Jump to content

Nederland 37 Houston Sterling 0/FINAL


WOSgrad

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, spidersal said:

Certainly a Bulldog fan, but also realistic. If you are honest, the Bulldogs were sluggish in the 1st half and had way too many penalties vs a really bad team. They simply can’t afford to play like that in round 2 or they will not come out with a win

OK captain obvious , 1 offside , 1 questionable block in the back, another questionable helmet to helmet , 2 false start , am I missing any  , I think those are the first two personal fouls all year , they'll clean it up 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, navydawg31 said:

The offense looked very vanilla last night. Didn’t look like they showed much and didn’t need too.. dogs will be fine. They clicking at the right time 

It was rather methodical looking but according to the PA News, Nederland had 419 yards and held Sterling to 101 total. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall I felt we came out pretty flat in first quarter.  I agree we had several unnecessary penalties. If #8 doesn't watch it we could of ended up with more.  I was so relieved to see them get on track starting in the second quarter!  If we end up with A&M Consolidated then we will be in for a fight because judging from past years lining up with that team in playoffs didn't bode well for us.  Wishing our guys have a great week of practice to ready themselves for the next opponent and will be ready to cheer them on next week.

Congratulations on the win over Sterling.  GO BULLDOGS!!! 😍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer to call spider our resident "pessimist"...he expects every play of every game to go Nederland's way...football just doesn't work that way!  it's a game of ups and downs and teams that overcome the downs the best prevail.

In any event, when you look at the game in totality, the Dogs were pretty dang solid...holding a team to barely over 100 yards is impressive, regardless of the opponent...even more difficult in a blowout when trash time yards are often wracked up...perfect performance? no, but those are extremely rare in this game...next week should naturally be tougher, but most objective folks would have to consider this team to have been more successful than anyone thought

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always want the Bulldogs to play well. I simply state my opinion on what I think they must correct in order to continue winning.  Yes, they have had a fantastic season and I want to see it continue.  It was a good win against Sterling.  However in my opinion, I believe they were the worst team they have played all season.  The weak teams are all gone now, so the Dogs must continue to improve if they are to continue to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, spidersal said:

I always want the Bulldogs to play well. I simply state my opinion on what I think they must correct in order to continue winning.  Yes, they have had a fantastic season and I want to see it continue.  It was a good win against Sterling.  However in my opinion, I believe they were the worst team they have played all season.  The weak teams are all gone now, so the Dogs must continue to improve if they are to continue to win.

Can’t find fault with that comment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, spidersal said:

I always want the Bulldogs to play well. I simply state my opinion on what I think they must correct in order to continue winning.  Yes, they have had a fantastic season and I want to see it continue.  It was a good win against Sterling.  However in my opinion, I believe they were the worst team they have played all season.  The weak teams are all gone now, so the Dogs must continue to improve if they are to continue to win.

Sorry but I would put Sterling ahead of Jacksonville Santa Fe and maybe Dayton

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!
    • See why I don't trust my Hogs?
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...