@bauman-john: Do you think OU overpaid for John Mateer? Sounds like it was a bidding war. Would that money have been better allocated with a cheaper QB option plus fortifying the lines of scrimmage in the portal?
Short answer: No.Longer answer: No … But we don’t know exactly what OU paid to secure the services of the former Washington State quarterback. We’ve heard north of $2 million, but NIL deals aren’t disclosed.
Whatever it was, be glad the Sooners won the bidding war. You can’t win without a good quarterback (although Ohio State and Notre Dame have proven you can win without a great quarterback). And Mateer appears to be just that — good not great, somewhere in the Will Howard to Riley Leonard range.
Pro Football Focus ranked Mateer 37th among qualified FBS quarterbacks. Howard was 25th and Leonard 34th.
OU’s offense was abysmal last season. Was that more on the coordinator, the quarterback, the offensive line or the receivers? Yes.
New offensive coordinator Ben Arbuckle and Mateer — having been together at Washington State — should give OU’s offense an identity. Something it totally lacked last season.
As for your follow-up question, and I think it’s a good one, would OU have been better off distributing the money it paid Mateer to fortify both sides of the line of scrimmage?
If OU wants to compete with the big boys, that can’t be an either/or. It has to be a both. Maybe the Sooners, through their NIL collective and donor base, aren’t in position to do that. But to win at the highest level you have to be good at quarterback and dominant in the trenches.
Side note: Say a donor is willing to give $2 million for the Sooners to go after Mateer. How do you think that donor would respond if OU circled back and asked if it could instead use the money to pay four linemen? The donor might yawn.
