know that. Both have the same problem, they both don't have field vision. They lock onto a wr and that's where they're throwing. Many times the middle of the field was open but they either didn't see it or just wouldn't throw it. Stank has a weak arm, maybe that's why he doesn't risk throwing the seam route. Tyner threw a great deep ball, but then his lack of mid range accuracy cost us. Some form of an upgrade is needed here. We'll never be any good if we can't push the ball downfield.

Rb: very impressed. They run hard. They see the hole they make the cut. They know when to shake and when to lower the hat. They did all they could do.

Wr: we have a lack of athletes here. Speed is marginal with most of them. They lack quickness to create separation. They aren't very good off the jam either. Their release off the line is bad, no stem, no setup one way to go another. Very predictable where they are going. They get open too late. Many times they were open but 3.5 sec has passed and the QB got happy feet/pressure arrived.

Ol: they did well. They aren't nasty enough for me but they aren't bad imo. They also don't get a push. Everything was stalemates from what I saw. The rbs ran past tacklers more so than the ol opening holes. They actually held up in pass pro as well. I expected oliver to have a field day, imo he didn't. He looked pedestrian to be such a good player. Good job limiting his effect on the game.

Offense: bloom brought Stanford with him. Old school run with a very basic passing scheme. I thoroughly dislike the toss to the rb play. They are neither going down hill nor getting wide. They wait 6yds back get the ball and everyone runs at them, poorly designed play. Either the players are running it wrong or the play just sucks. Got very frustrated in the 2nd half with the mass subs. They bring in a heavy package with no wr and then we run. EVERYONE knows they are running and we get zero yds. Then we bring in 3 wrs and EVERYONE knows we're passing. Seeing how we are really basic with our routes this is a bad game plan imo. When we had the wr we at least had the threat of a pass(even if it was minimal). With a better defense and better athletes this offense is capable and could cause some problems. Play calling wasn't horrible but there were times I would've like to see a more aggressive approach. I saw a "let's look good losing"/ "let's see if they mess up and give it to us" approach instead of "let's take it from them" approach. Again not bad but imo could be a little more aggressive. Taking into account the lack of athletes at certain positions and limitations of certain players the play calling makes sense.

Lb: they're good. Not great but good. They did fill nicely. The ran to the ball well. Pass drops weren't very good but I put that on the dbs to cover better. All in all wr can win with this group. I'd like to see how they are blitzing.

Dl: I liked them. They got off the ball, ran to the ball, disrupted things. I like them. They need to do a better job of staying in their rush lanes to contain the qb but that's an easy fix. The problems I saw here were things that can be easily coached. They do need to get more pressure but with only three and very few blitzes or stunts they did a decent job.

S: they fill on run well. The diagnose run plays well and they know their fit. Pass wise they need help. They aren't fast and they don't keep leverage properly. In space they weren't good. That's bad for a safety. Hips weren't smooth, change of direction on pass plays was bad as well. We need help.

Cb: I hate dogging kids but bickham isn't very good. Hips are very bad. Doesn't read keys well. Slow of foot. No closing speed, no make up speed. Thornton can play. He did well when they put him out there, but he got hurt. Left the game then was in a ball cap rest of the game. Concussion maybe? The cb on the other side wasn't bad, as far as I could see. We need A LOT of help here. Every bit of our recruiting should go into finding the best CBS we can convince to come here. I know ellis can play but he's hurt as well. I could go on and on with this position but I'll just say it's by and far our worst position as it is now. Tyrae and the other cb could possibly hold it down. I'd like to see these two start.

Defense: I don't like a 3-4, AT ALL. If you have studs like the steelers then run a 3-4. We don't have that. The beautiful thing about the 34 is that you can bring heat from anywhere at anytime. We sat in base way too much for my liking. Now with that said or dbs aren't good so I get it. I feel that if we bring well timed heat we can help our dbs to not have to cover as much. Again we need more aggressiveness play calling wise imo. Line stunts, line shifts, bring some lbs SOMETHING. they held up well most of the game but our dbs let us down.

St: punter was good. Ko were in the endzone most of the time. Fg left a lot to be desired. Yeah they were long but this is where you make your money. Couple of fgs changes the psyche of the team. I like trammel we need to find a way to use him more on offense. He has a good burst and good vision.

Overall: it was a good game. We shouldn't have won this one. We didn't play well enough to win. Our db play was poor in critical situations and we couldn't complete passes or move the ball when we needed to. We had three drives(maybe 4) stall in their territory. That's 21pts we left on the field. We have to find a way to score. Uh didn't stop our offense consistently. They rose to the challenge when the field got condensed. That's either play calling, goes back to that aggressive play calling I was talking about, or it's due to our lack of playmakers. I'm happy with the fight I saw. I like what the coaches are selling. I'm buying it. He needs some more jimmies and joes. I currently feel good that the football is in a good place coaching wise. What i'm waiting to see if they can get the players to be contenders. This is where we are. It's a first for rice. Really good coaching lack of players in key positions. Their success will reside directly on their ability to recruit these key spots.

Check recruiting I identified a CB here in houston we should check into.
(This post was last modified: 09-01-2018 09:10 PM by nightowl24.)
09-01-2018 08:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Intellectual_Brutality Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 349
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 3
I Root For: Rice Owls!
Location:
Post: #52
RE: Rice v UH **POST-GAME THREAD*
Thanks for that detailed write-up nightowl. You saw a lot more demerits than my untrained eye, of course. In the end it seems we're all on board that Bloom and the assistants are coachin' 'em up
09-01-2018 09:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bay Area Owl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,657
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 21
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #53
RE: Rice v UH **POST-GAME THREAD*
Tyner has always been the better ‘ideal’ for a QB for this offense: big to see downfield to make the correct read and throw vertically off play-action. Tyner can actually run quite well: his running ability was notable during the 2016 Stanford game. He threw a few atrocious passes in that game, but I thought he had great composure for a freshman. Stankavage seems to have a better grasp of this offense at the moment, but I think the coaches are keeping Tyner in the mix, hoping he will step up. I don’t see Stankavage as the long-term solution.
09-01-2018 10:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Intellectual_Brutality Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 349
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 3
I Root For: Rice Owls!
Location:
Post: #54
RE: Rice v UH **POST-GAME THREAD*
(09-01-2018 10:08 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  Tyner has always been the better ‘ideal’ for a QB for this offense: big to see downfield to make the correct read and throw vertically off play-action. Tyner can actually run quite well: his running ability was notable during the 2016 Stanford game. He threw a few atrocious passes in that game, but I thought he had great composure for a freshman. Stankavage seems to have a better grasp of this offense at the moment, but I think the coaches are keeping Tyner in the mix, hoping he will step up. I don’t see Stankavage as the long-term solution.

Well, for one, he's a grad transfer, so this is his last season of eligibility
09-01-2018 10:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
At Ease Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,766
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 112
I Root For: The Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #55
RE: Rice v UH **POST-GAME THREAD*
The team played hard and should be proud.

If UH wasn’t so sloppy in the first half and had attacked our D that way all game instead of just the second half, I wonder if some would be so positive about today’s loss.
09-01-2018 10:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nightowl24 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,320
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 39
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #56
RE: Rice v UH **POST-GAME THREAD*
Tyner is impressive looking no doubt. Currently he doesn't play as good as he looks. What style of offense did he play in hs? He may be able to throw downfield in the gun off the play action but doing it from under center is another monster. He does seem more willing to release the ball but his accuracy issues on simple throws worries me. He might have the yips, don't know. As it stands from my stance neither are the key at this point. We should run a 2 qb system and we have to do better with formations as I stated earlier. The offense has potential. We're are just missing some pieces. Won't be fixed this year. This is a 2 yr fix, minimum.
09-01-2018 11:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nightowl24 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,320
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 39
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #57
RE: Rice v UH **POST-GAME THREAD*
If ifs and but's were candy and nuts we all would have a merry Christmas.

Things are what they are. Uh didn't play a sloppy game and what I saw was talent on talent. It had squat to do with play calling. My analysis comes from years of playing and game planning football. I looked at talent, not play calling.
(This post was last modified: 09-01-2018 11:20 PM by nightowl24.)
09-01-2018 11:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ruowls Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,272
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 60
I Root For:
Location:

Football Genius
Post: #58
RE: Rice v UH **POST-GAME THREAD*
The qbs are opening their front shoulder to quick and are spinning out of their throws. Easy fix.
Team needs to learn vectors. Receivers need to give qbs better throwing lanes and qbs need to throw better. The offense is sound but can be a lot more consistent.
A couple plays stood out. Rice SS was covering middle under and ran to spot and was looking back to qb and wr ran a post right past deep and underneath coverage for TD. SS had no other threat and should have been looking at wr and not into backfield. Should have wheeled under the post and not worried about running to a spot and looking back to the LOS.
Receivers have the same lack of vision. Run routes to spots and create little separation (another way of saying throwing lanes aren’t helping the qbs).
Get this fixed and pass defense is better, pass offense is more consistent and running game maintains productivity.
There is enough potential on the field to be good now and elite in 2 years.
09-01-2018 11:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
owl40 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,624
Joined: Sep 2007
Reputation: 50
I Root For: Owls
Location:
Post: #59
RE: Rice v UH **POST-GAME THREAD*
(09-01-2018 08:57 PM)nightowl24 Wrote:  My analysis for whatever its worth by position and by unit:

Qb: neither are world beaters, I think we all know that. Both have the same problem, they both don't have field vision. They lock onto a wr and that's where they're throwing. Many times the middle of the field was open but they either didn't see it or just wouldn't throw it. Stank has a weak arm, maybe that's why he doesn't risk throwing the seam route. Tyner threw a great deep ball, but then his lack of mid range accuracy cost us. Some form of an upgrade is needed here. We'll never be any good if we can't push the ball downfield.

Rb: very impressed. They run hard. They see the hole they make the cut. They know when to shake and when to lower the hat. They did all they could do.

Wr: we have a lack of athletes here. Speed is marginal with most of them. They lack quickness to create separation. They aren't very good off the jam either. Their release off the line is bad, no stem, no setup one way to go another. Very predictable where they are going. They get open too late. Many times they were open but 3.5 sec has passed and the QB got happy feet/pressure arrived.

Ol: they did well. They aren't nasty enough for me but they aren't bad imo. They also don't get a push. Everything was stalemates from what I saw. The rbs ran past tacklers more so than the ol opening holes. They actually held up in pass pro as well. I expected oliver to have a field day, imo he didn't. He looked pedestrian to be such a good player. Good job limiting his effect on the game.

Offense: bloom brought Stanford with him. Old school run with a very basic passing scheme. I thoroughly dislike the toss to the rb play. They are neither going down hill nor getting wide. They wait 6yds back get the ball and everyone runs at them, poorly designed play. Either the players are running it wrong or the play just sucks. Got very frustrated in the 2nd half with the mass subs. They bring in a heavy package with no wr and then we run. EVERYONE knows they are running and we get zero yds. Then we bring in 3 wrs and EVERYONE knows we're passing. Seeing how we are really basic with our routes this is a bad game plan imo. When we had the wr we at least had the threat of a pass(even if it was minimal). With a better defense and better athletes this offense is capable and could cause some problems. Play calling wasn't horrible but there were times I would've like to see a more aggressive approach. I saw a "let's look good losing"/ "let's see if they mess up and give it to us" approach instead of "let's take it from them" approach. Again not bad but imo could be a little more aggressive. Taking into account the lack of athletes at certain positions and limitations of certain players the play calling makes sense.

Lb: they're good. Not great but good. They did fill nicely. The ran to the ball well. Pass drops weren't very good but I put that on the dbs to cover better. All in all wr can win with this group. I'd like to see how they are blitzing.

Dl: I liked them. They got off the ball, ran to the ball, disrupted things. I like them. They need to do a better job of staying in their rush lanes to contain the qb but that's an easy fix. The problems I saw here were things that can be easily coached. They do need to get more pressure but with only three and very few blitzes or stunts they did a decent job.

S: they fill on run well. The diagnose run plays well and they know their fit. Pass wise they need help. They aren't fast and they don't keep leverage properly. In space they weren't good. That's bad for a safety. Hips weren't smooth, change of direction on pass plays was bad as well. We need help.

Cb: I hate dogging kids but bickham isn't very good. Hips are very bad. Doesn't read keys well. Slow of foot. No closing speed, no make up speed. Thornton can play. He did well when they put him out there, but he got hurt. Left the game then was in a ball cap rest of the game. Concussion maybe? The cb on the other side wasn't bad, as far as I could see. We need A LOT of help here. Every bit of our recruiting should go into finding the best CBS we can convince to come here. I know ellis can play but he's hurt as well. I could go on and on with this position but I'll just say it's by and far our worst position as it is now. Tyrae and the other cb could possibly hold it down. I'd like to see these two start.

Defense: I don't like a 3-4, AT ALL. If you have studs like the steelers then run a 3-4. We don't have that. The beautiful thing about the 34 is that you can bring heat from anywhere at anytime. We sat in base way too much for my liking. Now with that said or dbs aren't good so I get it. I feel that if we bring well timed heat we can help our dbs to not have to cover as much. Again we need more aggressiveness play calling wise imo. Line stunts, line shifts, bring some lbs SOMETHING. they held up well most of the game but our dbs let us down.

St: punter was good. Ko were in the endzone most of the time. Fg left a lot to be desired. Yeah they were long but this is where you make your money. Couple of fgs changes the psyche of the team. I like trammel we need to find a way to use him more on offense. He has a good burst and good vision.

Overall: it was a good game. We shouldn't have won this one. We didn't play well enough to win. Our db play was poor in critical situations and we couldn't complete passes or move the ball when we needed to. We had three drives(maybe 4) stall in their territory. That's 21pts we left on the field. We have to find a way to score. Uh didn't stop our offense consistently. They rose to the challenge when the field got condensed. That's either play calling, goes back to that aggressive play calling I was talking about, or it's due to our lack of playmakers. I'm happy with the fight I saw. I like what the coaches are selling. I'm buying it. He needs some more jimmies and joes. I currently feel good that the football is in a good place coaching wise. What i'm waiting to see if they can get the players to be contenders. This is where we are. It's a first for rice. Really good coaching lack of players in key positions. Their success will reside directly on their ability to recruit these key spots.

Check recruiting I identified a CB here in houston we should check into.

Great post and analysis. Well done and agree on all points. In particular, the downfield toss play is horrible and maddening. Was horrible against PVAM and worse yesterday. Like watching 'Sam up-the-gut' from 10 years ago. Saw Stanford running same play against SD St. on Friday night with similar results. Not sure what such an experienced staff is seeing on that play. Either hand it off to get downhill faster or pitch it wide to get to corner faster. Seems like worst of both worlds and does not seem like a coincidence that you don't see it run by anyone else.

Eventually talent beat desire and our inability to make FG's, mediocre QB play (at best), cover faster WR's running better schemes, and not pressure the QB bit us. I just expected it to bite in 1H vs. 2H. Overall, it was first time in recent memory that Owls were competitive against a team with superior talent (maybe A&M game in 1H from years ago when Johnny Football sat out first half is last one I can remember?). Kids made some plays.

So to actually be in the 4Q with a competitive/winnable game is hats off to Bloom and the kids. Glimmer of hope and if kids play like yesterday vs. like PVAM, they could win a few more games than expected. Saw it w/ PV and with Houston, Defensive staff better get kids ready...deep balls are coming in that man coverage the rest of the season. Looks like another year leading FBS in explosive plays given up.

But w/ that being said, I have more hope/optimism after yesterdays loss than after the PV win.
09-02-2018 09:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 38,912
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 478
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #60
RE: Rice v UH **POST-GAME THREAD*
Looking at stats this morning, it appears that it was the passing game that kept us close. Take out the the longest rushes for each of our three leaders, and we had 40rushes for 60 yards. I think we need better than 1.5ypc to stay in most games, especially if “pounding the rock”is our base.
09-02-2018 09:47 AM
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.