|
Post by mariner42 on Feb 2, 2009 16:00:21 GMT -6
My big problem is this: the clinic coach Bryan was talking about was the same that I was in attendance at today. The man spoke for 4-5 hours on various facets of the A-11. But, because there was a limit on facilities and rooms available for speakers, I had less options. Instead of being able to consider 5/5 talks for the 1:30-2:30 block, I'm starting off with 4/5 because I'm not going to waste my time on something that's not going to remain in it's current state, isn't going to be run by anyone down here, and has no bearing on me as a coach. I lost 20% of my learning options because of the damn offense.
I'm being quite facetious, but I do think it'll be nice when this gets laid to rest. My thoughts mirror Spreadattack's.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Feb 2, 2009 16:06:45 GMT -6
As a side note, one thing I want to mention is that even if the overall jersey eligibility rule was done away with, I don't think that everyone would suddenly be going A-11 all the time.
Even in the A-11, there are always still at least five ineligible guys on each pass play because they are covered up. Ultimately they think that guys running fake routes who can't catch downfield passes is the best use of them. I'd wager that people will still like linemen who can block, double team, pull, etc. I find it hard to believe that linemen will be defunct, even without the jersey rule; there's still going to be five ineligible guys on every play.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Feb 2, 2009 21:22:00 GMT -6
I just don't think that a team should be able ignore the numbering rules just because the qb is 7 yards deep. Either fix the loophole or have no numbering issues for anyone no matter the depth of the qb. At least that is fair to all. But shirt numbering is not the only provision that's toggled by scrimmage kick formation. Fed & NCAA have adopted rules regarding hitting the snapper that operate only in such a formation. The idea was to protect the long snapper, who is likely to have hir head down. (There are also general provisions on unnecessary roughness, but those come in under different circumstances.) There are officials in the Officiating forum who say that because the rules call it "scrimmage kick formation", that it was intended to favor kicking and not other kinds of plays where there's a long snap. Seems to me they had to name it something, and that it was the fact of snapping long or threatening to snap long, not how the play was expected to continue, that led them to adopt such rules. Meanwhile there are single wing and short punt snappers who snap with their heads down because they're directing the ball to different places, but because usually there's nobody 7 yards back to snap to, they don't get the benefit of those rules. An arbitrary line was drawn because it was thought to be easy to administer, and who could blame the rules makers for that? All those who think it would be easy to provide a shirt numbering exception solely for kicking situations without there being legitimate disagreements as to what constitutes a kicking situation unless the rules lay out exact criteria are just in denial. The rules of football and of many other games involve judgments afer the fact of the intentions of a player who made a certain action, and these are difficult in some cases, but don't involve anything like the judgment before the snap not as to what will happen on a given down (which judgment may or may not be vindicated), but of what is likely to happen in a percentage of situations like that. Robert in the Bronx
|
|
|
Post by coachweav88 on Feb 2, 2009 21:38:18 GMT -6
Coaches: There is plenty of room in America for more than one style or brand of football. What teams are going to join these, "A-11 allowed leagues"? I would think only those who run the A-11. Which would mean there would only be one style or brand of football in these leagues. Seriously, could you see a double wing team say, "Yes! I want to join this league. I want to defend the A-11. I don't want to know who the elligible receivers are on any given play!" Why the crap would anyone (other than those who run the A-11) join these leagues? By the way, I'm going to start a new federation that allows the fumblerooski because I think every fat kid deserves to score a TD. Anyone interested in joining?
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Feb 2, 2009 21:49:06 GMT -6
Also if they make a new federation then you can just decide to not play them, and states could decide to ban them from championships etc... GOOD BYE A-11 I guess these days when playoffs are such a big deal, you might be right. But it used to be that schools cared more about playing in their own circuit and if there were playoffs they were a minor consideration. But usually it was other criteria that dictated that sort of arrangement, not the kind of ball they played or wanted to play. And although there have been numerous splits in the USA & Canada over time resulting at least temporarily in different football rules sets (though they were usually regional), I strongly doubt that would happen in varsity football these days over something like A-11. (The likeliest motivation for a split in some form of varsity football is over professionalism in college football, and the NCAA has twice in recent years had to mollify those factions by dividing div. 1 into A & AA and modifying certain limits to allow BCS to operate.) BTW, for those who'd like to think about some compromise regarding tackle eligible plays, you might look at certain forms of 8-a-side touch football and Arena football, where you had just one end-of-line player eligible to receive forward passes and who had to raise his hand briefly after setting and before the snap. Robert in the Bronx
|
|
|
Post by tog on Feb 2, 2009 22:32:27 GMT -6
Also if they make a new federation then you can just decide to not play them, and states could decide to ban them from championships etc... GOOD BYE A-11 I guess these days when playoffs are such a big deal, you might be right. But it used to be that schools cared more about playing in their own circuit and if there were playoffs they were a minor consideration. i don't know where you are from or care really state playoffs have always been a big deal here in Texas you don't get into em fired you don't win in them fired so i doubt very very seriously that the UIL which already uses the NCAA rules will weaken its rules beyond the already lame fed rules and water them down into a-11 territory
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Feb 2, 2009 22:48:49 GMT -6
I guess these days when playoffs are such a big deal, you might be right. But it used to be that schools cared more about playing in their own circuit and if there were playoffs they were a minor consideration. i don't know where you are from or care really state playoffs have always been a big deal here in Texas you don't get into em fired you don't win in them fired For those who do care, I'm from NY, and the reason I said "these days" is that (and I bet this is true of TX too) when state football playoffs started, so few teams qualified that it would've been ridiculous to fire coaches over that. For instance, The Rocket Boys (describing W. Va. 50 yrs. ago) described how the local undefeated varsity didn't qualify because the state ass'n said they played too many games against Va. teams. (And from the context, it seems the "playoffs" consisted of a single round, i.e. one game between 2 teams selected from the whole state!) These days from what I see there are HS teams that barely have winning records qualifying for playoffs in some states, and playoffs in some places have to start in October. But this is a trend that's affecting all team sports worldwide, from what I can tell. Robert in the Bronx
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Feb 3, 2009 7:11:23 GMT -6
This whole secession thing is bizarre to me. They began running an offense that operated under an exception to the current rules. Now, once that is taken away, they want to create a new league that is exactly like the old rules, except it allows this offense. Maybe they don't want to harm the purity of their invention?
The thing that is weird to me is they are adamant that "other types of football exist." Well, yes: Arena, 8-man, flag, etc. That's all fine. The whole problem was trying to co-opt regular ol' football for their purposes. I don't think tog or anyone else is losing sleep that anyone out there might be playing some arena ball or flag football; not his cup of tea but go ahead. But why do you have to transform the main part of the game?
Well, now that they can't, let's get a new league, but offer nothing really new except the ability to keep operating under this ridiculous rule exception. Why not get creative? You're creating a whole new league? Why not make it really exciting: make it 15 yards for a first down, or only 3 downs like in Canada. Three downs for a first down certainly forces you into being more wide open because the probabilities change: you need to average 5 yards a play rather than 4 or 3.5. Add all the funky motion you see with Arena ball.
Hell, why not just change the rules entirely, and do a half-Canada half-US deal: still only 11 players like U.S., but give them an extra eligible receiver; just say you only need 6 guys on the LOS. It's all about safety and speed and the spread, right? It'd be airman's dream: a five wide-receiver offense with a QB and a RB. You're creating a new league, why do your fake all-spread where you have your three worst kids run those idiotic negative bubble screens where they can't catch balls downfield? Change the rules! you're inventing them.
Just call it the "Wide-open football" league/rules, then.
My point is that the idea that you will get enough teams to secede, JUST for the A-11 is bogus. And if it is such a way of life, why not go the whole way? The A-11 was always more show than truth. Before the snap: oh my! look at all those receivers! Nevermind that no more guys can get downfield than the Airraid or Run and Shoot-- still five guys ineligible.
My guess then is that it is not a way of life. It is not about being all spread. It is not even about the A-11 as "futuristic football." It's just about promoting your offense.
|
|
|
Post by redandwhite on Feb 3, 2009 7:53:05 GMT -6
"1) Possible loop holes being exploited: Shovel Pass, Triple Option, Screens, Fubble ruskies, hook and ladders, onside kicks, Reverses, 3-3 stack"
HUH?
|
|
|
Post by dolomite on Feb 3, 2009 13:56:42 GMT -6
Could someone file a lawsuit saying that by running the A-11 offense you are discriminating against bigger, slower, lineman types? I'm just asking...since there is talk of lawsuits. The A-11 is done, finished, its over. Ba bye
|
|
|
Post by kurtbryan on Feb 3, 2009 14:03:13 GMT -6
It is amazing all of the stories we have been privy to by coaches and administrators over the past several months who are very much in Favor of keeping the Option of using the A-11 Offense in play for teams wanting the ability to be able to use it if they see fit, etc. 1. IF, and I do mean IF the current Fed tried to rule the A-11 out, then other options will be put forth 2. Teams using A-11 have been playing Teams Not using A-11 for two years now, no harm, no foul. While some states said it was illegal, etc. And mechanisms can be put in place to ensure schedules are not forced to change, etc. That is what we have been told due to precedent by experts. 3. Many Precedents have already been established as mentioned above about teams with Any type of rule variance or governing variance represented playing each other. 4. Have been told there are other items that can be put into place Now, which would allow plenty of time for that type of New Federation to be developed. *Although our First Choice would be to create a New Federation (within) the context of the current NFHS so everybody wins, and that exact message Has been relayed Directly to the NFHS to offer them that chance first.5. There are lots of teams out there wanting to Retain the Right to use A-11, and looking for us to lead - either way the Fed acted 6. Post season, obviously the teams wanting to retain the right to use A-11 will push their states hard to be allowed into the playoffs. However, just in talking with coaches, seems like their might be tremendous interest in A-11 playoffs, and/or some type of A-11 Local, Regional and one coach even submitted a National Playoff type of Bowl system? (Lots of ideas being sent to us nationwide). Again, we are Not the experts on every item relative to the creation of a new Federation if the NFHS forces our hand. But allowing teams to Retain the Right to use A-11 football if they want to is extremely viable, and there are plenty of people who will be ready to help set that up so everybody wins. As always, your great perspectives are appreciated. Good Luck in 2009. KB
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Feb 3, 2009 14:12:23 GMT -6
God bless Coach Bryann and Coach Humphries for your enthusiasm and contributions.
I just have one silly question.....
How is this inherently different from a guy, like tog (argument native to his offense), trying to convince his HS AD / school board to jump classifications/schedules simply because Federation rules would prohibit him from cutting downfield?
|
|
|
Post by coachnorm on Feb 3, 2009 14:17:34 GMT -6
Coach Bryan, Do you not think your offense can survive having the numbering exception eliminated? Is it not built on solid fundamental concepts that work? If closing the numbering exception eliminates the effectiveness of the offense haven't you made the point of many posters here? Is the basis of the offense it's formations and style of attack or is it simply the numbers the players are wearing and what that allows them to do? If the offense doesn't trick officials, how does it trick defenses?
|
|
|
Post by casec11 on Feb 3, 2009 14:36:36 GMT -6
I am sure there were many coaches that were in "favor of continueing to option" to use the cut block down field when they made a rule against it. They didn't jump ship and start there own Fed.
This sounds like a new sport..... something akin to BASEKETBALL
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Feb 3, 2009 17:37:57 GMT -6
2. Teams using A-11 have been playing Teams Not using A-11 for two years now, no harm, no foul. While some states said it was illegal, etc. And mechanisms can be put in place to ensure schedules are not forced to change, etc. That is what we have been told due to precedent by experts. Right, but for the last two years, the a-11 has not been illegal. Your analogy doesn't work because there hasn't been separate federations. If the scrimmage kick rule is changed, the a-11 will be illegal and won't be allowed. Also, in the states that modified their Fed rules to not allow the a-11, it was illegal, so, in those states, a-11 teams DID NOT play against non a-11 teams. 3. Many Precedents have already been established as mentioned above about teams with Any type of rule variance or governing variance represented playing each other. I understand that. However, what you are failing to explain is why teams that follow Fed or NCAA rules would even schedule a team that allows the A-11 in the first place. Why would a Fed school schedule a game against an opponent who uses a formation that is a clear contravention of Fed rules? 4. Have been told there are other items that can be put into place Now, which would allow plenty of time for that type of New Federation to be developed. *Although our First Choice would be to create a New Federation (within) the context of the current NFHS so everybody wins, and that exact message Has been relayed Directly to the NFHS to offer them that chance first.So, you are hoping that the Fed is going to create a subdivision that will allow the A-11? OK, I'll bite on that. Again, how are you going to schedule games? Do you REALLY think that enough teams will join the new "A-11 Friendly Fed"? What is your travel budget like? 6. Post season, obviously the teams wanting to retain the right to use A-11 will push their states hard to be allowed into the playoffs. Do you really think that is a possibility? That a playoff tournament can be held in which games are subject to two sets of rules?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 3, 2009 18:07:06 GMT -6
God bless Coach Bryann and Coach Humphries for your enthusiasm and contributions. I just have one silly question..... How is this inherently different from a guy, like tog (argument native to his offense), trying to convince his HS AD / school board to jump classifications/schedules simply because Federation rules would prohibit him from cutting downfield? It isn't. And I think a coach who suggested such a thing should be scrutinized by his administration. Of course, cutting down field is a much wider-ranging issue than the very specific scrimmage kick exception.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Feb 3, 2009 19:52:21 GMT -6
have two guyes wear numbers in the 80's and the rest wear 70 to 79. move guys back and forths. on play 1 70 and 77 are slots. next play 73 and 76 are able to catch a pass. they just report to the ref. the ref knows then who is and who is not able to catch a pass.
I have no problems with the A 11. I think it is creative. It is the passing games version of the hugh wyatt double wing attack.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 3, 2009 21:05:40 GMT -6
I have no problems with the A 11. I think it is creative. It is the passing games version of the hugh wyatt double wing attack. Can you explain to me exactly which loophole wyatt used to facilitate his double wing???
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Feb 3, 2009 21:42:10 GMT -6
I've got to have some sympathy for Kurt Bryan because he had to have done a lot of work to come up with his way to creatively exploit to the max what appeared on the surface to be just a narrow exception in the rules, and if I had done so and events had broken the same way by now I too would have a stake and be promoting it. However, I have to laugh at his pretension of having the tail wag the dog. Hey, even I might have that pretension too in his place, but no amount of empathy can keep me from chuckling at it, sorry.
As spreadattack points out, of course the rules of the game are mostly a matter of taste and always subject to change, and other versions are always potentially there even if many of them never come to fruition. For years I've had my ideas for how the rules would be in my adult league, which league would exist only if I were wealthy enough to impose my tastes on all the participants and ignore whether it had any spectator appeal to anyone but me. I assure you that the odds would be extremely long against any committee representing the participants coming up with the same set of rules, and other fans I run them by usually prefer the opposite of many of my proposals; also, most of them would not work well as individual changes to the existing game, because you'd need most of the changes to compensate for each other -- i.e. to keep some balance in various aspects of the game.
However, to think of forming a circuit just to preserve this loophole to be exploited in a clever and Rube Goldbergish manner is hilarious. Nobody forming a new league with any degree of clean slate as far as the rules would think of writing this one into it. They might abolish eligible receiver shirt numbering entirely (My league would!) or do any number of other sensible albeit speculative things, but not this. It's more the sort of thing you call att'n to as an example of how not to write a rule, or at least of the pitfalls of rules writing.
Robert in the Bronx
|
|
|
Post by airman on Feb 4, 2009 2:05:26 GMT -6
I have no problems with the A 11. I think it is creative. It is the passing games version of the Hugh Wyatt double wing attack. Can you explain to me exactly which loophole Wyatt used to facilitate his double wing??? I still fail to see what loophole you are talking about. If they A 11 is breaking some rule then so is setting the QB at 8 yd short punt to keep the dlineman off him. In your eyes he is breaking the rule. I my eyes he is creative giving skinny legged kids a chance to play football because they do not have enough lineman. you want to see telephone booth offenses with slugs. he that is is OK. I want to see 5 wr. double reverses, double passes, throw back passes. what exactly has the A 11 offense done to you? DO you face it every week? You remind me of the pope he tells people catholics are the chosen one. I think deep down you are afraid of the A 11. maybe even afraid of throwing the ball. Afraid it will take off like the spin offense did and you just might have to face it. you also might have to adjust your paradigm and you do not want to do this. when I referred to the A 11 being like the double wing I meant it in the fact it gives smaller towns a better chance to compete just like the double wing does.
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Feb 4, 2009 2:49:56 GMT -6
Hmmm..... I need to get out more, because I have never been to those clinics where they baracade the doors after the speaker starts and hold a gun to the audience and shoot anyone who leaves.
I guess I am being facetious as well.
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Feb 4, 2009 3:02:42 GMT -6
Coach 5085, the rule of cutting players outside the tackle box, specifically Stand up Dends.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Feb 4, 2009 6:51:28 GMT -6
Can you explain to me exactly which loophole Wyatt used to facilitate his double wing??? I still fail to see what loophole you are talking about. If they A 11 is breaking some rule then so is setting the QB at 8 yd short punt to keep the dlineman off him. In your eyes he is breaking the rule. I my eyes he is creative giving skinny legged kids a chance to play football because they do not have enough lineman. you want to see telephone booth offenses with slugs. he that is is OK. I want to see 5 wr. double reverses, double passes, throw back passes. what exactly has the A 11 offense done to you? DO you face it every week? You remind me of the pope he tells people catholics are the chosen one. I think deep down you are afraid of the A 11. maybe even afraid of throwing the ball. Afraid it will take off like the spin offense did and you just might have to face it. you also might have to adjust your paradigm and you do not want to do this. when I referred to the A 11 being like the double wing I meant it in the fact it gives smaller towns a better chance to compete just like the double wing does. at some point i would hope you would see the point he (and many others) is trying to make. it has nothing to do with "throwing the ball" or the a-11offense itself. many have simply stated that the interpretation of the numbering exception is muddy in the nfhs. since, it is muddy, they feel this particular scheme is circumventing a rule. address that in your counterpoints rather than continue to go with the "you don't like to throw the ball" arguement. THAT point has been made by you plenty.... go on to #2
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 4, 2009 6:58:28 GMT -6
Can you explain to me exactly which loophole Wyatt used to facilitate his double wing??? I assume you meant "the center" when you said to keep the Dlineman off him above. In that case, the rule was put into place to protect a player who is snapping the ball more than 7 yards. The purpose is upheld in that rule, regardless of what down it is. The intent of the rule is supported. Nothing is being circumvented. The A-11 circumvents the numbering eligibility rule. Plain and simple. The rule is in place for punt/kick team staffing. The intent of the rule is NOT being supported. The eligibility # requirements are being circumvented based on the arbitrary depth of the snap receiver. Either have eligibility #'s, or don't. When this first came about, I posted a poll asking this very question, and the answer was abundantly clear that the posters here were in favor of keeping eligibility numbers. It is clearly asinine to argue in favor of the specific A-11 details. The argument is clearly Eligibility #'s or not. Coach, this is a crap argument, and has been argued sufficiently here. I have seen as many 5'10 190 lb All-District lineman as I have seen 6-3 260lb lineman. And the fact still remains, that this "chance to play football" (which is an absurd idea in itself) is STILL BASED ON EXPLOITING THE NUMBERING EXCEPTION PUT IN PLACE FOR SPECIAL TEAMS BY USING AN ARBITRARY DEPTH OF THE SNAP RECEIVER. Actually, I come from a R&S background offensively. That's neither here nor there. You keep talking about player alignment in your posts, as this is at least the 2nd time you used the phrase "telephone booth offenses". Alignment is irrelevant. I can guarantee you that if Kurt had been marketing "The BYU" offense, the buzz would be lessened, as would be any opposition, because the BYU offense is completely within the rules, and more importantly the SPIRIT of the rules. One can see 5 WR formations and double passes within the spirit of the rules. I fail to see your point. What have those that have babies just to get checks done to you? What have those parents who put their kids in SPED to get checks done to you? What have parents who have put their kids in SPED so that the discipline issues are protected under Federal Law done to you? What have those people who had moved accounts and business offshore to avoid taxes done to you? What did the VT gunman (who exploited a loophole between VA state law and Federal Law to get his guns) do to you? ALL are exploitations of loopholes. All are "wrong" in my opinion. When this first came out, I likened the situation to a child doing something very clever to get around a parental rule. You chuckle, you might even applaud the child in secret, but you PUT AN END TO THAT LOOPHOLE. I applauded Kurt Bryan for his effort, and his ingenuity, but then I campaigned to PUT AN END TO THAT LOOPHOLE. Again, you confuse rules exploitation with a style preference. As far as the "fears", couldn't one also say that deep down, you and Kurt are afraid. You are afraid of having to teach kids how to block. Afraid of having to develop a certain position. You are afraid that your instructional methodology might interfere with your ability to draw all sorts of need lines all over a white board. Afraid that you won't be able to be labeled a "guru" of some sorts. Great analogy, with the small, tiny, minute exception that ONE OF THEM IS EXPLOITING AN EASILY CLOSED LOOPHOLE IN THE RULE WHILE VIOLATING THE SPIRIT OF THOSE RULES, and the other is an offensive methodology that eliminates the shortcomings of those skinny legged kids you mentioned above.
|
|
|
Post by morris on Feb 4, 2009 7:30:49 GMT -6
I am wondering if it has not marketed in the manner it was if things would be different. If they had just put out a DVD series and did an article or so in AFM would also this be going on or would it just be some strange little offense? It seems all the attention that was brought to the offense is in the end going to be what ends it.
|
|
|
Post by justryn2 on Feb 4, 2009 8:14:15 GMT -6
Airman, you said in a previous post: on play 1 70 and 77 are slots. next play 73 and 76 are able to catch a pass. they just report to the ref. . Only the NFL allows players wearing ineligible numbers to report in and become eligible. In your example, no matter what these players do or where they line up, if they are not wearing eligible numbers they are not eligible pass receivers. Morris, I agree with you to a point. Part of what brought about the demise of the A-11 was hyperactive self-promotion. Had it gone through more of a grass-roots evolution it would probably have taken the Fed much longer to close the loophole. However, since it is not permitted by NCAA rules, I'm not certain if it would have ever "gone viral" without all the promotion. Bottom line, IMHO, promoting this as an offense when it is really nothing more than exploitation of a loophole was destined to fail.
|
|
|
Post by 1bignasty on Feb 4, 2009 8:20:56 GMT -6
It is hilarious that Kurt Bryan accused someone of calling names when they disagreed with him. Not too long ago, I received an UNSOLICITED e-mail from Bryan and Humphries trying to sell me some of their manuals and DVD's. When I e-mailed them back and told them what I thought of their "offense" and how it was circumventing the intent of the rule, they e-mailed me back calling me a "coward" and told me that I was the pit of the earth for my stance. I called them no names and did not attack them personally. But they sure attacked me. Besides being a football coach, I am also a Mixed Martial Artist and a Powerlifter. I pointed out to these guys that "Coward" did not fit me and that they were cowards for attacking me via e-mail rather than in person.
This was the deciding factor for me on their character. They are all about themselves, not about the game. If you disagree, even though you are right, then they will blast you. Anyone who would think that they can intimidate the governing body of HS Football is truly a PRIMADONNA. It reminds me of my 9 and 6 year olds when they get upset. Have at it boys, petition to the highest court in the land and you will still lose. To insinuate that the resistance has anything to do with anything outside of the numbering loophole is ludicrous and a failure to be an adult and face reality.
By the way, the other day a Hiway Patrolman pulled me over for speeding. I explained to him that by cruising at 20 MPH over the posted speed limit actually allowed my vehicle to become more aerodynamic and thus saved gallons of gas per trip. I went on to explain to him that it was a new innovation that was going to be great for America even though it was against the current laws and that before long all drivers would be doing the same thing. He looked very interested and nodded as I talked. I pointed out that I had the RIGHT to speed in order to save fuel and that if he did not agree then obviously he was just afraid of change. The patrolman not only handed me a speeding ticket, but also strongly recommended a psychologist.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Feb 4, 2009 12:06:40 GMT -6
Topic: New DISCO play concept Looks Solid... (Read 340 times) kurtbryan Executive Member member is offline Joined: Nov 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 603 Location: Piedmont, California Re: New DISCO play concept Looks Solid... « Result #69 on Jun 20, 2008, 7:56am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I humbly claim full ignorance...but what do these stand for that you listed above? MOFO MOFC « Last Edit: Jun 20, 2008, 7:57am by kurtbryan » Link to Post - Back to Top Logged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kurt Bryan Head Coach, Piedmont H.S. www.A11Offense.com & (A-11 Chat Room, Videos, Installation Manual & A-11 Coaches Alliance Worldwide) www.PiedmontFootball.com* BROADCAST YOUR FOOTBALL GAMES LIVE to Family, Friends & Coaches Worldwide at: www.A11Network.comkurtbryan.blogspot.com/ I copied this from an old thread. You can search for it yourself if you want. I remembered reading this and at the time my mouth fell to the floor. You mean the guy who is a passing guru on June 28th of this year didn't know what MOFO & MOFC meant?
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Feb 4, 2009 12:39:17 GMT -6
Yeah morris, that about did it for me.
Nevermind the fact that "DISCO" was basically curl/flat.
|
|
|
Post by kurtbryan on Feb 4, 2009 12:47:41 GMT -6
It is hilarious that Kurt Bryan accused someone of calling names when they disagreed with him. Not too long ago, I received an UNSOLICITED e-mail from Bryan and Humphries trying to sell me some of their manuals and DVD's. When I e-mailed them back and told them what I thought of their "offense" and how it was circumventing the intent of the rule, they e-mailed me back calling me a "coward" and told me that I was the pit of the earth for my stance. I called them no names and did not attack them personally. But they sure attacked me. Besides being a football coach, I am also a Mixed Martial Artist and a Powerlifter. I pointed out to these guys that "Coward" did not fit me and that they were cowards for attacking me via e-mail rather than in person. This was the deciding factor for me on their character. They are all about themselves, not about the game. If you disagree, even though you are right, then they will blast you. Anyone who would think that they can intimidate the governing body of HS Football is truly a PRIMADONNA. It reminds me of my 9 and 6 year olds when they get upset. Have at it boys, petition to the highest court in the land and you will still lose. To insinuate that the resistance has anything to do with anything outside of the numbering loophole is ludicrous and a failure to be an adult and face reality. By the way, the other day a Hiway Patrolman pulled me over for speeding. I explained to him that by cruising at 20 MPH over the posted speed limit actually allowed my vehicle to become more aerodynamic and thus saved gallons of gas per trip. I went on to explain to him that it was a new innovation that was going to be great for America even though it was against the current laws and that before long all drivers would be doing the same thing. He looked very interested and nodded as I talked. I pointed out that I had the RIGHT to speed in order to save fuel and that if he did not agree then obviously he was just afraid of change. The patrolman not only handed me a speeding ticket, but also strongly recommended a psychologist. YO, to 1BigNasty: You are a total and complete LIAR! You emailed me a direct assault, still have it, and called me names out of the Blue. YOU signed up for our Free Coaches Email List and Chat Room, and can FREELY remove your name from it. I think it is great that you are a mulit-mixed martial artist champion, and have NO DOUBT you can kick anybody's butt who reads this thread and every thread on Coach Huey. LIKE ALL coaches who happen to have a web site, offense, defense or special teams item to market and share (such as this site), we broadcast out emails for coaches to Freely choose what to do, and it all started because we had many requests for the same type of info and our system, etc. So having a web site made sense for everybody ease of operation and learning. You are a disgrace to the coaching profession. Have a great day guys, and 1BigNasty you are full of it. KB
|
|