Does Bob Stoops have a "system?"

[Medic007]

I'll start by saying I'm not the X and O guy, just a fan of the game and of OU. I've had this question on my mind for a few years now. Does Bob Stoops have a system?

It seems the most successful college coaches have a system that when parts are changed, the system remains constant. I'll use the obvious as an example, Nick Satan. It doesn't seem to matter who his coordinators are or who the players are, they get plugged into the system. New OC? No big deal, no new offense. They keep doing what they do. New QB? Big deal. He's been in the system for 2 years. It's like nothing else matters as long as Satan is at the helm. Same for Urban Meyer, Pete Carroll, Art Briles, etc.

Then you have coaches where everything seems to change based on coordinators and players. Stoops is one of them in my mind. New coordinator equals new offense. The style of the QB seems to play a large part in how the offense runs. I see the downside of this approach in coaches leaving and the type of players recruited. We've seen the Leach offense, the Wilson offense, the fat guy offense, the Heupel offense, and now the Riley offense, each being different than the others. Air Raid, pro-style, spread, and kind of zone read but not, then the WTF offense Riley has brought.

Satan's recruits seem to fit his system regardless of coaching staff. It seems Stoops' recruits fit whatever the latest flavor is and may or may not work in whatever system a new coordinator brings.

Maybe I'm way off base, but I think the vision and the system or lack thereof of the head coach is a strong influence on program success.

Thoughts?

 

[BawlzDeep]

At the end of the day, Stoops system has lead to the most wins for an Oklahoma coach, 9 conference titles, 1 Natty win and four natty appearances and brought OU from the brink of mediocrity. His system works like Icy hot, you rub it on and give it a minute to heat up. It's not always pretty, but the results are pretty good more often than not.

 

[K2C Sooner]

I won't try to answer your post, as I'm not qualified. I will say in the Big12, you better be able to score and score fast. If you don't most of our competition will. The SEC is at it's infancy concerning high paced offenses. Actually, I believe Kentucky and A@M or the only ones. If it takes hold with other programs, with great recruits, watch out. Malzahn disappointed me when he entered the SEC. He changed his offense and it hasn't worked out. JMO.

BTW, One stat nobody is talking about is the number of plays our offense ran versus Houston. I read where we ran 60 total plays to UH's 80. What happened to our "hurry up" offense. I thought we played way to slow on offensive plays.

We need to go back to a faster pace and that's Bob's signature.....JMO.

 

[sybarite43]

Switzer had a system. He recruited quick linemen who could block on running plays. They might not be wide enough to be effective pass blockers. But, the pass came as a surprise, and it gave them a temporary advantage blocking. His quick blockers moved to open a hole---slightly--and sometimes momentarily.

Not every player came in as a guard or tackle. Some were converted tight ends or fullbacks. Some began as defensive linemen. But, they all had the ability to block for the run.

His backs tended to be able to cut quickly, as though he had recruited a soccer game. They changed direction well. Although we remember how highly=recruited some were, not all were this highly-recruited. Pruitt didn't come in as a back. But, the big power backs that some favored were basically ignored by Switzer. He wanted power in a fullback, but often preferred quickness there as well. Welch and Ivory did play fullback at various times. Obviously, a QB had to be someone who could run the option.

It was also apparent on defense. His linebackers weren't always the big bruisers. The best, Shoate, was a halfback in speed and size, which hurt him in the pros. Linebackers had to be quick.

But, Switzer recruited what he wanted for a frame. Often, he built a player. John Goodman was recruited as a 195 pound tighth end. He started two years as a defensive tackle, a position he also played for the Steelers. Good feet for tackle, and a frame that could handle the additional size.

He recruited the type of player who could play in his offense and in his defense. The only time that he got away from that was, in my opinion, a mistake---Dupree. Dupree didn't fit the Switzer style, and never did pan out real well in the system. We remember the big games. I also remember that he wasn't as good as Little Joe or Pruitt on a simple third and one.

You don't just get good players. You have to get a player that you can use in your system. What is Bob's?

We've had multiple quarterbacks who were in the Heisman race, one of whom was the #1 draft choice. We've had running backs like AD. We've had several offensive and defensive linemen hit well in the pros. AD seemed better in the pros, as did some others. What system did they play in here?

 

[Plainosooner]

Bob has an offensive system and a defensive system, and both systems changed college football. The only teams running spreads when Bob came to OU, were have not teams trying to keep up with the elite teams. And at that point in time, OU had history, but was the opposite of an elite team in 1998 when he was hired.

When OU won the national title in 2000, with a lot less talent than most of the other teams in the top ten, the conversion to spread concepts began rapidly spreading, and there aren't many teams that don't use it now. Even Saban uses the base formation some.

There are variations of spreads, but most of that is about where your teams talents lie. I watched Texas the other night, and they looked a lot like OU with two quarterbacks, one of whom got nicknamed the Belldozer. And when Bell was taking snaps, he really wasn't very good at zone read. But he was terrific at loading up the beef and with power, picking a hole and running over guys.

His play against Texas the year he scored four touchdowns, playing part time was still spread concepts. But when A.D. was at OU, he was another guy who wasn't great running laterally. But then, he was the best tailback around. So we found a fullback and ran Adrian more and more from the tail of the I, with a quarterback under center and less and less with a five yard snap in the spread.

Barry did the same thing when he had Marcus Dupree. Less and less wishbone. More and more I formation. And the wishbone wasn't really Barry's system. It was Emory Bellard's system. And Bellard was crestfallen when DKR told him to call OU's coaches and tell them the small details of the wishbone option. Barry absolutely enhanced the five or six basic wishbone run plays. There was the base fullback play. The triple option with three or four different lead blocking strategies. There was the belly play, which was the power fake to the fullback, followed by the left halfback to right tackle behind the fullback, or right halfback or left tackle. And there was the counter dive and the option off that, but with the quarterback doing a reverse spin for the dive, he couldn't read the handoff. So the option pitch had to be predetermined. Those were all Bellard's plays, along with the reverse to the split end, basically intercepting the pitch.

Barry added a cross play, which Texas never ran with Bellard as OC. And he started adding a flanked or slotted wishbone halfback lining up somewhere besides behind the guard. And of course, Barry added black guys with elite speed. Texas' wishbone was lily white, until Roosevelt Leaks became their fullback.

Bob's defensive system was the 4-3 Eagle, and the base concepts were great, until the spread changed everything. The Stoops brothers 4-3 Eagle allowed the defense to make it very tough to get an angle to block the inside linebackers, and had every hole assigned to a defender. The zone read in the spread, added a gap to cover, leaving the defense one gap short in run defense. And one gap short makes that concept a whole different ball game. Stopping the spread means that somebody has to be responsible for two gaps, usually a defensive tackle.

Kind of an irony that he offense that Bob brought to bigtime teams, is the same offense that made his and Mike's defense a whole lot harder to play. They still like to try to get a defender in every gap, especially against a quarterback that is a great runner. Thus, a whole lot of man coverage,, which can make for some major isolation with some corners.

Now we ran a lot of zone Saturday, but with the linebackers playing quarterback run first. And with pass rushers given pretty strict limitations in pass rush lanes, so as to not allow gaps for Ward to improvise through. A sound strategy against him. And he didn't run very effectively often. But it also chokes down the rush some. And that, plus some poor technique by an isolated corner, made for a long day for one corner.

We still use the terminology dating back to those 1999 position labels. That's whey we have a DB that is called a linebacker. But he's really there, because against three and four wides, going with no huddle, he can cover. And so long as the backs aren't too big, he can make tackles in the run game.

 

[trademarcs]

I think Bob was really hands on the first 10 years or so, overseeing everything to his liking. I also believe some complacency has taken over somewhat in the last few years. I believe he depends on his coaching staff for most of the oversight of the team and only gets deeply involved when things aren't going as planned. It seems sometimes the looks on his face at the sidelines is of surprise, and WTF when big plays are made against us.
I don't know if there is a system. These kids now days are being raised unlike myself and seem to have this entitlement attitude that they don't have to work hard. I wonder if sometimes the coaching staff approaches them in more of a coddling fashion instead of the work ethic mentality.
I'm a Stoop supporter regardless, but do I see things with the team that concern me? Of course. It's more of a mentality problem than lack of talent, and that IS a coaching problem to solve........IMHO of course.

 

[Plainosooner]

I don't think Bob was ever very hands on with his offense. He hired OC's to do that. His attitude was pretty much, "I don't care if they score in two play drives, or ten plays. I just want them to score." Now he did bring the spread philosophy to OU, but mostly because he had more trouble stopping it, than anything else he'd ever lined up against. He let the offensive staff handle the detail

But I agree with you that he was very hands on with his defense. There have been times in the last decade, when he worked with position groups on defense, running drills with DB's. Not many head coaches, and especially those who have been around for nearly 20 years, mess with much of that. But when you're the HC, you have to oversee everything that's going on. So during practice, you can't just focus on one group..

I don't think I've ever heard Bob answer the specific question, but I do think that when there are coaches' meetings at night, talking about personnel or game plans or whatever, that Bob spends a whole lot more time in the defensive coaches room than the offensive side.

You may be right. He may be a little less hands on. But Bob's passion has always been on the defensive side. He is at heart, a DC, the son of a DC. And I doubt that's ever going to change that much.

 

[Medic007]

Thanks for the responses.

 

[PryorFan]

His system is to lose the big games, beat the rest a high percentage of time and bankroll $6 million per year. Worked for 17 years.

 

[trademarcs]

Ok, I'll admit I got a good laugh out of that

 

[Soonersincefitty]

His system is to lose the big games, beat the rest a high percentage of time and bankroll $6 million per year. Worked for 17 years.

Come on Pryor, you're better than that.
Would it hurt less if Bob only made 1 million?
I ask only because it keeps coming up.
How about commission pay.
250K for a win, 500 for a loss.

 

[nick614]

Come on Pryor, you're better than that.
Would it hurt less if Bob only made 1 million?
I ask only because it keeps coming up.
How about commission pay.
250K for a win, 500 for a loss.

Paying coaches per win is actually an interesting idea

 

[OUSOONER67]

I for one would like to see these multimillion dollar coaches at least act like they can be held accountable for putting a crappy product on the field. A lot of them act like they do not have to answer for a bad performance and get offended when asked about it. Its like asking a cop why he didn't give a turn signal when he made a right turn.