Why the change?

[Hoop Fan]

Longtime, I think you have sized it up pretty well.

[JasonB]

Carrington - why not see what he can do? Lee was awful in pass coverage from Bennett's comments. From what I remember, I heard he had a tough time in the TT game, and I saw him struggle with positioning and coverage in Waco. Lee has done well against the run, but not against the pass. This is a three way compitition in the spring, with Lee, Carrington, and Hall. So why not see what Carrington does on the field while you have a chance?

As far as DE is concerned, Wiliams is solid but doesn't make plays. Bennett wants playmakers at DE, which is why Stansbury is on the other side. This is the opportunity to see if Rogers can make something happen.

[The PonyGrad]

I would not be surprised to see Lee in on those rushing downs.

We have not been getting pressure from our front four. It is part of our not so good pass defense. Perhaps this change (Rogers) will help the pass defense, along with Carrington.

<small>[ 10-21-2003, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: The PonyGrad ]</small>

[GoRedGoBlue]

DD lee is hurting the team in pass coverage.

Womack was caught after hours with a chick.

ND would have gone regardless of whether or not we beat TCU, but 7-4 would have been much nicer than 6-5 that year.

[Cupcaking]

Originally posted by JasonB:
Carrington - why not see what he can do? Lee was awful in pass coverage from Bennett's comments. From what I remember, I heard he had a tough time in the TT game, and I saw him struggle with positioning and coverage in Waco. Lee has done well against the run, but not against the pass. This is a three way compitition in the spring, with Lee, Carrington, and Hall. So why not see what Carrington does on the field while you have a chance?

As far as DE is concerned, Wiliams is solid but doesn't make plays. Bennett wants playmakers at DE, which is why Stansbury is on the other side. This is the opportunity to see if Rogers can make something happen.

Stansbury is the other player that was to be replaced. :hmm: Now why would you do that to both of your starting DE's at the same time?

[Corby]

Sounds like a great motivator. I'd get fired up to play for a guy like that. Seriously though, there was early talk that D.D. Lee could shift down and play some pash rushing DE, and since there are no apparent DE's with capabilities, give him a shot there.

[leadpony]

If people think that DD Lee hurting us in pass coverage is the only problem that we have with our defense, they are nuts.

Let the people that have been busting their humps for SMU football finish on the field and not the bench.

[gostangs]

you do it because the best players should be on the field - seniority should not even come into it -experience is nice - but I would take talented over experienced if that is the choice - and I trust Bennett to know what is best.

[PonyPride]

Originally posted by Longtime:
... And by the way, there was no bowl game at stake. Our only hope was the Independence Bowl, which matched Notre Dame against LSU that year. Which one would SMU have bumped from the game?...

I don't think that's true. I covered that game, and during the pre-game meal in the pressbox, I sat at the same table with a representative from the Independence Bowl, who told me that if SMU won, he was going to extend an invitation on the field. (He admitted that SMU would basically be fed to LSU, but that LSU would bring more than enough fans to sell the place out.) Someone else at the table (from the Star-Telegram, if I recall correctly) asked specifically about Notre Dame and a couple of other schools, and his response was that Independence Bowl officials thought ND would be invited to a more lucrative bowl anyway, so he said the Irish weren't really an option anyway.

[Longtime]

I respect your opinion Pony Pride. I have no doubt that what you remember is true.

But first of all, there aren't tables in the TCU pressbox. That place is like a friggin' submarine up there. Except a submarine has air conditioning.

Second, bowl reps will say anything to please people when they visit games. Their job is not to "scout" the teams, it's to promote interest in their bowl. They are there to give the media plenty of notebook fodder. I've spoken to bowl reps who were completely clueless about the bowl picture.

If I remember correctly, that guy was not the executive director of the I-bowl, he was just one of their committee members.

And it was just ONE guy, not the two or three high-level bowl reps one would expect when issuing a bid in person. It was a Thursday night, all they had to do was drive in from Shreveport. So where were the rest of their head honchos?

He wouldn't have been empowered to issue a bid after the game. Handing our bids in lockerrooms rarely happens anymore, except when it's an automatic bid. How ignorant would it have been for the I-bowl to jump the gun and invite SMU with even the remote possibility of Notre Dame?

If we had beaten TCU our chances would have been better, but I still say the I-bowl takes Notre Dame over a 7-4 SMU. I seriously doubt the I-bowl was chomping at the bit to invite SMU, unless I'm giving them too much credit for intelligence.

But if you want to believe TCU ruined our chances for a bowl and continue to feed TCU fans' egos, go right ahead.