Struggle against dual threat QB's

[jkjsooner]

It seems that ever since Stoops arrived we've struggled against dual threat QB's more than not. As a general rule we've been much more successful against drop back passers - even really good ones. Even dual threat guys on mid major teams have given us a lot of problems.\

There are exceptions to both of course.

Any ideas why?

[EatLeadCommie]

Because they're harder to defend?

[BoulderSooner79]

Because they're harder to defend?

Could be.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Running QB's that can pass adequately completely freak out our coaches, apparently. The 2012 experiences of Johnny Football and Tavon Austin(even though he wasn't a QB)have made us totally unwilling to have a hard rush and/or blitz. Opposing coaches have taken note.

[EatLeadCommie]

Running QB's that can pass adequately completely freak out our coaches, apparently. The 2012 experiences of Johnny Football and Tavon Austin(even though he wasn't a QB)have made us totally unwilling to have a hard rush and/or blitz. Opposing coaches have taken note.

We blitzed a lot until Saturday. We just had a crap gameplan. We respected his legs too much. He's a mediocre passer. We should've been able to live if he got out of the pocket every now and then. It's hard for a defense to live when a QB has all day to throw.

[8timechamps]

There's a pattern to how we've defended dual-threat QBs, and it's to stay conservative. I have a theory:

When we were running the 4-3 defense, we didn't have as much speed on the field, so if we pressed a running QB and didn't seal the lanes, he could easily gash us for big yards (ala Texas A&M in the Cotton Bowl). With a 3-4 defense, we've completely changed the dynamic of our defense, and now have speed all over the field. Of course you still typically bring at least 4 rushers, but you're more covered on the back-end. My theory is that our coaches are mentally stuck in the 4-3 approach with a mobile QB. Therefore, they stay too conservative to avoid getting gashed. In other words, I don't think they fully trust the 3-4 against a mobile QB. We saw a perfect example of that Saturday.

We won't see another QB as mobile as Boykin (unless we make the playoff), so it's hard to know if we will change the way we attack them after Saturday, but I suspect the next time we see a mobile QB, we'll be more aggressive. I can't see (Mike) Stoops making the same mistake twice.

[ashley]

Everyone struggles with a good dual threat QB. That's an easy one.

[BoulderSooner79]

Everyone struggles with a good dual threat QB. That's an easy one.

Pretty much. But it is a double edged sword as most dual threat QBs are not as good of passers as good pocket passers. And even with the rare one that is a great passer, they often lose accuracy as the game goes on if they have taken a lot of hits or just plain get gassed. The mechanics start breaking down.

[BlownGP]

Pretty much. But it is a double edged sword as most dual threat QBs are not as good of passers as good pocket passers. And even with the rare one that is a great passer, they often lose accuracy as the game goes on if they have taken a lot of hits or just plain get gassed. The mechanics start breaking down.

Tell that to Russel Wilson.

As much as I hate the sea chickens. He's one damn good QB

[BoulderSooner79]

Tell that to Russel Wilson.

As much as I hate the sea chickens. He's one damn good QB

And extremely rare, or every NFL team would go get one. There are plenty of dual threat QBs coming out of CFB for teams to try it.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I'm just throwing this out there, because I have no evidence to back it up.

I seem to remember us being pretty good against dual threats under BV but crappy against drop back guys.

[BoulderSooner79]

I'm just throwing this out there, because I have no evidence to back it up.

I seem to remember us being pretty good against dual threats under BV but crappy against drop back guys.

So I guess that's why it worked so well before '04 - we had Mike and BV to stop both types!

[Pride1Mom]

Everyone has trouble with dual threat QBs. That is why they are called DUAL THREAT. You just have to assign your fastest defensive player on the QB and continually knock him down. Kansas State will even take a huge penalty if they think they will take a player out of the game.

[KantoSooner]

I believe it to be a true statement that dual threat QBs essentially do their damage off of busted plays, ie when the rush/coverage begins to fray. Thus the best defense against one is to play fundamentally sound, assignment defense and to have overall team speed. I had thought that that was what OU's defense was all about this year until last Saturday. That was one of many reasons that game was so disappointing.

[PalmBeachSooner]

It seems that ever since Stoops arrived we've struggled against dual threat QB's more than not. As a general rule we've been much more successful against drop back passers - even really good ones. Even dual threat guys on mid major teams have given us a lot of problems.\

There are exceptions to both of course.

Any ideas why?

When you tackle as bad as we did last Saturday a Bryce Petty could run all day on us. Honestly, Trevone ran through just about every arm tackle we made.

[JLEW1818]

FIRE VENABLES

[jiminy]

Is there a link to linebacker play? It seems the last several years we've had one decent to good linebacker, and that's it. Meanwhile, I look back at 2003 and see Teddy Lehman, Rufus Alexander, Clint Ingram, etc. all on the same roster.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Is there a link to linebacker play? It seems the last several years we've had one decent to good linebacker, and that's it. Meanwhile, I look back at 2003 and see Teddy Lehman, Rufus Alexander, Clint Ingram, etc. all on the same roster.The NC in 2000 got us some top notch recruiting. We've been coming up a bit short in that department since 2009.

[jkjsooner]

Because they're harder to defend?

I knew someone was going to say that.

All things equal of course they're harder to defend but I'm talking performances that are outside the norm for the QB's. If it were just a matter of being harder to defend then the dual threat guys would have equivalent success throughout their careers.

I clearly didn't make my point earlier. We've made some pretty darn good drop back passers look bad - especially early in the early Stoops years. We've struggled against some mediocre dual threat guys. Those two statement (if accepted as true) already take into consideration that all else equal dual threat is better than single threat.

I really didn't think I had to expand on all of that.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Also goes without saying that the dual threat guys are exposing themselves more to injury and those guys predictably spend more time in rehab than the pocket guys...except for Sam Bradford.

[Salt City Sooner]

There's a pattern to how we've defended dual-threat QBs, and it's to stay conservative. I have a theory:

When we were running the 4-3 defense, we didn't have as much speed on the field, so if we pressed a running QB and didn't seal the lanes, he could easily gash us for big yards (ala Texas A&M in the Cotton Bowl). With a 3-4 defense, we've completely changed the dynamic of our defense, and now have speed all over the field. Of course you still typically bring at least 4 rushers, but you're more covered on the back-end. My theory is that our coaches are mentally stuck in the 4-3 approach with a mobile QB. Therefore, they stay too conservative to avoid getting gashed. In other words, I don't think they fully trust the 3-4 against a mobile QB. We saw a perfect example of that Saturday.

We won't see another QB as mobile as Boykin (unless we make the playoff), so it's hard to know if we will change the way we attack them after Saturday, but I suspect the next time we see a mobile QB, we'll be more aggressive. I can't see (Mike) Stoops making the same mistake twice.
Jake Waters is darn close, & Snyder most definitely won't be afraid to use him as such.

[jkjsooner]

Let me give an analogy. Randall Cunningham may have added additional challenges that Dan Marino did not. Most defenses would struggle a lot more against Marino.

Translating these QB'S to college equivalents, we've had better luck with Marino types than Cunningham types.

I can think of Bowling Green, Cincy, and Utah State. My memory could be faulty be I seem to remember all three had dual threat guys who gave us trouble despite not being all world type QB's.


It might be that we've had some dominant lines over the year and a Marino type can become completely ineffective when his offensive line breaks down whereas a dual threat guy can still make some plays. Maybe the drop back guys are better but only when they're not overmatched.

Just trying to have a conversation... No coach bashing...

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

The NC in 2000 got us some top notch recruiting. We've been coming up a bit short in that department since 2009.

I can't ever tell when you are being sarcastic or not. Our linebacker recruiting outside of Jucos has pretty much sucked since 2000. You can't call hitting one player every 3 years top notch.

[Okie35]

We blitzed a lot until Saturday. We just had a crap gameplan. We respected his legs too much. He's a mediocre passer. We should've been able to live if he got out of the pocket every now and then. It's hard for a defense to live when a QB has all day to throw.

Yup it was a bad gameplan. The defensive line stayed home to keep lanes plugged up in case Boykin ran. It didn't work well. The worse play was the corner blitz on 3rd down . We play way too aggressive at times.

[8timechamps]

Jake Waters is darn close, & Snyder most definitely won't be afraid to use him as such.

Waters is close, but he doesn't have the arm Boykin has. I also don't think he's quite as elusive. He's a solid player in that system, and KSU is always a threat.