yup beating a dead horse....blast away

[Soonerjeepman]

“Yeah, it’s just hard to get kids, as you know, for two and three days now,” Stoops said. “They’ve gotta move, they’ve gotta get to all these camps and they only have time for one. Or finances. It’s just really hard to get two, three days with a kid now.”

really? doesn't seem to effect the other top schools...

sorry just read the article and this hit me as WTH? I know our recruiting is down..I understand it could be lots of reasons, type of offense we run, not being in the MNC game, perception of the Big12...whatever the reason. Hope OU can close out with what they need, next year will be interesting.

[badger]

I have a feeling that kids that want to attend OU's camp travel a lot farther than kids that want to attend other camps. If you need proof, ESPN.com just did a thing on which states have the most top football recruits. Oklahoma's not in the top 10. Virtually every SEC state is (not Missouri, Kentucky, or Tennessee, but the rest)

[Soonerjeepman]

I'm sure $ is a huge factor, not sure what OU's camp is. I thought I read that most of these camps (for the big time recruits) are invites only.

Believe me I know $$ is tight, especially for inner city kids. The article went on to say that this is the first yr Stoops doesn't have all his kids committed by now.

Again, just venting...lol. I thought the statement was ....ummm...an "excuse" type. No biggie...it is what it is.

** I will add, I thought MOST of our recruits come from Texas...Okla...a few from Calf, etc. Texas isn't that far away. Our 2 biggest recruits that left are from Tex I thought.

[NorthernIowaSooner]

Texas is a big state and gas ain't cheap. You don't know their financial situations, finances may be the very reason they don't come. Stop finding things to complain about for complaining's sake.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I'm sure $ is a huge factor, not sure what OU's camp is. I thought I read that most of these camps (for the big time recruits) are invites only.

Believe me I know $$ is tight, especially for inner city kids. The article went on to say that this is the first yr Stoops doesn't have all his kids committed by now.

Again, just venting...lol. I thought the statement was ....ummm...an "excuse" type. No biggie...it is what it is.

** I will add, I thought MOST of our recruits come from Texas...Okla...a few from Calf, etc. Texas isn't that far away. Our 2 biggest recruits that left are from Tex I thought.

I'm pretty sure that "Invite Only" camps violate recruiting rules. You can have an "advanced" camp that is for potential high school starters and you can invite top tier kids to it, but you can't restrict access other than that.

When I read his statement, I'm like no kidding Bob. We figured that crap out 7 years ago. The problem is that you go ahead and take them on scholly and then wonder why they give crap effort for 4 years while they are at OU. Or, as we saw this year, they try just hard enough to get themselves a name and then coast into the draft a year early. When you recruit kids that really, really want to win a national championship, you may come up short but you'll know they left everything on the field. When you recruit kids that want to play on a national championship team on their way to the NFL draft, you are going to be continuously wondering if you would have gotten it with more effort.

[8timechamps]

“Yeah, it’s just hard to get kids, as you know, for two and three days now,” Stoops said. “They’ve gotta move, they’ve gotta get to all these camps and they only have time for one. Or finances. It’s just really hard to get two, three days with a kid now.”

really? doesn't seem to effect the other top schools...

sorry just read the article and this hit me as WTH? I know our recruiting is down..I understand it could be lots of reasons, type of offense we run, not being in the MNC game, perception of the Big12...whatever the reason. Hope OU can close out with what they need, next year will be interesting.

Why do you keep saying this? OU's recruiting is not down. It's the same as it's been since Stoops got to Norman.

[8timechamps]

I'm sure $ is a huge factor, not sure what OU's camp is. I thought I read that most of these camps (for the big time recruits) are invites only.

Believe me I know $$ is tight, especially for inner city kids. The article went on to say that this is the first yr Stoops doesn't have all his kids committed by now.

Again, just venting...lol. I thought the statement was ....ummm...an "excuse" type. No biggie...it is what it is.

** I will add, I thought MOST of our recruits come from Texas...Okla...a few from Calf, etc. Texas isn't that far away. Our 2 biggest recruits that left are from Tex I thought.

That's just flat out wrong. There are recruits every year that wait until siging day to commit. It doesn't happen every year at OU, but it has happened under Stoops.

I'm not attacking you, I know you're just venting. Sounds like a Hoover article.

[Soonerjeepman]

lol...8time..thanks..yeah, I know Bob is the guy..I have no insight at all. Not sure if it was Hoover or not. It did say that...but the article could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time the press is wrong! ;-)

Northern Iowa, I know gas aint cheap...all I was commenting on was the words out of Stoop's mouth..I just can't see Les, Saban, Kelly or anyone else in the top 5/10 saying that. BECAUSE it's a fairly obvious statement. Yes, things are expensive but the other schools are getting these kids into their camps...seems like stoops was making an excuse as to why OU wasn't.

relax...

[Soonerjeepman]

Why do you keep saying this? OU's recruiting is not down. It's the same as it's been since Stoops got to Norman.

8time, I know you have an inside....but honestly in comparing the last few (5 or so) recruiting years this yrs class is not in the same group as the others..yes/no?

[Soonerjeepman]

I'm pretty sure that "Invite Only" camps violate recruiting rules. You can have an "advanced" camp that is for potential high school starters and you can invite top tier kids to it, but you can't restrict access other than that.

.

oh...maybe that's it. I could have swore there were invite only, maybe it's just elite.

[8timechamps]

8time, I know you have an inside....but honestly in comparing the last few (5 or so) recruiting years this yrs class is not in the same group as the others..yes/no?

In all honesty, it's about the same. I think there has been rumblings (among the fans) about this year because OU lost out on Justin Manning. There is no question that was a big hit, but as jkm has posted, DT is one of the hardest positions in football to predict.

Offensively, OU continues to get some big time skill players. Now, if Mike Stoops can make that happen on the defensive side, we'll be back in the title game. He's already landed some big time DBs in this class, but he's got a long way to go to get the LBs we need in the system.

There are signs that have me wondering where exactly the program is, but right now they are nothing more than my speculation. We'll see how 2013 pans out. If 2013 turns out to be disappointing, then Stoops will start feeling heat that he's never experienced as a head coach, and some assistants will be worried for their jobs.

What I ultimately think is that OU will be better than expected next year, and about two years away from another national title run.

[StoopTroup]

It's always darkest right before the dawn.

[toast]

I miss the "no excuse" Bob

[Fraggle145]

Why do you keep saying this? OU's recruiting is not down. It's the same as it's been since Stoops got to Norman.

Do we have any LBs? Were we going after LBs pretty heavy this year because we have basically **** for talent at the position currently?

That's why I think recruiting is down. We have an obvious need position and we cant get one kid.

[Ruf/Nek7]

8time, I know you have an inside....but honestly in comparing the last few (5 or so) recruiting years this yrs class is not in the same group as the others..yes/no?

I too was one of the people crying and whining about this years recruiting class. I was getting really tired of seeing top guys committing elsewhere and us settling for plan b and c guys. But then i came to the realization that you look at high school athletes' potential on and off the field. I feel you get some extra "baggage" with most of these top end recruits and for some reason they never pan out. The two guys i am most excited for, from this class, are KJ Young and Charles Walker. The two lowest rated players (per rivals) in our class and i think they will be something at OU. I also feel 2014's class will make us forget this years class.

[Ruf/Nek7]

Do we have any LBs? Were we going after LBs pretty heavy this year because we have basically **** for talent at the position currently?

That's why I think recruiting is down. We have an obvious need position and we cant get one kid.

If I am not mistaken, we do not have a true LB commit but we do have an "Athlete" committed that will likely be a LB (Alexander).

[SoonerNomad]

“Yeah, it’s just hard to get kids, as you know, for two and three days now,” Stoops said. “They’ve gotta move, they’ve gotta get to all these camps and they only have time for one. Or finances. It’s just really hard to get two, three days with a kid now.”

really? doesn't seem to effect the other top schools...

sorry just read the article and this hit me as WTH? I know our recruiting is down..I understand it could be lots of reasons, type of offense we run, not being in the MNC game, perception of the Big12...whatever the reason. Hope OU can close out with what they need, next year will be interesting.



the type of offense we run actually helps us recruit talented QB's and wide receivers.

[Ruf/Nek7]

Hey 8x....what are you hearing about Rammi Hammad? I know we propelled up his list once he decommitted from Baylor. Did he ever set a visit?

[Fraggle145]

Color me impressed. :distress:

[badger]

I care more about winning than recruiting. The NFL is loaded with talent that the big schools and the recruiting sites passed on, after all. Win me some bowl games, championships and awards and I'll be fine with a 20-player class of two-stars

[Fraggle145]

I care more about winning than recruiting. The NFL is loaded with talent that the big schools and the recruiting sites passed on, after all. Win me some bowl games, championships and awards and I'll be fine with a 20-player class of two-stars

I would too. Lets start with a linebacker...

[tator]

I care more about winning than recruiting. The NFL is loaded with talent that the big schools and the recruiting sites passed on, after all. Win me some bowl games, championships and awards and I'll be fine with a 20-player class of two-stars

So are you requesting that they only recruit 2-star players? Or are you requesting that they recruit the best players they can to put the program in a position to win?

I'm pretty sure they are already trying to recruit the best players they can.

[8timechamps]

Do we have any LBs? Were we going after LBs pretty heavy this year because we have basically **** for talent at the position currently?

That's why I think recruiting is down. We have an obvious need position and we cant get one kid.

Actually, we have two LB commits (Alexander and Evans). I think Evans may be moved to DE though.

Until the staff shows that the linebacker position is actually going to be used in the defense, it's kinda hard to get kids to be interested.

Also, I definitely wouldn't say we have "**** for talent" at the LB spot. Inexperience yes, but talented inexperience.

If you want to think recruiting is down, have at it. The truth is, it's right where it has been since Stoops got to Norman.

[8timechamps]

Hey 8x....what are you hearing about Rammi Hammad? I know we propelled up his list once he decommitted from Baylor. Did he ever set a visit?

We're in the hunt, but I think he'll end up at Texas. He's a lifelong horn's fan.

[8timechamps]

I care more about winning than recruiting. The NFL is loaded with talent that the big schools and the recruiting sites passed on, after all. Win me some bowl games, championships and awards and I'll be fine with a 20-player class of two-stars

You can't win without good recruiting. I don't know that I would say the NFL is "loaded" with talent that the big schools passed on, or the recruiting sites missed. Sure, there are some guys that were unknowns, but the majority of players in the NFL were considered good when they were being recruited.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

You can't win without good recruiting. I don't know that I would say the NFL is "loaded" with talent that the big schools passed on, or the recruiting sites missed. Sure, there are some guys that were unknowns, but the majority of players in the NFL were considered good when they were being recruited.

Loaded in my mind is 3* or worse OR 6th round or worse. If you take those categories then you are filled with the guys like Welker/Brady/etc.

[tator]

Loaded in my mind is 3* or worse OR 6th round or worse. If you take those categories then you are filled with the guys like Welker/Brady/etc.

You're also filled with guys who's names you've never heard of because they never amounted to anything.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

You're also filled with guys who's names you've never heard of because they never amounted to anything.

Which is the argument that the recruiting services hide behind. 30% of our 5 stars got drafted which is the highest % of all of our groups (5*s 30, 4* 150, 3* a billion). The problem is that fans do not realize that 30% sucks monkey balls as a predictor. If you strip out the athletes that play some kind of skill position and that number plummets. Further, if you eliminate the players who were projected as position A and made the pros at position B, it falls even further.

[SoonerNomad]

I think what everyone is saying it is an inexact science at best. Even after college and millions of dollars of research NFL teams routinely miss on high draft picks. College teams have to do it with much less information and while these kids are still at an age that you can never be sure which way they are headed. I would say the 30% success rate of picking high school seniors that are going to be great sounds about right.

[8timechamps]

Loaded in my mind is 3* or worse OR 6th round or worse. If you take those categories then you are filled with the guys like Welker/Brady/etc.

I would go 2* or below. 3* guys typically have one or two FBS schools recruiting them.

[8timechamps]

Which is the argument that the recruiting services hide behind. 30% of our 5 stars got drafted which is the highest % of all of our groups (5*s 30, 4* 150, 3* a billion). The problem is that fans do not realize that 30% sucks monkey balls as a predictor. If you strip out the athletes that play some kind of skill position and that number plummets. Further, if you eliminate the players who were projected as position A and made the pros at position B, it falls even further.

Your post earlier in the month that pointed out the DT recruits was a prime example of how bad the recruiting services are at projecting talent.

Most folks that don't follow recruiting closely (and some that do) don't realize that FBS schools do not use the recruiting services in any way, shape or form. The recruiting services are for the fans.

Look no further than Cody Thomas as an example. He had been 'reviewed' by all the services, and mode nobody's 'top 300' list. As soon as he got an OU offer, he shot up the the list.

[goingoneight]

There is definitely a feel to the attitude of Mike Stoops since he returned that he just doesn't like linebackers. I think it showed in how all of OUr LBs, (usually the most vocal guys on the team) were quiet and a little irritable this year. Venables employed linebackers and was a staunch believer in shutting down the run game and getting to the QB. Problem is the game is evolving and we're no longer seeing a Vince Young once every five years. This year alone, we played Florence, Chelf, Klein, Manziel and Smith. Neither BV nor Mike's style seems to have worked so far because you're trading one evil for what you percieve as the lesser evil. I think where Mike's guys hurt this year still was the dropoff in talent and productivity of the DL. If Mike had a couple guys like Gerald McCoy, Adrian Taylor, Ronnell Lewis and Jeremy Beal out there like BV frequently had disrupting the backfield, they could have possibly finished as strong as they appeared against Tech, UT and KU. Instead, we got through those paper tigers and showed our true colors against tougher offenses.

[8timechamps]

There is definitely a feel to the attitude of Mike Stoops since he returned that he just doesn't like linebackers. I think it showed in how all of OUr LBs, (usually the most vocal guys on the team) were quiet and a little irritable this year. Venables employed linebackers and was a staunch believer in shutting down the run game and getting to the QB. Problem is the game is evolving and we're no longer seeing a Vince Young once every five years. This year alone, we played Florence, Chelf, Klein, Manziel and Smith. Neither BV nor Mike's style seems to have worked so far because you're trading one evil for what you percieve as the lesser evil. I think where Mike's guys hurt this year still was the dropoff in talent and productivity of the DL. If Mike had a couple guys like Gerald McCoy, Adrian Taylor, Ronnell Lewis and Jeremy Beal out there like BV frequently had disrupting the backfield, they could have possibly finished as strong as they appeared against Tech, UT and KU. Instead, we got through those paper tigers and showed our true colors against tougher offenses.

As the line goes, I think it should be pointed out that it's really the DT position that struggled. Don't get me wrong, King, Washington and Ndule weren't world beaters, but played pretty decent most of the year. It was the total lack of any play-maker at DT that hurt the defense.

Mike has a big job ahead of him. No league presents the defensive challenges like the Big XII. The PAC is moving in the same direction, and it will be interesting to see how the SEC unfolds with A&M's recent success, but right now nobody is on the same level. Mike has to be able to get guys to play at a high level, and it all starts on the line.

There really is some talented LBs on the roster, but the problem is they aren't getting time in games to gain experience. The starters aren't getting much time, let alone the back up players. Something is going to have to change if Mike wants to get the big name LBs back to OU, because running a 4-0-7 isn't the answer.

[Scott D]

It's time for the 6-0-5

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Your post earlier in the month that pointed out the DT recruits was a prime example of how bad the recruiting services are at projecting talent.

Most folks that don't follow recruiting closely (and some that do) don't realize that FBS schools do not use the recruiting services in any way, shape or form. The recruiting services are for the fans.

Look no further than Cody Thomas as an example. He had been 'reviewed' by all the services, and mode nobody's 'top 300' list. As soon as he got an OU offer, he shot up the the list.

I think that you'd be shocked at how many coaches use these recruiting services. I know for a fact (because they bragged about it forever) that the rivals guys found Rufus Alexander for BV. I also know that Bob is pretty versed in how well all of the recruits are ranked when he is asked at the signing day press conference. The evidence points towards our guys using them more than any of us on this board would be comfortable with.

First, Take a step back and think about it for a minute. How many hours of film review do you have to do before you feel like you have a grasp of what one player can do? 4? 8? 12? How many recruits should you look at for one recruiting class? 100? Let's take Shipp for example. Most Schools take around 3 DTs per class. There are 100+ D1 schools so don't you think he should look at 300 recruits at the minimum? Now think about how easy it would be to take a gander at rivals and eliminate 200 unranked sods? The best part about it is that if you land one of those 4*s and they suck it isn't your fault because the player was a bust.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

There is definitely a feel to the attitude of Mike Stoops since he returned that he just doesn't like linebackers. I think it showed in how all of OUr LBs, (usually the most vocal guys on the team) were quiet and a little irritable this year. Venables employed linebackers and was a staunch believer in shutting down the run game and getting to the QB. Problem is the game is evolving and we're no longer seeing a Vince Young once every five years. This year alone, we played Florence, Chelf, Klein, Manziel and Smith. Neither BV nor Mike's style seems to have worked so far because you're trading one evil for what you percieve as the lesser evil. I think where Mike's guys hurt this year still was the dropoff in talent and productivity of the DL. If Mike had a couple guys like Gerald McCoy, Adrian Taylor, Ronnell Lewis and Jeremy Beal out there like BV frequently had disrupting the backfield, they could have possibly finished as strong as they appeared against Tech, UT and KU. Instead, we got through those paper tigers and showed our true colors against tougher offenses.

Heh, against running QBs guys like McCoy and Harris are a liability. Interior pass rushers have this bad habit of getting out of their rush lanes in their quest to get to the QB. This has this bad side effect of creating mammoth running lanes. I don't know if you recall this, but we got absolutely gashed time and time again by running QBs when Harris was here. What we need at DT is more Dvoracek and McGruder fireplug types. That will help our linebackers out and make them serviceable (which is how far we've sunk there).

[Fraggle145]

Actually, we have two LB commits (Alexander and Evans). I think Evans may be moved to DE though.

Until the staff shows that the linebacker position is actually going to be used in the defense, it's kinda hard to get kids to be interested.

Also, I definitely wouldn't say we have "**** for talent" at the LB spot. Inexperience yes, but talented inexperience.

So an ATH, and a DE arent really LBs. I guess I just dont see the evidence that we have talent there currently from what I saw on the field last year and it doesnt look like we have any coming in... Going to have to play much better for me to believe it.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

So an ATH, and a DE arent really LBs. I guess I just dont see the evidence that we have talent there currently from what I saw on the field last year and it doesnt look like we have any coming in... Going to have to play much better for me to believe it.

Generally speaking, linebackers tend to be around 205-210 coming out of high school which puts them at 235-245 as juniors. If someone is 220 in HS they'll eat themselves into a DE. Of the 2, the athlete is the more problematic (assuming weights/heights are anywhere near accurate) as he is going to carry too much weight for a safety and be too light for a linebacker (lewis baker reborn).

[Fraggle145]

Yay! The curse of the tweener... Since TRRW we seem to have been searching for the next one and hampering ourselves as a result.

[8timechamps]

I think that you'd be shocked at how many coaches use these recruiting services. I know for a fact (because they bragged about it forever) that the rivals guys found Rufus Alexander for BV. I also know that Bob is pretty versed in how well all of the recruits are ranked when he is asked at the signing day press conference. The evidence points towards our guys using them more than any of us on this board would be comfortable with.

First, Take a step back and think about it for a minute. How many hours of film review do you have to do before you feel like you have a grasp of what one player can do? 4? 8? 12? How many recruits should you look at for one recruiting class? 100? Let's take Shipp for example. Most Schools take around 3 DTs per class. There are 100+ D1 schools so don't you think he should look at 300 recruits at the minimum? Now think about how easy it would be to take a gander at rivals and eliminate 200 unranked sods? The best part about it is that if you land one of those 4*s and they suck it isn't your fault because the player was a bust.

I know that coaches use the sites to keep track of other school's recruiting activity, but viewing any "premium" content is a violation of the NCAA recruiting rules. I only know that because I have a couple of clients that are FCS coaches, and I've talked to both of them about recruiting over the years. Do I think schools use the sites? Sure. I think it's easier for them to keep tabs on recruits that way (as opposed to spending a lot of time doing it themselves). Do I think they use the sites to find players? Not really. I think it's probably a lot easier to look at a player at a site for basics, but since they can't view premium content (game film, etc.), I think that's as far as it goes.

[8timechamps]

So an ATH, and a DE arent really LBs. I guess I just dont see the evidence that we have talent there currently from what I saw on the field last year and it doesnt look like we have any coming in... Going to have to play much better for me to believe it.

Both Evans and Alexander played LB in high school. Evans also played end, so he could be considered either. My point was that OU has LBs in this class.

Corey Nelson is talented. Frank Shannon is talented. Eric Striker is talented. The problem is that Mike got so far away from using the LBs, that we (as fans watching the game) didn't see much (if any) LB stand out. Also, if you don't play your starting LBs much, the fans definitely won't see the back-ups much (if at all). So, a guy like Striker goes pretty much unknown to most fans.

I do agree that OU needs to step up their LB recruiting. Dominique Alexander, while good, isn't going to be enough. Then the whole Mastrogiovanni ordeal. Not good.

I still maintain that as an overall class goes, this one will be right there will the others. Not the best. Not the worst.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Corey Nelson is talented. Frank Shannon is talented. Eric Striker is talented. The problem is that Mike got so far away from using the LBs, that we (as fans watching the game) didn't see much (if any) LB stand out. Also, if you don't play your starting LBs much, the fans definitely won't see the back-ups much (if at all). So, a guy like Striker goes pretty much unknown to most fans.


I don't understand what you mean by "talented". If you stack ranked the linebackers in the big 12 Nelson would be listed in the mid to late 20s (slightly behind Shannon). Nationally, it would be somewhere north of a 100. As a linebacker, you have to make plays. He played 600ish snaps and had 50 total tackles. Which is about 60% of what a typical OU linebacker would have.

[8timechamps]

I don't understand what you mean by "talented". If you stack ranked the linebackers in the big 12 Nelson would be listed in the mid to late 20s (slightly behind Shannon). Nationally, it would be somewhere north of a 100. As a linebacker, you have to make plays. He played 600ish snaps and had 50 total tackles. Which is about 60% of what a typical OU linebacker would have.

You know what I mean by "talented". If you're going to use those measures to grade talent, you're going to miss a lot of talented players.

I didn't say he was all-world, but he is talented. He's no Arthur Brown, but then again what kind of system did he play in this year?

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

You know what I mean by "talented". If you're going to use those measures to grade talent, you're going to miss a lot of talented players.

I didn't say he was all-world, but he is talented. He's no Arthur Brown, but then again what kind of system did he play in this year?

A system where he was required to beat a block and make a play. A system used extensively throughout the SEC.

The problem is that a player can be "talented" and not be a "talented linebacker". Good linebackers have to have a specific set of skills like:
1. quickly reading keys
2. understanding where your "herders" are pushing the ball carrier
3. taking good angles to those points
4. getting through the wash cleanly
5. putting the ball carrier on the ground.
6. getting into your curl zone (or getting on the tight end)

Of these, the most important is #1. Our linebackers over the last few years have been just horrible at this. Lewis took forever to get moving, Wort moves on the snap. One allowed OL to get 5 yards into the defensive backfield, the other got caught in the wash because he got too close to the LOS. Both effectively blocking themselves.

As for Nelson, he struggles with 1, 2, 3, and 4. His problems with 5 stem from the first 4 where he is constantly hitting people at bad angles.

[8timechamps]

A system where he was required to beat a block and make a play. A system used extensively throughout the SEC.

The problem is that a player can be "talented" and not be a "talented linebacker". Good linebackers have to have a specific set of skills like:
1. quickly reading keys
2. understanding where your "herders" are pushing the ball carrier
3. taking good angles to those points
4. getting through the wash cleanly
5. putting the ball carrier on the ground.
6. getting into your curl zone (or getting on the tight end)

Of these, the most important is #1. Our linebackers over the last few years have been just horrible at this. Lewis took forever to get moving, Wort moves on the snap. One allowed OL to get 5 yards into the defensive backfield, the other got caught in the wash because he got too close to the LOS. Both effectively blocking themselves.

As for Nelson, he struggles with 1, 2, 3, and 4. His problems with 5 stem from the first 4 where he is constantly hitting people at bad angles.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree that Nelson is talented. I am fully aware of how a LB is supposed to play in a gap defense, and while (like I said earlier), Nelson isn't an all-world player, he is a talented player. It would seem strange that Stoops would elect to start a kid for two years that's not very good, don't you think?

In 2011, Nelson was a honorable mention all Big XII linebacker, under the BV system. Under Mike, he wasn't. He also recorded about 15 less tackles (on fewer snaps).

You won't get an argument from me that the linebackers haven't been as good as OU has had, but to say they aren't talented doesn't make much sense to me.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

In 2011, Nelson was a honorable mention all Big XII linebacker, under the BV system. Under Mike, he wasn't. He also recorded about 15 less tackles (on fewer snaps).

That is because Mike shifted some of the pressure from the safeties to the linebackers.

BVs system was layered with everyone having someone backing them up against the run. This put an ungodly amount of pressure on the safeties to perfectly diagnose every play because they were required to be both deep safety net and immediately back up the linebackers in run support AND on crossing routes. The net effect was that against the run there tended to be more shirts available to contain the runner for easier tackles. It also meant there were less shirts available to be in position to stop the pass.

This caused our tackles stats against the run to be skewed (mainly because football doesn't get all that granular). I mean when you have 5 people surrounding the ball carrier so they had no place to go, someone has to get the tackle. It is kind of like if you wanted to know who led the nation in "coverage sacks", you just aren't going to find that info.

Mike's Man D had the effect of taking a lot of shirts out of the play against the run requiring much more individual effort than BV's D did. Generalizing here, but what we saw this year were players who were pretty good when it was 4 on 1 with a ball carrier just couldn't make plays when it was constantly 1 on 1.

[Curly Bill]

We're just going to have to agree to disagree that Nelson is talented. I am fully aware of how a LB is supposed to play in a gap defense, and while (like I said earlier), Nelson isn't an all-world player, he is a talented player. It would seem strange that Stoops would elect to start a kid for two years that's not very good, don't you think?

In 2011, Nelson was a honorable mention all Big XII linebacker, under the BV system. Under Mike, he wasn't. He also recorded about 15 less tackles (on fewer snaps).

You won't get an argument from me that the linebackers haven't been as good as OU has had, but to say they aren't talented doesn't make much sense to me.

Not really, because we also started Wort for those two years, true?

[OkieThunderLion]

That is because Mike shifted some of the pressure from the safeties to the linebackers.

BVs system was layered with everyone having someone backing them up against the run. This put an ungodly amount of pressure on the safeties to perfectly diagnose every play because they were required to be both deep safety net and immediately back up the linebackers in run support AND on crossing routes. The net effect was that against the run there tended to be more shirts available to contain the runner for easier tackles. It also meant there were less shirts available to be in position to stop the pass.

This caused our tackles stats against the run to be skewed (mainly because football doesn't get all that granular). I mean when you have 5 people surrounding the ball carrier so they had no place to go, someone has to get the tackle. It is kind of like if you wanted to know who led the nation in "coverage sacks", you just aren't going to find that info.

Mike's Man D had the effect of taking a lot of shirts out of the play against the run requiring much more individual effort than BV's D did. Generalizing here, but what we saw this year were players who were pretty good when it was 4 on 1 with a ball carrier just couldn't make plays when it was constantly 1 on 1.

If you want to see "pressure on safeties to perfectly diagnose", watch Tony Jefferson this year trying to play both FS and WLB at the same time. The assignments they gave that guy, WVU game in particular, were ridiculous.