(10-12-2019 06:14 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Did Jerry Mack get a new job during the off week (St. Louis Cardinals hitting coach)? The Cards were being no-hit into the 8th inning last night and into the 7th today. They did end up getting 1 hit last night, and 3 hits and a run today, but they lose both games at home to Washington.

I keed, I keed about Coach Mack of course. But it's worth noting that the previous 20 times in the NLCS that a visiting team went on the road and won the first two games, that team ended up going to the World Series all 20 times.

Apparently he worked a doubleheader as the Astros hitting woes that started before the last regular season road trip have continued.

(10-12-2019 10:22 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 10:05 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Louisville up on #19 Wake 55-38 with about 5:30 to play.

Wake has closed it to 52 - 55 with 2:52 left. Louisville ball.

Louisville hangs on to win 62-59.

(10-12-2019 07:06 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 04:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 04:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 04:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Damn --- last two Saturdays the Rice games were viewed in less than optimal places, at far less than optimal local times, an in way less than optimal physical circumstances.
Now that I have the comfy chair (sofa actually) all available, and am sober enough to really enjoy a Rice game ---- its off week. <sigh>

Maybe we will beat off week. Famous poster from 1968 season (0-9-1).

Well.... my deep in the sewer mind can read that more than one way.....

Good point. Does “Maybe” apply to “we” or to “will”?

My sewer rendition was more to the placement of 'beat' with the word subsequent to it.

In conference games, Middle Tennessee and North Texas are worse than expected as both teams lost by a couple scores last night in conference games that should have been close games. Mean Green and Mason Fine's NFL hopes both really miss Graham Harrell's departure to USC. Not the same team that seemed to be trending up after last couple years. UTSA is awful and was also basically down 2+ scores to UAB all game at home.

4 victories should be the minimum expectation for the players/staff but the Vegas really nailed the 2.5 under/over. They are good.

(10-13-2019 07:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 07:06 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 04:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 04:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 04:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Damn --- last two Saturdays the Rice games were viewed in less than optimal places, at far less than optimal local times, an in way less than optimal physical circumstances.
Now that I have the comfy chair (sofa actually) all available, and am sober enough to really enjoy a Rice game ---- its off week. <sigh>

Maybe we will beat off week. Famous poster from 1968 season (0-9-1).

Well.... my deep in the sewer mind can read that more than one way.....

Good point. Does “Maybe” apply to “we” or to “will”?

My sewer rendition was more to the placement of 'beat' with the word subsequent to it.

You had me at “Maybe we will beat off...”

Anybody watching UCLA/Stanford is seeing what happens when you try to run the Bloom/Shaw offense w/ Rice-like talent vs. traditional Stanford-like personnel of past 10-years. And UCLA D is hardly the 27 Yankees.

Bloom formula may work against UTSA and UTEP but will never work against P5 as long as Rice in G5 land. Square peg, round hole.

(10-17-2019 09:14 PM)owl40 Wrote:  Anybody watching UCLA/Stanford is seeing what happens when you try to run the Bloom/Shaw offense w/ Rice-like talent vs. traditional Stanford-like personnel of past 10-years. And UCLA D is hardly the 27 Yankees.

Bloom formula may work against UTSA and UTEP but will never work against P5 as long as Rice in G5 land. Square peg, round hole.

In fairness to Stanford, they're playing with a 3rd string, walk on (not even PWO) QB starting his first game. He clearly has no mobility and no pocket presence. They're also missing 4 of their 5 starting offensive linemen. Makes the running attack just a wee bit difficult.

(10-17-2019 09:47 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-17-2019 09:14 PM)owl40 Wrote:  Anybody watching UCLA/Stanford is seeing what happens when you try to run the Bloom/Shaw offense w/ Rice-like talent vs. traditional Stanford-like personnel of past 10-years. And UCLA D is hardly the 27 Yankees.

Bloom formula may work against UTSA and UTEP but will never work against P5 as long as Rice in G5 land. Square peg, round hole.

In fairness to Stanford, they're playing with a 3rd string, walk on (not even PWO) QB starting his first game. He clearly has no mobility and no pocket presence. They're also missing 4 of their 5 starting offensive linemen. Makes the running attack just a wee bit difficult.

That's the point. Their backup linemen probably would be equivalent to Rice's starters; hence, the ineffective rushing attack against a P5 defense.

Jack West is a 4-star QB, who was ranked in the top ten of pro style QBs in his graduating class. Nearly every college in the country offered him a scholarship, including teams like Alabama and Michigan.

https://247sports.com/Player/Jack-West-77544/

Presumably Bloomgren was involved in recruiting West to Stanford. When I was watching last night, my thought was that this proves that even with a QB the likes of which we will NEVER be able to recruit at Rice, this system of offense stinks. West didn't look any better than Green, who was ranked over 100 spots lower when they both graduated high school.

I also noticed, like Rice, Stanford never seemed to have a WR running in space for the QB. Just seems like it asks a lot of the QBs to make "NFL-type" throws in every game rather than taking advantage of the fact that very few players on any defense in college are professional level players, and exploiting that with schemes to put defenders in bad situations like a lot of teams do. I think that contributes to the QBs holding the ball too long in a collapsing pocket when we (or Stanford) doesn't have an offensive line that is superior to the defensive front we are playing against in a particular week. But maybe I am wrong about all of that.

(10-18-2019 02:34 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(10-17-2019 09:47 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-17-2019 09:14 PM)owl40 Wrote:  Anybody watching UCLA/Stanford is seeing what happens when you try to run the Bloom/Shaw offense w/ Rice-like talent vs. traditional Stanford-like personnel of past 10-years. And UCLA D is hardly the 27 Yankees.
Bloom formula may work against UTSA and UTEP but will never work against P5 as long as Rice in G5 land. Square peg, round hole.

In fairness to Stanford, they're playing with a 3rd string, walk on (not even PWO) QB starting his first game. He clearly has no mobility and no pocket presence. They're also missing 4 of their 5 starting offensive linemen. Makes the running attack just a wee bit difficult.

That's the point. Their backup linemen probably would be equivalent to Rice's starters; hence, the ineffective rushing attack against a P5 defense.

And ineffective against a lot of G5 defenses when there is not a competent passing attack to back defenders off the LOS. The option worked because it threatened every gap and defenses had to play strict assignment football to stop it. We couldn't blow many people off the line, but one missed assignment and we had a breakaway. But a power running attack that hits only 3 or 4 gaps doesn't present the same problem. It depends on o-linemen who can pancake their opponents consistently, and/or a drop-back passer who can make NFL throws to back up LBs and DBs. Our chances of getting either don't seem great to me. As I've said before, I actually think the QB may be a harder get than the o-linemen.

Our passing game looks like it was designed by someone whose idea of a passing attack is "pound the rock." Implement RUOwls's West Coast concepts in a passing attack and you would have a totally different animal.