CFN WAC Preview

[JayM]

From College Football News.

<A HREF="http://www.collegefootballnews.com/wac/2003_Previews/2003_WAC_Preview.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.collegefootballnews.com/wac/2003_Previews/2003_WAC_Preview.htm</A>

[methodistmustang]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JayM:
<B>From College Football News.

<A HREF="http://www.collegefootballnews.com/wac/2003_Previews/2003_WAC_Preview.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.collegefootballnews.com/wac/2003_Previews/2003_WAC_Preview.htm</A></B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whoever wrote that is an idiot! For one thing We had 3 wins last year. Not 2. Maybe that doesn't make much of a difference, but we did beat LTU last year. I think that should put us over Rice. Expecially after spanking Rice in recruiting. As far as the Offense being much better...i seriously doubt it. The only thing we needed last year to win about 4 or 5 more games was a killer instinct in the red zone. How many times were we inside the 10 against Tech? What about against TCU? I'm not sure about TCU but I remember being on the 5 yard line around 4 times against Tech and coming up emty. Tech was lucky to be in the game against us. We need the fight in the red zone. They are right about one thing on this prediction though. The secondary MUST step up for us to be successful. That will be rather challenging with the loss of Kevin Garrett. I do not doubt a CB that we never mention on Ponyfans will end up being the talk of the town. I have a lot of faith in Bennett's defense. Look what he did at KSU with lower level Big 12 talent. Maybe our talent on defense isn't that great but in our conference it compares about the same as KSU did before Bennett in the Big 12. I'm sorry but that whole article is a crock of crap.

------------------
SMU-THE University of Texas

[Stallion]

I believe the writer is suggesting that SMU will go 2-10. BTW I haven't seen a magazine yet that doesn't predict similar disaster. At least 3 magazines I've seen rated us below the Top 100. Heck there are only 117 teams.

[Corso]

Some thoughts:

Criticism of Tate Wallis is unfair. Says he has a "huge arm" (he does?), but then ripped him for team's offensive struggles last year - I'm not sure it was all his fault.

That review says Sterling Harris "returns to star" - a bit lofty maybe? - and that Eric Neal "should be a force" at left tackle. Let's hope so. If he is, the offense will improve exponentially.

In my opinion, they sold our WRs short. Daniel Francis will have a very big year this year, and Trey Griffin will stretch the defenses because his speed plus Bartel's arm equals a home run threat.

Defensively, they identify Randy Denman as the "player who has to step up and become a star." Denman? I thought Darrin Johnson is the new starter at DT, and with his size, he has the potential to become a force. If Denman emerges as a star, great. But I think Johnson's development is a higher priority.

Of course, this review also identifies Marcus Walker as a key backup, meaning it was written months ago.

"The line has some decent WAC talent in Adami and Ieremia-Stansbury, but this group will take a pounding against bigger offensive lines. The depth is young, but it's not bad." I fear that prediction about bigger offensive lines might be true, unless Darrin Johnson really comes on fast.

The most disappointing part of that review is the prediction that SMU will finish #8 in the conference. I'm not naive enough to think we'll win the WAC, but we'll do better than #8. I'd say #4 or #5.

[Ksig_Stang]

I read the review and it made me mad. But ...

I would rather have a 2-10 prediction and surprise them by going 6-6 or higher rather than getting a 6-6 prediction with everyone's hopes high and only going 3-9.

I would be happy if we could just get the stadium at 20k fans aside the TCU and OSU games.

[Buddha]

Good point on the attendance there.

No mention of Jay Taylor, I see. I have him tabbed for a bust-out year.