Interesting read on Anderson, offered with no opinion attached

https://www.stanforddaily.com/the-gateke...-football/

(11-27-2017 01:13 PM)ETx Owl Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 12:53 PM)HawaiiOwl Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 11:38 AM)Owl1998 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 11:33 AM)T-Moar Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 11:13 AM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  I've said it before... It's not the flexbone that makes a winner... It's the execution and the football discipline that wins... I don't care what kind of coach is hired or what kind of system he runs.... Just hire a guy that is about execution... Get good at something. If it's the veer, great... Hire a guy that will pay attention to the details of execution, physicality, and ball security. Not a "be careful so we don't lose ugly" or " we lost ugly because we are young" guy..... #ABO

This is spot on. As a relative neutral, though, I'd much rather see an offensive system that's a little more exciting than the Flexbone, all else being equal.

Scoring points is exciting. Winning is exciting. I don't care if it comes on the ground or through the air.

Reminds me of a conversation I had years ago with a parent who said "Coach, I'd rather you throw it 40 times a game than running it all the time." I replied, "Well, if we did that we'd lose." He said, "But at least it would be more exciting."

We were 9-0 at that point.

I had no problem watching Hat's teams click off 300 yards a game rushing ( in a era when 400-600 yard passing games were rare), and eating up the clock by gaining yards ( as opposed to eating up the clock by coming up to the line, and waiting 10 seconds before snapping the ball)

Good quick games, and not a 4 hour time suck.

Get up to the line with 15 seconds left on play clock, snap it at 2 seconds, and run off tackle for a 3-4 yard gain.

Unstack the pile, get the ball to the Ref, start the play clock.

Repeat.

You could easily make a 60 yard scoring drive last 12 minutes.

(11-27-2017 01:47 PM)THRILL Wrote:  Interesting read on Anderson, offered with no opinion attached

https://www.stanforddaily.com/the-gateke...-football/

Give him 2 million to come

(11-27-2017 02:01 PM)ETx Owl Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 01:47 PM)THRILL Wrote:  Interesting read on Anderson, offered with no opinion attached

https://www.stanforddaily.com/the-gateke...-football/

Give him 2 million to come

Interestingly, he is their recruiting coordinator. While he favors a national approach, he also appears to concentrate on players from Texas and the South. That would kind of be just what Rice needs - a focus on Texas, but expanding our recruiting areas as well. Of course, that would require an increased recruiting budget as well...

(11-27-2017 01:47 PM)THRILL Wrote:  Interesting read on Anderson, offered with no opinion attached

https://www.stanforddaily.com/the-gateke...-football/

I read the first part -- and I was impressed by every bit of it.

(11-27-2017 02:06 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 01:47 PM)THRILL Wrote:  Interesting read on Anderson, offered with no opinion attached

https://www.stanforddaily.com/the-gateke...-football/

I read the first part -- and I was impressed by every bit of it.

Now THAT'S the kind of guy I can get behind. And THAT'S the type of person this job requires to be successful.

(11-27-2017 01:47 PM)THRILL Wrote:  Interesting read on Anderson, offered with no opinion attached

https://www.stanforddaily.com/the-gateke...-football/

Nice find. Thanks for sharing.

(11-27-2017 02:12 PM)Owl1998 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 02:06 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 01:47 PM)THRILL Wrote:  Interesting read on Anderson, offered with no opinion attached

https://www.stanforddaily.com/the-gateke...-football/

I read the first part -- and I was impressed by every bit of it.

Now THAT'S the kind of guy I can get behind. And THAT'S the type of person this job requires to be successful.

Of course he's a great candidate. Which is why, according to SI's Bruce Feldman, along with the Rice job, he is one of the candidates for the open Oregon State job as well.

Sounds exactly the recipe for success providing his assistant coaching picks are good.

Neely himself said after the 1947 Orange Bowl to the effect if you preferred entertainment go to the circus. Neely was known for a conservative approach to coaching. His defense out Neylanded Neyland's Tennessee team in that game.

(11-27-2017 01:52 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 01:13 PM)ETx Owl Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 12:53 PM)HawaiiOwl Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 11:38 AM)Owl1998 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 11:33 AM)T-Moar Wrote:  This is spot on. As a relative neutral, though, I'd much rather see an offensive system that's a little more exciting than the Flexbone, all else being equal.

Scoring points is exciting. Winning is exciting. I don't care if it comes on the ground or through the air.

Reminds me of a conversation I had years ago with a parent who said "Coach, I'd rather you throw it 40 times a game than running it all the time." I replied, "Well, if we did that we'd lose." He said, "But at least it would be more exciting."

We were 9-0 at that point.

I had no problem watching Hat's teams click off 300 yards a game rushing ( in a era when 400-600 yard passing games were rare), and eating up the clock by gaining yards ( as opposed to eating up the clock by coming up to the line, and waiting 10 seconds before snapping the ball)

Good quick games, and not a 4 hour time suck.

Get up to the line with 15 seconds left on play clock, snap it at 2 seconds, and run off tackle for a 3-4 yard gain.

Unstack the pile, get the ball to the Ref, start the play clock.

Repeat.

You could easily make a 60 yard scoring drive last 12 minutes.

(11-27-2017 01:37 PM)Owl1998 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 01:27 PM)Barney Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 01:23 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 12:53 PM)HawaiiOwl Wrote:  I had no problem watching Hat's teams click off 300 yards a game rushing ( in a era when 400-600 yard passing games were rare), and eating up the clock by gaining yards ( as opposed to eating up the clock by coming up to the line, and waiting 10 seconds before snapping the ball)

It's all good until you're down by 10 points with 10 minutes left in the game, and you realize that you have NO CHANCE of winning. Apparently, people on this board don't really watch Navy football. I specifically watched the 4th quarter of last Friday's game against Houston. It was painful seeing the Midshipmen trying to overcome a deficit.

Took the words out of my mouth

But they're ahead more than they're behind historically, no? I'll take that over what we've been watching.

I watch Navy a lot. Father is class of '57 and a huge fan

The bone by itself isn't the problem... the problem is that the QBs running the bone these days in high school and college don't usually have the passing skills that are needed to come back from a deficit... and if they do, they get recruited by 'spread' teams to be a 'dual threat' not Navy and Army.... and Navy and Army (and Rice) receivers lack the virtuosity that schools like UT and UA could recruit back when they ran it. Remember that Hatfield at Arkansas had a very small number of GREAT receivers with lots of stats... but he couldn't replicate that with us often.

But then think about the offense that Dinger and Fred ran


But yes, precisely what i was thinking is though I'd be frustrated watching my Owls fail to come back against UH and lose to Temple, I'd also have fun watching them stomp FAU, beat Tulane, Cinn, Tulsa, Air Force, SMU and play good games (10 points or fewer) against #12 UCF, #16 Memphis and #15 Notre Dame

Look at the names on that schedule and tell me we wouldn't take their EXACT results and call it a good season and fans wouldn't show?

If you can't play catch-up, then you focus a little more on defense. A few plays here and there and they're a top 20 team

(11-27-2017 01:41 PM)McHargue Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 01:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 10:59 AM)McHargue Wrote:  Your AD...

??

Don't read in to that. I just meant for coaching searches at any school. I like Joe, looking forward to seeing what he and his team come up with for our next hire.

I assumed so... just wanted clarification. You're ABSOLUTELY one of 'us' and I'm afraid you're stuck with us lol.

Do we really think we can pull the #2 from Stanford just because of Joe? We're in Conference USA, which somehow manages to lose steps on even the American and the Mountain West at an alarming rate.

I don't know anything about the guy, but UTSA's DC has done a pretty incredible job, based on the numbers, there.

(11-27-2017 02:57 PM)KingNayte Wrote:  Do we really think we can pull the #2 from Stanford just because of Joe? We're in Conference USA, which somehow manages to lose steps on even the American and the Mountain West at an alarming rate.

I don't know anything about the guy, but UTSA's DC has done a pretty incredible job, based on the numbers, there.

Considering that a respected national sportswriter says he is a serious candidate, apparently so. If we want to be successful, we have to be able to go after guys like this.

(11-27-2017 12:50 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 12:25 PM)Antarius Wrote:  The other question is - what is the state of internal politics at Rice? As in, was this a move that JK made with support from the BOT/boosters or did he finally put his foot down and say me or him? This could alter the outcome in lots of ways - like is the 25(0) now firmly behind Karlgaard or is there lingering resentment that their chosen candidate just got kicked to the curb?

I only know a few of the so called "25(0)" and they put Rice Football above all else. The ones I know want the best hire and want the hire to have all the resources available to him that will be needed to succeed.

From my understanding, there were various motivations for people who signed that letter. Not everyone signed it out of support for or only in support of DB.

I hope that's clarifying. What's important is that the hire is 1) a good hire and 2) given the necessary resources to succeed. I think those are two things everyone can agree on.

+1

Quote:
@ThresherSports
Joe Karlgaard announces that Rice DC Brian Stewart will be the interim head coach while tjevsearch is completed. No comment on whether Stewart is a candidate to fill the position long-term

(11-27-2017 01:47 PM)THRILL Wrote:  Interesting read on Anderson, offered with no opinion attached

https://www.stanforddaily.com/the-gateke...-football/

Great article. Stanford produced about a Stanford Coach.
Makes him seem like the second coming of Knute Rockne.

I’d love to have him. And if he shows up on S. Main as the HC it will send a message that we are seriously invested in making Rice Football into a top 25 team. Because bringing him in plus the assistants he will need is going to cost 3-5 million more than we are spending now.

(11-27-2017 01:23 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 12:53 PM)HawaiiOwl Wrote:  I had no problem watching Hat's teams click off 300 yards a game rushing ( in a era when 400-600 yard passing games were rare), and eating up the clock by gaining yards ( as opposed to eating up the clock by coming up to the line, and waiting 10 seconds before snapping the ball)

It's all good until you're down by 10 points with 10 minutes left in the game, and you realize that you have NO CHANCE of winning. Apparently, people on this board don't really watch Navy football. I specifically watched the 4th quarter of last Friday's game against Houston. It was painful seeing the Midshipmen trying to overcome a deficit.

If you're going to pick your offense based strictly on ability to come back from huge deficits, you're pretty much admitting defeat before you start. I'd rather pick the scheme that gives me the best chance to win the most games, not one that gives me a 5% chance of coming back from a huge deficit rather than a 1% chance. And for that matter, if you want to see about the option as a comeback offense, go back and see how Oklahoma did coming back against Nebraska back when it ran the pure wishbone in the 1980s.

With that offense and with talent that approximates Rice's, Navy has gone 123-71 against a schedule that includes Notre Dame every year (4 wins in last 11 years, and competitive in most, including 17-24 loss this year), Army (14-1) and Air Force (11-5) every year, and an AAC schedule since 2015, going 3-0 versus SMU and 1-2 versus Houston (I'm guessing we'd take those results over that time). And they are 4-18 against the top 25 during that period, which isn't super, but it's a heck of a lot more competitive than we have been.

If all you want to do is be able to come back from three TDs, fine. I'd rather figure out how not to get three TD's behind in the first place. And Navy had been pretty effective doing that.

(11-27-2017 03:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 01:23 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 12:53 PM)HawaiiOwl Wrote:  I had no problem watching Hat's teams click off 300 yards a game rushing ( in a era when 400-600 yard passing games were rare), and eating up the clock by gaining yards ( as opposed to eating up the clock by coming up to the line, and waiting 10 seconds before snapping the ball)

It's all good until you're down by 10 points with 10 minutes left in the game, and you realize that you have NO CHANCE of winning. Apparently, people on this board don't really watch Navy football. I specifically watched the 4th quarter of last Friday's game against Houston. It was painful seeing the Midshipmen trying to overcome a deficit.

If you're going to pick your offense based strictly on ability to come back from huge deficits, you're pretty much admitting defeat before you start. I'd rather pick the scheme that gives me the best chance to win the most games, not one that gives me a 5% chance of coming back from a huge deficit rather than a 1% chance. And for that matter, if you want to see about the option as a comeback offense, go back and see how Oklahoma did coming back against Nebraska back when it ran the pure wishbone in the 1980s.

With that offense and with talent that approximates Rice's, Navy has gone 123-71 against a schedule that includes Notre Dame every year (4 wins in last 11 years, and competitive in most, including 17-24 loss this year), Army (14-1) and Air Force (11-5) every year, and an AAC schedule since 2015, going 3-0 versus SMU and 1-2 versus Houston (I'm guessing we'd take those results over that time). And they are 4-18 against the top 25 during that period, which isn't super, but it's a heck of a lot more competitive than we have been.

If all you want to do is be able to come back from three TDs, fine. I'd rather figure out how not to get three TD's behind in the first place. And Navy had been pretty effective doing that.

the counter to this argument is that if you're wanting to run an antiquated gimmicky offense, you're admitting you can't get top quality talent in before you even try.

there were great points and awful points in the Bailiff era, but there were teams during that time that had the talent level of successful p5 schools. We had 2 quality NFL cornerbacks on the field at the same time, we had receivers who still make big NFL impacts, and we had really solid linemen.

top-shelf talent doesn't show up to run the flexbone, with the very rare exception.

(11-27-2017 03:10 PM)KingNayte Wrote:  the counter to this argument is that if you're wanting to run an antiquated gimmicky offense, you're admitting you can't get top quality talent in before you even try.

there were great points and awful points in the Bailiff era, but there were teams during that time that had the talent level of successful p5 schools. We had 2 quality NFL cornerbacks on the field at the same time, we had receivers who still make big NFL impacts, and we had really solid linemen.

top-shelf talent doesn't show up to run the flexbone, with the very rare exception.

Of course Rice admits they can't get top quality talent, if you mean compared to the entire pool of available D-1 players. Rice's admission standards are about the toughest of any D-1 school.

You call the triple option, etc. "antiquated (and) gimmicky" as if those are negatives. Why do you use those words, and why are they bad things?

(11-27-2017 03:20 PM)Seventyniner Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 03:10 PM)KingNayte Wrote:  the counter to this argument is that if you're wanting to run an antiquated gimmicky offense, you're admitting you can't get top quality talent in before you even try.

there were great points and awful points in the Bailiff era, but there were teams during that time that had the talent level of successful p5 schools. We had 2 quality NFL cornerbacks on the field at the same time, we had receivers who still make big NFL impacts, and we had really solid linemen.

top-shelf talent doesn't show up to run the flexbone, with the very rare exception.

Of course Rice admits they can't get top quality talent, if you mean compared to the entire pool of available D-1 players. Rice's admission standards are about the toughest of any D-1 school.

You call the triple option, etc. "antiquated (and) gimmicky" as if those are negatives. Why do you use those words, and why are they bad things?

they concede, at least for skill players, that you won't try to do the things that allow them to showcase their talent for NFL scouts. the goal of most people who are good enough to earn D1 scholarships, even if they won't attain it, is to make the pros. So it's bad to give up on top quality players.

having to focus people who made above very barely passing grades in high school or scored decently on a standardized test is not the incredible disadvantage we like to make it out to be. In fact, I would argue that one of Bailiff and his earlier staffs' strengths were that they realized this. They, like Goldsmith, recruited players that had some opportunities at bigger schools.

Players who balk at the idea that "if this doesn't work out you'll have a rice degree" weren't going to come anyway. but that doesn't mean that we won't get any blue chips. telling them they'll be honing their skills in running the veer or the fullback dive is saying instead, "it's not going to work out for you to play at the next level. wanna come here instead?"