2002 in Review

[PX]

I looked at the depth charts in the game notes on the SMU website, for the last 6 games of the season. Beard was listed as the starter at one defensive end in all of them. Stansbury was the starter at the other end from the Rice game to Tulsa.

If Beard started against Tulsa just because he was a senior, why wouldnt they do the same thing for Eric Peterson? Or any of the other seniors?

[Charleston Pony]

the football roster on smumustangs.com lists Johnson as a SR, but the 2-deep from the Tulsa gameday program lists him as a JR. Appears he will be back if he chooses to return (don't know if he's graduating?). If he returns, it appears to me we will have some depth at LB...especially if Carrington is the player some are saying he is and any of the true Frosh can compete for playing time right away.

[PerunaPunch]

Hang on a minute...

I'm NOT saying we're going to win the friggin' national championship because for the most part, we have the same players as last year. What I AM saying (and what USA Today is saying) is that we graduated relatively few starters, and thus, should be improved over last year.

All things being equal, you should lose AT LEAST 20-25% of your starters (CONSERVATIVELY) every year. Since most of those starters should be seniors, it's more likely that the rate SHOULD be closer to 40 or 50%.

Of course depth is a consideration PX, but it's the same consideration every team faces and thus, shouldn't be a unique problem in our situation.

So if Beard and Williams are co-starters, and Beard graduates, WE STILL HAVE a 'first string' player at that position!

Same should be true at WR. Yes we lost Cardwell, but if Cunningham wasn't out with an injury, Cardwell would not have started. And sure they trotted out Freeman at the other WR spot, but come on... Francis, Griffin and Taylor were all more productive. SO... adding Cunningham and losing Cardwell equals a net improvement. And that's what we should be able to expect from every position except 1 o-lineman, TE, NT and 1 CB.

So no, I don't think that returning most of our starters is going to translate into insta-bowl, but I do think that as our starters become predominantly juniors and seniors, we'll be more competitive against other teams whose starters are predominantly juniors and seniors.

[PX]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by PerunaPunch:
<B>Hang on a minute...

I'm NOT saying we're going to win the friggin' national championship because for the most part, we have the same players as last year. What I AM saying (and what USA Today is saying) is that we graduated relatively few starters, and thus, should be improved over last year.

All things being equal, you should lose AT LEAST 20-25% of your starters (CONSERVATIVELY) every year. Since most of those starters should be seniors, it's more likely that the rate SHOULD be closer to 40 or 50%.

Of course depth is a consideration PX, but it's the same consideration every team faces and thus, shouldn't be a unique problem in our situation.

So if Beard and Williams are co-starters, and Beard graduates, WE STILL HAVE a 'first string' player at that position!

Same should be true at WR. Yes we lost Cardwell, but if Cunningham wasn't out with an injury, Cardwell would not have started. And sure they trotted out Freeman at the other WR spot, but come on... Francis, Griffin and Taylor were all more productive. SO... adding Cunningham and losing Cardwell equals a net improvement. And that's what we should be able to expect from every position except 1 o-lineman, TE, NT and 1 CB.

So no, I don't think that returning most of our starters is going to translate into insta-bowl, but I do think that as our starters become predominantly juniors and seniors, we'll be more competitive against other teams whose starters are predominantly juniors and seniors.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Our starters WERE predominantly juniors and seniors this year. Take a look at the depth chart.

I never said anything about Bowl games or national championships, I didnt say anything about how next years team will perform. I disputed the number of starters that article said we lost, and so far I dont see anything that actually proves I'm wrong, or comes close to supporting the article. All I'm seeing is peoples opinions, and some of them seem ridiculously farfetched.

First, as much as I love Chris Cunningham, the last time I saw him he still needed crutches to walk. He's supposed to get the screws taken out soon, but you're making an awfully big assumption when you say he will automatically upgrade the position. None of us can say for certain how he will recovers from the injury, until (if?) he actually gets on the field this spring.
Last year I spent 9 months arguing with people who kept telling me Voc Atkins would be playing again any day now, and was going to make a HUGE impact when he came back. Now, I would hope that anyone with eyes can see that Voc isnt going to be the same player that he was. The tendency I see amongst our fans to treat serious injuries like they didnt happen is close to infuriating.
I'm hoping for the best with Comet, and I havent heard anything that would indicate he wasnt going to be fine, eventually. But lets wait to see if he can run, before we build our offense around him.

Secondly, why are you saying Cardwell wouldnt have started if Comet was healthy? Would we have changed formations and gone with 2 tight ends or a wishbone? Who would have started at the other reciever spot, if not Cardwell?
I know that you saw the games this year, because you were sitting next to me for most of them. I really cant believe that you're waving away the loss of Cody Cardwell like this, as if it were nothing, after all the guy did this year.

I'm going to repeat a simple question that I asked before: If Cody Cardwell and Johnny Freeman were not our 2 starting wide recievers this year, then who were? Who were our 2 starters, if it wasnt them? Names please? A simple straightforward question, no need to dance around it. Just need 2 names. Who were the starters?

Joyous, if you happen to read this, perhaps you could let us know how Comet is doing? Did the screws come out this past weekend? Hope to see you soon.

[Nacho]

The way I see it we lost starters Hampton, Freeman, Cardwell and Davis on offense. Deron Brown started more games than Briggs at FB so I'll leave Brigggs off. I think by the end of the season Briggs was sharing time with KK at TB. Francis played a lot at WR and I think started when Freeman was hurt. We lost starters Croy, Viloria and Garrett on defense. I'll give you Beard as a "co-starter." I may be wrong. To me the biggest loss may be Cardwell as a punt returner. He did a fantastic job--3rd in the nation.

[Nacho]

Also DD Lee was starting at MLB the last couple of games when Viloria was injured.

[PerunaPunch]

PX,

You're right. I'm going to have to concede the point about Comet. I guess my enthusiasm about him returning overruled the logic that he possibly might not come back 100%.

I still think my point is valid though. Cardwell's biggest contribution was on kickoff returns. You asked me to check the Media Guide, so I did. Cardwell was co-starting with Freeman. So you SHOULD count that position as 1, but not 2 starters. Cardwell had probably 50 catches for 600 yds. or so, but other than Cardwell's decent (not great) numbers at WR, the rest of the receiving duties were handled by committee. Unfortunately, Freeman never really panned out at WR.

Let's simplify the argument. Barring unforseen injuries, should this year's team be better?

Offense
Blocking: Yes
Rushing: Yes
Passing: Yes (mayble slightly less better on the receiving end, but certainly much improved on the throwing end.)

Starters lost: Judson Davis, Cardwell/Freeman, Hampton. (Briggs may have started on paper, but Morris got the snaps).

Defense
D-line: Draw. No Croy, but everybody else should be bigger and stronger.
Linebackers: Draw. Villoria is gone, but DD Lee is good and Bischoff, DD Johnson and Jarian James are all seniors and should be at the top of their game.
Secondary: Yes. We lose Garrett, but we'll have tp have improved play from the safeties (or Bennett will have a coronary -- hey PX, he might be your first 'live' patient). I think our secondary REALLY struggled last year. The great Jonas Rutledge even got pulled at one point, and Garrett (who can run with anybody) never turned and looked for the ball. I can't help but believe that there HAS to be improvement here next year.

Starters lost: Croy, Villoria and Garrett. I know you're going to want to throw in Khalid Beard, but here's another way to look at it... If you somehow were able to get an extra year of eligibility for Beard, would he start next year? I'm sure he'd play a lot, but I don't think he'd start. IMHO.

So that's a grand total of 6 positions graduating out of 22 for 27% overall, which I think is low and is cause for at least some measured optimism.

But then again, I've been optimistic and have been burned before.

[Nacho]

Cardwell AND Freeman started. They have to be counted as 2 starters. You can't arbitrarily put them as Cardwell/Freeman and count them as one. They weren't in the same uniform. In any event at least 7 (8 if you count the FB) starters were lost from last season, not 2 as the author suggested. 7/22=32 or put another way 32% of the starters were lost. If you count the FB then 8/22 or 36% of the starters were lost.

[PerunaPunch]

I said Cardwell AND Freeman (2) because they were co-starters at the same (1) WR spot.

More useless statistics....

By my (unscientific and ignorant) count, of the 99 kids who made the roster:

20 were seniors (2 of which are coming back)
11 of these had significant playing time
8 were some kind of starter in the most liberal interpretation.

For whatever it's worth.

[OldPony]

You guys have gotten this so complicated that poor OldPony has a headache. What about an easier question? How many return from the 2 deep chart who started at least 1/2 of the season according to the programs? Does anyone have that info? Poor OP has to go rest his weary mind now.

[PerunaPunch]

The author said we lost 3 starters: 1 on offense, 2 on defense.

According to me, who drinks the most Mr. Pibb on gameday and therefore is the most qualified to pass final judgement on this issue, we lost 3 starters on offense and 3 on defense... So the USA Today guy wasn't off by much.

I think the author probably counted Cunningham as starting at one WR spot and Cardwell/Freeman at the other, which WAS the plan until Comet got hurt. We're getting Comet back, so 1 WR starting spot doesn't count as graduated... flawed as that logic might be. Chandler is graduating, but we still have Reindl, so I'm arbitrarily not counting that as a loss unless someone buys my burger in this evening's Burger Wars. Pints also cheerfully accepted as propitiation.

In which case, I'll change my vote.

Look for PX to be more agreeable tomorrow after he's properly served by Daisy the wonder wench.

[PerunaPunch]

I can handle it.

7 out of 22 on offense graduating
8 out of 22 on defense graduating

Special teams:
Thornton Chandler, snapper
Cody Cardwell, punt returner
both of whom are accounted for above.

[PX]

I have no intention of being more agreeable tomorrow or any other point in time, regardless of how dinner goes tonight, unless you give me something sane and rational I can agree with.
The numbers from the 2-deep roster are probably somewhat variable, depending on which game you take the depth chart from, but I'm willing to live with yours numbers, 15/44 overall.
I will not, however, ever agree that Freeman and Cardwell were some kind of "Co-starter" at one wide reciever position. Thats ludicrous. We didnt start games in the wishbone. We always started at least 2 recievers, 3 if there was no fullback in the backfield. The media guide you're looking at was printed before the season started and before Comets injury. It probably still shows him as the starter at one spot. Well, obviously he didnt start any games this season. Freeman and Cardwell did. Cardwell started every game, he lead us in recieving yardage and touchdown receptions. We would not have beaten La. Tech or UTEP without him (and its doubtful we would have beaten Tulsa without the best game of Kris Briggs career.) Freeman started 11 of 12 games. The USA Today writer wasnt counting them as one starter or anything preposterous like that. He didnt know his subject matter, pure and simple. He had no clue what he was saying. You can dance around the subject all you want, but the guy didnt do even the simplest research in his topic. period.
I'm not going to argue about what players we have coming back next year or wether we'll be better, blah, blah, blah. That was never my point. What I said is still as simple now as it was then. We lost several key players from this past years team. More than the writer of that article apparently noticed. Period.
I'm still waiting for an answer to my previous question: Who were our starting recievers this year, if they werent Freeman and Cardwell? I just need to hear 2 names, dont need any of the rest of your analysis. Just 2 names.

[PK]

Geez, now I'm confused too. Let's just agree that the person who wrote the article screwed up and that we have a greater number of positions needing to be filled than he stated and let it go at that. After the new recruits sign up and spring training is over, we will have a much better idea as to what shape we are going to be in.

[No Quarter]

This is been an interesting thread. For some, the issue of who started or co-started would be easier to define if SMU published the number of snaps each player was on the field. I don't think SMU has ever put that in a media guide, and I mean since Bill Meek. As a side issue to all this, can someone state why SMU does not publish this type of data?

But all ten of you who commented, or almost all of you, saw more games and more practice than I. I'd appreciate if each of you would name who you think will come in and play the open positions: TE, OT, WR, WR, DT, LB, CB, Kick Returner, and Snapper and change the 19 point average loss to WAC teams who beat us, or the 14 point average loss for all games.

And any comment about who will play the positions where we have a returning senior might be of interest also. Will Bennett go with the upper classmen to perhaps prevent further erosion of the overall won-loss record, or play a lot redshirt freshmen and true freshmen in order to have something for 2004?

"Improvement" is one thing. A substantial turn around next season is something else. I don't believe any returning senior has played in more than about eleven games that SMU won during his career. I don't believe any coach I remember has come to SMU and held out freshmen (true sophomores under the old rules) with the thought of "building," rather than winning SAP, but I am not nearly so optimistic as, for example, the sports writer whose piece started all this.

I hope I'm wrong! Go Ponies!