On Points Per Drive, Corndog and Mike Yurcich

One of the best parts of running a site like this is the feedback from smart people who follow Oklahoma State, sports and Oklahoma State sports. The bigger and more encompassing the site gets, the more of those people are brought in. That’s a good thing. We are not an autocratic disseminator of news, information and #takes. We are wrong often. I may be wrong most often.

The hard part — at least for me — is that often to find out exactly how I was wrong and how to think better and more clearly about a given topic, I have to sift through the comments section. I am reticent to do this for obvious reasons, but I did take a gander at my 10 questions post yesterday and saw some awesome points from a commenter named Matt Haffner. I don’t know Matt — never met him, don’t read it — but I appreciated the thoughtfulness in his comments.

It was in response to me noting that OSU is averaging 3.11 points per drive this season, good for 15th in the country and about how this is exhibit No. 283 of why Mike Yurcich is actually much better at his job than most people think. I often take the point too far to try and drag you to the place I would actually like you to be, and Matt called me on it … quite well. Let’s take a look.

Let’s keep in mind that this is who we’ve played so far: Kansas (terrible), Texas Tech (historically terrible defense), Boise State (Ok, but maybe worse than everyone thought), South Alabama (terrible), Missouri State (not a team). No team plays all power 5 schools in their first 5 games, but plenty of other teams have played much, much, tougher schedules. We should not be celebrating the glories of MY based on that figure.

True! However, the site I use throws out FCS teams so Not a Team Missouri State actually doesn’t factor in. Also, OSU has played two top 50 defenses so far (Boise State and Kansas). Counter: They didn’t score for the last 40 minutes against the 100th-ranked defense (Tech).

Here are the top 15 offenses in the country so far, by the way.

I just don’t get it. And hear me out — I am not in the “Fire Yurich” camp (honestly, I don’t think many fans are). But I don’t get why he is immune to criticism. The eye test seems to apply to everyone but him, in which the writers of the blog simply point to the positive offensive figures.

Our quarterback is currently FIFTH in the country in passing yards and TWENTIETH in the country in passer rating (source: ESPN.com)! Yet, we know he has MAJOR issues because of what we’ve seen on the field. Guys, it’s ok to be pro-MY, but coming up with every conceivable stat to defend him is a bit misleading.

This is also fair. I don’t think we haven’t criticized him in the past, though. I’ve written about his inability to adapt within games (TCU last year comes to mind) and how he struggled early in his career at OSU. I just get frustrated at all the FIRE THE COORDINATOR sirens after a bad drive or a bad play or a bad game. It might not be a majority, but the cacophony coming from the minority is deafening.

Matt went on to comment on Taylor Cornelius (and made more good points!)

Here’s the thing: Cornelius is the easiest scapegoat of modern OSU sports. He’s following a QB who beat OU in his first game, which forever artificially inflated his value in the eyes of OSU fans. People could easily overlook Mason’s problems (sailing the ball over WRs heads on short passes, statue like qualities in the pocket) due to this.

I think people (myself included) overlooked Rudy’s shortcomings, but I don’t think his value was artificially inflated. If anything, I feel like people have bedowngraded No. 2 as a means for propping up Corndog this season. He underthrows balls … just like Rudolph did.

Of course, we know that Mason is a better QB than Cornelius. Yes, we miss him. But Cornelius can never win in the eyes of the fans because (a) he is fifth year senior, first time starter; (b) former walkon; (c) looks goofy (e.g., receding hairline); (d) has a name that is easy to turn into funny words (Corndog, Cornhole, etc.); (e) is starting over a freshman that everyone wants to see (not to mention Dru Brown); (f) and he is following Mason.

All great points. He doesn’t have a lot going in his favor on this front.

Meanwhile, Yurich gets a free pass, and all of the great offensive numbers say everything about him and nothing about Cornelius. That’s my gripe. I still think we should be concerned about what we’ve seen from Cornelius so far, but I also think he is unfairly criticized and that he can (and probably will) improve.

This is good, and I think it gets at a bigger problem when it comes to analysis of college football, and specifically RPO teams like Oklahoma State. When a given play is successful for, say, a 15-yard gain on first down, do you credit the QB for making the right call at the line, the OC for making the right call in the booth, the RB for picking the right hole or the OL for creating that hole?

The truth is that you credit whoever best boosts your chosen #narrative and then discredit someone else when a play goes poorly later in the game. The other truth is that it’s much easier to evaluate the tangible evidence of a thrown ball than it is to evaluate the intangible evidence of an invisible play call or a unit like an offensive line. All of these factors are what make all of this equal parts infuriating and fascinating.

My bigger thing in all of this is trying to widen the scope on what people see. I don’t know why I feel a desire to do this. Maybe I simply loathe illogical thinking or an inability to factor in myriad data points. But I’m also not immune to logical fallacies myself, and I appreciate Matt’s points and hope he makes our top 10 comments of the week for his efforts.