PonyFans.com

Oh no. Cavan said at his press luncheon that he's going to rotate Page and Luker against Tulsa. Same strategy helped convince Sanders and McCown to transfer, because they were always looking over their shoulder whenever they threw an incomplete pass, wondering if they were going to get yanked.

Don't do it, Coach. Pick one guy and go with him. If he falters, THEN make the switch. But this plan tells each player you're expecting him to fail.

Probably saw Dan Reeves do it in the Dallas/Atlanta game on Sunday and decided that if it was O.K. for the 'big' coaches to do it, then it was O.K. for Mike too.

I don't see anything wrong with it.Spurrier has done it for years and no one complains about him.I guess the reason is he has always been successful and winning solves alot of problems.If Cavan does it and it is successful I bey no one will complain if it is not,then Everyone will say they knew better.

Spurrier can do it because he has all american qb's throwing to all american receivers. smu needs to find a qb and stick with it. that is the only way you ever build any sort of confidence, for the qb and the rest of the offense.

Peruna Punch, you're right.
Dan Reeves coaches in Georgia. Mike Cavan thinks he'll coach one day in Georgia. Whatever's good for Reeves is good for Cavan.
I see you working. Props to you for the analysis.

swami,I respect your views but it would not matter who we had at QB with this O-Line.Our QB's have to run for their life at the snap of the ball. You could put Florida's QB's behind our line and they would not be any more successful than Page or Luker.

Good point. But it still doesnt change the fact that no matter who you are, you need to stick with one qb. I cant think of the last time a team one a national championship switching out qb's. Even when Florida won they stuck with Danny Worful (sp?)

A national championship Swami???? Hell, I would just like to see us start winning more often. In the paper this morning Cavan was quoted as saying the rational for using both QB's in the game is to keep them fresher. With as much running as they are having to do to stay alive on each snap and the beating they are taking back there, they are getting worn out and as a result less effective. We will see if that works. Anyway, it doesn't sound like a "screw up and your out of there" scenario.

By no means was I saying we are contenders, but we may as well copy the current working model. The point is you should only switch a qb if he gets hurt or is constantly not producing. I guess in this case, with only three games left, the point is mute.

IMO, a huge part of passing efficiency deals with the relationship between receivers and the QB.

Good Example: Aikman/Irvin/Novachek. Aikman knew where his receivers would be. When they'd cut, how long it would take for the route to develop, etc. Under pressure they all knew when they'd break off a route or come back for the ball.

Aikman was a big guy who threw the ball with zip. Again, in my humble opinion, the guy never did develop a long ball. But I guess that didn't matter because he was so dang efficient with the short and intermediate stuff. Look how good Harper was here, and what a spare he was after he left.

Developing chemistry takes lots and lots of reps. 1st team QB throwing to 1st team receivers. You loose all that when you shuttle QBs (and, I'm afraid to say, when you substitute receivers wholesale like we do). If it were up to me, the only time Comet, Ford or Hampton would come out would be after they had run a long route and needed a play or two to catch their breath.

How many times do you think you'd spot Ashley Lelie takin' a break on Hawaii's sideline, hmm?

It worked O.K. in the Dallas/Atlanta game because nobody was throwing passes. The QB's only function was to hand the ball off (and maybe fake a play action pass).

In SMU's situation, shuttling QBs is ridiculous. With a struggling offense and all the player substitutions, there's little enough chemistry as it is. Look how effective the offense became when we were able to establish enough of a running game that the offense could stay on the field awhile and get into a groove. With shuttling QBs, the only groove we'll get into is 3 and out!

Sawmi and PerunaPunch, I really don't disagree with either one of you. The real problem gets back to the topic of this thread. The reality is that the offensive scheme doesn't work for a basically undersized team. Yeah we have some big guys, but all in all we are a small team. Fresno's receivers were for the most part much taller and heavier than our speedsters. Their defensive linemen and linebackers were bigger than our offensive linemen. Our guys work their butts off out there, but after awhile they just get worn out. We need an offensive scheme that takes into account our deficiencies and works around them. We can't win playing smash mouth football for 60 minutes when we are usually the smaller sized team on the field. The team gets my true admiration for trying.

BTW, I still want to know why we keep running the option play to the short side of the field.

[This message has been edited by PK (edited 11-14-2001).]

You're preaching to the choir PK. It was especially obvious with Fresno, (I think you or somebody else also observed/mentioned this) who looked especially tall and athletic. Slaten looked like he belonged out there scrapping with them, but that's about it.

But I have to diverge from your opinion when you say we need a scheme that takes into account our deficiencies. In my personal opinion, there ain't such a thing. Football, by definition, IS smashmouth. For every single undersized offensive line that is successful (e.g. Denver), I can give you 50 that win by blowing the opposition 2 yards off the line of scrimmage with every snap.

Sure you can have plenty of success with a player who doesn't fit the classic mold (at 6' nothin', Aldridge is still a force), but I don't think you can give up inches and pounds all up and down the line and still expect to be successful.

And I'm sure that now I am preachin' to the choir. And yes, I agree with you that the play calling on offense blows. But I don't think going to an offense that optimizes small players is the answer either (visions of Rossley's run & shoot anyone?).

And as for running the option to the short side of the field, the only possible explanation I could come up with is that... Oh never mind, there is no dang reason!

Running to the short side of the field on an option is the equivalent of giving the defense an additional DE. Just freakin' stupid.

Run and shoot is the last thing I would want to see again. I shouldn't have to say this, but once again, "I'm not a coach." Now I can get on my soap box and preach to the choir. Perhaps we should use more shotgun formations to give the QB a split second or two more time. Maybe we should use a two back formation to keep the other team guessing as to what we are going to do. As we do it now, we might as well give them a copy of our play book (we have one don't we?). ShanDerrick in....it's a running play. Pipkin in....it's a passing play. Running back lined up on the short side of the field....it's an option play (to the short side). Anyway, there are some other schemes besides R&S that we could be doing.