cowboysnskynyrd

6A: Western Branch 21 Manchester 14-F
6B: Freedom -Woodbridge 53 Patriot 21 - F
6C: Fairfax 30 South County 14 - F
6D: James Madison 22, Centreville 7 - F
5C: Highland Springs 35 LC Bird 0 - F
4B: Dinwiddie 47 King George 41-F 1OT
4C: Kettle Run 35 Loudoun County 34 - F
3A: Phoebus 42 Lake Taylor 16 - F
2D: Graham 56 Ridgeview 35-F
1A: Essex 46 King & Queen Central 0 - F
1C: George Wythe (W) 48 Grayson County 28-F
1D: Grundy 30 Patrick Henry (GS) 19 - F
 
 
 
 

Alyssa Ervin has one hell of a family tree!!! I know her dad pretty well. We play some golf together from time to time.
https://christmasonmarsmovie.com/carroll-countys-ervin-enters-family-business-of-winning-high-school/

No, it was Haysi that beat them. 
You're trying to say that the elements (which really werent that bad, especially compared to the next week vs Giles) hurt PVs rushing offense more than Haysis? Both of those teams threw the ball around quite a bit.  Come on man.

Just imagine how untouchable Graham would be if they used a train horn… 

Not cooked was known to be baked a couple times back in the day 🤣

By my count tonight: 11 catches, 107 yards, 1 TD.
For the season: 104 receptions, over 1400 receiving yards, 11 TDs.
 
Cassius Harris stands #1 atop the VHSL’s single season receptions list, joining his #1 tie for single game receptions.  He has a fighting chance to take down the career reception record of 227 should he stay healthy next season.  Congrats to a wonderful athlete and an even more special person!

The whole holdback talk has been outdated for years.  About 30 to 40 percent of high school seniors that start more than 2 years as a varsity player have held back in some manner . Some started school a year late. Some did it early on for academic reasons , and several do it primarily for sports purposes.   Holding back does not lift weights for the kids , does not run wind sprints in the offseason.  Holding back is a means for an athlete to develop, if they choose to do the work.  You’ll never see parents of successful players ( whether they held back or not ) complain about others who do. Kids need to work harder if they are worried that another kid may take a position away.  Don’t blame it on the hold back.  Yes. There is a huge maturity difference in a 18/19 year old than they are a 16/17. I agree 100 percent.  However.  Give me the kid that works year round to get better at 17, than a 19 year old holdback that doesn’t work hard. Richlands , Graham , Tazewell and I’m sure several of the M7 teams have holdbacks on every single team that comes through.  The method is not encouraged so much any more by administrators but it still goes on.  Those kids that did still have to work.  It’s not a magic potion to win games.  It’s just  an advantage,  if they make the most of the so called extra year.  

Arent a few key contributors at Union holdbacks? QB, RB, DL, and maybe a few others. 

In the category of Muddiest Fields, I nominate Giles vs Haysi, Sandlick, 1993 State Semis 

Haysi in 2005 disagrees lol

Yes.  It's beyond ridiculous sometimes.  Regionwide, the overall lack of fundamental skills and discipline in many of the players on most all of the teams seems to have increased significantly over the past few years.  Especially so when it comes down to football IQ that can really only be obtained through watching games or film.

That was confirmed to be Ruby gal....dook's main squeeze

Someone holler at @OldTakesExposed. Lol

Never met Kevin, I've only heard things.  Matt I coached with years ago and have seen when we've played Radford.  Matt has always been a great guy who is very passionate about his football.   
You can be "old school" and be successful.  I would even say that some of these kids now days need some "old school" in their lives. 
  

Haysi would have beaten the Vikings twice in 91, but PV didn't make it to the rematch game

Hello everybody. 
 
It’s been quite a while since I’ve been on the boards. Nearly 5 months now. While I won’t go into exact details — I felt it necessary to get away and take a break from most forms of social media. I left the board and also left Facebook for over 2 months. I used that time to look inward, instead of always looking outward and trying to find the negative around me. 
 
Through it all, I feel like I’ve started to turn a corner in my mental health. My family has went through the gauntlet this fall and winter. Multiple deaths — many due to Covid — have taken away people I loved dearly. Rifts with family and friends. Personal health and financial hardships. We’ve been through it all and come out (so far) stronger. 
 
Over the last several years, I’ve become unnecessarily combative to those around me — and that includes many of you here. For that, I am sorry. I’ve seen the pattern of who I was as a human, and continue to strive to correct that flaw on a daily basis. I don’t always win the battle — but I am determined to win this war. I hope that you can forgive me for things I may have said or done in the past that were out of line and unnecessary. If not — I understand that as well and truly respect where you’re coming from. I did years of damage to relationships and friendships that aren’t easily repaired. 
 
In any case, I am excited to get back and talk local sports with all of you. We are so lucky to be alive and healthy and able to talk about our amazing athletes from Radford to Ewing (hey Brady). 
 
Also, a huge thank you to GMan for checking in on me in what was a low point. I really do appreciate it. 

I'm see that our discussion yesterday has bored itself into your mind and taken up residency there.  Good to know that I have this effect on you.
 
I managed to post 10 scientific articles on point in a matter of minutes.  It took you 28 hours to respond with this thesis.  Unlike you, I will actually stick to the point and address your citations in kind.
 
(1) https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/12/cdc-study-finds-overwhelming-majority-of-people-getting-coronavirus-wore-masks/.  This is a right-wing political blog, not a medical journal.  The author has degrees in political science and journalism, and no medical expertise in any field that even closely relates to virology.  The CDC data has nowhere near the number of participants to register as statistically significant.  Even presuming that it did, in terms of interpreting the CDC data, the author buries the obvious lede here: "While the study notes that some of these people may have contracted the virus from the few moments that they removed their mask to eat or drink at 'places that offer on-site eating or drinking'..."  So, the author admits to an independent variable that compromises the study's findings.  The study is wholly worthless.
(2) https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/.  Finally, something with actual medical gravitas.  However, you couldn't be bothered to read this little snippet: "The design of these twelve trials differed: viral circulation was usually variable; none had been conducted during a pandemic.  Outcomes were defined and reported in seven different ways, making comparison difficult.  It is debatable whether any of these results could be applied to the transmission of SARs-CoV-2."  Your own source, probably the strongest of the bunch, says (a) the setting of a pandemic is an independent variable which affects the data and (b) this might not be a 1:1 comparison with COVID.  But it didn't stop you from trying.  Using this as a citation raises the first of many ethical issues I'm sure to find here.  Moving on.
(3) https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.long.  Do you even read what you post?  It says that cloth masks need further study in the transmission of viruses in health care settings.  However, medical masks work well.  And since we're not operating in health care settings, that's yet another independent variable.  This borders on intellectual dishonesty.  Moving on.
(4) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/.  This doesn't address viral transmission at all.  The study finds that people who wore masks were more likely to suffer headaches.  This is intellectual dishonesty, one among several examples, and I'm afraid I'm going to run out of ways to state how intellectually, ethically dishonest you are being in this debate.  Moving on.
(5) https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic- review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05.  I had to read three sentences into this one before I found this: "There is some evidence to support the wearing of masks or respirators during illness to protect others, and public health emphasis on mask wearing during illness may help to reduce influenza virus transmission."  THIS LITERALLY MAKES MY POINT FOR ME!  You're citing articles for the mere sake of citing something, regardless of how badly it destroys your argument.  Moving on.
(6) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x.  Here's the important information in this piece: "[W]earing masks and/or respirators appeared to protect workers from acquiring SARS.  A retrospective cohort study of nurses who worked in two Toronto hospital intensive care units found that the relative risk of SARS for nurses who consistently wore a N95 respirator was half that for nurses who consistently wore a surgical masks".  So, what to take from this article?  Again, we're talking about health care settings, not "going to Wal-Mart" settings.  Masks are good.  Even masks with respirators are good.  N95 masks are even better.  What point are you feebly attempting to make?  Moving on.
(7) https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567.  This study debates the effectiveness of N95 masks and surgical masks.  That's it.  That's literally all it does.  It presupposes that masks work, then tests how well they work.  Critical thinking is not your strong suit.  Moving on.
(8) https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747.  See #7.  You're again quoting a study that is comparing the effectiveness of N95 masks and surgical masks and using that as evidence that masks don't work.  
 
You're messing with the cowboy, dude.  You lie about having COVID-19 twice, I'm calling you out on it.  You post a bunch of scientific articles, I'm going through each and every single one of them, reviewing them, and calling you out if the articles don't say what you represent.  And they don't.  Not by a long shot.  You have shown a level of intellectual dishonesty that is beyond what I have ever seen on this board, and that gets on the fightin' side of me.  If you had a single iota of good sense, you'd keep your mouth shut on this topic now and forevermore.  But I'm not holding my breath, pardon the pun.
 
 

From what I understand we are one of 14 states that are not allowing our kids to participate in fall sports at the current time, obviously that leaves 36 states who are playing RIGHT NOW. 
I just hope they don't rob the kids the chance for their senior season. Let the kids play!!
My youngest son will be a senior for Appomattox this year and i want to be able to watch him play his last year. 

My first trip to Clintwood was the same. Setting there during warm ups and I remember digging my finger down in the grass trying to find dirt, never did.

one player that hasn't been mentioned is duffy gilmore,  played at ervinton and haysi,   he is the best player to play in this area,   his off court issues were the reason you haven't heard of him or he didn't go anywhere,   this kid was a pure trouble maker,   i saw him put up 50 on oak hill at clinchco in the early 90's and he was basically playing 1 on 5,   very easily could have played in the NBA 

Section 601(d) of the Social Security Act has been written in such a way that incentivizes listing anything and everything as COVID-19.   I am on a first-name basis with multiple people (plural) who have had either outright fraudulent or false positives of COVID-19 attributed so that health care providers can drain money from the federal government.  This is happening, and you're fooling yourself if you don't believe it.  
 
I know it's virtually impossible in this early stage, but I would love to see how many fewer deaths occurred in 2020 among those 60+ due to strictly heart disease, diabetes, and chronic pulmonary issues (I exclude cancer, because that category will increase as many cancer patients are fearful to leave their homes to receive treatment due to COVID-19, which will inflate the number of deaths in that category).  My point is: most of those who succumb to COVID-19 have already spent 90%+ of their social capital already.  Hence, why nursing homes and other LTCs make up greater than 40% of COVID-19 deaths.  If you're 91 years old, with dementia, and have congestive heart failure...I have some moral reservations about listing that as fully COVID-19 if a person eventually succumbs to it.  It's *technically* correct, but treating that as the same as a 21-year-old who might die from COVID-19 isn't philosophically sound.

He only writes that column once a week, so that's not exactly anywhere close to 90% of what he writes about.  I think it is neat to see that kind of stuff.

That’s quite the realization for someone who has been on the board for 2 days... 🤷🏻‍♂️

Yes. 

There needs to be a one question test for all candidates.
1. How many offensive plays are possible on any given down? 
a) There are only 6 possible offensive plays. 
b) There are more than 6 possible offensive plays. 
Anyone that answers b can be interviewed. 
As much as Ridgeview has driven me crazy Coach Mullins is a fine man and I wish him the best. It will be a big load off of him and I’m sure he will be happier.