bullets13

Vidor had 12 winning seasons between 1940, their first year of football, and 1998. so basically 12 winning seasons in 60 years. Mathews had 11 winning seasons (plus two more .500 years) out of 24 seasons. So for people to act like he wasn't good for Vidor, or that the school district should have fired him long ago, is simply laughable. I think most of his detractors have something a little more personal, like they didn't start when they were at vidor, or maybe he didn't play their kid enough for their liking.

it'll just be thornton melon with his pitchfork.

Man, I completely missed this one! Was battling it out with him in the football pickems just a few weeks before!

I watched like 3 minutes and had to turn it off.

The last couple of shots were after he dropped the gun, but there’s got to be a slight amount of time factored in for the cops to realize the threat has ended or he’s complied. Seems like a completely legitimate shoot to me

Sounds like he may have actually shot himself

Lumberton blew it open. Big win for the raiders

HJ beat Livingston 63-26

HJ up 46-13 on Livingston at the half. It’s senior night, and Beavers is in some sort of cast. She’s missed the last couple of games. I hope they’ll get her back for the playoffs, not sure what’s wrong with her

HJ won 71-49. They played before the girls, who have senior night tonight.

Pretty much a play in game for the fourth seed right now. Massive game for both squads!

I’d be in

I'd say close to half of the schools in texas have a decent or good amount of talent in a given year, but only 12 teams a year out of over 1000 win a championship each year. The odds of any random team winning a championship in a 20 year period is way below 1%. Surratt is a phenomenal coach. Possibly the best in Texas history. Carthage started winning championships because he arrived, I'm not arguing this point. The point I'm making is that in the 30 years before Surratt showed up, Carthage had a grand total of 3 losing seasons. They always had a pretty good team, with a pretty good groups of players, a decent amount of good athletes, and always had more coming down the pipes. Once they had an elite coach show up, he took them to the next level, and players from surrounding areas suddenly found ways to get into the district. But what he did there is a far cry from going to (insert whichever of our local teams) that averages 2-3 wins a season over a couple of decades, and acting like he'd be able to do what he did at Carthage. Unless he got away with recruiting a ton of talent from other schools in the area, it would be simply impossible. You can't turn bad football players or mediocre athletes into state title contenders, no matter how good of a coach you are. You can certainly improve them, but again, coaching only takes you so far.

Oh, i know. You and I are on the same wavelength on this issue.

Hard to blame a kid for being small, or unathletic, or for being large and athletic, but going to a school that has few other kids like you. I'm not a kid blamer, just a realist. An example from another sport: I hunt in a little town called Avinger. Their basketball team won a 1A state championship in 2016, going 32-2. The next season the coach moved down the road to Jefferson, and took several players from Avinger with him (only 7 players suited out the year before for Avinger, 1 graduated, and 4 went with the coach). Avinger didn't even make the playoffs the next year. Jefferson had three very good years (3 district titles) under their new coach and with their new players, but only won one playoff game a year each of those three years. despite having a state championship coach, as well as 3 of his starters from his state championship team. Jefferson couldn't even make it past the second round of the playoffs in all of three of his seasons there. It's pretty obvious what the problem was: he didn't become a lesser coach when he moved, and if anything, his players would've improved as they got older. But his 1A talent wasn't nearly enough to compete in the playoffs in 3A. There is a threshold where coaching ability can't overcome talent disparity. A great or elite coach will certainly have a much higher threshold than an average or poor coach, but there is a point where no coach can exceed past a certain point without a certain amount of talent and players.

They're obviously good, but I don't really take into account what they've done in that district, which is truly bad. No more than I'd give HJ any further credit for going undefeated in their district.

Motorcyclist dead after shootout with Jefferson County deputies | 12newsnow.com

absolutely agree with you about how great of a coach he is. But he didn't take over a team devoid of athletes that routinely goes between 0-10 and 2-8. If he came here and did that with some of our local schools, he would not be winning state titles in 7 years.

They must have an endless supply of athletes, then. Because you can’t create them, but you can certainly develop them.

So with my previous post taken in my mind, I’ll say a good coach treats the kids well and consistently accomplishes what should be accomplished based on the level of talent he has, and other factors (such as being in the same region as Carthage). A great coach is able to accomplish more than what should be expected with the level of players he has year in and year out. That doesn’t have to be trips to state. If his community doesn’t produce a lot of size and athletes, and have a history of going 1-9 and 2-8 every year, but he’s able to squeak into the playoffs most years, and even win a playoff game or two some years, that could be a great coach. It’s really situational. A good coach could probably win a state championship at Carthage with the talent they have now and the program that surratt has built. But there are plenty of programs where a great coach could spend his entire career at and never make it to the regional finals.

I’ll argue to a degree: I don’t think the 7 year argument has no merit, but I think it can only apply to certain schools. For schools like Newton, WOS, Allen, Carthage, and the many other that have an endless supply of talent and a community that is bought in, then yes, a coach should succeed, or at least come dang close quickly and somewhat regularly. There are other schools that for various reasons will never reach that level of consistent success. IMO, Matthews was a great coach for vidor. The level of success he brought them was a tremendous jump from his predecessors, but he never had the players to sniff a state championship. And unless Surratt brought kids from Carthage with him, he’s not winning championships either. Would he do better than Matthews? Yeah, I’m sure he would. but he’s not winning a state championship there unless some magical group of players comes through, or the best players from other nearby schools start coming to play for him like happens in east Texas. He took over a Carthage program that was already pretty good, with a lot of talent, and put them over the top. But he’s not going to take over a school without a lot of athletes and suddenly have the D1 players that you need to compete.

I hate they lost beard, but they’ve done well since he’s left. I’m all for them keeping the interim. The question will be if he’ll be able to recruit like beard did, because he’s doing a great job coaching the transfers and recruits that beard brought in.

UT lost to #4 Tennessee last weekend, but this week beat #10 baylor and #7 KSU. Their next game is at #8 Kansas. They then get three unranked teams before finishing up their regular season with four straight matchups against top-15 teams. The big 12 is insane this year.

The lumberton/bc game is a play-in game most likely, although BC still has WOS, and Lumberton still has Vidor, and either of those matchups could throw a wrench in someone’s plans. Despite their records, WOS and Vidor have played both teams close. BC also has a chance to take a game off of either LCM or Jasper still, which they’ve shown they can do.

Yes sir