Crazy endings in Austin, Lubbock and elsewhere

[Plainosooner]

BillyRay, any water boy knows that in college football, it is the 18-22 year old players who are to blame for defeats and/or game mistakes....even though these kids' talents in high school are scrutinized, evaluated and hotly pursued, often without regard to character evaluations, then supposedly developed and motivated at the next level by the college coaches.

You just don't seem to understand. What I did was below the level of the water boys. The trainers considered themselves the skilled labor. We managers were the unskilled labor.

But the game is pretty similar no matter what level. Players make plays, or don't. You guys want to put dropped punt snaps or field goals missed by a foot to be on the HC. One might have something to do with Charlie, but not much.

One coach gets eight guys hurt, and another comes in with his team relatively free of injury. If the guy whose team is beat up, gets beat, for you, it's a coaching problem. And oh, BTW, my team should NEVER lose. It's beyond unrealistic. But so long has you have ten buds who agree with you, then you must be right.

The Jim Jones' of the world seek out people with your outlook.

 

[Soonersincefitty]

You just don't seem to understand. What I did was below the level of the water boys. The trainers considered themselves the skilled labor. We managers were the unskilled labor.

But the game is pretty similar no matter what level. Players make plays, or don't. You guys want to put dropped punt snaps or field goals missed by a foot to be on the HC. One might have something to do with Charlie, but not much.

One coach gets eight guys hurt, and another comes in with his team relatively free of injury. If the guy whose team is beat up, gets beat, for you, it's a coaching problem. And oh, BTW, my team should NEVER lose. It's beyond unrealistic. But so long has you have ten buds who agree with you, then you must be right.

The Jim Jones' of the world seek out people with your outlook.

That could be construed as utterly brilliant.

Even a caveman could understand it.

 

[BillyRay]

You just don't seem to understand. What I did was below the level of the water boys. The trainers considered themselves the skilled labor. We managers were the unskilled labor.

But the game is pretty similar no matter what level. Players make plays, or don't. You guys want to put dropped punt snaps or field goals missed by a foot to be on the HC. One might have something to do with Charlie, but not much.

One coach gets eight guys hurt, and another comes in with his team relatively free of injury. If the guy whose team is beat up, gets beat, for you, it's a coaching problem. And oh, BTW, my team should NEVER lose. It's beyond unrealistic. But so long has you have ten buds who agree with you, then you must be right.

The Jim Jones' of the world seek out people with your outlook.

See, this is part of the problem. You take the stance that just because some want to hold coaches accountable for their programs, that you believe we think every single thing that happens on the field is the fault of the coaches. That's absurd. Coaches can't hold players hands and make sure they catch punts, or somehow control their feet to make sure they make field goals. Of course alot of responsibility is on the shoulders of players to perform and make plays. But I would think you would understand as much as anyone, that coaches do in fact make decisions with their team that directly impact what happens on the field. Correct?? Kinda like the OU/OSU game last season when Bob Stoops decided to repunt. Or are you gonna stick to your guns and say that was the players fault??

But what you don't seem to understand, is overall it's the coaches who are accountable and will be held responsible for the success or lack of success on the field. If you're little "it's not the alignment, it's the alignees" statement you love to throw out to absolve coaches of any responsibility for what happens with their football program, then why don't coaches or athletic directors simply refuse to renew the yearly scholarships for players who, in your mind, are the root cause for winning and losing games?? But what you apparently haven't noticed over the history of college football, is it's the coaching staffs that are shit canned at football programs when there are lackluster results on the field. I literally would have LOVED to see how you reacted to OU football during the John Blake era.

Now of course many on here will agree with your stance, kinda like fitty did since he thinks your flawed attempt at logic is apparently...brilliant. But those are some of the same posters who will jump over to a thread about Texas and go on and on about how hilarious it is that Charlie Strong is an idiot, moron, and has no idea what he is doing and comparing him to OU's John Blake era of football. See the amazingly obvious hypocrisy??

And what's really comical about your Jim Jones remark, is it really does apply more to your thinking than it does mine, or others who want to actually hold those in charge of the OU football program responsible for what happens with the program. See...you want to absolve Bob Stoops and the coaches of any type of responsibility, and in your mind they can do no wrong. See...in your world....Bob Stoops is YOUR Jim Jones....don't drink the Kool-Aid Plaino.....

 

[dfwsoonerfan]

See, this is part of the problem. You take the stance that just because some want to hold coaches accountable for their programs, that you believe we think every single thing that happens on the field is the fault of the coaches. That's absurd. Coaches can't hold players hands and make sure they catch punts, or somehow control their feet to make sure they make field goals. Of course alot of responsibility is on the shoulders of players to perform and make plays. But I would think you would understand as much as anyone, that coaches do in fact make decisions with their team that directly impact what happens on the field. Correct?? Kinda like the OU/OSU game last season when Bob Stoops decided to repunt. Or are you gonna stick to your guns and say that was the players fault??

But what you don't seem to understand, is overall it's the coaches who are accountable and will be held responsible for the success or lack of success on the field. If you're little "it's not the alignment, it's the alignees" statement you love to throw out to absolve coaches of any responsibility for what happens with their football program, then why don't coaches or athletic directors simply refuse to renew the yearly scholarships for players who, in your mind, are the root cause for winning and losing games?? But what you apparently haven't noticed over the history of college football, is it's the coaching staffs that are shit canned at football programs when there are lackluster results on the field. I literally would have LOVED to see how you reacted to OU football during the John Blake era.

Now of course many on here will agree with your stance, kinda like fitty did since he thinks your flawed attempt at logic is apparently...brilliant. But those are some of the same posters who will jump over to a thread about Texas and go on and on about how hilarious it is that Charlie Strong is an idiot, moron, and has no idea what he is doing and comparing him to OU's John Blake era of football. See the amazingly obvious hypocrisy??

And what's really comical about your Jim Jones remark, is it really does apply more to your thinking than it does mine, or others who want to actually hold those in charge of the OU football program responsible for what happens with the program. See...you want to absolve Bob Stoops and the coaches of any type of responsibility, and in your mind they can do no wrong. See...in your world....Bob Stoops is YOUR Jim Jones....don't drink the Kool-Aid Plaino.....

This..... Oy vey

 

[Gramps]

As I posted in another thread, is this just bad luck or poor coaching?

Was the coach kicking the ball?

 

[Plainosooner]

How would I have reacted during the Blake era? Blake was a moron who had no idea what was necessary to be a good head coach. And if he had done it for a decade, he still would not have gotten it.

But we have one of the top five coaches in college football. And just about anybody with an iota of objectivity knows that.

When BV was the DC, toward the end of his time at OU, there were complaints here that his schemes were too complicated. It was inhibiting player agressiveness. Mike came in and was going to simplify things. It would be the good old days. Did not happen.

BStoops is as good as you are going to get. If Bob was passing on great players, and recruiting guys he and staff had misevaluated, it might be different. The instate talent level has diminished. The dynamics in recruiting has changed. The staff saw it coming and was ahead of the curve.

They emphasized states outside of OUr tradtional Ok Tx base. A lot more effort in Cali. A few cherries picked in SEC territory. The best freshman kicker in the country from Big 10 country.

If Hunnicutt had an AA season last year, would we have been 10 and 3? How about if we do not lose OUr best defensive player, Grisham, and best offensive player, Shep, halfway through the year?

I am just glad that the people who hold Bob accountable know what they have. And they will keep him as long as he will stay. Thank God.

 

[Phaeded]

The UTenn loss looks like the one you can contribute to coaching. What message did that extra point send the team at that critical juncture in the raise-your-four-fingers-in-the-air 4th Q? That the game was in hand - just kick the meaningless extra point (UF needed two TDs regardless, the 2nd of which would make them winners - which it did). By going for two you underscore that you are still in a dog fight....in The Swamp for cripe's sake.

Sorry, had to get that off my chest - spent the bye game at my UF buddy's house rooting for UTenn, for "SOS".

Now Jones is drawing these thoughtful criticisms....

College Football
Butch Jones Explained Stupid Two-Point Conversion Decision Stupidly

By Ty Duffy September 26, 2015 8:18 pm ET
http://thebiglead.com/2015/09/26/bu...tupid-two-point-conversion-decision-stupidly/

 

[BillyRay]

Well it's refreshing to hear you make a statement like that about an OU head coach in John Blake, and that it wasn't just the players fault in why he failed at OU. That at least shows progress is being made in this thread. Now, I'm not real sure what happened between then and now with the Bob Stoops tenure in that you believe the coaches can do no wrong, and the blame has now shifted to players.

But also it's still a bit disturbing your undying allegiance and blind support of Bob Stoops as if he is your Jim Jones. Nobody on here want's Bob Stoops fired and to leave....at least at this point. Anyone who comes on here and wants Bob gone right now is a moron in my opinion. And I have no doubt you would agree Plaino. But at the same time, I also understand that Bob Stoops is NOT the OU football program. The program is larger than he is. OU football was here before he showed up in Norman, and someday when Bob hangs it up, OU football will continue to be played. So your statement of "keep him as long as he will stay" is a bit unnerving since it really paints a picture that you will feel that way regardless of what results we see on the field in the future.

Now, I agree with you that Bob Stoops right now is one of the top 5 most accomplished football coaches in college football. But ya know what, the same could have been said about Bobby Bowden years ago. In fact, Bowden is one of the top college football coaches of all time. But even with his unbelievable career, there was a time where it was pretty obvious it was time for him to move on and retire. And I'm sure at some point, FSU fans hoped that FSU would "keep him as long as he will stay". Well guess what, it got to the point where it really was just time for him to go. And the same applies to Bob Stoops. Any real OU fan wants Bob to succeed and keep winning. But OU really hasn't been a legit national title contender for many years, and anybody with any real intelligence can see that OU football has fallen off a bit from where it was in the early 2000's and early in Bob Stoops career when OU was about one of the most feared football programs in the country. Nowadays, OU isn't even the most feared team in the Big XII.

 

[Phaeded]

Nowadays, OU isn't even the most feared team in the Big XII.

I've been reduced to just hoping we are competitive in Waco. Waco (!).

 

[CTOkie]

You just don't seem to understand. What I did was below the level of the water boys. The trainers considered themselves the skilled labor. We managers were the unskilled labor.

But the game is pretty similar no matter what level. Players make plays, or don't. You guys want to put dropped punt snaps or field goals missed by a foot to be on the HC. One might have something to do with Charlie, but not much.

One coach gets eight guys hurt, and another comes in with his team relatively free of injury. If the guy whose team is beat up, gets beat, for you, it's a coaching problem. And oh, BTW, my team should NEVER lose. It's beyond unrealistic. But so long has you have ten buds who agree with you, then you must be right.

The Jim Jones' of the world seek out people with your outlook.

Plaino, you're starting to babble. When a team loses there can be several factors. It could be the coaching mistakes (like OU's decision to punt a second time against OSU last year), players and sometimes just bad breaks as in the tipped pass in the end zone by TCU against Tech last Saturday.

 

[Soonersincefitty]

These arguments...as old as football itself. It's the coaches fault, fire them all. It's the players fault, bench their asses. It never ends.

I do know this.
Our coaches don't err or have lapses in judgement anymore, and I'd say most times less than most of the other elite programs in the country.
Further, as has been stated repeatedly, the players can be taught, practiced, drilled until the cows come home, however, if they don't perform in real time in a game, it's all for naught.

You closet lovers of Saban and 'Bama...uh oh, they have a loss, OU doesn't.

 

[Plainosooner]

Plaino, you're starting to babble. When a team loses there can be several factors. It could be the coaching mistakes (like OU's decision to punt a second time against OSU last year), players and sometimes just bad breaks as in the tipped pass in the end zone by TCU against Tech last Saturday.

Totally agree. Except for the babbling accusation. I'm only arguing against the "it's always on the coaches" crowd, which seems to dominate around here, and ever more where they're paying for it, two clicks away. Sometimes, Dumb luck has a lot to do with it.

But more than anything, it's about which players you have available that day.

And I promise, that if Bob had more than one healthy corner against OSU, he wouldn't have punted again. But he'd seen how quickly OSU scored in their previous possession, with one cornerback out there who could barely run, he figured that if he punted it inside the ten, it would use a little more time, and maybe back them up a little more.

If you watch the replay of the play, we had the first coverage guy down there who ran right by Tyreek Hill, assuming he wouldn't catch the ball, in an attempt to down it. If he doesn't go brain dead, we wouldn't even be discussing the decision. Bob has taken responsibility, as he should have. But it's pure second guess. I did think it was a bad idea before it was returned, same way I thought it was a bad idea when Robert Griffin beat us on the final drive for Baylor's first win ever in the series, after Bob called timeout on defense.

I was screaming at him for the assumption that they could stop Baylor. I think Bob is imperfect as are the rest of us. But every loss is not on him. Most aren't. Most are because the other team's guys made more plays than OUrs did. And surely coaches do put players in position to do that. And they set a standard for discipline that makes a huge difference in the game.

Like Saturday, I thought it was idiotic of Gundy to not try for a late touchdown, instead of settling for a field goal attempt that only tied the score. Still do, even though it worked out for him.

Sometimes, blind squirrels find the occasional acorn. Like when Blake beat the Horns team that went on to win the conference title. Texas wasn't that good, but they did win the south and then upset a Nebraska team that really didn't want to be in St Louis.

It's like when there is a once every 18 year lunar eclipse and where you live, the clouds won't let you see the event.

 

[BillyRay]

I think Bob is imperfect as are the rest of us. But every loss is not on him. Most aren't. Most are because the other team's guys made more plays than OUrs did. And surely coaches do put players in position to do that. And they set a standard for discipline that makes a huge difference in the game.

See, I 100% agree with this. But in the end, whether losses are the fault of the players not making plays or the coaches making incorrect calls or not having their team prepared, it's the coaches that ultimately are accountable if their team fails on the field. So yes...I do have a good idea about accountability.

 

[Plainosooner]

If it is mostly coaches, then why was Saban not a great coach at Michigan St or maybe Kent before that? DKR was a whole lot better in Austin than at Pullman?

Steve Superior was lot better at Florida than he is at South Carolina? Brian Kelly at ND has been in an NC game and threatened another time or two and may this year.

The list of guys who were okay to 9 and 3 at Middle Tier U and then coached for NCs when they got to a place where you can recruit great players, is a long list.

Barry long said it is the alignees, before he won a Super Bowl with Hall of Fame futures at six positions but was under .500 when Novacek got hurt, Haley moved on, Big Bad Eric was hurt in a car wreck, and Michael hurt his neck. Among others.

Coaches make the program, especially when they stay 17 years. But we were a NC threat with Gerald, and Sam, and DeMarco, and Jermaine, and likely the best group of players in the Stoops era. And in the NC game, playing the 3rd team mike linebacker and with DeMarco watching, we scored 14 points after 60 five straight games. It has always been about players. And always will be.

 

[BillyRay]

If it is mostly coaches, then why was Saban not a great coach at Michigan St or maybe Kent before that? DKR was a whole lot better in Austin than at Pullman?

Steve Superior was lot better at Florida than he is at South Carolina? Brian Kelly at ND has been in an NC game and threatened another time or two and may this year.

The list of guys who were okay to 9 and 3 at Middle Tier U and then coached for NCs when they got to a place where you can recruit great players, is a long list.

Barry long said it is the alignees, before he won a Super Bowl with Hall of Fame futures at six positions but was under .500 when Novacek got hurt, Haley moved on, Big Bad Eric was hurt in a car wreck, and Michael hurt his neck. Among others.

Coaches make the program, especially when they stay 17 years. But we were a NC threat with Gerald, and Sam, and DeMarco, and Jermaine, and likely the best group of players in the Stoops era. And in the NC game, playing the 3rd team mike linebacker and with DeMarco watching, we scored 14 points after 60 five straight games. It has always been about players. And always will be.

See..up till now I really thought we were making progress, but your last statement there we are back to square one. But since you wanna keep this going, let me throw a question of my own at ya....
If it's "always about the players. And always will be". Then how do you explain John Blake completely failing at OU, then Bob Stoops coming in and winning a national title 2 years later with a roster full of many of the same kids that played under Blake??

And there are more factors that go into whether a head coach is successful or not, then just who the head coach is. Not all programs are equal. Do you agree with that? There are lots of examples of coaches who succeed at one program, yet are pretty average at other programs. Your examples are good ones, and also Jimmy Johnson was a good example. He did a decent job at OSU, then went to Miami and became one of the best coaches in college football. Another we may be witnessing right now is Charlie Strong. He did a tremendous job at Louisville, but so far has had a pretty rough time at Texas. His players certainly aren't helping him at all with their blunders on the field, but also Texas may just end up not being a good fit for the guy. He may fail at Texas, get fired, then move on and succeed at another school.

Also, the assistants a coach surrounds himself with in my opinion, plays as big a role in whether a head coach is successful as does the head coach himself. Bob Stoops is actually a pretty good example of this. There is a reason why early in Bob's tenure he had to replace coaches because his assistants were being hired off for head coaching jobs. And there is also a reason why Bob's coaching changes in the last 3-4 years weren't due to losing coaches to other programs, but due to Bob firing them or pushing them out of the program. There is a HUGE difference between those 2 scenarios. Do you agree Plaino?? It's because the first group were great coaches and the results on the field speak for themselves, and the 2nd group was responsibly for the program slipping a bit and why OU is no longer such a feared program in the world of college football.

But like I said before......I 100% agreed with your statement that most failures on the field are not the fault of the coaches. But with your last post you are back to saying "If it is mostly coaches" as if my previous agreement with your statement went right over your head. You are right, that even the greatest head coach can't succeed if he doesn't have the players and athletes to make it happen. And there is no doubt that some programs are easier to recruit to than others. That's why comparing what coaches did from program to program is like comparing apples to oranges.

But also like last OU's bowl game last year, all of OUs talent looked pretty unprepared and uninspired against that Clemson team. And that falls 100% on the coaches shoulders. Period!!! You will never convince me that Clemson had that much more talent on the sidelines than OU. Clemson could have hung 60+ on OU that night had they not taken their foot off the gas.

Plaino we are talking about two different things here....fault and accountability. Let me try it another way.......not everything is the coaches fault, but in the end, the coaches ARE accountable for what happens.

 

[CTOkie]

See..up till now I really thought we were making progress, but your last statement there we are back to square one. But since you wanna keep this going, let me throw a question of my own at ya....
If it's "always about the players. And always will be". Then how do you explain John Blake completely failing at OU, then Bob Stoops coming in and winning a national title 2 years later with a roster full of many of the same kids that played under Blake??

And there are more factors that go into whether a head coach is successful or not, then just who the head coach is. Not all programs are equal. Do you agree with that? There are lots of examples of coaches who succeed at one program, yet are pretty average at other programs. Your examples are good ones, and also Jimmy Johnson was a good example. He did a decent job at OSU, then went to Miami and became one of the best coaches in college football. Another we may be witnessing right now is Charlie Strong. He did a tremendous job at Louisville, but so far has had a pretty rough time at Texas. His players certainly aren't helping him at all with their blunders on the field, but also Texas may just end up not being a good fit for the guy. He may fail at Texas, get fired, then move on and succeed at another school.

Also, the assistants a coach surrounds himself with in my opinion, plays as big a role in whether a head coach is successful as does the head coach himself. Bob Stoops is actually a pretty good example of this. There is a reason why early in Bob's tenure he had to replace coaches because his assistants were being hired off for head coaching jobs. And there is also a reason why Bob's coaching changes in the last 3-4 years weren't due to losing coaches to other programs, but due to Bob firing them or pushing them out of the program. There is a HUGE difference between those 2 scenarios. Do you agree Plaino?? It's because the first group were great coaches and the results on the field speak for themselves, and the 2nd group was responsibly for the program slipping a bit and why OU is no longer such a feared program in the world of college football.

But like I said before......I 100% agreed with your statement that most failures on the field are not the fault of the coaches. But with your last post you are back to saying "If it is mostly coaches" as if my previous agreement with your statement went right over your head. You are right, that even the greatest head coach can't succeed if he doesn't have the players and athletes to make it happen. And there is no doubt that some programs are easier to recruit to than others. That's why comparing what coaches did from program to program is like comparing apples to oranges.

But also like last OU's bowl game last year, all of OUs talent looked pretty unprepared and uninspired against that Clemson team. And that falls 100% on the coaches shoulders. Period!!! You will never convince me that Clemson had that much more talent on the sidelines than OU. Clemson could have hung 60+ on OU that night had they not taken their foot off the gas.

Plaino we are talking about two different things here....fault and accountability. Let me try it another way.......not everything is the coaches fault, but in the end, the coaches ARE accountable for what happens.

Good post, BillyRay. Ultimately, the success or failure of a football program to win games and have winning seasons defines the overall body of work of a coach....fairly or unfairly.