Debbie Downer on the OL; But it is what it is

[htownsooner7]

I just re-watched the Stanford bowl game and am continually shocked at how terrible our rushing offense was. All of the unrealistic fans out there need to watch that tape and temper their expectations on this team.

As for 2010, We play Texas' front seven and don't perform well, I can show patience. We can't run the ball against Nebraska, I get it. We can't do anything against Stanford, well thats a freaking problem. And a pattern. I guess the moral of my story is that so many magazines give us priority because we have "returning starters." I can't think of a offensive line group for OU within the last 10 years that was worse, so why do I feel better that they are "healthy" or are "veterans?" There's a difference when Davin Joseph returns and when Cory Brandon does. One is the real deal, the other hasn't shown it at all. I'd love this team to be top-notch, but I just don't get why the assumption of greatness exists. This o line needs to get down and dirty and show me something. Otherwise, I show no deference to their ability.

I'm sure a bunch of you perennial sunshine pumpers will remind me that these guys were "four stars" or run 4.7 fortys (allegedly). The rest of us will go on accepting reality on this front. They may be alright but have nothing for me to assume that they are BCS caliber.

[rawlingsHOH]

revisiting OL history...

01 terrrible
02 good

05 terrible
06 good

09 terrible
10 ?

ironically, all 4 terrible years followed NCG apperances... coincidence? USE YOUR HEAD!

[Scott D]

If I remember, Stanford was pretty decent against the run last year, and the biggest problem with the OL was that it was never the same 5 guys on the field on a week to week basis to gain any sort of cohesiveness.

[Newbomb Turk]

As for 2010, We play Texas' front seven and don't perform well...

that is awesome that you can see in the future.

will you go to vegas with me?

[rawlingsHOH]

I just re-watched the Stanford bowl game and am continually shocked at how terrible our rushing offense was. All of the unrealistic fans out there need to watch that tape and temper their expectations on this team.

As for 2010, We play Texas' front seven and don't perform well, I can show patience. We can't run the ball against Nebraska, I get it. We can't do anything against Stanford, well thats a freaking problem. And a pattern. I guess the moral of my story is that so many magazines give us priority because we have "returning starters." I can't think of a offensive line group for OU within the last 10 years that was worse, so why do I feel better that they are "healthy" or are "veterans?" There's a difference when Davin Joseph returns and when Cory Brandon does. One is the real deal, the other hasn't shown it at all. I'd love this team to be top-notch, but I just don't get why the assumption of greatness exists. This o line needs to get down and dirty and show me something. Otherwise, I show no deference to their ability.

I'm sure a bunch of you perennial sunshine pumpers will remind me that these guys were "four stars" or run 4.7 fortys (allegedly). The rest of us will go on accepting reality on this front. They may be alright but have nothing for me to assume that they are BCS caliber.

wow, davin returned in 2005 and we were terrible. bad example.

[htownsooner7]

wow, davin returned in 2005 and we were terrible. bad example.

You miss the entire point of my thread so let me spell it out in one comparison. So many people on this board dogged on Iglesias and Johnson heading into the 2009 season and said, this WR unit is more "athletic" and has more "potential". Dead wrong. Same thing for the offensive lines. Dead wrong.

[htownsooner7]

that is awesome that you can see in the future.

will you go to vegas with me?

2009. Obviously, you get my point.

[htownsooner7]

[QUOTE=rawlingsHOH;2904946]revisiting OL history...

01 terrrible
02 good

05 terrible
06 good

09 terrible
10 ?

ironically, all 4 terrible years followed NCG apperances... coincidence? USE YOUR HEAD![/QUO

I actually agree with you. This group may end up being "good." They may. But that's all I will give them at this point. I don't understand why people thrust us back into the NC hunt. I'd love for it to happen but am trying to be realistic about what I see on tape.

[rawlingsHOH]

You miss the entire point of my thread so let me spell it out in one comparison. So many people on this board dogged on Iglesias and Johnson heading into the 2009 season and said, this WR unit is more "athletic" and has more "potential". Dead wrong. Same thing for the offensive lines. Dead wrong.

you miss it...

the OL was extremely green and/or injured in 09... in 2010 they are a year more experienced, which is about 80% of the battle for an OL...

see 01, see 05, see 09, each case was a total rebuilding job after losing a senior laden unit...

[BoulderSooner79]

Stanford actually had a decent defense against the run last season, but their pass defense was *terrible*. We attacked their weakness to the tune of 400+ yards in the air; I call that a rational game plan. I'd love to see see us be more effective at running with the goal of being overall more effective on offense. I sure don't want to see us emphasize the run for the sake of balance. Watch to pokes if you like balance - seems they have put up almost identical run and pass yardage the last few years. (They put up about 50 yards of each against us last year :)).

[oudavid1]

Well i guess Landy's gonna have to set the world on fire. Lets do it. How many days till kick off?

[gaylordfan1]

I'm not totally sold on this O-Line being great... or even good until I see them in action. I do like that we have returning linemen that played plenty of snaps at many different positions. I look at it this way... can't be any worse, right? Someone else on here brought up a good point.... These guys got thrown into so many different positions last year because of necessity. Our blocking schemes are so complicated to understand at one position, much less 2 or 3 different positions. So, hopefully with the depth we have these kids can learn their one position and perfect it. Technique... Technique... Technique!!!

[TXBOOMER]

If they stay healthy, I believe they will be good by texass week. If someone gets hurt every week and we don't have a cohesive unit they will probably be terrible (just like anyone else in the country would under those circumstances).

[budbarrybob]

sheesh, what? we suck? I'll leave my crimson glasses on. Life is more to my liking that way...

[gaylordfan1]

sheesh, what? we suck? I'll leave my crimson glasses on. Life is more to my liking that way...

at times thats the only way to live brotha!

[Scott D]

And how many of those NCG seasons did we have an offensive line that had been at least 4 of the 5 linemen were the same guys in the same spots for at least 2 to 3 years, and how many of those following years did we have either freshmen or backups who hadn't played much taking the place of guys who were either seniors or juniors who left for the NFL?

[TwoBits4]

Debbie Downer huh ?

How bout just tryin to stir the pot ??

Starting oline vrs Stanford in the Sun Bowl ..........

LT Cory Brandon
LG Brian Simmons
C Trent Williams
RG Stephen Good
RT Eric Mensik


And you project the performance of this years oline based upon the above listed group ???

But what really surprises me here, is that I had to dig up my password for this site, get signed, and respond cause no one else bothered to ask who was starting in the Sun Bowl.

[Leroy Lizard]

Debbie Downer huh ?

How bout just tryin to stir the pot ??

Starting oline vrs Stanford in the Sun Bowl ..........

LT Cory Brandon
LG Brian Simmons
C Trent Williams
RG Stephen Good
RT Eric Mensik


And you project the performance of this years oline based upon the above listed group ???

What do we base it on?

I think the original poster makes a point.

[TwoBits4]

What do we base it on?

I think the original poster makes a point.

Duh !!

Is it not obvious ????

You have your LT playing Center, your RT is a fricken TE , and doubt that particular line combination played together any in the previous season.

Does that not mean anything to you ?

If it doesn't, then you don't know enough football to even be posting, maybe you should lurk.

[Collier11]

I dont believe we had the same starting OL in any back to back games last year, the obvious reason we werent good last year on the OL was inexperience and massive injuries. If we stay healthy this season we will be pretty good

[hawaii 5-0]

Where did you watch a replay of the Sun Bowl? I deleted my DVR of the game and would like to see it again.

[htownsooner7]

Where did you watch a replay of the Sun Bowl? I deleted my DVR of the game and would like to see it again.

I DVR'd it.

[htownsooner7]

Duh !!

Is it not obvious ????

You have your LT playing Center, your RT is a fricken TE , and doubt that particular line combination played together any in the previous season.

Does that not mean anything to you ?

If it doesn't, then you don't know enough football to even be posting, maybe you should lurk.

No, you're absolutely right. We should assume that the guys who are projected to start, most of whom who played many meaningful minutes last year, are just excellent despite the fact that they sucked last year. We should just blame all of last years' shortcomngs on injuries and inexperience and assume that they are incredible players.

How many times was our rushing offense horrible last year? How many times did our quarterback take game changing hits in the backfield?

Why are you now in a position to forget all of that and assume that this is a good unit? Because a few of them were 4 stars coming out of high school?

[silverwheels]

I think our OL will be good enough to put us back in contention for the conference title. But I don't think we'll go undefeated or be in the hunt for the crystal football.

[htownsooner7]

Stanford actually had a decent defense against the run last season, but their pass defense was *terrible*. We attacked their weakness to the tune of 400+ yards in the air; I call that a rational game plan. I'd love to see see us be more effective at running with the goal of being overall more effective on offense. I sure don't want to see us emphasize the run for the sake of balance. Watch to pokes if you like balance - seems they have put up almost identical run and pass yardage the last few years. (They put up about 50 yards of each against us last year :)).

I've been hearing this a lot and used to believe it until I look at the facts. We averaged 1.8 per rush against TT, 1.6 against Nebraska, 0.7 against UT, and 2.8 against Stanford. I think in each game we tried to run the ball over 30 times. Yes, the offensive line rotation was different in each of these games but Brandon, Good, Habern and Evans played in nearly every game.

And the deplorable run game doesn't even address that our starting quarterback was knocked out of the BYU game, knocked out of the Texas game, and was drilled from behind in one the biggest plays of the Miami game.

I'd kill for offensive line to be strong but at this point, I'm just rooting for them to be serviceable.

[Collier11]

Actually our pass blocking was decent last year, not great but good enough. It was run blocking that we struggled in and run blocking is a lot harder to learn and execute from what anyone who has ever played OL has told me.

Now we will have more continuity(hopefully) plus more experience and should be quite better

[goingoneight]

For most of us, it is simply spelled out like this...

NOBODY in today's game loses the five guys we lost in the off-season 2009 and just bounces right back to OUr record-setting pace.

Stoops adamantly proclaimed the OL was a glaring weakness in Spring ball 2009. Not only in numbers, but in effort and experience.

2009 was just a rollercoaster year. There's no "excuses" when it comes to being an objective fan. Why was OUr LT play bad in three consecutive games? Maybe because there was three different guys playing there? No, that can't be it... that would be letting facts and logic get in the way of another tired "we suck, we should just fire everybody and hang it up" argument.

Coming out of 2009 we finished with two performances that were satisfactory for the W. Considering we had guys playing critical postions WITHOUT a bunch of high school recruiting "stars," many out of position... I'd say we have a staff capable of producing. Guess what... you need look no further than Nebraska to see that yes... it can be worse... much worse.

So... getting all but two graduating seniors back, and having Stoops openly admit they have so far had a great off-season training and conditioning... well, it gives you reason to believe that OUr staff will right the ship.

Seriously... what two consecutive years in the Stoops era have we been so glaringly, obviously terrible at something that we didn't dramatically improve the next season.

I'm with you on your thesis of "I need to see it happen" though, OP. We had no reason to believe Mike Stoops, BV and BJW could coach themselves out of a paper bag in 1999, and they put together a run of some of the best Sooner defenses ever the next few years.

I'd be worried if we had a guy like Les Miles or Mack Brown, but I've seen this staff get to work on things before and turn it around many times before. It doesn't always happen overnight, or even over the course of two or three weeks... but bet your bottom dollar an entire off-season can clean things up. I always hear about how "we're Oklahoma! We don't rebuilt, we reload!" That might have been true when we had 200 guys on hand, but now many of those "extra" guys Wilkinson and Switzer had are playing for schools like KSU, OSU, A&M and Tech on a yearly basis. This is the single-most difficult thing for fans of the good 'ol days to comprehend. Yes, we CAN "reload..." it's called the off-season. "Do" we reload is the question. So the special teams go from bad to good to great... what if the defense sucks this year against the run and teams regularly gash us for 200+ yards per contest. Then, next year we're awesome on defense, great on special teams and we have to start a true freshman QB behind a rookie OL?

People believe in the strength in numbers... we've got a lot of those back for 2010. That's why you throw out what happened in 2009 like you do what happened in the Spring Football Game. If what Debbie Downers "thought" was going to happen, did in fact occur consistently; we'd be doomed to subpar football on a regular basis. With Stoops, this has not been the case. Stoops says it ALL THE TIME, each year is different. When you return a lot of guys, you should expect to be better. And we've come to see that on many occasions. You've got 5 losses on the mind as much as anything. It's a nasty taste to get out of your mouth, for sure... but it's not like we have a coaching staff that regularly drops 4 or 5 a year and never produces anything. Hope this helps you dive into the minds of us "hopeless sunshine pumpers" who haven't boldly predicted a crystal football, but have merely stated we expect an improvement.

[BoulderSooner79]

I've been hearing this a lot and used to believe it until I look at the facts. We averaged 1.8 per rush against TT, 1.6 against Nebraska, 0.7 against UT, and 2.8 against Stanford. I think in each game we tried to run the ball over 30 times. Yes, the offensive line rotation was different in each of these games but Brandon, Good, Habern and Evans played in nearly every game.

And the deplorable run game doesn't even address that our starting quarterback was knocked out of the BYU game, knocked out of the Texas game, and was drilled from behind in one the biggest plays of the Miami game.

I'd kill for offensive line to be strong but at this point, I'm just rooting for them to be serviceable.

I'm not disagreeing - just saying the Stanford game was not a great example. We would have come out passing against them even if our run game had been stronger. I'm sure the coaches wanted more than 2.8yd/carry, but the main goal was to keep the pass rushers and blitzers honest. The OL had major problems last year and more than just injuries - Stoops called them our early and he wasn't kidding. But some of the run game effectiveness has to do with our scheme. Even in '08 when the numbers looked okay on paper, we couldn't line up against a good team and hammer for good yards when it was expected. We needed a QB to toss 50 TDs so that the back 7 on D was thinking about coverage and couldn't react quick enough when we slipped in a run. Maybe the scheme needs to be tilted more toward the run now that we don't have SB back there. As far as the OL this year - they're still a question mark. I seriously doubt our collective Debbie Downer pessimism or crimson glasses optimism will come into play :). I'm going to hang my hat on what Bob Stoops said. I thought he was just trying to motivate the OL guys last year with his comments, but it turned out he was just being honest. This year, his comments about the OL have been very positive, so I'll believe him this time.

[soonerboy_odanorth]

I dont believe we had the same starting OL in any back to back games last year, the obvious reason we werent good last year on the OL was inexperience and massive injuries. If we stay healthy this season we will be pretty good


I think that is assuming a lot. The starting five we put out there first game this year will have never started a game together. And a couple of the guys we are counting on have only been "Good" in practice... Donald Stephenson (upon whom we are depending having the very critical left tackle spot nailed down) in particular. The fact is we don't have a track record of how these guys might look against the competition.

Please take that with a grain of salt in the sense that I think everyone recognizes how well Wilson (and Patton) has developed offensive lines over the years. There is a pattern of one year develpment followed by a couple stellar years. Certainly there is the chance that all the work has been put in to ensure this year's bunch is at least very solid.

On the other hand, by way of comparison, our current projected starting five will have about 30-35 combined starts under their belts. Compare that with Florida State who will be bringing an o-line to Norman with a combined 142 starts. When you look at it from that perspective the numbers don't support us having a really cohesive unit until 2011.

But you never know. That's why they pay Stoops and crew the big bucks.
We'll just have to sit back and (hopefully) enjoy watching it unfold.

[ouwasp]

I appreciate what goingoneight had to say. I think there is reason to expect improvement, even if it as simple-minded as my outlook:

The simply have to be better. The OL cannot perform that badly two years in a row

[TwoBits4]

No, you're absolutely right. We should assume that the guys who are projected to start, most of whom who played many meaningful minutes last year, are just excellent despite the fact that they sucked last year. We should just blame all of last years' shortcomngs on injuries and inexperience and assume that they are incredible players.

How many times was our rushing offense horrible last year? How many times did our quarterback take game changing hits in the backfield?

Why are you now in a position to forget all of that and assume that this is a good unit? Because a few of them were 4 stars coming out of high school?

What part of injuries and constant reshuffling of the oline , do you not understand.

You have no idea how this next season's oline will perform, nada, zip, not a clue .... based upon what we saw last year.

The key to good oline play is continuity and the whole can be much greater than the sum of the parts. Its a unit, that has to have game time playing together to mature.

You just stirring the pot with mostly worthless observation, cause there's nothing to be gleaned from the Sun Bowl , or most of the games last season. There is as much reason to be positive about the oline as their is reason to be negative.

[ndpruitt03]

You can't have as many injuries on the offensive line as we had last year. And you can't use the Stanford game as an example. It's amazing how much time Landry got in that game despite all those injuries. Trent Williams was playing center that game.

[IronHorseSooner]

I can tell you this, that if the veterans don't produce, there are a boat-load of young guys ready to go. 2009 was an anomaly, almost on a Biblical scale, and I bet that 2010 will be an improvement. Is it good enough to win the Big XII? Yes. Beyond that, who knows? 2011 is the year that I am really looking forward to seeing what we do.

[Soonerntxs]

At the Sun Bowl on the 50 yrd line trying to watch the game, while a group of whorns gear wearing smart ---, non football knowing haters, sat in front of us and cheered every stanford down; I watched as the Sooners struggled and I saw an OL give 100% every down. Sure, I saw flaws but the flaws were nothing that would prevent the "W". Yes, thats right a "W"! No, it wasn't pretty but it was a win, and several weeks prior back in Norman, I watched us demolish O.5 so, I take away from last year that the OL, D, ST & coaches are well aware of the good, bad & ugly of the past and will do nothing but improve for 2010. As I read some of these post, I can't but think of what some fans (?) require of OU? I think I would grow bored if OU had no competition. (say you?)

[gaylordfan1]

Ok, we have discussed the line..... But what do you guys think of our corners this year? Losing our two starters will hurt, but to what degree? Its looking like Hurst and Nelson. But there has also been talk about Nelson staying at SS. That would likely put Lynn or Flemming at the other corner. Trice has also been working at the corner position too. Discuss.....

[htownsooner7]

I think it hurts to lose multi-year veterans like Jackson and Franks. Particularly Franks, he was a big play maker. Can that be replaced? Possibly, but I'm not guaranteeing it. Now, on the flip side, both of those guys had flaws. I don't think Jackson ran well and had to compensate for that by giving more cushion. I think with Carter and Nelson returning and some rising stars that the coaches love like Hurst, this can be a good group. That being said, as in my earlier posts, I'm not going to assume the replacements will be better than the multi-year starters that we lost.

[htownsooner7]

You just stirring the pot with mostly worthless observation, cause there's nothing to be gleaned from the Sun Bowl , or most of the games last season. There is as much reason to be positive about the oline as their is reason to be negative.[/QUOTE]

If this is your point, then so be it. For the record, your repetitive posts clarify your position that in anticipating the level of play of Habern, Good, Brandon and Evans, there is "nothing to be gleaned" from how they played last year. Instead, we should discard their actual on the field performance and blindly be positive. If that's how you evaluate football, I get it. Its not how I do it.

Obviously, I want them to be solid, but I think they have a long way to go.

[goingoneight]

You know how I evaluate football? I expect individual improvement. We have a lot of experienced individuals back, more importantly healthy as of right now. We did not have that in July 2009.

[BoulderSooner79]

I agree that Jackson was a little slow at CB and had to compensate with a little cushion and veteran savvy. But he was very physical tackler and good at run support. And as you say, a multi-year starter which can't be discounted.

[oudavid1]

You know how I evaluate football? I expect individual improvement. We have a lot of experienced individuals back, more importantly healthy as of right now. We did not have that in July 2009.


Great point.

[Curly Bill]

We'll be better on the OL, as some have pointed out: how could we not be.

I'm gonna have to see it though before I think we'll actually be good on the OL this year.

[htownsooner7]

Exactly what Curly Bill said. These guys got dominated in too many games for me to "assume" they are a top caliber unit. If healthy, maybe they will turn the corner, but I just haven't seen good performances from them.

[Scott D]

htown the disconnect in this thread is that you're taking the individual performances by a group of what? 8-9 players and basing your conclusion on that. The other general consensus is that you don't judge an offensive line on individual performances but on a group performance. The end result is pretty much inconclusive as there was never anything that we could consider to be a cohesive starting unit at any point during the season.

As a unit they can clearly be better than they were last year. Perhaps Donaldson is the answer they were searching for last season. Perhaps if we have the same 5 guys playing the same 5 positions all the way through fall camp and into the season we'll have something resembling consistency. Perhaps having the same 5 guys playing in the same 5 positions makes them better as a whole.

Right now all you can say, is that all 8 or 9 guys got some valuable on field time last season and had a chance to demonstrate whether or not they had positional versatility last season.

Also, fwiw..last season Notre Dame had one of the highest start totals for it's entire OL going into the season. It wasn't enough to keep them from having a mostly anemic run offense, or to keep Jimmy Clausen from getting beaten up over the course of the season.