Jump to content

7 on 7 dangerous?


Recommended Posts

some think that 7on7 is good for football players and some think its bad ! but from my past experiences it had its ups and dwns because the good part of 7on7 it helps the qb and wrs gain better chemistry and it helps db's get better at handling their positions and so tht they can be on th same page ! but the bad side of that , is injuries especially to key players , like for example this past summer RB-james white injured his knee during a 7on7 game and it kept him from playing his senior year ! and i feel if this injury never happened ozen wouldve came out with a  better outcome ! so to all football players im not saying quit 7 on 7 , but be careful when playing !
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think back 15-20 years ago before 7 on 7...
How many texas QB's, WR's and DB's were at bigtime NCAA schools and making a difference?  Texas was known for it's RB's and linemen.
Now answer that question today! Texas has become the new breeding grounds for QB's, wideouts and DB's.

Last few years...
Vince Young
Colt McCoy
Jevan Snead
Case Keenum
Kevin Kolb
Drew Tate
Chase Daniels
Ryan Mallett
Matthew Stafford
Reising (Kansas)
Griffin (Baylor)
Graham Harrell
Taylor Potts

With a host of young guns all over the country right now ready to make their mark like Gilbert, Sheppard and Green.

It has to stay. Texas football is light years ahead of where it was because of it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name="ozen4lif3" post="790391" timestamp="1271294274"]
some think that 7on7 is good for football players and some think its bad ! but from my past experiences it had its ups and dwns because the good part of 7on7 it helps the qb and wrs gain better chemistry and it helps db's get better at handling their positions and so tht they can be on th same page ! but the bad side of that , is injuries especially to key players , like for example this past summer RB-james white injured his knee during a 7on7 game and it kept him from playing his senior year ! and i feel if this injury never happened ozen wouldve came out with a  better outcome ! so to all football players im not saying quit 7 on 7 , but be careful when playing !
[/quote]

Good post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name="badndn" post="790514" timestamp="1271337051"]
Think back 15-20 years ago before 7 on 7...
How many texas QB's, WR's and DB's were at bigtime NCAA schools and making a difference?  Texas was known for it's RB's and linemen.
Now answer that question today! Texas has become the new breeding grounds for QB's, wideouts and DB's.

Last few years...
Vince Young
Colt McCoy
Jevan Snead
Case Keenum
Kevin Kolb
Drew Tate
Chase Daniels
Ryan Mallett
Matthew Stafford
Reising (Kansas)
Griffin (Baylor)
Graham Harrell
Taylor Potts

With a host of young guns all over the country right now ready to make their mark like Gilbert, Sheppard and Green.

It has to stay. Texas football is light years ahead of where it was because of it.

[/quote]
Dont forget Greg McElroy, who went undefeated this year and beat the longhorns for the bcs title... roll tide  ;D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name="canecutter" post="791502" timestamp="1271486957"]
[quote author=badndn link=topic=68640.msg790514#msg790514 date=1271337051]
Think back 15-20 years ago before 7 on 7...
How many texas QB's, WR's and DB's were at bigtime NCAA schools and making a difference?  Texas was known for it's RB's and linemen.
Now answer that question today! Texas has become the new breeding grounds for QB's, wideouts and DB's.

Last few years...
Vince Young
Colt McCoy
Jevan Snead
Case Keenum
Kevin Kolb
Drew Tate
Chase Daniels
Ryan Mallett
Matthew Stafford
Reising (Kansas)
Griffin (Baylor)
Graham Harrell
Taylor Potts

With a host of young guns all over the country right now ready to make their mark like Gilbert, Sheppard and Green.

It has to stay. Texas football is light years ahead of where it was because of it.

[/quote]
Dont forget Greg McElroy, who went undefeated this year and beat the longhorns for the bcs title... roll tide  ;D
[/quote]

Also Andrew Luck at Stanford
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 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...