Jump to content

Kingwood Park 63 Goose Creek Memorial 6/FINAL


WOSgrad

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Bandwagon Ranger said:

42-0

KPark getting to work on their hurry up offense and passing game. Classy.

There comes a time and point where, if you’re giving up 50+ points a game and getting beat every week, and ur avg margin of defeat for the last 3 years, is 36.8pts, it’s not the other team not being classy, it’s the product that’s put on the field that needs to be questioned. If you don’t like them scoring... do something about it and stop them. Those same kids playing basketball and baseball don’t get beat like that, and they fight their tails off to the end, but attitude reflects leadership, and it’s time to cut the head off the snake and go in an entirely new direction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, N8_44 said:

There comes a time and point where, if you’re giving up 50+ points a game and getting beat every week, and ur avg margin of defeat for the last 3 years, is 36.8pts, it’s not the other team not being classy, it’s the product that’s put on the field that needs to be questioned. If you don’t like them scoring... do something about it and stop them. Those same kids playing basketball and baseball don’t get beat like that, and they fight their tails off to the end, but attitude reflects leadership, and it’s time to cut the head off the snake and go in an entirely new direction. 

Disagree completely. A team can impose their will to start a game. At some point, they should know that it is in their best interest to run the damn ball, play the back ups, and just get out of there. 

It's all about winning with class. Coach Kay at North Shore does it right.  He could have put 100 on the board the past 2 seasons against GCM,  but did not. Beating GCM by 100 is NOT his ultimate goal. He has bigger asperations. 

If you can line up and run the ball and score 63...more Power to ya. To run a hurry up offense and continue to throw the ball up 49 points is classless. Always will be. 

Already done with this season. Ready for next year. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2018 at 10:55 PM, Bandwagon Ranger said:

Disagree completely. A team can impose their will to start a game. At some point, they should know that it is in their best interest to run the damn ball, play the back ups, and just get out of there. 

It's all about winning with class. Coach Kay at North Shore does it right.  He could have put 100 on the board the past 2 seasons against GCM,  but did not. Beating GCM by 100 is NOT his ultimate goal. He has bigger asperations. 

If you can line up and run the ball and score 63...more Power to ya. To run a hurry up offense and continue to throw the ball up 49 points is classless. Always will be. 

Already done with this season. Ready for next year. 

 

 

And that’s fine everybody has their own opinion we can agree to disagree. But to me it’s pretty cut and dry, when they moved on from Boyd, which was necessary and time for, they hired someone from his staff and kept all of the same coaches. The reason for letting him go/him resigning, was because the performance and record had fallen off it was time for a change. But change does not come unless everything is changed including the coaching staff. If you have a program where they’re losing and have that instilled in them Bc that’s all they’ve known, Then what makes anything change if the recipe stays the same.  When you change head coaches the entire regime needs to go In order for total change to happen and a new philosophy combined with a new culture is required. By not doing this you set the program back by 4 years. Take Lee for example, they cleaned house brought in Finn and he’s turning that program around. They have fewer numbers than GCM and although they can’t stop a lot of people from scoring, they routinely score 40+ a game and remain competitive if not entertaining throughout. GCM has struggled to put quality units on the field for 4yrs under current regime. It’s not the coaches fault Bc they were set up for failure, the program needs a shot in the arm, to bring out more kids to the program and an overall make over to attract more talent. The kids put in a lot of work and should be commended, but another area of concern is the coaching at the junior high level. 99% of our kids at a certain jr high, can’t tell you what a 3 technique or lining up in a 7 or 9 means. And then you play the likes of Cunningham, North Shore MS , and they are on the sidelines, yelling for their kids to change into different techniques to adjust for the offensive alignment and they do it immediately.  Our kids are at a disadvantage from the time they walk in to the high school doors districtwide. The high school coaches have to teach all these things when I get there because they weren’t taught in junior high immediately putting them behind the eight ball. You have to start from the bottom and go to the top with culture change and that’s what it’s going to take the kids to be successful. End of discussion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, N8_44 said:

And that’s fine everybody has their own opinion we can agree to disagree. But to me it’s pretty cut and dry, when they moved on from Boyd, which was necessary and time for, they hired someone from his staff and kept all of the same coaches. The reason for letting him go/him resigning, was because the performance and record had fallen off it was time for a change. But change does not come unless everything is changed including the coaching staff. If you have a program where they’re losing and have that instilled in them Bc that’s all they’ve known, Then what makes anything change if the recipe stays the same.  When you change head coaches the entire regime needs to go In order for total change to happen and a new philosophy combined with a new culture is required. By not doing this you set the program back by 4 years. Take Lee for example, they cleaned house brought in Finn and he’s turning that program around. They have fewer numbers than GCM and although they can’t stop a lot of people from scoring, they routinely score 40+ a game and remain competitive if not entertaining throughout. GCM has struggled to put quality units on the field for 4yrs under current regime. It’s not the coaches fault Bc they were set up for failure, the program needs a shot in the arm, to bring out more kids to the program and an overall make over to attract more talent. The kids put in a lot of work and should be commended, but another area of concern is the coaching at the junior high level. 99% of our kids at a certain jr high, can’t tell you what a 3 technique or lining up in a 7 or 9 means. And then you play the likes of Cunningham, North Shore MS , and they are on the sidelines, yelling for their kids to change into different techniques to adjust for the offensive alignment and they do it immediately.  Our kids are at a disadvantage from the time they walk in to the high school doors districtwide. The high school coaches have to teach all these things when I get there because they weren’t taught in junior high immediately putting them behind the eight ball. You have to start from the bottom and go to the top with culture change and that’s what it’s going to take the kids to be successful. End of discussion

You seem to have a pretty good grip on what's going on within this entire district and seem to have all of the answers.  Sounds like you need to go to the athletic director with all of your concerns and remedies and convince him to hire you to fix the Baytown issue.  You've got my vote!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, N8_44 said:

And that’s fine everybody has their own opinion we can agree to disagree. But to me it’s pretty cut and dry, when they moved on from Boyd, which was necessary and time for, they hired someone from his staff and kept all of the same coaches. The reason for letting him go/him resigning, was because the performance and record had fallen off it was time for a change. But change does not come unless everything is changed including the coaching staff. If you have a program where they’re losing and have that instilled in them Bc that’s all they’ve known, Then what makes anything change if the recipe stays the same.  When you change head coaches the entire regime needs to go In order for total change to happen and a new philosophy combined with a new culture is required. By not doing this you set the program back by 4 years. Take Lee for example, they cleaned house brought in Finn and he’s turning that program around. They have fewer numbers than GCM and although they can’t stop a lot of people from scoring, they routinely score 40+ a game and remain competitive if not entertaining throughout. GCM has struggled to put quality units on the field for 4yrs under current regime. It’s not the coaches fault Bc they were set up for failure, the program needs a shot in the arm, to bring out more kids to the program and an overall make over to attract more talent. The kids put in a lot of work and should be commended, but another area of concern is the coaching at the junior high level. 99% of our kids at a certain jr high, can’t tell you what a 3 technique or lining up in a 7 or 9 means. And then you play the likes of Cunningham, North Shore MS , and they are on the sidelines, yelling for their kids to change into different techniques to adjust for the offensive alignment and they do it immediately.  Our kids are at a disadvantage from the time they walk in to the high school doors districtwide. The high school coaches have to teach all these things when I get there because they weren’t taught in junior high immediately putting them behind the eight ball. You have to start from the bottom and go to the top with culture change and that’s what it’s going to take the kids to be successful. End of discussion

Sounds similar to what they did at Beaumont United.  Brought in a former coach but used staff that had only won 3 games in 2 years from a particular school to hold the authoritive positions on the sideline while the guys that had at least won 10 in that time frame were put in the back... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 90yshallow said:

You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip or win the Kentucky Derby with a mule.  Bren is a good coach and a first time head coach at a school that was formed by splitting a school that is a perennial loser (Sterling).

5 starters moved just before school started- QB, RB, OL.

GCM was behind the 8 Ball to start the season. Add on multiple injuries and it is what it is. 

Bren Jones is a good coach and a better man. Not going to panic after a few seasons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bandwagon Ranger said:

5 starters moved just before school started- QB, RB, OL.

GCM was behind the 8 Ball to start the season. Add on multiple injuries and it is what it is. 

Bren Jones is a good coach and a better man. Not going to panic after a few seasons. 

If you got anymore good athletes to share we could take one or two lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bandwagon Ranger said:

5 starters moved just before school started- QB, RB, OL.

GCM was behind the 8 Ball to start the season. Add on multiple injuries and it is what it is. 

Bren Jones is a good coach and a better man. Not going to panic after a few seasons. 

Qb, Rb, Lb, Not sure who the OL would have been. Injuries yea but they weren't to anyone that was contributing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2009 7-4 lost to Central @ the Babe 7-0 (last playoff appearance)

2012 6-4 (last winning season)

throw in 0-10, 1-8, 4-6, 4-6, 4-6, 5-5, 4-6, and it’s a little more than a few seasons over the last decade, 2 winning seasons, in a decade screams for a different way of doing things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, N8_44 said:

2009 7-4 lost to Central @ the Babe 7-0 (last playoff appearance)

2012 6-4 (last winning season)

throw in 0-10, 1-8, 4-6, 4-6, 4-6, 5-5, 4-6, and it’s a little more than a few seasons over the last decade, 2 winning seasons, in a decade screams for a different way of doing things. 

And that was a Central team that went 3 rounds deep...

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...