i think they need to build a good base. get the core of their team knowlegable about the game of football. its one thing to be big and strong but its another to not be mentally prepared.

I agree with Panther8404 on this, I think defense is the thing they need to improve on last year. The defense IMO last year didn't do as good as they could have done. Especially this year the defense IMO should be the main concern. They lost all their linebackers from last year, some key d-lineman and their best corner. On offense the main concern is how the line will be, because they do still have playmakers on offense. So defense is the thing they really need to concentrate on this year IMO...

 

You not agreeing with me doesn't come as a shock to me at all. But whether you agree or not, our defense did keep us in some games last year, when our offense wasn't or couldn't move the ball. The maturing of some players will be huge this coming season.

I know Josh had 1 big game (rushing) and was listed in the players to watch for column in the paper. Also didn't he miss the last couple of games due to injury?

 

Yes he did miss the last couple games with an injury. Hopefully he will be able to take the pounding that goes with varsity football this year, when his chances to perform allow. His big game last year was against Bracken County, but he will have to perform against tougher competition this coming season.

You not agreeing with me doesn't come as a shock to me at all. But whether you agree or not, our defense did keep us in some games last year, when our offense wasn't or couldn't move the ball. The maturing of some players will be huge this coming season.

 

You are easy to disagree with...

 

And what games did the defense keep us in last year, because I was at every game last year except for I believe one game and I didn't see at all where the defense was single handily keeping us in the game. I was more impressed withe offense last year than I was with the defense, the defense hardly ever just stopped a team 3 and out. And if they didn't cause a turnover, then they usually didn't stop the other team to much. I know alot of it is because there was alot of injuries last year, and the linebacking core and defensive backs were really banged up all year. But it was also the same way on offense, and we finished the year with a receiver breaking records who started the year as the #5 receiver. So IMO I just think when you compare the two, the offense was the better unit last year for Ludlow...

I know Josh had 1 big game (rushing) and was listed in the players to watch for column in the paper. Also didn't he miss the last couple of games due to injury?

 

Well I was at pretty much every game last year, and I didn't see Josh have a big rushing day at all in any of the games. I think the game you are talking about is the game, when the game was already out of hand and he came in because we took out the starting tailback. Josh was the third string runningback for Ludlow last year and he ripped off a couple of big runs in that game, but it was after most of the starters were out for Ludlow because the game was already out of hand. I may be wrong about that, but I am pretty sure that is what happened.

You are easy to disagree with...

 

And what games did the defense keep us in last year, because I was at every game last year except for I believe one game and I didn't see at all where the defense was single handily keeping us in the game. I was more impressed withe offense last year than I was with the defense, the defense hardly ever just stopped a team 3 and out. And if they didn't cause a turnover, then they usually didn't stop the other team to much. I know alot of it is because there was alot of injuries last year, and the linebacking core and defensive backs were really banged up all year. But it was also the same way on offense, and we finished the year with a receiver breaking records who started the year as the #5 receiver. So IMO I just think when you compare the two, the offense was the better unit last year for Ludlow...

 

I know the defense kept us in the Newport game, a 13-6 loss, the Carroll County game and the defensive stand that won the Bellevue game. The offense didn't do alot all year long, which in turn forced the defense to play many more plays. And with most of the players going both ways, you know as well as I do, that fatigue definitely comes in to play.

I know the defense kept us in the Newport game, a 13-6 loss, the Carroll County game and the defensive stand that won the Bellevue game. The offense didn't do alot all year long, which in turn forced the defense to play many more plays. And with most of the players going both ways, you know as well as I do, that fatigue definitely comes in to play.

 

You know what first of all I will say you are right about the Newport game, I forgot about that game, because that was the game I was not at. However the defense didn't do to great against Bellevue. I mean they aloud Bellevue to march right down the field to the half yard line after the turnover. They did step up and made a play at the end though to save it. But guess what the offense was driving up and down the field that game all game long. The carroll country game, well they just didn't have that good of an offensive at all anyways..Also the defense played alot of plays because they couldn't stop anyone 3 and out. They aloud people to drive the ball up and down the field on them all year, and as I said if we didn't force a turnover then the teams usually scored. They were alot like the Bengals defense, very good at getting the turnovers but when they dont get it, they dont stop anyone. Also you brought up the Newport game, but what about the Beechwood game. The offense was moving the ball right up and down the field, and most likely would have kept doing that if it wasn't for that delay that pushed the game back. While the defense though aloud Beechwood to do whatever they wanted on both days. Then the Dayton game, where we had alot of momentum and the offense had got things going, the defense aloud a 30 yard pass on 3rd and 14 and we would have got the ball back and a chance to tie the game. But instead they aloud Dayton to go down and score and get a 2 touchdown lead. If the defense would have got off the field more, it would have given the offense ALOT more opportunities. The defense last year was live or die by the turnover, and as we seen with the Bengals defense, that is not good enough. Dont get me wrong I not saying the offense was great by any means, because it has alot to improve on too, but IMO the offense was a little bit ahead of the defense last year....

You know what first of all I will say you are right about the Newport game, I forgot about that game, because that was the game I was not at. However the defense didn't do to great against Bellevue. I mean they aloud Bellevue to march right down the field to the half yard line after the turnover. They did step up and made a play at the end though to save it. But guess what the offense was driving up and down the field that game all game long. The carroll country game, well they just didn't have that good of an offensive at all anyways..Also the defense played alot of plays because they couldn't stop anyone 3 and out. They aloud people to drive the ball up and down the field on them all year, and as I said if we didn't force a turnover then the teams usually scored. They were alot like the Bengals defense, very good at getting the turnovers but when they dont get it, they dont stop anyone. Also you brought up the Newport game, but what about the Beechwood game. The offense was moving the ball right up and down the field, and most likely would have kept doing that if it wasn't for that delay that pushed the game back. While the defense though aloud Beechwood to do whatever they wanted on both days. Then the Dayton game, where we had alot of momentum and the offense had got things going, the defense aloud a 30 yard pass on 3rd and 14 and we would have got the ball back and a chance to tie the game. But instead they aloud Dayton to go down and score and get a 2 touchdown lead. If the defense would have got off the field more, it would have given the offense ALOT more opportunities. The defense last year was live or die by the turnover, and as we seen with the Bengals defense, that is not good enough. Dont get me wrong I not saying the offense was great by any means, because it has alot to improve on too, but IMO the offense was a little bit ahead of the defense last year....

 

You are most definitely entitled to your opinion and I wouldn't want it any other way. However, you have to realize that with Ludlow, most players are playing both ways. You know this, since you were there yourself. You also know that fatigue comes in to play. Our offense relied too heavily on Rouse. This year, should he go down for any length of time, we could be in some serious trouble. I'm not saying don't run him, but I am saying don't run him 25 times a game. They have a good running back in the Mills kid. I would run him more and I would attempt it from the I- formation with a fullback leading the way. He makes good cuts and hopefully will be stronger this season. I know you're going to disagree with me, but that, my young friend, is my opinion.

You are most definitely entitled to your opinion and I wouldn't want it any other way. However, you have to realize that with Ludlow, most players are playing both ways. You know this, since you were there yourself. You also know that fatigue comes in to play. Our offense relied too heavily on Rouse. This year, should he go down for any length of time, we could be in some serious trouble. I'm not saying don't run him, but I am saying don't run him 25 times a game. They have a good running back in the Mills kid. I would run him more and I would attempt it from the I- formation with a fullback leading the way. He makes good cuts and hopefully will be stronger this season. I know you're going to disagree with me, but that, my young friend, is my opinion.

 

You are right I do disagree, I know it is your opinion and I respect that, but I just dont agree with it. I love I-formation, it is my favorite offense to run things out of. But Ludlow does not have the line where you can play a I-formation, we haven't had a line who could use that formation since the Jeremy Mills days, which had big people who could block like Mckensie, Grinnan, etc. We didn't have the line in my days playing who could do that, and they didn't have it last year, and most likely they wont have it this year either since the line they will have will be mostly all people with not much varsity experience on the line. You are right if Rouse goes down, then we are in trouble, but it was the same way during the Lewis years. We ran Lewis all the time, and if he ever went down we were in trouble. I know Lewis was a better runner, but Rouse does a pretty good job actually, because he is smart and usually never takes a hard hit because he makes smart cuts and gets down when he needs too. The offense they use now is what is best for the team to succeed. In this offense you dont have to have that good of a line to have a running game, because there is alot of movement and fakes going on in the offense. If we had the line, I would love the I-formation, but the fact is we just do not, and as I said we haven't had it in 8 years..Now I do think we need to have some kind of goal-line offense in, or a offense we use when its like 3rd and a yard or something. Because I know I dont like using the shotgun always for those situations. However the shotgun offense is the offense they need to stick with and use primarily if they want to do well on offense, because it is the best for the type of players we have...

You are right I do disagree, I know it is your opinion and I respect that, but I just dont agree with it. I love I-formation, it is my favorite offense to run things out of. But Ludlow does not have the line where you can play a I-formation, we haven't had a line who could use that formation since the Jeremy Mills days, which had big people who could block like Mckensie, Grinnan, etc. We didn't have the line in my days playing who could do that, and they didn't have it last year, and most likely they wont have it this year either since the line they will have will be mostly all people with not much varsity experience on the line. You are right if Rouse goes down, then we are in trouble, but it was the same way during the Lewis years. We ran Lewis all the time, and if he ever went down we were in trouble. I know Lewis was a better runner, but Rouse does a pretty good job actually, because he is smart and usually never takes a hard hit because he makes smart cuts and gets down when he needs too. The offense they use now is what is best for the team to succeed. In this offense you dont have to have that good of a line to have a running game, because there is alot of movement and fakes going on in the offense. If we had the line, I would love the I-formation, but the fact is we just do not, and as I said we haven't had it in 8 years..Now I do think we need to have some kind of goal-line offense in, or a offense we use when its like 3rd and a yard or something. Because I know I dont like using the shotgun always for those situations. However the shotgun offense is the offense they need to stick with and use primarily if they want to do well on offense, because it is the best for the type of players we have...

 

And that my young friend is why we will continue to disagree. When Lewis was there we did have Chase King as back up. Not as gifted, but a smart player who proved himself after Lewis graduated. The line can be coached well enough to run block and should be coached well enough to be able to perform. That is the responsibility of the coach.

You are right I do disagree, I know it is your opinion and I respect that, but I just dont agree with it. I love I-formation, it is my favorite offense to run things out of. But Ludlow does not have the line where you can play a I-formation, we haven't had a line who could use that formation since the Jeremy Mills days, which had big people who could block like Mckensie, Grinnan, etc. We didn't have the line in my days playing who could do that, and they didn't have it last year, and most likely they wont have it this year either since the line they will have will be mostly all people with not much varsity experience on the line. You are right if Rouse goes down, then we are in trouble, but it was the same way during the Lewis years. We ran Lewis all the time, and if he ever went down we were in trouble. I know Lewis was a better runner, but Rouse does a pretty good job actually, because he is smart and usually never takes a hard hit because he makes smart cuts and gets down when he needs too. The offense they use now is what is best for the team to succeed. In this offense you dont have to have that good of a line to have a running game, because there is alot of movement and fakes going on in the offense. If we had the line, I would love the I-formation, but the fact is we just do not, and as I said we haven't had it in 8 years..Now I do think we need to have some kind of goal-line offense in, or a offense we use when its like 3rd and a yard or something. Because I know I dont like using the shotgun always for those situations. However the shotgun offense is the offense they need to stick with and use primarily if they want to do well on offense, because it is the best for the type of players we have...

 

You mentioned McKenzie and Grinnan in your post. Obviously McKenzie was a tremendous lineman. However, he was the best they had. If you remember that line consisted of Lancaster at center (145 lbs.), B. Cawood (165) & G. Cawood (155) at guards. Mills at tailback (215-220) was obviously bigger than most of the line. Those kids played hard and with tremendous heart and I think we ran the ball pretty successful during that period. You can also throw Schlickman (150) in there as well on the line. They got to their blocks and got in the right positions to be successful and it can be done with the kids they will have this season too.

And that my young friend is why we will continue to disagree. When Lewis was there we did have Chase King as back up. Not as gifted, but a smart player who proved himself after Lewis graduated. The line can be coached well enough to run block and should be coached well enough to be able to perform. That is the responsibility of the coach.

 

And that is why we will disagree yet again. Yeah Chase ended up proving himself after Lewis graduated, but alot of it came because he got to learn alot in that year sitting behind Lewis. If I remember correctly Chase had not played football in 3 years I believe. That was the first year Chase had played in awhile. So having someone who hasn't played in 3 years, and hadn't experienced varsity football yet isn't your ideal backup. Dont get me wrong Chase ended up being a very good QB, but IMO he wasn't ready to step in yet if Lewis got hurt that year. So that year if Lewis went down, then it would have been trouble...But you still had to go with that offense because it is the one that gave you the best chance to win...

And that is why we will disagree yet again. Yeah Chase ended up proving himself after Lewis graduated, but alot of it came because he got to learn alot in that year sitting behind Lewis. If I remember correctly Chase had not played football in 3 years I believe. That was the first year Chase had played in awhile. So having someone who hasn't played in 3 years, and hadn't experienced varsity football yet isn't your ideal backup. Dont get me wrong Chase ended up being a very good QB, but IMO he wasn't ready to step in yet if Lewis got hurt that year. So that year if Lewis went down, then it would have been trouble...But you still had to go with that offense because it is the one that gave you the best chance to win...[/quote

 

In that year Ludlow had the players to run that style, but they haven't had that in the last couple years. IMO a coach bases his style of play on the talent that he has, not require the talent, or lack thereof, to be able to play a style they can't play. It all comes down to winning and putting the best players in the best situation to win the game. If it's broke, fix it.

You mentioned McKenzie and Grinnan in your post. Obviously McKenzie was a tremendous lineman. However, he was the best they had. If you remember that line consisted of Lancaster at center (145 lbs.), B. Cawood (165) & G. Cawood (155) at guards. Mills at tailback (215-220) was obviously bigger than most of the line. Those kids played hard and with tremendous heart and I think we ran the ball pretty successful during that period. You can also throw Schlickman (150) in there as well on the line. They got to their blocks and got in the right positions to be successful and it can be done with the kids they will have this season too.

 

Your right they were pretty successful, and played with alot of heart. But those kids also entered high school football knowing how to win games. They were smart football players who knew how to do things right, and had talent. I remember when they were seniors in youth football they made the super bowl and lost to campbell county. So they knew how to win in football. However most of the guys in Ludlow when they get to high school they dont know how to win, because hardly any of the teams are ever successful in youth football. Even Lewis and them were pretty bad during their years in youth football. Then their freshman year where Coach Staley ran alot of shotgun on the freshman team they were very successful. Then that very next year, when they were playing varsity football we went and tried to run an I formation, and just alot of traditional formations, and we couldn't get anything done because the line cant block in those formations. Trust me I know, because I was getting hit every time I touched the ball. Then the next year, we go shot gun and they all of a sudden are able to create some holes for the runningback, because of the scheme used for the shotgun. But if we were still in the I formation they would not have been able to do it. And that line that year with Schricte, Hensley, Logan, Shack, Deller, is the best line we have had in the last 4 years however those guys couldn't block if it was an I formation, and they even admit that. I really dont know what you dont get about this, we dont have the line to do it as much as you would like to think. I mean why do you think alot of the guys who play line in youth football can't create holes at all, but once they get to high school and block out of the shotgun they are actually able to a little bit more.

 

I know you think Mills would be better off out of the I formation, and you know what that is probably true. And that has never been the problem, Ludlow has also had guys in the skill positions who are capable of running in different formations. I know when Jeff Helmer was the tailback his senior year, he probably would have been better off from the I formation, but it wouldn't have mattered because he wouldn't have had any whole to run through in that formation. It is simple and I dont know why you dont get it, Ludlow just does not have the line who are capable of blocking in an I or any formation like that. I mean even in this shotgun formation, the line still doens't do that great, but it does better than it would in the I formation that you want. Now I know we lost alot of our line from last year, so I dont know how the lineman for this year will be. But it would be a pretty good guess of mine that they would be better off in the shotgun formation as well. Now I do agree with you that they need another formation for short yardage or goal line situations. Or atleast have it in their playbook to use unlike last year. However if they were to use to the I formation alot, then the offense would get no where...

And that is why we will disagree yet again. Yeah Chase ended up proving himself after Lewis graduated, but alot of it came because he got to learn alot in that year sitting behind Lewis. If I remember correctly Chase had not played football in 3 years I believe. That was the first year Chase had played in awhile. So having someone who hasn't played in 3 years, and hadn't experienced varsity football yet isn't your ideal backup. Dont get me wrong Chase ended up being a very good QB, but IMO he wasn't ready to step in yet if Lewis got hurt that year. So that year if Lewis went down, then it would have been trouble...But you still had to go with that offense because it is the one that gave you the best chance to win...[/quote

 

In that year Ludlow had the players to run that style, but they haven't had that in the last couple years. IMO a coach bases his style of play on the talent that he has, not require the talent, or lack thereof, to be able to play a style they can't play. It all comes down to winning and putting the best players in the best situation to win the game. If it's broke, fix it.

 

I completely agree with the part I bolded. And that is why I dont get what you are arguing about here. The system they have now is what fits best for these players as well. The players on this years teams are not capable of being a team that can run the I formation, if they did it the offense would get no where. Because the line would not get it done in that formation trust me on that. And its not broke, and that is why they are not going to fix it. Yeah as I said in that big post, we have guys in the skill positions who can probably run the I formation, but it all comes down to the line. The lineman is what determines if the offense does any good, and they dont have the lineman who can run an I formation. So they are running a system that BEST FITS THE PLAYERS on the team, because this system fits the type of lineman we have on the team. They can block ok for the shot gun, but make them run I formation and it wont work. Mills would have no where to go in the I formation because he would be getting hit in the backfield before he even gets to take off....