DMN- Will this be the breakout year for the R & S?

[Mitch McConnell]

Don't like this offense
Never have liked this offense
This is not an offense that will win championships

IMO It's not physical enough in tough/tight games when you need to run the clock and physically kick somebody in the arse.

And I'm stuck with 3rd-and-1 and watching us throw a low percentage deep ball.

That said, this offense's success is going to be predicated on how opportunistic the defense is. This defense is built to create turnovers so the offense can strike quickly.

That didn't happen in 2010. In fact, I think SMU was something like minus-9 in the turnover ratio last year. So you could say to go 7-7 with that kind of turnover ratio is a bit stunning.

Defense has to provide more of a short field. If it does that, then the offense can put up the numbers fans are hoping to see.

So I think This is just wrong for several reasons.

First, There are very few times where a team is put in position to win the game by running out the clock. When these situations do come up you are equaly likely/more likely to still win the game if you score. Also lets say you want to run out the clock, if you are completing passes at about a 68% clip which is what is expected in this offense, on 3 downs you should have 2 completions. Any time you have avoided a negative play in 3 consecutive downs you shold have made a first down.

Next you complain about throwing the ball on 3 and 1. Sure there are times you should run the ball but to say you should never do anything else is stupid. The objective of offense is to score, not to make first downs, not to run the clock. if you are scoring you are doing the other 2 as a byproduct. if you are making first downs and running the clock you might not score, this happend to us lots of times last year. we pretty much outgained every team we lost to including TCU, but because of negative plays our drives stalled and we did not score and we lost the game.

Thrid I don't think this offense is predicated on having a short field or relying on turnovers. It's actualy the opposite. This offesne says this both teams will likely have a similar number of possesions and run a similar number of plays, our offense is designed that we will have a higher % chance of scoring on any particular play because we will throw the ball more put recievers into space down field and if we connect we are likely to score. Hence over the course of the game and season we will score a lot more points than our opponents. Turnovers kill any team because it takes away your oppertunity to score and gives the other team a chance to score.

Finally the whole toughness grind out game you are imagining, is a false narative, you wear someone out just as much (if not more) on offense making them run all over the field covering you, Most teams that run this offense are 7-8 players deep at the WR position, defenses are ussualy 4 deep if they are lucky at CB. Mike Leach used to have 3 different recievers run 3 different go routes against a qb with the idea that he can keep subing but the CB will likely never be subed so that by the 3rd time he will either be a little tired and not be able to cover the fresher reciever or he will likely make a mistake because he is winded and a reciever will get open. Also it takes less energy for LB and D line men to plug gaps at the line of scrimage against the run then it does for them to be rushing up field after the QB or droping into coverage. Also nothing about the R&S prevents your defense from hiting some one in the mouth

Now I know what OTP means. I'm sorry if you think it's wrong. But we'll agree to disagree. This offense is ridiculous. If you think this system can win championships consistently at the big-time level, that's up to you. I think it can't. Every time June lined up to play a physical team and that opponent was not on the island, he got it handed to him. Sorry. Seeing is believing.

[Stallion]

Well yeah you don't need great receivers playing this schedule-but then you get shown to be a mirage when you step up to play with the Big Boys. SMU would be looking at about 10+ wins with that 7 game Home schedule with the toughest teams at home:

Northern Colorado(FCS) W (-35.32) W (-35.32) 63-6 W
9/8 at Louisiana Tech W (-18.70) W (-19.89) 45-44 (ot) W
9/15 at UNLV W (-20.32) W (-17.98) 49-14 W
9/22 Charleston So. (FCS) W (-35.32) W (-35.92) 66-10 W
9/29 at Idaho W (-24.62) W (-25.56) 48-20 W
10/6 Utah State W (-26.32) W (-30.36) 52-37 W
10/12 at San Jose St. W (-6.93) W (-16.44) 42-35 (ot) W
10/27 New Mexico St. W (-18.91) W (-24.39) 50-13 W
11/10 Fresno State W (-13.87) W (-14.68) 37-30 W
11/16 at Nevada W (-2.92) W (-8.76) 28-26 W
11/23 Boise State L (+1.18) L (+3.71) 39-27 L
12/1 Washington W (-14.68) W (-12.04) 35-28 W

[One Trick Pony]

How the hell do I get in the middle of this

[RGV Pony]

I think he'll probably end up having to try the CFL route next season to get some playing time on film and show that he's recovered from that catastrophic car accident (where he was a passenger in the car).

wish his agent would give Jim Irsay a call

[leopold]

Before we do this can we agree not to sound like Stallion/Ponyboy? Good. Let's move one.

I, also, am not a football coach, but I do think this is a weakness of the RnS. Most good receiving teams have two good WR's, and you need more than that to make this system work. It is augmented somewhat by the productivity we get from our RB, but we will start off again with 3 WR's, since we have have TW back, and hopefully we can find a fourth - reason I asked if TW is a potential deep threat and if any FR have stepped up.

How many teams have 4 quality WRs? In 2006, Hawaii had 2 top WRs (Bess, Rivers), 1 quality receiver who missed quite a bit of time due to injury (Grice-Mullen), and *3* WRs that split the 4th WR spot. You know how much JJ hates to rotate his WRs, so it should be an indication of his unhappiness with the production out of the #4 WR spot that he actually rotated players during games at that spot.

You realize we agree, right? Do the math. Hawaii had 2 'top' WR's, 1 'quality', and 3, say, 'productive' if unimpressive WR's. That's more than just 2 good- or quality - WR's and an average one. So like I said, most teams DON'T have 4 quality WR's - that's why it can be a weakness. We need more.

It's great the the FR class has some talent at the postition, but it better have if we are to improve.

[Dr Death]

How many teams have 4 quality WRs? In 2006, Hawaii had 2 top WRs (Bess, Rivers), 1 quality receiver who missed quite a bit of time due to injury (Grice-Mullen), and *3* WRs that split the 4th WR spot. You know how much JJ hates to rotate his WRs, so it should be an indication of his unhappiness with the production out of the #4 WR spot that he actually rotated players during games at that spot.

Colt Brennan in 2006 had 5549 yards passing, 58 TDs, 72.6% completion rate, and a 186 QB efficiency. Those numbers are amazing and Hawaii had just *3* top WRs, with one of those WRs hurt for a good portion of the season (the #3 WR was just #6 in team receptions).

BTW Dr. Death, Colt Brennan went to Saddleback (not SaddleBrook), with one big positive for that JC being that his family home is close to it. And he turned down a scholarship from San Jose State to walk on to Hawaii. I think he'll probably end up having to try the CFL route next season to get some playing time on film and show that he's recovered from that catastrophic car accident (where he was a passenger in the car).

My bad... Saddleback... Saddlebrook... it's still a small school. I would disagree about Ryan Grice Mullen though. He was much more than just a "quality" receiver. His numbers:

Year - Rec --- Yards --- TDS --- AVG
2005 - 85 -----1228 -----12 -----14.4
2006 - 46 ------770 -----11 -----16.7
2007 - 106 ---1372 -----13 -----12.9

In 2006, he started 9 of 14 games and still was close to 1000 yards and averaged more than 1 TD a game. I have most of their 2006 season and all of 2007 on DVD and that kid was special. CJ Hawthorne, the converted CB, was the guy who caught the least amount of passes, but even he came up w/ some big plays when they needed them, like the San Jose State game, where they trailed 21-35 w/ just over six minutes to play and starting at their own 3 yard line, only to rally for a 42-35 OT win.

And someone posted about people blaming Padron for all the offensive problems last year and he/she was quite adamant that it wasn't all Padron. That's true, but the games that I saw... which sadly, wasn't very many, I did see Padron miss guys who were wide open. They weren't wrong reads by the receiver, they were bad throws by Padron. There were times when he reminded me of BLM last year and I had a lot of hope for him after the Hawaii Bowl.

I still have great expectations for him this year. It's his 3rd year in the system... and if he's on, w/ this offense, he can help make the receivers even better by delivering the ball accurately and putting them in a position to rack up big yards after the catch. I hope he does it because this program needs more of the excitement that followed the Hawaii Bowl.

[RSFan]

I think Stallion should pony up$200 to charity and hop on the double decker bus to A&M and invite PonyPride to film a ponyfans roundtable.

more to Stallion's point-I think-where the guy quoted by Stallion said "Colt put 4 WRs into the NFL," I suppose one could say KP has put 2 into the NFL in a year and a half. Need Al to stick w/ someone though

The point I tried to make is Colt had three receivers who had approx 10 td's each and a 1,000 yards and a rookie receiver who had, if I remember correctly six td's and 700 yards and all of them went undrafted but were picked up on the free agent route. Colt used his receivers and what the defense gave him Very Well.

[RSFan]

Don't like this offense
Never have liked this offense
This is not an offense that will win championships

IMO It's not physical enough in tough/tight games when you need to run the clock and physically kick somebody in the arse.

And I'm stuck with 3rd-and-1 and watching us throw a low percentage deep ball.

That said, this offense's success is going to be predicated on how opportunistic the defense is. This defense is built to create turnovers so the offense can strike quickly.

That didn't happen in 2010. In fact, I think SMU was something like minus-9 in the turnover ratio last year. So you could say to go 7-7 with that kind of turnover ratio is a bit stunning.

Defense has to provide more of a short field. If it does that, then the offense can put up the numbers fans are hoping to see.

So I think This is just wrong for several reasons.

First, There are very few times where a team is put in position to win the game by running out the clock. When these situations do come up you are equaly likely/more likely to still win the game if you score. Also lets say you want to run out the clock, if you are completing passes at about a 68% clip which is what is expected in this offense, on 3 downs you should have 2 completions. Any time you have avoided a negative play in 3 consecutive downs you shold have made a first down.

Next you complain about throwing the ball on 3 and 1. Sure there are times you should run the ball but to say you should never do anything else is stupid. The objective of offense is to score, not to make first downs, not to run the clock. if you are scoring you are doing the other 2 as a byproduct. if you are making first downs and running the clock you might not score, this happend to us lots of times last year. we pretty much outgained every team we lost to including TCU, but because of negative plays our drives stalled and we did not score and we lost the game.

Thrid I don't think this offense is predicated on having a short field or relying on turnovers. It's actualy the opposite. This offesne says this both teams will likely have a similar number of possesions and run a similar number of plays, our offense is designed that we will have a higher % chance of scoring on any particular play because we will throw the ball more put recievers into space down field and if we connect we are likely to score. Hence over the course of the game and season we will score a lot more points than our opponents. Turnovers kill any team because it takes away your oppertunity to score and gives the other team a chance to score.

Finally the whole toughness grind out game you are imagining, is a false narative, you wear someone out just as much (if not more) on offense making them run all over the field covering you, Most teams that run this offense are 7-8 players deep at the WR position, defenses are ussualy 4 deep if they are lucky at CB. Mike Leach used to have 3 different recievers run 3 different go routes against a qb with the idea that he can keep subing but the CB will likely never be subed so that by the 3rd time he will either be a little tired and not be able to cover the fresher reciever or he will likely make a mistake because he is winded and a reciever will get open. Also it takes less energy for LB and D line men to plug gaps at the line of scrimage against the run then it does for them to be rushing up field after the QB or droping into coverage. Also nothing about the R&S prevents your defense from hiting some one in the mouth

Pony_law,

Very, Very well said and my sentiments exactly to each issue. We tried a version of "holding on" to a two touchdown lead against Navy and who didn't see the results comeing all the way from Annopolis.

[RSFan]

Well yeah you don't need great receivers playing this schedule-but then you get shown to be a mirage when you step up to play with the Big Boys. SMU would be looking at about 10+ wins with that 7 game Home schedule with the toughest teams at home:

Northern Colorado(FCS) W (-35.32) W (-35.32) 63-6 W
9/8 at Louisiana Tech W (-18.70) W (-19.89) 45-44 (ot) W
9/15 at UNLV W (-20.32) W (-17.98) 49-14 W
9/22 Charleston So. (FCS) W (-35.32) W (-35.92) 66-10 W
9/29 at Idaho W (-24.62) W (-25.56) 48-20 W
10/6 Utah State W (-26.32) W (-30.36) 52-37 W
10/12 at San Jose St. W (-6.93) W (-16.44) 42-35 (ot) W
10/27 New Mexico St. W (-18.91) W (-24.39) 50-13 W
11/10 Fresno State W (-13.87) W (-14.68) 37-30 W
11/16 at Nevada W (-2.92) W (-8.76) 28-26 W
11/23 Boise State L (+1.18) L (+3.71) 39-27 L
12/1 Washington W (-14.68) W (-12.04) 35-28 W

Stallion-

Are you telling us Kyle Padron would win ten of those games? What is the basis for your optomism?

[Alaric]

You guys saying we are loaded at WR-come back and let's talk after the Texas A&M game. I think you're going to see they are going to have big problems against Texas A&M's pass defense especially A&M's CBs just like they did against UCF's vetearn team and just like they did against TCU's defense last year which completely shut SMU's passing game down in the final 3 quarters when SMU completed what was it about 25% of its passes. We got some guys that put up big numbers against defenses rated 118 and 115 and then disappear when we play quality teams. Can these WRs step up to the next level of play which we rarely see.

Our starters are small compared to most D1 wr's and will still suffer from jamming by bigger, athletic secondaries. However, our fr and soph wr's are much bigger and more athletic and we'll ne deep in legit wr's starting next year. Unfortunately, this offense requires intimate knowledge of the offense, which IMO, makes it tough to unseat experienced wr's so we won't see much from this year unless someone like holleman really is all world

[Garret]

My bad... Saddleback... Saddlebrook... it's still a small school. I would disagree about Ryan Grice Mullen though. He was much more than just a "quality" receiver. His numbers:

Year - Rec --- Yards --- TDS --- AVG
2005 - 85 -----1228 -----12 -----14.4
2006 - 46 ------770 -----11 -----16.7
2007 - 106 ---1372 -----13 -----12.9

In 2006, he started 9 of 14 games and still was close to 1000 yards and averaged more than 1 TD a game.

I agree with you that Grice-Mullen was more than a quality receiver, but in 2006 he missed a lot of time due to injury and Colt still piled up huge stats with backup receivers playing. In 2005 and 2007 RGM was amazing, but I was just discussing 2006 when he was limited by injury.

[Garret]

Before we do this can we agree not to sound like Stallion/Ponyboy? Good. Let's move one.

I, also, am not a football coach, but I do think this is a weakness of the RnS. Most good receiving teams have two good WR's, and you need more than that to make this system work. It is augmented somewhat by the productivity we get from our RB, but we will start off again with 3 WR's, since we have have TW back, and hopefully we can find a fourth - reason I asked if TW is a potential deep threat and if any FR have stepped up.

How many teams have 4 quality WRs? In 2006, Hawaii had 2 top WRs (Bess, Rivers), 1 quality receiver who missed quite a bit of time due to injury (Grice-Mullen), and *3* WRs that split the 4th WR spot. You know how much JJ hates to rotate his WRs, so it should be an indication of his unhappiness with the production out of the #4 WR spot that he actually rotated players during games at that spot.

You realize we agree, right? Do the math. Hawaii had 2 'top' WR's, 1 'quality', and 3, say, 'productive' if unimpressive WR's. That's more than just 2 good- or quality - WR's and an average one. So like I said, most teams DON'T have 4 quality WR's - that's why it can be a weakness. We need more.

It's great the the FR class has some talent at the postition, but it better have if we are to improve.

I apologize if you thought my tone was that negative. Tone just doesn't come across on a message board and I wasn't trying to go after your post, I was just pointing out that in the biggest offensive college season that JJ has had, that team did not have a 4th WR that could keep the spot solid and had a #3 WR that was hampered significantly by injury.

It looks to me that SMU has 2 quality slots and several options at wideout. It looks like the depth issue at WR is being addressed, and the 2012 recruiting class has some excellent commits that will continue to address the needs of the position.

Even more important than the WRs, in my opinion, is the OL. Hawaii's offense had better WRs in 2007 (thanks to the Reinebold-recruited starting 2006 CB being shifted to starting wideout in 2007 and improved health at WR), but the offense did not put up close to the numbers as in 2006. Losing 3 OL to the NFL after the 2006 season was a big problem...SMU could be losing the entire starting OL after this season, which is something I'd be more worried about than depth at WR.

[Charleston Pony]

agreed; this is the year to ride the backs of the big guys up front; best position we've been in for as long as I can remember offensively

[Garret]

Well yeah you don't need great receivers playing this schedule-but then you get shown to be a mirage when you step up to play with the Big Boys.

9/2/06: at Alabama, 350 yards passing, 68% completion rate, 2 passing TDs, 1 INT
9/23/06: at Boise State (who beat Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl after the season), 388 yards passing, 69% completion rate, 5 passing TDs, 1 INT
11/25/06: Purdue, 434 yards passing, 69% completion rate, 3 TDs, 1 INT
12/2/06: Oregon State, 401 yards passing, 74% completion rate, 2 TDs, 2 INT
12/24/06: Arizona State, 559 yards passing, 79% completion rate, 5 TDs, 1 INT

Hawaii lost at Alabama by 1 score and was hurt by 4 fumbles (including 1 near the goal line) and some early-game jitters (Bess never dropped so many passes like he did in that first quarter). Hawaii lost at Boise State but put up 34 points, the most anyone did in the regular season.

[Dr Death]

Well yeah you don't need great receivers playing this schedule-but then you get shown to be a mirage when you step up to play with the Big Boys.

9/2/06: at Alabama, 350 yards passing, 68% completion rate, 2 passing TDs, 1 INT
9/23/06: at Boise State (who beat Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl after the season), 388 yards passing, 69% completion rate, 5 passing TDs, 1 INT
11/25/06: Purdue, 434 yards passing, 69% completion rate, 3 TDs, 1 INT
12/2/06: Oregon State, 401 yards passing, 74% completion rate, 2 TDs, 2 INT
12/24/06: Arizona State, 559 yards passing, 79% completion rate, 5 TDs, 1 INT

Hawaii lost at Alabama by 1 score and was hurt by 4 fumbles (including 1 near the goal line) and some early-game jitters (Bess never dropped so many passes like he did in that first quarter). Hawaii lost at Boise State but put up 34 points, the most anyone did in the regular season.

That loss to Boise was 41-34, so it was close. The Oregon State loss, the Hawaii FG kicker missed two FG's and they lost by 3 points. They beat Purdue 42-35 and Arizona State 41-24.