(08-24-2021 08:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 07:56 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(08-23-2021 11:13 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(08-23-2021 11:02 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(08-23-2021 10:07 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  What video? Link please?

https://mobile.twitter.com/RiceFootball/...2419472395

Nine seconds in

Thanks! Sadly, it looks like cr11owl may be correct.

Can anybody explain WTF the thinking behind that is?

Run to daylight?

Four years in our signature offensive play is a slow developing running play that creates a distinct match up disadvantage and allows for very little in the way of progression into setting up a play action variant. A pop dive to a fullback would be 10x better.

(08-24-2021 07:56 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(08-23-2021 11:13 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(08-23-2021 11:02 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(08-23-2021 10:07 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(08-23-2021 07:17 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  Hard to tell from the angle in the latest video but it looks like the stupid pitch back is still in our playbook.

What video? Link please?

https://mobile.twitter.com/RiceFootball/...2419472395

Nine seconds in

Thanks! Sadly, it looks like cr11owl may be correct.

Can anybody explain WTF the thinking behind that is?

The only thing positive I can see coming from that play is if the QB fakes the pitch and runs the ball himself

(08-24-2021 08:48 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 08:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 07:56 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(08-23-2021 11:13 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(08-23-2021 11:02 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  https://mobile.twitter.com/RiceFootball/...2419472395

Nine seconds in

Thanks! Sadly, it looks like cr11owl may be correct.

Can anybody explain WTF the thinking behind that is?

Run to daylight?

Four years in our signature offensive play is a slow developing running play that creates a distinct match up disadvantage and allows for very little in the way of progression into setting up a play action variant. A pop dive to a fullback would be 10x better.

Which brings up the question, why do our professional coaches that we hired for their football savvy insist on this play?

(08-24-2021 08:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 08:48 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 08:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 07:56 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(08-23-2021 11:13 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Thanks! Sadly, it looks like cr11owl may be correct.

Can anybody explain WTF the thinking behind that is?

Run to daylight?

Four years in our signature offensive play is a slow developing running play that creates a distinct match up disadvantage and allows for very little in the way of progression into setting up a play action variant. A pop dive to a fullback would be 10x better.

Which brings up the question, why do our professional coaches that we hired for their football savvy insist on this play?

I hate the play and wish it would be retired. My guess is that the intent is to get the ball in the RB's hands quickly to allow more him to read the blocks and hit the open hole (similar to RB's in zone schemes finding cutback lanes)-- or "run to daylight" as mentioned above.
*Maybe* if we had a dominant OL this could be effective. But if we had a dominant OL most things would be effective. It's a flawed design

(08-24-2021 10:04 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 08:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 08:48 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 08:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 07:56 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  Can anybody explain WTF the thinking behind that is?

Run to daylight?

Four years in our signature offensive play is a slow developing running play that creates a distinct match up disadvantage and allows for very little in the way of progression into setting up a play action variant. A pop dive to a fullback would be 10x better.

Which brings up the question, why do our professional coaches that we hired for their football savvy insist on this play?

I hate the play and wish it would be retired. My guess is that the intent is to get the ball in the RB's hands quickly to allow more him to read the blocks and hit the open hole (similar to RB's in zone schemes finding cutback lanes)-- or "run to daylight" as mentioned above.
*Maybe* if we had a dominant OL this could be effective. But if we had a dominant OL most things would be effective. It's a flawed design

I'm too lazy to look it up, did B run this at Stanford?

(08-24-2021 10:52 AM)ausowl Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 10:04 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 08:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 08:48 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 08:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Run to daylight?

Four years in our signature offensive play is a slow developing running play that creates a distinct match up disadvantage and allows for very little in the way of progression into setting up a play action variant. A pop dive to a fullback would be 10x better.

Which brings up the question, why do our professional coaches that we hired for their football savvy insist on this play?

I hate the play and wish it would be retired. My guess is that the intent is to get the ball in the RB's hands quickly to allow more him to read the blocks and hit the open hole (similar to RB's in zone schemes finding cutback lanes)-- or "run to daylight" as mentioned above.
*Maybe* if we had a dominant OL this could be effective. But if we had a dominant OL most things would be effective. It's a flawed design

I'm too lazy to look it up, did B run this at Stanford?

Yes, especially with Christian McCaffrey.

(08-24-2021 11:00 AM)Pan95 Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 10:52 AM)ausowl Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 10:04 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 08:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 08:48 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  Four years in our signature offensive play is a slow developing running play that creates a distinct match up disadvantage and allows for very little in the way of progression into setting up a play action variant. A pop dive to a fullback would be 10x better.

Which brings up the question, why do our professional coaches that we hired for their football savvy insist on this play?

I hate the play and wish it would be retired. My guess is that the intent is to get the ball in the RB's hands quickly to allow more him to read the blocks and hit the open hole (similar to RB's in zone schemes finding cutback lanes)-- or "run to daylight" as mentioned above.
*Maybe* if we had a dominant OL this could be effective. But if we had a dominant OL most things would be effective. It's a flawed design

I'm too lazy to look it up, did B run this at Stanford?

Yes, especially with Christian McCaffrey.

And I believe that David Shaw still runs it. Bloomgren didn't find this play on his own; it was in the playbook Shaw gave him. I don't know if they inherited it from Harbaugh.

QB race still too close to call...doesn't seem like a decision is imminent

This is the first year of the Bloomgren era that we have an experienced OL. I'll be very disappointed if we aren't moving the ball effectively this season. There is too much talent and too many weapons on offense to not score points, particularly after the first three games.

(08-25-2021 09:39 PM)Ourland Wrote:  This is the first year of the Bloomgren era that we have an experienced OL. I'll be very disappointed if we aren't moving the ball effectively this season. There is too much talent and too many weapons on offense to not score points, particularly after the first three games.

Ok we’ve got the over-under set on the duration of the season-opening scoring drought at 12 quarters!

I’ll go with the under, BTW, cause I’m feelin’ Optimistic™

(08-25-2021 09:54 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 09:39 PM)Ourland Wrote:  This is the first year of the Bloomgren era that we have an experienced OL. I'll be very disappointed if we aren't moving the ball effectively this season. There is too much talent and too many weapons on offense to not score points, particularly after the first three games.

Ok we’ve got the over-under set on the duration of the season-opening scoring drought at 12 quarters!

I’ll go with the under, BTW, cause I’m feelin’ Optimistic™

I will go with the over - or the under, whichever means we will score.

In fact, I think we we have a tiny chance at scoring the HAT trick: winning at:

H ouston,
A rkansas, and/or
T exas

Of course, you are talking just about scoring. I think we will score some TDs - enough to win? that is why we play the games instead of averaging our predictions.

(08-25-2021 11:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 09:54 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 09:39 PM)Ourland Wrote:  This is the first year of the Bloomgren era that we have an experienced OL. I'll be very disappointed if we aren't moving the ball effectively this season. There is too much talent and too many weapons on offense to not score points, particularly after the first three games.

Ok we’ve got the over-under set on the duration of the season-opening scoring drought at 12 quarters!

I’ll go with the under, BTW, cause I’m feelin’ Optimistic™

I will go with the over - or the under, whichever means we will score.

In fact, I think we we have a tiny chance at scoring the HAT trick: winning at:

H ouston,
A rkansas, and/or
T exas

Of course, you are talking just about scoring. I think we will score some TDs - enough to win? that is why we play the games instead of averaging our predictions.

Wonder whether 1971 was the last time we won a game without scoring a touchdown? Certainly hasn’t happened more recently than that.

(08-26-2021 06:47 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 11:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 09:54 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 09:39 PM)Ourland Wrote:  This is the first year of the Bloomgren era that we have an experienced OL. I'll be very disappointed if we aren't moving the ball effectively this season. There is too much talent and too many weapons on offense to not score points, particularly after the first three games.

Ok we’ve got the over-under set on the duration of the season-opening scoring drought at 12 quarters!

I’ll go with the under, BTW, cause I’m feelin’ Optimistic™

I will go with the over - or the under, whichever means we will score.

In fact, I think we we have a tiny chance at scoring the HAT trick: winning at:

H ouston,
A rkansas, and/or
T exas

Of course, you are talking just about scoring. I think we will score some TDs - enough to win? that is why we play the games instead of averaging our predictions.

Wonder whether 1971 was the last time we won a game without scoring a touchdown? Certainly hasn’t happened more recently than that.

November 5, 1938 - Rice 3, Arkansas 0

In 1954, 1951, 1945, and 1941, Rice won games by the score of 6-0, but I don't know if those involved missed PATs or 2 FGs.

TBH, I doubt we win any games without scoring a TD, certainly not any of the HAT games.

But I think we will be scoring some TDs - how many and when are the questions.

(08-26-2021 07:29 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 06:47 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 11:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 09:54 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 09:39 PM)Ourland Wrote:  This is the first year of the Bloomgren era that we have an experienced OL. I'll be very disappointed if we aren't moving the ball effectively this season. There is too much talent and too many weapons on offense to not score points, particularly after the first three games.

Ok we’ve got the over-under set on the duration of the season-opening scoring drought at 12 quarters!

I’ll go with the under, BTW, cause I’m feelin’ Optimistic™

I will go with the over - or the under, whichever means we will score.

In fact, I think we we have a tiny chance at scoring the HAT trick: winning at:

H ouston,
A rkansas, and/or
T exas

Of course, you are talking just about scoring. I think we will score some TDs - enough to win? that is why we play the games instead of averaging our predictions.

Wonder whether 1971 was the last time we won a game without scoring a touchdown? Certainly hasn’t happened more recently than that.

November 5, 1938 - Rice 3, Arkansas 0

In 1954, 1951, 1945, and 1941, Rice won games by the score of 6-0, but I don't know if those involved missed PATs or 2 FGs.

In 63 or 64, we tied Texas Tech 6-6. Us, missed PAT, them 2 FGs.

Not sure what to think about the latest Sammy mascot outfit.

(08-26-2021 07:55 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

Not sure what to think about the latest Sammy mascot outfit.

I'm sure of what to think.

(08-26-2021 06:47 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 11:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 09:54 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 09:39 PM)Ourland Wrote:  This is the first year of the Bloomgren era that we have an experienced OL. I'll be very disappointed if we aren't moving the ball effectively this season. There is too much talent and too many weapons on offense to not score points, particularly after the first three games.

Ok we’ve got the over-under set on the duration of the season-opening scoring drought at 12 quarters!

I’ll go with the under, BTW, cause I’m feelin’ Optimistic™

I will go with the over - or the under, whichever means we will score.

In fact, I think we we have a tiny chance at scoring the HAT trick: winning at:

H ouston,
A rkansas, and/or
T exas

Of course, you are talking just about scoring. I think we will score some TDs - enough to win? that is why we play the games instead of averaging our predictions.

Wonder whether 1971 was the last time we won a game without scoring a touchdown? Certainly hasn’t happened more recently than that.

Topline: Maybe 1989 @ Baylor, but I'm not sure.

I tried looking it up on sports-reference.com, but their box scores only go back through the 2000-01 season. Here's the query that shows that:

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/pla...rder_by=td

Games since 2000 that Rice won and scored at least one field goal, ordered by number of TDs Rice scored. The closest we got to this achievement in the data was 2004 against Houston where we won 10-7. It's the only game in the data that we won with one TD. I guess we were technically just as able to to win 2013 vs. UTEP (who also only scored 7 points against us), but we scored six TDs after the opening FG.

For the curious, the data for points and win/loss go back much farther. The fewest points we've ever scored in a victory was in 1938 vs. Arkansas, 3-0.

Back to the original question of "Are there any games we won without a TD since 1971?" Maybe this linked 1989 game versus Baylor that we finished 6-3. I can't tell you if we scored two FGs, three safeties, or a TD without the PAT. https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/box...aylor.html

I tried looking in our media packet for details, but it doesn't have any info not on that page (though it does more clearly say the game was in Waco).

https://riceowls.com/documents/2020/9/17...20Book.pdf

I found both schools' student newspapers through their libraries' archives. And most unfortunately, neither did a full write-up on that game because of Thanksgiving. The Baylor Lariat didn't publish between the Friday before the game (the 17th) and the second Tuesday after (the 28th). By the time they published again, they were more interested in writing about the 50-7 thrashing they gave to UT the Saturday after Thanksgiving. Our game just gets a few passing remarks about being a "disappointing loss" without comment on how scoring happened. See page 5.

https://digitalcollections-baylor.quarte...tem=196709

In the first Thresher issued after the game on December 1, the story on page 17 is more concerned with the next day's Bayou Bucket (which did not go well for us). Because we didn't play that Thanksgiving, the story also makes passing references to the Baylor game, and the fact that it says the offensive highlight in Waco was Eric Henley's then-school-record 77th reception for the season suggests that we didn't score a TD, but it doesn't say that outright anywhere.

https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/h...sAllowed=y

If anybody is a subscriber to the Chronicle online, here's the search for their archive. It should be the first story. That's the last place I can think of to look.

https://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Arc...weights=no

Nope. It was a 6-yard TD run by Greg Willig. The PAT kick was blocked. That was game in which the stud Baylor LB returned an interception for a TD but it was called back by an inadvertent whistle.

(08-26-2021 09:09 AM)Uncle Benjamin Wrote:  Nope. It was a 6-yard TD run by Greg Willig. The PAT kick was blocked. That was game in which the stud Baylor LB returned an interception for a TD but it was called back by an inadvertent whistle.

You're right. I remember that game.