Page 1 of 1
BIG MEN
Posted:
Wed Apr 20, 2005 5:51 pmby BUS
Here is some fun information.
From the C-usa
The count of players over 270 lbs.
East Ca. - 19
Houston - 27
Marsh - 14
Memphis - 17
Rice - 18
SMU - 19
So. Miss - 19
Tulane - 17
Tulsa - 16
UAB - 18
UFC - 15
UTEP - 23
Other than Houston and UTEP, we seem to be in the middle of the pack. I would like to take a look at Nebraska, Texas and A$M and see what their roster looks like.
Posted:
Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:11 pmby Hal
We have 19 now? That's a far cry from years past, huh?
But I'm with BUS - we need more.
Posted:
Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:14 amby me@smu
Alright this is from Rivals and as such last years rosters:
Players 270 and above
SMU = 20
Oklahoma = 15
Texas = 25
USC = 22
Miami = 22
TCU = 27
A&M = 35
TT = 20
Neb = 20
Maybe it isn't that we need more big men...it might just have something to do with the caliber of big men we get???
Fun facts:
A&M has a 263lbs sophomore kicker on their roster
Largest Player was 6'6'' Taitusi Lutui from USC at 370 lbs.
SMU had 4 players of 300+ while Texas had 16
Posted:
Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:50 amby Mexmustang
Maybe the definition of "Big" needs to be revised to 300#'s and over...what are these kids eating? Did you notice the size of the 70's Texas guard that was just inducted into the Cotton Bowl Hall of Fame? Something like 188#'s. The most telling difference is the story on Buddy Ryan's Bears Defence of the 80's, one report stated that almost none of these players would be large enough to start on today's NFL roster.
Posted:
Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:49 pmby OldPony
Fat isn't big. It's just fat and slow. We need guys who have good feet and can play. Denver almost always has a small line. They can move and know how to block. When Bus says we need big men, that is what he is talking about. Fat is just disgusting.