Jump to content

2019 SPLENDORA WILDCATS


Recommended Posts

This is the hidden content, please

2019 FOOTBALL TEAM PREVIEWS

SPLENDORA WILDCATS

2018 Record: 10-2 Overall, 5-0 District

District 11-4A-I Champion

 

2018 was a banner year for the Splendora Wildcats as they took home the district title for the first time since 2007.  Head Coach Marcus Schulz and the Wildcats don't expect to wait as long for the next district title as they return a veteran squad (8 starters return on each side of the ball) to push the Wildcats a little farther into the playoffs.

 

Head Coach: Marcus Schulz

Assistant Coaches:  Chip Keel (Co-Offensive Coordinator), Matt Riordan (Co-Offensive Coordinator), Jeff Cordell (Defensive Coordinator), Clay Mayo (Defensive Backs), Cody Inkster (Defensive Backs), Laurence Smith (Defensive Line), Chase Reneau (Defensive Line), J.T. Hatton (Wide Receivers), Jerremy Holliefield (Running Backs), Kody Weatherson (Running Backs), Randy Pope (Freshmen)

Offense:

Eight starters return to the Splendora spread offense in 2019.  Returning to trigger the Wildcat offense will be senior quarterback Cody Thorndyke (2nd team all-district).  Thorndyke will be throwing to a veteran squad as senior wide outs Tyler Gamble (11-4A-I Offensive MVP), Dylan Matthews, and Scott Norwood, as well as junior receivers Jagger Kennedy (1st team all-district) and Cole Goodrum, all return in 2019.  A veteran line also returns as senior Jaylen Smith and juniors Austin Elliot (2nd team all-district at fullback), Trenton Vest and Kevin Jernigan will lead the way up front.

Defense:

Eight starters also return to the Splendora defense in 2019.  Smith (1st team all-district) returns to his defensive tackle position to lead the Wildcat defensive line.  Senior outside linebacker Matthew Owen will be featured on a Splendora linebacker group which will also include sophomore Zane Obregon and junior Andrew Vasquez.  Goodrum (2nd team all-district) returns along with Mattews, Norwood, senior Matthew Owen and junior Andrew Hernandez.

Special Teams:

The place kicking and punting duties will be sorted out at summer practice.  Matthews (11-4A-I Co-Special Teams MVP) and Gamble will be the primary kick returners.

Schedule:

Aug. 31 - at Houston Sterling (Barnett), 6:00 pm

Sept. 5 - at Baytown Lee, 7:00 pm

Sept. 13 - OPEN

Sept. 20 - at Shepherd, 7:00 pm

Sept. 27 - at Liberty, 7:00 pm

Oct. 4 - Houston Kashmere, 7:00 pm

Oct. 11 - Livingston, 7:00 pm*

Oct. 18 - Little Cypress-Mauriceville, 7:00 pm*

Oct. 25 - at Huffman Hargrave, 7:00 pm*

Nov. 1 - Lumberton, 7:00 pm*

Nov. 8 - at Bridge City, 7:00 pm*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
28 minutes ago, Mr. Buddy Garrity said:

Was Keel a head coach before? Name sounds familiar. 

CHIP KEEL: 4 years; 24-17-0; 2-0-0
----staff, Shepherd—
2012  Shepherd                      5-5-0
2013  Shepherd                      5-4-0
2014  Shepherd                      6-5-0 T
2015  Shepherd                      8-3-0 R

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, LC-M said:

CHIP KEEL: 4 years; 24-17-0; 2-0-0
----staff, Shepherd—
2012  Shepherd                      5-5-0
2013  Shepherd                      5-4-0
2014  Shepherd                      6-5-0 T
2015  Shepherd                      8-3-0 R

Thx, knew I'd seen that name before, maybe he's the main cog for Splendora success, Pirates were pretty good offensively if I remember correctly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Mr. Buddy Garrity said:

Was Keel a head coach before? Name sounds familiar. 

He was at Shepherd then was hired at Rusk, which he resigned about a month after being hired. He then joined the staff in Frankston and was promoted to HC in 2017 but left less than 2 weeks after the promotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mr. Buddy Garrity said:

Thx, knew I'd seen that name before, maybe he's the main cog for Splendora success, Pirates were pretty good offensively if I remember correctly. 

Splendora the second time in our district is better then they were. There area is growing from what I hear and probably be back up in 5a. Im looking forward to playing them this year. We should have never lost last year to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WOSgrad said:

He was at Shepherd then was hired at Rusk, which he resigned about a month after being hired. He then joined the staff in Frankston and was promoted to HC in 2017 but left less than 2 weeks after the promotion.

I'd leave Frankston too to be honest lol. I hope Splendora is able to keep him on staff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 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...