|
Post by DD Booger on May 3, 2012 11:40:26 GMT -6
Never happen. Get your secondhand story straight. It's the coaches decision to go to a running clock not the kids. LT is on another level PERIOD. I've watched them several years and this past years team was the best. The last bad ass whoopin for Calallen was by them and it was pretty either. Talking about kids won't win you friends on here and it might get you kicked off. Danaher use to say FB had the best kids all the time on TV interviews to rub it in. Since 04 I believe he's toned that down. I've watched FB since 95 and it wasn't pretty until 2000. I get very tired off hearing a poster talk about the glory days of the 70's or 80's. High school football has changed a bunch since those days. (If you haven't noticed) I'm not sure whether or not stating that FB traditionally has better athletes is "rubbing it in". But I do know that the statement is factual. It's also factual that prior to the last 8 or so years, they either just didn't know how to win, didn't care to win, or just had some bad coaching. They still have a long way to go to take full advantage of the athleticism that is usually present in the Bluff. But it'll take the best coaching to get it done, not just better coaching. That's just about as diplomatic and nice as I can be on this topic.... Bluff posters have said the same here and have gone so far as to call out the coaches and play calling. This isn't a rubbing it in thing, I think it's a widely recognized thing.
|
|
|
Post by OCCNH on May 3, 2012 12:05:08 GMT -6
Never happen. Get your secondhand story straight. It's the coaches decision to go to a running clock not the kids. LT is on another level PERIOD. I've watched them several years and this past years team was the best. The last bad ass whoopin for Calallen was by them and it was pretty either. Talking about kids won't win you friends on here and it might get you kicked off. Danaher use to say FB had the best kids all the time on TV interviews to rub it in. Since 04 I believe he's toned that down. I've watched FB since 95 and it wasn't pretty until 2000. I get very tired off hearing a poster talk about the glory days of the 70's or 80's. High school football has changed a bunch since those days. (If you haven't noticed) I'm not sure whether or not stating that FB traditionally has better athletes is "rubbing it in". But I do know that the statement is factual. It's also factual that prior to the last 8 or so years, they either just didn't know how to win, didn't care to win, or just had some bad coaching. They still have a long way to go to take full advantage of the athleticism that is usually present in the Bluff. But it'll take the best coaching to get it done, not just better coaching. That's just about as diplomatic and nice as I can be on this topic.... You are correct. Coaching comes with time and experience. I watched Calallen many years and watched Danaher and his coaches learn how to get the most out of their kids. I also saw him lose some games they should have won. Even before you played for him Calallen had the best athletes. As far as the FB kids go for the past 10 or so years the kids had to believe they could win. You might not believe this but beating Calallen in 04 was most likely the biggest reason the program at FB has turned around. FB doesn't have the storied records or traditions of Calallen, GP or Alice but they have become much more competitive. I'm not sure if Danaher was rubbing it in, but it is also factual that he now shows Andrus some respect. I would go as far to agree that the 04 and 05 teams had superior athletes, not all of them but at least 5 of them. Andrus was in his first year in 05 and just didn't have the experience playing in the regional finals. If he has a team like that again things should be different this time around.
|
|
|
Post by FB fan on May 3, 2012 12:17:34 GMT -6
I'm not sure whether or not stating that FB traditionally has better athletes is "rubbing it in". But I do know that the statement is factual. It's also factual that prior to the last 8 or so years, they either just didn't know how to win, didn't care to win, or just had some bad coaching. They still have a long way to go to take full advantage of the athleticism that is usually present in the Bluff. But it'll take the best coaching to get it done, not just better coaching. That's just about as diplomatic and nice as I can be on this topic.... You are correct. Coaching comes with time and experience. I watched Calallen many years and watched Danaher and his coaches learn how to get the most out of their kids. I also saw him lose some games they should have won. Even before you played for him Calallen had the best athletes. As far as the FB kids go for the past 10 or so years the kids had to believe they could win. You might not believe this but beating Calallen in 04 was most likely the biggest reason the program at FB has turned around. FB doesn't have the storied records or traditions of Calallen, GP or Alice but they have become much more competitive. I'm not sure if Danaher was rubbing it in, but it is also factual that he now shows Andrus some respect. I would go as far to agree that the 04 and 05 teams had superior athletes, not all of them but at least 5 of them. Andrus was in his first year in 05 and just didn't have the experience playing in the regional finals. If he has a team like that again things should be different this time around. I wouldn't say the '04 win at Cal at their homecoming was "the reason" but rather a strong indicator that there was finally life in the football program at FB. It shocked a lot of people.
|
|
|
Post by C5_96 on May 3, 2012 12:33:52 GMT -6
I'm not sure whether or not stating that FB traditionally has better athletes is "rubbing it in". But I do know that the statement is factual. It's also factual that prior to the last 8 or so years, they either just didn't know how to win, didn't care to win, or just had some bad coaching. They still have a long way to go to take full advantage of the athleticism that is usually present in the Bluff. But it'll take the best coaching to get it done, not just better coaching. That's just about as diplomatic and nice as I can be on this topic.... Did you notice FB has a new OC and line coach? Just saying...... That's a good thing, no doubt.
|
|
|
Post by OCCNH on May 3, 2012 12:59:21 GMT -6
You are correct. Coaching comes with time and experience. I watched Calallen many years and watched Danaher and his coaches learn how to get the most out of their kids. I also saw him lose some games they should have won. Even before you played for him Calallen had the best athletes. As far as the FB kids go for the past 10 or so years the kids had to believe they could win. You might not believe this but beating Calallen in 04 was most likely the biggest reason the program at FB has turned around. FB doesn't have the storied records or traditions of Calallen, GP or Alice but they have become much more competitive. I'm not sure if Danaher was rubbing it in, but it is also factual that he now shows Andrus some respect. I would go as far to agree that the 04 and 05 teams had superior athletes, not all of them but at least 5 of them. Andrus was in his first year in 05 and just didn't have the experience playing in the regional finals. If he has a team like that again things should be different this time around. I wouldn't say the '04 win at Cal at their homecoming was "the reason" but rather a strong indicator that there was finally life in the football program at FB. It shocked a lot of people. Hell it shocked me. Just like in any work place upgrades in personel should help. Hopefully, the defense come together early this year.
|
|
|
Post by islander21 on May 3, 2012 13:18:23 GMT -6
Jumping in here late but a quick question; other than opinion, what is the reasoning behind claiming FB has the best athletes? Not sarcasm, genuinely don't have the answers here, how many district track titles have they won in recent years, how do they compare in number of players they send to play college football (not including 13th grade type football like D3 for example). These would be good indicators rather than just throwing out recycled opinions.
|
|
|
Post by OCCNH on May 3, 2012 14:00:56 GMT -6
Jumping in here late but a quick question; other than opinion, what is the reasoning behind claiming FB has the best athletes? Not sarcasm, genuinely don't have the answers here, how many district track titles have they won in recent years, how do they compare in number of players they send to play college football (not including 13th grade type football like D3 for example). These would be good indicators rather than just throwing out recycled opinions. Not many. FB had a couple of big lineman the past few years. But big isnt always best. Brito was the only one that could have been Div 1. Best has to be more than looks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2012 14:23:34 GMT -6
Jumping in here late but a quick question; other than opinion, what is the reasoning behind claiming FB has the best athletes? Not sarcasm, genuinely don't have the answers here, how many district track titles have they won in recent years, how do they compare in number of players they send to play college football (not including 13th grade type football like D3 for example). These would be good indicators rather than just throwing out recycled opinions. I don't think they have the better athletes, year and year out by any means. I think we losely define athletes as 100% physical ability and that's all. I tend to plug in the mental thing too into the athlete definition. At least at the high school level. Having said that, I will be willing to give the Bluff the credit where credit is due and suggest they've had some pretty darn good athletes for the better half of the last decade, going back to 05 and maybe beyond that. At the same time I will suggest coaching has let them down many a time in that same period.
|
|
|
Post by FB fan on May 3, 2012 14:26:24 GMT -6
Jumping in here late but a quick question; other than opinion, what is the reasoning behind claiming FB has the best athletes? Not sarcasm, genuinely don't have the answers here, how many district track titles have they won in recent years, how do they compare in number of players they send to play college football (not including 13th grade type football like D3 for example). These would be good indicators rather than just throwing out recycled opinions. Very good question for those making that claim. IMO FB has a lot of very good athletes every year with good size and really good speed. The numbers maybe part of what is forming opinions. Frankly, I have wondered if trying to get everyone on the field has not hurt rather than helped the Hornets. It may have skewed the JV results as FB is so deep, a lot of their JV would be on other schools V. Over the last 8 or so years I would say 6 or 8 could have been D1 given the chance. But you have to get noticed to get that chance and a lot of that depends on the teams success. Here is hoping they all get the formula right and have a great season this year. It's the seven year itch otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by gpjohn on May 3, 2012 14:47:25 GMT -6
Jumping in here late but a quick question; other than opinion, what is the reasoning behind claiming FB has the best athletes? Not sarcasm, genuinely don't have the answers here, how many district track titles have they won in recent years, how do they compare in number of players they send to play college football (not including 13th grade type football like D3 for example). These would be good indicators rather than just throwing out recycled opinions. Very good question for those making that claim. IMO FB has a lot of very good athletes every year with good size and really good speed. The numbers maybe part of what is forming opinions. Frankly, I have wondered if trying to get everyone on the field has not hurt rather than helped the Hornets. It may have skewed the JV results as FB is so deep, a lot of their JV would be on other schools V. Over the last 8 or so years I would say 6 or 8 could have been D1 given the chance. But you have to get noticed to get that chance and a lot of that depends on the teams success. Here is hoping they all get the formula right and have a great season this year. It's the seven year itch otherwise. 7 YEAR ITCH = 8 YEAR DITCH!!! I don't think FB nessesarily has better athletes than any other simularly sized school. No more than GP does, or cal. Getting the kids to mesh and believe in the program is the key. Good coaching, not just the HC, but all the way down the line to 7th grade is vital. I think some good things are happening at FB, I look for them to win their district this year, make a deep run into the playoffs. Once a team starts having success, they will continue to improve.
|
|
|
Post by Clemensbuff on May 3, 2012 15:04:29 GMT -6
Very good question for those making that claim. IMO FB has a lot of very good athletes every year with good size and really good speed. The numbers maybe part of what is forming opinions. Frankly, I have wondered if trying to get everyone on the field has not hurt rather than helped the Hornets. It may have skewed the JV results as FB is so deep, a lot of their JV would be on other schools V. Over the last 8 or so years I would say 6 or 8 could have been D1 given the chance. But you have to get noticed to get that chance and a lot of that depends on the teams success. Here is hoping they all get the formula right and have a great season this year. It's the seven year itch otherwise. 7 YEAR ITCH = 8 YEAR DITCH!!! I don't think FB nessesarily has better athletes than any other simularly sized school. No more than GP does, or cal. Getting the kids to mesh and believe in the program is the key. Good coaching, not just the HC, but all the way down the line to 7th grade is vital. I think some good things are happening at FB, I look for them to win their district this year, make a deep run into the playoffs. Once a team starts having success, they will continue to improve. Exactly, 100%, without a doubt whatsoever..........CORRECT! I've said it forever and will again. All HS have the raw talent, few have the coaching to get it done. If it was about raw talent, North Shore, DeSoto, Skyline, and certainly the Plano schools and Allen would have 40+ titles between them!
|
|
|
Post by C5_96 on May 4, 2012 9:09:25 GMT -6
Jumping in here late but a quick question; other than opinion, what is the reasoning behind claiming FB has the best athletes? Not sarcasm, genuinely don't have the answers here, how many district track titles have they won in recent years, how do they compare in number of players they send to play college football (not including 13th grade type football like D3 for example). These would be good indicators rather than just throwing out recycled opinions. I wouldn't gauge it on D-1 talent. That's short across the board down south. The claim is based on OVERALL talent of the team, not just specific individuals. And FB has had consistently more overall talent for a long time, though not every year.
|
|
|
Post by DD Booger on May 4, 2012 9:24:04 GMT -6
That '05 FB team could fly. Best team IMO that FB has fielded. Good QB, fast rb and a high school Randy Moss at WR.
|
|
|
Post by FB fan on May 4, 2012 9:31:12 GMT -6
That '05 FB team could fly. Best team IMO that FB has fielded. Good QB, fast rb and a high school Randy Moss at WR. Yep. Three of the ones I was thinking of.
|
|
|
Post by OCCNH on May 5, 2012 9:07:47 GMT -6
That '05 FB team could fly. Best team IMO that FB has fielded. Good QB, fast rb and a high school Randy Moss at WR. Also had the older Brito, and an all around in Joe Brudimirer.(sp)
|
|