Football question

[BCSooners]

The stupidity and dishonesty of some of your posts is truly astounding. I have not raved about Blaylock. I thought he was solid and should have been playing more than Barnes because, well, Barnes is a terrible running back. I felt like there was some reason to be optimistic that Blaylock could turn into a good player and I still feel that way, but nothing about his season screams out that he should be a feature SEC back. Again, he had one good game against quality competition. He got hurt (because that’s what happens to our players) in week one and everyone just assumes he will be a stud if he stays healthy. Did Barnes improve over his career? Did Sawchuk turn into a stud? Who was the last RB we had who took a massive leap over the course of his career? Barnes and Sawchuk arguably peaked as freshman in a meaningless bowl game.

To be fair, that is your version of raving about anything OU related.

 

[Boom Soon]

Ya’ll are arguing about the running back room. The running back room will never be what we want it to be with the combination of Murray, BB and Arbuckle. Doesn’t matter who’s back there. There’s a major disconnect in the running game with amongst the staff, imo.

Until those three get it figured out it’s lot even worth talking about which back is better than who.

 

[Boom Soon]

Murray, and our offensive staff as a whole, has been terrible at developing players, yet you seem to put a lot of blind faith in simply expecting internal improvement. That’s not based on anything that any of those guys has actually done. Again, not a single guy on our roster has shown an ability to (a) stay healthy or (b) be a productive lead back for 12 games in the SEC. Our leading rusher ran for 444 yards, for crying out loud. There isn’t a single guy in that room who any opponent fears or has to game plan around. There is a reason why, with the season on the line, our quarterback, who is a good but not great runner, carried it more than our two running backs combined.

Facts. The running game has been an absolute mess the last two years. Doesn’t matter who’s back there.

One game it’s weird rotations. The next game it’s oline injuries. Oh, the oline is healthy and Murray has finally found his top two? Arbuckle completely abandons the run for a half.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

As I tell my children, when you're losing an argument, the key is to improve your argument. You can throw a fit and call people names, but it won't help people take you more seriously.

Predictions will often be wrong, like most of yours this past season, as it's based on information we don't have. It's a thing we do for fun on message boards, and we've all made embarrassing picks in hindsight. Getting facts wrong about what has already happened is a lot harder to justify.

I rely a lot on advanced statistics, so it's hard to have a conversation with somebody that doesn't understand SP+, EPA, or even the difference between QBR and passer rating.

But anybody should be able to look up our traditional statistics and say that a true freshman has been RB3 or higher four times in the last four seasons under Demarco. So the notion that a true freshman can't be RB3 or higher under DeMarco is simply wrong. It's hilarious wrong when considering that our leading rusher from last year contributed from day 1 as a true freshman.

Take the L and find a different hill to die on. That is an indefensible stance.

I think you are missing the point.
The point isn't that a freshman can't or won't be RB3 or higher.
Its that it hasn't really been ideal to rely on a freshman as your RB1 or 2 and hasn't shown great results

 

[WichitaSooner]

I think you are missing the point.
The point isn't that a freshman can't or won't be RB3 or higher.
Its that it hasn't really been ideal to rely on a freshman as your RB1 or 2 and hasn't shown great results

And to his point, sure, a freshman can be an RB3 for us. The question is whether they are in that spot because they are productive, or because the guys in front of them are hurt and/or terrible. If enough guys ahead of you suck, get hurt, or quit, by default, the freshmen will eventually trot out there and produce mediocre results on limited carries.

The funniest part is this guy trying to act like he understands advanced stats while at the same time trying to argue that we have a good RB room that doesn't need to be upgraded. We were barely top 100 in the nation in our running game this season. But by all means, we should rely on the same guys and a small kick returner, and an incoming freshman.

 

[snydrosooner]

We don’t really know what we have in the running back room. OL struggled to run block, TE struggled to run block, QB made some bad decisions on RPO( some good as well), and RBs were not ready by injury, effort, or redshirting. We have highly touted guys but have had that before. If they thought they could add someone quality they will or at least try. I am afraid the Ott experiment will hurt portal transfers until we show ability to run more consistently.

 

[mict085]

We are killing it in the portal. Nagy is doing great work.

 

[BCSooners]

So OU is losing 5 starters on offense, and in 2 days have found 4 starters. Also 4 backups, including Marcus Strong's replacement. Pretty great work.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

Big DL pickup for depth and huge WR pick up flipping arch's roommate

 

[Eielson]

The funniest part is this guy trying to act like he understands advanced stats while at the same time trying to argue that we have a good RB room that doesn't need to be upgraded.

Did you mean to include an advanced stat to counter my stance? The response doesn't otherwise make sense.

 

[Eielson]

I think you are missing the point.
The point isn't that a freshman can't or won't be RB3 or higher.

That's literally what was said. That Demarco isn't willing to play a freshman RB...despite the fact that he's done it repeatedly, including our leading rusher from last year.

Its that it hasn't really been ideal to rely on a freshman as your RB1 or 2 and hasn't shown great results

Who said anything about a true freshman as RB1 or 2? We have proven players at those spots returning. Hatton and Avant are RB3 and RB4, which I'm quite content with.

I don't know how anybody watched last year and thinks our RB room is worse because Ott isn't part of it.

 

[Eielson]

We've improved at most positions, and if Sategna returns, we didn't get worse at any position other than backup DT. For a 10 win playoff team.

If you're complaining right now, your true colors are showing. I have nothing but excitement for next year at this point.

 

[Stikboy]

Is the UTSA guy an edge or DT?

 

[Eielson]

Is the UTSA guy an edge or DT?

Sounds like he can play either. Jonah Laulu type.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

We've improved at most positions, and if Sategna returns, we didn't get worse at any position other than backup DT. For a 10 win playoff team.

If you're complaining right now, your true colors are showing. I have nothing but excitement for next year at this point.

I'm ecstatic.
I'd just really feel a lot better if we landed a proven RB.
At this point I just don't think you can rely on X or blaylock to be healthy all year.
And I don't like relying on freshmen (maybe if we had an established oline and run game I would)

 

[Eielson]

I'm ecstatic.
I'd just really feel a lot better if we landed a proven RB.
At this point I just don't think you can rely on X or blaylock to be healthy all year.
And I don't like relying on freshmen (maybe if we had an established oline and run game I would)

If X gets hurt and if Blaylock gets hurt and if Hatton isn't any good, then yes, I'll have concerns about our RB room. But that's a lot of ifs...and even then, we might be fine if the blocking is improved.

I'd challenge you to name more than a couple of our RBs this century that were valuable contributors later in their careers but not as freshmen. From AD to Demarco to Mixon to Perine to Sermon to even Kennedy Brooks and now X and Blaylock. I'm sure there are a few, but Rodney is one of the only I can think of, and that was largely due to injuries and being buried by a couple future NFL starters.

We have decades of data that don't support the notion that freshmen RBs don't contribute. It's the easiest position.

 

[WichitaSooner]

If X gets hurt and if Blaylock gets hurt and if Hatton isn't any good, then yes, I'll have concerns about our RB room. But that's a lot of ifs...and even then, we might be fine if the blocking is improved.

I'd challenge you to name more than a couple of our RBs this century that were valuable contributors later in their careers but not as freshmen. From AD to Demarco to Mixon to Perine to Sermon to even Kennedy Brooks and now X and Blaylock. I'm sure there are a few, but Rodney is one of the only I can think of, and that was largely due to injuries and being buried by a couple future NFL starters.

We have decades of data that don't support the notion that freshmen RBs don't contribute. It's the easiest position.

They both already got hurt. Multiple times.

I'd challenge you to find any evidence that we have had any good RBs the past two seasons, let alone good freshmen RBs. X has played four or five good games total in two years and didn't see the field till November of his first year. Blaylock has had one good game against an actual opponent and averaged 3.1 YPC when you don't count the mighty trio of Illinois State, Temple, and Kent State. So if your theory is true that in order to have good careers at OU, guys need to be good as freshmen, we definitely shouldn't expect much from them. And what was the reason we were constantly given for why X didn't play the first two months last year? Because DeMarco and crew didn't feel like he was "ready."

If X and Blaylock are 100 percent healthy next year (no RB ever is, but let's live in fantasy land), and if our line is better, we will still be in the bottom half of the SEC at RB.

 

[BoulderSooner]

They both already got hurt. Multiple times.

I'd challenge you to find any evidence that we have had any good RBs the past two seasons, let alone good freshmen RBs. X has played four or five good games total in two years and didn't see the field till November of his first year. Blaylock has had one good game against an actual opponent and averaged 3.1 YPC when you don't count the mighty trio of Illinois State, Temple, and Kent State. So if your theory is true that in order to have good careers at OU, guys need to be good as freshmen, we definitely shouldn't expect much from them. And what was the reason we were constantly given for why X didn't play the first two months last year? Because DeMarco and crew didn't feel like he was "ready."

If X and Blaylock are 100 percent healthy next year (no RB ever is, but let's live in fantasy land), and if our line is better, we will still be in the bottom half of the SEC at RB.

blaylock got hurt once .. this shoulder ..

 

[SoonerBounce13]

blaylock got hurt once .. this shoulder ..

pretty sure he was hurt more than once this year. It might have been a reaggravation but that is splitting hairs

 

[WichitaSooner]

blaylock got hurt once .. this shoulder ..

Whether you consider it one injury, or reaggravating it multiple times during the year, the fact is, dude got hurt week one and people used it as an excuse/reason for why he wasn't effective throughout the whole season. Every pod recapping a game talked about how he was toughing it out but didn't seem healthy. So, again, my question is, why would we expect anything different next year? Running back is a violent position. Great backs play through stuff and still produce. If a guy gets hurt week one against an FCS school and isn't healthy the rest of the season, does it inspire a lot of confidence going forward?