Some love for Rusty Burns

[mrydel]

I have no problem with Burns on the sideline. Do all of you that are screamng realize that there is somebody in the box looking down? It is not like we are flying blind. He likes to be able to talk face to face with his QB and offense during the game. As long as someone is up there to see what is going on and what is available and can relay it to him I do not have a problem with this. As a matter of fact, I kind of like the idea that he is very "hands on" with the offense.

who's screaming? I just think it is a curious choice thats all. The majority of OCs (high school, NCAA, pro) are in the box, and it is not like our team has been an offensive juggernaut the past few years. Until Willia arrived, we were as stagnant as it gets.

Really...there are coaches looking down from the booth? I thought certainly because Burns was on the sideline that they must be "flying blind"...C'mon man, I am no idiot....OBVIOUSLY someone is the booth communicating with Burns...but calling plays is one adjustment after another after another after another during the entire game, and in my opinion the offensive coordinator is better equipped and better qualified and better served to analyze the defense himself and get a feel for the trends and flows of the game himself than by getting reads from an assistant coach over a headset. The OC is the person that is deemed the "offensive mastermind" of any program. I just think it is better to have the OC looking down from the press box and making reads, adjustments, and judgment calls himself as opposed to some Wide Receivers coach radioing his analysis down to him.

BTW. The "screaming" has been going on since before you started posting under this name. That was not directed to you. I respect your opinion and in many ways agree. I just have no problem in seeing why Burns is not in the booth.

[DiamondM75]

Going for it on fourth down was the correct call. At that point in the game, we were ahead by 3 points (a one posession lead). If we make the 4th down, then we are ahead by 10 (a two posession lead). If you try the field goal and make it, we are ahead by 6 (a one posession lead).

So failing to convert on the fourth down call has no effect.

If you make the field goal, you have a one posession lead. If you fail the 4th down play, you have a one posession lead.

IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER!!!!

[BRStang]

Going for it on fourth down was the correct call. At that point in the game, we were ahead by 3 points (a one posession lead). If we make the 4th down, then we are ahead by 10 (a two posession lead). If you try the field goal and make it, we are ahead by 6 (a one posession lead).

So failing to convert on the fourth down call has no effect.

If you make the field goal, you have a one posession lead. If you fail the 4th down play, you have a one posession lead.

IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER!!!!

Are you kidding me? Going for it on fourth down is neither the right call nor the wrong call. It was a gamble. And we lost the gamble. Regardless, points are points. Points do matter.

[DiamondM75]

Going for it on fourth down was the correct call. At that point in the game, we were ahead by 3 points (a one posession lead). If we make the 4th down, then we are ahead by 10 (a two posession lead). If you try the field goal and make it, we are ahead by 6 (a one posession lead).

So failing to convert on the fourth down call has no effect.

If you make the field goal, you have a one posession lead. If you fail the 4th down play, you have a one posession lead.

IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER!!!!

Are you kidding me? Going for it on fourth down is neither the right call nor the wrong call. It was a gamble. And we lost the gamble. Regardless, points are points. Points do matter.

It is the same as going for 2 when you are ahead by 5 points. If you make it, you are ahead by 7 and a touchdown does not beat you. If you fail the 2 point conversion, you are still ahead by 5 and a touchdown beats you either way.

[MustangStealth]

Are you kidding me? Going for it on fourth down is neither the right call nor the wrong call. It was a gamble. And we lost the gamble. Regardless, points are points. Points do matter.

Agreed. I would rather have put them in a TD or nothing situation than given them the opportunity to tie with a FG.

[BRStang]

Going for it on fourth down was the correct call. At that point in the game, we were ahead by 3 points (a one posession lead). If we make the 4th down, then we are ahead by 10 (a two posession lead). If you try the field goal and make it, we are ahead by 6 (a one posession lead).

So failing to convert on the fourth down call has no effect.

If you make the field goal, you have a one posession lead. If you fail the 4th down play, you have a one posession lead.

IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER!!!!

Are you kidding me? Going for it on fourth down is neither the right call nor the wrong call. It was a gamble. And we lost the gamble. Regardless, points are points. Points do matter.

It is the same as going for 2 when you are ahead by 5 points. If you make it, you are ahead by 7 and a touchdown does not beat you. If you fail the 2 point conversion, you are still ahead by 5 and a touchdown beats you either way.

This isn't the end of the game. There were 3 and a half quarters left to play. And most coaches don't go for 2 when they are up by only a TD (again, unless it is at the end of the game). Points are points. I'm not going to argue with you. I can see it is pointless. (No pun intended).

[smupony]

DiamondM75 - Points are points. Take them when you can. You do a lot of assuming. You assume SMU scores a TD if they get the first down. What happens if they get the first down then turn it over? You assume that if Marshall scores, they are only scoring a TD not a field goal. Possessions do not matter. Points are points. The more we have the more Marshall must score. We all know what assuming does.

[mustangfan01]

I would say some points so far seem correct, but one point seems to stand out at me more than others, and it has yet to be mentioned:

The offensive coach in the box, Larry Edmonson, is our former offensive coordinator...so, that enables Burns to stay on the sideline and relay plays quick and have 1on1 with his QBs while also having an ex-OC in the box who knows what to look for.

[Alaric]

Are you kidding me? Going for it on fourth down is neither the right call nor the wrong call. It was a gamble. And we lost the gamble. Regardless, points are points. Points do matter.

I totally agree. It seemed all the fans around me thought this was the dumbest thing they'd ever seen. Yea a field goal would have put the score differential beyond a field goal but if you score a touchdown it gives you a ton of momentum and puts them in a hole...also teams often feed off of aggressive play calling like that (even if I didn't like the particular play that was called). It's a gamble with big upside reward versus limited downside (SMU's defense was playing well).

[OC Mustang]

We sit right down behind the O-line & Coach V.
Bennett's getting after Burns was asking him who missed their block on the 4th down. Going for it, given SMU's progress in the game, wasn't that big of a risk at the time. Had we made it, nobody would have really 2nd-guessed the call.
Bennett walked over and loudly ask what happened. I heard him specifically say, "what happened? Why did number '-' get through(didn't hear the number)?" to one of the Poynter boys. I couldn't hear the response, but Bennett's eyebrows went up as if he was surprised by the answer. Not reading anything into it, but I think either Dorsey was supposed to run North-South instead of East-West, or the O-line just got beat on the left side.

I asked our high school OC here in Marshall (East Texas, not West Va.) why an OC would stand on the sideline instead of the box b/c I was in a tizzy earlier in the season about it. The response was that it isn't unusual for the OC to be on the sideline when a QB is young and needing constant feedback, the OC stays on the sideline.

So despite my agreement with the general sentiment in this thread that Burns needs to be up top, as long as somebody is up there eyeballing the field and relaying information to him, and that somebody knows what they are doing, then Burns can coach Willis all he wants and I want join the proverbial peanut gallery.

I heard some things were going on with an illness in his family...the terminal kind...and if that is indeed the case, he is handling this season wonderfully. He isn't perfect, but his offense is doing its job.

[SMU Football Blog]

I wasn't thrilled with going for it on 4th down, but I was more irritated with the play selection on that play than anything else.

[J.T.supporta]

Rusty is a great guy and a decent coach who does his best to prepare this team on the Offensive side of the ball.

Not all the right plays are called at the best time but he calls the same plays they run during practice.

I wish Burns more success in the future.

[PonyGirl]

Likewise. The production this season has shown he's a better coach than he's gotten credit for in the past. Let's see more of the same this weekend!

[78pony]

Going for it was the right call on 4th. Taking the ball OUT of the hands of the BEST player on the field was inexcusable. Let your best player make the play.

[Col. Nathan R. Jessep]

Although I will not argue that Burns should choose where he wants to be during the game, I think most programs prefer up their OC in the box.

BUT-

had Edmonson been good @ play calling, Burns would not be @ SMU.

That said, calling 4th & 1 in spread formation FOR ANY TEAM borders on moronic.

Instead of power formation where the RB is heading towards the hole on the snap, our RB is waiting for the QB to receive the floating deep snap, then a handoff where he must run 3-4 yds to reach the line of scrimmage.

To settle the matter, anyone sitting near the Pony sideline heard PB's "F U" remark to Burns after that disasterous call.