PonyFans.com

I agree, the LBs are not the problem (even though Bischoff was awfully invisible Saturday). Bischoff and the D.D.'s might be the strongest position group on the team.

Personally, since we're going to suffer through a few more losses this year, I'd vote to leave the redshirts on this year and have a full crop of freshmen available next year as redshirt freshmen. As much talent as Phillips may have, I would think his lack of experience would lend itself to more struggles from the QB position. Ride out the season with Bartel (and Wallis, if need be) and let Phillips challenge for the job next season.

Of the true freshmen, the one I'd like to see play is Justin Boren. He's much bigger than the current guards, and stronger, too. If any of the freshmen need to get their feet wet this year, he'd get my vote. He's a monster, from what I've seen at practice.

Is anything holding Boren back from playing early? Sturdivant should play early and perhaps Muse and Mcgee also.

I agree with taking Phillips' redshirt off. He's our QB of the future.. he's exactly the type of QB Bennett wants in his system.
Look at what Ron Zook did at Florida. Ingle Martin arguably understands the system better, but Chris Leak has the talent and he wants to build the offense around Leak. Bennett I think wants to take the same approach.. I'd rather see freshman mistakes from a more talented QB... I still see freshman mistakes from Bartel and Wallis anyway... and perhaps its not their fault. With our o-line, right now we need a QB that can run the option and throw well on the run, and Phillips brings that to the table.

[This message has been edited by UNFMustang06 (edited 09-23-2003).]

AMEN!

Looks like we a falling into the Cavan trap all over again--playing true freshmen and then bemoaning the fact when they aren't 5th year seniors.

[This message has been edited by Nacho (edited 09-23-2003).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by UNFMustang06:
<B>Is anything holding Boren back from playing early?</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My understanding is that the coaches think Boren and Peveto -- and Burley, although he's still very raw -- could be really tremendous linemen, and they want to take advantage of these guys' strength by letting them mature a year while they work under Coach Miller. From what I gather, Bryan Turner arrived at SMU with slightly more polished technique, hence his spot as a backup this season.

But Boren's listed at 308, and supposedly he could get to 315-320. Peveto is listed at 285, and he's projected to get up close to 300. And Burley's already listed at 320 - imagine how he'll look when Coach Faucette is through with him!

I don't think Cleveland and Muse will see action this year (at least I hope not). We're fine at LB, and all though both those guys have tremendous physical gifts, they don't yet have anywhere near the size and strength of the DDs or Brian.

My vote is for Sturdivant, and not merely for special teams (blowing a redshirt for a special teams player is questionable in my book). He may not yet have the ideal strength but he's a good 2-3 inches taller than our current corners, hits a lot bigger than he is, and knows how to go up and contest for a ball. He's also fast. PonyFans lists him at 4.45, but I think he's quicker than that. Obviously, by this post I'm wondering if he couldn't contribute at CB as well as Safety, as for the last two years we've sorely needed someone who can match up against big, physical receivers. As much deference as I give to Rutledge's HUGE talent, for whatever reason, he still hasn't figured out when to look for a ball. Just shadowing a talented receiver like Woods doesn't cut it.

My take on Boren is that he may be the best guard currently on the roster. However, if Boren blasts his man 3 yards forward and the rest of the line gets knocked 2 yards backwards, you end up with a 5 yard hole for defenders to run through. My private belief is that Bennett is keeping Boren, Peveto and Burly (barring being forced to use them due to injury) together as a unit to build a line he can win championships with. But you'd REALLY like to keep a nucleus like that around for a full 5 years, especially considering the fact that Peveto (agile and athletic) and Burly (tremendous size and frame) haven't benefitted from good weightlifting programs (similar to Darrin Johnson's situation). These guys really give the Mustangs something special to build around for the future, especially when you add Darrin Johnson and Chris Hall into that mix.

I think taking the redshirt off Bryan Turner was necessary due to injuries (and shuffling the line to find a LT), plus Turner has a lot of flexibility as he's able to play both center and guard.

This is all IMHO - total specualtion on my part.

Everybody plays freshmen-if possible you want to definitely redshirt the linemen to build bulk-but playing freshman almost propelled this program to its only post DP bowl game. Ron Meyer played the whole bunch of superstar RBs and WRs and just about everybody else that could help him win. Please give a break about the Cavan scapegoating. We would have been drilled this year just as bad this year no matter which player had been redshirted. In fact, we wouldn't have had Cunningham this year or Viloria last year and others because since they didn't redshirt they had an additional year in reserve to play. In fact, a redshirt has the effect of wasting a year if a player is hurt during on his later years-which has happened often for SMU.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Stallion:
<B> In fact, we wouldn't have had Cunningham this year or Viloria last year and others because since they didn't redshirt they had an additional year in reserve to play. </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do the math again, Stal. 5 years is 5 years regardless of when you get redshirted. It wouldnt matter if Cunningham were redshirted in 1999, or in 2002, 2003 would still be his 5th year, and he would still be here, either way. Likewise Viloria. The advantage to not redshirting Chris came his freshman year, when he was the teams leading reciever, etc, etc. He would still be the same player now, regardless of what happened in 1999.

I think we should play skill position freshman if they can contribute now(even on special teams). Down the road, they may need a redshirt year to rehab a knee. For big uglies, let them get corn fed and bigger by redshirting them now unless they are head and shoulders better than the person ahead of them on the playing squad or if injuries occur on the playing squad.

CPC you don't get 5 years you get 4 years-a 5th year is only for medical hardships which are often turned down-it happened to an SMU athlete just a couple of years ago. If you redshirt a player his freshman year and he gets hurt in anyone of those following years-the redshirt year was a waste.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Stallion:
<B> CPC you don't get 5 years you get 4 years-a 5th year is only for medical hardships which are often turned down-it happened to an SMU athlete just a couple of years ago. If you redshirt a player his freshman year and he gets hurt in anyone of those following years-the redshirt year was a waste.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ouch. OK, lets take this reallllllllllllly slowly, so no one gets confused.

You said in an above post that if Chris Cunningham had been redshirted as a freshman, he wouldnt still be playing this year. lets quickly deconstruct that time line.
1999-redshirt.
2000-sophomore in school, redshirt freshman in eligibility.
2001- junior in school, sophomore in eligibility.
2002- senior in school, junior in eligibility. This was the year that Chris was hurt and missed the whole season.
2003- this year. 5th year senior.
So, a player has 5 years within which to complete his 4 years of eligibility. Chris Cunningham would be a 5th year senior this season if he had been redshirted as a freshman. As previously stated, the loss would have been his freshman year.

This applies to EVERY player who gets redshirted as a freshman, they have 5 years to complete their 4 years of eligibility. If they didnt get a 5th year, there wouldnt be any point in redshirting them.
You are confusing the 5th year with an extra year of eligibility, such as Ramon Flanigans who was given a hardship year even though he played both his freshman year in 2 games, and 1 play his junior year. That doesnt apply to either Vic Viloria, or Chris Cunningham though. Neither of them played a down in the year that they missed. They did 4 years of eligibility in 5 calendar seasons, which is what anyone who is redshirted will do.

Just my opinion, but if I'm the coach, I want my best guys on the field regardless of whether he's a true frosh or 5th yr senior. If they are pretty much equal, I'm playing the younger guy every bit as much as that 5th yr senior, if not more. If some Sophs and Jrs see the writing on the wall that they aren't looking at playing time, I free up another scholarship when they transfer. That was a big concern coming into this season, right? The fact that we had so few seniors? Look how many guys have left already. How many scholarships do we currently have to offer next year? How many RS Jrs do we have who might decide not to return (if they are on course to earn their degrees?). I wouldn't worry about burning a Frosh's eligibility. It's all about successor planning. Anyone who has ever managed anything knows the importance of that concept.

Let's get on with WAC play and show what this complete roster can do.

If we play our best guys now - even true freshmen - and improve even a little, wouldn't we in theory be recruiting even better guys down the road, making the "don't mortgage the future" argument moot?

I have never managed anything. What is successor planning?

"If we play our best guys now - even true freshmen - and improve even a little, wouldn't we in theory be recruiting even better guys down the road, making the "don't mortgage the future" argument moot?"

This makes a great deal of sense to me. Play the best players now.