Football question

[Eielson]

I was as negative as anybody about Barnes in the opener, but he was unquestionably our best RB against Michigan. Weird to see all the complaints.

 

[mict085]

I was as negative as anybody about Barnes in the opener, but he was unquestionably our best RB against Michigan. Weird to see all the complaints.

True. He still runs into the backs of his blockers too often but he was great on that last drive. He played well.

 

[WTSooner]

You do everything you can to get him meaningful reps in case of injury, and if you have to play him 3 more games prior to the postseason, you burn that redshirt without hesitation. He has at least 2 more years of eligibility even if you burn it, and there's zero chance he stays here 5 years.

It's not about saving a year for him at OU, it's about not wasting TWO years at OU for the kid's career, even if he ends up transferring.

I don't blame BV for it, but we did Hawkins a little dirty last year. To do the same this year and essentially waste two years of eligibility so he could start about 5 games combined, that is less than ideal.

I try to play him in one game, either Temple or Kent State, then I'm saving him until the end of the season.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

I don't blame BV for it, but we did Hawkins a little dirty last year.

Really? How?
Dude was a true freshman that got real playing time. He did ok under the circumstances and had a real shot to take the job and never look back.

From everything we have seen of BV, I highly doubt he would have thrown him out there without Hawkins wanting that chance.
And Hawkins knew that if he stayed this year, he would be behind mateer.
And I am assuming BV will not jeopardize his redshirt unless MH gives the OK

 

[WTSooner]

Really? How?
Dude was a true freshman that got real playing time. He did ok under the circumstances and had a real shot to take the job and never look back.

From everything we have seen of BV, I highly doubt he would have thrown him out there without Hawkins wanting that chance.
And Hawkins knew that if he stayed this year, he would be behind mateer.
And I am assuming BV will not jeopardize his redshirt unless MH gives the OK

By basically playing him just enough to burn his redshirt, and not much more. One of three things needed to happen:

1. Either you say the Auburn and texas games were enough to see that he wasn't ready to start or any better than Arnold, and you start Arnold against South Carolina and try to maintain his redshirt by not playing him any more.
2. You do exactly what you did up until starting him against South Carolina, but you even after benching him, you have to find a way to let him throw more than 5 passes the rest of the regular season. Arnold started looking better, but a) everybody knew he was gone, and b) some of his improvement was the offensive change to JJF and tweaks to the offense and play calling. Hawkins could have benefited from that as well. The offense still struggled in pretty much every game except against Bama. There were chances to play him more, after we burnt his redshirt.
3. After burning his redshirt year last year, you let him redshirt this year by bringing in QB that can be #2 for the year, and we don't have to worry about "do we play him or do we not."

Hawkins was always raw and was going to need time to develop. Assuming Mateer is back next year (which I'm assuming), I'm not sure Hawkins is ever the starting QB at OU. But that doesn't mean we should be playing him so little in 5 games that he neither gains experience nor keeps his redshirt.