Jump to content

Sabine vs MV


Jeepster89

Mount Vernon vs Sabine playoffs rd 1   

112 members have voted

  1. 1. Who ya got?

    • MV
      56
    • Sabine
      56


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, BearFan13 said:

I’ll be at the game this Saturday, I like watching y’alls QB. He didn’t quit all night and kept bringing it. Anybody looking at him in particular yet? 

He is a good QB for sure but we need to open up the offense, if not Briles will have a linebacker on him the entire game and will shutdown his running ability I'm afraid. I think we can win Saturday for sure we just gotta play ball like these kids can play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Opie1 said:

I wasnt at the game but from what I was being told if we weren't playing zone coverage we should have, if we were then we could not have slowed down the passing game. Coupled with turnovers this is a back breaker. You can't give a good team field position on the 40 or 50 every possession. We lost and I won't say we would have won but I will say it wouldn't have been so lopsided. Offensively  we need to get the ball to #7 and #80 more when they are wide open instead throwing to the same 2 receivers constantly and you know how I feel about the run game.

I didn’t see #7 drop a ball in the 8 games I was at. #80 is the biggest of our receivers and when he gets the ball runs hard. The other 2 have been with Landon since they started playing football so I can’t blame him for them 2 being his go to receivers. I know they brought up a receiver from the JV as well. I dont know if he will get to play but the kid has some wheels on him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bclove05 said:

I didn’t see #7 drop a ball in the 8 games I was at. #80 is the biggest of our receivers and when he gets the ball runs hard. The other 2 have been with Landon since they started playing football so I can’t blame him for them 2 being his go to receivers. I know they brought up a receiver from the JV as well. I dont know if he will get to play but the kid has some wheels on him. 

The kid from jv will make plays if they get him the ball. #7 has never dropped a ball in the hand full of times he's been targeted. Hopefully this is all by plan and they will open it up Saturday, we will see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Opie1 said:

The kid from jv will make plays if they get him the ball. #7 has never dropped a ball in the hand full of times he's been targeted. Hopefully this is all by plan and they will open it up Saturday, we will see.

I was really surprised the kid was on JV this year. I guess the coaches wanted him to get more reps. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bclove05 said:

I didn’t see #7 drop a ball in the 8 games I was at. #80 is the biggest of our receivers and when he gets the ball runs hard. The other 2 have been with Landon since they started playing football so I can’t blame him for them 2 being his go to receivers. I know they brought up a receiver from the JV as well. I dont know if he will get to play but the kid has some wheels on him. 

The boy from from jv will be 1 of the faster kids on the field. The only reason he wasn't on varsity sooner is because he missed summer workouts and they didn't think it was fair to play varsity after not working out in the summer like the other kids and I can understand that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Opie1 said:

The boy from from jv will be 1 of the faster kids on the field. The only reason he wasn't on varsity sooner is because he missed summer workouts and they didn't think it was fair to play varsity after not working out in the summer like the other kids and I can understand that.

Makes sense. Coaches are serious about being at summer workouts. I was told he wasn’t playing, so I guess he changed his mind at some point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Opie1 said:

There were changes that could have been made during the GW game that would have made it more competitive but those changes were not made. Not so much the fault of the kids they were playing the game like they were told to. They started out behind the 8 ball in the 1st quarter and nothing changed the next 3 quarters, especially on the defensive side of the ball. They still might not have won but it wouldn't have looked as bad as it did. On the offensive side of the ball we also didnt make the changes that needed to be made but im not the coach and maybe my opinion is wrong.

What changes could have been made? The oline and dline got their butts whooped  and it trickled down from there. IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CoachCarright said:

What changes could have been made? The oline and dline got their butts whooped  and it trickled down from there. IMO

Like is said i was not at the  game but if we weren't playing zone coverage we should have on defense and if we didn't throw quick across the middle on offense we should have. There is more to it than just line play, you can counter act poor line play by making changes in the passing game on both sides of the ball. When you need 3 or 4 yards for a 1st down why throw for 25 or 30 when it obviously ain't working or for that matter why run up the middle 3 possessions in a row when you keep losing yardage. Don't get me wrong GW played good but like I said it would not have been as lopsided as it was. IMO 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Opie1 said:

Like is said i was not at the  game but if we weren't playing zone coverage we should have on defense and if we didn't throw quick across the middle on offense we should have. There is more to it than just line play, you can counter act poor line play by making changes in the passing game on both sides of the ball. When you need 3 or 4 yards for a 1st down why throw for 25 or 30 when it obviously ain't working or for that matter why run up the middle 3 possessions in a row when you keep losing yardage. Don't get me wrong GW played good but like I said it would not have been as lopsided as it was. IMO 

🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Opie1 said:

Like is said i was not at the  game but if we weren't playing zone coverage we should have on defense and if we didn't throw quick across the middle on offense we should have. There is more to it than just line play, you can counter act poor line play by making changes in the passing game on both sides of the ball. When you need 3 or 4 yards for a 1st down why throw for 25 or 30 when it obviously ain't working or for that matter why run up the middle 3 possessions in a row when you keep losing yardage. Don't get me wrong GW played good but like I said it would not have been as lopsided as it was. IMO 

Jimmy, they were in zone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Opie1 said:

Like is said i was not at the  game but if we weren't playing zone coverage we should have on defense and if we didn't throw quick across the middle on offense we should have. There is more to it than just line play, you can counter act poor line play by making changes in the passing game on both sides of the ball. When you need 3 or 4 yards for a 1st down why throw for 25 or 30 when it obviously ain't working or for that matter why run up the middle 3 possessions in a row when you keep losing yardage. Don't get me wrong GW played good but like I said it would not have been as lopsided as it was. IMO 

I’m sorry, but GW took their foot off the pedal after their first drive in the third quarter. You’re saying it could’ve been closer, there’s a much stronger chance it could’ve been worse. We handed it off like 15 times in a row and just kept picking up yardage and chewing clock. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...