Why did we rekick?

[BoulderSooner79]

If that's the case then why did he say we wanted to pooch it?

It was a pooch punt and he also said it was a mistake in retrospect.

I would have declined the penalty too, but I'm just saying that kicking away and sailing it over the endzone would not have been a terrible call. It would have denied any possibility of a return and burned the time he was looking to burn. But any kick that allowed Hill to touch the ball was just dumb. The guy is elusive and known to be one of the fastest guys in all of CFB. I guess I could look at it the other way and say at least he was going for the kill. I never think of the punt coverage team the same way I think of the regular offense and defense since some players don't even like playing ST. Odd Stoops would play so conservative on offense and a bit reckless with the punt team.

[SoonerorLater]

I think this was the worst on-field decision Stoops has made, at least that I recall. You have a punter, who to be kind, is not one of the greatest to ever take the field for OU. He just got roughed up on a near block the previous play but managed to get the kick off and put OU in an advantageous position on the 15 yard line with about a minute left in the game. To expect a better overall result from having the kicker attempt a pooch punt to trim another 8-10 seconds off the clock is IMO, just an incomprehensible blunder.

At that point you have a team with a freshman QB starting his second game on his own 15 yard line, with no timeouts, who had just got picked off the previous possession and you think re-kicking will give you a better chance of winning the game? In order for a coach to even think of doing something like this tells me he has just about zero faith in his defense.

[IslandSooner]

If Bobs goal was to run another 8-10 seconds off the clock, it worked!!! 😉

[BoulderSooner79]

I think this was the worst on-field decision Stoops has made, at least that I recall. You have a punter, who to be kind, is not one of the greatest to ever take the field for OU. He just got roughed up on a near block the previous play but managed to get the kick off and put OU in an advantageous position on the 15 yard line with about a minute left in the game. To expect a better overall result from having the kicker attempt a pooch punt to trim another 8-10 seconds off the clock is IMO, just an incomprehensible blunder.

At that point you have a team with a freshman QB starting his second game on his own 15 yard line, with no timeouts, who had just got picked off the previous possession and you think re-kicking will give you a better chance of winning the game? In order for a coach to even think of doing something like this tells me he has just about zero faith in his defense.

No one is going to disagree with you. I'm just saying that giving them the ball on the 20 and burning 8 seconds is a good tradeoff in that situation vs. keeping it on the 15. We all agree the risk to get that tradeoff is not worth it. But any punter, even a weak one, can sail it out of play from that position on the field, so the risk was low. But Bob went farther than that - he wanted the time and the yardage at significantly more risk and got burned.

[Sooner70]

BoulderSooner79: "...But any kick that allowed Hill to touch the ball was just dumb....."

AMEN!

[cvsooner]

Gunners should have been instructed to interfere with HIll if it was clear he wasn't going to fair catch it. We'd have been better off there too. Honestly, having had Sunday to think about it, I understand the strategy. I don't like it, it's not the choice I'd have made...an extra five yards and maybe burn 7 or 8 seconds off the clock. Risk outweighs the reward when one of the most dangerous returners in the world is back there receiving. I just cannot believe Barnett was not told to kick it anywhere but there. I have no idea, of course, but surely he was told that? So it was a bad punt, or he misunderstood, or he wasn't told, or he did it anyway?

It would be interesting to note what Barnett had to say.

[BoulderSooner79]

Gunners should have been instructed to interfere with HIll if it was clear he wasn't going to fair catch it. We'd have been better off there too. Honestly, having had Sunday to think about it, I understand the strategy. I don't like it, it's not the choice I'd have made...an extra five yards and maybe burn 7 or 8 seconds off the clock. Risk outweighs the reward when one of the most dangerous returners in the world is back there receiving. I just cannot believe Barnett was not told to kick it anywhere but there. I have no idea, of course, but surely he was told that? So it was a bad punt, or he misunderstood, or he wasn't told, or he did it anyway?

It would be interesting to note what Barnett had to say.

I believe Stoops said the kick was supposed to go left, just like it did on the first kick and Barnett kicked it right. I believe that because there was only 1 guy coming down to cover on the right and he was watching the ball instead of Hill and ran right by him. I suspect most the coverage had run to the left and could not get over in time. But that gets back to the risk/reward question. The risk includes your punter messing up vs the reward of burning 8 seconds. Even if he had kicked it left and we had Hill surrounded, you just never know. I've seen incredible escapes by return guys. I remember the returner for the KC Chiefs being totally surround by Bronco coverage guys a few years back and somehow escaping and scoring. He was the "X factor" guy that would put his arms in an 'X' after a big play (Hall maybe?)