Ham
New member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2012
- Messages
- 218
- Reaction score
- 0
I love Sooner hoops but never played past the 9th grade. I am out of my element on some of the discussion but I love to read it and there are some level-headed people here. That's why I joined this forum. Most of the other places are full of mouthbreathing football-morons. But I am a football guy and I can...almost see some of Boca's point. Just a bit of it. Maybe BOK will appreciate this (based on his comment above) So please don't take this as a 'defense' of what Boca said, but IMO, this is what a good criticism of Stoops looks like. I like Bob and want him to be our coach but I want to see a change in basic football philosophy. Allow me to explain.
The only legitimate gripe, IMO- in a 'macro' sense - about the Stoops tenure is how soft the defense has been (at times) since 2001 but especially since 2005 after Mike left. And also the lack of running game at times has left the offense quite soft.
We can't ignore OSU in 2002 (or even the DB play at A&M that year).
We can't ignore the trashing at the hands of KSU in 2003.
But really those are small gripes compared to the nature of offenses over the last dozen years. You're going to give up some big plays. You're not playing against air. Lots of talented skill players in this conference. And mostly those were isolated incidents, A&M (can't even recall that scrambling QB's name) and Rashuan Woods. KSU was an anomaly.
But since then...I mean, we all know that the post-Mike list begins with USC and goes from there....People always think it's about the team being unprepared to play (WVU, Boise, etc.). Yes and No. It's not as much about not knowing what to do, or not caring about the game and coming out flat (etc.), as simply being about getting smacked in the mouth by somenoe and not expecting it.
When I grew up and played footbball (my career ended in '92) there were two conferences known as softies. The Rose Bowl girls (aside from USC). They'd look good against each other and then they'd play the tough guys (Big 8, SEC, SWC) and get punched in the mouth.
I can't speak all that well to the 70's, but I can say with confidence that we have become a PAC-10 team (of the 80's and 90's) on offense and a Big Ten team (of the 80's and 90's) on defense. We are soft, to some extent, on both sides of the ball.
That is to say, like an old Terry Donahue UCLA team (just for a basic example) we can get into a track meet with you and light your butt up unless you can stop us. But if you stop us, and you have some horses of your own on offense, we're in trouble. Because we're too slow in the defensice backfield, like some Schembechler Michigan team getting exposed by a team that can sling it. Don't get tied up in the specifics (i.e. UCLA was never all that explosive), I hope you can appreciate what I'm trying to say.
The Big XII has become a soft conference. And the one team trying to remedy that...and I don't like it anymore than you do, is Texas. They are trying to re-establish a strong run attack and play more aggresive on D. And as soon as they finally get the horses again, watch out. Meanwhile, we're still running passes to the flat as a replacement for good old fashioned power running plays. I'll move on...I could say a thousand words about this.
In the 80's and early 90's, I was as much of a fan of the wishbone, and option football, or standard I-formation ball as I was of the West Coast Offense. In all three instances, you needed good fullbacks and tight ends and you used them often. You win championships, not only with defense but with a good running game. All prolific passing attacks that have won titles over the last many years, have all had good running games.
Until we get tougher and flat out better on defense, and firmly re-establish a power running game that can consistently get us 2nd and goal from the 3 or 3rd and 2 from the 50 yard line, we'll be 'padding' our trophy case by beating the other nancy's in this conference. And that is fine. I love conference championships. But we aren't going to be going toe to toe with the SEC until we do that. And until that happens, you can only blame Bob Stoops. So while I appreciate him and think he's done a great job and certainly don't want to see him fired or other such nonsense, he's overrated...because his resume has been inflated relative to this conference contrasting specifically with the SEC but also with Southern Cal or Miami when they were rolling.
I mean, take those SEC + USC (or Miami for a few years) teams out of it, and Stoops is unmatched. But who wants to do that? Those are the teams we want to beat.
The only legitimate gripe, IMO- in a 'macro' sense - about the Stoops tenure is how soft the defense has been (at times) since 2001 but especially since 2005 after Mike left. And also the lack of running game at times has left the offense quite soft.
We can't ignore OSU in 2002 (or even the DB play at A&M that year).
We can't ignore the trashing at the hands of KSU in 2003.
But really those are small gripes compared to the nature of offenses over the last dozen years. You're going to give up some big plays. You're not playing against air. Lots of talented skill players in this conference. And mostly those were isolated incidents, A&M (can't even recall that scrambling QB's name) and Rashuan Woods. KSU was an anomaly.
But since then...I mean, we all know that the post-Mike list begins with USC and goes from there....People always think it's about the team being unprepared to play (WVU, Boise, etc.). Yes and No. It's not as much about not knowing what to do, or not caring about the game and coming out flat (etc.), as simply being about getting smacked in the mouth by somenoe and not expecting it.
When I grew up and played footbball (my career ended in '92) there were two conferences known as softies. The Rose Bowl girls (aside from USC). They'd look good against each other and then they'd play the tough guys (Big 8, SEC, SWC) and get punched in the mouth.
I can't speak all that well to the 70's, but I can say with confidence that we have become a PAC-10 team (of the 80's and 90's) on offense and a Big Ten team (of the 80's and 90's) on defense. We are soft, to some extent, on both sides of the ball.
That is to say, like an old Terry Donahue UCLA team (just for a basic example) we can get into a track meet with you and light your butt up unless you can stop us. But if you stop us, and you have some horses of your own on offense, we're in trouble. Because we're too slow in the defensice backfield, like some Schembechler Michigan team getting exposed by a team that can sling it. Don't get tied up in the specifics (i.e. UCLA was never all that explosive), I hope you can appreciate what I'm trying to say.
The Big XII has become a soft conference. And the one team trying to remedy that...and I don't like it anymore than you do, is Texas. They are trying to re-establish a strong run attack and play more aggresive on D. And as soon as they finally get the horses again, watch out. Meanwhile, we're still running passes to the flat as a replacement for good old fashioned power running plays. I'll move on...I could say a thousand words about this.
In the 80's and early 90's, I was as much of a fan of the wishbone, and option football, or standard I-formation ball as I was of the West Coast Offense. In all three instances, you needed good fullbacks and tight ends and you used them often. You win championships, not only with defense but with a good running game. All prolific passing attacks that have won titles over the last many years, have all had good running games.
Until we get tougher and flat out better on defense, and firmly re-establish a power running game that can consistently get us 2nd and goal from the 3 or 3rd and 2 from the 50 yard line, we'll be 'padding' our trophy case by beating the other nancy's in this conference. And that is fine. I love conference championships. But we aren't going to be going toe to toe with the SEC until we do that. And until that happens, you can only blame Bob Stoops. So while I appreciate him and think he's done a great job and certainly don't want to see him fired or other such nonsense, he's overrated...because his resume has been inflated relative to this conference contrasting specifically with the SEC but also with Southern Cal or Miami when they were rolling.
I mean, take those SEC + USC (or Miami for a few years) teams out of it, and Stoops is unmatched. But who wants to do that? Those are the teams we want to beat.
