Skip to content

UL Monroe Warhawks

Sun Belt·0-2·
Elo
1071#136
SP+
-33.2#138
FPI
-24.3
AP
NR
Nextvs SE Louisiana · Wk 3
Talent #132 (505.5)Recruiting class #12739% production returning

Roster · 105 players

FR 12SO 9JR 33SR 51
#PlayerPosClHtWt
9Landon GravesQBSR5'11"190
10Aidan ArmentaQBSR6'3"210
12Austin CarlisleQBSO5'10"190
14Bryson KimbroughQBSO6'2"205
16Ty PurdyQBSR6'2"180
3Derrick JamesonRBSR6'0"215
20Don ChaneyRBSR5'11"235
21Julian WalkerRBJR5'9"200
22Jaydon WrightRBJR5'11"220
23CJ PhillipRBJR5'11"195
25Bryson RolandRBSO5'8"180
26Trevon KinchenRBSR5'10"225
29Makin LenardRBFR5'11"200
32Christian PontiRBFR5'10"215
0LT RobinsonWRJR5'10"170
1Marcellus JacksonWRSR5'8"160
2Javon CampbellWRSR6'1"195
4JP CoulterWRSR5'11"185
5Brandon BuckhaulterWRSR6'1"205
6Demarcco BlantonWRSR6'0"185
7Nic TrujilloWRSR6'1"185
13Parker FulghumWRJR6'1"205
17Bret VincentWRJR5'8"150
19Marcus GallowayWRSO5'9"155
80Keidric Osunde-BrownWRFR5'9"165
82Jaiden TuckerWRFR5'11"170
83Darrion GilliamWRJR6'5"201
8Bryce AndersonTESR6'5"250
15Steven GorskiTESR6'3"240
18Dalen HustonTEJR6'3"220
44Jase HoathTESR6'3"245
84Quad HarrisonTESR6'5"225
85Nate GreenTEJR6'5"320
89Cade CallahanTEJR6'3"220
50Quentis Griffin Jr.OLSR6'5"325
52Edarius GreenOLSR6'4"275
55David ApplewhiteOLJR6'4"305
56Kaliem CroswellOLSR6'3"310
58Nolan AndersonOLJR6'5"320
60Jordan RoweOLJR6'3"320
61Ben GehrkeOLJR6'3"285
62Adameon BotleyOLSR6'3"295
64Drew HutchinsonOLSR6'4"305
65Freddie GavinOLJR6'5"290
67AJ VinsonOLSR6'5"305
69Bright FagbamiyeOLSR6'6"295
70John Curtis Goodman Jr.OLSR6'6"310
71Van MartinezOLFR6'4"260
72Sean DugeryOLSR6'3"310
73Jeremyah GreenOLFR6'4"300
74Roscoe TuckerOLSR6'4"325
77Reese SteeleOLSR6'5"300
4Derek OmoregieDESR6'5"275
25Moses MadubuikeDEJR6'4"250
99Marvin HallDESR6'3"300
1Kevontay WellsDLSR6'3"265
34Tyrell BrownDLJR6'4"280
35Ethan BaileyDLSO6'3"225
41Wyatt PolandDLFR6'3"230
44CJ WilsonDLSR6'2"250
51Jaden RoweDLJR6'3"310
90Zyan TremontDLJR6'5"300
91Charles BinetDLFR6'2"280
92James SmithDLSR6'3"275
94Alexei RamirezDLSO6'3"275
95Levontae JacobsDLSR6'3"315
98Colton VatneDLJR6'3"275
0Kelbee HolmesLBSR5'11"220
3Noah FlemmingsLBSR6'4"250
5Billy PullenLBSR6'3"245
9Jaeden CalenderLBJR6'0"230
10Rickey BanksLBJR6'1"220
15TJ WilliamsLBFR6'2"210
19Le'Kell Mc'GowanLBJR6'4"250
22Fred ClarkLBSO6'3"205
23LaZavier AmosLBJR6'1"220
30Marcus RossLBSR6'2"230
39Cooper EldridgeLBSR6'4"225
42Jackson ParkerLBSR6'4"230
49Ryan BaskervilleLBSR6'1"225
1Jabari TillerDBSR6'1"190
2Korian WilsonDBSR5'10"195
5Zy JacksonDBSR5'11"165
6Jay HarperDBJR5'11"180
7Ameyr AdamsDBJR6'0"200
12Jayden LewisDBJR6'2"180
13Armoni RueDBSR5'11"175
16RJ HallDBJR5'10"185
20Jordyn WilliamsDBJR5'10"175
24Navarion BensonDBSR6'0"160
26Willie WilsonDBSR6'0"185
29Jonathan CrainDBJR5'11"165
38Gavin HowardDBFR5'11"180
8Carl FauntroySSR6'0"190
14DJ JesterSSR6'2"185
17Chris PayneSJR6'0"184
18Taijh OvertonSSO6'2"185
21Orlando FreemontSFR5'10"180
28Larell HowlingSSR5'11"190
27Abram MurrayPKJR6'0"200
34Gavin PolkPKFR6'2"170
99Max LarsonPKSR6'0"190
47Makenzie RyanPJR6'1"210
46Matthew FeibushLSSO5'8"190
48Nolan WilsonLSSR6'2"225

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
16.5
scoring offense
Points allowed
44.0
scoring defense
Differential
-27.5
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
267.5#132
Yards / play
4.1#132
Passing yards / game
98.0#135
Rushing yards / game
169.5#69
First downs / game
16.5#115
3rd down %
21.4%#133
4th down %
50.0%#70
Time of possession
29:57#80
Defense
Yards allowed / game
571.5#138
Yards / play allowed
7.8#134
Pass yards allowed / game
266.0#120
Rush yards allowed / game
305.5#138
3rd down % allowed
57.7%#135
Sacks
3#80
Tackles for loss
8#104
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
+1#41
Takeaways
2#76
Giveaways
1#21
Penalties / game
3.0#3
Penalty yards / game
30.0#11

Rank is national among all FBS teams (#1 = best), oriented so higher rank = better even for defensive and discipline metrics. Bars show percentile.

Scouting Report · 2026 projection

heavily run-leaning

UL Monroe runs it: Bryant Vincent's offenses have been heavily run-leaning across 3 seasons. The strengths are offensive, led by 8th at hitting chunk plays. The way in is 128th at staying out of the backfield, and they are 125th at keeping a clean pocket.

On fourth down he goes for it more often than his peers do from the same spots (+7.1%). Against what the expected-points model recommends he is −7.8% — the profession as a whole is negative on this.

UL Monroe has played 1 game against an average slate, adjusted for here. That football carries about 0% of what is below; the rest is still the preseason projection.

Projected strengths

  • Offensehitting chunk plays
    #8
    projected

Projected soft spots

  • Offensegetting stopped at the line
    #128
    projected
  • Offensesacks and tackles for loss
    #125
    projected
  • Defensehitting chunk plays
    #125
    projected

Each bar is where this team sits in the country. Before the season has produced enough football these are PROJECTIONS — last season regressed to the mean, plus talent, returning production, recruiting and whether the staff is the same one — and the season replaces them as it is played. Head coaches only — there is no free feed for coordinators, so on a program where the head coach does not call the offense this describes the staff he hired. Play-calling identity is a style, not a grade: throwing more than the situations warrant is not better than throwing less than they warrant.

2026 Season Projection

model win prob · 9 to play
2.58.5
projected final record (now 02)
Exp. wins left
2.5
of 9 games
Bowl odds
2%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
39%
vs Louisiana
Toughest
18%
vs Marshall

How the season could finish · 2026 · chance of each final win total · 9 games left

Every remaining game simulated from the model's win probability for it. Tallest bar is the single likeliest finish, not a prediction that it happens.

0123456789
final winstallest bar = 29% chance
Likeliest finish 2-9 (29%)Bowl eligible 2% · marked on the axis at 6

Player Value

EPA contribution by position group + estimated NIL market value (derived from position rates and on-field production — not actual deal figures).

Unit Value — Total EPA
QBAidan Armenta, Austin Carlisle
+3.4 EPA
TEBryce Anderson
+2.9 EPA
WRBrandon Buckhaulter, Nic Trujillo +5
-4.5 EPA
RBDerrick Jameson, CJ Phillip +1
-5.8 EPA

Total EPA produced by each positional group this season. OL value is captured via the rush/pass efficiency of skill players; OL-specific EPA isn't separately reported.

Estimated NIL Market Value
ESTIMATED
EPA +2.60.070/play37 snaps
EPA -3.5-0.159/play22 snaps

Estimated from position-group market rates and on-field EPA contribution. Actual NIL valuations depend on social media following, brand fit, and market negotiations — these figures are directional only.

The Five Factors

ranked vs. FBS · bar = better
Efficiency (PPA)
Off-0.111st#136
Def0.391st#136
Explosiveness
Off0.771st#138
Def1.1962nd#53
Field position
Off70.054th#64
Def70.469th#43
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off3.0019th#112
Def4.4710th#124
Turnovers
Won 2Lost 1
Margin +1

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
Defense
Off · pass
-0.191st#137
Off · rush
0.0322nd#108

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.0322nd#108
Def0.431st#136
Passing
Off-0.191st#137
Def0.3819th#112

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
3.35#37
2nd-level / open-field
1.09 / 0.52
Power / stuff (off)
50.0% / 10.7%
Havoc — total (def)
12.8%#119
Havoc — front 7 / DB
6.1% / 6.8%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off-0.09
Def0.26
Pass downs
Off-0.18
Def0.79

PPA on each down type (off vs. def).

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense-0.04#102-0.18#1300.08#128
Defense0.16#1240.51#1280.84#125

Elo Trajectory

@Mississippi StateFinal
Elo rating 11771079-98 over season

Team Fingerprint · 2026 · 46 opponent-adjusted metrics · percentile vs 138 FBS teams

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play-0.062nd
  • Defense EPA/play allowed0.421st
  • Offense success rate37%18th
  • Defense success rate allowed54%1st

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs43%23rd
  • Offense success — passing downs21%11th
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs57%1st
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs46%2nd

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness0.921st
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.246th
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs0.838th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs1.48th

Trenches

  • Offense line yards3.269th
  • Defense line yards allowed3.91st
  • Offense highlight yards0.5622nd
  • Defense highlight yards allowed2.27th
  • Offense power success0.4510th
  • Defense power success allowed0.956th
  • Offense stuff rate0.1091st
  • Defense stuff rate0.1415th

Third down

  • Third down conversion21%4th
  • Third down distance faced6.176th
  • Third down conversion allowed58%3rd
  • Third down distance forced5.77th

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half-0.191st
  • Net success rate — second half-0.175th

Drives

  • Points per drive1.535th
  • Points per drive allowed4.45th
  • Average starting field position3063rd
  • Opponent starting field position2851st
  • Available yards gained39%27th
  • Available yards allowed78%4th
  • Scoring opportunities per drive82%57th
  • Scoring opportunities allowed90%29th
  • Points per scoring opportunity1.823rd
  • Points allowed per opportunity4.98th
  • Three-and-out rate36%26th
  • Three-and-outs forced5%7th

CORE

  • CORE offense-6.711th
  • CORE defense7.47th
  • CORE overall-14.13rd

Roster

  • Returning usage46%52nd
  • Returning EPA63.533rd
  • Team talent composite5054th
  • Recruiting class rank1278th
  • Recruiting class points1608th

Every metric is opponent-adjusted and ranked so that higher is always better — a defensive rate that is good when low is ranked accordingly. Sack and tackle-for-loss composition are deliberately absent: their relationship to team quality is a measured null, so they carry a style rather than a rank, and they appear in the pressure signature instead.

Intelligence Report

Offensive DNA

Run-first offense — below average EPA/play nationally
EPA/play
-0.113#136 · bottom 20%
Pass EPA/play
-0.190#137
Rush EPA/play
+0.025#108
Explosiveness
0.775#138
Pts/opportunity
3.00#112
Success rate
37.5%

Rush efficiency edge: 0.215 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

Disciplined defense — allowing above-average EPA/play
EPA/play allowed
+0.393#136 · bottom 20%
Havoc rate (total)
12.8%#119
Front-7 havoc
6.1%
DB havoc
6.8%
Big play rate allowed
1.187#53
Success rate allowed
54.6%

Disruption comes primarily from the secondary.

📊

Season Signature

16.5 PPG offense, 44.0 allowed — -27.5 margin/game
Points per game
16.5
Points allowed/game
44.0
Scoring margin/game
-27.5
Turnover margin
+1won 2 · lost 1
Production returning
39%
Talent rank (247)
#132

0-2 record through 2 games.

Team Shape · percentile vs. FBS · dashed = 50th

OFFENSE1thEXPLOSIVENESS0thFINISHING19thFIELD POS54thDEFENSE1thHAVOC14th50th100th
Offense
1th
Explosiveness
0th
Finishing
19th
Field Pos
54th
Defense
1th
Havoc
14th

Each axis = national percentile rank. 100th = best in FBS, 0th = worst. Defense and Havoc are oriented so higher = better.

CORE efficiency · situation and opponent removed

Points per 100 plays above average, after the game state is regressed out of every snap and the schedule is solved out across the whole league. The version of this team’s efficiency that can be compared to a team it never played.

Overall
-25.1
#137
Offense
-13.5
#131
Defense
+11.6
#133
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 22 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive1.504.40
Starting field positionown 30.3own 28.0
Available yards38.8%78.0%
Scoring opportunities81.8%90.0%
Points per opportunity1.834.89
Three-and-out rate36.4%5.0%
Every team’s drive efficiency →

Play-calling identity

Against what the league calls from the same down, distance, field position, score and clock — so this is the staff, not the game script.

Pass rate
40.2%
Expected, given the spots
51.9%
Over expected
-11.6
Fourth down vs peers
-5
Fourth down vs the model
-29
All play-calling tendencies →

National Landscape · 2026 FBS · offense vs. defense EPA/play

Each dot = one FBS team. UL Monroe is highlighted. Tap or hover a dot for details.

ELITEDEF. FORTRESSOFF. POWERHOUSEREBUILDING-0.100.00+0.10+0.20+0.30-0.050.00+0.10+0.20Offensive EPA/play← worsebetter →Defensive EPA allowed/play← worsebetter →

Similar Programs

Teams with the closest offense + defense efficiency profile to UL Monroe in 2026

by EPA/play distance
Bowling GreenSP+ -12.8
Off EPA/play +0.009Def EPA/play +0.360Elo 1340
Match
92%
UTEPSP+ -24.3
Off EPA/play -0.003Def EPA/play +0.286Elo 1163
Match
91%
MarshallSP+ -14.4
Off EPA/play +0.039Def EPA/play +0.339Elo 1389
Match
90%
OhioSP+ -16.4
Off EPA/play +0.071Def EPA/play +0.382Elo 1318
Match
88%
Fresno StateSP+ -7.6
Off EPA/play +0.044Def EPA/play +0.257Elo 1449
Match
87%
Oklahoma StateSP+ +1.1
Off EPA/play -0.018Def EPA/play +0.169Elo 1212
Match
86%

Similarity = normalized Euclidean distance on season offensive and defensive EPA/play. Teams within ±0.02 EPA/play on both units score >90%.

Program Trajectory · CORE rating · 20152026 · points per game vs an average FBS team

2015: -21.2, #115 of 1282016: -26.1, #126 of 1282017: -14.6, #107 of 1302018: -2.2, #78 of 1302019: -4.0, #77 of 1302020: -30.3, #124 of 1242021: -18.5, #110 of 1302022: -14.7, #113 of 1312023: -22.7, #129 of 1332024: -14.0, #114 of 1342025: -15.2, #108 of 1362026: -25.1, #137 of 138
20152026
Now -25.1 · #137 of 138Best -2.2 in 2018Worst -30.3 in 2020

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20260-20-0
0%
0.0-0.0
20253-91-7
25%
4.2-1.2
20245-73-5
42%
5.2-0.2
20232-100-8
17%
1.3+0.7
20224-83-5
33%
2.9+1.1
20214-82-6
33%
3.6+0.4
20200-100-7
0%
0.1-0.1
20195-74-4
42%
5.7-0.7
20186-64-4
50%
5.9+0.1
20174-84-4
33%
3.6+0.4

xW = expected wins from per-game dominance. Luck = actual − expected (positive = won close games).

0%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

0-2 so far, projected to finish 2.4-9.6.

up 0.0 points since preseasonlost 13-62 to Mississippi State against an expected margin of 36, so 12.9 against the number.

  • The Sun Belt takes 0.20 bids in an average season.
The full playoff picture →

Sun Belt

West division · 0-0 in league play, projected 1.4-6.614 of 14 by title odds
0.0%
Wins the Sun Belt
0.3%
Reaches the title game

The Sun Belt keeps divisions (East and West) and sends the winner of each — so UL Monroe can finish with the league’s second-best record and still stay home. The last berth is level on percentage in 46% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

Points of title probability riding on each result. The whole Sun Belt race →

If not the playoff, then

3.4%
Bowl eligible
3.2%
Placed in a bowl
0%
In the playoff
97%
Season over in November

UL Monroe is 0-2 and needs 6 more wins from 10 games to reach the six that make a team eligible — at most one of which may come against an FCS opponent.

  • 68 Ventures Bowl0.9%
  • Salute to Veterans Bowl0.8%
  • New Orleans Bowl0.5%
  • Xbox Bowl0.4%
  • Myrtle Beach Bowl0.3%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 4 have sent UL Monroe a player since 2010 — 14 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of UL Monroe's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
NevilleLA60
SachseTX40
Evangel Christian AcademyLA21
DutchtownGA20
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.