Gallatin (5-0) @ Wilson Central (4-1)

[runninblind]

Not a good offensive night for the wave ! 3 turnovers one fumble at the goal line and a TD called back for a holding call..QB out in 4th quarter with what looked like an ankle injury . A win is a win no matter how ugly ! Defense was dominate ! 

[GWAVE1]

21 minutes ago, runninblind said:

Not a good offensive night for the wave ! 3 turnovers one fumble at the goal line and a TD called back for a holding call..QB out in 4th quarter with what looked like an ankle injury . A win is a win no matter how ugly ! Defense was dominate ! 

I saw video of that fumble and he sure looked like he crossed the goal before the ball came out but it is what it is.  Definitely left points on the field.  

[MidTennFootball]

27 minutes ago, runninblind said:

Not a good offensive night for the wave ! 3 turnovers one fumble at the goal line and a TD called back for a holding call..QB out in 4th quarter with what looked like an ankle injury . A win is a win no matter how ugly ! Defense was dominate ! 

Over the course of the season, your gonna have games that aren't pretty. One irrefutable proof across all sports: your offense will come and go, but a dominant defense will always show up

[glademom]

4 hours ago, runninblind said:

Not a good offensive night for the wave ! 3 turnovers one fumble at the goal line and a TD called back for a holding call..QB out in 4th quarter with what looked like an ankle injury . A win is a win no matter how ugly ! Defense was dominate ! 

I agree that the Gallatin offense struggled, but the WC offense was no where to be found. I hate to say this but this Gallatin team is very average IMO. Old "G" teams would pound you to death; I really think this team with that RB could be better, but the would have to go back perhaps some type of "I" attack under center...……….they cannot pass GAS.

Some times "old school" ain't bad. they will have good run in the post-season but IMO they could be better; they cannot beat a good team...………..now that is just my opinion

 

Edited September 28, 2019 by glademom

[eers]

4 minutes ago, glademom said:

I agree that the Gallatin offense struggled, but the WC offense was no where to be found. I hate to say this but this Gallatin team is very average IMO. Old "G" teams would pound you to death; I really think this team with that RB could be better, but the would have to go back perhaps some type of "I" attack under center...……….they cannot pass GAS.

Some times "old school" ain't bad. they will have good run in the post-season but IMO they could be better; they cannot beat a good team...………..now that is just my opinion

 

prepare to be slaughtered...

[GWAVE1]

3 hours ago, glademom said:

I agree that the Gallatin offense struggled, but the WC offense was no where to be found. I hate to say this but this Gallatin team is very average IMO. Old "G" teams would pound you to death; I really think this team with that RB could be better, but the would have to go back perhaps some type of "I" attack under center...……….they cannot pass GAS.

Some times "old school" ain't bad. they will have good run in the post-season but IMO they could be better; they cannot beat a good team...………..now that is just my opinion

 

This very average Gallatin team held your team under 60 total yards and only one first down the second half while churning out over 300 yards of offense via pass and run.  If Gallatin is just average then Wilson Central is very very bad.  JMO

[eers]

2 hours ago, GWAVE1 said:

This very average Gallatin team held your team under 60 total yards and only one first down the second half while churning out over 300 yards of offense via pass and run.  If Gallatin is just average then Wilson Central is very very bad.  JMO

Hey... you said it. Lol

[glademom]

1 hour ago, eers said:

Hey... you said it. Lol

That did come out bad; please accept apology. I followed WC closely a few years ago when my nephew played......….so I am just an occasional HS football fan.

I saw very small sample the other. Now, I did see "G" back in the day when they were the real deal. Person I was talking with at game said WC was not very good on "O" vs MJ last week. With that good looking RB ya'll  have and big linemen; "G" looks like a power fb team to me...….now that is simply my opinion only. I just do not like what they do on "O"; I hate to see a good RB get nailed before he gets started. They should have scored 30+ the other night; WC "D" played hard but no help from their "O". Gallatin miscues also aided the WC defense.

Gallatin is a good solid team...……..not great......….Yet!! IMHO. 

[MJGOLDENBEARS]

14 minutes ago, glademom said:

That did come out bad; please accept apology. I followed WC closely a few years ago when my nephew played......….so I am just an occasional HS football fan.

I saw very small sample the other. Now, I did see "G" back in the day when they were the real deal. Person I was talking with at game said WC was not very good on "O" vs MJ last week. With that good looking RB ya'll  have and big linemen; "G" looks like a power fb team to me...….now that is simply my opinion only. I just do not like what they do on "O"; I hate to see a good RB get nailed before he gets started. They should have scored 30+ the other night; WC "D" played hard but no help from their "O". Gallatin miscues also aided the WC defense.

Gallatin is a good solid team...……..not great......….Yet!! IMHO. 

The Beech/Gallatin game will answer all of these questions...

[eers]

2 hours ago, MJGOLDENBEARS said:

The Beech/Gallatin game will answer all of these questions...

Man... that depends which Beech team shows up. For most of the night Friday (aside from a couple missed tackles), they played like “Beech” again. Played with confidence and a little swagger. Still some things to clean up, but for most of the game they handled a much bigger Lebanon team in both sides of the ball. 

Edited September 29, 2019 by eers

[MJGOLDENBEARS]

7 hours ago, eers said:

Man... that depends which Beech team shows up. For most of the night Friday (aside from a couple missed tackles), they played like “Beech” again. Played with confidence and a little swagger. Still some things to clean up, but for most of the game they handled a much bigger Lebanon team in both sides of the ball. 

Seems right looking at the score.... but explain how they let Lebanon’s running back have a 200+ yard night.

[eers]

3 hours ago, MJGOLDENBEARS said:

Seems right looking at the score.... but explain how they let Lebanon’s running back have a 200+ yard night.

There’s your couple broken tackles...