Hilites La Marque vs West Columbia

[1971Coogs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYXqY4K8-FA&feature=youtu.be

[1971Coogs]

I feel bad for the player from West Columbia at 5:26 of the video. I'm not sure if he was confused as to who had the ball or not, but he had the perfect opportunity to prevent a 100 yard interception return if he had made an attempt to tackle the La Marque ball carrier instead of blocking another La Marque player.

[87coog]

way to hold it up on our end Mike, on to the playoffs.

[1971Coogs]

way to hold it up on our end Mike, on to the playoffs.:nerd:

[Ville-D]

Looked good. Thanks for sharing. Welcome to 3A... :clap:

Was LaMarque that dominant or did WC lay down the the second half?

[bdblm97]

Looked good. Thanks for sharing. Welcome to 3A... :clap:

Was LaMarque that dominant or did WC lay down the the second half?

Defensively LM was that dominant from the opening whistle, offensively they just chose to play it a bit vanilla in the first half. This LM team is not going to open up the playbook unless a team forces them to. They could have thrown the ball all over the field in the first half because the WC defense wasn't even playing deep safeties we could have sliced that defense up easily...but Coach Jackson's philosophy this season is a little different. The philosophy..."Chop Wood and let the Defense Dominate"

All in all, WC is just not on La marque's level...they couldn't run or throw on LM. They got off a few nice plays when the reserves were in though nothing special. too much team speed. Just look at the video and how many blue hats swarm the ball carriers.

[Dub-C]

Defensively LM was that dominant from the opening whistle, offensively they just chose to play it a bit vanilla in the first half. This LM team is not going to open up the playbook unless a team forces them to. They could have thrown the ball all over the field in the first half because the WC defense wasn't even playing deep safeties we could have sliced that defense up easily...but Coach Jackson's philosophy this season is a little different. The philosophy..."Chop Wood and let the Defense Dominate"

All in all, WC is just not on La marque's level...they couldn't run or throw on LM. They got off a few nice plays when the reserves were in though nothing special. too much team speed. Just look at the video and how many blue hats swarm the ball carriers.

WC has way too many players playing two ways. And the video just shows La Marques hi lites. If they could of thrown they would have. WC oline is just not that good. La Marque is great team but they will have to prove themselves when they run into a team that can run and pass. As far as WC, I didn't think they would make a strong run in the playoffs. I hoping they would gave La marque a better second half but they didn't. Can't understand how a large school has to go two ways and a smaller school has enough to go one. La Marque is going to make a lot of noise in the playoffs. If their QB could make better reads in passing situations they will be deadly. Good luck in the playoffs COUGARS.

[Saggy Aggie]

Out of Lamarques first 4 TDs, 3 were defensive and the other was a direct result of a turnover on special teams?

IMO, WC laid down after that but the fact that neither team could do crap offensively in the first half and the score was 0-0 @ half tells me that LM wasn't as dominant as 48-0 sounds.
Idk, I wasn't there but the looks like a case of some costly turnovers and then the players quit.

Oh well, LM is good and will do damage either way. WC has to regroup from that ass whoopin

[Dub-C]

And talking about passing, WC limited La Marque to 21 total yards passing for the game and WC had 112 passing. Funny thing the A couple of the D backs haven't played football since Jr. High. Pretty good on the pass D IMO.

[bdblm97]

And talking about passing, WC limited La Marque to 21 total yards passing for the game and WC had 112 passing. Funny thing the A couple of the D backs haven't played football since Jr. High. Pretty good on the pass D IMO.

LM wasn't trying to throw the ball 2-9 is not a real effort in the passing game for LM. No the WC pass defense was not good at all, they were letting WR run wide open all over the field, LM just doesn't have a true passing QB, he's a run first run often type...he doesn't read the field well at all. Don't make any excuses for them losing 48-0 is a defeate that you can't make many excuses for. Had it been 28-21 I'll listen but that was a blowout, point blank period.

[bdblm97]

Out of Lamarques first 4 TDs, 3 were defensive and the other was a direct result of a turnover on special teams?

IMO, WC laid down after that but the fact that neither team could do crap offensively in the first half and the score was 0-0 @ half tells me that LM wasn't as dominant as 48-0 sounds.
Idk, I wasn't there but the looks like a case of some costly turnovers and then the players quit.

Oh well, LM is good and will do damage either way. WC has to regroup from that ass whoopin

I keep trying to tell ya'll to be honest with yourselves. WC did not stifle the LM offense in the first half. LM was playing vanilla just like they have been 90% of the season. The coach is not going to open it up unless your team makes him. I also stated in an earlier post that the LM secondary was one of the best in the state...also mentioned the recovery speed. You can see it on the highlights. WC caught 1 good pass in the first half, and in the second half they caught a couple of screens and a good pass on some of our reserves and what isn't mentioned is the fact that WC could not convert in the red zone or on 4th and short. They didn't lay down, they were laid down. Sorry, truth is the truth.

[Dub-C]

There are no excuses only facts that I pointed out for both teams.

[rb585]

48-0? When is the last time WC lost a game by more than that?

[Roughneck93]

48-0? When is the last time WC lost a game by more than that?

The game recap in the local paper said it was the most lopsided loss for us in more than a decade.

However, I recall a 62-7 loss to your Texans in 2005 as being pretty lopsided...:(

[Saggy Aggie]

Yeah because scoring 3 (basically 4) defensive Tds is 'opening up the offense'...

You can think your offense came out and kicked ass and the coach 'opened it up' all you want but if you look at the game film, you'll see that LM offense didn't do **** until the defense got them up 4 TDs. It's pretty obvious WC D stopped trying and then your offense magically 'opened up'

:blahblah::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[1971Coogs]

Looked good. Thanks for sharing. Welcome to 3A... :clap:

Was LaMarque that dominant or did WC lay down the the second half?thanks..I am honored when college scouts contact me for game footage to review.

In regards to the game, this La Marque team reminds me of different variations of the 1995, 1998 and 2006 teams. The '95 defense had 9 shutouts and won most games because the defense set up short fields for the offense most of the year. The offense that year was a ground and pound with timely passes. The '98 team was opportunistic and took advantage of timely turnovers (by their opponent) when the offense was not producing.The '98 was not very opportunistic in the title game against SVille :ack!: The 2006 team was blue collar...no studs, just a well oiled hard hitting machine that scared the sh*t out of it's opponent with vicious hard hitting tackles and an aggresive knock you to the ground o-line. Which I guess looking back at the game against WC, the defense set the tone and the offense fed off of the opportunities presented.

[Dub-C]

thanks..I am honored when college scouts contact me for game footage to review.

In regards to the game, this La Marque team reminds me of different variations of the 1995, 1998 and 2006 teams. The '95 defense had 9 shutouts and won most games because the defense set up short fields for the offense most of the year. The offense that year was a ground and pound with timely passes. The '98 team was opportunistic and took advantage of timely turnovers (by their opponent) when the offense was not producing.The '98 was not very opportunistic in the title game against SVille :ack!: The 2006 team was blue collar...no studs, just a well oiled hard hitting machine that scared the sh*t out of it's opponent with vicious hard hitting tackles and an aggresive knock you to the ground o-line. Which I guess looking back at the game against WC, the defense set the tone and the offense fed off of the opportunities presented.

Good post.

[yellaseeker]

WC has way too many players playing two ways. And the video just shows La Marques hi lites. If they could of thrown they would have. WC oline is just not that good. La Marque is great team but they will have to prove themselves when they run into a team that can run and pass. As far as WC, I didn't think they would make a strong run in the playoffs. I hoping they would gave La marque a better second half but they didn't. Can't understand how a large school has to go two ways and a smaller school has enough to go one. La Marque is going to make a lot of noise in the playoffs. If their QB could make better reads in passing situations they will be deadly. Good luck in the playoffs COUGARS.

The reason why they don't have as many players going both ways is because they are lopsided in the boys to girls ratio in that school. Don't know the exact numbers but i'd say it's in the neighborhood of 2 to 2-1/2 boys per girl at that school. It may be as much as 3 to 1. Most schools on average are 50/50. As i hear it, most parents won't enroll their girls in that school for obvious reasons. Very good as a football team but that's it. Absolutely zero respect coming from me after hearing some of the things and visually witnessing some things that went on in that game. You can forget the sour grapes comment guys cause that's hardly a factor. An a$$ whipping is an a$$ whipping no matter how it's handed out but from the unsportmanship of not all but most of the players, the mouths of atleast one of the coaches towards a player, sorry a$$ referee's that were obviously intimidated in some form or fashion or just plain biased a$$ home brewers, the biased sports writer and let's not forget the biased a$$ ghetto talking announcer. I'll tell you this, Columbia has been beatin up pretty bad by some good respectable teams like Chappel Hill a couple years ago and the players and fans had no problem given credit to the better team. They kicked our teeth in and not once disrespected the game or anyone else for that matter. I guess those values and morals are not taught at home or at school in all areas and that's a pitty. You allow them to be thuggish at home and at school, the result will be a thuggish adult. The only credit they get from me is the fact that they are a darn good football team. Congrats in that department, now clean up some of the other details of your school and community. :tisk:

[cougartino]

The reason why they don't have as many players going both ways is because they are lopsided in the boys to girls ratio in that school. Don't know the exact numbers but i'd say it's in the neighborhood of 2 to 2-1/2 boys per girl at that school. It may be as much as 3 to 1. Most schools on average are 50/50. As i hear it, most parents won't enroll their girls in that school for obvious reasons. Very good as a football team but that's it. Absolutely zero respect coming from me after hearing some of the things and visually witnessing some things that went on in that game. You can forget the sour grapes comment guys cause that's hardly a factor. An a$$ whipping is an a$$ whipping no matter how it's handed out but from the unsportmanship of not all but most of the players, the mouths of atleast one of the coaches towards a player, sorry a$$ referee's that were obviously intimidated in some form or fashion or just plain biased a$$ home brewers, the biased sports writer and let's not forget the biased a$$ ghetto talking announcer. I'll tell you this, Columbia has been beatin up pretty bad by some good respectable teams like Chappel Hill a couple years ago and the players and fans had no problem given credit to the better team. They kicked our teeth in and not once disrespected the game or anyone else for that matter. I guess those values and morals are not taught at home or at school in all areas and that's a pitty. You allow them to be thuggish at home and at school, the result will be a thuggish adult. The only credit they get from me is the fact that they are a darn good football team. Congrats in that department, now clean up some of the other details of your school and community. :tisk:

Unless you live in our community and have first hand knowledge of anything, SHUT THE H*** UP! Don't hide behind a skirt or keyboard because your team lost. Man up! Don't be a punk! You crossed the line with this post and made the real West Columbia fans look bad. The rest of the WC fans I have great respect for. But for you moron, NONE! Next time you come on here, bring concrete facts. This crap you pulled demonstrates nothing except the possibility your parents are siblings!

[cougartino]

The reason why they don't have as many players going both ways is because they are lopsided in the boys to girls ratio in that school. Don't know the exact numbers but i'd say it's in the neighborhood of 2 to 2-1/2 boys per girl at that school. It may be as much as 3 to 1. Most schools on average are 50/50. As i hear it, most parents won't enroll their girls in that school for obvious reasons. Very good as a football team but that's it. Absolutely zero respect coming from me after hearing some of the things and visually witnessing some things that went on in that game. You can forget the sour grapes comment guys cause that's hardly a factor. An a$$ whipping is an a$$ whipping no matter how it's handed out but from the unsportmanship of not all but most of the players, the mouths of atleast one of the coaches towards a player, sorry a$$ referee's that were obviously intimidated in some form or fashion or just plain biased a$$ home brewers, the biased sports writer and let's not forget the biased a$$ ghetto talking announcer. I'll tell you this, Columbia has been beatin up pretty bad by some good respectable teams like Chappel Hill a couple years ago and the players and fans had no problem given credit to the better team. They kicked our teeth in and not once disrespected the game or anyone else for that matter. I guess those values and morals are not taught at home or at school in all areas and that's a pitty. You allow them to be thuggish at home and at school, the result will be a thuggish adult. The only credit they get from me is the fact that they are a darn good football team. Congrats in that department, now clean up some of the other details of your school and community. :tisk:

Unless you live in our community and have first hand knowledge of anything, SHUT THE H*** UP! Don't hide behind a skirt or keyboard because your team lost. Man up! Don't be a punk! You crossed the line with this post and made the real West Columbia fans look bad. The rest of the WC fans I have great respect for. But for you moron, NONE! Next time you come on here, bring concrete facts. This crap you pulled demonstrates nothing except the possibility your parents are siblings!

[Football fan]

So, did West Columbia actually lose this game? Hard to tell by some of the posts.

[bdblm97]

The reason why they don't have as many players going both ways is because they are lopsided in the boys to girls ratio in that school. Don't know the exact numbers but i'd say it's in the neighborhood of 2 to 2-1/2 boys per girl at that school. It may be as much as 3 to 1. Most schools on average are 50/50. As i hear it, most parents won't enroll their girls in that school for obvious reasons. Very good as a football team but that's it. Absolutely zero respect coming from me after hearing some of the things and visually witnessing some things that went on in that game. You can forget the sour grapes comment guys cause that's hardly a factor. An a$$ whipping is an a$$ whipping no matter how it's handed out but from the unsportmanship of not all but most of the players, the mouths of atleast one of the coaches towards a player, sorry a$$ referee's that were obviously intimidated in some form or fashion or just plain biased a$$ home brewers, the biased sports writer and let's not forget the biased a$$ ghetto talking announcer. I'll tell you this, Columbia has been beatin up pretty bad by some good respectable teams like Chappel Hill a couple years ago and the players and fans had no problem given credit to the better team. They kicked our teeth in and not once disrespected the game or anyone else for that matter. I guess those values and morals are not taught at home or at school in all areas and that's a pitty. You allow them to be thuggish at home and at school, the result will be a thuggish adult. The only credit they get from me is the fact that they are a darn good football team. Congrats in that department, now clean up some of the other details of your school and community. :tisk:


First of all La Marque played last season in the toughest district in class 4A with 32 players and lost to a team with 60+ in the R3 Finals by 3 points. this years numbers are right on par with last year. The difference is LM has a very talented 2 deep, a 4 man stable of Solid RB's, a big athletic O-Line, a 6-7 deep extremly talented and quick D-Line led by Mr. All State DE Lawrence Montegue, also deep at LB and DB spots.

If you say an A$$ whipping is an A$$ whipping then take it like a man, don't blame it on the refs, don't blame it on the players feelings being hurt. If I remember correctly I saw MANY times that WC players actually took swings at some LM kids...#55 in particular. Not only that there were a couple of incidents of helmets being ripped off. Yes officiating was bad, but hey everywhere LM has played since at least '03 we have been officiated poorly. When you start winning so much and your team shows excitement and even dances on the field you get an undeserved reputation due to the SWAGGER that your teams name brings. So this is the reason why LM won't win very many close games because they have to essentially run the score up to a point where it is out of the hands of the officials. Maybe WC will experince this when they start earning rings, but I wouldn't expect someone like yourself to know what that feels like. I am from LM and I live in Katy so I have seen championship football teams and how they are officiated. Frankly people get tired of seeing you win all the time. As for home grown bias from the local writers...ha, maybe you should go back and read some of the columns over the last 5 years in the Galveston Daily News. Frankly they love to hate LM and only give LM credit when they have no other choice.

I don't even know where to start on the ridiculous ghetto comments that you made. Do you even know what a ghetto is? Ghetto-Sounding Announcer? really? Just grabbing at straws trying to find something ugly to say against LM huh?

Fact of the matter if you say WC isn't that good, or you are making excuses for why they lost, well in that case LM did what you should do to bad teams...you beat them badly.

You know the funniest thing is, before this game took place a lot of WC fans were pointing out the fact that LM only beat Sweeny 19-0, and lost to Coldspring and WC should be able to throw on LM because thats their wekaness, or I see WC pulling this one out etc... Well it seems that maybe...just maybe LM just might be on another level. Maybe its unfair for LM to be playing in this district because I believe that until Sweeny, WC, KIPP and Stafford step their game up, yall can kiss the disrtict titles goodbye.

[bdblm97]

So, did West Columbia actually lose this game? Hard to tell by some of the posts.

They got beat badly by a better team...nuff said.

Truth is the Truth, look at the video and trust your eyes. Look at the swarming speed of LM's defense...WC just could not compete with that.

[Lucky2Coach]

I keep trying to tell ya'll to be honest with yourselves. WC did not stifle the LM offense in the first half. LM was playing vanilla just like they have been 90% of the season. The coach is not going to open it up unless your team makes him. I also stated in an earlier post that the LM secondary was one of the best in the state...also mentioned the recovery speed. You can see it on the highlights. WC caught 1 good pass in the first half, and in the second half they caught a couple of screens and a good pass on some of our reserves and what isn't mentioned is the fact that WC could not convert in the red zone or on 4th and short. They didn't lay down, they were laid down. Sorry, truth is the truth.

If a 0-0 halftime scores doesn't warrant opening up the offense a little bit? What does then?

[Saggy Aggie]

The reason why they don't have as many players going both ways is because they are lopsided in the boys to girls ratio in that school. Don't know the exact numbers but i'd say it's in the neighborhood of 2 to 2-1/2 boys per girl at that school. It may be as much as 3 to 1. Most schools on average are 50/50. As i hear it, most parents won't enroll their girls in that school for obvious reasons. Very good as a football team but that's it. Absolutely zero respect coming from me after hearing some of the things and visually witnessing some things that went on in that game. You can forget the sour grapes comment guys cause that's hardly a factor. An a$$ whipping is an a$$ whipping no matter how it's handed out but from the unsportmanship of not all but most of the players, the mouths of atleast one of the coaches towards a player, sorry a$$ referee's that were obviously intimidated in some form or fashion or just plain biased a$$ home brewers, the biased sports writer and let's not forget the biased a$$ ghetto talking announcer. I'll tell you this, Columbia has been beatin up pretty bad by some good respectable teams like Chappel Hill a couple years ago and the players and fans had no problem given credit to the better team. They kicked our teeth in and not once disrespected the game or anyone else for that matter. I guess those values and morals are not taught at home or at school in all areas and that's a pitty. You allow them to be thuggish at home and at school, the result will be a thuggish adult. The only credit they get from me is the fact that they are a darn good football team. Congrats in that department, now clean up some of the other details of your school and community. :tisk:

Smh...

[bdblm97]

Well minus the 2 defensive TD's in the second half the LM offense still played their basic Power Run Game vanilla offense only completing 2 passes. They wore the WC defense out with a persistent run game, while the defense and special teams gave the ofense short fields. Why throw the ball around the field if you don't have to. I only questioned the 3rd down play calling by LM in the first half, but I'm not the coach and LM still won by 48 so...no complaints from me.

[scrub c]

If a 0-0 halftime scores doesn't warrant opening up the offense a little bit? What does then?

Momentum, plain and simple.
LM got the MO after the 2nd half fumble recovery and never relinquished it... No change in offense, or defense, just a huge momentum swing that WC could not recover from.
Thats the way I saw it anyway.

[1971Coogs]

I see a La Marque team looking at the next game against Stafford and then focusing on a very strong group of teams in Region III in the playoffs. I can tell you one thing. Who says 3A doesn't have some damn good teams ? I would put at least a dozen of the programs in 3A against any 4A or 5A top ranked teams in the state and say "let's rumble". I think some of the upper divisions would be surprised.

Now in regards to the West Columbia game....all of the above(comments). La Marque is definitely using it's plain vanilla offense. Last year we limped into the playoffs with 3 state ranked offensive players hurt. In fact "Top Gun" Tim Wright (who showed up Jonathon Gray in the 2010 title game) sat out the final regular season game against Pearland Dawson. So I have a feeling La Marque's head coach Dr. Jackson, would like to go into the "second season" with as many healthy players as possible.

Yes La Marque gained the momentum in the second half with a designed "pooch" kick on the opening kick-off (good coaching) with specials teams. Also (as mentioned above) La Marque kept chopping wood by wearing down the defensive line of West Columbia. Conditioning training at La Marque starts the first week of January. La Marque made some half time adjustments on offense (in the running game) which worked. I got this info first hand from the "Head Coogah". Take away the defensive scores (14 points ) and the one special team blocked punt (7 points) and La Marque's offense put up 27 points. Still not too shabby of a night. Just a little below our expected average of 30 (according to Dr. Jackson). Credit that to the stout defense of West Columbia.

This thread needs to be in the rear view mirror.....good luck in the play-offs West Columbia. Represent District 24-3A well ;)

[83Indian]

All I know is watching the video, LaMarque looks very very fast. The QB is dangerous fast. Looks like Coldspring will be in the way. How do you cougs see a rematch playing out? How did Coldspring shut down Lamarque the first game?

[cougartino]

All I know is watching the video, LaMarque looks very very fast. The QB is dangerous fast. Looks like Coldspring will be in the way. How do you cougs see a rematch playing out? How did Coldspring shut down Lamarque the first game?

They won fair and square so I won't take anything away from them. But we helped Cold Spring, too. One, we had the big head, not taking 3A seriously. Big mistake! Two, we were up 14 - 7 and driving for 7 more on their 20. Then we started being dumb with false starts and bonehead personal fouls. The next thing we new, it was 4th and long near the 50. We didn't score. And third, and most critical at least from my perspective, Cold Spring's offense is a quick setting one. Our D never adjusted to that. Last year we lost by 6 to Terry in Week 0 then beat them in the playoffs. The Cold Spring game was a punch in the gutt. 3A has our undivided attention. The LM team Coldspring played earlier is a different animal now. It should be a better game next time.

[1971Coogs]

They won fair and square so I won't take anything away from them. But we helped Cold Spring, too. One, we had the big head, not taking 3A seriously. Big mistake! Two, we were up 14 - 7 and driving for 7 more on their 20. Then we started being dumb with false starts and bonehead personal fouls. The next thing we new, it was 4th and long near the 50. We didn't score. And third, and most critical at least from my perspective, Cold Spring's offense is a quick setting one. Our D never adjusted to that. Last year we lost by 6 to Terry in Week 0 then beat them in the playoffs. The Cold Spring game was a punch in the gutt. 3A has our undivided attention. The LM team Coldspring played earlier is a different animal now. It should be a better game next time.ditto