Jump to content

2021 Carthage DAWGS, will they play for # 9


Recommended Posts

Daingerfield's '83 team will forever sit on a pedestal above everybody else. That's just the way it is. And it's not wrong. What that defense did then could not be done in today's game, but that doesn't matter. They did it in their time and regardless of era, it's absolutely insane.

When folks like C&C say something like it could be in the Daingerfield '83 class, I don't think he (or they) mean statistically. No one — not even C&C — is under the impression that those gaudy 83 numbers can ever happen again. But relativistically, you can have a defense that dominates in a similar fashion, on a sliding scale in accordance with today's modern game/offenses. I look at Katy's 2015 championship team. That defense gave up only 62 points all season, had 10 shutouts, gave up double-digits only twice, gave up +20 only once. They're up there as one of the greatest defenses of all time. I don't think it's crazy to say that, in relation to their era, they rank right up there with Daingerfield '83. Or, you look at Celina's 2005 team, scored 803 points and gave up 75. Posted seven shutouts, gave up double digits twice (once in championship game), and gave up +20 only once. Posted four shutouts in a row to start the season, and but for a Little Elm field goal, would have posted five in a row. And, apart from the title game and a close win over Prosper, most points given up by that defense came in garbage time late, when third string was getting time. The 2005 Bobcats were not '83 Daingerfield, but they rank up there as one of the best of their time too.

I think that's what C&C is saying, essentially, and I don't think he's too far off base to be that optimistic. You look at what Carthage's defense did last year against some really good offenses and think they're bringing back most of that unit, including the best player on that side of the ball in Kip Lewis, it's not hard to feel like that defense can be up there — relatively speaking — as one of the best of all time. We haven't played a snap of football in the 2021 season, so who knows what's going to happen. But if you're taking an honest look and approach at what the Dawgs have coming back on defense, it's not woefully ignorant or over-inflated to think they have a chance to be in the conversation of best defenses of all time (relative to the era in which they played).

Again, I'll reiterate this for those who might have forgotten I said it at the beginning of this post: '83 Daingerfield will always be a notch higher than any more-modern-era defense, because the sheer statistics are just comical and otherworldly.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, d0tc0m said:

Daingerfield's '83 team will forever sit on a pedestal above everybody else. That's just the way it is. And it's not wrong. What that defense did then could not be done in today's game, but that doesn't matter. They did it in their time and regardless of era, it's absolutely insane.

When folks like C&C say something like it could be in the Daingerfield '83 class, I don't think he (or they) mean statistically. No one — not even C&C — is under the impression that those gaudy 83 numbers can ever happen again. But relativistically, you can have a defense that dominates in a similar fashion, on a sliding scale in accordance with today's modern game/offenses. I look at Katy's 2015 championship team. That defense gave up only 62 points all season, had 10 shutouts, gave up double-digits only twice, gave up +20 only once. They're up there as one of the greatest defenses of all time. I don't think it's crazy to say that, in relation to their era, they rank right up there with Daingerfield '83. Or, you look at Celina's 2005 team, scored 803 points and gave up 75. Posted seven shutouts, gave up double digits twice (once in championship game), and gave up +20 only once. Posted four shutouts in a row to start the season, and but for a Little Elm field goal, would have posted five in a row. And, apart from the title game and a close win over Prosper, most points given up by that defense came in garbage time late, when third string was getting time. The 2005 Bobcats were not '83 Daingerfield, but they rank up there as one of the best of their time too.

I think that's what C&C is saying, essentially, and I don't think he's too far off base to be that optimistic. You look at what Carthage's defense did last year against some really good offenses and think they're bringing back most of that unit, including the best player on that side of the ball in Kip Lewis, it's not hard to feel like that defense can be up there — relatively speaking — as one of the best of all time. We haven't played a snap of football in the 2021 season, so who knows what's going to happen. But if you're taking an honest look and approach at what the Dawgs have coming back on defense, it's not woefully ignorant or over-inflated to think they have a chance to be in the conversation of best defenses of all time (relative to the era in which they played).

Again, I'll reiterate this for those who might have forgotten I said it at the beginning of this post: '83 Daingerfield will always be a notch higher than any more-modern-era defense, because the sheer statistics are just comical and otherworldly.

Exactly.  He said they could be up there in the same class as 83 Daingerfield.  The way I look at it is if I was to break it down into Tiers.  To put them on the same tier is not saying they are better than or statistically as good as.  But they are in the stratosphere at least IMO.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, d0tc0m said:

Daingerfield's '83 team will forever sit on a pedestal above everybody else. That's just the way it is. And it's not wrong. What that defense did then could not be done in today's game, but that doesn't matter. They did it in their time and regardless of era, it's absolutely insane.

When folks like C&C say something like it could be in the Daingerfield '83 class, I don't think he (or they) mean statistically. No one — not even C&C — is under the impression that those gaudy 83 numbers can ever happen again. But relativistically, you can have a defense that dominates in a similar fashion, on a sliding scale in accordance with today's modern game/offenses. I look at Katy's 2015 championship team. That defense gave up only 62 points all season, had 10 shutouts, gave up double-digits only twice, gave up +20 only once. They're up there as one of the greatest defenses of all time. I don't think it's crazy to say that, in relation to their era, they rank right up there with Daingerfield '83. Or, you look at Celina's 2005 team, scored 803 points and gave up 75. Posted seven shutouts, gave up double digits twice (once in championship game), and gave up +20 only once. Posted four shutouts in a row to start the season, and but for a Little Elm field goal, would have posted five in a row. And, apart from the title game and a close win over Prosper, most points given up by that defense came in garbage time late, when third string was getting time. The 2005 Bobcats were not '83 Daingerfield, but they rank up there as one of the best of their time too.

I think that's what C&C is saying, essentially, and I don't think he's too far off base to be that optimistic. You look at what Carthage's defense did last year against some really good offenses and think they're bringing back most of that unit, including the best player on that side of the ball in Kip Lewis, it's not hard to feel like that defense can be up there — relatively speaking — as one of the best of all time. We haven't played a snap of football in the 2021 season, so who knows what's going to happen. But if you're taking an honest look and approach at what the Dawgs have coming back on defense, it's not woefully ignorant or over-inflated to think they have a chance to be in the conversation of best defenses of all time (relative to the era in which they played).

Again, I'll reiterate this for those who might have forgotten I said it at the beginning of this post: '83 Daingerfield will always be a notch higher than any more-modern-era defense, because the sheer statistics are just comical and otherworldly.

I could not of said it any better.

I never said they were or could be an 83 Daingerfield, but the starters only allowed 4.5 points a game.

Nobody will ever match the 83 Tigers(I SAW THEM PLAY), but in todays offensives holding good teams (ranked in the top ten) to 4.5 points a game is one of the top defenses in 4A history.

I believe with 9 starters coming back, bigger, stronger, faster, and more experienced has the possibility to be something that will be talked about for a long time.

I could be wrong, I usually am but it will be fun watching this defense and what they can do.

As I said in my post, not 83 Daingerfield 14 shut outs good, but could be a defense talked about for a long time.

    

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, cowboyandchrist said:

I could not of said it any better.

I never said they were or could be an 83 Daingerfield, but the starters only allowed 4.5 points a game.

Nobody will ever match the 83 Tigers(I SAW THEM PLAY), but in todays offensives holding good teams (ranked in the top ten) to 4.5 points a game is one of the top defenses in 4A history.

I believe with 9 starters coming back, bigger, stronger, faster, and more experienced has the possibility to be something that will be talked about for a long time.

I could be wrong, I usually am but it will be fun watching this defense and what they can do.

As I said in my post, not 83 Daingerfield 14 shut outs good, but could be a defense talked about for a long time.

    

Honestly, if Carthage's defensive stats aren't similar OR better this year, it's because 1) they'll be skewed by the fact that the starters won't be playing full games, or 2) The offense won't be clicking to Surratt's standards, leaving a heavier burden and workload on the defense — which will only effect the statistics marginally lol.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, d0tc0m said:

Honestly, if Carthage's defensive stats aren't similar OR better this year, it's because 1) they'll be skewed by the fact that the starters won't be playing full games, or 2) The offense won't be clicking to Surratt's standards, leaving a heavier burden and workload on the defense — which will only effect the statistics marginally lol.

3) Or the 3(maybe 4) replacements don’t play to the caliber of the players from 2020. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, d0tc0m said:

Daingerfield's '83 team will forever sit on a pedestal above everybody else. That's just the way it is. And it's not wrong. What that defense did then could not be done in today's game, but that doesn't matter. They did it in their time and regardless of era, it's absolutely insane.

When folks like C&C say something like it could be in the Daingerfield '83 class, I don't think he (or they) mean statistically. No one — not even C&C — is under the impression that those gaudy 83 numbers can ever happen again. But relativistically, you can have a defense that dominates in a similar fashion, on a sliding scale in accordance with today's modern game/offenses. I look at Katy's 2015 championship team. That defense gave up only 62 points all season, had 10 shutouts, gave up double-digits only twice, gave up +20 only once. They're up there as one of the greatest defenses of all time. I don't think it's crazy to say that, in relation to their era, they rank right up there with Daingerfield '83. Or, you look at Celina's 2005 team, scored 803 points and gave up 75. Posted seven shutouts, gave up double digits twice (once in championship game), and gave up +20 only once. Posted four shutouts in a row to start the season, and but for a Little Elm field goal, would have posted five in a row. And, apart from the title game and a close win over Prosper, most points given up by that defense came in garbage time late, when third string was getting time. The 2005 Bobcats were not '83 Daingerfield, but they rank up there as one of the best of their time too.

I think that's what C&C is saying, essentially, and I don't think he's too far off base to be that optimistic. You look at what Carthage's defense did last year against some really good offenses and think they're bringing back most of that unit, including the best player on that side of the ball in Kip Lewis, it's not hard to feel like that defense can be up there — relatively speaking — as one of the best of all time. We haven't played a snap of football in the 2021 season, so who knows what's going to happen. But if you're taking an honest look and approach at what the Dawgs have coming back on defense, it's not woefully ignorant or over-inflated to think they have a chance to be in the conversation of best defenses of all time (relative to the era in which they played).

Again, I'll reiterate this for those who might have forgotten I said it at the beginning of this post: '83 Daingerfield will always be a notch higher than any more-modern-era defense, because the sheer statistics are just comical and otherworldly.

Great post!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/4/2021 at 9:49 AM, DAWG91 said:

This is what I'm hearing as well.  How often have the Dawgs had a running QB?  Sure,  Morgan had some wheels,  but how often did he use them?  There may have been more,  but the one I most recall was that game in hendo in 2010? maybe.  A running QB is at more risk of being injured. This is no knock against Rock.  Saw him makes some great throws last year.  Only time will tell.  We'll all know in about 5-6 months.

If the kid is a good pocket passer with the ability to run if needed, I think you go with that kid. Just adds another element to your already potent offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ctown81 said:

If the kid is a good pocket passer with the ability to run if needed, I think you go with that kid. Just adds another element to your already potent offense.

I trust SS will make the right call,  whatever that might be.  It's a good problem to have.

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...