I love what you're trying to do but your analysis are off in several areas. you are very good on the easy stuff but the higher level stuff you are way off and incorrect. to the lay person it really does sound good but to someone who knows the game, it's incorrect in many areas.

1st offensive play easy to figure out what is going on so you were dead on with this one. it was a great play but it was more because of crappy db play not because we did anything really good. we will face better dbs and that cb had a bad break and had terrible leverage from the beginning of the play. we took advantage of it but quite honestly he has to score when that happens, not get to the 5yd line. this play actually highlights one of our major deficiencies, lack of speed.



2nd offensive play...they were not in cover three, they were playing 1/4 1/4 1/2. front side safety and the cb were 1/4 defenders, backside cb was a 1/2 defender, but he was just in press man. if it were cov3 that safety would be more to the middle of the field and that cb would have been in outside leverage, but neither were playing those techniques(that gives away the cov the technique coupled with leverage and alignment). next they they ran a curl and a smash route(post-corner). they did this because they wanted to stress the underneath coverage. yes he should have been expecting to throw to the smash the whole time because a qbs read should be touchdown, first down, check down. so he was looking touchdown 1st which is the smash, they ran a curl by the #2 wr because they needed to create space for the smash. they anticipated that they were going to be in this coverage. the curl holds the OLB, if the olb pushes through that(which he should've done) there is no space for that smash to be thrown, the ILB pushes to the curl and takes that away(if he threw to what you said was an open wr it would have been incomplete or picked off and we would be saying how he forced it in there...that ilb opened from the get and was sprinting to his spot...the curl). If that OLB does his job correctly which is to open and sprint to the flat this play is dead in the water(the rb stepped up in to the line...he wasn't a threat to leak out...the OLB was just undisciplined and we again were able to take advantage). so the qb's read is actually that ILB, if he pushes hard you know that curl isn't going to be open, its a small adjustment with the eyes to see the what the OLB has done, if that OLB hesitates even a bit he knows he is going to that smash because the space is there to drop it under the cb and behind the OLB(which happens). again if the defense is just solid(or better athletes) we are dead in the water, we need plays that we have an option no matter what. we can't expect for the defense to screw up in order for us to make a play. this is what i was eluding to about being a little more imaginative to with how we draw up our plays. we need a leveled passing attack, deep route, middle route, check down route and these route should be dynamic not static(kinda like what ruowls has presented several times).

defensive play.....bad analysis(sorry it just is)....the db was using crap technique from the get. he uses no hands what so ever(if we are going to be physical on the edges then be physical reroute, get hands on him something). next if you have a 1 high safety you aren't pushing them to the inside, you push to the outside so if anyone comes inside he knows its a screw up and he can make you right. he just got beat off the line(look at both lbs...they push to the line of scrimmage...if he allows the wr to get inside its an easy pitch and catch...there's no way they're coaching that) . to further explain playing inside leverage on blitz makes the qb throw to the outside which is a longer throw and gives the db more of a chance to make a play, inside breaking route playing outside with both ILBs blitzing is going to surrender a catch every single time and become useless to run. next no he wasn't in stride with him, he was out of phase. he got beat off the line, then he opened the gate by stepping under himself(something i referenced when watching a preseason clip of the dbs working out and stated they better fix it or its going to cause some problems..like this right here). the wr accelerated past him with no resistance at all, he then is in full trail mode, completely out of phase. he catches up only when the wr slows down so that he can high point the ball. the cb had a chance to make a play on the ball but if you notice he went from being outside to being behind him to being inside of him. he ends up inside and he doesn't play the hands of the wr. he was able to get back in phase at the end but he started falling down because he was using all his speed to catch up because he was beat and couldn't redirect to come back and jump or anything(another small indicator that he was beat off the line and was not intentionally letting him go to the inside). instead of running through the hands of the wr, putting his hand on the ball pushing out as the wr brings the ball down to his chest using the wr's technique against himself. the play was horrible from the beginning. this is horrible technique and a miss match of philosophy and ability. this goes to what i was saying on my other post about utilizing OUR talents and not being rigid to a SCHEME and STYLE. the kid obviously has some wheels because he was able to recover, but that kid if he's giving up 4" and 50lbs he should have been playing off technique slow boogieing out of there going up to high point it and not trying to fight this dude at the bottom of route.

on the goal line yeah press him up and battle you don't have a long ways to go, but at this point i'd have him 6yds off flat foot reading from inside barely moving out making sure he can break on the inside route and when the wr releases to the outside route flip your hips run to the hip, look at his hands and when they go up wait a split second, let him jump then you jump 2nd when the wr is coming down the ball will hit your hand and pop out. i don't say this from theory, i coached it....4 years in a row first team all district cbs 3 different kids 2 different kids 1st team UNANIMOUS all district players, last year coaching gave up 0 passing tds by the cbs, held #1 wr in district(10catches/ game 100+yds per game) to 0 catches and none were big time d1 recruits so it wasn't they were just better, it was technique.

sorry if any of this is harsh...i love that you are talking about rice but i deal in truth. i don't dog players but i do tell the truth about things. its the only way to accurately address the issues at hand. it also allows for us to get respect from the community because we aren't blowing smoke we are being truthful.

hopefully i don't get ripped to bad for this...but if i do.....eh oh well....lolololol

I read the analysis before seeing this post and the 1st question that came to my mind was - "I wonder if nightowl24 and ruowls would agree with this?"

i mean if they wanted an analysis they know who i am and how to get in touch with me, i could have given them very detailed information. biggest thing is getting film and going through it to pick out plays to use...lol. then you throw in my kid is playing time is limited. first game he was playing when rice was playing so yeah i wouldn't be able to give an analysis of that...now if they were to send me clips to breakdown i can do that.

(09-12-2019 03:32 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I read the analysis before seeing this post and the 1st question that came to my mind was - "I wonder if nightowl24 and ruowls would agree with this?"

Umm....

No

(09-12-2019 06:44 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 03:32 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I read the analysis before seeing this post and the 1st question that came to my mind was - "I wonder if nightowl24 and ruowls would agree with this?"

Umm....

No

Lol

Hey, I'm just glad The Roost exists. Love the article regardless.

These plays give me hope. Sure the corner in the Green completion didn't play it tight but the pass was good, a bit more inside and the DB can make a play. Rozner is a good possession type target for us. Lead JUCO in TD catches, no fluke.

Stewart's throw is even better, a more impressive play for Rice as the o-line handled the Wake d-line without the need of 2 additional blockers, Pitre runs a good route and makes a nice catch. Wasn't his only good catch, showed other glimpses. We have 3 pretty good WR's suddenly.

Instead of knocking the content of the analysis here -- might it be best if you note your opinion constructively there?

(09-12-2019 09:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Instead of knocking the content of the analysis here -- might it be best if you note your opinion constructively there?

There is no way to constructively offer my opinions. The analysis was flat wrong on many different levels. Sorry if it came off harsh but I just gave the correct analysis. I pointed out where he was wrong and gave the correct analysis.

(09-12-2019 09:39 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  Hey, I'm just glad The Roost exists. Love the article regardless.

These plays give me hope. Sure the corner in the Green completion didn't play it tight but the pass was good, a bit more inside and the DB can make a play. Rozner is a good possession type target for us. Lead JUCO in TD catches, no fluke.

Stewart's throw is even better, a more impressive play for Rice as the o-line handled the Wake d-line without the need of 2 additional blockers, Pitre runs a good route and makes a nice catch. Wasn't his only good catch, showed other glimpses. We have 3 pretty good WR's suddenly.

I disagree. The throw was pretty avg for a d1 college qb. It was nothing more than a slant. He just didn't miss the throw. We have to be careful to not overhype avg routine plays. I mean if he's on scholarship he should be able to make that throw. Sorry of that doesn't impress me.

Stewart's throw was a good throw. Good touch good velocity. he was accurate but again he SHOULD make that throw. If he can't we're in trouble. If we're going to win games we have to not be impressed with things that should occur on the d1 level. I will definitely agree the line did a great job of blocking on that play. kudos to them. The route was avg. It wasn't great wasn't horrible. Was what it should be. I look at the route the lack of stern speed and I wonder if we're in man does he get open? I don't know. What you're calling good catches I feel are routine. Pitre should have caught that pass. It wasn't a difficult pass to catch. Just catching the ball doesn't constitute a "good" catch, it's just a catch.

I'm not knocking our players. I'm just saying we can't overhype things that we should be doing. Those offensive plays highlighted, honestly, were routine plays. The problem is because our offense is so bland any play that nets anything over 15yds we call a great play. When you actually look at it and it's rather routine. We aren't taking a 5yd hitch making a guy miss and going 70+ for a td, that's a great play. We aren't going over the top of a db whose in great coverage and making the catch. We're catching the ball with no real coverage on us, we should make that catch. I'm admittedly hard to impress. I've seen some of the best and played against them and with them. Also know that as I look at plays I'm looking at when we're playing better coverage better players can we still be effective. Based off what I saw I'm not totally sure we can just yet. Not without some better created plays to take advantage of each wr strengths.

As for rozner, when I saw his highlights I get why they got him. We aren't using him properly imo. run shorter routes utilize his size and it doesn't require great blocking. get the ball out quick and let him be himself. Trammel slid be used way more than wr do. I really like him. I think with the proper plays he would be deadly. We just aren't taking advantage of him. This is non conf sho maybe they're purposely not showing our playbook, but at the same time.... win games deal with that later on.

The Roost has a good purpose. It promotes Rice football in a positive manner. It gives the appearance that it gives special insight into the program. That is a good thing.
The analysis was interesting. The question I have is how did they come up with it? Have they had discussions with Rice staff. Where did they learn about the passing game? Quite honestly, the analysis and reasoning is flawed. There is a bunch of misleading information and withheld information.
The TE side is the strong side (for the line strength). The offensive formation was 2x2 receiving wise (in other words strengthless) with the stacked receivers to the field. Defenses can often designate this the strong side(especially with the lone RB to this side which now has 3 receivers to 2). The defense ultimately put 8 in the box. They basically ended up in a 5-3. They never had split safeties. The defense rolled the corner down on the outside and walked out the OLB to the stack side and rolled the FS over the top. It gave the look of 3 on 2. The back side was basically manned up. If you look at it, they had a 5 man front and the 2 LBs and the Viper (SS/LB hybrid which in this case was an OLB in a 5-3). The Viper came down at the snap and picked up #2 receiver acting as an OLB. This was the RB as the TE down blocked and released on the ILB which had #3, the TE. The TE was lucky they didn’t call offensive PI as he was blocking downfield instead of running a route. With all this going on on the boundary side, the SCF (slant, curl, flat) went away. It all became the responsibility of the corner. The receiver didn’t run a skinny post. He ran a flat post. A skinny post is very steep and almost a 180 degree upfield break. Actually, had the receiver run a skinny post, he would have scored and not been caught short. The corner played this very poorly. The post was not very good but it was better than the job the corner did and thus the play worked. However, you can’t base an offense around the failures of the defense. And you see the inconsistency of the offense because on other plays, just better than bad doesn’t cut it because the defense didn’t use horrendous technique.
As to the other play, it wasn’t a “smash route” per se. A smash route is the outside receiver running an in route (in or curl) and the inside receiver running the corner (or post-corner or deep out). Rice flipped these so it really accomplished nothing in stressing the defense. The defense was basically a corner deep, flat and curl coverage. ILB flew to the curl and covered the curl run by #2 receiver. The flat coverage flew past this into the flat. As such, the only receiver that could go to the flat was #1 receiver who was running the post corner. By running a post corner and not even recognizing the flat coverage sinking, the receiver got open by blind luck. Well, actually because the flat defender for some reason stopped and looked back to the QB which let that tiny window open up. So, once again, the receiver didn’t do anything special and only had a window because the flat defender played it poorly. Another just better than bad. Against good teams, these mistakes aren’t made and these windows and positive plays don’t happen. BUT, by designing the play different and running the routes different, the defense could have been stressed to a greater extent AND can be stressed more consistently. And this means more wins because the offense is more productive and scores more points.
Many of you are seeing the potential Rice has to be successful. What many of you aren’t seeing is just how much of a disadvantage the Rice QB and receivers are being forced to overcome.
It does disappoint me to see Rice fail. It is more disappointing to see potential that could mean so much more underutilized. I know we all want to see Rice be so much more. Hopefully, Rice gets there soon. But I do share the frustrations of some (nightowl) who see it for what it is. And I am sorry if I offend some. I understand that the Roost is to pump up Rice and place it in a good light. But man, most of what they wrote is just flat out out there.

(09-12-2019 10:11 PM)nightowl24 Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 09:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Instead of knocking the content of the analysis here -- might it be best if you note your opinion constructively there?

There is no way to constructively offer my opinions. The analysis was flat wrong on many different levels. Sorry if it came off harsh but I just gave the correct analysis. I pointed out where he was wrong and gave the correct analysis.

Regardless, if the issue is the play analysis *there*, perhaps those comments are best served there as well. Dont get me wrong, I enjoy reading your insights....

But it seems a little catty to call the guy out at a spot well away from that forum. I havent read the Roost in awhile, and if you did offer those insights there then I stand incorrect on what I assume. But you should offer up what have there, and if you wish, here as well.

(09-13-2019 01:29 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 10:11 PM)nightowl24 Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 09:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Instead of knocking the content of the analysis here -- might it be best if you note your opinion constructively there?

There is no way to constructively offer my opinions. The analysis was flat wrong on many different levels. Sorry if it came off harsh but I just gave the correct analysis. I pointed out where he was wrong and gave the correct analysis.

Regardless, if the issue is the play analysis *there*, perhaps those comments are best served there as well. Dont get me wrong, I enjoy reading your insights....

But it seems a little catty to call the guy out at a spot well away from that forum. I havent read the Roost in awhile, and if you did offer those insights there then I stand incorrect on what I assume. But you should offer up what have there, and if you wish, here as well.

actually i tried to register so that i could post on their forum. something is wrong with the registering part of the site. it wouldn't ever register me, so i chose a venue that i felt it would get to them. don't know how well you know me, but anyone on here will tell you i don't shy away from talking directly to those i disagree with. i'm not trying to sucker punch them, but when you post something like this, you better make sure you know what your talking about. if you don't you run the risk of discrediting yourself going forward from people that actually know what's going on.

as i stated from the very very beginning, i love what he's trying to do and i do commend him for taking a stab at it. problem is he is lacking an experienced eye to do that type of in depth analysis of plays. i get he was trying to make a positive post so that the faithful could see some light at the end of the tunnel so to speak. i really do get it, again, problem is he was just wrong in many facets. if someone who is interested in rice sees that and knows football, they'll think we are crazy. he could have picked other plays that fit what he was trying to do, or better yet just analyze those plays differently and it comes across a lot better.

again sorry if it comes off as harsh, but i don't play no games when it comes to football. i love this sport and i love my school. i have always been very committed to presenting a truthful and accurate portrayal of my school. when we are good i say it, when we are bad I say it. that type of honesty is what actually pulls kids to a school, not only saying good things. honesty is always better in dealing with kids(and parents).

(09-13-2019 08:21 AM)nightowl24 Wrote:  

(09-13-2019 01:29 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 10:11 PM)nightowl24 Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 09:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Instead of knocking the content of the analysis here -- might it be best if you note your opinion constructively there?

There is no way to constructively offer my opinions. The analysis was flat wrong on many different levels. Sorry if it came off harsh but I just gave the correct analysis. I pointed out where he was wrong and gave the correct analysis.

Regardless, if the issue is the play analysis *there*, perhaps those comments are best served there as well. Dont get me wrong, I enjoy reading your insights....

But it seems a little catty to call the guy out at a spot well away from that forum. I havent read the Roost in awhile, and if you did offer those insights there then I stand incorrect on what I assume. But you should offer up what have there, and if you wish, here as well.

actually i tried to register so that i could post on their forum. something is wrong with the registering part of the site. it wouldn't ever register me, so i chose a venue that i felt it would get to them.

Fair enough. My apologies for appearing judgmental.

Sounds like it’s time for a beer summit.

(09-13-2019 08:42 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Sounds like it’s time for a beer summit.

People have told me I am an absolute sucker for those.....[/u]

(09-12-2019 10:35 PM)nightowl24 Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 09:39 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  Hey, I'm just glad The Roost exists. Love the article regardless.

These plays give me hope. Sure the corner in the Green completion didn't play it tight but the pass was good, a bit more inside and the DB can make a play. Rozner is a good possession type target for us. Lead JUCO in TD catches, no fluke.

Stewart's throw is even better, a more impressive play for Rice as the o-line handled the Wake d-line without the need of 2 additional blockers, Pitre runs a good route and makes a nice catch. Wasn't his only good catch, showed other glimpses. We have 3 pretty good WR's suddenly.

As for rozner, when I saw his highlights I get why they got him. We aren't using him properly imo. run shorter routes utilize his size and it doesn't require great blocking. get the ball out quick and let him be himself. Trammel slid be used way more than wr do. I really like him. I think with the proper plays he would be deadly. We just aren't taking advantage of him. This is non conf sho maybe they're purposely not showing our playbook, but at the same time.... win games deal with that later on.

Yea Trammel is our best player pretty much. Rozner - 100 yard game against Wake being used incorrectly. Imagine when they use him right! And Pitre, based on just a few plays, could be a stud for us.

Let me offer one more vote for a Beer Summit, preferably when RUOwls has a chance to make it in for a game. Then, since it looks like we won’t be going out to the West Coast for a game in the foreseeable future.

Would be great for Matt and his analyst guy to be able to meet RUOwls and nightowl24, both great guys and key supporters of our program.

(09-14-2019 10:25 AM)Ricefootballnet Wrote:  Let me offer one more vote for a Beer Summit, preferably when RUOwls has a chance to make it in for a game. Then, since it looks like we won’t be going out to the West Coast for a game in the foreseeable future.
Would be great for Matt and his analyst guy to be able to meet RUOwls and nightowl24, both great guys and key supporters of our program.

Yes, I vote for that 100%.

Of course, I might prefer for Matt and his analyst to meet them in their roles as Rice OC and DC.

FYI, the analyst guy is a Rice alumnus.

(09-13-2019 08:42 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Sounds like it’s time for a beer summit.

I'm in