Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Rice v LA Tech Game Thread
Author Message
mrbig Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,662
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 127
I Root For: Rice
Location: New Orleans
Post: #281
RE: Rice v LA Tech Game Thread
(09-28-2019 10:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Run game was actually pretty effective in the first half. But sputtered out in the second.

My point was that the run game more effective when Rice was passing more. Really, 4 of Rice's first 5 drives were pretty good and pretty balanced. One ended with an INT and another with a missed short FG. Really, I have 2 main complaints:
(1) Literally not a single deep pass all game. Not one. I don't understand.
(2) Rice had 1st-and-10 at the LaTech 24 with the game tied late in the 4th. Run, Run, Run (+1 total yards), FG. That was horrible. Then in OT Run, Run, Run (+8 yards), FG. Just no killer instinct and no faith in the QB in those critical situations.
09-29-2019 01:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
waltgreenberg Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,268
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 141
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Chicago

The Parliament Awards
Post: #282
RE: Rice v LA Tech Game Thread
(09-29-2019 01:07 AM)mrbig Wrote:  
(09-28-2019 10:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Run game was actually pretty effective in the first half. But sputtered out in the second.

My point was that the run game more effective when Rice was passing more. Really, 4 of Rice's first 5 drives were pretty good and pretty balanced. One ended with an INT and another with a missed short FG. Really, I have 2 main complaints:
(1) Literally not a single deep pass all game. Not one. I don't understand.
(2) Rice had 1st-and-10 at the LaTech 24 with the game tied late in the 4th. Run, Run, Run (+1 total yards), FG. That was horrible. Then in OT Run, Run, Run (+8 yards), FG. Just no killer instinct and no faith in the QB in those critical situations.

I agree, but without a tall receiver, our passing attack within the red zone has been an abomination all season. Do we have a single complete pass down there?
09-29-2019 06:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,803
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3211
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #283
RE: Rice v LA Tech Game Thread
It would appear from these comments that the prevailing opinion here is that running the ball is playing not to lose while throwing the ball is playing to win. Why?

Sometimes, playing not to lose is the best way to win. If we run the ball on the play where we threw the interception just before the half, worst result is probably that we kick the FG and if everything else stays the same we win in regulation.

Philosophically, I still don't think Rice can recruit the athletes to make "pound the rock" work consistently. I think Rice is going to need to throw the ball more. But we need to throw the ball better to make that work.
(This post was last modified: 09-29-2019 06:46 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
09-29-2019 06:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,669
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #284
RE: Rice v LA Tech Game Thread
(09-29-2019 01:07 AM)mrbig Wrote:  
(09-28-2019 10:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Run game was actually pretty effective in the first half. But sputtered out in the second.

My point was that the run game more effective when Rice was passing more. Really, 4 of Rice's first 5 drives were pretty good and pretty balanced. One ended with an INT and another with a missed short FG. Really, I have 2 main complaints:
(1) Literally not a single deep pass all game. Not one. I don't understand.
(2) Rice had 1st-and-10 at the LaTech 24 with the game tied late in the 4th. Run, Run, Run (+1 total yards), FG. That was horrible. Then in OT Run, Run, Run (+8 yards), FG. Just no killer instinct and no faith in the QB in those critical situations.

Completely agree with this sentiment. My friends and I even joked how it was going to be a “pound the rock” series at that point. Absolutely maddening given that we were fairly effective at throwing the ball.

I don’t get why we don’t rely on play actions more often - teams know we want to run it, and we should try and take advantage of that by keeping them honest.
09-29-2019 07:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hank16 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 246
Joined: Aug 2018
Reputation: 2
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #285
RE: Rice v LA Tech Game Thread
(09-29-2019 06:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It would appear from these comments that the prevailing opinion here is that running the ball is playing not to lose while throwing the ball is playing to win. Why?

Sometimes, playing not to lose is the best way to win. If we run the ball on the play where we threw the interception just before the half, worst result is probably that we kick the FG and if everything else stays the same we win in regulation.

Philosophically, I still don't think Rice can recruit the athletes to make "pound the rock" work consistently. I think Rice is going to need to throw the ball more. But we need to throw the ball better to make that work.

This loss is on the coaching staff! The boys deserve better
09-29-2019 07:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
waltgreenberg Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,268
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 141
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Chicago

The Parliament Awards
Post: #286
RE: Rice v LA Tech Game Thread
(09-29-2019 07:55 AM)Hank16 Wrote:  
(09-29-2019 06:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It would appear from these comments that the prevailing opinion here is that running the ball is playing not to lose while throwing the ball is playing to win. Why?

Sometimes, playing not to lose is the best way to win. If we run the ball on the play where we threw the interception just before the half, worst result is probably that we kick the FG and if everything else stays the same we win in regulation.

Philosophically, I still don't think Rice can recruit the athletes to make "pound the rock" work consistently. I think Rice is going to need to throw the ball more. But we need to throw the ball better to make that work.

This loss is on the coaching staff! The boys deserve better

Agreed. The ultraconservative, way too predictable play calling....the inexplicable lack of time management the final 65 seconds of the first half....and what's with the backward pitches to the RB?
09-29-2019 08:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,803
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3211
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #287
RE: Rice v LA Tech Game Thread
(09-29-2019 08:11 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  
(09-29-2019 07:55 AM)Hank16 Wrote:  
(09-29-2019 06:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It would appear from these comments that the prevailing opinion here is that running the ball is playing not to lose while throwing the ball is playing to win. Why?
Sometimes, playing not to lose is the best way to win. If we run the ball on the play where we threw the interception just before the half, worst result is probably that we kick the FG and if everything else stays the same we win in regulation.
Philosophically, I still don't think Rice can recruit the athletes to make "pound the rock" work consistently. I think Rice is going to need to throw the ball more. But we need to throw the ball better to make that work.
This loss is on the coaching staff! The boys deserve better
Agreed. The ultraconservative, way too predictable play calling....the inexplicable lack of time management the final 65 seconds of the first half....and what's with the backward pitches to the RB?

But it's not the play calling, it is the philosophy. If your approach is going to be "pound the rock," then that is what you do.

I don't like the backward pitches either, and am not really sure what is their purpose. This is not the offensive scheme that I think Rice can recruit the people needed to run successfully. But it is the scheme they want, so those are the plays they are going to call.

Walt, what is your specific complaint with the time management? I realize that saying "except for the interception" is sort of like asking Mrs. Lincoln if the play was any good, but except for the interception we pretty much got exactly what you want--use up the clock so they don't get a possession, and get at least a field goal. The QB needs to know if it's not there, throw the ball away and kick the FG in that situation.
09-29-2019 08:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
texowl2 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,077
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 33
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #288
RE: Rice v LA Tech Game Thread
The time mgmt. at the end of the 2Q was spot on. They had 1 TO and 10 seconds to go on third down and short goal. Perfectly set up for 1 play and a FG. Would anybody preferred that we leave LT time? How else would you have managed it?
09-29-2019 08:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
waltgreenberg Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,268
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 141
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Chicago

The Parliament Awards
Post: #289
RE: Rice v LA Tech Game Thread
(09-29-2019 08:49 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  The time mgmt. at the end of the 2Q was spot on. They had 1 TO and 10 seconds to go on third down and short goal. Perfectly set up for 1 play and a FG. Would anybody preferred that we leave LT time? How else would you have managed it?

Disagree. We had first and goal from the 3 with 65 seconds left on the clock and 2 timeouts. We let 35 seconds run off the clock on the very first play (with was an idiotic pitch wide to the short side of the field that lost 6 yards). The next play ended with 23 seconds left on the clock and we let it run down to 10 seconds before calling TO. That left absolutely no margin for error (clockwise) on that 3rd down play. Why cut it so close? Are you really concerned with leaving LT 10 - 15 seconds left on the clock deep in their own territory at the end of the half?
09-29-2019 09:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,669
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #290
RE: Rice v LA Tech Game Thread
(09-29-2019 08:11 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  
(09-29-2019 07:55 AM)Hank16 Wrote:  
(09-29-2019 06:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It would appear from these comments that the prevailing opinion here is that running the ball is playing not to lose while throwing the ball is playing to win. Why?

Sometimes, playing not to lose is the best way to win. If we run the ball on the play where we threw the interception just before the half, worst result is probably that we kick the FG and if everything else stays the same we win in regulation.

Philosophically, I still don't think Rice can recruit the athletes to make "pound the rock" work consistently. I think Rice is going to need to throw the ball more. But we need to throw the ball better to make that work.

This loss is on the coaching staff! The boys deserve better

Agreed. The ultraconservative, way too predictable play calling....the inexplicable lack of time management the final 65 seconds of the first half....and what's with the backward pitches to the RB?

Disagree about it all being on the staff - I think they made some questionable decisions, but we had a number of uncharacteristic penalties, missed another chip-shot field goal, threw a horrible interception to end the half, dropped some interceptions that could have put us in a better position, etc.
09-29-2019 12:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
baker-'13 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 430
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 9
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #291
RE: Rice v LA Tech Game Thread
(09-29-2019 09:02 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  
(09-29-2019 08:49 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  The time mgmt. at the end of the 2Q was spot on. They had 1 TO and 10 seconds to go on third down and short goal. Perfectly set up for 1 play and a FG. Would anybody preferred that we leave LT time? How else would you have managed it?

Disagree. We had first and goal from the 3 with 65 seconds left on the clock and 2 timeouts. We let 35 seconds run off the clock on the very first play (with was an idiotic pitch wide to the short side of the field that lost 6 yards). The next play ended with 23 seconds left on the clock and we let it run down to 10 seconds before calling TO. That left absolutely no margin for error (clockwise) on that 3rd down play. Why cut it so close? Are you really concerned with leaving LT 10 - 15 seconds left on the clock deep in their own territory at the end of the half?

...yes?

They averaged 400 ypg coming in. It seems reasonable that the goal is to chew up clock and get on the board and not put the defense out there in a high-stress situation unnecessarily.
09-29-2019 03:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
franklyconfused Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 952
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 16
I Root For: Rice
Location: Houston
Post: #292
RE: Rice v LA Tech Game Thread
(09-29-2019 03:46 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  
(09-29-2019 09:02 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  
(09-29-2019 08:49 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  The time mgmt. at the end of the 2Q was spot on. They had 1 TO and 10 seconds to go on third down and short goal. Perfectly set up for 1 play and a FG. Would anybody preferred that we leave LT time? How else would you have managed it?

Disagree. We had first and goal from the 3 with 65 seconds left on the clock and 2 timeouts. We let 35 seconds run off the clock on the very first play (with was an idiotic pitch wide to the short side of the field that lost 6 yards). The next play ended with 23 seconds left on the clock and we let it run down to 10 seconds before calling TO. That left absolutely no margin for error (clockwise) on that 3rd down play. Why cut it so close? Are you really concerned with leaving LT 10 - 15 seconds left on the clock deep in their own territory at the end of the half?

...yes?

They averaged 400 ypg coming in. It seems reasonable that the goal is to chew up clock and get on the board and not put the defense out there in a high-stress situation unnecessarily.

And that view was validated at the end of the second half. We left them with under three minutes to score after our last regulation field goal. They got over 40 yards in the first two plays. They gained 56 yards in four plays before finally stalling out for the field goal. It took only 1:41 with no timeouts. It was all so fast that both teams kicked a field goal and punted the ball in the final three minutes.
09-29-2019 04:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frizzy Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,351
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 54
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #293
RE: Rice v LA Tech Game Thread
If you've got the ball in the red zone you should be managing the clock in a way that best results in a touchdown. Worrying less about getting into the end zone than about what the other team will do with 15 seconds remaining is a prime example of playing not to lose.
09-29-2019 04:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,803
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3211
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #294
RE: Rice v LA Tech Game Thread
(09-29-2019 09:02 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  
(09-29-2019 08:49 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  The time mgmt. at the end of the 2Q was spot on. They had 1 TO and 10 seconds to go on third down and short goal. Perfectly set up for 1 play and a FG. Would anybody preferred that we leave LT time? How else would you have managed it?
Disagree. We had first and goal from the 3 with 65 seconds left on the clock and 2 timeouts. We let 35 seconds run off the clock on the very first play (with was an idiotic pitch wide to the short side of the field that lost 6 yards). The next play ended with 23 seconds left on the clock and we let it run down to 10 seconds before calling TO. That left absolutely no margin for error (clockwise) on that 3rd down play. Why cut it so close? Are you really concerned with leaving LT 10 - 15 seconds left on the clock deep in their own territory at the end of the half?

FWIW, it was first and goal from the 8, but that doesn't really affect the following. I am assuming the 2 timeouts is correct, because I don't remember.

At that point, you want to take as much time off the clock as you can, and still score. You have two timeouts, plus an incomplete pass gives you the opportunity to stop the clock three times. You want to save one timeout for between 3rd and 4th down, to be able to get your FG team on in an orderly fashion and possibly to have time to decide between FG and going for it. I think you run on first down, if you don't score then bleed some clock and call time out. Second down is the down where I would throw, throw it all the way to the end zone, and if it's not there then throw it away quickly; incomplete is good, sack or pick are bad. Third down run it, if you don't score then run the clock down to 0:05, take your second time out, and kick the FG. You are willing to leave some some clock if you score a TD, but you want to run it to zero if you kick the FG. Taking time out after both 1st and 2nd downs pretty much forces you to throw on 3rd down, and puts you at risk of a sack, pick, or completion short of the goal line. The objective is to make sure that you score more points than they do in that 65 seconds.

This is the sort of sequence that needs to be worked out in June or July, if not sooner, AND PRACTICED, so that everybody knows in advance exactly how you are going to do it when it happens in a game.

Darrell Royal said, "There are 3 things that can happen when you throw the ball, and two of them are bad." I actually think there are generally 2 that are good (complete, incomplete) and 2 that are bad (pick, sack). In this situation there are 5 possible outcomes, of which 2 are good (complete for TD, incomplete) and 3 are bad (complete short of TD because it messes up your clock management, sack for same reason, or pick). So on whatever down you throw, you make sure to get one of the 2 good ones. And BTW, the most famous offensive play call of Royal's career was probably Street to Peschel, a 40-yard pass play on 4th and 1.
(This post was last modified: 09-30-2019 05:36 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
09-29-2019 04:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
waltgreenberg Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,268
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 141
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Chicago

The Parliament Awards
Post: #295
RE: Rice v LA Tech Game Thread
(09-29-2019 04:17 PM)franklyconfused Wrote:  
(09-29-2019 03:46 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  
(09-29-2019 09:02 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  
(09-29-2019 08:49 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  The time mgmt. at the end of the 2Q was spot on. They had 1 TO and 10 seconds to go on third down and short goal. Perfectly set up for 1 play and a FG. Would anybody preferred that we leave LT time? How else would you have managed it?

Disagree. We had first and goal from the 3 with 65 seconds left on the clock and 2 timeouts. We let 35 seconds run off the clock on the very first play (with was an idiotic pitch wide to the short side of the field that lost 6 yards). The next play ended with 23 seconds left on the clock and we let it run down to 10 seconds before calling TO. That left absolutely no margin for error (clockwise) on that 3rd down play. Why cut it so close? Are you really concerned with leaving LT 10 - 15 seconds left on the clock deep in their own territory at the end of the half?

...yes?

They averaged 400 ypg coming in. It seems reasonable that the goal is to chew up clock and get on the board and not put the defense out there in a high-stress situation unnecessarily.

And that view was validated at the end of the second half. We left them with under three minutes to score after our last regulation field goal. They got over 40 yards in the first two plays. They gained 56 yards in four plays before finally stalling out for the field goal. It took only 1:41 with no timeouts. It was all so fast that both teams kicked a field goal and punted the ball in the final three minutes.

There's a big difference between leaving them with 3 minutes left, or even 1 minute left, and leaving them with 10 - 15 seconds left. There was very, very little risk there.
09-29-2019 07:56 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: #296
RE: Rice v LA Tech Game Thread
(09-29-2019 06:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It would appear from these comments that the prevailing opinion here is that running the ball is playing not to lose while throwing the ball is playing to win. Why?

Sometimes, playing not to lose is the best way to win. If we run the ball on the play where we threw the interception just before the half, worst result is probably that we kick the FG and if everything else stays the same we win in regulation.

Philosophically, I still don't think Rice can recruit the athletes to make "pound the rock" work consistently. I think Rice is going to need to throw the ball more. But we need to throw the ball better to make that work.

Nah. You want to avoid unnecessary risk. But if you try to minimize all risk you end up being to passive to win by squandering opportunity to win.
09-29-2019 11:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,803
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3211
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #297
RE: Rice v LA Tech Game Thread
(09-29-2019 11:10 PM)ruowls Wrote:  
(09-29-2019 06:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It would appear from these comments that the prevailing opinion here is that running the ball is playing not to lose while throwing the ball is playing to win. Why?
Sometimes, playing not to lose is the best way to win. If we run the ball on the play where we threw the interception just before the half, worst result is probably that we kick the FG and if everything else stays the same we win in regulation.
Philosophically, I still don't think Rice can recruit the athletes to make "pound the rock" work consistently. I think Rice is going to need to throw the ball more. But we need to throw the ball better to make that work.
Nah. You want to avoid unnecessary risk. But if you try to minimize all risk you end up being to passive to win by squandering opportunity to win.

I said sometimes. That doesn't mean eliminating all risk. But it does mean eliminating unnecessary risk. I think we agree.
09-30-2019 05:33 AM
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.