|
Post by agap on Mar 3, 2016 11:20:09 GMT -6
It's impossible to determine if they led the nation in scoring because of not tackling or other reasons. There's too many variables involved.
But they obviously don't have a reason to start tackling in practice if they led the nation in scoring defense and their percentage of missed tackles decreased.
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Mar 3, 2016 11:35:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Mar 3, 2016 11:43:25 GMT -6
I'm not denigrating Ivy League Football but most would agree it's not the highest level in FCS. When I was in college we were among Top Ten in several D-I statistical categories. We were a MAC team, weren't playing Michigan, Ohio State, USC, ND, etc. My question was more did Dartmouth lead nation in scoring defense BECAUSE they didn't tackle in practice (cause and effect), or was there other reason(s)? We can have the same conversation about Gagliardi and all that I can answer is a firm, "I don't know".
|
|
|
Post by blb on Mar 3, 2016 11:50:52 GMT -6
I'm not denigrating Ivy League Football but most would agree it's not the highest level in FCS. When I was in college we were among Top Ten in several D-I statistical categories. We were a MAC team, weren't playing Michigan, Ohio State, USC, ND, etc. My question was more did Dartmouth lead nation in scoring defense BECAUSE they didn't tackle in practice (cause and effect), or was there other reason(s)? We can have the same conversation about Gagliardi and all that I can answer is an firm, "I don't know".
Exactly.
I guess what disturbs me somewhat is I see organizations or administrators dictating new policies-rules in the Name of Safety that may be overreactions, some unnecessary fundamental changes to the game that will not solve problems intended to.
It's as if we coaches are all Neanderthals without concern for our players, abusing them to their long-term detriment by hitting for hours upon hours, instead of caring-concerned professionals who are doing all we can to keep them safe while having an enjoyable, educational experience.
The NY TIMES article does not mention method by which the Ivy League coaches voted on this proposal. I wonder if it had been "secret ballot" if it would've been unanimous or even passed?
Again, guess we'll never know.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Mar 3, 2016 12:09:29 GMT -6
We can have the same conversation about Gagliardi and all that I can answer is an firm, "I don't know".
Exactly.
I guess what disturbs me somewhat is I see organizations or administrators dictating new policies-rules in the Name of Safety that may be overreactions, some unnecessary fundamental changes to the game that will not solve problems intended to.
It's as if we coaches are all Neanderthals without concern for our players, abusing them to their long-term detriment by hitting for hours upon hours, instead of caring-concerned professionals who are doing all we can to keep them safe while having an enjoyable, educational experience.
The NY TIMES article does not mention method by which the Ivy League coaches voted on this proposal. I wonder if it had been "secret ballot" if it would've been unanimous or even passed?
Again, guess we'll never know.
A lot of this comes down to how you define "Full contact".
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 3, 2016 14:54:14 GMT -6
I'm not denigrating Ivy League Football but most would agree it's not the highest level in FCS. When I was in college we were among Top Ten in several D-I statistical categories. We were a MAC team, weren't playing Michigan, Ohio State, USC, ND, etc. My question was more did Dartmouth lead nation in scoring defense BECAUSE they didn't tackle in practice (cause and effect), or was there other reason(s)? Most likely, they had better players that season. And their tackling program (or lack thereof) had little to do with their success. If ALABAMA did this, would they still be dominant in the SEC? I'm inclined to say yes.
|
|
barlow
Sophomore Member
Posts: 104
|
Post by barlow on Mar 3, 2016 16:04:37 GMT -6
Our DC came from college level and didn't emphasize full tackle in practice. We got smoked because when our guy was in the right spot and leverage he just couldn't get them down. He was used to the best kids from their respective high schools as well as pros. Our kids NEED to experience the nuances of taking another man down live at least OCCASIONALY before the season starts as new players to the game. Once you know then bags and sleds help fine tune it, they cannot wholesale replace putting another human being not wanting to go down in front of your guy.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Mar 3, 2016 17:25:58 GMT -6
see this is where i disagree with the idea tha "Toughness means takedowns". ive had some TOUGH practices where no one was taken to the ground.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Mar 3, 2016 17:26:59 GMT -6
Our DC came from college level and didn't emphasize full tackle in practice. We got smoked because when our guy was in the right spot and leverage he just couldn't get them down. He was used to the best kids from their respective high schools as well as pros. Our kids NEED to experience the nuances of taking another man down live at least OCCASIONALY before the season starts as new players to the game. Once you know then bags and sleds help fine tune it, they cannot wholesale replace putting another human being not wanting to go down in front of your guy. i actually prefer going live tackling early in the year. but once the season starts.... we are almost 0 live tackling. lots of thud and drive.
|
|