ADVERTISEMENT

inform me again please

crow4435

I.T.S. Freshman
Sep 25, 2002
131
112
43
after reading an article about Tulsa signings, are these kids up to FBS standards? they all sound like pdg athletes. its been said a million times but i'll say it too...how can TU build a following when there are hardly any local recruits on the team? if i'm wrong i'm sorry, i just see all this local talent walking away and with the area usually playing the best footbal in the state, Tulsa signs one.
 
Last edited:
Local talent vs. non-local doesn't make any difference. All that matters is that we get the best talent possible. People don't come to games to watch TU football because it has local kids on it. They come to watch whoever is wearing that uniform compete. i've seen this mantra in the Juco ranks and FBS. "Get local talent and more people will come watch". It just isn't so.
 
It is so. People will come to watch a friend’s kid or a child’s teammate play at the next level. Giving a scholarship to a local kid puts more butts in seats for a home game than a team full of kids from far away who would have parents come to games if it is affordable. Local kids bring local attention to the program. No reason at all that Owen O didn’t get a Tulsa offer. Great kid from a great family with elite talent from a local program would have created local interest in the program and helped bring in fans to watch games . You can convince yourself otherwise but.......
 
We seem to be doing well identifying talent on the defensive side of the ball. No real complaints there. We seem to develop the guys well.
 
A generational talent like Paul Smith will sell some tickets. But that’s once in a generation. Nobody was paying cash to see Bishop Louie or Marco Nelson who wasn’t coming anyway. But there’s something to be said for building a brand that incorporates solid local talent without the pandering and small time feel of #forourcity which comes off as a great 3A high school slogan. The biggest problem with relying on local talent is you quickly get into a situation where local high school coaches view themselves as kingpins who get bent out if they like a kid with no offers and TU won’t take him. Then we are stuck with a kid who can’t play or a pissed off coach who won’t send the players we do want in the future. The kids who can play for us shop around for better offers knowing we will offer. Finally, a fair percentage of them come to campus entitled. The coach didn’t recruit them. They don’t owe the coach or the program anything. They were the best safety in the city last year and who the school needed a safety. Lots of behavior problems that way. There’s other negatives, but these are some of the biggies. This guy can’t recruit anywhere. Frankly I’d rather have a kid who doesn’t show up or can’t play from Skiatook rather than Round Rock, TX or worse some kid who attends a three day mini camp put on by Montgomery for the high school teams coached by his old Division 2 teammates. If we are going to spend 4 years developing a player and go 2-9 every year, let’s get somebody from Grove who knows how to hit and win. We don’t have to fly to Waco to find that.
 
The biggest issue I see in recruiting is we don't seem to be willing to really fight for the really good local kids. If we know OU or OSU or any P5 are calling, we don't seem to be willing to fight for the kid and try to keep them here. Seriously, why the hell didn't Kyler Pearson consider us more? Kansas is a bloody train wreck and among the worst teams in FBS. Even Grass Eater Miles hasn't been able to come close to righting that ship. And we're supposed to have a WR friendly offense. We should be recruiting ANY player that is P5 quality within a 25 mile radius. The only real resource we have to put into them is time. It's not like the coaches have to jump on a plane to go and see them. TU has the top 5 programs in the state within a 15 min drive, and you can add Wagoner to that for another 15 minutes. This doesn't even take into account the great players that BTW churns out and I'll spring for the bicycle the TU coaches need to ride on over there to recruit them.

I am not against Monty recruiting players out of Texas, but if there are good to great players locally, we should be fighting for them. Find the engineers. According to MONEY magazine, TU has a top 7 national engineering program ahead of schools like Stanford and only behind schools like MIT, Cal Tech, and Harvey Mudd. Sell the Game Design major as it appears to be growing and a top national program in that area.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TU4ever2
There’s no empirical evidence to support your assertion this is a “WR friendly” offense. In the present case, the stats just don’t add up. We were told Smith would light it up. He’s never had a game with more than two passing tds as I recall.

Indeed, the offense was developed in the early 90’s as a triple option veer, where the first option was to pass wide, or essentially pitch, to a wide receiver, who would secure at least a short gain, provided a second wide receiver is capable and willing to block for you. The rest of your role in the offense is running patterns to create space for the running game, unless down and distance mandates you being a target. In which case, it doesn’t matter if the pass is complete or not, unless you are down more than two scores in the fourth quarter. The offensive philosophy is if it is incomplete, punting deep will flip the field and the advantage will be on the offense in the next possession. Of course, that assumption only works if two things are present: 1) the talent on defense to stop the other team using a recruiting budget at the bottom of the conference at a small school in a remote town with a history of racism, 2) the referees not applying the portions of the rule book that by design favor the offense. That’s why you see the team loosen up and move the ball the last two minutes of each half. We are no longer concerned about long term field position because the half is going to end. It’s a fool’s allegiance to an antiquated offensive philosophy. The very ideas that Malzahn challenged, (as well as others).
 
We seem to be doing well identifying talent on the defensive side of the ball. No real complaints there. We seem to develop the guys well.

I wouldn't mind seeing us go after Brenden Dye at Owasso. He's a helluva LB with attitude. Emaud Triplett is awesome too but committed to Army.
 
There’s no empirical evidence to support your assertion this is a “WR friendly” offense. In the present case, the stats just don’t add up. We were told Smith would light it up. He’s never had a game with more than two passing tds as I recall.

He had 3 TDs against UCF, but I believe that was the first game with more than 2.
 
He had 3 TDs against UCF, but I believe that was the first game with more than 2.
Let's look at the number of games where he has completed 20+ yd passes and how many. Last year vs SMU our WRs were open all day, caught a ton of passes but didn't happen to score on some of those plays because, let's be honest, our WRs lack the breakaway speed after the catch. Watching Pearson in HS and you've got a kid who can create the separation on the slant routes and the middle routes and Smith is more than capable of hitting him. Instead we're running out the coach's son as the 4th or 5th WR in sets and who couldn't create separation from Fat Albert
 
I do think the coach’s son has the quicks to be a decent slot receiver. Unfortunately, being able to catch the ball is a pre-req
Maybe. He's not faster than some of the other WRs on the roster....he's also not faster than Kyler Pearson who would play the same position, who does have the hands, and in the right offense in college, could be a Cole Beasley, Danny Amendola, Wes Welker type of WR.
 
As far as local kids was Tulsa great when they were loaded with every Blankenship In Oklahoma Tyler Gooch and many Jenks players or did we have the Oklahoma players from Union and Jenks that ou and osu didn’t offer.
 
Last edited:
As far as local kids was Tulsa great when were loaded with every Blankenship In Oklahoma Tyler Gooch and many Jenks players or did we have the Oklahoma players from Union and Jenks that ou and osu didn’t offer.
So much this. We’ve had the same formula for decades and it works. Overloading with local kids would plunge the program, unless we’ve had the success to retain kids with multiple Bog 12 offers.
 
Every other coach in FBS football disagreed.

This doesn't really make sense. It's possible that they all disagreed with that, but there are 100 other reasons not to offer him besides his quickness.
 
Last edited:
This doesn't really make sense. It's possible that they disagreed with that, but there are 100 other reasons not to offer him besides his quickness.
That’s what I was ultimately referring to and agreeing with you about. It makes no difference how fast or quick he is or how well he knows the offense. There are plenty of other skills and abilities lacking. If they were there, you would have seen courtesy offers from colleagues at other schools.
 
Let's look at the number of games where he has completed 20+ yd passes and how many. Last year vs SMU our WRs were open all day, caught a ton of passes but didn't happen to score on some of those plays because, let's be honest, our WRs lack the breakaway speed after the catch. Watching Pearson in HS and you've got a kid who can create the separation on the slant routes and the middle routes and Smith is more than capable of hitting him. Instead we're running out the coach's son as the 4th or 5th WR in sets and who couldn't create separation from Fat Albert
Catching a bunch of 6 yard passes when it’s 3rd and 7 looks great in the stat book a year later, but its how you lose games. Which they did. Giving up huge leads. Because we could not hold the ball or score when it counted.
 
There’s no empirical evidence to support your assertion this is a “WR friendly” offense. In the present case, the stats just don’t add up. We were told Smith would light it up. He’s never had a game with more than two passing tds as I recall.

Indeed, the offense was developed in the early 90’s as a triple option veer, where the first option was to pass wide, or essentially pitch, to a wide receiver, who would secure at least a short gain, provided a second wide receiver is capable and willing to block for you. The rest of your role in the offense is running patterns to create space for the running game, unless down and distance mandates you being a target. In which case, it doesn’t matter if the pass is complete or not, unless you are down more than two scores in the fourth quarter. The offensive philosophy is if it is incomplete, punting deep will flip the field and the advantage will be on the offense in the next possession. Of course, that assumption only works if two things are present: 1) the talent on defense to stop the other team using a recruiting budget at the bottom of the conference at a small school in a remote town with a history of racism, 2) the referees not applying the portions of the rule book that by design favor the offense. That’s why you see the team loosen up and move the ball the last two minutes of each half. We are no longer concerned about long term field position because the half is going to end. It’s a fool’s allegiance to an antiquated offensive philosophy. The very ideas that Malzahn challenged, (as well as others).
UCF (3) this year, ECU (5) and SMU (4) last year.
 
Idk what the deal was with Preasley. As for Ostroski, I wonder if the coaches think the kid they're signing from Wagoner is better and they only have room for 1 DE in this class? Just guessing.

Plenty of other Oklahoma kids we've offered. Most are going to OSU, Arkansas or other P5's.
 
We had Zack Langer from Jenks, Shamari Brooks from Union and other local guys we've recruited. I would've liked to have seen Ostroski sign here since his dad was such a huge part of the 91 team and he's still a great ambassador to the program. TU will start getting more recruits and local interest when we have a top 25 team, which likely would be the case if Cincinnati hadn't got the sniffles last week and we beat their ass at home (I think they lied to avoid playing us).
 
It’s never a done deal with a service academy until you actually matriculate. There’s lots of things that could happen between now and then in terms of physical exams/fitness, grade credit, etc. it’s not as bad as Air Force, but he could find himself needing a place to land in the Fall and if Toodles isn’t in Hawaii in August, don’t be surprised if Owen winds up in Tulsa. He’s a great kid and will knock life out of the park. But if his Dad wasn’t a legend, none of you guys would be upset we didn’t offer someone that Kansas and North Texas passed on with a bunch of D2 offers, Ivy Leagues and the academies. He deserves some big time offers, but the reality is we should all be grateful he is putting service to his country before going to Dartmouth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: quincy101
It’s never a done deal with a service academy until you actually matriculate. There’s lots of things that could happen between now and then in terms of physical exams/fitness, grade credit, etc. it’s not as bad as Air Force, but he could find himself needing a place to land in the Fall and if Toodles isn’t in Hawaii in August, don’t be surprised if Owen winds up in Tulsa. He’s a great kid and will knock life out of the park. But if his Dad wasn’t a legend, none of you guys would be upset we didn’t offer someone that Kansas and North Texas passed on with a bunch of D2 offers, Ivy Leagues and the academies. He deserves some big time offers, but the reality is we should all be grateful he is putting service to his country before going to Dartmouth.
I don't think it's just cuz his dad's a legend here. I'm upset because I know what his dad/family's like, which leads me to believe he will turn out better than he looks coming out of HS. He's one you figure will surprise a few coaches that passed on him by his junior year.
 
No the point is I knew it wasn't true as soon as I read it.
So did he. Sometimes you miss the point, or ignore it due to a stubborn desire not to admit someone else's point is valid. Just because you've taken a mild slight, doesn't mean you have to turn it into defensive situation. His point was that if you had to look it up, then it's not been a place where receivers will flock to. He was right. Admit it and move on, instead of trying to get the last word in an argument you've already lost. Three games of +3 is not going to draw in receivers.
 
So did he. Sometimes you miss the point, or ignore it due to a stubborn desire not to admit someone else's point is valid. Just because you've taken a mild slight, doesn't mean you have to turn it into defensive situation. His point was that if you had to look it up, then it's not been a place where receivers will flock to. He was right. Admit it and move on, instead of trying to get the last word in an argument you've already lost. Three games of +3 is not going to draw in receivers.
He'll likely be gone next season anyway. We had two 1000 yard receivers in 16 and it got us pretty much nothing besides keevan's under-recruited brother. I understood Huffy's point fine. You apparently both missed mine: If you build it, they will come. If we are actually nationally relevant (Conference Title, ranked, big bowl game victory, etc...) we will draw better recruits. Tulsa didn't get Graham's big-time recruits until after Krag had already laid a winning foundation. That's exactly what we need and it doesn't matter if its done with Defense winning games and the offense performing just OK. Eventually you'll be able to sell kids on coming to a winning program.

2005 Tulsa Conference Championship team: Paul Smith averaged 1.6 TD's per game. No one complained. Last season Smith averaged 1.6 TD's per game. This year he's at 1.8 so far. I'll take it as long as it wins games. Sell the fact that you can build a winning team and you will do well in the recruiting game.
 
He'll likely be gone next season anyway. We had two 1000 yard receivers in 16 and it got us pretty much nothing besides keevan's under-recruited brother. I understood Huffy's point fine. You apparently both missed mine: If you build it, they will come. If we are actually nationally relevant (Conference Title, ranked, big bowl game victory, etc...) we will draw better recruits. Tulsa didn't get Graham's big-time recruits until after Krag had already laid a winning foundation. That's exactly what we need and it doesn't matter if its done with Defense winning games and the offense performing just OK. Eventually you'll be able to sell kids on coming to a winning program.

2005 Tulsa Conference Championship team: Paul Smith averaged 1.6 TD's per game. No one complained. Last season Smith averaged 1.6 TD's per game. This year he's at 1.8 so far. I'll take it as long as it wins games. Sell the fact that you can build a winning team and you will do well in the recruiting game.

He argued that it's not a wr friendly offense, and you are arguing build it and they will come. Two different arguments that are only tangentially related. Of course we will get better recruits across the board if we have a winnings season or two whether off of defense or not. Still doesn't change the fact that we don't presently have a wr receiver friendly offense. Whether we do well or not, we will have a harder time attracting top notch recruits in the wr position. We'll just have better recruits than we have been getting before. They'll have to work harder/lie to get top notch, instead of just better than... Cross arguing is just as bad as not getting the point.
 
He argued that it's not a wr friendly offense, and you are arguing build it and they will come. Two different arguments that are only tangentially related. Of course we will get better recruits across the board if we have a winnings season or two whether off of defense or not. Still doesn't change the fact that we don't presently have a wr receiver friendly offense. Whether we do well or not, we will have a harder time attracting top notch recruits in the wr position. We'll just have better recruits than we have been getting before. They'll have to work harder/lie to get top notch, instead of just better than... Cross arguing is just as bad as not getting the point.
2 1000 Yard Receivers in 15 and 2 in 16 would lead me to believe differently. The problem isn't that the offense isn't good for receivers. It's that the receivers that we currently have aren't necessarily impressive in terms of size or speed (they are good route runners with good hands) If our receivers were better at beating people vertically, you would probably see them have higher average yardage / TD's. Right now, we have 3 guys averaging 14+ YPC. Memphis has a couple guys averaging 15 and 17... but they're also speedsters that beat people deep.

Some of this "it's not good for WR" assertion is just a factor that we haven't been getting the quality of receivers that Memphis / SMU / Houston have for 4 years due to how poor the program was. Give Zach Smith Marquez Stevenson or Marlon Williams and he'd probably have quite a few more TD's and yards. Right now we're having to play a dink and dunk game intermediate game due to the fact that if we don't... our receivers won't get open in 1v1 coverage. Even with those deficiencies in talent... Zach Smith is still averaging the same Yards Per Completion as Brady White and is only slightly below Beuchelle at SMU.
 
Last edited:
BTW, Deneric Prince is 2nd in the conference in Yards Per Attempt. That's a stat that I will take all day long. Last year we didn't have anyone in the top 10 in YPA rushing. This year we have 2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TU_BLA
2 1000 Yard Receivers in 15 and 2 in 16 would lead me to believe differently. The problem isn't that the offense isn't good for receivers. It's that the receivers that we currently have aren't necessarily impressive in terms of size or speed (they are good route runners with good hands) If our receivers were better at beating people vertically, you would probably see them have higher average yardage / TD's. Right now, we have 3 guys averaging 14+ YPC. Memphis has a couple guys averaging 15 and 17... but they're also speedsters that beat people deep.

Some of this "it's not good for WR" assertion is just a factor that we haven't been getting the quality of receivers that Memphis / SMU / Houston have for 4 years due to how poor the program was. Give Zach Smith Marquez Stevenson or Marlon Williams and he'd probably have quite a few more TD's and yards. Right now we're having to play a dink and dunk game intermediate game due to the fact that if we don't... our receivers won't get open in 1v1 coverage. Even with those deficiencies in talent... Zach Smith is still averaging the same Yards Per Completion as Brady White and is only slightly below Beuchelle at SMU.

You have a point about zach's performance, as far as passing touchdowns go. It being better with better receivers, as opposed to it all being due solely to the offense.
 
No one complained. Last season Smith averaged 1.6 TD's per game. This year he's at 1.8 so far. I'll take it as long as it wins games. Sell the fact that you can build a winning team and you will do well in the recruiting game.
I was waiting for someone to bring up Smith's performances this season. We don't need him to throw 4-5 TDs a game...we need him to keep the chains moving when the running game is struggling. Whatever drive it was the other day, Smith kept drives going with 3rd and long passes and they weren't the dink and see what the WR could do types of passes. These were 10-15 yds downfield strikes. That's the WRs getting open and Smith delivering the ball on time. A couple of the throws were into tight windows.

IMO, this year's 3 headed RB monster (when TK is healthy) may be better than what we've had in a while. Taylor is going to find the hole and get you tough yards. TK is going to run over LBs who are unfortunate enough to be in the way, and Prince is the home run threat we haven't had in a while. Couple that with an OL that is really playing pretty well. Unlike last year where we had trouble blocking the 4 DL rushers in passing situations, I don't really recall many pressures coming from the opposition when they hadn't brought an extra rusher or 2. I'm sure there have been a couple but it's not a glaring deficiency like last year.

Smith is fine. I think Brin will be fine. I know Monty doesn't want to run up scores and create bad feelings but you've got to signal the opposing coach and let him know "Kid's first downs, we're going to play normal and see what he can do".
 

No idea why this took that long. He's borderline but he's a legacy with a great work ethic and solid potential to grow into a player, who has had really good coaching.

We don't need to recruit Tulsa, just to recruit Tulsa, but by far one of the most successful coaches we have had here recruited on a tank of gas.

People like Garrett Mills and Paul Smith didn't fall out of the sky and neither did Zavin or Shamari. It's not some secret that two of the better high school programs in the country sit less than 15 miles from the University campus. Nor is it an accident that OSU and OU built their programs back on local recruits being their backbone. While #Forourcity is 3A like to some, to kids growing up here wearing your home on the front of the uniform for the whole nation to see every game is a big deal. People fight harder for what's theirs, that's why home field matters.

We forget our roots and we are likely to get blown over in a storm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crow4435
The “tank of gas” comment is a backhanded way of coaches insulting their programs for not funding them to travel to the recruits they want. It’s a way of distancing themselves from their potential on field failures because they aren’t given a blank check. I wish the comment would end. No problem if you use it, I’m just sick of coaches using it.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT