(09-05-2021 10:28 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-05-2021 09:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Today I heard from someone with connections to the Louisville program that the word from Louisville is that McCaffrey is the new Fanuzzi--doesn't want to put the work in, thinks he should just show up and get to play on inherent ability. According to this rumor, Bloomgren took him as a favor to his dad. It's a rumor, and I have no way to validate any of that.
If that is true (and again, I have no way to verify it), then I say it's time to go with JoVani and an offense designed for a running QB.

Then why post it? Seriously. All you're doing in slandering McCaffrey based on what you admit is just a ideal rumor from a Louisville fan (who could be looking for an excuse as to why McCaffrey left Louisville).

Not from a Louisville fan.

(09-05-2021 10:28 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-05-2021 09:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Today I heard from someone with connections to the Louisville program that the word from Louisville is that McCaffrey is the new Fanuzzi--doesn't want to put the work in, thinks he should just show up and get to play on inherent ability. According to this rumor, Bloomgren took him as a favor to his dad. It's a rumor, and I have no way to validate any of that.

If that is true (and again, I have no way to verify it), then I say it's time to go with JoVani and an offense designed for a running QB.

Then why post it? Seriously. All you're doing in slandering McCaffrey based on what you admit is just a ideal rumor from a Louisville fan (who could be looking for an excuse as to why McCaffrey left Louisville).

Also, McCaffrey was at Louisville for all of about 15 minutes.

Regardless of the rumor, I think some "team dynamics" reason is the likeliest explanation for why Green stayed in so long. Maybe given Green's high standing with the team, Bloom promised him that the first game would be essentially all his to cement the starting job.

(09-06-2021 01:01 PM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  Regardless of the rumor, I think some "team dynamics" reason is the likeliest explanation for why Green stayed in so long. Maybe given Green's high standing with the team, Bloom promised him that the first game would be essentially all his to cement the starting job.

Maybe it takes awhile to learn the offense?

(09-06-2021 01:44 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(09-06-2021 01:01 PM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  Regardless of the rumor, I think some "team dynamics" reason is the likeliest explanation for why Green stayed in so long. Maybe given Green's high standing with the team, Bloom promised him that the first game would be essentially all his to cement the starting job.

Maybe it takes awhile to learn the offense?

Yep. That pitch back is tough to learn. Like trying to learn Mandarin. 哎呀！

(09-06-2021 02:03 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(09-06-2021 01:44 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(09-06-2021 01:01 PM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  Regardless of the rumor, I think some "team dynamics" reason is the likeliest explanation for why Green stayed in so long. Maybe given Green's high standing with the team, Bloom promised him that the first game would be essentially all his to cement the starting job.

Maybe it takes awhile to learn the offense?

Yep. That pitch back is tough to learn. Like trying to learn Mandarin. 哎呀！

Well there are thousands on campus who can help with the Mandarin.

(09-05-2021 11:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Stanford is like Rice in that you are dealing mostly with true student-athletes, but it is very different in that they recruit to a P5 profile while we do not. We have to recruit from what is left over after the P5s take their picks. We can still win with what's left, particularly against fellow CUSA schools that are in the same boat, but not with a scheme designed for the athletes that Stanford can recruit.

Or against a team that uses schemes designed for the athletes that we can't get (and they do).

What concerns me is the 'preseason' attitude that I still worry about. I don't know if its still there. I think its clearly not on defense or in the players... but I worry that its in the coaches. Don't show your best plays... it will hurt you in conference?? Really?? Not if you're good at them,. Why not just get more 'best' plays??

(09-05-2021 12:27 PM)owl40 Wrote:  The football field is 40 yards wide and 100 yards long. Trying to win between a very narrow horizontal and vertical box only works when your dudes are better than other team.

Stanford model (NFL model) works in the NFL b/c you have NFL dudes on both sides of ball. Thus, establishing a hard-nose culture can work and many examples of it working. It occasionally worked at Stanford when you had P5 NFL guys like Luck, Love, Fleener, etc. We are seeing that when you don't have that talent, Stanford can't even beat K-State and likely to have another year of < .500 performance.

So bringing that philosophy to Rice is a fool's errand. Rice does not have NFL talent or even P5 talent. So lining-up and imposing your will won't work. Saw it last two-years, saw it yesterday, will see it again next week against Houston, and following week against Texas. However, it will work great against TSU but that is not the goal. Jury is out for rest of C-USA but again, that is not the goal either.

Every G5 program that has had success against P5 has a way to spread others out to leverage space as an advantage. We can talk about pros/cons of Service Academies, Boise, UCF, Memphis, Hawaii, SMU, etc, offensive schemes but the common denominator is NOT running a pro-style manhood between the tackles attack. There are zero examples of that working where G5 beats P5 for a reason.

I don't actually blame Bloom for that. He is a true football guy but a square peg in a round hole at Rice. He needs to be in the NFL calling plays, not a struggling P5 program looking for relevance. Bloom's rolodex is broad/deep and he will easily find a path out to a nice NFL/P5 gig but Rice will be even deeper into irrelevance as a result of choosing a path that was doomed to fail from the start.

The guy who hired him made the real mistake here, not Bloom and time will show that.

This... and it concerns me that we have been following this model for a while now in hiring coaches. Its as if some of the guys from the Hatfield era (or who remember it) are enamored with it, but don't really understand it.

(09-05-2021 12:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-05-2021 12:07 PM)75src Wrote:  An assistant at the local high school told me it is not really the various schemes that are important but getting the players to execute the schemes. The players are more important than the schemes.

And the closer your scheme fits the players' skill sets, the easier it is for them to execute.

This. Its a two way street. I'd also note that high schools don't recruit... so they have to adjust the scheme to the players they get. Rice can do a little of this... but Alabama (as an example) can get anyone... so they keep a scheme and only adjust if they get a really remarkable player.

(09-06-2021 03:43 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  Well there are thousands on campus who can help with the Mandarin.

You made me both laugh, AND cry.

(09-07-2021 01:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  What concerns me is the 'preseason' attitude that I still worry about. I don't know if its still there. I think its clearly not on defense or in the players... but I worry that its in the coaches. Don't show your best plays... it will hurt you in conference?? Really?? Not if you're good at them,. Why not just get more 'best' plays??

I wonder what plays you think we are hiding/saving for later? The fake punt?

I do think of our schedule as a two part season - the "big" guys (first three) and the "little" guys (last nine). But I don't think Bloom or anybody is sacrificing anything against the big guys to save it for the little guys. JMHO.

Now, if we see a whole new playbook for the conference games, then you have a point. But I expect to see the same old playbook all season.

(09-07-2021 06:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But I expect to see the same old playbook all season.

Well there’s a depressing thought.

Folks, it's not the playbook or the play calls, it's the execution. Of course, my worry is that the reason the execution is lacking is because the skill sets to execute the plays are lacking.

Luke McCaffrey, off mostly film, seems to have some decent running skills, but his passing is suspect.
JoVoni Johnson similarly appears to have good running skills but suspect passing.
Wiley Green is not a strong runner but perhaps the best passer.

Off those skill sets, Green is probably the best QB for "pound the rock." The question is whether "pound the rock" is the best scheme for this collection of talent.

(09-07-2021 08:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Folks, it's not the playbook or the play calls, it's the execution. Of course, my worry is that the reason the execution is lacking is because the skill sets to execute the plays are lacking.

Luke McCaffrey, off mostly film, seems to have some decent running skills, but his passing is suspect.
JoVoni Johnson similarly appears to have good running skills but suspect passing.
Wiley Green is not a strong runner but perhaps the best passer.

Off those skill sets, Green is probably the best QB for "pound the rock." The question is whether "pound the rock" is the best scheme for this collection of talent.

??? Based on what are saying Green is the superior passer over McCaffrey? The films on Luke do not show that. Green is and always has been a turnover machine. Combine that with his total lack of mobility and I fail to see how he can possibly be the better choice in ANY scheme over McCaffrey.

(09-05-2021 10:28 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-05-2021 09:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Today I heard from someone with connections to the Louisville program that the word from Louisville is that McCaffrey is the new Fanuzzi--doesn't want to put the work in, thinks he should just show up and get to play on inherent ability. According to this rumor, Bloomgren took him as a favor to his dad. It's a rumor, and I have no way to validate any of that.

If that is true (and again, I have no way to verify it), then I say it's time to go with JoVani and an offense designed for a running QB.

Then why post it? Seriously. All you're doing in slandering McCaffrey based on what you admit is just a ideal rumor from a Louisville fan (who could be looking for an excuse as to why McCaffrey left Louisville).

I think we all have enough intuition to make up our minds as to whether or not it's true or just slander. We don't believe everything we hear. This is an athletics message board. It's a place for free discussion. A lot of time, those discussions evolve around baseless rumors. No one's life is being ruined here.

(09-07-2021 08:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Folks, it's not the playbook or the play calls, it's the execution. Of course, my worry is that the reason the execution is lacking is because the skill sets to execute the plays are lacking.

Luke McCaffrey, off mostly film, seems to have some decent running skills, but his passing is suspect.
JoVoni Johnson similarly appears to have good running skills but suspect passing.
Wiley Green is not a strong runner but perhaps the best passer.

Off those skill sets, Green is probably the best QB for "pound the rock." The question is whether "pound the rock" is the best scheme for this collection of talent.

It is the former to some extent. Having any QB let alone a not strong or terribly accurate armed QB throw a 40 yard pass to try to complete a 5-yard out is the passing equivalent of our signature pitch dive. I just don't think these are plays anyone at the college or even pro level can run consistently with success.

(09-07-2021 06:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 01:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  What concerns me is the 'preseason' attitude that I still worry about. I don't know if its still there. I think its clearly not on defense or in the players... but I worry that its in the coaches. Don't show your best plays... it will hurt you in conference?? Really?? Not if you're good at them,. Why not just get more 'best' plays??

I wonder what plays you think we are hiding/saving for later? The fake punt?

I do think of our schedule as a two part season - the "big" guys (first three) and the "little" guys (last nine). But I don't think Bloom or anybody is sacrificing anything against the big guys to save it for the little guys. JMHO.

Now, if we see a whole new playbook for the conference games, then you have a point. But I expect to see the same old playbook all season.

Ibid to Tomball's post....

But I guess I should say it differently.

Paraphrasing Sun Tzu. If equally matched as in the last 9, you do battle. Your plan against theirs... your scheme against theirs. If outmatched as in the first 3 (and just using your words, not trying to debate them) then you cannot win an 11 on 11 game. You have to focus on smaller skirmishes... you have to engage in isolation. Try and find the one player where you have an advantage, or the one area (player intelligence?) where you have an advantage and exploit it. That's where I talk about changing formations or other alignment type plays where you can get the other team out of position to create at least a stalemate from an inferior athletic position. This is very much what Hatfield did. Remember when he started dropping DL into the passing lanes against the run and shoot?? He did this because it created confusion for linemen which allowed other rushers to come free and/or messed up the QB or WR reads as they were predicated on reading the linebacker. The linebacker would blitz which meant the read was you throw to the area he vacated, but then the lineman would drop into that area. Remember against A&M when Bailiff (was it Mensa?) went unbalanced and A&M struggled for a bit?

Bottom line, I guess I expect to see 'more' on offense against the first 3, not less... and if it works against them, it will KILL against CUSA. On Defense, I expect to see essentially the same... because the offenses we will see will be similar, just with 'not quite as good' players.

(09-08-2021 12:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Remember against A&M when Bailiff (was it Mensa?) went unbalanced and A&M struggled for a bit?

If you're thinking of 2013, Herman was coordinating at Ohio State. Our coordinator that year was John Reagan. He left us for the offensive coordinator position at Kansas in Charlie Weiss's last year and was part of the regular coaching turnover that off season. He then spent four years as the offensive coordinator at Penn for teams that were 7-3 (tied 1st Ivy), 7-3 (tied 1st), 6-4, and 6-4 before taking the Maryland o-line coach position in 2019.

https://umterps.com/sports/football/rost...eagan/1668

In 2014, A&M smoked us under offensive co-coordinators Larry Edmondson and Billy Lynch.

(09-08-2021 01:38 PM)franklyconfused Wrote:  

(09-08-2021 12:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Remember against A&M when Bailiff (was it Mensa?) went unbalanced and A&M struggled for a bit?

If you're thinking of 2013, Herman was coordinating at Ohio State. Our coordinator that year was John Reagan. He left us for the offensive coordinator position at Kansas in Charlie Weiss's last year and was part of the regular coaching turnover that off season. He then spent four years as the offensive coordinator at Penn for teams that were 7-3 (tied 1st Ivy), 7-3 (tied 1st), 6-4, and 6-4 before taking the Maryland o-line coach position in 2019.

https://umterps.com/sports/football/rost...eagan/1668

In 2014, A&M smoked us under offensive co-coordinators Larry Edmondson and Billy Lynch.

A bit deceptive-we actually had 481yds against A&M in 2014, which is a fine performance.

Bigger problem in 2014 was two missed field goals in the first half as well as two long drives that ended in turnover on downs and punt respectively.

Still, the final was 38-10. But we played competitively (in the first half especially-I sense a theme emerging).

(09-08-2021 12:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 06:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 01:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  What concerns me is the 'preseason' attitude that I still worry about. I don't know if its still there. I think its clearly not on defense or in the players... but I worry that its in the coaches. Don't show your best plays... it will hurt you in conference?? Really?? Not if you're good at them,. Why not just get more 'best' plays??

I wonder what plays you think we are hiding/saving for later? The fake punt?

I do think of our schedule as a two part season - the "big" guys (first three) and the "little" guys (last nine). But I don't think Bloom or anybody is sacrificing anything against the big guys to save it for the little guys. JMHO.

Now, if we see a whole new playbook for the conference games, then you have a point. But I expect to see the same old playbook all season.

Ibid to Tomball's post....

But I guess I should say it differently.

Paraphrasing Sun Tzu. If equally matched as in the last 9, you do battle. Your plan against theirs... your scheme against theirs. If outmatched as in the first 3 (and just using your words, not trying to debate them) then you cannot win an 11 on 11 game. You have to focus on smaller skirmishes... you have to engage in isolation. Try and find the one player where you have an advantage, or the one area (player intelligence?) where you have an advantage and exploit it. That's where I talk about changing formations or other alignment type plays where you can get the other team out of position to create at least a stalemate from an inferior athletic position. This is very much what Hatfield did. Remember when he started dropping DL into the passing lanes against the run and shoot?? He did this because it created confusion for linemen which allowed other rushers to come free and/or messed up the QB or WR reads as they were predicated on reading the linebacker. The linebacker would blitz which meant the read was you throw to the area he vacated, but then the lineman would drop into that area. Remember against A&M when Bailiff (was it Mensa?) went unbalanced and A&M struggled for a bit?

Bottom line, I guess I expect to see 'more' on offense against the first 3, not less... and if it works against them, it will KILL against CUSA. On Defense, I expect to see essentially the same... because the offenses we will see will be similar, just with 'not quite as good' players.

I don't think Bloom has read Sun Tzu, nor do I think he would be a good military commander.

Would love to have Herman back if we dont go to a bowl game and Bloom is fired. Players I know who played when he was here for a short period of time indicated he was one of the best coaches Rice had for the previous 5 years.

To his credit, it took Bailiff about 2 games to learn that some things aren't good fits at Rice. After losing to Baylor in his second or 3rd game at Rice, he never went under center again. Not saying that can't work, but Bloomgren has been stubborn the entire time with his offense and with his QB's.

It's not lack of execution. His choices for QB have been poor. He prefers one dimensional QB's in his scheme, like we're the NY Jets of the Ryan era trying to win low scoring games. He hasn't developed any QB - unless you consider Green not fumbling every other snap now QB development. If Green had passed for 300 yards in a game it would be one thing, but he's never lit it up, not once. Meanwhile we have QB's that have won big games, made more explosive plays, been more secure with the football, been more efficient passing, and had the dimension of being able to run but don't get as many opportunities for some reason. I like Green's throwing motion the best, maybe, but not impressed with the arm strength, vision, or accuracy - he's overrated as a passer. He has to go with Luke for an extended period of time or bring back Jovoni to make a bowl game.

Something that keeps coming up on our discussion of QBs is an implicit assumption that changing the QB is the only missing piece, that the wins are going to come if only McCaffrey/JoVoni/et al. played instead. I don't see that with this staff. We've complained for years about fitting square pegs into round holes. We've also identified that Bloomgren's system demands a pocket passer, and that he stubbornly doesn't change from his system. He did allow Mack to finally call his spread in November 2019 when the season was out of hand, the only time Bloomgren ever showed that kind of flexibility, and we did win a few games doing it. But how much of our winning was because teams weren't prepared for us to throw the ball 20 times a half? Was Tom Stewart always a great passer, or were defenses still practicing for our I-formation? MTSU and UNT did both shut us out after the half when Bloom insisted on running to kill clock; we only scored more after the half against UTEP because were were trailing going into the break. I think the offense's success in November '19 was more due to fitting our square pegs into round holes that were extremely wide because it was a complete surprise to our opponents. If we go spread this year in October, maybe we win two or three between USM, UTSA, and UAB, but I think teams would have us figured out by Halloween. Is this team that's been recruited and trained to run between the tackles suddenly going to fit well into another system that this coaching staff, hired for teaching and playcalling runs between the tackles, knows how to execute?