PonyFans.com

ponyboy wrote:More is not always better. My wife settled for me.

Touche

ponyboy wrote:Is our running a problem?

Yes and No. Line has done a fantastic job.

The problem with June's offense is an overall lack of imagination or innovation. Before the various "spread" offenses were common, Big State School would like up and beat the living crap out of smaller schools. With the "spread" formations (including the RnS), the ability to spread to out the field and attack everywhere allows smaller programs to compete with bigger schools.

The RnS was, in many ways, one of the first "spread" offenses. Unfortunately, June has not updated SMU's RnS offense to include many of the innovations installed by modern "spread" offenses.
1) The RnS has always had problems scoring TD's in the endzone b/c of the lack of a "power" run game and b/c of the lack of at TE.
2) Modern spread offenses include a "TE sized player", even if they spread him out, on most plays b/c of the improved running game and b/c they make big targets over the middle.
3) Instead of just running "bubble screens," modern spread offenses use a lot of motion and misdirection on running plays. Often the "runner" is a small, quick guy who doubles a slot guy.
4) Running QBs - many modern spread offenses rely on the more athletic QB's to extend plays and to run for first downs.

Bottom Line: all of the innovations force defenses to play closer to the line of scrimmage and open up passing plays over the top. Without them, you have to play dink and dunk underneath. Against bigger programs, that means you don't score.

I'm pretty sure JJ was being facetious when he said that, because we run at least three different running plays: trap, draw and zone, plus some QB read like GG did Saturday. And when you consider Line led the conference in rushing the last two seasons, and is second this year, it doesn't matter how many different types we have. What we've been doing works.

gord wrote:I'm pretty sure JJ was being facetious when he said that, because we run at least three different running plays: trap, draw and zone, plus some QB read like GG did Saturday. And when you consider Line led the conference in rushing the last two seasons, and is second this year, it doesn't matter how many different types we have. What we've been doing works.

Against bad teams like SFA, UTEP, Memphis, Houston, USM - it works.

Against better teams like TCU, Baylor, A&M - the offense has been poor. While the running game has been a pleasant surprise, the total offense has been a train wreck against teams with winning records.

Digetydog wrote:

gord wrote:I'm pretty sure JJ was being facetious when he said that, because we run at least three different running plays: trap, draw and zone, plus some QB read like GG did Saturday. And when you consider Line led the conference in rushing the last two seasons, and is second this year, it doesn't matter how many different types we have. What we've been doing works.

Against bad teams like SFA, UTEP, Memphis, Houston, USM - it works.

Against better teams like TCU, Baylor, A&M - the offense has been poor. While the running game has been a pleasant surprise, the total offense has been a train wreck against teams with winning records.

1) I was speaking of the running game, not the offense as a whole, 2) I was referring to the the last three seasons with Line. BTW, Line's totals against your "better teams" this season?

Baylor-135 yds / 5.4 ypc
A&M-104 yds / 6.5 ypc
TCU-44 yds / 2.9 ypc

gord wrote:

Digetydog wrote:

gord wrote:I'm pretty sure JJ was being facetious when he said that, because we run at least three different running plays: trap, draw and zone, plus some QB read like GG did Saturday. And when you consider Line led the conference in rushing the last two seasons, and is second this year, it doesn't matter how many different types we have. What we've been doing works.

Against bad teams like SFA, UTEP, Memphis, Houston, USM - it works.

Against better teams like TCU, Baylor, A&M - the offense has been poor. While the running game has been a pleasant surprise, the total offense has been a train wreck against teams with winning records.

1) I was speaking of the running game, not the offense as a whole, 2) I was referring to the the last three seasons with Line. BTW, Line's totals against your "better teams" this season?

Baylor-135 yds / 5.4 ypc
A&M-104 yds / 6.5 ypc
TCU-44 yds / 2.9 ypc

Most of those yards against Baylor were in "garbage time". At the half, seem to remember we had about 30 yards and about a 2 ypc average.

Baylor
1st Half: 14-47
Halftime: Down 24-3
2nd Half: 11/88
Long: 33 (Down 45-3)


A&M
1st Half: 7-28
Halftime: Down 20-0
2nd Half: 9-76
Long: 23 (Down 48-3)


TCU
1st Half: 10-42
Halftime: 21-10
2nd Half: 4-2
Long: 21 (TD run to make it 14-7 TCU)

So teams tend to do better against teams with lesser talent? And teams tend to do worse against teams with more talent?

The argument that we could be more innovative, that teams may have figured us out may have some merit. But this sure smells like another witch hunt.

ponyboy wrote:But this sure smells like another witch hunt.

One that June started himself.

Is he trying to get himself fired?

Grassy knoll witch hunt.

ponyboy wrote:Grassy knoll witch hunt.

Is that why we set it on fire before the Navy game a few years back?

That was a diversion set by the June Jones lackeys.

I'm tired of going through this runaround of teams figuring us out and whatnot. The fact is we don't have one running play, we have several. Whether JJ was being sarcastic or not, I don't know, and I can't speak to whether or not there's a deeper meaning to his comments (I'll leave that up to the people who "know").

It's called subtlety. Everyone knows we don't just have one running play. But haters will jump on anything they can because, well, they just enjoy hating.

Have we ever run a reverse with one of our WR's getting the ball? I don't recall seeing one, but I may have just missed it.