I am now a Spencer Sanders fan

  • 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nov 25, 2009
2,171
669
1,743
Kedah Malaysia
#22
I have a weird opinion.

We’re not good enough on the online to be effective at the RPO. Sanders is a good runner, not a great runner. He’s a capable passer but not consistent or what I would call good when compared to his peers. His running abilities do not off-set his sub-par passing abilities.

I think in our current RPO scheme with the situation we have with our line and WRs, Sanders gives us the best chance to “win now.” That being said I don’t think that’s what’s best for the program.

We have been at our best when we play with a quick tempo. Have a qb that can get rid of the ball quickly on a number of quick routes which opens the run game.

We have that QB in Shane I believe but we have to reinstall that system that will maximize his talents rather than this ineffective offensive scheme that we’re running now.

I think if we rip the bandaid off and start building to the future, we will be much better off as a program. Admittedly, there will be some growing pains and games we feel we would have won had Sanders been the QB, but I think it will be worth it in the long run.

Even if SS improves, WRs improve, online improves I still don’t see this offense having the potential of an SI ran air attack.

I think it’s time we focus on the future, rip off that band-aid and live the growing pains now so that over the next few years we experience the type of success offensively that we’re used to.
Agree.

But SI has to bulk up to his already 230lb. Be strong and athletic like Corndog. Must improve on his pocket awareness, acceleration and speed as well.
 
Jun 20, 2013
114
102
593
33
#23
I wouldn't mind seeing a couple drives a game with Shane playing between the 20s and Spencer in the red zone ala 2014 Rudolph-Walsh. Maybe that would open up some of the throwing playbook a bit more. Also a few of those dual qb plays Gleason was supposed to bring in would be interesting with Shane under center and Sanders as a run/throw threat. At least with Hunter back, the O-line looks a little better. Next, we need the receivers back.
If you have two quarterbacks, you have no quarterbacks. One of them has to be the guy that you want winning you the game

Maybe for 1-4 plays a game, specifically against a team like OU when you need a spark. Illingworth under center running a toss right to Sanders who hits a streaking WR would be cool to watch, but not more that a very limited number. I wouldn't want to see the formation as often as we used to see WR screen.
 
Nov 25, 2009
2,171
669
1,743
Kedah Malaysia
#24
If you have two quarterbacks, you have no quarterbacks. One of them has to be the guy that you want winning you the game

Maybe for 1-4 plays a game, specifically against a team like OU when you need a spark. Illingworth under center running a toss right to Sanders who hits a streaking WR would be cool to watch, but not more that a very limited number. I wouldn't want to see the formation as often as we used to see WR screen.
We have one QB that is actually a RB.

Then we better have another or more.
 
Jan 14, 2006
1,910
1,043
1,743
#27
Just rewatched to offensive snaps to get another look at how Spencer did.

Of his 7 incompleteness, 4 hit the receiver in the hands, 1 hit the receiver in the knee, 1 was short due to getting hit as he threw and 1 was a throw away on a non- throwing side roll out. No balls were even close to being intercepted.

He also converted 4 1st down runs on 3rd down and scored a rushing TD on 3rd down.

He took 2 sacks on 3rd down that I think he held on to the ball too long before he tried to break the pocket. Couldn't see the receivers on the broadcast to know if anyone was open.

Someone with more armchair quarterbacking experience than me feel free to share your thoughts as to what he could have done much better.
 
Last edited:

andylicious

Territorial Marshal
Nov 16, 2013
5,665
2,675
743
35
tractor
#28
If you have two quarterbacks, you have no quarterbacks. One of them has to be the guy that you want winning you the game

Maybe for 1-4 plays a game, specifically against a team like OU when you need a spark. Illingworth under center running a toss right to Sanders who hits a streaking WR would be cool to watch, but not more that a very limited number. I wouldn't want to see the formation as often as we used to see WR screen.
You have to make a choice.
 
Apr 12, 2020
787
336
113
26
Stillwater
#29
Just rewatched to offensive snaps to get another look at how Spencer did.

Of his 7 incompleteness, 4 hit the receiver in the hands, 1 hit the receiver in the knee, 1 was short due to getting hit as he threw and 1 was a throw away on a non- throwing side roll out. No balls were even close to being intercepted.

He also converted 4 1st down runs on 3rd down and scored a rushing TD on 3rd down.

He took 2 sacks on 3rd down that I think he held on to the ball too long before he tried to break the pocket. Couldn't see the receivers on the broadcast to know if anyone was open.

Someone with more armchair quarterbacking experience than me feel free to share your thoughts as to what he could have done much better.
PFF looked extremely favorable on his game, saw all the drops you did and gave him credit for the throw away. Also awarded him 2 big time throws and 0 turnover worthy plays. Not bad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.