(09-07-2019 02:12 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(09-07-2019 09:49 AM)Viejobuho Wrote:  Announced attendance? Actual attendance? How hot did it feel?

Don’t know about actual or announced attendance. Seemed like typical 1st game against a decent opponent attendance for Rice.

It was warm, but there was a nice breeze for most of the game so it wasn’t noticeably uncomfortable, at least on the West side in the shade. Folks on the east side in the late day sun probably have a different opinion.

The TV broadcast showed a dial thermometer on the wall at the foot of the stands that registered over 100 through halftime.

(09-07-2019 04:28 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(09-07-2019 02:12 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(09-07-2019 09:49 AM)Viejobuho Wrote:  Announced attendance? Actual attendance? How hot did it feel?

Don’t know about actual or announced attendance. Seemed like typical 1st game against a decent opponent attendance for Rice.

It was warm, but there was a nice breeze for most of the game so it wasn’t noticeably uncomfortable, at least on the West side in the shade. Folks on the east side in the late day sun probably have a different opinion.

The TV broadcast showed a dial thermometer on the wall at the foot of the stands that registered over 100 through halftime.

I assumed the original question was aimed at fan comfort, not on-field comfort.

Surprisingly, I didn’t see a lot of signs of heat problems with the players last night, i.e., cramping, etc., despite the on-field temps. Maybe there were, but both teams seem to deal with the heat, and it didn't appear to be a major factor.

You know another observation I had about last night's game was I don't like that formation we used (mostly when we were trying to score a touchdown or convert a short 3rd or 4th down) where #55 (Nick Leverett) was lined up in the backfield as a 3rd running back (2nd full back). It never seemed to produce any extra blocking advantages.

I'd much rather see us try an occasional true triple option look if we are going to insist on running the ball. At least put two true halfbacks in the back field and make the defense figure out which running back is going to get the carry.

(09-07-2019 05:39 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  You know another observation I had about last night's game was I don't like that formation we used (mostly when we were trying to score a touchdown or convert a short 3rd or 4th down) where #55 (Nick Leverett) was lined up in the backfield as a 3rd running back (2nd full back). It never seemed to produce any extra blocking advantages.
I'd much rather see us try an occasional true triple option look if we are going to insist on running the ball. At least put two true halfbacks in the back field and make the defense figure out which running back is going to get the carry.

But that's the difference between the triple option and "pound the rock."

(09-07-2019 05:39 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  You know another observation I had about last night's game was I don't like that formation we used (mostly when we were trying to score a touchdown or convert a short 3rd or 4th down) where #55 (Nick Leverett) was lined up in the backfield as a 3rd running back (2nd full back). It never seemed to produce any extra blocking advantages.

I'd much rather see us try an occasional true triple option look if we are going to insist on running the ball. At least put two true halfbacks in the back field and make the defense figure out which running back is going to get the carry.

That's the diamond formation (the QB, FBs, and HB make a diamond shape). Some teams run it from the pistol with the QB between and a half-step behind the FBs. Teams that run it under center, like us, tend to just do HB dives and QB sneaks. From the pistol, the sneaks are replaced with FB over tackle and other wider runs. It's also common to see pistol teams line up in the diamond and then motion one or both of the FBs out for an I-formation or ace set.

So far, all we've done from it is HB dives and the fourth down play action calls that didn't work against Army (incomplete) or Wake (sack). I was really hoping to see us try a sneak at some point, just to mix it up.

(09-07-2019 01:52 PM)Barney Wrote:  

(09-07-2019 11:12 AM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  When Bloomgren hires his staff in December 2017, I remember being more impressed by his offensive staff compared to what he was bringing in on the defensive side of the ball. I expected Mack to be a great OC whereas I was concerned that Smith might be too green.

Instead, it’s been the opposite... I’ve been consistently impressed by Smith’s coaching (even last year you could tell that the defense was in far better position than under Bailiff) but underwhelmed by Mack’s offense.

In defense of Mack, what we're seeing is Bloomgren's offense, not his.
Last year, after the abject early failure of "pound the rock", we abruptly shifted to a much more open offense that was reasonably effective, and Mack had to orchestrate that on the fly in just a few days.

I'm with you on this - this is all Bloomgren's offense. He's calling the plays from a personal playsheet.

I'd like to see what Mack would do with the personnel, even if we're recruiting with a more pound the rock intention. His NC A&T offenses were much more effective than this, both in passing and running.

(09-07-2019 06:33 PM)franklyconfused Wrote:  

(09-07-2019 05:39 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  You know another observation I had about last night's game was I don't like that formation we used (mostly when we were trying to score a touchdown or convert a short 3rd or 4th down) where #55 (Nick Leverett) was lined up in the backfield as a 3rd running back (2nd full back). It never seemed to produce any extra blocking advantages.

I'd much rather see us try an occasional true triple option look if we are going to insist on running the ball. At least put two true halfbacks in the back field and make the defense figure out which running back is going to get the carry.

That's the diamond formation (the QB, FBs, and HB make a diamond shape). Some teams run it from the pistol with the QB between and a half-step behind the FBs. Teams that run it under center, like us, tend to just do HB dives and QB sneaks. From the pistol, the sneaks are replaced with FB over tackle and other wider runs. It's also common to see pistol teams line up in the diamond and then motion one or both of the FBs out for an I-formation or ace set.

So far, all we've done from it is HB dives and the fourth down play action calls that didn't work against Army (incomplete) or Wake (sack). I was really hoping to see us try a sneak at some point, just to mix it up.

Not necessarily.
The advantage is that it is symmetrical and maintains the ability to run dive, lead, power, and counter to either side. It is essentially offset I to both sides simultaneously. Defense has to square up or you check to the vulnerable side.

As to the incomplete play action against Army, we went over that in detail. But since you brought it up again.....
I saw the 2009 Stanford USC game Thursday night on TV. I flipped it on right as Stanford was inside the 10. They got to the 5 and on second down they ran almost the same play. Started out in diamond but then shifted the FB to tight wing. Defense was the exact same as Army. The difference is that Stanford did what I said to do. The TE downblocked and sealed the DT. The wing assumed the TE roll and ran the out and was covered by the corner. The “lead” back (the TB in the diamond) went to kick out DE and LB stepped up to fill the hole. DE stayed out, lead back came under the DE and slipped past LB into the flat. LB started to chase this and Luck threw an easy toss while standing unmolested in the pocket. JUST like I said it should be done. This was before Bloomgren was at Stanford. So, why did they subtly change the play which lead to it’s failure? And why didn’t anyone catch the flaws the subtle changes caused? This offense is littered with these types of subtle inefficiencies. They are obvious to me but sounds like it is just me that sees them.

(09-07-2019 09:03 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(09-07-2019 01:52 PM)Barney Wrote:  

(09-07-2019 11:12 AM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  When Bloomgren hires his staff in December 2017, I remember being more impressed by his offensive staff compared to what he was bringing in on the defensive side of the ball. I expected Mack to be a great OC whereas I was concerned that Smith might be too green.

Instead, it’s been the opposite... I’ve been consistently impressed by Smith’s coaching (even last year you could tell that the defense was in far better position than under Bailiff) but underwhelmed by Mack’s offense.

In defense of Mack, what we're seeing is Bloomgren's offense, not his.
Last year, after the abject early failure of "pound the rock", we abruptly shifted to a much more open offense that was reasonably effective, and Mack had to orchestrate that on the fly in just a few days.

I'm with you on this - this is all Bloomgren's offense. He's calling the plays from a personal playsheet.

I'd like to see what Mack would do with the personnel, even if we're recruiting with a more pound the rock intention. His NC A&T offenses were much more effective than this, both in passing and running.

Receiver routes and patterns have much to be desired. This offense is sprinkled with inefficiencies. They have offensive staff meetings. I would hope that others would have some say. Although, I could see one coach dictating everything.

(09-07-2019 04:48 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(09-07-2019 04:28 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(09-07-2019 02:12 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(09-07-2019 09:49 AM)Viejobuho Wrote:  Announced attendance? Actual attendance? How hot did it feel?

Don’t know about actual or announced attendance. Seemed like typical 1st game against a decent opponent attendance for Rice.

It was warm, but there was a nice breeze for most of the game so it wasn’t noticeably uncomfortable, at least on the West side in the shade. Folks on the east side in the late day sun probably have a different opinion.

The TV broadcast showed a dial thermometer on the wall at the foot of the stands that registered over 100 through halftime.

I assumed the original question was aimed at fan comfort, not on-field comfort.

Surprisingly, I didn’t see a lot of signs of heat problems with the players last night, i.e., cramping, etc., despite the on-field temps. Maybe there were, but both teams seem to deal with the heat, and it didn't appear to be a major factor.

DATE: 9/6/2019 SITE: Houston, Texas STADIUM: Rice Stadium ATTENDANCE: 17567 KICKOFF TIME: 7:02 pm END OF GAME: 10:31 pm DURATION: 3:29 TEMPERATURE: 95 WIND: S5 WEATHER: Clear, hot

From a MOB perspective, the conditions were way better than I expected for the first home game. Partly cloudy all day, and that reduced the bake factor. The Rice bench has added a lot of misting fans (cooling) this year.

(09-07-2019 11:12 AM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  When Bloomgren hires his staff in December 2017, I remember being more impressed by his offensive staff compared to what he was bringing in on the defensive side of the ball. I expected Mack to be a great OC whereas I was concerned that Smith might be too green.

Instead, it’s been the opposite... I’ve been consistently impressed by Smith’s coaching (even last year you could tell that the defense was in far better position than under Bailiff) but underwhelmed by Mack’s offense.

Outside opinion- It’s going to take more time to retool from a spread run scheme with maybe one TE and a bunch of wideouts to an offense based around OL/TE/FB by developing guys than it is to transition from a 4-2-5 into a 3-3-5 where one “Linebacker” is basically an undersized stand up DE. I’m not shocked they seem better suited to the scheme as it’s not as much of a departure.

The grad transfers up front on O help but it’s still a process and there’s a ton of youth there still.

I think it’s a four year process but once the pump is primed Rice should be consistently competitive in the top 25% of CUSA. Not that they can’t win earlier than that but that’s when I’d expect the pipeline to get established and primed with a regular flow of upperclassmen who’ve been groomed to start instead of depending on youth or transfers.

(09-08-2019 08:39 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(09-07-2019 11:12 AM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  When Bloomgren hires his staff in December 2017, I remember being more impressed by his offensive staff compared to what he was bringing in on the defensive side of the ball. I expected Mack to be a great OC whereas I was concerned that Smith might be too green.

Instead, it’s been the opposite... I’ve been consistently impressed by Smith’s coaching (even last year you could tell that the defense was in far better position than under Bailiff) but underwhelmed by Mack’s offense.

Outside opinion- It’s going to take more time to retool from a spread run scheme with maybe one TE and a bunch of wideouts to an offense based around OL/TE/FB by developing guys than it is to transition from a 4-2-5 into a 3-3-5 where one “Linebacker” is basically an undersized stand up DE. I’m not shocked they seem better suited to the scheme as it’s not as much of a departure.

The grad transfers up front on O help but it’s still a process and there’s a ton of youth there still.

I think it’s a four year process but once the pump is primed Rice should be consistently competitive in the top 25% of CUSA. Not that they can’t win earlier than that but that’s when I’d expect the pipeline to get established and primed with a regular flow of upperclassmen who’ve been groomed to start instead of depending on youth or transfers.

We’re not that patient, but you may well be right.
I’m impressed with the progress so far. If we can get at least one win in September then we will have taken another step forward.

(09-08-2019 01:11 PM)Grungy Wrote:  

(09-07-2019 04:48 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(09-07-2019 04:28 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(09-07-2019 02:12 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(09-07-2019 09:49 AM)Viejobuho Wrote:  Announced attendance? Actual attendance? How hot did it feel?

Don’t know about actual or announced attendance. Seemed like typical 1st game against a decent opponent attendance for Rice.

It was warm, but there was a nice breeze for most of the game so it wasn’t noticeably uncomfortable, at least on the West side in the shade. Folks on the east side in the late day sun probably have a different opinion.

The TV broadcast showed a dial thermometer on the wall at the foot of the stands that registered over 100 through halftime.

I assumed the original question was aimed at fan comfort, not on-field comfort.

Surprisingly, I didn’t see a lot of signs of heat problems with the players last night, i.e., cramping, etc., despite the on-field temps. Maybe there were, but both teams seem to deal with the heat, and it didn't appear to be a major factor.

DATE: 9/6/2019 SITE: Houston, Texas STADIUM: Rice Stadium ATTENDANCE: 17567 KICKOFF TIME: 7:02 pm END OF GAME: 10:31 pm DURATION: 3:29 TEMPERATURE: 95 WIND: S5 WEATHER: Clear, hot

From a MOB perspective, the conditions were way better than I expected for the first home game. Partly cloudy all day, and that reduced the bake factor. The Rice bench has added a lot of misting fans (cooling) this year.

With that in mind, perhaps the MOB should consider adding “Kyrie” to the musical rotation, as homage to the new cooling system.

(09-09-2019 09:28 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(09-08-2019 08:39 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(09-07-2019 11:12 AM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  When Bloomgren hires his staff in December 2017, I remember being more impressed by his offensive staff compared to what he was bringing in on the defensive side of the ball. I expected Mack to be a great OC whereas I was concerned that Smith might be too green.
Instead, it’s been the opposite... I’ve been consistently impressed by Smith’s coaching (even last year you could tell that the defense was in far better position than under Bailiff) but underwhelmed by Mack’s offense.

Outside opinion- It’s going to take more time to retool from a spread run scheme with maybe one TE and a bunch of wideouts to an offense based around OL/TE/FB by developing guys than it is to transition from a 4-2-5 into a 3-3-5 where one “Linebacker” is basically an undersized stand up DE. I’m not shocked they seem better suited to the scheme as it’s not as much of a departure.
The grad transfers up front on O help but it’s still a process and there’s a ton of youth there still.
I think it’s a four year process but once the pump is primed Rice should be consistently competitive in the top 25% of CUSA. Not that they can’t win earlier than that but that’s when I’d expect the pipeline to get established and primed with a regular flow of upperclassmen who’ve been groomed to start instead of depending on youth or transfers.

We’re not that patient, but you may well be right.
I’m impressed with the progress so far. If we can get at least one win in September then we will have taken another step forward.

I think a win against this September schedule is probably a bridge too far. But I do think 4--or more--wins against the 8 CUSA opponents is a realistic goal. I said before the season that 4-4 in CUSA and 4-8 overall was my slightly optimistic expectation. I'll stick with that.

Does anyone have a recent update on Wiley?

(09-09-2019 06:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 09:28 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(09-08-2019 08:39 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(09-07-2019 11:12 AM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  When Bloomgren hires his staff in December 2017, I remember being more impressed by his offensive staff compared to what he was bringing in on the defensive side of the ball. I expected Mack to be a great OC whereas I was concerned that Smith might be too green.
Instead, it’s been the opposite... I’ve been consistently impressed by Smith’s coaching (even last year you could tell that the defense was in far better position than under Bailiff) but underwhelmed by Mack’s offense.

Outside opinion- It’s going to take more time to retool from a spread run scheme with maybe one TE and a bunch of wideouts to an offense based around OL/TE/FB by developing guys than it is to transition from a 4-2-5 into a 3-3-5 where one “Linebacker” is basically an undersized stand up DE. I’m not shocked they seem better suited to the scheme as it’s not as much of a departure.
The grad transfers up front on O help but it’s still a process and there’s a ton of youth there still.
I think it’s a four year process but once the pump is primed Rice should be consistently competitive in the top 25% of CUSA. Not that they can’t win earlier than that but that’s when I’d expect the pipeline to get established and primed with a regular flow of upperclassmen who’ve been groomed to start instead of depending on youth or transfers.

We’re not that patient, but you may well be right.
I’m impressed with the progress so far. If we can get at least one win in September then we will have taken another step forward.

I think a win against this September schedule is probably a bridge too far. But I do think 4--or more--wins against the 8 CUSA opponents is a realistic goal. I said before the season that 4-4 in CUSA and 4-8 overall was my slightly optimistic expectation. I'll stick with that.

Given the struggles by UNT and LaTech so far, I think 4-4 in Cusa has a reasonable chance.