Who Says 7 on 7 Doesn't Mean Anything?

[Matthew328]

Lake Travis won the Division 1 State Tournament. Lots of great teams in both Division 1 and Division 2 final four.

[Sweetwater Red]

And here I thought you were gonna reference Lostaussie's thread and it's 180+ replies. :D

[Emerson1]

it doesn't, Forney won a couple of games at the state tourney the year we went 3-7 and had like 600 yards total passing all season...

[Matthew328]

It's evolving....look at the semi-final list from the past 2 years only Cy Fair is a bad team.....it seems like now the teams who make noise at the State Tournament are going to be likely very good fall teams.

2009 Division 1
Round Rock Stony Point
Cy Fair
DeSoto
Arlington Bowie

2009 Division 2
Celina
Graham
Rice Consolidated
Glen Rose

2010 Division 1
Lake Travis
DeSoto
Pearland Dawson
SA MacArthur

2010 Division 2
Brownwood
Cameron Yoe
Celina
Lovejoy

[Eagle 1]

Originally posted by Matthew328
It's evolving....look at the semi-final list from the past 2 years only Cy Fair is a bad team.....it seems like now the teams who make noise at the State Tournament are going to be likely very good fall teams.



The only problem with that theory, Goldthwaite who is a dominant running team, won State in 2009.
Seven shutouts last year is proof Defense still wins championships.

Nothing against 7 on 7, I think its a good practice for teams.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Eagle 1
The only problem with that theory, Goldthwaite who is a dominant running team, won State in 2009.
Seven shutouts last year is proof Defense still wins championships.

Nothing against 7 on 7, I think its a good practice for teams. I agree. Nothing wrong with 7 on 7 and I don't have anything against it, but it doe not transition offensively to football. The things the offenses do in touch football will get the receivers leveled in the real game. As far as defense, yeah it helps.

[Johnny Utah]

I agree, defense is what wins you titles. Sure LT is a great program, they are going to win at 7 on 7, real games, no matter what. I still do not think that winning a State 7 on 7 title qualifies any team to be an automatic favorite to win it all win it counts in the fall. Does it help out a team and program, sure.

[wildstangs]

It is a great way to practice and keep kids active during the summer. Not a way to determine or give an indication of what your team will be like on Friday nights in the fall.

[Eagle 1]

Originally posted by Eagle 1
The only problem with that theory, Goldthwaite who is a dominant running team, won State in 2009.
Seven shutouts last year is proof Defense still wins championships.

Nothing against 7 on 7, I think its a good practice for teams.

My mistake.
Goldthwaite had 8 shutouts last year on paper (really 9) since after reviewing the game film, the lone TD that San Saba scored on the last play of the game did not count.

Again, nothing against 7 on 7, I'm glad they have it.
Its good practice for both the offense and the defense.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Eagle 1

Seven shutouts last year is proof Defense still wins championships.



no that is proof that SOME teams still win with defense..not all teams

[Ernest T Bass]

7 on 7 champion=state football champion? Obviously not
7 on 7 champion=sucessfull football season? Id bet money on it

I'll bet $100 on every semifinal team in the 7 on 7 tournament making the playoffs and having a .600 record or better. $100 per team=a chance at $800. Anyone want a piece of that action?

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
7 on 7 champion=state football champion? Obviously not
7 on 7 champion=sucessfull football season? Id bet money on it

I'll bet $100 on every semifinal team in the 7 on 7 tournament making the playoffs and having a .600 record or better. $100 per team=a chance at $800. Anyone want a piece of that action? 6-4:doh:



:rolleyes: :devil:

[Eagle 1]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
no that is proof that SOME teams still win with defense..not all teams

I'm not sure of your point, but ok whatever.
I would think that all teams want a strong defense.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Eagle 1
I'm not sure of your point, but ok whatever.
I would think that all teams want a strong defense. You would be surprised at some of the programs that put O ahead of D.

[Emerson1]

Originally posted by Eagle 1
I'm not sure of your point, but ok whatever.
I would think that all teams want a strong defense.
He is saying some teams would rather try and score 50 and put more focus on offense then on defense. AKA Mike Leach and his TT teams.


Originally posted by LE Dad
You would be surprised at some of the programs that put O ahead of D.
He shouldn't be with a Texas Tech logo in his sig.

[Eagle 1]

Originally posted by Emerson1
He is saying some teams would rather try and score 50 and put more focus on offense then on defense. AKA Mike Leach and his TT teams.


He shouldn't be with a Texas Tech logo in his sig.

I was talking high school, but touche'.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Eagle 1
I'm not sure of your point, but ok whatever.
I would think that all teams want a strong defense.


my point is..some teams are stronger on O and win because of that...does not mean they dont want to be strong or D or are not solid on D, but means they win or lose by how there offense plays.

SLC, Lake Travis, Gilmer, Highland Park are 4 right off the top of my head..they have solid Ds, but their offense is what has won them state crowns

[Ernest T Bass]

You would be suprised how many championship football teams, at all levels, have high ranked offenses and average to slightly above average defenses. Im not sure about 2009, but from 2004-2008 the vast majority of championship teams(NFL, NCAA, and UIL) had high ranking offenses. Very rarely, especially at the higher classes and levels, do you see a championship team who's defense ranks higher than their offense(Mesquite, 2001 5a state champion is the most recent that comes to mind).

[Exparentnator]

I believe 7 on 7 is great for team building, competing, active conditioning, etc... Although I currently do not have a team involved in the state tournament or attempted to qualify to the state tournament it is a great activity to have your athletes compete in. My team only participates in 7 on 7 leagues and because of finances are not able to really divulge into 7 on 7 like we should. I really cant stand coaches who say it doesnt mean anything, or "its just touch football" when they dont win or when they are beating by smaller lesser schools. If you do not agree with 7 on 7 simply do not get involved. 7 on 7 does mean something to football even if you are a running team like we are 90% of the season; it means COMPETING, and TEAM BUILDING! Unfortunately the UIL states we are not allowed to start football or have anything to do with football during the summer. SO if this is a close to football as teams can get then we need to come together and support 7 on 7 and get after it. My questions to the 7 on 7 bashers and die hard football coaches is would you rather them play video games all night, be involved with thump, thump all summer, or worse absolutely do nothing and come back in August totally out of tune for football?

[Ernest T Bass]

Originally posted by LE Dad
6-4:doh:



:rolleyes: :devil:

6-4 and a playoff trip is a successful season. If you're part of a program where that is not considered successful, you are extremely fortunate.

[VWG]

Originally posted by wildstangs
It is a great way to practice and keep kids active during the summer. Not a way to determine or give an indication of what your team will be like on Friday nights in the fall.

Dead on.

[Old Tiger]

Sounded like the Celina/Bwood was a thugoff....does that mean anything?

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
6-4 and a playoff trip is a successful season. If you're part of a program where that is not considered successful, you are extremely fortunate. Lol no doubt but iI'm not betting a nickel on anyone reaching 6-4 and playoffs.:tisk: :tisk: Now 6-4 and semis we might talk. :thinking: :D

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Old Tiger
Sounded like the Celina/Bwood was a thugoff....does that mean anything? :eek: :eek:

:devil:

[Johnny Utah]

No one on here is denying the fact that 7 on 7 no matter the level is not good for the kids and teams, but winning a state 7 on 7 title does not guarantee the same thing in the Fall. Competition is great for all young people, that is why they all should play everything and compete year round. JMO. Thump thump is a great way for football players to stay in shape, compete and get quicker and more explosive.

[gatordaze]

Originally posted by Old Tiger
Sounded like the Celina/Bwood was a thugoff....does that mean anything?

It really wasn't. In fact Beast and I have had harsher words right here. There was only one point just before the half when the kids were yapping at each other and the refs called the coaches together and told us to talk to the boys. After that nothing but solid play.

My son was in the middle of the one minor altercation and it was really no big deal. He turned around to see the Bwood kid standing about two inches from his face listening to our play call. He said What the heck are your doing? (close but the not exact words). One of our guys sensed the need to step between Josh and this boy and the kid kinda pushed him aside. Neither Josh nor any other Celina player would have made any kind of physical contact it was really funnier than anything else and I think that is exactly what the Bwood kid was doing to begin with was to make his team mates laugh as I doubt listening to the play would have provided anything of value.

The game was very competitive with both offenses holding serve until the very end when Celina needed to break Bwood's O and couldn't. On the next matching series we threw our first and only INT of the tourney and that was all she wrote.

Thuggery in my book includes show boating, taunting and basically disrespecting your opponent. Brownwood didn't do any of that nor did Celina.

[Ernest T Bass]

Originally posted by LE Dad
Lol no doubt but iI'm not betting a nickel on anyone reaching 6-4 and playoffs.:tisk: :tisk: Now 6-4 and semis we might talk. :thinking: :D

Just meant that they'll all have a successful season. I just put a definition to "successful".

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
Just meant that they'll all have a successful season. I just put a definition to "successful". Gotcha.

[Ernest T Bass]

Wanna make it 7-3? I'll go with that.

[Exparentnator]

The definition of Thuggery = The U!

[fresh-j]

I was in 7 on 7 for the D1 and D2 tourny, Brownwood looked really good, their QB was a better 7 on 7 player than any one there (including Shipley) that's why he got MVP, Graham looked pretty good and young in the Consolation bracket, While Celina was always fresh.

[Matthew328]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
7 on 7 champion=state football champion? Obviously not
7 on 7 champion=sucessfull football season? Id bet money on it

I'll bet $100 on every semifinal team in the 7 on 7 tournament making the playoffs and having a .600 record or better. $100 per team=a chance at $800. Anyone want a piece of that action?


I want none of it....LOL I think all 8 semi-finalists will be outstanding teams in the fall...

My whole point to this is that in the early years of 7 on 7 you'd see a lot of outliers making a lot of noise and in some cases winning state 7 on 7...the past 3 years or so it has not been the case, now most of the teams who do real well at state 7 on 7 tend to be either very good teams or elite teams. It's evolving right before our eyes.

[Johnny Utah]

Just hope it does not get like AAU is to basketball. Or select teams are to baseball and softball.

[Matthew328]

As long as its kept in its current form and the UIL leaves a good thing alone it won't

[WOS1]

Just a few years ago Baytown Lee, I think it was, won the 7 on 7 title then went 0-10. Bay City also won (or did very well) a few yrs ago and went, like, 3-7.

[Johnny Utah]

Well, the UIL is probably going to revamp the "summer" playing of many sports I would bet you. JMO.

[Matthew328]

That was six years ago WOS, thats why my point was in the past 3 years or so it seems to be trending a different way.

[3afan]

lates #s from the poll on texasfootball.com

What does winning a 7-on-7 state title mean for 11-man play?
A key indicator of success (7%)
A rough guideline (7%)
Coud matter just a bit (30%)
Completely irrelevent (53%)

[Old Tiger]

Originally posted by Matthew328
That was six years ago WOS, thats why my point was in the past 3 years or so it seems to be trending a different way. Probably cause teams are trying to run their actual offense and putting more emphasis on the defensive side of the ball.

[BEAST]

Originally posted by Old Tiger
Probably cause teams are trying to run their actual offense and putting more emphasis on the defensive side of the ball.

You are correct. There in lies the difference. Aside from Celina, I didnt see many "7 on 7" offenses.




BEAST

[Eagle 1]

Originally posted by BEAST
You are correct. There in lies the difference. Aside from Celina, I didnt see many "7 on 7" offenses.




BEAST

I thought Celina liked to run the ball?


Latest on the Poll;

What does winning a 7-on-7 state title mean for 11-man play?

A key indicator of success (18%)

A rough guideline (13%)

Coud matter just a bit (18%)

Completely irrelevent (48%)

[Matthew328]

That poll is just a bunch of people who dont actually watch chiming in. Someone mentioned it, the evolution is that in the past 3 years MOST teams (even Goldthwaite) are running their offense in 7 on 7 thus it can be used more and more of an indicator of potential fall success.

[Eagle 1]

Originally posted by Matthew328
That poll is just a bunch of people who dont actually watch chiming in. Someone mentioned it, the evolution is that in the past 3 years MOST teams (even Goldthwaite) are running their offense in 7 on 7 thus it can be used more and more of an indicator of potential fall success.
Just to be clear, we run the wishbone.
MOST of our pass plays are play-action, but not all.
Yes we do run shotgun passes occassionally, but not normally.
Like I said I have nothing against 7 on 7, and I'm glad we participate.

[gatordaze]

Originally posted by BEAST
You are correct. There in lies the difference. Aside from Celina, I didnt see many "7 on 7" offenses.




BEAST

Celina is predominantly a running offense in real football therefore their "plays" are not all that applicable.

Understanding the 7 on 7 game, they created a 7 on 7 offense that is designed specifically for 7 on 7. In fact after several years of certain plays being unstoppable, rule changes were made this year. For example we use to line up three players right on the line next to the center and send two of three several yards deep while shuttling the ball to the third. always good for a few yards as you never new which one would hold back. Now you can't have any players within 3 yards of the QB.

The game is still evolving, I saw Canton try and run a hook and lateral to the center. I thought the center was just there to spot the ball and could not participate. In fact, they could have put the fastest player at center and run them down the line to put him in a mismatch position. I think that this will become a tactic that adds an offensive threat to the mix.

All that being said, this is still just touch football and not to be confused with the plays that are required to move the chains on Fridays.

[Ernest T Bass]

Originally posted by gatordaze
Celina is predominantly a running offense in real football therefore their "plays" are not all that applicable.


But the athletes are, which is where the significance lies. Besides, if Celina finds themselves struggling with their running game, you can bet borrowed money that you'll see some of those 7 on 7 plays on friday nights.

[Pick6]

Glorified practice

[BEAST]

Originally posted by Eagle 1
I thought Celina liked to run the ball?


Latest on the Poll;

What does winning a 7-on-7 state title mean for 11-man play?

A key indicator of success (18%)

A rough guideline (13%)

Coud matter just a bit (18%)

Completely irrelevent (48%)

Hey go back and read my post again. I said, "aside from Celina, I didnt see many 7 on 7 offenses."




BEAST

[gatordaze]

Interesting correlation...

What does winning a 7-on-7 state title mean for 11-man play?

A key indicator of success (18%)

A rough guideline (13%)

Could matter just a bit (18%)

Completely irrelevant (48%)


Which teams fans think that winning a 7-on-7 state title means something for 11-man play?

Has won a state championship in 7 on 7 (18%)

Qualifies regularly and is competitive (13%)

Qualified this year but lost in 1st round of consolation pool (18%)

Team has never won a SQT (48%)

[wimbo_pro]

Originally posted by LE Dad
I agree. Nothing wrong with 7 on 7 and I don't have anything against it, but it doe not transition offensively to football. The things the offenses do in touch football will get the receivers leveled in the real game. As far as defense, yeah it helps.

Very good point, LE Dad. "Going across the middle" isnt quite the same when you know you are going to remember the rest of the evening.

[LE Dad]

It is what it is... Good workout for skill players. Good recognition exercise for secondary, but overall little transition into what will occur on Friday night. Believe me DBs will not be pulling up to touch you and if you want to jump for a ball, expect to come down suddenly and hard.

One thing to consider is that as more teams are putting in their regular offenses, more coaches are up in the stands watching. I can't think of a better time to scout than with 20+ teams playing multiple games.

[GrTigers6]

Originally posted by gatordaze
Celina is predominantly a running offense in real football therefore their "plays" are not all that applicable.

Understanding the 7 on 7 game, they created a 7 on 7 offense that is designed specifically for 7 on 7. In fact after several years of certain plays being unstoppable, rule changes were made this year. For example we use to line up three players right on the line next to the center and send two of three several yards deep while shuttling the ball to the third. always good for a few yards as you never new which one would hold back. Now you can't have any players within 3 yards of the QB.

The game is still evolving, I saw Canton try and run a hook and lateral to the center. I thought the center was just there to spot the ball and could not participate. In fact, they could have put the fastest player at center and run them down the line to put him in a mismatch position. I think that this will become a tactic that adds an offensive threat to the mix.

All that being said, this is still just touch football and not to be confused with the plays that are required to move the chains on Fridays. The center is not a eligible player according to State 7 on 7 rules

K. The offensive center is not an eligible receiver (teams must have a center). The ball must be snapped from the ground between the snapper's legs. (mirror the game of football)

L. The center will be responsible for setting or re-positioning the Referee's bean bag at the line of scrimmage. On change of possession, the team moving to offense will ensure the bean bag gets to the new scrimmage line. (centers on both teams responsible).

[gatordaze]

Originally posted by GrTigers6
The center is not a eligible player according to State 7 on 7 rules

K. The offensive center is not an eligible receiver (teams must have a center). The ball must be snapped from the ground between the snapper's legs. (mirror the game of football)

L. The center will be responsible for setting or re-positioning the Referee's bean bag at the line of scrimmage. On change of possession, the team moving to offense will ensure the bean bag gets to the new scrimmage line. (centers on both teams responsible).

In the scenario that I described the center is not a receiver of a forward pass but the recipient of a lateral. I asked two sets of refs and both said the center could take a backward pass after another player had caught a forward pass

[Matthew328]

This is correct it's been a legal play for quite sometime.

[gatordaze]

Originally posted by Matthew328
This is correct it's been a legal play for quite sometime.

Canton tried it with a big kid but a could see a fast kid being a distraction at least. The only thing that seems to make this difficult is being able to be open enough to pitch the ball back before being touched.

My question is that if the receiver never actually caught the ball but instead redirected it to the center like an a "alley-oop" in basketball would he be down on contact if he never had possession? Would that then be the same thing as a pitch?

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by gatordaze
In the scenario that I described the center is not a receiver of a forward pass but the recipient of a lateral. I asked two sets of refs and both said the center could take a backward pass after another player had caught a forward pass

That can and has been done in "real" football many many times..I broadcast a game where the OG took a lateral from the TE 50 plus yards for a TD

[cr180t]

If the QB throws an interception can teh center go tag the Defender?

[BEAST]

Originally posted by cr180t
If the QB throws an interception can teh center go tag the Defender?

Yes.




BEAST

[Old Tiger]

One time we were up on our opponents like 40 something to 12 and we did a double pass but we got in trouble for it from our real coaches because it went for a touchdown and the guy who was playing center at the time was a linemen for us was put out at WR and threw the touchdown.

[GrTigers6]

Originally posted by gatordaze
In the scenario that I described the center is not a receiver of a forward pass but the recipient of a lateral. I asked two sets of refs and both said the center could take a backward pass after another player had caught a forward pass Yeah I shouldnt of read it so fast. :D

[WOS1]

Originally posted by Matthew328
That was six years ago WOS, thats why my point was in the past 3 years or so it seems to be trending a different way.

Yes sir, I understand what you are saying. It is easy to assess that when you have a favorite team be successful at it. Having been involved very closely with 7 on 7 in the past, I can tell you that it definitely has it's benefits. Route running, timing (to a degree), defensive alignments and coverage skills and just basically keeping kids in shape. These are definitely advantageous. Beyond that, I do not agree on it's evolution. Way to many intangibles that you cannot duplicate come into play when you put the pads on. I've seen QB's that were 7 on 7 masters but were different players with pads on and vice versa. Defenses that were great at stopping 7 on 7 plays but could not stop a real offense. And there aren't many, if any, teams running 6 wide recievers as a regular offense so the notion that they are "practicing their offense" is funny to me. If you are not running the ball, at least a little, you are not practicing your offense.

Like you, I used to want to think that it could be used as an indicator of onfield success, but the more I was around it, the more I realized that it just wasn't the case.

Now, let me say that I do feel like Bwood will be a good team this year, but more for their coaching and returning talent from last year.

The biggest thing that it does is get fans excited and talking about the upcoming season.

[Matthew328]

WOS, just to clarify your point.....teams can't run a six WR offense in 7 on 7...its impossible..you have five eligible receivers, a center and a QB. So in that regard its quite possible to run your normal passing offense in 7 on 7.

I watch more 7 on 7 than anyone and I can tell you its evolving more than anyone would be led to believe.

Again take a look at the teams who have been successful in 7 on 7 lately. These aren't simply 7 on 7 QB's they are QB's who have found tremendous success in the fall. Michael Brewer, Ryan Polite, Michael Means jump off the page to me as semi-final QBs..I believe Brownwood's QB would have seen a ton of success had he not been injured last year.

If there is no evolution in 7 on 7 then how can we explain the fact that in the past few years the teams who have seen the most success in the State Tournament are also teams who have seen a lot of Friday night success....is it a coincidence??? Whats the difference between now and 4 years ago??

What I'm saying is now a days you RARELY see the 7 on 7 offense or teams who are good at 7 on 7 at a statewide level but terrible in real football..it just doesn't happen nearly as much as it used to....that tells me something is changing.

[wimbo_pro]

Originally posted by Matthew328


What I'm saying is now a days you RARELY see the 7 on 7 offense or teams who are good at 7 on 7 at a statewide level but terrible in real football..it just doesn't happen nearly as much as it used to....that tells me something is changing.

Good points, Matthew.

[WOS1]

Originally posted by Matthew328
WOS, just to clarify your point.....teams can't run a six WR offense in 7 on 7...its impossible..you have five eligible receivers, a center and a QB. So in that regard its quite possible to run your normal passing offense in 7 on 7.

I watch more 7 on 7 than anyone and I can tell you its evolving more than anyone would be led to believe.

Again take a look at the teams who have been successful in 7 on 7 lately. These aren't simply 7 on 7 QB's they are QB's who have found tremendous success in the fall. Michael Brewer, Ryan Polite, Michael Means jump off the page to me as semi-final QBs..I believe Brownwood's QB would have seen a ton of success had he not been injured last year.

If there is no evolution in 7 on 7 then how can we explain the fact that in the past few years the teams who have seen the most success in the State Tournament are also teams who have seen a lot of Friday night success....is it a coincidence??? Whats the difference between now and 4 years ago??

What I'm saying is now a days you RARELY see the 7 on 7 offense or teams who are good at 7 on 7 at a statewide level but terrible in real football..it just doesn't happen nearly as much as it used to....that tells me something is changing.

Ahhh yes, I couldn't remember if we had to count the center or not. Obviously, it's been a couple of years, but my poor memory aside, I see what you are saying, but I think it's more chance than trend.

[Matthew328]

It could be a coincidence...and a lot of people still feel that way....either I'm ahead of the curve or insane.

[Looking4number8]

Talent is talent weather it is on a saturday afternoon in a 7 on 7 tournament or Friday night under the lights. I think a lot of the change is more teams seem to be partisipating now.

One point that was made is I think the 7 on 7 helps "cover corners" develope and practice more than any other player on the field

[CenTexSports]

The only argument I have is for the smaller schools that have less talent because of numbers. In 7 on 7 you can strengthen your offense with the best talent and outscore your opponents but when the real stuff starts you have to have as much talent on defense as you do on offense. This is probably not a problem for Brownwood and all 4a and 5a schools. But it is definitely a problem for schools like Cameron and other small 3a schools and smaller.

This is where Matthew's beliefs fall apart but he is probably right for the larger schools.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Matthew328
WOS, just to clarify your point.....teams can't run a six WR offense in 7 on 7...its impossible..you have five eligible receivers, a center and a QB. So in that regard its quite possible to run your normal passing offense in 7 on 7.

I watch more 7 on 7 than anyone and I can tell you its evolving more than anyone would be led to believe.

Again take a look at the teams who have been successful in 7 on 7 lately. These aren't simply 7 on 7 QB's they are QB's who have found tremendous success in the fall. Michael Brewer, Ryan Polite, Michael Means jump off the page to me as semi-final QBs..I believe Brownwood's QB would have seen a ton of success had he not been injured last year.

If there is no evolution in 7 on 7 then how can we explain the fact that in the past few years the teams who have seen the most success in the State Tournament are also teams who have seen a lot of Friday night success....is it a coincidence??? Whats the difference between now and 4 years ago??

What I'm saying is now a days you RARELY see the 7 on 7 offense or teams who are good at 7 on 7 at a statewide level but terrible in real football..it just doesn't happen nearly as much as it used to....that tells me something is changing.



The teams that have success in the fall are normally the most talented teams. Wouldn't that same talent be effective in 7 on 7?

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by CenTexSports
The only argument I have is for the smaller schools that have less talent because of numbers. In 7 on 7 you can strengthen your offense with the best talent and outscore your opponents but when the real stuff starts you have to have as much talent on defense as you do on offense. This is probably not a problem for Brownwood and all 4a and 5a schools. But it is definitely a problem for schools like Cameron and other small 3a schools and smaller.

This is where Matthew's beliefs fall apart but he is probably right for the larger schools. That is a very good explaination.:clap: :clap:

[hollywood]

Originally posted by Looking4number8
Talent is talent weather it is on a saturday afternoon in a 7 on 7 tournament or Friday night under the lights. I think a lot of the change is more teams seem to be partisipating now.

One point that was made is I think the 7 on 7 helps "cover corners" develope and practice more than any other player on the field :clap: I agree MB.

[hollywood]

Originally posted by Matthew328
WOS, just to clarify your point.....teams can't run a six WR offense in 7 on 7...its impossible..you have five eligible receivers, a center and a QB. So in that regard its quite possible to run your normal passing offense in 7 on 7.

I watch more 7 on 7 than anyone and I can tell you its evolving more than anyone would be led to believe.

Again take a look at the teams who have been successful in 7 on 7 lately. These aren't simply 7 on 7 QB's they are QB's who have found tremendous success in the fall. Michael Brewer, Ryan Polite, Michael Means jump off the page to me as semi-final QBs..I believe Brownwood's QB would have seen a ton of success had he not been injured last year.

If there is no evolution in 7 on 7 then how can we explain the fact that in the past few years the teams who have seen the most success in the State Tournament are also teams who have seen a lot of Friday night success....is it a coincidence??? Whats the difference between now and 4 years ago??

What I'm saying is now a days you RARELY see the 7 on 7 offense or teams who are good at 7 on 7 at a statewide level but terrible in real football..it just doesn't happen nearly as much as it used to....that tells me something is changing.
Why wouldn't teams work on their offensive stratagies during 7 on 7? I agree with this. More and more do you see teams that do well in 7 on 7, do well in the Fall... given that the injury bug doesn't come into play.

[fresh-j]

I have a question!!!!!! I'm sure Matt328 can answer it but anyone else is welcome too :cool: why did WOS get owned and not do anything like people predicted them to do at college station with so much talent, speed, heighth, it wasn't a QB problem, they have a stud in Reggie garrett :thinking:

[PPSTATEBOUND]

Originally posted by fresh-j
I have a question!!!!!! I'm sure Matt328 can answer it but anyone else is welcome too :cool: why did WOS get owned and not do anything like people predicted them to do at college station with so much talent, speed, heighth, it wasn't a QB problem, they have a stud in Reggie garrett :thinking:

How do they spell team?....just a thought but maybe with an I?

[fresh-j]

Originally posted by PPSTATEBOUND
How do they spell team?....just a thought but maybe with an I?

Whoa never heard that one.That maybe the worst response I've ever read in my entire life

[Old Tiger]

Originally posted by fresh-j
I have a question!!!!!! I'm sure Matt328 can answer it but anyone else is welcome too :cool: why did WOS get owned and not do anything like people predicted them to do at college station with so much talent, speed, heighth, it wasn't a QB problem, they have a stud in Reggie garrett :thinking: I heard they only played in one SQT which they hosted and didn't play in anymore

[fresh-j]

Originally posted by Old Tiger
I heard they only played in one SQT which they hosted and didn't play in anymore


thank ya, I guess they just got lazy with it, some people have like leagues about once a week to keep playing and getting better, seems like they needed one :D

[WOS1]

Originally posted by Old Tiger
I heard they only played in one SQT which they hosted and didn't play in anymore

They did only play in one SQT, but they didn't host it. It was in Hardin. Not sure if they played anymore games after that until the big tourney. I know I didn't hear about any anyway.

As for their lack of performance, it is a mystery to me, too. They really should have done better. They did have a good QB, recievers and plenty of speed. If you don't practice or play doesn't matter what kind of athletes you have, though.