89Falcon

1 hour ago, bullets13 said:

What offense turns Orangefield into a contender for a state championship?

None, OF lacks players sufficient for winning a State Championship.

2 hours ago, oldschool2 said:

So the coaches who run Slot-T that won state championships this year and the years before don’t know how to coach? Interesting take.. 

None of the Champions this year run the Slot T.

6 hours ago, Reagan said:

JEREMY JENKINS

5 year; 47-17-0; 5-4-0
---staff, Tenaha---

2019  Mount Enterprise--           9-2-0*
2020  Tenaha--                         10-3-0*
2021  Tenaha--                           9-3-0*
2022  Gilmer Harmony               9-6-0 R
2023  Gilmer Harmony             10-3-0*

4 outright District Championships in 5 years.  If he's actually one of the finalist, looks like a no-brainer!  

He pulled off one of the best coaching jobs I have ever seen in his first year at Harmony. Watched film of them early in the season that year and thought there was no chance they could even be competitive during the season. I predicted 0-10, They ended up turning it around and making a SF appearance. 

8 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

True but that's a recipe for a revolving door.

But they might get lucky.

Could go either way. Many of them have revolving doors with AD/HC combined as well. I think it is a good transition for a potential HC candidate that is currently a coordinator. They get full control of the team without having to deal with the non football issues 

4 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

Going to be very tough getting a quality head football coach.

No AD title and will be required to teach a subject and not PE.

Will be a good opportunity for a coach that is trying to move up. A successful coordinator moving into a HC role is a step in the right direction. 

36 minutes ago, Matthew328 said:

One extra kid in offseason isn't going to make or break things IMO....

I dont know many schools that cut in baseball, Maybe they do but I figure most just have subvarsity teams and try to split em up to play some...most coaches want more kids in athletics

You have not heard of “tryouts for baseball”? It is never “one kid”, once  they know they can be in athletics instead of PE they will keep coming.

12 minutes ago, myrecordwashorrible said:

Fully understand your position and actually agree. My gripe is not allowing students in the athletic period because the student doesn't play football and/or basketball.  

Discipline problems, grade problems, quitting in the past, etc....heck no...you aren't in the program young man. 

Understood. What do you do in the Fall with a kid who claims he is going to be on a team in the Spring that he has not made? Keep him in athletics till February and when he doesnt make the team or doesnt show up, just keep him? Because it is too late to do a schedule change. He effectively consumed resources that could have been utilized on a player who is actually playing and wants to play. 

1 minute ago, myrecordwashorrible said:

Coached at 3 schools.  5A had a athletics period for football only and other period for other sports so it didn't arise.  Other 2 were a 3A that allowed all in, but we only had about 12-15 non-football in the period and only 1 did not play any l sports and the other was the 3A I mentioned.  

The one kid, freshman, which I dont think surprises you, was not allowed in athletic period the next year.  

Have you seen a situation with that many kids in an athletic period that didn't play a sport?  

 

 

I have seen it every year. There are many that attempt it. Most programs do not allow non-football kids in athletics for all of the reasons that I mentioned. If a kid is a returning varsity player for a spring sport they are sometimes allowed in particularly for baseball or basketball. Everything else, no way.  

1 minute ago, pine curtain said:

You do realize all the seniors who only play football are basically in a P.E. class for the remainder of the year during athletic period.......

I realize it fully. SRs after football that are no longer playing other sports are not allowed to hang out with the kids still playing sports only to detract from their efforts. The reason that SRs are removed is because they frequently cause discipline problems for the program after they are no longer playing sports.

This is the same reason that kids not playing football are not allowed in athletics because the vast majority are only trying to not be in PE and thus work against the program. They will all say that they "are baseball" or "are powerlifting" and then when the season rolls around they never materialize, yet they consumed resources for the whole year and there is nothing that anyone can do as the year has nearly passed. They were simply dead weight to the program for the whole year. 

14 minutes ago, myrecordwashorrible said:

As a former coach, I actually do that very thing.  Again, we will disagree about the elimination of kids from athletic class periods. 

Understood. When you were coaching, How did you handle kids in athletics that had no interest in being on a team but did not    want to be in PE? That told you at the beginning of the year they were going to in powerlifting, baseball or tennis and then made no effort to be on the team. 

5 minutes ago, myrecordwashorrible said:

Not sure why the air quotes.  It's what I do.  Not being confrontational are a smart butt.  I work in a teacher certification program as a college educator.  Kinesiology to be more specific.  

 

Excellent! If you have not already, add this to the program just before you send them out and tell them: "Wherever you go, do not draw any conclusions until you understand all of the factors that the AD deals with" and "Always assume that the person who is in a position of leadership and runs an athletic program for a living, likely has insight that you do not have regarding the program". 

2 minutes ago, myrecordwashorrible said:

Thank you for liking my sarcasm.  

Yes, please keep "sending coaches" into the world.  

6 minutes ago, myrecordwashorrible said:

My resume is not the concern.  The elitist attitude of leaving kids out of programs is wrong.   The school I will not point out. Plus, according to you "many" don't allow it, so why point out the one?

Several allow all athletes in are successful across the board doing so.  So, there is another way. 

For the most part it's the anti baseball AD.  It forces kids into football if they wish to lift and get fit during the school hours.  

We will simply disagree as you will not change my mind nor I yours. 

Understood, I know what I am talking about while you do not. Would love to hear what school allows “all athletes” in athletics when you cannot know what “athletes” will be on the team. Keep 40-60 kids in athletics all year and they never play for a team. Especially when they “say they will be on a team” and then “never even try out”, but they were “in athletics all year” consuming limited resources and diverting coaches from players who are sincere.

 Comments like “elitist attitude” further establish your ignorance on the subject.

13 minutes ago, myrecordwashorrible said:

It wasn't a riddle and all that do it are in the wrong. 

You have never run an athletic program and there is no other way. You cannot have the entire school in a single athletic period consisting of kids who do not play sports. They will destroy the program and prevent the coaches from interacting with players who actually play on a team in addition to destroying the discipline in the program.  

If it is not a "riddle", tell us what school you are referencing. 

8 minutes ago, myrecordwashorrible said:

Got one for you while we discuss fairness. There's a 3A school in the area that only allows certain male sport athletes in the boy's athletic period. In other words, you must play certain sports or get you physcial education credit elsewhere and workout on your own.  One of the most unethical things I have witnessed.  

Aa a college educator that teaches pre-service teachers/coaches, as a high school athlete I would not have been allowed in the aforementioned unnamed schools athletic period. 

Not sure what school your riddle pertains to but there are "MANY" schools that do not allow students that do not play football in the athletic period. It is because there is not enough coaches to coach them all and there are always a hoard of kids that will claim they are "baseball" or "powerlifitng" or some other sport and then never make the team. Their only agenda is to "not be in PE". 

4 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Question:  If Vidor had Liberty Hill's coaching staff -- would Vidor look any different?

Doubt it. Does LH have the same number of coaches as Vidor has now? Do they have the same classroom duties? If everything is equal, the results would likely be the same. 

Who are the finalists for the job?

14 minutes ago, Reagan said:

We are talking about one specific offense ran one specific way that very few teams run.  

Understood. No team running any offense lately in this particular area has had the type of success of LH, Franklin and Bellville other than PNG. It has to do with the combination of players, resources, coaching and program structures. Similar to every type of offense in every part of the state. OF has had some success. Vidor has had moments of success. 

In regard to Franklin, they are near in a class of their own for any team anywhere. 

1 hour ago, Reagan said:

Curious why teams like Franklin, Bellville and Liberty Hill has success with this brand of Slot-T and schools around here struggle with this brand of Slot-T?  

PS -- It's my understanding that the former Vidor coach spent a lot of time with Liberty Hill studying them but could not replicate the success at Vidor that Liberty Hill enjoyed.  

There are teams “having success” and “not having success” with every type of offense in every part of the state. 

1 hour ago, Mr. Thornton Melon said:

It's not nearly as effective when multiple teams in the same district run it. The defenses get extra weeks to prepare for it. 

It definitely helps to see it more often. 

1 hour ago, Cu Chulainn said:

I see your taking unprovoked shots again, and @BBfan061 your keyboard warrior friend likes that sort of thing.

I'll address this topic though by taking the opportunity to brag on our Administration who put out a survey to all of Orangefield  requesting the community's thoughts on selection criteria for every potential candidate. The survey was well thought out and showed that they are truly seeking to find the best fit. As a community and parents of young athletes we appreciate that very much!

The feel from at least the folks that speak to me on a regular basis, is that no one cares if they are originally from Orangefield or are in Orangefield currently. Most folks with real athletes don't give a dern about the "Good Ol'boy Syndrome" where folks would get placed in a position because of who they know, rather than their own coaching pedigree. We don't want everyone down at the field house with their mud pumps going trying to politic Little Will into a starting skill position. What we want is someone that comes in and makes winning the expectation rather than the goal. With that being said, if that describes a certain and or multiple candidates who happen to originally be from Orangefield, then so be it, bring'em home. Just my thoughts, but we don't need anyone who is committed to just one style of play. A real coach adjusts their game plan to the personnel that he has. IMO, we have struggled with blocking for some of our extremely talented running backs (currently Mason Manning, great young man who is being heavily scouted) through the years, and that has to be addressed in the weight room right now. We also need to be able to throw it and catch it some, so we can take a few shots down field to keep the defense from only keying in to stopping the run. If not, they blitz every down. 

To address your original comment, I do have friends who are most definitely in the know on the selection process and they tell me the same names you are all hearing as well as some that are out of the area. I have even heard that at least one prominent name put in to scare other applicants off with the intent of slimming down the group for his friend that he wants to land the job. At the end of the day, I believe we have the best Superintendent in Shaun McAlpin and School board Members in the area! I am very confident they will find the right candidate for the job. 

We should see soon. If I'm not mistaken, the job opening closed on the 31st. 

LOL. 

1 hour ago, Separation Scientist said:

UncleSi, Your info is probably good and I don't know anything about Hemphill, but I do know you are not supposed to post any "I heards".    

I think UncleSi is ok because it is open information.

15 hours ago, bhsfan said:

True 

Splendora is not a hopeless situation. They are not completely devoid of athletes 

1 hour ago, pine curtain said:

Timpson lost a lot

Garrison will be the favorite in that district but I think they were senior heavy.

Hemphill should be able to match up with the others better than the district they were in.

Garrison is going to be loaded for a while. San Augustine will be battling them for the District Championship for the next few years. SA and Garrison will be untouchable for the rest of the district unless one of the other teams get some spectacular "moveins". 

1 minute ago, Coach_Izzy said:

Whatever you want it to mean lol

You found a picture of a ring? You on the staff now? Or even if you were associated with the team, it means nothing. Your flippant comments betray you.