Jump to content

MARCUS GRAHAM HIRED AS BEAUMONT UNITED FOOTBALL COACH!


2wedge

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

Nope. He was instructing the players which is a no no. Have to be an employee of the district in order to "coach" students.


The violation, according to the UIL Constitution, is for using a coach on staff that wasn’t a full-time employee of the district.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Matthew328 said:

Marcus Graham is a good coach.....he did some good things at El Paso Burges and then took on an impossible situation at El Paso Socorro....not sure Belichick would win there...

Not according to his record! You are what your record says you are. And he was losing games before he got Socorro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take the wait and see approach.  All is speculation right now as to who the finalist are, but as far a Graham goes,  I know he's better than the current DC from West Brook and I'm hearing it won't be him.  I also know that El Paso area in general is not really good at football and really don't produce the athletes you see in abundance here in SETX and Houston area.  He had a string of 3 pretty good season in El Paso, then I believe he switched to another EP school and sucked.  I also know that same school, after Graham left, they put up another 0-10 season.  

Hopefully, If Graham is the guy, maybe he learned a great deal from Coach Samples (darn good coach) as an assistant there.  I'm also sure that Graham is a better coach than A.L.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Graham's record wasn't bad at Burges, very up and down but Burges is basically inner-city El Paso...very few resources to work with and talent can be very up and down....he took Socorro because it was a raise and his son was graduating but that was an impossible situation...

2010  EP Burges                 3-7-0
2011  EP Burges                 9-3-0 T
2012  EP Burges               10-3-0 R
2013  EP Burges                 3-7-0
2014  EP Burges                 1-9-0
2015  EP Burges                 7-5-0 T

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Matthew328 said:

Graham's record wasn't bad at Burges, very up and down but Burges is basically inner-city El Paso...very few resources to work with and talent can be very up and down....he took Socorro because it was a raise and his son was graduating but that was an impossible situation...

2010  EP Burges                 3-7-0
2011  EP Burges                 9-3-0 T
2012  EP Burges               10-3-0 R
2013  EP Burges                 3-7-0
2014  EP Burges                 1-9-0
2015  EP Burges                 7-5-0 T

33-34!  I guess it all depends on where one sets the bar as to whether or not this a good record.  The last three years is, again, 0-30.  You coach it , you own it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Reagan said:

33-34!  I guess it all depends on where one sets the bar as to whether or not this a good record.  The last three years is, again, 0-30.  You coach it , you own it!

You own it, but anyone doing hiring or with any sense of the landscape of HS football on a statewide level knows some jobs are simply impossible to succeed at....Graham has clearly demonstrated he's capable of leading good teams...as much as we like to put importance on coaches, in the end you've got to have the personnel to compete...he'll have the personnel at United at the 5A level

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Matthew328 said:

You own it, but anyone doing hiring or with any sense of the landscape of HS football on a statewide level knows some jobs are simply impossible to succeed at....Graham has clearly demonstrated he's capable of leading good teams...as much as we like to put importance on coaches, in the end you've got to have the personnel to compete...he'll have the personnel at United at the 5A level

Matt, I wouldn't worry about Reagan.  He thinks that if his boyfriend, Art Briles, is not in the conversation, then BISD is making a major mistake.

I am not kidding, just ask him!

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...