Hawaii year 1 vs SMU year 3

[couch 'em]

No, I still disagree with your premise, regardless of defensive analysis. You can google until next year, and the point you are trying to make won't carry weight. I did notice your self bump to keep interest in this thread. Others have said the same thing....pointless. You didn't even make a point. You've googled a bunch of stats and think that will make your point for you. What's your point? We need to improve our offense? I'll go 2 steps forward. Let's improve the offense, defense, and special teams.

The bottom line is this TEAM managed to play for a conference championship, and will go to a bowl game. The 2009 team tied for the Western Division title and won their first bowl game in 25 years.
Along the way, they've won 15 games with a chance at 16, all under the same coach and offensive scheme. Additionally, the offense had to replace 5 offensive starters from the 2009 team and still won the West. Improvement has been made and it will continue, all under Jones.

I don't care about yards or points per game. If we win 12 in a row 2-0, who gives a [deleted]? W's my friend, that's what counts. Your ppg stat comparison is BS. No one cares. If we played Highland Park and beat them to win the conference, who cares. You play who is on the schedule and as long as you win, who cares? Do you actually think Jones doesn't have a say as to the defense?

Mr Japan, I salute and appreciate your service for our country, however, you are also wrong. The 2007 team did average 28.3 points a game, as compared to the 2009 team (29.2) and the 2010 team (26.6), however 1 W compared to 8 and 7 respectively isn't an even comparison. Wins are the only criteria to compare and contrast. The rest is for apologists. Those folks who like to think other stats make a difference. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Your turn; go ahead and bump it a few times so (in your words) others will be able to discuss. I wonder if Jones gets paid for W's or points?

Your defensiveness on this subject is ridiculous. This is a discussion board, not a rah-rah wankfest. You can discuss issues related to the negative aspects of the team without implying the team sucks or that June Jones sucks. Pretty much everyone agrees that the offense has problems. It isn't playing to potential as scoring as much as it should or needs to. Nobody questions that we are a far, far better overall team than pre-Jones. Nobody questions that Jones coaches the players better and manages a gameplan better. The record stands for itself and everyone is happy.

That doesn't mean we can't discuss the low points along with the high points.

My point was, as many others have already discussed, is that the excuse of "we (Padron, WRs) need more time to learn the offense". This isn't true, since the Hawaii year 1 team seems to have learned it just as well as SMU in year 3. I think asked WHY we are having problems on offense. Is it Padron? WRs? Something else?

You got defensive, questioned the premise that we even have offensive problems, and said that the Hawaii year 1 team had an easier schedule. I posted the defensive rankings of this year's SMU opponents to show that isn't true. We in year 3 are no better on offense than Hawaii year 1 with 18-game losing streak level talent.

Everyone knows we have far more talent than that team, and more than we've had here in 20 years. So the question remains. Why aren't we scoring more points?

With a little better offense, we beat UCF. With an offense that is playing to the potential we think it has, we beat several more teams this year. With Hawaii year 3 or 4 offense, we might have gone undefeated with how well the defense has played.

[Samurai Stang]

I don't care about yards or points per game. If we win 12 in a row 2-0, who gives a [deleted]? W's my friend, that's what counts. Your ppg stat comparison is BS.

When SMU wins 12 games in a row points will not matter. As that is not the case, SMU must score more points in order to attain more victories. That is how the game works. A decrease in points that results from implementing a "high-powered" offense is legitimate reason for discussion.

Wins are the only criteria to compare and contrast. The rest is for apologists. Those folks who like to think other stats make a difference. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Actually, losses are also worthy of discussion. For example, the loss to UCF. Stats are kept and of interest because they are not arbitrary, but give a clearer picture of the game. What area is in need of improvement the most? The offense, which is interestingly the area considered June Jones' greatest strength.

If you hate legitimate discussion so much that is well, but there is more to be said as to what SMU must do in order to improve than simply "win more."

[Dukster]

Sorry pal, you are still off. Every aspect of this TEAM can improve. When you run the clock out on a9 win team, the coach is interested more in the WIN than scoring points. The WIN is what's important. Samurai, by virtue of measuring WINS, Losses come into the equation. Wins are what puts you in conference championships and bowl games. Points per game aren't. Bottom line: I disagree with you both.

[Samurai Stang]

Sorry pal, you are still off. Every aspect of this TEAM can improve. When you run the clock out on a9 win team, the coach is interested more in the WIN than scoring points. The WIN is what's important. Samurai, by virtue of measuring WINS, Losses come into the equation. Wins are what puts you in conference championships and bowl games. Points per game aren't. Bottom line: I disagree with you both.

So only wins can be discussed, but not the many, many aspects of the game that contribute to those wins? Or that, with a stronger offense, more wins would have been the result?

[couch 'em]

Sorry pal, you are still off. Every aspect of this TEAM can improve. When you run the clock out on a9 win team, the coach is interested more in the WIN than scoring points. The WIN is what's important. Samurai, by virtue of measuring WINS, Losses come into the equation. Wins are what puts you in conference championships and bowl games. Points per game aren't. Bottom line: I disagree with you both.

Are you just a troll, or are you another name that Patton posts under? He is the only other person to go on such pointless rambling responses that completely ignore the subject at hand. You either disagree that the team is not living up to it's offensive potential, or you think that you cannot discuss the performance problems of the offense simply because all aspects of the team can improve. Why do you come to a message board when you don't want discussion to occur?

[Stallion]

I think SMU put up some big numbers against a bunch of the weaker defenses in College Football. But if you identified at least 5 losses against reputable defenses(I included Texas Tech because they have BCS athletes) I think you can see our QB/WR combos didn't have a lot of success-especially in Yards Per Catch.

The Teams I spotlighted were Texas Tech, TCU, Navy, UTEP, UCF:

Cole Beasley 28 catches for 246 yards 8.8 YPC
Darius Johnson 34 catches 346 yards 10.2 YPC
Aldrick Robinson 24 catches 314 yards 13.1 YPC
Bradley Haynes 14 catches 120 yards 8.6 YPC

I think the lessons to be learned from the problems that Padron and his receivers had in these 5 games are more important than some of the big numbers put up against most of the remaining poor Pass Defenses. In particular I still think this team could use at least 2 more playmakers at Receiver -3 since Robinson is leaving-in order to really be successful against quality competition.

[Dukster]

Sorry pal, you are still off. Every aspect of this TEAM can improve. When you run the clock out on a9 win team, the coach is interested more in the WIN than scoring points. The WIN is what's important. Samurai, by virtue of measuring WINS, Losses come into the equation. Wins are what puts you in conference championships and bowl games. Points per game aren't. Bottom line: I disagree with you both.

Are you just a troll, or are you another name that Patton posts under? He is the only other person to go on such pointless rambling responses that completely ignore the subject at hand. You either disagree that the team is not living up to it's offensive potential, or you think that you cannot discuss the performance problems of the offense simply because all aspects of the team can improve. Why do you come to a message board when you don't want discussion to occur?

I'm sorry I don't have 5000+ posts. I am not a troll, whatever that is in "message board talk." I just disagree with almost everything you post. I decided to let you know. Remember, don't forget to BUMP so others can discuss your post.

[Dukster]

Sorry pal, you are still off. Every aspect of this TEAM can improve. When you run the clock out on a9 win team, the coach is interested more in the WIN than scoring points. The WIN is what's important. Samurai, by virtue of measuring WINS, Losses come into the equation. Wins are what puts you in conference championships and bowl games. Points per game aren't. Bottom line: I disagree with you both.

So only wins can be discussed, but not the many, many aspects of the game that contribute to those wins? Or that, with a stronger offense, more wins would have been the result?

Sam, discuss whatever you want. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't support your right to post. Seems like you like to answer with cynical questions. So, does a stronger offense result in more wins? What if the defense and special teams falter? Can you always out-score the defense? Can't a strong special teams unit produce wins? Ah, the W word again. What say you? Once again, thanks for your service. Good luck.

[Alaric]

BTW after watching the replay not enough credit was given to UCF's CB Josh Robinson who did a great job on Aldrick on at least 3 plays. On the pass that Josh Robinson knocked away with his left hand-that was a very well thrown low trajectory bomb-which is Padron's best bomb. Robinson just made a great play. Now there was one bomb that was underthrown but nobody has pointed out that Josh Robinson was running stride for stride in Aldrick's jock strap. Josh Robinson also made a great play on that key sideline pass where Padron threw to the inside shoulder rather than the outside shoulder. Pass was not thrown where it should have been but Josh was right there and made a great play. He's reputed to be one of the best cover CBs in CUSA and he deserves some credit. Significantly, Aldrick's TD came against a different CB. b

Aldrick had Josh Robinson beaten deep on at least two plays where Padron threw the ball short, allowing Josh to catch up. Can't credit Josh with those plays. Not that I'm a Padron hater, I think he'll be better next year and we'll be excited about him and really excited about him his senior year. That being said, he probably missed on 7 passes, simply due to inaccuracy or underthrowing the ball. Two would have been td's (the Aldrick pass that Beasley caught for instance).

[Mitch McConnell]

Pretty hard to get to 7-6, win the CUSA West, play for a conference championship and go to a bowl when you are MINUS 9 in the turnover ratio.

Aren't stats fun? When you have an agenda and you need something to validate your agenda, you do things like this, which is absolutely what the author of this thread is doing.

And the author really needs to come forward and just say he doesn't like Kyle Padron. That's OK that he doesn't. I didn't like Justin Willis. Why else would he put up a thread moments after the CUSA game staing THIS LOSS: ALL PADRON. This author has been on Kyle's butt the entire season. Again, that's OK. I've been on June's case since he got here.

Just admit it. I did.

The headline of the thread itself is apples and oranges. Different years, different circumstances, different opponents, different obstacles, different everything.

Stats don't do a darn thing for me, except the one I just mentioned, third-down conversions and penalties. Those define discipline and organization, which lie at the heart of a very successful program.

All I want to know is if people can make plays to keep drives going, make plays to stop stop opponents and make plays on special teams to create field position.

To simplify, this is a building program, it's getting there and if the incoming talent pool is as good as we believe it to be, then you can SMU reaching exceptional heights.

Sorry if it's not on some people's timetable.

[kull]

The receivers missed a few reads earlier in the season. Padron's head has been swimming this year. His footwork was off this season... Then he finally starts getting confident, sticking the footwork and boom, the ankle. The bad footwork has affected the accuracy on short/intermediate throws and juice/trajectory of the deep ball. The deep ball/vertical patterns needs to be completed with greater efficiency to open the rest of the offense.

There is time before the bowl, hopefully it becomes his coming out party this year.

[mrydel]

I have never played QB. I have not even played one on TV, but I do know that the last 2 games of the year were the first and only games we played on real grass. I also know that most grass fields have a crown down the middle and artificial fields do not. Is this enough of a factor that it could have contributed to some poor accuracy in the final 2 games?

[PonyKai]

I have never played QB. I have not even played one on TV, but I do know that the last 2 games of the year were the first and only games we played on real grass. I also know that most grass fields have a crown down the middle and artificial fields do not. Is this enough of a factor that it could have contributed to some poor accuracy in the final 2 games?

I hope not, don't we practice on real grass the vast majority of the time? Game > Practice, but still all those many hundreds of throws made every day in practice on grass.

[White Helmet]

I have never played QB. I have not even played one on TV, but I do know that the last 2 games of the year were the first and only games we played on real grass. I also know that most grass fields have a crown down the middle and artificial fields do not. Is this enough of a factor that it could have contributed to some poor accuracy in the final 2 games?

Artificial fields do have a crown. Old Texas Stadium had a notoriously high crown that Brett Favre cried about, damn loser.

[mrydel]

I have never played QB. I have not even played one on TV, but I do know that the last 2 games of the year were the first and only games we played on real grass. I also know that most grass fields have a crown down the middle and artificial fields do not. Is this enough of a factor that it could have contributed to some poor accuracy in the final 2 games?

I hope not, don't we practice on real grass the vast majority of the time? Game > Practice, but still all those many hundreds of throws made every day in practice on grass.

I doubt our practice field has a crown.