take from the A-11

that many football coaches are afraid of change.

When that "change" is essentially a DIFFERENT SPORT, I would agree with you. Air, you have erroneously equated "anti- A-11" with "anti-pass" and "anti-spread" during this entire A-11 ordeal.

What are they going to do with all of the videos now that they won't be able to sell them? I would love to have them to show my kids one day.

that is great stuff bazooka. I am excited about all the interest swelling here.
I wish I could post more, but I have a plane to catch.
MB

airman, I'd like you to respond to my private message. I'm very curious for your thoughts.

the a 11 was a chance to get more kids who are receiver types in the game of football. lets be honest as well. most teams, especially at smaller schools have way more rec type kids then they do offensive lineman type kids. The a 11 allowed rec type kids to get on the field at multiple positions.

I do not see that as changing the game at all. you still only had 5 rec per down. you still had to have 5 non rec per down.

the a 11 was the pole cat on steriods. I love the pole cat but it is sort of a waste to have 5 lineman standing around on most plays.

Well, the could do a Red Green Show with them:

use them as shingles for your roof since they already have the hole in the center of them.

There is a game without linemen. It's called soccer.

I don't know what rugby games you watched but I never played with or against a front or second row that had the slightest physical resemblance to a wide receiver.

Personally I think that guys who complain that they're consistently and chronically outmanned up front would be better served getting their guys working in the weight room and making them more physical rather than inventing new games.

Read the Art of Warfare. You will then understand the A 11. Do not go looking for dragons to slay. Meaning if you can use your brain to go around instead of through you are better off. Less chance of loss of life.

see you are into trench warfare like that of WW 1. you lineup and bang on each other and through attrition one will win. this however has its costs in the form injuries in particular soft tissue and being easy to attack because your paradigm is confined to a telephone booth. you cannot conceptualize open space or maneuver warfare like that of the first gulf war. using the length and width to attack the enemy.

Well, hell, no wonder you guys can't run the ball.

I'll write more later but I have to go shave my head.

yes this tactic is straight out of the 36 stratagems

make a sound in the east, then attack in the west.

this is why from a noback set you have to present the threat of the qb draw to influence the defense, use a wr on a pivot or box route to control the drop of the lbers and use a true middle screen threat to attack retreating lbers.

Airman

I'm wondering if you ever responded to spreadattack in a pm, you have certainly avoided it here.

Very Kurt Bryanesque.

I'd love to write more, but I have to go take a {censored}.

Airman:

Since you've introduced and stuck with the military strategy paradigm in this post...

VERY few military personnel are in those glamour positions where they are solely fighters and do nothing else – the fighter pilots, the trigger men on the gun emplacements, the gunners on tanks, the Navy Seals, etc. (In terms of your football scheme, the talent positions that score all the points and stats – the receivers and QBs.) The vast majority have dual roles, they have to be able to engage in combat AND they provide various elements of support to the combat mission – mechanics, engineers, logistical coordination, communication, sanitation, food preparation, etc. And within each of those areas, there are those who make the plans and there are the “grunts” who do the actual work. (Again, in terms of your football scheme, the linemen, the running backs [apparently] and the entire defensive side of the ball.) All of these are vital to the success of the military operation (and a football team).

Your approach is reminiscent of some major military failures of the past:
∙Napoleon and his Grand Armee in Russia in 1812 – the main combat force moved too far, too fast (i.e. went for the “long bomb”), stretching the logistical support and supply lines to the breaking point. The result was a disastrous loss and brutal retreat that marked the beginning of the end to Napoleon’s dominance of Europe.
∙Hitler’s Nazi Wehrmacht in the Soviet Union in 1942 – Hitler committed the same mistake 130 years later with the same disastrous results, culminating in the turning point Battle of Stalingrad.
∙U.S. in Vietnam – 25 years later, the U.S. attempted to “go long” vs. the Viet Cong/North Vietnamese and bomb them into submission with carpet bombing of North Vietnamese cities and airdrops of Agent Orange and napalm on the jungles where the ground fighting was supposed to occur. Ultimately, the U.S. gave up the war as unwinnable and pulled out.
∙U.S. in Iraq & Afghanistan today – what started out with our “shock and awe” campaign using modern technology to fight from a distance, like long-range bombers, cruise missiles, Predator drones, and “smart bombs,” has turned into a quagmire because Rumsfeld and Bush refused to put enough “boots on the ground” to get the job done.

The bottom-line: Both war and football are endeavors of force and violence. Yes, you can and should fight smarter, but ultimately you have to FIGHT. Take the easy way out and bad things happen!