Nothin', nothin' to lose

by **Nacho** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:54 am

DMN hinted this morning that Phillips will start at QB and Jesse Henderson will play RB.

I have no problem with the QB change as I stated yesterday. Why play Henderson at RB? Shouldn't he play in the slot? DM needs all the carries he can get at RB. My 2 cents.

As Bob Dylan said, "WE got nothin', nothin' to lose."

by **feelan** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:57 am

Nacho wrote:DMN hinted this morning that Phillips will start at QB and Jesse Henderson will play RB.

I have no problem with the QB change as I stated yesterday. Why play Henderson at RB? Shouldn't he play in the slot? DM needs all the carries he can get at RB. My 2 cents.

As Bob Dylan said, "WE got nothin', nothin' to lose."

You think that hinted Phillips will start? At this point I hope so, Eckert really hasn't shown anything to give him the nod over Romo, so it probably should be Phillips, but I didn't get that impression from the story.

by **Nacho** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:59 am

Maybe you are right but when he talked about a change I assumed he meant Phillips, after all Romo and Eckert have been playing.

by **feelan** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 8:10 am

Nacho wrote:Maybe you are right but when he talked about a change I assumed he meant Phillips, after all Romo and Eckert have been playing.

We'll see I guess. Glad he plans to get Jessie Henderson in at RB, but I think it won't matter if the blocking and playcalling doesn't get better. I still don't understand all the draws where you hand off to the guy basically standing still, we need to have whoever it is at RB moving forward when they take the handoff in my opinion.

by **SMU Football Blog** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 8:17 am

As I mentioned in my blog today (yes, I am blogging again), you had better hope he means Phillips. He is talking about simplifying the offense, too. When you start talking about simplifying offenses and making a QB change and you have a freshman QB with a redshirt on, I start getting nervous. I know many of you think the thought of burning Willis' redshirt and letting Phillips ride the bench is crazy, but would any decision by Bennett surprise you at this point? Anyway, I hope that isn't what he is talking about.

And I agree wholeheartedly about simplifying the offense.

I also have an AD note on the blog today.

by **PonyTales** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 8:46 am

All I read was a possible change - which I assumed meant Eckert. I didn't see Phillips' name mentioned anywhere.

by **Stallion** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:12 am

I'll believe it when I see it-until then I'd say it will probably be Tony "Tip" Eckert-after all he only got sacked twice and had 2 balls tipped in what about 8 plays. This guy has almost as many tips as completions on the season and I'm serious.

by **Hoop Fan** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:17 am

Well, it cant be Eckert. Could any sane person look at that Tulane game and say, ya know what we need is someone to pass better from the pocket? You certainly don't put a slower qb in to run more and simplify the offense either.

Romo was not to blame for the Tulane debacle, and besides the fumble he did ok at A&M too. So if you are going to change, it has to be to a younger guy with more upside.

by **Nacho** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:20 am

Willis never entered my mind. Oh my gosh. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Phil!

by **Caballo** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:25 am

Change at quarterback + simplify the offense = Justin Willis?

Tell me it ain't so. Bennett likes Willis because of his work ethic, but keep him redshirted. Only 7 more games to get that extra year of eligibility. You can do it Phil. Fight the urge.

Play Phillips and get ready for next season.

by **sage4man** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:43 am

look, the problam is not Romo at QB. He has been doing rather well. We need to focus in other areas. Special teams for example. Another change at QB is just going to thow things off again. Eckert has not shown any promise this whole season. I don't even know why anyone would consider him. Romo is clearly the better QB.

by **JasonB** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 10:12 am

1) I don't know that a QB change will impact much because the o-line is the problem right now, not the QB.

2) Eckert looked good out there on his one series. The only difference between he and Romo in that game is that Romo was able to duck the first guy and get flattened by the second. Eckert stays in the pocket and gets flattened by the first guy. Which is what one would expect out of a pocket passer. Both of them got sacked on fourth downs during the course of the game instead of getting a pass off. Eckert throws a deep ball a little better than Romo.

3) Simplify the offense could mean Phillips as much as it means Willis. But I suspect it is neither. I suspect that it will mean going back to WR screens instead of trying to wait for downfield routes to develop. Possibly some more "under center" formations instead of zone reads out of the shotgun. Which means a more traditional offense with Eckert under center, handing the ball off, and on pass plays either throwing screens or deep balls. Which, actually, is the way that you counter a blitz. Which after watching the Tulane film would certainly be what Marshall plans to do.

I think it is a good move. We are more athletic now than even last year. My guess is that we will line up several times with two running backs, one as a reciever, the other in the backfield. Eckert under center. We will run some fake reverses with the RB at WR, some real reverses, and also some screen plays to the RB at WR. So, I expect to see Massey and Martin alternating in the backfield, Massey spending some extra time as the "WR" back, and Turner and Henderson lining up a lot at that WR spot and catching screens. Get our speed outside on simple plays.

Just a thought...

by **Nacho** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 10:34 am

Unless you have some inside info Jason that seems like a lot to assume. To simplify indicates in my mind that he is going with a younger QB. The more I think about it the more I am convinced he is talking about Willis. I hope I am wrong. To burn a red-shirt on Willis smacks of desperation at a position where we don't need it. On the o-line--yes, but not at QB. Another way to look at it is that if it doesn't work out we can always blame the season on a true freshman QB and no one gets the ax.

by **Stallion** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 10:38 am

probably been reading too much of that Greatest Moments in SMU History and hopes Willis pulls a McIllhenny. I agree its a possibility.

by **tmustangp** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:27 am

Nacho wrote:DMN hinted this morning that Phillips will start at QB and Jesse Henderson will play RB.

i read the article and I did not get that hint at all..

Coach Phil Bennett said a quarterback change is possible and that he's considering simplifying the spread offense. Jerad Romo started the last three games and completed 52 percent of his passes.

SMU's passing offense (145 yards a game) ranks 104th nationally out of 117 schools.

"I'm disappointed right now in our quarterback play," Bennett said. "They are such a vital cog in the offense. At that position, you need decision makers."

It makes no hint of Phillips playing at all

Nothin', nothin' to lose

Nothin', nothin' to lose

Re: Nothin', nothin' to lose

Re: Nothin', nothin' to lose

Who is online