View Full Version : "We'll be better without AD" argument...
goingoneight
9/9/2007, 04:51 PM
For those who were so proud of themselves saying we would experience a dropoff without AD... take a looksee at what OUr coaching staff has had to do without the great AD. I am a huge Adrian Peterson fan, don't get me wrong... but having #28 in the game all too often took away from the greatness of the talent surrounding him. Ad is/was a great leader, athlete, player and ambassador of the university... but the team without him is going to be more than alright.
With AD in the game yesterday... how many times do you think Chuck Long or Kevin Wilson would have thrown to Kelly or Gresham? Do you really believe KW would have had the cojones to run that end-around pass play with AD in the game? No. We played possession ball with AD, and that's why most of OUr games and nearly all of OUr losses during AD's tenure were so dangerously close.
We may not have an AD on this roster. We may end up having a better RB on this roster in a few years, but the beauty of it is no one really knows what to expect as long as OUr offense is executing. That's what makes an offense fun to watch. That's why we were being called the "greatest team ever" in 2003. That's why OSU thought they were "the world's greatest offense." That's why Mike Leach is considered such a genius.
AD = great player, NFL RB. He also = a liability. He was suspect to injuries when every defense keyed in on him and knew exactly, time and time again excatly what we were going to do when he was in the game.
With AP, Murray, Brown, Madu and even Gute... OUr ground game is good and will eventually get better with fresh legs and raw talent every down. AD took that load on all by himself and prided himself in being "All Day." I will forever be a fan of his and will forever appreciate everything he did for OU. But I will also state that we can, as a team... be just fine or much better now that he has moved on.
[/rant] :)
SoonerBOI
9/9/2007, 04:57 PM
For those who were so proud of themselves saying we would experience a dropoff without AD... take a looksee at what OUr coaching staff has had to do without the great AD. I am a huge Adrian Peterson fan, don't get me wrong... but having #28 in the game all too often took away from the greatness of the talent surrounding him. Ad is/was a great leader, athlete, player and ambassador of the university... but the team without him is going to be more than alright.
With AD in the game yesterday... how many times do you think Chuck Long or Kevin Wilson would have thrown to Kelly or Gresham? Do you really believe KW would have had the cojones to run that end-around pass play with AD in the game? No. We played possession ball with AD, and that's why most of OUr games and nearly all of OUr losses during AD's tenure were so dangerously close.
We may not have an AD on this roster. We may end up having a better RB on this roster in a few years, but the beauty of it is no one really knows what to expect as long as OUr offense is executing. That's what makes an offense fun to watch. That's why we were being called the "greatest team ever" in 2003. That's why OSU thought they were "the world's greatest offense." That's why Mike Leach is considered such a genius.
AD = great player, NFL RB. He also = a liability. He was suspect to injuries when every defense keyed in on him and knew exactly, time and time again excatly what we were going to do when he was in the game.
With AP, Murray, Brown, Madu and even Gute... OUr ground game is good and will eventually get better with fresh legs and raw talent every down. AD took that load on all by himself and prided himself in being "All Day." I will forever be a fan of his and will forever appreciate everything he did for OU. But I will also state that we can, as a team... be just fine or much better now that he has moved on.
[/rant] :)
Well said, GG8.
SoonerStormchaser
9/9/2007, 05:06 PM
I'd think they'd have still come up with a similar gameplan. If AD had come back this year, don't you think that thUg would've stacked the box and dared SB to throw on them?
OU without AD this year would probably be the same as OU with AD this year...just pick your poison. Either way, you die.
aurorasooner
9/9/2007, 05:09 PM
I'd think they'd have still come up with a similar gameplan. I don't. I saw AD running into stacked defensive fronts way too many times last year. With a new QB and AD in the backfield, I think it would've MOtS.
MR2-Sooner86
9/9/2007, 05:12 PM
One of the other things for my argument is Jason White. AD's best year was '04. As much as I loved PT, he was no Jason White. The thing about '04 was you couldn't just worry about the run and AD. We had an awesome QB that would light your *** up. You had to worry about the run and the pass. I think this year could (key word) be an even better offense than what we had in '04.
SoonerDood
9/9/2007, 05:16 PM
As much as I miss him, and would LOVE to have him on this team- you're right. Sam would not have developed this quickly with AD to lean on.
Gandalf_The_Grey
9/9/2007, 05:17 PM
The thing with AD is I think he hurt the coaching staff. OUr coaching staff seem to be creative souls, they like to try lots of different things. Kevin Wilson liked to spread the field attempt to get mismatches with his players. the problem being that with AD being a downhill runner and BY far your best offensive threat, I believe they felt like they could impose their will on the ground. This team doesn't really have a SUPERSTAR tailback. The only player you could call a superstar is Malcolm Kelly. They are using every weapon instead of focusing on one. AD was so good with Jason because Jason was the superstar on that team. However, did anyone else watch Bradford and get the feel he plays ALOT like Jason
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
9/9/2007, 05:44 PM
As long as our line can pass-protect they way they have so far, we will be able to throw the ball with great effectiveness.
soonerhubs
9/9/2007, 05:53 PM
I have to respectfully disagree with most of the premise behind this thread. It doesn't seem accurate to attribute the coaches' "lack of creativity" to reliance only on AD.
We have to consider other things such as lack of experience at QB, O-line, and Wide Receivers.
I'm so excited to see Bradford doing so well, and he has my vote for Heisman. But that O-line is giving him comfort that should earn more praise than it does.
That and more experience all around ala Gresham, Iglesias, and of course our Running Back Committee.
soonersn2007
9/9/2007, 06:01 PM
I am loving this offensive scheme this season, we are spreading the ball all over the field.............look at how many different players touched the ball in the Miami game. Defenses can't key on one or two players, if they do, they will get burnt.
Having a great back like AD has its pros and cons, but I prefer the team concept in which everyone contributes...........that way injuries can be overcome with others picking up the slack. It just makes for a better team chemistry IMHO.
SoonerShark
9/9/2007, 06:03 PM
I was happy to have Adrian Peterson; however, with him out of the line-up last year our rushing yards per game went up and we were 8-0. The 8-0 line-up of running back by committee should have continued against Boise State, which I stated prior to the game, not just in retrospect. The tendency with a star is a lack of diversity overall. Peterson is a great player, guy and teammate, but don't mess with chemistry.
oumartin
9/9/2007, 06:21 PM
What would have been best is for AD to have been on this team but resting a sprained ankle for the first 4 weeks.
KantoSooner
9/9/2007, 06:27 PM
Take the AD argument whichever way you want, I am very happy with what went down on Saturday. The platoon system or whatever you want to call it OU used with RBs and Receivers worked dam well. Fresh legs and a different look every second or third play. If you've got the personnel to handle it, it's deadly.
Miami may well be the best defense OU faces this year, including bowl games. And they simply had no answers. I don't think that was a fluke.
colleyvillesooner
9/9/2007, 06:57 PM
I was happy to have Adrian Peterson; however, with him out of the line-up last year our rushing yards per game went up and we were 8-0. The 8-0 line-up of running back by committee should have continued against Boise State, which I stated prior to the game, not just in retrospect. The tendency with a star is a lack of diversity overall. Peterson is a great player, guy and teammate, but don't mess with chemistry.
Or if Kelly doesn't miss the whole game, we probably win anyways.
GottaHavePride
9/9/2007, 06:58 PM
I was happy to have Adrian Peterson; however, with him out of the line-up last year our rushing yards per game went up and we were 8-0. The 8-0 line-up of running back by committee should have continued against Boise State, which I stated prior to the game, not just in retrospect. The tendency with a star is a lack of diversity overall. Peterson is a great player, guy and teammate, but don't mess with chemistry.
Last year I agree. We didn't have the O-line to blow people off the ball and dominate using just AD. Unpredictability worked better.
This year, AD behind our O-line with Sam Bradford's arm as another threat would be something to make opposing D-coordinators crap their pants.
Stitch Face
9/9/2007, 08:14 PM
Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are Adrian Peterson.
jkjsooner
9/9/2007, 08:49 PM
This year, AD behind our O-line with Sam Bradford's arm as another threat would be something to make opposing D-coordinators crap their pants.
I agree but I agree with others that we would probably be relying too much on AD. As it is, I'm totally surprised they've let Bradford cut loose this year. We usually don't do that with a young QB.
All that said, we definitely have a much better QB and o-line (not to mention more experience at receiver) than we've had since AD's freshmen year so you can't blame the predictability over the last couple of years on the coaches alone.
But, I think our offense was more dynamic in '03 than in '04. I think the coaches thought we weren't tough enough in the Sugar Bowl and needed to become a little more of a hard running team and of course Peterson was exactly what we needed. But that came at a slight cost/
OUmillenium
9/9/2007, 09:31 PM
I don't. I saw AD running into stacked defensive fronts way too many times the last 3 years. With a new QB and AD in the backfield, I think it would've MOtS.
Fixed
Thank goodness our offensive scheme has some variety again. Missed it the last 5 years.
meoveryouxinfinity
9/9/2007, 09:44 PM
As we have heard Bob say many times before, "We will get the ball in the hands of our best athletes." With AD playing (healthy), he was most definitely the best athlete, hands down. Oh, how soon people forget (granted, it is easy to forget with studs like Sam and Malcolm out there). AD was a man among boys. You don't try to create a "west-coast" passing offense when you have a guy like that in the backfield. And sure, we were undefeated against teams without AD, but I really think it is a fluke. We would have lost to Texas in 2004 certainly without him. Go on youtube and look up some videos with Adrian. That will remind you of what the kid did for our offense the last three years.
Not to mention, you can't compare apples and oranges.
tulsaoilerfan
9/9/2007, 10:20 PM
I'm just glad to see the Tight End being utilized for the first time since Trent Smith left; i think that will be the difference in the offense this year as opposed to the last few years
StoopTroup
9/9/2007, 11:57 PM
Josh will be a great Head Coach someday.
Whatever you think about the specifics, you have to give props to the coaches and recruiting, we look loaded this year after having lost the number one QB recruit and the number one RB recruit (for different reasons, of course). Our D line was a question mark coming into the season but looks very strong. Our secondary was getting pre-season respect but had performed erratically in the past. They looked good. The linebackers look good. Our redshirt frosh QB looks good....
For those who were so proud of themselves saying we would experience a dropoff without AD... take a looksee at what OUr coaching staff has had to do without the great AD. I am a huge Adrian Peterson fan, don't get me wrong... but having #28 in the game all too often took away from the greatness of the talent surrounding him. Ad is/was a great leader, athlete, player and ambassador of the university... but the team without him is going to be more than alright.
With AD in the game yesterday... how many times do you think Chuck Long or Kevin Wilson would have thrown to Kelly or Gresham? Do you really believe KW would have had the cojones to run that end-around pass play with AD in the game? No. We played possession ball with AD, and that's why most of OUr games and nearly all of OUr losses during AD's tenure were so dangerously close.
We may not have an AD on this roster. We may end up having a better RB on this roster in a few years, but the beauty of it is no one really knows what to expect as long as OUr offense is executing. That's what makes an offense fun to watch. That's why we were being called the "greatest team ever" in 2003. That's why OSU thought they were "the world's greatest offense." That's why Mike Leach is considered such a genius.
AD = great player, NFL RB. He also = a liability. He was suspect to injuries when every defense keyed in on him and knew exactly, time and time again excatly what we were going to do when he was in the game.
With AP, Murray, Brown, Madu and even Gute... OUr ground game is good and will eventually get better with fresh legs and raw talent every down. AD took that load on all by himself and prided himself in being "All Day." I will forever be a fan of his and will forever appreciate everything he did for OU. But I will also state that we can, as a team... be just fine or much better now that he has moved on.
[/rant] :)
Welcome to 10 months ago. *sigh* Although I guess nobody listens to a n00b with less than 150 posts. :(
Welcome to 10 months ago. *sigh* Although I guess nobody listens to a n00b with less than 150 posts. :(
STFU N00B!!!!;)
Gandalf_The_Grey
9/10/2007, 02:08 AM
I don't listen to anybody with under 5,000 posts hence my ignoring of the last 3 post
Jewstin
9/10/2007, 02:17 AM
Well, technically, we were 5-2 with AD last year. Oregon really doesn't count.
Without AD, I imagine we would have lost by a larger margin to Boise State and Texas. I used to think that he was a hindrance in our offensive scheming because teams would key on him so much, but I've recently changed my perspective about it.
Just look at the numbers. Sure, our rushing statistics went up after he went down, but our passing numbers declined (at least for a few of the games, ala A&M and such). He wasn't there to open up that aspect of the offense. The others developed into a wonderful tandem, though.
Besides, with a player like AD, you never know when he's going to take control of a game (ala, Tulsa 2005 ... latter half of the Oregon game last year) and suddenly demolish everyone in sight.
I can't imagine what it would be like with him, JD Runnels, and our current offensive line. Sweet sassy molassee!
stoopified
9/10/2007, 09:23 AM
I'd think they'd have still come up with a similar gameplan. If AD had come back this year, don't you think that thUg would've stacked the box and dared SB to throw on them?
OU without AD this year would probably be the same as OU with AD this year...just pick your poison. Either way, you die.
I agree with GOEight .I think OUr offense and opposingt D were both so focused on AD hat it skewed the O.As illogical as it sounds we ARE better off without OUr best player in AD.I hope he tears up the league but in THE LAEGUE,AD is just another promising rookie among many others.AT OU he was a demi-god.BTW I don't mean to say AD won't be great in the NFL IF healthy,just that there is a lot of GREAT TALENT in THE LEAGUE.
sooneron
9/10/2007, 09:35 AM
This thread makes no sense due to the fact that AD is not here with this team and this OLine. We'll never really know. Face it, texas was a better all around team last year, we lost to them and we were out-coached in the 2nd half (it's like people forget that we had the lead in that game). AD had a monster game against oregon, take that "loss" however you like it. With AD out, we beat every team that we were supposed to beat last year. BSU, the majority of the team played like crap for the better part of the first half. Thompson's safety valve going down compounded this. With the exception of NU, we faced pretty weak run D's in the last 6 games, bsu would count as another experienced decent D.
SteelClip49
9/10/2007, 09:44 AM
Like I have mentioned in the past, OU is better off without AD. AD was a show and was never with the team; it was all about him. OU, now, has a team and this is a very entertaining group. Last year showed, when AD was out, that OU can be just as successful without AD's presence. The way I see it is......Adrian who?
sooneron
9/10/2007, 09:49 AM
Like I have mentioned in the past, OU is better off without AD. AD was a show and was never with the team; it was all about him. OU, now, has a team and this is a very entertaining group. Last year showed, when AD was out, that OU can be just as successful without AD's presence. The way I see it is......Adrian who?
Most unenlightened post of the day.:rolleyes:
very well stated...spek.
although I wouldn't quite say 'adrian who?', I do believe that he was so good and so important that we oftentimes forced him during games when it wasn't happening.
arcman46
9/10/2007, 10:55 AM
One of the other things for my argument is Jason White. AD's best year was '04. As much as I loved PT, he was no Jason White. The thing about '04 was you couldn't just worry about the run and AD. We had an awesome QB that would light your *** up. You had to worry about the run and the pass. I think this year could (key word) be an even better offense than what we had in '04.
I agree, there was a drop off in the QB position after White graduated. More in '05 with Bomar, than '06 with PT. A strong passing game opened up the running game for AD.
Scott D
9/10/2007, 11:01 AM
Like I have mentioned in the past, OU is better off without AD. AD was a show and was never with the team; it was all about him. OU, now, has a team and this is a very entertaining group. Last year showed, when AD was out, that OU can be just as successful without AD's presence. The way I see it is......Adrian who?
Nick?
Bourbon St Sooner
9/10/2007, 11:39 AM
Like I have mentioned in the past, OU is better off without AD. AD was a show and was never with the team; it was all about him. OU, now, has a team and this is a very entertaining group. Last year showed, when AD was out, that OU can be just as successful without AD's presence. The way I see it is......Adrian who?
WTF?
Aggie?
A-ha, I found it - Did a forum search for "wolves".
http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1755466&postcount=288
So... maybe not 10 months ago, but certainly going on 8. :P
Ohhh, pun!
I have to respectfully disagree with most of the premise behind this thread. It doesn't seem accurate to attribute the coaches' "lack of creativity" to reliance only on AD.
We have to consider other things such as lack of experience at QB, O-line, and Wide Receivers.
I'm so excited to see Bradford doing so well, and he has my vote for Heisman. But that O-line is giving him comfort that should earn more praise than it does.
That and more experience all around ala Gresham, Iglesias, and of course our Running Back Committee.
Hm, yeah - maybe it'd be wiser to look at this from a synergy standpoint.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.