PDA

View Full Version : Paul Thompson not being....


56-39-5
10/7/2006, 06:17 PM
used effectively. the coaches seem convinced that y'all are a one man show. there should be much more confidence in PT. he was a gamer today and only threw the int's when he was forcing. had he had more of an oppostunity earlier, he was money. but hte coaches don't seem to have confidence in anyone but peterson. before this game, i did not give thompson his due as a quarterback. i knew he was a great leader and showed poise, etc. however, he should have been turned loose. i think your coaches need to realize that you're not a 1 man team. had they done that, you guys win this game. you just became so 1 dimensional.
85Sooner
10/7/2006, 06:20 PM
Its hard to get rolling when your O line keeps starting early.
SOONER44EVER
10/7/2006, 06:23 PM
We can't run PT. He might get hurt. :D
56-39-5
10/7/2006, 06:24 PM
Its hard to get rolling when your O line keeps starting early.
sure. but, PT was a gamer today. like i said, his int's were forced. it's as if your coaches played right into our hands. we didn't think PT could beat us, so we went after peterson. if you ask me, PT could have beaten us today if he had been given the chance.
BermudaSooner
10/7/2006, 06:31 PM
What game were you watching? PT threw the ball 1 more time (officially, and if called correctly 2 more times) than he handed off to Peterson. I don't know how much more loose we could be. He threw several play action passes down field. We gained 337 yards--200 of which was passing.
56-39-5
10/7/2006, 06:36 PM
What game were you watching? PT threw the ball 1 more time (officially, and if called correctly 2 more times) than he handed off to Peterson. I don't know how much more loose we could be. He threw several play action passes down field. We gained 337 yards--200 of which was passing.
clearly what i'm saying is if he was turned loose, he might have gone for 300 yards. i was impressed with him and thought he was held back. i think if you go to the air in the second half, with all the talk about peterson and his 2nd half success, that you all would have caught us off guard.
BermudaSooner
10/7/2006, 06:44 PM
clearly what i'm saying is if he was turned loose, he might have gone for 300 yards. i was impressed with him and thought he was held back. i think if you go to the air in the second half, with all the talk about peterson and his 2nd half success, that you all would have caught us off guard.

You have to actually hand the ball off a few times for the PA pass to work. I agree PT played well, although missed a couple of open receivers in the 1st half--that long one to Malcolm Kelly would have been nice if he led him properly, but he played well, with some nice strikes on 3rd and long.
crawfish
10/7/2006, 06:45 PM
clearly what i'm saying is if he was turned loose, he might have gone for 300 yards. i was impressed with him and thought he was held back. i think if you go to the air in the second half, with all the talk about peterson and his 2nd half success, that you all would have caught us off guard.

Thompson's biggest asset is that he takes care of the ball (mostly). He's not accurate enough to consistently get us down the field himself. He's been saved so far by the fact our receivers are exceptional.

He's an effective team leader and good QB. He's being used the best way he possibly can be used. We need the rest of our team (OLine, especially) to pick up the slack.
T_Boner
10/7/2006, 07:48 PM
Thompson's biggest asset is that he takes care of the ball (mostly). He's not accurate enough to consistently get us down the field himself. He's been saved so far by the fact our receivers are exceptional.

He's an effective team leader and average QB. He's being used the best way he possibly can be used. We need the rest of our team (OLine, especially) to pick up the slack.

fixed , and I agree
OhU1
10/7/2006, 07:54 PM
I think the Longhorn is mostly right. Running the ball today was catering to UT's strength. We tried to force Peterson into the game too much. When we passed we moved the ball - our receivers are fantastic and UT's pass D is average. Not to knock Thompson but given a QB with a little more touch (like McCoy) we had several pass TDs there for the taking.
makeiteight
10/7/2006, 07:57 PM
how about some option?
MissouriSooner
10/7/2006, 08:00 PM
how about some option?
We only got one QB; can't afford to get him dinged.
slugbug
10/7/2006, 09:47 PM
We only got one QB; can't afford to get him dinged.
This attitude by OUr staff is exactly why we have become 1 deminsional. We only utilize 1/3 of OUr offensive backfield. No QB run and NO FULLBACK RUN !!!
sooneron
10/7/2006, 09:50 PM
I can side with what 50 whatever is saying. I would liked to have seen some more draws/option and short dink and dunk passing- this does not mean screens.
MissouriSooner
10/7/2006, 09:50 PM
This attitude by OUr staff is exactly why we have become 1 deminsional. We only utilize 1/3 of OUr offensive backfield. No QB run and NO FULLBACK RUN !!!

Well, we could run the single wing and just snap the ball straight to AD, save PT the trouble of handing or tossing it to him.
T_Boner
10/7/2006, 09:54 PM
how about some option?

Didn't they run it once and PT hit the hole running hard and almost got KO'd.
SanMarcosCASooner
10/7/2006, 09:56 PM
We are PREDICTABLE (unlike 2000)
We are UNINSPIRED (unlike 2000)
We are SLOPPY (unlike 2000)

F Venables.

Bhomar leaving must've had a bigger effect than anticipated.

www.voidgame.com
sooneron
10/7/2006, 09:59 PM
We are PREDICTABLE (unlike 2000)
We are UNINSPIRED (unlike 2000)
We are SLOPPY (unlike 2000)

F Venables.

JD Quinn leaving must've had a bigger effect than anticipated.

www.voidgame.com
possibly fixed
1991SOONER
10/7/2006, 10:00 PM
We are PREDICTABLE (unlike 2000)
We are UNINSPIRED (unlike 2000)
We are SLOPPY (unlike 2000)

F Venables.

Bhomar leaving must've had a bigger effect than anticipated.

www.voidgame.com

Agreed with everything except the last statement. Now way can you blame this on Paul Thompson. He is way better than Bomar.
T_Boner
10/7/2006, 10:05 PM
Agreed with everything except the last statement. Now way can you blame this on Paul Thompson. He is way better than Bomar.

Almost everyone (including PT) needs some of the blame. PT, as much as I like/respect him, played like crap today. Also, is PT a better person than Bomar, YES, better teammate, YES, better QB, don't think so.
GottaHavePride
10/7/2006, 11:51 PM
Almost everyone (including PT) needs some of the blame. PT, as much as I like/respect him, played like crap today. Also, is PT a better person than Bomar, YES, better teammate, YES, better QB, don't think so.
I have to disagree. Paul's first INT was caused by 73 whiffing a block, letting a UT lineman run full steam for Paul. Paul had to get rid of it, and it turned into an INT. The second one was a bad throw, but at that point PT HAD to try to force the ball for big yardage, because we were basically done.

Other than that, Paul only had a couple of misfires, and a TON of perfectly thrown passes that were dropped.

Even before this game I was thinking "How is AD supposed to win a Heisman when PT is playing better than he is?" Our passing game is the only thing carrying this team right now, because the o-line can't open holes for AD.

PT is probably playing better than anyone else on the team right now, followed by Kelley, Iglesias, and Johnson.
Soonerus
10/7/2006, 11:55 PM
F/O
prrriiide
10/8/2006, 12:00 AM
Well, we could run the single wing and just snap the ball straight to AD, save PT the trouble of handing or tossing it to him.

Is that you Johhny Majors?
GottaHavePride
10/8/2006, 12:02 AM
This attitude by OUr staff is exactly why we have become 1 deminsional. We only utilize 1/3 of OUr offensive backfield. No QB run and NO FULLBACK RUN !!!

Oh, and I don't think I've seen a fullback run game at any time in the past 7 seasons. The fullback is a blocker and very rarely a receiver in our offense, almost never a ball-carrier.