How Gundy became a starter

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Jun 13, 2010
2,490
138
1,693
Chicago
#21
We "knew" Sanders was the guy after his first game. The kid that played against Oregon St looked like a future 1st rounder if he just progressed a normal amount.
I disagree with the Gundy Lovers who try to redirect blame from coaches to players. I think I've seen flashes of Spencer's potential. It's on the coaches for failing to advance his game. It's on the coaches for the overall moribund status of our offense.

We have NO offensive system right now. All we have is a WR screen/RB handoff 3-and-out system.
 
Nov 27, 2007
2,746
1,286
1,743
35
Tulsa
#22
Sanders won every accolade a Texas high school football player can win. But I noticed when he was in high school, Texas, OU, A&M, LSU, etc did not offer him. To me that says something.
I understand that logic but there is more to the story. His junior year he tore his ACL and OSU kept their offer. That gave him loyalty at that point he was a cowboy. I remember when he signed his LOI he mentioned that he was approached by a couple big programs close to signing day, but he paid them no interest as he was set to be a cowboy.

I really think we have a situation where we have a talented player that doesn’t fit our system so we’re trying to modify the system to fit him, letting neither the offense or the player reach their full potential.
 
Jun 13, 2010
2,490
138
1,693
Chicago
#23
The bottom line is the players are fine, the coaching staff is not.

We have players who have not reached their ceiling due to coaches who have. Proof positive of course is that none of this is true on the defensive side.
 
Nov 6, 2010
2,634
932
1,743
#26
ON IF THEY EXPECTED THE RUNNING GAME STRUGGLES ENTERING THE YEAR OR IF IT HAS SURPRISED THEM:
"It's a numbers game, right? We lost a group of wide receivers. They played different coverages, put an extra guy in the box. It's very simple. If that guy's not in the box and he's back there playing pass, one less guy to block, one less guy that can make a tackle on the running game. That's as big a factor as any scheme that you draw up. It's a simple process. You know when the Giants won the Super Bowl and they had a great four-man pressure, they played Cover 2, won the Super Bowl because the four-man pressure. So, it's a simple game. If you can cover, then you put extra guys to stop the run. If you can't cover, you got to back up to stop the pass, big plays and fewer guys to stop the run. Teams are ganging up a little bit on us based on the youth we have wide out, and that extra guy is fitting in the run game. That's really what it comes down to."

This comment and those like it bother me.
 
Sep 8, 2014
3,366
2,374
743
52
The back 40
#27
The bottom line is the players are fine, the coaching staff is not.

We have players who have not reached their ceiling due to coaches who have. Proof positive of course is that none of this is true on the defensive side.
Kinda have to agree here.....

I’m still trying to figure out how in the world we couldn’t figure out how to use Tyreek Hill the year we had him.
 

MustangPokeFan

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2005
8,570
4,257
1,743
Mustang, Ok
www.newshoesband.net
#28
ON IF THEY EXPECTED THE RUNNING GAME STRUGGLES ENTERING THE YEAR OR IF IT HAS SURPRISED THEM:
"It's a numbers game, right? We lost a group of wide receivers. They played different coverages, put an extra guy in the box. It's very simple. If that guy's not in the box and he's back there playing pass, one less guy to block, one less guy that can make a tackle on the running game. That's as big a factor as any scheme that you draw up. It's a simple process. You know when the Giants won the Super Bowl and they had a great four-man pressure, they played Cover 2, won the Super Bowl because the four-man pressure. So, it's a simple game. If you can cover, then you put extra guys to stop the run. If you can't cover, you got to back up to stop the pass, big plays and fewer guys to stop the run. Teams are ganging up a little bit on us based on the youth we have wide out, and that extra guy is fitting in the run game. That's really what it comes down to."

This comment and those like it bother me.
I don’t know why that bothers you, it makes total sense. If you have experienced threats like Tay Martin, Johnson, Anderson, etc. they have to drop a man in coverage. If you have a bunch of inexperienced receivers and the other team feels like they can cover them man-to-man, then they can bring that guy back up and load the box and stop the run. Especially if you have a less than average line which we do. That’s exactly what’s happening. The answer is our young receivers have to get better and become enough of a threat that teams can’t afford to load the box. It would also help if the line could progress to at least average. That doesn’t happen by magic, it takes experience.
 
Last edited:
#29
ON IF THEY EXPECTED THE RUNNING GAME STRUGGLES ENTERING THE YEAR OR IF IT HAS SURPRISED THEM:
"It's a numbers game, right? We lost a group of wide receivers. They played different coverages, put an extra guy in the box. It's very simple. If that guy's not in the box and he's back there playing pass, one less guy to block, one less guy that can make a tackle on the running game. That's as big a factor as any scheme that you draw up. It's a simple process. You know when the Giants won the Super Bowl and they had a great four-man pressure, they played Cover 2, won the Super Bowl because the four-man pressure. So, it's a simple game. If you can cover, then you put extra guys to stop the run. If you can't cover, you got to back up to stop the pass, big plays and fewer guys to stop the run. Teams are ganging up a little bit on us based on the youth we have wide out, and that extra guy is fitting in the run game. That's really what it comes down to."

This comment and those like it bother me.
Wow!!! Maybe Gundy needs to hire me. I did the math and using a scholarship on Dee Anderson was a waste. Said it from the beginning.
 
Dec 26, 2011
968
767
643
Stillwater
#30
ON IF THEY EXPECTED THE RUNNING GAME STRUGGLES ENTERING THE YEAR OR IF IT HAS SURPRISED THEM:
"It's a numbers game, right? We lost a group of wide receivers. They played different coverages, put an extra guy in the box. It's very simple. If that guy's not in the box and he's back there playing pass, one less guy to block, one less guy that can make a tackle on the running game. That's as big a factor as any scheme that you draw up. It's a simple process. You know when the Giants won the Super Bowl and they had a great four-man pressure, they played Cover 2, won the Super Bowl because the four-man pressure. So, it's a simple game. If you can cover, then you put extra guys to stop the run. If you can't cover, you got to back up to stop the pass, big plays and fewer guys to stop the run. Teams are ganging up a little bit on us based on the youth we have wide out, and that extra guy is fitting in the run game. That's really what it comes down to."

This comment and those like it bother me.
Just makes me laugh. A whole lotta words to say we don’t have an offensive identity and our planning/recruiting has forced us to play freshmen who aren’t ready in my 17th year as head coach
 

PokeJ

Territorial Marshal
Oct 27, 2003
5,082
2,899
1,743
64
McKinney, TX
Visit site
#31
ON IF THEY EXPECTED THE RUNNING GAME STRUGGLES ENTERING THE YEAR OR IF IT HAS SURPRISED THEM:
"It's a numbers game, right? We lost a group of wide receivers. They played different coverages, put an extra guy in the box. It's very simple. If that guy's not in the box and he's back there playing pass, one less guy to block, one less guy that can make a tackle on the running game. That's as big a factor as any scheme that you draw up. It's a simple process. You know when the Giants won the Super Bowl and they had a great four-man pressure, they played Cover 2, won the Super Bowl because the four-man pressure. So, it's a simple game. If you can cover, then you put extra guys to stop the run. If you can't cover, you got to back up to stop the pass, big plays and fewer guys to stop the run. Teams are ganging up a little bit on us based on the youth we have wide out, and that extra guy is fitting in the run game. That's really what it comes down to."

This comment and those like it bother me.
Just makes me laugh. A whole lotta words to say we don’t have an offensive identity and our planning/recruiting has forced us to play freshmen who aren’t ready in my 17th year as head coach
This offensive line will eventually dictate out identity. Shame that we can’t use our skill players because of their deficiencies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Nov 6, 2010
2,634
932
1,743
#32
I don’t know why that bothers you, it makes total sense. If you have experienced threats like Tay Martin, Johnson, Anderson, etc. they have to drop a man in coverage. If you have a bunch of inexperienced receivers and the other team feels like they can cover them man-to-man, then they can bring that guy back up and load the box and stop the run. Especially if you have a less than average line which we do. That’s exactly what’s happening. The answer is our young receivers have to get better and become enough of a threat that teams can’t afford to load the box. It would also help if the line could progress to at least average. That doesn’t happen by magic, it takes experience.
It bothers me because it wreaks of resignation. I remember our old mantra was taking what the defense gives you. Now it seems to be, well shucks, we're a little young at receiver, so we're not even going to try to take advantage of what they're giving us, we'll just continue to run into a numbers disadvantage. It also seems like there is no interest in trying to scheme to do things we're good at, instead, just calling the game simple and giving up on any creativity and boiling it all down to numbers. If it's just numbers and we can't trust the receivers, then why not just bring in a couple more Olinemen and even out the numbers??
 

O-St8

Orange is power.
A/V Subscriber
Jan 13, 2005
5,435
1,609
1,743
41
Sand Springs, OK
#33
It bothers me because it wreaks of resignation. I remember our old mantra was taking what the defense gives you. Now it seems to be, well shucks, we're a little young at receiver, so we're not even going to try to take advantage of what they're giving us, we'll just continue to run into a numbers disadvantage. It also seems like there is no interest in trying to scheme to do things we're good at, instead, just calling the game simple and giving up on any creativity and boiling it all down to numbers. If it's just numbers and we can't trust the receivers, then why not just bring in a couple more Olinemen and even out the numbers??

My only thought in their defense is that maybe they really wanted to work on the run game because they knew it needed improvement? Because yeah we're young at WR but so far I haven't seen a ton of issues in terms of playmaking ability out there. And our passing numbers are a little negatively skewed because we chose to run the ball the first two downs and then are in a predictable passing sitch for 3rd down.

If I were the coaching staff I would pass and pass and pass some more until Boise St. either moves a man out of the box or doesn't and we pass for 8 TDs (a la SMU circa 2004 when Woods caught 7 TDs because they refused to adjust).
 
Nov 6, 2010
2,634
932
1,743
#34
My only thought in their defense is that maybe they really wanted to work on the run game because they knew it needed improvement? Because yeah we're young at WR but so far I haven't seen a ton of issues in terms of playmaking ability out there. And our passing numbers are a little negatively skewed because we chose to run the ball the first two downs and then are in a predictable passing sitch for 3rd down.

If I were the coaching staff I would pass and pass and pass some more until Boise St. either moves a man out of the box or doesn't and we pass for 8 TDs (a la SMU circa 2004 when Woods caught 7 TDs because they refused to adjust).
I get their aversion to the risk associated with throwing the ball that many times with young receivers. Wrong routes tend to end up in interceptions or at best a sack. But there are ways to be more creative and low risk to give the defense something else to think about. For instance, I would run a jet sweep with Pressley at least 3 times a game, and fake it about 15 times a game. That's an easy way to make them pay for peeking in the backfield with zero risk.
 
Aug 16, 2012
3,016
1,377
743
58
#35
I don’t know why that bothers you, it makes total sense. If you have experienced threats like Tay Martin, Johnson, Anderson, etc. they have to drop a man in coverage. If you have a bunch of inexperienced receivers and the other team feels like they can cover them man-to-man, then they can bring that guy back up and load the box and stop the run. Especially if you have a less than average line which we do. That’s exactly what’s happening. The answer is our young receivers have to get better and become enough of a threat that teams can’t afford to load the box. It would also help if the line could progress to at least average. That doesn’t happen by magic, it takes experience.
Cannot speak for the OP but for me, things like this are why there are a host of people upstairs. If this was an issue, it should have been recognized and worked out after a few series or worst case, at halftime.
 
Nov 27, 2007
2,746
1,286
1,743
35
Tulsa
#36
Cannot speak for the OP but for me, things like this are why there are a host of people upstairs. If this was an issue, it should have been recognized and worked out after a few series or worst case, at halftime.
I’m sure they know what is wrong, it’s due to a lack of talent, that’s not something you can fix by halftime. Especially with TM not on the field, the defense doesn’t have to respect our passing game. They say I’m going to give that to you until you beat me with it. I’m sure many other teams will follow this blueprint. Stack the box until you prove you’re a threat.
 

O-St8

Orange is power.
A/V Subscriber
Jan 13, 2005
5,435
1,609
1,743
41
Sand Springs, OK
#37
I’m sure they know what is wrong, it’s due to a lack of talent, that’s not something you can fix by halftime. Especially with TM not on the field, the defense doesn’t have to respect our passing game. They say I’m going to give that to you until you beat me with it. I’m sure many other teams will follow this blueprint. Stack the box until you prove you’re a threat.
So, this is what has me scratching my head. I know we lost an NFL talent and one other multi year starter but we have 3 starters back and several guys who got a bunch of playing time early last year because of injuries and we seemed to really gel the last month or so of the season. So I didn't necessarily expect us to pick up where we left off but I didn't think we'd go from a solid o-line to devoid of talent enough to open holes against Missouri State and Tulsa. It doesn't make any sense.
 

Cro

we need some celery and a can of fake snow
A/V Subscriber
Apr 6, 2010
4,775
2,335
1,743
Edmond
#38
With Robinson, Weeden, & Rudolph, we all knew they were the guy after 2 to 3 starts. Spencer Sanders is now in his 4th year on campus, and we're still looking for consistency. He threw a terrible pick 6 yesterday, and he could've thrown more interceptions. He also nearly lost a fumble on the sideline, because he had the ball tucked away in the wrong arm. These are mistakes you can't make as a redshirt junior.

Shane Illingworth has only started 3 games now. He's shown inconsistency as well, but he's far less experienced than Sanders. If Sanders doesn't start showing more consistency, we would probably be better off starting to develop Illingworth for the future.
if the O-line can't block anyone, then Illingworth will be sitting duck and won't have very much success either........
 

MustangPokeFan

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2005
8,570
4,257
1,743
Mustang, Ok
www.newshoesband.net
#40
Cannot speak for the OP but for me, things like this are why there are a host of people upstairs. If this was an issue, it should have been recognized and worked out after a few series or worst case, at halftime.
I’m sure they know what is wrong, it’s due to a lack of talent, that’s not something you can fix by halftime. Especially with TM not on the field, the defense doesn’t have to respect our passing game. They say I’m going to give that to you until you beat me with it. I’m sure many other teams will follow this blueprint. Stack the box until you prove you’re a threat.
I don’t think it’s as much a lack of talent as it is experience, at least for our receivers. It very well be a talent issue on the O-Line. I believe there are future stars at receiver but they should be backups this year. Tay Martin is a “now” talent, Brayden Johnson is a now talent, Langston Anderson was ready to step up. We’ll be fine at receiver eventually and some of these new guys will blossom. I don’t know what the answer is on the O-Line. We seem to have gotten some quality guys on the D-Line, I don’t know why the O-Line which had been an issue for 5-6 years never gets better. I thought Dickey was the answer but it hasn’t gone well.