tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16558511.post114262186967006743..comments2024-03-20T02:19:42.015-07:00Comments on BarkBoard.com: Fontenot Headed to Europe: Did He Get a Raw Deal as a 'Dog?BarkBoard.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17371532385025154602noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16558511.post-1142648517695978942006-03-17T18:21:00.000-08:002006-03-17T18:21:00.000-08:00In 2004 Wright was the guy, Sumlin was the back up...In 2004 Wright was the guy, Sumlin was the back up and Mathis was battling for the 3rd spot on the depth chart. When Wright went down, Sumlin and Mathis shared the tailback spot quite well. Each brought something different to the table.<BR/><BR/>In 2005 Cignetti knew he was going to have 2 seasoned tbs, a 3rd in Clifton Smith and possibly a 4th in Wright if he played. It was pretty obvious when Smith went down against Oregon the offense was tailored to fit him and his versatility. Cignetti set the offense to have one power back and a h-back/slot back in certain formations. When Smith was out Jennings and Williams filled his spot instead of another back in the slot back spot. Rivera came in to spell in shot gun and passing situations, a spot Smith was probably going to play. Cignetti relied on these schemes all year, and failed to incorporate Sumlin and Mathis together. It can be done, look what Borges did with Brown and Williams at Auburn. But when Vercher went down, why not line Sumlin up at FB, instead of him sitting on the bench.<BR/><BR/>If Smith would not have been lost the offense would have had a totally different look. But the bottom line is Sumlin should have had as much carries as Mathis, both were quality backs.BarkBoard.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17371532385025154602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16558511.post-1142634268926868582006-03-17T14:24:00.000-08:002006-03-17T14:24:00.000-08:00well, i too think that sumlin should have seen atl...well, i too think that sumlin should have seen atleast some playing time against usc and i dont get why our coach(es) were so insistant on having "an every down back" i think that mathis and sumlin ran with all they had on every carry and it was a good idea to have them spell eachother. im not saying mathis was at all tired or that it would've made a difference but i think it would've been a good idea to give sumlin the ball too as he and mathis had different running styles. that difference in running styles could've amounted to some missed tackles by usc and/or by the rest of the teams we finished out the year with as it did in 04 when we used em both. if it aint broke....you know the rest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16558511.post-1142633317646402102006-03-17T14:08:00.000-08:002006-03-17T14:08:00.000-08:00You know it's funny you bring up a raw deal with r...You know it's funny you bring up a raw deal with respect to rb's such as Fontenot. The reason i say this is because I felt like Sumlin received a raw deal this past season. I know he fumbled in the La. Tech game but let's be honest here: He was a great runner and had both power and speed. I could not for the life of me understand why Hill or Cignetti (or whoever the hell it was) put Rivera in there in the past couple of games as the backup over Sumlin. Sumlin had proven he could run the year prior with over a thousand yards rushing while splitting time with Mathis. Now I don't have a problem with Mathis being the #1 but come on now Sumlin was screwed with respect to playing time much as it seems that Fontenot was as well. Just my opinion, anyone else have one about this?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com