I don't understand . . .

[Jacie]

. . . why some posters get upset with the use of Blake Bell in short yardage situations. I am glad the staff found a formation to make scoring touchdowns in the red zone a high percentage play. How is that not a good thing? Does it bother them because Landry Jones and the receiving corp don't get the scoring opportunities they used to thus affecting their individual stats? Do they think OU should have a single line up and use nothing but the same 11 players every down? By extension do they want OU to recruit a QB who can also kick field goals and punt so we won't be at the mercy kids who only step onto the field a handful of times during a game? What?

[starclassic tama]

some people are just stupid. OU is fortunate enough to recruit top athletes and have top athletes waiting in the wings behind starters. why would you want to let blake bell's short yardage skills go to waste when it's almost an automatic first down/touchdown?

[Ground_Attack]

I think it bothers them (and me to some extent) because they (we) feel we are having to resort to a gimmick type of offense to score from the red zone, whereas before we have been able to do what we want for the most part. The thought is that it makes us look weak up front (which we are most definitely in run-blocking). I think it is the perception.

That said, you have to work with what you have and if that was the best solution for this year...I'm great with it.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

EXACTO

[delhalew]

It's stupid to be upset about increased productivity. I fail to see how having a heavy short yardage package is a gimmick. They bitch we can't punch it in, they bitch when we do...uhgg.

[Ground_Attack]

maybe the angst doesn't arise from the actual use of the Belldozer but is more directed at the offensive staff, line and RBs for not being adequate in the running game. I love to see Bell score TDs, but I don't like to see the formation HAVE TO BE used because of our short yardage ineptness. Its two different arguments, really.

[delhalew]

Lots of teams have trouble moving the ball inside the five. Even our weaker than normal defense has made goal line stands. If our receivers would catch, or Landry wouldn't over through them, it wouldn't be so bad. Without the Belldozer, we just aren't built to punch it in.

Looking at who we are recruiting should make you guys happy. It looks like a philosophical change in offense, leaning towards a better balance of power and quick strike.

[sooners2win]

I wish they had run the formation about 30 times against okie st

[Breadburner]

Would have been nice to have in the NC against FLA......

[soonercoop1]

I think it bothers them (and me to some extent) because they (we) feel we are having to resort to a gimmick type of offense to score from the red zone, whereas before we have been able to do what we want for the most part. The thought is that it makes us look weak up front (which we are most definitely in run-blocking). I think it is the perception.

That said, you have to work with what you have and if that was the best solution for this year...I'm great with it.


OU has had trouble scoring inside the 10 for some time now until the bell dozer....

[FirstandGoal]

Would have been nice to have in the NC against FLA......


Would have been to have had it last year against eATMe....

[StoopTroup]

I wasn't ever to upset by it as we had seen significant injuries and getting Landry hurt in short yardage situations would have really hurt us IMHO. I'm sure the Landry haters would have loved it as they are already quick to see him move on so that Allen or Blake or someone else can get in there and be something different to bitch about, but IMO, it made great sense as after it worked time and time again....we started using it on short yardage plays down field too.

The thing that I didn't care for was that we tried to let Blake pass out of that formation a couple of times and I would have liked to have seen them start expanding his abilties from it a bit more instead of the Defenses basically knowing he was going to run. Now that the Season is over, if Landry does indeed go Pro and Blake becomes our starter or even continues to back up Allen or a Freshman recruit like he did Landry, I surely think he will surprise folks if he's able to find a couple of guys to hook up on deep routes in short yardage plays. Seeing him just continue to run will be very disappointing to me as I've seen him pass in Game Warm-ups and he's got a rifle arm. I can't imagine why Josh isn't really working him over right now about learning to have the same patience in the pocket and find WRs. If he could be as good as a passer as he is as a Dozer....We will have a replacement for Landry and really be a force next year. It should be exciting to see how he and Allen go at it at the Red/White Game if Landry goes Pro.

[stoopified]

It is NOT a gimmick,it is called situational substitution.This in no different than bringing in Ripkowski at FB and putting Millard at TB.I would think people would applaud this coachingstaff for thinking OUTSIDE THE BOX,especially since it has been so sucessfull. I don't know how many hundreds 9 IF NOT THOUSANDS) of posts I have read over the years bemoaning a lack of imagination on offense.

[BoulderSooner79]

Who are these upset people of which you speak? I've only seen disappointment that the regular offense has such poor stats in the redzone and I think that is legit. Almost every team has some sort of wildcat/QB-as-runner these days, so it's mostly just copycat. Ours is a bit different in that we don't use a RB or WR, but we haven't tapped into any real QB skills yet, so it's really the same thing.

There is also reason to be concerned over the lack of passing TDs and not because of the Belldozer unit. Many, if not most, passing TDs come from outside the 7 yd line and the Belldozer is only used at close range. We had zero medium to long range passing TDs in the last 4 games and that's a big problem for a pass-first offense. Oh well, water under the bridge and a full offseason to come up with something more effective.

[SoonerorLater]

I don't know if there are a lot of people upset but I for one am not crazy about the concept of situational offenses like the Belldozer. It's just not an optimal way to run an offense. While it's yielded
good results so far I just don't think you can depend on this kind of gimmick if you had to score from the 5 yard line on a championship caliber defense like LSU or Alabama. You need a multiple threat offense which is where I think they should put their efforts. We shouldn't have to result to wholesale substitutions to score inside the 10 yard line. We just need to be able to run effectively out of our base offense. If we can't then we need a different offense.

[jk the sooner fan]

i've heard fans complaining for years about the inability to "punch it in" from 2-3 yards out - well now that problem is solved

and Bell is sure to break the career touchdown rushing record by the end of next season - so there's that

[FirstandGoal]

I swear some of you guys would bitch if it were raining money because you'd have to bend over to pick it up.....

[kevpks]

It's a great addition to our offense and I can't wait to see how it develops after a full spring practice schedule and fall camp.

[StoopTroup]

Who are these upset people of which you speak? I've only seen disappointment that the regular offense has such poor stats in the redzone and I think that is legit. Almost every team has some sort of wildcat/QB-as-runner these days, so it's mostly just copycat. Ours is a bit different in that we don't use a RB or WR, but we haven't tapped into any real QB skills yet, so it's really the same thing.

There is also reason to be concerned over the lack of passing TDs and not because of the Belldozer unit. Many, if not most, passing TDs come from outside the 7 yd line and the Belldozer is only used at close range. We had zero medium to long range passing TDs in the last 4 games and that's a big problem for a pass-first offense. Oh well, water under the bridge and a full offseason to come up with something more effective.


I was thinking that one of the great things about OU and the Fans is that even if we do something like a copycat....

We always have a really cool little saying like "BELLDOZER".

That is teh Awesome IMO. :D

Much better than RGIII or RG3.

[Ground_Attack]

I swear some of you guys would bitch if it were raining money because you'd have to bend over to pick it up.....

who is bitching? A question was asked and an answer provided. I don't see any bitching.

[SicEmBaylor]

. . . why some posters get upset with the use of Blake Bell in short yardage situations. I am glad the staff found a formation to make scoring touchdowns in the red zone a high percentage play. How is that not a good thing? Does it bother them because Landry Jones and the receiving corp don't get the scoring opportunities they used to thus affecting their individual stats? Do they think OU should have a single line up and use nothing but the same 11 players every down? By extension do they want OU to recruit a QB who can also kick field goals and punt so we won't be at the mercy kids who only step onto the field a handful of times during a game? What?

This perplexes me as well. It works? Why bitch about something that works? For God's sake...

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I don't know if there are a lot of people upset but I for one am not crazy about the concept of situational offenses like the Belldozer. It's just not an optimal way to run an offense. While it's yielded
good results so far I just don't think you can depend on this kind of gimmick if you had to score from the 5 yard line on a championship caliber defense like LSU or Alabama. You need a multiple threat offense which is where I think they should put their efforts. We shouldn't have to result to wholesale substitutions to score inside the 10 yard line. We just need to be able to run effectively out of our base offense. If we can't then we need a different offense.

You play with what you have. It just so happens that this year, the kid who can smell the end zone is a QB. Thus you form a package for the guy and you go score. I have no idea why we have no running backs that qualify, since 2002 we've always had a kejuan or a murray or a brown that could get it to paydirt.

[SoonerMarkVA]

It is NOT a gimmick,it is called situational substitution.This in no different than bringing in Ripkowski at FB and putting Millard at TB.I would think people would applaud this coachingstaff for thinking OUTSIDE THE BOX,especially since it has been so sucessfull. I don't know how many hundreds 9 IF NOT THOUSANDS) of posts I have read over the years bemoaning a lack of imagination on offense.

Many of us have. There will always be those who find something to complain about. Of all the things one could complain about this season, it's hard to imagine people settling on the Belldozer.

[StoopTroup]

I have no idea why we have no running backs that qualify, since 2002 we've always had a kejuan or a murray or a brown that could get it to paydirt.

I thought we did. His name was Dom Whaley. He beat out Finch and Clay. Other than that we had a RS Freshman Julian Winters (5'-10'' 156 lbs :cower:) and a Freshman Danzel Williams (5'8'' 186 lbs :cower:). Now...if Dom hadn't gotten hurt, things were obviously progressing and progressing enough that Bob thought it wise to even throw Dom a Scholarship after knowing he was hurt. With 5 RBs in the RB Stable and one wasn't a Scholarship player, we would surely be looking to whether the guys that were still on the Roster with Scholarships were worth keeping during this time is putting our proverbial foot down. It seems to me we were pretty thin at RB and with two guys hurt...Finch was about it since Brandon Williams decided to transfer. He's already been taken off our Roster.

Check it out. There are now only 5 RBs on our Roster. With Dom, Finch and Clay that doesn't leave much. We need to really recruit or find some guys like Dom that would like to walk on. Surely the Coaches understand what their needs are. I know those two Freshman aren't much bigger than Finch and maybe they are faster than a speeding bullet or "Q-like" but we have been really good at RB when we had a 6'0'' 200 lb RB with good speed and AD build. Why Bob has all these smaller RBs is bothering me a bit.

http://www.soonersports.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/okla-m-footbl-mtt.html

(http://www.soonersports.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/okla-m-footbl-mtt.html)

[BoulderSooner79]

I don't see why people question the people complaining when there is no one complaining.

EDIT: and if there was enough money to pick up, I would pay someone to pick it up for me (and pay someone else to watch that person to keep 'em honest).

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I thought we did. His name was Dom Whaley. He beat out Finch and Clay. Other than that we had a RS Freshman Julian Winters (5'-10'' 156 lbs :cower:) and a Freshman Danzel Williams (5'8'' 186 lbs :cower:). Now...if Dom hadn't gotten hurt, things were obviously progressing and progressing enough that Bob thought it wise to even throw Dom a Scholarship after knowing he was hurt. With 5 RBs in the RB Stable and one wasn't a Scholarship player, we would surely be looking to whether the guys that were still on the Roster with Scholarships were worth keeping during this time is putting our proverbial foot down. It seems to me we were pretty thin at RB and with two guys hurt...Finch was about it since Brandon Williams decided to transfer. He's already been taken off our Roster.

Did you just read part of the post and then go into defensive mode?

I was talking about why we didn't have any running backs that were good at getting into the end zone.

[StoopTroup]

Did you just read part of the post and then go into defensive mode?

I was talking about why we didn't have any running backs that were good at getting into the end zone.

I was really trying to not make you feel like I was defending anything....I was trying to point out that we lost the guy that was sticking it into the EZ. He was a walkon for God's Sake. Yeah...he was a damn good walk on but a walk on at OU none the less.

We lost a great RB in DeMarco and we didn't have anyone that stepped up once Whaley blew past the guys that evidently thought they were that good. They aren't as good as Dom. Finch and Clay are pretty damn good but not as good as Dom was. Finch was sticking it into the EZ when he was a Freshman and everyone was crazy about him. After his injury he just hasn't returned to his Freshman form. It's why I am worried about Dom and I surely hope we use Williams Scholarship to reload our RB Stable. I think I'm answering your question by admitting the only guy we had was a walk-on other than Clay who also got hurt this year.

Basically....we didn't have a RB who could score in the EZ because they were injured during the season. I know folks don't want to admit that we ran out of talent and that the great OU didn't have a Heisman Trophy RB in their 5th slot of the depth chart.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I don't know if there are a lot of people upset but I for one am not crazy about the concept of situational offenses like the Belldozer. It's just not an optimal way to run an offense. While it's yielded
good results so far I just don't think you can depend on this kind of gimmick if you had to score from the 5 yard line on a championship caliber defense like LSU or Alabama. You need a multiple threat offense which is where I think they should put their efforts. We shouldn't have to result to wholesale substitutions to score inside the 10 yard line. We just need to be able to run effectively out of our base offense. If we can't then we need a different offense.Well, Landry's inability or unwillingness to be an effective runner when necessary has been a real problem for us, as well as not having any power runners escept Millard, and to some degree Whaley, when he was healthy. Of course, the MOST significant prob. has been weak run blocking, but that seems to dramatically improve when Bell, and maybe Millard run the ball...WHEN WE RUN WITH BELL AS QB.

IOW, it IS sorta weird, isn't it?!

[VA Sooner]

With all the injuries comes innovative game-planning. Not having Whaley as our tough yardage back made the coaches improvise.

And I think it's time to give them credit for fixing our 2-3 year red-zone offense failures... much better now and not holding my breath when we're on the goal line anymore.

[SoonerorLater]

I went back and and watched a few You Tube clips of the 1970's OU teams. I know when we talk about those teams we usually talk about Joe Washington and the Wishbone or Leroy Selmon and the defense but take a look at OU's offensive line. Those guys were moving the line of scrimmage back 5 yards. That kind of dedication to the run is what the current OU teams are missing.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I went back and and watched a few You Tube clips of the 1970's OU teams. I know when we talk about those teams we usually talk about Joe Washington and the Wishbone or Leroy Selmon and the defense but take a look at OU's offensive line. Those guys were moving the line of scrimmage back 5 yards. That kind of dedication to the run is what the current OU teams are missing.

You mean when they had 105 scholarships and could carry 30 OL on the roster?

[SoonerorLater]

You mean when they had 105 scholarships and could carry 30 OL on the roster?

That's true but the other team could have had 30 defensive linemen on the roster also. I think the last one I watched was OU-Michigan so it wasn't like they were playing a bunch of chumps.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

That's true but the other team could have had 30 defensive linemen on the roster also. I think the last one I watched was OU-Michigan so it wasn't like they were playing a bunch of chumps.

You are kind of missing the point here.

1. More scholarships removes talent from lower tier schools. Each top tier school took 20 more players that would have fallen down to the tier 2 schools.
2. OL is about age, physique, repetition and technique. Having 30 on the roster means that you are always replacing 5th year seniors with 5th year seniors.

[StoopTroup]

Any idea how many Schollies we have available now?

[BoulderSooner79]

I went back and and watched a few You Tube clips of the 1970's OU teams. I know when we talk about those teams we usually talk about Joe Washington and the Wishbone or Leroy Selmon and the defense but take a look at OU's offensive line. Those guys were moving the line of scrimmage back 5 yards. That kind of dedication to the run is what the current OU teams are missing.

While you're at it, take a look at those same lines' lame azz attempt at pass blocking. Fans back then were constantly begging for Switzer to throw the ball more because we got big plays out of it. But it only worked when it was a surprise, so it could only be tried <10 times a game. If we got into 3rd and long, we couldn't pass block worth a darn. There are tradeoffs.

[SoonerorLater]

You are kind of missing the point here.

1. More scholarships removes talent from lower tier schools. Each top tier school took 20 more players that would have fallen down to the tier 2 schools.
2. OL is about age, physique, repetition and technique. Having 30 on the roster means that you are always replacing 5th year seniors with 5th year seniors.


I do understand but the top teams were still going to get their share of the best players. Interestingly enough the 1975 OU roster had only 14 O Linemen (ex TE) listed. The 2011 OU roster had 19 listed O Linemen so even with the 85 limit we have more then they did in 1975.

[SoonerorLater]

I do understand but the top teams were still going to get their share of the best players. Interestingly enough the 1975 OU roster had only 14 O Linemen (ex TE) listed. The 2011 OU roster had 19 listed O Linemen so even with the 85 limit we have more then they did in 1975.

Before anybody corrects me I miscounted. We had 17 in 1975. Still one less then we have today. In any event what I see with my eyes tells me we aren't anywhere near that level today.

[agoo758]

The majority of Bell bashers are more than likely Wilson supporters who know that he would certainly resisted this package and instead resort to a delayed ten yard deep draw right into the backs of mediocre linemen. I wouldn't concern yourself with dumb people.

All speculation of course. :excitement:

[SoonerorLater]

While you're at it, take a look at those same lines' lame azz attempt at pass blocking. Fans back then were constantly begging for Switzer to throw the ball more because we got big plays out of it. But it only worked when it was a surprise, so it could only be tried <10 times a game. If we got into 3rd and long, we couldn't pass block worth a darn. There are tradeoffs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9w4Ft12Tgg&NR=1&feature=endscreen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yR0Q-dMj9g

[BoulderSooner79]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9w4Ft12Tgg&NR=1&feature=endscreen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yR0Q-dMj9g

Your point? LIke I said, we got big plays out of the passing game considering we usually threw just a handful of times a game. I was a student in the 70s and when those teams got in 3rd and long and tried to pass, the pass rush would usually go through the line like a sieve. It wasn't a run-first offense, it was a run *mostly* offense. When it was clicking, it was a thing of beauty and it rarely got into a passing down and distance situation. The few passes were surprises and they were often aimed at big yardage because there was no reason to risk a pass for a small gain. Switzer hated passing in 3rd and long so much, he had the QB quick kick on several occasions.

I'm agreeing with you that it takes dedication to the run to do it well, but it also takes dedication to the passing game to do that well. And there is a tradeoff and it's difficult to excel at both - at least at the college level. Until Broyles went down, we led the nation in fewest sacks allowed. After that, LJ was forced to hold the ball longer and LJ got sacked in the last few games, but it wasn't because the line wasn't doing it's job.

[picasso]

You are kind of missing the point here.

1. More scholarships removes talent from lower tier schools. Each top tier school took 20 more players that would have fallen down to the tier 2 schools.
2. OL is about age, physique, repetition and technique. Having 30 on the roster means that you are always replacing 5th year seniors with 5th year seniors.
Thank you! Too many people overlook this when trying to compare the present day to what Switzer was able to do.

[yermom]

i can't believe how gimmicky and ineffective it was when Florida changed offenses and ran their Freshman QB at the goal-line in 2006

[SoonerorLater]

Your point? LIke I said, we got big plays out of the passing game considering we usually threw just a handful of times a game. I was a student in the 70s and when those teams got in 3rd and long and tried to pass, the pass rush would usually go through the line like a sieve. It wasn't a run-first offense, it was a run *mostly* offense. When it was clicking, it was a thing of beauty and it rarely got into a passing down and distance situation. The few passes were surprises and they were often aimed at big yardage because there was no reason to risk a pass for a small gain. Switzer hated passing in 3rd and long so much, he had the QB quick kick on several occasions.

I'm agreeing with you that it takes dedication to the run to do it well, but it also takes dedication to the passing game to do that well. And there is a tradeoff and it's difficult to excel at both - at least at the college level. Until Broyles went down, we led the nation in fewest sacks allowed. After that, LJ was forced to hold the ball longer and LJ got sacked in the last few games, but it wasn't because the line wasn't doing it's job.


My point is that if you look at those clips the pass blocking, for as you said was run mostly team, looks a lot better than the current OU teams run blocking. I know it's hard to compare the teams but both Steve Davis and Jamelle Holieway had pretty good passing efficiency ratings. Holieway had a 141.53 rating and Davis had a 135.96 rating. That puts both of those guys with higher ratings than passing era guys like Nate Hybel, Cale Gundy and Josh Heupel.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I do understand but the top teams were still going to get their share of the best players. Interestingly enough the 1975 OU roster had only 14 O Linemen (ex TE) listed. The 2011 OU roster had 19 listed O Linemen so even with the 85 limit we have more then they did in 1975.

I'm assuming the roster you have has over 130 players on it?

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

My point is that if you look at those clips the pass blocking, for as you said was run mostly team, looks a lot better than the current OU teams run blocking. I know it's hard to compare the teams but both Steve Davis and Jamelle Holieway had pretty good passing efficiency ratings. Holieway had a 141.53 rating and Davis had a 135.96 rating. That puts both of those guys with higher ratings than passing era guys like Nate Hybel, Cale Gundy and Josh Heupel.

There was one more point that I was going to add but we had a power outage and I couldn't go back and edit it.

In the 70s, not only did they have more available players, they also had more allowed practice time. I believe it was on the order of 55% more hours than the coaches are allowed now. Although coaches now have more bowl prep time because the bowls go later.

[SoonerorLater]

There was one more point that I was going to add but we had a power outage and I couldn't go back and edit it.

In the 70s, not only did they have more available players, they also had more allowed practice time. I believe it was on the order of 55% more hours than the coaches are allowed now. Although coaches now have more bowl prep time because the bowls go later.

Could be though when all teams play by the same rules (presumably) I can't see the comparative advantage. Here is my take. I will just go ahead and be up front and say I don't know much about O line coaching, technique, etc. However guys who know more than me have told me that O line talent is about the hardest to evaluate. I think Switzer and staff were gifted in evaluating talent. I don't think Stoops and his staff are quite as good. We have gone too far down the road of rating services passing for in depth recruiting and evaluation. While the O line may be the most difficult to find that sure fire winner it's also the easiest to find a diamond in the rough. That's what I think we haven't done well. I wonder if Oklahoma guys from National Championship teams like Karl Baldischwiler, Mike Vaughan and Sammy Jack Claphan would even be offered a scholarship today.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Could be though when all teams play by the same rules (presumably) I can't see the comparative advantage. Here is my take. I will just go ahead and be up front and say I don't know much about O line coaching, technique, etc. However guys who know more than me have told me that O line talent is about the hardest to evaluate. I think Switzer and staff were gifted in evaluating talent. I don't think Stoops and his staff are quite as good. We have gone too far down the road of rating services passing for in depth recruiting and evaluation. While the O line may be the most difficult to find that sure fire winner it's also the easiest to find a diamond in the rough. That's what I think we haven't done well. I wonder if Oklahoma guys from National Championship teams like Karl Baldischwiler, Mike Vaughan and Sammy Jack Claphan would even be offered a scholarship today.

I don't think there is any question that you are right about that. Outside of DE we've had voids of talent at other positions (QB and Running back have been close).

[StoopTroup]

It kind of seems that we aren't void of talent as much as the talent we have seems to become a head case if they end up playing behind a Walk on or hanging in as #2 QB for two years.

I think if we saw our backups and #2 on the depth chart continue to kill Teams after we pulled our Starters they could be considered talented but that's not what we saw this year. Now....was that because they had laid down on the Team and decided to leave at the end of the Season or because they just became a head case? When they can transfer to a TAMU for instance....What's the real story? IMO we will see Brandon Williams ride the pine at TAMU and Ronnell won't play even 3 years in the NFL and Allen has an opportunity to prove himself as our Starter for two years should Landry go Pro.

The O-Line? I thought they did a great job protecting Landry this year until the oSu Game and they did a great job blocking for Finch and Bell. In 7 games Whaley was on track to rush for over 1000 yards and if Landry had thrown for 5000 yards...we would have had a much different outcome. What we saw was the loss of some really huge contributors this year and it hurt us badly.

[Ground_Attack]

I'm still looking for the bitching. :pride:

[StoopTroup]

I'm still looking for the bitching. :pride:

We have some OUstanding talent in that position....lol

[toast]

Could be though when all teams play by the same rules (presumably) I can't see the comparative advantage. Here is my take. I will just go ahead and be up front and say I don't know much about O line coaching, technique, etc. However guys who know more than me have told me that O line talent is about the hardest to evaluate. I think Switzer and staff were gifted in evaluating talent. I don't think Stoops and his staff are quite as good. We have gone too far down the road of rating services passing for in depth recruiting and evaluation. While the O line may be the most difficult to find that sure fire winner it's also the easiest to find a diamond in the rough. That's what I think we haven't done well. I wonder if Oklahoma guys from National Championship teams like Karl Baldischwiler, Mike Vaughan and Sammy Jack Claphan would even be offered a scholarship today.

As important as talent evaluation is, it is just as critical as to who the ol goes against each day. The lines in the 70's and 80's had to face the likes of the Selmons, Bryans, Casillas, Murphy, so on and so on at practice. Iron sharpens iron.

[BoulderSooner79]

My point is that if you look at those clips the pass blocking, for as you said was run mostly team, looks a lot better than the current OU teams run blocking. I know it's hard to compare the teams but both Steve Davis and Jamelle Holieway had pretty good passing efficiency ratings. Holieway had a 141.53 rating and Davis had a 135.96 rating. That puts both of those guys with higher ratings than passing era guys like Nate Hybel, Cale Gundy and Josh Heupel.

You could cherry pick running plays from our current team where the blocking was very good and the run was successful. I'm not just talking about this season, but the last few. And you can't compare because our current teams much more balanced in play selection than the wishbone years. So we run on many plays where the defense fully expects a run. The wishbone teams tried to avoid passing anytime the defense expected it and were trying to catch teams cheating up too close to the line. And as you say, the efficiency looked okay, but the number of samples was low. The fans were always begging for more passing and I remember Switzer saying he only had so many snaps in practice and he couldn't afford trying to improve the passing game. The plays were simple and only had 1 or 2 receivers and usually the QB was only looking for the 1 guy and would take off running if it didn't catch the D off balance. In games where the run game wasn't clicking and they tried to pass more, it wasn't pretty. Fortunately, there were not many of those, but they did happen.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

3 pages in....waiting for the first blake bell bitcher....


And I can go into a trillion reasons why you can't compare this era of recruits/coaching/ line play....

Switzer said himself that when they played a team, they only had to plan to attack one defensive formation...Nobody disguised anything....and the big 8 had different recruiting rules than other conferences...while some conferences limited coach visits, he could stay all day, every day...Also, he could recruit players just to keep them from going elsewhere...Not every team was on television, tradition still mattered then...

[StoopTroup]

3 pages in....waiting for the first blake bell bitcher....


And I can go into a trillion reasons why you can't compare this era of recruits/coaching/ line play....

Switzer said himself that when they played a team, they only had to plan to attack one defensive formation...Nobody disguised anything....and the big 8 had different recruiting rules than other conferences...while some conferences limited coach visits, he could stay all day, every day...Also, he could recruit players just to keep them from going elsewhere...Not every team was on television, tradition still mattered then...

Until Jim Rome does an interview with Barry about this.....it's just a rumor. :D

Isn't it rich?
Are we a pair?
Me here at last on the ground,
You in mid-air.
Send in the clones......

[BoulderSooner79]

3 pages in....waiting for the first blake bell bitcher....



It's *those* people - you know, those we don't like that are out there hatin' on Bell somewhere. But if they ever show, we have plenty of ammo here to fend them off. But don't for a minute think they don't exist. That's what people thought about zombies and vampires at one time and now we pretty much accept their existence. :D :P