On to Navy

Rebel10 · Post by **Rebel10** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 12:55 am

Go Mustangs.

CalallenStang · Post by **CalallenStang** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 1:09 am

Navy terrifies me. 500 rushing yards is very possible

blackoutpony · Post by **blackoutpony** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 10:48 am

CalallenStang wrote:Navy terrifies me. 500 rushing yards is very possible

No ome, and I really mean absolutely no one in the country wants to play Navy. Fuentes said the same thing a few weeks ago,

For those who haven't seen him play, Kenan Reynolds is an absolutle beast. Basically a faster version of Tim Jefferson (Air Forces awesome QB from a few years ago).

I think we'll score, but it's just s hard to play defense for 60 minutes against them without just getting completely worn out. Here's hoping Zelt and the rest of the d line gets healthy, because we're going to need to the bodies and for them to make plays, since we don't actually have anyone playing linebacker.

docabel · Post by **docabel** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 10:59 am

This may be the perfect storm. An experienced and explosive option QB against LBs that are slow and not good at assignments...

couch 'em · Post by **couch 'em** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 11:44 am

With the potential of our offense scoring quickly to keep the pressure on Navy to keep scoring, the single game team rushing record is at risk.

footballdad · Post by **footballdad** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 11:57 am

Yes, if we sit in our base D, it's going to get embarrassing.

So double stack the box. Man up outside and move safeties up, blitz like crazy, twist tackles, play 5-6 man line, whatever it takes. Be creative and aggressive here Malone. Zero to lose, a lot to gain.

No we don't have the athletes to keep up with Baylor or TCU, but Navy doesn't have the athletes either. This is scheme vs. scheme. Let's see what Malone comes up with?

Charleston Pony · Post by **Charleston Pony** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 2:37 pm

trying to remember the last SMU D Coordinator who was successful against Navy...was it Schumann? Our recent history against them has been dreadful

03Mustang · Post by **03Mustang** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 2:45 pm

Phil Bennett's opener comes to mind for this one

Charleston Pony · Post by **Charleston Pony** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 2:48 pm

03Mustang wrote:Phil Bennett's opener comes to mind for this one

fireworks!

smusic 00 · Post by **smusic 00** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 8:07 pm

footballdad wrote:Yes, if we sit in our base D, it's going to get embarrassing.

So double stack the box. Man up outside and move safeties up, blitz like crazy, twist tackles, play 5-6 man line, whatever it takes. Be creative and aggressive here Malone. Zero to lose, a lot to gain.

No we don't have the athletes to keep up with Baylor or TCU, but Navy doesn't have the athletes either. This is scheme vs. scheme. Let's see what Malone comes up with?

Agree that that is a strategy that can work but I really don't see Malone trusting them with a whole new attack for this one. The triple option has baffled us for 15 years. I see bad things arising.

mrydel · Post by **mrydel** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 8:13 pm

When the wishbone was first becoming the rage and Texas was basically unstoppable, Notre Dame finally stopped them by just putting one man one one man. Each player was responsible for containing, covering, or tackling their assigned player. Great theory and unbeatable if you have an equal or better athlete at each position. We do not.

smusic 00 · Post by **smusic 00** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 8:53 pm

Was McIlhenny the best option qb of that era?

mrydel · Post by **mrydel** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 8:56 pm

The era I speak of was well before Mcllheny. It was James Street in the hey day of Texas in the 60s-70s. Texas won something like30 in a row until Notre Dame beat them in the Cotton Bowl. They called it a "mirror" defense and had the athletes to match up.

mrydel · Post by **mrydel** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 8:56 pm

Oh, and Mcllheny was the best of his era.

RGV Pony · Post by **RGV Pony** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 8:57 pm

Followed later by jamelle holieway?

On to Navy

On to Navy

Re: On to Navy

Re: On to Navy

Re: On to Navy

Re: On to Navy

Re: On to Navy

Re: On to Navy

Re: On to Navy

Re: On to Navy

Re: On to Navy

Re: On to Navy

Re: On to Navy

Re: On to Navy

Re: On to Navy

Re: On to Navy