PonyFans.com

it's like JJ said...we don't have "it" yet (the killer instinct to put teams away when you have them down). Still nice to get a relatively drama free win. Glad I didn't bet this one...would be very disappointing if you took SMU and gave the points, because I agree we SHOULD have covered

Do these kids have no respect for gamblers who are loyal to SMU???

Defensive played very well. 3 points came on a short field. 7 points came on a totally busted coverage (need to fix that now). 7 points came on a defender going for a pick that he should have not tried (fix that now). Those aside the defense played very well. Yes they had some breakdowns, but difficult to complain about giving up 62 yards of total offense and no points in the 1st half. Not worried about late yardage while protecting a lead. Never seen a team lose because of yards given up if the score was in their favor.

My complaint would be with the entire team not coming out ready to play in the 2nd half with a killer instinct but they are still in the learning to deal with success stage.

This is a weird thread.....62 total yards given up in the first half and SMU D totally manhandled them....3rd quarter was a let down and Tulane totally took advantage of the wind in that quarter, but .....really?... we complain about the D?

No killer instinct to be sure but the D was placed in terrible positions time and time again in the 3rd quarter. First, we blast a punt from our 20 to our 45. After a massive 7 yard drive by Tulane (yes their O only generated 7 yards) aided by two SMU penalties of 20 yards, they kick a FG. The next possession by SMU puts the D once agin defending from our 45. Tulane gets a TD on a play were the kid goes for the ball and not the tackle.

The last TD was a complete and total blown coverage. We haven't' had that in 3 or 4 years and was a tradition of SMU secondaries for decades.

Tulane did what plenty of teams do when they only have to gain 17 yards to be in scoring possession. The wind had our punter's number and put our D in horrible position.

I am not as concerned about the 3rd quarter meltdown as it was a problem with player judgement, field position and a mental mistake. It wasn't a lack of effort or lack of athletes or that our D was getting beat at the line of scrimmage.

Our issues are fixable.

Sanders is a man. Hes 40.

After Zach Line gave up the fumble, everything seem to went downhill from there. I think our defense is comprised of a few decent to great players and alot of them either just bad or learning. Hopefully future recruits can replace those athletes that can hold back Tulane players

Seemed to "went"?

SMU_Alumni11 wrote:After Zach Line gave up the fumble, everything seem to went downhill from there. I think our defense is comprised of a few decent to great players and alot of them either just bad or learning. Hopefully future recruits can replace those athletes that can hold back Tulane players

A lot are bad or just learning? Let's break down each position.

Defensive line: Frazier, Thompson, and Pittman. I don't think you can call any of these guys bad and none of them are just learning.

Linebackers: Davis, Reed, Rodgers, and now Sanders. Sanders is a freshman so I can see you saying he is learning, but in the end he might be the best of this line backing corp. Rodgers has been disappointing but I would not call him bad. And if you are claiming JG and Reed are bad, I really need to know from where you buy your weed.

Secondary: Banjo, Smith, Acker, and Crawford. Group is not spectacular in that they do not generate a lot of turnovers but you can't really question Banjo or Crawford as they are pretty damn good. I like Smith as a person and he does some good things on the field. I don't see him playing at the next level, but he is a good CUSA safety. Acker is young and learning. Early in the season he was picked on a lot but he has improved significantly.

Now the depth at all of those positions is young but once these players mature and get some game experience I think we will be ok. So in light of this break down, who do you contend is just plain bad?

A lot are bad or just learning? Let's break down each position.

Defensive line: Frazier, Thompson, and Pittman. I don't think you can call any of these guys bad and none of them are just learning.

Linebackers: Davis, Reed, Rodgers, and now Sanders. Sanders is a freshman so I can see you saying he is learning, but in the end he might be the best of this line backing corp. Rodgers has been disappointing but I would not call him bad. And if you are claiming JG and Reed are bad, I really need to know from where you buy your weed.

Secondary: Banjo, Smith, Acker, and Crawford. Group is not spectacular in that they do not generate a lot of turnovers but you can't really question Banjo or Crawford as they are pretty damn good. I like Smith as a person and he does some good things on the field. I don't see him playing at the next level, but he is a good CUSA safety. Acker is young and learning. Early in the season he was picked on a lot but he has improved significantly.

Now the depth at all of those positions is young but once these players mature and get some game experience I think we will be ok. So in light of this break down, who do you contend is just plain bad?[/quote]

Look Im not trying to bash them, rather just being critical. I mean I watch them give up alot of passes, especially whoever it was that missed the interception and tulane got a touchdown. Then with the running defense, Tulane busted through alot of times. Thankfully they are so bad and they cant stay consistent, we were able to take their fumbles and maintain our lead. Trust me Im not out saying our players are terrible and should be immediately kicked off. I just see alot of mental errors. I would obviously say Banjo, Reed, Sanders, and Thompson are preformers, but the rest I never hear them making a big play.

'Tulane busted through alot of times'?...Tulane rushed 30 times for a grand total of 57 total rushing yards for the whole game ( a 1.9 yard per rush average), with one long run of 8 yards and NO rushing TD's.....what game did you watch SMU Alumni11?

ponyscott wrote:'Tulane busted through alot of times'?...Tulane rushed 30 times for a grand total of 57 total rushing yards for the whole game ( a .52 yard per rush average), with one long run of 8 yards and NO rushing TD's.....what game did you watch SMU Alumni11?

They did but remember they do net the positive yardage with the big sacks from Banjo. Probably more along the line of 100-120 yard before negative. For Tulane to do that to us is pretty bad. I mean I wish i had the before netting yard, but I remember watching during the game (be reminded that Im only referring to the second half) that Tulane running back plowed through for alot of first downs (alot is relative to Tulane's skill). All I can say is if SMU played like its first half (offense and defense) we have a shot at Houston, if we played like the second half well, we should of lost to tulane. (Second half score: 24-14)

[/quote] Look Im not trying to bash them, rather just being critical. I mean I watch them give up alot of passes, especially whoever it was that missed the interception and tulane got a touchdown. Then with the running defense, Tulane busted through alot of times. Thankfully they are so bad and they cant stay consistent, we were able to take their fumbles and maintain our lead. Trust me Im not out saying our players are terrible and should be immediately kicked off. I just see alot of mental errors. I would obviously say Banjo, Reed, Sanders, and Thompson are preformers, but the rest I never hear them making a big play.[/quote]

I'm not sure I was watching the same game. Tulane had a total of 57 yards rushing yesterday. As far as defending the run is concerned, I will take that all day. I assume you inadvertently left JG off your list of guys who consistently make big plays. Finally, just because you don't always hear a players' name called over the PA system does not mean he is not doing an outstanding job. A DB covering his man or breaking up a pass is not announced. Likewise, a DT disrupting a play in the backfield or keeping an offensive lineman off the linebackers who then go and make plays is not announced. I understand you are not blasting the players but when you make a statement that a lot of them are bad, you have to understand and account for the nuisances of each position.

SMU_Alumni11 wrote:

ponyscott wrote:'Tulane busted through alot of times'?...Tulane rushed 30 times for a grand total of 57 total rushing yards for the whole game ( a .52 yard per rush average), with one long run of 8 yards and NO rushing TD's.....what game did you watch SMU Alumni11?

They did but remember they do net the positive yardage with the big sacks from Banjo. Probably more along the line of 100-120 yard before negative. For Tulane to do that to us is pretty bad. I mean I wish i had the before netting yard, but I remember watching during the game (be reminded that Im only referring to the second half) that Tulane running back plowed through for alot of first downs (alot is relative to Tulane's skill). All I can say is if SMU played like its first half (offense and defense) we have a shot at Houston, if we played like the second half well, we should of lost to tulane. (Second half score: 24-14)

Tulane had 80 rushing yards before you subtract the negative yardage for the sacks. I would still take that all day against any team irrespective of its overall talent.

SMU-Amumni11----- Tulane had a total of 4 rushing First downs..... for the whole game.....'plowed though for alot of first down's'?....you need to get your facts together before you make posts dude.

Know your opponent-Tulane may suck on Offense but Orleans Dawkins is a quality RB. We held him to 47 yards on 16 carries-only 2 teams have held him to less yards rushing and he may have been hurt in those games because he carried the ball less than 10 times