Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

WRC Week 4


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Wabash River said:

 

Best in WRC history? That’s a little far fetched don’t ya think? Would love to hear everyone’s opinion on best offense in WRC history. 

2007 Rockville...more competition, scored at will on everyone...even put up 28 against sheridan in the state title, last years pioneer team would have had trouble against that Sheridan team and probably even lost to.  Matt king made other players look silly with his elusiveness in and out of the pocket, Zach clapp punishing runner with a little wiggle to him.  Combination of Aaron bridge, Taylor Harper, Daniel Martin at receiver.  Don’t get me wrong, 03-04 Seeger was scary and the josh smith ramblers were physically imposing but when it comes to overall balance on offense I gotta give the nod to the Rox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree on the running clock.  I mean.. I think a mercy rule can be a good thing.  I think most coaching staffs have respect for the game and their opponent...and I did say most...but even in those rare cases, I think there is at least respect for the kids on the losing side of a blowout.  I don't think 35 is a good number.  Personally... i'd go with a higher point number.  Prolly too high for most folks... like 50. At least 40.  My logic here is that...for example, Linton was up 28-0 at half.  Had we scored early on in the 3rd, the running clock would have kicked in.  That's pretty much a whole half running clock...and a 35-0 score or a 42 to 7 score, while certainly knowing the outcome is pretty much decided... isn't a 72 to 13 score I think everyone is trying to avoid.  My other reasoning is that..at least in most occasions... your JV is gonna get to play under the big lights... even without a running clock, and a 35 point lead.  Problem is, the clock runs and they get a fraction of plays they would have had.  I've seen losing opponents keep their varsity D or O in a game even when the JV comes in...and that always gets under my skin.  Your D stuffs a team's big rusher to 12 yards total only to have him gain 68 yards against your freshman kids.  If I were a coach..and I put my JV D in..and you left your varsity in.. I'd have my varsity..or at least get some back up guys time with 1st teamers until I say subs on the D come in.  Your D works hard for those results...people look at those numbers when evaluating you.  I wouldn't do the same offensively, but there's no point in letting a 280 pound starting Senior D Tackle take out frustrations on a 150 pound sophomore lineman then break your freshman QB's collarbone on a senseless hit. And yes I've seen it happen!  

I also think your starters work hard in practice and in the off season...  they deserve to play 3 quarters. I might not have a problem with running clock at 35 margin if it started in the 4th quarter..but then again..our starters would be sitting anyway in the 4th with a 35 point lead... and the young kids would be able to play a quarter.. a real quarter.  I also think you use times like that to bring in some 2nd teamers to mix in with 1st teamers to get them a taste...get guys some reps in alternate positions.  Believe me..Linton has had years when we were in the SW7 that games were over by the 2nd quarter... this is why we got out of the conference because those games on a consistent level year in and out do nothing for your program.   I'm no fan of 75-0 or 58-6...having done my share of them in the radio booth.  I also think you have a situation where.. per Linton last week with Monrovia... those kids are aware that another score means a running clock.  Now I don't think they actually think let's not score so we can keep playing...but it may affect play calling because you do want to see your offense gets reps in an actual game.. and I know you still can with a running clock...it's just that's typicaly mop up time and a reward for those kids who work hard in practice to get some varsity play time.

Any of that make sense? I started rambling a bit..LOL!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Wabash River said:

 

Best in WRC history? That’s a little far fetched don’t ya think? Would love to hear everyone’s opinion on best offense in WRC history. 

2007 Rockville offense...played better competition and scored at will against all of them except for the other juggernaut Seeger.  Even scored 28 on a Sheridan team that is comparable if not better than recent pioneer teams...Matt king made other players look silly with his elusiveness in and out of the pocket, solid O-line, punishing RB Zach clapp who also had some wiggle to him, a trio of receivers in Aaron bridge, Daniel Martin, and Taylor Harper.  And of course billy Bettis toe bashing field goals including a game winner against Seeger that year.  Josh Smith Attica and Seeger 03-04 teams were up there and scary but when it comes to offensive balance i give the nod to the Rox.  I put NV behind those offenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Miner_Pride said:

I don't agree on the running clock.  I mean.. I think a mercy rule can be a good thing.  I think most coaching staffs have respect for the game and their opponent...and I did say most...but even in those rare cases, I think there is at least respect for the kids on the losing side of a blowout.  I don't think 35 is a good number.  Personally... i'd go with a higher point number.  Prolly too high for most folks... like 50. At least 40.  My logic here is that...for example, Linton was up 28-0 at half.  Had we scored early on in the 3rd, the running clock would have kicked in.  That's pretty much a whole half running clock...and a 35-0 score or a 42 to 7 score, while certainly knowing the outcome is pretty much decided... isn't a 72 to 13 score I think everyone is trying to avoid.  My other reasoning is that..at least in most occasions... your JV is gonna get to play under the big lights... even without a running clock, and a 35 point lead.  Problem is, the clock runs and they get a fraction of plays they would have had.  I've seen losing opponents keep their varsity D or O in a game even when the JV comes in...and that always gets under my skin.  Your D stuffs a team's big rusher to 12 yards total only to have him gain 68 yards against your freshman kids.  If I were a coach..and I put my JV D in..and you left your varsity in.. I'd have my varsity..or at least get some back up guys time with 1st teamers until I say subs on the D come in.  Your D works hard for those results...people look at those numbers when evaluating you.  I wouldn't do the same offensively, but there's no point in letting a 280 pound starting Senior D Tackle take out frustrations on a 150 pound sophomore lineman then break your freshman QB's collarbone on a senseless hit. And yes I've seen it happen!  

I also think your starters work hard in practice and in the off season...  they deserve to play 3 quarters. I might not have a problem with running clock at 35 margin if it started in the 4th quarter..but then again..our starters would be sitting anyway in the 4th with a 35 point lead... and the young kids would be able to play a quarter.. a real quarter.  I also think you use times like that to bring in some 2nd teamers to mix in with 1st teamers to get them a taste...get guys some reps in alternate positions.  Believe me..Linton has had years when we were in the SW7 that games were over by the 2nd quarter... this is why we got out of the conference because those games on a consistent level year in and out do nothing for your program.   I'm no fan of 75-0 or 58-6...having done my share of them in the radio booth.  I also think you have a situation where.. per Linton last week with Monrovia... those kids are aware that another score means a running clock.  Now I don't think they actually think let's not score so we can keep playing...but it may affect play calling because you do want to see your offense gets reps in an actual game.. and I know you still can with a running clock...it's just that's typicaly mop up time and a reward for those kids who work hard in practice to get some varsity play time.

Any of that make sense? I started rambling a bit..LOL!  

I agree as well but the first issue i see especially for smaller schools is the quarter rule.  It needs to changed, amended or something.  With the opportunity for kids to have at least an extra quarter it would help to get them in earlier.

19 hours ago, Miner_Pride said:

Ahh the one time of the year I get to mingle with the WRC folks!!!

 

Good to see Brian Moore on the news last night the Parke Heritage story.....   

 

Yes he is doing the WOLVES proud

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Warriorfan said:

I agree as well but the first issue i see especially for smaller schools is the quarter rule.  It needs to changed, amended or something.  With the opportunity for kids to have at least an extra quarter it would help to get them in earlier.

Yes he is doing the WOLVES proud

The quarter rule has been changed!  You get 6 now.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Wabash River said:

 

Best in WRC history? That’s a little far fetched don’t ya think? Would love to hear everyone’s opinion on best offense in WRC history. 

Its hard to compare offenses over the years, I think some times people like TANAKA or is it TATANKA or however its spelled, gets caught up in the now or fandom. The WRC has had many powerful prolific offensive teams over the years.  The Seeger team that won the title was extremely good. I'm not saying they put up huge points as a comparison but they controlled the ball and were pretty balanced, and they always had an answer for defensive adjustments.  Then you look at the Attica team that lost in the final with the Smith kid, they were a very good offensive team. The NV team that won the State had a pretty potent offense that the conference struggled defending. That's just a few of examples of past "JUGGERNAUTS"  That is a very tough question to answer but i can tell you this its hard to compare teams of the past with those who have not completed their season, because you are not comparing apples to apples at this point.  The WOLVES are playing well for Coach Moore but i'd be hesitant to call them the best in WRC history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Warriorfan said:

I am aware of the change i don't think the current 6 is enough. When a small school needs kids both on Friday and Monday and a kid plays special teams for a few plays and it counts as a quarter it doesn't work.

Special teams do not count as a quarter played, never has, never will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wrcsage said:

The quarter rule has been changed!  You get 6 now.  

I guess to elaborate more on my comment (which is why I said it needs to be amended) I understand the IHSAA's attempt to help by adding a quarter but IMO I personally have coached teams that needed kids to play on the special teams and be a sub for a few reps here or there on offense or defense and it counted as a quarter because they played. So in essence the quarter rule does little by adding a quarter to help with that issue.  I don't want to over play kids and get them hurt but when numbers are low it makes it tough to put two teams on the field that are competitive. 

3 minutes ago, wrcsage said:

Special teams do not count as a quarter played, never has, never will.

I used the statement as those kids being special teamers but meant it as kids who see limited reps as a sub in situations,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, wrcsage said:

Special teams do not count as a quarter played, never has, never will.

Again the point I am making is that those kids who are good enough to play special teams for a varsity team who has limited numbers (who mainly play on Monday night) are more often than not used in subbing (or need to be used in subbing situations)  IMO the quarter rule does not work well for smaller schools who try to field to competitive teams. Which is why I said it needs to be amended, because just adding a quarter does not necessarily help. I would never want to over play any athlete or risk injury by them playing to much, but the current rule makes it tough for the small schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, RedwoodCowTippers said:

You also hesitate to spell Wolfs correctly too, Warrior Princess, so...….

They used to spell "Rocks" as "Rox". lol It's no wonder they spell "Wolfs" as "Wolves". He probably spells "Patriots" as "Patriotves".

I can't believe Logan White has over 1,000 (!) yards in only three games. I can't believe how fast the Wolfs play on offense. I CAN believe that Brian Moore has built yet another WRC powerhouse. If I were starting a football program from scratch, and I could pick any coach in the state of Indiana, it would be either Brian Moore or Herb King. It's hard to believe they both coach in the same little conference.

Edited by Tanka Jahari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Tanka Jahari said:

They used to spell "Rocks" as "Rox". lol It's no wonder they spell "Wolfs" as "Wolves". He probably spells "Patriots" as "Patriotves".

I can't believe Logan White has over 1,000 (!) yards in only three games. I can't believe how fast the Wolfs play on offense. I CAN believe that Brian Moore has built yet another WRC powerhouse. If I were starting a football program from scratch, and I could pick any coach in the state of Indiana, it would be either Brian Moore or Herb King. It's hard to believe they both coach in the same little conference.

Not taking anything away From Logan  I happen to be friends with his dad (and I'm sure Ronnie would agree)  but they have 1000 passing yards against a combined win loss record of 1-8 in their first three outings.  He is a great athlete and I wish him the very best but if your comment is aimed at trying to prove (that's prove with a V not an F or if it makes you happy ill say trying to proof) the strength of their offense , I would wait until they play some stronger competition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Warriorfan said:

Not taking anything away From Logan  I happen to be friends with his dad (and I'm sure Ronnie would agree)  but they have 1000 passing yards against a combined win loss record of 1-8 in their first three outings.  He is a great athlete and I wish him the very best but if your comment is aimed at trying to prove (that's prove with a V not an F or if it makes you happy ill say trying to proof) the strength of their offense , I would wait until they play some stronger competition. 

I understand the point you are trying to make, but passing offenses are different than running offenses. Even if you're playing a bad team, you still have to be able to make the right reads and throw the ball accurately so that your receivers can catch it. That's much more complicated than just handing the ball to a running back. 

If you had to choose between getting hit in the balls with a baseball bat or arm wrestling Brian Moore, what would you choose? I'm picking the baseball bat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tanka Jahari said:

I understand the point you are trying to make, but passing offenses are different than running offenses. Even if you're playing a bad team, you still have to be able to make the right reads and throw the ball accurately so that your receivers can catch it. That's much more complicated than just handing the ball to a running back. 

If you had to choose between getting hit in the balls with a baseball bat or arm wrestling Brian Moore, what would you choose? I'm picking the baseball bat. 

So backs don't have to read blocks nor do offensive line men have to read fronts to execute blocking schemes?  No matter how you slice it the complexity of an offense rests on the players ability to execute their respective across the board.  Obviously you have never run the ball in a game because i've coached a few all conference backs who would  would most certainly DIS-agree with you about the complexity of running the ball through traffic vs throwing it to people in open space. As far as Logan's ability to throw the ball, I know he is a good athlete, with great skill I have seen him play, but I will tell you this it is MUCH easier to complete a pass against a poor secondary filled with sub-par athletes who are not that good, than it is to do when the people you are playing against have good athletes.  My point is very simple  Until they play someone who has a good football team they wont know how good they truly are, and to call them a good team because they have beaten poor opponents is premature. As far as your question you can let people hit you in the balls all day long if that's what you want ill just keep watching football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Warriorfan said:

As far as your question you can let people hit you in the balls all day long if that's what you want ill just keep watching football.

So you're saying you would arm wrestle Brian Moore? Are you insane? Have you no regard for your personal safety? 

Brian Moore doesn't chew gum. Brian Moore chews tin foil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Ilovefootball said:

2007 Rockville...more competition, scored at will on everyone...even put up 28 against sheridan in the state title, last years pioneer team would have had trouble against that Sheridan team and probably even lost to.  Matt king made other players look silly with his elusiveness in and out of the pocket, Zach clapp punishing runner with a little wiggle to him.  Combination of Aaron bridge, Taylor Harper, Daniel Martin at receiver.  Don’t get me wrong, 03-04 Seeger was scary and the josh smith ramblers were physically imposing but when it comes to overall balance on offense I gotta give the nod to the Rox.

I would agree that the Rockville team of 07 was very good but if you look at the dominance of the Attica team of 00-01 they pounded people both offensively and defensively, and if you compare margin of victory between those two teams Attica gets the nod running away. As far as teams having trouble with the Sheridan team of 07, I think many would agree that the Pioneer team that won last year was one of if not the most dominant 1A team to win a title.  That Pioneer team gave up only 39 points  the Sheridan team of 07 gave up 113

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tanka Jahari said:

So you're saying you would arm wrestle Brian Moore? Are you insane? Have you no regard for your personal safety? 

Brian Moore doesn't chew gum. Brian Moore chews tin foil.

Yep  I sure would,  and then go watch football,   and if he would remember to unwrap his gum he wouldn't have that issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Warriorfan said:

I would agree that the Rockville team of 07 was very good but if you look at the dominance of the Attica team of 00-01 they pounded people both offensively and defensively, and if you compare margin of victory between those two teams Attica gets the nod running away. As far as teams having trouble with the Sheridan team of 07, I think many would agree that the Pioneer team that won last year was one of if not the most dominant 1A team to win a title.  That Pioneer team gave up only 39 points  the Sheridan team of 07 gave up 113

Sheridan 07 football team played a schedule with multiple 2A, 3A, and 4A schools with only 1 maybe 2 1A schools.  That is back when there were only 5 classes.  Those 2,3, and 4A teams are now considered 3,4, and 5A.  Pioneer did play a few bigger schools but the strength and speed that Sheridan had was unbelievable.  And yes Attica did have a better defense than the Rockville team but that wasn't in question.  I was speaking specifically offense.  The fact that Attica had a better defense only made it easier on their offense, turnovers, field position, time of possession.  Its much easier to score 50 when you shut a team out.  I'm not really disagreeing with you but I'm not going to agree with you either, it is hard to argue against a team that had a 3 year captain at Navy.  Either way both were dominant in a much more difficult time of football.  The bad TR teams in the mid to late 2000s that went 0-40 or whatever would have been a 2-4 win per year team now. 

Edited by Ilovefootball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ilovefootball said:

Sheridan 07 football team played a schedule with multiple 2A, 3A, and 4A schools with only 1 maybe 2 1A schools.  That is back when there were only 5 classes.  Those 2,3, and 4A teams are now considered 3,4, and 5A.  Pioneer did play a few bigger schools but the strength and speed that Sheridan had was unbelievable.  And yes Attica did have a better defense than the Rockville team but that wasn't in question.  I was speaking specifically offense.  The fact that Attica had a better defense only made it easier on their offense, turnovers, field position, time of possession.  Its much easier to score 50 when you shut a team out.  I'm not really disagreeing with you but I'm not going to agree with you either, it is hard to argue against a team that had a 3 year captain at Navy.  Either way both were dominant in a much more difficult time of football.  The bad TR teams in the mid to late 2000s that went 0-40 or whatever would have been a 2-4 win per year team now. 

I wont disagree that the Sheridan schedule was and has been for some time a tougher row to hoe than many other schools.  I've coached against both teams, and watched both and IMO very humble opinion the pioneer team captained by a now Notre Dame player was a more dominant team than the Sheridan team of 07. As far as the differences in the Attica team of 00 and the Rockville tam of 07. The Atica team had essentially 14 guys that played most of the reps. the scored almost 700 points that year and gave up about 130.  Im sure that when you look at it from the perspective of good offense or good defense they were great on both sides of the ball. They lost the state game because of a poor call by the  coach, everyone in the building knew Smith was getting the ball, but again who could argue not trusting him to score. We can most certainly agree to disagree but the numbers favor the Ramblers for a dominant year in the WRC both offensively and defensively

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...