Jump to content

Silsbee WR Kolten Mackey


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, LCM17 said:

The year before that we didn't  need recievers  either to beat BC but hey thats in the past. lol But y'all could have used some receivers against Carthage. 

Probably would have made the game worse. Interior Def last year for my Bulldogs was way down and we lost two starting LB's early in the season so running against Carthage was your best bet. Navasota tried to air it out as they always do and lost with some of the best WR's in the region. BC run game is legit for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, RayJr said:

Probably would have made the game worse. Interior Def last year for my Bulldogs was way down and we lost two starting LB's early in the season so running against Carthage was your best bet. Navasota tried to air it out as they always do and lost with some of the best WR's in the region. BC run game is legit for sure.

I agree they run the best slot t other than Liberty hill maybe. But far yalls defense being down they played pretty good. I was  at Navasota and Carthage game and it was a good game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mickey Mantle said:

Surely someone isn't serious when they say a guy that had a great college as well as a long and prosperous pro career couldn't cover a guy that has no offers? This board has lost it.

the source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had the privilege of watching this kid play in the playoffs in The Woodlands. I personally enjoyed watching him play more than any other player I've ever seen in a Tiger uniform.  He just had an intensity that was fun to watch. I really hope he plays on the next level. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read through this thread, and i had the same reaction that some of the others did when it was stated that Mackey is one of the best receivers that has EVER come through SETX, and a great fit at ANY college.  Once of the best in the area right now?  Sure, of course.  I looked for his stats online, and couldn't find them from last year, but he went for 28/523/6 the year before.  very respectable, but even if he doubled those numbers as a  this past season, that would still be a far cry away from all-time great numbers for SETX.  Now, if he'd gone off for 80 catches, 1800 yards, and 20 TDs, i'd reevaluate my stance.  I'm not hating, and i rooted for Silsbee in both the football and basketball playoffs this year, but i strongly disagree with that statement.  Now, some of  y'all are talking about next season for him.  HUDL has him listed as the class of 2017, but i'm fairly positive he was a senior this year.  So if he's gone for 1500 yards and 15 TDs over his junior and senior year, then those are very good numbers, but not anywhere close to GOAT status, or even in the argument to get into the argument.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Member Statistics

    45,937
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined



  • Posts

    • There is a difference, but I wouldn't at all put it past Trump to do so if he had the infrastructure in place to get away with it like the Dems currently do.  With the amount of effort he's invested in ruining those republicans who've opposed him, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
    • I think it will be an interesting case and could potentially come up for appeal on a different constitutional point.  The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the government doesn’t have to take possession of property in order to take it under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.  If they take away the enjoyment or use of the property, it is no different than physically seizing it to build a highway for example. In a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal trial, a person/plaintiff doesn’t have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt but rather by a preponderance of evidence or “more likely” to have happened. Maybe it could be described as more likely yes than no or 51%-49%.  ”IF” it can be shown at a trial by a preponderance of evidence that Texas more likely yes than no caused the flooding with its engineering of the project, the people suing might have a case. But…. Does that alone win the case under the Fifth Amendment taking clause? I am not so sure. In US v Causby the Supreme Court ruled that the US government took a man’s property by flying airplanes over it. It was a public airport lawfully leased by the US in WWII and used to fly heavy bombers from it. Causby had an egg farm and the extremely loud noise of some airplanes under full power and sometimes at night with a landing lights being so close, it bothered and scared the family and damaged his egg farm production. Some chickens died and some quit laying eggs due to the extreme disturbances and lights at night. The Supreme Court ruled in Causby’s favor saying that the US had taken away the enjoyment and use of his land even though they didn’t physically seize it. The use of the land was hampered and that was enough for the taking clause under the Fifth Amendment. So in the IH-10 case, did Texas take away the use or enjoyment of the property?  A point of Causby was that the military bombers at a public airport was certainly for “public use”. The planes were public/taxpayers’ and the airport and lease were taxpayers’ property so the “public” definitely used it   My question in this lawsuit against Texas, even in they can prove the damage, was the damage (like in Causby) for “public use”? If not would it then not be a Fifth Amendment case but rather a state law case?  If Texas law denies such a lawsuit under state sovereignty and the families can’t prove a Fifth Amendment case of “public use”, could they prove the damages but still lose the case under state law? I haven’t read that anywhere and just thinking out loud. I could be way off base. But I think it could be interesting…..
    • Both sides...that is, everyone tries to get their people elected. Trump has not weaponized the government to bankrupt and imprison his political opponents. Night and day difference for me.
    • Surely you're aware of the great lengths Trump has gone to disrupt the elections and destroy the careers of republican politicians who haven't supported some of his most outlandish claims, or dared to question him or disagree with him about January 6.  You and I actually agree on this issue, although it must only go one way for you, because Trump's actions against republicans who didn't fall into lockstep with him is one of my biggest concerns about reelecting him.  The fact that he took action to affect literally hundreds of republican primaries from national elections down to municipal levels across the country, is concerning. It would've been one thing had he done it in an effort to help republicans win. Instead his purpose was to push out his perceived detractors and install MAGA politicians at every level of government in as many places as possible, and has resulted in a fractured republican party.
    • Lmao. No doubt. With a name like that, he would've gotten made fun of even if he was home-schooled.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...