Defense has to be better this year, so what gives?

by **Hoop Fan** » Sun Sep 04, 2011 10:16 pm

even JaGared didn't look physical or ready to hit anybody. Is it because we don't hit in preseason? A&M is good i think, better than i expected, they may be legit top 10...maybe. We will play much better, just hate to miss opportunties against Big 12 opponents because we dont get many chances.

by **sbsmith** » Sun Sep 04, 2011 10:22 pm

I don't think they're that bad, a lot of it was Mason insisting on dropping 7-8 guys back and giving the wideouts a 10 yard cushion. Everyone needed a warmup game to get their feet wet.

by **SMU 86** » Sun Sep 04, 2011 10:42 pm

sbsmith wrote:I don't think they're that bad, a lot of it was Mason insisting on dropping 7-8 guys back and giving the wideouts a 10 yard cushion. Everyone needed a warmup game to get their feet wet.

Then we should have made the warm up game NW State. I just hope we win the next 3 games.

by **sbsmith** » Sun Sep 04, 2011 10:50 pm

SMU 86 wrote:
sbsmith wrote:I don't think they're that bad, a lot of it was Mason insisting on dropping 7-8 guys back and giving the wideouts a 10 yard cushion. Everyone needed a warmup game to get their feet wet.

Then we should have made the warm up game NW State. I just hope we win the next 3 games.

If we don't win the next 3 games by a large margin then we're in serious trouble. The team's confidence should be back up by the time we play TCU.

by **lwjr** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:27 am

It appears the D still does not tackle very well. Way to many yards by aggie players after initial hit. But then this seems like a trend in all of football. Maybe new rules about hitting are part of problem?

by **lwjr** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:29 am

SMU 86 wrote:
sbsmith wrote:I don't think they're that bad, a lot of it was Mason insisting on dropping 7-8 guys back and giving the wideouts a 10 yard cushion. Everyone needed a warmup game to get their feet wet.

Then we should have made the warm up game NW State. I just hope we win the next 3 games.

Unfortunately many teams view us as a "warm up" team.

by **ponyte** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:37 am

The absolute biggest disappointment of the night was the D. It just didn't get the job done. We had a couple of 1st and 20 which should have been 3 and outs that A$M converted. That hurt.

Padron was not good and hurt us. The onside kick killed us. The D throughout the game was not effective. And I had higher expectation for their performance.

by **HorsePower** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:41 am

The defense will be good this year. Every team that has Cyrus Gray and Christine Michael and Jeff Fuller and Ryan Swope and Ryan Tannehill and a line full of future draft picks will give us â€” and every other team â€” trouble.

Pretty sure they won't play for anyone other than the Aggies, though.

by **goldenstang** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:49 am

They have a very good offense. I'm not convinced Tannehill is that great but everyone else around him sure is.

by **HorsePower** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:52 am

Right

by **Stallion** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:42 am

SMU will have the best defense in CUSA West. I thought A&M would definitely score 38 or so points-even if we didn't hand them easy scoring drives. Did A&M have a turnover-that hurt too especially since they bounced the ball on the turf a few times. Not really too concerned about the defense even after tonite. We have CUSA caliber defensive players in the back 8-that don't really match up against a quality BCS team. They will in CUSA

by **SMU21TCU10** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:43 am

HorsePower wrote:The defense will be good this year. Every team that has Cyrus Gray and Christine Michael and Jeff Fuller and Ryan Swope and Ryan Tannehill and a line full of future draft picks will give us â€” and every other team â€” trouble.

Pretty sure they won't play for anyone other than the Aggies, though.

Agreed. They have a stacked offense. Nobody can expect our 2 *'s to compete with that

by **couch 'em** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:18 am

Nobody expected us to stop them scoring. They did about as expected. When you hand the opponent 21 points and then do nothing on O, it makes the score look worse.

by **hoopmanx** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:23 am

Stallion wrote:SMU will have the best defense in CUSA West. I thought A&M would definitely score 38 or so points-even if we didn't hand them easy scoring drives. Did A&M have a turnover-that hurt too especially since they bounced the ball on the turf a few times. Not really too concerned about the defense even after tonite. We have CUSA caliber defensive players in the back 8-that don't really match up against a quality BCS team. They will in CUSA

Who gives a crap about the [deleted] that is CUSA. Figure out a way to man up vs BCS schools. That was an embarrassing evening that culminated two weeks of pretty decent SMU-based marketing, only for June's team to show we're basically no better than we've ever been. This team isn't better than some of Rossleys or Cavans, its just playing vs a garbage conference schedule. Beat someone of worth. No more being the most mobile guy at a cripple convention

by **RGV Pony** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:30 am

hoopmanx wrote:
Stallion wrote:SMU will have the best defense in CUSA West. I thought A&M would definitely score 38 or so points-even if we didn't hand them easy scoring drives. Did A&M have a turnover-that hurt too especially since they bounced the ball on the turf a few times. Not really too concerned about the defense even after tonite. We have CUSA caliber defensive players in the back 8-that don't really match up against a quality BCS team. They will in CUSA

Who gives a crap about the [deleted] that is CUSA. Figure out a way to man up vs BCS schools. That was an embarrassing evening that culminated two weeks of pretty decent SMU-based marketing, only for June's team to show we're basically no better than we've ever been. This team isn't better than some of Rossleys or Cavans, its just playing vs a garbage conference schedule. Beat someone of worth. No more being the most mobile guy at a cripple convention

on some levels, tough to argue w that