Football

Leaders
Team Leaders
Individual Leaders

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Team Statistics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 2004 CONFERENCE USA FOOTBALL Team Statistics Through games of Oct 24, 2004


PASS OFFENSE G Att Cmp Int Pct. Yds Avg TD Yds/G
----------------------------------------------------------------
TCU................. 7 235 137 4 58.3 1964 8.4 15 280.6
Louisville.......... 6 185 134 2 72.4 1669 9.0 8 278.2
Memphis............. 7 241 131 11 54.4 1812 7.5 14 258.9
UAB................. 7 181 103 4 56.9 1781 9.8 18 254.4
Houston............. 7 224 123 2 54.9 1677 7.5 7 239.6
Cincinnati.......... 7 220 124 8 56.4 1562 7.1 15 223.1
Tulane.............. 6 188 108 8 57.4 1323 7.0 16 220.5
East Carolina....... 6 208 108 7 51.9 1217 5.9 9 202.8
Army................ 6 154 76 3 49.4 1120 7.3 6 186.7
USF................. 6 169 76 9 45.0 861 5.1 4 143.5
Southern Miss....... 6 143 73 3 51.0 813 5.7 9 135.5


PASS EFFICIENCY G Att Cmp Pct Int Yds TD Effic
-----------------------------------------------------------
UAB................. 7 181 103 .569 4 1781 18 168.0
Louisville.......... 6 185 134 .724 2 1669 8 160.3
TCU................. 7 235 137 .583 4 1964 15 146.2
Tulane.............. 6 188 108 .574 8 1323 16 136.1
Cincinnati.......... 7 220 124 .564 8 1562 15 131.2
Memphis............. 7 241 131 .544 11 1812 14 127.6
Houston............. 7 224 123 .549 2 1677 7 126.3
Army................ 6 154 76 .494 3 1120 6 119.4
Southern Miss....... 6 143 73 .510 3 813 9 115.4
East Carolina....... 6 208 108 .519 7 1217 9 108.6
USF................. 6 169 76 .450 9 861 4 84.9





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Individual Statistics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 2004 CONFERENCE USA FOOTBALL Individual Statistics Through games of Oct 24, 2004


PASSING AVG/GAME Team Cl G Att Cmp Int Pct. Yds TD Avg/G
------------------------------------------------------------
HACKNEY, D..... UAB JR 7 180 102 4 56.7 1776 18 253.7
KOLB, Kevin.... HOU SO 7 223 123 2 55.2 1677 7 239.6
WIMPRINE, Danny MEM SR 7 221 121 10 54.8 1618 11 231.1
GUIDUGLI, Gino. CIN SR 7 218 124 7 56.9 1562 15 223.1
RICARD, Lester. TUL SO 6 159 95 7 59.7 1182 15 197.0
LeFORS, Stefan. LOU SR 6 116 89 1 76.7 1164 7 194.0
PINKNEY, James. ECU SO 6 192 100 6 52.1 1161 9 193.5
HASSELL, B..... TCU SR 6 124 74 1 59.7 1011 7 168.5
JULMISTE, Pat.. USF SO 6 127 55 6 43.3 687 4 114.5
BROHM, Brian... LOU FR 6 66 45 1 68.2 505 1 84.2
BANKS, Ronnie.. USF SR 5 40 21 3 52.5 174 0 34.8

TOTAL OFFENSE Team Cl G Rush Pass Plays Total Yds/G
--------------------------------------------------------
HACKNEY, D..... UAB JR 7 -45 1776 234 1731 247.3
WIMPRINE, Danny MEM SR 7 69 1618 250 1687 241.0
KOLB, Kevin.... HOU SO 7 -34 1677 293 1643 234.7
GUIDUGLI, Gino. CIN SR 7 29 1562 251 1591 227.3
LeFORS, Stefan. LOU SR 6 153 1164 152 1317 219.5
RICARD, Lester. TUL SO 6 15 1182 183 1197 199.5
HASSELL, B..... TCU SR 6 59 1011 162 1070 178.3
PINKNEY, James. ECU SO 6 -92 1161 228 1069 178.2
WILLIAMS, DeAng MEM JR 7 941 0 183 941 134.4
JONES, Carlton. ARMY JR 6 757 0 105 757 126.2
JULMISTE, Pat.. USF SO 6 68 687 183 755 125.8

PASS EFFICIENCY Team Cl G Att Cmp Int Pct. Yds TD Eff.
------------------------------------------------------------
ROBISON, Bobby. MEM SR 6 16 9 1 56.2 185 3 202.8
LeFORS, Stefan. LOU SR 6 116 89 1 76.7 1164 7 179.2
HACKNEY, D..... UAB JR 7 180 102 4 56.7 1776 18 168.1
HASSELL, B..... TCU SR 6 124 74 1 59.7 1011 7 145.2
RICARD, Lester. TUL SO 6 159 95 7 59.7 1182 15 144.5
BROHM, Brian... LOU FR 6 66 45 1 68.2 505 1 134.4
GUIDUGLI, Gino. CIN SR 7 218 124 7 56.9 1562 15 133.4
KOLB, Kevin.... HOU SO 7 223 123 2 55.2 1677 7 126.9
WIMPRINE, Danny MEM SR 7 221 121 10 54.8 1618 11 123.6
PINKNEY, James. ECU SO 6 192 100 6 52.1 1161 9 112.1
CARTER, Damion. USM SO 6 32 13 1 40.6 108 3 93.7

How about these stats:

5-1.
Ranked in both polls.

Chew on that little boy.

You challenge my cretique of Almond and then hide from the facts that support my contentions. Then you make the most of your 3rd grade education by continuing ad hominum attacks. You have already proven who the little one is. No need to re-emphasize your short-comings.

Observer Wrote:You challenge my cretique of Almond and then hide from the facts that support my contentions. Then you make the most of your 3rd grade education by continuing ad hominum attacks.  You have already proven who the little one is. No need to re-emphasize your short-comings.

What poll is Toolame ranked in??? Help me out here. :laugh: A fan of a losing program like Toolame has to use meaningless stats to try a make a point. Only one stat counts and that is the score. USM has finished five games with a higher score than our opponent. Tough concept for a Toolame fan to handle I know. :rofl:

That's all very interesting, but you haven't answered the obvious question. Remember, it was you who challenged my comment about Almond's lack of ability. The stats bare me out. Where's your case? Ha ha ha ha ha....

Observer Wrote:That's all very interesting, but you haven't answered the obvious question. Remember, it was you who challenged my comment about Almond's lack of ability. The stats bare me out. Where's your case? Ha ha ha ha ha....

Almond is 4-0 as a starter. Case closed.

Nugget's Ghost Wrote:Almond is 4-0 as a starter. Case closed.

Good grief! Your retorts get weaker with each post. According to conference stats, Almond is least productive QB in the conference. Don't confuse team successes with individual accomplishments. Surely you are capable of making that distinction?

This is better than Judge Hatchet

Observer Wrote:

Nugget's Ghost Wrote:Almond is 4-0 as a starter. Case closed.

Good grief! Your retorts get weaker with each post. According to conference stats, Almond is least productive QB in the conference. Don't confuse team successes with individual accomplishments. Surely you are capable of making that distinction?

I know in the world of college football that Tulane plays in you think personal stats are more important than actually winning the games. Almond makes solid decisions, makes first downs and makes very few turnovers and doesn't lose games for us. In other words, he wins football games with smart play. Since Toolame doesn't win many football games, that concept is completely foreign to you.

You are confusing USM's success with Almond's performances. USM has not been winning because of Almond, but in spite of him.

Observer Wrote:You are confusing USM's success with Almond's performances. USM has not been winning because of Almond, but in spite of him.

You just won't give up a lost cause, will you?
Nebraska game. Almond throws a perfect 46 yard td pass to score the winning td.
Houston game. Almond takes his offense down the field in the last two minutes to score the winning td. Almond himself runs the final 18 yards to score the winning td himself.
Tulane game. Almond is operating the passing game along with the running game perfectly.

As I said, you have been a fan of team that has had 4 winning seasons in the last twenty years. The concept of a player fitting in to a winning gameplan is not something you can recognize. Almond is a winner. Toolame is a loser.

All that makes one wonder how much better USM would do with a good QB.

Just wonder where Tulane would be with a real football program.

No need to wonder. It is on the horizon.

That really is a great question posed by the Tulane fan...how freakin awesome would we be if some dumb recruit would realize that instead of sitting on the bench for his college playing days at an SEC school, he could probably break every Southern Miss passing record, excluding those iron man categories held by Favre. I mean think about it, if Jeff Kelly holds several records then someone's little sister could lead us to victory...Oh well,