|
Post by kcbazooka on Feb 19, 2009 21:10:19 GMT -6
Despite all the bashing (myself included) on the a-11, there are some things I am going to take from it.
I will use the rudimentary numbers advantage shifting on fourth down punt team. It would be silly not to take advantage of it or at least know how to stop it if other teams use it.
I like the idea of the ineligible receiver still being able to catch a backwards pass or receive the hook and ladder. We have all had athletic offensive tackles - imagine them getting the ball in the open field on a hook and ladder. I might use the BYU formation to get this done but it is something we are going to toy around with. Unless I'm reading the rules wrong a 50-79 jersey can still receive a handoff or lateral provided they have spun around.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Feb 19, 2009 21:19:28 GMT -6
that many football coaches are afraid of change.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Feb 19, 2009 21:24:59 GMT -6
...that the people who shelled out the $200 for materials proves the old adage that there is a sucker born every minute! ;D
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 19, 2009 21:32:23 GMT -6
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.
|
|
|
Post by dal9000 on Feb 20, 2009 12:07:11 GMT -6
Y'know, I think the idea of having two quarterbacks on the field at the same time is fantastic. It does require you to teach your QBs how to block, but such is life.
|
|
|
Post by bigdog2003 on Feb 20, 2009 12:14:23 GMT -6
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.
|
|
|
Post by gdoggwr on Feb 20, 2009 12:18:53 GMT -6
Y'know, I think the idea of having two quarterbacks on the field at the same time is fantastic. It does require you to teach your QBs how to block, but such is life. don't some versions of the single wing basically have to QBs (or at least two different guys that can take the snap). I liked the creativity of the A-11. The whole loophole thing didn't even bother me that much, it was that they always seemed to care more about fame/money than the kids. THAT bothers me a great deal.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Feb 20, 2009 12:46:39 GMT -6
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
|
|
|
Post by darebelcoach on Feb 20, 2009 12:53:24 GMT -6
That I absolutely LOVE running the football!!!!!!! (with small undersized linemen or large linemen...doesn't change my love for the run game)
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Feb 20, 2009 13:17:05 GMT -6
that many football coaches are afraid of change. airman, I'd like you to respond to my private message. I'm very curious for your thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by coachinghopeful on Feb 20, 2009 14:08:16 GMT -6
I like the idea of having multiple passers. There is nothing in the rule book to say you can't make the HB pass or WR double pass a featured part of your offense, nor is there a rule that prevents you from running reverses to those freakishly athletic OTs in goal line situations.
I do wish they'd drop the eligible/ineligible rule and allow the tackle eligible (as well as the fumblerooski) plays back into the game. I was hoping that would be the tactic the A-11 guys would take.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Feb 20, 2009 17:49:10 GMT -6
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. 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.
|
|
|
Post by knight9299 on Feb 20, 2009 17:58:49 GMT -6
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. 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. But to allow those kids to get at multiple positions they were hiding themselves using eligible numbers.
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Feb 20, 2009 20:18:42 GMT -6
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. 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.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Feb 21, 2009 10:31:42 GMT -6
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. 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. airman I sent you a lengthy PM regarding the A-11, and I am anxious for your response. You seem almost kurtbryan-esque in not wanting to respond to legitimate questions on this subject. Why is it so difficult for people to discuss it head on? Without the glib talking points?
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Feb 21, 2009 12:20:32 GMT -6
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. 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. There is a game without linemen. It's called soccer.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Feb 21, 2009 15:14:48 GMT -6
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. There is a game without linemen. It's called soccer. i would say rugby is more a game without lineman. soccer is a bunch of crosscountry types who like to kick a ball. I am not totally against lineman. I just find it is hard to get 5 really good lineman to be honest. I do not want blobs playing the game of football because they are nonathletic.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Feb 21, 2009 15:38:02 GMT -6
There is a game without linemen. It's called soccer. i would say rugby is more a game without lineman. soccer is a bunch of crosscountry types who like to kick a ball. I am not totally against lineman. I just find it is hard to get 5 really good lineman to be honest. I do not want blobs playing the game of football because they are nonathletic. 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.
|
|
|
Post by jhanawa on Feb 21, 2009 15:55:41 GMT -6
Phantom......Amen!
Airman, I don't know about your program, but we aren't fortunate enough to have linemen just appear. We build our linemen from ground up. We take those "blobs" your talking about and run them through the ringer, pound them on a forge and make them into LINEMEN. It does take effort on their part and coaching on ours, but it works. And yes, we are a spread team that throws the football.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Feb 21, 2009 15:56:24 GMT -6
i would say rugby is more a game without lineman. soccer is a bunch of cross country types who like to kick a ball. I am not totally against lineman. I just find it is hard to get 5 really good lineman to be honest. I do not want blobs playing the game of football because they are nonathletic. 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 out manned 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.
|
|
|
Post by jhanawa on Feb 21, 2009 16:00:46 GMT -6
Air, since your referring to military tactics, outflanking an enemy requires the enemy to be held in place with the threat of a frontal assault so that you can outflank them. I'd suggest reading about the bluffs of a frontal assault as well as the bluffed amphibious landings used to allow Swartzkopf's left end run...........having a legit threat to attack the middle of the field is just as important as attacking horizontally or vertically.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Feb 21, 2009 16:06:33 GMT -6
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 out manned 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.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Feb 21, 2009 17:41:14 GMT -6
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 out manned 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. You make the mistake of thinking that playing physical football and running the ball means being stupid and banging your head against a wall. This isn't the first time that I've read Sun Tzu quoted about football. Years ago I read him quoted along wth B.H. Liddell Hart's "Strategy-The Indirect Approach". The only thing is the article wasn't about the passing game. It was about the Wing T. Most of the generals used as examples by Sun Tzu and all of them used by Liddell Hart did eventually have to fight battles.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Feb 21, 2009 20:40:06 GMT -6
Air, since your referring to military tactics, outflanking an enemy requires the enemy to be held in place with the threat of a frontal assault so that you can outflank them. I'd suggest reading about the bluffs of a frontal assault as well as the bluffed amphibious landings used to allow Swartzkopf's left end run...........having a legit threat to attack the middle of the field is just as important as attacking horizontally or vertically. 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.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Feb 21, 2009 20:49:19 GMT -6
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. You make the mistake of thinking that playing physical football and running the ball means being stupid and banging your head against a wall. This isn't the first time that I've read Sun Tzu quoted about football. Years ago I read him quoted along wth B.H. Liddell Hart's "Strategy-The Indirect Approach". The only thing is the article wasn't about the passing game. It was about the Wing T. Most of the generals used as examples by Sun Tzu and all of them used by Liddell Hart did eventually have to fight battles. the wing t offense is the cloest offense to actual battle field techniques of flanking and direct frontal assult. I do not think running the ball is stupid. I think there are better ways to approach the game. This is why air assults are better. I can take larger sections of turff at one time. I do not need to plodd along at a slow pace. what does ever db coach and dc tell a db. don't get beat deep. they place this fear within the dbs subconcious head so when we do beat him deep we get a two for one. we get the yardage but we also have attacked him mentally. I love defensive coaches who chew out their dbs. It only seeks to undermine the dbs confidence even more.
|
|
|
Post by mitch on Feb 21, 2009 20:59:05 GMT -6
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}.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Feb 21, 2009 21:17:59 GMT -6
yes I responded. I hope you {censored} yielded banana like fecal matter. the closer it looks to a banana the better your colon/intestines are working.
|
|
|
Post by bcurrier on Feb 22, 2009 3:08:04 GMT -6
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!
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 22, 2009 8:24:33 GMT -6
First, comparing sports to warfare...not exactly the greatest analogy. I know it has been done for years, but that doesn't make it right. There are some things that you can compare, but keep in mind, there are also things in you daily horoscope that "fit" as well, so just because you can apply certain things does not make an analogy a good one.
That said, Air, I have a serious question for you. Would you like to see tackling eliminated from football? I say that with 100% sincerity. If you have read my posts, specifically regarding concussions, you will see I am not one of those guys who believe in just BANGING to BANG. I don't associate contact with manhood, so I am not trying to go down that avenue. It just seems from your many posts regarding the A-11 that you would prefer a game more along the lines of ultimate football ( a PE favorite) or flag football. More free flowing, less structure, less division of labor so to speak. A sport game that involves throwing, running, and catching, but not blocking (as much as shielding) and perhaps not tackling.
|
|
kakavian
Sophomore Member
Where's the ball, boy? Find the ball.
Posts: 175
|
Post by kakavian on Feb 22, 2009 9:40:32 GMT -6
Warfare is warfare, and anyone who directly equates it with football has obviously never been near a true battlefield. No offense, but quoting Sun Tzu or Clauzwitz or Napoleon is only dealing with the generalities. In the cases of sucessful generals the first things they realize is to succeed they have to train, train, train, train. Patton would train like the dickens before committing his forces to battle. He would depend more on his sargeants to get the concept of the battle strategy more than his colonels. I.e. Your Position coaches more than even the OC/DC. 8085- Look up the Speedball game by Sega (old sega genesis game) probably the closest thing to what you are describing, but still having tackling. Airman- To be blunt, while throwing the ball deep can be shocking, I have found that Defenses can recover better from that than getting manhandled and run over by an opponent. We got beat by two different opponents, one 52-0 the other, 21-0. My kids felt more crushed, tired and beaten by the team who ran the ball all over us (21-0) than the guys who threw for seven touches. They felt that getting beaten by speed as compared to getting just beaten was less humilating, despite the score. Just my piece to it all, since you brought up the whole demoralization factor into it.
|
|