Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
*Post-Game-Thread* - Rice v Texas
Author Message
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,656
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #41
RE: *Post-Game-Thread* - Rice v Texas
(09-15-2019 03:45 PM)Ourland Wrote:  I've never seen a team so physically overmatched as I did last night. It was like a varsity high school team scrimmaging against it's freshmen. We are world's away from them in physical ability. Texas could have beaten us 95-0.

I thought the same thing. I have always thought that the Texas white uniforms make them look larger, but I don't know that I've ever seen such an apparent disparity in size between Rice and an opponent.

I contrast it with 2015 at Texas when I thought the physical difference between the two teams was less than I had seen in decades, and we just beat ourselves with stupid mental errors.

I think it's a combination of 1) the physicality that Mensa has ingrained into that program and 2) the poor quality of our recruiting in at least 2 of the last 4 years.
09-15-2019 03:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ruowls Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,894
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 86
I Root For:
Location:

Football Genius
Post: #42
RE: *Post-Game-Thread* - Rice v Texas
(09-15-2019 03:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(09-15-2019 03:45 PM)Ourland Wrote:  I've never seen a team so physically overmatched as I did last night. It was like a varsity high school team scrimmaging against it's freshmen. We are world's away from them in physical ability. Texas could have beaten us 95-0.

I thought the same thing. I have always thought that the Texas white uniforms make them look larger, but I don't know that I've ever seen such an apparent disparity in size between Rice and an opponent.

I contrast it with 2015 at Texas when I thought the physical difference between the two teams was less than I had seen in decades, and we just beat ourselves with stupid mental errors.

I think it's a combination of 1) the physicality that Mensa has ingrained into that program and 2) the poor quality of our recruiting in at least 2 of the last 4 years.

Didn't you see me on the field?
09-15-2019 04:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WRCisforgotten79 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,601
Joined: May 2007
Reputation: 50
I Root For: Rice
Location: Houston
Post: #43
RE: *Post-Game-Thread* - Rice v Texas
(09-15-2019 03:45 PM)Ourland Wrote:  I've never seen a team so physically overmatched as I did last night. It was like a varsity high school team scrimmaging against it's freshmen. We are world's away from them in physical ability. Texas could have beaten us 95-0.

This is ridiculous hyperbole or you haven't been around very long. In my 4 years as a student, Texas outscored Rice 189-39 (average of 47-10) - and that was without Texas' utilizing a no-huddle, spread offense. In those days, teams could have 105 scholarships, and schools like Texas would sign more than they needed, just to prevent other schools from getting decent talent.
(This post was last modified: 09-15-2019 04:06 PM by WRCisforgotten79.)
09-15-2019 04:06 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,656
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #44
RE: *Post-Game-Thread* - Rice v Texas
(09-15-2019 04:05 PM)ruowls Wrote:  
(09-15-2019 03:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(09-15-2019 03:45 PM)Ourland Wrote:  I've never seen a team so physically overmatched as I did last night. It was like a varsity high school team scrimmaging against it's freshmen. We are world's away from them in physical ability. Texas could have beaten us 95-0.
I thought the same thing. I have always thought that the Texas white uniforms make them look larger, but I don't know that I've ever seen such an apparent disparity in size between Rice and an opponent.
I contrast it with 2015 at Texas when I thought the physical difference between the two teams was less than I had seen in decades, and we just beat ourselves with stupid mental errors.
I think it's a combination of 1) the physicality that Mensa has ingrained into that program and 2) the poor quality of our recruiting in at least 2 of the last 4 years.
Didn't you see me on the field?

Yeah, but when you were on the field, we had some big guys with you. And Texas's weren't as big as they were last night.
09-15-2019 04:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,656
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #45
RE: *Post-Game-Thread* - Rice v Texas
(09-15-2019 11:59 AM)ruowls Wrote:  Honestly, this is just a means of deflection. For some reason, this is a myth that is perpetuated by many. It is a means to excuse poor performance.
For the record, if you go back and read a couple of newspaper articles from the mid-80s, this issue is actually referenced to the opposite. Rice had an offensive transfer come in and despite a 223 page offensive playbook, he had it down pat in a mere 2 days. However, the next year with the same playbook and coaches, he walks out of an offensive meeting and his position coach tells him he will be running after practice for not taking notes during the meeting. After letting the coach know just how asinine that would be, the player had to spend the next 20 minutes diagramming the playbook against a variety of defenses. He even diagrammed plays against defenses that weren't even in the playbook. Fortunately, he didn't have to run.
So, yes a transfer player should be able to learn a playbook very quickly. Yet, coaches still think it is some in depth key to life that takes years to decipher. And announcers parrot this misconception.

I hear he turned into a pretty good PAT/FG holder too.

I think the whole playbook thing is overrated. Mike Leach claims that he doesn't actually have one. Of course, he doesn't have a lot of plays in his offense, and he is more interested in getting reps and learning how to execute them.
09-15-2019 04:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ruowls Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,894
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 86
I Root For:
Location:

Football Genius
Post: #46
RE: *Post-Game-Thread* - Rice v Texas
(09-15-2019 04:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(09-15-2019 11:59 AM)ruowls Wrote:  Honestly, this is just a means of deflection. For some reason, this is a myth that is perpetuated by many. It is a means to excuse poor performance.
For the record, if you go back and read a couple of newspaper articles from the mid-80s, this issue is actually referenced to the opposite. Rice had an offensive transfer come in and despite a 223 page offensive playbook, he had it down pat in a mere 2 days. However, the next year with the same playbook and coaches, he walks out of an offensive meeting and his position coach tells him he will be running after practice for not taking notes during the meeting. After letting the coach know just how asinine that would be, the player had to spend the next 20 minutes diagramming the playbook against a variety of defenses. He even diagrammed plays against defenses that weren't even in the playbook. Fortunately, he didn't have to run.
So, yes a transfer player should be able to learn a playbook very quickly. Yet, coaches still think it is some in depth key to life that takes years to decipher. And announcers parrot this misconception.

I hear he turned into a pretty good PAT/FG holder too.

I think the whole playbook thing is overrated. Mike Leach claims that he doesn't actually have one. Of course, he doesn't have a lot of plays in his offense, and he is more interested in getting reps and learning how to execute them.

Ok, I will get philosophical and feel free to chime in.

The biggest difference is terminology. What you call things. Formations and how you call them. Blocking schemes, runs, passes, etc. Some coaches advocate naming specific plays. This would be the Leach approach. They call a formation and then add in combinations. It condenses things and some coaches like this. Some coaches like to use more terminology to describe the play. It can get verbose. Some coaches have a hybrid of the 2. I like a passing tree and not name passing plays. At Rice, we named plays. Naming plays limits what you can do. If you use a 4 digit passing tree with 0-9. That gives you a theoretical combination of 10,000. Throw in formation changes and you can have a possibility of upwards of 100,000 different "plays". This is what lets you create match-ups and leverage and exploit a defense. Granted, there are many combinations that do not work. So, realistically, you can have about 400 "different" passing plays and over 100 "different" running plays based on only a few key concepts. That is how you get a better defense off balance. And that is how you master a "playbook". It isn't mastering the plays themselves because if they have no inherent advantage they will never work no matter how much you practice them.
09-15-2019 05:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ruowls Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,894
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 86
I Root For:
Location:

Football Genius
Post: #47
RE: *Post-Game-Thread* - Rice v Texas
As you know, my son is playing his first season in HS (threw 3 TDs last Friday-shameless plug). It is interesting to see the coaches work. Unfortunately, they are pretty clueless. They name all their plays and they follow no sense. They don't understand cause and effect or the changes that a defense can do to adjust. They based their offense on the fly (the offense). They don't get that motion changes strength and makes the defense adjust to motion. They actually draw blocking schemes without taking this into consideration. They actually drew one play up and didn't block the playside end or safety adjustment to motion which left 2 unblocked defenders in the hole they wanted to run through. They ran it in practice and it got blown up in the backfield 3 straight times before they shelved the play. They never knew the cause of the failure despite it staring them in the face. Honestly, you can see the same mistakes in Rice's offense although not nearly as blatant.
(This post was last modified: 09-15-2019 05:46 PM by ruowls.)
09-15-2019 05:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Minnewaska Owl Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 315
Joined: Feb 2015
Reputation: 19
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #48
RE: *Post-Game-Thread* - Rice v Texas
(09-15-2019 03:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(09-15-2019 03:45 PM)Ourland Wrote:  I've never seen a team so physically overmatched as I did last night. It was like a varsity high school team scrimmaging against it's freshmen. We are world's away from them in physical ability. Texas could have beaten us 95-0.

I thought the same thing. I have always thought that the Texas white uniforms make them look larger, but I don't know that I've ever seen such an apparent disparity in size between Rice and an opponent.

I contrast it with 2015 at Texas when I thought the physical difference between the two teams was less than I had seen in decades, and we just beat ourselves with stupid mental errors.

I think it's a combination of 1) the physicality that Mensa has ingrained into that program and 2) the poor quality of our recruiting in at least 2 of the last 4 years.

I forget which year it was exactly (maybe 2004?), but I remember going to the Rice-UT game at Reliant, when Vince Young was in his final year at UT. The game last night was considerably more competitive than the Vince Young contest. Back then the score was 42-0 at halftime, and I do not remember us ever getting UT into a 3rd down situation. At least last night we consistently did force UT into 3rd down situations in the first half - we just never stopped them. In 2004 the UT drives all seemed to take 4 or 5 plays before they scored. Last night they seemed to take 9 or 10 plays. We still can't stop them - but at least last night we made it slightly more difficult. Obviously there was a huge difference in talent, but not nearly as pronounced as it was 10 years ago. Granted, we need to get better - but at least our guys kept fighting. I do feel we are better than last year, and am gaining confidence that next year we will be even better.
09-15-2019 05:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Barney Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,095
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 22
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #49
RE: *Post-Game-Thread* - Rice v Texas
(09-15-2019 08:17 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Let’s dismiss the idea that some of you keep floatingbthat there were people here who expected an upset. If you want to believe that things will be better when we go from too25 teams to bottom 25, that’s fine and perhaps true... but there is a WHOLE LOT between those two. You’re arguing in the absurd to dismiss the very real and visual opinions of others.

There is a difference in being competitive....

And competing

Our players competed.

Thank goodness someone finally said this.
I missed the 1st quarter, so maybe my view is skewed alittle, but...
First of all, we didn't see UT's 3rd stringers -- we still saw ALOT of their 1st teamers in, during the 4th quarter.
Second of all, OF COURSE UT's 3rd stringers are more talented than our players -- they get the most elite players in the country, from top to bottom of their lineup.
OF COURSE we got hammered -- the only way we wouldn't would be if Texas didn't show up to play -- but they certainly did. Our guys were mauled, but fought hard the whole way.
We are a much improved team, and if we can stay healthy I think you'll see this during conference play.
Unfortunately, we're going to lose a couple of close games due to no kicker.
09-15-2019 07:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
owl40 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,875
Joined: Sep 2007
Reputation: 77
I Root For: Owls
Location:
Post: #50
RE: *Post-Game-Thread* - Rice v Texas
Line just got set at 26 points for Baylor game.

Glass Half-Full
Team has Green back and is better offensively. Better ST with D playing hard keeps game close and Owls lose 42-24 w/ a couple late Baylor TD's but game is 28-24 going into the 4Q. Owl fans have renewed optimism going 2-2 on season for moral victories heading into C-USA play to get some real victories.

Glass Half-Empty
Rhule's desire to run up the score in 2H to show that Baylor is back and can beat Rice worse than Horns. 56-21 that is never in doubt. Offense better w/ Green back but D and ST is same as inability to get off field on 3rd down, big plays over-the-top, and some missed kicks and poor tackling on ST doom the Owls.

For those betting types, will be interesting what the 'over' will be. Anything set at 58 (same as Horns) would seem to be easy bet.
09-15-2019 07:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Online
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,284
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #51
RE: *Post-Game-Thread* - Rice v Texas
(09-15-2019 10:17 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  
(09-15-2019 08:17 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Our players competed. I’m not sure our offensive schemes can be competitive.... even with bottom 25 teams. Lots of teams in CUSA can score 21+, even against top teams.

Ok, I'll bite: which teams in CUSA can score 21+ on a top-15 or even top-25 team? (not in garbage time)

Well, you added a caveat that is a little hard to address unless I go and review every game... and your own definition of 'top teams'. So if you really want an answer, we'd have to reach a mutually agreeable definition of 'top teams'. 'a lot' and then project games that have never occurred, which only leads to a debate over meaningless details.... OR you can simply look at the point of my comment and agree or not.

If you want, FAU scored 21 on #5 Ohio State. MTSU scored 21 on #7 Michigan. I don't think it an unreasonable presumption that they could also score 21 against #25. Charlotte hasn't played anyone, but has been scoring a whole lot. There may be others.

If you'd like for me to rephrase, the point is that unless you have an elite defense (which we do not) then you can't win if you can't score. I am concerned about our ability to score, especially in that it seems that there are a number of teams in CUSA who will be able to exploit our defense. We're not anywhere near a top 25 team, so whether they can score 21 against top 25 or not is really just a point of reference for my comment... another way to say the same thing, while bringing in the specific goal for the teams articulated by Joe Kaarlgard when he was hired. Do you honestly have a problem with the opinion that this offense doesn't appear to be a big threat to 'outscore' very many teams?

That was the point of my comment. What was the point of yours?
(This post was last modified: 09-15-2019 07:47 PM by Hambone10.)
09-15-2019 07:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
At Ease Offline
Banned

Posts: 17,134
Joined: Jun 2005
I Root For: The Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #52
RE: *Post-Game-Thread* - Rice v Texas
(09-15-2019 05:56 PM)Minnewaska Owl Wrote:  
(09-15-2019 03:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(09-15-2019 03:45 PM)Ourland Wrote:  I've never seen a team so physically overmatched as I did last night. It was like a varsity high school team scrimmaging against it's freshmen. We are world's away from them in physical ability. Texas could have beaten us 95-0.

I thought the same thing. I have always thought that the Texas white uniforms make them look larger, but I don't know that I've ever seen such an apparent disparity in size between Rice and an opponent.

I contrast it with 2015 at Texas when I thought the physical difference between the two teams was less than I had seen in decades, and we just beat ourselves with stupid mental errors.

I think it's a combination of 1) the physicality that Mensa has ingrained into that program and 2) the poor quality of our recruiting in at least 2 of the last 4 years.

I forget which year it was exactly (maybe 2004?), but I remember going to the Rice-UT game at Reliant, when Vince Young was in his final year at UT. The game last night was considerably more competitive than the Vince Young contest. Back then the score was 42-0 at halftime, and I do not remember us ever getting UT into a 3rd down situation. At least last night we consistently did force UT into 3rd down situations in the first half - we just never stopped them. In 2004 the UT drives all seemed to take 4 or 5 plays before they scored. Last night they seemed to take 9 or 10 plays. We still can't stop them - but at least last night we made it slightly more difficult. Obviously there was a huge difference in talent, but not nearly as pronounced as it was 10 years ago. Granted, we need to get better - but at least our guys kept fighting. I do feel we are better than last year, and am gaining confidence that next year we will be even better.

It was 2003, VY wasn’t even a starter yet. On their first three possessions, Texas turned it over on downs and had two 8 play TD drives. Their next four TDS were 1-13, 1-59, 4-14, 6-57.
09-15-2019 07:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Intellectual_Brutality Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,140
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Rice Owls!
Location:
Post: #53
RE: *Post-Game-Thread* - Rice v Texas
(09-15-2019 07:44 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(09-15-2019 10:17 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  
(09-15-2019 08:17 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Our players competed. I’m not sure our offensive schemes can be competitive.... even with bottom 25 teams. Lots of teams in CUSA can score 21+, even against top teams.

Ok, I'll bite: which teams in CUSA can score 21+ on a top-15 or even top-25 team? (not in garbage time)

Well, you added a caveat that is a little hard to address unless I go and review every game... and your own definition of 'top teams'. So if you really want an answer, we'd have to reach a mutually agreeable definition of 'top teams'. 'a lot' and then project games that have never occurred, which only leads to a debate over meaningless details.... OR you can simply look at the point of my comment and agree or not.

If you want, FAU scored 21 on #5 Ohio State. MTSU scored 21 on #7 Michigan. I don't think it an unreasonable presumption that they could also score 21 against #25. Charlotte hasn't played anyone, but has been scoring a whole lot. There may be others.

If you'd like for me to rephrase, the point is that unless you have an elite defense (which we do not) then you can't win if you can't score. I am concerned about our ability to score, especially in that it seems that there are a number of teams in CUSA who will be able to exploit our defense. We're not anywhere near a top 25 team, so whether they can score 21 against top 25 or not is really just a point of reference for my comment... another way to say the same thing, while bringing in the specific goal for the teams articulated by Joe Kaarlgard when he was hired. Do you honestly have a problem with the opinion that this offense doesn't appear to be a big threat to 'outscore' very many teams?

That was the point of my comment. What was the point of yours?

Thanks for engaging with it.
The underlying issue seems to me: what is the value of schemes and coaching vs. the value of talent?
If someone in CUSA (especially "lots" of them) can score on top teams, however defined, then that would signal strongly the value of good schemes. It would be a big indictment of Bloomgren.
If few or no one in CUSA can score on top of P5, well then recruiting/conference is key. It would mean Bloom's grand plan isn't *necessarily* broken. It may be broken, or it may be that we need 3-4 years of small steps, at which point we consistently win in CUSA and butt up against ultimate limitations of the conference.
So it's empirically pretty important whether others in our poor conference can score consistently against the top, and I have yet to see it.
I happened to be at the Michigan v MTSU game, and it wasn't even close. All the points came in garbage time or when Michigan turned it over in their red zone. The size difference was probably 75% as large as Texas vs Rice, i.e. very large.
So the point us, I wanna see what the max is for pound the rock in CUSA. I'm not yet convinced it can't work in CUSA, and given what I see from CUSA in general I'm not yet convinced that *any other* would've worked against Texas.
(This post was last modified: 09-15-2019 08:43 PM by Intellectual_Brutality.)
09-15-2019 08:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WeatherfordOwl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,168
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 10
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #54
RE: *Post-Game-Thread* - Rice v Texas
(09-15-2019 08:05 AM)RiceOwls2019 Wrote:  First game of the Bloomgren era where I have been tremendously disappointed in the coaching staff. We weren’t ever going to win that game. OK, fine. But the coaching staff gave us no chance last night. For all the Bloom bluster of putting a forth a product to be proud of and outhitting Texas, it sure looked like his goal was to not get beat 80-0 with his mega conservative offensive plan. When you try not to lose too badly, you end up losing badly anyways and look terrible while doing it. We finally opened up the offense in the fourth quarter and lo and behold, we moved the ball and put some points on the board. Imagine if we’d done that from the jump. Yeah maybe it was because they had backups in. Maybe the starters would’ve shut us down even faster than they did in the first half. Or maybe not. At least go down swinging.

The defense did what they could. Not their best night but UT is good. The special teams gaffes are alarming. Seems like we are good for a couple per game this year. Offensively I don’t know what else to say. I still don’t know if we have an answer at QB on this roster. I don’t know who we are expecting to beat running the offense we ran in the first 3 quarters. The product better get better in a hurry.

We looked worse in the game against UT when Chase was QB. They stuffed our passing game in 11 plays from the one. We aren’t Ut. Never will be. Their players eat sleep and live football, all day every day. That’s all they do. That’s all they can ever hope for. Most of those UT players, when they finish their eligibility, will be driving a delivery truck or something. I know that’s an old saw but Rice shouldn’t be on the field with the UTs of the FB world. At least not until we get some way bigger and faster players.
(This post was last modified: 09-15-2019 09:16 PM by WeatherfordOwl.)
09-15-2019 09:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WeatherfordOwl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,168
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 10
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #55
RE: *Post-Game-Thread* - Rice v Texas
(09-15-2019 09:04 AM)owl40 Wrote:  I do give Bloom (and most all NFL/D-1 offensive coaches) a pass when you are forced into using your 2nd string QB. So will grade the offensive performance with a 'incomplete' . What was more concerning is the regression to prior DB teams on giving up big plays, inability to get off the field on 3rd down, and poor Special Teams. Those bothered me more than the inept offense. We should get Green back for Baylor game and expect to see more offensive production but if we get the same ST and Defense we saw last night, Baylor will hang 60 as they will run it up (should say pass it up) and maybe we score 28-31 with a better playmaking QB at the helm.

Yes. I married into a Baylor family and as nice as they might be, it still stings when we don’t belong on the field with their semipro players. I guess it’s easy to start being a Baptist, not quite so much to start being smart enough to hang with the academics at Rice.
09-15-2019 09:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ExcitedOwl18 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,340
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 68
I Root For: Rice
Location: Northern NJ
Post: #56
RE: *Post-Game-Thread* - Rice v Texas
(09-15-2019 09:12 PM)WeatherfordOwl Wrote:  
(09-15-2019 08:05 AM)RiceOwls2019 Wrote:  First game of the Bloomgren era where I have been tremendously disappointed in the coaching staff. We weren’t ever going to win that game. OK, fine. But the coaching staff gave us no chance last night. For all the Bloom bluster of putting a forth a product to be proud of and outhitting Texas, it sure looked like his goal was to not get beat 80-0 with his mega conservative offensive plan. When you try not to lose too badly, you end up losing badly anyways and look terrible while doing it. We finally opened up the offense in the fourth quarter and lo and behold, we moved the ball and put some points on the board. Imagine if we’d done that from the jump. Yeah maybe it was because they had backups in. Maybe the starters would’ve shut us down even faster than they did in the first half. Or maybe not. At least go down swinging.

The defense did what they could. Not their best night but UT is good. The special teams gaffes are alarming. Seems like we are good for a couple per game this year. Offensively I don’t know what else to say. I still don’t know if we have an answer at QB on this roster. I don’t know who we are expecting to beat running the offense we ran in the first 3 quarters. The product better get better in a hurry.

We looked worse in the game against UT when Chase was QB. They stuffed our passing game in 11 plays from the one. We aren’t Ut. Never will be. Their players eat sleep and live football, all day every day. That’s all they do. That’s all they can ever hope for. Most of those UT players, when they finish their eligibility, will be driving a delivery truck or something. I know that’s an old saw but Rice shouldn’t be on the field with the UTs of the FB world. At least not until we get some way bigger and faster players.

The idea that UT football players don’t go on to have successful careers outside of football is just blatantly false. I work with multiple ex-Longhorn players (including one ex-captain) and they are equally capable.

Sure, are there some idiots on the team at UT, yes. Are there people on the Rice team who aren’t particularly intelligent? Yes. For every ex-player who’s a doctor or lawyer there’s another who is a HS PE teacher and assistant football coach (not that there’s anything wrong with that).
09-15-2019 09:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Online
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,284
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #57
RE: *Post-Game-Thread* - Rice v Texas
(09-15-2019 08:42 PM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  Thanks for engaging with it.
The underlying issue seems to me: what is the value of schemes and coaching vs. the value of talent?

The talent for this year is set. The schemes maximize the productivity of those schemes. You can be successful by recruiting 'poorly' (relative to the big boys) and then getting a lot out of undiscovered talents, or by recruiting really well and then just getting average performance out of great talent. While perhaps academically interesting as to which is better, it again requires defining lots of things like 'talent'.

The most important thing is getting the best TEAM on the field. A team full of 3 stars can easily outperform a team with lots of 5 stars and a few 2 stars on them. It doesn't happen often because the people who do the former get promoted away and the latter get fired.

Quote:If someone in CUSA (especially "lots" of them) can score on top teams, however defined, then that would signal strongly the value of good schemes. It would be a big indictment of Bloomgren.
Or it could simply be the penchant for lower level teams to concentrate on offense and hope to 'get by' on defense. The best defense is a good offense isn't always true, but it didn't become an idiom because it was never true.

Quote:If few or no one in CUSA can score on top of P5, well then recruiting/conference is key. It would mean Bloom's grand plan isn't *necessarily* broken. It may be broken, or it may be that we need 3-4 years of small steps, at which point we consistently win in CUSA and butt up against ultimate limitations of the conference.

As weak as the conference is, I'm disappointed in the 'small' steps we are taking. I expected a relatively quick turn-around to 0.500 in conference... which is a long way from consistently winning CUSA. This is my concern that we're sitting at the point where we have to make another decision and we've gone 1-7, 2-6, 3-5 and then maybe 4-4....

meaning we're still in the 90+ range and we're talking about extending a coach with what would likely be something like a 13-33

You're arguing two sides of the same coin. If the conference is so weak such that we will be pushing the limits of the conference, it shouldn't take years to be competitive with it. It should be a lot easier.

Now maybe if we're 2-6 this year and then 6-2 next.....


Quote:So it's empirically pretty important whether others in our poor conference can score consistently against the top, and I have yet to see it.
Why? You're arguing that we would be limited by our conference, why wouldn't they have the same limitations?

My point is that when you have an offense that can score, you have a chance. You could similarly win in CUSA with a stifling pass defense. What do you think the offs of that are?

Quote:I happened to be at the Michigan v MTSU game, and it wasn't even close. All the points came in garbage time or when Michigan turned it over in their red zone.
You might want to check your memory. The score at the end of the 1st was 10-7. It was 27-14 at half. Michigan scored I think 6 in the 3rd and 7 in the 4th while MTSU scored 7 in the 4th.

Michigan scored at the end of the first, otherwise MTSU would have had the lead.

I'm a bit bothered that you decide to nit-pick my OPINIONS and then you present false FACTS.

Quote:The size difference was probably 75% as large as Texas vs Rice, i.e. very large.
So the point us, I wanna see what the max is for pound the rock in CUSA. I'm not yet convinced it can't work in CUSA, and given what I see from CUSA in general I'm not yet convinced that *any other* would've worked against Texas.

This is you doing precisely what I knew you would.

- I couldn't care less about beating Texas this year... you're engaging in the competing vs competitive argument.
- I don't know (nor care) what you mean by 'size difference'. Smaller teams win every week.
- You put the caveat on there.... and we scored 13 (which is less than 21) in garbage time against UT... and again, you're wrong about MTSU/Michigan

I'm not trying to be competitive with UT. These are merely points of reference for 'capability'.

Pound the rock CAN be an effective offense, so long as it controls the clock... SCORES... and has a credible defense. See Hatfield, Ken for most of his career, including Rice. He started losing when he lost the DEFENSE, not the offense.

I wouldn't expect our defense to be anywhere near the defense of top 25 schools. Would you? I think that's an unrealistic expectation. If CUSA schools can score 21 against those schools, then they will be able to score a whole lot more on us. I repeat that I'm not sure that this offense can score enough to beat those offenses, and I wouldn't expect our defenses to be better than the average CUSA defense. Would you? If so, why?

If there were a better description of 'top 50' team, I probably would have used that... because we're a long long way from there as well... but there isn't.
(This post was last modified: 09-15-2019 09:36 PM by Hambone10.)
09-15-2019 09:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Online
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,284
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #58
RE: *Post-Game-Thread* - Rice v Texas
(09-15-2019 09:21 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  The idea that UT football players don’t go on to have successful careers outside of football is just blatantly false. I work with multiple ex-Longhorn players (including one ex-captain) and they are equally capable.

True.... UT is a very good school... but few great athletes are total morons either. You don't have to be especially intelligent to be reasonably successful.

The point is though that UT can get a 5 star recruit in who has no intention of graduating who focuses almost solely on football... keep him eligible... he goes to the NFL and the is at least partially successful afterwards based almost solely on that.

Even if we did that/could do it, we MIGHT get a 4 star.... and they'd stand out more among our 5000 students than they would at UT with 40,000.

Remember the d-line kid at UH? I don't know if he was smart or not, but did he need to be? Would we do that?
09-15-2019 09:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WeatherfordOwl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,168
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 10
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #59
RE: *Post-Game-Thread* - Rice v Texas
(09-15-2019 09:21 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  
(09-15-2019 09:12 PM)WeatherfordOwl Wrote:  
(09-15-2019 08:05 AM)RiceOwls2019 Wrote:  First game of the Bloomgren era where I have been tremendously disappointed in the coaching staff. We weren’t ever going to win that game. OK, fine. But the coaching staff gave us no chance last night. For all the Bloom bluster of putting a forth a product to be proud of and outhitting Texas, it sure looked like his goal was to not get beat 80-0 with his mega conservative offensive plan. When you try not to lose too badly, you end up losing badly anyways and look terrible while doing it. We finally opened up the offense in the fourth quarter and lo and behold, we moved the ball and put some points on the board. Imagine if we’d done that from the jump. Yeah maybe it was because they had backups in. Maybe the starters would’ve shut us down even faster than they did in the first half. Or maybe not. At least go down swinging.

The defense did what they could. Not their best night but UT is good. The special teams gaffes are alarming. Seems like we are good for a couple per game this year. Offensively I don’t know what else to say. I still don’t know if we have an answer at QB on this roster. I don’t know who we are expecting to beat running the offense we ran in the first 3 quarters. The product better get better in a hurry.

We looked worse in the game against UT when Chase was QB. They stuffed our passing game in 11 plays from the one. We aren’t Ut. Never will be. Their players eat sleep and live football, all day every day. That’s all they do. That’s all they can ever hope for. Most of those UT players, when they finish their eligibility, will be driving a delivery truck or something. I know that’s an old saw but Rice shouldn’t be on the field with the UTs of the FB world. At least not until we get some way bigger and faster players.

The idea that UT football players don’t go on to have successful careers outside of football is just blatantly false. I work with multiple ex-Longhorn players (including one ex-captain) and they are equally capable.

Sure, are there some idiots on the team at UT, yes. Are there people on the Rice team who aren’t particularly intelligent? Yes. For every ex-player who’s a doctor or lawyer there’s another who is a HS PE teacher and assistant football coach (not that there’s anything wrong with that).

Sure I also work with an engineer who played at UT when Earl was there. He told us he only met Earl once, when Earl ran over him. The guy was an offensive lineman. He is huge. But the percentages are better that a lot more of those UT guys will wind up with an hourly job.
09-15-2019 09:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ExcitedOwl18 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,340
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 68
I Root For: Rice
Location: Northern NJ
Post: #60
RE: *Post-Game-Thread* - Rice v Texas
(09-15-2019 09:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(09-15-2019 09:21 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  The idea that UT football players don’t go on to have successful careers outside of football is just blatantly false. I work with multiple ex-Longhorn players (including one ex-captain) and they are equally capable.

True.... UT is a very good school... but few great athletes are total morons either. You don't have to be especially intelligent to be reasonably successful.

The point is though that UT can get a 5 star recruit in who has no intention of graduating who focuses almost solely on football... keep him eligible... he goes to the NFL and the is at least partially successful afterwards based almost solely on that.

Even if we did that/could do it, we MIGHT get a 4 star.... and they'd stand out more among our 5000 students than they would at UT with 40,000.

Remember the d-line kid at UH? I don't know if he was smart or not, but did he need to be? Would we do that?

You just described the attitude of many of our best baseball players...
09-15-2019 09:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 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, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.