Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 69
  1. #41
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1 Tear Down This Wall's Avatar
    Location
    Chair
    Posts
    4,901
    vCash
    500

    Re: is OU's "natural talent" above, the same or below, the other teams?

    Quote Originally Posted by jkm, the stolen pifwafwi View Post
    That is because the stars are heavily biased towards those schools. Generally speaking, recruits are rated based on who offers them. If it is a "good" school, they will be skewed up. If it is a bad school, they will be pushed down. It just kind of turns it into a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

    Remember that 66% of the players drafted in the last 4 years have been 3* or lower (including super stars like JJ Watt). It isn't that there are bad players in those groups, it is that for whatever reason their potential isn't evaluated correctly.

    OG is the most biased towards 3* and lower at 86%
    RB is the most baised towards 4* and higher at 54%

    Which just coincidentally mirrors our recruiting. The second problem is that just because someone is bad one year does not mean they are going to be bad the next year. We've had several situations in the secondary where someone who was horrid one year came back at the same or a different position the next year and was absolutely rock solid.
    Yes. That's my point. The teams signing more 4- and 5-star players do end up having better records over the long haul that the North Texases and Houstons of the world.

    I think in rare cases have you had schools who took a ton of 2-3 star players and done well. I can think of two: TCU and Kansas State.

    Some would argue Boise State as well. Fine. But, these was a time when Boise State was in a conference where you could sign guys who didn't qualify to go to Pac-10 schools. Fresno State did well with that as well.

    Boise/Fresno's conferences then tightened up their recruiting policies, and suddenly they aren't stories anymore.

    We will probably agree to disagree. But, from what I've seen so far, Bedenbaugh and Montgomery aren't lighting up the recruiting world with a bunch of stud OL and DL-signees. To me, they've been caught with their pants down at the end and lifted recruits who should be starting at AAC/C-USA level schools today, but will likely never start here.
    "General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
    President Ronald Reagan at the Berlin Wall, June 12, 1987

  2. #42
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1 SoonerorLater's Avatar
    Posts
    2,485
    vCash
    1320

    Re: is OU's "natural talent" above, the same or below, the other teams?

    Quote Originally Posted by jkm, the stolen pifwafwi View Post
    If it is a bad school, they will be pushed down. It just kind of turns it into a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.
    Is it truly self-fufilling or more of a "which came first the chicken or the egg" thing. In other words are top flight schools recruiting these guys because they are 4/5 * players or are they 4/5* because the number of offers from top tier schools is a valid rating metric?

  3. #43
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member jkm, the stolen pifwafwi's Avatar
    Posts
    12,270
    vCash
    500

    Re: is OU's "natural talent" above, the same or below, the other teams?

    Quote Originally Posted by SoonerorLater View Post
    Is it truly self-fufilling or more of a "which came first the chicken or the egg" thing. In other words are top flight schools recruiting these guys because they are 4/5 * players or are they 4/5* because the number of offers from top tier schools is a valid rating metric?
    In general, kids who commit or are heavily interested in top tier* schools will have their rankings skewed up 3-4 rivals scale points depending on when they commit (that scale goes from 5.0 to 6.1). Early commits seem to show the most upwards bias. Ratings 5.6 (highest 3*) and 5.7 (lowest 4*) have the highest year over year variation and seem to be catchall buckets for those rising up and those falling down. In a lot of respects, the rankings work a lot like preseason college football polls.

    *top tier defined as schools who have highest paying websites (for example, Texas is/was the #1 rivals site in the network. So even though they haven't had much talent in a while they will still have decently ranked classes).

  4. #44
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member jkm, the stolen pifwafwi's Avatar
    Posts
    12,270
    vCash
    500

    Re: is OU's "natural talent" above, the same or below, the other teams?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tear Down This Wall View Post
    That's only true to a point. If I get dragged to a high school football game, I can tell you whether any one of them on the field is good enough to play at OU, Texas, Bama, or whomever.

    It isn't rocket science. High school film of Adrian Peterson looks a hell of a lot different than high school film of whomever North Texas signed in 2004.
    Yet somehow lower tier programs end up with guys like LaDanian Tomlinson and JJ Watt (remember he transferred to Wisconsin from Western Michigan). You can win in college sports if you can evaluate better than anyone else. We saw that for years at DE where we turned a bunch of 3* guys into college superstars. The problem is that evaluation takes a lot of work and somewhere along the line the guys who put in the work stopped.

  5. #45
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member jkm, the stolen pifwafwi's Avatar
    Posts
    12,270
    vCash
    500

    Re: is OU's "natural talent" above, the same or below, the other teams?

    Quote Originally Posted by SoonerorLater View Post
    Is it truly self-fufilling or more of a "which came first the chicken or the egg" thing. In other words are top flight schools recruiting these guys because they are 4/5 * players or are they 4/5* because the number of offers from top tier schools is a valid rating metric?
    Lets take our own classes as an example:

    2010 https://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/fo...mmitments/2010

    9 out of 16 4*s were starters superstars (stills, millard), good (grissom, bell, williams, jefferson, clay), meh (finch, nelson)
    5 out of 13 3*s were starters superstars (colvin), good (ndulue), meh (franks, wilson, peterson)

    2011 https://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/fo...11/oklahoma-24

    Both 5*s are busts
    1 out of 7 4*s is a starter superstars (none), good (phillips)
    2 out of 8 3*s is a starter superstars (none), good (kasitati), meh (shannon)

    3 out of 20 guys started.

    2012 https://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/fo...12/oklahoma-24
    5* was counted before
    6 out of 10 4* is a starter - superstars (striker, sheperd, ross (ST)), good (knight, darlington, neal)
    5 out of 14 3* is a starter - superstars (sanchez, tapper), good (bester, williams, everett (ST))


    In general, we've gotten just as many upper end players from the 3* ranks as the 4* ranks.

  6. #46
    Administrator
    8timechamps's Avatar
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    19,085
    vCash
    1500

    Re: is OU's "natural talent" above, the same or below, the other teams?

    Quote Originally Posted by Soonerjeepman View Post
    until we get beat by someone we aren't suppose to! lol (just kidding...sort of~)

    I started the thread because I just don't see OU's "talent" that much greater than anyone but ku...maybe isu in the big 12. Which is fine, but when folks go predicting a 40 point win over anyone BUT ku I get the feeling they really see OU as much more talented.
    Because it's not. That's not necessarily a knock on OU's recruiting, it's just that parity is part of college football now. Every team has talent, and every team has a player or two that are exceptional. Look at the current NFL team rosters and you'll see guys from all over the country, big schools and small schools. You don't see a huge talent gap between OU and other teams because there isn't one.

    There was a time when the gap was obvious, but those days ended with scholarship limits. It's more about what you do with what you have, and not so much about getting the best/highest rated guys in the country.

  7. #47
    Administrator
    8timechamps's Avatar
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    19,085
    vCash
    1500

    Re: is OU's "natural talent" above, the same or below, the other teams?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tear Down This Wall View Post
    Ok. So, let's trade rosters with North Texas and Houston, because analyzing the kids out of high school doesn't work, right?

    The "star" system isn't perfect. But, you certainly find that the teams who recruit more of the 4- and 5-star players tend to win a bunch.
    I think you're missing my point.

    It's not about the 4 and 5 star players, those guys typically pan out (not all of them, but probably more do than don't). Since OU isn't in a recruit heavy state (and we are the only perennially successful program that isn't), we depend more on the 3 and star guys. Our roster isn't full of 3 star kids from top to bottom, but we do take our share. So does just about every other team in the country. There's aren't enough "elite" players, year in and year out, to continually fill a class with nothing but 4/5 star kids.

    My point is that there are plenty of excellent players that the services get wrong. I use Striker, because he's an obvious example, but nobody was excited when he committed to OU. Don't you think the coaches may have a better idea what they're looking for than a recruiting service or fan?

    If I had the time, and could view film on all of the high school kids out there, I could come up with a rating system that probably looks like the ones the services provide. I'm not a professional analyst, nor do I have any unique skill that allows me to see things that others can't. That should tell you how 'good' the services are at what they do. Fortunately, our coaches know much more about the game and what they look for in a player. And I can tell you, without question, they could care less what a service rates them...and that's true for just about every FBS school in the country.

  8. #48
    Administrator
    8timechamps's Avatar
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    19,085
    vCash
    1500

    Re: is OU's "natural talent" above, the same or below, the other teams?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tear Down This Wall View Post
    That's only true to a point. If I get dragged to a high school football game, I can tell you whether any one of them on the field is good enough to play at OU, Texas, Bama, or whomever.

    It isn't rocket science. High school film of Adrian Peterson looks a hell of a lot different than high school film of whomever North Texas signed in 2004.

    I think it's safe to say that most of us have watched DI/FBS football the entirety of our adult lives. If you grew up near a pro team, you've seen that for decades as well. I grew up near Dallas. Between following Oklahoma since I can remember and being inundated with Cowboys all these years....

    In the vast majority of cases, you can watch a high school football game - which I loathe doing because the games/execution is so slow - you can see whether there are any men among boys, which is what the 4- and 5-star guys are.

    Yes, some develop later. But, realistically, the coaching staffs watch plenty of film of these kids - especially these days - to know the best players. And, their conclusions are not far from the recruiting services. As thin as the margin of error is in these judgements, it doesn't make sense to take flyers on a bunch of two-star guys...especially on the offensive and defensive lines.
    You make it sound like we take 15 two-star rated players every class. We don't.

    I will add one more thing: I have long believed that rating high school linemen is the hardest, most often misidentifying thing the services do. I could write a long dissertation as to why I feel this way, but it boils down to two things:

    1. What did the player's high school run (in terms of offense/defense) - A lineman can get 'lost' if a school runs a scheme not geared toward fitting the players strengths.
    2. Coaching - Most of the big time high school programs have decent line coaching, but many more do not. The difference in a big body taking up space and a road grading lineman is coaching. It's rare to find excellent line coaching at the high school level, and more times than not they assign positions based only on body size.

    There is much more to it, but that's the quick list. Linemen (especially O-linemen) suffers more attrition at the college level than any other position, because it's very hard to identify a good lineman. If it were me, I'd take JUCO linemen over high school linemen 9 out of 10 times, but then you're dealing with a completely separate set of issues.

    Anyway, there is virtually no difference in a 2 star lineman and a 3 star lineman. Many times it boils down to the level of competition the recruit saw in high school, or he may not be the tallest kid. There's lots of factors, but in the end none of them compare to getting in front of the kid and watching him play (or watching hours of film).

  9. #49
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member
    Posts
    12,528
    vCash
    500

    Re: is OU's "natural talent" above, the same or below, the other teams?

    Just as an aside, I think folks are underrating 3 star players a bit and probably mean 2 star. You look at smaller schools and they are not loading up on 3 star players - those are the big fish they hope don't get an offer from a P5 conference school.

  10. #50
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member jkm, the stolen pifwafwi's Avatar
    Posts
    12,270
    vCash
    500

    Re: is OU's "natural talent" above, the same or below, the other teams?

    Quote Originally Posted by BoulderSooner79 View Post
    Just as an aside, I think folks are underrating 3 star players a bit and probably mean 2 star. You look at smaller schools and they are not loading up on 3 star players - those are the big fish they hope don't get an offer from a P5 conference school.
    When you look at the NFL draft, the most likely 2 or 0 star position to be taken is cornerback. Out of 90 cornerbacks taken from 2011 to 2013, 40 were 2* or 0*. There were actually more guys drafted that weren't in the top 75 of the position rankings than there were in them. Basically, it was the guys at the top and the guys not rated that tended to be drafted.

    Ranked 1-3 -> 100% drafted
    Ranked 4 or 5 -> 16% drafted
    Ranked 6 -> 100% drafted
    Ranked 7-14 -> 25% drafted
    Ranked 15-19 -> 40% drafted
    Ranked 20-55 -> 4% drafted
    Ranked 56-60 -> 30% drafted
    Ranked 60-75 -> 8% drafted

    Given how the recruiting services work

    1-3 extreme athleticism, varying skill
    4-10 extreme to great athleticism but no skill
    7-14 great athleticism, varying skill
    15-19 good athleticism, high skill

  11. #51
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1 Tear Down This Wall's Avatar
    Location
    Chair
    Posts
    4,901
    vCash
    500

    Re: is OU's "natural talent" above, the same or below, the other teams?

    Quote Originally Posted by jkm, the stolen pifwafwi View Post
    When you look at the NFL draft, the most likely 2 or 0 star position to be taken is cornerback. Out of 90 cornerbacks taken from 2011 to 2013, 40 were 2* or 0*. There were actually more guys drafted that weren't in the top 75 of the position rankings than there were in them. Basically, it was the guys at the top and the guys not rated that tended to be drafted.

    Ranked 1-3 -> 100% drafted
    Ranked 4 or 5 -> 16% drafted
    Ranked 6 -> 100% drafted
    Ranked 7-14 -> 25% drafted
    Ranked 15-19 -> 40% drafted
    Ranked 20-55 -> 4% drafted
    Ranked 56-60 -> 30% drafted
    Ranked 60-75 -> 8% drafted

    Given how the recruiting services work

    1-3 extreme athleticism, varying skill
    4-10 extreme to great athleticism but no skill
    7-14 great athleticism, varying skill
    15-19 good athleticism, high skill
    Okay, but I never said anything about the secondary coaching. We are talking offensive and defensive linemen, the current state of recruiting them, and the current state of coaching them.

    And, no one ever said we took 15 2-star players a year. But, if 2 out of the 3 you sign on the lines are 2-star players...that's going to show up in future seasons. We, supposedly, like to rotate eight or nine DLs during games because of the "scary" offenses the Big 12 schools run (but, which fail to produce national titles...but, that's a different discussion).

    The depth is crap now, it seems. And, getting crappier.

    Anyway, as that dipf*ck Howard Schnellenberger said about his self-assured success at OU, "The only variable now is time." Yes, Howard. Yes. And, now we wait to see whether one of Leach's proteges can miraculously coach the 2-star signees to something resembling what we had in the early 2000s.

    Ditto the DL coach from ever-faltering Michigan. I can't even do this. Getting our butts handed to us three games in a row (and, luckily escaping the Texas disaster due to special teams and defensive touchdown)...it's ridiculous.

    But...we deserve this football hell in many ways. You let too much mediocrity into your conference and it will become mediocre. As it stands, the leaders of our conference are three teams who should be in Conference USA, or whatever the hell conference houses Tulsa now.

    They haven't risen to our level - we have sunk to theirs.

    Embarrassing.
    "General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
    President Ronald Reagan at the Berlin Wall, June 12, 1987

  12. #52
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member jkm, the stolen pifwafwi's Avatar
    Posts
    12,270
    vCash
    500

    Re: is OU's "natural talent" above, the same or below, the other teams?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tear Down This Wall View Post
    Okay, but I never said anything about the secondary coaching. We are talking offensive and defensive linemen, the current state of recruiting them, and the current state of coaching them.

    And, no one ever said we took 15 2-star players a year. But, if 2 out of the 3 you sign on the lines are 2-star players...that's going to show up in future seasons. We, supposedly, like to rotate eight or nine DLs during games because of the "scary" offenses the Big 12 schools run (but, which fail to produce national titles...but, that's a different discussion).

    The depth is crap now, it seems. And, getting crappier.

    Anyway, as that dipf*ck Howard Schnellenberger said about his self-assured success at OU, "The only variable now is time." Yes, Howard. Yes. And, now we wait to see whether one of Leach's proteges can miraculously coach the 2-star signees to something resembling what we had in the early 2000s.

    Ditto the DL coach from ever-faltering Michigan. I can't even do this. Getting our butts handed to us three games in a row (and, luckily escaping the Texas disaster due to special teams and defensive touchdown)...it's ridiculous.

    But...we deserve this football hell in many ways. You let too much mediocrity into your conference and it will become mediocre. As it stands, the leaders of our conference are three teams who should be in Conference USA, or whatever the hell conference houses Tulsa now.

    They haven't risen to our level - we have sunk to theirs.

    Embarrassing.
    Okay we'll do DL first (it will take me a bit as DL is really weird)

  13. #53
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member jkm, the stolen pifwafwi's Avatar
    Posts
    12,270
    vCash
    500

    Re: is OU's "natural talent" above, the same or below, the other teams?

    DT - 49 drafted only 28 were rated as DTs by the recruiting services. 13 were rated as DEs, 2 as TEs etc

    Of the guys rated as DTs,

    Ranked 1 -> 100%
    Ranked 2-5 -> 7% (only 1 guy and he was drafted in the 7th)
    Ranked 6-9 -> 25%
    Ranked 10-20 -> 21%
    Ranked 21-60 (max) -> 4% (5 guys out of 120)

    For DE that was drafted as a DT
    Ranked 5-10 as a DE -> 33%

    Top States
    FL - 6
    CA - 4
    PA - 4
    OH - 3
    AL - 3
    GA - 3
    7 states (including TX) - 2

    DE - 73 drafted, 47 with recruiting services predicting they were DEs (7 DT, 5 TE)
    DE Rankings
    1-3 -> 66%
    4-5 -> 0%
    6-10 -> 50% (rather amazing when you look at the DT numbers. All but 2 guys in the 6-10 range were drafted at some position)
    11-15 -> 33%
    16-22 -> 8%
    23 -> 100% (well isn't that a geographical oddity)
    24-30 -> 7%
    31-41 -> 7%
    42 -> 66%
    43-60 (max) -> 3%

    DT Notes
    #13, #28, #65 each were taken in the first round as a DE

  14. #54
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member jkm, the stolen pifwafwi's Avatar
    Posts
    12,270
    vCash
    500

    Re: is OU's "natural talent" above, the same or below, the other teams?

    Also, the top state for DEs was easily TX with 10. Given our propensity for being undersized I think you can see why.

    TX 10
    SC 6
    FL 6
    CA 5
    GA 4
    OH 4
    LA 4

  15. #55
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1 Tear Down This Wall's Avatar
    Location
    Chair
    Posts
    4,901
    vCash
    500

    Re: is OU's "natural talent" above, the same or below, the other teams?

    Uh-huh. So, what is that supposed to be telling me, that NFL rosters are overflowing with two-star offensive and defensive linemen?
    "General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
    President Ronald Reagan at the Berlin Wall, June 12, 1987

  16. #56
    Administrator
    8timechamps's Avatar
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    19,085
    vCash
    1500

    Re: is OU's "natural talent" above, the same or below, the other teams?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tear Down This Wall View Post
    Okay, but I never said anything about the secondary coaching. We are talking offensive and defensive linemen, the current state of recruiting them, and the current state of coaching them.

    And, no one ever said we took 15 2-star players a year. But, if 2 out of the 3 you sign on the lines are 2-star players...that's going to show up in future seasons. We, supposedly, like to rotate eight or nine DLs during games because of the "scary" offenses the Big 12 schools run (but, which fail to produce national titles...but, that's a different discussion).

    The depth is crap now, it seems. And, getting crappier.

    Anyway, as that dipf*ck Howard Schnellenberger said about his self-assured success at OU, "The only variable now is time." Yes, Howard. Yes. And, now we wait to see whether one of Leach's proteges can miraculously coach the 2-star signees to something resembling what we had in the early 2000s.

    Ditto the DL coach from ever-faltering Michigan. I can't even do this. Getting our butts handed to us three games in a row (and, luckily escaping the Texas disaster due to special teams and defensive touchdown)...it's ridiculous.

    But...we deserve this football hell in many ways. You let too much mediocrity into your conference and it will become mediocre. As it stands, the leaders of our conference are three teams who should be in Conference USA, or whatever the hell conference houses Tulsa now.

    They haven't risen to our level - we have sunk to theirs.

    Embarrassing.
    I'm going to let the season play out before making any declarations. I think you're too close to the cliff, but I may be wrong. You may be listening to too much media hype, or maybe you're one of those guys that is only happy with an undefeated national title year. Either way, you're overreacting.

  17. #57
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member jkm, the stolen pifwafwi's Avatar
    Posts
    12,270
    vCash
    500

    Re: is OU's "natural talent" above, the same or below, the other teams?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tear Down This Wall View Post
    Uh-huh. So, what is that supposed to be telling me, that NFL rosters are overflowing with two-star offensive and defensive linemen?
    Lets do last year's pro bowl to see (this will be the first time i've ever looked at this data and thought it might be a good test)

    OT
    Trent Williams - 3* OG
    Duane Brown - 3* TE
    Branden Albert - 2*
    Jordan Gross - played for Utah in 1999 so you can assume he would have been 2* or 3* given Utah's rankings from 2002
    Joe Thomas - 4*
    Tyron Smith - 5*

    OG
    Logan Mankins - Played for Fresno State in 2000 so you can assume 0* or 2*
    Marshall Yanda - 3*
    Kyle Long - 3*
    Ben Grubbs - 4*
    Evan Mathis - Played for Alabama in 2000 so assume 4*
    Jahri Evans - 0* (attended Bloomsburg University on an academic scholly)

    OC
    Mike Pouncey - 4*
    Alex Mack - 2*
    Ryan Kalil - 3*
    Nick Mangold - 4*

    So basically, a 3rd of the OL in last year's pro bowl was a 2* recruit or lower. Another 3rd were 3*s and the rest of higher rankings. So not quite swimming, but a lot higher than anyone on this board would have guessed.

  18. #58
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1 Tear Down This Wall's Avatar
    Location
    Chair
    Posts
    4,901
    vCash
    500

    Re: is OU's "natural talent" above, the same or below, the other teams?

    Quote Originally Posted by 8timechamps View Post
    I'm going to let the season play out before making any declarations. I think you're too close to the cliff, but I may be wrong. You may be listening to too much media hype, or maybe you're one of those guys that is only happy with an undefeated national title year. Either way, you're overreacting.
    Watching our lines be dominated three games in a row is overreacting to the question posed in the thread title - "is OU's "natural talent" above, the same or below, the other teams"?

    I don't think so.

    We obviously don't have better talent. And, all I did was point out that it's likely a shortfall in coaching as well. Then, went ahead a reminded everyone that the two line coach geniuses are not bringing in a ton of high quality talent to replace the "average league"-type talent already here.
    "General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
    President Ronald Reagan at the Berlin Wall, June 12, 1987

  19. #59
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member jkm, the stolen pifwafwi's Avatar
    Posts
    12,270
    vCash
    500

    Re: is OU's "natural talent" above, the same or below, the other teams?

    Defense
    DT
    Suh - 4*
    Dontari Poe - 2*
    Gerald McCoy - 5*
    Kyle Williams - 4*
    Jason Hatcher - Played at Grambling in 2000 so assume 0* or 2*
    Marcell Dareus - 3*

    DE
    Cameron Wake - Played at PSU in 1999 so assume 4*
    Robert Quinn - 4*
    Cameron Jordan - 3*
    Greg Hardy - 3*
    Mario Williams - 4*
    JJ Watt - 2*

    So I figured this would be a little weird. Basically 1/2 are assumed to be 4* or above and 1/2 3* or under.

  20. #60
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member jkm, the stolen pifwafwi's Avatar
    Posts
    12,270
    vCash
    500

    Re: is OU's "natural talent" above, the same or below, the other teams?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tear Down This Wall View Post
    Watching our lines be dominated three games in a row is overreacting to the question posed in the thread title - "is OU's "natural talent" above, the same or below, the other teams"?

    I don't think so.

    We obviously don't have better talent. And, all I did was point out that it's likely a shortfall in coaching as well. Then, went ahead a reminded everyone that the two line coach geniuses are not bringing in a ton of high quality talent to replace the "average league"-type talent already here.
    Well, to be fair, our DTs are better now than they were when Shipp was here. Yes we spun down some DEs (Tapper and Nduluae) to do it, but they aren't being pushed back 5 yards on every play like they were before. Unfortunately better doesn't necessarily mean we are where we need to be.

    On the OL, we are better at consistently getting hats on men, but we aren't as good at winning those battles (much less winning them decisively).

    All in all, at this point, we look like we've traded one set of problems for a different set of problems.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •