Wright: How much more physical can the Lobos get? And about those Goatheads…

It’s all correctable.

Those were the first words spoken to the news media by Mike Locksley after his New Mexico Lobos lost 41-6 to Texas A&M (it wasn’t actually that close) on Sept. 5, 2009, in Locksley’s first game as UNM head football coach.

Of course, that wasn’t true. Nothing could hide the reality that A&M was physically, by far, the better team in College Station, Texas that night. Bigger, faster, stronger.

Better coached? Sure. But what’s been said about Jimmies and Joes, as opposed to X’s and O’s, applied then and applies now.

So why the Locksley reference, going back 16 years and five games into the 2025 season, when the Lobos of first-year coach Jason Eck have already won one more game — three — than Locksley’s Lobos did in 26 tries?

Well, because, as game six of Eck’s first season takes the Lobos to the blue turf of the Boise State Broncos, we’re still (Cat Stevens reference here) on the road to find out.

Regarding the Lobos’ 35-28 loss at San Jose State last week, by no means a disgrace and with plenty of positives in the mix, the question remains.

What’s correctable and what isn’t?

In Eck’s comments after the San Jose State game, it was clear he was disappointed to see his team outrushed (153 yards to 76, 4.3 yards per carry to 2.8) by a Spartans team that prefers to pass, pass and pass some more.

At Tuesday’s UNM media luncheon, Eck said the Lobos need to be more physical on Saturday against Boise State than they’d been against SJSU.

How much more physical can they be? The answer just might determine whether this New Mexico team can get to six wins (or beyond) and bowl eligibility.

Quite simply, the Lobos lost the line of scrimmage against San Jose State on both sides of the ball — not by a lot, yet by the difference between a win and a loss.

This is so simple that it verges on the simplistic. But when the Lobos have outrushed their opponent (Idaho State, UCLA, New Mexico State), they’ve won.

When they’ve been outrushed (Michigan, San Jose State), they’ve lost.

Lobos quarterback Jack Layne has been excellent through five games, but far more effective and efficient when the run game is a threat.

It seems fair to say that Eck coaches a physical brand of football — not to the exclusion of misdirection, disguise, trickeration, etc., but at all times looking to win the line of scrimmage.

How the Lobos fare in the trenches against Boise State could have implications far beyond Saturday night.

ABOUT THOSE GOATHEAD(S): As one who became painfully acquainted with goatheads as an active — if somewhat clumsy — Albuquerque kid, I was pleased when word came down that Rio Rancho’s new professional hockey franchise has adopted those thorny little devils as its nickname.

I was equally pleased, if not more so, that the ECHL team’s nickname is the Goatheads and not The Goathead.

Like any political candidate, I’ll take a plurality anytime.

Since the trend of singular nicknames in sports took off decades ago — Thunder, Heat, Magic, Jazz, Lightning, Avalanche, Wild, Golden Hurricane, Wolfpack, Wolf Pack, etc. — newspaper sports departments have found themselves in a no-win situation.

Is/are the Oklahoma Thunder an it, or a they? What are/is their/its chances of repeating as NBA champion(s)?

Obviously, going with the singular is the grammatically correct choice. But does it make sense? Not really, any more than does “the Lakers is looking pretty good this season.”

Going with the plural makes sense, but exposes headline writers to attacks from the grammarians among the readership. The Thunder is an it, not a they, they’ll thunder in their outraged phone calls and emails.

Maybe the British, all this time, have had it right: “Chelsea are struggling, but Manchester City have been playing well.”

But then, pro soccer teams generally have no nicknames.

Should the Journal, then, rethink its style regarding New Mexico United, which recently clinched its (not their) spot in the USLC playoffs?

You be the judges.