Were you at the game?

by **Joyous** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:29 pm

If not - don't speculate, don't try to picture what was happening from what you heard from the radio announcers. It was downright ugly and not just from the players. Offensively they did what they were instructed. Yes, some receivers did drop a lot of balls but some receivers CAUGHT everything thrown their way. How can you talk about Bartel? Did Bartel call the same running play for 98 times that produced less than 100 yards? Come on give the team a break. Next time come to the game and see for yourself. I will see what you post next week. Stay behind the team, they did their best with what they had to work with. Let me get out now before I say something I should not.

by **FloridaMustang** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 9:58 pm

It was ugly? Sounds like you're describing teams of past. Did we look ANY better or is it the same old same old?

Glad to hear Bartel seemed sharper than he sounded. Which recievers impressed you and which didn't?

Any more insight since you were there? That'd be much appreciated.

by **PonyTales** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 10:20 pm

You tell 'em, Joyous. I was at the game, and while I - like all PonyFans - didn't like the outcome of the game, I was extremely pleased with the guys' effort and the fact that they never seemed to quit or hang their heads. Tech beat us, and Tech deserved to beat us. It was one game, though, and it's over. This team has way too much character to quit, and works way too hard for us to quit on them.

Beat Baylor!

by **JasonB** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 10:36 pm

LIstening to the pre-game of the UT game here in Austin, the NMS coach termed the non-conference schedule as the preseason - he isn't concerned about wins and losses as much as getting the team ready for conference play.

Until we have a couple more quality recruiting years, that should be our view as well.

by **Phil Fan** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 10:40 pm

Good approach. SMU didn't fare well at the start of last year, and came on a bit at the end of the season. Have faith in Coach Phil. He'll get it done. This was a preseason loss, that's all. You don't think the Raiders are undergoing medication and therapy because they got drilled by Dallas, do you? Of course not. It's one game, and frankly, it doesn't matter if you lose by a single point or 100 points. A loss is a loss, and a win is a win.

by **Stallion** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 11:02 pm

I'm in the Bartel didn't look as bad as it may have seemed crowd. Good God-this is off the top of my head but Tech's kicker kicked every kick except one into the end zone-right there that is at least 9 possessions(including the second half kickoff starting at the 20-and I know that we started at least 3 more well inside the 20 because the punter kicked one out at the 6, and Tech turned the ball over twice inside the 10-so a guesstimate is easily 12 possessions started no better than the 20. What happens if a QB makes mistakes in that situation? They are catastrophic but the point is he was in a desperate situation the whole night. I thought he showed darned good mobility to escape pressure and at least in the first half put the ball on the numbers. I know there were 4 drops at least in the first half. I was concerned that he threw about 4 passes sidearmed and another two that were shuffle passes but I believe each time he was running for his life. Actually he completed most of the sidearms and one of the shuffle passes. He did keep the sacks down but made some mistakes in doing so-but he rarely was a pocket passer last nite-out of necessity. On the other hand, Symmons literrally had enough time to eat of sack lunch and take an afternoon Siesta against the SMU rush. You can not blame that all on Bartel. Chris Cunningham caught everything thrown his way including two bullets that were incredible catches but for short yardage. I'm not going to go after the coaches because we were overmatched but can someone explain to me why Chris Cunningham spent half the night on the bench when we have two totally inexperienced WRs. Why was he reportedly listed as second string last week? Seriously is it a conditioning issue? I ask because I seriously refuse to believe that any coach could be stupid enough to have Chris Cunningham on second string. I think just about every catch Rushbrook made was for a first down and/or a beautiful TD catch so I think he was an asset.

[This message has been edited by Stallion (edited 08-31-2003).]

by **happydad** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 11:34 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Joyous:
If not - don't speculate, don't try to picture what was happening from what you heard from the radio announcers. It was downright ugly and not just from the players. Offensively they did what they were instructed. Yes, some receivers did drop a lot of balls but some receivers CAUGHT everything thrown their way. How can you talk about Bartel? Did Bartel call the same running play for 98 times that produced less than 100 yards? Come on give the team a break. Next time come to the game and see for yourself. I will see what you post next week. Stay behind the team, they did their best with what they had to work with. Let me get out now before I say something I should not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Come on Joyous put your happy face on...dont hint that it was "the Coach's fault". I seriously doubt that the players did exactly what they had been told. Just as you will seriously doubt what I am about to say "shut your mouth, and support the entire team". It is easy to be "joyous" when everything appears to be just fine in your little world. But, true character is supporting the total cause - even when it may not be so easy for you NOT to speak out when a special person is not getting all the attention that YOU think he may deserve.

TEAM- do you know the true meaning???? Quit riding the high horse and get down with the rest of the common folk.

[This message has been edited by happydad (edited 08-31-2003).]

by **giacfsp** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 12:22 am

Joyous, please ignore that guy's post. He obviously doesn't know you. Anyone who's been with this board knows Joyous and her family are as team-oriented as any PonyFans out there. She has described how it was so rough for her son when he sat out injured -- not because he was missing the spotlight, but because he wanted so badly to help his team win, and to go to war every Saturday with his teammates. PonyFans know your true colors.

by **EastStang** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 9:35 am

Stallion, was Cunningham sitting the first or second half. Perhaps Bennett didn't want to risk injury to him after the game got out of hand, and he wanted to give the younger guys some game time to give them a touch of experience. Wide-outs get injured pretty often, so depth of experience is helpful. Who knows who may be called upon to step up in early November in conference play. My question is this. Was Bennett treating this as the functional equivalent of an NFL preseason game (giving lots of players looks), or did the starters stay in for most of the debacle?

by **Mickey** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 10:17 am

I was at the game. The result was terrible, but not as bad as the score. I thought the refs were really bad. They were also from the Big 12.

We controlled the football like we wanted, but everything else fell apart. I thought the coaches and Edmondson did a good job here. We had the ball for almost 40 minutes. Special teams hurt us. Blocked punt, bad snap, two long kick off returns, punt return for TD. That is what killed us.

We threw 44 passes. This was a balanced offense. We have got to continue to run the ball and keep the opponent's offense off the field. We have got to get better and D and that starts with a pass rush. That is the biggest problem, and I am afraid that the solution has yet to arrive on campus. Need some more Jonses and Bonds.

From what Joyous posted, I cant tell if she is taking shots at the coaches or not. If she is, she is way off base!

[This message has been edited by Mickey (edited 09-01-2003).]

by **Stallion** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 12:54 pm

No I mean that from the opening whistle Chris Cunningham spent a good deal of the Nite on the sidelines while we went with Rushbrook and Trey Griffin. I asked if it was a conditioning issue because I don't want misdirect criticism. Of course, Keylon was on the field for 100% of the snaps until late in the game despite a quality backup in Fitzgerald so if its not a conditioning issue I'm a little mystified why he spent so much time on the sidelines. It looked to me that when SMU went to 3 receivers he was usually in at a slot position but that when SMU went with two wide-out Cunningham was taken off the field. Also, I didn't really notice who started but did note the post last week on this board that Cunningham would not start-if that's true that is an insult to the most talented player on the team.

by **GoRedGoBlue** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 1:54 pm

Bennett said that Chris was not 100% from the ankle injury...he is not as fast as before...both Trey and Matt are faster players at this point.

But, I agree, I would prefer a veteran in the early going.

by **Stallion** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 2:19 pm

rather than comment on the great potential of Trey Griffin and Jay Taylor which I've been hearing about for years I'll just say that Chris Cunningham could outplay either one on one leg. This is what I mean that SMU's talent level is thin-Texas Tech lines up about 5 WRs with the talent of Cunningham in his prime-SMU to be kind does not.

by **JustAFriend** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 3:10 pm

I will agree Cunningham was the best receiver on the field for SMU. He made some great plays, and I thought he was quicker than either Rushbrook or Griffin. They may be faster, but there's alot to be said for quickness. Anyways, Rushbrook and Griffin dropped balls that shoulda been caught, and there was maybe one that Comet shoulda caught. I still stand by the argument that we need to stretch the field in the passing game, the crossing routes are great, but where are the seams, posts, corners, and routes of that nature? Just my two cents...

by **sam** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 3:25 pm

mickey please tell me what part of the game the coaches "did a great job" was it the defense that allowed 300 yds passing with no pressure on the Tech QB or was it the offense that kept our best receiver off the field. Oh no, I got it, it was the special teams that gave up almost 200 return yds that impressed you. happydad you are just clueless you must have a son that plays and this is what makes you happy, and I'm glad, but many of us on this board want a little ROI on our commitment

Were you at the game?

Were you at the game?

Re: Were you at the game?

Re: Were you at the game?

Re: Were you at the game?

Re: Were you at the game?

Re: Were you at the game?

Re: Were you at the game?

Re: Were you at the game?

Re: Were you at the game?

Re: Were you at the game?

Re: Were you at the game?

Re: Were you at the game?

Re: Were you at the game?

Re: Were you at the game?

Re: Were you at the game?

Who is online