Bob Stoops: news conference Tuesday Jan. 6 at 11:00 a.m.

[cvsooner]

Or so Jason Kersey of the Oklahoman is reporting. That's 11:00 a.m. Central time, by the way. No word on what, specifically, he'll be addressing, but safe to say it will probably touch on a staff change or three.

[dwarthog]

All kinds of rumors floating around so probably a good call to get whatever is going to happen, done and behind them, and start moving forward.

[SoonerMarkVA]

I'm suddenly getting the feeling something bad has gone down in the Stoops/Boren/Castiglione relationship and this may be a resignation. I mean, when else has he called a post-season press conference to announce coaching changes that he hasn't made yet (other than Norvell)? This whole thing smells really weird.

Someone on another board also posted a rumor that Boren was blocking Stoops on how to handle Heupel. I completely dismissed it, but now if Stoops really does resign I would have to think that would be one circumstance that I could totally believe would cause Stoops to step down. No way he would, or should, have to tolerate that.

[achiro]

I have wondered/worried that stoops may be done. Health issues maybe? But Norvell getting fired tells me he is staying, why fire a guy 2 days before you leave?

[SoonerMarkVA]

I have wondered/worried that stoops may be done. Health issues maybe? But Norvell getting fired tells me he is staying, why fire a guy 2 days before you leave?

Why, indeed, unless something happened, today, at 2pm, when meeting with Boren. Ergh.

[BoulderSooner79]

He's just going to reveal the new press conference podium.

[Judge Smails]

I bet he will announce that Mike is officially leaving.

[Therealsouthsider]

....if Stoops were to resign I would thank him for the memorabilia from 2000, they are antiques now

ss

[dwarthog]

Doubtful a press conference is being held to announce "firings", that would be sort of a kick in the sack IMO.

More than likely it to announce "hirings" that imply the "firings" have taken place.

[KantoSooner]

Introducing next year's new uniforms. Nike "Bring the 'Tude". They'll be crimson/cream tiger stripes with big ole predator eyes on the helmets. Sure to lock down at least another six recruits or so 'cause we all know that OU's problems in that department have everything to do with not having snazzy enough alternative unis.

[swardboy]

Well now we know Josh's firing is on the agenda.

[FaninAma]

Odds that Bob announces his resignation? IMO 30-70. If he does it just confirms the suspicion that his heart hasn't been in the job for a few years now.

[SoonerorLater]

Wonder how they spin this? What do you think? Maybe use some of the old standbys, Josh Heupel leaving to spend more his family. Jay Norvell leaving to pursue other interests.

[cherokeebrewer]

All the speculation that Bob stoops and David Boren are at odds over Josh Huepel are nothing but rumor mongering and utter nonsense...

[Eielson]

I'm going to bet that Stoops isn't resigning today...

[yankee]

I'm suddenly getting the feeling something bad has gone down in the Stoops/Boren/Castiglione relationship and this may be a resignation. I mean, when else has he called a post-season press conference to announce coaching changes that he hasn't made yet (other than Norvell)? This whole thing smells really weird.

Someone on another board also posted a rumor that Boren was blocking Stoops on how to handle Heupel. I completely dismissed it, but now if Stoops really does resign I would have to think that would be one circumstance that I could totally believe would cause Stoops to step down. No way he would, or should, have to tolerate that.

I think you're putting 1 and 1 together and getting 3.

[SoonerMarkVA]

I think you're putting 1 and 1 together and getting 3.

My feeling is just that--a feeling. Not something I've calculated.

As I stated, I completely dismissed the Boren v. Stoops rumor. But *if* that were true, I would assume Stoops' reaction would be to resign. I don't think he'd let Boren play puppet master over the operations of the football team--especially which coaches he wants to let go.

[SoonerorLater]

Interesting. Maybe this is why M Stoops is proactively looking for a new job.......maybe.....Nah, just doesn't sound right. It does sound odd to call a press conference just to announce some firings though and you would think if it was to announce some new hires you would wait until everything is in place. Of course maybe it is all in place.

[rock on sooner]

Doubtful a press conference is being held to announce "firings", that would be sort of a kick in the sack IMO.

More than likely it to announce "hirings" that imply the "firings" have taken place.

^^^^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^

[SoonerMarkVA]

That'll have been a *major coup* by Stoops if he actually has hirings to announce that didn't leak to the press ahead of time!

[SoonerorLater]

That'll have been a *major coup* by Stoops if he actually has hirings to announce that didn't leak to the press ahead of time!

I would wager he will announce a new OC (at least). Probably why they floated the story about JH this morning so it wouldn't appear like JH was finding out he was losing his job at the presser.

[dwarthog]

There as certainly been speculations floating around for a week or so re OC's we may have been interested in, but I don't think I have seen anyone go out on a limb with a name and say it's this guy.

[Eielson]

OU is not releasing information, and everybody is guessing.

I like it.

[KantoSooner]

1. Bob will resign.
2. Barry will return as 'Interim HC and Overall God of Football'.
3. it will be revealed that Leroy, Lucious and Dewey had secret love children who've been living and training in the Sierra Madres, raised by jaguars and eating raw meat. They are all four point students and all 16 of them will be enrolling this Friday. Following the announcement, they will, with their bare hands, demolish the South end of the stadium to "Make Way".

[beached_sooner]

Seems unlikely that the HC would be resigning if he's cleaning house already. If he were resigning, he would leave the housecleaning to the eventual replacement HC.

I'm in the camp that believes he's making appointment announcements.

[Judge Smails]

Mangino is coming back.

[SoonerForLife92]

Any info on where/how I can watch this thing?

[instigator]

Mangino is coming back.

That would be ridiculous.

[instigator]

Any info on where/how I can watch this thing?

http://www.soonersports.com/liveEvents/liveEvents.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=31000

http://newsok.com/article/5382186

Direct Youtube link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fteszptFKQ

[Sooner8th]

1. Bob will resign.2. Barry will return as 'Interim HC and Overall God of Football'.3. it will be revealed that Leroy, Lucious and Dewey had secret love children who've been living and training in the Sierra Madres, raised by jaguars and eating raw meat. They are all four point students and all 16 of them will be enrolling this Friday. Following the announcement, they will, with their bare hands, demolish the South end of the stadium to "Make Way".And with mike coaching them we could move up to 116th in the country in pass defense.

[SoonerForLife92]

http://www.soonersports.com/liveEvents/liveEvents.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=31000

http://newsok.com/article/5382186

Direct Youtube link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fteszptFKQ

Appreciate it!

[SoonerMarkVA]

Wow. No defensive coaching changes, other than promoting Montgomery to Co-DC. That's really disappointing.

[Eielson]

DGB informed Bob he's going pro.

[instigator]

Wow. No defensive coaching changes, other than promoting Montgomery to Co-DC. That's really disappointing.

Yeah I am pretty underwhelmed.

It does sound like he hope Mike gets another job.

[Sooner in Tampa]

Bob also announced DGB is GONE!

What a freakin waste of effort for that kid

[SoonerMarkVA]

Bob also announced DGB is GONE!

What a freakin waste of effort for that kid

He's clearly not the best decision maker. This goes right in line with that.

[SoonerorLater]

This presser seems to be a little short on blockbuster revelations.

[yankee]

This presser seems to be a little short on blockbuster revelations.

Was it supposed to have them?

[swardboy]

Any word on Josh?

[Sooner in Tampa]

Any word on Josh?

Heupel? He is gone.

[FaninAma]

Lulz. Same ol' Bob.

[BoulderSooner79]

There was a group of posters on LT (middle schoolers, I must assume) that were speculating that Bob was going to resign today saying that he could coach with Boren as president. I think they were just relaying a wet dream they had.

[SoonerorLater]

There was a group of posters on LT (middle schoolers, I must assume) that were speculating that Bob was going to resign today saying that he could coach with Boren as president. I think they were just relaying a wet dream they had.

Reality is never as enjoyable as rampant speculation.

[ouduckhunter]

Reality is never as enjoyable as rampant speculation.

Amen to that!

[Sooner91ATL]

Bob is going to get some guy who runs an offensive system he likes. Fair enough, he did this with Leach and I can see the logic in picking a guy who has a good scheme. It will probably be a mid-tier or no name guy, which is ok.

I can't understand the logic with not remaking the D however. This D scheme was terrible. Our best d back can't tackle a tackling dummy. Our LB are undersized and take bad angles to the ball. We drop our rush personnel into soft coverage. We give up huge plays in the passing game. We are incapable of playing press coverage. None of this is going to change under the current regime. Very disappointing.

[Eielson]

Monty at co-DC means a demotion for Mike, correct? That's a pretty big revelation to me.

DGB news is also big.

The Heupel news was also related to the press conference, so I'd say this was a pretty big deal.

[SoonerorLater]

Monty at co-DC means a demotion for Mike, correct? That's a pretty big revelation to me.

DGB news is also big.

The Heupel news was also related to the press conference, so I'd say this was a pretty big deal.

Heupel / Norvell news was already out there. Most folks figered DGB was gone but even so I don't think you hold a press conference about a guy that never played a down of football for Oklahoma. The Montgomery promotion was about the only thing newsworthy but IMO not enough for a "special edition" press conference.

[SoonerStormchaser]

Ok, so who is DGB, since I've lived under a rock across the pond?

[Eielson]

Heupel / Norvell news was already out there. Most folks figered DGB was gone but even so I don't think you hold a press conference about a guy that never played a down of football for Oklahoma. The Montgomery promotion was about the only thing newsworthy but IMO not enough for a "special edition" press conference.

The news was released this morning, and I have my doubts that it's coincidental timing. I didn't say it was announced. All I said is that they were associated.

Also was BJW co-DC? If so, I think this indicates he's done.

[EatLeadCommie]

How on earth does Bobby Jack Wright still have a job?

[EatLeadCommie]

or Kish?

[Eielson]

Ok, so who is DGB, since I've lived under a rock across the pond?

Most talented WR since Calvin Johnson. We almost got him, but Mizzou beat us out. Then he threw a woman down the stairs, and was kicked out. We scooped him up, but he had to sit out a year, and now he's going pro.

[BoulderSooner79]

Monty at co-DC means a demotion for Mike, correct? That's a pretty big revelation to me.

DGB news is also big.

The Heupel news was also related to the press conference, so I'd say this was a pretty big deal.

Agree with 1) and 3). DGB would have been big news if he was staying.

My feeling is that Mike is still looking for a new job, but Bob will keep him another year if he doesn't find one. More changes are coming for sure on the offense side as the new OC will want some of his own guys as position coaches. Same for the defense if Mike does indeed find a new job.

[graphster]

Agree that Mike is probably still looking for a job, but that he will stay for another year if he can't find one. If the reports about them contacting Muschamp are true, then that means Bob is looking to make some changes on defense, and has been for some time. Expect that they are waiting to fire Kish until they know whether Mike is leaving or not (he may want to take Kish with him if he goes). If Mike stays then I would expect them to fire Kish and hire a new LB coach. Kind of surprised that they haven't announced anything about BJW, but I have to expect that he'll probably be gone too.

Doubt any other major changes are coming on offense, aside from a new coordinator/replacements for Heupel and Norvell. Bedenbaugh and Gundy have been very strong position coaches and recruiters. They were supposedly the only assistants besides Monty with job security, so they aren't going to be replaced.

That only leaves Boulware, but his responsibilities are split between TE and special teams, and it's unlikely that an incoming OC would have a strong tie to an existing coach for those positions.

[Eielson]

Agree with 1) and 3). DGB would have been big news if he was staying.

My feeling is that Mike is still looking for a new job, but Bob will keep him another year if he doesn't find one. More changes are coming for sure on the offense side as the new OC will want some of his own guys as position coaches. Same for the defense if Mike does indeed find a new job.

I think we agree on DGB, but have a different way of stating it. I'm not surprised DGB is leaving, and I don't think we're screwed, but it would have been huge if he stayed, so it's a big announcement to to know what he's doing. Had he stayed, I think even Heupel/Norvell/TK would have been very successful next season.

[cvsooner]

Looks to me like Montgomery is most likely the defensive coordinator and M Stoops will be handling d-backs, along with BJW. Biggest knock against Kish is he can't recruit, or hasn't done very well at it. LB play is okay. I'm a bit more worried about the D Line if Monty is busy with the overall D. But I suspect, based on their play, that Montgomery knows a thing or two about D. The 2013 D was pretty decent to outstanding, and we started out 2014 like gangbusters, until M Stoops started tinkering with it.

I say give it a chance.

I also won't be surprised if Mike winds up taking a hike, either this season or next, and Kish goes with him. Guess we'll see.

[Eielson]

That only leaves Boulware, but his responsibilities are split between TE and special teams, and it's unlikely that an incoming OC would have a strong tie to an existing coach for those positions.

If we grab Meacham, I'd be interested in him as the TE coach. I'm interested in a guy who can strictly focus on QB's without having extra duties.

We may need to offer the OC position to entice a great QB coach, though.

[graphster]

Looks to me like Montgomery is most likely the defensive coordinator and M Stoops will be handling d-backs, along with BJW. Biggest knock against Kish is he can't recruit, or hasn't done very well at it. LB play is okay. I'm a bit more worried about the D Line if Monty is busy with the overall D. But I suspect, based on their play, that Montgomery knows a thing or two about D. The 2013 D was pretty decent to outstanding, and we started out 2014 like gangbusters, until M Stoops started tinkering with it.

I say give it a chance.

I also won't be surprised if Mike winds up taking a hike, either this season or next, and Kish goes with him. Guess we'll see.

Kish needs to go. LB play has been pretty subpar since Venables left, and it's only going to get worse if we don't get somebody here immediately who will be a stronger recruiter.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Kish needs to go. LB play has been pretty subpar since Venables left, and it's only going to get worse if we don't get somebody here immediately who will be a stronger recruiter.

Are you saying that the LB play was Par under BV? Because we haven't had decent linebacker play since 2007 or good LB play since 2005. Honestly, given that Mike's scheme doesn't protect the LBs as much as BVs did, I'd say we've marginally improved the last 2 years. That being said, what bothers me the most about our current linebacker play is the lack of effort. If you can't get guys to play hard for you every down, then you don't belong at a school like OU.

[badger]

the only tense moment of the press conference was...


John E. Hoover @johnehoover · 52m 52 minutes ago

So now it's inappropriate to ask the highest-paid state employee in Okla why he went on vacation when he was supposed to be working? Gotcha.

[rock on sooner]

Still a chance that Mike goes THIS year...prolly why Monty got a promo...
Kish will go with Mike, Monty is sole DC. Bob's type of O coming with a
new OC, maybe a couple new position coaches...LB and secondary, BJW
goes "upstairs"...the moves are NOT done...jus sayin...

[graphster]

Are you saying that the LB play was Par under BV? Because we haven't had decent linebacker play since 2007 or good LB play since 2005. Honestly, given that Mike's scheme doesn't protect the LBs as much as BVs did, I'd say we've marginally improved the last 2 years. That being said, what bothers me the most about our current linebacker play is the lack of effort. If you can't get guys to play hard for you every down, then you don't belong at a school like OU.

LB play was a strength of the defense under Venables. His last year here (2011), we had Travis Lewis and Tom Wort who were both producing at a high level. We gave up yards under Venables due to breakdowns in the secondary, not due to poor LB play. Prior to that, we had pretty solid LB play, with the exception of 2008 when Ryan Reynolds got hurt against Texas and we didn't have a replacement for him ready to go.

Problem with LB play this year goes way beyond lack of effort. Have repeatedly had major busts in coverage assignments that contributed to problems in pass coverage.

[yankee]

the only tense moment of the press conference was...

I like Hoover as he isn't afraid to ask tough questions, but I don't get the reasoning behind him asking Stoops about his vacation. Does the entire program grind to a half if he isn't there overseeing everything? Isn't that part of the reason why we have assistant coaches and trainers? And we lost 4 other games, was Stoops on vacation before those losses too?

[Piware]

Ok, so who is DGB, since I've lived under a rock across the pond?

Since DGB never took a snap for us, I don't think this is a big loss. That kid made me nervous anyway - just a bad vibe.

Glad to hear that Shannon will be back and Mixon too.

[badger]

I don't get the reasoning behind him asking Stoops about his vacation

If the vacation wasn't just before a four-point loss to TCU, which is now considered the top Big 12 program after bowl showing and playoff snub...maybe.

If the head coach's out of state, I can just picture a group of teenagers-to-early-20s dogging "optional" workouts, cheating on their diets and other things we all are doing right now to break our New Year's resolutions.

Does Stoops taking his vacation during the offseason make us four points better in Fort Worth that game? I don't know. As Stoops likes to say, I'm not going to sit here and... ;)

[graphster]

We played better against TCU than Baylor. Baylor was at home and looked worse at the end of the season than TCU did.

I think the conclusion is obvious: Stoops should go on vacation as many times as possible.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

LB play was a strength of the defense under Venables. His last year here (2011), we had Travis Lewis and Tom Wort who were both producing at a high level. We gave up yards under Venables due to breakdowns in the secondary, not due to poor LB play. Prior to that, we had pretty solid LB play, with the exception of 2008 when Ryan Reynolds got hurt against Texas and we didn't have a replacement for him ready to go.

Problem with LB play this year goes way beyond lack of effort. Have repeatedly had major busts in coverage assignments that contributed to problems in pass coverage.

I know that you weren't here, but we went into this in depth during those years. The basic gist is that our linebackers were good when the other team didn't attempt to block them. In several games, when the other team decided to block our LBs they might as well have not been on the field. As a matter of a fact, in Ryan Reynolds perfect game against UW the Huskies didn't attempt to block him once. Where we ran into trouble was when we ran into a team that had a decent enough OL to handle our DL and get to the LBs. At that point, the YPC ballooned from 2ish to 5ish and we had to bring more guys up to stop the run.

http://www.soonerstats.com/football/seasons/stats_team.cfm?seasonid=2008#.VKw6MivF_Qo

[graphster]

Well, if the other team's offensive line is blocking your LBs on a consistent basis, then your DL isn't doing its job. LB's, particularly in a 4-3 defense, shouldn't be taking on a lot of blocks from offensive linemen. Their job is primarily to fill holes and clean things up against the run and short/intermediate passing game, not to take on blockers (except for fullbacks or tight ends).

And as I said earlier, 2008 was a bit of a down year for the LBs because we never really found a solid replacement for Reynolds in the middle. Keep in mind that the year before that we had Curtis Lofton, who went on to be an NFL starter, so we were already lacking in experience prior to Reynolds' injury. But over the course of Venables' tenure, yes, I would argue that our LB play was generally well above average.

Venables' big problem with respect to LBs was that he too often stayed in a base defense against spread formations, causing LBs to have to try and cover WRs, or forcing us to play a soft zone coverage.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Well, if the other team's offensive line is blocking your LBs on a consistent basis, then your DL isn't doing its job.

This is one of those cookie cutter statements that isn't based in reality. If a DE is occupying a blocker then he isn't rushing the passer. If he isn't rushing the passer, your secondary is going to get torched. Secondarily, if you play read and react with a stud DT everyone and their dog will negative recruit you on it until your DT quality goes down or you let them free rush (which is what we did). Free rush DTs are easier to block by a single OL allowing more guys free releases on the LB. A secondary problem with this is that it created horrid rush lane discipline which just left the middle of the field open for running QBs to exploit.

What you see from a lot of teams these days is that they block the offside DE via scheme (zone read) which allows them to have 5 blockers on 5 guys (double play side DT, chip the inside DT, block the end and the OLB playside catching the ILB in the wash). The LBs are frozen in place via the zone read until the OL are on them. So you have to have LBs who can defeat a block (like we did pre-2005).

We had a series of plays from 2009 (I think) where a team repeatedly ran an ISO against Travis Lewis. The fullback blocked him 4 out of 4 times.

[LesNessman]

IMO, Shannon coming back is the best news of the day.

[badger]

Remember when it seemed like Josh Heupel and Major Applewhite were on track some day to be head coaches on opposite sidelines of the RRS? The fun story of college football as the former QBs rise in the coaching rankings at their alma maters?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

But over the course of Venables' tenure, yes, I would argue that our LB play was generally well above average.

Venables' big problem with respect to LBs was that he too often stayed in a base defense against spread formations, causing LBs to have to try and cover WRs, or forcing us to play a soft zone coverage.

Remember this is an OU scale, not general scale. An OU scale means someone like Mike Coats would be considered average (where he'd be all world at most schools). OU has a tradition of having dominating linebackers so when your LB corps would be ranked 3rd to 4th in conference, that is below average. From 1999 to 2005 we had good linebacker play (meaning there were multiple guys on the field that were good OU linebackers). From 2006 to 2007 we field one good OU linebacker (out of 3). Since that point, we haven't fielded an average OU linebacker much less an average OU linebacker corps.

We ran a Man Press in 1999, a Tampa 2 (4-2-5) from 2000 to 2004, finishing with a 4-3 Man Under Variant during his last years. Every single year since 1999 under BV, we were in some kind of zone. In that time, our LBs have never covered WRs (nor have they covered TEs over the middle either heyo!).

[BoulderSooner79]

Seems like forever since we have had a dominant LB like Lofton. I think Reynolds would have been a great one too had he not blown out both knees. I think it's telling when a walk-on like Gastelum gets on the field and looks like the best LB we have had in a long time when it comes to reading a play and being in the right place.

[cvsooner]

I would argue Austin Box would be/would have been a typical OU linebacker in his senior season. Other than that I can't disagree with your analysis, JKM. Bigger question is how do we fix?

[graphster]

This is kind of a pointless argument. Regardless of how good LB play was or wasn't under Venables, the fact is that it has been poor under Kish. Travon Austin ran for a billion yards against us in 2012 and we couldn't stop the run all year. 2013 we were a little better against the run, but were far from outstanding. Gave up huge yards against ND, and were honestly getting bullied in the run game by Bama in the bowl game.

This year they were average in the run game (largely because teams barely tried to run against us given how bad our secondary play was), and had multiple coverage problems and missed tackles against the pass. This was with a first round pick playing in front of them at Nose, and a couple other future NFL guys on the DL. And with virtually everybody returning for a second year in the system, except for Shannon.

On top of that, recruiting has been subpar, and several of the highly rated recruits that we have landed have not primarily been recruited by Kish.

Kish has done at least as bad a job with our LBs as Norvell did with the WRs or Heupel did with the QBs. And it isn't good enough for OU. Especially if we're going to run a 3-4 defense where we need the LBs to step up as big time playmakers.

[cvsooner]

With all the blame--much of it justified--thrown at our coaches of late, I cannot help but think we've had quite the storm of off-field drama: Mixon, Shannon, DGB, the death of Austin Box, serious injuries to major pieces of the player puzzle. Considering it all, it's really kind of remarkable we've been as good as we have. This season we finally cracked, I think, and this group didn't respond well to the pressure.

[FaninAma]

I wasn't able to catch the press conference so I didn't hear the question about the vacation. When did this scrutinized vacation take place?

[graphster]

We ran a Man Press in 1999, a Tampa 2 (4-2-5) from 2000 to 2004, finishing with a 4-3 Man Under Variant during his last years. Every single year since 1999 under BV, we were in some kind of zone. In that time, our LBs have never covered WRs (nor have they covered TEs over the middle either heyo!).
Yes, I know that were were a dominant zone heavy team. Which turned out to be a liability against some of the spread offenses that we faced in the later years. But there were a handful of times when we had LBs getting matched up with slot receivers, and it generally resulted in big plays (which is why we were forced to almost always play some form of zone coverage, regardless of how good our CBs were).

[tulsaoilerfan]

I wasn't able to catch the press conference so I didn't hear the question about the vacation. When did this scrutinized vacation take place?
During the bye week before the TCU game

[SoonerMarkVA]

How on earth does Bobby Jack Wright still have a job?


or Kish?

Yeah, these are big ones, for sure. Very surprised. Also surprised about Mike. I thought he was going to turn over everyone on D but Montgomery.

[tulsaoilerfan]

Does it worry anyone else that Monty has never been a Coordinator? He's a helluva position coach and recruiter but I think there may be some struggles his first couple of seasons

[SoonerMarkVA]

IMO, Shannon coming back is the best news of the day.

Wait. Stoops said that? I completely missed it. I thought he evaded the question about Shannon and Mixon.

[FaninAma]

During the bye week before the TCU game

Really!?

[badger]

I wasn't able to catch the press conference so I didn't hear the question about the vacation. When did this scrutinized vacation take place?

Right before TCU. If I remember our schedule correctly we had a bye week. I'm not sure if NCAA prohibits practice during bye week but Stoops almost made it sound like his players weren't going to be around anyway so why should he be. It would have been around the end of September, so class was definitely in session; no fall break at OU other than the Friday before OU-Texas

[BoulderSooner79]

Wait. Stoops said that? I completely missed it. I thought he evaded the question about Shannon and Mixon.

That was a non-news item. Stoops has said they were doing the right things and are on track to return to the team on several occasions - he just repeated it again when asked. He can't say for sure because there is a timeline associated with each player and they could mess-up or leave along the way. With Shannon, it's a title IX thing, so Stoops doesn't even have any say. With Mixon, I'm sure it must be a consensus between Stoops/Joe C./Boren. He didn't say it today, but I thought Mixon would be back for this (Spring) semester. I hope that hasn't changed. Shannon was going to be a full academic year, so not until summer.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

This is kind of a pointless argument. Regardless of how good LB play was or wasn't under Venables, the fact is that it has been poor under Kish. Travon Austin ran for a billion yards against us in 2012 and we couldn't stop the run all year. 2013 we were a little better against the run, but were far from outstanding. Gave up huge yards against ND, and were honestly getting bullied in the run game by Bama in the bowl game.

This year they were average in the run game (largely because teams barely tried to run against us given how bad our secondary play was), and had multiple coverage problems and missed tackles against the pass. This was with a first round pick playing in front of them at Nose, and a couple other future NFL guys on the DL. And with virtually everybody returning for a second year in the system, except for Shannon.

On top of that, recruiting has been subpar, and several of the highly rated recruits that we have landed have not primarily been recruited by Kish.

Kish has done at least as bad a job with our LBs as Norvell did with the WRs or Heupel did with the QBs. And it isn't good enough for OU. Especially if we're going to run a 3-4 defense where we need the LBs to step up as big time playmakers.

I don't think you are getting what I'm saying here. BV was stop the run then the pass. MS is stop the pass then the run. Those biases are very important because they cover up talent deficiencies because of weight of numbers. If your focus is on the run (7 committed) then with equal talent you are going to look better than someone who isn't as focused (6 committed). This is one of the reasons that I was lamenting our lack of Talent at LB in 2007. Yes, Loftin was good, but the guys around him were pretty bad. You just couldn't see it because their mistakes were covered up by weight of numbers.

To give an example, that we hashed out ad nauseum in 2013

in 2011 BV's Defense looked like this:

Rushing 3.68 Yards Per Attempt
Passing 6.64 Yards Per Attempt
Scoring 22.1 Per Game

In 2012, MS had this
Rushing 5.17 Yards Per Attempt
Passing 6.39 Yards Per Attempt
Scoring 25.5 Per Game

Basically, we ran straight man which took the corners out of run defense (since their men just ran them out of the play). This meant that adding an extra man into pass pro netted us .3 yards per pass, but cost us 1.5 yards per rush. The extra rushing yards killed us on 3rd down (increase in 13% conversions for opponents). But this was the 1st year of the system so lets see what last years better D did

In 2013, MS
Rushing 4.09 Yards Per Attempt
Passing 6.75 Yards Per Attempt
Scoring 22.1 Per Game

Once again, our run defense did get better but only because we added one safety for run defense (meaning a loss of 1 run defender instead of 2 like in 2012), but at the cost of much worse pass defense. When you start looking hard at these numbers, you see why we ran much more zone this year. Zone gives you so much more bang for the buck (remember that was one of the worst BV defenses and Mike hasn't beat it yet). So what happened this year when we were back to the same run numbers as BV had?

In 2014, MS
Rushing 3.02 Yards Per Attempt (wut?)
Passing 7.04 Yards Per Attempt
Scoring 25.9 Per Game

Personally, i think Kish is on the right path in his recruiting because California is where a crapton of NFL linebackers come from. I also think that he is actually evaluating them as he isn't going for the highly ranked kids but the low ranked kids (which as I've shown over my NFL draft posts is where all the draftees come from). However, I'm seriously worried about the fact that Evans was still on the field not giving a lick of effort when you had a guy like Gastelum who was busting his butt being just as effective with less talent.

[BoulderSooner79]

However, I'm seriously worried about the fact that Evans was still on the field not giving a lick of effort when you had a guy like Gastelum who was busting his butt being just as effective with less talent.

EDIT - oops, partial post. I meant to agree with this.

[graphster]

The statistical breakdown is interesting, but I would argue that you also have to consider the quality of offenses played against, so that makes things a bit difficult. A better method would be to compare how teams did against our defense to what they averaged in their other games. Outside of TCU and Baylor, I don't think we faced many strong offensive teams this year. 2013 was arguably even lighter, because TCU wasn't very good. The Big 12 has been a completely different animal the past 2-3 years compared to what it was when Venables was here. And some of our defensive stats (like our offensive stats) were inflated by good performances against very bad teams (like Kansas and Iowa State).

Also, I would argue that by and large, our problems against the pass in 2011 were mostly related to coverage breakdowns/busts on the back end. Part of this might was certainly related to the scheme, which was heavily reliant on complex zone coverages/blitzes, but I don't think it's as simple as you make it sound. You could make a reasonable argument that with better secondary play/coaching in 2011, we could have had a pretty dominant defense.

We switched schemes after 2012, so this year was our second year running a 3-4 (though Venables had also essentially converted to a 3-4 during the latter part of 2010 and for most of 2011 until the bowl game). The rush yards per attempt were down this year, I would argue, because teams could complete underneath passes so easily that there wasn't much point in trying to run it, except in very short yardage situations or after the games were out of hand. We also got Jordan Phillips back and had several other returning contributors on the DL. Our DL play (especially the interior line play) has improved dramatically since 2012, and that has had more to do with improvement in the run game than anything related to the linebackers. Plus, we didn't really face a strong rushing offense all season.

With regards to the overall defense this year, the fact is that the LBs were a huge liability in pass coverage.

[EatLeadCommie]

Does it worry anyone else that Monty has never been a Coordinator? He's a helluva position coach and recruiter but I think there may be some struggles his first couple of seasons

Yes it worries me.

[graphster]

Does it worry anyone else that Monty has never been a Coordinator? He's a helluva position coach and recruiter but I think there may be some struggles his first couple of seasons

He's a Co-Coordinator, which is pretty different than running things by yourself. It was also implied that if Mike Stays, he will have primary responsibility for calling plays during the game. My guess is that the only way Mike leaves is if they replace him with an experienced defensive coach who could handle that responsibility. Monty will primarily be more involved in putting together the gameplan, and collaborating with Mike on gameday (similar to the way that Venables used to when Mike was here the first time) than he was in the past, but it's not the same thing as being responsible for orchestrating the entire defense.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

The statistical breakdown is interesting, but I would argue that you also have to consider the quality of offenses played against, so that makes things a bit difficult. A better method would be to compare how teams did against our defense to what they averaged in their other games. Outside of TCU and Baylor, I don't think we faced many strong offensive teams this year. 2013 was arguably even lighter, because TCU wasn't very good. The Big 12 has been a completely different animal the past 2-3 years compared to what it was when Venables was here. And some of our defensive stats (like our offensive stats) were inflated by good performances against very bad teams (like Kansas and Iowa State).

We did this back in 2001-2, but what we found was that when you compare entire seasons, the variances were statistically insignificant and not worth the time spent. Basically, the way I phrase it is that these are "directionally correct" and can be used for high level statements.


Also, I would argue that by and large, our problems against the pass in 2011 were mostly related to coverage breakdowns/busts on the back end. Part of this might was certainly related to the scheme, which was heavily reliant on complex zone coverages/blitzes, but I don't think it's as simple as you make it sound. You could make a reasonable argument that with better secondary play/coaching in 2011, we could have had a pretty dominant defense.

That is the data architect in me. I spend way too much time trying to come up with simple ways to describe incredibly complex things. As for 2011, your memory is about 1/2 right.

2011 - Opponent Passing TDs - 18, Opponent Rushing TDs - 15, red zone scores - 8 FG/20 TD (61% of TDs in the RZ)
2012 - Opponent Passing TDs - 11, Opponent Rushing TDs - 27, red zone scores - 7 FG/27 TD (71% of TDs in the RZ)


We switched schemes after 2012, so this year was our second year running a 3-4 (though Venables had also essentially converted to a 3-4 during the latter part of 2010 and for most of 2011 until the bowl game). The rush yards per attempt were down this year, I would argue, because teams could complete underneath passes so easily that there wasn't much point in trying to run it, except in very short yardage situations or after the games were out of hand. We also got Jordan Phillips back and had several other returning contributors on the DL. Our DL play (especially the interior line play) has improved dramatically since 2012, and that has had more to do with improvement in the run game than anything related to the linebackers. Plus, we didn't really face a strong rushing offense all season.

With regards to the overall defense this year, the fact is that the LBs were a huge liability in pass coverage.

You can argue that, but the number of attempts were basically the same between 2011 and 2012 (476 vs 485). The DL is a discussion for a different time. I think that while it has gotten better, it is still way below what it needs to be.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Whoops, forgot to say that on the linebackers, you could have just left it at they were a liability.

[badger]

Does it worry anyone else that Monty has never been a Coordinator? He's a helluva position coach and recruiter but I think there may be some struggles his first couple of seasons

Monty is an uber recruiter. Perhaps the title change is in name only so that he can recruit beyond a specific position?

I got that crazy idea based on a Switzer thing I just read on ESPN. He said OU only gave him a one-year deal after the promotion to head coach, but asked that they publicize it as a four-year deal so that it wouldn't impede recruiting :D

Coaching decisions are made for recruiting just as much as wins and losses these days, wouldn't you agree?

[graphster]

That is the data architect in me. I spend way too much time trying to come up with simple ways to describe incredibly complex things. As for 2011, your memory is about 1/2 right.

2011 - Opponent Passing TDs - 18, Opponent Rushing TDs - 15, red zone scores - 8 FG/20 TD (61% of TDs in the RZ)
2012 - Opponent Passing TDs - 11, Opponent Rushing TDs - 27, red zone scores - 7 FG/27 TD (71% of TDs in the RZ)


Again, though, I think you'd need more granulated data to assess this. And you'd probably need some film study to truly assess it. You would also want to look at disruptive plays (tackles for loss, sacks, fumbles forced and recovered, interceptions, etc...). I'd want to know third down conversion percentages, as well as the average yards to go on third down. And you'd want to look at busted coverages to see how often there were instances where defenders made mental mistakes that resulted in receivers running free in the secondary.

I remember several instances in 2011 when teams scored or converted long yardage situations because we either had a bust in coverage or because we had a DB misplay the ball. In the Baylor game, for instance, there were multiple times that we forced a 3rd and 10+, only for them to hit a homerun on third down. Not to mention the final drive. Against FSU, we nearly lost a lead at the end because we had a DB who misplayed a hail mary on 4th and forever. That didn't happen nearly as often in 2012, but then we also weren't as good against the run and we didn't force as many negative plays, so we had fewer of those situations. Clearly part of the improvement in 2012 was a simplification of the defensive scheme to be more reliant on man to man coverage with safety over the top.

But I would argue that we had a number of instances in 2011 when we were fairly good at putting the other team in obvious passing situations, but then had a breakdown in the secondary. Even if the scheme is the primary reason for the difference, there's no reason that you couldn't have combined some of the aggressive zone/zone blitz stuff on first and second down, and then used more man to man in obvious passing situations. When Mike originally agreed to come back, that was the expectation. That he would add that capacity to the defense to compensate for Venables' weaknesses with respect to defending the pass in long yardage or obvious pass situations (i.e. against opponents who did nothing but air it out or were way behind and had no choice).

Venables' big problem as a D-Coordinator was that he was never really able to incorporate man coverage in a meaningful way, despite the fact that we often had athletic CBs and safeties who could have executed it effectively. As a result, we often had problems with mental mistakes that resulted in big plays, and we also had issues getting some of the more physically talented players on the field because they struggled with the scheme.

[LesNessman]

Wait. Stoops said that? I completely missed it. I thought he evaded the question about Shannon and Mixon.
I don't know if he said it or not. I just posted it as my opinion.

[Sooner91ATL]

Yeah, these are big ones, for sure. Very surprised. Also surprised about Mike. I thought he was going to turn over everyone on D but Montgomery.

So far, the changes are just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

But I would argue that we had a number of instances in 2011 when we were fairly good at putting the other team in obvious passing situations, but then had a breakdown in the secondary. Even if the scheme is the primary reason for the difference, there's no reason that you couldn't have combined some of the aggressive zone/zone blitz stuff on first and second down, and then used more man to man in obvious passing situations. When Mike originally agreed to come back, that was the expectation. That he would add that capacity to the defense to compensate for Venables' weaknesses with respect to defending the pass in long yardage or obvious pass situations (i.e. against opponents who did nothing but air it out or were way behind and had no choice).

Venables' big problem as a D-Coordinator was that he was never really able to incorporate man coverage in a meaningful way, despite the fact that we often had athletic CBs and safeties who could have executed it effectively. As a result, we often had problems with mental mistakes that resulted in big plays, and we also had issues getting some of the more physically talented players on the field because they struggled with the scheme.

We went through this before BV left. There isn't enough practice time in college football to mix schemes. You basically have 205 hours pre-season to work on player development and install your schemes of which 50 hours can't be in full pads (this will change now that they are letting coaches handle the 7 on 7 summer leagues, but I'm not sure how much). During the week, you can spend a maximum of 15 hours on football (including meetings and weight training). The sheer number of keys involved (and live repetitions to see them in action) precludes having exotic gameplans from week to week like they do in the pros (where they spend 40+ hours on football a week).

This is further complicated by level of competence in the system by the players. True Freshman are going to have no prior base so the coach has to spend a ton of extra time with them getting their keys and general knowledge high enough to play without busting all over the place (they also lose the 45 hours of spring practice that was in that original 205 number). So while you might be able to pull off exotic swaps on defense if you have 4 RS SRs who have started all 4 years, in practice you are typically dealing with 1/2 your secondary being 1st year starters who are FR or SO.

The last logistical problem is early entrants. Under Stoops, we've only had 1 early entrant that we didn't have a huge drop off in production at the position the next year (Tommie Harris). This puts added pressure on a coach to simplify his base scheme so that losing your best player a year or two early doesn't impact you as much as it would in a very complex system.

Back to BV - There wasn't anything wrong with BVs systems. Other teams had rode those same schemes to MNCs in the timeframe that we were running them. What hurt him was the mismatch of players recruited versus the needs of the system. His system required first and foremost guys who could understand their keys, quickly process information and be assignment sound. We then watch those ESPN inside tapes of practice with the secondary guys going "One time he is saying I got the Z, then the next I got the X - I don't think he even knows". You then have one of the other guys trying to explain that the key is what the X/Z do at the mesh point between the zones that determines which he has and our poor starting DB looks like he is listening to the peanuts teacher.

When Mike came in with mostly these same kids, he simplified all this down to "You have this guy". This worked much better in that our guys were much more assignment sound than they were under BV, but it also exposed our glaring issues.
1. Lack of talent at LB
2. Lack of talent at DT
3. Big 12 Refs suck but suck in inconsistent ways (specifically calling picks, allowing downfield blocking etc)
4. Mobile QBs are rampant in college football and eat man to man alive

So this year we go back to running a lot more zone with a bunch of freshmen dbs. They bust all over the place because of the same reason they did under BV. It takes time to get them ramped up.

So what do I think should happen?

1. We are going to have to scrap giving scholarships to special teamers and use them on DBs. Given our inability to find quality guys we need to recruit 25-50% more dbs than we need.
2. We are going to have to dig up some more scholarships for linebackers which means less at other positions.
3. Some of these offers need to be to kids who are "coaches on the field". Basically, you have to extend your practice hours by adding guys that will continue to teach other players when the coaches can't because of NCAA restrictions.

else, we adopt the SEC approach of 'you suck, bye'

[graphster]

I think we mostly agree here. In order to run the kind of man to man defense that we used in 2012, you need to have dominant players in the front 7 -- which we did not.

I guess my bigger point was that the primary problems with Venables' defense were breakdowns in pass coverage -- ironically the same problems that as you mention we now face. This included some problems with LBs covering over the middle, but was mostly related to safeties and to a lesser extent corners on the back-end. At the time, the claim was that this was largely a product of poor secondary coaching -- thus Willie Martinez' departure. And the hope was that by bringing Mike back to help coach the DBs (safeties in particular), we would rectify those problems.

I am not arguing that Venables was some sort of great defensive coordinator. But I would argue that if you isolate the LB play and the LB recruiting under him, it was better than we have gotten from Kish. There may well be others out there who would do considerably better than either of them. That's not really my point. My point is that the LB play has been average the past two years (again, granted that the unit has faced significant injuries and suspensions), and that recruiting has not been particularly strong either. As you mention, LB is a critical position for us to recruit effectively. When your DL coach is landing LB recruits, while your LB coach is watching guys that he was the primary recruiter on flip to another school, that suggests a lot about where the weak link (or one of the weak links) on the coaching staff is.

With regards to the secondary, there were a number of times this year that we did attempt to play aggressive, press coverage in the secondary -- and we got burned deep enough that we couldn't use it consistently, even in situations where we had used it effectively in previous years. Whether this is talent or poor coaching of technique (or both), is probably up for debate. Given that we also seem to have substantial issues, both in terms of player development and in terms of recruiting, I would argue that coaching changes at that position are also in order (up to and including Mike Stoops).

We are now 3 years in with this defensive staff, and the only position that has shown a positive trend-line over time has been the DL. If we're going to replace Heupel and Norvell (rightly so, I would argue) for their inability to develop consistent QB and WR play over the past 2 years, then I would argue that the same standard should be applied on the defensive side of the ball. And that means that Kish and BJW should definitely go. You will not convince me that we cannot find other coaches out there who couldn't recruit and develop better at their positions at the University of Oklahoma. And I would also say that Mike Stoops should also either be replaced or should be on a very short leash, given the defensive performance not only this year, but over the past 3 years (which have ranged from downright bad, to average, to downright bad in a different way). I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that his defenses could perform better with superior position coaches, but I don't think he should be given a free pass since his area of specialization is precisely the area where we struggled so much (both in terms of recruiting and development).

[KantoSooner]

I like your 30,000 foot analysis, JKM. Nice thing about 'too many' DBs and LBs is that they can all play special teams so, theoretically, you don't need as many dedicated ST guys.

[badger]

Here's more on the pre-TCU bye week vacation to Florida:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/columnists/john-e-hoover-a-few-thoughts-on-stoops-midseason-vacation/article_c0c0a0be-3197-5dc5-8948-59f34559e8ac.html

Excerpt:


The purpose of the trip was never revealed, and that’s fine; if it was indeed a personal trip as Stoops hinted on Tuesday, then what he actually did is none of our business. But even after I’d gotten confirmation of the trip itself from two independent sources, it just isn’t a question that can suddenly be blurted out during the usual Stoops weekly press conference.

“Hey Bob, I know you’re getting ready to play Kansas State this week, but why’d you fly to Florida last month, and did it cost you the TCU game?”

Believe it or not, there’s a proper decorum for such a question.

So I stored it away to ask specifically during what I anticipated would be the annual postseason wrap-up press conference. That came Tuesday morning.

[FaninAma]

Here's more on the pre-TCU bye week vacation to Florida:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/columnists/john-e-hoover-a-few-thoughts-on-stoops-midseason-vacation/article_c0c0a0be-3197-5dc5-8948-59f34559e8ac.html

Excerpt:

I wonder if Bob had any convenient, friendly meetings with his pals at the University of Florida during that "vacation"? Unbelievable.

[Eielson]

Maybe Bob should go on more vacations, because that was probably the best coached we'be been all year. It's right up there with the WVU game.

[badger]

Also of note:


According to Stoops’ response, he does it every year, although former player J.D. Runnels says Stoops takes time off every year the Sooners have at least two open dates (2001, 2002, 2005, 2008, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014) and said Stoops spends the other one recruiting.

I think this is significant because OU will always have at least two open dates under the current Big 12 setup of 10 teams, round-robin conference play... and ever since the Big 12 went to 10 teams, Stoops has won the Big 12 outright... not once. If you really want to get anal about it, you might find that TCU is not the first time OU lost against an underdog following a bye week... probably. I'm not anal, but I'm going to assume that TCU is not the first time this has happened.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

We are now 3 years in with this defensive staff, and the only position that has shown a positive trend-line over time has been the DL. If we're going to replace Heupel and Norvell (rightly so, I would argue) for their inability to develop consistent QB and WR play over the past 2 years, then I would argue that the same standard should be applied on the defensive side of the ball. And that means that Kish and BJW should definitely go. You will not convince me that we cannot find other coaches out there who couldn't recruit and develop better at their positions at the University of Oklahoma. And I would also say that Mike Stoops should also either be replaced or should be on a very short leash, given the defensive performance not only this year, but over the past 3 years (which have ranged from downright bad, to average, to downright bad in a different way). I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that his defenses could perform better with superior position coaches, but I don't think he should be given a free pass since his area of specialization is precisely the area where we struggled so much (both in terms of recruiting and development).

I don't think we are dropping them for the last 2 years, but the last 5. Remember that Josh's first QB recruit was Keith Nichol. You just can't judge how good of a talent evaluater someone is until after their 3rd class.

BJW - I can see the point here as our evaluation of Texas recruits the last 5 years is abysmal and that used to be our one saving grace (especially at DE). I just don't know if he is having issues with evaluating kids because of the offensive philosophy move (from Wing T to spread) or if position coaches are overruling him. This guy from 1999 to 2012 has pulled multiple eval gems out of his rear, but they aren't as frequent as they were. Personally, I've always looked at him as our recruiting coordinator and a guy who can fill in coach at multiple positions.

Kish - So he has recruited Jordan Evans, Dominique Alexander, Devante Bond, Tay Evans, Curtis Bolton. Alexander was the Newcomer of the Year last year (but had a massive sophomore slump this year). Evans is a pretty talented guy with no motor. Bond looked decent at OLB after Grissam went down. The other 2 are redshirting. So all in all, not bad considering he was left with no one. no. one. Now, if you are referring to the lack of stars please note that CA produces more NFL linebackers than any other state and most of them are 3*s or below. Guys like Bobby Wagner (2*), Casey Mathews (3*).

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I like your 30,000 foot analysis, JKM. Nice thing about 'too many' DBs and LBs is that they can all play special teams so, theoretically, you don't need as many dedicated ST guys.

I specifically talking about kickers punters and long snappers. We'd still need them, just not on scholly ;-)

[graphster]

CA might produce some great linebackers, but I don't see a whole lot of evidence that any connections that Kish has there are paying off in a major way. Alexander and Evans (the major contributors of his recruits) are both Oklahoma guys. Striker (though not a Kish recruit) is from Florida. Geneo Grissom (also predates the Kish era) is from Kansas.

I'm not convinced that you're going to make a living going into CA and getting better talent than you could get from Oklahoma, Texas, or the Southeast (our traditional recruiting grounds). Because you're never going to consistently beat out USC or UCLA, not to mention Oregon, Washington, and Stanford. And you don't have the same access to those kids as you do the kids from closer to home, so your odds of finding a hidden gem that the major schools in the area haven't also identified is not so great.

I'd rather have a guy who can consistently recruit the top talent in our region (and who can then develop that talent), as opposed than a guy who occasionally gets a 2 or 3 star gem from California to pay off. Look at the guys who have historically been great LBs at OU. You're mostly talking about Oklahoma and Texas, with a few guys from Missouri, Kansas or Florida. Recruit those areas well, and then develop the players you sign, and you're going to be much more consistent in building quality depth.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

CA might produce some great linebackers, but I don't see a whole lot of evidence that any connections that Kish has there are paying off in a major way. Alexander and Evans (the major contributors of his recruits) are both Oklahoma guys. Striker (though not a Kish recruit) is from Florida. Geneo Grissom (also predates the Kish era) is from Kansas.

I'm not convinced that you're going to make a living going into CA and getting better talent than you could get from Oklahoma, Texas, or the Southeast (our traditional recruiting grounds). Because you're never going to consistently beat out USC or UCLA, not to mention Oregon, Washington, and Stanford. And you don't have the same access to those kids as you do the kids from closer to home, so your odds of finding a hidden gem that the major schools in the area haven't also identified is not so great.

I'd rather have a guy who can consistently recruit the top talent in our region (and who can then develop that talent), as opposed than a guy who occasionally gets a 2 or 3 star gem from California to pay off. Look at the guys who have historically been great LBs at OU. You're mostly talking about Oklahoma and Texas, with a few guys from Missouri, Kansas or Florida. Recruit those areas well, and then develop the players you sign, and you're going to be much more consistent in building quality depth.


1. You listed 2 of the 5 as from Oklahoma neglecting the fact that 2 of the 5 were from California. Those 2 from Oklahoma were pressed into service because we had no one. LBs especially need redshirts because they are typically coming in at 200 lbs.

2. You are not competing against USC and UCLA because those schools aren't sending LBs to the NFL. You are actually recruiting against Cal, Oregon and more importantly Nevada, Fresno State, Utah State and San Diego State. In the last 8 years, USC and UCLA have had 0 LBs drafted, Oregon/Cal have 8, the other 4? 9. How do you think Kish sent 2 LBs into the NFL draft at Arizona? Evaluating California kids which if he could do there, he can do here. If someone is good enough to get drafted they are good enough for us.

3. Recruiting California (and Texas now) is not typical. "top recruits" defined as those who do well in games not in recruiting rankings - tend to be 3*s or 4*s . For example, the last 5* running back from California that was drafted with the team they started with was Reggie Bush (Mixon gets a chance to break that trend).

4. The problem here is the concept of "Top Talent". This is one of the best recruiting classes (https://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2008) we had on Rivals - we got the top 3 in Texas. After the fact, the best player was the QB and the second? the 2 star Punter. Compare that to this much worse recruiting class (https://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2008/baylor-79)

5. We have got to start recruiting kids that aren't knuckleheads. The reason we have no quality depth is that the guys get kicked off for off the field reasons before they are sophomores. Signing Day -> Yay we got Metoyer that kid is a beast. Now -> who?

[cvsooner]

Also recruiting against Boise State. I know locally we had some great kids here in central California who've gone not only to the Sooners, but Jared Norris (LB) at Utah is from Bakersfield and Cody Kessler at USC (though a QB) also. The defensive newcomer of the year at Iowa State is also from here. Then you throw in the Jalen Saunders/Hatari Byrd/etc., and you've got some good players. I hope we can send more your way. All in all I'd say the experience has been good for all: Jefferson/Clay/Stills were all pretty productive.

[cvsooner]

I'd kill to have Kish find another kid like Scooby Wright at Arizona. That dude wants to play.

[graphster]

I agree that stars can be deceiving, but from what I understand, there are a number of players the past few seasons that the coaching staff targeted and wanted but were unable to get. And here we are on our third recruiting class for Kish, and we still have virtually no depth at the position. So obviously by their own evaluation criteria, we are not consistently getting the players at the top of our board.

I'm not sure about your stats about draftees. USC has had several LBs drafted in the NFL in recent years. Last year they had Devon Kenard drafted in the 5th round. In 2013 they had Malcolm Smith (Super Bowl MVP) drafted. In 2009 they had 2 LBs drafted in the first round, another guy drafted in the second round, and a fourth guy who was drafted in the fourth round, and a fifth guy drafted in the sixth. In 2008 they had a guy drafted in the first round and another in the fifth. You'd be hard pressed to find a lot of schools that have done better than USC over the past decade at putting linebackers in the NFL.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/schools/usc/drafted.htm

UCLA had a first round draft pick at LB last year, a second rounder in 2011, and a third rounder in 2008.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/schools/ucla/drafted.htm

I understand that there is a lot of talent in California. There is also a lot of competition in California, and we are at a geographical disadvantage against every school we would compete with. So you have a ton of things working against you, even if you are perfect in evaluation. And then even if you get a kid to come here, you have to convince him to stay in Norman and not transfer out even if he's not getting playing time. Maybe that works out a few times, but you aren't going to build a unit around that strategy. Not over the long-term.

I would argue that a person who was equally good as a recruiter and evaluator, but who had strong ties in Texas and the Southeast, would be much more effective as far as building a deep and talented LB core at University of Oklahoma. The fact is that the best linebackers we have on campus right now are not from California. They are from Oklahoma and Texas. And the only LB we have committed right now is from Virginia. So show me how these supposed California connections are translating to on-field results.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

A little history here, last year I did a statistical analysis of the NFL draft versus recruiting rankings that was targeted at why 1/3 of the NFL draft was low 3* or lower. This was triggered by the fact that 2 of the top 3 picks were 1*s out of high school as well as some interesting reading on JJ Watt (2*). The key point is that there is serious cumulative bias in the recruiting rankings based upon your perceived power as a football school. Basically if you suck, your recruits must suck as well. However, over time, if you get better your recruits will get better (which I described as the Boise State phenomenon).

So when I pulled those numbers, I had some funky filters set so it was screening out the USC and UCLA recruits (Smith in the 7th and Akeem Ayers in the 2nd). They fell out because their "recruited position" was different than their "drafted position" because of a previous question on how bad Rivals DT evaluation is (which is horrid).

Yes we are at a geographical disadvantage against the main schools, my point was that we are not against the other schools who are sending just as many guys to the NFL as the big schools. OU has enough brand that they can sweep into states and bully minor power guys. The end result is that if you get an NFL calibre player it doesn't matter what his stars were or where he is from, you got him.

Back to the analysis, it basically proved that from a recruiting perspective Texas is jacked up. You are more likely to get an NFL prospect from the 26th - 50th player in the state than the 1st - 25th player. Even worse is that almost 1/2 of the draftees were not in the Texas top 100. In other words, the current methods of evaluation just are not working. This led to some other interesting findings.

The 2 most accurate states as far as recruiting service evaluation are South Carolina and Virginia. If a guy from two states is a 4* or 5* there is a crazy strong chance he will be drafted.

Generally speaking, the top player in a state has a good chance of being drafted. In any one draft, 17 draftees will have been the top player in their state. The states with the best record for putting these guys into the draft was NV, VA, AL, SC, MI. The worst state? Texas snuck in with Ryan Mallet.

[Eielson]

Even if Rivals, Scout, ESPN, etc. were all perfect, these lists would still be jacked up due to player development in college. These 2 star players may well have been 2 star players coming out of high school, but that doesn't mean they can't develop into NFL-caliber players. On the reverse, being a 5 star player doesn't mean you will be coachable, stay out of trouble, and be injury-free.

It also seems obvious that there would be more 3 star players in the NFL than 5 star players. I'm looking at the Rivals250 right now, and I see that the top 33 players are 5 stars, and 34-250 on this ranking are all 4 star players, so that's over 200 right there, and there might be more. I have no idea how many 3-star players there are, but I'd bet there are at least several hundred, and may be well over 1,000.

If you were betting on the futures of 18 year olds, would you take the top 33, or the next 1,000 left over? It's an obvious choice for me.

[8timechamps]

The "Stoops was in Florida before the TCU game" has gotten out of hand.

I happen to agree with him. If the players aren't on campus, what difference does it make where he is? He can game plan for the opposition in Florida just as well as he can in Norman. However, that's not really my point. The time in question, Stoops was in Florida. It just so happens that he made two recruiting visits during that time (could have been more, but those were both confirmed).

So, if Stoops is recruiting during a bye week (which is not uncommon for any coach), does it really matter? The fact that he took his family, and has a home there doesn't really change anything in my mind. The loss to TCU had nothing to do with Stoops' whereabouts the weekend prior.

I try to view Hoover's work in an unbiased fashion, but every time I read/hear something like this from him I can't help but think he's got a personal grudge against Stoops. He can explain it away as a "perfectly reasonable question", and maybe it is, but coming from him it just seems like more of his annoying shtick.

[graphster]

Well yeah, if you could have the next 1,000, that would make sense. But the more appropriate way to look at it would be to say, for every individual player, if you are a 2 star or a 3 star, are you more or less likely to get drafted than a 4 or a 5 star. Because OU can only sign 25 players. They can't sign the last 1,000.

Yes, it is not an exact science, and there are definitely biases in the rankings based on variety of factors. But over the long-term, if you have one school that signs mostly 4 and 5 star players, and another school that signs mostly 2 and 3 star players, the first school is going to do better. There might be a few years where the 2 or 3 star guys turn out to be hidden gems and the 5 and 4 star guys are busts, but over the long-term, the higher ranked players are more likely to be successful. There's a causal relationship between Alabama's ability to pull in highly sought after recruits, and their ability to remain a dominant team in the SEC (and an incredibly successful program in terms of the NFL draft). There's also a causal connection between the dropoff in our recruiting classes over the past half-decade and the on-field production that we've had in the past few years. For every diamond in the rough that you get (and I agree that part of recruiting well is identifying these players and knowing when to take them over a slightly higher rated prospect), you've also got an Adrian Peterson, Jermaine Gresham, Kenny Stills, Landry Jones, Gerald McCoy, etc...Sure, not all 4 and 5 stars pan out, but a lot of them do turn out to be great players (at both the college and pro levels).

With regards to your Texas analysis, a huge part of that is probably driven by the dysfunction in recent years at Texas and Texas A&M (and to a lesser extent OU). Those programs sign a lot of the highly rated recruits in Texas, but have had a variety of coaching problems that caused many recruits to not develop during their collegiate careers.

Again, though, I'm not just talking about rankings. I've read a number of recruiting reports which have indicated that OU is not getting the players that the coaches themselves have identified as their top targets. So even setting aside the rankings bias, the fact is that we are not doing a great job recruiting LBs.

[flysooner9]

The stoops vacation every year argument is stupid. He's done it nearly every year. I used to work at the airport and every year during a bye week him and his family would all load up and head to St Augustine. Has never been a problem before and as someone mentioned it's one of the better games the team played all year.

[badger]

If the players aren't on campus

I don't know why this keeps getting mentioned. Until we heave-ho the whole student-athlete thing in college, the players better have been on campus. Bye week in question was the final week of September. Fall 2014 classes started Aug. 18. There was no extended September break for OU students to my knowledge. It's not like Norman was a giant ghost town just because OU didn't play a football game that week.

[SoonerorLater]

Well yeah, if you could have the next 1,000, that would make sense. But the more appropriate way to look at it would be to say, for every individual player, if you are a 2 star or a 3 star, are you more or less likely to get drafted than a 4 or a 5 star. Because OU can only sign 25 players. They can't sign the last 1,000.

Yes, it is not an exact science, and there are definitely biases in the rankings based on variety of factors. But over the long-term, if you have one school that signs mostly 4 and 5 star players, and another school that signs mostly 2 and 3 star players, the first school is going to do better. There might be a few years where the 2 or 3 star guys turn out to be hidden gems and the 5 and 4 star guys are busts, but over the long-term, the higher ranked players are more likely to be successful. There's a causal relationship between Alabama's ability to pull in highly sought after recruits, and their ability to remain a dominant team in the SEC (and an incredibly successful program in terms of the NFL draft). There's also a causal connection between the dropoff in our recruiting classes over the past half-decade and the on-field production that we've had in the past few years. For every diamond in the rough that you get (and I agree that part of recruiting well is identifying these players and knowing when to take them over a slightly higher rated prospect), you've also got an Adrian Peterson, Jermaine Gresham, Kenny Stills, Landry Jones, Gerald McCoy, etc...Sure, not all 4 and 5 stars pan out, but a lot of them do turn out to be great players (at both the college and pro levels).

With regards to your Texas analysis, a huge part of that is probably driven by the dysfunction in recent years at Texas and Texas A&M (and to a lesser extent OU). Those programs sign a lot of the highly rated recruits in Texas, but have had a variety of coaching problems that caused many recruits to not develop during their collegiate careers.

Again, though, I'm not just talking about rankings. I've read a number of recruiting reports which have indicated that OU is not getting the players that the coaches themselves have identified as their top targets. So even setting aside the rankings bias, the fact is that we are not doing a great job recruiting LBs.

Yep. Just go back and look at the previous recruiting classes by the 4 playoff teams this year. With the exception of Oregon, who still pulled in some pretty highly ranked classes, Alabama, FSU and tOSU were the highest ranked star-wise in the country.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Yep. Just go back and look at the previous recruiting classes by the 4 playoff teams this year. With the exception of Oregon, who still pulled in some pretty highly ranked classes, Alabama, FSU and tOSU were the highest ranked star-wise in the country.

As I pointed out, there is serious confirmation bias in the rankings. Because the rankings are a cumulative of 25 people, you can bump guys in subtle ways to make the recruiting reflect the top 25. The problem is all of the guys that aren't expected to be in there - the UConns, the Boise States, etc. Those guys have had rankings in the low 70s with classes that have put 6 or 7 guys in the NFL. Another good example is Wisconsin. This is a team that has a 1st or 2nd round OL every single year, yet their OL are consistently rated lower than a Big 12 or SEC team.

Remember 1/3 of the NFL draft is from non-power conferences. For every 3 Big 12 guys in the draft, there is 1 from the WAC. That just should not happen.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Well yeah, if you could have the next 1,000, that would make sense. But the more appropriate way to look at it would be to say, for every individual player, if you are a 2 star or a 3 star, are you more or less likely to get drafted than a 4 or a 5 star. Because OU can only sign 25 players. They can't sign the last 1,000.

This argument is a red herring. This is not a random selection of players, but a very biased system where you 100% assess the ability of the player you are going. At no point should it be acceptable for a recruiting service to be better at predicting the talent level of players than your coaching staff. They should have a hierarchical chart that determines targets and each one of the targets on that board should be graded by talent, fit, re-injury risk, and flight risk. You then make the first cut of the hierarchy based on ability to make grades and character. That gives your master exceptioned list that you work from. After every season, the coaching staff should go back and reassess how they did for every class based on how the members of their board are doing versus their peers. Outside of injuries, the following should be considered evaluation failures ->

Having not evaluated an NFL draft pick
Having a guy on your board have character issues
Having a guy on your board flunk out
Having a non-flight risk declare early
Having a guy way down your board get drafted in a high round
Having a guy that you had slotted in one position be very good at another position
Having a guy on your board with low re-injury risk get re-injured

There just isn't any reason why OU should have near a 50% bomb out rate on recruiting classes (including several where 90% did nothing).

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Again, though, I'm not just talking about rankings. I've read a number of recruiting reports which have indicated that OU is not getting the players that the coaches themselves have identified as their top targets. So even setting aside the rankings bias, the fact is that we are not doing a great job recruiting LBs.

This isn't anything new. We give out 100ish scholarships to get 25. Heck, in a lot of cases, we've done better or would have done better with the secondary target than the primary one. My #1 issue with this coaching staff has always been that they weight athleticism much higher than how good they are at the game of football. We always end up with guys like Chijioke Onyenegecha at the top of the board.

[swardboy]

Ok, now you're just making up names.

Actually I concur that this is right on target. My college playing experience opened my eyes to the importance of the will as well as the tangibles. And I always hark back to those two under-sized, slow NFL safeties, Larry Wilson and Pat Fisher. They just had incredible smarts and hearts. God, I'm old.

[SoonerBorn]

My wonderful wife knew I would miss the news conference, so she recorded it for me. However, the TiVo didn't know there was a news conference on, so it recorded it as "The Young And The Restless." Oddly fitting, I think.

[SoonerBBall]

This isn't anything new. We give out 100ish scholarships to get 25. Heck, in a lot of cases, we've done better or would have done better with the secondary target than the primary one. My #1 issue with this coaching staff has always been that they weight athleticism much higher than how good they are at the game of football. We always end up with guys like Chijioke Onyenegecha at the top of the board.

This has been my complaint for nearly a decade now and it was the same complaint I had with Kelvin Sampson for a long time. I would rather see us recruit less athletic players who understand what to do then athletic freaks of nature who have to learn (or in our case, never learn) on the job. It is why it drives me crazy to see Gastelum out there playing out of his freaking mind. Why wasn't he given a chance in bigger games? He gave 100% on every single down he played. I'd far prefer to see him get beat because of his lack of athleticism than watch Evans out there loafing.

[cvsooner]

I think they weight athleticism so high because it's the thing they can't coach. Coaches are inherently teachers and they're confident in their ability to the point of conceit that they can build better players. As JKM points out, the vast majority of those don't or haven't panned out, and this coaching staff for whatever reasons doesn't care to recognize it isn't working. On the other hand, you get a guy like Snyder, who has a great talent for finding football players, and unquestionably has had a lot of success, but hasn't won a national championship and his bowl record is atrocious. So, I don't know what the right approach is. If I did, I wouldn't be here typing...I'd be coaching!

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Ok, now you're just making up names.

Actually I concur that this is right on target. My college playing experience opened my eyes to the importance of the will as well as the tangibles. And I always hark back to those two under-sized, slow NFL safeties, Larry Wilson and Pat Fisher. They just had incredible smarts and hearts. God, I'm old.

To repost the funniest comment I've ever seen on this board - "Maybe it was another Chijioke Onyenegecha?"

[Soonerjeepman]

It is why it drives me crazy to see Gastelum out there playing out of his freaking mind. Why wasn't he given a chance in bigger games? He gave 100% on every single down he played. .

made me think of Miller's tweet....LOL

Yes, coaches have their "favorites"....who cares if Evans was more physically gifted. Sometimes effort outplays talent

[Eielson]

This isn't anything new. We give out 100ish scholarships to get 25. Heck, in a lot of cases, we've done better or would have done better with the secondary target than the primary one. My #1 issue with this coaching staff has always been that they weight athleticism much higher than how good they are at the game of football. We always end up with guys like Chijioke Onyenegecha at the top of the board.

When it comes to playing time, I think it should go to the best players regardless of athleticism, but when it comes to recruiting, give me the athletes. If you can run and hit, you can usually learn to play football. If incredible athletes are on campus 3-4 years, and still can't contribute, then you need new coaches.

[graphster]

This isn't anything new. We give out 100ish scholarships to get 25. Heck, in a lot of cases, we've done better or would have done better with the secondary target than the primary one. My #1 issue with this coaching staff has always been that they weight athleticism much higher than how good they are at the game of football. We always end up with guys like Chijioke Onyenegecha at the top of the board.

OK, but look at our current depth at LB. As several other threads on this board have referenced, we are scary thin, and it's not like we had a ton of guys graduate this year. And look at how many LBs we currently have committed (1, which Kish didn't even recruit).

[graphster]

Remember 1/3 of the NFL draft is from non-power conferences. For every 3 Big 12 guys in the draft, there is 1 from the WAC. That just should not happen.

That actually doesn't surprise me. First, there are several teams in power conferences that are, for all practical purposes, comparable to or inferior to teams in some of the non-power conferences.

Secondly, player development plays a large role here. Alabama might have a great offensive line, and so some under-athletic guy would have a difficult time getting playing time there until maybe his senior year, whereas he could go somewhere else and get immediate playing time, which would help him to develop more as a player.

You see Wisconsin having poor rated OL who end up the NFL as a problem with evaluation, but I would argue that it could equally as influenced by coaching, the fact that they run an offense which uses blocking schemes that are popular in the NFL, etc...

Also, while the NFL is a reasonable barometer of productivity, it's also flawed. For instance, based on where they got drafted, you would have to conclude that Landry Jones was a better QB for OU than Josh Heupel or Jason White. Some guys are great in college (and even win all-conference or all-american type honors), but aren't valued as highly in the NFL.

Again though, the point isn't really about the validity of the ratings services per-say. The point is that the ratings are a reasonable indicator, over a large sample size, as to whether you are bringing in good talent. So when you have a systematic and consistent decline in the ratings of players that you sign, that's a signal of an underlying problem with your recruiting. Because yeah, on an individual basis maybe a lower rated guy is a better fit or has better character issues, or is more intelligent, and those things will allow him to develop into a better player by the time his career is over. But if you are consistently seeing the ratings of players drop, over multiple recruiting classes, then that is generally a pretty good sign that in several important instances you are missing out on potential playmakers, and probably having to settle for guys who aren't as good.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Secondly, player development plays a large role here. Alabama might have a great offensive line, and so some under-athletic guy would have a difficult time getting playing time there until maybe his senior year, whereas he could go somewhere else and get immediate playing time, which would help him to develop more as a player.

These kind of arguments baffle me about recruiting. They don't work on any other subject but they are par for the course here. For example, Every time I order a steak and its good it was because the cook was awesome. Every time I order a steak and it is bad, its because the cow was diseased. Coaches do not forget how to coach when a high recruit busts after they've put a lower ranked recruit into the pros. Second, there are plenty of guys who weren't developed in college that make the pros. When guys like RJ Washington say they didn't work hard until they were seniors, you have to wonder if there weren't warning signs before that.


You see Wisconsin having poor rated OL who end up the NFL as a problem with evaluation, but I would argue that it could equally as influenced by coaching, the fact that they run an offense which uses blocking schemes that are popular in the NFL, etc...

My whole point was that the recruits were undervalued by the recruiting services thus if we get a lower ranked kid we should at least wait til they step on the field until we pass judgement. The problem that most fans have is that they carte blanche take recruiting rankings as the gospel truth for how a player is going to play before they step on the field. For me, if they can play, they can play.


Also, while the NFL is a reasonable barometer of productivity, it's also flawed. For instance, based on where they got drafted, you would have to conclude that Landry Jones was a better QB for OU than Josh Heupel or Jason White. Some guys are great in college (and even win all-conference or all-american type honors), but aren't valued as highly in the NFL.

It is more of a barometer of talent here. I'm not talking about career or round placement, just indication of whether they were good enough to get drafted. So while Heupel and Jones were drafted, White wasn't because of health reasons. Injuries are one of the big exceptions to all of this as someone could be promising and just get injured and not be able to play.


Again though, the point isn't really about the validity of the ratings services per-say. The point is that the ratings are a reasonable indicator, over a large sample size, as to whether you are bringing in good talent. So when you have a systematic and consistent decline in the ratings of players that you sign, that's a signal of an underlying problem with your recruiting. Because yeah, on an individual basis maybe a lower rated guy is a better fit or has better character issues, or is more intelligent, and those things will allow him to develop into a better player by the time his career is over. But if you are consistently seeing the ratings of players drop, over multiple recruiting classes, then that is generally a pretty good sign that in several important instances you are missing out on potential playmakers, and probably having to settle for guys who aren't as good.

My problem with the recruiting rankings is something that happened at OU. Recruiting services use a rolling average of recruits to determine predictability, not a rolling average of the guys actually out on the field. A good example is OU in 2008 at QB. We'd have

2004 Rhett Bomar 5*
2006 Sam Bradford 3*
2007 Keith Nichol 4*
2008 Landry Jones 4*
Avg 4*

but the kid on the field? he was the 3*

[SoonerorLater]

These kind of arguments baffle me about recruiting. They don't work on any other subject but they are par for the course here. For example, Every time I order a steak and its good it was because the cook was awesome. Every time I order a steak and it is bad, its because the cow was diseased. Coaches do not forget how to coach when a high recruit busts after they've put a lower ranked recruit into the pros. Second, there are plenty of guys who weren't developed in college that make the pros. When guys like RJ Washington say they didn't work hard until they were seniors, you have to wonder if there weren't warning signs before that.



My whole point was that the recruits were undervalued by the recruiting services thus if we get a lower ranked kid we should at least wait til they step on the field until we pass judgement. The problem that most fans have is that they carte blanche take recruiting rankings as the gospel truth for how a player is going to play before they step on the field. For me, if they can play, they can play.



It is more of a barometer of talent here. I'm not talking about career or round placement, just indication of whether they were good enough to get drafted. So while Heupel and Jones were drafted, White wasn't because of health reasons. Injuries are one of the big exceptions to all of this as someone could be promising and just get injured and not be able to play.



My problem with the recruiting rankings is something that happened at OU. Recruiting services use a rolling average of recruits to determine predictability, not a rolling average of the guys actually out on the field. A good example is OU in 2008 at QB. We'd have

2004 Rhett Bomar 5*
2006 Sam Bradford 3*
2007 Keith Nichol 4*
2008 Landry Jones 4*
Avg 4*

but the kid on the field? he was the 3*

I would average these guys out to 3.75 stars. Extrapolating that out to an average recruiting class (by Rivals) you would have one of the better classes in the country. Which is where I would rate this QB grouping.

One more point that should be made. I think there is some misconception that a 3 star type player is just sort of a plodding journeyman. A 3 star player is a very good high school player. In the state of Oklahoma it's distinctly possible to go to 6A football game and never see any player on the field as good as a 3 star.

[birddog]

Keith Nichol as a 4* surprises me. Actually he reminds me a lot of Trevor, in that he's a good athlete but couldn't quite make the transition to college.

[SoonerForLife92]

This has been my complaint for nearly a decade now and it was the same complaint I had with Kelvin Sampson for a long time. I would rather see us recruit less athletic players who understand what to do then athletic freaks of nature who have to learn (or in our case, never learn) on the job. It is why it drives me crazy to see Gastelum out there playing out of his freaking mind. Why wasn't he given a chance in bigger games? He gave 100% on every single down he played. I'd far prefer to see him get beat because of his lack of athleticism than watch Evans out there loafing.

Could not agree more about Gastelum. Tennessee was the game after his breakout game right? That would have been the absolute best opportunity to give him some playing time... "let's see how he can do against a very talented team but one we should be able to handle either way".... Nope not these coaches. I don't get it.

[graphster]

My problem with the recruiting rankings is something that happened at OU. Recruiting services use a rolling average of recruits to determine predictability, not a rolling average of the guys actually out on the field. A good example is OU in 2008 at QB. We'd have

2004 Rhett Bomar 5*
2006 Sam Bradford 3*
2007 Keith Nichol 4*
2008 Landry Jones 4*
Avg 4*

but the kid on the field? he was the 3*
I think we're talking about 2 different things here. I am not saying that recruiting ratings are a perfect (or even near perfect) predictor of player productivity. I am saying that they are a reasonable way to gain insight as to whether you are accomplishing your goals in recruiting.

Also, not to nitpick, but Bomar would have been at least a 2 year starter if not for the NCAA violations. And very well might have led OU to National Title contention in 2006. And even after transferring, he still ended up in the NFL. Landry was essentially a 4 year starter for us, and was one of the most productive QBs (statistically speaking) in OU history. So the only two "problems" here are Sam and Keith Nichol, with Sam way over-performing relative to his rating and Keith way underperforming. Again, there will be some noise here, because it's an inexact science. But I'm talking about the ability of the coaching staff to recruit and develop over a period of time, not on an individual by individual or even recruiting class by recruiting class basis.

More specifically, I'm not saying that we should ONLY be signing highly ranked players. What I am saying is that if we are not signing ANY highly ranked players at a particular position over a period of years (especially a position of need), that is a red flag. Because yeah, some highly ranked guys are probably undeserving of their ranking, for a variety of reasons. But a significant number of those guys do, in fact, turn out to be big time players. You want to argue that OU would have been better off if we didn't get Adrian Peterson, DeMarco Murray, or Gerald McCoy, and instead signed a 2 or 3 star player?

Realistically, if you are able to recruit the guys that you self-evaluate as the best at their positions, there should be several players who were highly recruited by other big schools and who were rated highly. If you aren't signing those players with any frequency, then the most plausible reason is that you simply aren't able to get them. Not that you could have gotten them but decided not to because you knew they wouldn't work out.

As another indicator of this, look at the timing of offers for the players who accept. If the guys you sign end up being guys that you only offered after a higher ranked recruit turned you down, then that's pretty good evidence that your recruiting is not going the way that it should.

[8timechamps]

I don't know why this keeps getting mentioned. Until we heave-ho the whole student-athlete thing in college, the players better have been on campus. Bye week in question was the final week of September. Fall 2014 classes started Aug. 18. There was no extended September break for OU students to my knowledge. It's not like Norman was a giant ghost town just because OU didn't play a football game that week.

It was a weekend. No practice scheduled. I'm not sure how your college experience went, but there were many weekends I wasn't anywhere near campus. I'm guessing a lot of the players were in the same situation. There were no finals coming up, so I don't know why players would be required to stay on campus.

[badger]

It was a weekend. No practice scheduled. I'm not sure how your college experience went, but there were many weekends I wasn't anywhere near campus. I'm guessing a lot of the players were in the same situation. There were no finals coming up, so I don't know why players would be required to stay on campus.

Ah, I was under the impression that it was longer. Yeah, take a weekend with your family Bob* :)

*So long as we're not playing football that weekend, hehe

[BoulderSooner79]

In retrospect (of course), the TCU game was our best overall team performance even though we came up short. Road game against the team that is likely to finish #4 or even #3 and it was contested until late in the 4th qtr. (Not saying Bob should take more vacations...)

[Eielson]

I still say it's BS that we're making BS answer questions about what he was doing with his family on a weekend where he wasn't required to work. If you can't take a weekend off here and there, you'll fall apart like Urban Meyer.

[Curly Bill]

I still say it's BS that we're making BS answer questions about what he was doing with his family on a weekend where he wasn't required to work. If you can't take a weekend off here and there, you'll fall apart like Urban Meyer.

Seems hes put himself back together pretty well. Maybe that is a path that Bob should follow!

[Eielson]

Seems hes put himself back together pretty well. Maybe that is a path that Bob should follow!

Yeah, he's doing great things for tOSU.

Florida, on the other hand, went to ****.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Realistically, if you are able to recruit the guys that you self-evaluate as the best at their positions, there should be several players who were highly recruited by other big schools and who were rated highly. If you aren't signing those players with any frequency, then the most plausible reason is that you simply aren't able to get them. Not that you could have gotten them but decided not to because you knew they wouldn't work out.

As another indicator of this, look at the timing of offers for the players who accept. If the guys you sign end up being guys that you only offered after a higher ranked recruit turned you down, then that's pretty good evidence that your recruiting is not going the way that it should.

The Bomar comment is pure conjecture. Given his poor decision making, I'd say that it wasn't likely.

Speaking from the lens of a fan of OU football, every year we get the targets we want, we end up with horrid on the field classes. We aren't the only school that has suffered from this (look at USC after 2004).

https://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2003
https://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2008

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule on this, but what we need is about 50% work ethic guys and 50% athletes. You have to create this sense of urgency in both sides that makes both guys better. Right now it just seems like we have a culture of entitlement.

[graphster]

You're pointing out 2 recruiting classes, and making a sweeping statement about things. I think you are letting yourself be overly biased because we had a few years when we recruited well, but evaluated poorly. As a result, you imply that recruiting highly ranked players and evaluating well are mutually exclusive. I would argue that for the years you're pointing out, the answer probably wasn't to exclusively recruit lower rated players, but rather to have recruited/signed different highly ranked players.

Also, those years are kind of problematic to look at because we were loaded with young talent before even signing those classes. As a result, a lot of guys who could have made solid contributions here had they stayed until their junior and senior seasons, ended up transferring out because they got passed on the depth chart by somebody else.

Fact is that you could point to a ton of other classes, or classes at other schools, where highly rated recruiting classes have, in fact played out in a major way on the field. Again, look at the teams in this year's playoff. Those teams are generally pulling in very good recruiting classes. Truthfully, outside of OU's NC run in 2000, you'd be hard pressed to find a lot of other examples of teams that played for/won a NC without a roster stacked full of highly ranked recruits.

And again, there's a difference between looking at an individual class or player and saying "how well did you evaluate here?", versus looking at multi-year trends and drawing conclusions about the recruiting ability of a position coach.

On a related note, this is what it looks like when a guy is killing it on the recruiting trail. He's not just recruiting the hell out of his position, he's helping us pull in guys at other positions:

http://www.crimsonandcreammachine.com/2015/1/8/7519285/oklahoma-sooners-football-recruiting-the-night-jerry-montgomery

You want to argue that Kish brings any of that to this coaching staff?

[SoonerMarkVA]

Jerry Montgomery is clearly a stud. And no, Kish is no where close to him.

[Eielson]

Monty is a stud recruiter. We don't know yet how good of a coach he is yet.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

And again, there's a difference between looking at an individual class or player and saying "how well did you evaluate here?", versus looking at multi-year trends and drawing conclusions about the recruiting ability of a position coach.

On a related note, this is what it looks like when a guy is killing it on the recruiting trail. He's not just recruiting the hell out of his position, he's helping us pull in guys at other positions:

http://www.crimsonandcreammachine.com/2015/1/8/7519285/oklahoma-sooners-football-recruiting-the-night-jerry-montgomery

You want to argue that Kish brings any of that to this coaching staff?

You mean like you just did?

Second recruiting is not just calling guys and getting them to get here. I'd argue the person doing the evaluations is just as important as the ones closing. And while they aren't mutually exclusive, based on the amount of time it takes to do the salesmanship I'd argue they basically are.

Our coaches recruit based on regions. For example, Cale Gundy has had Georgia forever. What we have here is confirmation of how we are adapting to the new recruiting rules. Before last year, there was a limit on how many coaches could be on the road recruiting as well as how many times a coach could talk to a recruit. So previously, because you could only have one phone call per staff for a recruit per week (outside of dead periods), we had one coach responsible for closing each region (like BV was the closer in Texas forever). The new rules allow you to have more coaches on the road and also allow you to have one coach that can call any of your recruits in an unlimited manner. By having Montgomery be the consistent point of contact, it allows much more flexibility to move the position coaches around. Honestly, you'd like it to be the head coach, but that pesky 1 call rule gets in the way.