It is a good thing that breaking hearts is not a crime. Otherwise, I might have had to retain the services of a very good to great legal representative. Clarence Darrow, Johnnie Cochran, and F. Lee Bailey are no longer with us, but I would need a legal mind of that caliber for sure.
You know something Dan, for all of the education and lessons that I have provided you over the years, you should be thanking me! It has been a honor and privilege for you to be able to speak with me during this time, and I suppose that that big ego of yours and blue and gold Buccaneer pride won't let you admit what we both know is true. No woman has ever committed a foul with me, but I have been known to have been penalized for non-contact with many ladies after they have had the greatest night of their lives, and they realize that once you go black and white, you never go solid shirt again!
Will start by saying I truly respect Coach Beek's opinion, but I have to disagree that our Kowboys should have won that game EASY. Lakeland is an extremely talented team that in my opinion should be favored in a couple of weeks vs Venice. They do need better discipline as a team and if anything that could be their downfall. If Coach meant we could have won or should have won that game and outplayed Lakeland, I would agree with that assessment. The other disagreement I would have is his questioning the play calling as opposed to the execution. The example he gives on our opening drive of the 3rd quarter where another TD would have definitely put the foot on Lakeland's neck when down on about the 15 yard line was not a bad play call. Yes, we were pretty successful moving the ball on the ground on that drive to get to that second and 1 or 2. Going for the jugular thru the air on that second down knowing if it failed you still have 2 more DOWNS to pick up a first on the ground in my humble opinion was a good call. What possessed our QB to not just throw it away when the primary target was covered rather than lofting a lazy pass into the middle of the end zone where the only player in the area was a defender was a bad decision on his part, not a bad play call. Not taking anything away from Lakeland's all world secondary, but all 3 of their INT's were on similar bad decisions by our QB rather than great defensive prowess. As I stated in the beginning, we ran the ball well this game opposed to the first game but I think that was due to us mixing it up with a good amount of passing. The double reverse at the end I could see someone questiioning as that was asking alot in a pressure situation to execute. Since stats for Osceola have not be posted for this game I can only give you an opinion that I believe we probably had roughly 125-150 yards on the ground and about the same thru the air (good balance). So to say our success was the ground game is inaccurate. Lakeland has posted their stats and these are their numbers: 38 yards passing and 157 rushing for a total of 195 with 65 or so coming on 1 play on the ground. These numbers as opposed to their usual offensive output against all 11 of their other opponents reflects the sentiment of who should have won.
$$ for what cribboi? I like my side of truth & reality opposed to your life of excuses & ignorance. Pats are underdogs by my call. I wouldn’t put a dime on it. BUT if they upset the Rockets, u man enough to come on here without your 1001 excuses???? I doubt it……..