Vidor is open !!

[oldschool2]

2 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Let's see:  There was anxiety, foaming at the mouth and down right hyperventilating when the PNG coach left.  The chant was: how could they get rid of this excellent coach?!  Then, all of a sudden -- it got quite.  Even to the point of saying -- Faircloth who?  Lumberton was wallowing around in mediocrity until this past year.   WOS has for many, many years been known for their football.  But what happened this year?

On the first two, did the athletes just start showing up when these new coaches did?  How about at WOS, did the WOS-type athletes just stop showing up when the new coach did?  NO!!  It's just more examples what the right, or wrong, coach can do.  

What does this have to do with Vidor:  It's a template of what to do and what not to do.  But -- are they paying attention?!

Still didn't answer either question.

Does the new coach get credit for someone else's seniors?

Will he replicate this year's success without the 35 senior's he's losing?

[BigEnosBurdette]

1 minute ago, Reagan said:

Have you ever seen less talented football teams win?

Of course as with any sports… teams, players, coaches catch lightning in a bottle but does it happen year in year out… H E double hockey sticks NO

[Reagan]

9 minutes ago, oldschool2 said:

I have a very serious question.  A question that may require some thought... and it's about PNG.

You're obviously very high on their new coach's success (rightfully so).

So.. here's my question(s): On Maxpreps it shows that PNG has 35 seniors.  Is the new coach solely responsible for those seniors' success?  Didn't a different staff "build" them into what they were before he got them? Also.  Will they have the same success next year? Do you think they should?  He's losing 35 seniors...

Tell me where you stand on that.

There's a lot of speculation here.  So, with that being said, could a bad coach play in the big dance with 35 seniors.  But, I don't think that's the real point here.  How many were starters and how many starters are returning should be the salient question.  

Same success next year?  Who knows.  But if he's the coach we think he is then, yes, success will continue.  But the fact still remains, he did in 1 year what the previous coach couldn't do in 12.  

[BigEnosBurdette]

7 minutes ago, Reagan said:

There's a lot of speculation here.  So, with that being said, could a bad coach play in the big dance with 35 seniors.  But, I don't think that's the real point here.  How many were starters and how many starters are returning should be the salient question.  

Same success next year?  Who knows.  But if he's the coach we think he is then, yes, success will continue.  But the fact still remains, he did in 1 year what the previous coach couldn't do in 12.  

6 years left or here’s your walking papers… right?!?! 

[oldschool2]

2 minutes ago, Reagan said:

There's a lot of speculation here.  So, with that being said, could a bad coach play in the big dance with 35 seniors.  But, I don't think that's the real point here.  How many were starters and how many starters are returning should be the salient question.  

Same success next year?  Who knows.  But if he's the coach we think he is then, yes, success will continue.  But the fact still remains, he did in 1 year what the previous coach couldn't do in 12.  

You're purposely ignoring the point.  Not surprised.

16 numbered roster juniors.. no idea how many started.

Ed Orgeron went to LSU and won a national title his first year.  Coaching? Or quarterback that went #1 (and many others)?  That's my point.  Coach O went from national coach of the year to fired in a short period.  Because he lost what was initially inherited. 

You claim success will continue?... It's championship or bust, right?

[CardinalBacker]

3 hours ago, vhs said:

Cardinal backer… out of curiosity what year did you graduate from BC?

I didn't.   We moved there when the kids were younger.  There's no better place to raise kids in Orange County. 

 

Or on the Planet of Earth, for that matter. 

[BigEnosBurdette]

5 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

I didn't.   We moved there when the kids were younger.  There's no better place to raise kids in Orange County. 

 

Or on the Planet of Earth, for that matter. 

It’s apparent that you need to get out more if BC is the best place on Earth to raise kids 🤦🏼‍♂️ and people that live in Vidor, OF, LCM, even WOS etc will object to BC being the best place in OC 

[Reagan]

17 minutes ago, BigEnosBurdette said:

6 years left or here’s your walking papers… right?!?! 

No, PNG gives them 12 years!

[BigEnosBurdette]

1 minute ago, Reagan said:

No, PNG gives them 12 years!

12, 24, 36… doesn’t matter, right?!?! PNG should be at AT&T stadium every year

[vhs]

33 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Have you ever seen less talented football teams win?

Of course… I’ve seen teams in probably every sport win with less talent due to a number of variables… but you aren’t going to be perennial state champion in anything with less talent…. There are countless factors that come into long term success

[CardinalBacker]

1 hour ago, oldschool2 said:

players > coaching.  Way more often than not.

players + coaching + level of competition = wins.  Missing any of the 3 is likely detrimental. 

Let's stay on Lumberton.  A couple years ago they won the district championship in basketball.  Their coach was unanimous COY for the district.  Not so much as a sniff the next year... or since.  What happened?  Same exact coach.  Still Lumberton kids.   Oooohh.. that's right.  They had a 6'6 D1 signee on the team.  

Funny how kids make coaches successful.  Disclaimer:  I know Coach Mitchell personally and think he does a fantastic job.  But... it takes players to have success.  I'm positive you'll ignore the example I just gave and the endless others.. but it doesn't change anything.

No.... you can win a lot of games with average players and good coaching.... and you can lose a lot of games with good players and bad coaching.  Players/coaching are practically of identical worth in my mind.  This past season should have taught us that, when you look at schools getting new coaches and excelling in some instances (PNG) and falling on their faces (WOS) with the same talent as the year before.  Both remarkable turnarounds that have to attributed to coaching.  LCM from 2021 is another fine example.  Why the great turnaround that year?  Peavey.  Why the slump this past year?  Players, or lack thereof.  They're gonna be in the mix in District from hear on out, and will likely make noise in the playoffs in years when they have more talent on the field.  That was NOT the case under the previous LCM coach.  

WOS had enough talent on the field to be playing into the fourth round in 2022, no question.  Silsbee had a good year, but losing to HF, Jasper, and Silsbee in the same year?  How very un-Mustanglike.  Especially considering the number of seniors they had returning that year.  

[Reagan]

14 minutes ago, oldschool2 said:

You're purposely ignoring the point.  Not surprised.

16 numbered roster juniors.. no idea how many started.

Ed Orgeron went to LSU and won a national title his first year.  Coaching? Or quarterback that went #1 (and many others)?  That's my point.  Coach O went from national coach of the year to fired in a short period.  Because he lost what was initially inherited. 

You claim success will continue?... It's championship or bust, right?

Leave it to me, yes.  7 years you'll know if you have a championship coach or not.  Surratt, Buchanan, and Briles all did it in seven years at the school they were at.  If people were honest here, everyone knew the former PNG coach, and former Vidor wasn't going to win any championships after 7 years.  And we were right.  But, that's left up to the individual school districts if they want to waste 24 years.  

[KF89]

I think png home grown football stud head coach Matt Burnett got an extra 10 years before the excitement of his '99 state title finals appearance wore off before he got the boot.

[CardinalBacker]

Just now, Reagan said:

Leave it to me, yes.  7 years you'll know if you have a championship coach or not.  Surratt, Buchanan, and Briles all did it in seven years at the school they were at.  If people were honest here, everyone knew the former PNG coach, and former Vidor wasn't going to win any championships after 7 years.  And we were right.  But, that's left up to the individual school districts if they want to waste 24 years.  

To be fair, some communities want their kids get used to accepting defeat early in life.  I mean, it is a part of life, right?

[CardinalBacker]

7 minutes ago, BigEnosBurdette said:

It’s apparent that you need to get out more if BC is the best place on Earth to raise kids 🤦🏼‍♂️ and people that live in Vidor, OF, LCM, even WOS etc will object to BC being the best place in OC 

Heck, I'd move to Vidor if I could afford it... 

I mean, I can afford the house, I just don't have enough money for the old boats, appliances, junk cars, and other things you need out front to fit in over there.  

[BigEnosBurdette]

2 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Leave it to me, yes.  7 years you'll know if you have a championship coach or not.  Surratt, Buchanan, and Briles all did it in seven years at the school they were at.  If people were honest here, everyone knew the former PNG coach, and former Vidor wasn't going to win any championships after 7 years.  And we were right.  But, that's left up to the individual school districts if they want to waste 24 years.  

😂 dude just stop… please just stop 🤦🏼‍♂️ 

[Reagan]

2 minutes ago, vhs said:

Of course… I’ve seen teams in probably every sport win with less talent due to a number of variables… but you aren’t going to be perennial state champion in anything with less talent…. There are countless factors that come into long term success

No, you are not going to see a 12 flat runner in track beat a 10 flat runner in the 100.  One can only minimally do any coaching there.  But, in football I've seen many times where stronger, faster teams lose to better coached teams.  

[Reagan]

4 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

To be fair, some communities want their kids get used to accepting defeat early in life.  I mean, it is a part of life, right?

well, this is interesting!

[BigEnosBurdette]

2 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

To be fair, some communities want their kids get used to accepting defeat early in life.  I mean, it is a part of life, right?

You moved to the right district if you want to learn the meaning of defeat at an early age. Raising football “winners” in BC

😂🤣

[BigEnosBurdette]

6 minutes ago, Reagan said:

No, you are not going to see a 12 flat runner in track beat a 10 flat runner in the 100.  One can only minimally do any coaching there.  But, in football I've seen many times where stronger, faster teams lose to better coached teams.  

Again… yes you can and will. 10 flat DQ’s out of the blocks, missteps on a hurdle, runs out of their lane, pulls up cause of an injury, etc..

[oldschool2]

8 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

No.... you can win a lot of games with average players and good coaching.... and you can lose a lot of games with good players and bad coaching.  Players/coaching are practically of identical worth in my mind.  This past season should have taught us that, when you look at schools getting new coaches and excelling in some instances (PNG) and falling on their faces (WOS) with the same talent as the year before.  Both remarkable turnarounds that have to attributed to coaching.  LCM from 2021 is another fine example.  Why the great turnaround that year?  Peavey.  Why the slump this past year?  Players, or lack thereof.  They're gonna be in the mix in District from hear on out, and will likely make noise in the playoffs in years when they have more talent on the field.  That was NOT the case under the previous LCM coach.  

WOS had enough talent on the field to be playing into the fourth round in 2022, no question.  Silsbee had a good year, but losing to HF, Jasper, and Silsbee in the same year?  How very un-Mustanglike.  Especially considering the number of seniors they had returning that year.  

I guess I should be specific.  When I say wins.. I mean deep win.  Successful playoff runs. Etc.  Of course it's possible to win a lot of games with bad players and good coaching... if the schedule is weak.  Just like good players and good coaches can have mediocre/poor seasons if the schedule isn't conducive for success.  And bad coaches can have a heck of a run with good enough players and a weak schedule.  

Each of those scenarios play out literally every year. 

Make no mistake, there are more bad coaches winning with good players than there is good coaches winning with bad players.

Will someone please freaking address my Bill Belichick example?.. Jeez.  His record WITHOUT Tom Brady is less than .500.  WITH Tom Brady he has like 9 super bowl appearances in two decades. 

[CardinalBacker]

16 minutes ago, oldschool2 said:

 

Make no mistake, there are more bad coaches winning with good players than there is good coaches winning with bad players.

There are way more bad coaches losing with talented athletes than anything else.  Just look at B-Unit, Memorial, or any of those inner city Houston Schools... all of which were home by what.... the third round? So much talent, so few results.  

Will someone please freaking address my Bill Belichick example?.. Jeez.  His record WITHOUT Tom Brady is less than .500.  WITH Tom Brady he has like 9 super bowl appearances in two decades. 

Yes, but no... the fact that Brady would annually restructure his contract to make sure that his teammates were of the highest caliber played a huge role in what happened in NE and TB.  Let's give Dak the $15 million a year he deserves instead of $40 million, then spread that excess $25 million on the free agent market and Mike McCarthy will suddenly be a genius. And last time I looked Brady made the Cowboys look like world-beaters in the first round.  It's all relative but put together it means nothing.  

 

[oldschool2]

3 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

There are way more bad coaches losing with talented athletes than anything else.  Just look at B-Unit, Memorial, or any of those inner city Houston Schools... all of which were home by what.... the third round? So much talent, so few results.  

Way more?  You're definitely mistaken on this assessment.  By the way.. having kids with talent and having the caliber kids necessary to win are two different things.  I have a friend that worked on staff at an inner city school and told me stories that little suburban communities wouldn't even believe happened in a public school.  If you think it's possible to win with that going on... it's laughable.  Not to mention, the correlation between household income and success is such a huge factor.  Not the only factor but it's unbelievable how much better an individual player can be through different financially backed  instances (trainer, dietician, camps, etc..)

Yes, but no... the fact that Brady would annually restructure his contract to make sure that his teammates were of the highest caliber played a huge role in what happened in NE and TB.  Let's give Dak the $15 million a year he deserves instead of $40 million, then spread that excess $25 million on the free agent market and Mike McCarthy will suddenly be a genius. And last time I looked Brady made the Cowboys look like world-beaters in the first round.  It's all relative but put together it means nothing. 

That's what did it, huh?  Nothing to do with Brady's ability?  Well, since that's the case.. Why hasn't Belichick mimicked that formula without TB?  Is he an idiot?

 

[DP#1FAN]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

To be fair, some communities want their kids get used to accepting defeat early in life.  I mean, it is a part of life, right?

BC is a baseball school. Don't believe me ask the baseball coach! 

[Reagan]

1 hour ago, BigEnosBurdette said:

😂 dude just stop… please just stop 🤦🏼‍♂️ 

Did Surratt, Buchanan and Briles not win State Championships in their first 7 years?  Correct me if I'm wrong.