05 JDL

With the extreme heat (and cold) and with the physical style of play that most coaches encourage and the refs continue to allow in NTX, the 12 or even 13 man roster just will not work.  Sorry HS but you cannot sustain it for a contract term without times of absolute desperation for bodies or even playing a man down.  It might even contribute to injuries.

TatonkaBurger wrote:With the extreme heat (and cold) and with the physical style of play that most coaches encourage and the refs continue to allow in NTX, the 12 or even 13 man roster just will not work.  Sorry HS but you cannot sustain it for a contract term without times of absolute desperation for bodies or even playing a man down.  It might even contribute to injuries.

15 works. Seen it firsthand. Same refs, same heat, same cold.

HomeStretch wrote:

TatonkaBurger wrote:With the extreme heat (and cold) and with the physical style of play that most coaches encourage and the refs continue to allow in NTX, the 12 or even 13 man roster just will not work.  Sorry HS but you cannot sustain it for a contract term without times of absolute desperation for bodies or even playing a man down.  It might even contribute to injuries.

15 works. Seen it firsthand. Same refs, same heat, same cold.

You said 12 before and acted like it was the greatest team ever. But you added 3, so I like what you did there. And agree that 15 is a good number.

I said make the max roster 15 to maximize development. I gave an example of a team that started the season with a large roster and didn't have much success until they wittled down to 12 and won state cup.

HomeStretch wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:There is no problem. I just don't agree that is in anyway proper for an 11 year old to develop. It is absolutely absurd. I reiterated it because  Homestretch had what I said wrong.

I didnt have what you said wrong. I just disagree that restricted sub rules require big rosters, or that its too hard on kids.

Another anectdotal story....when my kid was u11, LH and state cup had all the best local talent. One team that made it to the finals hadnt done much all year with a big roster....i think they finished LH around 5 or out of top 5. For whatever reason they lost players and went to state cup with 12. They won state cup with 12 players, and their style (imho) looked better then than it did all year.

You dont need more players on the bench for development. Coach should be doing bulk of the teaching at practices, not games.

Like I said you had what I wrote wrong. Read it again. I never said you need more players to develop. I said if you can not come back in the game if you come out then you have to have a deep bench. You can't do that with 13 players.

Ummm....keeper...u are not following. If I give you several examples where young teams do very well with 0 or 1 sub,  there was no bench, so no sub rule was needed...players on the field had to figure out how to play a full game.

Aside from all that Im starting to realize you fundamentally do not understand how this works. Unlimited subs mean you can capitalize on a deep bench. Watch the college game...many schools carry 35 or more players...typically it's the schools with the run 1000miles an hour, maximum intensity for 15 minutes, go for broke until the next platoon swaps you out.

International game, 3 subs only, rosters are much smaller. Simply no reason to carry 10 players that will never see the field. You can only use the "platoon" approach when you have unlimited subs. With restricted subs, you need smarter, fitter players and fewer of them.  You have it bass awkwards if you're thinking restricted sub rules mean you need a deeper bench.

HomeStretch wrote:Ummm....keeper...u are not following. If I give you several examples where young teams do very well with 0 or 1 sub,  there was no bench, so no sub rule was needed...players on the field had to figure out how to play a full game.

Aside from all that Im starting to realize you fundamentally do not understand how this works. Unlimited subs mean you can capitalize on a deep bench. Watch the college game...many schools carry 35 or more players...typically it's the schools with the run 1000miles an hour, maximum intensity for 15 minutes, go for broke until the next platoon swaps you out.

International game, 3 subs only, rosters are much smaller. Simply no reason to carry 10 players that will never see the field. You can only use the "platoon" approach when you have unlimited subs. With restricted subs, you need smarter, fitter players and fewer of them.  You have it bass awkwards if you're thinking restricted sub rules mean you need a deeper bench.

Fundamentally speaking I think you are a moron. We are talking about developing 11 year olds not the size of an international club roster nor college age girls. If you want to compare those two that's fine. But I am in no way going to do that. To develop you need small numbers period to maximize playing time. Not large rosters that coaches feel like they need to get everyone I the game, which is what the JDL is doing. Nothing wrong with it if that is what you want. I feel there is nothing wrong with the system just something wrong with many of the coaches and clubs.

which is what the JDL is doing. Nothing wrong with it if that is what you want. I feel there is nothing wrong with the system just something wrong with many of the coaches and clubs.

HomeStretch wrote:Ummm....keeper...u are not following. If I give you several examples where young teams do very well with 0 or 1 sub,  there was no bench, so no sub rule was needed...players on the field had to figure out how to play a full game.

Aside from all that Im starting to realize you fundamentally do not understand how this works. Unlimited subs mean you can capitalize on a deep bench. Watch the college game...many schools carry 35 or more players...typically it's the schools with the run 1000miles an hour, maximum intensity for 15 minutes, go for broke until the next platoon swaps you out.

International game, 3 subs only, rosters are much smaller. Simply no reason to carry 10 players that will never see the field. You can only use the "platoon" approach when you have unlimited subs. With restricted subs, you need smarter, fitter players and fewer of them.  You have it bass awkwards if you're thinking restricted sub rules mean you need a deeper bench.

International academy's mandate no coaching during games and parent interaction is prohibited. You don't coach your kid in Europe. Sometimes you're not even allowed to be close to the game.

NCAA rules state: "Each team is limited to a maximum of 27 persons on its bench. Of the 27, 21 student-athletes are to be designated eligible for play and the official game roster is to be submitted and exchanged 15 minutes before game time."

"Platooning" as I described it is where you have development opportunities playing multiple positions. Girls are coming in and going out at different positions with the ability to fail and develop to understand the whole game, not just cast into a specific spot on the field. Agree that 15 is a great number that gives you the most flexibility to get everyone playing time that benefits the practice development.

Lakedad wrote:

HomeStretch wrote:Ummm....keeper...u are not following. If I give you several examples where young teams do very well with 0 or 1 sub,  there was no bench, so no sub rule was needed...players on the field had to figure out how to play a full game.

Aside from all that Im starting to realize you fundamentally do not understand how this works. Unlimited subs mean you can capitalize on a deep bench. Watch the college game...many schools carry 35 or more players...typically it's the schools with the run 1000miles an hour, maximum intensity for 15 minutes, go for broke until the next platoon swaps you out.

International game, 3 subs only, rosters are much smaller. Simply no reason to carry 10 players that will never see the field. You can only use the "platoon" approach when you have unlimited subs. With restricted subs, you need smarter, fitter players and fewer of them.  You have it bass awkwards if you're thinking restricted sub rules mean you need a deeper bench.

International academy's mandate no coaching during games and parent interaction is prohibited.  You don't coach your kid in Europe.  Sometimes you're not even allowed to be close to the game.

NCAA rules state: "Each team is limited to a maximum of 27 persons on its bench. Of the 27, 21 student-athletes are to be designated eligible for play and the official game roster is to be submitted and exchanged 15 minutes before game time."

"Platooning" as I described it is where you have development opportunities playing multiple positions.  Girls are coming in and going out at different positions with the ability to fail and develop to understand the whole game, not just cast into a specific spot on the field.  Agree that 15 is a great number that gives you the most flexibility to get everyone playing time that benefits the practice development.

NCAA rules may say 27 on the bench...some conferences even have travel restrictions as fewer than that. Tournament time, I believe they can only take 22. That doesn't stop some schools from loading up 30+ players on the roster. The unlimited subs and stacking of multiple games during school weeks creates strong incentive for them to carry massive rosters. I believe UNC has more than 30 right now. My point in this thread is that coaches will adjust to the rules. If the rule don't allow massive rosters, coaches will be more careful about who they take, and will have to take better care of who they do select. If rules don't allow mass subs, everyone on your team better be capable of playing significant minutes. Hard to imagine why any parent would argue against those concepts.

KeeperCommander wrote:
Fundamentally speaking I think you are a moron. We are talking about developing 11 year olds not the size of an international club roster nor college age girls. If you want to compare those two that's fine. But I am in no way going to do that. [b]To develop you need small numbers period to maximize playing time. Not large rosters that coaches feel like they need to get everyone I the game, which is what the JDL is doing. Nothing wrong with it if that is what you want. I feel there is nothing wrong with the system just something wrong with many of the coaches and clubs.

I may be a moron. But in what's now turning out to be a consistent theme, you're unable to follow the conversation well enough to understand who is saying what. Given you're apparently oblivious to the fact your last post agrees with everything I've been saying in this thread, I think I'd best leave you be.

HomeStretch wrote:

Lakedad wrote:

HomeStretch wrote:Ummm....keeper...u are not following. If I give you several examples where young teams do very well with 0 or 1 sub,  there was no bench, so no sub rule was needed...players on the field had to figure out how to play a full game.

Aside from all that Im starting to realize you fundamentally do not understand how this works. Unlimited subs mean you can capitalize on a deep bench. Watch the college game...many schools carry 35 or more players...typically it's the schools with the run 1000miles an hour, maximum intensity for 15 minutes, go for broke until the next platoon swaps you out.

International game, 3 subs only, rosters are much smaller. Simply no reason to carry 10 players that will never see the field. You can only use the "platoon" approach when you have unlimited subs. With restricted subs, you need smarter, fitter players and fewer of them.  You have it bass awkwards if you're thinking restricted sub rules mean you need a deeper bench.

International academy's mandate no coaching during games and parent interaction is prohibited.  You don't coach your kid in Europe.  Sometimes you're not even allowed to be close to the game.

NCAA rules state: "Each team is limited to a maximum of 27 persons on its bench. Of the 27, 21 student-athletes are to be designated eligible for play and the official game roster is to be submitted and exchanged 15 minutes before game time."

"Platooning" as I described it is where you have development opportunities playing multiple positions.  Girls are coming in and going out at different positions with the ability to fail and develop to understand the whole game, not just cast into a specific spot on the field.  Agree that 15 is a great number that gives you the most flexibility to get everyone playing time that benefits the practice development.

NCAA rules may say 27 on the bench...some conferences even have travel restrictions as fewer than that. Tournament time, I believe they can only take 22. That doesn't stop some schools from loading up 30+ players on the roster. The unlimited subs and stacking of multiple games during school weeks creates strong incentive for them to carry massive rosters. I believe UNC has more than 30 right now. My point in this thread is that coaches will adjust to the rules. If the rule don't allow massive rosters, coaches will be more careful about who they take, and will have to take better care of who they do select. If rules don't allow mass subs, everyone on your team better be capable of playing significant minutes. Hard to imagine why any parent would argue against those concepts.

I do not believe anybody is arguing against the statement that development is better served with lower roster numbers.

HomeStretch wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:
Fundamentally speaking I think you are a moron. We are talking about developing 11 year olds not the size of an international club roster nor college age girls. If you want to compare those two that's fine. But I am in no way going to do that. To develop you need small numbers period to maximize playing time. Not large rosters that coaches feel like they need to get everyone I the game, which is what the JDL is doing. Nothing wrong with it if that is what you want. I feel there is nothing wrong with the system just something wrong with many of the coaches and clubs.

I may be a moron. But in what's now turning out to be a consistent theme, you're unable to follow the conversation well enough to understand who is saying what. Given you're apparently oblivious to the fact your last post agrees with everything I've been saying in this thread, I think I'd best leave you be.

Stick with the first sentence. It serves you best.

Pre-season pecking order:

1. DTS Adames -- they could play in the 04 JDL and be very competitive.  One word:  physical  
2. Solar Pulp -- few remnants of last year's State Cup championship team but a very solid reload.
3. Solar Colvin -- this team has been playing together the longest and it shows.
4. Sting Higganbotham -- expect this team to be top dawg or close in 2 years.  
5. FCD Red Baker -- can play with anyone when they play their game, but wheels can come off quickly too.
6. DTC Bussey -- lots of raw athletes that can score in a hurry but gets exposed with lack of technical ability.
7. FCD Blue Baker -- look for a fluid roster here.  Surprisingly light on talent.
8. Sting Parsons -- they will have flashes of brilliance but just don't have the horses to compete for 60 mins.

Mid-season pecking order:

1. DTS Adames -- Just don't see these guys losing to any '05s anytime in our lifetime.  One word:  play-up-next-season!
2. Solar Pulp -- Their only loss and goal allowed was to DTS.  The upcoming JrECNL tourney will reveal just how good (or not) they are.
3. Solar Colvin -- They continue to improve and have what it takes to eventually become Solar's #1 JDL team.
4. FCD Red Baker -- A talented bunch, but an inconsistent one.  They got used and abused by DTS this past weekend.
5. Sting Higganbotham -- I still like this team and it's upside potential...but they fall down one spot.  
6. Sting Parsons -- I like this team.  They can play with anyone but DTS. I can see them finishing top 3-4 in the Spring.
7. FCD Blue Baker -- Even after a drubbing by Solar Colvin this past weekend, they move up one spot.
8. DTC Bussey -- With only 11-12 on the roster, and playing in 2 leagues, their legs aint so fresh...and it shows.

soccerphun wrote:Pre-season pecking order:

1. DTS Adames -- they could play in the 04 JDL and be very competitive.  One word:  physical  
2. Solar Pulp -- few remnants of last year's State Cup championship team but a very solid reload.
3. Solar Colvin -- this team has been playing together the longest and it shows.
4. Sting Higganbotham -- expect this team to be top dawg or close in 2 years.  
5. FCD Red Baker -- can play with anyone when they play their game, but wheels can come off quickly too.
6. DTC Bussey -- lots of raw athletes that can score in a hurry but gets exposed with lack of technical ability.
7. FCD Blue Baker -- look for a fluid roster here.  Surprisingly light on talent.
8. Sting Parsons -- they will have flashes of brilliance but just don't have the horses to compete for 60 mins.

Mid-season pecking order:

1. DTS Adames -- Just don't see these guys losing to any '05s anytime in our lifetime.  One word:  play-up-next-season!
2. Solar Pulp -- Their only loss and goal allowed was to DTS.  The upcoming JrECNL tourney will reveal just how good (or not) they are.
3. Solar Colvin -- They continue to improve and have what it takes to eventually become Solar's #1 JDL team.
4. FCD Red Baker -- A talented bunch, but an inconsistent one.  They got used and abused by DTS this past weekend.
5. Sting Higganbotham -- I still like this team and it's upside potential...but they fall down one spot.  
6. Sting Parsons -- I like this team.  They can play with anyone but DTS. I can see them finishing top 3-4 in the Spring.
7. FCD Blue Baker -- Even after a drubbing by Solar Colvin this past weekend, they move up one spot.
8. DTC Bussey -- With only 11-12 on the roster, and playing in 2 leagues, their legs aint so fresh...and it shows.

Flip Parsons and Higgy and put FCD Blue above them both.
1. DTS Adames
2. Pulp
3. Colvin
4. FCD Red Baker
5. FCD Blue Baker
6. Parsons
7. Higgy
8. DT Bussey

hernan cortez wrote:

soccerphun wrote:Pre-season pecking order:

1. DTS Adames -- they could play in the 04 JDL and be very competitive.  One word:  physical  
2. Solar Pulp -- few remnants of last year's State Cup championship team but a very solid reload.
3. Solar Colvin -- this team has been playing together the longest and it shows.
4. Sting Higganbotham -- expect this team to be top dawg or close in 2 years.  
5. FCD Red Baker -- can play with anyone when they play their game, but wheels can come off quickly too.
6. DTC Bussey -- lots of raw athletes that can score in a hurry but gets exposed with lack of technical ability.
7. FCD Blue Baker -- look for a fluid roster here.  Surprisingly light on talent.
8. Sting Parsons -- they will have flashes of brilliance but just don't have the horses to compete for 60 mins.

Mid-season pecking order:

1. DTS Adames -- Just don't see these guys losing to any '05s anytime in our lifetime.  One word:  play-up-next-season!
2. Solar Pulp -- Their only loss and goal allowed was to DTS.  The upcoming JrECNL tourney will reveal just how good (or not) they are.
3. Solar Colvin -- They continue to improve and have what it takes to eventually become Solar's #1 JDL team.
4. FCD Red Baker -- A talented bunch, but an inconsistent one.  They got used and abused by DTS this past weekend.
5. Sting Higganbotham -- I still like this team and it's upside potential...but they fall down one spot.  
6. Sting Parsons -- I like this team.  They can play with anyone but DTS. I can see them finishing top 3-4 in the Spring.
7. FCD Blue Baker -- Even after a drubbing by Solar Colvin this past weekend, they move up one spot.
8. DTC Bussey -- With only 11-12 on the roster, and playing in 2 leagues, their legs aint so fresh...and it shows.

Flip Parsons and Higgy and put FCD Blue above them both.
1. DTS Adames
2. Pulp
3. Colvin
4. FCD Red Baker
5. FCD Blue Baker
6. Parsons
7. Higgy
8. DT Bussey

What are FCD Blue's results that would justify them at 5?  I haven't heard of them getting a win or a draw.

ForReal wrote:

hernan cortez wrote:

soccerphun wrote:Pre-season pecking order:

1. DTS Adames -- they could play in the 04 JDL and be very competitive.  One word:  physical  
2. Solar Pulp -- few remnants of last year's State Cup championship team but a very solid reload.
3. Solar Colvin -- this team has been playing together the longest and it shows.
4. Sting Higganbotham -- expect this team to be top dawg or close in 2 years.  
5. FCD Red Baker -- can play with anyone when they play their game, but wheels can come off quickly too.
6. DTC Bussey -- lots of raw athletes that can score in a hurry but gets exposed with lack of technical ability.
7. FCD Blue Baker -- look for a fluid roster here.  Surprisingly light on talent.
8. Sting Parsons -- they will have flashes of brilliance but just don't have the horses to compete for 60 mins.

Mid-season pecking order:

1. DTS Adames -- Just don't see these guys losing to any '05s anytime in our lifetime.  One word:  play-up-next-season!
2. Solar Pulp -- Their only loss and goal allowed was to DTS.  The upcoming JrECNL tourney will reveal just how good (or not) they are.
3. Solar Colvin -- They continue to improve and have what it takes to eventually become Solar's #1 JDL team.
4. FCD Red Baker -- A talented bunch, but an inconsistent one.  They got used and abused by DTS this past weekend.
5. Sting Higganbotham -- I still like this team and it's upside potential...but they fall down one spot.  
6. Sting Parsons -- I like this team.  They can play with anyone but DTS. I can see them finishing top 3-4 in the Spring.
7. FCD Blue Baker -- Even after a drubbing by Solar Colvin this past weekend, they move up one spot.
8. DTC Bussey -- With only 11-12 on the roster, and playing in 2 leagues, their legs aint so fresh...and it shows.

Flip Parsons and Higgy and put FCD Blue above them both.
1. DTS Adames
2. Pulp
3. Colvin
4. FCD Red Baker
5. FCD Blue Baker
6. Parsons
7. Higgy
8. DT Bussey

What are FCD Blue's results that would justify them at 5?  I haven't heard of them getting a win or a draw.

I thought FCD Blue tied Sting Higgy 0-0 in their first JDL game, and I think they had a win vs DT Central.   Not saying it justifies FCD Blue being #5 but that is almost the same record Sting Higgy have.

Pele98 wrote:

ForReal wrote:

hernan cortez wrote:

soccerphun wrote:Pre-season pecking order:

1. DTS Adames -- they could play in the 04 JDL and be very competitive.  One word:  physical  
2. Solar Pulp -- few remnants of last year's State Cup championship team but a very solid reload.
3. Solar Colvin -- this team has been playing together the longest and it shows.
4. Sting Higganbotham -- expect this team to be top dawg or close in 2 years.  
5. FCD Red Baker -- can play with anyone when they play their game, but wheels can come off quickly too.
6. DTC Bussey -- lots of raw athletes that can score in a hurry but gets exposed with lack of technical ability.
7. FCD Blue Baker -- look for a fluid roster here.  Surprisingly light on talent.
8. Sting Parsons -- they will have flashes of brilliance but just don't have the horses to compete for 60 mins.

Mid-season pecking order:

1. DTS Adames -- Just don't see these guys losing to any '05s anytime in our lifetime.  One word:  play-up-next-season!
2. Solar Pulp -- Their only loss and goal allowed was to DTS.  The upcoming JrECNL tourney will reveal just how good (or not) they are.
3. Solar Colvin -- They continue to improve and have what it takes to eventually become Solar's #1 JDL team.
4. FCD Red Baker -- A talented bunch, but an inconsistent one.  They got used and abused by DTS this past weekend.
5. Sting Higganbotham -- I still like this team and it's upside potential...but they fall down one spot.  
6. Sting Parsons -- I like this team.  They can play with anyone but DTS. I can see them finishing top 3-4 in the Spring.
7. FCD Blue Baker -- Even after a drubbing by Solar Colvin this past weekend, they move up one spot.
8. DTC Bussey -- With only 11-12 on the roster, and playing in 2 leagues, their legs aint so fresh...and it shows.

Flip Parsons and Higgy and put FCD Blue above them both.
1. DTS Adames
2. Pulp
3. Colvin
4. FCD Red Baker
5. FCD Blue Baker
6. Parsons
7. Higgy
8. DT Bussey

What are FCD Blue's results that would justify them at 5?  I haven't heard of them getting a win or a draw.

I thought FCD Blue tied Sting Higgy 0-0 in their first JDL game, and I think they had a win vs DT Central.   Not saying it justifies FCD Blue being #5 but that is almost the same record Sting Higgy have.

What are the records of the teams? Any big upsets no one saw coming?

No parent is keeping standings with weekly results?

Pele98 wrote:

ForReal wrote:

hernan cortez wrote:

soccerphun wrote:Pre-season pecking order:

1. DTS Adames -- they could play in the 04 JDL and be very competitive.  One word:  physical  
2. Solar Pulp -- few remnants of last year's State Cup championship team but a very solid reload.
3. Solar Colvin -- this team has been playing together the longest and it shows.
4. Sting Higganbotham -- expect this team to be top dawg or close in 2 years.  
5. FCD Red Baker -- can play with anyone when they play their game, but wheels can come off quickly too.
6. DTC Bussey -- lots of raw athletes that can score in a hurry but gets exposed with lack of technical ability.
7. FCD Blue Baker -- look for a fluid roster here.  Surprisingly light on talent.
8. Sting Parsons -- they will have flashes of brilliance but just don't have the horses to compete for 60 mins.

Mid-season pecking order:

1. DTS Adames -- Just don't see these guys losing to any '05s anytime in our lifetime.  One word:  play-up-next-season!
2. Solar Pulp -- Their only loss and goal allowed was to DTS.  The upcoming JrECNL tourney will reveal just how good (or not) they are.
3. Solar Colvin -- They continue to improve and have what it takes to eventually become Solar's #1 JDL team.
4. FCD Red Baker -- A talented bunch, but an inconsistent one.  They got used and abused by DTS this past weekend.
5. Sting Higganbotham -- I still like this team and it's upside potential...but they fall down one spot.  
6. Sting Parsons -- I like this team.  They can play with anyone but DTS. I can see them finishing top 3-4 in the Spring.
7. FCD Blue Baker -- Even after a drubbing by Solar Colvin this past weekend, they move up one spot.
8. DTC Bussey -- With only 11-12 on the roster, and playing in 2 leagues, their legs aint so fresh...and it shows.

Flip Parsons and Higgy and put FCD Blue above them both.
1. DTS Adames
2. Pulp
3. Colvin
4. FCD Red Baker
5. FCD Blue Baker
6. Parsons
7. Higgy
8. DT Bussey

What are FCD Blue's results that would justify them at 5?  I haven't heard of them getting a win or a draw.

I thought FCD Blue tied Sting Higgy 0-0 in their first JDL game, and I think they had a win vs DT Central.   Not saying it justifies FCD Blue being #5 but that is almost the same record Sting Higgy have.

Unless it's not on the schedule, which is entirely possible given the organization of the league, JDL Blue hasn't played DT Central.

NoSpinZone wrote:No parent is keeping standings with weekly results?

I am sure someone is on the "private JDL Forum"

Lets just recap what JDL has accomplished so far.
1. Nothing.....
I guess that pretty much sums it up.

KeeperCommander wrote:

NoSpinZone wrote:No parent is keeping standings with weekly results?

I am sure someone is on the "private JDL Forum"

Let me let you in on a little secret since you're dying to know.  I do not have all of the results.  But making an educated guess on a few results, here are the standings:

W-L-D
1.  DT South - 6MP; 6-0-0; 18 PTS
2.  Solar Pulp - 6MP; 4-1-1; 13 PTS
2.  FCD Red - 6MP; 4-1-1; 13 PTS
4.  Solar Colvin - 5MP; 2-2-1; 7 PTS
5.  Sting Parsons - 5MP; 1-2-2; 5 PTS
6.  Sting Higgy - 6MP; 1-3-2; 5 PTS
7.  FCD Blue - 5MP; 0-4-1; 1 PTS
8.  DT Central - 5MP; 0-5-0; 0 PTS

*This does not include the TSC Beattie games, but understand they tied Solar Colvin and Sting Parsons, and probably beat DT Central.

Now, perhaps someone will come on here and correct this guess and we can get the real results.

KeeperCommander wrote:Lets just recap what JDL has accomplished so far.
1. Nothing.....
I guess that pretty much sums it up.

Not true KC - at least we got to see an old WW2 fighter buzz by a couple times.

I traded in the boat after watching 1000 planes take off, circle, land and take off again. Looks pretty easy, so I found an online flight school that I can complete in a weekend.

Our coach told us JDL would allow everyone an opportunity to develop at different positions and not once were players moved around. Coaches gonna sell.

Lakedad wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:Lets just recap what JDL has accomplished so far.
1. Nothing.....
I guess that pretty much sums it up.

Not true KC - at least we got to see an old WW2 fighter buzz by a couple times.

I traded in the boat after watching 1000 planes take off, circle, land and take off again.  Looks pretty easy, so I found an online flight school that I can complete in a weekend.

Our coach told us JDL would allow everyone an opportunity to develop at different positions and not once were players moved around.  Coaches gonna sell.

You are a wild man Lakedad.

KeeperCommander wrote:Lets just recap what JDL has accomplished so far.
1. Nothing.....
I guess that pretty much sums it up.

2.  It got KC to come on here and whine like Donald Trump at a newspaper convention... Oh wait, that would've happened anyways... Nevermind...