Getting on my soap box.....

Hate to admit it but it ruffles my feathers when I see and I am paraphrasing, “the offense couldn’t do anything in the scrimmage because the receivers will never see the field in the fall”. Hogwash.
A thrown ball will always be faster than a runner. As such, the passing game is inherently an excellent equalizer. Too many football experts place a premium on athleticism. Too many here think it is all about recruiting and getting more talent. Speed and athleticism is mitigated if one can align resources. You only need 3 things to be a receiver. 1) Catch the ball is the obvious first and most important, 2) Create a moment of separation at the catch point, and 3) Give the QB an unobstructed trajectory to the point of the catch. That is all there is to it. You can improve all three with proper instruction.
Look. Most receivers will have a baseline of ability in those 3 areas. Maximize their talent and any of the 5 receivers on any given play can be successful. By nature of the rules of football, the defense can’t double cover all 5 receivers on the same play. Double coverage makes it possible for the defense to obstruct the catch point. So, the defense can take 2-3 receivers away on any given pattern with the standard 7 (or8) coverage. That always leaves 2-3 receivers in a position to do 2 and 3 above on any given play. The receivers and QB just need a system and teaching that allows them to succeed. You don’t need the “new” transfers or “ your players” to generate success. One may get there eventually but it is fallacious to think waiting to get the right players for one’s system is the only way to get there.
People will believe what they want to believe and listen to whom they believe is the definitive authority. But in my experience, very little should be definitive with regards to Rice football.
I will climb down now.

To paraphrase your full commentary: You don't necessarily have to be the most athletic to succeed on offense in football.

That said, if one assumes that all coaches teach, and that all coaches encourage precise execution, and that all coaches at this level know what they're doing.....well then, yes....talent is generally going to win out.

The only reason for you to be frustrated with such comments is if you assume that Rice coaches are/should always be better than all other coaches....and there's no reason at all to make that presumption.

(03-31-2019 11:39 AM)Barney Wrote:  To paraphrase your full commentary: You don't necessarily have to be the most athletic to succeed on offense in football.

But you pretty much DO have to be the most athletic to succeed on defense. So, my thought has always been if you're at a place like Rice where your athletes are limited, you put most of the best athletes on defense and then find an OC like Ruowls who can find a way to generate 30 points a game with what he gets to build an offense. And you work the hell out of the kicking game, because you can match up athletically there, and that's where a disproportionate share of big plays happen.

Quote:That said, if one assumes that all coaches teach, and that all coaches encourage precise execution, and that all coaches at this level know what they're doing.....well then, yes....talent is generally going to win out.
The only reason for you to be frustrated with such comments is if you assume that Rice coaches are/should always be better than all other coaches....and there's no reason at all to make that presumption.

I don't assume that Rice coaches must be better, so much as I assume that Rice coaches should recognize the realities and figure out that they have to do something different from the rest in order to succeed. Close the talent gap as much as you can, and then scheme and execute to make up the difference and get you over the top. I'm not going to put words in RU's mouth, but I think he's pretty close to that viewpoint. Do something better (execution) or do something different (scheme) if you want to win.

And there's a big difference between "encouraging" precise execution on the one hand, and doing the hard work necessary to achieve it on the other.

(03-31-2019 11:39 AM)Barney Wrote:  That said, if one assumes that all coaches teach, and that all coaches encourage precise execution, and that all coaches at this level know what they're doing.....well then, yes....talent is generally going to win out.

Which is a bad assumption predicated on the scarcity myth. We saw first hand that all coaches at the FBS level clearly do not know what they are doing.

(03-31-2019 11:39 AM)Barney Wrote:  To paraphrase your full commentary: You don't necessarily have to be the most athletic to succeed on offense in football.

That said, if one assumes that all coaches teach, and that all coaches encourage precise execution, and that all coaches at this level know what they're doing.....well then, yes....talent is generally going to win out.

The only reason for you to be frustrated with such comments is if you assume that Rice coaches are/should always be better than all other coaches....and there's no reason at all to make that presumption.

Rice coaches will NEVER (consistently) be meaningfully better than our opponents. If they are, we will lose them. That's just how it works when their budgets for staff are 15+mm and ours are <5. UNLESS they do something that specifically works at a place like Rice better than say UH or LSU

The question is, how do you define talent? We all recognize blazing speed, size, strength, coordination etc... but there is more to it than that. I think part of the reason Bailiff did well early was the large number of coaches sons... not because they were exceptionally gifted, but because they weren't, but had been playing the game their whole lives.

They had to figure out how to succeed WITHOUT being the biggest and fastest and strongest

There are lots of people like this who weren't coaches sons as well. SOME of that can be taught... but as an example, RUs been trying to teach me for years and I understand the concept, but I can't always put it into action. Find the best athletes you can and then pick this guy over that one based on their ability to do what i can't.

(03-31-2019 12:32 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-31-2019 11:39 AM)Barney Wrote:  To paraphrase your full commentary: You don't necessarily have to be the most athletic to succeed on offense in football.

That said, if one assumes that all coaches teach, and that all coaches encourage precise execution, and that all coaches at this level know what they're doing.....well then, yes....talent is generally going to win out.

The only reason for you to be frustrated with such comments is if you assume that Rice coaches are/should always be better than all other coaches....and there's no reason at all to make that presumption.

Rice coaches will NEVER (consistently) be meaningfully better than our opponents. If they are, we will lose them. That's just how it works when their budgets for staff are 15+mm and ours are <5.

We can't expect to have reliably better coaching than our P5 opponents, but it so happens that we're not P5. We should be paying top dollar in CUSA in order to attract the best coaching in CUSA. My understanding is we're top or close to top in coaching salaries?
If we're not, I'd advocate us to be tops, and then add an extra $500k or whatever on top of that. Good things can happen when you pay more than your (conference) competition.

(03-31-2019 12:42 PM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(03-31-2019 12:32 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-31-2019 11:39 AM)Barney Wrote:  To paraphrase your full commentary: You don't necessarily have to be the most athletic to succeed on offense in football.

That said, if one assumes that all coaches teach, and that all coaches encourage precise execution, and that all coaches at this level know what they're doing.....well then, yes....talent is generally going to win out.

The only reason for you to be frustrated with such comments is if you assume that Rice coaches are/should always be better than all other coaches....and there's no reason at all to make that presumption.

Rice coaches will NEVER (consistently) be meaningfully better than our opponents. If they are, we will lose them. That's just how it works when their budgets for staff are 15+mm and ours are <5.

We can't expect to have reliably better coaching than our P5 opponents, but it so happens that we're not P5. We should be paying top dollar in CUSA in order to attract the best coaching in CUSA. My understanding is we're top or close to top in coaching salaries?
If we're not, I'd advocate us to be tops, and then add an extra $500k or whatever on top of that. Good things can happen when you pay more than your (conference) competition.

I agree, but since we're not p5, we will still lose them to p5 more often than not.

We're close to or at the top of CUSA, but other g5 schools pay more, and p5 a LOT more.

(03-31-2019 11:39 AM)Barney Wrote:  To paraphrase your full commentary: You don't necessarily have to be the most athletic to succeed on offense in football.

That said, if one assumes that all coaches teach, and that all coaches encourage precise execution, and that all coaches at this level know what they're doing.....well then, yes....talent is generally going to win out.

The only reason for you to be frustrated with such comments is if you assume that Rice coaches are/should always be better than all other coaches....and there's no reason at all to make that presumption.

Those are some strong assumptions.

What I am trying to say is that I do think coaches are knowledgeable in the basics of football. But football is much more nuanced. I am sure they know what an even front is or an odd front. They know what a open safety and a closed safety is. They know what a 3 technique and a 7 technique is. They know what concepts should beat a man or zone look. How a 3 deep, 2 deep, brackets, or robber coverage should be able to be beaten.
Football is probabilities. In order to get precise execution, the player has to at least have the ability to execute. Otherwise, the probability of success is exceedingly low. If precise execution involves a 4.4 40 in a 6-5 receiver and you don’t have one, then you won’t get precise execution. However, it doesn’t mean that there are not other ways to get precise execution and increase probabilities with the player you do have. That is all I am saying.

And, there isn’t always a linear correlation to money spent on coaching to successful results. There is no guarantee money buys success.

I want to take a cut at paraphrasing ru, too! (Oddly, I don’t think he encapsulated his viewpoint well in the above post— and that might have been because of modesty)...
There are a very few coaches who understand the very best ways to succeed at the passing game. Some of those few are graduates of Rice.

It doesn’t take a Rice degree to understand the concept... but it might correlate somewhat with being able to understand it

(03-30-2019 01:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-30-2019 11:54 AM)Ourland Wrote:  I hate to admit this, but the last time I was so uninterested in Rice football was before Hatfield's final season. I can't get excited. I hope that changes toward the end of the Summer.

I have never been uninterested. Never will be.

Amen to that. I wish I could get there.

(04-01-2019 09:42 AM)Ourland Wrote:  

(03-30-2019 01:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-30-2019 11:54 AM)Ourland Wrote:  I hate to admit this, but the last time I was so uninterested in Rice football was before Hatfield's final season. I can't get excited. I hope that changes toward the end of the Summer.

I have never been uninterested. Never will be.

Amen to that. I wish I could get there.

I cannot remember a day since 1963 in which I was uninterested in Rice sports. I cannot foresee a time when I will just say to heck with it. I want us to win every game, every match, every meet.

My Dad was in the hospital when Rice received their first #1 ranking. I took the paper to the hospital and told him about it. he weakly raised his hand with the index finger extended - "we're #1". He died a couple of days latter.

I expect I will go out the same way.

RFND

(04-01-2019 10:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 09:42 AM)Ourland Wrote:  

(03-30-2019 01:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-30-2019 11:54 AM)Ourland Wrote:  I hate to admit this, but the last time I was so uninterested in Rice football was before Hatfield's final season. I can't get excited. I hope that changes toward the end of the Summer.

I have never been uninterested. Never will be.

Amen to that. I wish I could get there.

I cannot remember a day since 1963 in which I was uninterested in Rice sports. I cannot foresee a time when I will just say to heck with it. I want us to win every game, every match, every meet.

My Dad was in the hospital when Rice received their first #1 ranking. I took the paper to the hospital and told him about it. he weakly raised his hand with the index finger extended - "we're #1". He died a couple of days latter.

I expect I will go out the same way.

RFND

+1. Just win

...and I needed that. Let's do this!

No words. We might be the least deserving fan base ever.

(04-01-2019 11:38 AM)Antarius Wrote:  No words.

Please. More of this.

(04-01-2019 12:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 11:38 AM)Antarius Wrote:  No words.

Please. More of this.

Cute.

But yes, quite Rice is quite undeserving of expending further effort.

(04-01-2019 09:42 AM)Ourland Wrote:  

(03-30-2019 01:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-30-2019 11:54 AM)Ourland Wrote:  I hate to admit this, but the last time I was so uninterested in Rice football was before Hatfield's final season. I can't get excited. I hope that changes toward the end of the Summer.

I have never been uninterested. Never will be.

Amen to that. I wish I could get there.

Here on campus I think there are good reasons for optimism. I've been very impressed by Bloom and company's recruiting efforts and with the young men I've met. The cupboard was pretty bare when he arrived and even some of the limited stock had perhaps been accustomed to different conditions to such an extent that they were not a good fit for a program run along more standard FBS lines.

Also, the AD and Admin are committed to bolstering football, with the in-door practice facility a good example of trying to give them the tools they need to be successful. And the bubble is a heavy lift since it has to overcome student resistance due to its location.

In all, while I'm realistic enough to know that the W-L record won't likely be that much better this year due to the tough schedule, I am confident we'll see an upward trajectory that is more than just a post-Bailiff dead-cat-bounce, all of which allows me to be optimistic as we look toward the future.