|
Post by 33coach on Dec 21, 2015 10:40:23 GMT -6
50 years? nothing will change.
there is too much money - people who think that football is going to go away, arnt looking at the big picture - there is too much money for the NFL to let the sport die. sure, it may go away at the HS level. but colleges and pro teams will still exist.
it may go more the way of baseball in creating farm clubs / semi pro teams that allow inexperienced players to get game time before being on TV. that would account for the loss of Playing Time at younger ages.
|
|
|
Post by joris85 on Dec 21, 2015 11:14:09 GMT -6
My guess is that football becomes the next basketball when it comes to the international game.
The US will still be the leader in their sport, but other countries will play great football as well.
Thanks to the better information technology, European coaches and players will have much better availability to sound football education, resulting in proper teaching of the game to European football players.
With the decreased interest of lower level football in the US and the increased interest across the Atlantic, many more European players will reach the top level of football.
I also think the NFL-rule of linemen downfield only 1 yard will be implemented on HS and college level within 5 years and another linejudge will have the job of indicating linemen downfield. (maybe the official holding the down marker? thinking out loud here)
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 21, 2015 11:19:34 GMT -6
50 years? nothing will change. there is too much money - people who think that football is going to go away, arnt looking at the big picture - there is too much money for the NFL to let the sport die. sure, it may go away at the HS level. but colleges and pro teams will still exist. it may go more the way of baseball in creating farm clubs / semi pro teams that allow inexperienced players to get game time before being on TV. that would account for the loss of Playing Time at younger ages. Saying "Nothing" will change is the sign of a fairly young and inexperienced opinion. I mean just 55 or so years ago, drinking fountains were segregated. I mean, based on your job, surely you know there is more computing power in the palm of our hands than we had landing a man on the moon. Things will change. Also, the "too much money" argument is not really an accurate one, as those who are making the money will be the ones CHANGING as other things change to keep that money.
|
|
biggus3
Sophomore Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by biggus3 on Dec 21, 2015 11:23:26 GMT -6
I think the rule changes only force guys to get bigger. You can't go high, you can't go low, so you had better be big enough to square up and do your job. With backs like Henry from Alabama and huge running quarterbacks line Cam, the run game will be invigorated, only with multiple RPO's coming off it based off what the most problematic defenders are doing. Defenses will have to get bigger, offenses will have to pull and cross block to get angles on these huge men, and the wing t will rise again lol, only blended with veer, spread, blended in.
One advantage that i could see developing at the pro level and the Large universities is the blending of science and coaching. Coaches will no longer be able to be a "good ol boy who knows some ball" but rather a true professional that manages every variable of an athletes life. You build a huge compound in the middle of nowhere complete with McMansions, and toys. The only catch is that no one can leave, every movement is tracked. You get blood drawn everyday to monitor your recovery. Researchers get to know you and make recommendations to your team of Drs, nutritionists strength coaches physical therapists etc. and build a truly comprehensive program. Plus you eliminate all the negative aspects of being a big time athlete. You don't like the program and making millions, fine we will find someone else who does. I never understood why pro coaches with the ability to plan something as complex as having a fall camp out of state just didn't take it one step further and keep it going all year round.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Dec 21, 2015 11:24:28 GMT -6
50 years? nothing will change. there is too much money - people who think that football is going to go away, arnt looking at the big picture - there is too much money for the NFL to let the sport die. sure, it may go away at the HS level. but colleges and pro teams will still exist. it may go more the way of baseball in creating farm clubs / semi pro teams that allow inexperienced players to get game time before being on TV. that would account for the loss of Playing Time at younger ages. Saying "Nothing" will change is the sign of a fairly young and inexperienced opinion. I mean just 55 or so years ago, drinking fountains were segregated. Also, the "too much money" argument is not really an accurate one, as those who are making the money will be the ones CHANGING as other things change to keep that money. ok, maybe nothing will Drastically change - the game will fundamentally be the same. there will be a ball, pads, rules, blocking, and tackling. and it will be shown on TV and advertisers will make billions off of it. but, as i said, i do see it going away at the lower levels, and the NFL creating farm clubs to make up for that.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 21, 2015 11:26:00 GMT -6
I never understood why pro coaches with the ability to plan something as complex as having a fall camp out of state just didn't take it one step further and keep it going all year round. Umm...Labor union? ??
|
|
|
Post by blb on Dec 21, 2015 11:38:07 GMT -6
Football will resemble "Basketball on Grass" even more than it does, perhaps look more like the Canadian game except for number of downs and expanded end zones.
Three- and four-point stances will be against the rules, the Neutral Zone will be bigger, perhaps the hand-to-hand snap eliminated.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Dec 21, 2015 12:41:06 GMT -6
Coach, can I ask how old you are? Not sure if this is a loaded question, but I'm in my early 30. So I've seen enough to know that things come and go, but I wouldn't say I have the long experience of others who have coached for decades. The reason I asked is because your statement that the way that the game was played in 1965 isn't much different than how it 's played now sounds like somebody who never played or watched a game in 1965 (Full disclosure: I didn't actually start playing until 1967 but that's close enough for government work). The game was much more conservative then. John Brodie led the NFL in passing with 239 yds. per game. That would be considered mediocre today (I was surprised to see that John Hadl, the passing leader in the "wide open" AFL, had fewer yards than Brodie). Alabama won the national championship but they did so without really blowing out anybody by modern standards. In 1965, though, a 28-7 game WAS considered a blowout. In HS ball, if a team got a three TD lead, they put in the scrubeenies. We can't do that now. Even at the highest levels, offensive and defensive systems were more basic than those used by HS teams today. They had to be. Usually coaches didn't call the plays. The QB called offensive plays and the MLB called the defense. Oddly enough, there were more trick plays (The Tackle Pass was still legal). That was because offenses were so basic that to make a big play you had to do something radical. When our HS team ran rotational 3-deep coverage in blew opponents' minds. One-back sets were rare and empty sets were considered madness. Now, even at the HS level, we (By "We" I mean our team )NEVER play an offense that doesn't use both at least a little. George Halas would wonder if he was watching a football game. What I'm saying is that your thesis that the game isn't played much differently than it was then is inaccurate. Essentially, though, it's the same game. Generally, the positions are the same. The dimensions of the field are the same (Despite the changes in the hash marks at different levels). The scoring system hasn't changed and neither have the rules, in general. So, I don't think that the essence of the game will change. Tactics, training methods, technology? Hell I can't predict how that will change next year, let alone in 50 years.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Dec 21, 2015 12:45:23 GMT -6
it wasn't 10 years ago that if you knew anything about computers or video editing, you were beyond the realm of most every coach out there. Now it is such an integral part of coaching, I don't know if a single coach could function on a staff without these skills.
To project what the game will look like in 10, 20 or 30 seasons from now, it would help to just lay out what has happened the last 10, 20 and 30 years for coaches. Particularly with the age of the Internet, information is so widely available and readily shared. At least we have smartfootball.com as a record of fact to what the game has gone through (http://smartfootball.blogspot.com/2006/01/has-spread-offense-reached-its-apex.html)
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Dec 21, 2015 12:52:36 GMT -6
Not sure if this is a loaded question, but I'm in my early 30. So I've seen enough to know that things come and go, but I wouldn't say I have the long experience of others who have coached for decades. The reason I asked is because your statement that the way that the game was played in 1965 isn't much different than how it 's played now sounds like somebody who never played or watched a game in 1965 (Full disclosure: I didn't actually start playing until 1967 but that's close enough for government work). The game was much more conservative then. John Brodie led the NFL in passing with 239 yds. per game. That would be considered mediocre today (I was surprised to see that John Hadl, the passing leader in the "wide open" AFL, had fewer yards than Brodie). Alabama won the national championship but they did so without really blowing out anybody by modern standards. In 1965, though, a 28-7 game WAS considered a blowout. In HS ball, if a team got a three TD lead, they put in the scrubeenies. We can't do that now. Even at the highest levels, offensive and defensive systems were more basic than those used by HS teams today. They had to be. Usually coaches didn't call the plays. The QB called offensive plays and the MLB called the defense. Oddly enough, there were more trick plays (The Tackle Pass was still legal). That was because offenses were so basic that to make a big play you had to do something radical. When our HS team ran rotational 3-deep coverage in blew opponents' minds. One-back sets were rare and empty sets were considered madness. Now, even at the HS level, we (By "We" I mean our team )NEVER play an offense that doesn't use both at least a little. George Halas would wonder if he was watching a football game. What I'm saying is that your thesis that the game isn't played much differently than it was then is inaccurate. Essentially, though, it's the same game. Generally, the positions are the same. The dimensions of the field are the same (Despite the changes in the hash marks at different levels). The scoring system hasn't changed and neither have the rules, in general. So, I don't think that the essence of the game will change. Tactics, training methods, technology? Hell I can't predict how that will change next year, let alone in 50 years. you have a very interesting point - in 1965 the "shotgun" was considered old school and all modern offenses had moved under center by then. a great line in tubby raymonds book talks about how they "modernized" the singlewing sweep, by moving the quarterback under center and had him handoff to the halfback rather then direct snap it. but if you look at the modern NFL - its the definition of conservative. all teams pretty much run the same offense and defense (by necessity, free agency and trading). innovation is happening at the lower ranks, but being lost because its not what the NFL does. even Chip Kelly has become just another NFL coach... i honestly think the NFL game on the field will stay almost the exact same with the only major change being the removal of special teams and kickers.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Dec 21, 2015 13:02:27 GMT -6
The reason I asked is because your statement that the way that the game was played in 1965 isn't much different than how it 's played now sounds like somebody who never played or watched a game in 1965 (Full disclosure: I didn't actually start playing until 1967 but that's close enough for government work). The game was much more conservative then. John Brodie led the NFL in passing with 239 yds. per game. That would be considered mediocre today (I was surprised to see that John Hadl, the passing leader in the "wide open" AFL, had fewer yards than Brodie). Alabama won the national championship but they did so without really blowing out anybody by modern standards. In 1965, though, a 28-7 game WAS considered a blowout. In HS ball, if a team got a three TD lead, they put in the scrubeenies. We can't do that now. Even at the highest levels, offensive and defensive systems were more basic than those used by HS teams today. They had to be. Usually coaches didn't call the plays. The QB called offensive plays and the MLB called the defense. Oddly enough, there were more trick plays (The Tackle Pass was still legal). That was because offenses were so basic that to make a big play you had to do something radical. When our HS team ran rotational 3-deep coverage in blew opponents' minds. One-back sets were rare and empty sets were considered madness. Now, even at the HS level, we (By "We" I mean our team )NEVER play an offense that doesn't use both at least a little. George Halas would wonder if he was watching a football game. What I'm saying is that your thesis that the game isn't played much differently than it was then is inaccurate. Essentially, though, it's the same game. Generally, the positions are the same. The dimensions of the field are the same (Despite the changes in the hash marks at different levels). The scoring system hasn't changed and neither have the rules, in general. So, I don't think that the essence of the game will change. Tactics, training methods, technology? Hell I can't predict how that will change next year, let alone in 50 years. you have a very interesting point - in 1965 the "shotgun" was considered old school and all modern offenses had moved under center by then. a great line in tubby raymonds book talks about how they "modernized" the singlewing sweep, by moving the quarterback under center and had him handoff to the halfback rather then direct snap it. but if you look at the modern NFL - its the definition of conservative. all teams pretty much run the same offense and defense (by necessity, free agency and trading). innovation is happening at the lower ranks, but being lost because its not what the NFL does. even Chip Kelly has become just another NFL coach... I keep hearing that, about how conservative the NFL is. What are the innovations that the NFL won't use?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Dec 21, 2015 13:04:19 GMT -6
I keep hearing that, about how conservative the NFL is. What are the innovations that the NFL won't use? 10 years ago all we heard was how the zone read was a gimmick offense, won't work in the NFL...yada yada. 3 years ago we were told how high-tempo offenses just can't work in the NFL, like the "NFL" is some grand apex of the game
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Dec 21, 2015 13:07:26 GMT -6
you have a very interesting point - in 1965 the "shotgun" was considered old school and all modern offenses had moved under center by then. a great line in tubby raymonds book talks about how they "modernized" the singlewing sweep, by moving the quarterback under center and had him handoff to the halfback rather then direct snap it. but if you look at the modern NFL - its the definition of conservative. all teams pretty much run the same offense and defense (by necessity, free agency and trading). innovation is happening at the lower ranks, but being lost because its not what the NFL does. even Chip Kelly has become just another NFL coach... I keep hearing that, about how conservative the NFL is. What are the innovations that the NFL won't use? anything that isnt "inside zone" or verticals... LOL
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 21, 2015 13:08:38 GMT -6
What I'm saying is that your thesis that the game isn't played much differently than it was then is inaccurate. Essentially, though, it's the same game. Generally, the positions are the same. The dimensions of the field are the same (Despite the changes in the hash marks at different levels). The scoring system hasn't changed and neither have the rules, in general. So, I don't think that the essence of the game will change. Tactics, training methods, technology? Hell I can't predict how that will change next year, let alone in 50 years. That's all fair, and I was trying to get to where you wound up, though you said it more eloquently. From my experience the average fan thinks 50 years ago football looked like those old reels of Walter Camp or Amos Alonzo Stagg coached teams, and I was just trying to say that much of the basis for a lot of modern football was either in place or was already in its early stages there. But I completely agree (and defer to your experience) in terms of that the complexity of the game (and many other facets as well) were very different, though the essence had already begun coalescing around the game we know now. But the constant evolution of the game is one of the fascinating things about it -- I'm not a baseball guy but I can't imagine asking what did baseball look like 50 years ago or what will it look like in 50 years. It will change but not in the way football always does.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Dec 21, 2015 13:08:52 GMT -6
I keep hearing that, about how conservative the NFL is. What are the innovations that the NFL won't use? 10 years ago all we heard was how the zone read was a gimmick offense, won't work in the NFL...yada yada. 3 years ago we were told how high-tempo offenses just can't work in the NFL, like the "NFL" is some grand apex of the gameChip Kelly tried the High Tempo offense...and it has pretty much failed. turns out its hard to tell people who are under contract to do anything they dont want to do....
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 21, 2015 13:13:35 GMT -6
it wasn't 10 years ago that if you knew anything about computers or video editing, you were beyond the realm of most every coach out there. Now it is such an integral part of coaching, I don't know if a single coach could function on a staff without these skills. To project what the game will look like in 10, 20 or 30 seasons from now, it would help to just lay out what has happened the last 10, 20 and 30 years for coaches. Particularly with the age of the Internet, information is so widely available and readily shared. At least we have smartfootball.com as a record of fact to what the game has gone through (http://smartfootball.blogspot.com/2006/01/has-spread-offense-reached-its-apex.html) Nice of you to say, though others smarter than me have done some of those exercises. In one of Homer Smith's books he got the AFCA and other clinic talks for like the prior 30 years as well as some info before that and traced the basic contours of the evolution of the game in a pretty fascinating discussion (the entire thing is around 15 pages and has more diagrams than text). But you're right about computers and the internet being a game changer for all of this, from blogs to Hudl to GIFs to streaming coaching videos to player teaching, etc. I would also argue that it's reduced the returns to innovation as others diagnose and copy innovations so much faster now than ever -- it used to take years for other teams to copy or catch on and now some of that process takes place in a manner of weeks -- though that's a topic for another time.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Dec 21, 2015 13:15:39 GMT -6
Chip Kelly tried the High Tempo offense...; so did Jim Kelly turns out its hard to tell people who are under contract to do anything they dont want to do.... this is the problem with the NFL....it isn't a game, it's an entertainment profession. Using the NFL as any barometer for the game is wholly misguided
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Dec 21, 2015 13:29:18 GMT -6
it wasn't 10 years ago that if you knew anything about computers or video editing, you were beyond the realm of most every coach out there. Now it is such an integral part of coaching, I don't know if a single coach could function on a staff without these skills. To project what the game will look like in 10, 20 or 30 seasons from now, it would help to just lay out what has happened the last 10, 20 and 30 years for coaches. Particularly with the age of the Internet, information is so widely available and readily shared. At least we have smartfootball.com as a record of fact to what the game has gone through (http://smartfootball.blogspot.com/2006/01/has-spread-offense-reached-its-apex.html) Nice of you to say, though others smarter than me have done some of those exercises. In one of Homer Smith's books he got the AFCA and other clinic talks for like the prior 30 years as well as some info before that and traced the basic contours of the evolution of the game in a pretty fascinating discussion (the entire thing is around 15 pages and has more diagrams than text). But you're right about computers and the internet being a game changer for all of this, from blogs to Hudl to GIFs to streaming coaching videos to player teaching, etc. I would also argue that it's reduced the returns to innovation as others diagnose and copy innovations so much faster now than ever -- it used to take years for other teams to copy or catch on and now some of that process takes place in a manner of weeks -- though that's a topic for another time. It used to be that if you saw something interesting in a TV game, you said, "Hey. Huh? What was that?) and tried to write it down from memory. Maybe you were taping it on VHS and could watch it later (If you could remember when it happened and were patient enough to find it). Mow, with a DVR you can watch it again immediately as many times as you want and make a copy of it.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Dec 21, 2015 13:31:07 GMT -6
Chip Kelly tried the High Tempo offense...; so did Jim Kelly And Fielding "Hurry Up" Yost in 1923 (And no, I didn't watch them play).
|
|
|
Post by gian3074 on Dec 21, 2015 14:41:15 GMT -6
10 years ago all we heard was how the zone read was a gimmick offense, won't work in the NFL...yada yada. 3 years ago we were told how high-tempo offenses just can't work in the NFL, like the "NFL" is some grand apex of the gameChip Kelly tried the High Tempo offense...and it has pretty much failed. turns out its hard to tell people who are under contract to do anything they dont want to do.... He also traded away some good players and has Sam Bradford and Mark Sanchez as QB. Like people said the NFL shouldn't be the standard, but Chip Kelly proves how different the NFL is from college and high school. With full control of personnel he thought he could run an NFL team like a college team. I think his system would work with better players in the NFL and his problem is that with control of personnel he can't blame anyone but himself if he doesn't have the talent to win with it.
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Dec 21, 2015 19:52:12 GMT -6
Chip Kelly tried the High Tempo offense...and it has pretty much failed. turns out its hard to tell people who are under contract to do anything they dont want to do.... He also traded away some good players and has Sam Bradford and Mark Sanchez as QB. Like people said the NFL shouldn't be the standard, but Chip Kelly proves how different the NFL is from college and high school. With full control of personnel he thought he could run an NFL team like a college team. I think his system would work with better players in the NFL and his problem is that with control of personnel he can't blame anyone but himself if he doesn't have the talent to win with it. He's in the playoff hunt...they are bad but changing everything may take a little time. I don't think it's a completely failed experience . I would say the jury is still out but people throw him under bus cause he is nontraditional. I would love to see five years of chip Kelly, win or lose at least we would know for sure he had a chance to try it his way.
|
|
|
Post by gian3074 on Dec 21, 2015 20:17:34 GMT -6
He also traded away some good players and has Sam Bradford and Mark Sanchez as QB. Like people said the NFL shouldn't be the standard, but Chip Kelly proves how different the NFL is from college and high school. With full control of personnel he thought he could run an NFL team like a college team. I think his system would work with better players in the NFL and his problem is that with control of personnel he can't blame anyone but himself if he doesn't have the talent to win with it. He's in the playoff hunt...they are bad but changing everything may take a little time. I don't think it's a completely failed experience . I would say the jury is still out but people throw him under bus cause he is nontraditional. I would love to see five years of chip Kelly, win or lose at least we would know for sure he had a chance to try it his way. I definitely think his uptempo style could easily work in the NFL no doubt about that--but not with the lack of talent he has at QB. If he ends up getting fired from Philadelphia the narrative won't be because his scheme failed, it'll be because his choices as GM were an abysmal failure (bad QBs, bad OL, and just other personnel issues).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2015 20:23:54 GMT -6
Chip Kelly tried the High Tempo offense...; so did Jim Kelly turns out its hard to tell people who are under contract to do anything they dont want to do.... this is the problem with the NFL....it isn't a game, it's an entertainment profession. Using the NFL as any barometer for the game is wholly misguided Exactly. The NFL has as much in common with the college and HS game as a Justin Bieber concert has with the local garage band playing your corner bar on Saturday night.
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Dec 21, 2015 20:36:17 GMT -6
He's in the playoff hunt...they are bad but changing everything may take a little time. I don't think it's a completely failed experience . I would say the jury is still out but people throw him under bus cause he is nontraditional. I would love to see five years of chip Kelly, win or lose at least we would know for sure he had a chance to try it his way. I definitely think his uptempo style could easily work in the NFL no doubt about that--but not with the lack of talent he has at QB. If he ends up getting fired from Philadelphia the narrative won't be because his scheme failed, it'll be because his choices as GM were an abysmal failure (bad QBs, bad OL, and just other personnel issues). Fair. My main point is he isn't a failure yet.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Dec 21, 2015 20:37:35 GMT -6
so did Jim Kelly this is the problem with the NFL....it isn't a game, it's an entertainment profession. Using the NFL as any barometer for the game is wholly misguided Exactly. The NFL has as much in common with the college and HS game as a Justin Bieber concert has with the local garage band playing your corner bar on Saturday night. Don't kid yourself. College football is just as much about entertainment as the NFL is. If you win big consistently you can get away with being boring. If you lose you're going to get fired no matter how innovative you are. If you're a second tier program you'd better be entertaining.
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Dec 22, 2015 9:37:14 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Dec 22, 2015 9:57:37 GMT -6
if thats the case. sign me up! im going to restart my playing career!
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 22, 2015 14:28:42 GMT -6
The problem with the Chip Kelly stuff is he came to represent either Forward Thinking in Football or College Football Coaches vs NFL coaches or something else, besides just being a good/solid/decent coach with pluses and minuses like anyone else. Also football -- like everything else -- remains a people business, and the biggest difference between college and the NFL is the people, in essentially every dimension.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Dec 22, 2015 22:00:46 GMT -6
Genetic engineering. Want your baby to end up 6' 6''? Just pay the money.
Rules changes: At the NFL level, we are talking other ways to score points. Right now, when an extra point is missed in the first quarter, how the game is approached over the rest of the game is different. The more you can vary that, the better for entertainment factor.
Technology: Virtual Reality is an interesting thought. I think in 50 years you will have nanotechnology that will repair ACL tears in 24 hours. Guys will be able to play into their 40's more and more.
Scheme: Outside of drastic rules changes (like, going to fantasy scoring for actual scoring....which is a terrible thought), the key components of the game (field position, conversion down efficiency, red zone efficiency, turnovers, etc.) will not change.
In other words, I do not think there will come along a scheme that will "break the game".
It will just be a matter of HOW you go about capturing/defending area.
I think you will see bi-polar half-line offenses.
X-------Y-O-O-X-O-O-Y ---------------Q -------------A--R
To the left, those players will work a stretch run with A.
To the right, those players will run IV or OV.
The center will make the decision and snap it to either Q for option or A for stretch.
This isn't new stuff either.
|
|
|
Post by philosopher0 on Dec 23, 2015 23:49:53 GMT -6
The game has gone from 4-5 backs to 3 backs and a qb to 2 backs and a qb to now mainly 1 back and a qb. In 50 years most teams will base out of empty. Jet sweeps, qb draws, drags, hitches, and screens will replace the running game. The o line splits will get really wide. As a result defenses will go to more of a base dime wide 9 type set with pattern match coverage.
|
|