|
|
Post by superpower on Dec 21, 2007 13:08:11 GMT -6
I have been reading about the A-11 offense and wondering if this is another step in the evolution of American football. If so, what do you think the game will look like in 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? As our society becomes softer (in general), will football have to change from a collision sport to less of a contact sport just to survive?
With more and more spread passing schemes, it appears that there is less and less contact in the game (not saying that is bad or good - just a change). How long will it be until all blocking (and possibly all tackling) below the waist becomes illegal?
Many/Most NFL receivers and defensive backs no longer wear any knee, hip, or thigh pads. How soon will the uniform rules change to not requiring those pads at the college, high school, middle school, and youth levels?
As the game continues to evolve, what will distinguish it from basketball and soccer? (Other than the obvious things like the field, the number of players, the ball that is used, etc.)
I guess my real question is this: Is football in the process of losing its identity?
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Dec 21, 2007 13:14:35 GMT -6
TOUCH
FOOTBALL
|
|
|
|
Post by jraybern on Dec 21, 2007 13:25:35 GMT -6
I can see where you are coming from. But at the same time, there will always be a certain number of schools that have more big strong kids. Those schools will have more success lining up and smashing the other team. I think as long as there are communities with big strong kids (and there will always be those) you are going to have a violent game. As prominent as the spread is, it seems to me that every day another school switches over to the "dark side" - the alleged unstoppable double wing.
I also look at basketball. It seems to me that it gets more violent all the time. Wayne Simeon who played at Kansas wore hip pads under his shorts - apparently to protect him from all of the crashing bodies in the paint. If anything, basketball may be becoming more like football. Look at Wade with the heat. Now tell me that guy couldn't play WR or DB and be as physical as anyone in the NFL?
Even the best "spread" teams - and specifically the best spread teams - still have a power running game. When a team is PURELY one dimensional (this is not the teams that CAN pass and run but stick to one or the other most of the time) they will eventually get beat by a big strong physical defense.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Dec 21, 2007 13:29:48 GMT -6
with increasing speed and power.....it is natural evolution.
The PRO game is what is destroying the sport - right or wrong (not schemes). Fortunately, they have a commissioner now that will at least prevent the moral destruction of the sport. Now, fining and outlawing tackling is retarded.
Now 'spreadattack' might have a thing or two to address your "football identity" discourse...the game is the game is the game. Get in the endzone any way you can.
I doubt you see a lot of teams trying to pull of a full-time A-11 any time soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by kkennedy on Dec 21, 2007 13:31:56 GMT -6
Football is cyclical. At some point when defenses start getting full of smaller "tweener" types of linebackers and smaller speedier DB's somebody will come along and reinvent the countertrey and try to run all those smaller faster d players over with a 230 pound tailback and the game will head back in that direction.
I would'nt fret about the game changing or getting watered down too much. One of the things that makes this the greatest game on earth is the diversity in which it can be played.
|
|
crl
Junior Member
Pick me , pick me... I want to be on the RNC location scout team.
Posts: 476
|
Post by crl on Dec 21, 2007 13:40:31 GMT -6
Hell next thing ya know, they say we´ll be flying like birds... or hehehe walk on the moon...
Their is a team in the Bay Area which use to be a White Upper Class bastion, it had some great teams and players. Well Silicon valley came along and a huge influx of Asian and Indian entrepenuers and IT whizzes displaced this sector, happens all the time. Now they have terrible teams, not because of players but because of sheer size and a distiction in the present cultures which place more value in education than sport. The game is no where near dying, but the dynamics and size, speed and abilitys have increased, the small town teams are still there, but schools that are blessed with what they have, or like D.sall in N Cal just imports them in.
Yes Brophy their is a Santa Claus...
A-11 ha! Next thang you know Rockney will be throwing the ball, likes its a baseball!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Dec 21, 2007 13:41:58 GMT -6
I think (for this discussion) one needs to distinguish between "evolution" and tactical trends. Look at old SW / bone principles being utilized to adapt to todays defenses, those type of coaching 'trends' go back and forth. Now 'evolution' is based on becoming more efficient in application and dropping dead weight. When I was growing up in football, we trained like body-builders and didn't do any 7on7, football was a 3 month sport..........now, it is year round and we are specializing in athletic performance training......kids are taking home DVDs full of cutups and tendency sheets and interactive playbooks and Internet highlight reels......we didn't have a concept of what any of that was when I was growing up. "Big" when I was a player was 6'1" and 240 lbs...now it is 6'6" 320lbs..... adapt,improvise, overcome.......  I think there is a point when the human body's output capacity will exceed that which the confines of the game can make it "safe". Ever watch old reels from the 50's and 60's? How slow those guys were (how much ground was covered)....now, granted, those guys could leg whip, head slap, face mask, a hit you until the whistle blew.... but if you have 265lbs of explosive power being delivered while cruising down the field at your 4.3 speed..... Can the human body evolve to withstand multiple car wrecks? You can strengthen bone density and pack on muscle mass, but how does a body prepare its tendons & ligaments for high impact explosions? |
|
billyn
Sophomore Member
Posts: 231
|
Post by billyn on Dec 21, 2007 14:14:34 GMT -6
I predict the A 11 offense is headed for extinction. Having all 11 players on the offense with eligible numbers makes it too difficult for the officials to keep track of illegal men down field. It essentially is taking an exception to the rules that was made for the kicking game and exploiting it. It may have passed an initial inspection, but if people really start using this to its' full potential they will close the loophole. Look at the history of football and if 12 men in the huddle, guards with their backs to the line of scrimmage, players reporting inside the numbers, and the fumblerooskie all inspired changing of the rules I don't see how this will not also inspire a rules change. If you want to spread out all over the place and shift people on and off the line of scrimmage that's fine, but to use the numbering system as an advantage to me borders on unethical.
|
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Dec 21, 2007 14:19:54 GMT -6
In terms of evolution, from reading this board, it seems like size and toughness in football are things of the past. Defenses are all trying to get into schemes that allow more OLB/SS/DB types on the field because they are "outweighed across the board and can't line up against better teams." Offenses seem to be forgetting about TE's and FB's. It's becoming more like basketball where the team is built around one player (in this case, usually a spread offense QB) who can win or lose the game for you, rather than around the efforts of 11 guys doing a job to accomplish a common goal.
It's funny though, to read a lot of coach's comments out here, it seems like everyone is undersized, outmanned, and out-athleted in every game every year. Everyone is looking to install offenses and defenses that work when 'you just don't have the horses.' Has anyone taken a look around and wondered "where have all the horses gone?" Why are there less TE and FB's available to coaches? Where are they going?
It's bizarre!
In summary, you never see this question EVER:
Hi, my name is coach Illposthereonce. Next season I have a problem, and I don't know what kind of offense to run please help:
I have 3 or 4 big powerful linemen. I have a couple of FB-types as my backs. I have like 2 or 3 TE types too. I don't have a fantastic athlete at QB and I don't have any WR types that are worth getting the ball to. What should I do? I get kids that are tough and fairly big but only average athletes.
I mean, maybe it's just the board, but does anyone here have big good kids? You'd think by reading a lot of the posts that they don't exist any longer. I for one never see schools anywhere that consistently are outweighed by 100 lbs across the line and that only get 20 kids out for the program, and I don't exactly coach in a state that's considered a football hotbed.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Dec 21, 2007 14:26:09 GMT -6
Defenses are all trying to get into schemes that allow more OLB/SS/DB types on the field because they are "outweighed across the board and can't line up against better teams." breathe.......stop and think WHY. 20 years ago....if you were 100lbs heavier than everyone else, you DOMINATED. Nowadays, if you are 100lbs heavier than anyone else.....you are just not that athletic. Size really doesn't mean diddly poo. With the IMAGE-CONSCIOUS society we are becoming, kids that are ATHLETES are steering clear of becoming large and in-charge. They are all going for washboard abs and getting ripped. In the social climate of the country isn't embracing large kids as "athletes". Those kids that are 6'4" are GROWING into 260lbs monsters from a very early age. Genetics play a big part of it....but if you have kids that are GENETICALLY gifted, you as a parent recognize that and put them in a school where they will be successful (in a successful program). If the game is evolving with more speed and power...where does that monster huge kid fit? Because he is only good for about a 1 square yard.....before he gets "out-athleted". |
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Dec 21, 2007 14:27:04 GMT -6
It's becoming more like basketball where the team is built around one player (in this case, usually a spread offense QB) who can win or lose the game for you, rather than around the efforts of 11 guys doing a job to accomplish a common goal. My beloved Oregon Ducks about that when Dixon went down. Now this is an interesting concpet. I would love to have this issue. Its probably the fact that this is a very spread offense oriented board. Most of the coaches on here are either running the spread or have run the spread. our problem is more about the lack of competition, work ethic, and the fact we have a huge Native American population. |
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Dec 21, 2007 14:28:39 GMT -6
"I have 3 or 4 big powerful linemen. I have a couple of FB-types as my backs. I have like 2 or 3 TE types too. I don't have a fantastic athlete at QB and I don't have any WR types that are worth getting the ball to. What should I do? I get kids that are tough and fairly big but only average athletes."
That is awesome! You just described my teams for the past two years. However, I honestly think that we are going to run out of BIG kids after the next two years, and by big I am only talking about 5'10" - 6'1" and 200-230 lbs. The past two years our OL has averaged about 6'0 and 215 lbs. Next year we will be about 5'11" and 200 lbs, and we will get smaller for several years after that looking at the kids in grades 7-9. The good news is that we will be faster and will continue (I think) to have tough kids.
|
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Dec 21, 2007 14:35:43 GMT -6
Defenses are all trying to get into schemes that allow more OLB/SS/DB types on the field because they are "outweighed across the board and can't line up against better teams." breathe.......stop and think WHY. 20 years ago....if you were 100lbs heavier than everyone else, you DOMINATED. Nowadays, if you are 100lbs heavier than anyone else.....you are just not that athletic. Size really doesn't mean diddly poo. With the IMAGE-CONSCIOUS society we are becoming, kids that are ATHLETES are steering clear of becoming large and in-charge. They are all going for washboard abs and getting ripped. In the social climate of the country isn't embracing large kids as "athletes". If the game is evolving with more speed and power...where does that monster huge kid fit? Because he is only good for about a 1 square yard.....before he gets "out-athleted". I think my whole point was in asking "why," brophy. I was breathing just fine when I wrote that. I think that is certainly a truth. I also think that toughness and team play are not things that are valued or emphasized today. It's weird, becaue I used to view football as a supplemental part of education, where those values of toughness and teamwork COULD be taught. Now, it seems like lots of us (coaches in general) have given up and are just adapting philosophies to fit the times rather than trying to teach new and different values. Again, just trying to generate discussion. Nobody should feel like I just whized on your wonder bread. |
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Dec 21, 2007 14:40:32 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Dec 21, 2007 14:50:48 GMT -6
Defenses are all trying to get into schemes that allow more OLB/SS/DB types on the field because they are "outweighed across the board and can't line up against better teams." breathe.......stop and think WHY. 20 years ago....if you were 100lbs heavier than everyone else, you DOMINATED. Nowadays, if you are 100lbs heavier than anyone else.....you are just not that athletic. Size really doesn't mean diddly poo. With the IMAGE-CONSCIOUS society we are becoming, kids that are ATHLETES are steering clear of becoming large and in-charge. They are all going for washboard abs and getting ripped. In the social climate of the country isn't embracing large kids as "athletes". Those kids that are 6'4" are GROWING into 260lbs monsters from a very early age. Genetics play a big part of it....but if you have kids that are GENETICALLY gifted, you as a parent recognize that and put them in a school where they will be successful (in a successful program). If the game is evolving with more speed and power...where does that monster huge kid fit? Because he is only good for about a 1 square yard.....before he gets "out-athleted". The few schools we have competed against that have size year in and year out create an atmosphere where these bigger kids are treated as "athletes". It really starts for them in the off season conditioning programs; they use the weight room to stroke these kids' egos. However, it is always an uphill battle; the kids want to be Calvin Klein models, not big strong athletes... As far as the "evolution" of the game goes; it's an illusion. Football is cyclical; offenses and defenses continually adapt to one another. "New offenses" don't appear; just different versions of the same stuff. The Shotgun Option isn't anything new; it's just the single wing combined with the veer and forward passing concepts. Defenses developed the 3-4 to better attack pass protection schemes; zone blocking is born. 3-4 evolve into 3-3 teams to adapt adapt to the zone blocking; now we attack those schemes with good ol' fashion off-tackle powers and option. |
|
|
|
Post by kylem56 on Dec 21, 2007 14:51:31 GMT -6
I pray that in 10, 20 years the days of the wishbone, full house T, and single wing will be back in full force and spread will be considered old school. Hey a guy can dream right ?  |
|
|
|
Post by jraybern on Dec 21, 2007 15:00:46 GMT -6
I wouldn't go so far as to say that no one out there has big strong kids.
Maybe those out there that DO have those kids either don't seek out info on how to be more successful because they
1) don't care
2) are depressed because they have no "athletes" just big brutes
3) are good coaches who use their brutes to their advantage effectively and don't really need our (you guys') help
Lets face it, those without (insert type of kid you want here) have to try to come up with gimmicks to get by without (type of kid you want here). Gimmick might not be the word for it, but maybe it is. One internet defined gimmick as "A secret device used in the execution of a magic trick." Isn't that what the single wing, double wing, triple option, spread, wing T, A11 teams are all trying to do. Make up for lacking something by doing something else. Seriously, if you are sitting there saying "If I had Peyton Manning and 5 Jerry Rice's on my team I'd still at least run some double wing if not exclusively" then you are an idiot. Nothing against double wing but that would just be stupid.
That is the one of the great things about this board - it is full of gimmick specialists. That is not meant to be a derogatory remark towards ANYONE. We are all great at coming up with creative ways to utilize X while minimizing Y. Those coaches who have the big strong kids have it easy in a way because they don't have to come up with gimmicks (or they don't have to come up with as many).
So when someone says "are we all smaller than everyone else out there" the answer is probably yes. We need to find those gimmicks to be effective.......SO HERE WE ARE!
|
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Dec 21, 2007 15:02:01 GMT -6
breathe.......stop and think WHY. 20 years ago....if you were 100lbs heavier than everyone else, you DOMINATED. Nowadays, if you are 100lbs heavier than anyone else.....you are just not that athletic. Size really doesn't mean diddly poo. With the IMAGE-CONSCIOUS society we are becoming, kids that are ATHLETES are steering clear of becoming large and in-charge. They are all going for washboard abs and getting ripped. In the social climate of the country isn't embracing large kids as "athletes". Those kids that are 6'4" are GROWING into 260lbs monsters from a very early age. Genetics play a big part of it....but if you have kids that are GENETICALLY gifted, you as a parent recognize that and put them in a school where they will be successful (in a successful program). If the game is evolving with more speed and power...where does that monster huge kid fit? Because he is only good for about a 1 square yard.....before he gets "out-athleted". The few schools we have competed against that have size year in and year out create an atmosphere where these bigger kids are treated as "athletes". It really starts for them in the off season conditioning programs; they use the weight room to stroke these kids' egos. However, it is always an uphill battle; the kids want to be Calvin Klein models, not big strong athletes... As far as the "evolution" of the game goes; it's an illusion. Football is cyclical; offenses and defenses continually adapt to one another. "New offenses" don't appear; just different versions of the same stuff. The Shotgun Option isn't anything new; it's just the single wing combined with the veer and forward passing concepts. Defenses developed the 3-4 to better attack pass protection schemes; zone blocking is born. 3-4 evolve into 3-3 teams to adapt adapt to the zone blocking; now we attack those schemes with good ol' fashion off-tackle powers and option. If the evolution of the game is an illusion, how do you account for the NFL players not needing to wear any padding below the shoulder pads? And what about the penalties for hitting a QB at the knees or when he slides? These things are here to stay, so I don't think we can call them cyclical. If you don't think the game has evolved, talk to someone who played or coached it 50 years ago. Or even 20 years ago. There is much less contact and violence. Again, I am not saying that is either good or bad, but to suggest that the old style of physical, violent football will be recycled doesn't seem likely given the changes in the rules and our softer society. |
|
|
|
Post by jraybern on Dec 21, 2007 15:17:27 GMT -6
I would also like to just point this out. I watched just the first play in calende's film link. Watch the offense's left guard and the right tackle (second guy past the center). Also watch the defensive LB who takes on the pulling guard and all three DBs. I know that there are 22 guys on the field but these 5 didnt exactly show a lot of physical play on that play. I don't point this out to say that these guys weren't tough. I just sometimes think we have a slightly skewed view that FB 40 years ago was millions of times more physical than it is today. On the other hand, aren't there some kids (maybe not the average kid) that a far stronger and faster than any that played back then. So aren't the hits and thus the game MORE physical than it used to be? I don't know. There is certainly a shortage of kids who are just plain tough by nature. But there are some really tough talented kids too. Is football today really that less tough than it was 40 years ago? I really don't know but I tend to think it may still be a pretty rough game. Some rules have made it safer, but last I knew, running a kid over was still legal.
|
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Dec 21, 2007 15:21:30 GMT -6
You make a good point, jraybern. I think the change that I see is going to be evident in many of the bowl games. Watch Hawaii, for example, and see how many of their offensive plays end with little to no contact. A receiver catches the ball as he slides to the turf and the play is over. Or he catches it and steps out of bounds. That wasn't very common even 15-20 years ago.
|
|
crl
Junior Member
Pick me , pick me... I want to be on the RNC location scout team.
Posts: 476
|
Post by crl on Dec 21, 2007 15:29:31 GMT -6
Heck lets just bring back the flying wedge...
They said Primo Cannera(spelling) would never be beat...
They said the we Colonials fighting the greatest army in exsistance would be sweeped away...
They said that Clemson would never be a power house...
They said tuesday was reds tamale day...
They said we will bury you....
I say who is this guy named They?
People have evolved, kids are faster, stronger and bigger....
If we don´t dry up , get drowned, or bring on a massive ice age, followed by our own extiction...(ice age is also a fact of globel warming, happens after) who knows.
I support leave no retard behind...coach ém up and let them play, if David is smarter than the big guy he will win.
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Dec 21, 2007 15:29:42 GMT -6
You make a good point, jraybern. I think the change that I see is going to be evident in many of the bowl games. Watch Hawaii, for example, and see how many of their offensive plays end with little to no contact. A receiver catches the ball as he slides to the turf and the play is over. Or he catches it and steps out of bounds. That wasn't very common even 15-20 years ago. little or no contact? just how many one on one pass pro drills have you been involved in? that is where I personally hurt more opponents than anything else just by being mean and physical |
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Dec 21, 2007 15:52:20 GMT -6
The few schools we have competed against that have size year in and year out create an atmosphere where these bigger kids are treated as "athletes". It really starts for them in the off season conditioning programs; they use the weight room to stroke these kids' egos. However, it is always an uphill battle; the kids want to be Calvin Klein models, not big strong athletes... As far as the "evolution" of the game goes; it's an illusion. Football is cyclical; offenses and defenses continually adapt to one another. "New offenses" don't appear; just different versions of the same stuff. The Shotgun Option isn't anything new; it's just the single wing combined with the veer and forward passing concepts. Defenses developed the 3-4 to better attack pass protection schemes; zone blocking is born. 3-4 evolve into 3-3 teams to adapt adapt to the zone blocking; now we attack those schemes with good ol' fashion off-tackle powers and option. If the evolution of the game is an illusion, how do you account for the NFL players not needing to wear any padding below the shoulder pads? And what about the penalties for hitting a QB at the knees or when he slides? These things are here to stay, so I don't think we can call them cyclical. If you don't think the game has evolved, talk to someone who played or coached it 50 years ago. Or even 20 years ago. There is much less contact and violence. Again, I am not saying that is either good or bad, but to suggest that the old style of physical, violent football will be recycled doesn't seem likely given the changes in the rules and our softer society. Yes, there are a lot of rules protecting the QB in the modern game. But to say that the game isn't just as violent, if not more so, is a stretch. Players are bigger, faster and stronger than they've ever been. More size+more strength+more speed= harder hits. Players in the NFL don't wear those pads because it allows for better mobility; not because they're not taking nasty shots below the waist. |
|
|
|
Post by kurtbryan on Dec 21, 2007 17:12:42 GMT -6
Great topic:
If I may put my two cents in...
The actual playing field dimensions of a football field have not changed in 100 years, and before the 1930's I believe, there were not Hash marks on the field...so if a ball carrier got tackled out of bounds - the football was spotted one-yard from the sideline.
However, as defensive players have evolved into bigger, faster, stronger and more ferocious players during the past 20 years let's say, offensive coaches Must adapt their schemes and tactics or get pulverized.
Humbly where the game is going in the next 25 - 50 years:
Football players will be incredibly super-fast, athletic and most will have the ability to process huge amounts of information in the blink of an eye. So what does that mean for the game?
Not only - and I say this as humbly as possible - do my staff and I think it is already headed in the direction of the extreme spreads and the A-11, but it will be even more drastic, with some projected changes such as:
1. Forward motion prior to the snap
2. Two-men in motion
3. More than a standard 6 points for a TD, in other words, a 20-yard TD pass would be worth 6 points, but a 50-yard TD pass would be worth 10 points, etc.
4. Same sliding type of scale for Field Goals and their worth
5. The field dimensions will be altered, not by making the field bigger between the goal lines, but Deepening the End Zones from 10-yards deep to 15 yards deep.
Canada style??? Maybe not that much but much more similarities.
Kurt
|
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Dec 21, 2007 17:38:11 GMT -6
someone said that all the kids want to be Calvin Klein models - how much does our society rely on role models that are the skill (RB,QB,WR types) types? When I was growing up I wanted to be either Jack Youngblood, Jack Lambert or Mean Joe. Maybe if we as a society started celebrating all the types of athletes, and not just the pretty boys, oour kids could find a role model worth watching.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Dec 21, 2007 18:42:34 GMT -6
For the sake of "evolution" discussion, I don't think the particulars are relevant. For the sociological / ethical issues involved with body type, see the previous thread from last month; Size Matters / IssuesTHE GAME, not scheme, is evolving.....just like anything else in civilization. THE GAME picks up efficiencies and streamlines itself. From the forward pass to hashes...the game adapts to better practices. For the sake of THIS discussion, could this be geared toward HIGH SCHOOL ball? I mean the NFL is an extreme that has its own issues to contend with that are not practical in most of our situations. Look at the college game and how all the evolving concepts have changed the dynamics (limited recruiting, limited scholarships, more regulations, bigger contracts, clearinghouse, etc). Our athletes are getting stronger and faster from smarter training and nutrition. Health Care /Orthopaedic industry is getting bigger and more influential....more regulations to prevent "issues" (like concussions). Increasing health concerns (water breaks / hydration time outs in games). ??More scrutiny of programs to prevent litigation (increase in administrators in districts + more payoffs in court cases) How is THE GAME going to change? From rules? From Public perception? |
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Dec 21, 2007 19:39:28 GMT -6
For the sake of "evolution" discussion, I don't think the particulars are relevant. For the sociological / ethical issues involved with body type, see the previous thread from last month; Size Matters / IssuesTHE GAME, not scheme, is evolving.....just like anything else in civilization. THE GAME picks up efficiencies and streamlines itself. From the forward pass to hashes...the game adapts to better practices. For the sake of THIS discussion, could this be geared toward HIGH SCHOOL ball? I mean the NFL is an extreme that has its own issues to contend with that are not practical in most of our situations. Look at the college game and how all the evolving concepts have changed the dynamics (limited recruiting, limited scholarships, more regulations, bigger contracts, clearinghouse, etc). Our athletes are getting stronger and faster from smarter training and nutrition. Health Care /Orthopaedic industry is getting bigger and more influential....more regulations to prevent "issues" (like concussions). Increasing health concerns (water breaks / hydration time outs in games). ??More scrutiny of programs to prevent litigation (increase in administrators in districts + more payoffs in court cases) How is THE GAME going to change? From rules? From Public perception? excellent post brophy... so, to try and stay with the intent of THIS thread, are you saying that we can expect a trend in HIGH SCHOOL football towards a more Broncos-esque offensive line (small athletic linemen) using a scheme that stresses angles and speed (e.g like the option or zone do)? |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 21, 2007 19:42:48 GMT -6
saintrad--I think the problem is that in H.S. ball, you have to play with what you have. Remember too..that "Small" is a relative term when discussing NFL players.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Dec 21, 2007 19:44:33 GMT -6
so, to try and stay with the intent of THIS thread, are you saying that we can expect a trend in HIGH SCHOOL football towards a more Broncos-esque offensive line (small athletic linemen) using a scheme that stresses angles and speed (e.g like the option or zone do)? personally, that isn't what I'M suggesting. I'm not the author of the thread, but for his sake and not cloud various issues with absolutes......if THE GAME changes, what will influence it. jrayburn and kurtbryann posted the reasons why THE GAME would change. I was suggesting that if we are going to go into a discourse on athlete's SIZE, one should take it up in a thread already started on the matter (to not dillute THIS discussion). You take passing concepts innovated by Shaughnessy to Gilman to Walsh to Chow to Mouse to Mumme to Martz ......just like making an apple pie....you got tons of variations, but the basic recipe involves apples, a smash route, and a competent quarter baker |
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Dec 21, 2007 19:48:04 GMT -6
so, to try and stay with the intent of THIS thread, are you saying that we can expect a trend in HIGH SCHOOL football towards a more Broncos-esque offensive line (small athletic linemen) using a scheme that stresses angles and speed (e.g like the option or zone do)? personally, that isn't what I'M suggesting. I'm not the author of the thread, but for his sake and not cloud various issues with absolutes......if THE GAME changes, what will influence it. jrayburn and kurtbryann posted the reasons why THE GAME would change. I was suggesting that if we are going to go into a discourse on athlete's SIZE, one should take it up in a thread already started on the matter (to not dillute THIS discussion). ah actually i am staying with the intent...all i was asking is this a trend you are seeing in HS ball? does this trend of playing with what I have (after enough years coaching HS I know that) be affected by the trend towards a spread style offense or did the advent of the spread style offense result because of the smaller linemen? |
|
