these previews are more like how can you beat or there offense and defense beat you

Navy Midshipmen preview

UCF Knights preview

South Florida Bulls preview

Tulsa Golden Hurricane preview

Memphis Tigers preview

Houston Cougars preview

Temple Owls preview

Tulane Green Wave preview

East Carolina Pirates preview

SMU Mustangs preview

Connecticut Huskies preview

Cincinnati Bearcats preview

Wow, these previews are terrible. I remember back on the Big East blog we used to get great coverage every day.

Ya, he wrote our in about 2 minutes. Basic stats with no real commentary... and to say that our new 4-2-5 wont stop runs is hillarious. It in theory should be even more effective.

(05-11-2015 11:20 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Wow, these previews are terrible. I remember back on the Big East blog we used to get great coverage every day.

why we need to support 2minute articles like these... espn gives coverage based on clicks ..articles about us get more clicks = better coverage

and its still better than any of the other g5

The link for Tulane's preview is to Tulsa's page. I'm having trouble finding Tulane's - can you fix the link?

I did find Cincy's though: http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_...ts-preview

(05-11-2015 12:00 PM)rollgreenwave Wrote:  The link for Tulane's preview is to Tulsa's page. I'm having trouble finding Tulane's - can you fix the link?

I did find Cincy's though: http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_...ts-preview

my bad, i fixed it

Those previews have the depth of an elementary school child's reading book. See Dick run, see Jane clap. Where is the in depth analysis and predictions.

(05-11-2015 12:56 PM)VirginiaPirate Wrote:  Those previews have the depth of an elementary school child's reading book. See Dick run, see Jane clap. Where is the in depth analysis and predictions.

You'll have to wait for the ESPN P5 team previews to read those.

(05-11-2015 11:23 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Ya, he wrote our in about 2 minutes. Basic stats with no real commentary... and to say that our new 4-2-5 wont stop runs is hillarious. It in theory should be even more effective.

Funny that some folks used to complain about our BigEast coverage....it's all relative....and yes AAC coverage could be worse too. So I am glad we got some early attention. Hopefully we'll get a dedicated blogger again...or at the very least a dedicated G5 blogger, that is active with new content on daily basis.

No duh we get sacked the third most in the conferenCe. We throw more than anybody else

(05-11-2015 11:23 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Ya, he wrote our in about 2 minutes. Basic stats with no real commentary... and to say that our new 4-2-5 wont stop runs is hillarious. It in theory should be even more effective.

Talk about base formations and defining a team by these base formations has always been a pet peeve of mine....First of all, just because your base formation is a 4-2-5 does not mean you will be in a 4-2-5 all game, especially in obvious running downs. Also just because it is listed as a 4-2-5 does not mean you will actually have 5 true DBs on the field....Most likely there will a very athletic player in the middle that could play either safety or as an OLB. The bottom line is that it comes down to the ability of the players on the field and not the formation.

(05-11-2015 11:23 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Ya, he wrote our in about 2 minutes. Basic stats with no real commentary... and to say that our new 4-2-5 wont stop runs is hillarious. It in theory should be even more effective.

Not trying to start a ruckus or anything....
But if they played games on paper....everyone would be almost unbeatable.
It is all about the heart and character that the young men display.
How badly do they want it?
You cannot coach heart. You either have it, or you don't.

(05-11-2015 06:38 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(05-11-2015 11:23 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Ya, he wrote our in about 2 minutes. Basic stats with no real commentary... and to say that our new 4-2-5 wont stop runs is hillarious. It in theory should be even more effective.

Talk about base formations and defining a team by these base formations has always been a pet peeve of mine....First of all, just because your base formation is a 4-2-5 does not mean you will be in a 4-2-5 all game, especially in obvious running downs. Also just because it is listed as a 4-2-5 does not mean you will actually have 5 true DBs on the field....Most likely there will a very athletic player in the middle that could play either safety or as an OLB. The bottom line is that it comes down to the ability of the players on the field and not the formation.

My biggest issue with what he said is that a 4-2-5 is risky based on the fact that we gave up alot of yards on run plays. Anyone that knows a 4-2-5 is aware that you may give up more short yardage but will see a decrease in long runs.
It wasnt the 3-4 yard runs that killed us last year. We gave up a bunch of big plays and had many runs in the 8-10 yard realm. "In theory" this should be decreased significantly in our new defense....and I am loving our new DC. If anyone can make USF defense scary again, I think its him.

This guy who wrote the article is just throwing some crap at the wall and is hoping nobody notices he put in almost no effort.