De La Salle vs Folsom

[mrbig864]

According to these stats DLS had 231 total offense. And Folsom had 206. So what the hell is cash talking about?

As mentioned above...it’s likely DLS 7 sacks of Folsom contributed mightily to these numbers. So, of Folsom’s 28 rushes, it’s probably fair to assume that 7 of them were sacks that netted about -60yards or so. In the NFL, sacks are counted against a team’s TOTAL yards, but NOT against their rushing statistics. In NCAA, I believe sacks ARE considered negative rushing for the QB...likely how DLS calculated them here.

When individual stats are shown, it’s more obvious. I’m pretty sure the younger Ngata brother had 80/90 yards rushing on his own. Bennett’s rushing line would probably look something like 10 rushes for -50 yards.

 

[FBAddict]

As mentioned above...it’s likely DLS 7 sacks of Folsom contributed mightily to these numbers. So, of Folsom’s 28 rushes, it’s probably fair to assume that 7 of them were sacks that netted about -60yards or so. In the NFL, sacks are counted against a team’s TOTAL yards, but NOT against their rushing statistics. In NCAA, I believe sacks ARE considered negative rushing for the QB...likely how DLS calculated them here.

When individual stats are shown, it’s more obvious. I’m pretty sure the younger Ngata brother had 80/90 yards rushing on his own. Bennett’s rushing line would probably look something like 10 rushes for -50 yards.

I think that is the standard way stats are populated on MaxPreps. Otherwise, MaxPreps doesn't have any other way of showing accumulative net yards.

 

[oldram3]

I didn't include return yards (ie; Punt and KO) where obviously Folsom had more...so that would also skew the numbers. These are numbers that O/D control not special teams....imo

 

[14U2ALLNV]

I’m telling ya if these two teams play 100 times. Folsom would be 0-100. DLS has the better defense, way better special Teams, and is just more physical then Folsom. Folsom only had 39 more passing yards then DLS and they passed the ball exactly twice as much. That’s not very good considering Folsom is supposed to be this great passing team vs a team that rarely passes at all. With that being said I’m ready to be done with the whole Folsom and DLS discussion.

 

[Streak One]

There is always a choice. Don't respond!

I think we have more games this week if I read the schedule correctly. And will even have cooler temperatures too

 

[cashisking18]

I agree. time to move on.

Folsom was surprisingly more physical on the lines. They had better athletes. But they lost the turnover battle and killed themselves.

DLS deserves the credit for the win.

On to Jesuit we go!

 

[Humbab]

I agree. time to move on.

Folsom was surprisingly more physical on the lines. They had better athletes. But they lost the turnover battle and killed themselves.

DLS deserves the credit for the win.

On to Jesuit we go!

You do not agree it’s time to move on. Or you would have let it go at that. I didn’t want to say anything because it is time to move on. This is coming from a man that wanted Folsom to win in the worst way. Just like I Don’t think you were at Rocco’s I don’t believe you were at the game. Because I was at that game. And the game I saw dls was way more physical to the tune of 7 sacks and 5 turnovers. And 7 sacks and 5 turnovers counts as physical. The best athlete I saw on the field that night was hands down #18 and #11 with an honorable mention to #14. Folsom did a hell of a job defensively. But when it was 0-0 at half time. Me and my three friend said Folsom is done. They didn’t do as good as I would have hoped. They did do better then I thought they would. I coached high school football from 1986-2014. I know physical when I see it.

 

[cashisking18]

You do not agree it’s time to move on.

Yes, I do. But I will counter other arguments.

And the game I saw dls was way more physical to the tune of 7 sacks and 5 turnovers

2 of those turnovers were unforced. No mater how you spin it, 5 turnovers isn't winning you any games.

The game I saw was Folsom was more physical. Just lost the turnover battle.

Folsom did a hell of a job defensively

I agree with you.

 

[Humbab]

Yes, I do. But I will counter other arguments.


2 of those turnovers were unforced. No mater how you spin it, 5 turnovers isn't winning you any games.

The game I saw was Folsom was more physical. Just lost the turnover battle.


I agree with you.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Im just saying there is absolutely nothing to support it. 7 sack anyway you look at it is physical. Add on 3 forced turnovers and 2 here you go turnovers. I get that your a huge fan. But the facts do not support your opinion in anyway at all. I know you won’t let it go but I have to because I don’t care to argue in favor of dls.

 

[Califfbfan]

It is obvious that CashisKing 18 was not at Rocco's and was not at the game. He needs to put on his G61 tag again. This is a person who ABSOULTELY NO ONE gives any credence to. Just a laughable little man.

 

[cashisking18]

Board- I would just use the ignore feature. It is glorious.

 

[mrbig864]

Every Member : “It’s time to move on and focus on something different”

Cashisking18: “I agree” (Thinking.......unable to contain himself) “But.....Folsom outgained DLS. Folsom was more Physical. If we just hadn’t turned the ball over...blah blah blah”

70 posts by one member in the last 48 hours doesn’t not seem to be MOVING ON...just sayin.

 

[cashisking18]

If you guys want to drag it out, I will be happy to keep the thread alive and keep pointing out my points.

Feel free.........................................

Folsom over Jesuit big tonight.