Jump to content
  • Welcome to GoMeanGreen.com!

    Thank you for visiting us!  Registering is easy and free, and provides you with the ability to participate in the discussions along with many cool features and content.

Which team in CUSA has the most horses coming back?


Recommended Posts

Dang!   SoMiss basically starting over next season.    As is UTSA's offense.

FAU only gets 6 of their offensive starting 11 back... unfortunately, one of those is Motor.   Big changes there for them, and we'll see how little Weis compares to little Briles.

And yes, UAB is going to be a big problem...   Especially since we have to go to Birmingham.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

UAB is worrisome, but UTSA/USM list their best players on Offense and UTSA lost possibly the best defensive player in the conference. 

LT/ODU a lot hinges on if their QBs can make the jump.. LT got the extra bowl game reps and played vs a team that in SMu that was in transition, so I’m not solid on their QB. ODU the kid was a better runner than passer, and I believe they are bringing in a new OC(?). 

FAU is changing out personal and hopefully they are still working out the kinks late in the year, but LK will be calling the plays and making it work.

LT should be the wildcard game for us this year.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, greenminer said:

I've always thought returning experience on the OL is one of the biggest indicators of success.

Agree. And in UTEP's case, the loss on the O-line is major with Hernandez leaving.

FYI - He ended up being recruited by UTEP due to a coach that was not recruiting him noticing him working out in the weight room (we need to find a "diamond-in-the-rough" like this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, El Paso Eagle said:

Agree. And in UTEP's case, the loss on the O-line is major with Hernandez leaving.

FYI - He ended up being recruited by UTEP due to a coach that was not recruiting him noticing him working out in the weight room (we need to find a "diamond-in-the-rough" like this.

He also had issues with grades.. UTEP held out hope he could qualify and he made it.. we need to do that with 1 or 2 OL and if they don’t make it move up some blue shirts to fill those spots

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BTG_Fan1 said:

He also had issues with grades.. UTEP held out hope he could qualify and he made it.. we need to do that with 1 or 2 OL and if they don’t make it move up some blue shirts to fill those spots

I don't want to start any arguments but this is a legitimate question. You've brought up in other threads that we have too many scholarship OL but are now asking we take a chance on 1-2 O linemen. Are wanting to take chances on those 1-2 players as PWO? If they don't want yo be here unless there's a scholarship, are you wanting them to be put on scholarship if the staff truly believes the player is a diamond in the rough? 

We can't take less scholarship O Linemen and then take some huge chances on 1-2. Just can't have it both ways. As I see it, most OL prospects at the G5 level are hopefully diamond in the rough prospects because there just aren't that many big, strong, smart kids wanting to take on the contact needed to play college football and those that do are being swooped up by p5 schools.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GMG_Dallas said:

I don't want to start any arguments but this is a legitimate question. You've brought up in other threads that we have too many scholarship OL but are now asking we take a chance on 1-2 O linemen. Are wanting to take chances on those 1-2 players as PWO? If they don't want yo be here unless there's a scholarship, are you wanting them to be put on scholarship if the staff truly believes the player is a diamond in the rough? 

We can't take less scholarship O Linemen and then take some huge chances on 1-2. Just can't have it both ways. As I see it, most OL prospects at the G5 level are hopefully diamond in the rough prospects because there just aren't that many big, strong, smart kids wanting to take on the contact needed to play college football and those that do are being swooped up by p5 schools.

When I say take chances on 1-2 OL it is talking about high upside and passed over recruits that (likely) have a flaw (grades, work ethic, legal problems, etc). An example of this would be the OL Micheal Fletcher from this current 2018 Recruiting cycle. He is a .83+ recruit that had an offer from us and Tulane. It had been said that grades are the problem and it’s likely why his offers have dried up. Again, this a .83+ 3* 6’6 290 lb Tackle that was at least offered by another college in Tulane. I would take a risk offer him a scholarship, and if he makes the grades to get in great if not we have kids like Carroll, Brown, Redfearn in this class with 0 other from any type of college from what I recall that could be then moved from a blue shirt/PWO to a scholarship. I’m sorry but Carroll, Brown, Redfearn are all kids that should have been PWO/Blueshirt players if higher ranked kids didn’t make it to campus. 

UTEP waited and held out hope on Hernandez that he could qualify and it paid off big time. Similar to what we did we did in the first recruiting cycle with Johnson and Haynes, but they didn’t make it. We are at the point we are nearing that scholarship cap compared to the 60-65 that we were at when SL first got here. 

To sum it up, I would be fine us taking 1-2 kids with high upside on the OL that may have problems qualifying (like Fletcher) and then add in 1-2 more PWO kids similar to Carroll, Brown, Redfearn who if anything could then be moved up to a scholarship if someone didn’t qualify. 

It worked out for UTEP with Hernandez, and yes we have been burnt by it and likely will more often than not but image how nice it would have been to have a 1st or 2nd round OL on this team this year?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BTG_Fan1 said:

When I say take chances on 1-2 OL it is talking about high upside and passed over recruits that (likely) have a flaw (grades, work ethic, legal problems, etc).

I'm assuming the staff would rather just get sure targets. If you trust your evaluation skills, they do, you don't really care about other people's opinions. The staff has proven more often than not that they can evaluate talent. Offensive linemen just take longer to develop. Give it some time. They've done a good job with other positions. No reason it won't be the same with offensive linemen...

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Statistics say that returning percentage is more predictive on defense than on offense...

As a consequence I see even less of a way UNT beats FAU, and that game @ODU seems fairly tough also.

Within the division I expect La Tech to make a jump forward but at least that one is a home game. Playing @UAB could be tough too. Other than that the division should be fairly feasible, USM and UTSA really lose a ton Rice and UTEP are coming back from really far behind.

Edited by outoftown
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Christopher Walker
      From The Athletic's Stewart Mandel:

      All strictly G5-assigned bowls will be maintained, but I would expect absolutely minimum latitude for there to be P5-G5 pairings of any kind this bowl season. 
    • By eeeeagle
      I haven't been plugged into much news about this upcoming football season.
      Can someone point me to an existing thread or explain where UNT stands right now in terms of its schedule?
      I know A&M has cancelled all non-conference games this season but assuming C-USA doesn't shut down this season are we still expecting to play our non-conference opponents as it stands today?
      SMU, Houston, HBU?
      If we are still planning on playing everyone on schedule besides A&M, this season doesn't seem completely lost as I had once thought. As long as CUSA doesn't cancel, I feel pretty good about our success in the upcoming season.
    • By Christopher Walker
      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
  • Who's Online   24 Members, 4 Anonymous, 137 Guests (See full list)

  • Images



×
×
  • 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.