Jump to content

Blountstown/Madison final


561_Fan

Recommended Posts


12 minutes ago, ColumbiaHighFan2017class said:

Latrell Williams was clocked at sub 4.4 while here

 

One of coaches timed him

 

Mike Williams I'm almost positive was able to clock a 4.4 but I'm going off second hand info so can't confirm myself 

 

And dallon Washington was probably faster than both of them and would been power 5 receiver if he had better grades

is that michael jackson not williams?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe that Columbia wanted anything to do with that Trenton team. If you did have 3 kids running a 4.4 that just tells me you used your kids poorly. Columbia had one good win that year over Bolles and beat a bunch of decent teams (GHS, Lincoln, Bartram Trail,). We'll never know but it's fun to debate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Football fan said:

15,16,17or 1966?

1966 we won 76-0

 

15 yes

16 maybe (depends which Columbia shows up) 

 

17 we already lost but could have won if we were having a full prep week instead of just being thrown off bus from Lee game to play a game with no practice in between 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Captain Morgan said:

I don't believe that Columbia wanted anything to do with that Trenton team. If you did have 3 kids running a 4.4 that just tells me you used your kids poorly. Columbia had one good win that year over Bolles and beat a bunch of decent teams (GHS, Lincoln, Bartram Trail,). We'll never know but it's fun to debate. 

I respect your opinion but i disagree and feel its other way around 

 

So guess we will have to agree to disagree 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Captain Morgan said:

I don't believe that Columbia wanted anything to do with that Trenton team. If you did have 3 kids running a 4.4 that just tells me you used your kids poorly. Columbia had one good win that year over Bolles and beat a bunch of decent teams (GHS, Lincoln, Bartram Trail,). We'll never know but it's fun to debate. 

Columbia would’ve beaten that Trenton team  they were very limited offensively number 5 really the only guy who could beat u from anywhere on the field.  Good team but the thing is when go up in class ur going to see more diverse offenses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ColumbiaHighFan2017class said:

Well i never said we borrowed the nfl stop watch people for the clocking lol

 

Only that the team clocked them at sub 4.4

 

Either way all 3 were speed demons

Sub 4.4 is basically 4.3....2015 Columbia basically had 3 of #10s Anthony Schwartz who took that end around for AHP today.....That is what authentic 4.3 speed looks like Columbia....Just saying.

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.

Loading...



  • Posts

    • Agree with what you think mostly, except I'd use a 4 year average and only move the top team in each region up and bottom team in each region down based on that average. I think 4 years gives a better overall picture of a program.
    • What this means is we will soon see one of two scenarios play out in the coming years: 1) A subset of students will eventually not be able to attend a "good" school because there is simply no space for them due to there being a scarcity of "good" schools 2) Assuming compulsory attendance remains a thing, we will see longtime elite private high schools nosedive in performance. The schools can not perform magic: unmotivated, unprepared often defiant students will NOT be good students no matter what the school does/doesn't do. And oftentimes these sorts of students do have parents who will do the absolute bare minimum needed to get the kid into a private school through the new rules. Anyone who genuinely believes that the schools with higher test scores automatically do a better job of teaching the kids than schools with lower scores is an imbecile. 
    • Here’s a scenario that will cook your noodle. There’s an 11th grader at a D rated public school. Lives in a bad neighborhood with a single mom and a bunch of siblings. Dirt poor, and struggle just to eat and keep the lights on. He can’t get a part time job to help out because he has to watch his little siblings while his mom works.    The school he plays for has poor attendance at the football games, and is always bad. He is a super star for them and tons of new bandwagon fans start to attend the games because they are good and he is the reason. School is making tons of new money.    Season is over. Back to reality for him. School year is over. Summer hits. Some “runner” on behalf of the rich local private school “offers” his mom, him, and all his siblings a way out of poverty. New place to live, food on the table, and an opportunity to get a quality education and maximize exposure for all the top colleges to see. A once in a lifetime opportunity to get his family out of poverty. What say you? Does he say no and continue to barely survive, or does he take the deal? 
    • To make it short and sweet. I am against breaking the rules. If there is a rule that seems outdated or unfair then it should be amended/changed/repealed with majority rule 
    • I am a huge proponent of innocent until proven guilty, and due process with credible evidence. I support a credible investigation, and not some witch hunt by disgruntled folks both near and far from the program. Let’s hope they can get to the bottom of this quickly 
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...