SoCon 'Measurables' Roster Analysis / Rankings

[FUBeAR]

Now that Samford has (finally) posted a 2014 roster, I was able to complete the analysis of roster 'measurables' that I posted (partially) on another thread.

One interesting note on Samford's newly-posted roster - it seems that roughly 2/3 of their returning players gained EXACTLY 10 lbs since last season. That must certainly be a high-precision nutrition and strength & conditioning program they have there to be able to put weight on their players with such consistency.

Anyway - if any conclusions can be drawn from this type of (heavily flawed, IMHO) analysis that coaches seem to love when recruiting players & fans love to talk about (usually without actually running the numbers); Samford should dominate the SoCon in 2014, VMI will GREATLY surprise everyone, Wofford should return to contention for the championship, Chattownmocs will commit hari kari, Furman will not be as good as expected, and Mercer has little chance of being even close to competitive in any SoCon games.



OVERALL – AVG POS RANK AVG'D







TEAM
HT RNK
WT RNK
EXP RNK
AVG RNK







Samford
1.89
2.00
2.56
2.15
1






VMI
2.33
4.22
2.78
3.11
2






Wofford
2.78
2.44
5.33
3.52
3






Chattanooga
2.22
3.78
4.89
3.63
4






Furman
2.11
5.56
5.33
4.33
5






Citadel
4.63
4.13
4.63
4.46
6






WCU
3.89
5.67
4.56
4.71
7






Mercer
6.00
6.67
4.67
5.78
8


















TEAM
POS
HT
WT*
EXP
HT RNK
WT RNK
EXP RNK
AVG RNK
RANK


Samford
OL
76
291
1.40
1
2
2
1.67
1


VMI
OL
76
295
1.29
1
1
3
1.67
2


Furman
OL
75
276
1.63
3
5
1
3.00
3


Chattanooga
OL
75
284
1.20
3
4
5
4.00
4


Wofford
OL
75
287
0.83
3
3
8
4.67
5


Mercer
OL
74
276
1.18
7
5
6
6.00
6


WCU
OL
75
271
0.88
3
8
7
6.00
7


Citadel
OL
73
275
1.21
8
7
4
6.33
8














AVG
OL
75
282




















TEAM
POS
HT
WT*
EXP
HT RNK
WT RNK
EXP RNK
AVG RNK
RANK


Chattanooga
TE
75
236
1.30
2
1
1
1.33
1


Wofford
TE
75
234
1.00
2
2
5
3.00
2


VMI
TE
76
226
0.83
1
3
6
3.33
3


Samford
TE
75
227
1.08
2
7
2
3.67
4


Mercer
TE
74
217
1.10
6
3
4
4.33
5


WCU
TE
74
222
1.10
6
5
3
4.67
6


Furman
TE
75
222
0.60
2
5
7
4.67
7


Citadel
TE






n/a
n/a














AVG

75
226




















TEAM
POS
HT*
WT
EXP
HT RNK
WT RNK
EXP RNK
AVG RNK
RANK


Wofford
WR
72
190
1.29
4
2
3
3.00
1


Citadel
WR
73
198
0.83
1
1
7
3.00
2


VMI
WR
72
183
1.38
4
5
1
3.33
3


WCU
WR
72
186
1.13
4
3
4
3.67
4


Furman
WR
73
182
1.12
1
6
5
4.00
5


Samford
WR
72
186
0.97
4
3
6
4.33
6


Chattanooga
WR
73
182
0.70
1
6
8
5.00
7


Mercer
WR
71
179
1.35
8
8
2
6.00
8














AVG

72
186




















TEAM
POS
HT
WT*
EXP
HT RNK
WT RNK
EXP RNK
AVG RNK
RANK


VMI
RB
71
204
1.75
1
2
3
2.00
1


Chattanooga
RB
70
203
2.00
2
3
2
2.33
2


Furman
RB
70
206
1.22
2
1
7
3.33
3


Wofford
RB
70
196
1.45
2
4
5
3.67
4


Citadel
RB
70
196
1.25
2
4
6
4.00
5


Samford
RB
69
197
1.28
6
7
1
4.67
6


WCU
RB
69
189
1.60
6
6
4
5.33
7


Mercer
RB
69
186
1.00
6
7
8
7.00
8














AVG

70
197




















TEAM
POS
HT*
WT
EXP
HT RNK
WT RNK
EXP RNK
AVG RNK
RANK


Samford
QB
74
222
1.00
2
1
1
1.33
1


VMI
QB
75
194
1.00
1
6
1
2.67
2


Citadel
QB
72
199
1.00
6
4
1
3.67
3


WCU
QB
72
195
1.00
6
5
1
4.00
4


Wofford
QB
73
211
0.90
5
2
5
4.00
5


Chattanooga
QB
74
205
0.75
2
3
7
4.00
6


Furman
QB
74
187
0.42
2
7
8
5.67
7


Mercer
QB
72
187
0.88
6
7
6
6.33
8














AVG

73
198




















TEAM
POS
HT
WT*
EXP
HT RNK
WT RNK
EXP RNK
AVG RNK
RANK


Samford
DL
74
259
1.79
2
1
1
1.33
1


Wofford
DL
73
259
1.46
5
1
2
2.67
2


Chattanooga
DL
75
252
1.43
1
5
3
3.00
3


Furman
DL
74
251
1.41
2
6
4
4.00
4


WCU
DL
74
257
0.87
2
3
8
4.33
5


Mercer
DL
73
253
1.00
5
4
6
5.00
6


Citadel
DL
73
244
1.16
5
8
5
6.00
7


VMI
DL
73
246
0.96
5
7
7
6.33
8














AVG

74
253




















TEAM
POS
HT
WT*
EXP
HT RNK
WT RNK
EXP RNK
AVG RNK
RANK


Samford
LB
73
224
1.21
1
1
2
1.33
1


VMI
LB
73
222
1.43
1
3
1
1.67
2


Furman
LB
73
208
1.18
1
8
3
4.00
3


Citadel
LB
72
224
1.17
7
1
4
4.00
4


WCU
LB
73
213
1.13
1
6
5
4.00
5


Wofford
LB
73
217
0.74
1
4
8
4.33
6


Mercer
LB
73
209
0.97
1
7
6
4.67
7


Chattanooga
LB
72
214
0.95
7
5
7
6.33
8














AVG

73
216




















TEAM
POS
HT*
WT
EXP
HT RNK
WT RNK
EXP RNK
AVG RNK
RANK


Samford
DB
72
197
1.79
1
1
1
1.00
1


Wofford
DB
72
189
1.03
1
2
5
2.67
2


Citadel
DB
72
189
1.00
1
2
6
3.00
3


VMI
DB
71
184
1.35
5
6
2
4.33
4


Chattanooga
DB
72
185
0.69
1
4
8
4.33
5


Furman
DB
71
185
0.70
5
4
7
5.33
6


WCU
DB
71
179
1.07
5
8
4
5.67
7


Mercer
DB
70
181
1.09
8
7
3
6.00
8














AVG

71
186




















TEAM
POS
HT
WT*
EXP
HT RNK
WT RNK
EXP RNK
AVG RNK
RANK


Samford
O
73
228
1.17
1
4
1
2.00
1


VMI
O
74
229
1.28
1
3
2
2.00
2


Chattanooga
O
74
233
1.14
1
2
5
2.67
3


Furman
O
73
222
1.16
4
5
2
3.67
4


Wofford
O
73
238
1.04
4
1
8
4.33
5


WCU
O
73
223
1.06
4
5
7
5.33
6


Citadel
O
72
223
1.09
7
5
6
6.00
7


Mercer
O
72
220
1.19
7
8
4
6.33
8














AVG

73
227
1.14



















TEAM
POS
HT
WT*
EXP
HT RNK
WT RNK
EXP RNK
AVG RNK
RANK


Samford
D
73
231
1.62
1
2
1
1.33
1


Furman
D
72
212
1.04
1
1
3
1.67
2


Wofford
D
73
219
1.04
1
2
4
2.33
3


VMI
D
73
215
1.27
1
7
2
3.33
4


Chattanooga
D
73
219
1.05
1
2
7
3.33
5


WCU
D
73
218
1.04
1
5
6
4.00
6


Citadel
D
72
217
1.10
7
5
5
5.67
7


Mercer
D
72
215
1.01
7
7
8
7.33
8














AVG

73
218
1.15

[lionsrking2]

Are you averaging just starters or everybody on the roster?

[FUBeAR]

Everyone - C'mon, Samford just posted their 1st 2014 roster - a few have 2 deeps somewhere on their website, but with the full data available, I was going for the most comprehensive analysis, not necessarily the most predictive.

[lionsrking2]

Everyone - C'mon, Samford just posted their 1st 2014 roster - a few have 2 deeps somewhere on their website, but with the full data available, I was going for the most comprehensive analysis, not necessarily the most predictive.

I hear ya, though not sure it's productive to average in kids who have zero shot of seeing the field.

[smallcollegefbfan]

Now that Samford has (finally) posted a 2014 roster, I was able to complete the analysis of roster 'measurables' that I posted (partially) on another thread.

One interesting note on Samford's newly-posted roster - it seems that roughly 2/3 of their returning players gained EXACTLY 10 lbs since last season. That must certainly be a high-precision nutrition and strength & conditioning program they have there to be able to put weight on their players with such consistency.

Anyway - if any conclusions can be drawn from this type of (heavily flawed, IMHO) analysis that coaches seem to love when recruiting players & fans love to talk about (usually without actually running the numbers); Samford should dominate the SoCon in 2014, VMI will GREATLY surprise everyone, Wofford should return to contention for the championship, Chattownmocs will commit hari kari, Furman will not be as good as expected, and Mercer has little chance of being even close to competitive in any SoCon games.



OVERALL – AVG POS RANK AVG'D







TEAM
HT RNK
WT RNK
EXP RNK
AVG RNK







Samford
1.89
2.00
2.56
2.15
1






VMI
2.33
4.22
2.78
3.11
2






Wofford
2.78
2.44
5.33
3.52
3






Chattanooga
2.22
3.78
4.89
3.63
4






Furman
2.11
5.56
5.33
4.33
5






Citadel
4.63
4.13
4.63
4.46
6






WCU
3.89
5.67
4.56
4.71
7






Mercer
6.00
6.67
4.67
5.78
8


















TEAM
POS
HT
WT*
EXP
HT RNK
WT RNK
EXP RNK
AVG RNK
RANK


Samford
OL
76
291
1.40
1
2
2
1.67
1


VMI
OL
76
295
1.29
1
1
3
1.67
2


Furman
OL
75
276
1.63
3
5
1
3.00
3


Chattanooga
OL
75
284
1.20
3
4
5
4.00
4


Wofford
OL
75
287
0.83
3
3
8
4.67
5


Mercer
OL
74
276
1.18
7
5
6
6.00
6


WCU
OL
75
271
0.88
3
8
7
6.00
7


Citadel
OL
73
275
1.21
8
7
4
6.33
8














AVG
OL
75
282




















TEAM
POS
HT
WT*
EXP
HT RNK
WT RNK
EXP RNK
AVG RNK
RANK


Chattanooga
TE
75
236
1.30
2
1
1
1.33
1


Wofford
TE
75
234
1.00
2
2
5
3.00
2


VMI
TE
76
226
0.83
1
3
6
3.33
3


Samford
TE
75
227
1.08
2
7
2
3.67
4


Mercer
TE
74
217
1.10
6
3
4
4.33
5


WCU
TE
74
222
1.10
6
5
3
4.67
6


Furman
TE
75
222
0.60
2
5
7
4.67
7


Citadel
TE






n/a
n/a














AVG

75
226




















TEAM
POS
HT*
WT
EXP
HT RNK
WT RNK
EXP RNK
AVG RNK
RANK


Wofford
WR
72
190
1.29
4
2
3
3.00
1


Citadel
WR
73
198
0.83
1
1
7
3.00
2


VMI
WR
72
183
1.38
4
5
1
3.33
3


WCU
WR
72
186
1.13
4
3
4
3.67
4


Furman
WR
73
182
1.12
1
6
5
4.00
5


Samford
WR
72
186
0.97
4
3
6
4.33
6


Chattanooga
WR
73
182
0.70
1
6
8
5.00
7


Mercer
WR
71
179
1.35
8
8
2
6.00
8














AVG

72
186




















TEAM
POS
HT
WT*
EXP
HT RNK
WT RNK
EXP RNK
AVG RNK
RANK


VMI
RB
71
204
1.75
1
2
3
2.00
1


Chattanooga
RB
70
203
2.00
2
3
2
2.33
2


Furman
RB
70
206
1.22
2
1
7
3.33
3


Wofford
RB
70
196
1.45
2
4
5
3.67
4


Citadel
RB
70
196
1.25
2
4
6
4.00
5


Samford
RB
69
197
1.28
6
7
1
4.67
6


WCU
RB
69
189
1.60
6
6
4
5.33
7


Mercer
RB
69
186
1.00
6
7
8
7.00
8














AVG

70
197




















TEAM
POS
HT*
WT
EXP
HT RNK
WT RNK
EXP RNK
AVG RNK
RANK


Samford
QB
74
222
1.00
2
1
1
1.33
1


VMI
QB
75
194
1.00
1
6
1
2.67
2


Citadel
QB
72
199
1.00
6
4
1
3.67
3


WCU
QB
72
195
1.00
6
5
1
4.00
4


Wofford
QB
73
211
0.90
5
2
5
4.00
5


Chattanooga
QB
74
205
0.75
2
3
7
4.00
6


Furman
QB
74
187
0.42
2
7
8
5.67
7


Mercer
QB
72
187
0.88
6
7
6
6.33
8














AVG

73
198




















TEAM
POS
HT
WT*
EXP
HT RNK
WT RNK
EXP RNK
AVG RNK
RANK


Samford
DL
74
259
1.79
2
1
1
1.33
1


Wofford
DL
73
259
1.46
5
1
2
2.67
2


Chattanooga
DL
75
252
1.43
1
5
3
3.00
3


Furman
DL
74
251
1.41
2
6
4
4.00
4


WCU
DL
74
257
0.87
2
3
8
4.33
5


Mercer
DL
73
253
1.00
5
4
6
5.00
6


Citadel
DL
73
244
1.16
5
8
5
6.00
7


VMI
DL
73
246
0.96
5
7
7
6.33
8














AVG

74
253




















TEAM
POS
HT
WT*
EXP
HT RNK
WT RNK
EXP RNK
AVG RNK
RANK


Samford
LB
73
224
1.21
1
1
2
1.33
1


VMI
LB
73
222
1.43
1
3
1
1.67
2


Furman
LB
73
208
1.18
1
8
3
4.00
3


Citadel
LB
72
224
1.17
7
1
4
4.00
4


WCU
LB
73
213
1.13
1
6
5
4.00
5


Wofford
LB
73
217
0.74
1
4
8
4.33
6


Mercer
LB
73
209
0.97
1
7
6
4.67
7


Chattanooga
LB
72
214
0.95
7
5
7
6.33
8














AVG

73
216




















TEAM
POS
HT*
WT
EXP
HT RNK
WT RNK
EXP RNK
AVG RNK
RANK


Samford
DB
72
197
1.79
1
1
1
1.00
1


Wofford
DB
72
189
1.03
1
2
5
2.67
2


Citadel
DB
72
189
1.00
1
2
6
3.00
3


VMI
DB
71
184
1.35
5
6
2
4.33
4


Chattanooga
DB
72
185
0.69
1
4
8
4.33
5


Furman
DB
71
185
0.70
5
4
7
5.33
6


WCU
DB
71
179
1.07
5
8
4
5.67
7


Mercer
DB
70
181
1.09
8
7
3
6.00
8














AVG

71
186




















TEAM
POS
HT
WT*
EXP
HT RNK
WT RNK
EXP RNK
AVG RNK
RANK


Samford
O
73
228
1.17
1
4
1
2.00
1


VMI
O
74
229
1.28
1
3
2
2.00
2


Chattanooga
O
74
233
1.14
1
2
5
2.67
3


Furman
O
73
222
1.16
4
5
2
3.67
4


Wofford
O
73
238
1.04
4
1
8
4.33
5


WCU
O
73
223
1.06
4
5
7
5.33
6


Citadel
O
72
223
1.09
7
5
6
6.00
7


Mercer
O
72
220
1.19
7
8
4
6.33
8














AVG

73
227
1.14



















TEAM
POS
HT
WT*
EXP
HT RNK
WT RNK
EXP RNK
AVG RNK
RANK


Samford
D
73
231
1.62
1
2
1
1.33
1


Furman
D
72
212
1.04
1
1
3
1.67
2


Wofford
D
73
219
1.04
1
2
4
2.33
3


VMI
D
73
215
1.27
1
7
2
3.33
4


Chattanooga
D
73
219
1.05
1
2
7
3.33
5


WCU
D
73
218
1.04
1
5
6
4.00
6


Citadel
D
72
217
1.10
7
5
5
5.67
7


Mercer
D
72
215
1.01
7
7
8
7.33
8














AVG

73
218
1.15









VMI brings in a lot of big guys but most of them are really stiff and slow. I did their tape in the spring and they have a big 6'8 OT who is a decent SoCon player but he won't sniff the NFL other than a tryout in mini-camp or a preseason game (because NFL teams need 90 bodies). You would think a 6'8 OT has a shot at getting drafted but you would also think if he were good that a top level FCS or even a top level FBS team would take them. VMI has a lot of tall guys, and while it's improved under Woods, they will never get the talent to be a top 2 team in the SoCon. They have just too many restrictions and hurdles in the recruiting game to accomplish that.

[citdog]

With teams that run the option height and weight of the OL is meaningless. They want smaller and quicker lineman to who can cut block the opposition. Also their receivers are usually bigger because 85% of the time they are blocking.

[PaladinFan]

With teams that run the option height and weight of the OL is meaningless. They want smaller and quicker lineman to who can cut block the opposition. Also their receivers are usually bigger because 85% of the time they are blocking.

I thought it was interesting that the two biggest and most experienced WR corps belonged to Wofford and the Citadel, neither of which throw many passes. You are right, though, those guys are predominately blockers their entire career.

[SU DOG]

Interesting and lots of work IMO, but as has been stated "not predictive". Also, I think that citdog made a couple of extremely good points. One thing, however, I hope this data is not as flawed as the snide comment about the Samford weight gains. I posted the differences of 16 of our primary players on our site, and 2 of those were exactly 10 pounds. Reading this made me scan our ENTIRE roster and I find FIVE players that were listed as increasing exactly 10 pounds - that's not quite 2/3 of our players. LOL!

[FormerPokeCenter]

If there anyway for this study to quantify speed and strength?? I'd much rather have a fast, strong guy, than guy who's merely big and tall....

[walliver]

I don't think an analysis of the sort is at all useful without figuring schmeckel size into the equation.

[citdog]

I don't think an analysis of the sort is sf all useful without figuring schmeckel size into the equation.

Well then The Citadel will garner all the first place votes with vmi bringing up the rear.

[Milktruck74]

You can't quantify heart.....and at the FCS level that can mean much more than size and experience. Over the years, my Mocs have had some of the most talented rosters in the league, but the heart was lacking. So, smaller slower teams that just want it more usually come out on top. The middle of the SoCon has always been a gritty unpredictable group and many times the better team on paper ends up in the L column in Sunday's paper...... That said, this is interesting.

[PaladinFan]

I don't think anyone suggests that pure measurables will win the day. Gotta play the game.

[FUBeAR]

Interesting and lots of work IMO, but as has been stated "not predictive". Also, I think that citdog made a couple of extremely good points. One thing, however, I hope this data is not as flawed as the snide comment about the Samford weight gains. I posted the differences of 16 of our primary players on our site, and 2 of those were exactly 10 pounds. Reading this made me scan our ENTIRE roster and I find FIVE players that were listed as increasing exactly 10 pounds - that's not quite 2/3 of our players. LOL!

So...I said "...it seems that roughly 2/3 of their returning players gained EXACTLY 10 lbs since last season." What I meant is that when I was updating the returning players weights, I noticed there were A LOT that I was increasing by 10 lbs...and my data bears that out...39 of the 69 players returning had changes to their weights...of those 39 the partial distribution of changes is as follows:



LB Change
# of this Change
% of this change


10
7
18%


15
5
13%


20
3
8%


12
3
8%



All other instances of lbs changed were for only 1 or 2 players. So, "EXACTLY 10 lbs" was certainly the MODE of the changes. So...you are correct, I was not precise in my statement (snide or not; your interpretation) in that I did not say returning players WITH CHANGES and I overstated by a good bit those with exactly 10 lb changes...but I DID say and mean "seems." I apologize for overstating the inference I drew from making the adjustments. Anyway....there was 1 player with a particularly interesting gain...



Albert
Mitchell
190
Albert Mitchell
250
60



Curious - Typo or just some big eatin' & liftin'??? (BTW - I'm not, snidely or otherwise, saying it's impossible to gain that much in 1 year - I am very close to a player who went from reporting to college #1 at 256, returned after 7 months at 215, and 2 years later is now 292 @ college #2 - with no major illnesses nor 'juice' impacting any of the changes in those numbers)

BTW - Since you're fact checkin' me - the 7 players with 10 lb gains in my data were Hamilton, Hudson, Peranich, Pettway, Porter, Rafferty, and Smith

[dungeonjoe]

Poke at the FUBear, there is a 98.6429 percent chance you will get fact-ed up (one side and down the other).

[dungeonjoe]

You can't quantify heart.....and at the FCS level that can mean much more than size and experience. Over the years, my Mocs have had some of the most talented rosters in the league, but the heart was lacking. So, smaller slower teams that just want it more usually come out on top. The middle of the SoCon has always been a gritty unpredictable group and many times the better team on paper ends up in the L column in Sunday's paper...... That said, this is interesting.

Great post. It is what I love about college football in general and Wofford football in particular.

[PaladinFan]

Great post. It is what I love about college football in general and Wofford football in particular.

Given the choice, I'd rather be gritty, unpredictable, and bigger than the other guy.

[SU DOG]

So...I said "...it seems that roughly 2/3 of their returning players gained EXACTLY 10 lbs since last season." What I meant is that when I was updating the returning players weights, I noticed there were A LOT that I was increasing by 10 lbs...and my data bears that out...39 of the 69 players returning had changes to their weights...of those 39 the partial distribution of changes is as follows:



LB Change

# of this Change

% of this change



10

7

18%



15

5

13%



20

3

8%



12

3

8%




All other instances of lbs changed were for only 1 or 2 players. So, "EXACTLY 10 lbs" was certainly the MODE of the changes. So...you are correct, I was not precise in my statement (snide or not; your interpretation) in that I did not say returning players WITH CHANGES and I overstated by a good bit those with exactly 10 lb changes...but I DID say and mean "seems." I apologize for overstating the inference I drew from making the adjustments. Anyway....there was 1 player with a particularly interesting gain...



Albert

Mitchell

190

Albert Mitchell

250

60




Curious - Typo or just some big eatin' & liftin'??? (BTW - I'm not, snidely or otherwise, saying it's impossible to gain that much in 1 year - I am very close to a player who went from reporting to college #1 at 256, returned after 7 months at 215, and 2 years later is now 292 @ college #2 - with no major illnesses nor 'juice' impacting any of the changes in those numbers)

BTW - Since you're fact checkin' me - the 7 players with 10 lb gains in my data were Hamilton, Hudson, Peranich, Pettway, Porter, Rafferty, and Smith

No problem FUBeAR, and I stand corrected on there being 7 with 10 lb weight gains. Still a long ways from 2/3 of the roster, which was my point. I did check on QB Albert Mitchell, and that is definitely a typo, as his correct weight is 195. What I really like about your work is seeing Samford(predictive or not) on top of so many of your categories. LOL

[FUBeAR]

Given the choice, I'd rather be gritty, unpredictable, and bigger than the other guy.

At least 5 of those 13 SoCon Championships that Furman has won were won with players who were shorter, lighter, slower, and less athletic than any other team in the SoCon. They also were better football players...and plenty pissed off that people didn't recognize THAT they were...BECAUSE they were an inch shorter, 10 lbs lighter, and .1 slower than the other guys. And they played like it! I'll trade height (especially), size, and speed for the guy who HATES to lose and plays with a chip on his shoulder every time. The guys who 'measure up,' and are playing FCS football, in most (not all) cases, in my experience, just aren't quite pissed off enough for my taste.

[dungeonjoe]

At least 5 of those 13 SoCon Championships that Furman has won were won with players who were shorter, lighter, slower, and less athletic than any other team in the SoCon. They also were better football players...and plenty pissed off that people didn't recognize THAT they were...BECAUSE they were an inch shorter, 10 lbs lighter, and .1 slower than the other guys. And they played like it! I'll trade height (especially), size, and speed for the guy who HATES to lose and plays with a chip on his shoulder every time. The guys who 'measure up,' and are playing FCS football, in most (not all) cases, in my experience, just aren't quite pissed off enough for my taste.

yes, yes, yes! It never gets old when a smaller, slower Wofford team beats the favored Mountaineers and Eagles. I would add discipline to that list, FUBear. If a team can add that factor, look out.

I think the intangibles you mention are overlooked way too often.

[PaladinFan]

yes, yes, yes! It never gets old when a smaller, slower Wofford team beats the favored Mountaineers and Eagles. I would add discipline to that list, FUBear. If a team can add that factor, look out.

I think the intangibles you mention are overlooked way too often.

My only point is that I would prefer to be gritty, disciplined, and bigger and stronger.

For instance, if you go to the :43 mark here (http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=10882695) you can watch the gritty, disciplined, and built-like-a-buick Dakota Dozier drive Wofford's gritty and disciplined DT three gaps over onto his backside. Again, I love gritty and tough. I really love gritty, tough, and big.

[dungeonjoe]

My only point is that I would prefer to be gritty, disciplined, and bigger and stronger.

For instance, if you go to the :43 mark here (http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=10882695) you can watch the gritty, disciplined, and built-like-a-buick Dakota Dozier drive Wofford's gritty and disciplined DT three gaps over onto his backside. Again, I love gritty and tough. I really love gritty, tough, and big.
.

[PaladinFan]

I can see now where the new SoCon arrogance is coming from. I made a point of not making it about the furple, but you in turn had to make it so with some clip. I can point to several of the times that Wofford's BreitensteiN ran over the Furman defense.
The difference between us is that I can see the larger picture of the SoCon, you unfortunately view the world through those jaded purple tinted spectacles. Good for you.

For pete's sake man, its not arrogance. Britenstein was a tough runner and strong as a bull ox.

The only point I made, and it was made as a joke, is that I would prefer a smart, tough, disciplined player that is also bigger and stronger than his opponent. How is that arrogant? Wouldn't you?

Smarts, toughness, grittiness are all intangibles that can easily be manifested on the football field. Those attributes are great, until you meet a player that has similar attributes and is also bigger and faster than you are. Dozier, Britenstein, Edwards, whomever.

[dungeonjoe]

For pete's sake man, its not arrogance. Britenstein was a tough runner and strong as a bull ox.

The only point I made, and it was made as a joke, is that I would prefer a smart, tough, disciplined player that is also bigger and stronger than his opponent. How is that arrogant? Wouldn't you?

Smarts, toughness, grittiness are all intangibles that can easily be manifested on the football field. Those attributes are great, until you meet a player that has similar attributes and is also bigger and faster than you are. Dozier, Britenstein, Edwards, whomever.
since you insist on quoting a post I took down, ok.
EB was a great runner, but the first thing he would tell you is that it was the offensive line in front of him that put him in position to make the yards (that is, after all, the point right not just plowing over people, right?). I dare say that Edwards and the rest had great talent, but the whole team won the game. You spoke of the talented LB from Elon in an earlier thread. You remember the outstanding talent he had, but as you said, the team sucked and the team went nowhere. You want a great player or a great team?
There are very rare times when an FCS team has the whole physical package that you are talking about (NDSU the last couple of years is one). For most of us, it is the intangibles that make the difference between winning and losing.
I laugh at your inconsistency. When the preseason predictions were coming, it was all about Furman's speed, size and experience was going to win them the conference until FUbear posted his stats and the differences between the teams was not that great (with VMI on top).

Furman may yet win the conference and the world. But being a disrespecting homer will always make for a loser.

[PaladinFan]

since you insist on quoting a post I took down, ok.
EB was a great runner, but the first thing he would tell you is that it was the offensive line in front of him that put him in position to make the yards (that is, after all, the point right not just plowing over people, right?). I dare say that Edwards and the rest had great talent, but the whole team won the game. You spoke of the talented LB from Elon in an earlier thread. You remember the outstanding talent he had, but as you said, the team sucked and the team went nowhere. You want a great player or a great team?
There are very rare times when an FCS team has the whole physical package that you are talking about (NDSU the last couple of years is one). For most of us, it is the intangibles that make the difference between winning and losing.
I laugh at your inconsistency. When the preseason predictions were coming, it was all about Furman's speed, size and experience was going to win them the conference until FUbear posted his stats and the differences between the teams was not that great (with VMI on top).

Furman may yet win the conference and the world. But being a disrespecting homer will always make for a loser.

I wrote my quote to your post before you took it down. You are taking offense where none is meant. If I say that I would prefer to have a team full of cyborgs that could never be tackled, that is not meant as a slight to Wofford. If anything, I've spent years on here stating that Wofford has the best coach in the league and the best pound for pound team in the FCS.

My opinion on Furman has nothing to do with size or speed. I believe Furman has a pretty good shot to win the conference because (1) they won the conference last year, and (2) they return virtually the entire team that won the conference last year. Size and speed has little to do with it. Furman's best player on offense (and perhaps the best SoCon player on offense) is an undersized wide receiver.

"Measurables" mean nothing to me. I don't care who has the best athletes. If that were the measure, UTC would win every single season. What I said was meant as a joke, as you are conceding (who wouldn't want a team full of elite football players?).

[dungeonjoe]

But as has been pointed out, you are overlooking the rest of the league's experience and talent (and heart). Jesus does indeed love Furman. The life the rest of us lead is dealing with those who believe that Jesus only loves Furman.

[OL FU]

But as has been pointed out, you are overlooking the rest of the league's experience and talent (and heart). Jesus does indeed love Furman. The life the rest of us lead is dealing with those who believe that Jesus only loves Furman.

Not just Jesus but Buddha, Ahura Mazda, Thor, Ra, Shiva and to citdog's chagrin even Yahwehxnodx Get your facts straightxrolleyesx:p

[FUBeAR]

Furman's best player on offense (and perhaps the best SoCon player on offense) is an undersized wide receiver.

So....you're ready to anoint a guy who has played 1 year, averaged < 4 receptions, < 50 yards, and just over 0.2 pts per game as the Offensive Player of the Year in the SoCon? OK, then...I ain't sayin' he ain't a good player; just sayin' you might want to check the contents of your favorite briarwood bowl before you login.