Jump to content

Who will start at QB for Nederland?


ReadOption

Recommended Posts

Carson did really well the 4th quarter against BH when he finally aired the ball out. Upto then, running game was not working and we were therefore dead in the water.  If he is able to show consistency throwing like he did in the 4th against BH, then I say leave him in as QB and play Dionte where he was before.  It sure would open up more plays for the offense to have them both out there.  IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I do feel that Carson will be a really good QB in the future for the Dogs, the fact is he has only had 1 really good quarter. I do not think there is going to be a QB controversey when Forney gets back. A kid should not lose his starting spot due to injury in my opinion. Dionte is our starting QB in my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name="heartattack90" post="847834" timestamp="1284542754"]
[glow=red,2,300]Best QB is the best football player (SONNIER ) on the team :o...But he needs to be on Def I guess..The best spread QB we have in my opinon..[/glow][/quote]SHHHHHHHHHH! do not say that tooooo loud :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carson is maturing fast as a varsity QB and he did have a impressive 4th quarter at BH but so did the recievers. The mix between Dionte and Carson should work. Dionte has the height needed to see over the OL to find his recievers and Carson has shown the speed. I would hope Barrows would divide up the duties at QB. I would hope they will keep Dionte off defense to protect his knee from a offensive block and keep him injury free for the rest of the season and for basketball. Carson is the future and with more playing time and a good off season he will be a top district QB.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a rumor...he is back at practice this week...hopefully, by the time we play Vidor next Friday, everyone will be back...if this team is at full strength, they will be good...the problem at Nederland is not talent this year, it is injuries and depth...with everyone healthy, they can make a run at anyone in this district...unfortunately, we just haven't had that set of circumstances yet this season
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member Statistics

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


  • Posts

    • You got a LOT more than that, you’ve got Riceland filling up. GCM is dropping down from 23-6A back down to 5A in ‘26.  GCCISD is redrawing attendance zones to make sure of that.  At the same time, BH was only about 100 students under the 6A threshold last time UIL drew districts so BH is definitely going up to 6A when those maps get redrawn, probably right into the empty spot in 23-6A GCM is leaving when they drop down.
    • 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
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...