Good win for Tuberville but he sure made some boneheaded calls

[jkjsooner]

I haven't seen this discussed so I'll mention it. In my opinion Tuberville made some really stupid calls in our game. With a big lead he went for it on fourth down instead of kicking a field goal to extend the lead then he had a fake punt which was stuffed.

These two calls really helped OU get back in the game. I'm not sure why you would make calls like that with such a comfortable lead.

I suppose it's a compliment to our team that Tuberville felt he needed to take chances even with a big lead. I just don't understand the calls but as an OU fan I was happy he made them.

Something tells me if OU would have won the game this would have been a big topic of discussion.

[Mad Dog Madsen]

Why are we still talkin about this? Can we move on yet??? :disgust:

[BoulderSooner79]

Eye of the beholder; I thought the fake punt was a good call.

[jumperstop]

Eye of the beholder; I thought the fake punt was a good call.

If he had made it....but it set us up in great field position when his punter was already pinning us consistently. I don't remember if we scored on that drive or the turnover on downs in thier redzone, but they certainly got the crowd back into the game. Those were bonehead calls IMHO, I thought it at the time.

[NOVSooner]

I haven't seen this discussed so I'll mention it.

Something tells me if OU would have won the game this would have been a big topic of discussion.

we didn't win, that's why it wasn't discussed. Period. moving on now....

[jumperstop]

I guess we can only dicuss "Fire BV" after a loss.....no discussing football on the football forum.

[Mad Dog Madsen]

we didn't win, that's why it wasn't discussed. Period. moving on now....

+1

[Soonerfan88]

The turnover on downs resulted in the interception and the fake punt led to a touchdown.

I agreed with both calls simply because the OU defense had not shown they could consistently stop the Tech offense. TT still led after both calls and there was no reason to think they wouldn't stay ahead despite the outcome of either play.

[oudavid1]

The fake punt missed by a tiny bit. So the call was a good one. In my opinion.

[soonercastor]

Both were good calls.
He was sending a message to his team that they were playing to win, instead of playing not to lose. That 4th and 1 was a good call as well, did you see how our D was playing?

[jkjsooner]

You're the only one bitching so I guess that makes you the little bitch huh? And I know it happened, everybody here watched the same game. We played horrible and deserved to lose and I accepted that like 4 days ago. No need to keep dwelling on the past.

The problem is, Mad Dog, this thread wasn't even about us losing. Hell, it really wasn't even about us at all. It was about decisions made by the opposing coach in the game that, yes, we did happen to lose.

If it hurts you so much to think about the game I'd suggest click another link.

If this thread would have been a complaint about how we lost to a criticism of our players or coaches then you might have a point. But it isn't and that leaves you appearing to be the one having an irrational hissy fit.

[BoulderSooner79]

If he had made it....but it set us up in great field position when his punter was already pinning us consistently. I don't remember if we scored on that drive or the turnover on downs in thier redzone, but they certainly got the crowd back into the game. Those were bonehead calls IMHO, I thought it at the time.

Looking at the risk/reward I thought is was a good call at the time. It took a great play by our #2 (Julien?) to stop it. The risk was moderate because they were still in good shape regardless, but the reward of making it was higher. I commented at the time it was a gutsy call that I would have liked as a TT fan regardless of outcome. Just an opinion.

[pappy]

It doesn't matter if his calls were dumb or not...His team won and that's all that matters.

[jkjsooner]

The fake punt missed by a tiny bit. So the call was a good one. In my opinion.

Good, we're back on the subject.

So you don't think that when you have a comfortable lead you maximize your opportunity to win by not taking unnecessary risks? (Not talking about prevent defense or just running every down.) This just seems like the absolute opposite time you need to be taking these types of risks. If I'm the coach of the team that's behind, I would love the team that is ahead to roll the dice on these types of plays. It gives me a chance to get back in the game in a hurry - which is the exact thing I need - and what happened.

I know this is where someone will say that the best time to gamble is when it is not expected. That is true, of course, but there are limits. Sometimes it's unexpected simply because it's a dumb call.

The fact that he made that call was truly a sign of respect for the explosiveness of OU's offense.

[jumperstop]

The problem is, Mad Dog, this thread wasn't even about us losing. Hell, it really wasn't even about us at all. It was about decisions made by the opposing coach in the game that, yes, we did happen to lose.

If it hurts you so much to think about the game I'd suggest click another link.

If this thread would have been a complaint about how we lost to a criticism of our players or coaches then you might have a point. But it isn't and that leaves you appearing to be the one having an irrational hissy fit.

That's what I was getting....you just said it better.

I think the fake punt was a worse call than going for it on the forth in the redzone. Their defense had been stopping so that one makes a little more sense than the fake punt. If he had lost, they would have been pointing to that play. I'd said in another thread that would have been the play of the game if we had won.

[jumperstop]

The fake punt missed by a tiny bit. So the call was a good one. In my opinion.

It was like a yard and a half after seeing the replay. I don't consider that a tiny bit. And why not pin us deep when your punter has been killing us on field position all night.

[The Maestro]

I just thought it showed some guts for the fake punt call. Sure wish Stoops had shown the same cajones when we had fourth and short. At that point, are you playing to win or playing for field position? Seemed scared and not very "early Bob Stoops years-like".

[jumperstop]

Wow... you guys are definitely not the brightest crayons in the box. Please point out where I said I was mad about losing. I simply suggested we move on to the next game. I didn't mean to offend you or your boyfriend jumperstop. My apologies...

Jk isn't my boyfriend, I don't believe in commitment.....

Why do I have to move on from the game? It's not like I play for the team and it'll distract me.

[Mad Dog Madsen]

C'mon Froze! We were just having a little friendly conversation! :encouragement:

[Frozen Sooner]

Heh. Be nice.

[jumperstop]

I just thought it showed some guts for the fake punt call. Sure wish Stoops had shown the same cajones when we had fourth and short. At that point, are you playing to win or playing for field position? Seemed scared and not very "early Bob Stoops years-like".

Stoops hasn't been like that for years now. To his credit we haven't needed a fake punt to win many games, but it certainly could have been thrown in on a couple of those forth and short plays. But you got to think, we couldn't get first down on regular plays. What do you think would happen if we tried faking a punt?

[BoulderSooner79]

I just thought it showed some guts for the fake punt call. Sure wish Stoops had shown the same cajones when we had fourth and short. At that point, are you playing to win or playing for field position? Seemed scared and not very "early Bob Stoops years-like".

^This. And it wasn't a 1.5 yards short - more like .5. But the question was the opinion of the call - not the outcome. Even if someone didn't like the risk, I can't see calling it boneheaded.

And yes, I very much wanted to go for it on 4th down when we were down 7 - my gut told me a 3 and out there would kill us and it did. But the D had made a few stops in a row before that, so it could be argued both ways.

[8timechamps]

I thought, at the time, there were some boneheaded calls...but, in perspective, that's part of the reason they were successful. Looking back, I think every call he Tubberville made was the right call. He knew we were going to wake up at some point, so he was overly aggressive. In the end, it paid off (if for no other reason than it kept us guessing).

Kudos to Tubberville, he knows how to slay giants.

[Okie35]

This game is dead to me.

[Mad Dog Madsen]

This game is dead to me.

Heh. +1

[jumperstop]

^This. And it wasn't a 1.5 yards short - more like .5. But the question was the opinion of the call - not the outcome. Even if someone didn't like the risk, I can't see calling it boneheaded.

And yes, I very much wanted to go for it on 4th down when we were down 7 - my gut told me a 3 and out there would kill us and it did. But the D had made a few stops in a row before that, so it could be argued both ways.

Hindsight is 20/20 it's only a ok call because they won. If they had lost the Tech fans would be screaming about going for a fake punt, in you're own territory, late in the third, being up 20. I guess the best time to go for a fake punt would be when the other team least expects it, but I called it a bad call for Tech the instant it happened and I'll stick with that. But in the end, doesn't matter, we lost. Should have been the play of the game for us....

[BoulderSooner79]

Hindsight is 20/20 it's only a ok call because they won. If they had lost the Tech fans would be screaming about going for a fake punt, in you're own territory, late in the third, being up 20. I guess the best time to go for a fake punt would be when the other team least expects it, but I called it a bad call for Tech the instant it happened and I'll stick with that. But in the end, doesn't matter, we lost. Should have been the play of the game for us....

Fans will always howl when a risky call doesn't work if the team loses. No coach worth his salt is going to let that influence his calls.

[jumperstop]

Fans will always howl when a risky call doesn't work if the team loses. No coach worth his salt is going to let that influence his calls.

I personally still wouldn't have gone for it because of all the factors listed in my previous post. Not saying the fans determine the call, but if they lost it would have been a bad call. It's more than just a field position thing. Those plays got the fans (who where remaining) and the players fired up. That said we lost, so they weren't the worst calls, but I still wouldn't go for them. Then again I don't coach or never have....

[BoulderSooner79]

I personally still wouldn't have gone for it because of all the factors listed in my previous post. Not saying the fans determine the call, but if they lost it would have been a bad call. It's more than just a field position thing. Those plays got the fans (who where remaining) and the players fired up. That said we lost, so they weren't the worst calls, but I still wouldn't go for them. Then again I don't coach or never have....

You asked for opinions and I gave one and my reasons. I would have been happy with my coach making that 1 call regardless of outcome. He had a 20 pt cushion, so it wasn't that risky and we could have made up the punt yardage in 1 play potentially. But had TT made it, they get a new series, drain clock and even potentially ice the game with a score if the drive continues. You can disagree it was a good call, but "boneheaded" implies high risk/low reward and that wasn't the case.

[Frozen Sooner]

Fans will always howl when a risky call doesn't work if the team loses. No coach worth his salt is going to let that influence his calls.

This is something that Gregg Easterbrook talks about in his ESPN column all the time: coaches in the NFL frequently make risk-averse choices rather than game-winning choices because they want to be able to defend the call to their next potential employer.

A great example: remember how Barry Switzer was pilloried in the press for going for it 4th and 1 against the Eagles on the Cowboy's side of the field? I'm thinking "You have Emmitt Smith and a great OL. You SHOULD go for it on 4th and 1."

[jumperstop]

You asked for opinions and I gave one and my reasons. I would have been happy with my coach making that 1 call regardless of outcome. He had a 20 pt cushion, so it wasn't that risky and we could have made up the punt yardage in 1 play potentially. But had TT made it, they get a new series, drain clock and even potentially ice the game with a score if the drive continues. You can disagree it was a good call, but "boneheaded" implies high risk/low reward and that wasn't the case.

I take back any bonehead comment about the fake punt, I just wouldn't do it. The forth down call in the redzone, excellent call.

[btb916]

I thought both were terrible calls, but the worst was the 4th and 1 on the goal line. If he would have put some points on the board, the game would have ended right then and there IMO.

[oudavid1]

Good, we're back on the subject.

So you don't think that when you have a comfortable lead you maximize your opportunity to win by not taking unnecessary risks? (Not talking about prevent defense or just running every down.) This just seems like the absolute opposite time you need to be taking these types of risks. If I'm the coach of the team that's behind, I would love the team that is ahead to roll the dice on these types of plays. It gives me a chance to get back in the game in a hurry - which is the exact thing I need - and what happened.

I know this is where someone will say that the best time to gamble is when it is not expected. That is true, of course, but there are limits. Sometimes it's unexpected simply because it's a dumb call.

The fact that he made that call was truly a sign of respect for the explosiveness of OU's offense.

It worked vs us in 08 vs texas and that was a key play in winning the game. I just liked the idea of going for it is all. Not saying I would of. I really dont know. But I saw it coming so maybe thats why I liked it.

[ou1883]

I thought both were terrible calls, but the worst was the 4th and 1 on the goal line. If he would have put some points on the board, the game would have ended right then and there IMO.

Don't think it would have ended on that particular play, but very soon after. If they had kicked the field goal, Tech would have went up by 20 points. OU on the next drive ended up with 4th and Goal from the 5. Stoops elected to kick a field goal to make it a 14 point game. If it was a 20 point game at that time, OU would have gone for it.

Thought both calls were horrible, but actually think the 4th down call was worse in terms of the situation.

[mdklatt]

I haven't seen this discussed so I'll mention it. In my opinion Tuberville made some really stupid calls in our game. With a big lead he went for it on fourth down instead of kicking a field goal to extend the lead then he had a fake punt which was stuffed.


Massive underdog on the road in Owen Field where we haven't lost in five years and you've got us on the ropes with nothing to lose? Go for the jugular. Go big or go home.

I think TT is very well coached under Tuberville. Their defense was almost always in position, and they tackle while our guys look like they're trying to pin a wrist corsage on somebody. Their 4 dozen receivers were always running good routes so that Doege knew exactly where to put the ball even as the receiver slid out from behind a wall of linebackers.

[tooslow]

Fans will always howl when a risky call doesn't work if the team loses. No coach worth his salt is going to let that influence his calls.

This says it all right here. I guarantee every Tech fan was cussing and screaming, "Why did he do that!?" Had the play worked, there would have been high 5's and joyous claims of, "Great call!!" I thought it was a good call, and I was VERY glad he went for it (since they didn't get it.)