Jump to content

Vidor is open !!


lcm93

Recommended Posts

I guess the talk I have been hearing was spot on.

From KBMT's Ashly Elam:

Vidor’s Jeff Mathews will not return as the school’s AD/Head Football Coach after deciding to make a career change.
Mathews first season leading the Pirates was in 1999. In that time Vidor advanced to the playoffs nine times and won two district titles.
Mathews career ends with a record of 117-124.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

I guess the talk I have been hearing was spot on.

From KBMT's Ashly Elam:

Vidor’s Jeff Mathews will not return as the school’s AD/Head Football Coach after deciding to make a career change.
Mathews first season leading the Pirates was in 1999. In that time Vidor advanced to the playoffs nine times and won two district titles.
Mathews career ends with a record of 117-124.

Any idea where he is going? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BigEnosBurdette said:

Coach Mathews changed the lives of many young men throughout the years. He is a good coach and an even better person!

There is one coach on the staff that needs to be the next HC. He is well liked, has great football, and would be a good HC

But, would he be a good Athletic Director and is he even qualified for that job?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BigEnosBurdette said:

Very qualified and would make a damn good AD. He has been a Vidor for awhile. 

What I mean by qualified is most schools require a master's degree to be an Athletic Director. Just because one has tenure at a school doesn't mean he/she meets the required school's qualifications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HarryDoyle said:

What different offense or defense would be a better fit for them than what they have been in?

Literally any offense. They don’t even run the slot T that well. And the belief that vidor kids “can’t” do a modern offense (a belief that Coach Matthews has shamelessly expressed in news interviews) is baseless. There is nothing different between the PNG / Nederland kids and the Vidor kids except that the Vidor kids’ coaches think the Vidor kids can’t learn how to throw a ball. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rez Ipsa said:

Literally any offense. They don’t even run the slot T that well. And the belief that vidor kids “can’t” do a modern offense (a belief that Coach Matthews has shamelessly expressed in news interviews) is baseless. There is nothing different between the PNG / Nederland kids and the Vidor kids except that the Vidor kids’ coaches think the Vidor kids can’t learn how to throw a ball. 

Wut?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rez Ipsa said:

Literally any offense. They don’t even run the slot T that well. And the belief that vidor kids “can’t” do a modern offense (a belief that Coach Matthews has shamelessly expressed in news interviews) is baseless. There is nothing different between the PNG / Nederland kids and the Vidor kids except that the Vidor kids’ coaches think the Vidor kids can’t learn how to throw a ball. 

You must have saw different Vidor kids on the field than me. I think there is a significant difference in the speed and size of the PNG kids vs the Vidor kids. I agree they could learn to throw and catch, but are they going to out run people in open space or be able to block in the interior one on one being outsized?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, HarryDoyle said:

You must have saw different Vidor kids on the field than me. I think there is a significant difference in the speed and size of the PNG kids vs the Vidor kids. I agree they could learn to throw and catch, but are they going to out run people in open space or be able to block in the interior one on one being outsized?

yes 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rez Ipsa said:

Literally any offense. They don’t even run the slot T that well. And the belief that vidor kids “can’t” do a modern offense (a belief that Coach Matthews has shamelessly expressed in news interviews) is baseless. There is nothing different between the PNG / Nederland kids and the Vidor kids except that the Vidor kids’ coaches think the Vidor kids can’t learn how to throw a ball. 

vidor would probably better suited as running a "multiple offense" imo. 

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

    45,937
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined



  • Posts

    • There is a difference, but I wouldn't at all put it past Trump to do so if he had the infrastructure in place to get away with it like the Dems currently do.  With the amount of effort he's invested in ruining those republicans who've opposed him, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
    • I think it will be an interesting case and could potentially come up for appeal on a different constitutional point.  The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the government doesn’t have to take possession of property in order to take it under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.  If they take away the enjoyment or use of the property, it is no different than physically seizing it to build a highway for example. In a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal trial, a person/plaintiff doesn’t have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt but rather by a preponderance of evidence or “more likely” to have happened. Maybe it could be described as more likely yes than no or 51%-49%.  ”IF” it can be shown at a trial by a preponderance of evidence that Texas more likely yes than no caused the flooding with its engineering of the project, the people suing might have a case. But…. Does that alone win the case under the Fifth Amendment taking clause? I am not so sure. In US v Causby the Supreme Court ruled that the US government took a man’s property by flying airplanes over it. It was a public airport lawfully leased by the US in WWII and used to fly heavy bombers from it. Causby had an egg farm and the extremely loud noise of some airplanes under full power and sometimes at night with a landing lights being so close, it bothered and scared the family and damaged his egg farm production. Some chickens died and some quit laying eggs due to the extreme disturbances and lights at night. The Supreme Court ruled in Causby’s favor saying that the US had taken away the enjoyment and use of his land even though they didn’t physically seize it. The use of the land was hampered and that was enough for the taking clause under the Fifth Amendment. So in the IH-10 case, did Texas take away the use or enjoyment of the property?  A point of Causby was that the military bombers at a public airport was certainly for “public use”. The planes were public/taxpayers’ and the airport and lease were taxpayers’ property so the “public” definitely used it   My question in this lawsuit against Texas, even in they can prove the damage, was the damage (like in Causby) for “public use”? If not would it then not be a Fifth Amendment case but rather a state law case?  If Texas law denies such a lawsuit under state sovereignty and the families can’t prove a Fifth Amendment case of “public use”, could they prove the damages but still lose the case under state law? I haven’t read that anywhere and just thinking out loud. I could be way off base. But I think it could be interesting…..
    • Both sides...that is, everyone tries to get their people elected. Trump has not weaponized the government to bankrupt and imprison his political opponents. Night and day difference for me.
    • Surely you're aware of the great lengths Trump has gone to disrupt the elections and destroy the careers of republican politicians who haven't supported some of his most outlandish claims, or dared to question him or disagree with him about January 6.  You and I actually agree on this issue, although it must only go one way for you, because Trump's actions against republicans who didn't fall into lockstep with him is one of my biggest concerns about reelecting him.  The fact that he took action to affect literally hundreds of republican primaries from national elections down to municipal levels across the country, is concerning. It would've been one thing had he done it in an effort to help republicans win. Instead his purpose was to push out his perceived detractors and install MAGA politicians at every level of government in as many places as possible, and has resulted in a fractured republican party.
    • Lmao. No doubt. With a name like that, he would've gotten made fun of even if he was home-schooled.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...