GD93 would like to personally congratulate the Bolingbrook Raiders on their 22-21 win last night against Homewood-Flossmoor. Good luck in the 8A play-offs. You guys earned it and deserve it!
What difference does it make if he responds to Wittman's post? At the risk of sounding like GD's (much smarter and well-read) alter-ego, I don't blame him for not responding to Wittman's post, because nothing positive could be gained from it. GD made the statement that most intelligent posters seemed to call for: he offered congratulations to Bolingbrook without excuse or attack. Can't it just be left at that?GD, why didn't you respond to Wittman's post?
Lack of stones?
Really, Robert? Is your history with GD so vast that you feel qualified to offer such deeply analytical commentary?pfffft whatever
In contrast, BWM clearly gets it. A good-natured poke that summed-up the import of GD's statement in one line. Well-said BWM. Thanks.It was cool, I went outside and there were pigs flying around all over the place.
Thank you, Chuck, for a great question that will hopefully spark some interesting conversation. I'd like to know others' thoughts on that game as well. I'm happy to provide mine.I'd be interested to know, what happened at this game. What did Brooks do to shut down the HF offense? Like I said on another thread, this game will be studied by lots of teams over the next few weeks.
What difference does it make if he responds to Wittman's post? At the risk of sounding like GD's (much smarter and well-read) alter-ego, I don't blame him for not responding to Wittman's post, because nothing positive could be gained from it. GD made the statement that most intelligent posters seemed to call for: he offered congratulations to Bolingbrook without excuse or attack. Can't it just be left at that?
Really, Robert? Is your history with GD so vast that you feel qualified to offer such deeply analytical commentary?
In contrast, BWM clearly gets it. A good-natured poke that summed-up the import of GD's statement in one line. Well-said BWM. Thanks.
GD93 would like to personally congratulate the Bolingbrook Raiders on their 22-21 win last night against Homewood-Flossmoor. Good luck in the 8A play-offs. You guys earned it and deserve it!
Dude, I love the passion but you got to pace yourself. I know from experience. You can't argue every poster in every thread and have anything left for the finish. Cheers
According to one article both H-H twins eclipsed the 100 yard mark with nearly 20 carries each. I wouldnt say we shut down the inside running game, especially compared to the playoff game where they had a combined 75 yards I think. They typically go inside but are able to make people miss and bounce it out. We did a good job of limiting the long TD's and plays in general. That combined with the poor weather making it difficult to really open it up surely contributed to the results. I was at the DGS/HF game and it was like they could score from any place on the field with about 5 different people.Thank you, Chuck, for a great question that will hopefully spark some interesting conversation. I'd like to know others' thoughts on that game as well. I'm happy to provide mine.
From what I saw, Bolingbrook was able to largely shut down HF's inside running game. What perplexed me was why HF continued to try to run between the tackles, where you are running right into Tuff Borland (who is a stud and was clearly the best player on that field Friday night). HF ran outside a couple of times with some success (including one TD). I don't have enough experience with HF's offense to know if it generally runs inside with the read option. But it would seem that it would have the speed with those twin running backs to get outside or to maybe throw swing passes to them coming out of the backfield. HF didn't do that.
Bolingbrook was also able to shut down HF's passing game. Bolingbrook double-covered HF's good wide receiver (the Wisconsin commit) with a corner underneath and a safety over the top, and HF didn't adjust. It seemed that HF could have thrown the ball into the flat or with some wide receiver screens (again to get away from Borland) and open up the passing game, but it didn't do that. It could have been because of the off-and-on rain; I don't know.
On offense, Bolingbrook was able to pound the ball with a power running game, and they threw the ball to their big running back and to Borland, who is a tight end on offense. HF's defense looks like it would be very susceptible to a power running game and to a team with big receivers. (Oh-oh for HF vs Loyola.)
And finally, Bolingbrook's kick-off and punt teams were clearly better than HF's. Bolingbrook consistently pinned HF deep with punts, and the one "bad" punt that Bolingbrook had ended up bouncing off of an HF player (who was running down the field to get ready to block), and Bolingbrook recovered the ball.
Again, I'm just offering my untrained observations. I'll admit that I have taken a liking to HF, having watched them early in the season and being impressed by how fun it is to see that offense when it is in high-gear. I'd be interested to know if anyone else watched the game and what their observations are.
I don't know what you guys want from GD. To me his posts are no worse than a lot of others on this board who root for their teams unapologetically. This is a good post that congratulates their opponent. Nicely done GD.
This kind of stuff generated by some of the bullies on the board is why, as I said, people don't post on this board.
GD, I'm pulling for all of the SWSB teams in the playoffs! Good luck to HF!
According to one article both H-H twins eclipsed the 100 yard mark with nearly 20 carries each. I wouldnt say we shut down the inside running game, especially compared to the playoff game where they had a combined 75 yards I think. They typically go inside but are able to make people miss and bounce it out. We did a good job of limiting the long TD's and plays in general. That combined with the poor weather making it difficult to really open it up surely contributed to the results. I was at the DGS/HF game and it was like they could score from any place on the field with about 5 different people.
I think the biggest contributor was that we stopped turning the ball over which has been a staple of our offense this season (at one point this game we ran two offensive plays and had 2 turnovers). We stayed with the power running more or less and were actually able to move the chains. In other games where we didnt seem dedicated to power running we struggle to get yards at all and the D plays whole games.
All in all, I like our DL & LB's, I dont know if they can be duplicated by many other teams and our DB's played a lot better.
Sorry Mr Hitters. You haven't been around here very long so I'm not sure you are qualified to give history lessons.
Based on what you and Bones said, one key is to cut down the explosive nature of the HF offense, which is easier said than done. There are maybe 10 teams in the state that could hold them to 3 or 4 touchdowns. Now, I've only watched them on The Cube, but I think their 5 offensive threats are really only 3.5, but a really good 3.5. So most teams will get killed by that since most defenses in 8A are not capable of slowing them down.Thank you, Chuck, for a great question that will hopefully spark some interesting conversation. I'd like to know others' thoughts on that game as well. I'm happy to provide mine.
From what I saw, Bolingbrook was able to largely shut down HF's inside running game. What perplexed me was why HF continued to try to run between the tackles, where you are running right into Tuff Borland (who is a stud and was clearly the best player on that field Friday night). HF ran outside a couple of times with some success (including one TD). I don't have enough experience with HF's offense to know if it generally runs inside with the read option. But it would seem that it would have the speed with those twin running backs to get outside or to maybe throw swing passes to them coming out of the backfield. HF didn't do that.
Bolingbrook was also able to shut down HF's passing game. Bolingbrook double-covered HF's good wide receiver (the Wisconsin commit) with a corner underneath and a safety over the top, and HF didn't adjust. It seemed that HF could have thrown the ball into the flat or with some wide receiver screens (again to get away from Borland) and open up the passing game, but it didn't do that. It could have been because of the off-and-on rain; I don't know.
On offense, Bolingbrook was able to pound the ball with a power running game, and they threw the ball to their big running back and to Borland, who is a tight end on offense. HF's defense looks like it would be very susceptible to a power running game and to a team with big receivers. (Oh-oh for HF vs Loyola.)
And finally, Bolingbrook's kick-off and punt teams were clearly better than HF's. Bolingbrook consistently pinned HF deep with punts, and the one "bad" punt that Bolingbrook had ended up bouncing off of an HF player (who was running down the field to get ready to block), and Bolingbrook recovered the ball.
Again, I'm just offering my untrained observations. I'll admit that I have taken a liking to HF, having watched them early in the season and being impressed by how fun it is to see that offense when it is in high-gear. I'd be interested to know if anyone else watched the game and what their observations are.
What difference does it make if he responds to Wittman's post? At the risk of sounding like GD's (much smarter and well-read) alter-ego, I don't blame him for not responding to Wittman's post, because nothing positive could be gained from it. GD made the statement that most intelligent posters seemed to call for: he offered congratulations to Bolingbrook without excuse or attack. Can't it just be left at that?
Really, Robert? Is your history with GD so vast that you feel qualified to offer such deeply analytical commentary?
In contrast, BWM clearly gets it. A good-natured poke that summed-up the import of GD's statement in one line. Well-said BWM. Thanks.
He's totally domer!R
Hey, relax Domer. Obviously you haven't dealt with IG/GD much. He's scum. So keep your dick holster shut.
That's interesting. All that puts the loss squarely on the coach. We are dealing with high school kids and, having raised 2 myself, they are capable of about anything. One day you believe you are going to be crowned champions of the world, and the next you are lower than whale poop. I hope those kids can shake it off. I think they are good for 2 weeks at least, then they may have to face those newly established doubts again.We actually were able to run the ball with fairly good success. Bones was correct, we did have over 200 yards on the ground. The weather did have an impact but it certainly did not cost us the game. I honestly think that our couches called the game "not to lose" instead of "playing to win". I think we have too conservative of a game plan. The Brooks DBs were playing 12 - 15 yards off of our WR but we rarely threw the intermediate passes (slants, flats, bubble screens, come backs) which we have done in the past. I actually think we went deep too often. I think the three or so (incomplete) deep balls may have been three or two too many for a few were into the wind. WR Pryor had 1 completion and I think we have only 10 - 12 pass attempts all game. Again, I simply think we abandoned the shorter passes and getting the balls into the playmakers on the perimeter.
BB also outcoached us. They had a smashmouth gameplan that kept the ball in their hands, kept the clock moving, and continued to gain yards. When they threw the ball, they generally were not as effective aside from the incredible catch that Borland made to get them in field goal range.
However, the biggest issue in my mind is that our players felt the game was over before it started. I do not think they were ready to play a very focused BB team. I think we have been reading our press clippings way too much and watching the Drive way too much (and taking it all to heart). BB will ALWAYS play HF tough and they will ALWAYS be well prepared. I did not think our team (and coaches) were up to the task. They expected the team that lost to Sandberg and Lockport and turned the ball over many times each game.
It will either be the best thing that happens to HF or the beginning of the end of a highly anticipated season. IF they can regroup and refocus and realize that they are NOT unbeatable, it may propel them back to where they expected to be in the finals. If not then......
He's totally domer!
R
Hey, relax Domer. Obviously you haven't dealt with IG/GD much. He's scum. So keep your dick holster shut.
Hahaha! I must admit, the thought crossed my mind too. Time will tell.Wow Shocking
Is GD growing up or are we being suckered in? Either way it was a nice post and will leave at that.
No but you insinuated that bullies have driven posters away here. In the last 25 posts you have made you have mentioned either of the following:
Everyone on this board has a voice, and I hear a different one for each poster (calling Dr Freud!)
- Only Catholic schools matters on this board
- Bullies are mean and chase away normal posters who just want to talk football
- It ain't like it used to be around here
I wasn't around during the glory days for which you seem quite fond. I bet it was a blast.
Bobby Maszak is, without a question in my mind, Domer. I'm at a loss to understand some of the posts he's made, including referring to a "dick holster" (perhaps mine?).
dad...you realize GD actually brought Naz and Bronco together...it's not coincidence...and "bullies" on a high school football board? I feel like you've been watching too much 60 minutes.I don't know what you guys want from GD. To me his posts are no worse than a lot of others on this board who root for their teams unapologetically. This is a good post that congratulates their opponent. Nicely done GD.
This kind of stuff generated by some of the bullies on the board is why, as I said, people don't post on this board.
GD, I'm pulling for all of the SWSB teams in the playoffs! Good luck to HF!