coaching

[ponyman]

I wonder if it has dawned on anyone that coaching may be the problem. Given that Bennett is a great recruiter, that does not make him a great coach. It's not all his fault. We cannot afford to pay the big bucks to get a top notch coach, such as Tedford of California or Shula of Alabama. So we are stuck with a long line of assistants from successful programs who do not have what it takes to be a head coach in D-1A. Since we cannot afford the million bucks it takes to hire a name head coach, I see no hope of immediate improvement.

[GoRedGoBlue]

Bennett didn't throw 3 INTs, and he didn't fumble on a promising drive... Tech got 28 pts on Turnovers and another 7 on a Punt Return.

[FloridaMustang]

I'm inclined to agree.. Bennett has showed poor gameday management, but it's still better than Cavan.I really dislike Edmonson. I think he's a [deleted] poor QB coach and even less of an offensive coordinator.

We need to remember that this is Bennett's first head coaching job, so we have to give him time to learn. I think he did a better job at the end of last season and he prepared the team for Tech in my opinion. We're not a top tier mid major team. We can't can't keep games against BCS opponents THAT close. UCF stayed with Va Tech today. Well we're not UCF. We're in a much worse state and it's going to take a few years to get everything back on track. Bennett is making the steps. You all said ok, lets give him time, and those same people are already grumbling about losing a game we weren't supposed to win by any means. This program is rebuilding, and it's just started.

The penalties were expected, but must be coached out. KK's fumble was a mental mistake that shouldn't be happening at this point in his career. Bartel was the biggest disappointment, but hey, guys, we have 11 more games to go. Anything can happen. I think we're in a better position after game 1 this year than were last year. Let's have some faith and support this program while we endure this rebuilding process!

Go Mustangs!


[This message has been edited by UNFMustang06 (edited 08-31-2003).]

[JustAFriend]

I think the problem on offense is one of design. If you notice, the reason Tech is so successful is they spread the field and hit the holes. SMU does not spread the field and the only downfield routes were fly patterns. There were too many bunch formations, and the routes dont seem to compliment each other. Just need to stretch the field more and actually give it a chance. As far as the game goes there were things going wrong all over the field. To me the turning point, as far as momentum is concerned, was the fumble on the second drive. Tie game, moving the ball well, and then the tide turned. I dont think the biggest disappointment was Bartel, I think the entire offense was disappointing. Dropped passes, bad passes, bad routes, things like that. Either way, Tech impressed me, not with their offense, but with their D. They didnt look as bad as they are supposed to be. I think the new DC is doing a good job. But...SMU will rebound against Baylor and then prepare for a home stand against an OSU team who, as of yet, hasnt lived up to their billing. I will quit my ranting now......

[FloridaMustang]

Interesting take. I was also surprised by Tech's D. I guess their fans were right on after all

It's hard to blame one part of the offense like you said. My problem has always been the design of it. I'm concerned that Bennett has helped design it to make use of KK more, just because he's a proven back. Bennett is a student of the old systems where running the ball down the opponent's throats was the only way to control the ball and win games.

Bennett has stated that he wants a 60% running, 40% passing offense. Our passing game is flawed, and a one-dimensional offense is all but synonomous with losing.

I don't know enough about offensive schemes to give any insight; all I know is something needs to change, although I don't know what we can do with the athletes we have right now.

[Pony Up]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ponyman:
<B>I wonder if it has dawned on anyone that coaching may be the problem. Given that Bennett is a great recruiter, that does not make him a great coach. It's not all his fault. We cannot afford to pay the big bucks to get a top notch coach, such as Tedford of California or Shula of Alabama. So we are stuck with a long line of assistants from successful programs who do not have what it takes to be a head coach in D-1A. Since we cannot afford the million bucks it takes to hire a name head coach, I see no hope of immediate improvement.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not agreeing or disagreeing here - just wondering what exactly Shula has accomplished that makes you think he's better qualified. He inherited a team with a roster that doesn't quite resemble that at USC or OU or Miami, but he certainly has more to work with. I'd say he's as unproven as Coach Bennett, who doesn't have the benefit of being named "Shula."

[EastStang]

Talent wins 80% of the games. I'll take a great recruiter over a great field coach any day. If Bennett keeps recruiting quality athletes, in the end, we'll be the dominant team in the WAC, and start going to bowl games. Until then, we need to be patient. Bennett may be from the Woody Hayes school in which three things can happen on a passing play two of them bad. With a young team, you don't try and get too fancy, you try and execute simple plans. Also, this was the first game of the season and a non-conference game against a superior opponant, he may have tried to keep it conservative for that reason. Let's wait until the first conference game before we start criticising him.

[Charleston Pony]

I wasn't at the game but the stats tell me what I thought would be the game plan and that was to control the closk. You'd never guess from that final score that SMU held the ball for 2 of every 3 minutes. Don't be surprised if Tech is more potent with Symon than they were with Klingsbury. We just don't have enough athletes on defense to compete with an offense of that caliber.

I agree with the comment that the team with the better athletes will win 80% of the time. Remember, Bennett just finished his 1st full year recruiting and I think he showed what he might be capable of. If he can bring in the kind of guys he did last year coming off the heels of a 3-9 season, just wait until we start winning more games. I'm just hoping for 4 wins this year because that would be a big improvement over last year. I think this year's schedule is tougher than last year's, which doesn't help matters. Bennett said coming in that he wanted to play at least 2 Big XII teams every year. That's going to help him know how far he has to go with this program, and it's obviously still a long, long way!

[sam]

I find it funny that we are blaming the loss on turnovers.That is the reason Cavan is no longer here,because of the turnovers. I remember all the longtimers on this board saying this is a coaching flaw and that well coached teams do not turn the ball over. Hell bennett even told the team last year that if they hadn't turned the ball over so much he would not be here. I sure wish they had held on to the ball!

[buspen]

Even with a dismal loss, did anyone notice the offense actually kept our defense off the field some. We did show signs of ball movement and first downs, not the three and outs I got so sick of last year.