Little Chance for a win but....

by **Stallion** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:36 am

Eastern Washington threw 60 times against Tech-playing from well behind all nite. Their QB threw for 3700 yards last year and 39 TDs. Nevada's QB was WAC Freshman of the Year and Honorable Mention Freshman All-American. Nevada was 11th in the Country in Total Offense in 2007. Of course, they are going to put up some big passing yards. Once again, passing yards signifying nothin'. Tech stopped 5 drives by a bowl team playing at home last week inside the 30-SMU on the other hand never forced a Division II team to punt. Who has the defensive issues.

by **RGV Pony** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:40 am

I would submit that based on preseason expectations, Tech has the defensive issues. We knew our D would suck.

That said, I would also submit that as for Tech's D, a game vs SMU "will cure what ails ya"

Fortunately, Bryan McCann > Jonas Rutledge, so maybe it won't be entirely like Rayshaun Woods for Crabtree. Then again, didn't we 'hold' Ok State to 49 in that game?

by **Lawgrad** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:57 am

Stallion wrote:Eastern Washington threw 60 times against Tech-playing from well behind all nite. Their QB threw for 3700 yards last year and 39 TDs. Of course, they are going to put up some big passing yards. Once again, passing yards signify nothin'. Tech stopped 5 drives by a bowl team playing at home last week inside the 30-SMU on the other hand never forced a Division II team to punt. Who has the defensive issues.

Yeah, I guess those five turnovers SMU forced had nothing to do with that at all, huh? Seriously, please answer the question that MexMustang and others have been asking you for years Stallion: What exactly do you get out of coming on here and complaining nonstop? Are you that emasculated at home that you have to feel right somewhere? Are you presumptious enough to believe that your criticism has some sort of impact on the team itself? Or do you just get your jollies off from running down your alma mater? After reading your posts for years, I am convinced that you have no desire whatsoever to see SMU improve, and would much rather complain than do anything else. You are out of your mind if you think that your posts on this website have any impact whatsoever on the team.

This isn't about "cheerleading" or anything like that. I, like many others on this website, would love to know your motivation that compels you to spend hours every day doing research and complaining about everything having to do with Mustang athletics.

Finally, quit pumping up the supposed virtues of the 2007 Nevada team that went to a bowl game, unless you are going to give out all of the facts, including that their record was 6-7, they gave up on average over 32 points per game and 415 yards of offense. Tech should have throttled them, and the fact is that even most Tech fans will say they have struggled somewhat this year, especially compared to last year. Everyone knows they will "get well" next week against our Ponies, but I can guarantee you Mike Leach is not happy about the results thus for for the Raiders.

by **Nacho** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:06 am

Is it the players or the DC. I'm coping out and going with the DC and players. Our players except for Phleps, Bell and YY didn't show up. Pitiful performance against a d-1aa school. 35 even replaced McCann for awhile. What's up with that?

by **pony warrior** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:11 am

RGV Pony wrote:
Stallion wrote:Well I see a big win over a Division II team has reinvigorated the Cheerleaders. Come back on Saturday Nite and tell us all what statement was incorrect. I'll be looking forward to it,

not sure to whom you are referring. I am calling for a 70-38 Tech win over a porous defense that has zero pass rush, can't stop the run and can't keep contain.

Didn't mean to confuse the issue with a fact...but Nevada sucks too. Tech should've beaten them by 30.

And for those that thought Tech struggled vs the 1AA team in week 1, it must've been a much better 1aa team than Tx State. Eastern Washington damn near beat Colorado on Saturday. They had the ball and were driving at the end of a tie game, then did almost the same thing Memphis did during Rice. Wonder how much more patience CU would've had with Hawkins had EWU pulled it out.

Eastern Washington is a highly ranked FCS team. I thought they would beat Colorado.

by **ponydawg** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:13 am

Nacho wrote:Is it the players or the DC. I'm coping out and going with the DC and players. Our players except for Phleps, Bell and YY didn't show up. Pitiful performance against a d-1aa school. 35 even replaced McCann for awhile. What's up with that?

McCann got hit hard when making a tackle, he was being checked out by the trainers, glad he went back in.....

by **Insane_Pony_Posse** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:14 am

"I see a big win over a Division II team has reinvigorated the Cheerleaders"

Well weren't you the one questioning June Jones early offer to Southlake Carroll quarterback Kyle Padron and now you are changing your tune, running for cover? Why don't you let the experts do their job?

btw...Dr Doom who do you hope wins the SMU/TECH game this weekend?

by **EastStang** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:21 am

Umm Stallion called this season pretty much on the dot. He said our defense would not stack up very well and it hasn't. He said, he couldn't understand starting BLM over Willis because we would need to score lots of points to win games this year. So far in two games against mediocre opposition we've given up a total of 89 points or 44.5 per game. If that keeps up, we need to put up 50 points a game to win. Name one team on our remaining schedule that we might hold to less than 44 points? Navy? Tulane? I'm sure, UCF, USM, Memphis, UH, Tulsa and UTEP offenses are licking their chops for when they play us.

by **2112** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:24 am

he never has answered this question....why would he now.......stallion is too busy with his guns up

by **J.T.supporta** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:12 pm

Stallion wrote:"Tech's defense does not look that good either"

I'm pretty sure you don't know what you are talking about. Tech's defense gave up a bunch of FGs after Nevada was given the ball inside the 30. Who cares if a defense gives up a lot of yards if they throw the ball 60-70 times a game. Nothin' but Mike Romo yards signifying nothin'. Tech has outstanding defensive personnel at just about every defensive position.

agreed, their D is a lot more improved this year than in past years. it was their Defense that won that game for them against Nevada. we might put up 20-30 pts but most of those might come once the game is out of hand

by **RHS** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:56 pm

Jim Rome wrote:Also interesting - there's a new DMN story up on the PF.com homepage about how the defense at Tech isn't improving, at least yet, as they hoped it would.

The DMN writer isn't a Red Raider, so he doesn't speak for us. It doesn't sound like the DMN writer actually watched the game. I did, thanks to Nevada webcast. The DMN writer just looked at the stats and made a broad assumption.

Let me assure you the D is improving as we hoped it would, We didn't think it would be dominate right off this year. However, Saturday night our D made play after play to ensure a win on the road when our O was clearly struggling. Previously in the Leach era, we lose every game our O isn't playing well. We even lost some when our O was playing well, because of our D. I don't know if those days are completely over yet, but we did it Saturday night. That is improvement we hoped for.

Leach stupidly went for it on 4th and once TWICE, once on our 30 and once again on our 29. In years past, that is 14 free points to a good running team like Nevada. This year, it was only 6 free points. We have a D that can stand up in those situations. That is improvement we hoped for.

Our D had 4 sacks in one game. 4 sacks in 35 attempts. That is something like a sack every 9 attempts. I can't tell you the last time Tech did something like that in a game. That is improvement we hoped for.

Nevada's O had the ball for 36 minutes. The 4th is the only qtr Tech had the ball more than Nevada. Nevada had the ball 12 minutes of the 3rd qtr. And yet, despite all the ball control and pounding on our D, they weren't able to wear it down. Previously in the Leach era, we didn't have the depth to keep the front 7 fresh and we would always wear down. Not this year. That is improvement we hoped for.

Yes, we gave up 488 yards & 224 rushing. Nevada had 1 TD all night and that was a long pass play on busted coverage after the game was decided. Yes, our D gave up a lot of yards, but they didn't give up many points. Just for the sake of irony, it is Tech who is saying "You gained a lot of yards, but couldn't score so you lost." now as a top 20 team. That is improvement we hoped for.

I will be at the game Saturday and encourage all of you to come out and enjoy the game.

by **ozfan** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:16 pm

Lawgrad wrote:
Stallion wrote:Eastern Washington threw 60 times against Tech-playing from well behind all nite. Their QB threw for 3700 yards last year and 39 TDs. Of course, they are going to put up some big passing yards. Once again, passing yards signify nothin'. Tech stopped 5 drives by a bowl team playing at home last week inside the 30-SMU on the other hand never forced a Division II team to punt. Who has the defensive issues.

Yeah, I guess those five turnovers SMU forced had nothing to do with that at all, huh? Seriously, please answer the question that MexMustang and others have been asking you for years Stallion: What exactly do you get out of coming on here and complaining nonstop? Are you that emasculated at home that you have to feel right somewhere? Are you presumptious enough to believe that your criticism has some sort of impact on the team itself? Or do you just get your jollies off from running down your alma mater? After reading your posts for years, I am convinced that you have no desire whatsoever to see SMU improve, and would much rather complain than do anything else. You are out of your mind if you think that your posts on this website have any impact whatsoever on the team.

This isn't about "cheerleading" or anything like that. I, like many others on this website, would love to know your motivation that compels you to spend hours every day doing research and complaining about everything having to do with Mustang athletics.

Finally, quit pumping up the supposed virtues of the 2007 Nevada team that went to a bowl game, unless you are going to give out all of the facts, including that their record was 6-7, they gave up on average over 32 points per game and 415 yards of offense. Tech should have throttled them, and the fact is that even most Tech fans will say they have struggled somewhat this year, especially compared to last year. Everyone knows they will "get well" next week against our Ponies, but I can guarantee you Mike Leach is not happy about the results thus for for the Raiders.

As I pointed out in an old thread TT lost their oc/qb coach to Houston. The TT offense could be a little out of tune because of this .. .. Houston put up 37 losing to Okla State.

by **that's great raplh** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:10 pm

Stallion wrote:Well I see a big win over a Division II team has reinvigorated the Cheerleaders. Come back on Saturday Nite and tell us all what statement was incorrect. I'll be looking forward to it,

suck it

by **AirRaidTT6** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:01 pm

If you believe our Defense was bad on Saturday night, you probably did absolutely no research and I don't blame you because the Tech-Nevada game is pretty irrelevant to SMU fans.

As said before, the yards category is a bit overrated. Points is all that matters and our Defense only yielded 10 points while our Offense was less than stellar. We went for two 4th and 1's and were stopped both times...inside the 30 yard line. Nevada only got a FG on each of those tries. Our defense also forced a questionable fumble in the endzone resulting in a touchback.

Here's a few stats you may have left out if you actually did the research:

Nevada-3rd Down Conversions: 3-16
Nevada-Red Zone Offense-9 points

Our defense is designed to keep everything in front of us. It prevents the big play but many teams will get their yards. You're in for a rude awakening if you think SMU scores 38 points on Saturday night. You only scored 9 last year against us (a worse Tech Defense)...on your home field.

With that said, good luck the rest of the season (after the Tech game of course).

by **NickSMU17** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:14 pm

Who cares, Tech sucks, and in less thn 5 years this will actually become a game, until then sit back, and enjoy that you didn't go to tech.

Little Chance for a win but....

Who is online