(01-03-2022 03:28 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I completely agree with your sentiments, but just remember that in 2011 Rice beat Purdue 24-22 and Purdue finished 7-6 that year, including 4-4 in their conference.

And Rice went 3-8 in its remaining games, 8 of which were against CUSA opposition.

Here’s what I want to see Rice try:

1) Defense. Rice can’t be Alabama or Georgia on defense, because Rice doesn’t have, and probably never will have, any 6-5, 250 pound linebackers who run 4.5 40s, and probably will never have a defense comprised of guys destined to be drafted in the first 3 rounds by the NFL. But a reasonable goal for Rice would be to have the best defense in CUSA (or AAC after the move), and in a league where nobody really plays much defense, that is both doable and contrarian.

2) Kicking game. Rice can actually have a Martens or Fox and a Boswell every year, or two of each for depth, by the simple expedient of offering scholarships to one kicker a year (alternate punters and PKs) when the P5s make them walk on. Then practice the hell out of all phases of the kicking game—snaps, holds, protection, coverage, returns, and the actual kicking—not just until you can get it right, but until you can’t possibly get it wrong. If you get to that point, then opponents who do not place such emphasis on special teams will hand you two or three wins a year with their mistakes.

Simply doing those two doable things probably wins you six games a year. Now,

3) Offense. Do something better than anybody else, or do something different from anybody else. That could be the triple, that could be the run-and-shoot, that could be the air raid, or it could be RUOwls’s west coast passing game. Or it could be all of them combined. Each of them has about 10 plays total, so the playbook wouldn’t have to be that big, and some of them actually complement each other pretty well (particularly flexbone and run-and-shoot, and RUOwls's receiver rules can be incorporated into any of them). You can run all of them out of a base flexbone formation with a SE, TE (who can really be more of an h-back), QB, FB, and two slots who are runners/receivers. It would be difficult to master at first, but Georgia Southern and Hawaii managed to run it, and I seriously doubt that either Georgia Southern or Hawaii had smarter players than Rice does. I would guess it would look pretty ugly for about the first half of the first season, sort of like UH when Pardee replaced the veer with the run and shoot, but once it caught on, I would expect it would be difficult for even good defenses to stop, and impossible for CUSA/AAC defenses to stop. I’m not going to repost the highlights of Hawaii versus BYU or Notre Dame again, but that’s what I think a Rice offense could look like. Remember, that Alabama defense that had all those first three rounders gave up 321 yards rushing to Georgia Southern, and that was clearly not because they got out-athleted.

I think it can be done. I don’t think this staff can do it. One persistent problem I have seen with Rice football is having coaches that are not as smart as the players, so they don’t understand how to use the players’ intelligence as an asset.

(01-03-2022 09:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-03-2022 03:28 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I completely agree with your sentiments, but just remember that in 2011 Rice beat Purdue 24-22 and Purdue finished 7-6 that year, including 4-4 in their conference.

And Rice went 3-8 in its remaining games, 8 of which were against CUSA opposition.

True, but all Big was responding to was my lack of recollection of beating a 0.500 p5 team in my memory. The fact that he had to go back 10 years and I suspect that is one of a small number post- Hatfield in this century speaks volumes.

(01-03-2022 10:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One persistent problem I have seen with Rice football is having coaches that are not as smart as the players, so they don’t understand how to use the players’ intelligence as an asset.

This. It's because to most coaches, intelligence is 'football intelligence' which some kids just understand, even if they aren't particularly academically talented. Many coaches have this. They may not understand WHY something works, but they do understand that it does work.

The way you take advantage of this on the field is by improvisation. If intelligent kids understand why they're doing something... i.e. why they run an out against cover 2 but a go against quarters (just making something up) then they will better know what to do when a play breaks down or more importantly... know what to do when the other team 'adjusts'.

You can literally make adjustments on the fly... and certainly during a series without having to set the team down and run through a new series of 'if/then' propositions, at the same time the defense is doing the same thing, anticipating and negating your adjustments. This is where RU's philosophy is at its best

(12-29-2021 11:54 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  If Air Force had not thrown for 252 yards (versus 170 rushing), they would not have gotten the 3 point win over a 6-7 Louisville team.

They won because they got 422 TOTAL yards, which usually wins. Had they gotten 422 yards rushing they would very likely have won, and had they gotten 422 yards passing they would very likely have won.

Remember what I have described as my theoretical objective--45 rushes at 5 yards per rush, or 225 yards total, and 30 passes at 7.5 yards per attempt, or 225 yards total, for total offense of 450 yards. Now, in any given game, depending upon what the defense does, it may be 100 yards rushing and 350 passing, or 350 yards rushing and 100 passing. But I want to get 450 total yards (and 25 first downs, 30 points, and 35 minutes time of possession) every week. And I want an offensive scheme that can get those results.

Quote:Army was lucky to win by 2 over a 6-7 Missouri team that outgained Army by over 100 yards, in spite of having many players unavailable.

The luckier my favorite team is, the happier I am. I'll gladly take a lucky 12-0, plus a lucky win in the conference championship game, plus a lucky win in the post-season, 14-0 and every one of them lucky.

(01-04-2022 10:29 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-03-2022 09:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-03-2022 03:28 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I completely agree with your sentiments, but just remember that in 2011 Rice beat Purdue 24-22 and Purdue finished 7-6 that year, including 4-4 in their conference.

And Rice went 3-8 in its remaining games, 8 of which were against CUSA opposition.

True, but all Big was responding to was my lack of recollection of beating a 0.500 p5 team in my memory. The fact that he had to go back 10 years and I suspect that is one of a small number post- Hatfield in this century speaks volumes.

And my only point was that if you don't sustain that, what difference does it make? I. would venture to guess that had that win over KU been part of a 9-3 or 10-2 season, you (and I) would have remembered it much better.

Quote:

(01-03-2022 10:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One persistent problem I have seen with Rice football is having coaches that are not as smart as the players, so they don’t understand how to use the players’ intelligence as an asset.

This. It's because to most coaches, intelligence is 'football intelligence' which some kids just understand, even if they aren't particularly academically talented. Many coaches have this. They may not understand WHY something works, but they do understand that it does work.
The way you take advantage of this on the field is by improvisation. If intelligent kids understand why they're doing something... i.e. why they run an out against cover 2 but a go against quarters (just making something up) then they will better know what to do when a play breaks down or more importantly... know what to do when the other team 'adjusts'.
You can literally make adjustments on the fly... and certainly during a series without having to set the team down and run through a new series of 'if/then' propositions, at the same time the defense is doing the same thing, anticipating and negating your adjustments. This is where RU's philosophy is at its best

That, plus probably my rugby coaching experience, would probably be reasons why I like the option running game.

(12-29-2021 05:35 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  So you're just as much of a moron as #s. Thanks for letting me know.

Interestingly, back in the 1970s and 1980s there was a team that made a fairly regular habit of scoring 2 or more times in the 4th quarter, either to come from behind or to break open a close game, against an opponent that was consistently among the best teams in the NCAA.

1972: Oklahoma trailed 14-7 after 3 quarters and outscored Nebraska 10-0 in the 4th quarter to win 17-14
1974: Oklahoma outscored Nebraska 14-0 in the 4th quarter to break a tie and win 28-14.
1975: Oklahoma outscored Nebraska 21-0 in the 4th quarter to break open a close game and win 35-10.
1976: Oklahoma trailed 17-7 after 3 quarters and outscored Nebraska 13-0 in the 4th to win 20-17.
1984: Oklahoma outscored Nebraska 10-0 in the 4th quarter to break a tie and win 17-7.
1986: Oklahoma trailed 17-7 after 3 quarters and outscored Nebraska 13-0 in the 4th to win 20-17.

The other games in that series were generally not close. Tom Osborne took a lot of heat from Nebraska fans for those repeated 4th quarter losses to Oklahoma.

Two things are remarkable about that sequence of games:

1) Running the wishbone, which supposedly does not allow you to come from 2 scores down in the 4th quarter, Oklahoma did exactly that, and repeatedly, against what were some very good football teams.
2) The Oklahoma defense shut out powerful Nebraska offenses in each of those six 4th quarters. No offense can come from two scores down if the defense cannot get stops.

(11-14-2022 10:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Interestingly, back in the 1970s and 1980s there was a team that made a fairly regular habit of scoring 2 or more times in the 4th quarter, either to come from behind or to break open a close game, against an opponent that was consistently among the best teams in the NCAA.

1972: Oklahoma trailed 14-7 after 3 quarters and outscored Nebraska 10-0 in the 4th quarter to win 17-14
1974: Oklahoma outscored Nebraska 14-0 in the 4th quarter to break a tie and win 28-14.
1975: Oklahoma outscored Nebraska 21-0 in the 4th quarter to break open a close game and win 35-10.
1976: Oklahoma trailed 17-7 after 3 quarters and outscored Nebraska 13-0 in the 4th to win 20-17.
1984: Oklahoma outscored Nebraska 10-0 in the 4th quarter to break a tie and win 17-7.
1986: Oklahoma trailed 17-7 after 3 quarters and outscored Nebraska 13-0 in the 4th to win 20-17.

The other games in that series were generally not close. Tom Osborne took a lot of heat from Nebraska fans for those repeated 4th quarter losses to Oklahoma.

Two things are remarkable about that sequence of games:

1) Running the wishbone, which supposedly does not allow you to come from 2 scores down in the 4th quarter, Oklahoma did exactly that, and repeatedly, against what were some very good football teams.
2) The Oklahoma defense shut out powerful Nebraska offenses in each of those six 4th quarters. No offense can come from two scores down if the defense cannot get stops.

One of the benefits of the wishbone is that despite the large number of offensive plays, the offense is still likely more fresh in terms of execution than the defense is. More assignments break down and the offense can break loose.

Similarly on defense... if you are controlling the ball on offense, it puts pressure on theirs to score... and if you can move the ball and score and/or punt well, they will often be required to go 70+ yards for each score. - Many offenses struggle with this if you keep things in front of you... Make them go 10+ plays for a score. Think about that... for a typical long drive, that's STILL 7-8 yards per play so its not like you're shutting them down. A dropped pass, fumble or penalty here or there and you 'win'.

You don't need to run the wishbone to do this... PTR does it... The R&S does it. The veer does it. ALL SORTS of offenses do it. IF you can move the ball when you must... No 3 and outs from your own red zone... score with some reliability... and punt well if you don't get close enough for a FG. This is what your 'win the kicking game' concept relies on.

So execution on offense. Limit mistakes. high percenate of FGs. High percentage of 'downed inside the 10'... good coverage... make them take the long route on defense... keep things in front of you... limit big plays.

Your mantra

I love the Triple Option, but I doubt that we'll ever see it again at Rice. Despite the fact that it works, it's not 'entertaining' enough for many contemporary fans with short attention spans. Everyone these days has to be 'entertained.'

(11-15-2022 12:52 PM)Ourland Wrote:  I love the Triple Option, but I doubt that we'll ever see it again at Rice. Despite the fact that it works, it's not 'entertaining' enough for many contemporary fans with short attention spans. Everyone these days has to be 'entertained.'

But you can do this without the triple option. Heck, you can do it without controlling the clock. It's obviously most effective if you do, but its not a requirement.

If you score in one play every time and force the opponent to go 70+ yards per drive and don't give up any big plays, you're probably going to win.... but lose TOP 'bigly'

(11-15-2022 01:38 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-15-2022 12:52 PM)Ourland Wrote:  I love the Triple Option, but I doubt that we'll ever see it again at Rice. Despite the fact that it works, it's not 'entertaining' enough for many contemporary fans with short attention spans. Everyone these days has to be 'entertained.'

But you can do this without the triple option. Heck, you can do it without controlling the clock. It's obviously most effective if you do, but its not a requirement.

If you score in one play every time and force the opponent to go 70+ yards per drive and don't give up any big plays, you're probably going to win.... but lose TOP 'bigly'

I don't know. The slow, methodical pace of the Triple Option keeps the ball out of the opposing offense's hands, limiting the number of plays they can run, and the time they have to run them.

(11-16-2022 12:15 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(11-15-2022 01:38 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-15-2022 12:52 PM)Ourland Wrote:  I love the Triple Option, but I doubt that we'll ever see it again at Rice. Despite the fact that it works, it's not 'entertaining' enough for many contemporary fans with short attention spans. Everyone these days has to be 'entertained.'

But you can do this without the triple option. Heck, you can do it without controlling the clock. It's obviously most effective if you do, but its not a requirement.

If you score in one play every time and force the opponent to go 70+ yards per drive and don't give up any big plays, you're probably going to win.... but lose TOP 'bigly'

I don't know. The slow, methodical pace of the Triple Option keeps the ball out of the opposing offense's hands, limiting the number of plays they can run, and the time they have to run them.

Hence it is most effective if you do this...

but if you're consistently scoring and making them go 80+ yards without (m)any big plays, you're going to win a whole lot. College teams on the whole, especially ranked 40-50 or below... don't have a high percentage of 10+ play drives for TDs... so whether we're a team that does (ideal for the reasons you mention)... or just a team that scores a lot (regardless of how many plays it takes) you're going to win a lot of games if you can force them to run lots of plays to score.

The biggest advantage to your idea is that your defense is rested. Numbers has often postulated that you put your best guys on defense, not offense... and then run an offense that you can execute with the other players you have flawlessly. Whether that's speed and you're breaking big plays or its ball control and you just don't make mistakes doesn't really matter if you have the hosses on defense

I'm a big fan of dominating time of possession, and tailoring an offense around the personnel on hand.