GCHS

Most football contracts don't mention being competitive...just FYI. Special ED is now apart of the GAP and the most highly litigated area...not an "easy" job by any stretch anymore since that is the emphasis in most districts now and most PE jobs are held by tenured teachers and former coaches so that's out. Most college coaches start as GA's and rarely as HS head coaches. With that said, the biggest issue is expectation vs reality vs resources. IMO.

I would also challenge any poster to prove that "most" head coaches teach in PE/SE now. I think that probably is an assumption that may not be supported by fact.

I saw Rockcastle play at Garrard... I don't know where all this speed you guys are talking about was.

As far whether or not Rock should have beaten Garrard, they didn't, so it is hard to argue they should have. Good news is, Rock will get another shot next year.

And with that... I bid a farewell to this thread.

First... I never have said anything negative about LC. They are a very good team. The fact is, they have a hard time stopping the run. That is not a knock, just an observation. Every team they have played that has any kind of rushing attack has been able to run the ball effectively - it is a plain fact. Might be scheme, might be personnel, might be style of play, but it is what it is. Spin it all you want, it will make it hard for Catholic win a championship in 3A.

The point about the tattoos comment is that is has absolutely nothing to do with the game... It was a statement about kids that don't fit your "idea" of something, or maybe the problem is they do fit your "idea" of something. Either way, no one on here brought up the Garrard kids' appearance, except you. I don't know what you meant by it, but I know what it sounds like, and I don't like it one bit. I haven't seen anyone poor-mouthing LC's players' specifically, and if I did, I would call them out, too. Either way, one negative comment does not make another any more excusable.

I think most of those games happened the last couple of weeks. I really don't think we will learn much about any of these teams this week.

Oh stop it, LexCath came out swinging and gave GC a standing 8 count 21-0 in the 1st. GC did not score till mid 2qrt and late in the 4th. Just because you run the ball 99.9% of the time, have tattoos at 16-17 does make you a tough ball club. Tough is when a running team RAMS it up the defense and the defense breaks but don't bends and denies a team from scoring, that's a tough team. Just ask #10 when he was about to score inside the 5 yard and got POP by LC #10 making him cough up the ball.

Well, the kid you are talking about had 140 yards rushing against Catholic - I don't think he would say much about getting "popped." FWIW, the comments like the tattoo comment are what makes people so biased against LexCath. You can talk in coded language all you want - we know what you mean. It is uncalled for and, quite frankly, pitiful, for someone to say crap like that.

By the way, the 2nd TD didn't come against ANY corner - there was no one within 15 yards of that kid... Because LexCath had 11 in the box and still couldn't stop the run.

Either way, Garrard played a pretty tough game. LexCath won, pretty simple. There is no need to denigrate their kids on here. I haven't seen anyone on this thread bad-mouthing LexCath's players. Have a little class.

It's much more fun to hear the coaches yell at the refs when they don't know the rules.

I have come to believe that the only reason they put forward the "points of emphasis" is to focus coaches' complaints on specific calls, thus reducing the level of complaining overall... I sure doesn't seem to be because they are actually focusing on those things, a lot of times.

I like quotes that has some explanation attached to them, so please enlighten us and Boyle Co fans how GC is a better matchup to Lex Cath than Boyle Co? Considering GC couldn't score on the Rebel's D and Rebels placed a 48 on GC. Are you saying GC's defensive back are faster and quicker than BC that they could cover the receivers? Please be constructive.

Go back and read the post... He said that Garrard matches up better with LexCath than they did with Boyle. NOT that Garrard is a better matchup than Boyle was. He also said OFFENSIVELY for Garrard. Didn't see anything about defensive backs, at all. I don't want to put words in the guy's mouth, but I think this might be what he means:

Garrard runs the football, primarily. LexCath has not been as good at stopping the run as Boyle. Therefore, the thought is that Garrard's offense should be able to move the ball better vs. LexCath's defense than against Boyle's defense.

I will also answer your questions about defensive backs, although it was not part of the post you called out: Yes - Garrard's DBs are faster and quicker than Boyle's. That doesn't necessarily mean they are "better," but they are faster, overall.

Now, does any of this mean Garrard will beat Catholic? No, but it isn't unreasonable to say that LexCath is a better matchup for Garrard than Boyle was.

I was wrong in another post when I described the H&L play. Watching it live, I thought it was a Post/Shallow & Dig/Go combo... Instead it was a Post/Shallow/Seam/Curl combo with a throw to the curl and pitch to the shallow. Most versions you see are a little easier to defend with a Hitch/Shoot look. This one is much more difficult b/c it is tougher to defend that shallow than it is a shoot.

Anyway, a couple of things...

1) Don't sleep on Central - I understand everyone wants a rematch, but Central poses a lot of problems for Boyle. They are one of the few teams with the speed to match up with Catholic AND the physicality to match up with Boyle.

2) This game was big for playoff positioning, but LexCath still will have a tough road to a title after the 2nd round - Central/Boyle & Caldwell still out there - nevermind Belfry in the final.

After seeing the score from last night I think you are right. I was just going off what has been said in the weekly rankings threads on here. Not sure if that means Western Hills is better than we thought or that Garrard isn't as good as we thought.

I would say a little of both... Though I have been told Garrard was firmly in control midway through the 4th qtr. I heard they gave up scores on a freak deflection and one blown coverage. If you take away those plays, Western Hills had less than 200 yards of offense.

Saw the Hook & Ladder play... It wasn't really a traditional H&L - the route combinations were more like a mesh concept (Post/Shallow backside with a Go/Dig on the front). Catholic hit the dig and pitched it to the shallow guy. Sort of like the play Boise State ran against Oklahoma(?) in the Fiesta Bowl, I think.

Garrard/Estill/Bourbon had this exact situation last season.

Only Catholic has a real shot, from outside those 3. There is a pretty wide separation, after that... Though 3A is still really good from 1-20, IMO.

Central is an interesting team... They are very physical - and play disciplined football. At the same time, they have really good overall athleticism. I think they are the only team that matches up favorably with both Boyle AND LexCath. I don't know if they will beat either team, but they certainly are capable of beating them.

Just thinking about the strength in the western half of 3A is mind-boggling.

Mercer will win it. And none of their games will be close, IMO.

Who said anything wasnt year round...the difference is soccer is playing year round...football trains year round for about a 3 month season.

 

 

And yes I have done the soccer thing...

This is a good point. Even in off-season, other sports have GAMES. Football cannot offer that "light at the end of the tunnel."

What people fail to realize, is soccer isn't our game. It is an international game governed by an international body (FIFA). It's not up to "us" to change the rules. The NBA/MLB/NFL are American sports; soccer isn't.

And, right there, you may have hit on a major reason why, despite predictions otherwise over the past few decades, it still hasn't gotten very big in the U.S.

Most kids up to freshman year. Can play for there parents. It's in high school that the kids have to actually put the time an work in. To be able to play. Lot more work to play high school

Football. An it's a lot tougher of a sport. Most kids don't wanna take that type of beating everyday. Just a opinion

I also think this is important, as well... Too many coaches, at all levels, do too much full contact stuff, IMO.

Just my two cents, here...

1) I don't think kids are lazier, but they do have more options for their time now - there is just a lot more competing with all sports, now. Football is hard, by the nature of the game. And I think video games to play a role. I know they have been around for 40 years, but the graphics and storyline development have improved to such a degree that it is almost like virtual reality. Also, video games now add a social element that they didn't used to offer, with online gaming.

2) I don't buy the argument that there is a "media conspiracy" against football. There is enough evidence to suggest that football is dangerous, and probably more so than other sports, across the board. That said, parents have to weigh the risks against the incredible rewards of playing the game (talking about physical, social, & character rewards - NOT scholarships).

3) More boys being raised by their mothers, with no Dad in sight, or Dad being just a temporary diversion from. In light of the dangers of the sport, one would think that a Mom, having never played the game, might be less inclined to accept the risk, since they may not fully appreciate the rewards.

4) I think another reality is shifting demographics and populations, as well as the elimination of green spaces. Kids often don't live close enough to other kids to get a good pick-up game of football. If they do, they may not have the space available for a game. Finally, if there are other kids and space available, parents are less likely to just let young kids go down to the neighborhood park unsupervised.

I have to say... Maybe the reason we have been talking about soccer rising for three or four decades, is because they start kids so young. Maybe they are burning out on it because they are playing a 2 or 4.

I also am not sure that flag football for 3-6 year olds is good, either. To be honest, I think starting kids before 10 in football is kind of silly. You run the risk of kids being run off out of the game because of burnout, or just because they don't really have the mental capacity to process the complexities of the game that young. Nevermind the fact that it is REALLY hard to find quality youth league coaches... If you have fewer teams, you might get higher quality coaching.

Maybe do flag for 7 -9 year olds?

Then again - I am often of a little different mind when it comes to this sort of stuff.

Tough one for Garrard... Would like to see them play well and put a full game together. If they do that, I think they can compete with Boyle. But, they have been pretty up and down all year.

I would add that I love marching bands... Have no problem with them, at all. Cheerleaders, I don't really care one way or the other - but, I think it is important for the ladies who work so hard to have a crowd to perform in front of... They don't get that much at the cheer competitions - mostly just parents and stuff.

As was mentioned, the announcer that does play by play, but in addition does the cliche when several guys from a team are involved in a tackle says "tackled by a whole flock of Eagles", or a "pride of lions", etc.

 

Parents that complain about play calling nonstop grinds my gears too.

These are on my list... The play-by-play thing is awful. The parents are worse. Of course, I hear the same crap at college/NFL games - as if the average fan has one iota of understanding about all the factors that go into calling a plays (score, time, field position, defensive scheme, injuries, etc.).

...be 12-1 and travel to Belfry for the state semifinals? They were routed in week two by Boyle but who else beats them? They get Corbin at home and the opposite district in Region IV is way down. Could they compete with Belfry if they get there?

1) Yes.

2) Don't see anyone else on their regular season schedule

3) No, they won't be able to compete with Belfry.

Sorry, But this will be a blow out, Chuck has had a week to get everything focused. Running clock 2nd qtr. BC 56 GC 6.

Garrard is coming off an open week, too.

Nope but I believe even one or two games that are considered a reach for a small program to win could help a lot. Collecting wins but getting destroyed in playoffs once you have to play a strong talented team is pointless

I disagree for a program in the shape that Brossart was in... If you are trying to build interest & numbers, wins - and providing a positive atmosphere for your program are important. I think 10-1, 9-2, or 8-3 are a lot more valuable than going 6-6 or 5-6 and getting to the second round of the playoffs. Just look at the model that Boyle County created back in the early-mid 90s, when they significantly softened their schedule to build momentum.

Then again, I am in the small minority of thinking that schedule strength is overrated, in the first place. Winning games is all about how you match up to the other team, whether your staff has the ability to place kids in a positive matchup, and discipline to execute.