Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Rice @UNT game thread
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
texowl2 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,338
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 22
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #181
RE: Rice @UNT game thread
I am not sure that it would be hard to make the argument that Hat was the 2nd, at worse 3rd, best coach in Rice FB history. Had some really fun years, but also an era where admin support continued to decline when the opposite was needed. He had some great/solid years everywhere he went. And let's not forget that he recruited the key players on the 2006 and 2008 teams including arguably two of the best offensive players in Rice history, or on the very short list.
11-25-2020 12:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ruowls Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,737
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 77
I Root For:
Location:

Football Genius
Post: #182
RE: Rice @UNT game thread
(11-25-2020 08:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(11-25-2020 02:01 AM)Ourland Wrote:  You show me the stats. Prove me wrong. Also, if Rice could cobble together consistently good offenses year in and year out with the limited talent on hand, wouldn't it have happened by now?

Since 2007, Rice has been trying to force players into a system, rather than adapting the system to reflect the skills of the players that it has.

Bailiff's idea was we have this system, and when we can recruit players who fit the system, then we will be okay. We kept forcing square pegs into round holes, and that worked a couple of time, but even then we were a team with some significant weaknesses--the defense (particularly the secondary) and special teams being two fairly consistent ones. He had two corners who played on Sundays (Callahan and Gaines) and his secondary was still awful, and he had two kickers that one did and one could have played on Sundays (Martens and Boz) but he never built strong special teams around them. The thing that I could never understand is that Bailiff's background was as a defensive coach, he had clearly a defensive philosophy, and he was at least peripherally involved in the development of TCU's effective scheme (although that mostly happened after he left), but his teams never really played good defense or special teams.

Bloomgren has improved special teams and the defense, but his offense is maybe the worst possible fit for the athletes that Rice can recruit, and he seems unwilling to change. If we could recruit Andrew Luck (who almost came here) then perhaps we could make this go, but would Andrew Luck be inclined to come to this dumpster fire?

IMO, to be successful at Rice, you have to be able to adapt to what you have. Some years you might just have the people to do exactly what you want to do. Some years you won't. And winning in those years when you don't have exactly what you want is going to be the key.

I always liked Fred's philosophy--play sound defense, win the kicking game, and have a good QB, and you can beat anyone. I also liked Ken's idea that you can win by doing something better than everybody else (the out-athlete approach) or by doing something different from everybody else (the flexbone). I think Rice has to be contrarian as much as possible, to make preparation harder for opponents and to fit what is often going to be a non-standard talent set. I don't necessarily mean that as an endorsement of the flexbone as much as an endorsement of something contrarian. It sure as heck is not an endorsement of "pound the rock" or whatever Bailiff's approach was.

It isn't the system. It is how you create an advantage. It can be by pure athleticism or a combination of skills and manipulation.

The vast majority of coaches look at it as detailed tasks within a system. It really isn't.
11-25-2020 12:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ourland Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,201
Joined: Apr 2017
Reputation: 53
I Root For: G5ers
Location:
Post: #183
RE: Rice @UNT game thread
(11-25-2020 11:25 AM)ruowls Wrote:  
(11-25-2020 02:01 AM)Ourland Wrote:  
(11-24-2020 09:13 PM)ruowls Wrote:  
(11-24-2020 12:05 AM)Ourland Wrote:  
(11-23-2020 04:01 PM)ruowls Wrote:  What exactly does the triple option do if you don't score?
As you state, the stressor is scoring. Just do the math. If you decrease the denominator, it increases the importance of the numerator. In other words, it is easier to match scoring and get the one stop you need than it is to match NOT scoring with fewer opportunities.

The key is matching scoring which is independent of any offensive scheme or clock manipulation. Now if you HAVE a significant lead, then decreasing opportunities would be beneficial if your lead is larger than the opportunities needed to catch up.

When an offense dominates TOP, it's highly likely that it's scoring touchdowns as well. Most 15-play drives end with a touchdown. So, not only are you scoring, but you're also decreasing the opponent's opportunities.

That’s a pretty big assumption. Show me that stats that prove this. It seems this is your opinion which may not be supported by the stats.

The reason I harp on the triple option so much is because it's the only effective offense that Rice can reasonably execute, given the program's consistent lack of talent. We haven't had a great quarterback since Chase Clement left twelve years ago. Bloomgren still hasn't been able to land a great quarterback, and he's supposed to be an amazing recruiter. LOL!

Again, that is your opinion. I bet you can cobble an offense together that would be pretty good with players that Rice can recruit.

You show me the stats. Prove me wrong. Also, if Rice could cobble together consistently good offenses year in and year out with the limited talent on hand, wouldn't it have happened by now?

Here you go.

https://www.bcftoys.com/2020-fei/

Parse it how you want.
Of the three Acadamies, Air Force does the best and Army the least. Not surprisingly, the Academy that uses the pass the most is the highest ranked and the team that uses it the least is last.

I don't see the correlation between TOP and scoring offense in that data. It looks like to me that the academies don't score often due to their methodical offensive philosophy, but they are scoring to end drives. That would only reinforce my point, but perhaps I'm reading that wrong.
11-25-2020 02:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ruowls Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,737
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 77
I Root For:
Location:

Football Genius
Post: #184
RE: Rice @UNT game thread
(11-25-2020 02:01 PM)Ourland Wrote:  
(11-25-2020 11:25 AM)ruowls Wrote:  
(11-25-2020 02:01 AM)Ourland Wrote:  
(11-24-2020 09:13 PM)ruowls Wrote:  
(11-24-2020 12:05 AM)Ourland Wrote:  When an offense dominates TOP, it's highly likely that it's scoring touchdowns as well. Most 15-play drives end with a touchdown. So, not only are you scoring, but you're also decreasing the opponent's opportunities.

That’s a pretty big assumption. Show me that stats that prove this. It seems this is your opinion which may not be supported by the stats.

The reason I harp on the triple option so much is because it's the only effective offense that Rice can reasonably execute, given the program's consistent lack of talent. We haven't had a great quarterback since Chase Clement left twelve years ago. Bloomgren still hasn't been able to land a great quarterback, and he's supposed to be an amazing recruiter. LOL!

Again, that is your opinion. I bet you can cobble an offense together that would be pretty good with players that Rice can recruit.

You show me the stats. Prove me wrong. Also, if Rice could cobble together consistently good offenses year in and year out with the limited talent on hand, wouldn't it have happened by now?

Here you go.

https://www.bcftoys.com/2020-fei/

Parse it how you want.
Of the three Acadamies, Air Force does the best and Army the least. Not surprisingly, the Academy that uses the pass the most is the highest ranked and the team that uses it the least is last.

I don't see the correlation between TOP and scoring offense in that data. It looks like to me that the academies don't score often due to their methodical offensive philosophy, but they are scoring to end drives. That would only reinforce my point, but perhaps I'm reading that wrong.

There are multiple headings to look at it differently. TOP is irrelevant. The key thing to look at is offensive efficiency and offensive points per drive. The other thing to look at is defensive points per drive allowed.
The point is is that the Academies rank in the middle to even the bottom. In fact, Rice is ahead of Navy this year. Your assertion that the triple option provides an advantage in scoring efficiency and is the only offense that can at Rice isn't historically shown.
11-25-2020 03:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ourland Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,201
Joined: Apr 2017
Reputation: 53
I Root For: G5ers
Location:
Post: #185
RE: Rice @UNT game thread
(11-25-2020 03:14 PM)ruowls Wrote:  
(11-25-2020 02:01 PM)Ourland Wrote:  
(11-25-2020 11:25 AM)ruowls Wrote:  
(11-25-2020 02:01 AM)Ourland Wrote:  
(11-24-2020 09:13 PM)ruowls Wrote:  Again, that is your opinion. I bet you can cobble an offense together that would be pretty good with players that Rice can recruit.

You show me the stats. Prove me wrong. Also, if Rice could cobble together consistently good offenses year in and year out with the limited talent on hand, wouldn't it have happened by now?

Here you go.

https://www.bcftoys.com/2020-fei/

Parse it how you want.
Of the three Acadamies, Air Force does the best and Army the least. Not surprisingly, the Academy that uses the pass the most is the highest ranked and the team that uses it the least is last.

I don't see the correlation between TOP and scoring offense in that data. It looks like to me that the academies don't score often due to their methodical offensive philosophy, but they are scoring to end drives. That would only reinforce my point, but perhaps I'm reading that wrong.

There are multiple headings to look at it differently. TOP is irrelevant. The key thing to look at is offensive efficiency and offensive points per drive. The other thing to look at is defensive points per drive allowed.
The point is is that the Academies rank in the middle to even the bottom. In fact, Rice is ahead of Navy this year. Your assertion that the triple option provides an advantage in scoring efficiency and is the only offense that can at Rice isn't historically shown.

Fair enough, but I think the methodical wishbone isn't designed to score much, but rather score "enough" while also keeping your defense fresh and off of the field. In other words, it's a double punch, for lack of a better term. What you aren't scoring in points, your making up for in TOP.
11-25-2020 10:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Barney Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,660
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 22
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #186
RE: Rice @UNT game thread
(11-24-2020 09:04 PM)ruowls Wrote:  
(11-24-2020 07:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(11-24-2020 12:52 PM)Rice Dad Wrote:  
(11-24-2020 11:57 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Its weird that the Saints have spent the last couple years finding snaps for Taysom Hill while future HOF Drew Brees is the QB, but Bloomgren can't find snaps for future HOF Jovoni Johnson while Collins is the QB.
** To be clear, I am both making a serious point, and also a joke
Neither Bloomgren nor Mack have a clue how to develop QBs, but blame them every week for the failures in the offense (which are design and play calling problems more than anything). As someone else pointed out, Bloom did not call the offense at Stanford (Shaw does) and they were only good with NFL HOF level talent. Bloom has never called this offense and has CUSA level talent (anyone think we don't have a QB as good as the kid NTexas had Saturday?).
Bloom needs to get rid of Mack and hire a FCS/D2/3 or HS OC/QB coach that has strong recruiting ties in Texas, and turn it over completely to run a spread offense that all the kids in Texas play and know how to play. I think I may do a longer post over the holiday weekend about the "lack of talent" Bloom has had at QB in his 3 years, as compared to what other schools in CUSA have that tend to beat us. For those of us who watch HS kids in Texas, Bloom's excuses really add up to lack of ability to develop.

I'm not sure how much is inability to develop a QB and how much is that we really don't have a system that fits well with the players we can recruit. I don't know how well you can develop someone to do something that he can't do. Mack has run a spread, so he should be able to coordinate it. I do agree that the lack of Texas recruiting connections is a significant problem.

I remember when Matt Rhule came to Baylor with no Texas ties. Among his first moves were to hire a coach who had just won three state championships and the president of the Texas HS Coaches Association. It obviously worked well. Bloomgren should have made similar hires, along with hiring a few Rice alums.

I said from the start that I had a feeling that the hardest thing about this "pound the rock" offense might be finding a QB to run it. So far, so bad.

I think any offense where we are committed to having a drop-back QB is going to be a problem. Texas HS kids don't run that kind of scheme. We've tried 3 graduate transfers in 3 years and so far have 6 wins in those 3 years. That's not getting it done. There's a reason why those guys weren't starting at a top program before. We're not getting Joe Burrow or Jalen Hurts caliber talent.

I've said several times that the QB we can get is the athlete that TexasU or aTm tells, "Come here and we can make you a defensive back," but he wants to play QB at this level. And that's not going to be a drop-back QB. So we need an offense where the QB runs some and can also throw.

What I guess I'm saying is that the QB we can recruit is Jovoni Johnson. So design and offense that he can run, give him the ball and let him develop, and stop screwing around with grad transfers who will be basically one and done.

You don’t need a superior athlete at QB either. You need a superior processor.

And our current QB is the LEAST of our offensive problems. We don't have an OL that can "pound the rock", and our play-calling is often times very poor. We have a strong QB and good receivers, but a limited offensive scheme to take advantage of this.
11-25-2020 11:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
75src Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,414
Joined: Mar 2009
Reputation: 21
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #187
RE: Rice @UNT game thread
An assistant coach at the local high school told me getting the players to execute is more important than whatever system you have. It is easier to change systems than players. You are unlikely to be showing something new since coaches know most of the plays from clinics etc.

(11-25-2020 12:24 PM)ruowls Wrote:  
(11-25-2020 08:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(11-25-2020 02:01 AM)Ourland Wrote:  You show me the stats. Prove me wrong. Also, if Rice could cobble together consistently good offenses year in and year out with the limited talent on hand, wouldn't it have happened by now?

Since 2007, Rice has been trying to force players into a system, rather than adapting the system to reflect the skills of the players that it has.

Bailiff's idea was we have this system, and when we can recruit players who fit the system, then we will be okay. We kept forcing square pegs into round holes, and that worked a couple of time, but even then we were a team with some significant weaknesses--the defense (particularly the secondary) and special teams being two fairly consistent ones. He had two corners who played on Sundays (Callahan and Gaines) and his secondary was still awful, and he had two kickers that one did and one could have played on Sundays (Martens and Boz) but he never built strong special teams around them. The thing that I could never understand is that Bailiff's background was as a defensive coach, he had clearly a defensive philosophy, and he was at least peripherally involved in the development of TCU's effective scheme (although that mostly happened after he left), but his teams never really played good defense or special teams.

Bloomgren has improved special teams and the defense, but his offense is maybe the worst possible fit for the athletes that Rice can recruit, and he seems unwilling to change. If we could recruit Andrew Luck (who almost came here) then perhaps we could make this go, but would Andrew Luck be inclined to come to this dumpster fire?

IMO, to be successful at Rice, you have to be able to adapt to what you have. Some years you might just have the people to do exactly what you want to do. Some years you won't. And winning in those years when you don't have exactly what you want is going to be the key.

I always liked Fred's philosophy--play sound defense, win the kicking game, and have a good QB, and you can beat anyone. I also liked Ken's idea that you can win by doing something better than everybody else (the out-athlete approach) or by doing something different from everybody else (the flexbone). I think Rice has to be contrarian as much as possible, to make preparation harder for opponents and to fit what is often going to be a non-standard talent set. I don't necessarily mean that as an endorsement of the flexbone as much as an endorsement of something contrarian. It sure as heck is not an endorsement of "pound the rock" or whatever Bailiff's approach was.

It isn't the system. It is how you create an advantage. It can be by pure athleticism or a combination of skills and manipulation.

The vast majority of coaches look at it as detailed tasks within a system. It really isn't.
11-26-2020 12:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WRCisforgotten79 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,822
Joined: May 2007
Reputation: 42
I Root For: Rice
Location: Houston
Post: #188
RE: Rice @UNT game thread
For good reason, I rarely compliment the fan base of any SEC school, but South Carolina fans were right on target by blasting the rumor that Army's Jeff Monken might be in the running for head coach (and might bring the wishbone/flexbone along with him).
11-26-2020 02:27 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ricefootballnet Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,984
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 86
I Root For: The Institute
Location: Rice/Med Center

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #189
RE: Rice @UNT game thread
(11-25-2020 12:20 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  I am not sure that it would be hard to make the argument that Hat was the 2nd, at worse 3rd, best coach in Rice FB history. Had some really fun years, but also an era where admin support continued to decline when the opposite was needed. He had some great/solid years everywhere he went. And let's not forget that he recruited the key players on the 2006 and 2008 teams including arguably two of the best offensive players in Rice history, or on the very short list.

I’d say Jess, then Jimmy Kitts, then Ken. Just out of curiosity what would be your top three ranking? PS Happy Thanksgiving.
11-26-2020 09:05 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WRCisforgotten79 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,822
Joined: May 2007
Reputation: 42
I Root For: Rice
Location: Houston
Post: #190
RE: Rice @UNT game thread
(11-26-2020 09:05 AM)Ricefootballnet Wrote:  
(11-25-2020 12:20 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  I am not sure that it would be hard to make the argument that Hat was the 2nd, at worse 3rd, best coach in Rice FB history. Had some really fun years, but also an era where admin support continued to decline when the opposite was needed. He had some great/solid years everywhere he went. And let's not forget that he recruited the key players on the 2006 and 2008 teams including arguably two of the best offensive players in Rice history, or on the very short list.

I’d say Jess, then Jimmy Kitts, then Ken. Just out of curiosity what would be your top three ranking? PS Happy Thanksgiving.

Fred Goldsmith is in my top 3. He turned the program around while we were in the Southwest Conference - much tougher than winning in the WAC or C-USA.
11-26-2020 10:10 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 47,623
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 682
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #191
RE: Rice @UNT game thread
1. Goldsmith - as has been said, he turned it around during the SWC days
2. Hatfield - as has been said, he had some good teams at a time when bowl spots were rare, and left the nucleus for the 2006 and 2008 successes. Makes me wonder why the vast majority of the Parliament wanted him gone.
3. Neely - had a long tenure, and some outstanding years and teams, mainly in the one-platoon era. But he rarely maintained it, stepping into the Cotton Bowl race every four or so years. Barely 20 games over .500 for his career.
(This post was last modified: 11-26-2020 01:10 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
11-26-2020 10:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 67,876
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1928
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #192
RE: Rice @UNT game thread
(11-25-2020 12:24 PM)ruowls Wrote:  It isn't the system. It is how you create an advantage. It can be by pure athleticism or a combination of skills and manipulation.
The vast majority of coaches look at it as detailed tasks within a system. It really isn't.

But a properly designed system creates the advantage through proper manipulation and development/utilization of skills.

This is where I think coaches are nuts. Somebody makes a system work because they have superior athletes. So every coach has to adopt it. But what made it work was not that it was a superior system but that it had superior athletes and it fit those particular athletes well. If you don't have the proper athletes, the system won't work for you, no matter how well it worked for somebody else.

I like the idea of doing something contrarian to take advantage of unique skills. That's what the bone does, that's what your passing system does, in very different ways. Probably the most contrarian system I have ever seen is what Paul Johnson did at Georgia Southern and Hawaii, a flexbone system that combined the wishbone and the run-and-shoot. He kind of dropped the run-and-shoot part as he went on to Navy and Georgia Tech, unfortunately. But he scored 42 against a pretty strong Notre Dame team with Ivin Jasper at QB. Unfortunately, Hawaii's defense let in more.

That's the one thing I worry about with your approach. Passing teams historically don't play much defense. I still think the dynamite combination would be a team that played great defense and could also throw the ball.
11-26-2020 01:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
75src Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,414
Joined: Mar 2009
Reputation: 21
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #193
RE: Rice @UNT game thread
I agree with Neely, Kitts, and Hatfield. Heisman and Conover did well for not having much to work with. Goldsmith was also good. i so not want to discuss the bad coaches.

(11-26-2020 09:05 AM)Ricefootballnet Wrote:  
(11-25-2020 12:20 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  I am not sure that it would be hard to make the argument that Hat was the 2nd, at worse 3rd, best coach in Rice FB history. Had some really fun years, but also an era where admin support continued to decline when the opposite was needed. He had some great/solid years everywhere he went. And let's not forget that he recruited the key players on the 2006 and 2008 teams including arguably two of the best offensive players in Rice history, or on the very short list.

I’d say Jess, then Jimmy Kitts, then Ken. Just out of curiosity what would be your top three ranking? PS Happy Thanksgiving.
11-26-2020 04:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ricefootballnet Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,984
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 86
I Root For: The Institute
Location: Rice/Med Center

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #194
RE: Rice @UNT game thread
It’s hard to leave out Jimmy Kitts because he won two Southwest Conference championships, in ‘34 and ‘37. He also had a winning record, and he and Jess Neely were the only Rice coaches to retire or leave with a winning record except… Guess who…?
11-26-2020 05:16 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WRCisforgotten79 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,822
Joined: May 2007
Reputation: 42
I Root For: Rice
Location: Houston
Post: #195
RE: Rice @UNT game thread
(11-26-2020 05:16 PM)Ricefootballnet Wrote:  It’s hard to leave out Jimmy Kitts because he won two Southwest Conference championships, in ‘34 and ‘37. He also had a winning record, and he and Jess Neely were the only Rice coaches to retire or leave with a winning record except… Guess who…?

1. Philip Arbuckle
2. The Toad
11-26-2020 06:19 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ruowls Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,737
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 77
I Root For:
Location:

Football Genius
Post: #196
RE: Rice @UNT game thread
(11-25-2020 10:37 PM)Ourland Wrote:  
(11-25-2020 03:14 PM)ruowls Wrote:  
(11-25-2020 02:01 PM)Ourland Wrote:  
(11-25-2020 11:25 AM)ruowls Wrote:  
(11-25-2020 02:01 AM)Ourland Wrote:  You show me the stats. Prove me wrong. Also, if Rice could cobble together consistently good offenses year in and year out with the limited talent on hand, wouldn't it have happened by now?

Here you go.

https://www.bcftoys.com/2020-fei/

Parse it how you want.
Of the three Acadamies, Air Force does the best and Army the least. Not surprisingly, the Academy that uses the pass the most is the highest ranked and the team that uses it the least is last.

I don't see the correlation between TOP and scoring offense in that data. It looks like to me that the academies don't score often due to their methodical offensive philosophy, but they are scoring to end drives. That would only reinforce my point, but perhaps I'm reading that wrong.

There are multiple headings to look at it differently. TOP is irrelevant. The key thing to look at is offensive efficiency and offensive points per drive. The other thing to look at is defensive points per drive allowed.
The point is is that the Academies rank in the middle to even the bottom. In fact, Rice is ahead of Navy this year. Your assertion that the triple option provides an advantage in scoring efficiency and is the only offense that can at Rice isn't historically shown.

Fair enough, but I think the methodical wishbone isn't designed to score much, but rather score "enough" while also keeping your defense fresh and off of the field. In other words, it's a double punch, for lack of a better term. What you aren't scoring in points, your making up for in TOP.

Just to let you know, I see what you are saying and what many think and I agree with most of it. The point I am trying to make is that when you run off clock and don't score, it places more importance on defensive stops because of fewer opportunities. Therefore, you really aren't protecting your defense but instead placing more meaningful responsibility on them. And if you don't score, you increase the number of stops needed in fewer opportunities. As others have said, the triple option is really good if you score first and pull away early. It also is good when you don't squander an early lead. By nature, the triple option will generally score less....when there are multiple long drives which result in TDs and the defense doesn't give up corresponding equalizing scores easily.
I am not against the triple option. I just think there are better ways to compete. The zone read is basically a form of option and is quite common today.
11-27-2020 11:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ruowls Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,737
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 77
I Root For:
Location:

Football Genius
Post: #197
RE: Rice @UNT game thread
(11-26-2020 01:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(11-25-2020 12:24 PM)ruowls Wrote:  It isn't the system. It is how you create an advantage. It can be by pure athleticism or a combination of skills and manipulation.
The vast majority of coaches look at it as detailed tasks within a system. It really isn't.

But a properly designed system creates the advantage through proper manipulation and development/utilization of skills.

This is where I think coaches are nuts. Somebody makes a system work because they have superior athletes. So every coach has to adopt it. But what made it work was not that it was a superior system but that it had superior athletes and it fit those particular athletes well. If you don't have the proper athletes, the system won't work for you, no matter how well it worked for somebody else.

I like the idea of doing something contrarian to take advantage of unique skills. That's what the bone does, that's what your passing system does, in very different ways. Probably the most contrarian system I have ever seen is what Paul Johnson did at Georgia Southern and Hawaii, a flexbone system that combined the wishbone and the run-and-shoot. He kind of dropped the run-and-shoot part as he went on to Navy and Georgia Tech, unfortunately. But he scored 42 against a pretty strong Notre Dame team with Ivin Jasper at QB. Unfortunately, Hawaii's defense let in more.

That's the one thing I worry about with your approach. Passing teams historically don't play much defense. I still think the dynamite combination would be a team that played great defense and could also throw the ball.

Of course you need a properly designed system. It can't be reliant on elements that simply can't work.

As to defense, if you know how an offense works, you can build a pretty decent defense by knowing what to take away. With the pass happy offenses, it would be pretty easy to slow them down. I remember watching Penn State beat Miami in the Fiesta Bowl many years ago. Penn State had a killer defense that year and was a pretty big underdog in the game for the NC. Penn State varied there coverages underneath by swapping underneath responsibilities by various defenders and Miami threw like 5 INTs and Penn State shut them down and won the game. So, my "system" doesn't let this happen. I read an interesting article a while back about the death of the run and shoot. It said that defenses learned how to confuse the reads and change their rush to exploit protection issues. And that gets to my biggest point. Offenses need players to freelance to be successful. And the "reads" need to be identifying the defender responsible for defending an area that you are attacking.
11-27-2020 11:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ruowls Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,737
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 77
I Root For:
Location:

Football Genius
Post: #198
RE: Rice @UNT game thread
(11-26-2020 12:13 AM)75src Wrote:  An assistant coach at the local high school told me getting the players to execute is more important than whatever system you have. It is easier to change systems than players. You are unlikely to be showing something new since coaches know most of the plays from clinics etc.

Of course this is true. Pretty much everything has been tried. Coaches know about the plays and attend the clinics and try to learn from others. But many don't know much about the plays. Last year, I listened to a meeting my son had before the season. It was just as practice was starting for the season. They went over some plays and that they were basing them off the fly sweep. I looked at it and laughed inside. They failed to account for the defense adjusting to the fly motion. Their assumption was that the defense would change. So, when they played against good defenses, they failed. When they played against poorly coached teams with limited talent, they were successful. They even put in one play that resulted in them leaving TWO unblocked defenders in the hole they were running to. They ran the play in practice and it was stopped for a 3 yard loss on 3 straight plays. They looked bewildered as to why it wasn't working and scrapped the play.

I also went to a clinic and the UCLA coaches were advocating a back shoulder throw to all of their "comeback" routes because it happened in practice one day and seemed to work good. It was a fluke given the way the athletes did their duties and if you look at it schematically it would fail big time with a slight defensive tweak. But hey, it was UCLA and they are a repository for football knowledge.
(This post was last modified: 11-27-2020 12:06 PM by ruowls.)
11-27-2020 12:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2020 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, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.