PonyFans.com

I thought June would have recruited better than Bennett at this position but it seems Bennett did a much better job. Sanders, Robinson and Beasley are all in the NFL and did very well here. Now SMU has to deal with poor WR recruiting. Hard to have confidence in a staff in recruiting in that area when the results on the field are what they are now smh.

The offense under Bennett was much more receiver friendly too-JJ's offense is so predictable for defenses to figure which is the main reason almost no other team runs it. It is so outdated like the wishbone became.

jimhagle wrote:The offense under Bennett was much more receiver friendly too-JJ's offense is so predictable for defenses to figure which is the main reason almost no other team runs it. It is so outdated like the wishbone became.

How is a four-WR passing offense less receiver friendly than what Bennett ran? And please explain how predicable and outdated it is and compare it to other four-WR offenses out there.

Those receivers took the only thing the JJ run and shoot has to help good receivers and that is they play every down and the team suffers but it makes those players better prepared for the rigors of the nfl is my theory. With the limited NFL 53 man rosters having durable backup receivers is important...just look at how much the cowboys receivers bryant and austin have been on the injury list the past couple years. The main problem now is they have not recruited. they think they can get a guy who runs fast and make a receiver out of him. The defenses and athleticism of the defenses and db's today are so good and well-coached that you better be updating your routes and not run the same ones you have been for the last 15 years because these teams have video and teaching and can run with your receivers all over the field.

gord wrote:

jimhagle wrote:The offense under Bennett was much more receiver friendly too-JJ's offense is so predictable for defenses to figure which is the main reason almost no other team runs it. It is so outdated like the wishbone became.

How is a four-WR passing offense less receiver friendly than what Bennett ran? And please explain how predicable and outdated it is and compare it to other four-WR offenses out there.

It's not how many receivers you send out it's what you do with them. Outdated ,yes , no other major college runs it.

jimhagle wrote:

gord wrote:

jimhagle wrote:The offense under Bennett was much more receiver friendly too-JJ's offense is so predictable for defenses to figure which is the main reason almost no other team runs it. It is so outdated like the wishbone became.

How is a four-WR passing offense less receiver friendly than what Bennett ran? And please explain how predicable and outdated it is and compare it to other four-WR offenses out there.

It's not how many receivers you send out it's what you do with them. Outdated ,yes , no other major college runs it.

I didn't realize nobody else ran it because it was outdated - I thought it was because it was a specialized offense that really only a small, hardcore group of coaches ever used it in the first place and now that most of them aren't coaching anymore (or moved on to the NFL and still use run-and-shoot concepts, see: Gilbride, Kevin), the number is even smaller.

You sound like an expert in what you're talking about. Maybe you could enlighten the rest of us as to why passing games that adjust their routes based on coverages is an outdated method of throwing the football. Please cite examples of other passing offenses not adjusting routes and show how SMU's adjustments are costing them.

No one else is running this offense-Period and for a reason.

jimhagle wrote:No one else is running this offense-Period and for a reason.

I guess that's your "I don't have empirical evidence to back me up, so I'll just use vague, circumstantial facts" as a comeback? Good one.

Interesting though that Jeremy Johnson is on a pace to catch more passes in his first year as a full time starter than just about any of them. The YAC is a little disappointing to me which is the one area I thought he would excell based on high school career as what Darrell Roya calledl- a "little waterbug". We need kids that can turn short passes into big plays to make this thing work. It could come with experience. But 37 catches in his first 6 games as a full time starter (6 games) may be close to an SMU record. Better than Emanuel, Aldrick and Cole Beasley projected out to full season

gord wrote:

jimhagle wrote:No one else is running this offense-Period and for a reason.

I guess that's your "I don't have empirical evidence to back me up, so I'll just use vague, circumstantial facts" as a comeback? Good one.

gord as ' in out of your'...we have had discussions on here many times why the JJ R & S is outdated and how and why it differs from the West Coast offense and various 4 and 5 WR sets out there. The fact that NO one runs the pure Mouse Davis R & S anymore cept' June should be a big clue....unfortunately.

ponyscott wrote:

gord wrote:

jimhagle wrote:No one else is running this offense-Period and for a reason.

I guess that's your "I don't have empirical evidence to back me up, so I'll just use vague, circumstantial facts" as a comeback? Good one.

gord as ' in out of your'...we have had discussions on here many times why the JJ R & S is outdated and how and why it differs from the West Coast offense and various 4 and 5 WR sets out there. The fact that NO one runs the pure Mouse Davis R & S anymore cept' June should be a big clue....unfortunately.

I know we have and I'm still waiting for a good explanation why it's outdated other than "he's the only one running it." It's not actual evidence, it's purely circumstantial. I know it's a radical concept for people to actually back up what they're saying on a messageboard, but that's how I roll.

I'm trying to figure out how an "outdated" offense can be 2nd and 4th in CUSA in passing offense in 2009 and 2010 while leading the team to 17 victories over two seasons.

If you want to say the offense this year sucks (and it does) - fine. But at least have a clue when you say it. BTW, if you had any idea what you were talking about, you'd know that what we're running now is nowhere close to the "pure Mouse Davis R & S" as far as concepts and packages. But keep on believing that we are.

gord wrote:

ponyscott wrote:

gord wrote: I guess that's your "I don't have empirical evidence to back me up, so I'll just use vague, circumstantial facts" as a comeback? Good one.

gord as ' in out of your'...we have had discussions on here many times why the JJ R & S is outdated and how and why it differs from the West Coast offense and various 4 and 5 WR sets out there. The fact that NO one runs the pure Mouse Davis R & S anymore cept' June should be a big clue....unfortunately.

I know we have and I'm still waiting for a good explanation why it's outdated other than "he's the only one running it." It's not actual evidence, it's purely circumstantial. I know it's a radical concept for people to actually back up what they're saying on a messageboard, but that's how I roll.

I'm trying to figure out how an "outdated" offense can be 2nd and 4th in CUSA in passing offense in 2009 and 2010 while leading the team to 17 victories over two seasons.

If you want to say the offense this year sucks (and it does) - fine. But at least have a clue when you say it. BTW, if you had any idea what you were talking about, you'd know that what we're running now is nowhere close to the "pure Mouse Davis R & S" as far as concepts and packages. But keep on believing that we are.

It was only good for those couple of years because 1) we did it in cupcake USA and not any big time team 2) the cupcakers went on archaeological dig to find the manuscripts of the RnS and figured out how easy it was to defend. Once those cupcakers succeeded like we saw in Tulane, they said, "Outdated, haha"

Rebel10 wrote: Sanders, Robinson and Beasley are all in the NFL and did very well here. .

Robinson and Beasley dropped a whole bunch of passes as underclassmen, often critical ones, and I remember Sanders perhaps costing the team a game with a somersault into the end zone, etc. etc. Let's hope the guys on the current roster are able to make similar turnarounds as their careers progress.

Most of the starters at the beginning of the year were not underclassmen.

Rebel10 wrote:Most of the starters at the beginning of the year were not underclassmen.

That is true.

DJ3 - Senior
Holman - Junior
Jeremy Johnson - Junior