|
|
Post by eaglemountie on May 24, 2010 12:32:49 GMT -6
Hypothetical Question:
Due to the recent research and technology used in studying the causes of concussions in the game of football and the only recurring variables for concussions are speed and force of an impact; would it be logical to concede that spread offenses (the amount of space between all offensive players) are going to be deemed illegal due to safety issues? (Obviously defensive spacing would have to be governed as well for safety to be positively impacted)
Furthermore, would it be a career booster to implement/change your philosophy to a more condensed offensive attack sighting safety/legal issues and use scientific research to back your philosophy?
I agree that this would complete the wussification of America and completely change the game from its original origins but is this where the game is headed if certain techniques are going to be outlawed due to its’ possibility of injury?
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on May 24, 2010 12:37:23 GMT -6
Oh, no. The Superspread- AKA The A11- is the safeest offense in football. It says so right there on their web site.
|
|
|
|
Post by mariner42 on May 24, 2010 12:41:02 GMT -6
I think if you're going down that road, we can also claim truth to CoachBDub's immortal quote: "Squats make your d!ck bigger".
|
|
|
|
Post by dubber on May 24, 2010 12:51:01 GMT -6
Special teams provide the bigger collisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 24, 2010 12:51:06 GMT -6
Hypothetical Question: Due to the recent research and technology used in studying the causes of concussions in the game of football and the only recurring variables for concussions are speed and force of an impact; would it be logical to concede that spread offenses (the amount of space between all offensive players) are going to be deemed illegal due to safety issues? (Obviously defensive spacing would have to be governed as well for safety to be positively impacted) Furthermore, would it be a career booster to implement/change your philosophy to a more condensed offensive attack sighting safety/legal issues and use scientific research to back your philosophy? I agree that this would complete the wussification of America and completely change the game from its original origins but is this where the game is headed if certain techniques are going to be outlawed due to its’ possibility of injury? Spread = alignment... i.e. where you start prior to the snap Speed = how fast one can cover ground Force = mass times acceleration (speed) so ... speed and force are related. but how do they relate to where a player lines up (offensively)? a tight end running a 10 yard dig is "safer" than an inside receiver running the same dig? even though the speed and force of the safety (or linebacker) didn't change?... interesting.  |
|
|
|
Post by coachguy83 on May 24, 2010 15:53:42 GMT -6
I don't think that it's a factor. Besides a lot of research is showing that the subconcussive head trauma suffered by lineman is far more damaging long term. If that is the case the spread and 33 stack are the best thing to ever happen to football from a safety stand point (well besides the advent of the forward pass and the outlawing of the flying wedge).
|
|
|
|
Post by coachks on May 24, 2010 17:04:56 GMT -6
Hypothetical Question: Due to the recent research and technology used in studying the causes of concussions in the game of football and the only recurring variables for concussions are speed and force of an impact; would it be logical to concede that spread offenses (the amount of space between all offensive players) are going to be deemed illegal due to safety issues? (Obviously defensive spacing would have to be governed as well for safety to be positively impacted) Furthermore, would it be a career booster to implement/change your philosophy to a more condensed offensive attack sighting safety/legal issues and use scientific research to back your philosophy? I agree that this would complete the wussification of America and completely change the game from its original origins but is this where the game is headed if certain techniques are going to be outlawed due to its’ possibility of injury? Spread = alignment... i.e. where you start prior to the snap Speed = how fast one can cover ground Force = mass times acceleration (speed) so ... speed and force are related. but how do they relate to where a player lines up (offensively)? a tight end running a 10 yard dig is "safer" than an inside receiver running the same dig? even though the speed and force of the safety (or linebacker) didn't change?... interesting. Wider alignments allow players to accelerate for longer periods before contact. In the example you provide, the answer would be "yes" because the safety is only gaining speed for 3-4 yards before impact on a TE, but would be gaining speed for 6-7 yards against a wider receiver (assuming MOF safety). The argument is that everyone is running full speed in (and against) the spread, while you don't get to full speed as often against, say, the Double Wing or Wing-T attacks. |
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 24, 2010 18:21:09 GMT -6
ah, so then it is the DEFENSE that is to blame.. because the middle of the field is still the middle of the field. so, defensive personnel (secondary) is aligned differently in cover 3 vs a Pro set than they would be vs a TE-twins set, or a doubles 2x2 set..... ? so, we need to change rules to prevent a cover 3 FS from aligning at 12 yds to cover the middle third vs doubles and keep it at the same depth for all formations. likewise, a cover 2 safety must not align any differently to spread sets than he would vs a TE set --- this way, his "depth" to the backside dig is the same.
"the argument is that everyone is running full speed"? that is the argument? well, sounds like an easy fix ... change the defensive rules.
is this a valid discussion thread on this board? that one particular type of offense or defense causes more injuries than another? i fail to see any reason this should really be a topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on May 24, 2010 18:29:36 GMT -6
I think if you're going down that road, we can also claim truth to CoachBDub's immortal quote: "Squats make your d!ck bigger". Where did BDub say this? Weight Training section? That is hilarious! |
|
|
|
Post by eaglemountie on May 24, 2010 18:32:03 GMT -6
Delete it then... wasn't trying to cause problems... just trying to have a discussion of the possibilities of the future of the sport... which if Roger Godell continues his influence over the game of football it will wind up being flag football with ejections for any physical contact...
|
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on May 24, 2010 19:30:06 GMT -6
How is a FS lined up at 10 yards running down hill to tackle a RB lined up 7 yards deep in a condensed offense any safer than a spread offense?
News flash: running into another human being at full speed while trying to knock them to the ground causes concussions. No offense or defense will stop that in the game of football. The human body is not designed to play football period.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yash on May 24, 2010 20:11:13 GMT -6
With the tackling epidemic the speed in space concept is probably helping the concussion problems. I know our kids will never touch your kids out in space, but they might get a concussion when they dive and hit their head on the ground after missing your fast kid.
But, I wouldn't blame it on the spread, I would say that no matter what offense you run, there is a chance. When safeties fly up from 12 yards to make a tackle on someone, no matter waht the offense it has a higher risk. when kids aren't taught to tackle correctly it leads to a higher risk. Whenever you have a game with the amount of collisions at a time as football there is a high risk.
I don't know if the amount of concussions has really increased. I think being able to diagnose one has. I think that many of the concussions from the past just got over looked where as now they have Impact testing and other ways of checking these kids out and finding out that it is truely a concussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by robinhood on May 25, 2010 8:27:21 GMT -6
I wonder how many concussions were reported from back in the day offenses. Oh, wait. Reliable stats on concussions weren't kept then. I know I had AT LEAST three concussions during my 4 years of HS football. I went to the doctor for ONE of them, and my coach got mad when I did that.
We ran the Tight-T or Robust T.
Concussions result from heads getting hit. Maybe we should teach tackling better or differently.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandstorm on May 26, 2010 10:30:30 GMT -6
I don't think I have ever been more turned off to a football discusion that this one. Cripes!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by leighty on May 26, 2010 10:47:16 GMT -6
I don't think I have ever been more turned off to a football discusion that this one. Cripes!!! You're not kidding. Makes me think someone is on the rag. |
|
|
|
Post by eaglemountie on May 26, 2010 12:16:19 GMT -6
I don't think I have ever been more turned off to a football discusion that this one. Cripes!!! You're not kidding. Makes me think someone is on the rag. Yeah, it's the NFL commissioner |
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on May 26, 2010 12:21:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by mahonz on May 26, 2010 19:20:08 GMT -6
The NFL is coming to our town on June 19th to help our YOUTH program better understand concussions.
This Symposium includes Dr. Gerard Gioia who heads the SCORE program in Washington DC. Dr. Stanley Herring of the Seattle Seahawks and Seattle Mariners. Steve Antonopulos of the Denver Broncos who is credited with bringing concussion awareness in the NFL.
I will ask them this very question in the breakout sessions.
I bet they don’t hen peck me for asking such a ridiculous question either. Can anyone really say without question that wide open styles of football isnt more dangerous? Seems like a valid thought.
They are also bringing along the NFL’s final studies on helmets that was just completed and how they rate against concussions. Xenith was the only company to opt out of this head to head comparison. They didn’t like the format…apparently.
Coach Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 27, 2010 8:18:57 GMT -6
The issue is probably not alignment but speed. If space creates speed - and, therefore, more frequent concussive injuries - then space across the entire field & scope of the game must be addressed. One can't conclude that one particular style or formation is the culprit - you must address the issue of space across the field.
So, rule changes must affect this, not just the alignment. So, that brings us to having to create rules that prohibit a player from lining up farther than "X" number of yards from the ball. It must then prohibit a player from receiving a ball "X" number of yards from the ball. Which would mean that such plays as a "Post" would need to be outlawed, because there would be too much space - and therefore - too much speed gained by the safety and that could lead to a concussion. It matters little if that post was thrown from a "spread" set or a 2-tight, 2-back, "flanker" set... it was a post deep downfield to an outside receiver. This "no-no" lead to there being an increased speed gain (due to the increased space) from the safety (and, subsequently, the receiver) that leads to a concussive hit.
Now, rules must be enforced that eliminate the yardage gaps between players across the field, and throughout the play. So, more studies must be done to determine this appropriate distance and which routes - if any - can actually be run. I mean, it may be extremely dangerous to have a TE run a drag across the field if the ball is thrown too far outside the tackle box because the opposite corner (or any defender on the opposite) may have too much space available - and be running too fast - which could cause that concussion. But, since it wasn't a "spread" set it is safer?
Are concussions seriouis? yes ... Do we need to continue to evaluate ways to treat them? yes ... Do we need to continue to educate/train ourselves on preventive measures? yes ... Is 'outlawing' a formation going to solve it? doubtful .... Is preventing players from lining up certain distances apart the answer? perhaps, but that creates a ton more of questions & regulations involved.
Saying "spread" is more dangerous seems 'knee-jerk' to me... Speed and force can be dangerous no doubt. But, address the issue... space between 2 players when the hit is about to happen... this can occur in hundreds of ways during the course of a game - regardless of "spread" offense or "pass/run" ...
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on May 27, 2010 9:08:39 GMT -6
It just seems to me that we/someone needs to come up with a way to reduce concussions, by way of protective equipment rather than change the rules of the game. The NFL seems to be more on the change the rules directive as noted by all the QB rules, defenseless receiver rules, etc. Changing the rules of game is not the answer. Injuries are in the nature of the sport. Death is not in the nature but is certainly possible. I look at a sport like NASCAR what are they doing? Re-stricter plates, fins and spoilers, etc. All in an effort to control the speed of the car...but they accept that the very nature of their sport is dangerous. So the majority of their efforts have been spent on driver safety. Foam in doors, hans device around the neck, seats, helmets, safer barriers, etc. There is no way to change the sport of auto racing and make it 100% safe. So I think it would be in our best interest to quit changing the game, quit changing the rules and focus our efforts more on developing better/more protective equipment to prevent the severity of injury rather than change the rules to make it illegal. Other wise we are headed towards the same fate as boxing. I remember watching 15-20 round fights. Then they changed the rules - 12 rounds, then 10...then there were fewer knockouts and people stopped watching. (pay per view didn't help either). And where are we now? UFC. I can't even tell you who the HW Champion is. You can't continually change the rules of a game in the interest of safety, the people who play that game understand the risks, they accept those risks, when you change the rules, you change the game, when it changes enough, people - participants and spectators lose interest and will go to a different game or will start their own league with generally accepted rules. Just a random thought on it. Although I agree that it's impossible to eliminate all of the risk I like a lot of the new rules involving hits to the head. The risk of major head injuries come from unexpected blows to the head. Sure you can get dinged with a random hit at the LOS but those seldom cause catastrophic damage. Those come from the KO hit on a receiver over the middle or on a blindside block so I agree with rules banning blows to the head in those circumstances. Why not? They do it in rugby. |
|
|
|
Post by sandstorm on May 27, 2010 9:20:51 GMT -6
It just seems to me that we/someone needs to come up with a way to reduce concussions, by way of protective equipment rather than change the rules of the game. The NFL seems to be more on the change the rules directive as noted by all the QB rules, defenseless receiver rules, etc. Changing the rules of game is not the answer. Injuries are in the nature of the sport. Death is not in the nature but is certainly possible. I look at a sport like NASCAR what are they doing? Re-stricter plates, fins and spoilers, etc. All in an effort to control the speed of the car...but they accept that the very nature of their sport is dangerous. So the majority of their efforts have been spent on driver safety. Foam in doors, hans device around the neck, seats, helmets, safer barriers, etc. There is no way to change the sport of auto racing and make it 100% safe. So I think it would be in our best interest to quit changing the game, quit changing the rules and focus our efforts more on developing better/more protective equipment to prevent the severity of injury rather than change the rules to make it illegal. Other wise we are headed towards the same fate as boxing. I remember watching 15-20 round fights. Then they changed the rules - 12 rounds, then 10...then there were fewer knockouts and people stopped watching. (pay per view didn't help either). And where are we now? UFC. I can't even tell you who the HW Champion is. You can't continually change the rules of a game in the interest of safety, the people who play that game understand the risks, they accept those risks, when you change the rules, you change the game, when it changes enough, people - participants and spectators lose interest and will go to a different game or will start their own league with generally accepted rules. Just a random thought on it. Agreed. Furthermore, I think by suffocating the game with rules, it actually causes other injuries in different aspects of the game. |
|
|
|
Post by mahonz on Jun 21, 2010 13:08:45 GMT -6
We had our Concussion Symposium sponsored by the NFL on Saturday.
Wide-open styles of play by the offense are a concern for the NFL. It does increase the risks for injury. There is no data to support this theory since equipment is far superior than it was just 20 years ago but the biggest safety measures being taken now is awareness.
Gone are days of coaches telling players….get back in there we need you now….so that is a positive step. The worst type of concussion is a second hit concussion.
Helmets do not prevent nor are they designed to prevent a concussion is what the helmet manufacturers are insisting. That is why Xenith opted not to participate in the NFL helmet study. Their marketing angle is that their product is more concussion proof. The helmet alone is designed to prevent skull fracture and why the NFL killed the study and will not be releasing its results.
What does help prevent concussions is fitting the helmet with a wet head, never changing the haircut during the season, a proper hard cup chinstrap that is always cinched tight and a mouth guard. Many NFL players do not wear mouth guards therefore a concussion study on the helmets alone done by the NFL was not well received.
So the hard answers from the people that we hope are in the know is...we dont know.
Coach Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by pvogel on Jun 21, 2010 13:30:31 GMT -6
im gonna go out on a limb and say its merely the increase in size, speed, and strength in today's players.
i think if the wishbone was the in fad and everyone was running 8 men in the box defenses today we would see just about as many concussions
|
|
