Page 1 of 1

Reality Check # 2 - No Offense

PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:45 am
by Pony in SA
This team was 7 and 7 last year with a more favorable schedule and lost a home bowl game to Army. That's right Army at home (not LSU, TCU, etc.), where they only scored 14 points after a month or so to prepare. In addition they lost to Houston badly at home when they had a chance to cement their West division lead, then when another chance to secure conference went out to UTEP and lost to an average at best UTEP team. Don't even get me started about Navy. Also, only 7 points in conference championship game.

I have come to have no expectations as this group appears to be very up and down. By now with the experience we have our offense should play better. Sure A & M is more talented, but the reality is Jones is supposed to be an offensive coach and we have underperformed for awhile on offense and can not score any points. I do not know if it is the QBs, WRs, OLine, etc. but we are paying Jones alot to figure this out and so far he hasn't. Reality is our offense has to play better and has been one of the weak spots.

Re: Reality Check # 2 - No Offense

PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:07 am
by NomAnor
To be fair they did move the ball very well in the first half just couldnt punch it in.We were just out maned in the end and got wore out in the second half .

Re: Reality Check # 2 - No Offense

PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:31 am
by LakeHighlandsPony
Without Zach Line we have no offense. Our passing game is awful!

Re: Reality Check # 2 - No Offense

PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:45 am
by rooster
As soon as Padron got pulled, confidence dropped and we could never recover.

Re: Reality Check # 2 - No Offense

PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:52 am
by Stallion
Very little downfield passing attack. Most passes were caught 3-5 yards downfield and SMU's receivers weren't physical enough to get off the line or run for much YAK. That was the big mismatch coming in. SMU's diminitive receivers against A&M's more physical BCS DBs especially their CBs. SMU got some yards and made some completions that padded stats but really were ineffectual. Not going to be too negative about the lack of a deep threat because of wind conditions but the Passing Game will struggle against better competition unless a deep threat is found. No Deep Threat t means more DBs in the intermediate passing zone-more interceptions and less big plays.

Re: Reality Check # 2 - No Offense

PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 9:21 am
by davidpaul123
Our recievers definately had a hard time getting open which originally was the reason I thought Padron struggled early on. In watching the replay though there were throws to be made although most of what was open were the underneath stuff. Kyle seemed to be focused more on the downfield stuff and finally got a guy open down the field but overthrew him for his 2nd interception. First interception he had 2 guys open and picked the guy with the tightest coverage, not a good decision.

JJ came in and made the underneath throws which were just beyond the line of scrimage and let the guys run picking up 6-7 yds a throw.

Both guys had some time to throw which was good. Looking forward to seeing how the passing game looks next week, hope its improved a whole bunch.

Re: Reality Check # 2 - No Offense

PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 9:28 am
by CalallenStang
rooster wrote:As soon as Padron got pulled, confidence dropped and we could never recover.


Were you watching the same game I was? I saw the offense continue to roll until we had to finally punt. After we punted, we didn't do anything for the rest of the night.

Re: Reality Check # 2 - No Offense

PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:51 am
by Pony_Law
I think the real problem with the offense is that it is never clicking on all cylenders. What I mean by that is 1) if the line gives time the WR are covered 2) if the WR are open the line doesn't block 3) if the line blocks and the WR are open we have an inaccurate throw (either incomplete/intercepted/or have to make a spactacular catch killing any yac possibility. I've only seen one game where the line blocks the receivers are open and hit in stride with a accurate ball from the QB (hawii bowl). Maybe we will get that against lesser CUSA opponents but we will see.

Re: Reality Check # 2 - No Offense

PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:56 am
by SMU 86
Pony_Law wrote:I think the real problem with the offense is that it is never clicking on all cylenders. What I mean by that is 1) if the line gives time the WR are covered 2) if the WR are open the line doesn't block 3) if the line blocks and the WR are open we have an inaccurate throw (either incomplete/intercepted/or have to make a spactacular catch killing any yac possibility. I've only seen one game where the line blocks the receivers are open and hit in stride with a accurate ball from the QB (hawii bowl). Maybe we will get that against lesser CUSA opponents but we will see.


Well, I really have a hard time arguing with that.