Best Garland High School teams of all time 3a,4a,5a. [Archive]

grayowl60

08-30-2005, 03:35 PM

Seen all of these, even though I was very young for some. I do know the history. I am basing this on the style played at the time.
1. 55 State finalist. (Lost to Port Neches in the last minute)
2. 64 State Champions
3. 99 State Champions
4. 56 State Champions (Beat Nederland 3-0 in a rainstorm. Nederlands coach
was Bum Phillips) Many players from the 55 team.
5. 03- Lost to Allen in the second round after beating Lufkin in bi bi ditrict
6. 63 State Champions
7. 54-Lost in the first round to Breckenridge, the best team money could buy,
and I beleave the last team to beat the great Abeline team before their
record streak of wins. Garland was ahead at the half. Some old timers say
This was Garlands best team ever.
8. 95

TO BE CONTINUED!

ThEgReAtOnE

08-30-2005, 03:53 PM

I'd put all the 90's teams ahead of the others. Now if you say it like this...

Which are the best Garland High Football teams of their respective decades?

Then you would rank the best of their decades. But to rank the best of all time is to physically pick the 55' and 99' teams up by the jerseys and drop them on the field to play each other. And you're saying the 55' team would beat a bigger, faster, stronger, far more dynamic 99' team. That's insulting, in regards to the evolution of sports.

To say all athletes are adaptive is wrong. The teams of the 50's may seem dominant, in that decade, but if they were dropped in 1995...they couldn't stand a chance.

It's hard to answer who's the greatest, in any athletic compacity. 76' Ali vs 86' Tyson, 75' Steelers vs 95' Cowboys, 87' Lakers vs 96' Bulls, Sampras vs Federer, 88' Carter vs 94' Stephenville...it's so hard because we have to judge based on the quality of their decade, opponent(s) and dominance! And how do you do that? 88' Carter looked awesome, but there were some super power houses in the 90's!!!!
_______________________________________________
:D Don't crap on the little guy...unless you can afford to!!

GoOwls

08-30-2005, 04:05 PM

garlandowl08

08-30-2005, 04:13 PM

I am basing this on the style played at the time.

He said he was going by the style of the time.

ThEgReAtOnE

08-30-2005, 04:25 PM

grayowl60

08-30-2005, 04:26 PM

[QUOTE=bsptlw]I'd put all the 90's teams ahead of the others. Now if you say it like this...

Which are the best Garland High Football teams of their respective decades?

Then you would rank the best of their decades. But to rank the best of all time is to physically pick the 55' and 99' teams up by the jerseys and drop them on the field to play each other. And you're saying the 55' team would beat a bigger, faster, stronger, far more dynamic 99' team. That's insulting, in regards to the evolution of sports.

To say all athletes are adaptive is wrong. The teams of the 50's may seem dominant, in that decade, but if they were dropped in 1995...they couldn't stand a chance.

It's hard to answer who's the greatest, in any athletic compacity. 76' Ali vs 86' Tyson, 75' Steelers vs 95' Cowboys, 87' Lakers vs 96' Bulls, Sampras vs Federer, 88' Carter vs 94' Stephenville...it's so hard because we have to judge based on the quality of their decade, opponent(s) and dominance! And how do you do that? 88' Carter looked awesome, but there were some super power houses in the 90's!!!!
:

grayowl60

08-30-2005, 04:58 PM

There is no way I'm willing to base my choices and/or rankings on "style". Sorry!!

To call a team the greatest they have to have the entangibles to bet out every opponent. If the 90's teams were dropped in the 50's they'd think they were professional teams posing as high school teams.

Sports was a total different world, back then. It can't be compared to today. You would see lop-sided scores like 108-0!!

Sorry, no team in the world past 83' gets any "Greatest of All Time Respect"!!
My point was, that if the GARLAND teams of the 50s, 60s, 90s or 00s were to have the same technology,and same style ( either 90s to the 50s, or vise versa) that the teams of the 50s and 60s, athlete for athlete, speed for speed, pound for pound, could compete and win today. What they would bring is PASSION, and TOUGHNESS. Unless you saw the great Owl teams of the past, you cant make a real judgement. Even then they were almost always smaller than the competition. But they hepled invent the word SMASHMOUTH!

ThEgReAtOnE

08-30-2005, 06:01 PM

My point was, that if the GARLAND teams of the 50s, 60s, 90s or 00s were to have the same technology,and same style ( either 90s to the 50s, or vise versa) that the teams of the 50s and 60s, athlete for athlete, speed for speed, pound for pound, could compete and win today. What they would bring is PASSION, and TOUGHNESS. Unless you saw the great Owl teams of the past, you cant make a real judgement. Even then they were almost always smaller than the competition. But they hepled invent the word SMASHMOUTH!

Your speaking fantasy...which is a tough deeper than hypothetical! You can't convert the players from the 50's and 60's and say...well if they were born in 1980 they would be dominate today.

Sorry! That doesn't work for me. I have no idea if they would have adapted or simply been another 50/50 team.

My guess is, they wouldn't have a chance. Sports has evolved alot since the 50's and 60's!

And they still have passion and toughness...and hit way harder than back then.

Sorry!! That would be like me saying the Packer of the 60's would beat the teams of today, if they were zapped to the future and played todays teams.

That's laughable!

grayowl60

08-30-2005, 07:02 PM

Your speaking fantasy...which is a tough deeper than hypothetical! You can't convert the players from the 50's and 60's and say...well if they were born in 1980 they would be dominate today.

Sorry! That doesn't work for me. I have no idea if they would have adapted or simply been another 50/50 team.

My guess is, they wouldn't have a chance. Sports has evolved alot since the 50's and 60's!

And they still have passion and toughness...and hit way harder than back then.

Sorry!! That would be like me saying the Packer of the 60's would beat the teams of today, if they were zapped to the future and played todays teams.

That's laughable!
I have to bowe to your absolute wisdom in this matter. You have obviously seen the great teams of 30 and 40 years ago, such as Abeline, Highland Park, Breckenridge etc. and have EXPIERIANCED this evolution you speak of. You have seen the Yates and Carter teams in action, so you can pontificate on how much better todays texas High School football is. You have a maasive amount of expieriance and ability to make these judgements and to dtermine what is laughable. You are the greatest :rolleyes:

ThEgReAtOnE

08-30-2005, 07:12 PM

I have to bowe to your absolute wisdom in this matter. You have obviously seen the great teams of 30 and 40 years ago, such as Abeline, Highland Park, Breckenridge etc. and have EXPIERIANCED this evolution you speak of. You have seen the Yates and Carter teams in action, so you can pontificate on how much better todays texas High School football is. You have a maasive amount of expieriance and ability to make these judgements and to dtermine what is laughable. You are the greatest :rolleyes:

Thanx!

Listen there is no need to get frustrated or even insulted over this conversation. There are plenty of great Owl Teams. Lets leave it at that.

Hey, I'm a Lakeview product. We only had 2 great teams...88' and 95'. Besides that, we've done squat!!

Garland High rules Garland!! That's the most important fact!!

________________________________________________
:D Don't crap on the little guy...unless you can afford to!

garlandowl08

08-30-2005, 08:21 PM

I can definately agree that garland rules...

GoOwls

08-30-2005, 10:39 PM

Your speaking fantasy...which is a tough deeper than hypothetical! You can't convert the players from the 50's and 60's and say...well if they were born in 1980 they would be dominate today.

Sorry! That doesn't work for me. I have no idea if they would have adapted or simply been another 50/50 team.

My guess is, they wouldn't have a chance. Sports has evolved alot since the 50's and 60's!

And they still have passion and toughness...and hit way harder than back then.

Sorry!! That would be like me saying the Packer of the 60's would beat the teams of today, if they were zapped to the future and played todays teams.

That's laughable!

Oh really, you can't seperate them huh? Well, ESPN, The NFL, Sports Illustrated, The Sporting News, and many others do every year. Of course, if you put the '99 Owl team on the field with the '63 team with there being a 100 pound difference in the weight of each lineman, it would be a slaughter. Any moron understands that, you have to reach beyond. When someone asks the question, "What's the greatest team of all time", it's in reference to what team dominated their opponents the most in THEIR era. That's an understood yardstick and your opposition to it is irrelevant, no matter how many snaps you took in the NFL, or whatever.

Garland02

08-30-2005, 10:45 PM

Despite what happened out in Tyler against Longview, I would take the 02 team over the 03 team.

ThEgReAtOnE

08-30-2005, 11:31 PM

Oh really, you can't seperate them huh? Well, ESPN, The NFL, Sports Illustrated, The Sporting News, and many others do every year. Of course, if you put the '99 Owl team on the field with the '63 team with there being a 100 pound difference in the weight of each lineman, it would be a slaughter. Any moron understands that, you have to reach beyond. When someone asks the question, "What's the greatest team of all time", it's in reference to what team dominated their opponents the most in THEIR era. That's an understood yardstick and your opposition to it is irrelevant, no matter how many snaps you took in the NFL, or whatever.

It still boils down to the strength of your decade/era...not the strength of your team in that era. You could have dominated the 40's...but if the 40's era couldn't hold a candle to the 90's there's no point in talking about it.

The 90's teams win!!

This is fantasy meets reality....sports evolves, just like everything else. You can't respect the world for evolving, then for your personal benefit, exclude sports.

No...any era/decade past 85' does not stand a chance agains the evolved era of the game today!! Therefore no team in the 50's, 60's or 70's, regardless of how much they dominated their era, gets my vote!!

:D

rantanamo

08-31-2005, 12:03 AM

I would swap 03 and 95. I would put 94 and 95 above 02. Definitely deeper teams. From '93- '97 Garland never had a problem with returning lots of regular significant contributors from one year to the next. I would put 94 above 95 because you had all but a few regular contributors return in 95, plus a very tough class of '94. We were state ranked that whole season.

I think we're forgetting one of the late 70's teams with Herkie Walls. Weren't they ranked #1, but lost out in the first round?

grayowl60

08-31-2005, 12:12 AM

It still boils down to the strength of your decade/era...not the strength of your team in that era. You could have dominated the 40's...but if the 40's era couldn't hold a candle to the 90's there's no point in talking about it.

The 90's teams win!!

This is fantasy meets reality....sports evolves, just like everything else. You can't respect the world for evolving, then for your personal benefit, exclude sports.

No...any era/decade past 85' does not stand a chance agains the evolved era of the game today!! Therefore no team in the 50's, 60's or 70's, regardless of how much they dominated their era, gets my vote!!

:D
Oh great one: the Doak Walkers, Eric Dickersons, Jack Mildrens, Earl Campbells, David Overstreets, etc. etc. etc. and the teams they were on could not play with the teams of today? B.S. You are mistaken sire!

ThEgReAtOnE

08-31-2005, 07:31 AM

Oh great one: the Doak Walkers, Eric Dickersons, Jack Mildrens, Earl Campbells, David Overstreets, etc. etc. etc. and the teams they were on could not play with the teams of today? B.S. You are mistaken sire!

Great teams in the their era/decade! But if they were picked up by the jersey and dropped on the field today...the would fade in with the rest of the teams, trying to win. When you saw Earl's 72-74 TJT teams they were dominant over the best teams of that era...when you saw Eric Dickerson's 78 Sealy team they dominated everyone of that year....

...my point being the caliber of teams they were, equals the caliber of many teams today.

Example: Lets say you have one car in 1963 that smokes 50 of the top cars for that year. That one car totally destroys the competition, going from 0 to 60 in 4.5 seconds. Well fast forward to 2003, where you have 300 cars that go from 0 to 60 in 4.5 seconds. That one car from 63' would just be the 301st car...it would not dominate or stick out. What you would be looking for is the cars that go from 0 to 60 in 3.5 seconds, of which there may be 10. Well those 10 cars are definitely going to beat that one car from 63', so you can't say that 63' car was the best of all time. It was just the best of that era/decade. For those who saw it in action, back in 63'...they'll swear it's the greatest!! Everyone else understands that the world evolves, and cars are as fast if not much faster today.

:D Anyways, hopefully you get my point.

grayowl60

08-31-2005, 10:29 AM

Great teams in the their era/decade! But if they were picked up by the jersey and dropped on the field today...the would fade in with the rest of the teams, trying to win. When you saw Earl's 72-74 TJT teams they were dominant over the best teams of that era...when you saw Eric Dickerson's 78 Sealy team they dominated everyone of that year....

...my point being the caliber of teams they were, equals the caliber of many teams today.

Example: Lets say you have one car in 1963 that smokes 50 of the top cars for that year. That one car totally destroys the competition, going from 0 to 60 in 4.5 seconds. Well fast forward to 2003, where you have 300 cars that go from 0 to 60 in 4.5 seconds. That one car from 63' would just be the 301st car...it would not dominate or stick out. What you would be looking for is the cars that go from 0 to 60 in 3.5 seconds, of which there may be 10. Well those 10 cars are definitely going to beat that one car from 63', so you can't say that 63' car was the best of all time. It was just the best of that era/decade. For those who saw it in action, back in 63'...they'll swear it's the greatest!! Everyone else understands that the world evolves, and cars are as fast if not much faster today.

:D Anyways, hopefully you get my point.
Now you are being rediculous. To compair cars to 17 year old athletes is, as you say "laughable". Top athletes of forty years ago match well with those of today. YES they are bigger, but I dont believe faster or tougher. Many of those kids of long ago worked on farms or in the oil fields in the off season. Many of them (many, not all) today play video games.

ThEgReAtOnE

08-31-2005, 10:50 AM

Now you are being rediculous. To compair cars to 17 year old athletes is, as you say "laughable". Top athletes of forty years ago match well with those of today. YES they are bigger, but I dont believe faster or tougher. Many of those kids of long ago worked on farms or in the oil fields in the off season. Many of them (many, not all) today play video games.

Lets agree to disagree. I refuse to even consider athletes, on any level, in the 40's, 50's or 60's.

I put the 90's and 00's teams ahead of any other era.

Lets move on!!

Goodluck to Garland this year!!

garlandowl08

08-31-2005, 03:35 PM

Ok, since no one responded to my question ont eh other thread, does anyone know anything about bussing to DeSoto and Ennis for fans (not just hte band, etc.) I think it was grayowl or owlfan_1 that had info...i cannot rmember.

garland04

08-31-2005, 03:55 PM

They normally do not have bussing to the games, but there are always people carpooling and following the busses. They have to leave really early though, but for the owls, it's definitely worth it.

grayowl60

08-31-2005, 03:59 PM

garlandowl08

08-31-2005, 07:09 PM

oh crap...i had heard all this week that there was gonna be a bus that owuld be 20 dollars for both ennis and desoto (put together). I dunno if ill be able togo now...

nsmustang

09-01-2005, 07:51 AM

I think we know these type of things are subjective and mean that we compare teams from different eras as opposed to head-to-head confrontation.

The '56 team had "0" 200 lb. players.

The '64 team had 3.

The '99 team had a nine man rotating offensive line that avg. around 290 lbs.

We gotta be real here.

Homer Johnson, the longtime AD in Garland has seen all of those teams and he chooses the '63 team because of it's overall versatility. Somebody got hurt, dang near anybody could take his place.

I watched that game in Rice stadium when Garland beat Galena Park in '64. It was a heckuva game. Galena Park came out of nowhere and steam rolled everyone that was supposed to beat them in the playoffs. The match up was pretty even between both teams but Garland got the win.