Oklahoma State’s Eric Morris wants special teams to play to score, not just improve field position

Oklahoma State is approaching the return game with a simple internal mandate, one that mirrors the style head coach Eric Morris expects from his offense. During practice this week, special teams coordinator Drew Svoboda said Morris does not want return units thinking in terms of conservative outcomes or merely “doing no harm.” The expectation, Svoboda explained, is that if the offense is prepared to go create points, the return game should do the same whenever it has possession.

Svoboda described Morris’ philosophy as aggressive play-calling and a mentality centered on scoring. According to Svoboda, Morris’ vision for the return game is consistent with what the head coach wants to see from the team’s high-tempo, explosive offensive identity. The connective tissue is straightforward: if the Cowboys have the ball, they should try to score, not simply protect position or manage risk.

In Svoboda’s telling, Morris’ return-game goal is also specific. He wants the ball crossing the goal line, a standard that reframes how coaches evaluate decisions on returns and kickoff coverage. It also suggests the staff’s emphasis is not only on the returner’s vision, but on the unit’s ability to create a clean path and sustain blocks long enough for a play to develop.

That matters in college football because special teams touches the game at a different tempo than offense and defense. A return can swing momentum quickly, and it can also influence how opponents plan their own kickoffs and punts. When a coaching staff emphasizes scoring on returns, it generally changes the operational details, from how return teams read coverage lanes to how they prioritize first- and second-level blocking. It can also affect how the return unit practices ball security and recovery, since pushing to score raises the number of high-traffic moments that must be handled cleanly.

Oklahoma State’s focus on the goal line also points to a broader theme in program-building under a new head coach. When a coach arrives, the early job is often to set a tone that is recognizable on all three phases. Svoboda’s comments indicate Morris is trying to unify the team’s aggressiveness across phases rather than confining it to third-down offense or scripted run-pass designs. If players know the bar for effort is the same everywhere, it can reduce second-guessing when plays break in different directions.

Svoboda’s remarks came after practice, underscoring that this is not simply a motivational line, but a directive tied to the way the unit prepares. The coordinator’s framing also suggests Morris is comfortable betting on his staff’s ability to coach the details. Asking for return plays that attempt to reach the end zone requires more than one returner’s speed; it depends on timing, blocking assignments, and coverage responses that must be executed repeatedly.

The next test for the Cowboys will be how quickly that identity shows up in game situations. While practice expectations do not always translate one-to-one to stadium conditions, the staff’s stated priority provides a clear lens for evaluating return opportunities when they arrive: whether the unit tries to press for a touchdown look, and whether it balances that ambition with the discipline required to maintain possession.

For Oklahoma State fans, the simplest takeaway is that Morris wants the return game to be an attacking weapon, not an afterthought. If the Cowboys can repeatedly turn opportunities into points or at least dangerous looks, the aggressiveness Svoboda described could become a defining feature of how Oklahoma State tries to win games this fall.