Advantage of Being the Underdog

[jkjsooner]

I was thinking more about the Sugar Bowl. It's clear that we came out with an offensive game plan that Alabama did not expect. (We've been on the receiving end of that more than once.)

I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that we were the underdog. We know that Stoops has a lot of confidence in Knight but due to his early struggles it seemed that the coaches weren't ready to cut him loose. However, being 17 point dogs in the Sugar Bowl changed the equation. If we were going to win that game we had to rely on Knight's ability much more than we did in the past.

It was a gamble but the consequences of losing the gamble really weren't worse than the consequences of not taking the gamble. If we're playing a lesser opponent and turn Knight loose and he plays poorly, we could lose a winnable game. That's not true for the game against Bama.

Does anyone else agree with that?

Next year the cat is out of the bag. People are going to expect Knight to throw the ball all over the field as well as run it on occasion.

[Breadburner]

We just executed a gameplan thats been there all along.......

[BoulderSooner79]

I don't think being the underdog status was relevant. It was X's and O's and match-ups. OUr coaches acknowledged that a run-heavy game plan was not going to be successful against their defense, but their secondary was vulnerable. Now it's exactly those X's and O's and match-ups that led into being an underdog, so maybe we're talking semantics. But coach Stoops is extremely stubborn to even acknowledge OUr guys are underdogs and I don't think that's just bluster for the media - it seems to be his mindset.

[winout]

There is certainly an advantage of being that big of an underdog. We saw that was back in the 70's in the OB vs. Arky.

I'm just hoping that TK isn't just like his hero, Drew Brees, and only performs well in domes!

[SoonerMarkVA]

I am a big fan of always playing to win. I think people step up to their expectations, and if they fall short they learn valuable lessons. What have you gained if you play not to lose, but then lose anyway because you're forcing everyone to play out of their element? It takes away fire, passion, aggression, and all the things that make a great football team great.

In short, I hope the coaches choose to make that gamble every game. I think moving away from that mindset had a slow, corrosive effect on the team and its chemistry. I am very hopeful what happened in the Sugar bowl was the springboard to getting back to what was perceived as "Riverboat Gambler Bob" (remember that? It's been so long ago!). I think the RGB label was just a shorthand way of identifying that Stoops always played to win.

Overall, I'm sure I'm over simplifying things, and yes I understand Stoops always intended to win every game he played. But there's an intangible quality that he and the coaches had early in his tenure, that seemed to wane, and now--this run at the end of this season, it really seems to be back. I have not been this optimistic about our next season since 2008, and that year was due strictly to having Bradford and Gresham back. Somehow, though, I just feel we are going to be a meat grinder for our competition in 2014.

[EatLeadCommie]

We just executed a gameplan thats been there all along.......

That gameplan I saw was drawn up a lot from scratch, with some plays we've seen this year thrown in. Yes, execution was good for once, but when you're trotting out formations that Alabama hasn't studied on tape (unless they busted out tape from some of our games in 1999 and 2000), that isn't a gameplan that has been there all along.

[Breadburner]

Completing passes is completing passes.......

[oupride]

It is my hope that they just compete to win every game.

[jkjsooner]

I'm just hoping that TK isn't just like his hero, Drew Brees, and only performs well in domes!

Well, the semis next year are the Rose and Sugar and the finals is at Jerry World. If we can get to the Sugar we'll be set. (The roof isn't going to be open in Dallas in January.)

[jkjsooner]

In short, I hope the coaches choose to make that gamble every game. I think moving away from that mindset had a slow, corrosive effect on the team and its chemistry.


Let's say we're playing Middle Tennessee and we know we'll win with a conservative offensive plan. If we go out and throw the ball 50 times, throw 4 interceptions, and lose people will be furious and wonder why we didn't run the ball against a smaller defense.

Now, if we do the same against Alabama, well, we knew we had to do that going in.

It's hard to go undefeated. Sometimes it takes going conservative against inferior opponents. Maybe it isn't fun but winning is always better than losing.

[BoulderSooner79]

Well, the semis next year are the Rose and Sugar and the finals is at Jerry World. If we can get to the Sugar we'll be set. (The roof isn't going to be open in Dallas in January.)

And perfect weather and field conditions are a high probability in Pasadena (as long as we're counting those unhatched chicks...)

[8timechamps]

It always adds a little fire to be discounted. Anyone that's played competitive sports knows that is true. However, in the actual game planning, I don't think our underdog role had much to do with things.

Heupel watched a ton of game film, and the staff realized the way to attack Bama was through the air. I think it's fair to say that's their weakest link (the secondary). The only unknown (at least for the public) was whether or not Knight could get it done. Stoops has preached, for the entire season, that they see far more than anyone else (in practice). I doubt the game plan would have been the same if they hadn't seen Knight produce in practice.

We've seen times this season when Kinght looked special, it's just been inconsistent. I also think the game plans (prior to the Sugar Bowl) relied heavily on Knight's legs and the Sooner rushing game. At some point, Heupel realized that Knight was ready to open it up, and after almost a month of practice, made the call.

Being the underdog may have given Heupel/Stoops a little comfort in opening up the pass game, but I don't think it played a major role overall. There was really only two "risky" calls made all night; going for it on 4th down (near mid field), and the pass out of the endzone. I think those two calls would have been similar whether we were playing Kansas or Alabama.

[birddog]

Completing passes is completing passes.......

Yup, no matter the routes, you've gotta execute and move the chains

[Salt City Sooner]

I was thinking more about the Sugar Bowl. It's clear that we came out with an offensive game plan that Alabama did not expect. (We've been on the receiving end of that more than once.)

I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that we were the underdog. We know that Stoops has a lot of confidence in Knight but due to his early struggles it seemed that the coaches weren't ready to cut him loose. However, being 17 point dogs in the Sugar Bowl changed the equation. If we were going to win that game we had to rely on Knight's ability much more than we did in the past.

It was a gamble but the consequences of losing the gamble really weren't worse than the consequences of not taking the gamble. If we're playing a lesser opponent and turn Knight loose and he plays poorly, we could lose a winnable game. That's not true for the game against Bama.

Does anyone else agree with that?

Next year the cat is out of the bag. People are going to expect Knight to throw the ball all over the field as well as run it on occasion.
This game reminded me a whole lot of the '91 Gator Bowl in that regard. That team was run oriented pretty much all year w/ Gaddis & co. leading the way, but in that game, Gundy, Deuce Warren, & Mickey among others broke out the aerial whuppin' stick on the Cavs just about any time they wanted to.