Jump to content

Which one is better a good coach or a talented team? You have to pick one.


Recommended Posts

Don't think I said that. They will not be as good next year as this year personally, but they won't be terrible. The 8th-11th grade class at BC is still really good. But I do see LC-M beating them next year because they will be more talented no matter who the coach is for LC-M. So give me a talented team over a great coach. A lot of people say Matthews is a good coach but Vidor didn't play so swell this year. A lot of people also say Matthews doesn't know what he's doing. But his super talented team of 2011? Went three or four rounds deep. 

he

I hope your right about the talent coming up. It was a  long year for the bears and me lol. We need to build our defense up its gone down hill.... Coach Bolton was a good OC anybody knows where he is coaching now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like most schools every 5 years or do you get special group of 3 or 4 players. I know first hand what we have and Nuemann and staff surprises me. Not going to mention names, but every year I am watching practice and think no way is that player going to help the team, I see a lot the kids grow up, I have been proved wrong every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good coach and program. You develop your players, some years up and some years down. Some area schools have superior talent and can't make it past the first round of the playoffs yet put out four or five D1 players every year. I'll take the coach....the talent will happen. Just like Jeff did at Vidor for about 5 years. It will happen again. Get rid of a coach like that and go back to 0 - 10. Coach, period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good coach and program. You develop your players, some years up and some years down. Some area schools have superior talent and can't make it past the first round of the playoffs yet put out four or five D1 players every year. I'll take the coach....the talent will happen. Just like Jeff did at Vidor for about 5 years. It will happen again. Get rid of a coach like that and go back to 0 - 10. Coach, period.

Tell you what.. You take Nick Saban and the Lamar University football team.  I'll take a first year junior coach at a school of your choice and the University of Alabama.

I'll give you a game a year for 5 years..we can wager any amount you like on the results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell you what.. You take Nick Saban and the Lamar University football team.  I'll take a first year junior coach at a school of your choice and the University of Alabama.

I'll give you a game a year for 5 years..we can wager any amount you like on the results.

You have point, but what do you think of U of H. There new coach is making some noise and I think they could take on some top teams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell you what.. You take Nick Saban and the Lamar University football team.  I'll take a first year junior coach at a school of your choice and the University of Alabama.

I'll give you a game a year for 5 years..we can wager any amount you like on the results.

No it's all about the coach. They develop all the talent and make the team good. They can win with whatever they got as long as the other coach isn't as good as they are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's what great coach does, make you look like you have supremely talented team. We have 12 underclassmen starting this year which include a few sophmores

Would Neuman have had Lumberton in playoffs 19 of the last 20 years? Or how about just the 1-29 run recently. Would he have had Raiders in the playoffs those 3 seasons? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would Neuman have had Lumberton in playoffs 19 of the last 20 years? Or how about just the 1-29 run recently. Would he have had Raiders in the playoffs those 3 seasons? 

I think they would be more competitive with him there, and might have won a couple more games. Overall do I think would have went to playoffs probably not. C. Thompson when he left WOS for the head coaching job went 1-9 i believe at Palestine he left and I think went back to WOS. Jeff Harrell was there DC and became there head coach and went 9-2 next two seasons. But Jeff had Adrian Peterson  at running back so a little talent  does help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would Neuman have had Lumberton in playoffs 19 of the last 20 years? Or how about just the 1-29 run recently. Would he have had Raiders in the playoffs those 3 seasons?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Guess we will never know the answer to that question, but no doubt in my mind Ltown would have been a better more consistent program..You dont have to look far to see several talented schools that are hair lipped by coaching......    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You gotta have talent. We have had 0-10 and 1-9 teams at Warren where the coach was removed and the next day he is hired by Lamar University. He was a quality coach who has been followed by quality coaches and most win 2 games at the most. Some towns for different reasons just don't put good football teams on the field but it's usually not the coaches.There are a TON of really good coaches that don't win state championships.

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...