Jump to content

Port Neches-Groves 34 Beaumont Ozen 10/Final


WOSgrad

Recommended Posts

For clarity on the onside kick penalty by Ozen the reason it was 15 yards was because the Ozen kicker kicked it straight up and not into ground first and PNG player signaled fair catch. At that point PNG player has to be given the oportunity to make the catch in wich he was not as the Ozen player jumped up and caught it first. Smart play by PNG kid. And what Ozen should have done on openning kickoff. Had Ozen Kicker kicked into ground with a high bounce off the turf then you cant fair catch.
Officials got it correct.
On the punt with running into punter, the head Ref signaled that he touched the ball. Not sure if he did or not, but the punt did go off to the left some.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great Win PNG !!! However, in regards to Ozen the kids played their hearts out including #20 LB Jeremy Harris and many other Panthers.

To the Ozen Coaching staff, you guys continue to put these kids in bad situations to win football games. Your, overall play calling was horrible and we need to spend more time on Special Teams.Every week, we give up the ball in this area.

* Question : Why does it take all night to get a play in ? All 3 first half Time Outs were used,because we simply couldn't get a play off within 25 seconds. Totally Unacceptable !!!

Ozen has to many good athletes to come away with only 16 points in 4 quarters of Football. WAKE UP !!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It floored me that Ozens kickoff return was not lined up or prepared for the PNG pooch kicks until the second half. If youve seen PNG play you would know this.
It appears the game is passing Suggs by.
But I will also note that some of it was execution. Several open WR missed. That aint coaching.
One thing Ozen did better than anyone we've seen this year is tackle. Them boys hit hard and wrapped up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It floored me that Ozens kickoff return was not lined up or prepared for the PNG pooch kicks until the second half. If youve seen PNG play you would know this.
It appears the game is passing Suggs by.
But I will also note that some of it was execution. Several open WR missed. That aint coaching.
One thing Ozen did better than anyone we've seen this year is tackle. Them boys hit hard and wrapped up.

@ Badndn - You're absolutely right. The game may be beyond Suggs time. In regards to Receivers being wide open and the QB refusing to throw the ball is exactly what's happens, when your Head Coach decides not to have Summer 7 on 7. There is absolutely no timing or well ran routes as a result of that decision.

It,has also affected our DB's from playing well. Last night several times they were in good position to make a play on the ball, but failed to do so. With the exception of the one pick by #23 Harrington
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Badndn - You're absolutely right. The game may be beyond Suggs time. In regards to Receivers being wide open and the QB refusing to throw the ball is exactly what's happens, when your Head Coach decides not to have Summer 7 on 7. There is absolutely no timing or well ran routes as a result of that decision.

It,has also affected our DB's from playing well. Last night several times they were in good position to make a play on the ball, but failed to do so. With the exception of the one pick by #23 Harrington

 

Really......Nederland doesn't do 7 on 7 and we appear to be OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't care who does or doesn't participate in 7on 7. The bottom line is it helps build continuity with a QB and his Receivers. We will see what happens to those teams,who speak negatively about 7 on 7 when you get ousted in the playoffs, by a solid teams that does participate in it.

Holla back @ me then when you're one and done come post season play !!! Or at least go two rounds and back home.
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

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined



  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...