Calling the dogs off hurting us in the long run?

[boomrsoonr]

Watching the game yesterday, it became very obvious when Stoops called off the dogs. A blind man could see that the offense wasn't even trying any more, what with all the running plays up the middle being called.

I respect him so much for not wanting or needing to embarrass the kids on the opposing team. There's really no need for that.

But, I'm starting to think that it hurts us in the long run. He has been calling them off so much, and so early in the season, the past several seasons, it really makes me wonder if it brainwashes our players a little and by the end of the season they just don't have the same intensity that they do early.

What do you think?

[OUHOMER]

Tough call really, I dont think there is a good answer. But I think he did the right thing. Time to bring in the 2nd string for some game time. he did let them throw a few passes, but its a no win situation after you score 50 plus on someone.

[olevetonahill]

I think yer full of shat .:rolleyes:
we are way the **** ahead , the Opposing team Is deliberatly trying to Hurt our Players
Hell Yes Get Sam and the Other studs outta the Game .:rolleyes:

[stoopified]

Am I the only who saw Bob come on to the field and say something to Madu near the sideline after he ripped off a big run late?I got the feeling he was NOT happy that Mossis broke that play outside for a big play.I'm wondering if he told Madu. JUST RUN IT UP THE MIDDLE.

Right after that Madu came out and Justin Jounson came in.

I for one wish when the scrubs are in Bob would turn them loose .Snaps aren't going to help Halzle and others develop if their playbook consists of 1st down run up the middle,2nd down run up the middle,3rd down,flare or screen on third and long.

[o0Dan0o]

I've always been of the opinion that you need to simply run the game. When the score starts to get out of hand start to sub in players, keeping most of the playmakers on the field. Give the backups some time with the starters to help them should they be called on later in the season. Then when the game is in pocket, put the full second string in, but still call that game as if it's 0-0. Teach every player how to play like the must have every inch.
Dan

[Johnny Utah]

But, I'm starting to think that it hurts us in the long run. He has been calling them off so much, and so early in the season, the past several seasons, it really makes me wonder if it brainwashes our players a little and by the end of the season they just don't have the same intensity that they do early.

What do you think?

I think that could be a good assessment as to why OU might not have played at its best level in recent BCS bowls. To me there definitely seemed to be a lack of intensity compared to the opposing team(s).

[King Crimson]

we were looking pretty unbeatable last year and choked our guts out in the 4th quarter at Colorado.

[Johnny Utah]

we were looking pretty unbeatable last year and choked our guts out in the 4th quarter at Colorado.

That as well as a couple of other close ones too.

[boomrsoonr]

I think yer full of shat .:rolleyes:
we are way the **** ahead , the Opposing team Is deliberatly trying to Hurt our Players
Hell Yes Get Sam and the Other studs outta the Game .:rolleyes:


I'm not saying, let the starters stay in and continue to run up the score. I'm in complete agreement that the backups need some playing time. However, why not let them play the best they can. It's valuable playing time for them. Let them see what they can do, regardless of the score. You can't tell me that our second string is only good for 3 and out.

[CK Sooner]

I thought they scored 14 points AFTER we pretty much quit.

[boomrsoonr]

I thought they scored 14 points AFTER we pretty much quit.


You're right. But then it was obvious that the coaches changed the play calling to stop them.

Personally, I think this dates back to the 77-0 dunk of aTm we did. I think the media bashing affected the coaches more than we thought.

I could be wrong, and I certainly don't think we need to score 100 points on some poor team that just can't stop us. But I don't think it's fair to the players to make them stop playing their best, and then expect them to be fired up and give it their all the next time out.

[Partial Qualifier]

guys - let's second-guess coach Stoops, you know, just for fun.

:rolleyes:

[Johnny Utah]

I'm not saying, let the starters stay in and continue to run up the score. I'm in complete agreement that the backups need some playing time. However, why not let them play the best they can. It's valuable playing time for them. Let them see what they can do, regardless of the score. You can't tell me that our second string is only good for 3 and out.

Good points. The coaches should be sending the backups in with the message that "this is your time to get quality playing time and show us what you can do in a game situation". This 3 and out business is what lets good opponents sneak back into games.

[boomrsoonr]

guys - let's second-guess coach Stoops, you know, just for fun.

:rolleyes:

Hey, the guy is human. Mistakes can be made.


(I can now say this since the spek thingy is down! :P )

[ouwasp]

Perhaps Bob is saving the run-up-score-offense for the horns?

[okiewaker]

I don't know about the brainwashing part but I think you bring up valid points. The players intensity is very high at the beginning of the game and play with that intensity throughout the game. To have them not have the same intensity toward the end, or by halftime, or have them play not as hard may hurt them, IMO. I say, just let them play and whatever the score is, so be it. Other teams just need to get better. Anyway, just my opinion

[Rogue]

No, I don't think it hurts us.
We should be conditioned to play 4 quarters every week, need to or not.

I like that some others are getting PT with so many SR starters this year.

[CK Sooner]

guys - let's second-guess coach Stoops, you know, just for fun.

:rolleyes:

Thats what this message board is for.

:D

[SouthFortySooner]

Am I the only who saw Bob come on to the field and say something to Madu near the sideline after he ripped off a big run late?I got the feeling he was NOT happy that Mossis broke that play outside for a big play.

IMO, this or any conversation like it has ever been uttered by any football coach. It goes against the natural order of things. I feel like it was something more along the lines of, "were gonna give 'The Bus', some carries now". end of story

[Piware]

I have to agree with Switzer on this. As I recall he said something to the effect of "ya gotta let them play". These kids practice hard, need to learn and the playing time they get will serve us well down the road.

I'm not much on running up the score after we have hung a half but wonder if there is a way to tell the 2s and 3s that the Second Game has just started and it's yours to win or lose. Leave a few of the starters in to "on field" coach the younger guys. Can't wait for the call from Stoops to see what he thinks about it. :D

[Rock Hard Corn Frog]

Perhaps Bob is saving the run-up-score-offense for the horns?

Might have been a little tongue and cheek but I've noticed that for the most part that the offense doesn't really open up until the Hook 'em game each year. Occaisionally they have run a formation or two out there early in the year it appears to give the Whorns something to think about but I didn't expect us to hit Washington or Cincy with the kitchen sink.

I think there is nothing wrong with pulling starters early, especially Bradford and getting Halzle some reps but I don't think we necessarily need to just run Madu between the tackles ther whole 4th quarter either.

I would have liked to have seen OU beat Washingon 69-7 if we could but it was apparent after Gresham's TD to make it 48-7 that the point was made. Sure it sucks when a team like South Florida gets a couple late scores and a 38-0 game early in the 4th turns out to be 38-17 or 38-21 where some voters out there don't realize it was a blowout but I was really pleased with how we finished against Wash.

[KingBarry]

Just to clarify, and to pad my meager post count, nobody here is objecting to playing backups. We are objecting to playing without a killer instinct. We are objecting to having guys in the game with a mindset that they should play with less than full intensity.

Look, we all know that when the game is in the fourth quarter and you are leading by five TDs, you are not going to go 110 percent.

On the other hand, the question is should the coaches be encouraging the team to play at a subpar level?

And frankly, I do not like to second guess Coach Stoops, as he is a geat one. However, he is 0fer the last four BCS games.

That record does not bother me, but the fact that the team failed to really show up does. And the fact that had we beat Colorado we would have been playing for number 8 against tOSU, and we did not beat Colorado because we were sleepwalking, makes me think some second guessing might be in order.

Late in the UW game, I was thinking about the Bosworth days. I remember how when he was playing, when we were up 50 to 0, he would chew *** on the backups if he thought they were going to blow the shutout that the starters earned.

I do not see that level of intensity or competitiveness anywhere on the current Sooners.

[Blue]

Late in the UW game, I was thinking about the Bosworth days. I remember how when he was playing, when we were up 50 to 0, he would chew *** on the backups if he thought they were going to blow the shutout that the starters earned.

I do not see that level of intensity or competitiveness anywhere on the current Sooners.


Great point. Welcome to the "Everyone gets a trophy" age of college football. Randy Shannon of Miami whining about Florida going up by 20-something in the 4th quarter being a prime example. I hope we score 70 in Coral Gables next year.

[Johnny Utah]

Great point. Welcome to the "Everyone gets a trophy" age of college football. Randy Shannon of Miami whining about Florida going up by 20-something in the 4th quarter being a prime example. I hope we score 70 in Coral Gables next year.

I don't see Meyer, Miles, Saban or Carroll "calling off the dogs". They might empty the bench in a blowout game, but if those 2nd, 3rd stringers, etc. show any let up in intensity, then I'll bet they don't see the field again, or at least for awhile.

[RacerX]

Stoops gets big lead - run, run, pass or run, run, run. It's the play calling, not the players.

I don't think the kids intentionally play with less intensity, they're just focusing on what they're supposed to be doing since they don't get many snaps in practice.

I also think Stoops is saving hits on the team. The skill players are coming out earlier than in the past and I think that'll help the team later in the season because their bodies will have endured less punishment. Mossis and Halzle are getting a bunch of snaps.

[Pieces Hit]

Missouri didn't let up and they were playing nobody.
Highlight reel my arse.
You stay classy Missouri.

[soonerpike697]

Watching the game yesterday, it became very obvious when Stoops called off the dogs. A blind man could see that the offense wasn't even trying any more, what with all the running plays up the middle being called.

I respect him so much for not wanting or needing to embarrass the kids on the opposing team. There's really no need for that.

But, I'm starting to think that it hurts us in the long run. He has been calling them off so much, and so early in the season, the past several seasons, it really makes me wonder if it brainwashes our players a little and by the end of the season they just don't have the same intensity that they do early.

What do you think?

I was there and I think he did the right thing. I don't think there is a problem with the team's intensity. They know what they're playing for. I think Stoops is a good guy for doing that, I mean those fans were really embarassed. I think this team can maintain its intensity once we get into more competitive games. They know if they want to get it on with USC for a national title they need to keep their whitts about them...

[boomrsoonr]

Stoops gets big lead - run, run, pass or run, run, run. It's the play calling, not the players.

I don't think the kids intentionally play with less intensity, they're just focusing on what they're supposed to be doing since they don't get many snaps in practice.

I also think Stoops is saving hits on the team. The skill players are coming out earlier than in the past and I think that'll help the team later in the season because their bodies will have endured less punishment. Mossis and Halzle are getting a bunch of snaps.




BINGO!!! That's all I'm saying. The coaches are calling plays that prevents the players from breaking out and scoring.

Personally, I don't think it's fair to those players. And to think the players don't realise what's going on when that happens is ludicrous. It's tough to go out there and play your best when you know the play being called isn't going to showcase your talent.

This is where I feel it hurts them. If opposing teams can't stop them, that's their problem. They need to get better. It's not a game against the fans, though some of us tend to take it personal when their team loses.

[starclassic tama]

yeah this post is ridiculous and doesn't even make sense. how intense can a player be in the second half of a game when you are up by 40+ and the other team has completely conceded?

[boomrsoonr]

yeah this post is ridiculous and doesn't even make sense. how intense can a player be in the second half of a game when you are up by 40+ and the other team has completely conceded?


Well, if you're a benchwarmer and trying to get someone's attention so you can play more, you're going to at least try to be intense. :rolleyes:

[starclassic tama]

yea i understand that but the point of the original post was that taking out the starters late in blowouts or the starters being in there late in blowouts lacking intensity is somehow going to bite us in the long run. i just don't see it.

[Jason White's Third Knee]

yea i understand that but the point of the original post was that taking out the starters late in blowouts or the starters being in there late in blowouts lacking intensity is somehow going to bite us in the long run. i just don't see it.

I think he was referring to the play calling.

[boomrsoonr]

I think he was referring to the play calling.


Thank you for reading the entire post. :D

[AimForCenterMass]

I think Stoops should let the second stringers run with it. If, for some reason OU needs to rely on the subs, they need them to run the the real offense, which I doubt consists of running up the middle every play. What good, other than lessening the beating, does it do to have a second string in the game if they're not going to play like they would if they were called upon for real?

This is their shot to develop in a real game and it's the D's job to stop them. I'm not calling for trick plays, but air it out and run to the outside. By trying to be too classy, Stoops is only hindering the development of his players and team, which could prove to be detrimental.

Let the second string play for real, like they would if they were called upon in the case of injury.

[soonerpike697]

I think that could be a good assessment as to why OU might not have played at its best level in recent BCS bowls. To me there definitely seemed to be a lack of intensity compared to the opposing team(s).

There's an interesting theory out there that if the bowl isn't for a title Bob uses it as a recruting trip and just lets them party and be rock stars because in reality if it aint for a title does it really mean anything? I personally would prefer to win these games but if he were to give us a title this season we wouldn't even remember we hadn't won a meaningful game sense the Rose Bowl and if you really think about it, it wasn't for a title so was it really that meaningful???

[birddog]

There's an interesting theory out there that if the bowl isn't for a title Bob uses it as a recruting trip and just lets them party and be rock stars because in reality if it aint for a title does it really mean anything? I personally would prefer to win these games but if he were to give us a title this season we wouldn't even remember we hadn't won a meaningful game sense the Rose Bowl and if you really think about it, it wasn't for a title so was it really that meaningful???

if that's the theory then only one game counts (the bcs ccg).

[Boomer Mooner]

Maybe we should schedule some better teams so we won't have to worry about pulling the reigns in during the second half.

[RacerX]

Chattanooga - bad

Cincinnati - 10 wins last year, this is more about the home/home and getting news coverage in the Ohio area for recruiting

Washington - bad for several years now, but had been good, you never know when a team is going to suck (see UM last year)

TCU - consistently gives OU fits

I only see Chatt as the bad game. The others are arranged well in advance and are like a box of chocolates.

[badger]

Stoops probably felt bad for Ty - he just can't succeed anywhere except Stanford.

[boomermagic]

Not sure about loseing intensity because the players are called off in a lopsided game but I have noticed that it seems like in most seasons we seem to peek early on.. Anyone else notcied that?

[soonerpike697]

if that's the theory then only one game counts (the bcs ccg).

I think the theory has some merrit...

[Johnny Utah]

There's an interesting theory out there that if the bowl isn't for a title Bob uses it as a recruting trip and just lets them party and be rock stars because in reality if it aint for a title does it really mean anything? I personally would prefer to win these games but if he were to give us a title this season we wouldn't even remember we hadn't won a meaningful game sense the Rose Bowl and if you really think about it, it wasn't for a title so was it really that meaningful???

Is that one of the explanations/rationalizations for the last 2 Fiesta Bowl losses? Us fans should hope that is just a "theory" since every win and loss is "meaningful", if nothing else than just for bragging rights. That theory might have some merit if both teams prescribed to it. However, it's pretty clear that the last 2 Fiesta Bowl opponents didn't.

[Johnny Utah]

Not sure about loseing intensity because the players are called off in a lopsided game but I have noticed that it seems like in most seasons we seem to peek early on.. Anyone else notcied that?

I might have agreed with that prior to the 2007 season, but not after beating missouri (for the 2nd time no less) in the CCG. Unless by "peak early on" you mean not perform well in the recent bowls.

[C&CDean]

This thread is the exact reason why most good posters avoid the football board like the plague.

It's stupid. Just like the stupid threads last year whining because Stoops left Sam in too long and didn't give anybody else a chance to develop.

How about we let Stoops do the job he's payed to do (and if you haven't noticed already, he's changing up a lot of his overall coaching philosophy - like sitting Sam in the 3rd quarter, etc. - from previous years when we've flamed out in the Big-12 CC game or BCS bowl) and just sit back and enjoy the ride.

Some of you guys are going to find fault/blame/issues with anything. Boz doesn't play here any more, Switzer doesn't coach here any more, Stoops has stunk it up in the last couple years during bowl time, and it looks to me like he's doing something about it early. Personally, I love the attitude of this team. They're more focused, and they appear much more disciplined and hungry to me from the past couple years editions.

[soonerpike697]

Is that one of the explanations/rationalizations for the last 2 Fiesta Bowl losses? Us fans should hope that is just a "theory" since every win and loss is "meaningful", if nothing else than just for bragging rights. That theory might have some merit if both teams prescribed to it. However, it's pretty clear that the last 2 Fiesta Bowl opponents didn't.

That's why Bob is named in the quote not every coach it's a theory about him solely...