Knight starting?!

[ObiKaTony]

Am I the only one who feels very apprehensive about knight being the starter? I just can't see how he can manage the 'air raid' with the inconsistent accuracy. Any word on who has the upperhand?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Given that very serious injury he suffered last year, I would think Bob would not be all that excited about playing him at all.

[ObiKaTony]

Given that very serious injury he suffered last year, I would think Bob would not be all that excited about playing him at all.

That's just it, I'm thinking the same thing...I think there isn't a lot of upside to him at this point...

[Therealsouthsider]

.... Every source I've heard, radio and otherwise has Mayfield leading quite a bit


ss

[yermom]

even after the shoulder thing?

[Breadburner]

Knight ain't going to start unless a meteor hits the car Thomas and Mayfield are in.....

[Mazeppa]

If Knight starts it will be like a meteor hitting more than one car.

[graphster]

Knight seems like a genuinely good person and a good teammate, and he has pretty good physical tools. But his decision-making and accuracy are both questionable, which isn't a great combination for a starting QB in any offense, let alone one as QB-centric as Riley uses.

Based on what we've seen last year and the year before, we have no great options at QB, especially if Mayfield isn't completely healthy by the start of the season. Riley is going to have to do a masterful coaching job, similar to Kevin Wilson in 2006 when Bomar got kicked from the team and Thompson, who had converted to WR the season before, had to move back to QB. But that year we basically became an under center power run team, with AD and then Patrick Allen/Chris Brown pounding people behind a solid OL. This year we are a shotgun spread team, which makes it a lot harder to mask problems at the QB position.

[Eielson]

I can't imagine handing the starting position to Mayfield, either. I was really hoping Justice was the future of the position.

[yermom]

Knight seems like a genuinely good person and a good teammate, and he has pretty good physical tools. But his decision-making and accuracy are both questionable, which isn't a great combination for a starting QB in any offense, let alone one as QB-centric as Riley uses.

Based on what we've seen last year and the year before, we have no great options at QB, especially if Mayfield isn't completely healthy by the start of the season. Riley is going to have to do a masterful coaching job, similar to Kevin Wilson in 2006 when Bomar got kicked from the team and Thompson, who had converted to WR the season before, had to move back to QB. But that year we basically became an under center power run team, with AD and then Patrick Allen/Chris Brown pounding people behind a solid OL. This year we are a shotgun spread team, which makes it a lot harder to mask problems at the QB position.

with our running backs, who knows what really happens

our QB might just have some time to learn how to throw before going to Knoxville

[ObiKaTony]

with our running backs, who knows what really happens

our QB might just have some time to learn how to throw before going to Knoxville

Periods this OC will let the qb play to his strengths instead of the system...

[badger]

Baker has been quite the character from the limited views we've had of him this offseason --- doing a dance-off with teammates, speaking out against inequality in America, etc.

Sadly for Trevor, he's probably still trying to recapture that Sugar Bowl night magic and it just may never happen again. But if it doesn't, at least he still has that moment. As of right now, that's more than Baker's done on the field at OU, so I guess there's that to consider.

[BoulderSooner79]

If Knight starts, that should indicate he won the job and is the best we have - right? I actually have a bit of hope that the coaching change makes a big difference. That ECU QB put up good numbers, but didn't do well in the post season all star games. He just doesn't have the physical tools for the next level. That tells me Riley can get a lot out of his QB via scheme and all the QBs we have should have more physical tools than the ECU guy. We'll see pretty soon now.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Am I the only one who feels very apprehensive about knight being the starter? I just can't see how he can manage the 'air raid' with the inconsistent accuracy. Any word on who has the upperhand?

They are both bad. So, you have to hope Leach Jr. figures out really quick that our best chance of victory this year lies in the hands of Perine.

Personally, I don't think Leach Jr. is capable of figuring that out; but, we can hope.

[Eielson]

They are both bad. So, you have to hope Leach Jr. figures out really quick that our best chance of victory this year lies in the handle of Perine.

Personally, I don't think Leach Jr. is capable of figuring that out; but, we can hope.

Leach Jr.? Good to see you're finally complementing Riley!

[Eielson]

If Knight starts, that should indicate he won the job and is the best we have - right? I actually have a bit of hope that the coaching change makes a big difference. That ECU QB put up good numbers, but didn't do well in the post season all star games. He just doesn't have the physical tools for the next level. That tells me Riley can get a lot out of his QB via scheme and all the QBs we have should have more physical tools than the ECU guy. We'll see pretty soon now.

Honestly, with the slightest bit of luck, the Knight + Shep duo should have been 8-0 heading into the Baylor game last year, and this is during a season where nearly everybody was calling for the DC's head. In general QB's are better in their JR and SR years than their FR and SO, so a natural progression wasn't unlikely. Giving Heupel the boot, and bringing in Riley, is only reason for more optimism. A WR coach that can develop WR's shouldn't hurt either.

Knight was actually playing pretty good ball when he went down. He'd just carved up KSU and ISU, and did the same to Baylor in the first quarter even without Shepard. The rest of that game wasn't pretty, but we'd have been roasted in that game even with White, Heupel, or Bradford under center.

[graphster]

In the long-term, I think that Riley's system will be good for OU. College football these days is dominated by high scoring offenses. And historically, our best seasons under Stoops have been when we have prolific QBs and WRs. All of our championship runs have had a Heisman candidate/winner at QB and several national award winners/candidates at WR. So I think that ultimately if we get back to an offense that allows us to recruit, develop, and utilize skill position players we will be in a better position than we have been the last few years.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how much our current roster is set up to be successful in this scheme. This offense is not designed to line up in a bunch of power formations and force feed the HB the ball like we devolved into doing at the end of last year when Knight got hurt. Instead, the idea is to use the HB and the running game to force the defense to give you favorable matchups outside, which you then exploit for easy completions and big gains that force the defense to loosen up, allowing you to run again. But if you can't make them pay in the pass game, it's a lot easier to shut down the run because this offense doesn't do things like put a bunch of people at the point of attack and try to overpower people. Instead, the goal is to spread the defense out and then run the ball. But if you line up in spread formations and they don't have to honor the pass, then it's going to be hard to get the running game going because they will just load the box and overwhelm the running lanes with more defenders than you can block.

In the short term, I think we would be more successful running some sort of power run/spread option style offense, similar to the ones used at Ohio State, Oregon, and Auburn (and even Baylor to an extent). Both Thomas and Knight can be serviceable as option/dual threat QBs, our OL should be solid at run blocking, and we have a lot of great weapons at HB.

I will be pretty impressed with Riley if we are able to dramatically improve our offensive production this year, because our personnel aren't entirely suited for this scheme, and he hasn't had time to recruit/develop players at critical positions. In a vacuum where he had a few years to do that, I think it could work out very well. But in our current situation, we need to win and be highly productive on offense immediately. Of course, people said the same thing in 1999 when Stoops/Leach first arrived, and we were playing for a NC the next year.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Leach Jr.? Good to see you're finally complementing Riley!

If ringing up zero championships is a "compliment," fine. But, this is Oklahoma, not ECU, Wazzu, or Texas Tech...no matter how hard Stoops is trying to make it such.

Look up complement versus compliment as well. I will never "complement" Riley for anything.

[graphster]

I mean, OU's only NC in the past 30 years happened running a very slightly modified version of Leach's offense. Not sure why you love Mangino but hate Riley.

[Tear Down This Wall]

In the long-term, I think that Riley's system will be good for OU. College football these days is dominated by high scoring offenses. And historically, our best seasons under Stoops have been when we have prolific QBs and WRs. All of our championship runs have had a Heisman candidate/winner at QB and several national award winners/candidates at WR. So I think that ultimately if we get back to an offense that allows us to recruit, develop, and utilize skill position players we will be in a better position than we have been the last few years.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how much our current roster is set up to be successful in this scheme. This offense is not designed to line up in a bunch of power formations and force feed the HB the ball like we devolved into doing at the end of last year when Knight got hurt. Instead, the idea is to use the HB and the running game to force the defense to give you favorable matchups outside, which you then exploit for easy completions and big gains that force the defense to loosen up, allowing you to run again. But if you can't make them pay in the pass game, it's a lot easier to shut down the run because this offense doesn't do things like put a bunch of people at the point of attack and try to overpower people. Instead, the goal is to spread the defense out and then run the ball. But if you line up in spread formations and they don't have to honor the pass, then it's going to be hard to get the running game going because they will just load the box and overwhelm the running lanes with more defenders than you can block.

In the short term, I think we would be more successful running some sort of power run/spread option style offense, similar to the ones used at Ohio State, Oregon, and Auburn (and even Baylor to an extent). Both Thomas and Knight can be serviceable as option/dual threat QBs, our OL should be solid at run blocking, and we have a lot of great weapons at HB.

I will be pretty impressed with Riley if we are able to dramatically improve our offensive production this year, because our personnel aren't entirely suited for this scheme, and he hasn't had time to recruit/develop players at critical positions. In a vacuum where he had a few years to do that, I think it could work out very well. But in our current situation, we need to win and be highly productive on offense immediately. Of course, people said the same thing in 1999 when Stoops/Leach first arrived, and we were playing for a NC the next year.

The offenses in 1999 and 2000 were different. Leach's 1999 version passed 64% of the time. Mangino's 2000 version passed 52% of the time.

The 1999 version never has a game where we ran more than times than we passed. In 2000, there were four such games.

The difference to me in 1999 and 2000 can be seen in the Texas games. In both games, we got up on Texas very quickly. In 1999, OU got up 17-0 in the first quarter; in 2000, OU was up 14-0 after the first quarter.

In 1999, we kept passing, and Texas caught up and eventually won 38-28. In 2000, OU stuck to the run and ground out a 63-14 win behind six Quentin Griffin touchdowns.

It's the blueprint for Mike Leach's entire career. They lost a couple to Texas that way when he was a Tech - got up big early, only to have Texas catch them because of the Red Raiders' inability (unwillingness?) to run the ball and accept victory.

Also, there is some sort of misinformation about which offense runs more plays. It is assumed that Leach's offense was quicker, ran more plays. That is untrue. The 1999 Sooners ran 885 plays with Leach. The 2000 Mangino offense ran 935 plays.

It should also be noted that while Mangino's 2000 offense passed fewer times than Leach 1999 offense - 489 in 2000, 566 in 1999 - Mangino's offense had more yards per attempt at 7.6 than Leach's at 6.9. Mangino's 2000 offense also had more yards per catch than Leach's, 11.94 to 10.97. And, the completion percentage under Mangino was even a tad higher at 64% versus 63%.

Turnovers were almost a wash. Leach's offense turned the ball over 31 times, Mangino's 29. Passing, Leach offense threw an interception once every 35.4 times; Mangino's once every 27.2. But, while rushing, Leach's offense fumbled the ball away once every 21.3 carries; Mangino's only once every 40.5 carries.

[graphster]

Right. But just like Mangino didn't run a carbon copy of Leach's offense, neither does Riley. Both use the run game more, particularly near the redzone or to close out games.

[Eielson]

If ringing up zero championships is a "compliment," fine. But, this is Oklahoma, not ECU, Wazzu, or Texas Tech

Exactly. It's Oklahoma, so we have more to work with. Thanks for arguing my point for me.


Look up complement versus compliment as well. I will never "complement" Riley for anything.

For your sake, I hope you're just playing around, and don't actually care that much about a minor typo.

[ObiKaTony]

Exactly. It's Oklahoma, so we have more to work with. Thanks for arguing my point for me.



For your sake, I hope you're just playing around, and don't actually care that much about a minor typo.

Yeah, that is 'week' :) to start pointing towards grammar on a message board is not exactly good form