WHY SHOULD WE HAVE WON???

[BIG_IKE]

I have been reading the several threads on how we held Texas to 232 yards etc...how we should have won etc....

But I went back and looked at certain statistics, and I don't think we should have won. Here are a few statistics no one has really been mentioning. And after analyzing these I think people are crazy to think we should have won. I have even seen people post that we OUTPLAYED THEM....take a gander at these stats and see if you agree...

Penalties Aside...

1. We had the ball 5 minutes longer than them and ran 7 more plays.
2. We had the same amount of Net Yards Rushing
3. We had the sME AMOUNT OF 1ST Downs (13)
4. Texas' SECONDARY forced 4 fumbles with 4 different players. We forced none.

5. We fumbled 6 times and lost 3...Texas did not fumble.
6. Texas kicked our butt on Special Teams. They pinned us inside the 20 4 times on Punts. They only punted 2 more times than us.

7. WE HAD NEGATIVE YARDS in PUNT RETURN!!!!!!!!!!!! NEGATIVE!!
8. Texas Defense made 94 Tackles, We only made 53.
9. Texas made 50 Solo tackles, We only made 27. We only ran 7 more plays than them, this number should not be so lopsided.

10. Texas had 21 Defensive guys make tackles and played over 25. We only had 15 guys make tackles.

11. Texas had 10 Quarterback Hurries....We had ONE!

12. Texas only ALLOWED US INTO THE RED ZONE once...

13. Texas D-Line recorded 4 tackles for losses ours recorded one

14. We say we shut them down, but they shut us out for 3 quarters and held AD to 30 something yards in the 2nd half...



Now most of you are only looking at Total Yards in the game by both teams and saying we should have won. After looking at these stats I really have to disagree. What Say You?

[MiccoMacey]

[QUOTE}8. Texas Defense made 94 Tackles, We only made 53.[/QUOTE]

If we only had seven more plays than them, how'd they get so many more tackles than us? I can understand the three offensive TD's, so there's three plays withut a tackle. Were there that many out of bounds plays?

What am I missing?

[crawfish]

We shouldn't have won. But we very easily could have, without (or with only half of) the breakdowns.

The difference between the two teams isn't 18 points. We're closer than you seem to think.

[BIG_IKE]

It's called gang tackling...something I wish we did more.

[Scott D]

I think you foolishly forgot to add average starting field position to your argument. It shows why the total yardage stat is moot.

[sanantoniosooner]

looking at the drive chart is one reason (http://sports-ak.espn.go.com/ncf/drivechart?gameId=262800201&confId=null)

We had many more drives that SHOULD have resulted in points and we really only gave up to sustained drives to them.

But I guess it boils down to if you give credit to them for all the turnovers or if you feel it was the result of us not playing focused.

[BIG_IKE]

We shouldn't have won. But we very easily could have, without (or with only half of) the breakdowns.

The difference between the two teams isn't 18 points. We're closer than you seem to think.

Oh no doubt we COULD have won, but I still stick by the fact that we were not aggressive enough.

I noticed something about Chizik's defense. He has a bend but don't break philosophy with the secondary. Sure, they give up yards....hell, look at the USC game last year. But they do not give up many points, and THEY WILL ALL HIT YOU IN THE MOUTH. They were knockin our guys all over the place and causing turnovers and making open field tackles. I know I wasnt the only one who saw it. Even on plays were we made a good catch and got 1st downs..they still knocked the tar out of our guys every chance they got.

Thats why we lost in my opinion. We didnt have that mentality and they did.

[BIG_IKE]

I think you foolishly forgot to add average starting field position to your argument. It shows why the total yardage stat is moot.

True..they got the ball at the 30 at LEAST just about every possession. Our guys had to take the ball from however far their punter punted. We had -3 punt return yards on 7 punts. They either did not let us return it or they stuffed it. That killed us field position wise and it helped us yardage wise because we had a long field every time, they didnt.

[Scott D]

4 out of 12 Texas drives began at their 20 or inside their 20.
4 out of 12 Texas drives began at their 40 or inside OU territory.

9 out of 12 Oklahoma drives began inside their 30.
2 out of 12 Oklahoma drives began at their 40 or inside Texas territory.

[Statalyzer]

noticed something about Chizik's defense. He has a bend but don't break philosophy with the secondary. Sure, they give up yards....hell, look at the USC game last year. But they do not give up many points, and THEY WILL ALL HIT YOU IN THE MOUTH.

There is some truth to that. We played Tech in Austin last year and beat them 52-17, yet the total yardage was about even.

[crawfish]

Oh no doubt we COULD have won, but I still stick by the fact that we were not aggressive enough.

I noticed something about Chizik's defense. He has a bend but don't break philosophy with the secondary. Sure, they give up yards....hell, look at the USC game last year. But they do not give up many points, and THEY WILL ALL HIT YOU IN THE MOUTH. They were knockin our guys all over the place and causing turnovers and making open field tackles. I know I wasnt the only one who saw it. Even on plays were we made a good catch and got 1st downs..they still knocked the tar out of our guys every chance they got.


An accurate QB and Kelly would've made them pay big-time for that defensive philosophy.

Although, honestly, I agree with your assessment. It all starts with the DL getting pressure on the QB, though...you can't get big hits if the QB has time and the receivers can get open.

[MiccoMacey]

It's called gang tackling...something I wish we did more.

Sorry. I'm just slow today. I still don't get it.

They had x number of plays. We tackled every single one of them except the TDs (and going out of bounds, maybe???).

We had x number of plays. They tackled every single one of them except the TDs (and going out of bounds, maybe???).


So are you saying that if you add up all the people involved in tackling period, you get that number?

[Taxman71]

Quality versus Quantity. OU had more yards by moving to the whorn 30 - 40, but always shot ourselves thereafter with penalties, sacks, tripping ourselves and turnovers resulting in no or few points. Texas probably had more 3 and out series, but were able to muster 3 very solid quality drives, including 2 in the 3rd quarter. They won with a bend-but-don't-break defense and conversative playcalling that eliminated turnovers. We went all or nothing on defense and didn't take care of the ball.

[Tear Down This Wall]

We shoudn't have won. The only people saying we should have won are the grassy knoll people who think every NCAA referee has it in for us. Art Bell can now safely answer his whacked out phone callers as follows: East of the Rockies...West of the Rockies...Sooner fan with rocks in his head....

[SoFla Sooner]

I can live with the concept that the most talented and best team won in Dallas saturday. Also, with Chizik's defense, there is no question Texas is a different kind of animal to deal with. Their halftime adjustments were outstanding. That said, our 5 turnovers in the game against their zero were the difference in the game hands down, no question about it. I'd gladly play UT again in a best out of 3. We've got a very talented and well-coached team this year. I like our chances the rest of the year.

[JohnnyMack]

I think our defense did enough to win the game.

I think our offense put our defense in some really bad positions.

[Landthief 1972]

I'll say again what I said Saturday night: the difference in the KIND of tackling was painfully obvious. Texas laid vicious hits and aggresively swatted at the ball. OU's D played tenative, as if they were afraid that going in for a big hit, they would get juked out of their shoes. That means on a Texas tackle, the play is stopped at first contact. On an OU tackle, it often meant broke tackles and/or being dragged/pushed for another 3-5 yards.

Texas played the way OU D used to play - hard-hitting and contolled agressiveness - and that makes me madder than anything else.

And somebody PLEASE tell blitzing corners and safeties to quit overshooting the QB so he can't sidestep you and gain 10 yards in the area you just left wide open, including slow white boys. Contain, muthaf****s, can you do it?

[boomer214]

Sorry. I'm just slow today. I still don't get it.

They had x number of plays. We tackled every single one of them except the TDs (and going out of bounds, maybe???).

We had x number of plays. They tackled every single one of them except the TDs (and going out of bounds, maybe???).


So are you saying that if you add up all the people involved in tackling period, you get that number?

yeah.... 4 guys bring down a guy, they all get credit... depends on how each school does their defensive stats...
some award .5 tackles for an assisted tackle, even if 9 guys assisted on the tackle... some people give a full tackle to an assisted tackle..... blah blah blah.... defensive tackling stats are somewhat useless although they sometimes tell a story about flying to the ball...

The game showed me a few things that most people aren't talking about..

1. OU doesn't have the horses it's had in the past...
2. Texas isn't very good (high barometer) right now
3. Colt McCoy is solid... but definitely not the future
4. Peterson has changed his running style for some reason
5. If this is the creme de la creme in the Big XII it's a sad year

[TUSooner]

I'll say again what I said Saturday night: the difference in the KIND of tackling was painfully obvious. Texas laid vicious hits and aggresively swatted at the ball. OU's D played tenative, as if they were afraid that going in for a big hit, they would get juked out of their shoes. That means on a Texas tackle, the play is stopped at first contact. On an OU tackle, it often meant broke tackles and/or being dragged/pushed for another 3-5 yards.

Texas played the way OU D used to play - hard-hitting and contolled agressiveness - and that makes me madder than anything else....

This is exactly what I've been mulling over about our D. Some people say our D did OK because we held them to only so many yards and 3 TDs. But what matters is that our defense gave them all the yards and points they needed to win. Maybe I expect too much, but I want our defense to attack them, sack them, tackle them for losses, punish them for every yard, and take the f***ing ball away from them whether they run or pass. An "OK" defense is not OK.
Maybe we don't have the talent, maybe it's the scheme or the attitude, but that's what we should be striving for in every game. And if our D coordinator doesn't at least strive for that kind of D, he should be replaced with someone who does.