The Mystery of Big Game Bob

[My Opinion Matters]

So JKM's thread got me thinking, why can't Bob Stoops seem to duplicate the success of his second season? Why are we getting beaten every time the team on the other side of the ball has comparable talent to us? Why do we keep losing big games? I think I know why-it's the personnel, stupid. I don't mean we have bad players. We've had some tremendous players come through during Bob's tenure. I don't mean early NFL defections or recruits that didn't live up to expectations-every elite program deals with this. I think Bob Stoops became a victim of his own earlier than expected success. Let me elaborate...

Let's take a look at Bob back in his playing days at Iowa. What was he? A marginally athletic white guy with less-than-ideal size for a safety. Yet he became an All Big 10 player at his position because he was an over-achiever. Now let's take a look at the 2000 national title team. Yes, there were some tremendously talented guys on that team, but what was that team by and large? A team full of over-achievers. Much is made of the fact that a lot of those players were recruited by John Blake, and that is significant, but not for the reasons you think. John Blake didn't recruit better players. John Blake just happened to leave a roster full of guys like Bob Stoops. Most of the players on that team weren't gifted athlets-so Bob could relate to them, and they could relate to Bob. Bob was the perfect guy for that group of kids, and they gave everything they could because of that.

We all know what happened next. We win the title, and we start getting the attention of the best recruits in the country. It only seems logical that Bob Stoops will get better results out of better athletes, right? Well, that hasn't been the case. To put it simply, Bob can't relate to the uber-athletic prima donnas. He doesn't know what it's like to have it come easy , and these stud athletes have a hard time buying into what Bob is selling-playing hard and teamwork-because it's always come easy for them. A lot of these kids are used to being bigger than the teams they were on, so why should we expect anything differently from them once they get to OU?

I've seen a lot of discussion about changing our recruiting philosophy, and it's a bit of a Catch-22. We all want character guys. But there's no drill to measure character, and it's a lot to easier to fake than a 40-time. I don't think you really know the heart or character a kid has until you get him on campus and onto the field. In the meantime, it's awfully hard to turn down a 5-star guy with all the measurables for a 2-star guy you might just have a good feeling about. It stands to reason that a 5-star guy is more of a sure thing than a 2-star guy.

Bob Stoops is a lot of things, but he's not Pete Carroll or Mack Brown, and he shouldn't try and run his program like them. Those guys have the personalities to relate to, nurture, coddle, or baby the prima donnas. We all know that Bob won't stand for that sh*t. I think as OU fans, if forced to be entirely honest with ourselves, we know we're not going to sign recruits the same talent level on a regular basis as a place like USC. We usually get kids that are just a notch below, and to the majority of them playing at OU is simply a way to raise their own profile. It's hard to believe that playing for OU has a special meaning to a 17-year old kid from Las Vegas.


So how do we fix it? I really have no idea.

[Soonermagik]

I think we should call him Small Game Bob!!! J/K!!!

I agree to a certain degree. However, my problem is maybe we are too arrogant. Stoops expects to win and so do the players, but when playing elite talent arrogance can get in the way. It's good to be confident, but arrogance is not a good thing.

Let me explain, players prepare less and expect that no matter what happens they will win. Why? Because we're Oklahoma and we beat people. Lately, we have been Goliath and Boise State & WV have been David.

Also, it's important to note that championships teams are far and few between. It's hard to be on top season after season and very few can accomplish it.

In the end, I think what really has doomed us has been our defense. It seems we don't make good adjustments and we get beat because of it.

Boise State, West Virginia, USC et al.... scored 40+ points and it's hard to win a game when your defense allows that many points.

[MALE918]

both opinion and magik make good and valid points but the issue cannot be summed up with just a point or two. there are many dynamics that have changed. coaching staff that was cherry picked, luck, chemistry. all of these come together to make a championship team and unfortunately we've been missing on several of them at key moments. that's why when it happens it's so special. even with all the talent and coaching we had in the 70's and 80's we only have 3 titles in those 20 years.

[badger]

How bout this: Bad Luck Bob.

His star defensive back Lendy Holmes gets declared academically ineligible, another star gets busted for stealing a coat, key players have season/career ending injuries, players leave early for the NFL draft at increasing numbers, the idiot incident involving student employees, etc.

I'm only discussing this once again because dang this board is boring this week. Zzzzzzzzz, KSU. Zzzzzzz

[HopeSpringsEternal]

Bob won't stand for that ****? What the hell are you on?

Did you miss the entire Bomar era when he allowed that prima donna twat to hold him hostage and shove out PT?

As far as it being the personnel. Well... that's another ****ing excuse. Maybe he needs to do a little research and find out how Lombardi or Wooden went about it because they damn sure should've had more "personnel" woes than Bobby.

[My Opinion Matters]

Bob won't stand for that ****? What the hell are you on?

Did you miss the entire Bomar era when he allowed that prima donna twat to hold him hostage and shove out PT?

As far as it being the personnel. Well... that's another ****ing excuse. Maybe he needs to do a little research and find out how Lombardi or Wooden went about it because they damn sure should've had more "personnel" woes than Bobby.

Who the hell is this troll?

[picasso]

his original staff is hard to beat. Plus you have to throw in the hunger factor. The entire program, coaches and players had it.

[badger]

Who the hell is this troll?

He's the one that at age 6, you decided you wanted to give a haircut:
http://www.trollbabies.com/trolls/MVC-401Fmb.jpg

However, after troll's haircut, he was nowhere near as cool and 50 percent more ugly, so he got shoved to the bottom of the toybox and when you mother began collecting unplayed-with toys for the Goodwill donation bag, she didn't even bother donating haircut troll. No, no, it was not even good enough for Goodwill. Haircut troll went in the garbage.

[HopeSpringsEternal]

Who the hell is this troll?

The troll that just made you look like a moron.

[HopeSpringsEternal]

He's the one that at age 6, you decided you wanted to give a haircut:
http://www.trollbabies.com/trolls/MVC-401Fmb.jpg

However, after troll's haircut, he was nowhere near as cool and 50 percent more ugly, so he got shoved to the bottom of the toybox and when you mother began collecting unplayed-with toys for the Goodwill donation bag, she didn't even bother donating haircut troll. No, no, it was not even good enough for Goodwill. Haircut troll went in the garbage.

How long did it take you to think of that lame *** post? I suppose you're another excuse hugging wanker? Oh, it's everyone else's fault but the coaches, look Bob, another athlete to throw under the bus while we send you positive affirmations!

[Dan Thompson]

As I read this thread I kept thinking a Malcolm Kelly, we know he was a good receiver, correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see much action out of him when the ball did come to him. I'm not sure he knew how to block down field.

Any of us that has ever play football, at just about any level, have seen some players work harder than others. I my case the some of the stars of our team didn't work as hard, sometimes not even showing up for practice, but would start in that weeks game.

Another, just venting, issue I have is with Loadholt. He is good, but he is not fast and when he is up against a fast DE/DT, like Texas has, why leave Loadholt on Sam's blind side? Why not swap him with the other OT, who is hopeful a little faster or just have a back block on Sam's blind side and kept Loadholt where he is?

[My Opinion Matters]

The troll that just made you look like a moron.

You're not worth the effort.

[birddog]

You're not worth the effort.

everyone else seems to have figured that out too.

one day he'll be considered the worst serial killer in the history of the world because the OU coaching staff stole his lunch and gave him a series of swirlies at halftime of the chattanooga game.

[My Opinion Matters]

As I read this thread I kept thinking a Malcolm Kelly, we know he was a good receiver, correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see much action out of him when the ball did come to him. I'm not sure he knew how to block down field.

Any of us that has ever play football, at just about any level, have seen some players work harder than others. I my case the some of the stars of our team didn't work as hard, sometimes not even showing up for practice, but would start in that weeks game.

Malcom was one of the chief perpetrators I had in mind when making this thread. There's been others, but he's come to epitomize the wrong kind of student-athlete at OU.

[birddog]

Malcom was one of the chief perpetrators I had in mind when making this thread. There's been others, but he's come to epitomize the wrong kind of student-athlete at OU.

mk may have always been immature but it seems to me it didn't really start to show until he began to get alot of recognition(end of frosh year?) if you can be a stand out player at a program like OU, you've got to be able to handle it.

[My Opinion Matters]

mk may have always been immature but it seems to me it didn't really start to show until he began to get alot of recognition(end of frosh year?) if you can be a stand out player at a program like OU, you've got to be able to handle it.

It's why I'll always admire AD. Probably one of the most naturally gifted football players ever, yet he still worked hard and handled the attention with grace and humility.

[TMcGee86]

I like what you are saying and I don't necessarily disagree...

and yet, no coach out there has two crystal footballs.

So is it really that crazy that he hasn't done it yet? Is every coach in the country not "Big Game So-and-So"?

I really think we expect too much and the program has had a string of bad luck that looks worse than it is.

I still say we were lucky to be in the 06 Fiesta Bowl. That team was just not that good. We got lucky that UT took a nose dive (Big Game Mack anyone?) and Nebraska was all the north could muster for the Championship game.

Boise State (as much as we dont want to admit it) is a quality program that oh by the way played the best game of their life. The fact that we were in that game at the end is more miraculous to me than the fact that we lost.

And last year, we had numerous injuries/brane malfunctions leading up to the game and everyone forgot that WVU would have been the number one team in the nation the last week of the season had they not lost a fluke game to Pitt when White got hurt.

Couple that with a freshman QB playing in his first bowl game, and a defense missing numerous key players, and you arent going to win many times in that scenario.

LSU was just a close game against a quality opponent. We should have won but that's the way it goes.

USC was just a blowout against a better team that night. We should have played better, but they were on that night and we werent.


When you separate these out, it doesnt appear the sky is falling.

However, when looked at as a whole, a pattern seemingly appears.

I still think the pattern isn't there and it's just a series of coincidences that hurt us.

I will start to worry when we lose to a Big Ten team/ Notre Dame in a bowl game.

[BoulderSooner79]

It all could just be the random walk nature of the beast. No team has yet to win back-to-back BCS titles. USC's "three-peat" turned into a "one-peat". Every year starts with maybe a dozen teams with the talent to go all the way and it always becomes a week to week battle of who avoids the upset and gets lucky with injuries. Only 2 make it to the title game and only one wins. The other 10 anguish over "that one play" or that stupid decision or that bad call or., etc. It was the same when I first start watching OU in the 70's. No BCS then, but same drill. Even though the team was amongst the elite almost every year, but was only declared MNC in '75 and that was considered "back-door" because they got upset by Kansas. '74 was a split poll because the program was on probation and couldn't go bowling. '72,'73,'77,'78 and maybe '79 they were as good as anyone, but didn't get that lucky break and yet Switzer is considered a demigod. There were not any instant message boards like this in those days, but plenty of fan griping about various assistant coaches, and strategies, and why can't we pass better, and why keep playing that guy that fumbles, and so on.

I'm sure things have changed since 2000 because thing always change. The team and staff change some every year and so do the opponents. Coaches can get stale, but I don't believe Bob is in that boat.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

mk may have always been immature but it seems to me it didn't really start to show until he began to get alot of recognition(end of frosh year?) if you can be a stand out player at a program like OU, you've got to be able to handle it.

he and iglesias started that crap after wyatt left and sumlin became their coach. in many ways, i think sumlin ROAD his last 2 years here.

so about the original post, here is rivals' definitions for ranking players.


6.1 Franchise Player; considered one of the elite prospects in the country, generally among the nation's top 25 players overall; deemed to have excellent pro potential; high-major prospect

6.0-5.8 All-American Candidate; high-major prospect; considered one of the nation's top 300 prospects; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team

5.7-5.5 All-Region Selection; considered among the region's top prospects and among the top 750 or so prospects in the country; high-to-mid-major prospect; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team

5.4-5.0 Division I prospect; considered a mid-major prospect; deemed to have limited pro potential but definite Division I prospect; may be more of a role player

4.9 Sleeper; no Rivals.com expert knew much, if anything, about this player; a prospect that only a college coach really knew about

so basically they are saying - here are 750 kids we think will make it to the pros (210 or so will). they then go through and if they hit 20-30% they then talk about how good they did. that is what we call stacking the deck in their favor :D. one particular thing that is popular right now is that the average star ranking on rivals predicts the success of programs over time. i saw this on agtimes the other day in a "does tom hicks pay off the texas players" conspiracy thread. i was like, that is impressive, but that just doesn't jive with how i'm remembering things. so i decided to pull up the star rankings for a position and see if it jived. because i knew that the numbers would be jacked up, i picked QB.

heupel 1 star
white 3 stars
hybl (hs) 4 stars
wall - 3 stars
allen - 4 stars
thompson - 4 stars
grady - 4 stars
bomar - 5 stars
bradford - 3 stars
halzle - 3 stars
nichol - 4 stars

avg star ranking 3.5 - that has to be among the best in the nation, but if you look at who actually produced that star number goes into the 2's, because most of the star inflation bailed on us.

so then i picked another position, one where i thought there would be more production from higher ranked players - WR

ataleo ford - 4 stars
antoneo perkins - 3 stars
will peoples - 3 stars
mark clayton - 1 star (didn't even make the texags 130)
brandon jones - 4 stars
mark bradley - 1 star (went to ark-pine bluff)
dabryan blanton - 4 stars
jejuan rankins - 4 stars
travis wilson - 4 stars
tristen ross - 4 stars
lendy holmes - 4 stars
quentin chaney - 3 stars
fred strong - 3 stars
eric huggins - 4 stars
juaquin iglesias (wasn't even in the database when he verbaled) - 3 stars
malcolm kelly - 4 stars
manuel johnson - 4 stars
bunch of 3 and 2 star guys in the last 2 classes

if you scan through that list as to who was serviceable/good/great do you see the numbers skewed towards the 4+ star guys or the lower guys?

one of the major problems with fans and recruiting is lack of realization that "elite" player may or may not mean "elite" recruit. i just pulled someone that i thought was an elite worker out of the air - chris long and decided to look at what the recruiting services thought of him.

this is the strong side DE chart for his senior year...

http://oklahoma.rivals.com/viewrank.asp?ra_key=532

as you can see, long is #6 on the list so as far as rivals is concerned they are thumping themselves on the chest over having him ranked so high. what i was curious about was if athleticism ranked higher than motor and in general that appeared to be the case.

rhyan anderson - i actually remember this guy - it was a 2 way battle between us and ohio state which we lost...to miami. http://www.nmstatesports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=9523&SPID=583&DB_OEM_ID=1900&ATCLID=1150500&Q_SEASON=2008

chris smith - meh for aTm (somewhere at the bottom, he got rolled over by the new coaches http://blogs.chron.com/aggies/2008/10/sherman_admits_to_some_frustra.html)

eugene germany - signed with USC. DNQ. ended up at michigan. busted with marijuana at michigan, kicked off team. signed with arizona state (and dennis erickson!!!) out of juco but not currently on their roster

phillip mbakogu - signed with cal and was doing pretty good as a sophomore until he tore up his knee. it ended up being career ending.

michael massey - michigan - career backup. humorously "michael massey" michigan gives you like 200 links to this dude - http://www.mikemasseymusic.com/bio-page-photo3.jpg

tremaine johnson - stuck behind tyson jackson at LSU

etc. etc.

[Sooner04]

Who the hell is this troll?
I think it's 1stTimeCaller, at least that's what I've been told.

Interesting topic, MOM. I'll add some thoughts a little later when I get a chance.

[Sooner04]

Even though the team was amongst the elite almost every year, but was only declared MNC in '75 and that was considered "back-door" because they got upset by Kansas. '74 was a split poll because the program was on probation and couldn't go bowling. '72,'73,'77,'78 and maybe '79 they were as good as anyone, but didn't get that lucky break and yet Switzer is considered a demigod.
His reputation is largely intact because of how he circled the wagons with the recruiting classes of '83 and '84 and took us from three straight four-loss seasons to four straight Big 8 titles. If he had called it quits in '83 his reputation would be far different, but he brought it some monsters and had the best team in the country north of Dade County after that.

Stoops will get this turned around only with a different kind of solid recruiting: both on the field and in the staff.

More later........

[Crimsontothecore]

I'm so glad to see yet another discussion about what Bob's problems are.
Lets see, in 9 seasons he has gone to 9 bowls including 6 BCS bowls. He's won 5 conference titles and a national title while compiling a 103-23 record thus far.
Yep, somethings definitely wrong with Bob!

You people who dwell on those few losses while ignoring the entire body of work make me sick! Bob Stoops is among the very best and I wouldn't trade him for any other coach alive. If all that he's accomplished still leaves you disappointed then you are an idiot.

[Dan Thompson]

What we are all saying, without actually say it, is being head coach is one big azz job, much more so that most of us realize and who is accountable all the time.

[Oldnslo]

What we are all saying, without actually say it, is being head coach is one big azz job, much more so that most of us realize and who is accountable all the time.

True, dat. Plus, your success or failure depends on the shoulders of 18-22 year old boys.

<shudder>

[BoulderSooner79]

His reputation is largely intact because of how he circled the wagons with the recruiting classes of '83 and '84 and took us from three straight four-loss seasons to four straight Big 8 titles. If he had called it quits in '83 his reputation would be far different, but he brought it some monsters and had the best team in the country north of Dade County after that.

Stoops will get this turned around only with a different kind of solid recruiting: both on the field and in the staff.

More later........

I guarantee Switzer's reputation would have held up if he left after his '70's run. And his mid-80s run produced fabulous teams. But again, 1 title and it was another "back-door" title because they lost head-to-head to Miami and needed help. My point is that producing a great team requires lots of talent and great coaching. But winning championships requires a great team and lots of luck. It's that luck element that keep fans throwing their hats to the ground and stomping on them when things go wrong, but it's also the element that keeps them coming back for more (see random reinforcement).

[sooneron]

My question to MOM, you mention that Bob can't relate to the elite 5 star dudes. Name a successful coach that was a stud and would have been considered a 4-5 star athlete when they played. I'll bet Pete Carroll doesn't come to mind. He relates very well. Does he know what it's like for the skillz to come so easy? I doubt it.

[the_edge]

My theory for a few years now has to do with Schmitty. When he came to OU in 1999, he was far and away the best strength and conditioning coach in the country. For a handful of years, OU was the strongest team on the field in each game physically and stamina wise.

However, that's no longer the case because most strength and conditioning coaches have either caught up with what Schmitty has been doing for the past 10 years, or they've come up with their own equally successful methods.

No, I don't think this is the only thing that has changed since 2000, but I believe it's a significant factor.

[PDXsooner]

here's something to ponder -- take a look at BARRY SWITZER'S record throughout the late 70's and early 80's, and think about what you'd be saying about him!

Barry had 3 consecutive 4-loss teams in the early 80's, then followed it up with 3 great teams that simply got worked over by Miami every single year. how 'bout them apples?

and, think about the barry teams that choked in big games -- how about the arkansas "choke" in 77 - costing us a national title (giving up 38!!!). how about the fumble-filled choke against nebraska in '78 costing us a title. i could go on and on.

my point isn't to say that Barry was a choker (which he wasn't), but that Bob Stoops is being held to an impossible standard right now. There is no such coach and/or program that could fulfill the expectations and maintain the standards that our "fan base" has put out there. it's impossible. no way.

you really should enjoy what you have before it's gone.

[Crimsontothecore]

here's something to ponder -- take a look at BARRY SWITZER'S record throughout the late 70's and early 80's, and think about what you'd be saying about him!

Barry had 3 consecutive 4-loss teams in the early 80's, then followed it up with 3 great teams that simply got worked over by Miami every single year. how 'bout them apples?

and, think about the barry teams that choked in big games -- how about the arkansas "choke" in 77 - costing us a national title (giving up 38!!!). how about the fumble-filled choke against nebraska in '78 costing us a title. i could go on and on.

my point isn't to say that Barry was a choker (which he wasn't), but that Bob Stoops is being held to an impossible standard right now. There is no such coach and/or program that could fulfill the expectations and maintain the standards that our "fan base" has put out there. it's impossible. no way.

you really should enjoy what you have before it's gone.

Amen! Bob Stoops brought this program back from the dead but I guess everybody forgets where it was when he took over. Now anything short of a national title EVERY year is a disappointment. I wish all the disgruntled OU fans would go away and support another team. Just go away to a place where all the bitc**** is justified.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Amen! Bob Stoops brought this program back from the dead but I guess everybody forgets where it was when he took over. Now anything short of a national title EVERY year is a disappointment. I wish all the disgruntled OU fans would go away and support another team. Just go away to a place where all the bitc**** is justified.

if you'll remember, the original thread was a deflection to the impossible expectations that had been heaped on our coach's heads. in particular, it was about our target coach du jour monsieur venables. this thread is about digging into the subtle things that are the difference between an overachieving team and an underachieving team.

[PDXsooner]

Amen! Bob Stoops brought this program back from the dead but I guess everybody forgets where it was when he took over. Now anything short of a national title EVERY year is a disappointment. I wish all the disgruntled OU fans would go away and support another team. Just go away to a place where all the bitc**** is justified.


exactly -- Switzer talked about it in his book, about "feeding the monster" -- Stoops has fed it and these clowns are unable to enjoy the game, the ride, the journey, the fun. there's a fine line between striving for perfection and wanting to win, and being unreasonable and downright annoying - these fools have not identified that line!

it's more sad than anything, to see posters some on here after a WIN, and whine about the defense, the running, game, the coaching decisions, blah, blah blah. it's an awesome game, just too bad it's one some don't know how to enjoy!

[PDXsooner]

if you'll remember, the original thread was a deflection to the impossible expectations that had been heaped on our coach's heads. in particular, it was about our target coach du jour monsieur venables. this thread is about digging into the subtle things that are the difference between an overachieving team and an underachieving team.


yeah, yeah quit being logical. ;)

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

yeah, yeah quit being logical. ;)

won't happen again :O

[BoulderSooner79]

if you'll remember, the original thread was a deflection to the impossible expectations that had been heaped on our coach's heads. in particular, it was about our target coach du jour monsieur venables. this thread is about digging into the subtle things that are the difference between an overachieving team and an underachieving team.

Right. I'm offering that most the differences are within the margin of statistical error. Change 1 bad roughing call and move RR 1 yard out of harms way and we're 7-0 and solid BCS #1. There would probably be threads about how Bob got his mojo back.

[My Opinion Matters]

My question to MOM, you mention that Bob can't relate to the elite 5 star dudes. Name a successful coach that was a stud and would have been considered a 4-5 star athlete when they played. I'll bet Pete Carroll doesn't come to mind. He relates very well. Does he know what it's like for the skillz to come so easy? I doubt it.

The fact that Bob himself wasn't a 4 or 5 star guy when he was a player wasn't entirely the point. More to the point is that Bob doesn't have the personality of a Pete Carroll or a Mack Brown. Bob is not the type of coach that's going to pamper and coddle his players, Pete and Mack are. If you don't believe me just look at the recent track record of former USC and UT stars now in the NFL. There was even an article pretty recently on ESPN.com about how former Longhorns in the NFL have a tangible lack of toughness. Former players were quoted as saying how easy every thing was made for them. This works fine for coaches like Pete and Mack, but Bob just isn't that kind of guy. The problem is, we're recruiting the same kinds of players. A lot of these kids don't know how and don't think they should have to work hard.

[Crimsontothecore]

The fact that Bob himself wasn't a 4 or 5 star guy when he was a player wasn't entirely the point. More to the point is that Bob doesn't have the personality of a Pete Carroll or a Mack Brown. Bob is not the type of coach that's going to pamper and coddle his players, Pete and Mack are. If you don't believe me just look at the recent track record of former USC and UT stars now in the NFL. There was even an article pretty recently on ESPN.com about how former Longhorns in the NFL have a tangible lack of toughness. Former players were quoted as saying how easy every thing was made for them. This works fine for coaches like Pete and Mack, but Bob just isn't that kind of guy. The problem is, we're recruiting the same kinds of players. A lot of these kids don't know how and don't think they should have to work hard.
So Bob should be more like Pete and Mack?
Here's the records of each coach from 2001-2007
Carroll- 76-14
Brown- 76-14
Stoops- 77-17

Yep, I see what you mean. Bob just has a lot of problems and we should all wish he was more like Brown and Carroll:rolleyes:

Funny how on-the-field results seem to escape your reasoning as you try to point out Coach Stoops shortcomings.

Here's an idea: Why don't you go support Texas or USC since they have coaches you so dearly admire.

[My Opinion Matters]

So Bob should be more like Pete and Mack?
Here's the records of each coach from 2001-2007
Carroll- 76-14
Brown- 76-14
Stoops- 77-17

Yep, I see what you mean. Bob just has a lot of problems and we should all wish he was more like Brown and Carroll:rolleyes:

Funny how on-the-field results seem to escape your reasoning as you try to point out Coach Stoops shortcomings.

Here's an idea: Why don't you go support Texas or USC since they have coaches you so dearly admire.

Stop.

Slow down. Your little rage fingers are getting ahead of your feeble mind.

Read the thread before getting your e-panties clenched up in your virtual ***-crack.


Bob Stoops is a lot of things, but he's not Pete Carroll or Mack Brown, and he shouldn't try and run his program like them

[Crimsontothecore]

Stop.

Slow down. Your little rage fingers are getting ahead of your feeble mind.

Read the thread before getting your e-panties clenched up in your virtual ***-crack.

I have read the thread. Bob's problem is this, Bob's problem is that. YOU need to stop the idiocy.
Not only does your opinion not matter, It downright SUCKS!

[badger]

How long did it take you to think of that lame *** post? I suppose you're another excuse hugging wanker? Oh, it's everyone else's fault but the coaches, look Bob, another athlete to throw under the bus while we send you positive affirmations!

:D lame *** thread deserves lame *** posts. I say this as a bystander, because I really have no desire to get tangled in this "we won, they won" mess in comparing recruiting and overall win records. We all know that Bob would win a lot more if he got to play Pac 10 opponents 9 games out of the year and we all know that he would recruit a lot more starred guys if they were just down the street from his Texas-based university. We also know players would be coddled more if as much money flowing through football in Austin was flowing through our program.

Aw crap, I got involved :mad:

Well, whatev. This thread has veered left of center and is headed for a tree. :eddie:

[My Opinion Matters]

Well this was a nice thread for about 12 hours.

[OU_Sooners75]

How long did it take you to think of that lame *** post? I suppose you're another excuse hugging wanker? Oh, it's everyone else's fault but the coaches, look Bob, another athlete to throw under the bus while we send you positive affirmations!

Wanker? do you even understand what that slang english word is?

Do your mom a favor....grab a gun and shoot yourself.:eek:

[My Opinion Matters]

We also know players would be coddled more if as much money flowing through football in Austin was flowing through our program.

I hope you're kidding.

[Landthief 1972]

I have read the thread. Bob's problem is this, Bob's problem is that. YOU need to stop the idiocy.
Not only does your opinion not matter, It downright SUCKS!

That's right. This message board exists to sing the praises of our team and coaches. If you attempt to have a conversation more in-depth than that, the terrorists win!

GMAFB. There's no need to get on your soapbox. This conversation is about the perception of the job Stoops is doing. No one here is asking for a resignation. Stop pumping sunshine up our @sses and settle down.

[soonerboy_odanorth]

Sorry... I haven't read all the shtuff, but one quick point:

We're 2-1 against ranked opponents aren't we? The defeat was a bigger-than-life game. But don't the two victories count as "big games"?

Not sayin', just sayin'...

[badger]

Sorry... I haven't read all the shtuff, but one quick point:

We're 2-1 against ranked opponents aren't we? The defeat was a bigger-than-life game. But don't the two victories count as "big games"?

Not sayin', just sayin'...

GARBAGE!!![hairGel]

:O oh wait... akrut. sorry. non-fiction.

[Crimsontothecore]

Sorry... I haven't read all the shtuff, but one quick point:

We're 2-1 against ranked opponents aren't we? The defeat was a bigger-than-life game. But don't the two victories count as "big games"?

Not sayin', just sayin'...

No, No, No, No! You just don't get it. We should win every game every year and win the national title every year. Our scoring average should be 71.3 PPG while our defense should never give up more than 3 points to anybody.
Anything short of this is cause for concern and should not be tolerated.

Now go "pump your sunshine" somewhere else:rolleyes:

[StoopTroup]

Bob quit taking my calls the summer of 2000.

Since then he's been close but he's lost his edge.

How long are restraining orders good for anyway?

;)

[My Opinion Matters]

Sorry... I haven't read all the shtuff, but one quick point:

We're 2-1 against ranked opponents aren't we? The defeat was a bigger-than-life game. But don't the two victories count as "big games"?

Not sayin', just sayin'...

We're 2-0 against ranked teams named TCU and Kansas. Texas Tech called, and they want their claim to fame back.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

No, No, No, No! You just don't get it. We should win every game every year and win the national title every year. Our scoring average should be 71.3 PPG while our defense should never give up more than 3 points to anybody.
Anything short of this is cause for concern and should not be tolerated.

Now go "pump your sunshine" somewhere else:rolleyes:

after 2000, i used to start a thread before the season asking "by how much are we overrated?" about the only year that i didn't think we were overrated was 2004 - that team had everything. i stopped after 2005, because the "losing is not an option" crowd used to rip it up so badly.

i believe after the 2nd or 3rd game i said our defense resembled a twinky - semi-solid on the outside, and squishy in the middle - which was going to make it tough for us to run the table. was it possible? yes. was it probable? no, because it never is.

whether you want to admit it, our coaches are very, very stubborn. they stubbornly hitch their wagons to systems, personnel, principals and technique. and, imo, this stubborness is what has allowed them to sustain the amazing level of success over bob's tenure. the problem is most fans live play to play and game to game, not season to season.

so when i look at these things and join these discussions, i try to talk about season over season tendencies. oh, and i back it up with data accumulated over the seasons. a lot of these tendencies are successful, but some have been problematic. some have been tweaked over the years by incoming coaches.

a good example is the following: bob's original staff outside of the DL coaches didn't like to sub starters. this lead to the following: the starters improved over the season because of the volume of plays played, there tended to be a wide gulf between the starters and their backups, there was more film of the starters allowing for opposing coordinators to scheme to personnel tendencies.

over time, we've moved to a more rotational model with subs popping in more and more for valuable game time during the season with the only 2 major exceptions being QB and linebacker. this is why an injury at either of those positions tends to have more impact than an injury at say tailback or DT. the question that is impossible to answer is whether losing reps hurts the development of the players in question.

i just don't see where discussing these tendencies without calling for people's heads is bad. what the heck else are we going to do? complain about the officiating in the east popcorn state game?

[cvsooner]

JKM, as always, speaks wisdom. No system is perfect: if it were, we'd win every game and every championship. I can't fault the current coaching staff much. Their success overall is undeniable.

I do wonder why we seem to meltdown faster and easier than just about anyone if things aren't going our way. It's gotten better, but it sure seems like when things aren't going well we have a really hard time getting back up. We did have a great comeback against Bozo State, but we collapsed against Oregon...and Texas...that year. We slipped against Colorado...against Tech...against WVU. But we were able to hold on against Iowa State when that game wasn't going so well. Texas this year was that way, too.

Texas, to me, was one of those games where they got one stop they needed when they needed it, and we didn't. Sorta like Nebraska in 1971. (I've never heard anyone complain about Lacewell's defense in that game, giving up 35 points, either.)

We could've melted down against Kansas, too, but we didn't. I think we'll be fine, possibly play for the Big XII title and even the national championship, but it will be nearly impossible if some luck doesn't come our way. We've had a string of bad luck with injuries this season and it says something positive that we've done as well as we have. Overall the system works pretty well. Again, not perfect--never will be. The big challenge for the coaching staff, in my view, is how do you convey to players what they have to do to be successful, and then get them to do it?

That said, you know, we just haven't been the same since Mangino left. :-)

[Crimsontothecore]

I've discussed tendencies as well. I've also included some data to back up my position. Let's discuss tendencies, shall we?
Bob has a tendency to win 10.7 games per year.
Bob has a tendency to win 41.6% of Big12 titles that have been won since the league formed, and he wasn't even here for the leagues first 4 years.
Since he's been here, Bob's tendency is to have OU represented in New York at the Downtown Athletic Club 4 out of his first 9 seasons including one who walked away with the Heisman.

Shall I go on?

It's a shame 'ol Bob has lost his edge.

[wishbonesooner]

It seems like just open discussion about the state of our program is no longer allowed here. the only discussion that is permitted is about how well we are playing and what bowl game we might be in. I don't think there was any discussion about somebody needing to be fired or demoted in this post, just somebody asking why we see a different product on the field than we did a few years back. Sooner football is a big deal to lots of people, and discussing it in a thoughtful way shouldn't be discouraged. The fact that we have gotten butt ****ed on national TV in front of the whole country in has caused Bob's reputation to suffer, whether it's right or wrong is a topic that should be open to discuss.

[ashley]

I think all of our coaches have under preformed. I beleive we need to get rid of all of them, especiaally Bob. We need to start fresh and bring in a whole new group.

[Big Red Ron]

Without reading all of these posts I'd like to add that he beat UT last year and the number one ranked team in the country (Missou) and keep winning Big XII Championship games (arguably the toughest conference in the country). :rolleyes:

[PhiDeltBeers]

This board would be no fun without issues to discuss. What's the point? Nobody on here wants Stoops gone. We just like to get on here and see what peoples' thoughts are. Then some guy (won't use any names) get's on here and completely hijacks the thread. There's nothing wrong with thinking big. It's made me very successful in life. Some people strive for perfection and when they come up short....they tend to look for problems. It's actually a great business strategy. We all know how successful this program has been over Bob's tenure. What's wrong with wanting to be even better???

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I've discussed tendencies as well. I've also included some data to back up my position. Let's discuss tendencies, shall we?
Bob has a tendency to win 10.7 games per year.
Bob has a tendency to win 41.6% of Big12 titles that have been won since the league formed, and he wasn't even here for the leagues first 4 years.
Since he's been here, Bob's tendency is to have OU represented in New York at the Downtown Athletic Club 4 out of his first 9 seasons including one who walked away with the Heisman.

Shall I go on?

It's a shame 'ol Bob has lost his edge.

well, this is different. this board has always been dominated by the belligerent "Fire X" crowd. now we have our first belligerent sunshine pumper. well, if you don't want us discussing our team like we have for the last decade on this board then i guess we'll have to oblige :rolleyes:

[BornandBred]

At some point before the screaming started, the issue of player's effort was raised. This is something I've been concerned with for a long time. I often watched MK take plays off and not appear 'into the game' when it was a play away from him. To me this is immature and only has one solution: bench. If you don't want to play the entire game, don't. This is something I think Bobby could do to send a message. He's benched kids for disciplinary reasons, but I've never heard of him sitting a player for slacking. Maybe I'm wrong.

And it scares me a bit this year cause I see some of that in Gresham. Every now and then, I see him take some plays off. In his case it's more likely fatigue than anything, but I dunno. I do see the opportunity to send a message to the team that the team comes first, regardless of a player's skill. Nothing motivated me to play harder than not playing.

[Stoop Dawg]

I'll try to avoid being a "sunshine pumper" and just respond to some of your points with my own humble opinion.


So JKM's thread got me thinking, why can't Bob Stoops seem to duplicate the success of his second season? Why are we getting beaten every time the team on the other side of the ball has comparable talent to us? Why do we keep losing big games?

Answers, IMO, are:

1. Because it's damn hard and largely beyond his control.
2. We don't.
3. Because it's virtually impossible to win every "big game", regardless of ... well, anything.


We all know what happened next. We win the title, and we start getting the attention of the best recruits in the country. It only seems logical that Bob Stoops will get better results out of better athletes, right? Well, that hasn't been the case.

Technically you are correct, but only because it's impossible to get "better" than an undefeated season and a crystal football. Now, why hasn't Bob "duplicated" 2000? Well, the same reason no other coach has. Blown plays, bad calls, unfortunate injuries and inopportune times, etc.


To put it simply, Bob can't relate to the uber-athletic prima donnas.

I don't believe that for a second.


Bob Stoops is a lot of things, but he's not Pete Carroll or Mack Brown, and he shouldn't try and run his program like them. Those guys have the personalities to relate to, nurture, coddle, or baby the prima donnas. We all know that Bob won't stand for that sh*t.

I guess I don't really know what you're getting at here. I don't know Bob personally, but I really doubt that he is trying to model his football program after either Pete Carroll or Mack Brown.

OTOH, if you are implying that OU shouldn't recruit the best players they can, then I strongly disagree.


So how do we fix it? I really have no idea.

Fix what? IMO, I don't really see anything to "fix". Again, I don't mean to be "sunshine pumper" - I'm just being honest. Sure, I'd love to see OU go undefeated every year and win the BCS. And no, I don't mind people discussing ways to (in their opinion) improve the program. But I do take issue with the notion that there is something "broken" in the OU football program. OU is one of (if not *the*) most dominant football program in this century. Could it be even better? Sure. Does it need to be "fixed", no.

[Stoop Dawg]

this thread is about digging into the subtle things that are the difference between an overachieving team and an underachieving team.

Underachieving by whose standards?

[PDXsooner]

sunshine pumper is a stupid description.

[Taxman71]

With the exception of the lsu game, the defense has given up way too many points in our "big game" losses. suc, wva, bsu, whorns, ksu, etc.

The only one of those that the offense was bad was lsu.....and it was horrid.

[Stoop Dawg]

With the exception of the lsu game, the defense has given up way too many points in our "big game" losses. suc, wva, bsu, whorns, ksu, etc.

The only one of those that the offense was bad was lsu.....and it was horrid.

We scored 7 against KSU.

We scored 19 against USC - and 9 of those were 4th quarter garbage points.

We scored 6 in the first half against WVU.

The defense certainly gave up too many points in all of those games, but let's not act like the offense was rolling.

[My Opinion Matters]

To put it simply, Bob can't relate to the uber-athletic prima donnas.


I don't believe that for a second.


I'm not trying to be dismissive, but this is esentially the foundation for my theory. If you disagree so vigorously, there's no point in me addressing anything else you've said as it would be falling on deaf ears.

Let me present a hypothetical situation as a way of phrasing it differently.

Let's say you have a RB recruit, and he has a list of 3 schools:

1. USC
2. Texas
3. Oklahoma

It's safe to assume this kid is a premeire athlete, but is otherwise a pretty normal kid. He has no ties to any program. Now, let's ask oursleves why-

A.) He chooses USC. If you remove the crimson glasses and look at it objectively, its perfectly logical for a 17-year old kid with no ties to any university to choose USC for a whole gamut of reasons. LA, women, geography, weather, night-life, exposure. You get the idea. Pretend you're 17and not a Sooner fan and this makes sense.

B.) He chooses Texas. He's most likely from Texas. Or USC wanted him to play DB instead of RB, and he really wants to play RB. Or maybe he's afraid he'll miss home and Mack Brown and the Texas program give him comfort or a sense of belonging.

C.) He chooses Oklahoma. This isn't exactly earth-shattering news, but Texas is our most direct competition for the majority of our top recruits. Most of the same reasons a kid would go to Texas are the reasons a kid would go to OU. So why OU over Texas? Again, look at this objectively. I don't have an answer for this, but I feel like its an important question we should be asking ourselves as Sooner fans.

What I'm getting at is this-what kind of recruits are we getting and why are they coming here? It stands to reason they're great players and they come here for any number of reasons including, but not limited to:

1. USC and Miami type programs were interested, but wanted them to switch positions.

2. The kid has ties to the University.

3. The kid is from Oklahoma and has always dreamed of playing for OU.

4. He knows that Oklahoma is an elite program, and that playing for OU will increase his chances of playing in the NFL.

5. The kid is an unusually rare combination of character and athleticism, and really buys into what Bob Stoops stands for.

6. Family/girlfriend/friends/academics/proximity to home, etc. There's a thousand different variables like these and I couldn't begin to list all of them.

My supposition is this-The majority of the kids we have been signing over the last few years come out of the first and fourth categories. It appears we're going back to signing more kids from the second and third categories. Examples from the 5th category are extremely rare, I can think of one: Adrian Peterson.

So we're signing kids that want to play for OU because they see it as their best shot for playing in the NFL. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, but there's a conclusion that cannot be escaped (and I'm speaking in general terms not absolute): we're signing kids that USC-type programs didn't want at their position, and kids that are a toss-up between OU and Texas. In terms of recruiting rankings one year it can go more our way, one year it can go more Texas's way.

These kids are good enough that they don't have to work hard to meet their goals (think Malcolm Kelley) but not so good that it comes effortlessly (think Adrian Peterson). So you end with a team of kids that are really talented, but don't put forth their best effort all of the time.

[Big Red Ron]

In this case, your opinion = fail.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Underachieving by whose standards?

well, by the anonymous internet poster of course. imo, the only team that bob has had that wasn't in the overachieve category was the bomar squad. 2000, 2001, 2002 were significant overachievers based on the talent that they fielded.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

In this case, your opinion = fail.

and as usual, you provide just a little more input than a dead man...

[Crimsontothecore]

well, this is different. this board has always been dominated by the belligerent "Fire X" crowd. now we have our first belligerent sunshine pumper. well, if you don't want us discussing our team like we have for the last decade on this board then i guess we'll have to oblige :rolleyes:

Belligerent? It's not pumping sunshine to acknowledge what a miraculous job coach Stoops has done. Do you have any idea how stupid it sounds to get on here and nit pick every little aspect of this coaching staff? After reading this thread, One would never guess this team was ranked #1 in the nation just two weeks ago and is coming off back-to-back conference titles.

But hey, that's just my opinion. Like you said, you've spent the last decade bitc**** and you'll probably spend the next decade bitc****.

Whatever makes you feel better.

[the_edge]

Belligerent? It's not pumping sunshine to acknowledge what a miraculous job coach Stoops has done. Do you have any idea how stupid it sounds to get on here and nit pick every little aspect of this coaching staff? After reading this thread, One would never guess this team was ranked #1 in the nation just two weeks ago and is coming off back-to-back conference titles.

But hey, that's just my opinion. Like you said, you've spent the last decade bitc**** and you'll probably spend the next decade bitc****.

Whatever makes you feel better.

OK, I'll counter your "Internet bully" banter with a "passive-aggressive Internet bully" retort:

So, there must be somebody standing next to you holding a gun forcing you to read this thread.

Otherwise, I can't imagine why you would want to read it if you are so vehemently opposed to its content.

[Curly Bill]

Do you have any idea how stupid it sounds to get on here and nit pick every little aspect of this coaching staff?

Does it sound anything like one fan telling other fans how they should act?

I can respect you being a fan and always looking on the bright side of things, other fans for whatever reason are more critical, that doesn't make one fan better then the other.

[Johnny Utah]

OK, I'll counter your "Internet bully" banter with a "passive-aggressive Internet bully" retort:

So, there must be somebody standing next to you holding a gun forcing you to read this thread.

Otherwise, I can't imagine why you would want to read it if you are so vehemently opposed to its content.

heh

[Crimsontothecore]

OK, I'll counter your "Internet bully" banter with a "passive-aggressive Internet bully" retort:

So, there must be somebody standing next to you holding a gun forcing you to read this thread.

Otherwise, I can't imagine why you would want to read it if you are so vehemently opposed to its content.

Uh...ok. Gee, you got me there :rolleyes:

[BoulderSooner79]

I'm not trying to be dismissive, but this is esentially the foundation for my theory... (long, thought-out theory)



You've put a lot of thought in your posting, but I think too much thought. Kids go to schools for all different reasons and it's tough to predict. But as you say, the very top recruits want the best path to the NFL. That means a program that has a history of getting players drafted and a program that consistently wins and plays in big games on TV. OU scores high in all categories. USC seems to have an advantage over other schools (not just OU), but they can only take so many players. Some players think they are the very best and are not worried about competition and other are more pragmatic and go where they perceive the best chance of playing. Coaches can only find out so much about a kid and even then, they don't know if they are going to sign them, so they have to spread offers around. How a class turns out is somewhat the luck of the draw. Coaches can avoid obviously troubled kids, but I don't think they have enough information to really know what they are getting until they arrive.

[Stoop Dawg]

A.) He chooses USC. If you remove the crimson glasses and look at it objectively, its perfectly logical for a 17-year old kid with no ties to any university to choose USC for a whole gamut of reasons. LA, women, geography, weather, night-life, exposure. You get the idea. Pretend you're 17and not a Sooner fan and this makes sense.

No need to remove eye-wear. I'm not 17 and have ties to OU and I'd still choose SoCal over Norman, OK. (Though prolly not LA proper).


4. He knows that Oklahoma is an elite program, and that playing for OU will increase his chances of playing in the NFL.

My supposition is this-The majority of the kids we have been signing over the last few years come out of the first and fourth categories.

I'd say the overwhelming majority of the starters are #4. I have no insider knowledge, but that'd be my guess. Lawyers choose good law schools, doctors choose good medical schools, football players choose good football schools.


So we're signing kids that want to play for OU because they see it as their best shot for playing in the NFL. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, but there's a conclusion that cannot be escaped (and I'm speaking in general terms not absolute): we're signing kids that USC-type programs didn't want at their position, and kids that are a toss-up between OU and Texas. In terms of recruiting rankings one year it can go more our way, one year it can go more Texas's way.

These kids are good enough that they don't have to work hard to meet their goals (think Malcolm Kelley) but not so good that it comes effortlessly (think Adrian Peterson). So you end with a team of kids that are really talented, but don't put forth their best effort all of the time.

I disagree that we're getting USC's "left overs". Other than that, I agree.

What I *don't* see is where Bob has any "trouble" relating to these kids. Are you saying that VY never "took a game off" during his career at UT? Or Reggie at USC? Both of those guys gave 110% every play because Mack/Pete "related" to them and motivated them better than Bob? I just don't see it.

Or, maybe you're saying that it has nothing to do with Bob (even though his name is in the thread title), but instead has everything to do with the types of kids being recruited? That every program that recruits prima-donnas will inevitably drop a game to an inferior opponent? Is that it? If that's the case, then sure, I agree. Unfortunately, as you say, there is no test for "prima donna" (or no good ones, anyway) - especially for 18 yr old kids who will probably change their personality more in the 4 years in college than any other time in their life. Therefore, I say keep recruiting the "stars".

[Stoop Dawg]

Underachieving by whose standards?


well, by the anonymous internet poster of course.

Exactly!

Everyone has their own expectations, and achievement is generally measured against expectations.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Well, I'm practically next door to SUC in Vegas and I notice that one of our best offensive and one of our best defensive players are both from right out here in Sin City. I rhink I'll have to send my future LB son to Bishop Gorman HS! lol

Seriosly, the boy just turned 2 and stands over my waist, is muscular and can take down his 13 year old sister.

As far as big game Bob goes, the guy wins big games all the time, but we all seem to dwell on the ones that we lose. We need to fix that, but we also need to appreciate what we have done well.

[rainiersooner]

A bit off of the track this post is going...but someone was previously discussing Bob's propensity to be stubborn. I came across this gem from the "Topeka Capital Journal" right after Bob was hired:


Stoops undoubtedly will introduce changes beneficial to the OU program. A much stricter code of discipline has been introduced and players have been encouraged to believe they can win immediately. "Let's face it," Stoops said. "They've not had direction that has been uniform and continuous. I want to establish, more than anything, a method of going about doing everything we do. What I want to establish with our team is that our offensive and defensive systems will not change from week to week, will not change from year to year." If ever there was a fundamental principle that remained constant in Bill Snyder's program at Kansas State the past 11 seasons, that would be it.

This is why Bob doesn't fire assistants, doesn't abandon the Cover 2, etc. (although, I suppose to be fair, our offensive strategies have changed over time). Here is the link to the article:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_19990727/ai_n11727328

Boomer.

[Sooner04]

OK, here are a few things:

1. The original staff was one of the finest collections of coaching talent you will ever see. Everyone one of those guys is successful. The offensive coordinator is leading a top-ten team while the defensive coordinator (one of them) is coaching a team tied for first in the Pac 10. An incredible collection of talent, and our guys got a baptism by fire of change from putrid coaching to the best.

2. Success breeds a feeling of content. Let me explain. I was watching an ESPN special on our boys in either 2003 or 2004. Stoops is out there palling around with the players and he asks Brandon Jones to do a little shimmy dance for him. I was shocked. I lived in the Wilkinson House in 2000 and 2001 and had to walk by the practice fields every day on my way home from class. You would not BELIEVE the stuff I heard from behind those shrubs. The coaches were just berating guys for mistakes. Mangino, holy cow, he ate those OLs for lunch (that might have actually happened). When I saw Stoops watching BJ dance, I knew things had changed. Is that good or bad? I don't know, but that crap would've never been tolerated earlier in his career. The fire and hunger was still there.

I'm not saying Stoops has lost his fire, but the absolute intolerance for mistakes has vanished. I remember seeing a young Brodney Pool get verbally undressed on the sidelines in the 2002 Alabamuh game on national TV. Everybody saw it. Stoops met him at the boundary and just let him have it. Fast forward a few years: Ryan Reynolds was a one-man mistake crew in the first half of last year's Texas game. Did you see anything resembling the Pool argument? No. What about Ontei Jones's play against eATMe in 2000? Remember Mike Stoops harrassing him for being out of position even though he made the play? Different times, I suppose.

3. We are out of shape, but my opinion has to be taken with a grain of salt. I absolutely LOATHE Jerry Schmidt, so I'm not the most impartial observer. My beef with him has been documented, and it doesn't need to be revisited. The second half of this year's Texas game was shocking to me because that's the first time UT has looked like the stronger team in the second half of a game against us when it was close on the scoreboard.

4. We've had bad luck with prima donnas at WR ever since we got away from the original brigade of pass-catching QBs. Rankins was a headcase, Brandon Jones took plays off and Malcolm Kelly threw pity parties for himself every time the play wasn't coming his way. Enrique Iglesias took up a few of Kelly's traits last year, and it still permeates his game. It's a very aggravating trend, but not everybody can be Mark Clayton. A sense of entitlement engulfed that position, but that happens everywhere. Jerry Rice was a huge prima donna, so it comes with the territory.

5. I think recruiting is a bit off, but that would take a long dissertation nobody would read. jkm knows more about that stuff than anyone on the planet, including those who study it for a living, but his posts get mocked continuously on this board, so there's no need to rehash it. The staff needs to do more legwork to get football players as opposed to stars, but that's just another opinion. :)

6. Sorry for the novel, but I'm still thrilled with the success we've been seeing. I think the contentment that comes with success, along with the diluted state of the staff have led to troubles on the defensive side. I don't think it can be fixed because Bob won't fire Brent. Brent's a good guy and a great coach, but his scheme can be looted with advance preparation. Bowl games, and UT show that because you know the Horns spend a lot of time working on us.

7. Who knows, things can change because we saw it with Switzer. He had three straight four loss seasons, circled with wagons on the recruiting trail in '83 and '84 and produced four straight MONSTER teams. It could happen again with Bob, but it's got to start on the recruiting trail.

[My Opinion Matters]

No need to remove eye-wear. I'm not 17 and have ties to OU and I'd still choose SoCal over Norman, OK. (Though prolly not LA proper).



I'd say the overwhelming majority of the starters are #4. I have no insider knowledge, but that'd be my guess. Lawyers choose good law schools, doctors choose good medical schools, football players choose good football schools.



I disagree that we're getting USC's "left overs". Other than that, I agree.

What I *don't* see is where Bob has any "trouble" relating to these kids. Are you saying that VY never "took a game off" during his career at UT? Or Reggie at USC? Both of those guys gave 110% every play because Mack/Pete "related" to them and motivated them better than Bob? I just don't see it.

Or, maybe you're saying that it has nothing to do with Bob (even though his name is in the thread title), but instead has everything to do with the types of kids being recruited? That every program that recruits prima-donnas will inevitably drop a game to an inferior opponent? Is that it? If that's the case, then sure, I agree. Unfortunately, as you say, there is no test for "prima donna" (or no good ones, anyway) - especially for 18 yr old kids who will probably change their personality more in the 4 years in college than any other time in their life. Therefore, I say keep recruiting the "stars".

It was never really my inent to offer a unified theory of why we haven't duplicated the success of 2000, moreso to offer a different perspective on the subject, and one I had not seen discussed. I realize some of the wording in my original post somewhat contradicts this, so that's my own fault. It's certainly bigger than one singular issue.

I do stand by my original assertion though. It's not necessarily that Bob doesn't connect with the star athletes we recruit now, it would be more correct to say that he simply connected with the players from his first two seasons better. They played harder for him. Almost nobody is going to deny that. I'm just attempting to investigate why those players gave more than recent players.

Here's what I'm getting at with the recruiting angle: I don't think we'll ever be able to beat the USC's and Miami's of the world at their own recruitng game, but it seems like that's the approach we adopted for a few of years.The numbers just don't stack up in our favor because I do believe (feel free to disagree with me) we're not going to beat the USC's and Miami's most of the time when recruiting the best of the best. We sign a lot of terrific players, I'm not asserting we don't, but I don't they're the types of players who come in and are willing to work their *** off, like the 2000 team.

I don't think we should stop recruiting star players, but I do think we should focus more on the players where playing for Oklahoma really means something to them. I think we have seen a somewhat a shift back to this in the last few years with guys like Sam Bradford and Gerald McCoy. As I stated in the original post, I think it's a catch-22. It's nearly impossible to turn down a star with all the measurables who's interested in the program. But then there's a good probabilty the kid won't be a hard worker, because he is a star.

I think it's significant if you look at what this program has become in recent years. We roll inferior opponents up because they simply cannot compete with our athletes. However, when a team is comparable to us athletically we often lose. It seems like we became a program that was content to attempt winning by "out-athlete-ing" other teams. Do USC and Texas simply have better players, or are they getting more out of them?

[Stoop Dawg]

They played harder for him. Almost nobody is going to deny that. I'm just attempting to investigate why those players gave more than recent players.

Probably several reasons, but I have to imagine that one of them was "they were tired of losing". Although, I'm not sure any Sooner fans are going to propose a couple of sub-.500 seasons just to get the players and coaches hungry again! ;)


I don't think we should stop recruiting star players, but I do think we should focus more on the players where playing for Oklahoma really means something to them. I think we have seen a somewhat a shift back to this in the last few years with guys like Sam Bradford and Gerald McCoy. As I stated in the original post, I think it's a catch-22. It's nearly impossible to turn down a star with all the measurables who's interested in the program. But then there's a good probabilty the kid won't be a hard worker, because he is a star.

It's definitely a catch-22, and a risky move to boot. Imagine if you recruit lower "star" kids and still fail to win the MNC (which, IMO, is likely). I think the second-guessing would be a thousand times more prevalent than it is today (with big time recruits).


I think it's significant if you look at what this program has become in recent years. We roll inferior opponents up because they simply cannot compete with our athletes. However, when a team is comparable to us athletically we often lose. It seems like we became a program that was content to attempt winning by "out-athlete-ing" other teams. Do USC and Texas simply have better players, or are they getting more out of them?

This is where we simply disagree. I don't think we "often" lose to comparable teams. Here is our W/L record against Top 25 from 2001-2008 (according to SoonerStats.com):

Home 9-0 (100%)
Away 4-3 (57%)
Neutral 10-8 (55%)

Overall 23-11 (68%)

Keeping in mind that achievement is relative to expectations, I personally think that a 68% winning percentage against Top 25 teams is pretty good. Not "excellent", but pretty good. USC's winning percentage against Top 25 is probably higher, but that's because they tend to lose to unranked teams.

Let me ask it this way. If you could trade OU's current "situation" with another program, who would it be?

[My Opinion Matters]

Probably several reasons, but I have to imagine that one of them was "they were tired of losing". Although, I'm not sure any Sooner fans are going to propose a couple of sub-.500 seasons just to get the players and coaches hungry again! ;)



It's definitely a catch-22, and a risky move to boot. Imagine if you recruit lower "star" kids and still fail to win the MNC (which, IMO, is likely). I think the second-guessing would be a thousand times more prevalent than it is today (with big time recruits).



This is where we simply disagree. I don't think we "often" lose to comparable teams. Here is our W/L record against Top 25 from 2001-2008 (according to SoonerStats.com):

Home 9-0 (100%)
Away 4-3 (57%)
Neutral 10-8 (55%)

Overall 23-11 (68%)

Keeping in mind that achievement is relative to expectations, I personally think that a 68% winning percentage against Top 25 teams is pretty good. Not "excellent", but pretty good. USC's winning percentage against Top 25 is probably higher, but that's because they tend to lose to unranked teams.

Let me ask it this way. If you could trade OU's current "situation" with another program, who would it be?

This year? Well, Texas, of course. :)

Here's the thing. What qualifies as success is pretty much entirely subjective. I do remember the down years, but its hard for me as a Sooner fan to consider victories over teams like TCU and Kansas "big wins". Yes, those are top 25 teams, but those are games we should win. You probably agree with me on that.

There's maybe 5 teams in the country that can compete with us athletically every year. Texas, Ohio State, LSU, USC, etc. I'm not suggesting that teams like Kansas, Mizzou, and TCU have bad players. But if you think they're on the same level with us athletically you're just not being honest with yourself. We beat teams like that, and we should, because overall we have better players.

So this is what we've become: we beat the teams we should (not complaining) but our recent track record against similarly athletic is not good. It's baffling to me there's people who can't see that.

How do you define success? Our record against teams like Kansas and TCU? Or our record against teams like Texas, LSU, and USC?

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Did you just really ask "Do USC and Texas simply have better players, or are they getting more out of them?" You mean the same better players at Texas that haven't ever won a Big XII championship....? Mack even managed to coach 3 losses out of his team in 2007? Or Perhaps it was how Mack single handedly willed back to back losses to K-State? You mean the same better players at USC that could not defeat Unranked Oregon St(twice), Stanford, and UCLA in the last three years....? The same USC that has lost 2 games to 'Vastly" inferior teams in each of the last two seasons?

[badger]

This thread is really starting to take a turn for the suck.

[Stoop Dawg]

This year? Well, Texas, of course. :)

Well, if you're going to look at OU over a span of 7 years then you have to do the same for Texas. You don't get to pick a different program every year! :)


So this is what we've become: we beat the teams we should (not complaining) but our recent track record against similarly athletic is not good. It's baffling to me there's people who can't see that.

How do you define success? Our record against teams like Kansas and TCU? Or our record against teams like Texas, LSU, and USC?

I guess my point is that this "situation" is not unique to OU. You say we beat the teams we should. Well, USC often does not. They lose to teams they should beat. Is that better or worse? IMO, it's worse.

Don't get me wrong, I feel the frustration too. Our trip to Miami was fun, but we were obviously disappointed by our performance against USC. Bourbon St sucked after our loss to LSU. My frustration level was high after watching us get manhandled by WVU. It *almost* makes me want to stay home. It sure would be nice to take a January trip and actually WIN.

But when I look around the country I don't see any teams doing a better job of winning year over year. So overall I'm pretty satisfied.

[Stoop Dawg]

This thread is really starting to take a turn for the suck.

Feel free not to read it.

[Big Red Ron]

and as usual, you provide just a little more input than a dead man...
I did post my thoughts on the page before. Are you always so hebetudinous or is it just on here?

[My Opinion Matters]

This thread is really starting to take a turn for the suck.

Yeah, this thread would have gotten nowhere if it wasn't for your insightful contributions. :rolleyes:

[Big Red Ron]

This thread is really starting to take a turn for the suck.
I think it started out that way but I'm voting for McCain, so what do I know. :D

[My Opinion Matters]

Well, if you're going to look at OU over a span of 7 years then you have to do the same for Texas. You don't get to pick a different program every year! :)



I guess my point is that this "situation" is not unique to OU. You say we beat the teams we should. Well, USC often does not. They lose to teams they should beat. Is that better or worse? IMO, it's worse.

Don't get me wrong, I feel the frustration too. Our trip to Miami was fun, but we were obviously disappointed by our performance against USC. Bourbon St sucked after our loss to LSU. My frustration level was high after watching us get manhandled by WVU. It *almost* makes me want to stay home. It sure would be nice to take a January trip and actually WIN.

But when I look around the country I don't see any teams doing a better job of winning year over year. So overall I'm pretty satisfied.

I get what you're saying, but its impossible for me to look at through the eyes of a USC fan. I can only look at it through the eyes of a Sooner fan. It's not that I'm entirely dissatisfied, but it would be foolish to ignore that there's a pattern that has emerged.

[Johnny Utah]

This thread is really starting to take a turn for the suck.

IMO it has a strong foundation, but just as a football team has good and bad plays, good and bad games, and good and bad seasons, so do some threads.
:)

[badger]

:D

[My Opinion Matters]

Did you just really ask "Do USC and Texas simply have better players, or are they getting more out of them?" You mean the same better players at Texas that haven't ever won a Big XII championship....? Mack even managed to coach 3 losses out of his team in 2007? Or Perhaps it was how Mack single handedly willed back to back losses to K-State? You mean the same better players at USC that could not defeat Unranked Oregon St(twice), Stanford, and UCLA in the last three years....? The same USC that has lost 2 games to 'Vastly" inferior teams in each of the last two seasons?

It's apples and oranges. Our problem is we lose high-profile games. USC loses low-profile games. They only become high-profile games after USC loses.

Leading up to the Texas game, even most Texas fans were conceding that OU has more talent than Texas this year. I'd bet most people who frequent this board still belive that OU has more talent than Texas. We've gone from dominating and embarassing Texas teams with equal or better talent to losing to Texas teams with lesser talent. You can't tell me its not alarming when we're getting out-coached, out-schemed, and out-played by Texas.

[Sooner1979]

I'm so glad to see yet another discussion about what Bob's problems are.
Lets see, in 9 seasons he has gone to 9 bowls including 6 BCS bowls. He's won 5 conference titles and a national title while compiling a 103-23 record thus far.
Yep, somethings definitely wrong with Bob!

You people who dwell on those few losses while ignoring the entire body of work make me sick! Bob Stoops is among the very best and I wouldn't trade him for any other coach alive. If all that he's accomplished still leaves you disappointed then you are an idiot.

F*ing A Brother...Couldn't have said it better myself and yet believe I say those words every year...There is not a better coach in the country...

[Crimsontothecore]

I don't want to be accused of being a belligerent sunshine pumper again so here's my bottom line:

Bob has lost games he shouldn't but he's won some he shouldn't have won. There never has been and never will be a coach at any program who never gets upset by a lesser team. Was Switzer as great as he appeared in the mid 70's or late 80's or was he as average as he appeared in the early 80's?
Was Tom Osborn as great as he appeared in the mid 90's or was he as average as when he was known as the guy that couldn't win the big game. It took the guy 25 years to finally win the NC.

I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. Someone once said we are never as great as our finest moment or as bad as our lowest point.

Coach Stoops always says his teams are the sum of all their parts. I believe that judgment of Bob's tenure at OU should be based on the sum of all his work, not just a game here or there. When judged by that standard, coach Stoops is as good as any coach in the country and he has maintained this program at a high level. I hope he coaches here until he's Joe Pa's age.

[wishbonesooner]

"Lets see, in 9 seasons he has gone to 9 bowls including 6 BCS bowls. He's won 5 conference titles and a national title while compiling a 103-23 record thus far.
Yep, somethings definitely wrong with Bob!"

If Bob had won the same types of games the last 4 years that he did the first 5, no one would be saying a word. I hope Bob Stoops stays in Norman for another 15 years, but it is only human to get a little comfortable when you have great success.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

It's apples and oranges. Our problem is we lose high-profile games. USC loses low-profile games. They only become high-profile games after USC loses.

Leading up to the Texas game, even most Texas fans were conceding that OU has more talent than Texas this year. I'd bet most people who frequent this board still belive that OU has more talent than Texas. We've gone from dominating and embarassing Texas teams with equal or better talent to losing to Texas teams with lesser talent. You can't tell me its not alarming when we're getting out-coached, out-schemed, and out-played by Texas.

People might have been saying we had more talent (including myself) After watching them against Mizzou...I might have been wrong

[My Opinion Matters]

People might have been saying we had more talent (including myself) After watching them against Mizzou...I might have been wrong

There's another thread floating around about whether or not Mizzou was ever for real. They weren't.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Well if there was another thread about it..then it must be true.



;)

[Crucifax Autumn]

Almost sounds as if we oughtta just have one big megathread!

And as for this thread sucking, it may or may not, but it does read like an actual conversation so I'm enjoying it.