Jump to content

FYI from ol Soulja....


BMTSoulja1

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

If it's a Legit Question, then your premise is a little flawed. If you got a coach that won football games (I mean won like Newton, WOS, etc. year in/year out) then the scouts are gonna come no matter what. Plus in this day and age, even Junior High kids can make their own highlight videos. Hudl, YouTube, MaxPreps and other sites give the ability for these kids to be noticed a lot more than even just 5 years ago.

Therefore, if you had a coach that could bring a team wins, then he would effectively be getting those same kids recruited.

So, with that thought in mind, your question could only be: Would you rather choose a coach that wins football games and gets kid recruited or would you rather choose a coach that loses football games and gets kid recruited?

I'll take the winner please...

That's Arthur Louis' resume.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Austin1985 said:

Both.  In Beaumont, both can happen.  A city that produced a champion in '82 and a co-champion in 84 can have schools with deep playoff runs and significant amounts of scholarship offers

Title 1 schools are behind the 8 ball when it comes to winning big these days, especially at the 5A-6A level. Not saying it can’t be and isn’t done, but the larger school districts with kids that come from higher income families have pretty much taken over. All one needs to do is look at the past few years of state champs at the 5A-6A level 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, bigdog said:

I think coaching consistency is part of it, probably a big part of it.   Central was better about keeping a coach around for more than a couple of years but Ozen changed coaches every two years toward the end.

Consistency is a big part of it but we don't want one that is consistently losing either...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Uncle Pig said:

Title 1 schools are behind the 8 ball when it comes to winning big these days, especially at the 5A-6A level. Not saying it can’t be and isn’t done, but the larger school districts with kids that come from higher income families have pretty much taken over. All one needs to do is look at the past few years of state champs at the 5A-6A level 

2017-Dallas Highland Park, College Station, Allen and Cy-Fair

2016-Dallas Highand Park, Aledo, Austin Lake Travis and DeSoto

I understand your point even though I'm not sure about the financial break down of Desoto.  I'm not expecting a state championship at United but I'm not excepting 2 wins a year either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Alpha Wolf said:

2017-Dallas Highland Park, College Station, Allen and Cy-Fair

2016-Dallas Highand Park, Aledo, Austin Lake Travis and DeSoto

I understand your point even though I'm not sure about the financial break down of Desoto.  I'm not expecting a state championship at United but I'm not excepting 2 wins a year either. 

Yessir I 100% see where you’re coming from. Desoto is very upper/middle class

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, bigdog said:

No, but you have to give a coach time to implement thier program and get the kids on board.  It usually takes more than two years.

It was the Ozen offensive system from the previous 2 years, just with more kids now but the same results.  Like I told the school board last night, those kids deserve better...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Icon said:

Weve seen it time and again

Would a new coach be able to bring in his own and staff and run his program? Consistency in the form of proven success is more helpful than perpetual mediocrity.

I'm sitting in Cheddars about to eat so I don't have much time but I received a 20 minute and 44 second phone call from one of the "Admin Powers" yesterday on this entire topic wanting to know my and the community's concerns about United football.  And I didn't hold back, I was actually more controlled last night because I only had 2 and half minutes...

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

    45,935
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined



  • Posts

    • This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up  
    • Diboll - 1  Central Heights- 0
    • Just to expound a little further, so you are not confused...I, along with so many others, are laughing at your desperation. You are working overtime, nay, double even triple time, trying to convince normal people Trump was bad for the country. His policies provided for peace all over the world, low gas prices, low food prices, energy independence, closed border, low inflation, record low unemployment, and on and on and on. You try to counter this narrative by saying unemployment skyrocketed on his watch. You said this knowing full well the unemployment rate went up due to Covid. Your narrative is just so laughable, to the point of side-splitting hilarity. Who would even attempt this asinine narrative? Now, even if you get past the utter stupidity of that MSNBC talking point, you provide another side-splitting hilarious tidbit of evidence to back your claim of Trump being bad for the country. You actually tried to tie the stock market going down to Trump...after Covid. You, I, and everybody else knows the stock market was flourishing under Trump...until Covid hit. This argument is just as bad as the other one. Again, who would even attempt this narrative? The only thing you could remotely muster that had any sliver of truthfulness, is that spending increased. Sure, Trump rebuilt the military and gave them a deserved raise. But he also had to shut down the government due to Democrats demanding an even more, and very detrimental, increase in spending. And in a true extremely exaggerated fashion, you proclaim that spending "skyrocketed". Again, who would even attempt this narrative? I think I can smell the desperation. Do you have any other whoppers to contribute?
    • He was injured but has returned and he decided not to play baseball this year.
    • There's some truth to that.......some.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...