PonyFans.com

Nice result for the Mustangs on the road... here are a few thoughts I had...

- Frankly, not playing very well with a lot of mistakes, but still going on the road across multiple time zones and beating a power conference team by 30 is really impressive.
- The game kind of went the opposite from what I thought. I really thought we would be sloppy to start coming off the bye and then pick it up in the second half. Instead, we came out firing and then were sloppy the second half of the game.
- I thought Stanford made a mistake taking Daniels out that early. I understand wanting to get the freshman QB playing time, but Daniels is really the only elite athlete they have on the offensive side. It made them very easy to defend. The only reason they scored in the game was SMU turning the ball over and giving them a short field. Daniels at least provides them with something.
- I mentioned that ND last week came out throwing against Stanford and then ran the ball late. Same approach from SMU today. Hitting Moochie in stride was great, but the deep ball TD off balance to K Smith was a really big time throw. Jennings struggled in this game at times, some of it was because of the line, but this was the first game this season that he tried to do a little too much instead of just running the offense and taking what was there. On the other hand, that TD, the spin and throw, and then the sidewinder against his body to Bailey towards the end were elite throws.
- The OL was terrible in this game. I mentioned pregame that 23 would give Byrd problems in pass rush situations, and that was absolutely the case. Chamblee replaced Byrd because of it, but didn't play that well. On top of that, Parr was really poor in the game, which was a big surprise. Anderson got some playing time in the first half, so you wonder if something was bothering Parr, but he came back in and still struggled. The OL looked like earlier in the season, and all of a sudden becomes something that could hold the team back a bit in the difficult games that are coming up. 10 penalties for 100 yards is NOT good, and the play of the OL and the penalties against some odd man fronts and blitzes made it very reminiscent of the Nevada game. We just hit some big pass plays early that gave us breathing room and the defense played at a high level. That was not an OL performance that would win against good teams, and the left side of the line becomes a big concern heading into a game against Duke that has a very good defense and a strong defensive line. Frankly, Duke isn't very good offensively and we match up really well with them on that side of the ball. But if our OL plays like it did tonight, the game next week is going to be a very tight slugfest.
- Defensively, there weren't any major surprises. They didn't have the QB play to test our corners, and their OL was poor and our DL dominated. JHH, Smith, and Harvey all had big games. Safeties and LBs took away their plays over the middle. I thought Kilgore played really well at LB. Nice to see Booker get a good amount of LB time in the second half, and Miyazano played better than he has in the past when he rotated in.
- You can start to see how RJ and Smith really dictate what the other team can do against us defensively. It isn't a coincidence that the running game struggled in the first half without Smith and the passing game struggled after RJ got hurt. We have good players at WR and RB, but those two are elite and really change how the other team is able to defend us. It is really important that both of them are available because it helps the rest of the team, and might have been a factor in Stanford taking advantage of our weaknesses at OL.

Overall, I just thought we were sloppy. Lots that RL is going to be unhappy about. That said, great to go on the road and win by 30! These next two games will determine if SMU becomes a favorite to make the ACC Championship game and the CFP or if we are just playing for the best bowl game possible.

Stanford looks like a well-coached team that just lacks talent -- especially on offense. It looks like they made some adjustments on defense in the second quarter that really befuddled our offense for the rest of the game.

My eyes are not good enough to see the numbers on the o-line but I told my wife. Something is up on the o-line.

Thanks for spelling it out.
So, we need to find more depth there for next year. Or maybe we have some young guys ready to step up.

Thank you for the write up and follow up. UGLY, UGLY and a W.

Thank you BMD's for the ACC and the thing I like most - We have a channel and can watch everything SMU does.

The SF Chronicle just ran the AP story but the Stanford Daily writeup says they actually thought there might be more SMU fans there than Stanford fans. Anyone in attendance want to comment?

JasonB, I was really surprised by what felt like a big step back for the O-Line. Stanfords D-Line didn't look anymore talented than Louisville or Florida State, you have any opinion on why we struggled at that unit?

Also, we have gotten off to fast starts in the first half the last few weeks and it feels like the other teams have made better adjustments after halftime. I've been really impressed with how well we've been prepped going into games for the most part, but in-game adjustments still need to improve.

As for the OL, I too was surprised and disappointed, particularly on pass blocking. This game reminded me of the pass protection in the Nevada and BYU games. The line was better with the running game. Of course, there are times when you just have an off-game. I wondered if the traveling distance affected our SMU team. Nonetheless, the coaching staff will have everything back to normal this coming weekend. Pony Up!!!

There was definite rust that happens when teams are out of a routine that means a game on Saturday. Focused in the first half and lackadaisical in the 2nd half.

The good news is we haven't played our best football...yet.

Dukie wrote:The SF Chronicle just ran the AP story but the Stanford Daily writeup says they actually thought there might be more SMU fans there than Stanford fans. Anyone in attendance want to comment?

From what I could tell from the shots during the broadcast, that stadium was near empty. We had a bigger crowd when Lamar came to town last year.

JoeKidd wrote:JasonB, I was really surprised by what felt like a big step back for the O-Line. Stanfords D-Line didn't look anymore talented than Louisville or Florida State, you have any opinion on why we struggled at that unit?

Also, we have gotten off to fast starts in the first half the last few weeks and it feels like the other teams have made better adjustments after halftime. I've been really impressed with how well we've been prepped going into games for the most part, but in-game adjustments still need to improve.

The biggest surprise with the OL was Parr, who really struggled out of nowhere. Byrd is great run blocking, but we knew that he could have issues with pass blocking. Louisville and FSU were not able to take advantage of that. I expected Louisville to because they have a really athletic end that could have caused the same trouble as Stanford's 23, but it never materialized. Some of the challenge here is that Stanford really changes their look defensively - they almost always end up rushing 5, but sometimes they bring an LB up the middle, sometimes off the edge, sometimes it is the nickel joining the line off the edge, and then sometimes it a safety that comes in through a gap. They even ran a 3-4 a bit with an odd man front, whereas on tape they only ran it once against ND and it was deep in the redzone. Louisville, on the other hand, would blitz, but it is primarily the two LBs up the middle in a run-blitz through gaps. The variability is a big mental challenge for an offensive line. We had a lot of problems with that against BYU and Nevada.

So, part of it is personnel with Parr underperformning and Byrd having a mismatch against a quick DE in pass rush situations (which SMU got into way too frequently). And part is the complexity of the defense messing with our blocking scheme.

I don't know that I would agree with the halftime adjustment thing. I mean the FSU game was close at halftime, and then we killed them second half. Generally, teams prep for a game and have a plan to start and then a plan to react, and then it is runtime adjustment at that point. As a coach, you want to have your game plan (maybe a script, maybe a strategy), and your objective is to both force the other team to adjust what they are doing before halftime, while holding your adjustments until after halftime so that you don't give the other coaches an extended period of time to adjust to your adjustments. The coaching staff that can both force a reaction and get a feel for how the other team is going to react first has the advantage. If you watch Symons on defense, for example, he will play the way he wants in the first half and try to keep it pretty standard, and really wait as long as he can before he makes an adjustment. Partially because his base defense with the right personnel is great, but also because he wants to save fresh looks for when it counts later in the game and confuse the opposing QB.

SMU came out looking to throw the ball offensively and it hit Stanford pretty hard. They had two choices - drop 8 and rush 3 or try and blitz and throw SMU off-balance. They chose the latter, and honestly there were two issues. First and foremost is that the OL didn't do it's job. The second is that when B Smith is out the first half and RJ out the second, those are two really explosive players on the hot read playlist that Stanford no longer has to worry about. That makes a difference. There is also the bit where SMU played conservatively with a lead - they didn't want Jennings to take shots in the running game. It isn't a coincidence that they opened things up at the end of the first half after giving Stanford a TD and quickly made it 31-7 at halftime.

But really, I don't think we have an adjustment problem. We had an OL problem.

Dukie wrote:The SF Chronicle just ran the AP story but the Stanford Daily writeup says they actually thought there might be more SMU fans there than Stanford fans. Anyone in attendance want to comment?

I kept wanting the tv to show the SMU fans, because you could definitely hear them. There must have been a pretty good contingent, and I would like some first hand news as well.

I was there with my little girl for her first Pony road game…

The game felt like a home game for the SMU fans, I’d say the stadium was about 50% SMU if not slightly more. The “SMU visitor section” relocated from the corner (I also bought those seats through SMU until I realized wheee they would be and then purchased new ones off stub hub). Seems like everyone found their own seats on the sideline between the goalposts. The side behind our bench was about twice as full as the opposite side and were about 75% Pony, so it was likely about 50/50 but seemed way more SMU because we took over the game about 4 seconds in.

Coach L made it a point to go and cheer on the SMU fans after the game and with reason. First time I have gone on a the road and felt like the big boys. We were very loud and the players would look up when we would chant S-M-U. Lots of Blue in downtown Palo Alto before the game. Kudos to the fans that could make it and hope to see a lot more of this going forward. Just a jewel of a weekend in the Bay Area and the connections with our fellow Mustangs in stands during game was a ton of fun. I am hoping that game at UVA will be similar with much on the line…

Pony ^

Peruna Power wrote:I was there with my little girl for her first Pony road game…

The game felt like a home game for the SMU fans, I’d say the stadium was about 50% SMU if not slightly more. The “SMU visitor section” relocated from the corner (I also bought those seats through SMU until I realized wheee they would be and then purchased new ones off stub hub). Seems like everyone found their own seats on the sideline between the goalposts. The side behind our bench was about twice as full as the opposite side and were about 75% Pony, so it was likely about 50/50 but seemed way more SMU because we took over the game about 4 seconds in.

Coach L made it a point to go and cheer on the SMU fans after the game and with reason. First time I have gone on a the road and felt like the big boys. We were very loud and the players would look up when we would chant S-M-U. Lots of Blue in downtown Palo Alto before the game. Kudos to the fans that could make it and hope to see a lot more of this going forward. Just a jewel of a weekend in the Bay Area and the connections with our fellow Mustangs in stands during game was a ton of fun. I am hoping that game at UVA will be similar with much on the line…

Pony ^

Lashlee commented in his post game presser how nice it was to see and hear the SMU fans especially when they were chanting S-M-U. It definitely gives the players a boost

Peruna Power wrote:I was there with my little girl for her first Pony road game…

The game felt like a home game for the SMU fans, I’d say the stadium was about 50% SMU if not slightly more. The “SMU visitor section” relocated from the corner (I also bought those seats through SMU until I realized wheee they would be and then purchased new ones off stub hub). Seems like everyone found their own seats on the sideline between the goalposts. The side behind our bench was about twice as full as the opposite side and were about 75% Pony, so it was likely about 50/50 but seemed way more SMU because we took over the game about 4 seconds in.

Coach L made it a point to go and cheer on the SMU fans after the game and with reason. First time I have gone on a the road and felt like the big boys. We were very loud and the players would look up when we would chant S-M-U. Lots of Blue in downtown Palo Alto before the game. Kudos to the fans that could make it and hope to see a lot more of this going forward. Just a jewel of a weekend in the Bay Area and the connections with our fellow Mustangs in stands during game was a ton of fun. I am hoping that game at UVA will be similar with much on the line…

Pony ^

This is fantastic news!

One other concern from this game was the number of turnovers. This game is a shutout if not for turnovers.

I agree with JasonB that there are a significant number of 'coaching opportunities' this week for RL and his staff.

Penalties, especially stupid penalties need to be addressed. We are having too many stupid personal foul penalties. It's time to stop playing like hotshot individuals and start playing like a championship team. We have progress beyond individual players' egos. Personal foul is a selfish penalty that benefits the opponent. We need to cut them out.

In his latest comments, broadcaster Billy Embody seemed to feel like some of us (perhaps I was one) were too picky on the OL in the Standford game. Yes, the game was essentially over after the first quarter. Nonetheless, the OL was not playing at their accustomed game level even though they were winning in the trenches. And on a ‘bad day,’ they are still better than their opponents. Here is the problem for me. I am spoiled. I have grown used to their outstanding OL play. They dominate their opponents. Last year SMU’s OL was the best in the AAC – by far! This year they have proven to be even better than last year. They might well be the best in the ACC. I love to watch them on the field. I want only the best for them. They are a big reason we are ‘in the hunt’ for the ACC championship. One or more of them could win national awards. Three or more might have opportunities to play professional football. I would love to see that. So, let me give credit where credit is due. These young men are exceptional players. We are fortunate they play for SMU. Please continue to be ‘the best you can be’.