Am I the only one who is sick of football?

[stoops4pres]

You haven't been around long obviously. I can count on a 1 hand the games Stoops has won as an underdog in his 12 years.

Stoops won as an underdog about as much as a hand's-worth in the 2000 season alone (Texas, K-State, Nebraska, FSU); he has won as an underdog more than just 5 times.

Last one I think was Oregon way back in the Bomar 2005 season. Before that you had to go back to 2000. Stoops has lost 34 games at OU and only won 5 or fewer as an underdog. That's way lopsided.

Stoops won as an underdog at OSU last year. And I can't remember the precise spread, but I recall most of the pundits predicting FSU to beat OU in Norman last season, as well.

I think you aren't realizing that a coach that has taken program to elite status will have more losses than underdog wins. After all, that's why they are hardly ever the underdogs, because their program is so elite that they're always expected to win.

 

[Mr.B!!!]

I'm of the opinion that we have enough talent within our program that we do not need to run a gimmick "hurry-up" offense to win games against 99% of the teams out there. I'll be the first to admit, when that offense is "on" it is impressive to watch, but when you have to bring in two fullbacks and a 250 lb. QB to pick up a yard or two, there might be a problem with the scheme you are running overall.

 

[WTSooner]

but when you have to bring in two fullbacks and a 250 lb. QB to pick up a yard or two, there might be a problem with the scheme you are running overall.

Why do people keep saying this, as if it's ALWAYS been a problem with this offense. It hasn't. We are usually REALLY good in the redzone. Why is this year different? I don't know for sure. Mostly b/c we don't have a TE worth a flip. Coupled with Landry's reads/accuracy regressing, and there you have it. Rather than look at it as a negative, I think it's a positive that a) are coaches were willing to try something when the status quo wasn't working, and b) that is worked so well.

 

[WTSooner]

And which school that has a good offense DOESN'T run something you'd consider gimmicky? Stanford might be one of the few I can think of. OU's is no more gimmicky then what UT is trying to do. Or what OSU does. Or what Houston/Baylor do.

 

[MsProudSooner]

And which school that has a good offense DOESN'T run something you'd consider gimmicky? Stanford might be one of the few I can think of. OU's is no more gimmicky then what UT is trying to do. Or what OSU does. Or what Houston/Baylor do.

It's similar to the 'big game' argument. If we won it, it wasn't a 'big game'. If it's our offense, it must be gimmicky.

 

[stoops4pres]

Why do people keep saying this, as if it's ALWAYS been a problem with this offense. It hasn't. We are usually REALLY good in the redzone. Why is this year different? I don't know for sure. Mostly b/c we don't have a TE worth a flip. Coupled with Landry's reads/accuracy regressing, and there you have it.

True. Also, I'd add that while our OL was pretty good in pass protection this season, their run blocking left much to be desired.

Rather than look at it as a negative, I think it's a positive that a) are coaches were willing to try something when the status quo wasn't working, and b) that is worked so well.

That's the way I see it as well. I think it reflects the strengths of what Bell and Millard bring to the table more than anything. It's all about maximizing the probability of conversion on 3rd and short, so give me the best fullback in the country paving the way for a 240-lb QB that seemingly has yet to be tackled for a loss, everytime.

 

[stoops4pres]

It's similar to the 'big game' argument. If we won it, it wasn't a 'big game'. If it's our offense, it must be gimmicky.

Haha... Pretty much.