SLC lays an egg in Texas 7-7
- Thread starter sa68ag
- Start date
BuckeyeJon2006
New member
Let the escuses begin...
Give me a break! It's touch football.
In 2006 SLC beat the state 7 on 7 champ 56-7 in real football.
In 2001 or 2002 SLC did well in the state 7 on 7 but other than one year I don't think they have EVER done well.
Seriously, did Newton play? I know he didn't play in the SQTs so I assumed he wasn't playing in the state bracket.
SLC won the first tournament, in '98 I belive. I think at that time they were more a running team, or at least much less passing at that time.
Newton/Dodge/Cantu played.
A writer for the a$m Rivals' site indicated that the db's played poorly and speculated they may be in trouble with passing teams. He aslo indicated some players, not the ones I mentioned already, were seen arguing with each other when they got down.
I do agree that success in 7/7 is not a direct correlation to success in the regular season.
That being said, I'd rather win than lose any time I compete, and it wuold not make me feel great about the new secondary if I were a Dragon fan.
Newton/Dodge/Cantu played.
A writer for the a$m Rivals' site indicated that the db's played poorly and speculated they may be in trouble with passing teams. He aslo indicated some players, not the ones I mentioned already, were seen arguing with each other when they got down.
I do agree that success in 7/7 is not a direct correlation to success in the regular season.
That being said, I'd rather win than lose any time I compete, and it wuold not make me feel great about the new secondary if I were a Dragon fan.
Are you serious?
SLC has gotten beat every year in 7 on 7 yet we feel very good about the results when it actually counts. The SLC defense got burned every year in 7 on 7 yet those same defenses were very good in the season.
Because of SLC's dominance of Texas over the last 5 years the eyes of every fan in the state is on SLC. They somehow expect SLC to dominate everything connected with football. SLC has never done that and it's unreasonable to expect that they will dominate everything now. The secondary will be fine by SLC standards. The secondary has never been all-world anyway.
Frankly, I'm glad to see the new/young guys arguing with each other. I'm glad they are frustrated when they get beat. They need that. Unless SLC does a complete turnaround, they'll be plenty united when it counts.
As a side note, I'm wondering how anybody knows who the new SLC secondary will be. Perhaps we should inform Coach Wasson because I know the depth charts and rosters aren't final yet.
Again success in 7-7 does not correlate, but your statements seem silly for a guy who purports to be such a supporter of the school.
We didn't cry "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" in 2006 when we lost in 7 on 7 and we won't start now. In fact we didn't worry in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 or 2006 and we won't start now. That's the point.
Perhaps, but not as silly as panicing when a team loses a touch football game and not as silly as drawing conclusions about the results of these games.
I suppose we should have been surprised when SLC beat last year's 7 on 7 champ 56-7 in real football because they were much better in 7 on 7.
Really? How are the two connected? Trust me, the depth charts and the roster are not final ESPECIALLY for the new guys. The status of Cantu, Dodge and Newton have nothing to do with that.
Also, SLC's 7/7 games were played two weeks ago, but who's counting.
So to be clear the point is no longer:
or
.
when they have won the event and wre favorites to do so last year.
Gotcha...
OK, not certain who said the depth chart was completed. If that is your point I agree.
I also think it is not a stretch to say that the guys who played 7-7 will be playing on the team in the fall.
Again, do you read/believe what you type?
Here are the predictions for Carroll this past weekend at the State Tournament:
http://texasfootball.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=&url_article_id=1459&change_well_id=2
Here is some info from the DMN you must have missed.
If SLC's starting db's played, I think there's reason for concern when Edcouch - Elsa - a 4A weak sister from South Texas torches the secondary for 42 points. But that's JMO, I don't really follow SLC's 7-7 team ( or any other 7-7 teams for that matter). I doubt Edcouch has anyone approaching Div-1 talent at any position much less any national blue chips.
You are funny.
SLC has had one successful year in 7/7 and that was almost a decade ago. I thought it was 2001 or 2002 but I was wrong. As you can see from my post I wasn't sure of the year. Thanks for giving us the correct year. The specific year, however, doesn't change the point.
SLC has had one successful year in 7/7 and zero since they have been in 5A. Yet at the same time they have dominated Texas 5A football. Nothing will change for 2007.
From the quote you posted it appears QB Riley Dodge agrees with me: "We're not the best at 7-on-7," Dodge said. "A lot of teams are out here running stuff specifically for 7-on-7, but what we're running is what we run on Friday nights. Our defense does the same thing."
Bottom line.
I don't think 7-7 predicts success, but if I had a concern about SLC it would be their secondary. The comments made would not maek me think they will lose, but certainly would not bolster my confidence about that part of the game.
I think that the kids that play do so with a lot of intensity and want to win. The smart ones understand that it is nice to win, but they still need to be ready come 8/31, the 7-7 title < State Title.
To try and make the point that SLC is some little sisters of the poor when it comes to summer football reeks of excuse making.
I don't think 7-7 predicts success, but if I had a concern about SLC it would be their secondary. The comments made would not maek me think they will lose, but certainly would not bolster my confidence about that part of the game.
I think that the kids that play do so with a lot of intensity and want to win. The smart ones understand that it is nice to win, but they still need to be ready come 8/31, the 7-7 title < State Title.
To try and make the point that SLC is some little sisters of the poor when it comes to summer football reeks of excuse making.
WoodyHayes
homesick
A good source
A good friend of mine who refs went to the 7 on 7 and he told me that he would be VERY surprised if they run the table this year. He said that there are some chinks in the armor that needs ironed out or it is lights out for the Dragons this year.
A good friend of mine who refs went to the 7 on 7 and he told me that he would be VERY surprised if they run the table this year. He said that there are some chinks in the armor that needs ironed out or it is lights out for the Dragons this year.
By SLC standards only making the final 16 IS being "little sisters of the poor". SLC has been ranked that low only a handfull of times in the last 20+ years.
While SLC has been losing in 7/7 they have been winning state titles in real football. So losing in 2007 is no big deal. THAT is the bottom line.
Nobody is making excuses. The point is that 7/7 success does not translate into success in real football. That is the point I've been making from the start of this thread. I don't think a 7/7 winner or runner-up has ever won a title in real football. (At least I don't remember any but if it's happened Pied will find it.)
In 2006 SLC beat the 7/7 champion 56-7 and the 7/7 runner-up 47-7.
That pretty much says it all.
Last edited:
There are chinks in the armor every year. SLC wasn't picked as pre-season #1 last year. People forget the struggles that SLC has had every year. Everybody looks at the 79-1 record and thinks it's been easy for SLC every year. It has not.
I don't know if SLC will run the table in 2007 but I think their chances are as good or better than anybody else.
Missed where you included the runners up. Add
'98 Grapevine
In addition,
'03 Burnet were runners up in 7-7 and in the regular season.
So 22 % of the 7-7 winners won in December.
22% of the the 7-7 finalists have been finalists in December as well.
Let's put these stats into perspective.
Both 04 Tyler Lee and 98 Grapevine finished 3rd in their respective districts. Yeah, they both won D1 state, but in BOTH cases most of the top teams were in the D2 bracket. If only two teams were allowed in the playoffs (like many states) neither 04 Tyler Lee nor 98 Grapevine would have even made the playoffs after winning 7/7 the same year.
I didn't check the other teams you listed.
Also, given the fact that there are many more chances to win in December than there are in 7/7 in July, a 22% success percentage is low.
The bottom line is that the correlation between winning in 7/7 and winning in real football is very low which is the point we've been discussing from the start.
I agree with the correlation point.
In addition we have been discussing this point:
Being so wrong about SLC football seems very odd to people like me. You seem to be able to spout off info at the drop of a hat, but we are expected to believe you did not know they won the championship in its innagural year, have been so succesful that they were the favorites to wion, and some how knew when/who played in the SQT's but did not know that the three D1 recruits played over the weekend.
For SLCDad, those seem like items you may have been familiar with.
I knew SLC had won ONCE but I didn't know which year. Seems funny you are making a big deal out of whether it was six or ten years ago. It's ancient history either way. SLC hasn't done well in any other year. They didn't even win in 2005 when they had a top D1 QB and FOUR D1 receivers. None of the Texas Offensive Players of the Year won.
How many state football champs have their been since 1998? 50? 60? more? How may of them have won the 7/7? Hardly any.
I followed a couple of the SQTs and I know some of the top SLC players didn't play. SLC didn't win their own SQT. I've been on vacation for a couple of weeks and didn't follow the state tourney.
The whole point of this thread is a feeble attempt to correlate 7/7 success to success in real football. That correlation is weak at best and non-exsistent at worse.
ok, seems like an odd statement when you made thess satements less than 24 hours ago as well as knowing S:C's results for last year's champion and runner up:
(note you were the one that bolded "every year")
Do those comments seem odd to anyone else? It would appear either you totally forgot, or were trying to make a point.
Pied, I see you have changed from making a point about 7/7 to now going over every word of every post. Not classy at all.
If you look at the order of my posts you will see that I FIRST said SLC had won a 7/7 title. SECOND I posted that SLC loses every year. I stand by both statements. SLC loses 7/7 every year (essentially) yet they keep winning state titles. That's the point. What point are YOU trying to make?
I clearly stated in my first post in the thread.
Your response to my thoughts were:
I honestly do not see anything in my post that was not serious.
7 on 7 has no helmets, no pads, no blocking, no tackling. I like the quote from the Dallas Morning News regarding the connection between 7/7 and real football:
Matt Wixon: "It's like predicting the World Series champ after watching batting practice. "
As a side note, the field in College Station for the Texas state 7/7 tournament was a sea of mud. Since SLC hasn't played on a natural grass field in many years (not to mention a muddy field) perhaps SLC's real achillies heel is to get them on a grass field.
Matt Wixon: "It's like predicting the World Series champ after watching batting practice. "
As a side note, the field in College Station for the Texas state 7/7 tournament was a sea of mud. Since SLC hasn't played on a natural grass field in many years (not to mention a muddy field) perhaps SLC's real achillies heel is to get them on a grass field.
Doesn't matter they suck anyway and apparently are proud of that fact.
We Lost Again!!!!! Yea Us!!!!!
RidgePride
New member
Anyone who evaluates SLC's secondary after watching them in 7 on 7 should not be taken seriously in any sports analysis. Frankly I think the person starting this thread and Pied is in the same boat.
Like SLC Dad stated Colleyville Heritage won the whole state tournament last year - what did that do for them? a 56-7 loss to SLC when the pads came on.
All that great 7 on 7 play for Colleyville and could only muster 7 points in 11 on 11.
This Thread and that stupid article is complete NONSENSE.
Like SLC Dad stated Colleyville Heritage won the whole state tournament last year - what did that do for them? a 56-7 loss to SLC when the pads came on.
All that great 7 on 7 play for Colleyville and could only muster 7 points in 11 on 11.
This Thread and that stupid article is complete NONSENSE.
Last edited: