No calls for jobs, etc...But I miss Leach as OC.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

When Leach was OC, we had an offense that was on the edge and took chances. Play calling was inventive and it was risky at times when needed.

Obviously, Bob is working within his comfort range now, perhaps the early "gambling" offense was used to jump start the "Sooner Nation". But I don't like the plodding offense and schemes we seem to be playing the last several years. I used to blame Chuck Long - called for him to leave or be fired, now Wilson is doing the job, there isn't a lot different. As someone said in another tread, PT at times seemed to be trying to make up for the lack of offensive production (and imagination) and got caught with uncharacteristic mistakes.

OU and offensive playing calling used to be like Petersen and Boise State. Somewhere, we have lost that edge. I'm not a coach and not in Stoops shoes, but I wonder if the juggernaut and the big bucks changes your coaching style. I loved the excitement of the 1999 and 2000 season. Its not there today. We have been out-coached in three BCS bowls now. The edge is gone. Where did it go?

BTW, Congrats to BSU, they earned it. Out-played and out-coached OU.

[SoonerStormchaser]

I don't think the offense was the problem...it was that prevent defense that prevented us from winning!

[sooner518]

Chuck Long called those plays because that was the only way we had a shot at winning. When you dont have the speed and athleticism of the other team, you have to take risks on trick plays more frequently to level the playing field.

We did go 7-5 in Leach's only year here

[TheHumanAlphabet]

multiple runs into the middle of the line would be my issue there. Defense didn't play well either, you could insert M. Stoops name into the thread as well.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Chuck Long called those plays because that was the only way we had a shot at winning. When you dont have the speed and athleticism of the other team, you have to take risks on trick plays more frequently to level the playing field.

We did go 7-5 in Leach's only year here

But it was a fun 7-5.

Seems like we get some momentum going and something clicking, they change the flow, kill the drive and that's that.

[sooneron]

Leach's offense doesn't keep the D off the field enough. I like the guy, but I'm happy we can grind it out (unfortunately not enough last night).

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I hear you...

I wonder what we can do if we ever get a QB for more than one year and a line that has a solid year of maturity at the same time...

[Tear Down This Wall]

I'm still waiting for the people who complained about Long's questionable playcalling around the goal line to hold Wilson to the same standard. Guess it isn't going to happen.

Also, didn't many complain about Long's calling too many runs between the tackles in 2005? Gee, what a difference a year makes...or not.

[RacerX]

OU hasn't had a consistent offensive identity.

BSU has, even with head coaching turnover.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I'm still waiting for the people who complained about Long's questionable playcalling around the goal line to hold Wilson to the same standard. Guess it isn't going to happen.

Also, didn't many complain about Long's calling too many runs between the tackles in 2005? Gee, what a difference a year makes...or not.

I always thought the problem was the play calling. As I said, I called for Long's job. I'd be calling for Kevin's job, but obviously, they are calling what Stoops wants (and have been all along) and/or they are calling what the team can do. Obviously, the offense was pared down somewhat for PT. No complaints there, and you'll get no complaints from me regarding Paul's playing. He is a trooper and I respect that.

I wonder what happened to the edge. We used to have it.

I almost hope AD goes Pro. This team and the offense seemed better when he wasn't in the game than when they lined up with him in. I don't know, very frustrated that we lost the game. This game was winnable.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Look, we have a very hypocritical fan base. We take a year to throw stones at a guy who called the plays for a national title, multiple conference titles, one Heisman Trophy winner, and Heisman runners-up.

Then, we all sit by after the crap the new OC pulled in the Oklahoma State game and the inside the 10 yard line playcalling at Oregon and the Fiesta Bowl.

Guess what folks, making Long walk the plank wasn't the answer. The answer is, get a damn offensive line that can block against everyone. Four starters return as juniors next year (unless Schmidt runs them off in the offseason). If they can't block in big games again in 2007, heads need to roll.

Also, more coaches need to do what Switzer and Osborne did for decades - run if the other team can't stop the run, wear down smaller teams by running, and then run them over some more when they're worn out. Quit screwing around and control the clock. With Adrian Peterson standing in the backfield, you'd think it'd be a no-brainer.

It was all so simple when there were coaches who were willing to win winnable games. Now, everyone wants to have a fancy dancy offense. Dumb.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

You also have to remember, many people on here, including me, spent our formative years watching the wishbone. That was the run you speak of, but exciting.

As I said in another thread, I wonder what it would be like to have a QB with a year's experience under his belt and an offensive line that has played a full year together - both at the same time...

[Tear Down This Wall]

I also cut my teeth during the Wishbone years, which coincided with Osborne's I-back years over at Nebraska.

To me, it's easy

(1) If you are winning, and in control, run the ball. Barry and Tom did, and they won a ton of games and titles.
(2) If your opponent is smaller, run them into the ground. Coach Alvarez kept saying he saw OU's line was starting to wear down Boise, but we didn't stick with it. Alvarez won three Rose Bowls with run-based offenses. I assume he knows when he's seeing a run game about to explode and take control of a game.

It isn't sexy, but running works. It also hard to throw interceptions on a run play. Just sayin....

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Yep,

Seems we had them back peddling and then we stopped. Just like against LSU. A poor pass can kill momentum. I don't get it either.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Agreed.

[jacru]

whatever the offense's shortcomings, they don't bear the blame as much as the defense this time.

[LittleWingSooner]

2002-2003 we had a great scheme and a great offense. We just didn't execute the last 2 games. That'll happen sometimes. Since then all we have tried to do is beat teams physically. I wish we would go back to the 2002-2003 form when we were hard to predict. We threw to the tight end 40 times in 2002 and our running backs got a lot of catches those years.

Now when we throw it's going to the wide receivers 90% of the time. And we run it mostly between the tackles.

[LittleWingSooner]

The defense shut down Boise for the second half. I haven't had a problem with the defense since early this year when we were getting beat by bad teams. This is a much better offense then we've faced all year. They just got beat on an aggressive play call. There isn't another offensive coordinator in the country that calls that play there.

[bri]

When Leach was OC, we had an offense that was on the edge and took chances. Play calling was inventive and it was risky at times when needed.

Obviously, Bob is working within his comfort range now, perhaps the early "gambling" offense was used to jump start the "Sooner Nation". But I don't like the plodding offense and schemes we seem to be playing the last several years. I used to blame Chuck Long - called for him to leave or be fired, now Wilson is doing the job, there isn't a lot different. As someone said in another tread, PT at times seemed to be trying to make up for the lack of offensive production (and imagination) and got caught with uncharacteristic mistakes.

OU and offensive playing calling used to be like Petersen and Boise State. Somewhere, we have lost that edge. I'm not a coach and not in Stoops shoes, but I wonder if the juggernaut and the big bucks changes your coaching style. I loved the excitement of the 1999 and 2000 season. Its not there today. We have been out-coached in three BCS bowls now. The edge is gone. Where did it go?

BTW, Congrats to BSU, they earned it. Out-played and out-coached OU.

How many championships has Mike Leach won with his "gambling" style?

Yeah, I think I'll stick with what got us here, thanks.

[OUmillenium]

2002-2003 we had a great scheme and a great offense. We just didn't execute the last 2 games. That'll happen sometimes. Since then all we have tried to do is beat teams physically. I wish we would go back to the 2002-2003 form when we were hard to predict. We threw to the tight end 40 times in 2002 and our running backs got a lot of catches those years.

Now when we throw it's going to the wide receivers 90% of the time. And we run it mostly between the tackles.

Eggzactly!!!!!!

[soonernation]

But it was a fun 7-5.

Thats the problem right there. For several years before 1999 we sucked ***. Coach Stoops come in and the first year we go 7-5 and go bowling for the first time in years. The Sooner Nation probably would have been happy with going .500 in 1999. After several years of BAD football and questionable hires we FINALLY had a winning season. The year after that we go 13-0 and win our first national title since before most of people that post on this board were even born. Now we are 11-3 and Big 12 Champs and people want coaching changes.
Some of you need to grow the **** up. We are never going to win every game. There will also be times when we get outcoached. That **** happens. Stoops is one of the best coaches in the country. His record and championships back that up.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

...Now we are 11-3 and Big 12 Champs and people want coaching changes.
Some of you need to grow the **** up. We are never going to win every game. There will also be times when we get outcoached. That **** happens. Stoops is one of the best coaches in the country. His record and championships back that up.

Thread title = "No call for jobs..."

Just lamenting that the play calling seemed uninspired, and we have been out-coached and out-played in three BCS bowls from a guy that came here and said he wouldn't be out-coached or out-prepared...Not calling for him to leave and am happy to have Stoops and Co. Just wonder why we played uncharacteristically poor at times, poor time-out usage, things didn't seem to click like it had the previous 8 games.

[The Consumate Showman]

I'm still waiting for the people who complained about Long's questionable playcalling around the goal line to hold Wilson to the same standard. Guess it isn't going to happen.

Also, didn't many complain about Long's calling too many runs between the tackles in 2005? Gee, what a difference a year makes...or not.


Let me try to help you out...It's all on Stoops. He is WAYYY to conservative and WAYYY to cocky right now. He needs to rethink his football philosophy a bit IMO.

Way too predictable.

And as far as KW is concerned, I like him a lot. I watched those Northwestern teams he has in the 90's and they were kick *** and were NOT as predictable as OU is right now.

I have a hard time believing that KW would completely forget how to play call in a few years time.

[usmc-sooner]

Thread title = "No call for jobs..."

Just lamenting that the play calling seemed uninspired, and we have been out-coached and out-played in three BCS bowls from a guy that came here and said he wouldn't be out-coached or out-prepared...Not calling for him to leave and am happy to have Stoops and Co. Just wonder why we played uncharacteristically poor at times, poor time-out usage, things didn't seem to click like it had the previous 8 games.


I don't see why you can't just be happy about the loss last night. What are you some kind of bad fan. It's quite obvious your just a whiner and complainer you need to grow up be a man and enjoy this loss. We won 11 games and I think that means you gotta be happy with each of our three losses. It's obvious our coaching staff has never made a mistake. Oh and if your not a coach how can you even think that they make mistakes, even though that doesn't stop people on the SO from whining about the President. Grow the f up and learn to enjoy Bowl losses. :D

[usmc-sooner]

oh I'll admit I was not a Chuck Long fan and I now think that it wasn't his fault.

[Vaevictis]

Really, it's not Mike Leach we're missing, it's his attitude we're missing. If you'll recall, that attitude lasted for a couple of years after he left.

What am I talking about? Mike Leach leaves it all out there; he just doesn't give a **** about anything but how to get the ball in the end zone. He doesn't care about the coaching mismatches, talent mismatches, or the ****ing refs unless he can find a way to exploit them to score. He doesn't want to run out the clock, or pound the ball. He wants to put the ball in the end zone RIGHT ****ING NOW. And he takes what he has, and he takes what the opponent has, and he says "**** this, I'm putting it in the ****ing end zone. AAAARRRRRR!"

Now, that's a bit of a hyperbolic take on the situation, but that kind of attitude is something we're missing on offense right now.

And frankly, on defense too.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I have a hard time believing that KW would completely forget how to play call in a few years time.

Which is why I am not calling for his job as I had been on Long. This is Stoops offense, he may not call the plays, but his hand is in there... Wilson wouldn't be the play caller if Stoops wasn't comfortable with it.

[Scott D]

I seem to remember someone saying a year ago, even two years ago that Long didn't get the final say on play calling.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I seem to remember someone saying a year ago, even two years ago that Long didn't get the final say on play calling.

I was quite vocal on Long, now, admittedly, wrong. What Stoops needs is that fire under the arse thinking he has something to prove...As I said before, I don't know if its the big bucks or the big atmosphere that seems to have us and other U's clamped down...

[Scott D]

I think the bigger issue is that we need a quarterback that will be in the system and getting game experience for more than one year. With no turnover in the coaching department for at least 3 years.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

2002-2003 we had a great scheme and a great offense. We just didn't execute the last 2 games. That'll happen sometimes. Since then all we have tried to do is beat teams physically. I wish we would go back to the 2002-2003 form when we were hard to predict. We threw to the tight end 40 times in 2002 and our running backs got a lot of catches those years.

Now when we throw it's going to the wide receivers 90% of the time. And we run it mostly between the tackles.

how do i put this. if you have a running back that can make the first person miss, you are going to have an unpredictable offense. that's because the blocking schemes and plays can get incredibly elaborate to get the running back in a one on one matchup with a guy he can make miss (see Q vs texas 2002).

if you have brutes at running back that aren't elusive you have to have more conventional schemes to get them past the LOS. the way the wishbone did this was by running the fullback up the middle 30+ times a game. this caused the defense to have to load up the inside to stop the 3-4 yard runs. at that point, you busted them on the edge where your running backs could outrun them to the corner. this is the mentality we've developed with peterson and patrick.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I was quite vocal on Long, now, admittedly, wrong. What Stoops needs is that fire under the arse thinking he has something to prove...As I said before, I don't know if its the big bucks or the big atmosphere that seems to have us and other U's clamped down...

do you remember all the times that i got into it with you and usmc last year? i agreed with you that chuck had to go, but where we disagreed was the reasoning. chuck flat out sucked at recruiting QBs - he had to go. this offense we see today is based on our running backs. they are what is restricting us to this vanilla scheme.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I had forgotten that...P.S. Don't ever marry me, my wife hates me becuase I never remember ;).

I actually like some of the run schemes without AD than with him. Can't complain if the play calling was narrowed for PT, but you'd think we would have all sorts of schemes for AD. I did like the AD in motion/AP in back field wrinkle. Didn't use it enough, however... As an office coach, you'd think counter plays would have worked as well.

[OKC-SLC]

do you remember all the times that i got into it with you and usmc last year? i agreed with you that chuck had to go, but where we disagreed was the reasoning. chuck flat out sucked at recruiting QBs - he had to go. this offense we see today is based on our running backs. they are what is restricting us to this vanilla scheme.
jkm--what can we do about it? I see so many vertical offenses out there with kids that are no more athletic than ours as far as I can tell.

I understand we have been restricted a bit by PT's inconsistency with the long ball, but I simply don't understand why it is that we seem to want to play SO conservatively. Is it the O-line personnel issue?

[The Consumate Showman]

Really, it's not Mike Leach we're missing, it's his attitude we're missing. If you'll recall, that attitude lasted for a couple of years after he left.

What am I talking about? Mike Leach leaves it all out there; he just doesn't give a **** about anything but how to get the ball in the end zone. He doesn't care about the coaching mismatches, talent mismatches, or the ****ing refs unless he can find a way to exploit them to score. He doesn't want to run out the clock, or pound the ball. He wants to put the ball in the end zone RIGHT ****ING NOW. And he takes what he has, and he takes what the opponent has, and he says "**** this, I'm putting it in the ****ing end zone. AAAARRRRRR!"

Now, that's a bit of a hyperbolic take on the situation, but that kind of attitude is something we're missing on offense right now.

And frankly, on defense too.

Best post on this thread...bar none.

Our "Killer Instinct" that Bob had in his first 3-5 years at OU is GONE.

[BASSooner]

Best post on this thread...bar none.

Our "Killer Instinct" that Bob had in his first 3-5 years at OU is GONE.
THE most important question...

Will it come back?

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

jkm--what can we do about it? I see so many vertical offenses out there with kids that are no more athletic than ours as far as I can tell.

I understand we have been restricted a bit by PT's inconsistency with the long ball, but I simply don't understand why it is that we seem to want to play SO conservatively. Is it the O-line personnel issue?

here is the catch. when you don't have access to "upper echelon" type players you recruit to a scheme. you also look under every rock you can find to see if the big schools missed anyone. what you end up with is a cohesive unit that is geared to playing a certain style. they end up being much better than the sum of their parts. the biggest weakness is time. as film piles up on you, teams scheme against the deficiencies of the individual players.

when you have access to "upper echelon" type players you end up in this "best available athlete" mentality. it takes some kind of crazy discipline to say no to a guy that has better measurables to go with the guy that fits your scheme better. most coaches get into a "we'll mold the offense to fit the players" mentality. this is all fine and dandy for basketball where you have 5 players, but in football you may have 18 players that play regularly on offense. what happens if 5 of them are pretty good at the style of offense you are running but the rest aren't?

our problem has, is and will continue to be our OL. we have never been able to attract road graders (unless they were DL prospects ;) ), but we can get dancing bears in abundance. i think that was why our coaching staff is interested in what the broncos do so much...

[LittleWingSooner]

In 2002 and 2003 almost everyone liked the playcalling We were scoring at will. Moving the ball when we wanted to in every formation. We ran out and passed out of the same formations. Now it seems like when we are in 3+ wides we pass. We have 2 TEs+ and a FB we run. A lot of that in 2002 and 2003 is that we were still in the shotgun most of the time. We also developed good players on the line. I don't think we have linemen as good as those guys were yet. But we have talent on the line. We just need to get less predictable. We need to use tight ends and running backs in the pass game.

Look at how Boise used their TE in short yardage at least 3 or 4 times. Shooman is 6-1 or 6-2 yet they used him perfectly in a few short yardage plays over the middle of the field. Our TEs are 6-5 and 6-6. Eldridge is about that tall to. With Boise State's LBs being 6' and under mostly and their DBs all under 6' tall couldn't you use the TE's as an advantage over the middle of the field?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

You know, you can scheme for our throw to the fullback once a game play. Once we do it, you can check it off because we won't run it ever again that game...

[LittleWingSooner]

Yep same with the tight ends or throwing it to the RBs. It becomes an easy pass game to defend if you only throw it to about 3 different guys. No matter how good those guys are because all you have to do is defend the YAC. Even when we throw it to the tight ends or full backs or running backs we throw it to em when they can't get any more yards.

And this started happening in 2004 when Chuck Long was still the offensive coordinator. I don't think it has anything to do with the coordinator anymore. I think it's the style Stoops wants this team to run.

[Scott D]

In 2002 and 2003 almost everyone liked the playcalling We were scoring at will. Moving the ball when we wanted to in every formation. We ran out and passed out of the same formations. Now it seems like when we are in 3+ wides we pass. We have 2 TEs+ and a FB we run. A lot of that in 2002 and 2003 is that we were still in the shotgun most of the time. We also developed good players on the line. I don't think we have linemen as good as those guys were yet. But we have talent on the line. We just need to get less predictable. We need to use tight ends and running backs in the pass game.

Look at how Boise used their TE in short yardage at least 3 or 4 times. Shooman is 6-1 or 6-2 yet they used him perfectly in a few short yardage plays over the middle of the field. Our TEs are 6-5 and 6-6. Eldridge is about that tall to. With Boise State's LBs being 6' and under mostly and their DBs all under 6' tall couldn't you use the TE's as an advantage over the middle of the field?

two words....read progressions
two more...garrett mills.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

In 2002 and 2003 almost everyone liked the playcalling We were scoring at will. Moving the ball when we wanted to in every formation. We ran out and passed out of the same formations. Now it seems like when we are in 3+ wides we pass. We have 2 TEs+ and a FB we run. A lot of that in 2002 and 2003 is that we were still in the shotgun most of the time. We also developed good players on the line. I don't think we have linemen as good as those guys were yet. But we have talent on the line. We just need to get less predictable. We need to use tight ends and running backs in the pass game.

Look at how Boise used their TE in short yardage at least 3 or 4 times. Shooman is 6-1 or 6-2 yet they used him perfectly in a few short yardage plays over the middle of the field. Our TEs are 6-5 and 6-6. Eldridge is about that tall to. With Boise State's LBs being 6' and under mostly and their DBs all under 6' tall couldn't you use the TE's as an advantage over the middle of the field?

our line was pretty bad in 2002, Q just made them appear a lot better than they were.

[LittleWingSooner]

When we are in an I formation with 2 TE sets how often do you think we even go to the pass game? Especially on first or second down? And we rarely ever see plays just called to a tight end. Maybe once a game.

In the 2000 Big 12 Championship game there was a big mismatch between Trent Smith and the KSU Tight End. We kept going to it all game long because it was a mismatch. If Gresham is really as good as everyone thinks, and I've seen enough to think he is. Why not throw to the guy over the middle? In fact why not throw to any TEs over the middle anymore?

The thing about our offense is we don't try and create mismatches anymore. We just try and beat teams with our line play. And if we can't get a consistent run we don't have a good offense.


our line was pretty bad in 2002, Q just made them appear a lot better than they were.

It got better as the year went on. But we were not near as predictable as we are now. We used a lot more receivers then we seem to now. We had more threats.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

It got better as the year went on. But we were not near as predictable as we are now. We used a lot more receivers then we seem to now. We had more threats.

man for man, this team would outstrip that team from a talent perspective at almost every position. the difference was the players on that team were made for that offense. in order to run from the spread you have to have an elusive back that can make 1 person miss, because you always have 7 on 7. that elusive guy can be either the QB or the RB (or both if your name is west virginia). we don't have a running back that fits that bill since gute is only a shadow of what he was last year. that leaves us with having to crowd everyone into the middle and hope that a crease develops.

[LittleWingSooner]

I don't think we need to really run a spread offense. But we need to get to where we don't run it on first down with 2 TEs an a full back. I know we can't really run a spread offense because we don't have that type of back. But we need to get to where we are able to run in pass formations and pass in run formations. Right now when we lineup in a formation the defense knows what is coming. In 2002 and 2003 you couldn't really tell when OU was going to run or pass.

[MikeInNorman]

I think we may be surprised by the line's improvement next year. This will be the first time in many moons (knock on wood) that Schmidt/KW haven't run off half the scholarship linemen in the course of two years.

And, as you know jkm, this years offense wasn't just built around AD's style, but was narrowly tailored to suit PT's abilities. Well, until last night when Wilson had him standing in the pocket after a five step drop all night. That is hardly PT's forte, and he didn't have any success with it until Boise went to it's own terrible prevent defense.

[LittleWingSooner]

What does that mean not built around ADs style? AD is an all purpose type back and he'll show that in the NFL. We didn't utilize the guy well enough if you ask me.

[OKC-SLC]

we have never been able to attract road graders (unless they were DL prospects ;) ), but we can get dancing bears in abundance. i think that was why our coaching staff is interested in what the broncos do so much...
That's funny right there, I don't care who you are.

jkm--what do you mean about our staff's interest in what the (Denver, I assume) broncos do? you mean the way they can generate 1000 yard backs out of anyone?

[MikeInNorman]

I was agreeing with jkm that the offense was built around AD's "sledgehammer" style. As for being all purpose, he definitely caught the ball and pass-protected much better than he has in the past, so by that standard, sure he's all purpose.

[Scott D]

What does that mean not built around ADs style? AD is an all purpose type back and he'll show that in the NFL. We didn't utilize the guy well enough if you ask me.

missing summer workouts before your freshman year, and missing spring football after your freshman season will contribute to the player not being utilized properly across the board in an all purpose manner.