FCS Draft Stats

[EverettGriz]

Right. What he said was that what they are looking for is to get the ball to the offense. So again, "Returner, your job is to catch the damn football. If you can run for a TD, awesome sauce. But your job is to get us the football".

Glad we agree on something.

If the only goal is to get the ball to the offense, then it wouldn't even be necessary to put a returner on the field. Just let the ball bounce. Never a muff or fumble

Preeeeeeeeciiiiiiiissseeeely!!!! Well done.

Now, for the Amana range and a shot at the 3 day, two night stay in lovely Branson, MO, please tell us why Stitt didn't do just that? If you believe he truly didn't care at all about a return, why did he put a returner on the field? You have sixty seconds to answer. A hint is below, but if you use it, the chance for the lovely Branson trip is lost.

Judges, start the clock.

60...59...58...57....








(hint: because his statement suggests that the PRIMARY role for the punt returner, as every coach in America has coached ever -- Hey! there it is again!! -- tells their returner their job is to catch the damn football. But that he would, of course, LOVE a big return).

I don't believe I made any comments on Stitt. I made the following comment on Hauck.

"While catching the ball (i.e. not fumbling) is essential, many coaches including Hauck view the return as a significant offensive weapon and way to turn around field advantage. I have no doubt that UM special teams will be better and more consistent this season."

And I concur on all points. My apologies for lumping you into the posters who felt based upon his statement that Stitt didn't want a return.

 

[PlayerRep]

If the only goal is to get the ball to the offense, then it wouldn't even be necessary to put a returner on the field. Just let the ball bounce. Never a muff or fumble

Preeeeeeeeciiiiiiiissseeeely!!!! Well done.

Now, for the Amana range and a shot at the 3 day, two night stay in lovely Branson, MO, please tell us why Stitt didn't do just that? If you believe he truly didn't care at all about a return, why did he put a returner on the field? You have sixty seconds to answer. A hint is below, but if you use it, the chance for the lovely Branson trip is lost.

Judges, start the clock.

60...59...58...57....








(hint: because his statement suggests that the PRIMARY role for the punt returner, as every coach in America has coached ever -- Hey! there it is again!! -- tells their returner their job is to catch the damn football. But that he would, of course, LOVE a big return).

I don't believe I made any comments on Stitt. I made the following comment on Hauck.

"While catching the ball (i.e. not fumbling) is essential, many coaches including Hauck view the return as a significant offensive weapon and way to turn around field advantage. I have no doubt that UM special teams will be better and more consistent this season."

And I concur on all points. My apologies for lumping you into the posters who felt based upon his statement that Stitt didn't want a return.

All is good.

 

[IdaGriz01]

In terms of the health/skill of the conference, I think FA signings are more important. ANY conference can have 3 draft picks. We all know that football is all about depth. FA signings show the depth of each league, and there are simply too few draft picks to have a large enough sample size. A team can have one or two draft picks and still suck. For instance, NDSU had zero draft picks this year, but they had like 5 FA signings.

You make a very good point. And there are several other examples. JMU: 0 players drafted, 6 FA/invites. Stony Brook: 0 drafted, 5 FA/invites. Eastern Kentucky: 0 drafted, 4 FA/invites. Jacksonville State: 1 drafted, 6 FA/invites. Chattanooga: 0 drafted, 4 FA/invites.

And you can extend the notion. The Ohio Valley had just two players drafted, but the STATS.com list shows the conference with 27 FA/invites … one more than the MVFC.

The Big Sky had just one player drafted, but a very respectable 20 FA/invites.