(09-15-2019 09:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(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.

I'm actually not sure where we disagree? Or maybe we're speaking past each other.
I think a realistic "max" goal for the team is consistently competing for conference championship. More lofty goals seem out of reach because, to my eye, even the top of the conference isn't competitive with top P5 teams, i.e. MTSU wasn't truly competitive with Michigan, despite when exactly the points came IMO.

So the question is can pound the rock lead to that max goal, competing for CUSA? You're skeptical, and I am too. Only difference is level of skepticism? We should have a lot more clarity when we see this offense go up against CUSA schedule

(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.

I agree, but it seemed to me that Texas was playing conservatively. If they wanted, they could have really embarrassed us in my opinion.

And I am encouraged at the way the defense fought. I'm proud of the whole team. If nothing else, they improved. They represented themselves well by not giving up. They played hard until the end.

(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)

Better question. Which teams in CUSA can hold a top-15 or even top-25 team under 40?

(09-15-2019 10:11 PM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  I'm actually not sure where we disagree? Or maybe we're speaking past each other.
I think a realistic "max" goal for the team is consistently competing for conference championship. More lofty goals seem out of reach because, to my eye, even the top of the conference isn't competitive with top P5 teams, i.e. MTSU wasn't truly competitive with Michigan, despite when exactly the points came IMO.

So the question is can pound the rock lead to that max goal, competing for CUSA? You're skeptical, and I am too. Only difference is level of skepticism? We should have a lot more clarity when we see this offense go up against CUSA schedule

Other than the MTSU game, we aren't really disagreeing on general principles. I have a way of saying things and you felt compelled to challenge my means of delivering my message. While certainly I'm somewhat hyperbolic, I think I've also demonstrated that there is factual evidence behind my off-the-cuff comments and they aren't merely pie-in-the-sky pipe dreams, which was actually the point of my earlier post.

YOU chose the MTSU details, not me... and you said they scored all their points in garbage time which is categorically false. MTSU, despite being grossly outmatched across the board, lead for most of the 1st quarter, closing the quarter down by 3. They were down by only 10 after scoring again late in the second. Sure, that was because of turnovers, but so what? They still had to travel 42 yards to score. We had 4 on our first possession.

After the fumble, MTSU scored on their opening drive (42 yards) and then held Michigan to a FG. They then got another first down and then shanked a punt to mid-field... AND THEN MADE MICHIGAN PUNT.

UT scored on their first drive, we went 3 and out. UT scored on their second drive, We went iirc 4 and out. UT scored on their third drive, we again went 3 and out.

I don't think I could describe the difference between being competitive and not any better than that.... and again, you chose to challenge the 'competitiveness' of that game, not me.

Pound the rock only works if you are 'different' in your scheming (like wishbone) which minimizes talent differentials... OR if you somehow get better talent, which of course we could... become g5 'Lineman U'. Stanford also got great QBs and RBs. OR if you play stifling defense.

That's a VERY tall order for a school that would be hard-pressed to retain someone who could bring that to our school. We talk about patienter and building, but that is what puts us in the situation where we're extending a 13-33 coach or losing a 20-20 one and having to roll the dice again.

I could not watch the game live, but I recorded it. Last night I watched my recording, starting late in the fourth quarter. Maybe that is how I will watch the Baylor game also.

I saw a team that had not quit, and was not just running out the clock. Proud of my boys.

If we can conclude September with our attitude intact, I think we will be competitive in conference and will win some games.

Maintaining a will to win is the most important thing now.

It is interesting to see the fan support for Bloom unraveling. The complaints sound very much like the Bailiff year complaints. McGuffie up the middle? Misuse of time outs? predictability?

I thought Bloom had a chance to do well here. I still think so. But so far...I was hoping for better, sooner. Looks like 2020 will be the decider.

(09-16-2019 11:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I could not watch the game live, but I recorded it. Last night I watched my recording, starting late in the fourth quarter. Maybe that is how I will watch the Baylor game also.

I saw a team that had not quit, and was not just running out the clock. Proud of my boys.

If we can conclude September with our attitude intact, I think we will be competitive in conference and will win some games.

Maintaining a will to win is the most important thing now.

It is interesting to see the fan support for Bloom unraveling. The complaints sound very much like the Bailiff year complaints. McGuffie up the middle? Misuse of time outs? predictability?

I thought Bloom had a chance to do well here. I still think so. But so far...I was hoping for better, sooner. Looks like 2020 will be the decider.

If the Owls had run their 4Q offense in the 1st three quarters, I think you would have heard less complaints. Go back and watch the 1st three quarters and see if you don't agree.

I agree the Owls played hard until the end. I like the fact the Owls had no turnovers and only 1 penalty for 5 yards. That is a major improvement over recent years.

I did question the TO late in the 1H on a Texas 4th down. You just knew it would lead to another Texas score which it did. Owls were lucky it was only a FG. Someone suggested it might have been because the Owls weren't ready for a potential fake. If that was the case, why?

I am more than willing to give Bloom and his staff a chance to continue the re-build. But as a fan when I see a call the puzzles me, I will call it out. Just part of being a fan.

(09-16-2019 11:25 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 11:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I could not watch the game live, but I recorded it. Last night I watched my recording, starting late in the fourth quarter. Maybe that is how I will watch the Baylor game also.

I saw a team that had not quit, and was not just running out the clock. Proud of my boys.

If we can conclude September with our attitude intact, I think we will be competitive in conference and will win some games.

Maintaining a will to win is the most important thing now.

It is interesting to see the fan support for Bloom unraveling. The complaints sound very much like the Bailiff year complaints. McGuffie up the middle? Misuse of time outs? predictability?

I thought Bloom had a chance to do well here. I still think so. But so far...I was hoping for better, sooner. Looks like 2020 will be the decider.

If the Owls had run their 4Q offense in the 1st three quarters, I think you would have heard less complaints. Go back and watch the 1st three quarters and see if you don't agree.

I agree the Owls played hard until the end. I like the fact the Owls had no turnovers and only 1 penalty for 5 yards. That is a major improvement over recent years.

I did question the TO late in the 1H on a Texas 4th down. You just knew it would lead to another Texas score which it did. Owls were lucky it was only a FG. Someone suggested it might have been because the Owls weren't ready for a potential fake. If that was the case, why?

I am more than willing to give Bloom and his staff a chance to continue the re-build. But as a fan when I see a call the puzzles me, I will call it out. Just part of being a fan.

I have erased the recording, but I was following on the parliament so I am somewhat familiar with the complaints.

Not getting offense right in the first three quarters would seem to be a coaching problem, and I heard the announcers say Bloom was calling the plays.

I have no problem with criticism at any point. I consider it like mid term grades, or an evaluation after a probationary period. When I made some "so far, not so good: comments last year, I was told to shut up and give the man a chance. I have always been on the side of giving him a chance, I just don't think I have to sit quietly until time is up.

I see some progress. I just wonder what the progress is toward. Is the goal to be a contender in CUSA? Not good enough for me. Is the goal to make some 6-6 bowls? Not good enough for me.

Bottom line, this is a 2-14 coach so far. I want to see wins. First in CUSA, then in bowls, and eventually against P5. Maybe his plan can get us there. But so far, it looks like we are on the wrong bus. Just don't know if there is a better one for us at this point. Grade: Incomplete

(09-16-2019 11:25 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 11:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I could not watch the game live, but I recorded it. Last night I watched my recording, starting late in the fourth quarter. Maybe that is how I will watch the Baylor game also.

I saw a team that had not quit, and was not just running out the clock. Proud of my boys.

If we can conclude September with our attitude intact, I think we will be competitive in conference and will win some games.

Maintaining a will to win is the most important thing now.

It is interesting to see the fan support for Bloom unraveling. The complaints sound very much like the Bailiff year complaints. McGuffie up the middle? Misuse of time outs? predictability?

I thought Bloom had a chance to do well here. I still think so. But so far...I was hoping for better, sooner. Looks like 2020 will be the decider.

If the Owls had run their 4Q offense in the 1st three quarters, I think you would have heard less complaints. Go back and watch the 1st three quarters and see if you don't agree.

I agree the Owls played hard until the end. I like the fact the Owls had no turnovers and only 1 penalty for 5 yards. That is a major improvement over recent years.

I did question the TO late in the 1H on a Texas 4th down. You just knew it would lead to another Texas score which it did. Owls were lucky it was only a FG. Someone suggested it might have been because the Owls weren't ready for a potential fake. If that was the case, why?

I am more than willing to give Bloom and his staff a chance to continue the re-build. But as a fan when I see a call the puzzles me, I will call it out. Just part of being a fan.

We had like 16 guys on the field (while Texas was lining up for the FG attempt). We weren't concerned about a fake - we were concerned about a penalty.

In terms of a 'tighter, more disciplined team', I think Bloom's results here are an astonishing contrast to Bailiff's last two years. The take from the Texas game was one penalty for 5 yards, no turnovers. The no turnovers against an exceptionally better talented team, mind you. A big '+' there for Bloom.

In terms of a team that doesnt ostensibly give up, the game Saturday night is again a huge contrast to Bailiff's last two seasons, where the losing attitude was palpable not just in the live game, but through the telecasts. Again, a '+' for Bloom.

In terms of attracting better players, hard to say right now --- that pie is still being baked.

In terms of a what seems a fairly rigid orthodoxy in the offense -- going to call that a fairly big '-' at this point. I dont think Rice has, nor ever will have, the luxury of either: a) having a straight orthodox system, since we will almost always be out recruited, and because of that out-athleted ; b) because of a), being able to 'fill the "pound the run" toolbox' in the way Bloom seems committed to do.

My guess is that Bloom knows and is comfortable with one style of offense. And is seeking to install that offense around athletes who may not be best suited for that offense. Even regardless if Rice is best suited to recruiting the specific players required to instantiate that offense.

Bloom's play calling in light of the formidable challenge of the Texas game left me with serious doubts about Bloom being a right pick for the HC position.

In most instances, when one knows that they will be outmanned, the best way to achieve a goal is through wiles, misdirection, and doing the unexpected -- not by the mano a mano method that was fully evident in Blooms offense for the first three quarters.

99% of the time you will never win against a more powerful opponent by playing either a known game, or playing the opponent's strength. Sun Tzu 101. Plaintiff attorney 101. Saudi oil facilities drone strike 101. NC State v. the Coogs 1983. I would have hoped that a coach taking on the Rice project would understand that. *That* is the core of my disappointment here.

(09-16-2019 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In terms of a 'tighter, more disciplined team', I think Bloom's results here are an astonishing contrast to Bailiff's last two years. The take from the Texas game was one penalty for 5 yards, no turnovers. The no turnovers against an exceptionally better talented team, mind you. A big '+' there for Bloom.
In terms of a team that doesnt ostensibly give up, the game Saturday night is again a huge contrast to Bailiff's last two seasons, where the losing attitude was palpable not just in the live game, but through the telecasts. Again, a '+' for Bloom.
In terms of attracting better players, hard to say right now --- that pie is still being baked.
In terms of a what seems a fairly rigid orthodoxy in the offense -- going to call that a fairly big '-' at this point. I dont think Rice has, nor ever will have, the luxury of either: a) having a straight orthodox system, since we will almost always be out recruited, and because of that out-athleted ; b) because of a), being able to 'fill the "pound the run" toolbox' in the way Bloom seems committed to do.
My guess is that Bloom knows and is comfortable with one style of offense. And is seeking to install that offense around athletes who may not be best suited for that offense. Even regardless if Rice is best suited to recruiting the specific players required to instantiate that offense.
Bloom's play calling in light of the formidable challenge of the Texas game left me with serious doubts about Bloom being a right pick for the HC position.
In most instances, when one knows that they will be outmanned, the best way to achieve a goal is through wiles, misdirection, and doing the unexpected -- not by the mano a mano method that was fully evident in Blooms offense for the first three quarters.
99% of the time you will never win against a more powerful opponent by playing either a known game, or playing the opponent's strength. Sun Tzu 101. Plaintiff attorney 101. Saudi oil facilities drone strike 101. NC State v. the Coogs 1983. I would have hoped that a coach taking on the Rice project would understand that. *That* is the core of my disappointment here.

I can't really fault the play-calling in specifically the Texas game for two reasons:

1) Like it or not (and I have very serious doubts, as stated previously), his philosophy is "pound the rock." I would not expect us to go totally out of character in any one game.

2) We gave up 41 (48 counting the late KO return). It could have been 60 or 70, given the obvious talent disparity. The easiest way to give up 60 or 70 is to keep going 3 and out with 3 incomplete passes, so you don't run any clock.

If you don't like the play-calling, then your argument is with the offensive concept and philosophy, not the play-calling per se. I still have my doubts that we can recruit the athletes to make "pound the rock" work. But in a game that certainly could have gotten way, way out of hand, we kept the score from going there and AFAIK didn't suffer any severe injuries. That's not a terrible result.

(09-16-2019 12:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In terms of a 'tighter, more disciplined team', I think Bloom's results here are an astonishing contrast to Bailiff's last two years. The take from the Texas game was one penalty for 5 yards, no turnovers. The no turnovers against an exceptionally better talented team, mind you. A big '+' there for Bloom.
In terms of a team that doesnt ostensibly give up, the game Saturday night is again a huge contrast to Bailiff's last two seasons, where the losing attitude was palpable not just in the live game, but through the telecasts. Again, a '+' for Bloom.
In terms of attracting better players, hard to say right now --- that pie is still being baked.
In terms of a what seems a fairly rigid orthodoxy in the offense -- going to call that a fairly big '-' at this point. I dont think Rice has, nor ever will have, the luxury of either: a) having a straight orthodox system, since we will almost always be out recruited, and because of that out-athleted ; b) because of a), being able to 'fill the "pound the run" toolbox' in the way Bloom seems committed to do.
My guess is that Bloom knows and is comfortable with one style of offense. And is seeking to install that offense around athletes who may not be best suited for that offense. Even regardless if Rice is best suited to recruiting the specific players required to instantiate that offense.
Bloom's play calling in light of the formidable challenge of the Texas game left me with serious doubts about Bloom being a right pick for the HC position.
In most instances, when one knows that they will be outmanned, the best way to achieve a goal is through wiles, misdirection, and doing the unexpected -- not by the mano a mano method that was fully evident in Blooms offense for the first three quarters.
99% of the time you will never win against a more powerful opponent by playing either a known game, or playing the opponent's strength. Sun Tzu 101. Plaintiff attorney 101. Saudi oil facilities drone strike 101. NC State v. the Coogs 1983. I would have hoped that a coach taking on the Rice project would understand that. *That* is the core of my disappointment here.

I can't really fault the play-calling in specifically the Texas game for two reasons:

1) Like it or not (and I have very serious doubts, as stated previously), his philosophy is "pound the rock." I would not expect us to go totally out of character in any one game.

2) We gave up 41 (48 counting the late KO return). It could have been 60 or 70, given the obvious talent disparity. The easiest way to give up 60 or 70 is to keep going 3 and out with 3 incomplete passes, so you don't run any clock.

If you don't like the play-calling, then your argument is with the offensive concept and philosophy, not the play-calling per se. I still have my doubts that we can recruit the athletes to make "pound the rock" work. But in a game that certainly could have gotten way, way out of hand, we kept the score from going there and AFAIK didn't suffer any severe injuries. That's not a terrible result.

Agreed. I am coming to a conclusion that Bloom may be a tad myopic in his vision philosophy.

I dont disagree that the Texas outcome could have been worse.

But, I dont think that a rigid adherence to that offensive philosophy is the best means to gain success with a Rice program. For multiple reasons.

In fact, when you think about the subtextual meaning of Bloom's catchphrase ('Intellectual Brutality') it actually runs counter to the philosophy he thinks we will be a panacea ('pound the rock, kill the clock.')

It seems that Bloom may be wedded to a strategy of 'out recruit and out athlete' Rice's opponents. I dont think that is an especially viable strategy; in fact, given whom Rice can typically pull in recruit-wise and athlete-wise, if this were a startup company this is one that might earn a 'not really in touch with the viable market' tag in my book.

I may be absolutely wrong in the long run --- many times I am. But this trajectory in offensive philosophy isnt one that is perking up my ears at opportunity at the present time. Given your last paragraph, you and I may see this in a somewhat similar manner. But, as many other times (actually, every time, to be blunt), you are far more diplomatic in the way that it is presented.

My comments on the Sun-Tzu approach, unfortunately, should be regarded as covering literally every other D-1 FB program, excepting *maybe* NMSU and UTEP at the present time.

(09-16-2019 12:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In terms of a 'tighter, more disciplined team', I think Bloom's results here are an astonishing contrast to Bailiff's last two years. The take from the Texas game was one penalty for 5 yards, no turnovers. The no turnovers against an exceptionally better talented team, mind you. A big '+' there for Bloom.
In terms of a team that doesnt ostensibly give up, the game Saturday night is again a huge contrast to Bailiff's last two seasons, where the losing attitude was palpable not just in the live game, but through the telecasts. Again, a '+' for Bloom.
In terms of attracting better players, hard to say right now --- that pie is still being baked.
In terms of a what seems a fairly rigid orthodoxy in the offense -- going to call that a fairly big '-' at this point. I dont think Rice has, nor ever will have, the luxury of either: a) having a straight orthodox system, since we will almost always be out recruited, and because of that out-athleted ; b) because of a), being able to 'fill the "pound the run" toolbox' in the way Bloom seems committed to do.
My guess is that Bloom knows and is comfortable with one style of offense. And is seeking to install that offense around athletes who may not be best suited for that offense. Even regardless if Rice is best suited to recruiting the specific players required to instantiate that offense.
Bloom's play calling in light of the formidable challenge of the Texas game left me with serious doubts about Bloom being a right pick for the HC position.
In most instances, when one knows that they will be outmanned, the best way to achieve a goal is through wiles, misdirection, and doing the unexpected -- not by the mano a mano method that was fully evident in Blooms offense for the first three quarters.
99% of the time you will never win against a more powerful opponent by playing either a known game, or playing the opponent's strength. Sun Tzu 101. Plaintiff attorney 101. Saudi oil facilities drone strike 101. NC State v. the Coogs 1983. I would have hoped that a coach taking on the Rice project would understand that. *That* is the core of my disappointment here.

I can't really fault the play-calling in specifically the Texas game for two reasons:

1) Like it or not (and I have very serious doubts, as stated previously), his philosophy is "pound the rock." I would not expect us to go totally out of character in any one game.

2) We gave up 41 (48 counting the late KO return). It could have been 60 or 70, given the obvious talent disparity. The easiest way to give up 60 or 70 is to keep going 3 and out with 3 incomplete passes, so you don't run any clock.

If you don't like the play-calling, then your argument is with the offensive concept and philosophy, not the play-calling per se. I still have my doubts that we can recruit the athletes to make "pound the rock" work. But in a game that certainly could have gotten way, way out of hand, we kept the score from going there and AFAIK didn't suffer any severe injuries. That's not a terrible result.

So using that logic, why not just have the QB kneel every play? Defeat formation. Clock runs, no strain on the OL or backs, QB never gets hit and no TO or penalties. Serves the same purpose and reduces the chance of injury to almost nothing on the offensive side of the ball. Puts all the strain on the defense though. Maybe the D gets a TO and Rice lucks into points. I know this is hyperbole but it is essentially what they were doing.

(09-16-2019 12:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 12:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In terms of a 'tighter, more disciplined team', I think Bloom's results here are an astonishing contrast to Bailiff's last two years. The take from the Texas game was one penalty for 5 yards, no turnovers. The no turnovers against an exceptionally better talented team, mind you. A big '+' there for Bloom.
In terms of a team that doesnt ostensibly give up, the game Saturday night is again a huge contrast to Bailiff's last two seasons, where the losing attitude was palpable not just in the live game, but through the telecasts. Again, a '+' for Bloom.
In terms of attracting better players, hard to say right now --- that pie is still being baked.
In terms of a what seems a fairly rigid orthodoxy in the offense -- going to call that a fairly big '-' at this point. I dont think Rice has, nor ever will have, the luxury of either: a) having a straight orthodox system, since we will almost always be out recruited, and because of that out-athleted ; b) because of a), being able to 'fill the "pound the run" toolbox' in the way Bloom seems committed to do.
My guess is that Bloom knows and is comfortable with one style of offense. And is seeking to install that offense around athletes who may not be best suited for that offense. Even regardless if Rice is best suited to recruiting the specific players required to instantiate that offense.
Bloom's play calling in light of the formidable challenge of the Texas game left me with serious doubts about Bloom being a right pick for the HC position.
In most instances, when one knows that they will be outmanned, the best way to achieve a goal is through wiles, misdirection, and doing the unexpected -- not by the mano a mano method that was fully evident in Blooms offense for the first three quarters.
99% of the time you will never win against a more powerful opponent by playing either a known game, or playing the opponent's strength. Sun Tzu 101. Plaintiff attorney 101. Saudi oil facilities drone strike 101. NC State v. the Coogs 1983. I would have hoped that a coach taking on the Rice project would understand that. *That* is the core of my disappointment here.

I can't really fault the play-calling in specifically the Texas game for two reasons:

1) Like it or not (and I have very serious doubts, as stated previously), his philosophy is "pound the rock." I would not expect us to go totally out of character in any one game.

2) We gave up 41 (48 counting the late KO return). It could have been 60 or 70, given the obvious talent disparity. The easiest way to give up 60 or 70 is to keep going 3 and out with 3 incomplete passes, so you don't run any clock.

If you don't like the play-calling, then your argument is with the offensive concept and philosophy, not the play-calling per se. I still have my doubts that we can recruit the athletes to make "pound the rock" work. But in a game that certainly could have gotten way, way out of hand, we kept the score from going there and AFAIK didn't suffer any severe injuries. That's not a terrible result.

Agreed. I am coming to a conclusion that Bloom may be a tad myopic in his vision philosophy.

I dont disagree that the Texas outcome could have been worse.

But, I dont think that a rigid adherence to that offensive philosophy is the best means to gain success with a Rice program. For multiple reasons.

In fact, when you think about the subtextual meaning of Bloom's catchphrase ('Intellectual Brutality') it actually runs counter to the philosophy he thinks we will be a panacea ('pound the rock, kill the clock.')

It seems that Bloom may be wedded to a strategy of 'out recruit and out athlete' Rice's opponents. I dont think that is an especially viable strategy; in fact, given whom Rice can typically pull in recruit-wise and athlete-wise, if this were a startup company this is one that might earn a 'not really in touch with the viable market' tag in my book.

I may be absolutely wrong in the long run --- many times I am. But this trajectory in offensive philosophy isnt one that is perking up my ears at opportunity at the present time. Given your last paragraph, you and I may see this in a somewhat similar manner. But, as many other times (actually, every time, to be blunt), you are far more diplomatic in the way that it is presented.

Look at the model Rice is following. Stanford is fading. They are 1-2 and have given up 45 points last 2 weeks and offense has been garbage. They only scored 17 in their lone win. They are going to be pressed to even make a bowl this year. They have all the advantages and even they can’t keep the talent at the level it needs to be to run their system. How is Rice ever going to get there? Why do we expect Rice recruiting to this system will be successful. When Stanford had elite talent, they had a decade run of success. With above average talent, they have been above average. With the talent average, they are struggling. If Rice is lagging Stanford in this model, how is Rice going to get the elite talent versus CUSA if Rice puts up Texas like performances? It is pretty obvious looking at Stanford that this system only works with elite talent. And Stanford started the transformation to better talent with a 4 win season including an upset of USC in LA as a 40+ point underdog. How is Rice making a different and better path in the Stanford model?

(09-16-2019 12:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In terms of a 'tighter, more disciplined team', I think Bloom's results here are an astonishing contrast to Bailiff's last two years. The take from the Texas game was one penalty for 5 yards, no turnovers. The no turnovers against an exceptionally better talented team, mind you. A big '+' there for Bloom.
In terms of a team that doesnt ostensibly give up, the game Saturday night is again a huge contrast to Bailiff's last two seasons, where the losing attitude was palpable not just in the live game, but through the telecasts. Again, a '+' for Bloom.
In terms of attracting better players, hard to say right now --- that pie is still being baked.
In terms of a what seems a fairly rigid orthodoxy in the offense -- going to call that a fairly big '-' at this point. I dont think Rice has, nor ever will have, the luxury of either: a) having a straight orthodox system, since we will almost always be out recruited, and because of that out-athleted ; b) because of a), being able to 'fill the "pound the run" toolbox' in the way Bloom seems committed to do.
My guess is that Bloom knows and is comfortable with one style of offense. And is seeking to install that offense around athletes who may not be best suited for that offense. Even regardless if Rice is best suited to recruiting the specific players required to instantiate that offense.
Bloom's play calling in light of the formidable challenge of the Texas game left me with serious doubts about Bloom being a right pick for the HC position.
In most instances, when one knows that they will be outmanned, the best way to achieve a goal is through wiles, misdirection, and doing the unexpected -- not by the mano a mano method that was fully evident in Blooms offense for the first three quarters.
99% of the time you will never win against a more powerful opponent by playing either a known game, or playing the opponent's strength. Sun Tzu 101. Plaintiff attorney 101. Saudi oil facilities drone strike 101. NC State v. the Coogs 1983. I would have hoped that a coach taking on the Rice project would understand that. *That* is the core of my disappointment here.

I can't really fault the play-calling in specifically the Texas game for two reasons:

1) Like it or not (and I have very serious doubts, as stated previously), his philosophy is "pound the rock." I would not expect us to go totally out of character in any one game.

2) We gave up 41 (48 counting the late KO return). It could have been 60 or 70, given the obvious talent disparity. The easiest way to give up 60 or 70 is to keep going 3 and out with 3 incomplete passes, so you don't run any clock.

If you don't like the play-calling, then your argument is with the offensive concept and philosophy, not the play-calling per se. I still have my doubts that we can recruit the athletes to make "pound the rock" work. But in a game that certainly could have gotten way, way out of hand, we kept the score from going there and AFAIK didn't suffer any severe injuries. That's not a terrible result.

But what if the passes were completed? What if they weren’t 3 and outs with clock stoppage after each play?

for those who advocate exciting offense, I give you the passing extravaganza of 1977 and a 72-15 loss to UT. agree with 69 that multitudes of 3 incompletes is not going to be too effective.

I continue to be amazed at the assumption that a new coach will instantly fix the mess that Rice FB has digressed into. The fact that the offense has not been a comedy of penalties and timeouts called at the beginning of a quarter or a half has to be considered an improvement. No doubt, it has not been very effective, but outside of 2006, 2008 and 2013 and from about 90-2003, when was it? Defense seems to be more competitive and though mismatched, the days of DBs lining up 8-10 yards off the line, running away from the line at the snap and still giving up big plays seems to be over. And, other than the kickoff return, special teams are looking pretty decent-again better than in years.

Right now, this team is not going to stay on a field vs UT and the like. But I don't see forthcoming future horrors of losing, sorry being assaulted, at home by Navy, Army, ODU, or So Miss and the similar. Hell, who out there doesn't think that PVAMU would have beaten us if the game had gone another 10 minutes. I was late one year to see a UH game at Robertson and after hearing the kickoff and early UH offense, just decided not to go.

I don't know if Bloom's approach is right in every approach, but I see at least some hope and this doesn't look like 2007 or 2009 (or 1988 or 1977 for that matter, even 82 or 83)

Not advocating an 'exciting' offense. If the philosophy was bone jarring dull, but produced effective results I would actually be all over it.

The problem is *not* whether it is 'exciting'; the problem is that the philosophy seems extremely mismatched to the type of athlete that Rice can ever really hope to pull into the program at this point. The problem is that in the end result --- the offense seems hovering in the 1-ish/10 in effectiveness, and literally 2/16 in winning.

(09-16-2019 01:04 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  for those who advocate exciting offense, I give you the passing extravaganza of 1977 and a 72-15 loss to UT. agree with 69 that multitudes of 3 incompletes is not going to be too effective.

I continue to be amazed at the assumption that a new coach will instantly fix the mess that Rice FB has digressed into. The fact that the offense has not been a comedy of penalties and timeouts called at the beginning of a quarter or a half has to be considered an improvement. No doubt, it has not been very effective, but outside of 2006, 2008 and 2013 and from about 90-2003, when was it? Defense seems to be more competitive and though mismatched, the days of DBs lining up 8-10 yards off the line, running away from the line at the snap and still giving up big plays seems to be over. And, other than the kickoff return, special teams are looking pretty decent-again better than in years.

Right now, this team is not going to stay on a field vs UT and the like. But I don't see forthcoming future horrors of losing, sorry being assaulted, at home by Navy, Army, ODU, or So Miss and the similar. Hell, who out there doesn't think that PVAMU would have beaten us if the game had gone another 10 minutes. I was late one year to see a UH game at Robertson and after hearing the kickoff and early UH offense, just decided not to go.

I don't know if Bloom's approach is right in every approach, but I see at least some hope and this doesn't look like 2007 or 2009 (or 1988 or 1977 for that matter, even 82 or 83)

+1

Those factors are what gives me hope that an orthodox offense (pound the rock) executed well can succeed in CUSA

(09-16-2019 01:21 PM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:04 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  for those who advocate exciting offense, I give you the passing extravaganza of 1977 and a 72-15 loss to UT. agree with 69 that multitudes of 3 incompletes is not going to be too effective.

I continue to be amazed at the assumption that a new coach will instantly fix the mess that Rice FB has digressed into. The fact that the offense has not been a comedy of penalties and timeouts called at the beginning of a quarter or a half has to be considered an improvement. No doubt, it has not been very effective, but outside of 2006, 2008 and 2013 and from about 90-2003, when was it? Defense seems to be more competitive and though mismatched, the days of DBs lining up 8-10 yards off the line, running away from the line at the snap and still giving up big plays seems to be over. And, other than the kickoff return, special teams are looking pretty decent-again better than in years.

Right now, this team is not going to stay on a field vs UT and the like. But I don't see forthcoming future horrors of losing, sorry being assaulted, at home by Navy, Army, ODU, or So Miss and the similar. Hell, who out there doesn't think that PVAMU would have beaten us if the game had gone another 10 minutes. I was late one year to see a UH game at Robertson and after hearing the kickoff and early UH offense, just decided not to go.

I don't know if Bloom's approach is right in every approach, but I see at least some hope and this doesn't look like 2007 or 2009 (or 1988 or 1977 for that matter, even 82 or 83)

+1

Those factors are what gives me hope that an orthodox offense (pound the rock) executed well can succeed in CUSA

Then I guess the next 7 out of 8 games will be the bellwether there, wont they?

(09-16-2019 01:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:21 PM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:04 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  for those who advocate exciting offense, I give you the passing extravaganza of 1977 and a 72-15 loss to UT. agree with 69 that multitudes of 3 incompletes is not going to be too effective.

I continue to be amazed at the assumption that a new coach will instantly fix the mess that Rice FB has digressed into. The fact that the offense has not been a comedy of penalties and timeouts called at the beginning of a quarter or a half has to be considered an improvement. No doubt, it has not been very effective, but outside of 2006, 2008 and 2013 and from about 90-2003, when was it? Defense seems to be more competitive and though mismatched, the days of DBs lining up 8-10 yards off the line, running away from the line at the snap and still giving up big plays seems to be over. And, other than the kickoff return, special teams are looking pretty decent-again better than in years.

Right now, this team is not going to stay on a field vs UT and the like. But I don't see forthcoming future horrors of losing, sorry being assaulted, at home by Navy, Army, ODU, or So Miss and the similar. Hell, who out there doesn't think that PVAMU would have beaten us if the game had gone another 10 minutes. I was late one year to see a UH game at Robertson and after hearing the kickoff and early UH offense, just decided not to go.

I don't know if Bloom's approach is right in every approach, but I see at least some hope and this doesn't look like 2007 or 2009 (or 1988 or 1977 for that matter, even 82 or 83)

+1

Those factors are what gives me hope that an orthodox offense (pound the rock) executed well can succeed in CUSA

Then I guess the next 7 out of 8 games will be the bellwether there, wont they?

Yup. And if we stink it up in those I'll turn up the temp on Bloom's hot seat 500%

I think we'll perform well this weekend. We've been playing good competition, and Baylor has played no one. We're at home and hopefully get Green back. 41-24 Baylor. It's a competitive game until late.