Folsom goes down!!!

[Cal 14]

While I've had MT in my NorCal top 10 for a while now (#3 in the SJS, behind Folsom and Oak Ridge), I still felt there was a gap between the Bulldogs and the rest of the section. This is a significant win, but I'm not 100% shocked.

Next week's game will be very good.

 

[larry legend33]

Larry,
It was quite a game! He’s getting better each week. I’m a bit perplexed he doesn’t have any offers to date, however he didn’t play much at the QB position last season, so no real film on him until this season. He has a lot of interest from programs, I imagine this coming off season will be busy for him with regards to recruitment. In fact we have a lot of players returning next season....our defensive front seven are all juniors!

This summer will be big. His size puts him in an elite class and I wouldn’t be surprised if he ends up 6”4+. So eye test is no brainer. I know he’s a mtn west/big sky qb today. He could be a pac12 one though if he keeps progressing. Real tough kid too.

Yeah you guys will be good next year as well.
Neighbors back has been huge. He’s an animal. Good luck next week. It will be a real cold night. Can’t wait.

 

[observer22]

Lets give MT credit..they beat San Ramon Valley 48-8 earlier this year and that's a #4 seed in NCS. Only DLS played SRV that well. Their line is huge and their athletes are next level talents. Need some work at the QB position though for the games they need to pass

Some saw that game as a sign the NCS may be down this year, but I took it as a sign that MT might just be very, very good this year. SRV is a good program and they usually hold their own in games like that. Aside from that one hiccup vs Consumnes Oaks, the Mustangs have had a stellar season. Next week’s matchup with OR should be a good one.

 

[FootballJunkie101]

Junkie,plz explain....you guys know much more than me,if the Trojans defeat MT and the same can be said for MT as well..either team depending who wins would play a NorCal game correct and upon winning that NorCal game wouldn’t they automatically play Central?I don’t understand the real importance of the Rocklin loss by OR other than they simply lost to the Thunder!If the Trojans or MT win out they play Central...that’s my little knowledge of the system....plz help me understand this Rocklin loss and its importance...i’m confused here buddy!Larry can chime in as well,plz!

Hey Champ, sorry I'm so late getting back to you on this. I was out shopping on this great and wet Saturday afternoon. Seems to me you answered your own question. As a few posters have mentioned a Wilcox loss in the CCS would most likely eliminate MT and OR from playing Central in the NorCal Regional game. That situation would send a one loss CCS team either VC or Serra to the NorCal Regional against Central. Unfortunately as it may be, the Rocklin loss is haunting the Trojans and most likely will be the reason they don't play Central in the NorCal Regional's. Even if they defeat MT. Hope that answers your question Champ. MT could make a case or ruckus if they were to blow the Trojans out in next weeks game. That said, If ya'll get past the Buffalo's where would you guys go next? Basically, do you guys have a shot at playing a SoCal team? Once again, congrats on another stellar season of great football. Due to the fact you guys have been such a solid program over the years it's hard to bet against them lil strawchewers. Wishing you guys good luck moving forward. The Junkie

 

[bulldogmgc]

Not surprised at all! MT has a running game using a rolling start like DLS that is very hard to stop. Down 14-7 at halftime with the 7 points coming from a pick 6, MT’s running game just wore down St. Mary’s scoring 3 unanswered TD’s before beating St. Mary’s 28-21. I knew it would be a tough task for Folsom’s defense considering they couldn’t really stop Edison almost losing that game. Congratulations MT! Good luck vs Oak Ridge!

 

[championcif75]

Hey Champ, sorry I'm so late getting back to you on this. I was out shopping on this great and wet Saturday afternoon. Seems to me you answered your own question. As a few posters have mentioned a Wilcox loss in the CCS would most likely eliminate MT and OR from playing Central in the NorCal Regional game. That situation would send a one loss CCS team either VC or Serra to the NorCal Regional against Central. Unfortunately as it may be, the Rocklin loss is haunting the Trojans and most likely will be the reason they don't play Central in the NorCal Regional's. Even if they defeat MT. Hope that answers your question Champ. MT could make a case or ruckus if they were to blow the Trojans out in next weeks game. That said, If ya'll get past the Buffalo's where would you guys go next? Basically, do you guys have a shot at playing a SoCal team? Once again, congrats on another stellar season of great football. Due to the fact you guys have been such a solid program over the years it's hard to bet against them lil strawchewers. Wishing you guys good luck moving forward. The Junkie

Thanks buddy no worries,I guess I did pretty much answer my own question upon digging into other sections like CCS,which I very rarely do...thx for the clarity.As for us I really don’t know where we would be headed if we are fortunate enough to come away with a W vs a very good Manteca.Last yr we lost to Cap Christian in the D3 Championship 25-22 and CC went down and played Wilcox and lost!My question is this now you guys know better than me,if CC went down to Wilcox last yr after beating us in D3 how is it Wilcox this yr is playing Serra today in a D1 I believe,is Wilcox low enrollment so last yr they played down and this yr they are that good that they’re in D1...would you happen to know?Until today I thought that same scenario would play out if we win it would be a Wilcox but I find them playing Serra,so buddy I haven’t a clue as to who Placer would play or from what section should they win,your guess and everyone else’s is better than mine,heck we may very well be in the same predicament as OR is in....with an 11-1 Rancho Cotati in the NCS and an 11-1 Sutter in the North,I really don’t know.What I do know is we gotta get by Manteca first,lol.Thanks again for clarifying!

 

[forgotemail]

When was the last time Folsom lost to a Sacramento area team?

they lost to sac high couple years ago

 

[FootballJunkie101]

Thanks buddy no worries,I guess I did pretty much answer my own question upon digging into other sections like CCS,which I very rarely do...thx for the clarity.As for us I really don’t know where we would be headed if we are fortunate enough to come away with a W vs a very good Manteca.Last yr we lost to Cap Christian in the D3 Championship 25-22 and CC went down and played Wilcox and lost!My question is this now you guys know better than me,if CC went down to Wilcox last yr after beating us in D3 how is it Wilcox this yr is playing Serra today in a D1 I believe,is Wilcox low enrollment so last yr they played down and this yr they are that good that they’re in D1...would you happen to know?Until today I thought that same scenario would play out if we win it would be a Wilcox but I find them playing Serra,so buddy I haven’t a clue as to who Placer would play or from what section should they win,your guess and everyone else’s is better than mine,lol.Thanks again for clarifying!

I'll defer that question regarding Wilcox to one of the CCS guys. I believe either Cal14, Santa Ball or NorCalSportsFan have knowledge on this. I'm stomped just like you on Wilcox's move in divisions.

 

[FBAddict]

I'll defer that question regarding Wilcox to one of the CCS guys. I believe either Cal14, Santa Ball or NorCalSportsFan have knowledge on this. I'm stomped just like you on Wilcox's move in divisions.

CCS had a complete restructure of it's playoff divisions this year. Last year, all A class teams were relegated to D1-D3. Wilcox was in D1 last year while Serra & VC were in D2 because seeding was placed according enrollment. However, Wilcox was seeded lower than VC and SF in regionals according the equity system. This year, CCS moved all five divisions to the equity system of seeding with no regard to enrollment. This system seeded the top 8 teams in CCS in D1 and so on. Wilcox is near the strength as last year. But this year, Wilcox was placed together with VC, Serra, Menlo-Atherton & SF in D1.

 

[FootballJunkie101]

CCS had a complete restructure of it's playoff divisions this year. Last year, all A class teams were relegated to D1-D3. Wilcox was in D1 last year while Serra & VC were in D2 because seeding was placed according enrollment. However, Wilcox was seeded lower than VC and SF in regionals according the equity system. This year, CCS moved all five divisions to the equity system of seeding with no regard to enrollment. This system seeded the top 8 teams in CCS in D1 and so on. Wilcox is near the strength as last year. But this year, Wilcox was placed together with VC, Serra, Menlo-Atherton & SF in D1.

Thank you for the clarification. It seems every year something changes in these sections. Hard to keep up with.

 

[ThunderRam]

The loss to Rocklin most likely enables the CCS winner with only 1 loss to play Central.

If OR beats MT, then that will likely be the case. However, if OR was the team to beat Folsom in the playoffs then I think they could have been awarded the bid even with 2 losses. But they don’t have that W on their resume.

Now MT controls it’s own destiny in that regard. They beat OR next week, they should be in.

 

[FootballJunkie101]

If OR beats MT, then that will likely be the case. However, if OR was the team to beat Folsom in the playoffs then I think they could have been awarded the bid even with 2 losses. But they don’t have that W on their resume.

Now MT controls it’s own destiny in that regard. They beat OR next week, they should be in.

Hey TR, is there something written in stone that would give MT the nod to face Central over the CCS champion? I'm just curious to why MT would have rank over the CCS champion. Thank you, The Junkie

 

[observer22]

Hey TR, is there something written in stone that would give MT the nod to face Central over the CCS champion? I'm just curious to why MT would have rank over the CCS champion. Thank you, The Junkie

They’d have the better win, but the CCS champ will have strength of schedule. One more game to be played before those arguments can be weighed, but whether it’s MT, Serra, OR or VC, it’ll be a solid team.

 

[ThunderRam]

Hey TR, is there something written in stone that would give MT the nod to face Central over the CCS champion? I'm just curious to why MT would have rank over the CCS champion. Thank you, The Junkie

Why would you believe I thought anything was written in stone? I’m not party to the committee.

I’m just going on the belief that MT’s 12-point win over Folsom should get them in. As @observer22 brought up, it’s by far the best win on any NorCal team’s resume (not named DLS).

All three teams have a loss. Losses are fairly comparable, with exception of VC losing to Serra which is by far the best loss (which they will have avenged should they win).

But I hear year after year that if an NCS team happens to beat DLS in the postseason, that should give them the nod since no one has beaten them since the Civil War era.

Well, Folsom surely isn’t DLS but they’ve been the next best thing for the better part of the past decade. Prior to MT beating them, they had reached 9 consecutive D1 Section Finals and also reached or won numerous NorCal Regional and State Bowl games. Beyond DLS, not many NorCal teams - regardless of section - have been beating them.

So to remain consistent, I don’t see why MT shouldn’t get in at 12-1 with a 12 point win over the clear cut #2 NorCal program this decade (and who had been #2 this season going into Friday night’s game).

Should Oak Ridge beat MT, then the CCS champ would be the clear choice over OR.

That’s just how I see it anyway.

 

[larry legend33]

Agree TR. MT beats Folsom and OR on consecutive weeks they should get nod at 12-1. It’s never that straight forward so what if OR rolls? I guess sac town sits on sidelines..

 

[observer22]

So if Serra beats VC and Pitt slays Goliath and somehow beats DLS, and MT beats OR, all 3 would have 1 loss. Pitt would then have the biggest win (by far), but Serra beat them head to head? That would be a nightmare for the committee.

 

[concrete17]

So if Serra beats VC and Pitt slays Goliath and somehow beats DLS, and MT beats OR, all 3 would have 1 loss. Pitt would then have the biggest win (by far), but Serra beat them head to head? That would be a nightmare for the committee.

......or a heads up to purchase earthquake insurance....

 

[FootballJunkie101]

Why would you believe I thought anything was written in stone? I’m not party to the committee.

I was just asking a question in which you may have taken the wrong way. Just thought you had more knowledge on the CIF rules that's why I posed the question to you. My bad.

 

[ThunderRam]

I was just asking a question in which you may have taken the wrong way. Just thought you had more knowledge on the CIF rules that's why I posed the question to you. My bad.

Sorry, I thought you were giving me Junkie sarcasm because you took my original post as if I thought I was stating facts. Nope, just an opinion.

There’s no CIF rules. Just complete subjective opinion by the committee. They’ll evaluate SOS, best wins and losses, etc. But in the end, they’ll select who they believe is the best team whether the numbers support it or not.

 

[ThunderRam]

So if Serra beats VC and Pitt slays Goliath and somehow beats DLS, and MT beats OR, all 3 would have 1 loss. Pitt would then have the biggest win (by far), but Serra beat them head to head? That would be a nightmare for the committee.

That would be a conundrum. In that scenario, I think Serra gets in.

Pitt would have the best win, followed by MT.

BUT, since Pitt lost to Serra by 37, they’re done. If it had been a close loss to Serra, a win over DLS might overcome the head2head result. But that ship has sailed unless Pitt somehow puts an epic ‘Ohio State 59-0 over Wisconsin’ beat down on DLS which we know could never happen.

So Serra would own a 37 point W over a team that beat DLS. Which would then trump MT’s win over NorCal #2 Folsom.

That’s how I’d look at it if I was on the committee.

But if Pitt doesn’t beat DLS, then Serra’s win over Pirates and VC aren’t enough to overcome MT over Folsom and OR IMO.

 

[Cal 14]

The committee would probably look at the two main ranking services. Both Calpreps and Cal-Hi have Serra several spots above both OR and MT. In fact, VC is also ranked above either SJS team. There may have to be a blowout in the SJS D-I game in order to make a significant change.

We'll see how far Folsom falls and MT moves up on Cal-Hi today or tomorrow. Tennis also has a weird thing where he likes to move teams up in anticipation of big games, rather than waiting for actual results of them, so Oak Ridge could get a bump, too.

 

[FBAddict]

Tennis also has a weird thing where he likes to move teams up in anticipation of big games, rather than waiting for actual results of them, so Oak Ridge could get a bump, too.

Very interesting practice for sure. Tennis admits doing this action and justifies it by saying he doesn't want the higher ranked team penalized too much if they lose to a much lower ranked team. That's his ranking system and, for the most part, he conducts a very good ranking list.

 

[FBAddict]

Very interesting practice for sure. Tennis admits doing this action and justifies it by saying he doesn't want the higher ranked team penalized too much if they lose to a much lower ranked team. That's his ranking system and, for the most part, he conducts a very good ranking list.

Tennis did bring MT up into the top 50 list last week but I'll bet Mark had no concern that MT would beat Folsom. By all rights, Folsom should fall off the top 50 list according the the CalHi system. But we will, no doubt, see MT in the top 25 (top 6 in NorCal) so Folsom can stay high too. OR was already at #30 or #7 in NorCal.

 

[FootballJunkie101]

Sorry, I thought you were giving me Junkie sarcasm because you took my original post as if I thought I was stating facts. Nope, just an opinion.

There’s no CIF rules. Just complete subjective opinion by the committee. They’ll evaluate SOS, best wins and losses, etc. But in the end, they’ll select who they believe is the best team whether the numbers support it or not.

Right on

 

[ThunderRam]

The committee would probably look at the two main ranking services. Both Calpreps and Cal-Hi have Serra several spots above both OR and MT. In fact, VC is also ranked above either SJS team. There may have to be a blowout in the SJS D-I game in order to make a significant change.

We'll see how far Folsom falls and MT moves up on Cal-Hi today or tomorrow. Tennis also has a weird thing where he likes to move teams up in anticipation of big games, rather than waiting for actual results of them, so Oak Ridge could get a bump, too.

It'll be interesting to see where they all are ranked before and after.

I really won't have an issue with whomever is selected. An argument can be made for either section champ.

While I already said that MT's win over Folsom is the best on anyone's resume, I do believe it's quite possible that Serra is best of the remaining teams. We'll see how the games play out.

 

[colhenrylives]

That would be a conundrum. In that scenario, I think Serra gets in.

Pitt would have the best win, followed by MT.

BUT, since Pitt lost to Serra by 37, they’re done. If it had been a close loss to Serra, a win over DLS might overcome the head2head result. But that ship has sailed unless Pitt somehow puts an epic ‘Ohio State 59-0 over Wisconsin’ beat down on DLS which we know could never happen.

So Serra would own a 37 point W over a team that beat DLS. Which would then trump MT’s win over NorCal #2 Folsom.

That’s how I’d look at it if I was on the committee.

But if Pitt doesn’t beat DLS, then Serra’s win over Pirates and VC aren’t enough to overcome MT over Folsom and OR IMO.

There's also the overall SOS to consider.

 

[forgotemail]

Folsom would struggle more in the delta than they do in sfl. I said it years ago and I believe it it’s just different athletes in that area. Styles make fights

 

[FootballJunkie101]

Folsom would struggle more in the delta than they do in sfl. I said it years ago and I believe it it’s just different athletes in that area. Styles make fights

I totally agree with this. Back in the day, I know from (2008-2011), Folsom had more problems with Pleasant Grove and MT for the simple fact that they fielded just as many athletes as Folsom. Those two teams went toe to toe with Folsom every year. That's another reason why the MT upset isn't that impressive to me. These teams have always used ball control offense and a bend but don't break style of defense to upset the Bulldogs. This philosophy worked because these two teams also gave Folsom some athletic match up problems as well. Folsom was usually held 2 to 3 TD's under their average when facing these programs. And to go on record now, I don't believe OR is going to beat MT this week. "Athletes matters".

 

[FootballJunkie101]

There may have to be a blowout in the SJS D-I game in order to make a significant change.

I totally agree with you and this is exactly what I said in a prior post here. I basically believe MT is going to have to put a big time whoop'n on the Trojans to get the nod over the CCS big two. Especially if the ranking system isn't in their favor going into this weeks games. I'll be somewhat shocked if MT gets in with a one or even two score victory over the Trojans. I also see style of play, fan support and marquee match up being a factor as well.

Hey Champ, sorry I'm so late getting back to you on this. I was out shopping on this great and wet Saturday afternoon. Seems to me you answered your own question. As a few posters have mentioned a Wilcox loss in the CCS would most likely eliminate MT and OR from playing Central in the NorCal Regional game. That situation would send a one loss CCS team either VC or Serra to the NorCal Regional against Central. Unfortunately as it may be, the Rocklin loss is haunting the Trojans and most likely will be the reason they don't play Central in the NorCal Regional's. Even if they defeat MT. Hope that answers your question Champ. MT could make a case or ruckus if they were to blow the Trojans out in next weeks game. That said, If ya'll get past the Buffalo's where would you guys go next? Basically, do you guys have a shot at playing a SoCal team? Once again, congrats on another stellar season of great football. Due to the fact you guys have been such a solid program over the years it's hard to bet against them lil strawchewers. Wishing you guys good luck moving forward. The Junkie

We shall see.

 

[Streak One]

Folsom would struggle more in the delta than they do in sfl. I said it years ago and I believe it it’s just different athletes in that area. Styles make fights

Why do you think that?

 

[ThunderRam]

Why do you think that?

Because he’s naive and hasn’t really look into it.

The two opponents Folsom lost this season beat them in the trenches and with physical play, not because they had as many or more athletes.

It's just silly talk.

MT had the ball for 36 minutes of the 48 minute game yet was still in danger of losing. The only reason they were able to win was because they kept Folsom's offensive athletes off the field -- not because they matched up better with them athletically. Folsom scored 23 points in only 12 minutes of possession time.

MT was able to control the clock because of their veer style offense and because their offensive line (and their RB with his fight for extra yards) was able to impose it's will on Folsom's defensive line to continually win the short yardage battles.

Over the past decade, the only opponents Folsom has typically struggled to beat are opponents that are as or more physical that they are. Last I checked, the SFL is one of the more physical and fundamentally sound leagues in NorCal. It's arguably also the #1 or #2 league, along with the WCAL or possibly BVAL.

But let's place Folsom in a lesser league so they'll somehow struggle? Please.

Folsom was in the Delta River when they began their upward ascent in 2009. Prior to all the high profile transfers rolling in due to the sustained winning. And they still dominated. The next best team in the Delta River (Oak Ridge) transferred over with them. But somehow he thinks they'd be challenged more in a league w/o Oak Ridge?

Truth is, Folsom would have struggled in the SFL circa 2009 through 2013 more than they did in the DRL because of the physicality (remember how Del Oro beat them in 2009). But Folsom really started to improve in that area once they got thumped by DLS in 2012 and 2013 and also started seeing better transfers roll in, none more notable than Jonah Williams.

Once they came over to the SFL, they were no longer a physical deficient team. And then they really started seeing blue chip athletes come into the program like never before, which is why they've dominated pretty much every one except DLS.

 

[FBAddict]

The committee would probably look at the two main ranking services. Both Calpreps and Cal-Hi have Serra several spots above both OR and MT. In fact, VC is also ranked above either SJS team. There may have to be a blowout in the SJS D-I game in order to make a significant change.

We'll see how far Folsom falls and MT moves up on Cal-Hi today or tomorrow. Tennis also has a weird thing where he likes to move teams up in anticipation of big games, rather than waiting for actual results of them, so Oak Ridge could get a bump, too.

Well, the CalHi rankings are out... And just as predicted, Tennis had to perform acrobatics on his system to account for the MT win over Folsom. MT moved from #50 (#14 in NorCal) to #18 (#4 in NorCal) and Folsom is placed directly under at #19 (#5 in NorCal). Also Serra and VC move up 3 spots to #15 & #16 (#2 & #3 NorCal). OR was moved up 5 spots to #25 (#6 NorCal).

Tennis is also weighing in on the NorCal regional DI-AA bowl by suggesting Central of Fresno will be paired with the Serra/VC winner. He clarifies, "If Central were to be upset by Buchanan, that would probably change."

 

[ThunderRam]

Well, the CalHi rankings are out... And just as predicted, Tennis had to perform acrobatics on his system to account for the MT win over Folsom. MT moved from #50 (#14 in NorCal) to #18 (#4 in NorCal) and Folsom is placed directly under at #19 (#5 in NorCal). Also Serra and VC move up 3 spots to #15 & #16 (#2 & #3 NorCal). OR was moved up 5 spots to #25 (#6 NorCal).

Tennis is also weighing in on the NorCal regional DI-AA bowl by suggesting Central of Fresno will be paired with the Serra/VC winner. He clarifies, "If Central were to be upset by Buchanan, that would probably change."

I don't have a problem with his prediction. The CCS winner surely is worthy of selection. However I don't ever want to hear anyone (especially Tennis) ever claim that if an NCS team somehow beats DLS in the playoffs that they should get the nod due to the accomplishment.

It would be hypocritical considering what MT just did in dethroning a Folsom team that had reached the D1 Final 9 consecutive times and is now 135-8 (sans DLS loses) the past 10 seasons while participating in NorCal's largest and arguably deepest section.

FWIW, I've never subscribed to a team benefiting from prior history. It should always be based upon current season's accomplishments only. What happened the previous season or even further back in time has zero bearing on current times. Teams and rosters are different. But I've read countless people use that argument over the years. And I completely disagree with it.

So with that all said, I'd have no issue with the CCS winner earning the bid based upon this season's accomplishments. I actually believe Serra is the best remaining team.

 

[ThunderRam]

Folsom would struggle more in the delta than they do in sfl. I said it years ago and I believe it it’s just different athletes in that area. Styles make fights

Statistical and historical evidence doesn't at all support your belief, as demonstrated below:

Folsom versus the current Delta lineup since 2010 = 28-1 with an average score of 48-19. Margin of difference: 29. Losses within 14 points: 5.
**Haven't faced Davis or Consumnes Oaks**

Folsom versus the current SFL lineup since 2010 = 36-2 with an average score 44-15. Margin of difference: 29. Losses within 14 points: 7.

Looks fairly even, doesn't it?

Except Folsom hasn't played Davis or CO in the past 10 years, which likely would have skewed the numbers even more in the SFL's favor had they played.

Also, Folsom moved to the SFL in 2014. Prior to that season, they weren't drawing blue chips the likes of Jonah Williams, Ngata brothers, Bennett, Badger, etc. that took the program to another level. So the SFL has been competing with Folsom, in terms of league games, at it's absolute highest point.

Circling back to the point, your belief isn't supported by the actual results of head-to-head match ups during Folsom's 10 season reign.

Once again, it's not about the athletes. It's more about the physical play and fundamentals. Match or beat Folsom on the lines and play assignment football and tackle. The teams that are able do that at a high level are the ones that compete well or beat Folsom.

Bellarmine 2015 didn't match Folsom's athletes. Neither did DLS in 2018. Or MT in 2019. But all three matched or outmatched Folsom on the lines and were able to play assignment football and tackle (Bellarmine & DLS more so than MT). Hence they all won close games.

Oak Ridge also did most of the above this season, but just came up short.

 

[FootballJunkie101]

Because he’s naive and hasn’t really look into it. It's just silly talk.

I usually don't jump into other peoples beef or arguments but this cake you prepared is half baked. As "silly" as you may think it is "Athletes Matters" and so does good coaching. Case in point, everyone on this board expressed how athletically superior St. Aquinas was when they played DLS. Adding, if DLS would have match-up "athletically" they would have won the game.

So your stance on "Athletes Matters" basically makes this whole board "silly". And trust me, I get your argument in regards to good phyiscal trench play but without good athletes that trench play won't be as lethal on both sides of the ball. For example, would you put Troy Aikman at TB instead of Emmett Smith? No you wouldn't because 'Athletes Matters" in this game. I'll tell you what would be "silly". Playing Emmett Smith's back-up in the super bowl for kicks & giggles. Now that's what you call "silly".

And btw, physical play is a combination of athleticism and mind-set. If Johnny is an athletically and physical 6'2/245 lineman in the trenches and his opponent Abraham is the same measurements and just as athletic and physical who wins this battle if they're both well coached? You got it, whichever player is athletically superior between the RB and the LB if it's a run play. It comes down to the next best athlete on the two teams if both teams are equally coached up. From what you described it sounds as if the MT running back was giving Folsom LB's the business. That tells me the MT RB was more athletically superior than the Folsom LB(s). Just going off your words in this post.

Now let me give you some first hand facts regarding the teams in the SFL & DRL. Had a couple of family members that played in the PG program when they were a force to be dealt with (2007-2011). First of all, prior to 2012 PG was stacked with South Sac athletes as well as some very solid Elk Grove players. Did you know the first year (2007) PG played with seniors they beat Folsom 24-20 and they beat them the next year (2008) 35-33?

Grant it there was some great coaching going on at PG but they also had some very talented athletes to boot. Starting with Armond Armstead (Arik Armstead big brother), Deonte Willams (Made the Raiders practice squad), Andrew Watkins (First team Delta lock down corner), Darron Powe-Reed (simply put, a Beast), Alonte Ayers (very athletic safety), and Russell Vonschoech (played like Troy Palomalu).

Mind you the best athlete at the school from South Sac Xavier Thames opted not to play after his freshman year to focus on basketball. And yes, PG had decent guys in the trenches but the athletes and the coaching staff is what made that program go. Without those athletes PG would have been just another school in Elk Grove. Good coaching can only go so far in this game without athletic talent. Don't get it twisted!

You said, (1) Folsom was in the Delta River when they began their upward ascent in 2009 (Somewhat true). They actually began their upward climb in 2007 with their difficult to defend spread formation. As years past their spread formation became problematic for not just the Delta teams but all NorCal teams excluding DLS.

(2) Prior to all the high profile transfers rolling in due to the sustained winning (This is pretty accurate). However, Folsom didn't fully dominate the DRL until after 2011. That was the last year of PG's Arik Armstead and Mark Jenkins services. And that was the last year PG beat Folsom 48-34 with superior South Sac and Elk Grove talent.

(3) And they still dominated (This is not true). Folsom didn't dominate the DRL until after 2012. Prior to that year the two years MT was in the DRL they lost to Folsom in 2008 and beat them in 2009. PG beat Folsom in 2007, 2008 and 2011. So the correct thing to say was Folsom owned the DRL in 2010 & 2012.

(4) The next best team in the Delta River (Oak Ridge) transferred over with them (False and True). Remember what I said about PG post 2011. OR arrived in the DRL in season 2010. They were owned or better yet boatraced by PG in 2010 & 2011. The games wasn't even close, 49-3 and 49-14. And OR beat your SFL Rocklin boys both those years.

(5) But somehow he thinks they'd be challenged more in a league w/o Oak Ridge? ("forgotemail" is correct). Because during the time PG was DOMINATE the only SFL team OR could beat was Rocklin. And PG would have owned the SFL from 2009-2011. And btw, OR has also owned the SFL powers DO, GB and Rocklin in it's first four years as a member of the SFL. They beat all three teams in 2015, 2016 and 2017. So most of the SFL physicality notoriety is coming from a OR team that was dominated by PG in their first two years in the DRL. You can't square that up.

(6) Truth is, Folsom would have struggled in the SFL circa 2009 through 2013 more than they did in the DRL because of the physicality (remember how Del Oro beat them in 2009) (This is totally hogwash). And here's why. Folsom played two DRL teams and two SFL teams in 2009. Folsom beat PG in OT 27-26 and they beat GB 42-28. Folsom lost to MT 22-21 and lost to DO 43-42. If you consider a team giving up 42 pts or 7 scores as being physically incline then you must have a passion for powder puff football. I tell ya, what physicality to some is just "silly" to others. (Remember PG and MT gave up 20 & 21 points or 3 scores to Folsom in regulation). Now this clearly without a doubt shows the superior physicality traits in the DRL without the edition of OR.

(7) But Folsom really started to improve in that area once they got thumped by DLS in 2012 and 2013 and also started seeing better transfers roll in, none more notable than Jonah Williams (Not true). Everyone that knows football in Norcal knows it was the Grant Pacers that challenged the Bulldogs to get better in the physicality area of their game. Prior to Folsom playing Grant (2010/2011) they had never faced a team from the SFL or DRL that played more physical than the Pacers. DLS was more of a litmus test that failed miserably. And once Folsom figured out they couldn't beat DLS on the field of play they created the "Folsom Rule".

(8) Once they came over to the SFL, they were no longer a physical deficient team (This is the most outlandish thing I've heard on this board in over a decade). First of all, Folsom came over to the SFL in 2014. That very same year they defeated SDS Cathedral Catholic in preseason 55-10. They whooped all three SFL section powers (DO 42-7), (GB 63-0) and (Rocklin 56-21). But for some reason we're suppose to believe the SFL is the reason Folsom isn't a physical deficient team.WHAT!!!

(9) And then they really started seeing blue chip athletes come into the program like never before, which is why they've dominated pretty much every one except DLS (And this is why "Athletes Matters").

At the end of the day, to call someone "SILLY" because you don't agree with their opinion on something is just that, "SILLY"! Respect is earned not given. Your words are disrespectful and totally uncalled for. The Junkie

 

[ThunderRam]

I usually don't jump into other peoples beef or arguments but this cake you prepared is half baked. As "silly" as you may think it is "Athletes Matters" and so does good coaching. Case in point, everyone on this board expressed how athletically superior St. Aquinas was when they played DLS. Adding, if DLS would have match-up "athletically" they would have won the game.

So your stance on "Athletes Matters" basically makes this whole board "silly". And trust me, I get your argument in regards to good phyiscal trench play but without good athletes that trench play won't be as lethal on both sides of the ball. For example, would you put Troy Aikman at TB instead of Emmett Smith? No you wouldn't because 'Athletes Matters" in this game. I'll tell you what would be "silly". Playing Emmett Smith's back-up in the super bowl for kicks & giggles. Now that's what you call "silly".

And btw, physical play is a combination of athleticism and mind-set. If Johnny is an athletically and physical 6'2/245 lineman in the trenches and his opponent Abraham is the same measurements and just as athletic and physical who wins this battle if they're both well coached? You got it, whichever player is athletically superior between the RB and the LB if it's a run play. It comes down to the next best athlete on the two teams if both teams are equally coached up. From what you described it sounds as if the MT running back was giving Folsom LB's the business. That tells me the MT RB was more athletically superior than the Folsom LB(s). Just going off your words in this post.

Now let me give you some first hand facts regarding the teams in the SFL & DRL. Had a couple of family members that played in the PG program when they were a force to be dealt with (2007-2011). First of all, prior to 2012 PG was stacked with South Sac athletes as well as some very solid Elk Grove players. Did you know the first year (2007) PG played with seniors they beat Folsom 24-20 and they beat them the next year (2008) 35-33?

Grant it there was some great coaching going on at PG but they also had some very talented athletes to boot. Starting with Armond Armstead (Arik Armstead big brother), Deonte Willams (Made the Raiders practice squad), Andrew Watkins (First team Delta lock down corner), Darron Powe-Reed (simply put, a Beast), Alonte Ayers (very athletic safety), and Russell Vonschoech (played like Troy Palomalu).

Mind you the best athlete at the school from South Sac Xavier Thames opted not to play after his freshman year to focus on basketball. And yes, PG had decent guys in the trenches but the athletes and the coaching staff is what made that program go. Without those athletes PG would have been just another school in Elk Grove. Good coaching can only go so far in this game without athletic talent. Don't get it twisted!

You said, (1) Folsom was in the Delta River when they began their upward ascent in 2009 (Somewhat true). They actually began their upward climb in 2007 with their difficult to defend spread formation. As years past their spread formation became problematic for not just the Delta teams but all NorCal teams excluding DLS.

(2) Prior to all the high profile transfers rolling in due to the sustained winning (This is pretty accurate). However, Folsom didn't fully dominate the DRL until after 2011. That was the last year of PG's Arik Armstead and Mark Jenkins services. And that was the last year PG beat Folsom 48-34 with superior South Sac and Elk Grove talent.

(3) And they still dominated (This is not true). Folsom didn't dominate the DRL until after 2012. Prior to that year the two years MT was in the DRL they lost to Folsom in 2008 and beat them in 2009. PG beat Folsom in 2007, 2008 and 2011. So the correct thing to say was Folsom owned the DRL in 2010 & 2012.

(4) The next best team in the Delta River (Oak Ridge) transferred over with them (False and True). Remember what I said about PG post 2011. OR arrived in the DRL in season 2010. They were owned or better yet boatraced by PG in 2010 & 2011. The games wasn't even close, 49-3 and 49-14. And OR beat your SFL Rocklin boys both those years.

(5) But somehow he thinks they'd be challenged more in a league w/o Oak Ridge? ("forgotemail" is correct). Because during the time PG was DOMINATE the only SFL team OR could beat was Rocklin. And PG would have owned the SFL from 2009-2011. And btw, OR has also owned the SFL powers DO, GB and Rocklin in it's first four years as a member of the SFL. They beat all three teams in 2015, 2016 and 2017. So most of the SFL physicality notoriety is coming from a OR team that was dominated by PG in their first two years in the DRL. You can't square that up.

(6) Truth is, Folsom would have struggled in the SFL circa 2009 through 2013 more than they did in the DRL because of the physicality (remember how Del Oro beat them in 2009) (This is totally hogwash). And here's why. Folsom played two DRL teams and two SFL teams in 2009. Folsom beat PG in OT 27-26 and they beat GB 42-28. Folsom lost to MT 22-21 and lost to DO 43-42. If you consider a team giving up 42 pts or 7 scores as being physically incline then you must have a passion for powder puff football. I tell ya, what physicality to some is just "silly" to others. (Remember PG and MT gave up 20 & 21 points or 3 scores to Folsom in regulation). Now this clearly without a doubt shows the superior physicality traits in the DRL without the edition of OR.

(7) But Folsom really started to improve in that area once they got thumped by DLS in 2012 and 2013 and also started seeing better transfers roll in, none more notable than Jonah Williams (Not true). Everyone that knows football in Norcal knows it was the Grant Pacers that challenged the Bulldogs to get better in the physicality area of their game. Prior to Folsom playing Grant (2010/2011) they had never faced a team from the SFL or DRL that played more physical than the Pacers. DLS was more of a litmus test that failed miserably. And once Folsom figured out they couldn't beat DLS on the field of play they created the "Folsom Rule".

(8) Once they came over to the SFL, they were no longer a physical deficient team (This is the most outlandish thing I've heard on this board in over a decade). First of all, Folsom came over to the SFL in 2014. That very same year they defeated SDS Cathedral Catholic in preseason 55-10. They whooped all three SFL section powers (DO 42-7), (GB 63-0) and (Rocklin 56-21). But for some reason we're suppose to believe the SFL is the reason Folsom isn't a physical deficient team.WHAT!!!

(9) And then they really started seeing blue chip athletes come into the program like never before, which is why they've dominated pretty much every one except DLS (And this is why "Athletes Matters").

At the end of the day, to call someone "SILLY" because you don't agree with their opinion on something is just that, "SILLY"! Respect is earned not given. Your words are disrespectful and totally uncalled for. The Junkie

You just wrote an entire essay about something I didn't say or assert.

I never said that athletes don't matter. Hell, Folsom has more athletes than most.

I said their opponents having some athletes too isn't the reason they've struggled from time to time. It's largely been because of line play, physicality and the opponents ability to play defense and tackle.

I clearly provided numerous examples of recent losses that were the result of being matched or over-matched on the lines and also with assignment defense and tackling. MT is the only one I can recall that won by overwhelmingly winning TOP. They didn't win due to athletes and defense.

Lastly, I also clearly explained and provided evidence why his assertion is SILLY. Because it absolutely is. There's no merit to it at all. The head2head results I provided support it.

Sorry, Junkie, but the "liar, liar pants on fire" defense isn't going to work on me. But nice try.

I'll close by also saying, if he's going to make a bold proclamation -- how about providing some sound evidence in support? He can't. You know it and I know it.

 

[RidgeRider]

In my experience athletes matter less than other more important factors, like coaching, program, and player commitment.

I've watched us lineup against athletic teams year after year and we've won consistently, sans Folsom, DLS, and some of the So Cal teams we've played. Those teams out coached us.

MT did not out athlete Folsom, they out-coached them.

 

[ThunderRam]

Now I'll dissect your bullet points since you seem to want to get granular about this and go there.

You said, (1) Folsom was in the Delta River when they began their upward ascent in 2009 (Somewhat true). They actually began their upward climb in 2007 with their difficult to defend spread formation. As years past their spread formation became problematic for not just the Delta teams but all NorCal teams excluding DLS.

Please don't tell me something is "somewhat true" when it's subjective. They went 6-4 in 2007 and didn't even make the postseason, so I think you are also "silly" and inaccurate for starting there.

I don't care when they installed their offense. By upward ascent I was clearly meaning when they started to become an elite level program. They were not that in 2007 or 2008.

2009 was the precursor to their 2010 State Championship team where they barely lost to Del Oro after holding a 35-7 lead. IMO, that team was the start of their ascent to where they are now. Still subjective? Sure. But far more logical and reasonable than the 2007 and 2008 teams.

(2) Prior to all the high profile transfers rolling in due to the sustained winning (This is pretty accurate). However, Folsom didn't fully dominate the DRL until after 2011. That was the last year of PG's Arik Armstead and Mark Jenkins services. And that was the last year PG beat Folsom 48-34 with superior South Sac and Elk Grove talent.

(3) And they still dominated (This is not true). Folsom didn't dominate the DRL until after 2012. Prior to that year the two years MT was in the DRL they lost to Folsom in 2008 and beat them in 2009. PG beat Folsom in 2007, 2008 and 2011. So the correct thing to say was Folsom owned the DRL in 2010 & 2012.

From 2009 (the year I said it began) through 2011 (which you claim they didn't begin domination til after) they were 13-2 in the DRL. With one of the losses coming in OT by a mere point. Average score those three seasons was 45-22. Seems pretty dominant to me. I never said 'perfect'.

Yes, Pleasant Grove got one over on them with Armstead, Jenkins, Demps bros and Lewis (after losing the season before) with one of PG's best teams ever, but that doesn't mean Folsom wasn't dominate in their league. The 3-year record and average score differential show as much.

And, again, this was well before all the blue chips started transferring in. The teams Folsom has been fielding the past 5 years wouldn't have lost either of those 2 games. And you know it. They've been at a totally different level since being placed in the SFL. Arguably their best team ever was the first year in the league. And their 'athlete' level has grown since.

(4) The next best team in the Delta River (Oak Ridge) transferred over with them (False and True). Remember what I said about PG post 2011. OR arrived in the DRL in season 2010. They were owned or better yet boatraced by PG in 2010 & 2011. The games wasn't even close, 49-3 and 49-14. And OR beat your SFL Rocklin boys both those years.

Have no clue what you are yammering about here. You're certainly not adding anything topical to my comment in red.

When Folsom and Oak Ridge were placed into the SFL in 2014, Oak Ridge was clearly the 2nd best team in that league. They had finished 2nd in the DRL in 2012 and 2013, right behind Folsom.

And if OR had remained in the new look Delta when Folsom left and were still there today, they'd have been one of the top teams in that league. Arguably would have won it in 3 of the past 6 seasons. Regardless, my comment above is factually true in the immediate season's leading up to and into the season they both entered the league.

(5) But somehow he thinks they'd be challenged more in a league w/o Oak Ridge? ("forgotemail" is correct). Because during the time PG was DOMINATE the only SFL team OR could beat was Rocklin. And PG would have owned the SFL from 2009-2011. And btw, OR has also owned the SFL powers DO, GB and Rocklin in it's first four years as a member of the SFL. They beat all three teams in 2015, 2016 and 2017. So most of the SFL physicality notoriety is coming from a OR team that was dominated by PG in their first two years in the DRL. You can't square that up.

Again, have no clue what the hell you're doing here. We're talking about current times in terms of where Folsom would be challenged most. And it surely ain't in today's Delta or even the past several years of it.

And you're further making my point when talking about Oak Ridge being the 2nd dominant team in the SFL for most of the past 6 seasons. In the past 6 seasons, they've played 4 games against Folsom decided by 14 points or less. Far more than any other team in the SJS. Hence my comment about why he's silly for thinking Folsom would be challenged more in a league w/o Oak Ridge.

FWIW, in the same 6 season time frame and prior to MT's upset last week, the current Delta League was 0-9 (PG 0-3, Franklin 0-2, MT 0-2, and EG 0-2) with only 1 game decided by 14 points or less. Average score was 51-13. Can't 'square it up' any more than that.

So please stop with this craziness and moving of the goal posts.

(6) Truth is, Folsom would have struggled in the SFL circa 2009 through 2013 more than they did in the DRL because of the physicality (remember how Del Oro beat them in 2009) (This is totally hogwash). And here's why. Folsom played two DRL teams and two SFL teams in 2009. Folsom beat PG in OT 27-26 and they beat GB 42-28. Folsom lost to MT 22-21 and lost to DO 43-42. If you consider a team giving up 42 pts or 7 scores as being physically incline then you must have a passion for powder puff football. I tell ya, what physicality to some is just "silly" to others. (Remember PG and MT gave up 20 & 21 points or 3 scores to Folsom in regulation). Now this clearly without a doubt shows the superior physicality traits in the DRL without the edition of OR.

Your penchant for twisting things and simply not knowing what the hell you're talking about is reaching epic proportions here.

First of all Folsom played 5 DRL teams in 2009, not just 2, because they were in the freaking league.

Next, the 2 games you decided to cherry pick from the DRL were the 2 other co-champs from the DRL that season. Then, you compared those regular season games to playoff games against SFL teams that didn't win league. As if that somehow proves or says anything about physicality.

But I digress because the more egregious point is this.

In terms of not knowing what the hell you're taking about, it's very clear to me that you didn't see the Folsom-Del Oro game in 2009. Because if you knew anything about that game or that team that season, you wouldn't dare make the ridiculous comment you made about 'powder puff' football.

Since you won't take my word for it, ask any Del Oro fan on this site just how physical that Del Oro team was (@smashmouthrick or @RidgeRider can help you out). Their rush attack with Bryce Pratt was as fierce and physical as it gets. Folsom couldn't handle it. Which is why Del Oro eventually wore them down and won the game. It was also a precursor why Folsom hired Max Miller as their new defensive coordinator. Because they knew they needed to get tougher and more physical on that side of the ball.

Del Oro got down 35-7 due to a combination of one of Folsom's best offenses ever and their own self-inflicted mistakes -- such as Bryce Pratt fumbling the ball in the end zone because he chose truck the defender rather than just score the ball.

But in the 2nd half Del Oro gave Folsom a huge lesson in physicality and wearing a team down. Folsom only scored once while Pratt and the DO offense ran complete rough shot to the tune of 36 points.

Pratt rushed for 345 yards and 4 TD's while Del Oro, as a team, rushed for 446 yards and 6 scores. Could have been 7 had Pratt not tried to make an emphatic point.

That same Del Oro team also beat what some will tell you was St. Mary's best team ever or at least among them (ask @bulldogmgc what he thinks). An 11-0 team (to that point) that blew out WCAL Champ Bellarmine who reached the State Bowl and lost by 5. Their closest game was 22 points prior to the Del Oro loss. And they were a fast and extremely physical team too.

Never again speak to me about physicality. Because you have no idea about it if you dismiss that team.

 

[ThunderRam]

CONT.

(7) But Folsom really started to improve in that area once they got thumped by DLS in 2012 and 2013 and also started seeing better transfers roll in, none more notable than Jonah Williams (Not true). Everyone that knows football in Norcal knows it was the Grant Pacers that challenged the Bulldogs to get better in the physicality area of their game. Prior to Folsom playing Grant (2010/2011) they had never faced a team from the SFL or DRL that played more physical than the Pacers. DLS was more of a litmus test that failed miserably. And once Folsom figured out they couldn't beat DLS on the field of play they created the "Folsom Rule".

Again, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. You really need to stop posturing and pretending and get out of GA more often. Everyone that knows football in NorCal doesn't know that. Because you're flat wrong, yet again.

It was the 2009 game against Del Oro that lit up the proverbial light bulb and exposed Folsom's biggest weakness. While they did get beat up their 1st game against Grant Union in 2010, it was the 2009 Del Oro game that prompted change on defense and overall physicality, which is precisely one of many reasons (along with key injuries to GHS) they were able to flip the script 14 weeks later.

Here I'll help you out (unlike some, I often provide evidence to support what I'm saying. Wasn't hard to find either):

Max Miller to be Folsom High's defensive coordinator

After blowing a 35-7 halftime lead to Del Oro in the Division II section semifinals, Folsom High varsity football coach Kris Richardson knew something had to be done to improve the defense.

https://goldcountrymedia.com/news/24160/max-miller-to-be-folsom-high-s-defensive-coordinator/

(8) Once they came over to the SFL, they were no longer a physical deficient team (This is the most outlandish thing I've heard on this board in over a decade). First of all, Folsom came over to the SFL in 2014. That very same year they defeated SDS Cathedral Catholic in preseason 55-10. They whooped all three SFL section powers (DO 42-7), (GB 63-0) and (Rocklin 56-21). But for some reason we're suppose to believe the SFL is the reason Folsom isn't a physical deficient team.WHAT!!!

<SIGH> I'm beginning to believe you aren't very good at reading and comprehension. Or you are purposely trolling. It's gotta be one of the two because I don't know how in the hell you can possibly interpret and twist things as you do.

First off, I'm very aware of when Folsom entered the SFL. Judging from our back and forth here, I'm clearly more aware of things than you.

Secondly, I never once stated or even came close to implying that Folsom only became a physical team upon entering the SFL.

To be perfectly clear now, I'm saying that for the majority of their stay in the DRL, they weren't an overly physical program. They started making changes in that direction in 2010 (after the 2009 playoff loss to Del Oro) and improved year over year.

By 2012 and 2013, while improved, they discovered they were still a long ways away from a Nat'l elite program like DLS. By 2014, when they first entered the SFL, they fielded the most physically imposing, gifted and experienced lines they've ever fielded. Hence my comment that you clearly didn't understand.

(9) And then they really started seeing blue chip athletes come into the program like never before, which is why they've dominated pretty much every one except DLS (And this is why "Athletes Matters").

Once again, I never said athletes don't matter. I simply made a distinction and pointed out how Folsom is losing games. It's not because of athletes. (refer to @RidgeRider 's post above. He clearly understands that point too).

At the end of the day, to call someone "SILLY" because you don't agree with their opinion on something is just that, "SILLY"! Respect is earned not given. Your words are disrespectful and totally uncalled for. The Junkie

You can deal with silly, baseless comments/opinions however you choose to. And I'll deal with them how I want to. Fair enough?

And I didn't just disagree, I provided clear, factual evidence and reasoning to support why.

 

[ThunderRam]

In my experience athletes matter less than other more important factors, like coaching, program, and player commitment..

For the most part, I agree with you.

That's exactly how DLS won games when they were outmatched athletically, or even in size, in the 80's and 90's before they started attracting a larger volume of top level athletes and/or physically superior lineman.

That's exactly how Del Oro won during much of Casey Taylor's tenure. They couldn't beat vastly superior bigger and faster teams, but they could overcome teams that were moderately superior.

MT did not out athlete Folsom, they out-coached them.

I'd add that they got the best of Folsom's defensive line / front 7 in nearly every short yardage situation. They were more physical and got the necessary push. And Caleb Ramseur, all 170 pounds of him, did the rest by consistently fighting for the tough extra yards.