|
Post by bobgoodman on Feb 22, 2009 11:03:43 GMT -6
When American football started to be televised in Argentina, the press referred to it as "military football". However, the essential article in football is the ball, of which only 1 is in play, and military action has nothing sufficiently like a ball to make the analogy go far.
|
|
coachriley
Junior Member
"Tough times don't last; Tough people do."
Posts: 406
|
Post by coachriley on Feb 22, 2009 11:35:15 GMT -6
I agree with kakavian. That is part of the reason that I love running the ball so much. Not only do the opposing players become sore, worn out, and tired, but it affects them mentally because they KNOW they are getting beaten and outmanned every play.
|
|
|
Post by bcurrier on Feb 22, 2009 11:37:21 GMT -6
Back to the original question...I will take at least these two things from the A-11 episode: #1 - a greater understanding of the rules of the game. I thought I knew and understood the rules around numbering and formation requirements pretty well. But the introduction of the A-11 sent me scrambling back to the rule book. #2 - greater awareness that some coaches just don't understand and appreciate the true nature and aesthetics of football. Exhibit A from this thread... 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... 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. 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. Airman: Quality linemen are MADE, not born...that's why it's hard to "get" them. And that's why I reject the traditional "skill position"/non-skill position language coaches use. The "skill positions" are really TALENT positions...everyone can run with the ball, throw the ball, catch the ball. And I do mean EVERYONE...from 3 year-olds to our old head coach's mythical Grandma Teat. It's just that some people have a natural talent to do those things better than most. The true SKILL positions are the line positions, on both sides of the ball. Skills are things that have to be taught/coached, learned, and developed. The things linemen have to do are unnatural and have to be learned, developed, and honed thru a great deal of guided practice.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 22, 2009 11:57:07 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. My response to this is "what is a receiver type" Larry Fitzgerald, Terrel Owens, Randy Moss, Marques Colston, Andre' Johnson Brandon Marshall. ALL are 6'3 or better. All are 220 or better. I just find it hard to find "receiver type" kids.... Obviously the response is "you don't need to be that size/type to be a receiver" Now, change "receiver" to lineman, and your statement is no longer valid, and argument defeated.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Feb 22, 2009 19:54:22 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. This is where you and I differ in what we think is football. If I can spread you out, stalk block you and run on you or throw on you with out having to physically beat you down I think that is smart football. I have used the least amount of effort in blocking you and you have to use max effort in pursuit. of course blocking and tackling have a place in the game of football. I am not advocating removing these. There is blocking in the A 11 offense. there is running in the A 11. There is passing in the A 11. IT is football just from a different look. I understand what you are saying and it is the same thing which people said way back when about the spread offense. why this is not real football because it forces you into a new train of thought. To you removing the lineman or limiting the lineman is not football. The polecate must be next for banning i guess. IF we the good people allow the A 11 why blocking is just going to go away is nonsense. why the A 11 people might want to sit in the front of the bus and the good football coaches of America just cannot have this. I say this it foolish thinking on those who oppose the A 11 to say blocking or lineman will go away . why do I say this? Because those who oppose the A 11 are never going to have the courage enough to run the A 11 or for the most part any spread offense. Those who run the A 11 are or would be such a small number is would hardly be noticed. THe A 11 exceeds the pucker factor for most coaches. The people who oppose the A 11 offense would rather play football like a soccer game. If you finish Nil to Nil you at least get to make out with your sister. . So you must be opposed to the polecat offense then as well? It eliminates blocking for the most part and eliminates lineman for the most part.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Feb 22, 2009 19:56:47 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. My response to this is "what is a receiver type" Larry Fitzgerald, Terrel Owens, Randy Moss, Marques Colston, Andre' Johnson Brandon Marshall. ALL are 6'3 or better. All are 220 or better. I just find it hard to find "receiver type" kids.... Obviously the response is "you don't need to be that size/type to be a receiver" Now, change "receiver" to lineman, and your statement is no longer valid, and argument defeated.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 22, 2009 20:42:52 GMT -6
Air..so again, am I correct in stating that based on your posts, you seem to prefer games such as ultimate football, or flag football to the current state of 11 man tackle football in the United States? Nothing wrong with that at all, but it is what it is. Games with less start and stop. Games with more free flow, games where many/all are tasked with running,catching and perhaps throwing. Games where "blocking" is more shielding than moving the opponent.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Feb 22, 2009 20:54:23 GMT -6
you did not answer my question about the polecat.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 22, 2009 21:00:16 GMT -6
I am not exactly sure what you mean by the "pole cat". Are you talking about the BYU formation... with ineligible numbered players? If so...I don't think it should be "banned". It conforms to the rules, and spirit of the rules, unlike the A-11 which was purely 100% based on a silly loophole. Now, do I think "Like" the polecat (if that is what you are referring to). No, because I do enjoy the division of labor in football, and I enjoy the aspect of trying to move others, hold your ground as opposed to shielding.
Now, your turn, since you screwed up your quote/reply regarding "receiver types"
|
|
|
Post by airman on Feb 22, 2009 21:01:17 GMT -6
Air..so again, am I correct in stating that based on your posts, you seem to prefer games such as ultimate football, or flag football to the current state of 11 man tackle football in the United States? Nothing wrong with that at all, but it is what it is. Games with less start and stop. Games with more free flow, games where many/all are tasked with running,catching and perhaps throwing. Games where "blocking" is more shielding than moving the opponent. it is amazing how shield blocking by wrs makes for long runs.
|
|
|
Post by outlawjoseywales on Feb 22, 2009 21:26:49 GMT -6
5085, From what I know, (very little) the "Polecat" is the offense often referred to as the "swinging gate." That's where the linemen are all on one side and a TE or other receiver snaps the ball. There are many many variations of it, most are used as an extra point formation.
Anyway, that's what I know of it. OJW
|
|
|
Post by rbush on Feb 22, 2009 21:39:24 GMT -6
What I would like to take away from the A-11, if someone could answer me, is how it dealt with bad weather. I know this offense was developed in California but I think like someone who grew up, played, and coaches in Nebraska. We get bad weather here.....bad. I'm not talking rain. I'm talking winds that blow 40 mph at night. I worked with staff of a DII school here in the state and of 5 home games 4 were played in winds so strong they noticeably altered play calling. What does the A-11 do in such situations? How strong an arm would you QB need under these conditions?
I have to laugh at what's turned into a discussion about why the spread is/isn't superior. I thought it was well accepted by knowledgeable coaches that no offense [that worked within the rules] was inherently better than other. The case was made that it was smartest to block the fewest defenders necessary. I'd agree with that. If a team can move the ball by spreading the field and throwing the ball it's good. If a team can move the ball by running the option and reading defenders it's good. Isn't it the same idea? Calling coaches cowards for not running an offense seems counter-intuitive. If Paul Johnson suddenly switched to the spread I would find that very odd, not brave. Same if Mike Leach started running flexbone formations every down. You run what you know. It takes huge amounts of time to build a knowledge base about an offense. Why throw that out and spend years getting proficient with a new offense if your current offense works?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 22, 2009 21:48:27 GMT -6
OJW-- I am familiar with the swinging gate. Thanks. Everyone has so many nicknames for all the exotic formations.
Air--yes, those shielding blocks by WR's do lead to long runs. What is your point?
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Feb 22, 2009 22:14:28 GMT -6
. why do I say this? Because those who oppose the A 11 are never going to have the courage enough to run the A 11 or for the most part any spread offense. Those who run the A 11 are or would be such a small number is would hardly be noticed. THe A 11 exceeds the pucker factor for most coaches. Bull$hit. If anything, running the "spread" is the EASY way out these days. I personally know of at least 3 coaches who run absolutely horrible programs but, because they run such an "exciting" and "innovative" offense, they have managed to keep their jobs. I also know of a guy who lost out on a head coaching job because he didn't want to run the spread offense. The principal was a big spread guy and wanted to bring in a spread coach. Well, that's what they got and they have been absolutely pathetic. Running tight, compacted formations these days is NOT easy...the spread offense is MUCH more forgiving in regards to the criticism a coach will get if the offense is not performing. So, airman...get off your high horse. There is nothing "special" or "brave" about what you do...what you are doing is the EASY way...it's what EVERYONE ELSE is trying to do. There is nothing unique about you at all. Spread = dime a dozen.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Feb 22, 2009 22:55:15 GMT -6
I am not exactly sure what you mean by the "pole cat". Are you talking about the BYU formation... with ineligible numbered players? If so...I don't think it should be "banned". It conforms to the rules, and spirit of the rules, unlike the A-11 which was purely 100% based on a silly loophole. Now, do I think "Like" the polecat (if that is what you are referring to). No, because I do enjoy the division of labor in football, and I enjoy the aspect of trying to move others, hold your ground as opposed to shielding. Now, your turn, since you screwed up your quote/reply regarding "receiver types"[/quote pole cat is nothing like the byu formation. nor is it the swing gate what people do on extra points.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Feb 22, 2009 22:58:51 GMT -6
. why do I say this? Because those who oppose the A 11 are never going to have the courage enough to run the A 11 or for the most part any spread offense. Those who run the A 11 are or would be such a small number is would hardly be noticed. The A 11 exceeds the pucker factor for most coaches. Bull$hit. If anything, running the "spread" is the EASY way out these days. I personally know of at least 3 coaches who run absolutely horrible programs but, because they run such an "exciting" and "innovative" offense, they have managed to keep their jobs. I also know of a guy who lost out on a head coaching job because he didn't want to run the spread offense. The principal was a big spread guy and wanted to bring in a spread coach. Well, that's what they got and they have been absolutely pathetic. Running tight, compacted formations these days is NOT easy...the spread offense is MUCH more forgiving in regards to the criticism a coach will get if the offense is not performing. So, airman...get off your high horse. There is nothing "special" or "brave" about what you do...what you are doing is the EASY way...it's what EVERYONE ELSE is trying to do. There is nothing unique about you at all. Spread = dime a dozen. has nothing to do with being superior. It has to do with risk. I know wishbone coaches how will not pitch the ball because of the risk. One has to be comfortable with risk when they run a spread or A 11. you as a coach no longer have control of the game. you have in trusted game management to the QB. this is why most coaches have the QB be a glorified hand off position. it eliminates the risk. many coaches would rather play a man short on offense then to risk doing thing which they have no control over. If you are not using the QB in a passing,running or blocking capacity you are playing 10 on 11 football. The don markham double wing is an excellent example of a running offense which uses the qb as a runner or blocker to gain an extra man advantage. you can have your QB make great fakes all day long but the defense will not respect you unless you present him as a run or pass threat.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Feb 22, 2009 23:08:43 GMT -6
OJW-- I am familiar with the swinging gate. Thanks. Everyone has so many nicknames for all the exotic formations. Air--yes, those shielding blocks by WR's do lead to long runs. What is your point? according to you shield blocking is not real football or is that strictly for the A 11. real football is moving your man of the LOS.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 22, 2009 23:09:53 GMT -6
Well. DON'T FREAKING BOTHER TO EXPLAIN what you mean then. No, that would make to much sense. Just sit and complain that "you did not answer my question about the polecat" . That is professional. I guess supporters of the A-11 are all the same. None will answer questions, nor will they communicate openly. They just name call and divert attention. Air, on a personal level, I do find it EXTREMELY interesting that you are : 1) All for putting your foot on the opponent's throat, never letting up, and have no problem with a learning disabled high school girls team getting pummeled 100-0. BUT.... 2) you are ALL FOR LOOPHOLES so that smaller teams can compete, because YOU can't "find" 5 "lineman types". So by all means, change the rules here so they can compete...BUT don't show any mercy or take your foot off the gas... You also say that schools have more "receiver types"...like the 6'4 225lb Marques Colston, or the 6'4 210 Randy Moss, or the 6'3 218lb Terrel Owens, or the 6'3, 223 Andre' Johnson, or the 6'3 220lb Larry Fitzgerald, or the 6'5 232lb Plaxico Burress, or the 6'3 218lb Michael Crabtree. Yeah, we have guys like this just walking all over the campus... Also, please show me where I said that stalk/shield blocking is not "real football" I didn't. I did say there was a decided difference between shielding/stalking and the type of blocks we associate with lineman. That does not make one real, and the other "false", HOWEVER, it goes without saying that football with only "shielding" and stalk blocking is a decidedly different game than football with drive blocking...which is the point i have been making all along. That you want A DIFFERENT sport. Just admit it. You prefer ultimate football, or flag style football to that of the current playstyle of 11 man football. There is nothing wrong with that preference, only that you will not admit it. Based on your posts, it is blatantly obvious to us, the readers, that you would prefer game play much more similar to ultimate football, with unlimited passes, free form movements, non linear directions, and increased premium on player spacing than what is being played today.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Feb 22, 2009 23:33:48 GMT -6
Well. DON'T FREAKING BOTHER TO EXPLAIN what you mean then. No, that would make to much sense. I guess supporters of the A-11 are all the same. None will answer questions, nor will they communicate openly. They just name call and divert attention. Air, on a personal level, I do find it EXTREMELY interesting that you are : 1) All for putting your foot on the opponents, never letting up, and have no problem with a learning disabled high school girls team getting pummeled 100-0. BUT.... 2) you are ALL FOR LOOPHOLES so that smaller teams can compete, because YOU can't "find" 5 "lineman types". You also say that schools have more "receiver types"...like the 6'4 225lb Marques Colston, or the 6'4 210 Randy Moss, or the 6'3 218lb Terrel Owens, or the 6'3, 223 Andre' Johnson, or the 6'3 220lb Larry Fitzgerald, or the 6'5 232lb Plaxico Burress, or the 6'3 218lb Michael Crabtree. Yeah, we have guys like this just walking all over the campus... Also, please show me where I said that stalk/shield blocking is not "real football" I didn't I did say there was a decided difference between the two. That does not make one real, and the other "false", HOWEVER, it goes without saying that football with only "shielding" and stalk blocking is a decidedly different game than football with drive blocking...which is the point i have been making all along. That you want A DIFFERENT sport. high Schools have more wes welker types then they do Crabtree types. now the pros they get the cream of the crop. they get to pick their players. Mike Leach says Wes Welker, Danny Amendola and many others all standing between 5'6' and 5'10" are his favorite wr's. He won with way more of these types then he has with crabtree. who I might add seem to shrink from 6'3" to just barely 6'1". I find it interesting how you equate wr type to these great big wr. The colts do not have a wr over 5'11'' and they seem to do very well in the passing game. wayne, gonzalez and harrison all stand 5'11". so what texas tech does is not football then either? pass blocking is shield blocking. It is all about setting at a proper angle when you vertical set back. It is not very physical at all. so yes I guess that I do have a different sport with in the same sport.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 22, 2009 23:53:39 GMT -6
Air...as I predicted several posts ago, you completely imploded your own argument.
I am finished with responding to you on this thread, because apparently you are too busy lighting candles at the altar of Mike Leach to actually read and respond to threads (such as my prediction, and comments on WR size). You still have not defined what you mean by pole cat, even after I and another coach both showed that we used that term to describe two things different than YOU use it to describe.
To compare pass blocking with stalk blocking is wrong on several levels. To say that pass blocking is "not physical at all" screams volumes.
You have said on this site that you wished all levels of football had closer hash marks. You have said that you wished the NFL would be a 9 man league, losing 2 offensive lineman. You clearly prefer to play ultimate football or flag football than the current style of football being played. Nothing more need be said. That is not a derogatory statement.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Feb 23, 2009 0:25:40 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by airman on Feb 23, 2009 0:36:53 GMT -6
Air...as I predicted several posts ago, you completely imploded your own argument. I am finished with responding to you on this thread, because apparently you are too busy lighting candles at the altar of Mike Leach to actually read and respond to threads (such as my prediction, and comments on WR size). You still have not defined what you mean by pole cat, even after I and another coach both showed that we used that term to describe two things different than YOU use it to describe. To compare pass blocking with stalk blocking is wrong on several levels. To say that pass blocking is "not physical at all" screams volumes. You have said on this site that you wished all levels of football had closer hash marks. You have said that you wished the NFL would be a 9 man league, losing 2 offensive lineman. You clearly prefer to play ultimate football or flag football than the current style of football being played. Nothing more need be said. That is not a derogatory statement. I said I wish all levels had the same rules and same hashmarks. It would make going from one level to the next an easy transition and officals could work at all levels. as for removing two lineman. I come from places where they play 9 man football. It is an exciting brand of football. It is one on one football. I guess in your eyes 9 man football is not real football. Heck I wish in hockey they played 4 on 4 or they went to the same sized rinks europe plays on. space rewards athletes. Pro hockey in this country is not very exciting because of goons on skates. gosh just think people actually having to skate with gretzky instead of goons cross checking him. there actually was talk of 4 on 4 hockey in the nfl for awhile. funny how what i prefer is taking over at the college ranks. pass attempts go up each year. I guess I was lucky. I grew up watching BYU pass the ball every where. then the u of houston dismantling people with the pass game. but that is not real football.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Feb 23, 2009 8:20:54 GMT -6
[quote author=airman board=general thread=27898 post=259659 time=1235371013 I said I wish all levels had the same rules and same hashmarks. It would make going from one level to the next an easy transition and officals could work at all levels.
[/quote]
Agreed. The A-11 is now illegal on all three levels.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Feb 23, 2009 10:00:08 GMT -6
airman's problem is that he falsely thinks that the A-11 is part of his meta-narrative of outlaw spread em and spred em coaches. True, innovative coaches -- the kind who helped innovate the spread over the last two decades -- were happy to employ detached formations etc like the old BYU formation which is essentially the same base set as the A-11.
but airman sets up a straw man regarding this "real football" stuff. nobody here is arguing that. some people prefer different styles, but everybody recognizes that what is legal is fine. to each their own.
but that's not the A-11 at all. Not at all. It does not fit as part of the narrative. It involves the expansion of a rule designed for punts. It's not logical: why can't you get under center in the A-11? oh, that's because it's supposed to only be for punts.
I have no problem with deception, but not deceiving referees. That's silly.
Finally, Bryan and Humphries take a lot of heat here. Some justified, some not. But my biggest problem was something morris brought out before, which I would think would give airman pause: they don't know very much about the spread offense. Morris had to explain, in detail, to Kurt Bryan what "MOFO" meant...AFTER they had released their A-11 DVDs. Airman loves gurus: Lavell edwards, mike leach, june jones, john jenkins. These guys are rebels, they spread it out, but they know their stuff. airman knows infinitely more football than these two guys. they make him look bad, and undermine what he advocates. I wouldn't count them on my team. And my handle is "spreadattack."
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Feb 23, 2009 14:03:21 GMT -6
In all seriousness, I truly admire Kurt's passion and drive to go big time. After getting hyped about a big-picture production of "The Gamebreaker", I was inspired enough myself to begin the ground work for production of my movie as well.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Feb 23, 2009 14:09:24 GMT -6
What I learned from the A-11:
Someone can be right about something (like banning the A-11) for the wrong reasons.
Someone can be right about something (like trying new things in football) for the wrong reasons.
Schematically, it didn't do it for me........not quite like "Pudding the Movie" did...........
|
|
stylee
Sophomore Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by stylee on Feb 23, 2009 14:15:47 GMT -6
If I could get "Pudding: The Movie" on DVD, I would never leave my room.
|
|
|
Post by outlawjoseywales on Feb 23, 2009 16:10:27 GMT -6
Brophy, as usual I don't know if you are a genius or just insane, but one thing I know...you are certainly a lot of fun. OJW
|
|
|
Post by mitch on Feb 23, 2009 18:12:08 GMT -6
I thought someone was joking about KB trying to get 2 movies or books produced/published. I saw the post on one of these threads but just chuckled and moved on. Is it serious? ? One was something like a pro football player having an affair w/ a priest and the other was a presidential candidate wanting to assasinate a FB coach. Y'all are just 5hitting me, right?
|
|
|
Post by airman on Feb 23, 2009 18:32:16 GMT -6
airman's problem is that he falsely thinks that the A-11 is part of his meta-narrative of outlaw spread em and spred em coaches. True, innovative coaches -- the kind who helped innovate the spread over the last two decades -- were happy to employ detached formations etc like the old BYU formation which is essentially the same base set as the A-11. but airman sets up a straw man regarding this "real football" stuff. nobody here is arguing that. some people prefer different styles, but everybody recognizes that what is legal is fine. to each their own. but that's not the A-11 at all. Not at all. It does not fit as part of the narrative. It involves the expansion of a rule designed for punts. It's not logical: why can't you get under center in the A-11? oh, that's because it's supposed to only be for punts. I have no problem with deception, but not deceiving referees. That's silly. Finally, Bryan and Humphries take a lot of heat here. Some justified, some not. But my biggest problem was something morris brought out before, which I would think would give airman pause: they don't know very much about the spread offense. Morris had to explain, in detail, to Kurt Bryan what "MOFO" meant...AFTER they had released their A-11 DVDs. Airman loves gurus: Lavell edwards, mike leach, june jones, john jenkins. These guys are rebels, they spread it out, but they know their stuff. airman knows infinitely more football than these two guys. they make him look bad, and undermine what he advocates. I wouldn't count them on my team. And my handle is "spreadattack." you missed my favorite outlaw Archie"the gunslinger" Cooley.
|
|