from RIvals ponies MIDSEason report

[indianmustang]

Scott Farrell and Ted Gangi
MustangManiacs.com Staff Writer

Talk about it in the Message Boards
SMU is 3-3 at the midpoint of its 2006 season. While the Ponies started slow, this team has started to put some pieces together and has been fun to watch in each of it last four games. As the Mustangs come out of their Fall Break with the possibility of a winning season and bowl berth on the horizon, we fill out the report card heading into the last six games. The grades below are the average as rated by "professors" Scott Farrell and Ted Gangi of MustangManiacs.com.

Quarterbacks: B+
SMU's most volatile position in recent history finally looks stable, assuming the Justin Willis situation is resolved positively. Willis' three-game run steering SMU to wins was as impressive a streak as SMU has seen since Chuck Hixson. It took two games for him to get comfortable, or else this would probably be an A. Corey Slater came into a rough position against UTEP, but proved he too can lead the offense judging by his strong second half.

Running Backs: C+
More was expected from this group. Injuries have certainly played a part, but while we've bragged about the depth at the position, the backs haven't backed it up on the field. SMU should have gained more than 806 yards and three touchdowns to this point from its stable of backs. With a healthy DeMyron Martin and a potent passing game, SMU should be able to set up the run with the pass, freeing up some space for Martin and Co.

Wide Receivers: B+
Catch a few of the dropped balls on important downs, and this turns into a A real quickly. SMU's receivers made Willis' life easier, and he paid them back with a plethora of touchdowns. Seven different players have caught a touchdown pass, and Emmanuel Sanders gets a 'A' all by himself for becoming Willis' favorite scoring target.

Tight Ends: A-
A year ago we wouldn't have even put them on the grading sheet because we didn't know they were on the field. Ryan Kennedy's become a part of the offense again, and has been a wonderful outlet for the young quarterbacks. Kennedy has 11 receptions, and four of them have gone for touchdowns. Welcome back.

Offensive Line: B
Injuries have been a factor here, too, but breakdowns against North Texas kept this from being a higher grade. We repeat the grading on the running backs as SMU should be running the ball better at this point.

Defensive Line: A+
SMU's defense leads Conference USA in tackles-for-loss and sacks, and is ninth and 17th nationally in the respective categories. Justin Rogers' move to defensive end has paid off with five sacks. Adrian Haywood has to be among the early leaders for C-USA Defensive Player of the Year with eight traps, including nearly taking the handoff from the opposing quarterback on several occasions. Brandon Bonds continues to play heads-up with two fumble recoveries and contributions by reserves Patrick Handy and Troy Therien vs. UTEP bolster the perfect grade.

Linebackers: B+
Wilton McCray (40), Tony Hawkins (36) and Reggie Carrington (36) are 2-3-4 in total tackles at midseason and have combined for 13 tackles-for-loss. This group is on its way toward being the best set in C-USA. Some breakdowns on the short passing game prevent the unit from stepping up to an A.

Secondary: B-
SMU is still fighting some inexperience and getting beat too much on deep balls. But it's steadying itself behind the leadership of Joe Sturdivant (53 tackles and two interceptions to lead the team in both categories). SMU is 116th in Division I-A in pass defense, giving up 273.5 yards per game, but hasn't been scorched yet, even at Texas Tech.

Special Teams: B+
Thomas Morstead is among the nation's top punters right now with a 43.9-yard average. Morstead's placekicking has been steady. Throw in Jessie Henderson and his 100-yard kickoff return to help SMU hold off Tulane, and SMU has gone from special teams as a liability to a game-changing strength. The grade drops, however, from an A because of the blocked punt for a touchdown vs. North Texas and a punt return for a TD against UTEP that even coach Phil Bennett called "inexcusable."

Coaching: B-
We won't cut Bennett and his staff any slack for being so conservative on offense earlier in the year while waiting for Willis to develop. The team appeared unprepared and unmotivated in the 'trap' game at North Texas. But kudos are in order for keeping their composure as a staff to hold off Tulane, and for the emotional comeback against UTEP. The staff deserves some credit for blowout wins over Sam Houston State and Arkansas State, games they took control of when they had the chance.

Overall Grade: B+
SMU's 3-3 record fits for this point in the season. The three wins came against teams SMU expected to beat. A 4-2 mark would have shaped the second half of the season differently, but winning at Tulane made up for the loss at North Texas. The UTEP game, counted as a loss by many in the preseason, was winnable despite a tough situation made tougher by injuries during the game. As with just about every conference game, two or three plays can make or break each game. While SMU will need to win four of the final six games to earn a winning season, that is within reach, especially with four of the final six at home.

[Stallion]

grades are way too high for a .500 team that is 1-3 against teams above the Sun Belt Line. I thought a C was average, B was very good and A was excellent. Guess they are grading on the SMU curve.

[LonghornFan68]

I think B- is fair.

[Stallion]

Based on what-your own expectations within SMU's own limitations or based upon analysis of a Division 1A team hoping for a Conference Championship and Bowl Bid. How can any position on offense be rated a B when we don't even average over 300 yards per game against Division 1A competition?

[LonghornFan68]

Based on what-your own expectations within SMU's own limitations or based upon analysis of a Division 1A team hoping for a Conference Championship and Bowl Bid. How can any position on offense be rated a B when we don't even average over 300 yards per game against Division 1A competition?

Actually, SMU is averaging 318 y/g right now and that's after sub par performances in the first two games.

[LonghornFan68]

And Stallion, while you are technically correct about SMU not averaging 300 y/g against 1-A opponents, it's a misleading statement. They're averaging 292.8 y/g. It's pretty damned close.

[PerunaPunch]

Oh for pete’s sake. And I thought I was a sunshiner....

I hate to agree with Stallion, but come on. A B+?? Get real.

The QBs get a C. At best. That’s not a good grade, but that’s not a failing grade either. The QBs have showed up at 3 games, but they’ve also laid eggs in 3 games. Rivals gives the QBs credit for the last half against UTEP, but what about the 2nd half interceptions that sealed the loss?? Just because Willis had stellar output in 3 games, you can’t erase the negligible output in the other 3. And mediocre performance playing catchup to UTEP in the second half doesn't mean we've found the quality backup at QB that's so crucial (doesn't mean we haven't either, but Slater's 3 INTs easily offset his 2 TDs, especially when 2 of the INTs ended what could have been game winning or game tying drives).

And the offensive line? Rivals is giving the O-line that got dismantled by UNT a B??? Whatever. And remember, the big guys up front are at least partially responsible for the RBs lack of output.

And finally, the DBs. Rivals gives them a B-. I’m thinking more like a C-, with Joe Sturdivant keeping the group out of the D range. The DBs MUST play more consistently. They’re the chink in the otherwise solid armor. The DBs got ripped by Tech as you’d expect, but they also gave up big plays against Tulane and UTEP (that helped cost that game). Also, I don't have the stat for opponents' third down conversion, but I don't think it's very good.

Assuming that we coulda, shoulda beat UNT, this team SHOULD be sitting at 5-1 now (or at least 4-2), not 3-3. So how on earth can Rival justify a B+????

[mrydel]

If our secondary rates a B-, I want to take that course. We are a D+ at best with a "shows potential for improvement" remark. Sturdivant making tackles is a good thing but that is not the mark of a good secondary. Defending a pass on 3rd and long might be a better benchmark.

[perunapower]

Come on, we lost one game that we were supposed to win. I think our record is worth these grades. Obviously it can't be used as a universal scale, but good Lord, you guys are acting like we are staring down a 1-5 record.

[mrydel]

Come on, we lost one game that we were supposed to win. I think our record is worth these grades. Obviously it can't be used as a universal scale, but good Lord, you guys are acting like we are staring down a 1-5 record.

If you are a professor I am going back to your school. You do realize that with any improvement we would be rated as "excellent". I would think a B should have us in the top 25 or at least 50.

[perunapower]

Come on, we lost one game that we were supposed to win. I think our record is worth these grades. Obviously it can't be used as a universal scale, but good Lord, you guys are acting like we are staring down a 1-5 record.

If you are a professor I am going back to your school. You do realize that with any improvement we would be rated as "excellent". I would think a B should have us in the top 25 or at least 50.

I don't know where you went to school, but a B is not excellent. A B is good and for SMU football as of late, we are pretty darn good.

Once we got the kinks worked out with our QB and stopped playing to not lose we are 3-1, with the only loss coming with the loss of Willis, and we still almost won. I realize that we beat a I-AA school (in which by the middle of the third quarter we were playing back-ups), a Sun Belt team (who are the defending champs and we were playing back ups by the middle of the third quarter again), and Tulane (which their new turf screwed with our rushing game).

Give these boys some credit, we have a legitimate chance at when the conference and an even better shot at going to a bowl for the first time in 22 years.

Anytime, SMU can score 100 points in consecutive games, overcome a late Tulane surge, and almost overcome all odds to beat UTEP without our starting QB is unimaginable for post-DP SMU football.

[LonghornFan68]

Come on, we lost one game that we were supposed to win. I think our record is worth these grades. Obviously it can't be used as a universal scale, but good Lord, you guys are acting like we are staring down a 1-5 record.

If you are a professor I am going back to your school. You do realize that with any improvement we would be rated as "excellent". I would think a B should have us in the top 25 or at least 50.

That's one way of looking at it. However, when I said SMU should be at a B- I was looking at them relative to their competition, not the rest of the nation. They hung with Tech (who looks to be a middle-of-the-road Big XII team) for a half, but then let the game slip in the second half. For that I give them a C. They lost to a team that they should have beaten in UNT and for that I give them a D-. After that they rattled off 3 very impressive wins and for each of those I give them an A. They then lost a close one to a good team they could have beaten had they had their starting QB and for that I give them a B. That averages out to a B/B-.

[mrydel]

Come on, we lost one game that we were supposed to win. I think our record is worth these grades. Obviously it can't be used as a universal scale, but good Lord, you guys are acting like we are staring down a 1-5 record.

If you are a professor I am going back to your school. You do realize that with any improvement we would be rated as "excellent". I would think a B should have us in the top 25 or at least 50.

I don't know where you went to school, but a B is not excellent. A B is good and for SMU football as of late, we are pretty darn good.

Once we got the kinks worked out with our QB and stopped playing to not lose we are 3-1, with the only loss coming with the loss of Willis, and we still almost won. I realize that we beat a I-AA school (in which by the middle of the third quarter we were playing back-ups), a Sun Belt team (who are the defending champs and we were playing back ups by the middle of the third quarter again), and Tulane (which their new turf screwed with our rushing game).

Give these boys some credit, we have a legitimate chance at when the conference and an even better shot at going to a bowl for the first time in 22 years.

Anytime, SMU can score 100 points in consecutive games, overcome a late Tulane surge, and almost overcome all odds to beat UTEP without our starting QB is unimaginable for post-DP SMU football.

I have tried to respond but realize I can not argue with someone who thinks SMU ranks with the upper echelon of college football. Hopefully in the future but we are far from there. And I did not say B was excellent. I said with any improvement (that means better than B+) we would be rated as excellent. I can not set a a guideline that if a team has a possibility to go to a bowl for teh first time in 22 years that they are B+ material.

[perunapower]

Come on, we lost one game that we were supposed to win. I think our record is worth these grades. Obviously it can't be used as a universal scale, but good Lord, you guys are acting like we are staring down a 1-5 record.

If you are a professor I am going back to your school. You do realize that with any improvement we would be rated as "excellent". I would think a B should have us in the top 25 or at least 50.

I don't know where you went to school, but a B is not excellent. A B is good and for SMU football as of late, we are pretty darn good.

Once we got the kinks worked out with our QB and stopped playing to not lose we are 3-1, with the only loss coming with the loss of Willis, and we still almost won. I realize that we beat a I-AA school (in which by the middle of the third quarter we were playing back-ups), a Sun Belt team (who are the defending champs and we were playing back ups by the middle of the third quarter again), and Tulane (which their new turf screwed with our rushing game).

Give these boys some credit, we have a legitimate chance at when the conference and an even better shot at going to a bowl for the first time in 22 years.

Anytime, SMU can score 100 points in consecutive games, overcome a late Tulane surge, and almost overcome all odds to beat UTEP without our starting QB is unimaginable for post-DP SMU football.

I have tried to respond but realize I can not argue with someone who thinks SMU ranks with the upper echelon of college football. Hopefully in the future but we are far from there. And I did not say B was excellent. I said with any improvement (that means better than B+) we would be rated as excellent. I can not set a a guideline that if a team has a possibility to go to a bowl for teh first time in 22 years that they are B+ material.

Please show me where I said SMU ranks with the upper echelon of college football or even something that could be remotely misconstrued as that. I'm simply saying we don't suck as you seem to be saying we do.

[mrydel]

Grade Possibilities:

A+
A
A-
B+
B
B-
C+
C
C-
D+
D
D-
F

I would say B+ is in the upper tier. That is fact. Do not ever accuse me of saying my team sucks. I never have and I never will. I said we do not rank in the B+ (upper echelon) tier. Seems pretty simple to me.