Jump to content

gary-us-bonds

Members
  • Posts

    2,081
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by gary-us-bonds

  1. 19 hours ago, Mr. Buddy Garrity said:

    Titans by 23 

     

    If Lee thought Ball High was tough they're in for a nightmare Thursday night. 

    Not sure that Lee thought they were tough or that they overlooked them like the Ball announcers said about 20 times in the second half 

    Lee played hard and performed as well as they could and it just wasnt good enough. 

    Ball figured something out in the short passing game and just worked it over and over in big situations. The other teams Lee played hadn't been able to do that.

    I think a 25 point Memorial win seems reasonable. Lee will need a good 3-4 Memorial turnovers I think to have a chance.

  2. Ball just kept something passes across the middle. Lee had trouble stopping them. Lee fumbled deep in Ball territory in second quarter to ruin an opportunity. 4th quarter they had two drives that just never got going. They don't have a very high powered offense so trying to throw the ball all over the place was counter productive. They usually do it with defense, but they just couldn't stop that Ball quick passing game for whatever reason.

  3. 1 hour ago, coach bear said:

    I was at that game( Thorne Stadium I think) cause we weren’t in the playoffs that year. Found it humorous that Kings fans were calling out Ernie Starnes for not opening up and passing more. King was a great option team that never passed. LaMarques defense was great at pass defense/ turnovers. The only reason King kept it within range was ball control. Boy Lamarque was something from 85 till 99.

    I didn't make it to that one. King had a player named Michael Stewart (I believe was his name) who went to Lee as a freshman and certainly could have helped Lee that year perhaps get past Humble.  He was a linebacker for Lee but ended up as a fullback I believe for King. Very talented player.

  4. 1 hour ago, Peppermint Patty said:

    McNair has not produced athletes in years. 

    OK but I still don't get it. They should be better than they are. Any other new school anywhere is built because upwardly mobile families are filling out the area and they are almost always good in sports for a period of time. Just seems weird that GCM has had what...two good years in a decade and a half?

  5. I'm not sure why GCM has not been better  Usually the newer school always gets a new school bump in output because that's where the upwardly mobile families that care about sports are moving. They also have McNair I am assuming? I would have bet good money on it that GCM would have at least been able to have LaPorte type success let's say. Instead they are no better than Lee or Sterling really over the last decade.

×
×
  • Create New...