Jump to content

Stafford at Silsbee/Canceled


WOSgrad

Recommended Posts

  • AggiesAreWe changed the title to Stafford at Silsbee/Canceled

I watched the Tigers practicing on Monday. It appeared that with the exception of Miller nearly everyone was present. Someone even said that Miller was there but I did not see him.Ā 

I would guess that they will be better than they were last year at four of the five positions. You would assume that the returning starters will improve with age. They definitely will have a stronger supporting cast. IĀ could see them having eight to ten solid players. They should be taller than they were last year.Ā 

They have a number of players (five or six) in the 6' to 6'2" range and they also have Jones at about 6'5".Ā 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, scoopno1 said:

I watched the Tigers practicing on Monday. It appeared that with the exception of Miller nearly everyone was present. Someone even said that Miller was there but I did not see him.Ā 

I would guess that they will be better than they were last year at four of the five positions. You would assume that the returning starters will improve with age. They definitely will have a stronger supporting cast. IĀ could see them having eight to ten solid players. They should be taller than they were last year.Ā 

They have a number of players (five or six) in the 6' to 6'2" range and they also have Jones at about 6'5".Ā 

Jones is 6'6 and growingĀ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would expect to see some progress when we play West Brook. Not saying we're gonna win, but I would think a somewhat decent game isn't out of the question. Realistically we're probably looking at 0 - 6 before we play Woodville.

That's okay though. Lure some of these teams into a false sense of security for when we start to roll.

More than half the Silsbee team should be in the 6`2 range. Think Grisham and one other kid might be 6`3.

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

    45,988
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    CougarCrazy124
    Newest Member
    CougarCrazy124
    Joined


  • Posts

    • Okay. Ā That is a good argument. Ā There is no law prohibiting the stocks and the Supreme Court was correct by the letter of the law and Constitution but citizens should refuse to buy them. If every person voluntarily turned theirs in and refused to buy any, I am okay with it. It wonā€™t stop the willing from anything however.Ā 
    • From the article:Ā Ā  "In some ways, the dispute over the 2000 presidential election will never end. Witness Vice President Biden's comments Wednesday about predecessor Al Gore. "This man was elected president of the United States of America," Biden said at a fundraiser that Gore also attended. "No, no, no. He was elected president of the United States of America." WOW!!Ā  And no one was indicted for questioning the results an this election.Ā  Amazing how times have changed.Ā Ā  This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up @Big girlĀ  @UT alumĀ  @CardinalBackerĀ  @Boyz N Da HoodĀ  Ā  Ā  Ā  Ā What say you?!
    • What you are failing to realize is thisā€¦.. you act as if the only reason this person committed this heinous crime is because of bump stocks. My realization is that he would have done it anyway. Bump stocks did not create this crime, he did. You need to learn where that line really is.Ā 
    • If you want bump stocks banned, you are going to need Congress.
    • This is my point, made initially. Ā  We, as gun owners, should demand accountability from those who manufacture and sell these things.Ā  But instead we argue "but it's our RIGHT to own them," thereby insuring that another mass killing happens in the future.Ā  At which point in time we'll wring our hands, offer thoughts and prayers, say how it's not a gun that kills, but rather a hard heart that kills.Ā Ā  Ā  Gun manufacturers and sellers don't mind threats from people who were never going to buy from them anyways.Ā  If actual gun owners were to threaten a boycott of businesses that produce/sell bump stocks, they'd disappear from the market.Ā  But instead we take the losing side of an argument on philosophical grounds. Ā  We don't need the feds with more regulations or congress to pass new legislation... we, as consumers control the market.Ā  What's available, etc.Ā  Ā WE, as the actual customers of weapons should be using our voices to determine what is produced/sold by the gun industry.Ā Ā 
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...