193 Yards Total Offense - 7 First Downs in OT

by **Pony_Fan** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 6:49 pm

With OT? That is amazing.

2 bad teams going head to head. Marshall is terrible.

by **Charleston Pony** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 6:52 pm

Unfprtunately, it is all too predictable and is pretty much expected from this SMU team running Rusty Burns offense

by **Mustangs35SMU** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 6:55 pm

Pony_Fan wrote:With OT? That is amazing.

2 bad teams going head to head. Marshall is terrible.

Not as bad as us though.

by **Duke Blue Blood** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 6:57 pm

Why is no one more pissed about the clear fumble recovery on the 20. That was the difference. Marshall sucks, but we won that game!!!!

by **abezontar** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 6:58 pm

statistically we sure didn't

by **Pony_Fan** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 6:59 pm

Duke Blue Blood wrote:Why is no one more pissed about the clear fumble recovery on the 20. That was the difference. Marshall sucks, but we won that game!!!!

Marshall also missed 2 very makeable FG's..

by **Stallion** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 7:01 pm

honestly I'm serious-how many successful football plays did we have today? 5? How many plays of over 10 yards? I'm serious I can only remember 2 and on one play the DB clearly never ran because he thought he heard the damn whistle. The wheels are off. BTW did anyone see Henderson today?

by **SoCal_Pony** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 7:03 pm

yes...he was standing next to Phillips...why do you ask?

by **Stallion** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 7:42 pm

Unbelievable-confirmed on Gametracker SMU gets 6 plays of over 10 yards. They account for 142 yards including one where the DB thought the ball was blown dead. The rest of the 53 plays accounted for 48 yards. Someone should be fired for that kind of performance 2 weeks in a row.

by **SouthernMustang** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 7:50 pm

Stallion wrote:Unbelievable-SMU gets 6 plays of over 10 yards. They account for 142 yards including one where the DB thought the ball was blown dead. The rest of the what 50 plays accounted for 48 yards. Someone should be fired for that kind of performance 2 weeks in a row.

Don't be ridiculous ... only losing by 3 in OT when you're supposed to lose by 11 should be rewarded by another contract extension. If we only lose to UAB by 21 Bennett should be around for another 10 years. This season is what I call "the progress" that Bennett promised.

He said this would be the year we'd see his difference, and he said the 2nd half at A&M would show what kind of team we had under him. Why don't we start holding him accountable for this kind of talk? Oh yah, he also fed us BS that we'd be contending for championships immediately when he took over. That tune changed pretty quickly ...

Oh wait, we're SMU ... we're supposed to just follow blindly and sit around and wait.

by **Pony_Fan** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 7:50 pm

Stallion wrote:Unbelievable-confirmed on Gametracker SMU gets 6 plays of over 10 yards. They account for 142 yards including one where the DB thought the ball was blown dead. The rest of the 53 plays accounted for 48 yards. Someone should be fired for that kind of performance 2 weeks in a row.

Fired? what about the model?

by **Mare** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 8:03 pm

" We gave up 400 yds. " , on defense. 193 total offense and the QB accounted for over 150 of them. Don't blame the QB. How about the running game? Martin had 17 yds on 15 carries. what did Dorsey and Massey Do? Bobby Chase had 2 nice catches that set up our 2 scores. Let's give the Juco's credit. They are doing much more than their share. Even combatting the Coaches who benched one of them. We were beating both Baylor and Marshall and had we finished those games off, we would have been 3-2 instead of 1-4. Our Coaches need to teach the guys how to finish a game instead of blame them!!! Special teams did their job today!!!

by **Ponymon** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 8:07 pm

Rusty Burn's offense is a PASSING formation. To run the ball as much as we do out of it makes NO sense at all! Our best skill people appear to be running backs, but this offense doesn't give them a snowball's chance in HELL to get anywhere. Using Burn's formation, we are short on blockers (including a fullback) that can make the difference in opening up the holes. Instead we have 5 wideouts who seem to be expert in watchout blocking! Either start a quarterback that can pass the ball consistently (which OBVIOUSLY Romo can't) or change the formation to an I or pro-set and lets see if we can then give our best playmakers a chance to do something with the ball when we do run it!

by **GoRedGoBlue** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 8:15 pm

Ponymon wrote:Rusty Burn's offense is a PASSING formation. To run the ball as much as we do out of it makes NO sense at all! Our best skill people appear to be running backs, but this offense doesn't give them a snowball's chance in HELL to get anywhere. Using Burn's formation, we are short on blockers (including a fullback) that can make the difference in opening up the holes. Instead we have 5 wideouts who seem to be expert in watchout blocking! Either start a quarterback that can pass the ball consistently (which OBVIOUSLY Romo can't) or change the formation to an I or pro-set and lets see if we can then give our best playmakers a chance to do something with the ball when we do run it!

Bobby chase, is at best, a nice 3rd or 4th WR...that statement says a lot.

193 Yards Total Offense - 7 First Downs in OT

193 Yards Total Offense - 7 First Downs in OT

Who is online