Stoops philosopy on keeping Landry in the game when the game is in hand

Let me start by saying I love Bob Stoops and the day he leaves I will cry like a baby. One of the only things I disagree with him about in his decision making, is keeping starting qb's in when the game is out of hand. I think he should have been pulled after the 1st td of the 3rd quarter that made the game 45-6. He finished the 3rd quarter and could have very easily been hurt. Why not put in back up qb with the 1st string for a series or 2? It looks bad too. It looks like we are trying to run up the score, when I know we are not. Anyone hear him say why he does this?

 

He says he wants them all to play a certain number of snaps each game. When OU was scoring so quickly in the 3rd qtr, those players weren't getting the snaps. I know it's an odd philsophy but it's his and we gots to accept it I guess.

 

What I have noticed over the years is Stoops doesn't run plays that gives Landry a chance to get hurt. We mainly ran the ball and when we did pass, it was quick passes or we had backs blocking. No waiting. I think Landry got hit once the whole game. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

 

I think he keeps them playing so they aren't on the bench tweeting something stupid or getting really, really drunk.

Good thinking, IMO.

 

I think it's a tough line to draw. If the players are getting useful snaps that help the team improve, don't want to pull them too soon. This team is still fairly young and can certainly still improve. That has to be weighed against the risk of injuries and getting useful snaps for 2nd line players. I personally discount the reps for 2nd line players when they are substituted wholesale as the game usually degrades to simple plays and a bunch of mistakes. And we rotate in 2nd line players at all times and that's when it really helps. So it comes down to more reps vs. risk of injury to starter. I have been surprised we keep them in so long, but pulling them right after halftime is too soon regardless of score.

 

I liked it just for the fact you had a better chance of Landry getting the ball to some guys, like Jaz, some more getting them ready for the ball to come their way next week.

 

I agree with Obsession. The backup needs quality reps in live game. Landry could go down at any moment just like Sam and Jason did.

 

The score, and having the starters in longer than some liked may have sounded bad if you were just reading about it, but if you were watching/listening, then you know that it could probably have been 100-6 if Stoops doesn't call off the dogs in the 3rd.

 

I have always thought that i would love to see the SOONERS win a game 100-6

 

There's always next week.

 

^^ nice ^^

 

On Twitter, an OU person just posted that we scored seven touchdowns in 12 minutes which would equal 49 points! With scoring like that Landry probably did not have the snaps they wanted him to have before TX. Our line was doing an excellent job of protecting him.

 

Still all it takes is one play; myself i would have rather seen him on the bench early in the 3rd than after the 3rd

 

Switzer would have second team guy in during the second quarter sometimes. Third teamers would get into the act in blowouts as well.

I remember in the mid-80s, Eric Mitchel getting plenty of playing time...and seeing Glenn Sullivan mop after that!

Until someone gets injured, Stoops will continue this bit of stupidity. I think it's why we have a down year every four years or so also - no one gets much real playing time behind the starters.

Yet another reason Switzer will always be king: the guy knew how to manage the roster and depth.

 

I wonder if we should just keep Jones or any other starter on the bench the entire game, seeing as it only takes one play to get hurt.

I don't recall ever seeing anything saying that injuries occur only after the game is out of hand.

 

It is easier to do when you had Tailbacks as QBs. There is also a reason that Switzer didn't put QBs into the NFL.

 

Let's face it, Coach Stoops has had a little bit of success with this philosophy.

 

Remember in the 70s? In blowouts on the road, by the fourth quarter, the starters would have their jerseys/pads/t-shirts off and be sun tanning on the sidelines. They'd go up in the stands and sign autographs for the kids. They'd buy hot dogs from the vendors. Yeah, today they'd be tweeting, SMSing and "getting really, really drunk."

 

That's me, too, but Bob seems to know more about football than me, so I'll let him decide.

On a slightly different track - really how useful is it for a back up to get, say, another 4 snaps in a "live game" -- especially when considering that OU would be up by 30 points when they enter?

Their duties would consist of about four hand offs and a flat pass, something like that, maybe throw in a kneel down.

Sure, it's easy to argue that such snaps wouldn't help the starter much either, but I just don't buy that the backups are really being deprived.

 

Glenn Sullivan right chere

<-------------------------------