Pat Forde on OU

[NorthernIowaSooner]

National media is starting to point out the shortcomings of this team. This is from Pat Forde:


A 29-point victory over the No. 10 team in the BCS standings jumps off the page, but it’s time for a radical revision of Oklahoma. This is the least impressive Bob Stoops team since his first year in Norman, in 1999, when the Sooners went 7-5 after plummeting from the elite ranks.

It is shocking to see a blueblood program that recruits in five-star circles bereft of a competent quarterback – and by extension, completely hopeless on offense. The Sooners couldn’t run even a little against a defense that crowded the box. Their lone playmaker was wide receiver Jalen Saunders, who at times seemed like the only guy QB Blake Bell threw at (and usually missed). Offensive coordinator Josh Heupel’s hodgepodge gameplan almost smacked of desperation.

It was bad enough that Oklahoma center Gabe Ikard tweeted the following Thursday postgame:

Embarrassed by the way we played.I apologize to our fans for having to watch what we just did on that field. Love this team though. #Boomer


One of the explanations from the Sooners camp for this futility was the season-ending injury to fullback Trey Millard. Make no mistake, Millard is a great player and a future pro – but if your offense in this day and age is rendered useless by the loss of a fullback, you’ve got serious issues.

Oklahoma has serious issues. This is a team that scraped its way to one offensive touchdown against West Virginia and Texas, and two against TCU. If it weren’t for a victory at Notre Dame – truly the only quality non-conference win in the entire, underwhelming Big 12 – there would be nothing of note on this team’s resume.

[EatLeadCommie]

He's right.

[OUmillenium]

We landed on the moon!

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Did 2005 not exist? This team is light years better than that team.

[EatLeadCommie]

Not light years, but probably a bit better depending on the day. The 2009 team wasn't exactly lighting the world on fire either.

[OkieThunderLion]

"It is shocking to see a blueblood program that recruits in five-star circles bereft of a competent quarterback"

Actually, it's not uncommon when you look around CFB. See Austin, TX post Colt.

[Soonerus]

He is right on the point, nail on the head, stating the obvious ,calling a spade a spade, etc...

[Scott D]

The day I give a **** what Pat Forde has to say will probably be the first day I give a **** what Pat Forde has to say.

[Soonerus]

The day I give a **** what Pat Forde has to say will probably be the first day I give a **** what Pat Forde has to say.

very profound...

[champions77]

Did 2005 not exist? This team is light years better than that team.

Really? that team at least got better as the season progressed, beating a pretty good favored Oregon team in the Holiday Bowl.

[stoopified]

This team has to rank ahead of 2005,2009 if for no other reason than a road win over ND.

[Snrinhouston]

The day I give a **** what Pat Forde has to say will probably be the first day I give a **** what Pat Forde has to say.

Ugh. It's comments like this that make this board less than what it could be.

[lexsooner]

Really? that team at least got better as the season progressed, beating a pretty good favored Oregon team in the Holiday Bowl.

Yes, and in fact we almost had the game put away when AD fumbled at the Oregon goal line. And we continued to improve, to the point Oregon had to hire its own refs for the game in Eugene the next season.

[FaninAma]

Ugh. It's comments like this that make this board less than what it could be.

What a silly statement. The team that played against ND was a pretty good team. The team that played against Baylor was not because of injuries to our starting nose guard, middle linebacker, all world FB and # 2 receiver(early in the game due to a cheap shot from a Baylor player). Plus, we are replacing a 4 year starter at QB.

If you guys want to bitch then bitch about our offensive coordinator who wants to make a TE playing QB stand in the pocket and try to imitate Landry Jones.

If you want to criticize anything then criticize the coaching staff that is no longer here that failed to develop any depth at these key positions namely on the DL and LB corps.

Personally I am quite impressed with the improvement of our defense this year.

Injuries are part of the game but we have had some key injuries to very important players.

[picasso]

Really? that team at least got better as the season progressed, beating a pretty good favored Oregon team in the Holiday Bowl.

That team struggled to beat a terrible ksu and Baylor at home.
They also didn't have key injuries.
I do agree that our offensive system is in shambles. It's pathetic.

[Mjcpr]

"It is shocking to see a blueblood program that recruits in five-star circles bereft of a competent quarterback"

Actually, it's not uncommon when you look around CFB. See Austin, TX post Colt.

Also, he hasn't been paying attention if he thinks we've been recruiting in 5 star circles lately. Unless that is a new conference with Houston, La Monroe, Rice, North Texas and Boise.

[freshchris05]

2005 would run it down our throats. I don't think our current offense could do **** to match either.

[Scott D]

Ugh. It's comments like this that make this board less than what it could be.

Is it? Forde's been mostly taking sideways potshots at OU since his days at ESPN, now all of a sudden he's profound and insightful when a few years ago he was just a Missouri homer for pretty much taking the same shots?

Mmhmm, he's no more insightful now at Yahoo than he was at ESPN. So pardon me, while I continue to find him as irrelevant as he's been for the past decade.

[King Crimson]

i agree with fan in ama.

we aren't very good. who thought we were?

[Temujin]

National media is starting to point out the shortcomings of this team. This is from Pat Forde:

The only problem I have with this is that everyone keeps putting these problems on shortcomings in recruiting. Sure, that's some of the problem, we haven't been nearly as good as we used to be in that area. But if that was the main reason any team fails, then Florida State shouldn't have lost a single game in the last 3-4 years, Texas would have 30+ championships, and KSU would still be the losing-est program in CFB.

Not only that, but we made a couple of coaching changes on the defensive side and even though we have less depth than we've ever had on defense, we're also playing some of the best we've played on defense in a while.

[King Crimson]

pat forde is a mizzou guy. he's kind of a dickhead too.

he's right about a lot of our situation....but most of us are too.

[Mjcpr]

Is it? Forde's been mostly taking sideways potshots at OU since his days at ESPN, now all of a sudden he's profound and insightful when a few years ago he was just a Missouri homer for pretty much taking the same shots?

Mmhmm, he's no more insightful now at Yahoo than he was at ESPN. So pardon me, while I continue to find him as irrelevant as he's been for the past decade.

Regardless of your opinion of him and even if he has never previously been right about anything, he's right on this one.

[cleller]

He's right on the money. I think we'd have lost to Tech in Lubbock, but OSU and now K-State both had no trouble there.

Huge talent deficit right now, as well as nowhere near an elite level of coaching.

[SoonerorLater]

The only problem I have with this is that everyone keeps putting these problems on shortcomings in recruiting. Sure, that's some of the problem, we haven't been nearly as good as we used to be in that area. But if that was the main reason any team fails, then Florida State shouldn't have lost a single game in the last 3-4 years, Texas would have 30+ championships, and KSU would still be the losing-est program in CFB.

Not only that, but we made a couple of coaching changes on the defensive side and even though we have less depth than we've ever had on defense, we're also playing some of the best we've played on defense in a while.

But look at the teams that do win championships. They have highly ranked recruiting classes. It doesn't end with signing big time recruits but without them you aren't going to win it all. As nice of a story as it is about finding talented but lesser rated recruits, there is a reason you don't see Alabama signing many (any) two-star recruits. There just aren't enough of those guys to be found to make that the basis of your recruiting style. There is so much information out there these days that fewer and fewer diamonds in the rough are slipping through the cracks.

[Peeb]

When I was a kid, and into my early adult years- the sooners ALWAYS had a great team, and often a MNC team. In the big 8 days, they shared the wealth with Nebraska, then in the B12, it has been them and Texas mostly.

In recent years, OU has fielded very good teams, but not GREAT teams, which is frustrating. They are capable of winning or losing just about every conference game they play anymore.

Tho I am proudly orange-aggie all the way, I graduated from OU Law and was there for King Barry's last MNC in '86 and truly want the Sooners to be great (just want the Cowboys to be just a bit better than that!).

There are some OSU types that cheer for OU to lose, but many of us want both programs to prosper.

I won't guess whether it's talent, coaching, or something else- but something is amiss this season.

[Eielson]

I won't guess whether it's talent, coaching, or something else- but something is amiss this season.

It all starts and ends with Heupel and Bell. Quick fix. The team as a whole is fine.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

But look at the teams that do win championships. They have highly ranked recruiting classes. It doesn't end with signing big time recruits but without them you aren't going to win it all. As nice of a story as it is about finding talented but lesser rated recruits, there is a reason you don't see Alabama signing many (any) two-star recruits. There just aren't enough of those guys to be found to make that the basis of your recruiting style. There is so much information out there these days that fewer and fewer diamonds in the rough are slipping through the cracks.

Horse Pucky. There are TONS of those guys available but you have to evaluate them. Aaron Rodgers had zero scholarship offers out of high school (so did Jeremy Shockey).

Look at this list (http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/rankings/rank-rivalspsqb/2006). Tell me there isn't enough talent at the bottom of that list that went to schools like TCU and Nevada that we can't find those kids.

Now look at this list (http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/rankings/rank-1154;_ylt=AlVW86Pe92Ymvy3xnevl15GZtJB4) and tell me who got the best player?

The problem is that you need a BALANCE of good football players. Our problem the last several years has been that we are good at a couple of positions and weak at others.

As for teams like Alabama, their success isn't necessarily based on their recruiting rankings so much as the sheer number of chances they have to get good players. They take 4 guys at a position and run off the worst 2-3. We keep those guys around.

[Temujin]

But look at the teams that do win championships. They have highly ranked recruiting classes. It doesn't end with signing big time recruits but without them you aren't going to win it all. As nice of a story as it is about finding talented but lesser rated recruits, there is a reason you don't see Alabama signing many (any) two-star recruits. There just aren't enough of those guys to be found to make that the basis of your recruiting style. There is so much information out there these days that fewer and fewer diamonds in the rough are slipping through the cracks.

I figured my post might be a little misunderstood. I'm not saying recruiting doesn't matter. But suppose you compare the recruits that Alabama gets to the recruits that Texas gets (pretty much the same), and then you compare the results, it's pretty obvious that coaching plays a pretty important part too.

[Scott D]

Regardless of your opinion of him and even if he has never previously been right about anything, he's right on this one.

he was right about stuff in the past, the difference is because this team was winning and mostly winning decently big games he was being considered a blowhard, now he's some sort of genius for saying somewhat the same thing at a time where it's the same viewpoint as fans? I'm not buying into that.

I mean based on that Colin Cowherd should be the president of Mensa.

[Snrinhouston]

Is it? Forde's been mostly taking sideways potshots at OU since his days at ESPN, now all of a sudden he's profound and insightful when a few years ago he was just a Missouri homer for pretty much taking the same shots?

Mmhmm, he's no more insightful now at Yahoo than he was at ESPN. So pardon me, while I continue to find him as irrelevant as he's been for the past decade.


My point is simple. This board is overflowing with posts that amount to an attack on the person rather than a more useful critique of the person's argument. It's the equivalent of "Why would you listen to Candidate X's beliefs on tax reform, he cheated on his wife 5 years ago"...or even worse, "Candidate X is a ****" Well, what about a discussion of the merits of the tax reform plan?

If you ever disagree with any of my points, that is fine. Hell, often upon further reflection, I disagree with what I've previously said. But just give me a reasoned explanation for your disagreement rather than some emotionional, reflexive insult.

[Piware]

Pat Forde is the new Captain Obvious.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

My point is simple. This board is overflowing with posts that amount to an attack on the person rather than a more useful critique of the person's argument. It's the equivalent of "Why would you listen to Candidate X's beliefs on tax reform, he cheated on his wife 5 years ago"...or even worse, "Candidate X is a ****" Well, what about a discussion of the merits of the tax reform plan?

If you ever disagree with any of my points, that is fine. Hell, often upon further reflection, I disagree with what I've previously said. But just give me a reasoned explanation for your disagreement rather than some emotionional, reflexive insult.

The problem is that teams are never as good as they seem or as bad as they seem. Yet fans only move between one extreme or the other. Is this team as good as last years? Nope. We are worse at 3 critical positions -> Punt Returner, Quarterback, and OL. Unfortunately, those are the 3 most important positions needed to score points.

[Scott D]

My point is simple. This board is overflowing with posts that amount to an attack on the person rather than a more useful critique of the person's argument. It's the equivalent of "Why would you listen to Candidate X's beliefs on tax reform, he cheated on his wife 5 years ago"...or even worse, "Candidate X is a ****" Well, what about a discussion of the merits of the tax reform plan?

If you ever disagree with any of my points, that is fine. Hell, often upon further reflection, I disagree with what I've previously said. But just give me a reasoned explanation for your disagreement rather than some emotionional, reflexive insult.

Didn't attack you, said I don't give a crap about Forde's opinion. Pretty much the same if someone posted a thread with some quote from an article by Keith Olbermann. I wouldn't give a crap about his opinion either for the same reason on his opinion being irrelevant just as Forde's opinion is. I'll give him credit, as another poster said, he does excel at being Captain Obvious...except for his Dashette of the Week that bit jumped the shark back when Chase Daniel was still giving Forde pseudo boners in Columbia.

[olevetonahill]

Didn't attack you, said I don't give a crap about Forde's opinion. Pretty much the same if someone posted a thread with some quote from an article by Keith Olbermann. I wouldn't give a crap about his opinion either for the same reason on his opinion being irrelevant just as Forde's opinion is. I'll give him credit, as another poster said, he does excel at being Captain Obvious...except for his Dashette of the Week that bit jumped the shark back when Chase Daniel was still giving Forde pseudo boners in Columbia.

Hey Scott
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQw3YZKZ0KMeztkWrEU43HsgILS-aZ8JvUDABMj9jUAc-bT97q3OQ

[TFSooner]

But look at the teams that do win championships. They have highly ranked recruiting classes. It doesn't end with signing big time recruits but without them you aren't going to win it all. As nice of a story as it is about finding talented but lesser rated recruits, there is a reason you don't see Alabama signing many (any) two-star recruits. There just aren't enough of those guys to be found to make that the basis of your recruiting style. There is so much information out there these days that fewer and fewer diamonds in the rough are slipping through the cracks.

Horse Pucky. There are TONS of those guys available but you have to evaluate them. Aaron Rodgers had zero scholarship offers out of high school (so did Jeremy Shockey).

Look at this list (http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/rankings/rank-rivalspsqb/2006). Tell me there isn't enough talent at the bottom of that list that went to schools like TCU and Nevada that we can't find those kids.

Now look at this list (http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/rankings/rank-1154;_ylt=AlVW86Pe92Ymvy3xnevl15GZtJB4) and tell me who got the best player?

The problem is that you need a BALANCE of good football players. Our problem the last several years has been that we are good at a couple of positions and weak at others.

As for teams like Alabama, their success isn't necessarily based on their recruiting rankings so much as the sheer number of chances they have to get good players. They take 4 guys at a position and run off the worst 2-3. We keep those guys around.

Got no problem with this approach as long as you let the recruits know this up front. Nothing is guaranteed. Why don't we do this? Might have won a few more games/championships if we did.

[Scott D]

Got no problem with this approach as long as you let the recruits know this up front. Nothing is guaranteed. Why don't we do this? Might have won a few more games/championships if we did.

probably because it's the equivalent of Nebraska's old "Greyshirt" program. One got outlawed and it's only a matter of time until the other practice is fully outlawed as well.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Got no problem with this approach as long as you let the recruits know this up front. Nothing is guaranteed. Why don't we do this? Might have won a few more games/championships if we did.

Heh, why should you care if they don't get an education? What difference does it make if we break a promise and cut them loose AND they have to sit out a year as long as we win a few more games.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The day I give a **** what Pat Forde has to say will probably be the first day I give a **** what Pat Forde has to say.Don't know who the cokskr is, but I don't pay much attention to OU talk from folks who aren't Sooner fans, especially when they give advice on how the Sooners can improve

[FaninAma]

Heh, why should you care if they don't get an education? What difference does it make if we break a promise and cut them loose AND they have to sit out a year as long as we win a few more games.
And the reason Saban and Miles are scumbags. Saban will never, ever go to another conference where they won't allow him to do this.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

This team has to rank ahead of 2005,2009 if for no other reason than a road win over ND.God Bless Blake Bell. Even if he's becomes a total washout, he lead us to victory over those sorry essoB's for the first time since 1956!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

What a silly statement. The team that played against ND was a pretty good team. The team that played against Baylor was not because of injuries to our starting nose guard, middle linebacker, all world FB and # 2 receiver(early in the game due to a cheap shot from a Baylor player). Plus, we are replacing a 4 year starter at QB.

If you guys want to bitch then bitch about our offensive coordinator who wants to make a TE playing QB stand in the pocket and try to imitate Landry Jones.

If you want to criticize anything then criticize the coaching staff that is no longer here that failed to develop any depth at these key positions namely on the DL and LB corps.

Personally I am quite impressed with the improvement of our defense this year.

Injuries are part of the game but we have had some key injuries to very important players.EXCELLENCE IN POSTING!

[Tear Down This Wall]

"...in the entire, underwhelming Big 12..."

Agree, Pat. Totally agree. To get beat that way by anyone in this crappy conference is an indictment of Stoops and his coaching staff.

[Okie35]

Really? that team at least got better as the season progressed, beating a pretty good favored Oregon team in the Holiday Bowl.

Yup and 2009 we beat a favored Stanford team... that may not have had Andrew Luck (who was injured) but it had Toby Gerhart as Heisman contender.

[SoonerorLater]

Horse Pucky. There are TONS of those guys available but you have to evaluate them. Aaron Rodgers had zero scholarship offers out of high school (so did Jeremy Shockey).

Look at this list (http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/rankings/rank-rivalspsqb/2006). Tell me there isn't enough talent at the bottom of that list that went to schools like TCU and Nevada that we can't find those kids.

Not trying to be overly argumentative here but this list sort of makes my point that Rivals is a good indicator of talent over large numbers. On the list above 4 out of the top 14 went on to a starting job in the NFL. A couple more went on to be very good DIV I QB's. The rest of the bottom of the list, not so much. Obviously Colin Kaepernick was the diamond in the rough in this. Andy Dalton was underrated also but the fact remains that the top of the Rivals list yielded better recruits by a large margin.

Put another way if you could have done nothing but close your eyes and randomly pick one of the top recruits you would have had about a 35% chance of landing a big time QB. Looking at the bottom you would have had about a 10% chance given the list you provided.

I also might add that neither Dalton or Kaepernick was offered by OU so I really don't have a level of confidence that we could necessarily identify these players even if they are there. IMO you would be better off with a strategy of selling out to recruit a 5.7 or better player every year and the odds are you will have a high level QB on your team at any give time.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Not trying to be overly argumentative here but this list sort of makes my point that Rivals is a good indicator of talent over large numbers. On the list above 4 out of the top 14 went on to a starting job in the NFL. A couple more went on to be very good DIV I QB's. The rest of the bottom of the list, not so much. Obviously Colin Kaepernick was the diamond in the rough in this. Andy Dalton was underrated also but the fact remains that the top of the Rivals list yielded better recruits by a large margin.

Put another way if you could have done nothing but close your eyes and randomly pick one of the top recruits you would have had about a 35% chance of landing a big time QB. Looking at the bottom you would have had about a 10% chance given the list you provided.

I also might add that neither Dalton or Kaepernick was offered by OU so I really don't have a level of confidence that we could necessarily identify these players even if they are there. IMO you would be better off with a strategy of selling out to recruit a 5.7 or better player every year and the odds are you will have a high level QB on your team at any give time.

You can't cut it off at 14, you HAVE to cut it off at 9 (although I love your cutoff point that makes it look better than it was). Remember, in the eyes of most fans, a 3 star sucks. My point is that there is PLENTY of talent in the 3 star ranks to win a national title and in most cases they are much better in the college game than their highly ranked counterparts. This doesn't even include how many head cases are in the 4/5 star ranks (metoyer etc).

The reason we didn't offer anyone but Bradford that year was we had 3 QBs on the roster (Thompson, Bomar, Grady). We were just looking for someone who would stick around (Texas was in the same boat with Colt McCoy the year before) knowing they probably wouldn't get a shot until their jr/senior year.

One thing to remember, the accuracy of recruiting lists varies a lot year to year. You have this one http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/rankings/rank-rivalspsqb/2008 that is fairly accurate and then you have the year before that was a graveyard http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/rankings/rank-rivalspsqb/2007

[SoonerorLater]

You can't cut it off at 14, you HAVE to cut it off at 9 (although I love your cutoff point that makes it look better than it was). Remember, in the eyes of most fans, a 3 star sucks. My point is that there is PLENTY of talent in the 3 star ranks to win a national title and in most cases they are much better in the college game than their highly ranked counterparts. This doesn't even include how many head cases are in the 4/5 star ranks (metoyer etc).

The reason we didn't offer anyone but Bradford that year was we had 3 QBs on the roster (Thompson, Bomar, Grady). We were just looking for someone who would stick around (Texas was in the same boat with Colt McCoy the year before) knowing they probably wouldn't get a shot until their jr/senior year.

One thing to remember, the accuracy of recruiting lists varies a lot year to year. You have this one http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/rankings/rank-rivalspsqb/2008 that is fairly accurate and then you have the year before that was a graveyard http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/rankings/rank-rivalspsqb/2007

Actually I didn't cut it off at 14 I cut it off at 15 because that was the last 5.7 recruit. (highest 3 star). If I cut it at 14 it would have been more like 37%. It's not only the stars it's the number by the stars. Look at Alabama they recruit 3 star players but of the 3 stars players they have recruited only 3 are less than 5.7 and one of those is a kicker.

There aren't that many secrets out there these days. I'm not sure why you would think Bob Stoops and staff somehow have evaluative abilities that the other top flight programs are just missing.

Let me put a question to you like this. If Nick Saban and staff who have won three out of the last four national championships feel that recruiting highly ranked players as opposed to looking through the bargain bin gives them the best chance at winning, why would you disagree with that philosophy?

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Actually I didn't cut it off at 14 I cut it off at 15 because that was the last 5.7 recruit. (highest 3 star). If I cut it at 14 it would have been more like 37%. It's not only the stars it's the number by the stars. Look at Alabama they recruit 3 star players but of the 3 stars players they have recruited only 3 are less than 5.7 and one of those is a kicker.

There aren't that many secrets out there these days. I'm not sure why you would think Bob Stoops and staff somehow have evaluative abilities that the other top flight programs are just missing.

Let me put a question to you like this. If Nick Saban and staff who have won three out of the last four national championships feel that recruiting highly ranked players as opposed to looking through the bargain bin gives them the best chance at winning, why would you disagree with that philosophy?

1) I've watched Rivals scale from 1999 on. They got so much heat in 2001 from all of the 1 star guys that they made everyone a 5 or a 4 star. They then narrowed down the scale so that if you were a D1 guy you got 3 stars minimum (so there were only 3 possibilities). Then they added the stupid number scale because a) everyone wanted to know if their 3 star was better than your 3 star AND there were too many 3 stars ending up in the 1st round of the NFL draft. Their scale for players goes from 6.1 to 5.5. So you including 5.7 means that the only players you do NOT consider are 5.6 and 5.5 which is WAYYYYY too lenient (since it is almost 65% of the offered D1 players). Now if you reduce the scale to 5.7 you end up with it being around 25% of the offered players. That is a predictive number, not 60%.


2) Because we were the same way after 2000 and it didn't work. The guys that were the workhorses for the 2003/4 teams were the castoffs from 1999/2000 classes that "sucked". Mark Clayton/Woolfolk/Q? 1 star. Jason White/Rocky Calmus/Roy Williams? 2-3 star depending on who you looked at (TGRW was on the cover of prepstar but was not in prepstars top 200 in the state of Cali that year. Mackey was in the 150s). Every single "great team" that turned things around with lower tier players dynasty ended after the lower tier players were replaced with predominantly 4/5 star guys*. OU? FSU? Tennessee? Miami? USC?

*Note Non-DE Jucos tend to be as advertised. 5 star DEs are normally horrid.

These are the classes that should have kept us going after 2004

http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2002
http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2003

All those stars and yet those teams weren't very good. Then this class turned it around

http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2005
http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2006

Notice that yes there are some recognizable 4/5 stars but the CORE, the meat of the players that made the plays are 3 star.

3) You can't look at the SEC unless you take into account that we recruit 20% less players than they do. They can afford to whiff on 3 out 4 guys at a position because they'll just run them off and recruit over them. Which I'm almost convinced you have to do with 4/5 star players. These guys have a history of being good athletes that just aren't very good at the game of football.

4) Early Entrants can kill a program (see Miami) and 5 star guys are FARRRRRR more likely to leave early than any other class.

5) These guys bring a TON of off the field baggage with them. It happens so much its just a statistic. Moss? Newton? All of these guys left their first program because of off the field issues.

[Sooner in Tampa]

Our fans hate the cold harsh light of reality...

[BoulderSooner79]

Humans hate the cold harsh light of reality...

FIFY

[MichiganSooner]

He's right.

Yeah, he's right. Trey Millard hurt; no one else.

[soonerquest]

Also, he hasn't been paying attention if he thinks we've been recruiting in 5 star circles lately. Unless that is a new conference with Houston, La Monroe, Rice, North Texas and Boise.

This is what is most disturbing, and it's been going on for more than a few years--We used to compete with the big boys, and now battling (and losing quite often) with Baylor, Tech, TCU etc. and signing tons of scraps that use to go the above schools. The energy is gone, that's why recruiting and our talent level is down. Bob Stoops in the first 9 years is light years ahead of the current Bob Stoops. He's burned out, and has been enjoying his riches.

The will to win is not as important as THE WILL TO PREPARE IN ORDER TO WIN which has been lost. The old Stoops frequently took advantage of other teams personnel and/or susceptibilities. That kind of planning takes lots of film study, and I don't see it anymore. Just line up, run your plays, and get outcoached by coaches who are willing to study film and try to determine your tendencies and weaknesses.

Been a lifelong Sooner fan, a season ticket holder for over 30 years, been to 25 OU/Tx games but have been frustrated with the decline in recent years. Fans may not know Xs and Os, but they aren't stupid and can recognize when coaching complacency leads to a diminishing product. I'm close to giving up my tickets and I know some will claim I'm not a true fan. Not true, but my patience is running out, and I can save tons of money just by watching on TV.