At least ya got the last bit right....lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Counts
Printable View
At least ya got the last bit right....lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Counts
UVA-Wise vs. Just PV I agree with you, but that wasn't what this started as. It started as PV/Appy combined.Quote:
Originally Posted by Counts
98 PV was better than 97 PV anyway, and I believe most feel like that was the best team PV had. Seems like I remember Phil saying that in the paper before when talking about all his state title teams in the last year or so.
Ain't much difference between 97 and 98 PV.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1inStripes
Not much, but most of the top players on the 97 team were juniors. 98 was just a year older and stronger physically.
The starters were basically the same tho...so I basically consider them the same. The same can more or less be said for 94-95 too. The 89-90 repeat was odd tho in that 14 starters were replaced after the 89 season...there were a few good players on that 89 team that hardly ever saw the field because of the depth of the team.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1inStripes
Still think it would not even be a close game. (Men playing boys)Quote:
Originally Posted by 1inStripes
As for PV97/98 vs PV90 - I STILL think 90PV was better (Not 10 out of 10 better but at least 7 out of 10) .......
(1)90 PV was VERY balanced 98 PV was the Jones show on Offence
(2) 90PV was able to 2 Platoon with no dropoff 98 PV had several key players going both ways and that would start to show in the 2nd half
(3)90 PV had what could possably have been the best short yardage Package I have ever seen (that would include Appys and GCs 3 yards and a cloud of dust years) 98 PV had Jones who was not a physical runner
(4) 90 PV was MUCH DEEPER than 98 PV
I haven't commented in awhile...not had the time
Gotta laugh at the idea of this. I will definitely agree that there was some talent in that combination, how many of those guys got a chance or look from a college? Now I'm not saying that there wasn't good athletes, but for the general part, a college team has more. Now if you wanna take 20-24 guys and say thats your roster, then sure, maybe that combined time would win. Problem is they don't have a 24 man roster, they have 50-60? And those low end college players are still or were still another high schools 'better player'. Now could they play with them? Probably. And with the wonderful world of turnovers or other factors, who knows but all things being equal, they probably get ran down and it is similar time matchup to watching say Pound play Gate City or Powell Valley some years. They can battle for a half, or longer, but numbers tend to win out in time.
Out of all those guys who were on that team(s), a few did play college ball and/or a bit more. Thats is understandable but I think we tend to over-inflate some who were 'good' high school players and make them more than they were. They looked great due to being a talent against a lot lesser talents.
It's the same idea of 'stud' prospect in baseball or basketball. Sometimes those guys who dominate the level below, go up that one more step and look very mediocre or worse.