View Full Version : SLC lays an egg in Texas 7-7
SLC was eliminated by a 4A school from South Texas. Their DBs were consistently burned. Dodge, Newton etc played. I don't know if their regular DBs did. If so, the Miami team will burn them if they can throw effectively.
BuckeyeJon2006
07-18-07, 10:02 AM
Let the escuses begin...
SLC was eliminated by a 4A school from South Texas. Their DBs were consistently burned. Dodge, Newton etc played. I don't know if their regular DBs did. If so, the Miami team will burn them if they can throw effectively.
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$m Rivals' site indicated that the db's played poorly and speculated they may be in trouble with passing teams. He aslo indicated some players, not the ones I mentioned already, were seen arguing with each other when they got down.
I do agree that success in 7/7 is not a direct correlation to success in the regular season.
That being said, I'd rather win than lose any time I compete, and it wuold not make me feel great about the new secondary if I were a Dragon fan.
A writer for the a$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.
Are you serious?
Um yes. They won in '98, the first year of the competition.
http://texasfootball.com/index.php?s=&change_well_id=2&url_article_id=179
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.
Do you believe the stuff you type or just dont know? Just curious. They were 3-0 in pool play in both '05 and '06, making the final 16 both years.
Here is the preview from last year's competition:
Easily the tournament’s favorite to win it all, the reigning state champs excel on both sides of the ball-Texas Top 300 LB Padron piled up 216 tackles last year and dual threat QB Dodge is a nightmare in the backfieldwith both his athleticism and knowledge of the game. He is the coach’s son afterall.
http://texasfootball.com//doc_lib/77doc.pdf
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.
Not me saying that, nor anyone with a dg in the fight so to speak. This was a$m's Rivals writer Brian Perroni.
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.-Since the 7/7 games were held last week, and they played their three D1 signees, is it a stretch to think the DB's that played will be doing so in the fall as well?
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.
Quoted about the 2006 tourney: "Easily the tournament’s favorite to win it all, the reigning state champs excel on both sides of the ball-Texas Top 300 LB Padron piled up 216 tackles last year and dual threat QB Dodge is a nightmare in the backfieldwith both his athleticism and knowledge of the game. He is the coach’s son afterall."
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.
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.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.
Since the 7/7 games were held last week, and they played their three D1 signees, is it a stretch to think the DB's that played will be doing so in the fall as well?
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.
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.
So to be clear the point is no longer:
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.
or
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.
when they have won the event and wre favorites to do so last year.
Gotcha...
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.
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:
Pool I: Carthage, Edcouch-Elsa, Southlake Carroll, The Woodlands
Notes: Carthage is the only non-5A or 4A team in the field, having qualified at Lufkin's SQT ... Carroll went 3-0 in pool play last year, while The Woodlands missed out on the tourney altogether ... Franklin's offense should have a makeover, as new coach Daren Walker loved to throw the ball around at his last stop at Chapin.
Players to watch: RB Gary Tatum, QB Austin Smith (Carthage); TE Aaron Tanguma, RB Ronnie Vllipando (Edcouch-Elsa); WR Blake CAntu, QB Riley Dodge (Southlake Carroll); RB Tracy Milo, S Jordan Osborne (The Woodlands)
Predicted order of finish: Carroll, The Woodlands, Edcouch-Elsa, Carthage
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.
Carroll doesn't make the cut: The odd sight of Southlake Carroll on the losing side of a scoreboard happened not once but twice Friday. Even with returning standouts such as quarterback Riley Dodge, receiver Blake Cantu and running back Tre' Newton, Carroll finished third in its pool and did not advance to the championship bracket.
In "real" football, Carroll has a 48-game winning streak and is 79-1 over the last five seasons. But on Friday, Carroll lost to The Woodlands, 27-24, and Edcouch-Elsa, 42-31. Carroll's only win was 41-12 over Carthage, a Class 3A school playing up in weight class.
"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."
Colleyville Heritage, last year's 7-on-7 state champion, went 2-1 Friday to finish in a three-way tie for first in its pool. However, Heritage finished third in total points and will join Carroll in today's consolation bracket.
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.
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...
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."
You are funny.-I am funny? I find it funny to contradict yourself in one thread.
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.
huh? Merely three hours ago you stated:
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.
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.
I know it doesn't match the regular season success, but I think most would agree, making the state tourney, being favored to win your group and then the whole thing, making the final 16 two years running would be considered succesful.
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."
I agree for the most part. As I have said several times, 7-7 success does not correlate to regular football.
Curious to your thoughts on Cantu's comments:
"It feels like Friday night sometimes," said Carroll receiver Blake Cantu. "You kind of lose yourself in the moment."
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.
WoodyHayes
07-18-07, 06:57 PM
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.
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.
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. :D :D That pretty much says it all.
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.
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.
At least I don't remember any but if it's happened Pied will find it.
2X
'00 Celina
'04 Tyler Lee
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.)
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.
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.
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.- Really good point. I have never liked the three team format, much less the four team format now. That being said, it has been around since '90, so your statement is silly unless you have a time machine sitting around. I think we could make some really wild propositions of teams that finished second in their district. It was only about ten years before when only the Distric Champion Qualified. So should we re figure your statement with those qualifications now? You state you didn't think that a 7-7 winner or runner up had ever won a regular title. That seems odd to me for someone so in tune with stats.
I didn't check the other teams you listed.-Celina was 16-0 I think. Pretty certain Burnet was 15-0.
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.-Sure. Better way to state it. 22% of the winners have gone on to win the state titel in the fall.
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:
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.
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 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.
I knew SLC had won ONCE but I didn't know which year.
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:
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.
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.(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.
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?
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?
That's not what you said.
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.
That was your first post in this thread.
What point are YOU trying to make?
I clearly stated in my first post in the thread.
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.
Your response to my thoughts were:
Are you serious?
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.
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.
Doesn't matter they suck anyway and apparently are proud of that fact.
We Lost Again!!!!! Yea Us!!!!!
RidgePride
07-19-07, 08:45 PM
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.
RidgePride
07-19-07, 08:48 PM
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.
Have you even been to a 7on7 game? I think you will change your mind after watching one. The game is totally different.
RidgePride
07-19-07, 08:51 PM
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.
Again - SLC does not impress anyone without pads on. They do not have the best athletes. 7 on 7 has never really been their strength. Wait till the pads come on they will be fine.
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.
FINALLY a voice of reason.
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.
Why is that? I have stated many times that I do not think that success in 7-7 translates to the regular game.
SLCDad stated that he did not think that the three stars of the team played.
I corrected that information. I also paraphrased some info from Brian Perroni. I will repost the entire info reported about SLC now. Please keep in mind that this was a small part of the article, wiit much more ficous on potential a$m recruits.
-Perhaps the biggest disappointment of the tournament was Southlake Carroll. After losing their first game of pool play to The Woodlands, the Dragons rebounded to take out class 3A Carthage. However, in the next game they took on a 4A team from south of Corpus in Edcouch-Elsa.
This was a team that honestly had no business being on the same field as Southlake. However, Riley Dodge did not have his best day. It was the cornerbacks, though, that give me concern with Carroll. When they play passing teams this year, they could be in for some trouble.
I was also a bit disappointed in the players’ reaction to being down and then eventually losing. Obviously, they are not used to ever losing on the field and they were yelling at each other and basically talking trash to their own teammates. I will say that I did not notice this from their three D1 guys in Dodge, Tre Newton or Blake Cantu.
So are you upset that I:
A) Corrected the fact that three stars played.
B) Do not think that 7-7 success is a direct correlation
C) Disagreed w/SLCDad that SLC has in fact won a title and has been a succesful team
D) Have the thought of breaking in an entirely new secondary is not ideal and reports of this group not performing well, would in my exact words, "not make me feel great"
Again - SLC does not impress anyone without pads on. They do not have the best athletes. 7 on 7 has never really been their strength. Wait till the pads come on they will be fine.
Anyone except college recruiters. SLC is the most talented team in Texas over the last five years. Most talented being defined as having the largest number of D1 scholarships.
I am certain I am an idiot for making that comment as well.
SLCDad stated that he did not think that the three stars of the team played.
I corrected that information.
So are you upset that I:
A) Corrected the fact that three stars played.
Pied, I think you are losing it.
I never wondered if the three stars played. If you read what I posted, you will see that I only asked about Tre Newton. Since Tre missed most/all of the SQTs it is reasonable to ask if he played in the state tournament.
Riley Dodge and Blake Cantu have played in the SQTs and the state tourney. That was never in question.
To answer Ridgepride's question - I've attended the state 7-7 tournament twice and I personally find them pretty boring. I do think you can get a pretty good read on individual skill levels of the QB's, WRs, and DBs by watching them in action in this format.
Anyone except college recruiters. SLC is the most talented team in Texas over the last five years. Most talented being defined as having the largest number of D1 scholarships.
I am certain I am an idiot for making that comment as well.
SLC currently has 25 players playing D1 college football. I'm not sure if that is the most in the state or not. No doubt some of these guys got more attention as a result of SLC's success and may not have gotten offers if they were at lesser known high schools. I'd say there are many schools in Texas that have better raw athletic talent than does SLC.
Anthony Ford Georgetown 2007
Arius Ford Georgetown 2007
Robert Hill Utah State 2007
Justin Padron North Texas 2007
Kyle Russo North Texas 2007
Bryce Saldi UNLV 2007
Joseph Agnew Rice 2006
Patrick Benoist Vanderbilt 2006
Justin Drescher Colorado 2006
Evan Fentriss Rice 2006
Pete Fleps SMU 2006
McKay Jacobson Brigham Young 2006
Greg McElroy Alabama 2006
Michael Prince Missouri 2006
Clint Renfro TCU 2006
Scott Simpson Navy 2006
Corbin Smiter Rice 2006
Chase Daniel Missouri 2005
Mitch Enright SMU 2005
Pete Fleps Navy 2005
Adam Ulatoski Texas 2005
Todd Bondy Texas 2004
Garrett Hartley Oklahoma 2003
Ben Hixson Baylor 2003
Chase Wasson Texas State 2003
In addition there are former SLC football players playing D1 in other sports.
SLC currently has 25 players playing D1 college football. I'm not sure if that is the most in the state or not.
It was in Dave Campbell's. They have the most over a five year period. I think they should keep it for a year or two as well. They only had one five years ago, and have at least three this year.
Cedar Hill looked as though they could catch them this year. Did you see the article? Don't know if it is online or not.
It was in Dave Campbell's. They have the most over a five year period. I think they should keep it for a year or two as well. They only had one five years ago, and have at least three this year.
Cedar Hill looked as though they could catch them this year. Did you see the article? Don't know if it is online or not.
The 2005-06 team produced a HUGE number of D1 athletes (almost 1/2 of the 5 year total). If you look at the other years, SLC is way down the list. I think it's very tough to make the argument that SLC has the best athletic talent. I think they are not near the top of the list.
Bordertown
07-20-07, 10:36 AM
The reasons SLC players are recruited -
1) They are proven winners
2) They have good football fundamentals
3) They are academically strong.
College coaches do not have to worry about them making adequate academically progress.
The reasons SLC players are recruited -
1) They are proven winners
2) They have good football fundamentals
3) They are academically strong.
College coaches do not have to worry about them making adequate academically progress.
I notice you didn't include athletic talent on this list. I agree with you.
The 2005-06 team produced a HUGE number of D1 athletes (almost 1/2 of the 5 year total). If you look at the other years, SLC is way down the list. I think it's very tough to make the argument that SLC has the best athletic talent. I think they are not near the top of the list.
I looked at that as well. The other schools had similar "banner" years. Cedar Hill had 11. The one stand out that I recall(do not have the magazine at work) was LaMarque. I think the most they had in one year was 8.
RidgePride
07-20-07, 11:05 AM
To answer Ridgepride's question - I've attended the state 7-7 tournament twice and I personally find them pretty boring. I do think you can get a pretty good read on individual skill levels of the QB's, WRs, and DBs by watching them in action in this format.
I've refereed some of these games- You cannot get a read on the QB's because they are put in a totally different situation than in a real game. Yeah you can tell if a QB has a strong arm - but how it translates - we do not know. There is no pass rush - no blitzing LB's or corners. No scrambling - no running game - usually no disguesed coverages. No coaches to make adjustments.
One thing we can conclude is that SLC's front four pressure on the QB helps out the SLC secondary tremendously.
Ryan Leaf would still have a career if he were in 7 on 7
Pied, I think you are losing it.
I never wondered if the three stars played. If you read what I posted, you will see that I only asked about Tre Newton. Since Tre missed most/all of the SQTs it is reasonable to ask if he played in the state tournament.
Riley Dodge and Blake Cantu have played in the SQTs and the state tourney. That was never in question.
You are correct. Sorry for the error. Tre did obviously play in the state tournament.
I notice you didn't include athletic talent on this list. I agree with you.
Correct. College football recruiters are known to not place emphasis on athletic talent. Right behind NFL/NBA GMs.
Bordertown
07-20-07, 02:37 PM
Boy Pied you are fiesty. But how many great athletes have their career end iin high school because they are academic risks. It is my understanding why Texas did not recruit the #1 RB in the state. I don't think many folks think Tre Newton is the best back in the state but he was offered. Tre is an athletic talent, but there are in my opinion better athletes. Alot of the kids on SLCDad's list were not major conference schools.
By the way I have never heard of Todd Bondy. Is he a walk-on at Texas?
Boy Pied you are fiesty. But how many great athletes have their career end iin high school because they are academic risks. It is my understanding why Texas did not recruit the #1 RB in the state. I don't think many folks think Tre Newton is the best back in the state but he was offered. Tre is an athletic talent, but there are in my opinion better athletes. Alot of the kids on SLCDad's list were not major conference schools.
By the way I have never heard of Todd Bondy. Is he a walk-on at Texas?
You should have seen the PM that RidgePride sent me.
Certainly Texas chose not to offer Jeremy Calhoun(and others) and offer Newton. That was not necessarily a popular decision amongst orangebloods. Personally, I will put my faith in Mack and co.
That did not stop ou/Fl/a$m/Nebraska etc. Point being that if you are good you will be recruited. May not be by everyone or even the school you want but you will go somewhere if you are good enough.
I agree that the SLC list of players includes some of not high-profile schools. I think that the majority schools are like this as well if you look closely.
That's why I think it is typically best to stick to D1 as the reference(note SLCDad's list includes some non D1 schools). I have seen it broken down to BCS school, but that gets dicey in my opinion.
Nat familiar with Todd Bondy. I know he was not a scholarship guy in '04.
Mack's site shows him to be a walk on.
http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=15&change_well_id=17&member_id=187
Probably has a shiny ring and a ton of stories for his bumps and bruises.
RidgePride
07-21-07, 12:15 PM
You should have seen the PM that RidgePride sent me.
All it said was that you are annoying, but you already knew that. - Not a huge deal -
DLSfanNW
07-21-07, 02:32 PM
I was kinda surprised Cantu chose Oregon. Any idea what made him do that?
Bordertown
07-21-07, 10:45 PM
I suppose he wanted to make a fashion statement!!!
RidgePride
07-22-07, 02:13 PM
Or maybe He has a fondness for the mascot.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.