OU chances of defending in OT?

[Soonerjeepman]

Ok, so most folks think the TO was bad and seemingly bu was content to go for OT...

so, do you think OU's chances of defending a "short" 25 yrd line field would have been better against BU?

Obviously keeping the receivers in tighter...allowing tighter coverage....but that rb ran twice right through the middle of the line...

just curious...

[MI Sooner]

Maybe, maybe not, but the reason I didn't like the timeout was because we would have had the ball in the same circumstances as Baylor, instead of returning a kick with 8 seconds left.

[jumperstop]

When it looked like it was headed to OT I would have thought so, but after seeing that last drive I don't think we ever had a chance in hell...

[kevpks]

I liked our chanced of getting to the 3rd OT and having Ripkowski and Millard block their defenders out the back of the endzone as Bell charged in for the one point win.

[sooneron]

Snowball's chance. Actually, Baylor would have had trouble scoring consistently from that short of a distance.

[BigTip]

I liked our chanced of getting to the 3rd OT and having Ripkowski and Millard block their defenders out the back of the endzone as Bell charged in for the one point win.


That's why I liked the going for two on the last t.d. I thought it might come down to that anyway, why not do it then? That's assuming that we could match field goal for field goal if it came down to that, which I personally would not have bet on. I also liked the call because it did show that Bob has a little sack left after all.

To answer Soonerjeepman's question, which was one that was going through my head when we were lining up to go for the two, I think......I don't know. All of Baylor's scores were long ones. I didn't have anything to base their redzone capabilities on. All I knew was they were damn good from about their own 40!

[cccasooner2]

Maybe, maybe not, but the reason I didn't like the timeout was because we would have had the ball in the same circumstances as Baylor, instead of returning a kick with 8 seconds left.

Totally agree, I thought the timeout was the height of stupidity on SFBBs part. Whether we won or lost in the overtime has about as much relevance as what happened in the final 46 seconds. The whole point is that BU was conceeding playing overtime on equal terms until a victor was determined. SFBB threw that opportunity for a chance outcome to gain a possible 8 second attempt.

[Zin]

Baylor was not stopping OU and scoring on incredibly long pass plays. Give them a short field and things get a bit more difficult for them.

In other words, I liked OUs chances.

[soonercastor]

Go check where Baylor is ranked nationally in red zone offense (hint: it ain't good), that right there should be your answer.
We moved the ball well all they had was big plays.

[The Maestro]

I'm not sure Landry would have seen the field in OT. I figured we were going to Belldozer the entire time...and why not?

Without Baylor having the benefit of play action pass to a wide open guy 30 yards down the field I think the positioning in overtime very much favored OU, but not by much.

[FtwTxSooner]

OT was the only guarantee we'd see the football again. We needed to get the football and score in order to win. I'd rather go with a guarantee than some misguided hope, crossing your fingers, that we would manage to get a stop.

[tooslow]

Let it go....... ;)

If the D would've held, the timeout would've been a great call. No different than a coach who goes for it on 4th down. Great call if his team makes it, terrible call if they don't.

[cccasooner2]

Let it go....... ;)

If the D would've held, the timeout would've been a great call. No different than a coach who goes for it on 4th down. Great call if his team makes it, terrible call if they don't.

Nope, if the D held he still would have been the fool in all likelyhood. The "likely" outcome of the D holding was overtime. I repeat, that was a sh*t for brain moment for Bob.

[BigTip]

Let it go....... ;)

If the D would've held, the timeout would've been a great call. No different than a coach who goes for it on 4th down. Great call if his team makes it, terrible call if they don't.

I agree. Too many are focused on the TO as the cause for the loss. I don't think so. Baylor didn't need a timeout to call that play. They could do it in a short huddle. Receiver to RGIII: "Throw it long to me, I'll be open." RGIII: "Go for it, I'll hit you"

[Soonerjeepman]

Let it go....... ;)

If the D would've held, the timeout would've been a great call. No different than a coach who goes for it on 4th down. Great call if his team makes it, terrible call if they don't.

lol..it's just a question...passin the time of day...and all that ran through my head...but when it's playing in front of ya, ya got a few seconds to make that call...and yes I know..ANY call is GREAT if it works... ;-)

[pphilfran]

Evidently Stoops didn't like the chances...he was going for two to avoid it...he called a timeout in an attempt to get in a long field goal to avoid it....his actions speak volumes...

[JiminyChristmas]

Evidently Stoops didn't like the chances...he was going for two to avoid it...he called a timeout in an attempt to get in a long field goal to avoid it....his actions speak volumes...

Going for 2 had nothing to do with how Bob felt about our chances in OT. It had everything to do with him being confident that they had not come close to stopping the Belldozer all night long. The risk/reward of calling the timeout was just not in our favor. It was a bad decision. When we scored with 51 seconds left, I told my buddy to hold on because they already had 3 TD drives under 1 minute. Unfortunately, we gave them a chance for a fourth.

[BoulderSooner79]

Anything can happen in OT, but I think it favored us since it is effectively played in the redzone. I would have liked to see how it played out. But as we saw with OSU, no guarantees.

[cccasooner2]

Evidently Stoops didn't like the chances...he was going for two to avoid it...he called a timeout in an attempt to get in a long field goal to avoid it....his actions speak volumes...

To see how bad Stoops' decision on this matter was, consider this: Adam Shead and all the other members of the TEAM were denied their chance at redemption by his stupid decision to chance all on a hypothetical 8 second window. What would have occured in the OT does not matter, the TEAM was denied the opportunity that BU was giving them.

[85sooners]

**** ot go for the win!!

[BoulderSooner79]

**** ot go for the win!!

Art Briles agrees with you.

[Dan Thompson]

I forget, but is the game clock running on extra points, I don't think so.

[GrapevineSooner]

I forget, but is the game clock running on extra points, I don't think so.

No.

PAT's and 2 point conversions are untimed plays.

[BoulderSooner79]

I forget, but is the game clock running on extra points, I don't think so.

No, but what is your point?

[Dan Thompson]

I just wanted to get under your skin.

[BoulderSooner79]

I just wanted to get under your skin.

I was asking a serious question- thought maybe you had some insight and I wanted to hear it. My skin is still irratant free.

[GrapevineSooner]

And on second thought, I'm not so sure Baylor's playcalling on that game winning drive was necessarily dictated by the timeout.

With a 2nd and 6, it's not a stretch to suggest Art Briles would have had RGIII look to pass first, and then look to run and make something happen regardless if a timeout was taken there or not.

And I know that if OU had gone on to lose in OT, there'd be some folks wondering why we sat on all 3 of our timeouts at the end of regulation and didn't try to get the ball back. :biggrin:

[soonerbrat]

who cares? it matters not.

[Soonerjeepman]

who cares? it matters not.

crap...I thought if we talked long enough and more about it, the outcome will change!!!! :biggrin:

it was question for discussion...ummm...message board..topics..etc....carry on~

[GrapevineSooner]

crap...I thought if we talked long enough and more about it, the outcome will change!!!! :biggrin:

If that was the case, I'd talk more about Game 6 of the World Series :topsy_turvy:

[rekamrettuB]

Would have been nice had Bell not scored from 6 yards out and taken two plays was my first thought. I kept screaming for them to slow down when that final OU drive was going so well.

[BoulderSooner79]

And on second thought, I'm not so sure Baylor's playcalling on that game winning drive was necessarily dictated by the timeout.

With a 2nd and 6, it's not a stretch to suggest Art Briles would have had RGIII look to pass first, and then look to run and make something happen regardless if a timeout was taken there or not.

And I know that if OU had gone on to lose in OT, there'd be some folks wondering why we sat on all 3 of our timeouts at the end of regulation and didn't try to get the ball back. :biggrin:

BU was not in any hurry up after the initial play and the clock was running - they wouldn't have had time to score w/o our TO. They were doing the standard thing most coaches do in that situation since the risk of a turnover was higher than the odds of scoring. But once we used a TO, they were forced to try to make a first down and when they got it, the field position shifted the probabilities. Bob was playing the odds by calling the TO and it didn't work out. Bob's call was not so standard and is very dependent on the respect for the other guys offense. You are absolutely right about what would have happened had we lost in OT.

[Soonerjeepman]

BU was not in any hurry up after the initial play and the clock was running - they wouldn't have had time to score w/o our TO. They were doing the standard thing most coaches do in that situation since the risk of a turnover was higher than the odds of scoring. But once we used a TO, they were forced to try to make a first down and when they got it, the field position shifted the probabilities. Bob was playing the odds by calling the TO and it didn't work out. Bob's call was not so standard and is very dependent on the respect for the other guys offense. You are absolutely right about what would have happened had we lost in OT.

exactly...he took a gamble and didn't pay...I understand the argument that he was gambling on OU's D being able to stop them or them content with punting...it backfired...so then comes the let them play for the OT...and a shorter field...tighter D...

we'll never know...

[BigTip]

who cares? it matters not.

Maybe not to you, but the discussion helps me cope with a major (college football related) disappointment.

[Soonerus]

I would have called the timeout like Stoops...

[VA Sooner]

I'm OK with the two-point conversion attempt. Defense was getting tired and our offense was rolling on that last drive... unstoppable.

With the penalty in moving the ball back, the kick was the right way to go.

Going in to OT gave us the better chance because offense had a rhythm back and the left side was open for big plays, and Heupel and Landry kept attacking it... excellent adjustment. Plus... the big boy package was killing them, even when they knew it was coming.

[OU_Sooners75]

Woulda coulda shoulda...

Never works after the fact.

That said, at least OU would have had a chance to answer any scores in the OT.

I heard a stat about Baylor and RG3 that all TD passes for RG3 this year have been 34 yards or further. Not sure if that is true or not...but with a shorter field OU would have had better chances on Defense.

[sooneron]

I would have called the timeout like Stoops...

If you were wondering if was a smart call. I think this ^ gives you your answer.

[cccasooner2]

I would have called the timeout like Stoops...

A** kisser. :)

[SoonerMarkVA]

I liked our chanced of getting to the 3rd OT and having Ripkowski and Millard block their defenders out the back of the endzone as Bell charged in for the one point win.

Bingo.

At that point, both the offenses were moving at will, but OU's seemed to be superior in the short-yardage ground game (and whoda thunk anyone would say that given the last few years of OU's offense?). Once we were to the "must go for 2" point, the Belldozer wins it for us.

[rock on sooner]

I said this in another thread...I think 500 pounds of fullback and 255 pounds of Bell would have converted the 2 pointer from 8 yards out.
There was a six yard TD from the Belldozer earlier. Then Baylor has to come from behind with the 51 seconds and maybe, just maybe,
there would have been more alertness from the secondary and first quarter defense from the front seven. Just sayin'....

[BoulderSooner79]

I said this in another thread...I think 500 pounds of fullback and 255 pounds of Bell would have converted the 2 pointer from 8 yards out.
There was a six yard TD from the Belldozer earlier. Then Baylor has to come from behind with the 51 seconds and maybe, just maybe,
there would have been more alertness from the secondary and first quarter defense from the front seven. Just sayin'....

I see no basis for that statement. Baylor wins with any score regardless of whether the game is tied or they are behind by 1. Once they got that initial first down, our defense had to be on high alert - especially after they had a timeout to talk about it.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I think the Belldozer could have scored from 7 yards out.. I would have still tried it. I didn't like our chances in OT.

[SoonerAtKU]

I see no basis for that statement. Baylor wins with any score regardless of whether the game is tied or they are behind by 1. Once they got that initial first down, our defense had to be on high alert - especially after they had a timeout to talk about it.

I would actually agree that having a lead and putting that pressure on can force some bad decisions. There's no way they use a TO, so that cuts out a few seconds of time or forces Baylor to throw every down.

[oudavid1]

I know it is off-topic, but I would be more concerned with our offense and kicking game responding to a Baylor score or scoring first in overtime.

[soonercastor]

I think the Belldozer could have scored from 7 yards out.. I would have still tried it. I didn't like our chances in OT.

You can't be serious.

[soonercastor]

I know it is off-topic, but I would be more concerned with our offense and kicking game responding to a Baylor score or scoring first in overtime.

Take a look at Baylor's red zone offense. It's sh*tty.

[Soonerjeepman]

the more I think about it...the only way I go for 2 is IF we were up 1 with the 6 points...so 2 makes it a 3 pt lead...so a fg can only tie it up...

the risk/reward for a 2 down 1 (when ya don't have to do it to extend the game) is not worth it..

risk = don't make it we lose, reward = only up 1 pt with 50 sec left...so even a FG gives bu the win...

Bob took s chance the TO and it backfired...

[oudavid1]

Take a look at Baylor's red zone offense. It's sh*tty.

You know, thats a great point, they were not running very well. But still, kicking is always iffy with us.

[LVokie]

I would actually agree that having a lead and putting that pressure on can force some bad decisions. There's no way they use a TO, so that cuts out a few seconds of time or forces Baylor to throw every down.

... which is precisely why it would have been a bad thing for us. As we all saw, all night long, dropping guys into coverage expecting a pass didn't do jack; they beat us short, they beat us mid, they beat us long, and two consecutive stops was more than I could possibly have hoped for. Asking for another, with us going freakin' umbrella once again, was beyond retarded. Them trying to run out the clock was Christmas coming early for us, and Bob blew it. No, he didn't play the percentages, because the percentages (based on the way the night had gone) had them rolling right down the field and getting at least into field goal range. The percentages showed that our red zone prowess, particularly lately, was FAR above theirs, which would indicate that trading punches on a short field would work in our favor. There's no two ways about it; Bob was stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid ...


To those people who are arguing that Baylor could still have tried to score if SFB Bob hadn't called the timeout, you apparently weren't watching the same game I was. Baylor was taking their own sweet time getting up out of the pile even before the officials stopped the clock. More to the point, if you're going to try to score with no timeouts, what sort of moron would call a run up the middle to begin with? ... Okay, Kevin Wilson, but who else? Baylor WAS NOT TRYING TO SCORE. Then we made them try, and, what a shocker, they rolled us again. Frankly, I was happy for Briles; the opposing coach disrespects your offense like that, actual in-game results be d***ed, so you spread the field and rub it in his face. Good for Art; Stoops ought to be ashamed on multiple levels, period. Actually, here's a point to ponder: if Bob is so ready now to use Baylor's offensive abilities as an excuse ("fans shouldn't think that we're so much better than the other team," or words to that effect), then why wasn't he more inclined to avoid a pitched battle with that offense when no battle was required to keep the momentum or secure an advantage? Frankly, when it comes to that call, Bob's either FOS or incapable of coherent thought. Beyond indefensible.

[LVokie]

You know, thats a great point, they were not running very well. But still, kicking is always iffy with us.

Hunnicutt's doing fine and getting better. A lot more faith in him than in Saturday night's version of OU's long-field defense, that's for dang sure.

[SoonerorLater]

I would have played if for OT. From the 25 I think we could have given them a steady diet of the Bell Dozer which they showed no ability to stop all night. I think Stoops can defend the 2 point conversion but I would have played it for OT. The TO that one is a head scratcher. Why at that point, given what he had seen from our secondary all night, would he be given to believe we could stop them?