|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 25, 2007 13:35:22 GMT -6
SO as not to completely hijack airraiders thread (which was a 5 wide highlight exhibition) I thought i would start a new thread
OK coach..you stink. Your players are not big..not strong, not fast. Your Willie's and Joe's are B A D (and not in the Richard Roundtree way).
So, which of the two prevalent philosophies do you undertake:
...do you say..we can't block them, so we spread it out, operate and space, throw quick, use formations...
...do you say...we better double them, we better triple them, we better do everything possible to keep the clock running....
or do you have a 3rd option?
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Dec 25, 2007 14:01:25 GMT -6
SO as not to completely hijack airraiders thread (which was a 5 wide highlight exhibition) I thought i would start a new thread OK coach..you stink. Your players are not big..not strong, not fast. Your Willie's and Joe's are B A D (and not in the Richard Roundtree way). So, which of the two prevalent philosophies do you undertake: ...do you say..we can't block them, so we spread it out, operate and space, throw quick, use formations... ...do you say...we better double them, we better triple them, we better do everything possible to keep the clock running.... or do you have a 3rd option?  |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 25, 2007 14:21:34 GMT -6
brophy---this is a legit question for discussion as it brings into play OTHER TANGIBLE aspects of the game that are loosely associated with probabilities that arise from different strategic attacks, as well as differing philosophies as to program/player development.
|
|
|
|
Post by gldnglv165 on Dec 25, 2007 15:01:47 GMT -6
We had a very young and inexperienced team this year. Didn't have half the speed we've had in previous years, and I quickly adopted the pound the ball, melt the clock and get into a one or two scoring game. One of our games we had 5 offensive possesions the entire game. Two real drives in each half, and one where we scored on a 1 play possession following a shanked punt. We didn't have the playmaking ability to get into shootouts, so if we had adopted the spread 'em out and throw, we would have had a lot of 3 and outs and fallen behind by big numbers.
|
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Dec 25, 2007 15:06:29 GMT -6
This one has been beat to death -
"I'm too small so we're going to spread them out. That way their one or two defensive studs can't dominate in the box."
or
"I'm too small so we're going to wedge everything, run the clock, shorten the game, keep THEIR offense off the field...."
The spread guys are not going to change their mind and the DW guys are not going to change.
In my opinion, as a coach, you need to:
1. Put YOUR kids in a position to be successful!
2. Coach what you KNOW!
3. Try to learn MORE about what the other side is doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 25, 2007 15:10:45 GMT -6
but FBdoc...what I am trying to get at..is not the schematics. Both work schematically....I am interested in discussing the other factors that go along with the decisions.
Do these other factors, such as the clock etc...carry influence that actually makes ONE a better decision than the other?
|
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Dec 25, 2007 15:24:09 GMT -6
The "ideas" and "other factors" are interesting, but the discussions along these threads almost always go back to posts similar to my first one. You are correct when you state both work schematically, but to ask which one do you use is the same as asking which one is "better"? And that question (DW vs Spread) has been beat to death!
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 25, 2007 15:29:01 GMT -6
Has it been beat to death in THIS viewpoint? I know we have discussed them ad nauseum as schemes...we have discussed do you have to throw to win...can you run the same 4 plays and win...etc etc. But have we ever discussed that perhaps..PERHAPS, when you are smaller, slower, weaker... ONE actually is superior than the other when you factor in other aspects of the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Dec 25, 2007 15:57:52 GMT -6
As a coach you need to do what you believe in. If you are really good spread coach who has a good toolbox you will be able to emphasize certain aspects of your offense one year and others in other years
The problem with the spread if you have chicken s--t and know that its going to take some time to turn it into chicken salad is that there is no where to hide. When you are great, you are great, but when things go wrong it looks horrid, which is something you need to take into consideration with fans and parents (not that they should really matter). Compressed, power football conceals within the scrum of the play all the things that did not go well. When you run a spread, the same things might not have gone well, but they are exposed and naked for everybody to see, which from a PR perspective is a difficult thing to stomach.
|
|
|
|
Post by wingt74 on Dec 25, 2007 16:05:14 GMT -6
On a pass play, even without a defense, you need someone to throw a semi accurate pass, and someone to be able to catch a pass.
On a run play, you need someone that can run without crutches.
Now, how can anyone argue that poor talent on offense means you show spread attack throw?
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 25, 2007 16:17:17 GMT -6
wing-t....before this thread turns down THAT road...I would counter argue with "it is much easier to teach a kid to throw semi accurate passes, and to catch..than it is to teach two 165 Ol's to get movement on a combo back to a backer, or to be able to cut off penetration.
My intention was to say that are there OTHER factors...such as shortening the game, limiting possession..even public perception...that would say one is better than the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 25, 2007 16:37:51 GMT -6
dave--great point there. From experience, trying to ground pound unsuccessfully is as ugly looking AND draws the same type of ire that you mentioned. My H.S career was a wonderous 3-7,2-8,2-8,1-9 career..under 4 different head coaches (one was just from January-March..then he left). Power I... Split back Veer..Split back Veer, Wing T. Coaches were often criticized because they weren't "innovative" and didn't try, we just ran into the line 2 or 3 times then punted....(crowd and parent perspective..not reality)
|
|
|
|
Post by jjkuenzel on Dec 25, 2007 17:54:02 GMT -6
In that situation I would sling it. Compare it to a boxing match. If you are slinging it around, at least you have a punchers chance. I would rather hang it all out there and have a punchers chance instead of playing it close to the vest and grinding it out with a superior opponent.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 25, 2007 18:22:09 GMT -6
jj...to play devils advocate to your analogy....couldn't one argue that by throwing those punches, you expose yourself to a VERY LIKELY early knockout..completely with blood spatter, and several lost teeth.
If you rope a dope--play it close to the vest--maybe you stay close on points, and win it in the end....
|
|
|
|
Post by swroberts on Dec 25, 2007 20:23:22 GMT -6
Coach, I'll throw my 2 cents in. If I look at my roster and feel I don't have the horses to compete game in and game out I am going to find an offense that is different or contrary to what most teams run in my conference. Maybe I try to find the one offense nobody sees all year long. At least each week your opponent has to spend time focusing on what you do. Possibly this takes away from their practice on offense which might help your defense. If you are that bad you probably will struggle more on defense so anything you can do to help your defense is positive. When we prepare for option teams it seems to monopolize our week of practice. This year we faced the only two option teams in our 12 team conference in a 3 week period. The first option team we prepared for resulted in a lean week for the offense. The second option team we prepared for we had a more balanced practice schedule. I am using the option offense as an example, it could be anything from d-wing, to fly , to flex to the air raid. One might be a better fit for your kids but it's important to find one that is unique to your conference or division. It might monopolize their practice routine and it should also be hard for the scout team to duplicate.
|
|
|
|
Post by CVBears on Dec 26, 2007 0:29:58 GMT -6
sling it or grind it? Some might say that I am sitting on the fence on this one, but I am going to say both. Why? It is because I have the philosophy that a team should be able to run and pass on offense. I have run concepts that I know and I have pass concepts that I know (rather than just know of). If we are so horrible that we only have two plays, one of them is going to be a run and the other is going to be a pass. I'm not going to call iso or wedge or power or XXXXXXX if it is 3rd and 10 in three down territory. Conversely, 4th and a half an inch, I'm not going to call mesh, smash or 4 verts. If we are faced with these situations and I don't have the type of play that is going to put my boys in a position to be successful, it is on me.
Case #1:
Reporter: coach it was 4th and goal from your own one yard line, why didn't you call a pass play?
Coach: because we don't have one installed
Case #2:
Reporter: coach, it was 4th and goal from the opponent's inch line, why didn't you call a qb wedge/sneak?
Coach: because we don't have one installed
In both cases, it is the head coach's fault.
From there, it is all about execution. If we never get those two plays right, we are only going to rep those two plays until we get them. What about the third play installed??? Are we better at passing or running? (remember, -99 is better than -100). Whatever we are better at, running or passing as a team, is going to be the next type of play.
Do I want my boys to be successful? Of course...But I am not going to bastardize my philosophy of football just because it might fool some players and we could get lucky one year. I don't care about getting the clock to run out as quickly as possible (which is somehow called "controlling the clock" which makes no sense, btw). But I do care about getting our boys to (among other things) know and love the game of football and I'm going to make sure that our boys are coached to play just slightly above their current ability. At the end of the day, if our boys went out and played with 100% effort and executed as their coaches have asked them/taught them, then I am proud of them and I get a good night's sleep.
|
|
|
|
Post by jjkuenzel on Dec 26, 2007 1:37:34 GMT -6
I understand what you are saying and there is merit to that school of thought. That type of "philosophy" can and has worked. IMO, if I am pretty certain that there is a good chance I am going to get beat, why not hang it all out there? Is there a difference in losing 28-7 instead of 42-21? Maybe, but at the end of the day it is about the W's and L's and that is what teams are measured on.
I have been in games where going in we were physically over matched. It was the first year with a new HC and we hadn't really had time to build anything. I remember a particular game where we went in trying to grind it out. Play ball control offense, get first downs, keep the clock moving, catch a few breaks and maybe have a chance in the 4th quarter. We ended up getting a complete ass kicking. It wasn't even close. We couldn't move the ball to save our lives. Now if we had tried it the other way and chucked it around we would have likely still lost. But I ultimately believe that it would have sent a message to the kids that we are playing every game to win. Not to keep it close, not to save face, not to look good in the paper, but to WIN.
|
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Dec 26, 2007 8:55:29 GMT -6
I'd line up in the A-11.
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Dec 26, 2007 10:05:17 GMT -6
So, which of the two prevalent philosophies do you undertake: ...do you say..we can't block them, so we spread it out, operate and space, throw quick, use formations... ...do you say...we better double them, we better triple them, we better do everything possible to keep the clock running.... or do you have a 3rd option? Third option, and not just because I'm a hopeless smartass. I think it's a false dichotomy, the same way the "hands or shoulders" blocking threads contain one. You need to be able to do both. If you work within a system which tries to exploit a fairly limited number of plays which resemble each other in some basic ways, both running and passing, you can perfect both your running and passing game in the limited practice time available. I personally feel it is vital to add an element of deception to this kind of philosophy in order to keep defenses off-balance, but I'm willing to concede that there are other views. To me, deception is not as well understood as it should be, which is why too many coaches don't see the need to build it into their core attack, which I think is a mistake. Here is an explanation of the theory of deception that I wrote up a couple of years back that puts it in (I hope) a useful football context: Ambiguity (A) and Misleading (M) deception (which is also known as misdirection). A-type deception attempts to fool a defender by increasing the number of options he has to worry about. It increases his uncertainty about the offense's eventual course of action by offering more than one alternative, causing the defender to "spread resources thinly to cover all important contingencies." ("Strategic Military Deception,” Katherine Herbig and Donald Daniel, in Strategic Intelligence: Theory and Application, Joint Military Intelligence Training Center: Washington DC, 1995.)
M-type deception, on the other hand, decreases uncertainty by convincing the defender that one of your lies is true. He focuses on your misdirection deception, and makes himself, as one scholar said of Stalin anticipating an ultimatum from Hitler before he attacked Russia, "quite certain, very decisive, and wrong." (Hitler, of course, attacked the Soviet Union without warning in 1941.)
Uncertainty, and thus A-type deception, is at its peak before the ball is snapped. Let's say a receiver goes in motion across the formation. The middle linebacker notes this, but is uncertain of how to respond at first. Will Z get the ball on the midline and run the Fly Sweep? Will he receive a fake, and the ball be handed to the FB on a complementary Dive or Trap? Will a slotback receive a hand-off in the opposite direction for a counter play? Will a play-action pass break out? Or will the original receiver continue on his motion path for a pass? Or, finally, will he motion out wide, only to see the ball handed to the FB on an inside play? THAT'S ambiguity.
M-type deception, in turn, peaks after the snap. Now we see the receiver go in Fly motion, take the Fly Sweep hand-off, then in turn hand the ball to the opposite WR on a Reverse. Or there is the Draw, where the QB clearly drops to pass, only to hand the ball to a back in a way that the defense can’t see. The ultimate in M-type deception, for me, is a dropback pass action with a fake draw followed by a pass -- two changes in play type, and thus in the nature of the threat to the defense, in less than two seconds.
The Fly series thus has both strong A-type and strong M-type deception. The Rocket Sweep series, on the other hand, involves rather less A-type deception. Rocket motion usually means one thing is coming -- a quick toss to a full-speed back who will take the ball wide to gain yardage. Other things can and do happen, but they are very much subsidiary to the Sweep.
Where the Rocket series excels, I believe, is in M-type deception -- not because of elaborate faking (it is always harder to fake a toss convincingly than to fake a hand-off), but because of the Rocket's sheer, unstoppable SPEED. The defense is forced to decide RIGHT NOW where the ball is going, and must commit in many cases before it is positive who is holding the pigskin. I believe that it is difficult to succeed with a small number of plays unless you take various measures to delay defensive recognition -- that is, to use deception of one sort or another. Finally, a thought to leave you with on the importance of deception for teams that lack overwhelming talent (and that teams that have the talent so rarely rely on deception): “The best approach for inferior talent is the deception which any player can learn but which superior talent neglects.” -- Homer Smith |
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Dec 26, 2007 10:34:39 GMT -6
As always Ted, a very interesting and well written post. If Homer Smith says it, its good enough for me. Also follows along Mark Speckman's stressing the importance of faking for the Fly Sweep - where he says any player can become an "All American" Faker.
|
|
|
|
Post by dacoachmo on Dec 26, 2007 11:57:21 GMT -6
If you sling it, you better complete passes or the game turns ugly real fast...
I always tell my players that a 5 yard pass can trun into in long gain real fast.
2 years ago our most productive play was bubble (@ 6 yards ever time).
|
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Dec 26, 2007 12:07:37 GMT -6
So, which of the two prevalent philosophies do you undertake: ...do you say..we can't block them, so we spread it out, operate and space, throw quick, use formations... ...do you say...we better double them, we better triple them, we better do everything possible to keep the clock running.... or do you have a 3rd option? Third option, and not just because I'm a hopeless smartass. I think it's a false dichotomy, the same way the "hands or shoulders" blocking threads contain one. You need to be able to do both. If you work within a system which tries to exploit a fairly limited number of plays which resemble each other in some basic ways, both running and passing, you can perfect both your running and passing game in the limited practice time available. I personally feel it is vital to add an element of deception to this kind of philosophy in order to keep defenses off-balance, but I'm willing to concede that there are other views. To me, deception is not as well understood as it should be, which is why too many coaches don't see the need to build it into their core attack, which I think is a mistake. Here is an explanation of the theory of deception that I wrote up a couple of years back that puts it in (I hope) a useful football context: Ambiguity (A) and Misleading (M) deception (which is also known as misdirection). A-type deception attempts to fool a defender by increasing the number of options he has to worry about. It increases his uncertainty about the offense's eventual course of action by offering more than one alternative, causing the defender to "spread resources thinly to cover all important contingencies." ("Strategic Military Deception,” Katherine Herbig and Donald Daniel, in Strategic Intelligence: Theory and Application, Joint Military Intelligence Training Center: Washington DC, 1995.)
M-type deception, on the other hand, decreases uncertainty by convincing the defender that one of your lies is true. He focuses on your misdirection deception, and makes himself, as one scholar said of Stalin anticipating an ultimatum from Hitler before he attacked Russia, "quite certain, very decisive, and wrong." (Hitler, of course, attacked the Soviet Union without warning in 1941.)
Uncertainty, and thus A-type deception, is at its peak before the ball is snapped. Let's say a receiver goes in motion across the formation. The middle linebacker notes this, but is uncertain of how to respond at first. Will Z get the ball on the midline and run the Fly Sweep? Will he receive a fake, and the ball be handed to the FB on a complementary Dive or Trap? Will a slotback receive a hand-off in the opposite direction for a counter play? Will a play-action pass break out? Or will the original receiver continue on his motion path for a pass? Or, finally, will he motion out wide, only to see the ball handed to the FB on an inside play? THAT'S ambiguity.
M-type deception, in turn, peaks after the snap. Now we see the receiver go in Fly motion, take the Fly Sweep hand-off, then in turn hand the ball to the opposite WR on a Reverse. Or there is the Draw, where the QB clearly drops to pass, only to hand the ball to a back in a way that the defense can’t see. The ultimate in M-type deception, for me, is a dropback pass action with a fake draw followed by a pass -- two changes in play type, and thus in the nature of the threat to the defense, in less than two seconds.
The Fly series thus has both strong A-type and strong M-type deception. The Rocket Sweep series, on the other hand, involves rather less A-type deception. Rocket motion usually means one thing is coming -- a quick toss to a full-speed back who will take the ball wide to gain yardage. Other things can and do happen, but they are very much subsidiary to the Sweep.
Where the Rocket series excels, I believe, is in M-type deception -- not because of elaborate faking (it is always harder to fake a toss convincingly than to fake a hand-off), but because of the Rocket's sheer, unstoppable SPEED. The defense is forced to decide RIGHT NOW where the ball is going, and must commit in many cases before it is positive who is holding the pigskin. I believe that it is difficult to succeed with a small number of plays unless you take various measures to delay defensive recognition -- that is, to use deception of one sort or another. Finally, a thought to leave you with on the importance of deception for teams that lack overwhelming talent (and that teams that have the talent so rarely rely on deception): “The best approach for inferior talent is the deception which any player can learn but which superior talent neglects.” -- Homer Smith From Ted's Wild Bunch manual: SIMPLICITY x DECEPTION = SUCCESS THE GREATEST EQUALIZER IS EXECUTIONI will say this again: The greatest equalizer is EXECUTION.....the second greatest is DECEPTION (which is why we traditionally ascribe the term "equalizer" to the spread, the DW, the SW, the flexbone, the Power-T, etc.) I often have conversations with Coach Calande about talent and scheme, among our many disagreements, one commonality we share is a good coach tries to minimize the effect things outside his control have on his team. You cannot control your talent (until the college level), so you should emphasize what you can control------namely, the level of execution of your team THE EXTENT of HOW MUCH you can minimize talent is where he and I usually disagree That is how I feel about the "third option" (my preference) To answer your question, coachd5085--------I will ask a question: What gives you the best chance to win? That is different from situation to situation.......... I would say that there is no ABSOLUTE about which is "better" I wouldn't even say there is a GENERAL feeling about which is "better" One final thought: Fortune favors the bold-------if you are going to knock off a greater opponent, you gotta take risks. regardless of scheme |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 26, 2007 12:11:13 GMT -6
If you work within a system which tries to exploit a fairly limited number of plays which resemble each other in some basic ways, both running and passing, you can perfect both your running and passing game in the limited practice time available. I would argue here ted...with all due respect...that the concept of "perfecting" anything in football is a relative term. You might have your game "perfected" against the 2-8 bottom dwellers, but when you play the 3 time defending state champs...you could be in a "perfect" mess I realize the thrust of your post was to advocate that WHATEVER you try to do, it needs deception. I would agree with this 100% Dubber--I would argue that "mathmatically" the best chance to win when you don't believe your team can win...is to limit the chances. Like in casinos, your "BEST" chance to hit a payday is to place a large black or red bet on a single zero roulette wheel. When the house has odds, each opportunity allows them to enjoy those odds. |
|
dgs
Junior Member
Posts: 295
|
Post by dgs on Dec 26, 2007 12:24:31 GMT -6
If you are going to grind it out, you better have good administrative support because the patrons will get mad because you aren't "giving the kids a chance to win". I worked for a coach who went to double wing because the talent level at the time was terrible and he wanted to keep games close. I agreed with what he was doing as being best for our program. Our varsity went 0fer but the Jv and the MS programs were winning. Still, the local experts went on a campaign and got the coach fired. The sad thing was he was probably the best x's and o coach I have worked for and truely did things for the best of the kids.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Dec 26, 2007 14:51:51 GMT -6
SO as not to completely hijack airraiders thread (which was a 5 wide highlight exhibition) I thought i would start a new thread OK coach..you stink. Your players are not big..not strong, not fast. Your Willie's and Joe's are B A D (and not in the Richard Roundtree way). So, which of the two prevalent philosophies do you undertake: ...do you say..we can't block them, so we spread it out, operate and space, throw quick, use formations... ...do you say...we better double them, we better triple them, we better do everything possible to keep the clock running.... or do you have a 3rd option? In a vacuum I'd say that we should grind it out, keep the ball out of the other offense's hands, and shorten the game. I'm a defensive guy, though, and I'd be curious to see how many of the "chuck it" supporters are defensive coaches. That's in a vacuum. As you've said there are other considerations: Are you just starting a program or are you am established coach in a down cycle? If you're just starting, what's your view of what you want the program doing down the line? If you're established are you willing to change philosophies for what may be just a few years? Is it just a few years or has something changed the school population so that your talent level will likely be permanantly diminished? |
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Dec 26, 2007 16:27:17 GMT -6
watching the run and shoot video...coach says "we are faster then them"...then catches himself and says "well in high school that might be different, there are times when their backers are faster than your receivers"....
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Dec 26, 2007 18:32:07 GMT -6
the fact that someone refers to the passing game as "sling it" indicates a lack of knowledge of what the passing game involves and how it applies within a teams' scheme. so, i would recommend for that coach not to concern himself with the passing game because if all he wants to to is "sling it" then he is pissing in the wind.
likewise, if you think the run game is about "grinding it" you are selling it short the nuances of how to piece together a ground attack.
personally, i tire of seeing these type of threads continue to pop up. more often than not, someone shows their a$$ more than they show their brain. we get all these cute little anecdotes "supporting" one viewpoint or another yet come to no conclusion.
THE ONLY ABSOLUTE IN FOOTBALL IS THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTES.
now, to be honest, yes ... this discussion has tons of merit. however, i would like for everyone to consider that being a "passing team" (whatever that is, really... lol) is more than just "chuck & duck" and that alot of nuances and variables are in play. likewise, "pounding the ball" i.e. being a 'run team' is quite complex in itself. i hate for misconceptions to be present in a topic of such importance. so, please, don't miscontrue "spread" with "sling it - river boat gambler - oh what the hell, let's chunk it" and don't think "run" is "pack'em in, beat 'em into submission, 3 yds cloud of dust" ...
be aware of all the variables in play and how the run game and pass game correlate and how play-calling may be a bigger factor than overall "scheme" here.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 26, 2007 19:35:07 GMT -6
the fact that someone refers to the passing game as "sling it" indicates a lack of knowledge of what the passing game involves and how it applies within a teams' scheme. so, i would recommend for that coach not to concern himself with the passing game because if all he wants to to is "sling it" then he is pissing in the wind. likewise, if you think the run game is about "grinding it" you are selling it short the nuances of how to piece together a ground attack. personally, i tire of seeing these type of threads continue to pop up. more often than not, someone shows their a$$ more than they show their brain. we get all these cute little anecdotes "supporting" one viewpoint or another yet come to no conclusion. THE ONLY ABSOLUTE IN FOOTBALL IS THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTES. now, to be honest, yes ... this discussion has tons of merit. however, i would like for everyone to consider that being a "passing team" (whatever that is, really... lol) is more than just "chuck & duck" and that alot of nuances and variables are in play. likewise, "pounding the ball" i.e. being a 'run team' is quite complex in itself. i hate for misconceptions to be present in a topic of such importance. so, please, don't miscontrue "spread" with "sling it - river boat gambler - oh what the hell, let's chunk it" and don't think "run" is "pack'em in, beat 'em into submission, 3 yds cloud of dust" ... be aware of all the variables in play and how the run game and pass game correlate and how play-calling may be a bigger factor than overall "scheme" here. Excellent points. I hope that nobody took those slang terms that I used in the title, and used their "slangness" to infer that I was implying any of that. Just to be sure though, I changed the original topic....40 attempts...or 40 carries.... when you stink. TO BE clear, this was not a RUN vs PASS thread. I will say however, that MY PERSONAL belief is "anti pass" in the scenario i described, because of the mathematical reasons I listed. When the odds are against you, you want as few opportunities as possible, and ME personally, would rather lose a game 28-0 than 54-21. So while I posed the question, I will admit I already had my mind mostly made up about the answer. I hope that isn't ill received |
|
|
|
Post by sls on Dec 26, 2007 19:50:45 GMT -6
personally, i tire of seeing these type of threads continue to pop up. Amen!!! |
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Dec 26, 2007 19:58:22 GMT -6
Run vs Pass, Spread vs DW, Sling vs Grind ... Beat to Death!
What are some of the other variables you are interested in?
|
|
