Jump to content

Beaumont United 53 Houston St. Pius X 6/FINAL


WOSgrad

Recommended Posts

I'm happy with the win and I was the first to say....  payback completed.  They kicked our arses on our field last year, we got them on their field.

I was impressed with the DB Rivers on defense after two scrimmages and was high in him.   He didnt disappoint this game, only a sophmore, with the INT return for paydirt..

D-line played very well in stopping the run and getting after the QB.  I loved that we ended up making St Pius one dementional passing to get our secondary some work and they rose to the occasion.   Played mostly backups in the second half and they got a lot of burn.  You see, we didn't  have that luxury last year.  

Offense looked good with several options bat or disposal.  Both RB's did what I expected them to do.  O-line blocked well, especially on pass protection.   

I think I'm most impressed with special teams.  Kicker, besides the one missed PAT, did really well, especially in kickoffs booting in in the end zone every kickoff it appears.  

 

St. Pius obviously was a shell of themselves from last year with the hot shot QB graduating, but was still a good team, but was overwhelmed by the overall  team speed and athleticism.   

I do look for improvements in the passing game though.  The one long TD pass in the first half was underthrown by the QB, but relied on a hell of a jump catch by the WR, assisted by the St Pius DB falling down.  There was another pass that was thrown incomplete in the vicinity of TWO open United  receivers.   That can get better, and I'm sure it will as we play more games.  

Overall, I'm happy where we are at thia time and all I want is us to get better and be peaking un district play and beat the teams we need to beat.  Next up, Big Ned.  

#runwiththepack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BMTSoulja1 said:

I'm happy with the win and I was the first to say....  payback completed.  They kicked our arses on our field last year, we got them on their field.

I was impressed with the DB Rivers on defense after two scrimmages and was high in him.   He didnt disappoint this game, only a sophmore, with the INT return for paydirt..

D-line played very well in stopping the run and getting after the QB.  I loved that we ended up making St Pius one dementional passing to get our secondary some work and they rose to the occasion.   Played mostly backups in the second half and they got a lot of burn.  You see, we didn't  have that luxury last year.  

Offense looked good with several options bat or disposal.  Both RB's did what I expected them to do.  O-line blocked well, especially on pass protection.   

I think I'm most impressed with special teams.  Kicker, besides the one missed PAT, did really well, especially in kickoffs booting in in the end zone every kickoff it appears.  

 

St. Pius obviously was a shell of themselves from last year with the hot shot QB graduating, but was still a good team, but was overwhelmed by the overall  team speed and athleticism.   

I do look for improvements in the passing game though.  The one long TD pass in the first half was underthrown by the QB, but relied on a hell of a jump catch by the WR, assisted by the St Pius DB falling down.  There was another pass that was thrown incomplete in the vicinity of TWO open United  receivers.   That can get better, and I'm sure it will as we play more games.  

Overall, I'm happy where we are at thia time and all I want is us to get better and be peaking un district play and beat the teams we need to beat.  Next up, Big Ned.  

#runwiththepack

That's why I do the play by play commentary and let you do the post game analysis.  We need to be in the booth bro.. 😀

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

    46,206
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Ceb2000
    Newest Member
    Ceb2000
    Joined


  • Posts

    • Like I said, even if it’s only 10% of the 100 kids BHISD takes from GCCISD each year, that’s 10 athletes per year and that’s being generous.  You’re right about the jobs with BHISD, BTW.  There’s more than 1 athlete from Baytown originally who got transferred to BHISD after a job opened up for Mama.
    • Here’s a link to another story about it This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up
    • It’s behind a paywall but here’s Baytown Sun’s story on it.  It was reported on in other papers statewide so if you search by the date I think you’ll find other stories on it. UIL strengthens student transfer rules By Ron McDowell [email protected] Oct 18, 2024   In order to maintain a level playing field for all member schools, the University Interscholastic League strengthened rules regarding transfer student eligibility at its most recent meeting in Austin. Every year thousands of students transfer schools in the state of Texas. A student’s ability to participate in UIL sanctioned activities may be limited base on the reasons for the transfer. A change in family status, work transfers, enrollment in an academic magnet program, or a move across town, receive scrutiny, but only rarely does one of these reasons result in the loss of eligibility. The only reason to automatically cause the loss of participation eligibility is a transfer for athletic purposes. The current rule, which has been in place since 1981, does not require a Previous Athletic Participation Form (PAPFs) to be submitted if the student-athlete does not participate in a varsity level sport during the first year of enrollment. There has been growing concern among some member schools, that other members are breaking the current rule and creating “super teams” with new transfer enrollees, and that the UIL is not doing enough to police, what appear to be, the inordinate number of transfers among high school athletes. To mitigate these concerns, the UIL approved a proposal to expand the power of the State Executive Committee (SEC) and allow it to investigate schools based upon the number of PAPFs submitted. Schools that submit an inordinate number of PAPFs would face heightened scrutiny and possible public reprimand and future sanctions. The UIL has also changed the requirements for PAPF submission, mandating that the form be submitted before a grade 9-12 transfer student may participate at any level of school athletics. This is a marked departure from the current policy which encourages schools not to complete PAPFs for students who transfer in, if the school believes that the student will not play a varsity sport in the first year the student is enrolled at the new school. Some critics of the current system think that the change doesn’t go far enough. Speaking on background, one local school district source suggested that there should be an automatic year wait for transfer students due to the number of loopholes in the waiver process. “If a student transfers, it should be a year out of competition automatically,” the source said. In addition, the UIL also approved a proposal that gives the SEC the power to appoint an independent administrator to oversee the conduct of the local District Executive Committee (DEC) if it is determined that the DEC is not consistently enforcing the rules of the governing body. The change is significant since all appeals that a school brings, starts and usually ends with the DEC. That includes the determination of transfer student eligibility. It is believed that with the implementation of this change, schools in a UIL district will be less likely to face retribution from the DEC chair and other members. The policy changes will go into effect, Aug. 1, 2025 This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up  
    • I was hoping WOS was going to win. To get another chance to redeem ourself. Silsbee did not look good in that game and has not played consistent during the season. Hopefully against La Vega they will play 4quarters of football
    • This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up   GCCISD paid a firm called PASA to compile this report ahead of them closing/consolidating some schools and redrawing attendance zones.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...