bruin66

Very good athlete. Good arm. Good kid. The main question mark is durability. He has not proven he can make it through a season yet.

As the Tigers near the end of their first week of spring practice, what is the progress report thus far?

I think it is more the fact that they don't feel it is in their best interest to play Moeller the last game of the regular season than not play them at all.

Any news?

Long-time assistant coach Matt Nickell has been named head basketball coach at Central Hardin. Congratulations! Well-deserved.

Good points about both. Very deserving candidates as well. I have always thought that Moefield gets as much out of the talent that he has as anyone. His teams are always tough, fundamentally sound, competitive, and improve significantly throughout a season.

Long career. Sustained success at a school (Mason Co.) not exactly famous for football. Deep runs in the playoffs. Coached the Kentucky squad in the now-defunct KY/Tennessee All-Star game. Although I do not know him personally, seems to be a good guy. Finally, a valued contributor to this message board.

David Buchanon

If a coach has the philosophy to go for it frequently on 4th down, that is one thing, and it can be viewed as simply being aggressive. However, to never punt, in my mind, is ascinine. What if your team is leading by 2 points with 2 minutes to go in the game and it is 4th and 17 at your own 2 yard line? If you don't punt and do not make it, the opponent gets the ball at the 2 and just needs a chip shot field goal to win the game. In that situation, if the offense attempts a pass, all the defense has to do is knock the ball down; they should not even intercept it. As the old quote goes "sometimes discretion is the better part of valor." Or as a wise coach told me a long time ago, the first thing a team needs to do to win is to avoid losing.

That is fine, but as I understand history and the constitution, our country was founded on the principal of separation between Church and State. Public schools are a part of the State as I see it. We must be able to separate the two. If this is the true reason for all of the troubles, then maybe he should have stayed at LCA (a private school and, thus, not part of the State) where he would have more opportunities to directly wear his faith on his sleeve. Please do not misunderstand: I am in no way against church or Christianity. However, I do not believe one must openly pray in public to be seen as a Christian. As the popular church song says "And they will know we are Christians by our love, by our love. And they will know we are Christians by our love." However, this ordeal is probably more related to playing time than religion.

Actually, St. X did not win the region with Padgett. They won it the year after he left.

I think the specific football nuts and bolts involvement should be more on the fundamentals and player development side and less on the schemes side. It is more important for me for youth players to be interested in football, play, have a positive experience, and learn the proper fundamentals than to run the specific scheme of the high school.

It largely depends on the player, his attitude, effort, toughness, coachability, and level of team approach by said player. I have seen plenty of DI players who possessed these traits and some who did not. Those that did not possess these traits were a pain in the rear to coach. Those that did were a joy to coach. Likewise, there are plenty of lesser-talented players that fit into the above-mentioned categories as well. Just like most walks of life, there is much more grey area than "all/none."

Many of the "modern" offenses do not threaten the A gap due to no QB under center and no FB. There is no quick threat of a trap, midline dive, or QB sneak. To me, the threat of those A gap plays opens other parts of the running game. That is why I believe there will always be a place in football for an under center attack with a FB. An offense that does not have this in its arsenal is not a complete offense.

Your post just goes to show that a team doesn't necessarily have to spread it out and fling the ball all over the field to have a VERY productive offense. There are many ways to be effective. In fact, I would argue that now may be the best time to do some of the "old school" things offensively because what was once the norm is now the outlier. Defenses don't see this type of offense much any more. Kind of like when the spread first became in vogue.

How about this for a plan? Programs who are not as good as they want to go to work to get better and stop making excuses. There have been plenty of schools in the past few years do just that (Pulaski Co., Central, DeSales, Boyle Co. just to name a few). It should never be about pulling the strong programs down; it should be about elevating the lesser-achieving programs to a higher lever of performance.

Congrats to Belfry!! They continue to prove year after year that you don't necessarily need to line up in the shotgun every play and throw the ball all over the lot to have an effective offense. I love to see different styles of play, and I am glad they play their style. It fits their school personality.

Turf field would be my #1 requirement. Games of this magnitude should be decided by the teams, not by field conditions. To me, it would not matter if it were a college field, high school stadium, or a community stadium. It would not necessarily matter to me if it were in a "central" location to both teams. For me, it is all about the playing surface. Much more important to me than fan experience.

Former Trinity head coach Kevin Wright is the head coach at IMG.

Congratulations to Coach Shipley for weathering the storm of a school split a few years ago and having a couple of rough years. He and the administration of Shelby Co. stayed the course, and it has been for the benefit of the program.

Here is an actual stat that many either do not realize or wish to acknowkedge: In Glaser's last year, the starting QB (Austin Gahafer) passed for a completion percentage of over 65%. Wolford has yet to have a QB pass for even close to 60%. The perception of Glaser's offense is somewhat different than the reality of it. Was it perfect? No. But the basis of it should be in facts instead of perceptions. The facts are that, based on completion percentage, that in Glaser's last season, he actually had a more effective pass offense than Wolford has in any of his three years at the helm.

I agree. I think you can add to that scoring touchdowns in the red zone. Glaser's teams had very good success in short yardage and red zone opportinities. When they got there, they usually came away with 7 points.

What is sad is his perception that these are "either-or." It is quite possible to be very successful academically and very successful in the football field. St. X should strive for excellence in both endeavors.

It wasn't just Walsh. None of the assistant coaches on Glaser's staff were interviewed for the job. There were several of them (Bruner, Chitwood, McCue, Walsh) who would have been quality candidates and who had "paid their dues" as an actual varsity high school football coach (unlike Wolford). To my knowledge, no one was actually interviewed. As far as I know, Wolford was approached, asked to take the job, and accepted it. The fact that that could actually happen at a program with the tradition of St. X completely baffles me. As I have stated in other threads in the past, it is not entirely Wolford's fault. He simply accepted a job that was offered to him. What is CRAZY is that he was offered the job in the first place with no varsity experience or no other experience higher than that. His only coaching experience was 2 years of freshman assistant and one or two years of grade school.

That is a very good point. Successful PROGRAMS are built from the ground up and focus on player development through fundamentals. While some disagreed with the system that was run at times, Glaser built the St. X program this way. While there were tweaks from year to year, the fundamentals on offense, defense, and special teams that were taught did not change. That allowed average players to get better over time. Through reps over a 4 year period of time, players made progress. That is what I don't currently see from Wolford: Player Development. But it is hard to develop players when the system changes every year.