|
PonyFans.com •
Board Index •
Around the Hilltop •
Football •
Recruiting •
Basketball •
Other Sports
This is the forum for talk about SMU Football
Moderators: PonyPride, SmooPower
by Nacho » Sun Sep 19, 2004 9:19 am
Hard to win when you average 6.7 ppg. Phillips is responsible for 2ppg. The defense is hurting to put it mildly. We are in deep trouble. SJSU is not a sure thing by any stretch. Tyson Thompson is one of the best RBs to ever come out of HS. He plays for SJSU.
We may win but I doubt it. We simply can't score. Scoring is important. Teams who win score more than the other team. We average less than a TD per game. We are allowing 43 ppg. Not many teams win with those kind of numbers. To go 4-4 as some have suggested is mind-blowing.
I want SMU to win as much as anybody but I can't read this drivel and not respond. Wake up! SMU has no commitment to winning. The players and the coaches might but the school certainly doesn't. To think otherwise is pure delusion. Until the playing field is completely level we are doomed to failure.
Good luck to the players, coaches and the parents. I know you want to win. The fans want to win. I say good day to you. Good day.
-
Nacho

-
- Posts: 6043
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2000 4:01 am
by ClassOf81 » Sun Sep 19, 2004 10:37 am
I agree that the numbers have been .... shall we say "discouraging"? But the fact is that we have moved the ball well at times. Against Tech, to a lesser degree against OSU and even in a few brief bursts against TCU. I know - moving the ball doesn't mean anything if you don't score. None of us knows if we'll beat SJSU, but we will score more than a touchdown. I'll say 18-21 points. The question is, will that be enough?
-

ClassOf81

-
- Posts: 1062
- Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2000 3:01 am
- Location: Highland Park, Texas
by PerunaPunch » Sun Sep 19, 2004 10:53 am
It's mistakes, plain and simple. I was out of town for TCU, but against Tech and OSU, we moved the ball plenty well on offense to win. Turnovers, turnover, turnovers. We must be close to -10 or -12 on turnovers this year. Ridiculous.
I think at halftime, OSU was up by about 30, yet they only had 7 yards more total offense. Difference? Turnovers and field position.
-

PerunaPunch

-
- Posts: 2681
- Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2000 3:01 am
- Location: Dallas, TX, USA
by PonySnob » Sun Sep 19, 2004 10:54 am
We have to get better play out of our running backs on offense. So far, Foy Munlin has been very unimpressive and Massey has done absolutely nothing. It might be time to just put 5 WR's out there and throw it or just have the QB run the ball.
-

PonySnob

-
- Posts: 11516
- Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2003 4:01 am
- Location: Dallas, TX
by Stallion » Sun Sep 19, 2004 12:00 pm
No we need better production out of every damn position of the team. QB is the least of our worries.
-
Stallion

-
- Posts: 44302
- Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2000 4:01 am
- Location: Dallas,Texas,USA
by Diehard Pony » Sun Sep 19, 2004 12:33 pm
PerunaPunch wrote: Turnovers, turnover, turnovers. We must be close to -10 or -12 on turnovers this year. Ridiculous.
And to make matters worse, I don't believe our defense has claimed a turnover. It's pretty incredible that we have played 3 games and are minus 10 or 12 on turnovers.
-

Diehard Pony

-
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2002 3:01 am
- Location: Dallas, Texas
by HPPony » Sun Sep 19, 2004 5:53 pm
"And to make matters worse, I don't believe our defense has claimed a turnover."
We've got one waiting in the wings who can put a stop to that.
-
HPPony

-
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 6:35 pm
by Otto » Sun Sep 19, 2004 6:09 pm
PerunaPunch wrote: .... I think at halftime, OSU was up by about 30, yet they only had 7 yards more total offense. Difference? Turnovers and field position.
I was thinking the same thing. We were down 31 points, but the yardage was nearly identical. We were able to move the ball, just not get it into the end zone. Part of learning to play is learning to win. When that happens, the growing-up process will accelerate. HPPony wrote: .... We've got one waiting in the wings who can put a stop to that.
Who?
Diehard Pony's right, I'm afraid. Zero INTs, zero fumble recoveries, zero sacks. Time to get that straightened out. THIS week.
-

Otto

-
- Posts: 1400
- Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 3:01 am
- Location: Lewisville, Texas
by Stallion » Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:02 pm
Plus if you give up 12 turnovers, and you get none and throw in 180 yards in punt return either 1) your opponent will score and you'll get the ball at the 20 or 2) you'll force them the punt and get the ball inside the 20. Either way you force the offense to go 80+ yards. A sizeable part of the blame for the lack of scoring should be shared among the defense, the kicking game AND the offense. Scoring is quite literally a TEAM issue.
-
Stallion

-
- Posts: 44302
- Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2000 4:01 am
- Location: Dallas,Texas,USA
by SWC2010 » Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:15 pm
Stallion wrote:Plus if you give up 12 turnovers, and you get none and throw in 180 yards in punt return either 1) your opponent will score and you'll get the ball at the 20 or 2) you'll force them the punt and get the ball inside the 20. Either way you force the offense to go 80+ yards. A sizeable part of the blame for the lack of scoring should be shared among the defense, the kicking game AND the offense. Scoring is quite literally a TEAM issue.
Stallion's key point (above) is the turnover ratio. At any level, positive takeaways garner victories.
Sure, scoring is a TEAM issue, but I see a slightly different slant:
DEFENSE: The effort is there (although the results aren't)- it's hard to play good "D" when 1/2 of your starters are now in wheelchairs on the sideline;
KICKING: The fake Go/No go punt play with the QB should be used once a YEAR- not every 4th down. It's no wonder OSU Ran the QB linedrive pooch punts back for big yards;
OFFENSE: I stick by my mantra... SUGGESTION!!! Throw the ball past the 1st down marker if you plan to make 1st downs!
-
SWC2010

-
- Posts: 1220
- Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 11:01 pm
- Location: TEXAS
Return to Football
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests
|
|