(10-13-2019 09:33 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  At least we get USM and Marshall at home. I still don't think any of those 6 games are as tough as the ones we've already played.

Fine got hurt last night for UNT (left shoulder). They also lost their top RB to injury.

But at this point, I do agree that anything less than 3-3 in the final 6 games is cause for alarm.

When you look at the OOC with hindsight -- Rice has played three teams currently in the top 20 in the both the AP and coaches' poll. And Army got a vote in the coaches' poll as well.

Wow.

What a meat grinder.

I was wonder where they would be ranked had they not beaten Rice.

(10-13-2019 10:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-13-2019 09:33 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  At least we get USM and Marshall at home. I still don't think any of those 6 games are as tough as the ones we've already played.

Fine got hurt last night for UNT (left shoulder). They also lost their top RB to injury.

But at this point, I do agree that anything less than 3-3 in the final 6 games is cause for alarm.

When you look at the OOC with hindsight -- Rice has played three teams currently in the top 20 in the both the AP and coaches' poll. And Army got a vote in the coaches' poll as well.

Wow.

What a meat grinder.

First of all, whether you meant it this way or not, "meat grinder" has a tendency to sound like a bit of a patronizing excuse. Our players have not, actually, been so literally physically outmatched in any game, including UT, that we should presume that they got too beat up to be competitive in later games. To the extent there were actual physical mismatches, they were more along the lines of opposing receivers being taller and faster than our DBs. That can and did result in lopsided scores but it's not like a 5'10" DB gets bruises or concussions from having a 6'4" WR run past him all night. Other than that, our defense has been big and strong enough to hold their own, especially against the run. And Green did get banged up but that could've happened in any game.

Our offense (and pass defense) has been out-talented and incompetent, not physically incapable.

Second, Army can kiss that "others receiving votes" status goodbye. Turns out, they're not actually all that good. And they certainly didn't outweigh/outrun us in the first place anyway.

Third, it was evident to me that rather than stunt our growth, our rigorous schedule instead primed us into winnable situations in our last three games . . . which Bloomgren & Co. then absolutely whiffed on.

We were definitely overmatched against UT. Size, speed and athleticism. The others... I agree.
We’ve been in a position to realistically win 4 out of the 6 we’ve played. Lots of reasons we weren’t able to pull the trigger. A contributing factor, I feel is that we’ve lost for so long we’ve forgotten how to win. Army, LaTech both believed that they were never going to lose to us. And we sorta believed that too.

(10-13-2019 12:03 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(10-13-2019 10:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-13-2019 09:33 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  At least we get USM and Marshall at home. I still don't think any of those 6 games are as tough as the ones we've already played.

Fine got hurt last night for UNT (left shoulder). They also lost their top RB to injury.

But at this point, I do agree that anything less than 3-3 in the final 6 games is cause for alarm.

When you look at the OOC with hindsight -- Rice has played three teams currently in the top 20 in the both the AP and coaches' poll. And Army got a vote in the coaches' poll as well.

Wow.

What a meat grinder.

First of all, whether you meant it this way or not, "meat grinder" has a tendency to sound like a bit of a patronizing excuse. Our players have not, actually, been so literally physically outmatched in any game, including UT, that we should presume that they got too beat up to be competitive in later games. To the extent there were actual physical mismatches, they were more along the lines of opposing receivers being taller and faster than our DBs. That can and did result in lopsided scores but it's not like a 5'10" DB gets bruises or concussions from having a 6'4" WR run past him all night. Other than that, our defense has been big and strong enough to hold their own, especially against the run. And Green did get banged up but that could've happened in any game.

Our offense (and pass defense) has been out-talented and incompetent, not physically incapable.

Second, Army can kiss that "others receiving votes" status goodbye. Turns out, they're not actually all that good. And they certainly didn't outweigh/outrun us in the first place anyway.

Third, it was evident to me that rather than stunt our growth, our rigorous schedule instead primed us into winnable situations in our last three games . . . which Bloomgren & Co. then absolutely whiffed on.

The meat grinder comment was more directed to the level of opponents overall; I dont think there are that many teams that face 3+ top twenty opponents, far fewer when you discount membership in the B12, SEC-W, or B10-E which *require* facing that many, and far, far fewer when you consider G5 teams.

I would say there is a really good chance that Rice played the strongest and hardest OOC schedule of any team in the nation.

That is the reference to a 'meat grinder' and should have added the phrase 'of a schedule' to be more specific.

It was not meant to say that each and every matchup was a physical meat grinder -- just that the OOC schedule was undoubtedly a brutal one.

(10-13-2019 12:37 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  We were definitely overmatched against UT. Size, speed and athleticism. The others... I agree.
We’ve been in a position to realistically win 4 out of the 6 we’ve played. Lots of reasons we weren’t able to pull the trigger. A contributing factor, I feel is that we’ve lost for so long we’ve forgotten how to win. Army, LaTech both believed that they were never going to lose to us. And we sorta believed that too.

I thought we were way more overmatched physically against TexasU this year than the last time we played them in Austin (2015?) when Bailiff and Charlie Strong were the respective coaches. I heard about how TexasU's recruiting had fallen off under Strong, and that game made it believable. That was not a huge physical mismatch. 2019 was.

One thing that often gets forgotten about any rebuilding process is that it is one thing to get to be good enough to make games competitive, but it is another to do the "little things" that turn winnable games into wins instead of losses. You have what I call football-playing skills (blocking, tackling, running plays) that you must learn to compete. But there are other skills that I call game-winning skills (situational awareness, clock management, special teams) that you must master in order to turn close games into wins.

A lot of coaches focus entirely on getting their teams to be competitive through teaching the football-playing skills, and therefore there is a second learning process in learning the game-winning skills to finish winnable games and win them. They reach a transition period where you have learned the football-playing skills but have not mastered the game-winning skills. I think that may be where Bloomgren and Rice are now.

One thing that Bryant did differently, and I think a big reason why he was able to effect turnarounds so consistently, is that he worked his teams intensely on the game-winning skills from day one, while they were learning the football-playing skills, so that as soon as they got good enough to make games close, they started winning those close games.

One thing I like about RUOwls's approach to the passing game is that he teaches a lot of game-winning skills right along with the football-playing skills.

The goal is to get to the point where you have a shot at an upset against such teams. You don't usually get better by playing a schedule of creampuffs.... You don't learn to play in front of 60,000 by playing in front of 15k