|
|
Post by BellevueBuckeye on Sept 10, 2016 17:32:52 GMT -5
Tiffin won last year 23-14
|
|
|
|
Post by brutus036 on Sept 11, 2016 9:12:44 GMT -5
Tiffin has played a tough Ashland team and a good Clyde team even if Bellevue smashed them Friday night. Ontario lost to a now overated Lexington and a mediocre Clear Fork before hammering a over matched Cardington. Hawk has made some great changes to keep his boys fresh for all four quarters. I think the Warriors have a great shot of beating the Tornadoes at home this Friday. Final score
Warriors 32
Tiffin 21
|
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Sept 11, 2016 21:29:03 GMT -5
Ontario not being "fresh" in the 2nd half hasn't been the problem. They played Lex even in the 2nd half after being down 24-6 at halftime. They outscored Clear Fork 14-0 in the 2nd half after being down 21-0 at halftime. What's happened in the 1st half when they WERE "fresh" has been the problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rambo McClain on Sept 13, 2016 6:01:39 GMT -5
Who wins? The pick here is Columbian HS
|
|
|
|
Post by brutus036 on Sept 14, 2016 16:05:44 GMT -5
What you are saying is correct 2nd half Warriors have been playing better with adjustments. Hawk has changed so many things since week 1 that the Warriors are playing more guys and less are going both ways. This was not the case week 1 and 2 as some boys never came off the field and we're not fresh this gives The boys a chance in the NOL with teams that have bigger numbers
|
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Sept 14, 2016 18:12:27 GMT -5
Playing fewer kids both ways doesn't mean a team from a smaller school with a smaller roster will have a better chance of beating a team from a larger school with a larger roster. That larger school's 2nd 11, all being equal, will almost always be more talented. Why was "Hawk" playing fewer kids in the first 2 games? Obviously there was a significant difference in abilities of the ones going both ways and others not playing. Since "Hawk" didn't see any of these kids until a few months ago, the longer he has seen them and the more his staff has coached them, he may now have found a few more to play without having too big a drop off in athleticism. With that being said, playing more kids now will help down the road, but not help as much now. Which is also important to a new coach coming into a losing program.
|
|
|
|
Post by footballer on Sept 15, 2016 12:04:05 GMT -5
WF, not sure that one losing season should be categorized as a losing program. Definitely agree with you about the learning curve with a new coach and system though, regardless of the team's past.
|
|
|
|
Post by footballer on Sept 15, 2016 12:07:48 GMT -5
Oh ya, and I think tiffin wins a close one here.
|
|
|
|
Post by bgsustudent19 on Sept 15, 2016 14:49:39 GMT -5
I'll take Columbian 35-21
|
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Sept 15, 2016 18:06:00 GMT -5
WF, not sure that one losing season should be categorized as a losing program. Definitely agree with you about the learning curve with a new coach and system though, regardless of the team's past. Not sure where you see that I said anything about "one" season. Ontario hasn't won a league title in over a decade. Since then their overall record is below .500. That would fit the definition. |
|
|
|
Post by footballer on Sept 15, 2016 18:57:44 GMT -5
I'm thinking that last year was ontarios first losing season in a long time, though. And they made playoffs a few years back. Hardly a "losing program".
|
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Sept 15, 2016 19:24:09 GMT -5
I'm thinking that last year was ontarios first losing season in a long time, though. And they made playoffs a few years back. Hardly a "losing program". "Long time"?? A "program" by definition must cover a significant span of years. IMO the minimum used should be at least 10 years, which is what I looked at. League titles must be won at least every 2 or 3 years to have a "winning" program. IMO, going 6-4 and 5-5 doesn't equate to a "winning" program. 7-3 or better every year is a "winning" program, allowing for a down year once in awhile when a poor athletic class or two comes through a school. In the past 10 years Ontario only had 2 years with better than 6-4 records. One 7-3 and one 8-2. AND as I said earlier, the over all record since the last League Title is under .500. Just making the playoffs doesn't impress me. 5-5 records make the playoffs. Winning a couple of games in the playoffs in a given year, regardless of record, impresses me. Ontario has only won ONE playoff game in the history of the playoffs. Ontario's best teams were before the playoffs began. Ontario used to be a football "school", then something happened 30 some years ago. When Valentine was the head coach, Ontario was on the way to having a "winning" program again. Then he left to be head coach at his alma mater. |
|
|
|
Post by footballer on Sept 15, 2016 20:39:04 GMT -5
I guess my view of a program's success is just different than yours. My point is simply that if a team has a winning record for 5 or so years and then has one losing season, it seems a bit harsh to characterize it as a losing program. Having seen your posts on here for a while, I guess I shouldn't expect you to accept anybody else's input as valid, so I'll leave my point at that.
|
|
|
|
Post by brutus036 on Sept 16, 2016 7:39:39 GMT -5
I'm thinking that last year was ontarios first losing season in a long time, though. And they made playoffs a few years back. Hardly a "losing program". |
|
|
|
Post by brutus036 on Sept 16, 2016 7:48:22 GMT -5
People WF is correct. Ontario is not a football power it has made the Playoffs twice in its history going 1-2. Also the Warriors have had every opportunity to be a powerhouse when they were in the week NCC which Wynford took control of for the longest time. Even when Ontario was beating the likes of Crestline, Ridgedale and Bucyrus to name a few it wasn't good enough for them to get into the playoffs. A winning program can be described as a team that gets 7-10 a year makes a nice run in the playoffs and continues to build on that year after year. Ontario now has a coach that will rebuild this program and hopefully in a year or so they will start a tradition of the above mentioned.
Good Luck To the Warriors tonight as the NOL starts today and all teams still have a shot at the conferences last title
|
|
|
|
Post by footballer on Sept 16, 2016 9:20:03 GMT -5
Not claiming that Ontario is/was a powerhouse. Just saying that they also are not a "losing" program. "average" program may be closer to accurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Sept 16, 2016 16:32:15 GMT -5
I guess my view of a program's success is just different than yours. My point is simply that if a team has a winning record for 5 or so years and then has one losing season, it seems a bit harsh to characterize it as a losing program. Having seen your posts on here for a while, I guess I shouldn't expect you to accept anybody else's input as valid, so I'll leave my point at that. Your views are important, your input is thoughtful, but not up to what I think should be the standard to strive for. First of all, 5 years is NOT a sufficient sampling to determine what a "program" is. Yes by definition, 6-4 is a winning record. However, in my eyes 6-4 is not acceptable. I won't be satisfied unless the following occurs. 9 out of 10 years Ontario has a 7-3 OR better record. They should compete on a yearly basis and win League Titles. They should make the playoffs and win playoff games. I would allow for a losing record once in a while. For example, Wynford, Pleasant and Bellevue having "winning" programs. As does Ontario in boys basketball. Ask "Hawk" and Balogh what is acceptable to them. |
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Sept 16, 2016 16:39:49 GMT -5
Not claiming that Ontario is/was a powerhouse. Just saying that they also are not a "losing" program. "average" program may be closer to accurate. An "average" program is NOT acceptable, no more than a "losing" program. I apologize if what I think has happened in the past AND should be worked for today AND accomplished in the future is offensive to some. |
|
|
|
Post by footballer on Sept 16, 2016 17:03:11 GMT -5
Don't miss my very simple point. I Completely agree that what you describe is what a program should strive for. I wouldn't want any program to strive to be average. I just think that "average program" is a more accurate description of ontario than "losing program". That is all.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsteel on Sept 16, 2016 18:27:11 GMT -5
Ontario-7
TC-7 end of 1
Ontario scored first on a long drive. TC scored on their second possession at end of QT to tie.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsteel on Sept 16, 2016 19:04:53 GMT -5
Ontario-20
TC-7 half
Ontario scored twice and makes one pat.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsteel on Sept 16, 2016 20:02:03 GMT -5
Ontario-27
TC-14 end of 3rd.
Both teams score a TD
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsteel on Sept 16, 2016 20:21:31 GMT -5
Ontario-40
TC-14 2:55 left
Ontario 2 nice drives to score.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsteel on Sept 16, 2016 20:26:24 GMT -5
Ontario-40
TC-14 Final
|
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Sept 16, 2016 21:14:04 GMT -5
Willard has a shot against TC.
It's too bad Trey Jordon and Quan Jackson have only played one year of high school football. They're both quality football players.
By my count, Ontario had 9 players go both ways.
The improvement in their O and D lines appears to be due to going smaller.
|
|
|
|
Post by bgsustudent19 on Sept 17, 2016 9:47:23 GMT -5
Columbian looked great on offense at times, other times the QB was running for his life. The defensive line again could not control the line of scrimmage and that created all sorts of havoc. Ontario is a good football team, but they do not throw the ball well. That rushing attack is pretty balanced though. I don't know, hope Columbian can get a fire lit after dropping to 1-3.
|
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Sept 17, 2016 10:59:34 GMT -5
Ontario 440 yards of total offense, TC 249. TC 162 yards passing, Ontario 105.
TC couldn't run the ball against Ontario, which was preferred, thus they had to throw the ball.
In the past 2 contests Ontario's evolving running game couldn't be stopped, they didn't have to pass. With that being said, Ontario's QB was 12 of 17 in the past 2 games.
|
|
