Random Thoughts... and a Rant or Two... and Probably a Dead Horse Beating As Well

  • 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.
Sep 29, 2011
2,669
653
1,743
61
Breckenridge, CO
#81
Gundy did say in his press conference after the game that they limited throws in the second half due to Sanders inaccuracies and interceptions.
Wow, that is incredibly scary. How do we move forward from that?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Obviously, we forfeit our remaining games and dismiss the entire roster. I mean, how the hell do you continue as a program when you’re 5-0 despite less than perfect play.

Oh how I yearn to be delivered from the depths of despair.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sep 29, 2011
2,669
653
1,743
61
Breckenridge, CO
#82
He's inconsistent in the pocket, especially if he feels pressure. The offensive line is also sometimes inconsistent. Sometimes they move bodies on a run, but other times they miss assignments and give a clean shot to SS. To me, it feels like the entire offense, including play calling, needs to get on the same page, execute and play with discipline.
The justification we are playing SS over SI is because we excusing that the OL is inconsistent. We thought that with SS mobility, he is going to offset the DL pressure when the OL pass protection brake down.

If we are expecting the OL to be dominant in the run blocking and pass protection, then we'd better be playing Shane Illingworth who can stand tall and strong in the pocket, read & scan the field and easily pass over the shorter DLs ....and reduce the DL tipping the passes, interceptions and the pick6 potentials.

I can guarantee that the running game will be more effective if the opposing D need to start to worry about stopping the more accurate and deep passing. Then our back-up RBs can be trusted to play more and we can afford to not just depend on Jalen Warren that heavily.

Jalen Warren must not be overloaded. He is getting too many carries and too many hits and we must not be too dependent on him alone.
.
So here’s what defenses will do against SI. Press coverage with 6-7 rushing the QB. Press coverage because it reduces the options through progressions, is tougher on our overall inexperienced receivers, not worried about the QB run/s scramble and will force an inexperienced QB into mistakes. Further, SS running/scramble abilities almost forces the defense to play some sort of zone pass defense which opens up the shorter pass routes. Overall, going with SI is a worse option than sticking with SS. SI arm strength marginally if at all better than Sanders. SI height also really very little advantage. Also, we can assume SS is better and certainly more experienced reading defenses.

I’d also bet my paycheck the coaches know more than you or I, thus SS is at the top of the depth chart.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Aug 31, 2004
2,407
1,041
1,743
Austin, TX
#83
Obviously, we forfeit our remaining games and dismiss the entire roster. I mean, how the hell do you continue as a program when you’re 5-0 despite less than perfect play.

Oh how I yearn to be delivered from the depths of despair.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So here’s what defenses will do against SI. Press coverage with 6-7 rushing the QB. Press coverage because it reduces the options through progressions, is tougher on our overall inexperienced receivers, not worried about the QB run/s scramble and will force an inexperienced QB into mistakes. Further, SS running/scramble abilities almost forces the defense to play some sort of zone pass defense which opens up the shorter pass routes. Overall, going with SI is a worse option than sticking with SS. SI arm strength marginally if at all better than Sanders. SI height also really very little advantage. Also, we can assume SS is better and certainly more experienced reading defenses.

I’d also bet my paycheck the coaches know more than you or I, thus SS is at the top of the depth chart.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why did the coaches recruit SI if he doesn't fit the style of offense they want to run? They should probably be honest with him and tell him that he has no future at OSU, rather than letting him languish on the bench for the rest of his career. Seems like the right thing to do.

I guess the next question would be why don't we change our offense to more of a spread-option attack which makes full use of an athletic QB's running/passing abilities, rather than just having our QB scramble when plays break down?
 
Sep 29, 2011
2,669
653
1,743
61
Breckenridge, CO
#84
Obviously, we forfeit our remaining games and dismiss the entire roster. I mean, how the hell do you continue as a program when you’re 5-0 despite less than perfect play.

Oh how I yearn to be delivered from the depths of despair.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So here’s what defenses will do against SI. Press coverage with 6-7 rushing the QB. Press coverage because it reduces the options through progressions, is tougher on our overall inexperienced receivers, not worried about the QB run/s scramble and will force an inexperienced QB into mistakes. Further, SS running/scramble abilities almost forces the defense to play some sort of zone pass defense which opens up the shorter pass routes. Overall, going with SI is a worse option than sticking with SS. SI arm strength marginally if at all better than Sanders. SI height also really very little advantage. Also, we can assume SS is better and certainly more experienced reading defenses.

I’d also bet my paycheck the coaches know more than you or I, thus SS is at the top of the depth chart.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why did the coaches recruit SI if he doesn't fit the style of offense they want to run? They should probably be honest with him and tell him that he has no future at OSU, rather than letting him languish on the bench for the rest of his career. Seems like the right thing to do.

I guess the next question would be why don't we change our offense to more of a spread-option attack which makes full use of an athletic QB's running/passing abilities, rather than just having our QB scramble when plays break down?
1. Who says he doesn’t/can’t fit what we can do? Clearly we can win with a pocket passer - see Mason Rudolph.
2. Languish on the bench? The dude has at least 3.5 years of remaining eligibility.
3. Change the offense? Don’t think Gundy wants a run heavy QB. SS is valuable as just a threat to run. It takes at least one defensive player out of coverage. And if the defense wants to press the receivers and key the defenders in the box on the RB, an occasional QB run will loosen the defense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Apr 12, 2020
787
336
113
26
Stillwater
#85
Obviously, we forfeit our remaining games and dismiss the entire roster. I mean, how the hell do you continue as a program when you’re 5-0 despite less than perfect play.

Oh how I yearn to be delivered from the depths of despair.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So here’s what defenses will do against SI. Press coverage with 6-7 rushing the QB. Press coverage because it reduces the options through progressions, is tougher on our overall inexperienced receivers, not worried about the QB run/s scramble and will force an inexperienced QB into mistakes. Further, SS running/scramble abilities almost forces the defense to play some sort of zone pass defense which opens up the shorter pass routes. Overall, going with SI is a worse option than sticking with SS. SI arm strength marginally if at all better than Sanders. SI height also really very little advantage. Also, we can assume SS is better and certainly more experienced reading defenses.

I’d also bet my paycheck the coaches know more than you or I, thus SS is at the top of the depth chart.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why did the coaches recruit SI if he doesn't fit the style of offense they want to run? They should probably be honest with him and tell him that he has no future at OSU, rather than letting him languish on the bench for the rest of his career. Seems like the right thing to do.

I guess the next question would be why don't we change our offense to more of a spread-option attack which makes full use of an athletic QB's running/passing abilities, rather than just having our QB scramble when plays break down?
This entire comment is silly.

What they want doesn’t change the current scenario, and the experience Sanders has on Shane. Nobody said he doesn’t have a future with the team, what we are running now doesn’t mean we’ll run it in the future.

And they literally are utilizing a more spread option attack. We’re getting Sanders on the run plenty, we’ve been running RPOs, and we’ve started running old fashioned options.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Aug 31, 2004
2,407
1,041
1,743
Austin, TX
#86
1. Who says he doesn’t/can’t fit what we can do? Clearly we can win with a pocket passer - see Mason Rudolph.
2. Languish on the bench? The dude has at least 3.5 years of remaining eligibility.
3. Change the offense? Don’t think Gundy wants a run heavy QB. SS is valuable as just a threat to run. It takes at least one defensive player out of coverage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
1. You pretty much said we can't win with SI. Maybe in a couple of years he can start getting some meaningful playing time.
2. Yep, and the next two of those will be spent on the bench.
3. I could've sworn we're run-heavy now (albeit, not by choice.) All we've done for the second halves of the last three games is hand it off, with varying degrees of success.
 
Aug 31, 2004
2,407
1,041
1,743
Austin, TX
#87
This entire comment is silly.

What they want doesn’t change the current scenario, and the experience Sanders has on Shane. Nobody said he doesn’t have a future with the team, what we are running now doesn’t mean we’ll run it in the future.

And they literally are utilizing a more spread option attack. We’re getting Sanders on the run plenty, we’ve been running RPOs, and we’ve started running old fashioned options.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Again, SS has been here FOUR years. When is the light going to come on?
 

LS1 Z28

Territorial Marshal
Oct 30, 2007
5,028
4,032
1,743
#88
So here’s what defenses will do against SI. Press coverage with 6-7 rushing the QB. Press coverage because it reduces the options through progressions, is tougher on our overall inexperienced receivers, not worried about the QB run/s scramble and will force an inexperienced QB into mistakes. Further, SS running/scramble abilities almost forces the defense to play some sort of zone pass defense which opens up the shorter pass routes. Overall, going with SI is a worse option than sticking with SS. SI arm strength marginally if at all better than Sanders. SI height also really very little advantage. Also, we can assume SS is better and certainly more experienced reading defenses.

I’d also bet my paycheck the coaches know more than you or I, thus SS is at the top of the depth chart.
If a defense rushes 6 to 7 players, that means they only have 4 to 5 players back in coverage. That would mean that either Martin or Presley would be matched up 1 on 1 without any help. I kind of like the sound of that. If you burn a defense enough, they won't play that aggressive. Does SI have the maturity to do that? That's the million dollar question.
 
Sep 29, 2011
2,669
653
1,743
61
Breckenridge, CO
#89
1. Who says he doesn’t/can’t fit what we can do? Clearly we can win with a pocket passer - see Mason Rudolph.
2. Languish on the bench? The dude has at least 3.5 years of remaining eligibility.
3. Change the offense? Don’t think Gundy wants a run heavy QB. SS is valuable as just a threat to run. It takes at least one defensive player out of coverage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
1. You pretty much said we can't win with SI. Maybe in a couple of years he can start getting some meaningful playing time.
2. Yep, and the next two of those will be spent on the bench.
3. I could've sworn we're run-heavy now (albeit, not by choice.) All we've done for the second halves of the last three games is hand it off, with varying degrees of success.
1. Never said we can’t win with SI. We just happen to be on a 7-game win streak with SS. Further, IMO, he gives us the best chance to win.

2. Did someone in authority tell you that, or is that just wild ass speculation? Oh, every team needs a couple of backups.

3. We are run heavy, but not at QB - which is what I was describing. SS is averaging about 10 runs a game - only a little over half are designed QB runs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Birry

Federal Marshal
Feb 6, 2007
13,302
7,233
1,743
Landlocked
#90
Obviously, we forfeit our remaining games and dismiss the entire roster. I mean, how the hell do you continue as a program when you’re 5-0 despite less than perfect play.

Oh how I yearn to be delivered from the depths of despair.
Do you know how to have normal conversations with other people, or do you default to hyperbole for all interactions?

Why is it that ANY critical analysis is met with posts like yours above? Do you really believe that fans can't or shouldn't be critical of their team? Believe it or not, part of the fun for me is figuring out our weaknesses, and analyzing ways to improve as a team with the sincere hope that we can get better.

Also, believe it or not, the coaches aren't gods among men that have some magical knowledge that nobody else can possess. It's football, not modern physics. Why do you treat it like some unknowable, mystical, magical thing that only coaches could possibly understand? Most of the coaches I've known at various levels aren't super intelligent people. They're simply former players that have a mixture of knowledge, charisma, mental strength, character, and drive to lead a football team. You act like questioning their decisions is heresy. It isn't. They aren't gods.
 

Birry

Federal Marshal
Feb 6, 2007
13,302
7,233
1,743
Landlocked
#91
So here’s what defenses will do against SI. Press coverage with 6-7 rushing the QB. Press coverage because it reduces the options through progressions, is tougher on our overall inexperienced receivers, not worried about the QB run/s scramble and will force an inexperienced QB into mistakes. Further, SS running/scramble abilities almost forces the defense to play some sort of zone pass defense which opens up the shorter pass routes. Overall, going with SI is a worse option than sticking with SS. SI arm strength marginally if at all better than Sanders. SI height also really very little advantage. Also, we can assume SS is better and certainly more experienced reading defenses.

I’d also bet my paycheck the coaches know more than you or I, thus SS is at the top of the depth chart
Not sure if you're aware of this (seems like you aren't), but there are actually plays you can run to counter such an aggressive defense. Otherwise every pocket passer in the history of football could simply be shut down by rushing 6-7 players at them on every play.

A simple RB screen would gain massive yards against that defense.
Running vertical pass routes would put WRs in one-on-one everywhere, and could be a huge gain.
Inside WRs beating the man off the line with a slant could also be devastating.
Even a draw could work well if the RB got through the trash.
 
Sep 29, 2011
2,669
653
1,743
61
Breckenridge, CO
#92
So here’s what defenses will do against SI. Press coverage with 6-7 rushing the QB. Press coverage because it reduces the options through progressions, is tougher on our overall inexperienced receivers, not worried about the QB run/s scramble and will force an inexperienced QB into mistakes. Further, SS running/scramble abilities almost forces the defense to play some sort of zone pass defense which opens up the shorter pass routes. Overall, going with SI is a worse option than sticking with SS. SI arm strength marginally if at all better than Sanders. SI height also really very little advantage. Also, we can assume SS is better and certainly more experienced reading defenses.

I’d also bet my paycheck the coaches know more than you or I, thus SS is at the top of the depth chart.
If a defense rushes 6 to 7 players, that means they only have 4 to 5 players back in coverage. That would mean that either Martin or Presley would be matched up 1 on 1 without any help. I kind of like the sound of that. If you burn a defense enough, they won't play that aggressive. Does SI have the maturity to do that? That's the million dollar question.
Of course that only works when Martin or Presley are the first or second read AND the coverage isn’t tight AND the QB makes the right read AND throws an accurate ball. Seems higher risk than sticking with Sanders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Aug 31, 2004
2,407
1,041
1,743
Austin, TX
#93
1. Never said we can’t win with SI. We just happen to be on a 7-game win streak with SS. Further, IMO, he gives us the best chance to win.

2. Did someone in authority tell you that, or is that just wild ass speculation? Oh, every team needs a couple of backups.

3. We are run heavy, but not at QB - which is what I was describing. SS is averaging about 10 runs a game - only a little over half are designed QB runs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
1. We're on a 7-game win streak despite SS. Our defense has bailed him out repeatedly.
2. SS is a junior. Apparently they're going to stick with him no matter what.
3. Yeah, we're run-heavy because we can't throw.
 
Jun 20, 2013
114
102
593
33
#94
1. Who says he doesn’t/can’t fit what we can do? Clearly we can win with a pocket passer - see Mason Rudolph.
2. Languish on the bench? The dude has at least 3.5 years of remaining eligibility.
3. Change the offense? Don’t think Gundy wants a run heavy QB. SS is valuable as just a threat to run. It takes at least one defensive player out of coverage. And if the defense wants to press the receivers and key the defenders in the box on the RB, an occasional QB run will loosen the defense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think when ZRob got hurt, that forever changed Gundy's mind on the value of an offense with a true running QB.
 
Apr 12, 2020
787
336
113
26
Stillwater
#95
This entire comment is silly.

What they want doesn’t change the current scenario, and the experience Sanders has on Shane. Nobody said he doesn’t have a future with the team, what we are running now doesn’t mean we’ll run it in the future.

And they literally are utilizing a more spread option attack. We’re getting Sanders on the run plenty, we’ve been running RPOs, and we’ve started running old fashioned options.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Again, SS has been here FOUR years. When is the light going to come on?
What does the light coming on mean?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sep 29, 2011
2,669
653
1,743
61
Breckenridge, CO
#96
Obviously, we forfeit our remaining games and dismiss the entire roster. I mean, how the hell do you continue as a program when you’re 5-0 despite less than perfect play.

Oh how I yearn to be delivered from the depths of despair.
Do you know how to have normal conversations with other people, or do you default to hyperbole for all interactions?

Why is it that ANY critical analysis is met with posts like yours above? Do you really believe that fans can't or shouldn't be critical of their team? Believe it or not, part of the fun for me is figuring out our weaknesses, and analyzing ways to improve as a team with the sincere hope that we can get better.

Also, believe it or not, the coaches aren't gods among men that have some magical knowledge that nobody else can possess. It's football, not modern physics. Why do you treat it like some unknowable, mystical, magical thing that only coaches could possibly understand? Most of the coaches I've known at various levels aren't super intelligent people. They're simply former players that have a mixture of knowledge, charisma, mental strength, character, and drive to lead a football team. You act like questioning their decisions is heresy. It isn't. They aren't gods.
Dude, the “critical analysis” I was responding to went something like this:

How do we move forward if Gundy/Dunn chose to limit Sanders pass attempts in the second half?

I responded to that nonsense with like-kind nonsense, or couldn’t you tell?

Sure fans can critique the coaches just like other posters can critique other (sometimes galacticly uneducated) posters’ opinion. Duh!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Apr 12, 2020
787
336
113
26
Stillwater
#97
So here’s what defenses will do against SI. Press coverage with 6-7 rushing the QB. Press coverage because it reduces the options through progressions, is tougher on our overall inexperienced receivers, not worried about the QB run/s scramble and will force an inexperienced QB into mistakes. Further, SS running/scramble abilities almost forces the defense to play some sort of zone pass defense which opens up the shorter pass routes. Overall, going with SI is a worse option than sticking with SS. SI arm strength marginally if at all better than Sanders. SI height also really very little advantage. Also, we can assume SS is better and certainly more experienced reading defenses.

I’d also bet my paycheck the coaches know more than you or I, thus SS is at the top of the depth chart
Not sure if you're aware of this (seems like you aren't), but there are actually plays you can run to counter such an aggressive defense. Otherwise every pocket passer in the history of football could simply be shut down by rushing 6-7 players at them on every play.

A simple RB screen would gain massive yards against that defense.
Running vertical pass routes would put WRs in one-on-one everywhere, and could be a huge gain.
Inside WRs beating the man off the line with a slant could also be devastating.
Even a draw could work well if the RB got through the trash.
We’ve leveraging RB screens brilliantly so far this season, the 1 that sticks out the most was the first play vs Kstate. The other tips are all things we’re already doing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Jan 15, 2017
644
171
93
35
Enid
#99
So here’s what defenses will do against SI. Press coverage with 6-7 rushing the QB. Press coverage because it reduces the options through progressions, is tougher on our overall inexperienced receivers, not worried about the QB run/s scramble and will force an inexperienced QB into mistakes. Further, SS running/scramble abilities almost forces the defense to play some sort of zone pass defense which opens up the shorter pass routes. Overall, going with SI is a worse option than sticking with SS. SI arm strength marginally if at all better than Sanders. SI height also really very little advantage. Also, we can assume SS is better and certainly more experienced reading defenses.

I’d also bet my paycheck the coaches know more than you or I, thus SS is at the top of the depth chart.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is actually 100% false.
Every single defense we play is going to run cover 1/3 and cover 0 on us with SS at QB. That’s exactly what Baylor did, the first int SS threw was because the corner was playing the flat in zone, SS thought it was cover 1 so he threw the out to the sideline. The second int SS threw was an overthrow to Presley running across the field with the Safety hanging in the middle of the field. This is the exact reason we CANNOT throw the ball across the middle BECAUSE the safety is in the middle and our big plays are throws to the boundaries or deep throws away from the middle safety.

You have it backwards, the absolutely ONLY way to get the defense into cover 2/4 is to have the ability to consistently throw deep balls down BOTH sides of the field. As our offense is right now, defenses are shading the safety to Tay Martins side of the field. Now you could argue that it has a lot to do with the fact that we haven’t established a #2 outside receiver on the opposite side of Martin in combination with SS’s limited arm strength and accuracy and that is valid. That is why the deep pass to Owens was open and that play may actually help open up our offense against future defenses.

This notion that a running QB “OPENS” up the defense more is only true if he can throw the ball to both sides of the field, otherwise you just bring a safety down in your run fits, play one safety deep, and you are covered.

I’m not saying SI is 100% a better downfield thrower than SS but that’s because we have no idea because SI has only played a limited number of games usually with only a week or two’s notice, obviously Gundy limits the playbook when SI starts because he doesn’t want to overwhelm him. For that reason I think we simply don’t know if SI would open the defense better or not. I think the only reason people question this is because Gundy has proved several times that he is reluctant to make any switch at QB even with the QB is hurt or the backup is better.
Do you not remember how we were told that Brandon Weeden was a terrible practice player and that was the reason he never moved up the depth chart? I think he turned out to be a pretty good player.
 
Sep 29, 2011
2,669
653
1,743
61
Breckenridge, CO
1. Never said we can’t win with SI. We just happen to be on a 7-game win streak with SS. Further, IMO, he gives us the best chance to win.

2. Did someone in authority tell you that, or is that just wild ass speculation? Oh, every team needs a couple of backups.

3. We are run heavy, but not at QB - which is what I was describing. SS is averaging about 10 runs a game - only a little over half are designed QB runs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
1. We're on a 7-game win streak despite SS. Our defense has bailed him out repeatedly.
2. SS is a junior. Apparently they're going to stick with him no matter what.
3. Yeah, we're run-heavy because we can't throw.
1. SS has had exactly one bad game in that streak.
2. He’s a red-shirt junior that may or may not be back. May or may not finish the season as QB1. May or may not get injured. May or may not win QB1 job next fall.
3. A run-heavy offense that can win games is infinitely more desirable than relying on a pass-heavy offense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk