Lex Cath 17 Highlands 0

[KnightBird]

After all, Mr. Head, let's appreciate what Lexington Catholic has accomplished in football in only 14 years, having to go up against programs that have been established for well over 50-60 years.

[NamecipS]

Mr. HEAD,

trying to get to Lexington Catholic's first state championship.

:thumb:

[Wildcat]

I think the general opinion here is that HHS has more than the 5-10 plays he ran Friday and those other plays were used throughout the year. He never used the full-house backfield when it was 4th and short, opting to run a sweep and I know there are shot-gun plays that he has called for throughout the year. The fumble snaps are a result of the QB trying to get back into the pocket before he gets bombarded. Who wouldn't have happy feet having 2-3 lb's constantly gunning for you. The shot-gun gives him a little more time to get the routes run and for him to see the field. Maybe have 2 TE's and a back stay in and help out on the blocking. Lex Cath is a very good team and they saw something on the films that HHS wasn’t prepared for. Dale (or our new Off. Coordinator) was out-coached in this one. Good Luck Lex Cath and I hope to see you next year for a rematch.

 

 

Highlands ran more than 10 different plays in the game; they only looked the same because LC was swarming many of them before they got started.

 

As far as what he called on 4th and 1 and such, he called what he called after film study. Did you study LC on film before you formulated your opinion on what should be run in those situations, or did you claim what should have been run after the Birds were unsuccessful? Hindsight is 20-20. Maybe a different play would have worked, maybe it wouldn't. Based on LC's defense that night, I would say it would not have.

 

I didn't see them run full-house all season; you want them to suddenly put it in in the middle of the game????? Come on.

 

Shotgun? Might have worked, but the way LC was coming off the edge, Cecil would have been a nice target with no doubt where the football was. Mueller used play-action to create a little doubt to slow down the pass rush; in shot gun there is no question.

 

2 TE's & a back???? Did Highlands do that all season?? LC couldn't cover 2 receivers???? You may have had more time, but definitely no one open & their best receiver- blocking!

 

What LC saw on film was that they were too quick to be blocked by Highlands this season.

 

Mueller didn't get outcoached, the players got out-talented and outplayed!

[Wildcat]

You know, I’ve laughed more reading this thread then I have in quite some time. It’s amazing to me how if you question the play calling of a certain coach you’re suddenly calling him a lousy coach or you are spoiled or wanting more. By thinking he had a bad game plan for one particular game and saying so on a discussion board such as this, you’ve committed some kind of sacrilege or something. Some go so far as to say that by thinking he didn’t have a very good game plan that you’re not giving the team that won any credit, which no one on here has said. In fact, pretty much everyone that disagreed with Dale’s play calling or lack of adjustments said LexCath was a great team with great athletes and great coaching and that they were the better team. No one is even saying that if he would have made proper adjustments that the Birds would have won, just that they would have had a better chance in their opinion.

Some of you folks need to lighten up and you also need to realize that some people have a different opinion than you and you are not going to sway us into thinking your way. You are entitled to your opinion, we are entitled to ours. No one is saying Dale isn’t a good coach or he needs to go. No one has said Dale’s game plan has been lousy all year. We’re talking about one game here guys. Heck, many are only talking about one half. That doesn’t make us demons, ok.

Dale is capable of making mistakes, he’s not perfect. Dale is a great coach, but he doesn’t walk on water folks and he is fair game to being criticized or second guessed. It goes with the territory. He can handle it, you should be able to also.

 

 

The reality is you don't know what plays were called and what adjustments were made unless you were on the sideline listening to the plays or in the lockerroom at halftime. To the typical fan or parent, many things look the same. Unless you really know what is being called or done, you don't really know.

 

By stating that Mueller was outcoached certainly implies that LC deserves less credit. A person can't say, "LC deserved to win, but if we would have done this and that then...." without meaning we could have won and the coach messed it up.

 

As far as lightening up, it doesn't matter to me; I have no "dog in the fight." It is just a shame that as soon as something goes wrong, some want to immediately blame the coaches, especially one as good as Mueller.

 

I don't think this discussion is opinion. Some are saying little or no adjustments were made and only a few plays were called. I say those people are wrong. I saw adjustments made and I saw plenty of different play calls, most to no avail against the better, more talented LC team.

 

Sure Coach Mueller makes mistakes, but to pin that loss on him, which has been certainly IMPLIED, is absolutely ludicrous, ridiculous, and totally unfounded.

 

Some just can't accept that their sons were outperformed; they want to BLAME someone. No one needs to be blamed when one team was clearly better.

[NamecipS]

The reality is you don't know what plays were called and what adjustments were made unless you were on the sideline listening to the plays or in the lockerroom at halftime. To the typical fan or parent, many things look the same. Unless you really know what is being called or done, you don't really know.

 

By stating that Mueller was outcoached certainly implies that LC deserves less credit. A person can't say, "LC deserved to win, but if we would have done this and that then...." without meaning we could have won and the coach messed it up.

 

As far as lightening up, it doesn't matter to me; I have no "dog in the fight." It is just a shame that as soon as something goes wrong, some want to immediately blame the coaches, especially one as good as Mueller.

 

I don't think this discussion is opinion. Some are saying little or no adjustments were made and only a few plays were called. I say those people are wrong. I saw adjustments made and I saw plenty of different play calls, most to no avail against the better, more talented LC team.

 

Sure Coach Mueller makes mistakes, but to pin that loss on him, which has been certainly IMPLIED, is absolutely ludicrous, ridiculous, and totally unfounded.

 

Some just can't accept that their sons were outperformed; they want to BLAME someone. No one needs to be blamed when one team was clearly better.

For someone who has "no dog in this fight" you sure seem to come across like you have all the answers and anyone else who has a different opinion is wrong.

[Run To State]

The reality is you don't know what plays were called and what adjustments were made unless you were on the sideline listening to the plays or in the lockerroom at halftime. To the typical fan or parent, many things look the same. Unless you really know what is being called or done, you don't really know.

 

By stating that Mueller was outcoached certainly implies that LC deserves less credit. A person can't say, "LC deserved to win, but if we would have done this and that then...." without meaning we could have won and the coach messed it up.

 

As far as lightening up, it doesn't matter to me; I have no "dog in the fight." It is just a shame that as soon as something goes wrong, some want to immediately blame the coaches, especially one as good as Mueller.

 

I don't think this discussion is opinion. Some are saying little or no adjustments were made and only a few plays were called. I say those people are wrong. I saw adjustments made and I saw plenty of different play calls, most to no avail against the better, more talented LC team.

 

Sure Coach Mueller makes mistakes, but to pin that loss on him, which has been certainly IMPLIED, is absolutely ludicrous, ridiculous, and totally unfounded.

 

Some just can't accept that their sons were outperformed; they want to BLAME someone. No one needs to be blamed when one team was clearly better.

Wildcat, I really don't need you or anyone else to think for me. Don’t be so condescending as to tell me what I know or what I don’t know about the game or the play calling. As I recall, you yourself were questioning Dale earlier this year about who was and who wasn’t getting enough carries. Make up you mind as to the direction you would like to take. It seems you want to play on both sides of the fence here and that, my friend, is what is absolutely ludicrous and ridiculous.

Also please don’t try to tell me that I can’t question an aspect of the game and not give credit to the winning team, you’re not in charge of my decision making and I know full well of what I am saying and who I am giving credit to. Regardless of your OPINION, I do think LexCath was the better team. Now, give it a rest.

[jbwill2]

Here's a question...

 

Apparently, HHS was totally dominated at halftime, but was only trailing 7-0 at the break. HHS' Jordan Kramer returned the second-halk kickoff about 80 yards, almost breaking it for a game-tying TD. Ultimately, HHS scored no points off his big run. Say, what if Kramer had gone the extra 15 or so yards and tied the game 7-7 at that point. Is there any serious chance that such a momentous play could have changed the final outcome of the game (i.e. Highands winning), or was LC just too good to let it happen? In other words, did the outcome of that one play basically decide the game???

[NamecipS]

Here's a question...

 

Apparently, HHS was totally dominated at halftime, but was only trailing 7-0 at the break. HHS' Jordan Kramer returned the second-halk kickoff about 80 yards, almost breaking it for a game-tying TD. Ultimately, HHS scored no points off his big run. Say, what if Kramer had gone the extra 15 or so yards and tied the game 7-7 at that point. Is there any serious chance that such a momentous play could have changed the final outcome of the game (i.e. Highands winning), or was LC just too good to let it happen? In other words, did the outcome of that one play basically decide the game???

Great question JBW and one that probably can't be answered. No one knows what might have happened. LC could have started the "here we go again" thinking and folded. Or maybe that would have put some kind of charge in the Highlands offense and they go on to win the game. LC got a huge boost in the momentum department by stopping the 'Birds from scoring on that drive. LC came with a great game plan and was the dominant team that night.

[westsider]

Apparently, HHS was totally dominated at halftime, but was only trailing 7-0 at the break.

True. LexCath missed a couple of field goals ... one was a 47-yarder that was well short, the other one from about 30 that was wide right. I would be surprised if Highlands had much more than 30 yards of offense in the first half.

HHS' Jordan Kramer returned the second-halk kickoff about 80 yards, almost breaking it for a game-tying TD. Ultimately, HHS scored no points off his big run. Say, what if Kramer had gone the extra 15 or so yards and tied the game 7-7 at that point. Is there any serious chance that such a momentous play could have changed the final outcome of the game (i.e. Highands winning), or was LC just too good to let it happen? In other words, did the outcome of that one play basically decide the game???

You never know about the effect of momentum on a game, but LexCath was definitely the better team. I don't know that Highlands could have mounted enough offense to pull it out. The pass rush was in Cecil's grill all night and the secondary blanketed the receivers.

 

Wildcat is right ... Highlands was outmanned and outplayed.

[Wildcat]

Wildcat, I really don't need you or anyone else to think for me. Don’t be so condescending as to tell me what I know or what I don’t know about the game or the play calling. As I recall, you yourself were questioning Dale earlier this year about who was and who wasn’t getting enough carries. Make up you mind as to the direction you would like to take. It seems you want to play on both sides of the fence here and that, my friend, is what is absolutely ludicrous and ridiculous.

Also please don’t try to tell me that I can’t question an aspect of the game and not give credit to the winning team, you’re not in charge of my decision making and I know full well of what I am saying and who I am giving credit to. Regardless of your OPINION, I do think LexCath was the better team. Now, give it a rest.

 

 

How is it condescending to state a fact-that unless you, or anyone for that matter, were on the sideline or in the lockerroom- you don't know what was called or what adjustments were made.

 

I questioned who was playing earlier in the season because I wanted to know more about the kid and the situation. I asked a legitimate question because I did not see the kid practice. I certainly did not act as if I knew what the coaching staff did or didn't do or their reasoning for doing it like some have done in regard to LC. So that is not "playing both sides of the fence."

 

Questioning as aspect of the game is far different from questioning the coach's preparation, play calling, and adjustments. Some said those aspects were poor vs. LC.

 

Never claimed to be "in charge" of your decision-making," whatever that means.

 

What I meant by questioning the coaching and giving credit to LC is not that you can't do it. People question coaching all the time. What I meant is that the two together don't make sense. Either the one team was better that night and deserved to win or not. Sorry for misspeaking.

 

We agree that LC was better.

[NamecipS]

Give it up RTS, you're wrong and aren't entitled to your opinion.

[Birdsfan]

Give it up RTS, you're wrong and aren't entitled to your opinion.

He is very much entitled to his opinion! However, we can second-guess for the rest of the year and it won't change the score. The game is over. For whatever reason, we lost and Lex Cath won. They will go on to try for their first state championship. Our underclassman will begin the journey toward our 17th. I think this is a good place to wrap up this discussion.

[Run To State]

How is it condescending to state a fact-that unless you, or anyone for that matter, were on the sideline or in the lockerroom- you don't know what was called or what adjustments were made.

 

I questioned who was playing earlier in the season because I wanted to know more about the kid and the situation. I asked a legitimate question because I did not see the kid practice. I certainly did not act as if I knew what the coaching staff did or didn't do or their reasoning for doing it like some have done in regard to LC. So that is not "playing both sides of the fence."

 

Questioning as aspect of the game is far different from questioning the coach's preparation, play calling, and adjustments. Some said those aspects were poor vs. LC.

 

Never claimed to be "in charge" of your decision-making," whatever that means.

 

What I meant by questioning the coaching and giving credit to LC is not that you can't do it. People question coaching all the time. What I meant is that the two together don't make sense. Either the one team was better that night and deserved to win or not. Sorry for misspeaking.

 

We agree that LC was better.

That was never in question to any one but you.

Were you on the sidelines? What makes you right? What makes others wrong? I don't need to be on the sideline or in the locker room to know what I'm seeing. I've been following Dale and the Birds for a long time now, not just five games one year, maybe less the year before and so on.

Sideline quarterbacking is something that has always been since I've been alive. You've done it I'm sure, I don't even know you but I would be willing to bet my socks you have, so why grill me if I do it. I happen to know someone from LexCath; he doesn't feel as though I'm slighting the Knights in any way, he even agrees with me for the most part. He also knows that I think they had the better team. But for some strange reason, you can't see what he can.

You can question an aspect of a game and still give due credit to the winning team. Again, you're assuming your opinion is right and everyone else is wrong. Also, please understand that I think Dale is a great coach and let's end this thing here and now.

[pancho]

Here's a question...

 

Apparently, HHS was totally dominated at halftime, but was only trailing 7-0 at the break. HHS' Jordan Kramer returned the second-halk kickoff about 80 yards, almost breaking it for a game-tying TD. Ultimately, HHS scored no points off his big run. Say, what if Kramer had gone the extra 15 or so yards and tied the game 7-7 at that point. Is there any serious chance that such a momentous play could have changed the final outcome of the game (i.e. Highands winning), or was LC just too good to let it happen? In other words, did the outcome of that one play basically decide the game???

I was sitting on the LexCath side of the stands and I can assure you that no one near me thought that the blocked FG early in the 3rd Quarter meant that the Knights had it wrapped up.

[Wildcat]

That was never in question to any one but you.

Were you on the sidelines? What makes you right? What makes others wrong? I don't need to be on the sideline or in the locker room to know what I'm seeing. I've been following Dale and the Birds for a long time now, not just five games one year, maybe less the year before and so on.

Sideline quarterbacking is something that has always been since I've been alive. You've done it I'm sure, I don't even know you but I would be willing to bet my socks you have, so why grill me if I do it. I happen to know someone from LexCath; he doesn't feel as though I'm slighting the Knights in any way, he even agrees with me for the most part. He also knows that I think they had the better team. But for some strange reason, you can't see what he can.

You can question an aspect of a game and still give due credit to the winning team. Again, you're assuming your opinion is right and everyone else is wrong. Also, please understand that I think Dale is a great coach and let's end this thing here and now.

 

It seems we are disagreeing here on semantics.

 

Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Never claimed that my opinion was right and yours was wrong.

 

Of course, everyone questions coaching including me.

 

Unfortunately, I have seen far too many Highlands games over the past 11 years than I care to admit.

 

What fact I think is being distorted here is the number of different kinds of plays that Highlands ran and the adjustments that were made. I saw plenty more than 10 different plays. To even insinuate that seems crazy to me. I obviously don't know this for a fact, but I would bet they ran close to 30. I saw several different adjustments the Birds tried as well. Others were claiming none were made, which also seems preposterous to me knowing how capable Coach Mueller is.

 

What no one would argue is that neither the various plays nor the adjustments worked, unfortunately for Highlands and their seniors.