Jump to content

Newton 56 Silsbee 14/FINAL


WOSgrad

Recommended Posts

Newton is definitely loaded. Tigers came out got a big stop on 4th down.  Marched downfield had a td called back and still punched it in.  We cameout with a new set that i dont remember seeing last week and pretty much pushed our way downfield.  Then we pretty much went away from that the rest of the night.  Taylor had a few good runs but we still didnt get anything going.  Most of that was definitely due to The Eagles d but i am still no fan of the 2 qb system.  I really didnt notice how many players Newton had going both ways but you definitely knew Brown was on both sides.  At the beginning of the game it seemed like he was going to be the lone Tiger killer but then came #4 with a long run or two and some good passing from #5.  Newton is definitely the better team but we have enough talent that it should be closer than that in my opinion and definitely not look as easy as it looked.  

When the preseason rankings/hype came out iwondered about such high rankings for us.  Sure i knew part of it had to do with us dropping down but we hadnt proven anything.  Mow its time for us to dig deep and prove that we deserved some of that.  And it doesnt get a whole lot easier next week.  Keep plugging away Tigers the season is young!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Newton is very good.  Silsbee needs a looot of work.  The o-lineman blocked on only the first drive of the game.  They stopped blocking after that and got pushed around. The silsbee playcalling became very predictable.  When Taylor is at QB, it's a run play.  The lead run worked only twice tonight and we ran it all night.  Our QB play isn't good and just makes me wonder if anyone is working with this young an during practice.  The wild tiger offense only worked once.  Never do that again.  Defense showed flashes of good.  Then when you get excited, they give up a big play.  Part of that has to do with Newton's big 3, but I saw another Newton player, #14 I think, made the whole silsbee defense look silly on that one play.  Newton is a run away freight train and probably will go undefeated.Silsbee faces Nederland.  I expect a PN-G type outcome unless our coaching staff can get it together.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BMTSoulja1 said:

Newton is very good.  Silsbee needs a looot of work.  The o-lineman blocked on only the first drive of the game.  They stopped blocking after that and got pushed around. The silsbee playcalling became very predictable.  When Taylor is at QB, it's a run play.  The lead run worked only twice tonight and we ran it all night.  Our QB play isn't good and just makes me wonder if anyone is working with this young an during practice.  The wild tiger offense only worked once.  Never do that again.  Defense showed flashes of good.  Then when you get excited, they give up a big play.  Part of that has to do with Newton's big 3, but I saw another Newton player, #14 I think, made the whole silsbee defense look silly on that one play.  Newton is a run away freight train and probably will go undefeated.Silsbee faces Nederland.  I expect a PN-G type outcome unless our coaching staff can get it together.. 

Yes its hard to see too many positives on either side of the ball when you get beat like we have the last couple of weeks.  But i like what i have seen at least in pieces from our defense as far as our run defense.  We just need to put together a full game.  As far as pass defense,  well it needs to improve but we have faced two teams that well put a lot of pressure on that secondary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ST413 said:

Yes its hard to see too many positives on either side of the ball when you get beat like we have the last couple of weeks.  But i like what i have seen at least in pieces from our defense as far as our run defense.  We just need to put together a full game.  As far as pass defense,  well it needs to improve but we have faced two teams that well put a lot of pressure on that secondary.

....Silsbee's secondary very well could be the most experienced secondarys in SETX with a couple of 3 year starters and a 2 year starter, one of which has a d-1 offer.  They should be up for the challenge but you put yourself at a disadvantage when you play a soft zone and 15 yards off the receiver.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, BADSANTA said:

This is year 3 of the Silsbee coaching staff and I still not sold on what their doing. When you have super talented kids it can over come some of the issues but these 1st two games. Geez!!!!! I think Silsbee the the game 5 times and ran the rest vs Newton? 

It’s a waste of talent that isn’t being utilized correctly imo.. I know newton is a beast, but if Silsbee is as good as what some fans were saying they are, as a coach you’ve gotta put up a better fight than that. It’s ok to get beat by newton, but you can’t be beat this bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Tiger90 said:

He was on the sidelines. 

 

Either the wrs were running poor routes or the q.b. was extremely inaccurate.  It looked both.

There is an old saying.....”when you have 2 qbs you have none.”  

The rbs ran hard.  Darrell Royal would of had a field day with the number of good backs.

Yes I was thinking what a group of backs for an old wishbone or maybe even power I.  Days of old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ST413 said:

Yes I was thinking what a group of backs for an old wishbone or maybe even power I.  Days of old.

We ran the wishbone in the 90’s when I was in school imo to have a effective wishbone it starts with a option  Qb to beable to make the reads. Then the full back  has to be stud 3 to 4 yards a carry you have to get those line backers pinch down once that happens the Qb reads the d end and if you have a athletic Qb can be nightmare for teams. The oline has to be physical. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, LC-M said:

We ran the wishbone in the 90’s when I was in school imo to have a effective wishbone it starts with a option  Qb to beable to make the reads. Then the full back  has to be stud 3 to 4 yards a carry you have to get those line backers pinch down once that happens the Qb reads the d end and if you have a athletic Qb can be nightmare for teams. The oline has to be physical. 

Would have ago fit the right one at qb for sure 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BMTSoulja1 said:

I'm really curious to see what's done in practice.  I overheard some fans by me say that they don't run the plays on Friday nights that they run in practice. 

And at some point, I believe the DC needs to be on the sidelines vs. Being in the press box to get his instructions to his players.  

Coach Allen, who is the DC, is on the sidelines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • 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...