Trust me, they have burned me, several times. Posting records only applies if the wins came against quality opponents. What have they done in the playoffs?

 

Looks like they won at least one game in each of the years that they qualified. In fact, in 3 of the last 4 years (and all 3 of the years that they qualified) they have advance to at least the final 8...Seems like that would be the very definition of a top 10 team. Ignore the evidence all you want, that doesn't change it.

Looks like they won at least one game in each of the years that they qualified. In fact, in 3 of the last 4 years (and all 3 of the years that they qualified) they have advance to at least the final 8...Seems like that would be the very definition of a top 10 team. Ignore the evidence all you want, that doesn't change it.

Listen, I'm not a hater of Pulaski County. I'm just saying that I have spoke out for them over the years and thought them to be a highly ranked team and a team that should be ranked higher. And, those that I argued with normally got the last laugh on me. Strength of schedule with Pulaski is a concern.

 

I have a hard time believing in Harlan Co. until they prove they can throw the ball and stop a good throwing team.

 

That is the big question they will face.

So u give them no shot to get to BG? They will win region hands down b/c it is not good. Do have to travel to northern ky for semis which could be tough. Guess we will have to just wait and see.

sorry i was responding to bbuster

So u give them no shot to get to BG? They will win region hands down b/c it is not good. Do have to travel to northern ky for semis which could be tough. Guess we will have to just wait and see.

They have a shot. But '11 was supposed to be "The Year" for the Black Bears and they didn't even win the region. '12 was an unknown and they did win the region but faltered at home in the semi's. 13 is supposed to be "The Year" again for the Black Bears. Until they can defend the pass and do anything but run the ball they will have a hard time getting to BG. Pulaski is a passing team and will give Harlan a run for the region. Then waiting in the semi's will probably be Anderson Co or Conner (both passing teams). Good luck, but consider me a skeptic.

So u give them no shot to get to BG? They will win region hands down b/c it is not good. Do have to travel to northern ky for semis which could be tough. Guess we will have to just wait and see.

 

I love your name and I'm a big Black Bear fan after traveling down there last year for the Semi's. Your name says it all though, they need to learn to throw the ball before they can make that next step I believe. They have an awesome running game, but when they get behind it's tough to win if you can't put the ball in the air.

 

I felt they were the toughest team we faced all year last year until the finals against BG. They are big and strong and run like a team on a mission, but when the run game isn't there they struggled doing much else.

 

I would love to see that team become more balanced, if so they could be a team that could give a team like BG fits.

Not alot of love on here for an Anderson county team that's returning 20 of its 22 starters from a pretty good team the last two years. They will be in the top 10.

Looks like they won at least one game in each of the years that they qualified. In fact, in 3 of the last 4 years (and all 3 of the years that they qualified) they have advance to at least the final 8...Seems like that would be the very definition of a top 10 team. Ignore the evidence all you want, that doesn't change it.

 

First round of the playoffs are generally bye weeks for the teams that are good. Don't tell me they won a few first round games and act like that means something. If your the number one seed in your district, your playing the worst team from the other district. If your 8-2 and losing in the first or second round, your probably not a good team. I think that's what Ram is saying.

Not alot of love on here for an Anderson county team that's returning 20 of its 22 starters from a pretty good team the last two years. They will be in the top 10.

 

I think its 19 of 22 to be exact, but regardless you are correct, when you return that many starters from what was a pretty good team last year, they have to be in the conversation at least when talking top 10. And last years lopsided loss to Cooper was just an anomaly and not indicative of what Anderson had done all year so don't anyone be fooled by that. I'm not saying they would have or should have beat Cooper, but it would have been a much different game another night, what could go wrong went wrong for Anderson that night and it just turned into one of those nightmare games for them.

 

After talking with some of the kids they firmly believe they will be better than last year. I think the concern for them, and this is always in my eyes a concern for them, are the number of "athletes" they have and a high number of kids playing both ways a lot of the time. However, outside of a couple of games, including the state title game against BG a couple of years ago where they were just extremely overmatched, they have played well against deeper teams with more athletes on the field than they have. I think they should do just fine this year.

I totally agree on the number of athletes. They always have many players going both ways. That is their weakness but the boys always play hard and execute!

As was brought up, I think when you have teams that have players playing both ways really doesn't have as much of an impact as some may think.

 

The conversation was brought up last year the teams that have players playing both ways is less of an advantage then those that don't have players playing both ways.

 

The only advantage I see is in practice where you won't have all your #1s on one side facing all the #1's on the other. The fatigue factor if you are well conditioned doesn't play as big of a role.

 

It's always better to have your best player out on the field than to have a lesser player out there just so a player doesn't have to go both ways.

First round of the playoffs are generally bye weeks for the teams that are good. Don't tell me they won a few first round games and act like that means something. If your the number one seed in your district, your playing the worst team from the other district. If your 8-2 and losing in the first or second round, your probably not a good team. I think that's what Ram is saying.

 

3 times in a row they have won 2 playoff games, one of those time they won 3. It wasn't just a couple of first round wins.

As was brought up, I think when you have teams that have players playing both ways really doesn't have as much of an impact as some may think.

 

The conversation was brought up last year the teams that have players playing both ways is less of an advantage then those that don't have players playing both ways.

 

The only advantage I see is in practice where you won't have all your #1s on one side facing all the #1's on the other. The fatigue factor if you are well conditioned doesn't play as big of a role.

 

It's always better to have your best player out on the field than to have a lesser player out there just so a player doesn't have to go both ways.

 

 

I have to disagree. Even the best atheletes get tired after playing the whole game, especially playing both sides of the ball. Plus, playing lots of subs is the reason teams like Highlands, Trinity, and Bowling Green are able to be good every year. They have experienced kids coming back every year. They never have to start over. Last years Bowling Green team is a good example. They only returned 4 starters, but had many players that had game experience and were able to win after losing most of their starters. I'm not saying you can't win with players going both ways, but it's easier with numbers.

As was brought up, I think when you have teams that have players playing both ways really doesn't have as much of an impact as some may think.

 

The conversation was brought up last year the teams that have players playing both ways is less of an advantage then those that don't have players playing both ways.

 

The only advantage I see is in practice where you won't have all your #1s on one side facing all the #1's on the other. The fatigue factor if you are well conditioned doesn't play as big of a role.

 

It's always better to have your best player out on the field than to have a lesser player out there just so a player doesn't have to go both ways.

 

Like Adopted Purple, I have to disagree with this statement. It makes a HUGE difference, especially when you are playing teams that have enough talent where they can start 16-22 different kids between off and def. Just ask Anderson when they faced BG a couple of years ago and BG (from what I understand) pretty much had a starting 11 on O and different 11 on D or close to that, and ALL of them could play ball. And in 5A where Anderson plays, I think one of the issues they face as they go up the ladder and see the better teams is that most of those teams have more dedicated starters on each side of the ball. When you have 8 or 9 kids that are playing all the time against teams that don't have to do that, it get's tough.