|
Post by coachklee on Jul 21, 2018 9:16:57 GMT -6
A serious question, even if it might seem ridiculous to some: Do you mean that you want to go back to no forward pass and how it was before Roosevelt? Or which era of rules makes most sense to you? Asking just to make it easier for me to understand and have a good discussion the rule changes stemming from cte/concussion hysteria which lacks logic and scrutiny. Which are? No helmet to helmet? Use of hands 1st on blindside crack blocks? Is only a 5 yard running head start or none on a kick off “changing the core” of the game? Aside from sometimes questionable enforcement of helmet to helmet because offensive player leads with HIS head, what rules lack logic & scrutiny? I think you are mixing up unreasonable hysteria regarding not playing or completely banning the sport with actual rules effecting the playing of the game.
|
|
|
Post by coachklee on Jul 21, 2018 15:37:42 GMT -6
Which are? No helmet to helmet? Use of hands 1st on blindside crack blocks? Is only a 5 yard running head start or none on a kick off “changing the core” of the game? Aside from sometimes questionable enforcement of helmet to helmet because offensive player leads with HIS head, what rules lack logic & scrutiny? I think you are mixing up unreasonable hysteria regarding not playing or completely banning the sport with actual rules effecting the playing of the game. in my twisted world view, we keep " evolving" to make game "safer" we will no longer recognize the game we currently know and love. The argument I keep hearing is we are reacting to something that nobody really knows anything about. The safety argument is not consistent across all sports. So that is not a reason to fundamentally alter the game of football. The science, the effort into study cute and concussions is limited to just football, and has no interest in boxing and mma or hockey or the best one is soccer, which we amazingly didn't here one thing about concussions, so science is at best a tainted in motive, and therefore cannot possibly have a comprehensive research that justifies altering the game at its core. At it core meaning blocking and tackling are fundamental in football. And blocking and tackling are in grave jeopardy. And that statement is justified when we hear about taking the head completely out of football and eliminating high speed collisions. So the game is no longer the same if a player never hits another player with his head? Do we need high speed collisions that players don’t see coming? I still think of Warren Sapp hitting some Packers OL named Clifton... On top of that permitting any head-to-head or head 1st contact is just dumb...hell leading with the head could even result in potentially more catastrophic & instantaneous neck injuries which sometimes can lead to immediate paralysis. Are teaching of blocking has not changed at all except now emphasize use of hands more especially in the open field. Our tackling is now all near hip Seahawks style & regularly includes roll tackling legs. We got cutback less on the last 2 years and only missed one open field tackle that led to a long TD. Not only did we potentially make our players “safer”, we definitely made them better football players. We still do some “Oklahoma” in the pre-season & our “Live” on Defense with a short whistle twice a week. The rest the time we can be just as effective in “Thud” mode such as inside run or buzzing the near hip in “7-on-7”. I think most of us get where you are coming from, but if you feel those changes are destroying the game it should just be shutdown right now...the game still comes down to which team is going to line up & physically out execute the other team which is what really results in a player or team being tough...not by ignorantly leading with their head or throwing cheap shot blindside blocks.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 21, 2018 16:25:39 GMT -6
I have a theory about football and society that I think correlates with Fedora's comment about football and America... this is purely self indulgent and very much a free writing exercise for me (so I apologize if this is out of place) but the CTE debate notwithstanding, I found his comments about the military and football re-igniting a common theme I have ruminated on for years now as a former player and current coach... Football is a metaphor for war. It can be viewed through the lens of our society's collective conscience acting out the aggressive, violent, tribal, and territorial aspects of war. War over pigskin may seem like a silly thought to many, but without that drama unfolding on the gridiron, without football, how does that collective energy play out? Football can be utilized as an outlet... for individuals to learn about themselves.. how to grow and learn, manage our own aggression, anger, emotions, and build positive, mutually beneficial relationships with those around us... just as much as it is an outlet for those who love to watch and cheer on a Friday, Saturday, Sunday... let go of the stresses form their daily lives and let 'em rip. Pent up aggression and hostility mirroring our political, cultural, racial climate all come roaring out in fanatic support for THE TEAM, THE BATTLE, THE VICTORY, THE CHAMPION ... THE CITY, THE LEAGUE, THE NATION, etc... If people are revoked of this outlet on both an individual and collective scale, I tend to agree with Fedora.. our divide will continue to grow, and political, religious, cultural, and racial strife will continue to foment into more and more conflict.. in the same breadth, if young boys are not afforded the the vehicle that football can be for many of them- a construct of structure and discipline where they can find their true selves by pushing through physical, mental, social, and cognitive obstacles to live up to their highest capabilities as a man, husband, father and leader in the face of adversity and challenge ..... what can we offer them in the case that football goes by the wayside? Because I see a society where boys are being conditioned to believe in themselves less, give into instant gratification and turn their back on hard work, make excuses in the face of adversity, and recoil into antisocial behavior more than ever before. We need football.. and it hurts to see this game that has given so much to so many of us - yes - under attack... and I appreciate all the voices in here hashing it out on the most important issues facing our sport as we move forward. I just came here trying to find resources and advice on writing a good welcome letter for our media guide but am enthralled in this thread. Thanks for the great discussion! I just have to disagree with so many points here, and again reiterate just how poor (and perhaps counter productive) argument this is. Last things first, anytime someone makes the claim "we need football", the are proposing an easily refuted and therefore position weakening argument. I am quite certain that all of the over 10,000 members here can rattle of numerous great human beings for which football was not a part of their life. All of the supposed "benefits" that people try to associate with football can be obtained through other avenues. Supporting football by saying it is necessary is simply not the way to go. All of the things you type are so transparent and easily dismissed that it gives you little opportunity to actually support the endeavor you are trying to support. I just think you and others that go down this route ultimately hurt more than you help.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 21, 2018 16:45:21 GMT -6
Which are? No helmet to helmet? Use of hands 1st on blindside crack blocks? Is only a 5 yard running head start or none on a kick off “changing the core” of the game? Aside from sometimes questionable enforcement of helmet to helmet because offensive player leads with HIS head, what rules lack logic & scrutiny? I think you are mixing up unreasonable hysteria regarding not playing or completely banning the sport with actual rules effecting the playing of the game. in my twisted world view, we keep " evolving" to make game "safer" we will no longer recognize the game we currently know and love. The argument I keep hearing is we are reacting to something that nobody really knows anything about. The safety argument is not consistent across all sports. So that is not a reason to fundamentally alter the game of football. The science, the effort into study cute and concussions is limited to just football, and has no interest in boxing and mma or hockey or the best one is soccer, which we amazingly didn't here one thing about concussions, so science is at best a tainted in motive, and therefore cannot possibly have a comprehensive research that justifies altering the game at its core. At it core meaning blocking and tackling are fundamental in football. And blocking and tackling are in grave jeopardy. And that statement is justified when we hear about taking the head completely out of football and eliminating high speed collisions. Coach, again, you continue to use the words "fundamentally alter" and yet several have pointed out that nothing you are complaining about seems to be an alteration of the fundamentals. You are using words without actually considering what they mean. Now, I do find it interesting that most coaches here no longer teach the methods you do (biting the ball, leading with head and hands (3 pts of contact). That does shed some light on things. As far as not recognizing the game... These don't look like the fundamentals (blocking and tackling) that you seem to be worried about changing. I have seen the word "hysteria" thrown around several times in this thread. It seems to me the hysteric comments and the sky is falling attitude is coming from those saying the game is under attack, not from those saying lets look at some data.
|
|
|
Post by mahonz on Jul 21, 2018 17:18:10 GMT -6
Heading toward a lock...... How about we spin it this way: HOW DO YOU ANSWER PEOPLE WHO RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT FOOTBALL? I tried to have a discussion with a Parent a few weeks ago...she accused all football coaches of child abuse. It was best I just walked away at that point.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 21, 2018 17:24:28 GMT -6
bsportsblocking and tackling are fundamental, and the way rules are going? They will no longer be. You didn't seem to understand. My point was that the fundamentals you mentioned, blocking and tackling don't look anything like they looked in the video. You said you teach 3 pt contact (hands and hat) for Oline. That isn't what is shown in the video. So you changed football at its core (insert ominous ghost sound here). Tackling today actually does look a bit more like this, but tackling 20 years ago looked NOTHING like this. OH NO...the core of the game was changed!
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 21, 2018 17:26:39 GMT -6
Heading toward a lock...... How about we spin it this way: HOW DO YOU ANSWER PEOPLE WHO RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT FOOTBALL? I tried to have a discussion with a Parent a few weeks ago...she accused all football coaches of child abuse. It was best I just walked away at that point. Yes, it probably was. That is kind of the point I have been trying to make here though. Fedora's chest thumping tone deaf comments, and other coaches thunderous applause and approval of them generate that kind of mindset in some parents. Then shows like Last Chance U and Friday night tykes reinforce that.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Jul 21, 2018 17:36:04 GMT -6
I’m curious what standard of evidence it would take to satisfy you, or would the goalposts just keep right on moving?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Jul 21, 2018 17:39:40 GMT -6
Humour me, what p-value?
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jul 21, 2018 17:45:45 GMT -6
You didn't seem to understand. My point was that the fundamentals you mentioned, blocking and tackling don't look anything like they looked in the video. You said you teach 3 pt contact (hands and hat) for Oline. That isn't what is shown in the video. So you changed football at its core (insert ominous ghost sound here). Tackling today actually does look a bit more like this, but tackling 20 years ago looked NOTHING like this. OH NO...the core of the game was changed! NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT HAVING TO TEACH 3 POINT STANCE. I teach it. But its not a must. Can you read? Comprehend? I am not talking 20 yrs ago either. I have made that numerous times!!! Actually he said three points of contact.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jul 21, 2018 17:47:53 GMT -6
we will never concrete evidence, because it is not about safety. That's why mms and boxing are unscathed. Now humor me! Actually, they've known about boxing for decades. You can see old movies from the 30's and 40's with "punch drunk" ex-fighters.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jul 21, 2018 17:48:50 GMT -6
Actually he said three points of contact. and I have never said anything about three point contact. But I understand he is in the club. The club that thinks that making football safer is a good thing? It's a pretty big club.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 17:48:59 GMT -6
we will never concrete evidence, because it is not about safety. That's why mms and boxing are unscathed. Now humor me! Actually, they've known about boxing for decades. You can see old movies from the 30's and 40's with "punch drunk" ex-fighters. And yet they are not boxing isn't making it safer!!! How about that!
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jul 21, 2018 17:50:03 GMT -6
Actually, they've known about boxing for decades. You can see old movies from the 30's and 40's with "punch drunk" ex-fighters. And yet they are not boxing isn't making it safer!!! How about that! Know of any high schools or colleges with a boxing team?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 17:50:39 GMT -6
And yet they are not boxing isn't making it safer!!! How about that! Know of any high schools or colleges with a boxing team? its either about safety or its not!
|
|
|
Post by coachklee on Jul 21, 2018 17:52:13 GMT -6
So the game is no longer the same if a player never hits another player with his head? Do we need high speed collisions that players don’t see coming? I still think of Warren Sapp hitting some Packers OL named Clifton... On top of that permitting any head-to-head or head 1st contact is just dumb...hell leading with the head could even result in potentially more catastrophic & instantaneous neck injuries which sometimes can lead to immediate paralysis. Are teaching of blocking has not changed at all except now emphasize use of hands more especially in the open field. Our tackling is now all near hip Seahawks style & regularly includes roll tackling legs. We got cutback less on the last 2 years and only missed one open field tackle that led to a long TD. Not only did we potentially make our players “safer”, we definitely made them better football players. We still do some “Oklahoma” in the pre-season & our “Live” on Defense with a short whistle twice a week. The rest the time we can be just as effective in “Thud” mode such as inside run or buzzing the near hip in “7-on-7”. I think most of us get where you are coming from, but if you feel those changes are destroying the game it should just be shutdown right now...the game still comes down to which team is going to line up & physically out execute the other team which is what really results in a player or team being tough...not by ignorantly leading with their head or throwing cheap shot blindside blocks. so put the flags on em. And if you believe in the see it coming non sense? You need to join the crowd that wants to outlaw contact sports Never said, “I see it coming”... Clearly said, “Get where you are coming from”... Which means I agree that there is some overhype & especially the targeting of football specifically as opposed to other sports that also have concussions (a few of which do so at higher rates). I see the sport continuing if parents believe their kids are safe. The sport declines significantly if parents don’t believe it is safe. You just agreed to put flags on the primary issues that have been recent rule changes to improve safety. We are all still waiting for any new rules that specifically have changed blocking & tackling which I’d agree are the fundamental “core” of the game... Myself & the majority of dissenters in this thread are struggling to understand how your argument that some of these recent rule changes & emphasis just made the game less macho or tough. As if head contact is the whole point of the game...last I checked it was all about keeping the other team from getting the ball across the goal line, gaining possession of the ball & then getting it across the other goal line using blocking, tackling & since 1905 forward passing & catching.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 21, 2018 17:52:16 GMT -6
You didn't seem to understand. My point was that the fundamentals you mentioned, blocking and tackling don't look anything like they looked in the video. You said you teach 3 pt contact (hands and hat) for Oline. That isn't what is shown in the video. So you changed football at its core (insert ominous ghost sound here). Tackling today actually does look a bit more like this, but tackling 20 years ago looked NOTHING like this. OH NO...the core of the game was changed! NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT HAVING TO TEACH 3 POINT STANCE. I teach it. But its not a must. Can you read? Comprehend? I am not talking 20 yrs ago either. I have made that numerous times!!! I don't know how to reply here. Earlier, you said I was insulting towards you...and I know you genuinely care about the game. But for you to ask if I can read and comprehend when you talk about 3 point stances after another coach (and subsequently msyelf) talk about 3 pts contact from the Oline (and I even explained it here, "hands and hat") it just doesn't seem to bode well. Also, it just doesn't bode well for you when you ask about reading and comprehension, and then don't seem to see what I was discussing regarding 20 years ago. My point was that you keep talking about these core fundamental changes,and seem worried that game will be "unrecognizable". I used video to point out that blocking and tackling have changed a great deal over the course of the game's history. The game itself has changed a great deal and one could argue that to those who played 100 years ago (if they were alive) wouldn't recognize the game. Those who played 80 years ago would see something vastly different. Those who played the game 60 years ago would see something quite different. Heck those who played just 30-40 years ago see a different game. Not unrecognizable, but different. You seem to want it "time locked". In which period do you want it frozen?
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jul 21, 2018 17:52:31 GMT -6
Know of any high schools or colleges with a boxing team? its either about safety or its not! You didn't answer the question.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Jul 21, 2018 17:53:59 GMT -6
So there’s no possible amount of evidence that would convince you that changes are necessary?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 21, 2018 17:55:15 GMT -6
Actually he said three points of contact. and I have never said anything about three point contact. But I understand he is in the club. Yes ..you did. You clearly did. A coach typed a list of things Bite the ball 3 points of contact full contact oklahoma drill and frequent live practices You said "We do all of it" (direct quote from you)
|
|
|
Post by coachklee on Jul 21, 2018 18:02:36 GMT -6
The club that thinks that making football safer is a good thing? It's a pretty big club. no! The club, imo of course wants the flags. ...because us guys in the “club” would prefer that the sport we love & use to teach young men so many lessons regarding hard-work, teamwork, discipline, pride in self / team / school / community, etc to continue. I typically agree with slippery slope arguments, but we’ve yet to have a specific example of what new rules have been implemented or are about to be implemented by NFHS or NCAA that will take the “core” blocking & tackling out of the game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 18:15:02 GMT -6
its either about safety or its not! You didn't answer the question. they teach boxing to kids. " its about kids!" No its not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 18:17:46 GMT -6
no! The club, imo of course wants the flags. ...because us guys in the “club” would prefer that the sport we love & use to teach young men so many lessons regarding hard-work, teamwork, discipline, pride in self / team / school / community, etc to continue. I typically agree with slippery slope arguments, but we’ve yet to have a specific example of what new rules have been implemented or are about to be implemented by NFHS or NCAA that will take the “core” blocking & tackling out of the game. fb doesn't need us mortals yapping our gums to teach life lessons.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Jul 21, 2018 18:35:58 GMT -6
What the devil does that even mean???
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 19:06:43 GMT -6
What the devil does that even mean??? ?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Jul 21, 2018 19:17:01 GMT -6
“fb doesn't need us mortals yapping our gums to teach life lessons.” That’s a Chewbacca defense of ever I heard one.
|
|
|
Post by coachklee on Jul 21, 2018 20:28:36 GMT -6
...because us guys in the “club” would prefer that the sport we love & use to teach young men so many lessons regarding hard-work, teamwork, discipline, pride in self / team / school / community, etc to continue. I typically agree with slippery slope arguments, but we’ve yet to have a specific example of what new rules have been implemented or are about to be implemented by NFHS or NCAA that will take the “core” blocking & tackling out of the game. fb doesn't need us mortals yapping our gums to teach life lessons. Somewhat serious...have you been drinking all day?
|
|
|
Post by Football42 on Jul 21, 2018 21:09:11 GMT -6
I have a theory about football and society that I think correlates with Fedora's comment about football and America... this is purely self indulgent and very much a free writing exercise for me (so I apologize if this is out of place) but the CTE debate notwithstanding, I found his comments about the military and football re-igniting a common theme I have ruminated on for years now as a former player and current coach... Football is a metaphor for war. It can be viewed through the lens of our society's collective conscience acting out the aggressive, violent, tribal, and territorial aspects of war. War over pigskin may seem like a silly thought to many, but without that drama unfolding on the gridiron, without football, how does that collective energy play out? Football can be utilized as an outlet... for individuals to learn about themselves.. how to grow and learn, manage our own aggression, anger, emotions, and build positive, mutually beneficial relationships with those around us... just as much as it is an outlet for those who love to watch and cheer on a Friday, Saturday, Sunday... let go of the stresses form their daily lives and let 'em rip. Pent up aggression and hostility mirroring our political, cultural, racial climate all come roaring out in fanatic support for THE TEAM, THE BATTLE, THE VICTORY, THE CHAMPION ... THE CITY, THE LEAGUE, THE NATION, etc... If people are revoked of this outlet on both an individual and collective scale, I tend to agree with Fedora.. our divide will continue to grow, and political, religious, cultural, and racial strife will continue to foment into more and more conflict.. in the same breadth, if young boys are not afforded the the vehicle that football can be for many of them- a construct of structure and discipline where they can find their true selves by pushing through physical, mental, social, and cognitive obstacles to live up to their highest capabilities as a man, husband, father and leader in the face of adversity and challenge ..... what can we offer them in the case that football goes by the wayside? Because I see a society where boys are being conditioned to believe in themselves less, give into instant gratification and turn their back on hard work, make excuses in the face of adversity, and recoil into antisocial behavior more than ever before. We need football.. and it hurts to see this game that has given so much to so many of us - yes - under attack... and I appreciate all the voices in here hashing it out on the most important issues facing our sport as we move forward. I just came here trying to find resources and advice on writing a good welcome letter for our media guide but am enthralled in this thread. Thanks for the great discussion! I just have to disagree with so many points here, and again reiterate just how poor (and perhaps counter productive) argument this is. Last things first, anytime someone makes the claim "we need football", the are proposing an easily refuted and therefore position weakening argument. I am quite certain that all of the over 10,000 members here can rattle of numerous great human beings for which football was not a part of their life. All of the supposed "benefits" that people try to associate with football can be obtained through other avenues. Supporting football by saying it is necessary is simply not the way to go. All of the things you type are so transparent and easily dismissed that it gives you little opportunity to actually support the endeavor you are trying to support. I just think you and others that go down this route ultimately hurt more than you help. Thanks for the reply... Strong points, for sure... I don't think I would ever say these things "on the record" ... it's just that I can empathize with Coach Fedora for the reasons I expressed. The hard part for me is: where is the line? If I don't feel strongly about this great game (ie, that we need football), or that there are redeeming qualities that the game offers that *some* CANNOT obtain through other avenues (be it due to low socio-emotional function, poor socio-econimic opportunity, or other scenarios where football IS the best way to self improvement and/or opportunity) then why am I coaching it and attempting to create arguments to counter the increasing barrage of negative stereotyping that is obviously hurting the game. If you're 100% correct and we don't need football as a vehicle to help young boys mature and live up to their highest capabilities, then why not get rid of the game all together? There has to be a point where we dig our heels in and stand up for what we believe in. At some point the argument for football has to break through the emotional appeal that the opposition has going for itself. People just don't believe a coach who cites statistics/studies that are contrary to their own beliefs, especially when those beliefs are influenced by political and financial agendas. Fedora took a lot of heat for his comments... but he also brought some much needed attention to the fact that the science IS NOT settled... there is much more to be studied about CTE and mental health and there are many professionals on the record willing to back that assertion up. There has to be an art and a science to our reasoning to counter the theatre that those who would see football dismantled are using.
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Jul 21, 2018 21:37:47 GMT -6
fb doesn't need us mortals yapping our gums to teach life lessons. Somewhat serious...have you been drinking all day? Yesterday too lmao
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 21, 2018 22:17:58 GMT -6
Thanks for the reply... Strong points, for sure... I don't think I would ever say these things "on the record" ... it's just that I can empathize with Coach Fedora for the reasons I expressed. The hard part for me is: where is the line? If I don't feel strongly about this great game (ie, that we need football), or that there are redeeming qualities that the game offers that *some* CANNOT obtain through other avenues (be it due to low socio-emotional function, poor socio-econimic opportunity, or other scenarios where football IS the best way to self improvement and/or opportunity) then why am I coaching it and attempting to create arguments to counter the increasing barrage of negative stereotyping that is obviously hurting the game. Because it is fun? It is a fun game to play. But make no mistake that other fun activities can provide those redeeming qualities you mention. I am pretty sure that there are kids with low socio-emotional function, poor Socio-economic opportunities or other situations in countries that do not play American football. I am pretty sure there are females here in the US with low socio-emotional function and poor socio-economic opportunities that don't get to play football. I am pretty sure there are males here in the US with low socio-emotional function and poor socio-economic opportunities that aren't good enough football players to play football. Football is a fun game, which also provides some other desirable learning opportunities. It is not a panacea for social ailments nor is it the only (or even best) avenue for those lessons. Trying to paint football as anything other than that invalidates an argument. You are coaching it because it is fun. Because it is fun. Since you mention "young boys" are you suggesting that young girls have no opportunities to mature and live up to their highest capabilities? Should be we getting rid of young girls all together then? Are boys who do not play football doomed to remain immature and never live up to their highest capabilities? So, obviously you can anticipate that my answer to your question is : because it is fun. This isn't a global geopoltical situation where the lives of millions of citizens hang in the balance. There is no need to make a Patton-esque speech here. Also, keep in mind that one thing that nobody is forcing changes upon football. These are things that different organizations are doing on their own. Keep in mind here that ultimately we are discussing a matter of degree correct? I think if asked "are repeated blows to the head a good thing" most individuals would answer "no". If asked "do you think repeated blows to the head may increase the risk of medical issues stemming from brain trauma" I think most would say "yes" So what we are doing is discussing the degree of risk. Just as there is a degree of risk in most life long activities. Becoming hysterical like some here on this board (not you) or like Fedora seemed to do doesn't help instill confidence in the profession with regards to the professions ability to handle these potential increase in injury risks. Again, I think the analogy to tobacco companies fits very well here. As a sensible person, do you think that was handled properly for the past 5 or 6 decades? Hopefully the evidence comes out that the risks of football are less than smoking.
|
|