SOC2 Valley (5-1) @ Waverly (3-3)
-
- Varsity
- Posts: 604
- Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:39 pm
Re: SOC2 Valley (5-1) @ Waverly (3-3)
Great post pmow. If anybody wants to talk about holding waverlys offensive tackle (no names/numbers) held all night long. That may have been best officiating crew we saw all night. Hahahaha
Re: SOC2 Valley (5-1) @ Waverly (3-3)
Valley was clearly the better team, I just disagree with the cheap shot on Roback.
Re: SOC2 Valley (5-1) @ Waverly (3-3)
I did not say Waverly was the better team or that they deserved to win. Obviously they weren't, they got beat 23-6.
Waverly had opportunity after opportunity but shot themselves in the foot. The weather and sloppy field neutralized many of aspects of the game, leveling the field for the Tigers that night. They did not take advantage of those opportunities.
Make all the smartelic comments the you want, I stand by what I said.
Waverly had opportunity after opportunity but shot themselves in the foot. The weather and sloppy field neutralized many of aspects of the game, leveling the field for the Tigers that night. They did not take advantage of those opportunities.
Make all the smartelic comments the you want, I stand by what I said.
Re: SOC2 Valley (5-1) @ Waverly (3-3)
tigers2010onhuddle wrote:I did not say Waverly was the better team or that they deserved to win. Obviously they weren't, they got beat 23-6.
Waverly had opportunity after opportunity but shot themselves in the foot. The weather and sloppy field neutralized many of aspects of the game, leveling the field for the Tigers that night. They did not take advantage of those opportunities.
Make all the smartelic comments the you want, I stand by what I said.
I agree with your assesment......mud can level the playing field for anyone..
-
- Waterboy
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:26 pm
Re: SOC2 Valley (5-1) @ Waverly (3-3)
I mean I remember Coleman being on his back alot of the time guess the 6'5 DE couldn't do much against the 6'1 280 tackle...?
Re: SOC2 Valley (5-1) @ Waverly (3-3)
bull rusher wrote:I mean I remember Coleman being on his back alot of the time guess the 6'5 DE couldn't do much against the 6'1 280 tackle...?
or.....he was getting tackled.