Jump to content

SportsChatPlace UNT vs UAB

AustinFromUNT

By AustinFromUNT
in Mean Green Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

NeonGreen Newbie

NeonGreen

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, greenminer said:

UAB leads the conference is rushing/game.

Someone make me feel better about this.

Against Alabama A&M, Ball State, and Coastal Carolina. Feel better now?

  • Upvote 5
MGNation92 Veteran

MGNation92

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, greenminer said:

UAB leads the conference is rushing/game.

Someone make me feel better about this.

Our DLine has contained the run very well this season. Up until the fourth quarter in Iowa where they were completely worn down.

  • Downvote 1
UNTFan23 Community Regular

UNTFan23

Posted
Posted

North Texas has yet to allow a rusher to gain more than 100 yards in a game. Iowa game the closet with three players in the 70 yard range.

 

Opponent FirstName LastName NetYards  
Iowa Toren Young 78
Iowa I. Kelly-Martin 74
SMU Xavier Jones 74
Iowa James Butler 74
Lamar Kendrick King 37
SMU Ke'Mon Freeman 31
Iowa Akrum Wadley 24
Lamar D. Colbert Jr. 14
Lamar Myles Wanza 13
Lamar Andrew Allen 12
Lamar Kirkland Banks 10
  • Downvote 2
Ben Gooding Newbie

Ben Gooding

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, UNTFan23 said:

North Texas has yet to allow a rusher to gain more than 100 yards in a game. Iowa game the closet with three players in the 70 yard range.

 

Opponent FirstName LastName NetYards  
Iowa Toren Young 78
Iowa I. Kelly-Martin 74
SMU Xavier Jones 74
Iowa James Butler 74
Lamar Kendrick King 37
SMU Ke'Mon Freeman 31
Iowa Akrum Wadley 24
Lamar D. Colbert Jr. 14
Lamar Myles Wanza 13
Lamar Andrew Allen 12
Lamar Kirkland Banks 10

Not sure this graph is something to compliment. It really just means that Wadley would've had 150 had he not been injured. 

  • Upvote 1
UNTFan23 Community Regular

UNTFan23

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Ben Gooding said:

Not sure this graph is something to compliment. It really just means that Wadley would've had 150 had he not been injured. 

We can't help it if the other team pulls their player for whatever reason.

  • Downvote 2
Ben Gooding Newbie

Ben Gooding

Posted
Posted
Just now, UNTFan23 said:

We can't help it if the other team pulls their player for whatever reason.

Not the point. Iowa could've had a 100 yard back with ease vs us. That's the point. They end the game with 3 guys with 70+ and their best player/RB only has 24 due to injury. 

  • Downvote 1
UNTFan23 Community Regular

UNTFan23

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Ben Gooding said:

Not the point. Iowa could've had a 100 yard back with ease vs us. That's the point. They end the game with 3 guys with 70+ and their best player/RB only has 24 due to injury. 

True, they could have but they didn't. There isn't a special column on the stat sheet to tell everyone that a player was pulled because he was injured, or the coach wanted to rest him, or whatever.

You, as an individual, can discount every single stat that exists for whatever reason but the fact still stands ... there has not been a single opposing rusher that has run for more than 100 yards.

Edited by UNTFan23
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 3
Aldo Rookie

Aldo

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, greenminer said:

UAB leads the conference is rushing/game.

Someone make me feel better about this.

North Texas leads the conference in passing/game

and in total offense/game

North Texas leads the conference in scoring/game

North Texas leads the conference in - wait a minute - yards per play??

and only behind UAB rushing/game

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Mean Green 93-98 Grand Master

Mean Green 93-98

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Ben Gooding said:

Not sure this graph is something to compliment. It really just means that Wadley would've had 150 had he not been injured. 

Not so sure about that at all.  It looked like the D came prepared to stop Wadley.  It was when other backs came in with a different skillset that you started seeing them pop off longer runs into the second level and beyond.

MeanGreenTexan Grand Master

MeanGreenTexan

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

Not so sure about that at all.  It looked like the D came prepared to stop Wadley.  It was when other backs came in with a different skillset that you started seeing them pop off longer runs into the second level and beyond.

I really think it was because Wadley get benched for "taunting".  He just got finished shredding the defense, and likely would have kept going.

  • Downvote 1
Mean Green 93-98 Grand Master

Mean Green 93-98

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

I really think it was because Wadley get benched for "taunting".  He just got finished shredding the defense, and likely would have kept going.

If you look at the box score, the other backs had a far better per-carry average.  It was obvious watching them play, too.  In fairness, Wadley was going against a fresher defense.  But to say that Wadley was guaranteed to match the other backs combined is false.

  • Upvote 1
Ben Gooding Newbie

Ben Gooding

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

If you look at the box score, the other backs had a far better per-carry average.  It was obvious watching them play, too.  In fairness, Wadley was going against a fresher defense.  But to say that Wadley was guaranteed to match the other backs combined is false.

It's not false at all. It's an opinion, much like yours. But it's much closer to factual than yours. 3 backs split carries, mainly due to injury, but the best one wouldn't have punched out 100 yards when the other 3 splitting topped 70 a piece? Your logic makes 0 sense. Just homerism. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 5
Mean Green 93-98 Grand Master

Mean Green 93-98

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Ben Gooding said:

It's not false at all. It's an opinion, much like yours. But it's much closer to factual than yours. 3 backs split carries, mainly due to injury, but the best one wouldn't have punched out 100 yards when the other 3 splitting topped 70 a piece? Your logic makes 0 sense. Just homerism. 

You didn't present it as an opinion at all.  You said, "It really just means that Wadley would've had 150 had he not been injured."  You didn't say "probably"; you didn't say, "I think"; you claimed a graph proved something that it did not prove.

And no, I didn't say Wadley wouldn't have had 100 yards.  I just said that your supposed knowledge that he would have had 150 yards was unverifiable.

  • Upvote 1
Ben Gooding Newbie

Ben Gooding

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

You didn't present it as an opinion at all.  You said, "It really just means that Wadley would've had 150 had he not been injured."  You didn't say "probably"; you didn't say, "I think"; you claimed a graph proved something that it did not prove.

And no, I didn't say Wadley wouldn't have had 100 yards.  I just said that your supposed knowledge that he would have had 150 yards was unverifiable.

Safe to say. I wouldn't put money on it, but safe to assume he'd flirt with that number. Either way, they rolled up 238. 

greenminer Grand Master

greenminer

Posted
Posted

I'm not gonna read the entire thread.

It appears that we could stop the run, but we get gassed because we can't get our way on third down plays.  Offensively, we're not converting them.  Defensively we are not stopping them.

Everything just starts to add up in a very bad way for our defense.

UNTLifer Grand Master

UNTLifer

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Ben Gooding said:

It's not false at all. It's an opinion, much like yours. But it's much closer to factual than yours. 3 backs split carries, mainly due to injury, but the best one wouldn't have punched out 100 yards when the other 3 splitting topped 70 a piece? Your logic makes 0 sense. Just homerism. 

Awesome.  You criticize him for posting his opinion, then post your own and claim it is superior.  And you wonder why people get tired of your constant b.s.

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 1
Ben Gooding Newbie

Ben Gooding

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

Awesome.  You criticize him for posting his opinion, then post your own and claim it is superior.  And you wonder why people get tired of your constant b.s.

Superior, no. Closer to reality, how could you not agree. 

And you can f*ck off and block me any old day now. Oh, and I don't wonder about that at all. Silly of you to think so. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 5
MGNation92 Veteran

MGNation92

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Texas Stranger said:

Wadley's long almost-TD wasn't a run, it was a wheel route that wasn't covered.

Yeah against Josh Wheeler of all people. I understand it's a zone blitz and you're trying to cause misdirection but good lord why do we have our pass rushing defensive end in coverage? So stupid

Aldo Rookie

Aldo

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, MGNation92 said:

Yeah against Josh Wheeler of all people. I understand it's a zone blitz and you're trying to cause misdirection but good lord why do we have our pass rushing defensive end in coverage? So stupid

Not sure what happened there. It looked like Wheeler had a fake blitz which allowed the other defender to shoot the B gap and Wheeler didn't time it right or he just didn't expect a wheel route.

 

MGNation92 Veteran

MGNation92

Posted
Posted
Just now, Aldo said:

Not sure what happened there. It looked like Wheeler had a fake blitz which allowed the other defender to shoot the B gap and Wheeler didn't time it right or he just didn't expect a wheel route.

 

Yeah I see what you mean. Made the tackle pay attention to Wheeler long enough to shoot the gap. It looks like they've got 1 deep on the back end too. Seems like it would've been a better idea to shade the safety over on the back end and play cover 0 but that's just me.

Aldo Rookie

Aldo

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, MGNation92 said:

Yeah I see what you mean. Made the tackle pay attention to Wheeler long enough to shoot the gap. It looks like they've got 1 deep on the back end too. Seems like it would've been a better idea to shade the safety over on the back end and play cover 0 but that's just me.

The wheel route was on the weak side so I understand why the McClain covered the far side. We brought 5 on that play and had two defenders ready to strike, but we were too slow. I think we should have taken what we could get instead of attacking so much. We keep getting exposed attacking on 3rd down after a successful 2nd down attack.

It was a great play opening the field up for Wadley, but Wheeler should have reacted to the wheel route quicker

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Tell a friend

    Love GoMeanGreen.com? Tell a friend!

  • What's going on Mean Green?

    1. 22

      Eric Morris needs to go

      I am torn on what to do with EM, but I know he needs to go. Many say we need a HC with head coaching experience at the FBS level. I know there are HCs at other FBS programs doing more with less, but would they come to a place where historically it's difficult to win consistently and risk it all if their eye is ultimately on a power conference job? Then if you take a P4 conference former HC, they have most likely been fired and they may not get the mojo back like Tom Herman at FAU or Charlie Strong. So, if that is the case where do we go? Many are saying no FCS HC or no more coordinators who have not been a HC at this level. Again where do we go if not those type of guys? My thought is that you may have to hire that guy that this board has been reluctant to go after. That's the guys who have had issues somewhere else and that's why they are no longer where they are. Lane Kiffin had issues and FAU gave him the chance to resurrect his career. Alabama gave Sarkisian (spelling) a chance to resurrect his career and he is doing good things at Texas. We have tried a lot of things, but we have not tried that route of HCs with some skeletons in their past. I feel that if that coach wins, people will forget about their past. I am sure people at Texas have forgotten about what went down with Sark at USC. Just my opinion because we have been striking out for a long time on HCs.
      Venson in Mean Green Football
    2. 36

      I hope we lose to Temple

      Geeze yall are so f’ing negative all damn time
      NTSU52 in Mean Green Football
    3. 8

      In case you’re a Yeti collector

      YETI has a collegiate collection. I didn't get a chance to snag one of the above, so I'm hoping that UNT will become available on their website. Eventually?
      greenminer in Mean Green Football
    4. 36

      I hope we lose to Temple

      You mean the playbook that famously can be drawn out on a napkin?
      greenminer in Mean Green Football
    5. 22

      Eric Morris needs to go

      I'm not sure what the path is for Cobbs long term. A lot of us would absolutely love to have him in a HC role in Denton, but we want to see him gain HC experience first. Do we take a chance and give him that crown? Do we watch him leave, and possibly not return...ever?
      greenminer in Mean Green Football

  • Popular Contributors

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      15,479
    • Most Online
      1,865
    meangreen0015
    Newest Member
    meangreen0015
    Joined

  • Most Points

    1. 1
      El Paso Eagle
      El Paso Eagle
      166,969
    2. 2
      NT80
      NT80
      129,958
    3. 3
      KingDL1
      KingDL1
      128,415
    4. 4
      greenminer
      greenminer
      118,595
    5. 5
      TheReal_jayD
      TheReal_jayD
      104,984

  • Biggest Gamblers

    1. 1
      EdtheEagle
      EdtheEagle
      26,589,381
    2. 2
      UNTLifer
      UNTLifer
      4,156,819
    3. 3
      untphd
      untphd
      779,513
    4. 4
      flyonthewall
      flyonthewall
      670,422
    5. 5
      3_n_out
      3_n_out
      578,480
    6. 6
      SteaminWillieBeamin
    7. 7
      cousin oliver
      cousin oliver
      448,120
    8. 8
      meangreenfaninno
    9. 9
      South Texas Green
    10. 10
      outoftown
      outoftown
      314,541

WE BELIEVE IN THE MEAN GREEN!

News

Recruiting

×
×
  • 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.