|
Vando posted:Does anyone here actually play? Is there a thread for that? I'm about to become a real life rookie, preliminary tryout on Sunday. There isn't a thread specifically about playing but if you have any questions about things related to playing post them here.
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:40 |
|
|
What they'll do is have him run some drills and see what he doesn't completely suck at, and then he'll get bolted onto the bottom of the depth chart somewhere, which I am currently leading a one-man campaign to rename it the "shallow chart" to better reflect most teams' situation.Vando posted:Carlisle. A mighty 21 points from 8 fixtures, a mere 300+ against. The only way is up! Staffordshire scored 42 and shipped 427 in ten games; and I'd have been morbidly interested in the Highland-Carlisle scores if they'd happened. Yeah, enjoy the bus ride to Scotlandshire every other week. At least they've chucked you in with the Presidents this year, so if you get lucky you might just get to play in front of something that can be reasonably called a "crowd". At worst you'll be able to walk through a few doors with signs on that say "Players and Officials Only", which always gives me a little kick whenever I do that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 21:27
|
|
|
The funny thing is I'm not really even at a stage where I have questions, given that everything is so general right now. I've not even seen the team play (Carlisle is 40 miles away from me), I don't fancy too many 80 mile round trips to watch bottom tier football. Playing it is another matter though. Although: hey Trin, what do you reckon I can best translate 'goalkeeper with catlike reflexes and rubber limbs' into out on the field? I can also run, I'm a keeper by choice not 'stick the fat lad in goal'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
I would guess good reflexes for the ball not a lot of bulk and running ability would put you most likely as a wide receiver.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 23:43
|
|
|
I'm saying cornerback or free safety. Receivers need to catch and take hits, corners need to keep up and swat balls away, and deliver tackles. Receivers also need to learn routes and play within strict parameters so the quarterback knows where to expect them. CBs can be more instinctual. I would prefer corner and I also played goalie by choice and was an awesome runner. Receivers have too much homework and are too reliant on outside factors (qb) for my tastes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 00:11
|
|
|
Supreme Allah posted:I'm saying cornerback or free safety. Receivers need to catch and take hits, corners need to keep up and swat balls away, and deliver tackles. Receivers also need to learn routes and play within strict parameters so the quarterback knows where to expect them. CBs can be more instinctual. I would prefer corner and I also played goalie by choice and was an awesome runner. Receivers have too much homework and are too reliant on outside factors (qb) for my tastes. Playing in the secondary, but CB more so than safety, require tons of solid technique and skill work and understanding of assignments and how best to leverage yourself against a receiver while moving backwards. You can get away with relying on instincts playing rec league flag football against sub-par competition but not in 11 man tackle football against players of similar athletic ability. The learning curve will be as big and likely bigger than that of learning how to play receiver. The motor patterns and skills that are stressed in football are specific enough that skills in other sports don't really translate (big exception for wrestling and offensive/defensive linemen) except for basic running, jumping, cutting that exists in all field sports. e:not to imply Vando can't play cornerback, just that it's far from an ideal position to jump into as someone completely new to football. McKracken fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Nov 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 00:41
|
|
|
Vando posted:'Fixture' is a Brit word for 'game' (and I used it because technically there were two other games in there, but were default wins). Yeah, I was just joshin'. Brits and their crazy slang, it's enough to make you reach for a rooty tooty point n' shooty Important question: What size are you, and what size are the other players on your team/in the league?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
Hey I have a wee question, I'm watching IND v JAX now in Australia, never watched too much before, and I get the general run of the game, but I don't know what the three little yellow bars under each team name on the score display bar thingy is for. Curently IND have 'used' 2 and JAX none. I thought it was for referee challenges, but one was just thrown (red flag?) and the decision was upheld (i.e. not changed) but it didn't use one up? So yep, what are the three yellow bars for? Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 03:44
|
|
|
Those are time outs. Each team gets three per half. Different networks display them differently but if there are three things there it's likely that they're referring to time outs. e: Oh challenges are weird with time outs. If you win the challenge you retain your time out, if you challenge something that the refs determine was ruled correctly on the field you lose a time out. If you have no time outs you cannot challenge the play. Of course if there are less than two minutes in the half or game, it was a scoring play, or a play resulting in a turnover the play will automatically be reviewed. Grittybeard fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Nov 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 03:46
|
|
|
Hey cheers Grittybeard for the explination(s). Haha, this is why I like fotball (soccer) so much, there seems to be so many more rules in NFL. I sure one day if I study enough I'll get my head around this game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 04:03
|
|
|
Blackula69 posted:Important question: What size are you, and what size are the other players on your team/in the league? I'm 6' 1" 180lb, and I think that's about average for the team. Don't know about the league, but probably a bit below average for the division given all the other teams are from much bigger cities so the local talent pool is larger.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 10:12
|
|
|
If you can catch a pointy ball you'll probably end up as WR or TE depending on what your OC is trying to do (and then spend most of your day run blocking). If not, you'll probably go in the secondary somewhere, or maybe linebacker if you can tackle well. You may also get a chance to return kicks, which is usually a good way to get your hands on the ball because either they'll be punting or kicking off to you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 16:07
|
|
|
Supreme Allah posted:I'm saying cornerback or free safety. Receivers need to catch and take hits, corners need to keep up and swat balls away, and deliver tackles. Receivers also need to learn routes and play within strict parameters so the quarterback knows where to expect them. CBs can be more instinctual. I would prefer corner and I also played goalie by choice and was an awesome runner. Receivers have too much homework and are too reliant on outside factors (qb) for my tastes. I would think CBs have as much homework as receivers, as far as film study. A good CB can tell what route a specific WR is gonna run just by the way he is standing in his stance and the way his shoulders move etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 02:43
|
|
|
Vando posted:I'm 6' 1" 180lb, and I think that's about average for the team. Don't know about the league, but probably a bit below average for the division given all the other teams are from much bigger cities so the local talent pool is larger. I think some of the Goalie skills would translate well into the Free Safety position. Especially if you started by playing "centerfield" In essence your goal is the same in that you are the last line of defense, and you can't allow anything to go past you. Playing in the middle allows you to react to the ball and see the field much better. Being able to see the field better helps you to learn how receiver run routes and the techniques that are used to defend them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
pasaluki posted:I think some of the Goalie skills would translate well into the Free Safety position. Yeah, the vast majority of defense over here (and I'm talking like 90%) uses one safety because there just isn't any kind of downfield passing threat (and I define a "downfield passing threat" as anyone who can throw the ball more than 10 yards past the neutral zone and have it go less than 10 yards away from the guy he's aiming at), so the other guy is far better off being up somewhere he might be able to do something useful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 14:10
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Yeah, the vast majority of defense over here (and I'm talking like 90%) uses one safety because there just isn't any kind of downfield passing threat (and I define a "downfield passing threat" as anyone who can throw the ball more than 10 yards past the neutral zone and have it go less than 10 yards away from the guy he's aiming at), so the other guy is far better off being up somewhere he might be able to do something useful. I'm amused by all the US guys thinking back to their school/college days and it's all still so very far above the level we play over here apart from maybe half a dozen teams. We bad, yo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 14:29
|
|
|
Vando posted:I'm amused by all the US guys thinking back to their school/college days and it's all still so very far above the level we play over here apart from maybe half a dozen teams. We bad, yo. Then again we ran the triple option, had two D-1 recruits, and one of those recruits is a starter for the Texans, so we might have been a wee bit better than most...
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 16:26
|
|
|
Welcome to bottom division football in Britain guys! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwoIU5F0rJQ
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 16:52
|
|
|
Vando posted:Welcome to bottom division football in Britain guys! Also that tackling 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 16:57
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Is that the single wing I see the team in white running? Neat. Well it *is* the "Carlisle formation" after all 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 17:02
|
|
|
I kept meeting people in Japan who played football. Apparently college football is on the rise there
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 17:02
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:I kept meeting people in Japan who played football. Apparently college football is on the rise there Then again that American team was coached by John Mackovic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 17:06
|
|
|
I wish there was a league in Canada where you could just suit up with a bunch of other weekend warriors, that would be awesome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 17:32
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Is that the single wing I see the team in white running? Neat. More probably double-wing, which was brought to us by Don Markham himself in the late 80s when he had a spell coaching in Northampton, and a lot of the coaches he taught are still knocking around. Sheffield Predators just rode it to the Div 2 Bowl in the season just gone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z7v7XMh2dA from 4:00, or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERRJpJLthYM .
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 17:53
|
|
|
Now I'm upset that I didn't add a crappy football game to my British sports odyssey when I was living there to match my experience of British basketball, conference-level soccer, and Scottish ice hockey.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 17:54
|
|
|
Is the whole BCS ranking system as dumb as it seems to me? Given that teams mostly play in their own conferences, how can you possibly determine and account for the differences in the level of competition between the conferences? It seems like you might as well say the level of talent on college teams is clearly better than on NFL teams because there are multiple undefeated college teams and no undefeated NFL teams this year. Never mind that they have no common opponents and the level of competition is totally different.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:Is the whole BCS ranking system as dumb as it seems to me? Given that teams mostly play in their own conferences, how can you possibly determine and account for the differences in the level of competition between the conferences? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 18:52
|
|
|
Eh, it's not quite that bad, if it were we'd have seen Boise State in multiple title games. So strength of competition does play a part. The real problem is there are just too many teams and too few games to adequately figure out who is the best, so you end up having to guess in some fashion however you do it. Having said that:Blackula69 posted:Yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 19:04
|
|
|
A bigger problem, that I often wrap up in a "I want the haves to have it all," is that the lower half of D-I is actually smaller than the top half. There's 120 FBS teams right now and 122 FCS. A couple are going to be moving over to FBS in the next few years. Doesn't that seem a bit odd? You'd think the superior league would be smaller. I'm reluctant to use the word, but more "elite." FBS should only be about 64 teams. Without padding schedules with Georgia Southern, Akron, and Idaho, you'd see more big name games that would better gauge how good a team really is. Which is more illuminating: Alabama: plays an FCS team, Troy State, FIU, Texas State, (all four of those at home, by the way) and then the eight SEC teams it plays. Alabama: plays Cal, Michigan, Florida State, Oklahoma State (two at home, two on the road), and then the SEC slate. Yeah, you still run into a sample size issue, but the best teams would look really, really impressive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 19:15
|
|
|
Bring back the days when winning your conference was what mattered, and nobody really cared who the national champion was. I like that better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 19:35
|
|
|
Is there some rule where a defender can't tackle by pulling on arms? It always seems to me that when getting stiffarmed the defender can grab the arm and drag the ballcarrier down instead of trying to push the other guy back ineffectively.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
bvlah posted:Is there some rule where a defender can't tackle by pulling on arms? It always seems to me that when getting stiffarmed the defender can grab the arm and drag the ballcarrier down instead of trying to push the other guy back ineffectively. No, but good luck doing that when a fast-moving pissed off dude is smacking you right in the face.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
Chilly McFreeze posted:Bring back the days when winning your conference was what mattered, and nobody really cared who the national champion was. I like that better. They still exist in the SEC, just like many other "old traditions." racism
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
Vando posted:Welcome to bottom division football in Britain guys! number 40
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 06:55
|
|
|
Rap posted:number 40 Its like when a cartoon character would get hit on the head with an anvil and get squished.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 07:50
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:Is the whole BCS ranking system as dumb as it seems to me? Given that teams mostly play in their own conferences, how can you possibly determine and account for the differences in the level of competition between the conferences? Others have mentioned it but the formula doesn't just take wins into account. Strength of schedule plays a role, as does margin of victory (which is why the Alabamas of the world play those cupcakes in the first place, and why you'll never see starters come out of a game when it's already well in hand). That said if you didn't know they're moving to a 4-team playoff to determine the champ starting next year, which will hopefully satisfy more people (and lead to some really good games now that the best teams have to play one another).
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 15:24
|
|
|
Sash! posted:A bigger problem, that I often wrap up in a "I want the haves to have it all," is that the lower half of D-I is actually smaller than the top half. There's 120 FBS teams right now and 122 FCS. A couple are going to be moving over to FBS in the next few years. Doesn't that seem a bit odd? You'd think the superior league would be smaller. I'm reluctant to use the word, but more "elite." That's only a problem if you created conferences second, after forming a competitive structure. You also haven't ACTUALLY addressed the part where even if there were half the teams the "important" (note: not actually more important) schools would still play the same schedules they do now, while also creating a reality where the probability that a team that's not regarded as a traditional powerhouse has a 0% chance to ascend nationally as opposed to a .05% chance now. Plus there are the small but statistically significant number of schools in I-AA football that are better than the majority of I-A schools basically every year. You'd just be making that number bigger and the I-A schools would look sillier losing to them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 15:32
|
|
|
C-Euro posted:Others have mentioned it but the formula doesn't just take wins into account. Strength of schedule plays a role, as does margin of victory (which is why the Alabamas of the world play those cupcakes in the first place, and why you'll never see starters come out of a game when it's already well in hand). That said if you didn't know they're moving to a 4-team playoff to determine the champ starting next year, which will hopefully satisfy more people (and lead to some really good games now that the best teams have to play one another). Margin of Victory was removed from the BCS formula like a decade ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 15:53
|
|
|
Badfinger posted:That's only a problem if you created conferences second, after forming a competitive structure. You also haven't ACTUALLY addressed the part where even if there were half the teams the "important" (note: not actually more important) schools would still play the same schedules they do now, while also creating a reality where the probability that a team that's not regarded as a traditional powerhouse has a 0% chance to ascend nationally as opposed to a .05% chance now. I'm saying the important schools wouldn't be able to play those schedules because the option wouldn't exist. There would be no Ohio, Temple, and Navy for Penn State to have played this year. And let's be realistic: if you're not a superpower or at least a BCS conference member already, you're not going to be turning into one. Since, oh, 1985...who is a power now that wasn't one then. Nobody, really. Utah and TCU came up. Maybe Boise State too. TCU was a SWC team too, so its more like they just came back to what they used to be. Clinging to that .05% just leaves us with a lot of non-competitive football. Yeah, James Madison, Montana, and Delaware are better than Kent State (most years). But for every one of those, it seems like Charlotte or UTSA is like "IA football woo!" knowing full well that they're just doing it to get four $650k games where they get their teeth kicked out. That's wrong. What would we, as the fans of the BCS conference teams, going to lose out on if there's no more New Mexico State, Idaho, and South Alabama?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 18:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:40 |
|
|
Sash! posted:Yeah, James Madison, Montana, and Delaware are better than Kent State (most years). But for every one of those, it seems like Charlotte or UTSA is like "IA football woo!" knowing full well that they're just doing it to get four $650k games where they get their teeth kicked out. That's wrong. What would we, as the fans of the BCS conference teams, going to lose out on if there's no more New Mexico State, Idaho, and South Alabama? I'm a University of Delaware grad, so we are not talking on equivalent terms here v  v (My girlfriend and some family went to PSU and I root for them). You're looking it as an exclusive sport and I'm looking at it as a inclusive collegiate sport. The fans and players of New Mexico State, Idaho, and South Alabama all lose out, that's who.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 19:11
|
|