Jump to content

Christopher Walker

Members
  • Posts

    4,630
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16
  • Points

    2,795 [ Donate ]

Posts posted by Christopher Walker

  1. 6 hours ago, Cr1028 said:

    So because one guy said it on a podcast as second hand knowledge from an unnamed source it makes it fact these days?

    It wasn't just Brune. This had been discussed throughout the year. Littrell even let it be publicly known during and after Reeder's search that he would be calling more of the gameplan.

    4 hours ago, Monkeypox said:

    Regardless, did anybody see Reeder's offense from before and think that's what we got?

    Did anybody wonder why we didn't get that offense?

    I know I did.

    There could be any number of legitimate reasons, including players not meshing well with it. I don't know. 

    We definitely did not get much of anything that I was looking forward to out of EWU.

    • Upvote 2
    • Downvote 1
  2. To @Harry original point about new modern staff positions...

    Everyone knows of the absolute legion within Alabama who are “non-coaching staff” members that are all moneyball and recruiting... what do our peers have going for them in this way?

    How many “non-coaching staff” are in Highland Park?

    • Upvote 1
  3. 7 hours ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

    Given some recently-released info about Reeder not calling plays post Houston, I would not be surprised to see Littrell return to the Leach tree to find his next OC.   The offense is obviously his baby, and he has to have someone that thinks like him to run it.
    Someone like this:
    https://soonersports.com/sports/football/roster/coaches/dennis-simmons/355

    YUSSSSSSSSSSS

    7 hours ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

    Mason will be in the NFL next season.  He's going to be a little busy to be a coach.
    However, I do think we may have a pretty good QB's coach on the staff already:
    5bee6d8cbfdda.image.jpg?resize=400,266

    YESSSSSSSSSSS

    • Upvote 2
    • Eye Roll 1
  4. 2 hours ago, greenjoe said:

    I have always wished fired coaches or those that quit would have a "Mean Green Garage Sale" to rid themselves of un-needed polo shirts and sweatshirts.  I wonder how many of those items get put in the trash. 

    There was an article on the Athletic a couple weeks ago about this very thing. Some coaches keep at least one momento from programs they enjoyed their stops at, but only wear them off-season. Others do a complete purge and typically give away most everything to friends ro folks they know around town.

  5. Better late than never.

    Compiled via http://cfbstats.com/.

    Top 10 Nationally underlined.

    O F F E N S E D E F E N S E
    Scoring Offense Scoring Defense
    UNT - 38th nationally at 33.2 ppg UNT - 115th at 34.4 ppg
    Rice - T 124th nationally at 16.5 ppg Rice - 70th at 28.1 ppg
       
    Rushing Offense Rushing Defense
    UNT - 78th nationally at 152.70 ypg, 8 TD UNT - 100th nationally at 193.80 ypg, 27 TD
    Rice - 119th nationally at 116 ypg, 9 TD Rice - 57tht nationally at 148.60 ypg, 17 TD
       
    Passing Offense Passing Defense
    UNT - 20th nationally at 296.9 ypg, 31 TD (6th nat), 9 INT UNT - T 76th nationally at 235.5 ypg, 14 TD, 4 INT
    Rice - 99th nationally at 167.1 ypg, 12 TD, 3 INT (5th nat) Rice - 99th nationally at 252.4 ypg, 17 TD, 5 INT
       
    Total Offense Total Defense
    UNT - 29th nationally at 449.6ypg UNT - 94th nationally at 429.3 ypg
    Rice - 127th nationally at 283.1 ypg Rice - 68th nationally at 401.0 ypg
       
    First Downs Opp First Downs
    UNT - T 40th nationally at 22.4 pg UNT - T 96th nationally at 22.2 pg
    Rice - 122nd nationally at 16.9 pg Rice - T 48th nationally at 19.7 pg
       
    3rd Down Conversions Opp 3rd Down Conversions
    UNT - 85th nationally at 38.19% UNT - T 92nd nationally at 42.38%
    Rice - 99th nationally at 36.30% Rice - 123rd nationally at 47.41%
       
    4th Down Conversions Opp 4th Down Conversions
    UNT - 57th at 56.00% UNT - 55th at 47.37%
    Rice - 103rd at 41.18% Rice - T 96th at 60.00%
       
    Red Zone Scoring Conversions Opp Red Zone Scoring Conversions
    UNT - T 59th at 85.00% UNT - T 124th at 92.11%
    Rice - T 117th at 72.41% Rice - T 97th at 86.67%
       
    Sacks Allowed Sacks
    UNT - T 36th nationally (16), 1.6 sacks pg UNT - T 44th nationally (24), 2.4 sacks pg
    Rice - T 113th nationally (30), 3 sacks pg Rice - T 122nd nationally (11), 1.1 sacks pg
       
    Tackles For Loss Allowed Tackles For Loss
    UNT - T 78th nationally (62), 6.2 TFLs pg UNT - T 69th nationally (59), 5.9 TFLs pg
    Rice - T 85th nationally (64), 6.4 TFLs pg Rice - T 84th nationally (55), 5.5 TFLs pg
       
    S P E C I A L • T E A M S
    Punt Returns Opp Punt Returns
    UNT - T 59th nationally at 8.27 avg ypr, 1 TD UNT - 94th nationally at 9.92 avg ypr, 1 TD
    Rice - T 45th nationally at 9.00 avg ypr, 0 TD Rice - 11th nationally at 2.17 avg ypr, 0 TD
       
    Kickoff Returns Opp Kickoff Returns
    UNT - 32nd nationally at 23.18 avg ypr, 1 TD UNT - 117th nationally at 24.54 avg ypr, 2 TD
    Rice - 62nd nationally at 20.71 avg ypr, 0 TD Rice - 107th nationally at 23.06 avg ypr, 1 TD
       
    Punting / Field Positioning Opp Punting / Field Positioning
    UNT - 49th nationally at 42.95 avg ypp UNT - 16th nationally at 39.45 avg ypp
    Rice - 43rd nationally at 43.18 avg ypp Rice - 27th nationally at 40.13 avg ypp
       
    Field Goals / PAT Kicking Opp Field Goals / PAT Kicking
    UNT - T 41st at 80%, 1.6 made pg / Tied 69th at 97.4%, 3.8 made pg UNT - T 106th at 84.6%, 1.1 made pg / 32nd at 94.6%, 3.5 made pg
    Rice - T 109th at 58.3%, 0.7 made pg / T 130th at 85.17%, 1.8 made pg Rice - T 81st at 76.19%, 1.0 made pg / T 86th at 100%, 3.3 made pg
       
    T E A M • S T A T S
    Turnover Margin Time of Possession
    UNT - T 103rd nationally, -0.50 margin pg UNT - 96th nationally, 28:41.20 pg
    Rice - T 84th nationally, -0.30 margin pg Rice - 33rd nationally, 31:12.70 pg
       
    Penalties Opp Penalties
    UNT - 74th nationally, 55.9 penalty ypg UNT - 127th nationally, 36.1 penalty ypg
    Rice - T 1st nationally, 30.3 penalty ypg Rice - T 24th nationally, 62.5 penalty ypg
       
    MASON FINE vs WILEY GREEN
    Completion Percentage QB Rating
    Fine - 49th nationally, 62.6% Fine - 32nd nationally, 148.92
    Green - N/R, 52.8% Green - N/R, 105.82
       
    Passing Yards Rushing Yards, Touchdowns
    Fine - 21st nationally, 2657 yards (265.7 ypg, 21st nat) Fine - N/R, -49 yards, 1 TDs
    Green - N/R, 787 yards (78.7 ypg, N/R) Green - N/R -29 yards, 0 TDs
       
    Yards Per Attempt Interceptions
    Fine - 53rd nationally, 7.6 ypa Fine - T 99th nationally, 6 INT (0.60 INT pg)
    Green - N/R, 5.5 ypa Green - T 15th nationally, 2 INT (0.2 INT pg)
       
    Passing Touchdowns Total Offense
    Fine - T 11th nationally, 27 TDs (2.7 TD pg) Fine - 40th nationally, 260.8 ypg
    Green - N/R, 4 TDs (0.4 TD pg) Green - N/R, 108.3 ypg
  6. 8 hours ago, RBP79 said:

    Both USM and LaTech were homecoming games and get this...they had traditional homecoming naming a male and female king and queen.... Can you believe that!!!But we're way ahead at NT with our progressive home coming lol...

     

    Alright :cracks knuckles:, time for the annual argument. Considering I'm the one the wrote the SGA legislation that made this change, let's go.

    8 hours ago, NorthTexasWeLove said:

    Typical. 

    *And we wonder why our football following struggles. Wellllllll

    Huh. I'm pretty sure my own football following is fairly well documented at this point. I was in Ruston yesterday. Were you?

    8 hours ago, Mean Green Matt said:

    The interesting thing about our homecoming court is that the NT students actually voted not to change it to the current format. The change was made anyway a few years later. 

    After that referendum result, we took an evaluation of what people took issue with, and at the time it was the coupling format. Well, that's an easy enough switch that is not in and of itself offensive to change.

    So here's the mindset: if you're not actively inclusive, typically you're passively exclusive. We sought after the former, and after fairly robust debate, compromise, and drama in the Senate that year, it ultimately passed.

    My good pal @Jason Howeth and I were distinctly at odds over this legislation in our Senate capacities, but I'm happy to say we're still fast friends even now. Though we'll still readily rib each other over politics. 😉

    The end-all-be-all is that eight times out of ten, the Homecoming Royalty are an identifying man and woman. But when in those two other times, its just as readily celebrated. And that's an objectively good thing. People have access to a celebration that they did not before.

    • Upvote 8
    • Thanks 1
    • Sad 2
    • Eye Roll 5
    • Downvote 1
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Please review our full Privacy Policy before using our site.