Can't Fault the Team

by **Mustang_Matt** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:26 pm

Granted, we're not going to be competitive with, say, a texas a&m (though we did hang with them for two quarters), but we are a consistent QB away from competing in the conference.

by **Stallion** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:36 pm

I feel that is a particularly naive comment-when a team can hold you to 127 yards Total Offense in one week and in the next week you are held to 193 yards with only 7 First Downs then you got some REAL problems across the board on offense and I'll be the first to admit that Chris Phillips could not solve everything wrong with this offense. We need QBs, we need offensive linemen, we need WRs and we need RBs and I'm not too sure how many quality, truly reliable offensive players we have that can play at a championship level. As for the defense-which team had the championship defense on the field against Tulane? against Marshall? Too many judge these units based on mediocrity. Tulane and Marshall both played CHAMPIONSHIP defense against SMU. That's the measure of a great defense.

by **jtstang** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:36 pm

Well then we cannot compete in conference, because we don't have one of those.

We also do not have a lineman who can hold a pass block, a receiver who can consistently catch the ball, a defense line who can pressure an opposing passer, and a punt team who can get a kick off. Couple that with a spotty placekicker, a questionable offensive philosophy, no fan support, and a fluke win over TCU and you've got SMU football 2005.

Did I leave anything out?

by **SMU Football Blog** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:37 pm

Hey, 21 Jumpstreet. You work for SMU, right? Are you the 30 year old looking kid at my highschool in the jean jacket that kept trying to buy dope from my friends? Are you one of those movie reviewers that said the Mathew Broderick version of Godzilla was genius?

by **Mustang_Matt** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:49 pm

Heh. 21 Jump Street? I wish I was working for The Man. I could use the cash (is the administration listening? I'm for sale!). And yes, I am almost 30 ... though I don't own a jean jacket.

That said, I was a bit too glib in saying all we needed was a consistent QB. I agree we need improvements at WR and OL. And our playcall needs work. I'm not completely polyanna-ish. My point is that we're not completely heinous; our defense plays well enough to keep us in games.

Though, even with what we have, a better attitude at Tulane and a proper call on the Marshall fumble and we're 3-2.

by **abezontar** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:56 pm

Not going for it on the fourth down call and leaving Romo in instead of sticking in Eckert after the fumbled punt return and we might be 4-1, hell if the entire first, and second string of tamu died in a horrific blimp accident the night before the game we might be 5-0!!!!!

by **Mustang_Matt** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 5:07 pm

Then we would definitely be bowl bound.

by **abezontar** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 5:16 pm

with one more win

by **SWC2010** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 7:38 pm

jtstang wrote:Well then we cannot compete in conference, because we don't have one of those.

We also do not have a lineman who can hold a pass block, a receiver who can consistently catch the ball, a defense line who can pressure an opposing passer, and a punt team who can get a kick off. Couple that with a spotty placekicker, a questionable offensive philosophy, no fan support, and a fluke win over TCU and you've got SMU football 2005.

Did I leave anything out?

---------
Did I leave anything out?

Yes you did:

SMU 21 BCS-less bowler tcu 10 !!!

by **jtstang** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:26 pm

No, I covered that, sunshine.

by **SMUstang** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:33 pm

Hooray for jtstang, SMU's No. 1 fan.

by **jtstang** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:53 pm

SMUstang wrote:Hooray for jtstang, SMU's No. 1 fan.

Thanks, sunshine, I appreciate that. At this stage of the game, the more you hate the status quo, the better fan you are.

by **Diamond Girl** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:42 pm

After watching the game last weekend, I have to agree that it isn't the team's fault, at least not for that game. If the referreeing had been better and the replay rule had been followed, we actually would have won.

by **PlanoStang** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 8:06 pm

SWC2010 wrote:
jtstang wrote:Well then we cannot compete in conference, because we don't have one of those.

We also do not have a lineman who can hold a pass block, a receiver who can consistently catch the ball, a defense line who can pressure an opposing passer, and a punt team who can get a kick off. Couple that with a spotty placekicker, a questionable offensive philosophy, no fan support, and a fluke win over TCU and you've got SMU football 2005.

Did I leave anything out?

---------
Did I leave anything out?

Yes you did:

SMU 21 BCS-less bowler tcu 10 !!!

Yeah it would be sweet revenge to go 1-10 with our only win knocking
the future 11-1 Froggies out of BCS consideration. :lol:

Kinda like 97 in
reverse.

How many of you chicken Little's were pre-season predicting wins over
Marshall on the road, and a tough at least last year Tulane team? At
least we were 10 points up on Marshall in the 4th, and they had to resort
to some home cookin, and a worn out SMU defense to win.

Burns needs to put in some I, and power I plays to punch it in inside the
10 yard line, make that yard on 3rd & 1, and have another basic huddling
offense to switch to when the no-huddle spread just ain't workin, and
you need to kill time off of the clock to win. Forrest Gregg with Tom
Rossley as OC did with their run n shoot.

by **SMUstang** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 8:23 pm

jtstang wrote:Thanks, sunshine, I appreciate that. At this stage of the game, the more you hate the status quo, the better fan you are.

OK Junior, you come up with a reasonable proposal for buying out Copeland's and Bennett's contracts, and replacing them with superior people, and I'll listen. Until then you'd better support SMU.

Can't Fault the Team

Who is online