Final: ULM (24) vs Louisiana (30)

[ManAboutTown]

I was just starting to watch UL football in 1995, comparing talent from the Stokley era to now, would you say on paper that we have more or less talent? It seems to me that Coach Stokley got a lot out of his players and they didn't quit from what I remember.

Different breed of player back then.. Totally different kind of football

[Turbine]

Only those who were anywhere close to the program will totally understand how true that statement is. And, with exception of three years, he did it as an independent with all the cards stacked against him....not to mention the lack of budget.

Having taken care of family with Alzheimer's, my extensive research taught me you can never really know when early onset may have started taking a toll on his normally brilliant football mind.

[Turbine]

I was just starting to watch UL football in 1995, comparing talent from the Stokley era to now, would you say on paper that we have more or less talent? It seems to me that Coach Stokley got a lot out of his players and they didn't quit from what I remember.

80 something D1 schools scraping the talent pool.

Today 3,000 more kids are signed to D1 scholarships than when Stokley was coach.

Stokley had a far better talent pool in a talent rich State.

[CajunFan3406]

Of course you folks fail to mention who they lost to:
Alabama
Georgia
Georgia State
App State

surely you agree those are pretty good teams

For starters, Georgia State isn't a good team. And also, ULMost did not play Georgia State.

[RaisingCajun08]

i agree with this, he made that one throw.
outside of the one touchdown throw from haack, what were his numbers before that? or how were his numbers in other games?

Yes, I agree that Haack's numbers were not great this past Saturday. BUT he gave the team a spark and won the game.

As far as the numbers from the other games, I already broke that down in another thread. Numbers can be skewed. In my other post looking at numbers only, I could argue that Haack was a better runner and Nixon was a better passer. We both know that is not the case.

When comparing strengths, we all know each QB has their strengths. Nothing will ever make me believe that Nixon is just as good of a passer as Haack. Nothing will ever make me believe that Haack is just as good of a runner as Nixon.

I will still say that Haack is a better QB that Nixon. Nixon is no more than a great athlete trying to be a QB. Same point many others have made in many instances here.

[GeauxCajuns]

Yes, I agree that Haack's numbers were not great this past Saturday. BUT he gave the team a spark and won the game.

As far as the numbers from the other games, I already broke that down in another thread. Numbers can be skewed. In my other post looking at numbers only, I could argue that Haack was a better runner and Nixon was a better passer. We both know that is not the case.

When comparing strengths, we all know each QB has their strengths. Nothing will ever make me believe that Nixon is just as good of a passer as Haack. Nothing will ever make me believe that Haack is just as good of a runner as Nixon.

I will still say that Haack is a better QB that Nixon. Nixon is no more than a great athlete trying to be a QB. Same point many others have made in many instances here.

i agree with all of this, i was just pointing out to the people who were making haack out to be a world beater sitting on our bench, thats what i disagree with. i also think they both have roles behind center that we need. i would say that nixon provided a spark against kentucky that we didnt have with haack in there, an he gave us a chance to win that game. i think as bad as it is for our qbs to be role players, i think that is what they both are. i just dont see haack as being head and shoulders better than nixon, although i do give him the edge as a "QB"

[duggie85]

Yes, I agree that Haack's numbers were not great this past Saturday. BUT he gave the team a spark and won the game.

As far as the numbers from the other games, I already broke that down in another thread. Numbers can be skewed. In my other post looking at numbers only, I could argue that Haack was a better runner and Nixon was a better passer. We both know that is not the case.

When comparing strengths, we all know each QB has their strengths. Nothing will ever make me believe that Nixon is just as good of a passer as Haack. Nothing will ever make me believe that Haack is just as good of a runner as Nixon.

I will still say that Haack is a better QB that Nixon. Nixon is no more than a great athlete trying to be a QB. Same point many others have made in many instances here.

If anyone wants a good laugh regarding skewing numbers, Google comedian "Bill Burr Statistics."

I would link it here, but I'm sure the language would be frowned upon.

[RaisingCajun08]

If anyone wants a good laugh regarding skewing numbers, Google comedian "Bill Burr Statistics."

I would link it here, but I'm sure the language would be frowned upon.

That was awesome! He is 100% correct in every example. Statistics are made to be skewed.

[duggie85]

That was awesome! He is 100% correct in every example. Statistics are made to be skewed.

"Step on a rake... In ya go!" Haha

[RaisingCajun08]

"Step on a rake... In ya go!" Haha

Know why I never go in the water at the beach? Sharks attack in shallow water.

[CajunEXPRESS]

Whatever happened to that trophy ULMoanRow commissioned for the victors. Not that I would display it. But it kind of disappeared once they started losing on a regular basis