Does it worry anyone else that Monty has never been a Coordinator? He's a helluva position coach and recruiter but I think there may be some struggles his first couple of seasons
Does it worry anyone else that Monty has never been a Coordinator? He's a helluva position coach and recruiter but I think there may be some struggles his first couple of seasons
Wait. Stoops said that? I completely missed it. I thought he evaded the question about Shannon and Mixon.Originally Posted by LesNessman
Really!?
Beware the man who would rule you for your own good. He will never cease. He will regulate every aspect of your life, destroy your liberty and enslave you, and sleep well convinced that he has made the world a better place.
Right before TCU. If I remember our schedule correctly we had a bye week. I'm not sure if NCAA prohibits practice during bye week but Stoops almost made it sound like his players weren't going to be around anyway so why should he be. It would have been around the end of September, so class was definitely in session; no fall break at OU other than the Friday before OU-Texas
That was a non-news item. Stoops has said they were doing the right things and are on track to return to the team on several occasions - he just repeated it again when asked. He can't say for sure because there is a timeline associated with each player and they could mess-up or leave along the way. With Shannon, it's a title IX thing, so Stoops doesn't even have any say. With Mixon, I'm sure it must be a consensus between Stoops/Joe C./Boren. He didn't say it today, but I thought Mixon would be back for this (Spring) semester. I hope that hasn't changed. Shannon was going to be a full academic year, so not until summer.
I don't think you are getting what I'm saying here. BV was stop the run then the pass. MS is stop the pass then the run. Those biases are very important because they cover up talent deficiencies because of weight of numbers. If your focus is on the run (7 committed) then with equal talent you are going to look better than someone who isn't as focused (6 committed). This is one of the reasons that I was lamenting our lack of Talent at LB in 2007. Yes, Loftin was good, but the guys around him were pretty bad. You just couldn't see it because their mistakes were covered up by weight of numbers.
To give an example, that we hashed out ad nauseum in 2013
in 2011 BV's Defense looked like this:
Rushing 3.68 Yards Per Attempt
Passing 6.64 Yards Per Attempt
Scoring 22.1 Per Game
In 2012, MS had this
Rushing 5.17 Yards Per Attempt
Passing 6.39 Yards Per Attempt
Scoring 25.5 Per Game
Basically, we ran straight man which took the corners out of run defense (since their men just ran them out of the play). This meant that adding an extra man into pass pro netted us .3 yards per pass, but cost us 1.5 yards per rush. The extra rushing yards killed us on 3rd down (increase in 13% conversions for opponents). But this was the 1st year of the system so lets see what last years better D did
In 2013, MS
Rushing 4.09 Yards Per Attempt
Passing 6.75 Yards Per Attempt
Scoring 22.1 Per Game
Once again, our run defense did get better but only because we added one safety for run defense (meaning a loss of 1 run defender instead of 2 like in 2012), but at the cost of much worse pass defense. When you start looking hard at these numbers, you see why we ran much more zone this year. Zone gives you so much more bang for the buck (remember that was one of the worst BV defenses and Mike hasn't beat it yet). So what happened this year when we were back to the same run numbers as BV had?
In 2014, MS
Rushing 3.02 Yards Per Attempt (wut?)
Passing 7.04 Yards Per Attempt
Scoring 25.9 Per Game
Personally, i think Kish is on the right path in his recruiting because California is where a crapton of NFL linebackers come from. I also think that he is actually evaluating them as he isn't going for the highly ranked kids but the low ranked kids (which as I've shown over my NFL draft posts is where all the draftees come from). However, I'm seriously worried about the fact that Evans was still on the field not giving a lick of effort when you had a guy like Gastelum who was busting his butt being just as effective with less talent.
However, I'm seriously worried about the fact that Evans was still on the field not giving a lick of effort when you had a guy like Gastelum who was busting his butt being just as effective with less talent.
EDIT - oops, partial post. I meant to agree with this.
Last edited by BoulderSooner79; 1/6/2015 at 06:01 PM.
The statistical breakdown is interesting, but I would argue that you also have to consider the quality of offenses played against, so that makes things a bit difficult. A better method would be to compare how teams did against our defense to what they averaged in their other games. Outside of TCU and Baylor, I don't think we faced many strong offensive teams this year. 2013 was arguably even lighter, because TCU wasn't very good. The Big 12 has been a completely different animal the past 2-3 years compared to what it was when Venables was here. And some of our defensive stats (like our offensive stats) were inflated by good performances against very bad teams (like Kansas and Iowa State).
Also, I would argue that by and large, our problems against the pass in 2011 were mostly related to coverage breakdowns/busts on the back end. Part of this might was certainly related to the scheme, which was heavily reliant on complex zone coverages/blitzes, but I don't think it's as simple as you make it sound. You could make a reasonable argument that with better secondary play/coaching in 2011, we could have had a pretty dominant defense.
We switched schemes after 2012, so this year was our second year running a 3-4 (though Venables had also essentially converted to a 3-4 during the latter part of 2010 and for most of 2011 until the bowl game). The rush yards per attempt were down this year, I would argue, because teams could complete underneath passes so easily that there wasn't much point in trying to run it, except in very short yardage situations or after the games were out of hand. We also got Jordan Phillips back and had several other returning contributors on the DL. Our DL play (especially the interior line play) has improved dramatically since 2012, and that has had more to do with improvement in the run game than anything related to the linebackers. Plus, we didn't really face a strong rushing offense all season.
With regards to the overall defense this year, the fact is that the LBs were a huge liability in pass coverage.
Last edited by graphster; 1/6/2015 at 06:12 PM.
Yes it worries me.
He's a Co-Coordinator, which is pretty different than running things by yourself. It was also implied that if Mike Stays, he will have primary responsibility for calling plays during the game. My guess is that the only way Mike leaves is if they replace him with an experienced defensive coach who could handle that responsibility. Monty will primarily be more involved in putting together the gameplan, and collaborating with Mike on gameday (similar to the way that Venables used to when Mike was here the first time) than he was in the past, but it's not the same thing as being responsible for orchestrating the entire defense.
We did this back in 2001-2, but what we found was that when you compare entire seasons, the variances were statistically insignificant and not worth the time spent. Basically, the way I phrase it is that these are "directionally correct" and can be used for high level statements.
That is the data architect in me. I spend way too much time trying to come up with simple ways to describe incredibly complex things. As for 2011, your memory is about 1/2 right.Also, I would argue that by and large, our problems against the pass in 2011 were mostly related to coverage breakdowns/busts on the back end. Part of this might was certainly related to the scheme, which was heavily reliant on complex zone coverages/blitzes, but I don't think it's as simple as you make it sound. You could make a reasonable argument that with better secondary play/coaching in 2011, we could have had a pretty dominant defense.
2011 - Opponent Passing TDs - 18, Opponent Rushing TDs - 15, red zone scores - 8 FG/20 TD (61% of TDs in the RZ)
2012 - Opponent Passing TDs - 11, Opponent Rushing TDs - 27, red zone scores - 7 FG/27 TD (71% of TDs in the RZ)
You can argue that, but the number of attempts were basically the same between 2011 and 2012 (476 vs 485). The DL is a discussion for a different time. I think that while it has gotten better, it is still way below what it needs to be.We switched schemes after 2012, so this year was our second year running a 3-4 (though Venables had also essentially converted to a 3-4 during the latter part of 2010 and for most of 2011 until the bowl game). The rush yards per attempt were down this year, I would argue, because teams could complete underneath passes so easily that there wasn't much point in trying to run it, except in very short yardage situations or after the games were out of hand. We also got Jordan Phillips back and had several other returning contributors on the DL. Our DL play (especially the interior line play) has improved dramatically since 2012, and that has had more to do with improvement in the run game than anything related to the linebackers. Plus, we didn't really face a strong rushing offense all season.
With regards to the overall defense this year, the fact is that the LBs were a huge liability in pass coverage.
Whoops, forgot to say that on the linebackers, you could have just left it at they were a liability.
Monty is an uber recruiter. Perhaps the title change is in name only so that he can recruit beyond a specific position?
I got that crazy idea based on a Switzer thing I just read on ESPN. He said OU only gave him a one-year deal after the promotion to head coach, but asked that they publicize it as a four-year deal so that it wouldn't impede recruiting
Coaching decisions are made for recruiting just as much as wins and losses these days, wouldn't you agree?
Again, though, I think you'd need more granulated data to assess this. And you'd probably need some film study to truly assess it. You would also want to look at disruptive plays (tackles for loss, sacks, fumbles forced and recovered, interceptions, etc...). I'd want to know third down conversion percentages, as well as the average yards to go on third down. And you'd want to look at busted coverages to see how often there were instances where defenders made mental mistakes that resulted in receivers running free in the secondary.
I remember several instances in 2011 when teams scored or converted long yardage situations because we either had a bust in coverage or because we had a DB misplay the ball. In the Baylor game, for instance, there were multiple times that we forced a 3rd and 10+, only for them to hit a homerun on third down. Not to mention the final drive. Against FSU, we nearly lost a lead at the end because we had a DB who misplayed a hail mary on 4th and forever. That didn't happen nearly as often in 2012, but then we also weren't as good against the run and we didn't force as many negative plays, so we had fewer of those situations. Clearly part of the improvement in 2012 was a simplification of the defensive scheme to be more reliant on man to man coverage with safety over the top.
But I would argue that we had a number of instances in 2011 when we were fairly good at putting the other team in obvious passing situations, but then had a breakdown in the secondary. Even if the scheme is the primary reason for the difference, there's no reason that you couldn't have combined some of the aggressive zone/zone blitz stuff on first and second down, and then used more man to man in obvious passing situations. When Mike originally agreed to come back, that was the expectation. That he would add that capacity to the defense to compensate for Venables' weaknesses with respect to defending the pass in long yardage or obvious pass situations (i.e. against opponents who did nothing but air it out or were way behind and had no choice).
Venables' big problem as a D-Coordinator was that he was never really able to incorporate man coverage in a meaningful way, despite the fact that we often had athletic CBs and safeties who could have executed it effectively. As a result, we often had problems with mental mistakes that resulted in big plays, and we also had issues getting some of the more physically talented players on the field because they struggled with the scheme.
I don't know if he said it or not. I just posted it as my opinion.
So far, the changes are just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
We went through this before BV left. There isn't enough practice time in college football to mix schemes. You basically have 205 hours pre-season to work on player development and install your schemes of which 50 hours can't be in full pads (this will change now that they are letting coaches handle the 7 on 7 summer leagues, but I'm not sure how much). During the week, you can spend a maximum of 15 hours on football (including meetings and weight training). The sheer number of keys involved (and live repetitions to see them in action) precludes having exotic gameplans from week to week like they do in the pros (where they spend 40+ hours on football a week).
This is further complicated by level of competence in the system by the players. True Freshman are going to have no prior base so the coach has to spend a ton of extra time with them getting their keys and general knowledge high enough to play without busting all over the place (they also lose the 45 hours of spring practice that was in that original 205 number). So while you might be able to pull off exotic swaps on defense if you have 4 RS SRs who have started all 4 years, in practice you are typically dealing with 1/2 your secondary being 1st year starters who are FR or SO.
The last logistical problem is early entrants. Under Stoops, we've only had 1 early entrant that we didn't have a huge drop off in production at the position the next year (Tommie Harris). This puts added pressure on a coach to simplify his base scheme so that losing your best player a year or two early doesn't impact you as much as it would in a very complex system.
Back to BV - There wasn't anything wrong with BVs systems. Other teams had rode those same schemes to MNCs in the timeframe that we were running them. What hurt him was the mismatch of players recruited versus the needs of the system. His system required first and foremost guys who could understand their keys, quickly process information and be assignment sound. We then watch those ESPN inside tapes of practice with the secondary guys going "One time he is saying I got the Z, then the next I got the X - I don't think he even knows". You then have one of the other guys trying to explain that the key is what the X/Z do at the mesh point between the zones that determines which he has and our poor starting DB looks like he is listening to the peanuts teacher.
When Mike came in with mostly these same kids, he simplified all this down to "You have this guy". This worked much better in that our guys were much more assignment sound than they were under BV, but it also exposed our glaring issues.
1. Lack of talent at LB
2. Lack of talent at DT
3. Big 12 Refs suck but suck in inconsistent ways (specifically calling picks, allowing downfield blocking etc)
4. Mobile QBs are rampant in college football and eat man to man alive
So this year we go back to running a lot more zone with a bunch of freshmen dbs. They bust all over the place because of the same reason they did under BV. It takes time to get them ramped up.
So what do I think should happen?
1. We are going to have to scrap giving scholarships to special teamers and use them on DBs. Given our inability to find quality guys we need to recruit 25-50% more dbs than we need.
2. We are going to have to dig up some more scholarships for linebackers which means less at other positions.
3. Some of these offers need to be to kids who are "coaches on the field". Basically, you have to extend your practice hours by adding guys that will continue to teach other players when the coaches can't because of NCAA restrictions.
else, we adopt the SEC approach of 'you suck, bye'
I think we mostly agree here. In order to run the kind of man to man defense that we used in 2012, you need to have dominant players in the front 7 -- which we did not.
I guess my bigger point was that the primary problems with Venables' defense were breakdowns in pass coverage -- ironically the same problems that as you mention we now face. This included some problems with LBs covering over the middle, but was mostly related to safeties and to a lesser extent corners on the back-end. At the time, the claim was that this was largely a product of poor secondary coaching -- thus Willie Martinez' departure. And the hope was that by bringing Mike back to help coach the DBs (safeties in particular), we would rectify those problems.
I am not arguing that Venables was some sort of great defensive coordinator. But I would argue that if you isolate the LB play and the LB recruiting under him, it was better than we have gotten from Kish. There may well be others out there who would do considerably better than either of them. That's not really my point. My point is that the LB play has been average the past two years (again, granted that the unit has faced significant injuries and suspensions), and that recruiting has not been particularly strong either. As you mention, LB is a critical position for us to recruit effectively. When your DL coach is landing LB recruits, while your LB coach is watching guys that he was the primary recruiter on flip to another school, that suggests a lot about where the weak link (or one of the weak links) on the coaching staff is.
With regards to the secondary, there were a number of times this year that we did attempt to play aggressive, press coverage in the secondary -- and we got burned deep enough that we couldn't use it consistently, even in situations where we had used it effectively in previous years. Whether this is talent or poor coaching of technique (or both), is probably up for debate. Given that we also seem to have substantial issues, both in terms of player development and in terms of recruiting, I would argue that coaching changes at that position are also in order (up to and including Mike Stoops).
We are now 3 years in with this defensive staff, and the only position that has shown a positive trend-line over time has been the DL. If we're going to replace Heupel and Norvell (rightly so, I would argue) for their inability to develop consistent QB and WR play over the past 2 years, then I would argue that the same standard should be applied on the defensive side of the ball. And that means that Kish and BJW should definitely go. You will not convince me that we cannot find other coaches out there who couldn't recruit and develop better at their positions at the University of Oklahoma. And I would also say that Mike Stoops should also either be replaced or should be on a very short leash, given the defensive performance not only this year, but over the past 3 years (which have ranged from downright bad, to average, to downright bad in a different way). I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that his defenses could perform better with superior position coaches, but I don't think he should be given a free pass since his area of specialization is precisely the area where we struggled so much (both in terms of recruiting and development).
Last edited by graphster; 1/7/2015 at 03:07 PM.
I like your 30,000 foot analysis, JKM. Nice thing about 'too many' DBs and LBs is that they can all play special teams so, theoretically, you don't need as many dedicated ST guys.
"I don't know karate, but I know ka-razor!" - James Brown
Here's more on the pre-TCU bye week vacation to Florida:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/columnists...34559e8ac.html
Excerpt:
The purpose of the trip was never revealed, and that’s fine; if it was indeed a personal trip as Stoops hinted on Tuesday, then what he actually did is none of our business. But even after I’d gotten confirmation of the trip itself from two independent sources, it just isn’t a question that can suddenly be blurted out during the usual Stoops weekly press conference.
“Hey Bob, I know you’re getting ready to play Kansas State this week, but why’d you fly to Florida last month, and did it cost you the TCU game?”
Believe it or not, there’s a proper decorum for such a question.
So I stored it away to ask specifically during what I anticipated would be the annual postseason wrap-up press conference. That came Tuesday morning.
Posting Permissions
