oldschool2

One of too many examples to give. There's only one person here that believes it's only about coaching.. and that "elite" coaches can win a state championship no matter where they are.

That's typical of how I figured you respond. But.. I didn't give you my thoughts. I asked you why so many coaches have won a title or more and then never got close again. That doesn't sound like the actions of an elite coach to me. I would think an elite coach would just keep being elite every year after reaching elite status.

You still didn't answer the question.. or any of the other questions that prove the same exact point.

I've asked you this before and you have never given an explanation.. Why are there so many coaches that have won multiple state championships and then never got close again? How many players did SS have that went on to play major D1 football? How many did Phil D. have? Is coaching responsible for that? How many super bowls did Bill Belichick win without Tom Brady? How many state championships did Tom Westerberg win without Kyler Murray? How many NBA championships did Phil Jackson win without MJ or Kobe in the lineup? You're pro "coaching matters".. and I agree, it does. But you will never convince me that coaching matters more than the players on the team. Never. And I know that it could never be proven, but I'd bet that several coaches could reach your definition of elite if they'd had the right players.

Sometimes you just say the right things in the interview.

Phil Danaher is the winningest head coach in the history of Texas high school football coaches. 41 consecutive playoff appearances... since you brought up losing seasons. However, he never won the title. So.. is he elite? Some people (cough cough) would say no, because he never won the state championship. What are your thoughts?

I actually went to the game.. (invited by an old friend). Orangefield's defense is much more aggressive in person than I saw each time I watched them play on NFHS. I'm impressed with how they get in your pocket.. so to speak. And. I really like 24's game. His ability to penetrate the paint at the end was one of the differences in the game. However.. could someone tell him that it's not necessary to have a conversation with an official literally every dead ball situation? I'm surprised OF didn't catch a tech because of that annoyance alone. There were a couple times I thought for sure they would've gotten one but didn't. Either way, congrats on the hard fought win. Definitely a positive that WW went small. That'll make it more attainable.. but Madison won't be a pushover by any stretch should you get this win over London. Best of luck, guys.

That's every school, right? They all have D1 running backs... if the coaches would just use the correct blocking schemes with the linemen. Every team has a D1 quarterback... if the coaching staff would just call the correct offensive plays. Every team should've won the state championship... if the coaches would've just implemented the right system. Right? Isn't that the way it works every year? Sideline coaches are genuinely hilarious to me. Genuinely.

What's funny about this, is the amount of people that feel this way about coaches that have poor seasons. Even coaches that don't have 3 state titles under their belts.. Team loses - Coach is terrible. Nobody would ever dare say that the talent level is just subpar or nonexistent. Warren football is actually a good example. But there are many others. When there's no industry that brings in people, there's no history of athleticism in anyone's lineage, there's no motivation whatsoever for the players to work the extremely long/hard hours that it takes to improve... I mean, what is really expected? Or maybe the kids aren't able to. Maybe they work jobs during the summers. I don't know. But even at a school with an entire history of mediocrity at best, no matter how many coaches come in, the coach will be at fault for not performing miracles.

This is the exact reason I asked if Elite coaches existed outside of football. Because you have a man that won a state championship in high school, and then won 3 state championships as a head coach running the same exact system that his school has been running since before he took the job. And then less than one calendar year after winning his 3rd state title as a head coach.. his team didn't finish better than 5th in a district that isn't impressive at all. "Elite coaches can win anywhere" is an invalid argument.

True or False: "Elite" coaches can exist in any sport according to what is being defined as elite?

So... turf the fields so the school uses less water? Maybe..

Is nobody going to talk about what happened here? Was HF missing someone? Injuries? Or did they just play awful? Or did Tarkington play lights out? It's be nice to know what happened.

Makes sense.

It's tough being a one-trick pony after others figure out the trick. The other kids might have to get more involved whether they want to or not...

I'm sure his average dropped from what it was pretty noticeably. More importantly, this may have laid a groundwork for what other teams should be doing.. assuming they aren't trying already.

You're right. I knew it was something, though....

WV wouldn't have lost any games all year if the coaches would have had the players in the right position. Or something like that.. I remember reading it before.

Between Anahuac, Warren, and .... ? Kountze maybe ? Hardin ? I know where everyone is standing currently but what's a prediction on where it ends up?

Be careful... there are people on here that believe that an elite coach could win a state championship at ANY school within 7 years. Or something like that...

Well.. in my opinion (and probably several others), I immediately think that "that was the worst officiated game I've ever seen" is likely an excuse made by someone that isn't happy with the outcome of the game. Either a loss or a close win that they feel shouldn't have been. It's unfortunately becoming common to believe that someone is making excuses. . such as poor officiating.

This conversation implies that officiating favored one side over the other. The comment was literally made about it being the "worst officiating I've ever seen".. followed by an extremely lopsided foul count.. which apparently wasn't even close to correct. I have bad news for you.. most officiating is equally horrible. For several reasons. Including lack of qualified persons... Anyone that can do a better job is free to grab a shirt and a whistle. If you're convinced of that being the worst officiated game you've seen, wait a game or two. However, games are shockingly poorly officiated to the fans that aren't happy with the results. What should one believe that the purpose of this conversation was?

Aggressive teams will often have more fouls. But.. it's much easier to blame officials or assume that there should be an exact number of fouls/free throws by each team. Even though there are many factors that may influence that... other than "cheating".

I wasn't at nor did I watch the game. But.. sometimes there can be vastly different foul counts based on extreme differences in style of play. Also, when a team is a "behind" situation late in a game, they will amass more fouls to intentionally force free throws. Is it possible that this, or a combination of this was going on? Simply stating foul count differences doesn't always prove evidence of bad officiating. Even though it should be understood that officiating has gotten poorer over the years, across the board, for several reasons.

I've said countless times before.. even great coaches need ability to work with. The best horse trainer in the world can't win the Kentucky Derby with a 3 legged donkey.