Pax

There were Daingerfield "fans" in this very thread packing it in when Gunter went up 24-3 early in the 3rd quarter. Not some. Pretty much all of them. 48 minutes my "rear end". None of you practiced that mantra here today, yet expect it from those teenagers. Ok.

The only thing I got right was the winner. Id call it a bad pick on my part. I predicted 49-21, and it ended up 23-20. I was mostly wrong on all my picks this week.

I got this one wrong.

^^^ model fan right here

Good season. Boy, I was wrong.

Thanks! I'm sure we'll see you again next year.

With that attitude, you're absolutely right.

Geez guys. It's the 3rd quarter.

Ok, taking a look at my numbers and it looks like I predicted based on district play plus playoffs. In that department, my score predictor comes up with Holliday winning 49-25. I just adjusted it to make it a more "football friendly" score. I could have just as easily gone with 49-28. In either case, here are some stats that back this up : Holliday is averaging 42.2 ppg against defenses that allow 24.7 per game. Edgewood is allowing 33.5 points per game, so based on this, I expect Holliday to be able to score above their own average simply based on the quality of the defense they are playing in Edgewood not being up to par to the average defense Holliday has faced this year and been able to average 42.2 points per game against. That's where the 49 comes from. Anyway, overall (if I include pre-district games for each team), the score predictor comes up with Holliday winning 38-23. If I only consider the one playoff game each team has played (this is unreliable as it is a sample size of one), Holliday wins 37-24. Like I said, I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just running numbers. I've been wrong before. I'm right a lot more often though. This is just fun for me. I wouldn't take it too seriously.

It's just based on statistics. Im not extending respect, I'm just running numbers. I very well could be wrong, but I'll take a closer look at the numbers and try and justify the prediction. I have no dog in this fight at all. Just running numbers on all region II games.

Yep, that Henrietta QB was pretty impressive. He was in and out of the game last year due to an injury, otherwise that might have been closer than the 31-3 score. It even was. If I remember, it was only 17-3 fairly late in that Henrietta game last year, but Henrietta was forced to go for it on 4th down a couple of times late out of necessity. Gunter stopped them and scored twice on short fields to put it away. That game was closer than the 31-3 score, and that good QB didn't play about half the snaps, so I wasn't entirely shocked that he gave us trouble again this year. That said, it also didn't shock me that Gunter turned it around in the second half this year - as they have consistently shown the ability to make great adjustments. This year, Gunter limited Henrietta to 65 yards of total offense in the second half. Offensively, nothing really changed. The offense still scored on every possesson of the game except three I believe. Once was a possession that started with about 30 seconds left in the first half, one was the victory plays at the end of the game, so really only one legitimate stop from Henrietta the entire game that I can recall. Gunter just got more opportunities in the second half due to defensive adjustments that shut Henrietta down. Henrietta basically had two long drives that ate up the entire first half - drives that were also sustained by more 3rd and 4th and loooong conversions than I remember ever seeing. After that, not much.

You're not allowed to block in track. In football, you are. What were those track times by the way?

Stating that 5 + 5 = 10 is not gloating. They are numbers. I don't control them. By the way, I predicted Daingerfield would beat Lone Oak last week 35-20. Was I gloating then?

I'l be rooting for Waskom in this one.

Yeah, I don't have any trouble accepting that Daingerfield will be Gunter's toughest opponent yet. It shouldn't be surprising. It's the playoffs!!!

I've got numbers on this one, and I can only call it a toss-up with a very slight edge to Hearne. The score predictor comes up with 25-22 Hearne when all games are considered. These teams are pretty evenly matched on paper when the schedules are considered. Waskom is scoring 30.8 and giving up 22.1 per game while Hearne is scoring 33.2 and giving up 16.0 per game. However, Waskom has played a significantly tougher schedule. Waskom opponents are scoring 33.3 and giving up 24.9 per game while Hearne opponents are scoring 24.2 and giving up 28.4 per game. The difference in the strengths of the schedule evens this one out for me - and it could go either way. The theoretical range of possibilities for this one based on each team's best and worst games this year : If Waskom plays a game similar to their best game this year while Hearne equals their worst performance this year, I have Waskom winning it 54-7. Waskom's worst vs Hearne's best, and Hearne wins it 58-16. Wide range, slightly leaning in Hearne's direction. Only considering district games, I get Hearne on top 18-15. If each team performs similarly to the way they did in their one playoff game, I get Hearne winning 43-34. Something else that might make me lean toward Hearne in this one is that by my metric, Hearne's three best games are their last three games played, and not by just a little. Is this just coincidence or can someone from Hearne tell me if something changed before the Leon game, because there is a significant jump in performance since the Leon game. If I assume that Hearne has turned a corner and their last 3 games are how they will play, then I get a 35-17 prediction in Hearne's favor. I wouldn't rely on that because it could just be an anomaly. My prediction for this toss-up is Hearne on top 28-21, but that could easily be flipped I think.

well aware, wildtigers. well aware. You know, you'd be a lot more intimidating if you didn't gloat. Let your tradition speak for itself. Everyone is already aware. When you are constantly bringing it up, it has less of an impact. We KNOW!!!

Thanks. I am well aware of the tradition at Daingerfield. It's obviously impressive what Daingerfield has done over the years. Celina is another storied program as im sure you know, so Gunter - being the next town up less than 10 miles away has heard all about storied Celina for a very long time! This will be the first meeting of these two teams, and I'm looking forward to it. The very tradition that Daingerfield brings to the table is the very reason I got nervous when my numbers spit out 41-17 as the prediction. That's not enough for me to feel comfortable, so your tradition is certainly not lost on me. The hill is steep on both sides.

Sure. I still run the numbers. As I say to everyone, I like it. You don't have to.

That's just silly. I am indeed a Gunter fan. Numbers are numbers. I don't manipulate them. They are based on verifiable facts. I've predicted about 15 games this year in these threads, Gunter games among them, but if it makes you feel better to believe I've manipulated the numbers, go right ahead. You've completely fabricated this apparent hate for East Texas teams I supposedly have. It's nonsense. I ran the numbers for all 8 games for round 1 region 2 playoffs.

The Gunter fans have a right to be just as proud of their program as you do. Either way, none of those past teams are playing Friday. You're the one being smug for putting down Gunter for only having the one championship. Really?!?!! If anyone should know, you should - that they are hard to get, and when you get it, you've earned the right to have pride - especially when you are the CURRENT defenders of that crown - you of all people should understand what that's like, right?

My mistake

Another one nobody seems to care about here. I'll take Holliday in this one - 49-21.

Not too many interested in this - since there is no thread on it. If you like offense, you should probably go to this one. My prediction is that there will be loads of points scored. There will not be a defense within 50 miles of this one. New Diana takes it, 49-42.

I've been very wrong before. The numbers are just numbers.