|
Vando posted:Welcome to bottom division football in Britain guys! The speech at 1:44 was downright inspiring "We are the offensive line! We win today! If we stand watch they will beat us, make no bones about it. We must attack them!" The delivery was spectacular. Football seriously rules sometimes.
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:39 |
|
|
Sash! posted: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. The thing is, there's already I-A schools playing Div II schools for their cupcake games. You'd need a seperate rule banning your new division from playing anyone outside it, and then that becomes extremely unpopular with the cupcake schools because they're totally in a win-win situation right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 20:16
|
|
|
Badfinger posted:I'm a University of Delaware grad, so we are not talking on equivalent terms here v It is an exclusive sport. IA teams can only play so many IAA teams and no D2 and D3. IAA teams can only play so many D2 teams. And so on. If your team plays on a different talent level, like Slippery Rock, you don't get to play Michigan. Sorry Idaho. Zeppelin hangar and loving your team is great, but you just can't compete.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
Trip report! So what I learned from 90 mins of tryouts is that I can't block for poo poo, my tackling is poor, I can run and catch, I can make decent cuts, and I can throw a cute spiral. Quarterback it is!  But seriously, it was pretty much as Trin says: my lack of power but good hands means I'm probably looking at WR or DB at the bottom of the depth chart, the HC said as much. I also mentioned my interest in coaching and apparently there's opportunity to get involved there too, which is cool. They'll be busting out the inverted veer in no time! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 21:10
|
|
|
Make a thread about it
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
Good thinking, will do this when preseason gets under way in about a month, that's when I'll hook up with the squad and find out if I can really cut it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 00:44
|
|
|
Vando posted:But seriously, it was pretty much as Trin says: my lack of power but good hands means I'm probably looking at WR or DB at the bottom of the depth chart, the HC said as much. I also mentioned my interest in coaching and apparently there's opportunity to get involved there too, which is cool. They'll be busting out the inverted veer in no time! You're gonna show up next week and find out you've been appointed Assistant Wide Recievers Coach, and they're already organising you a lift to Scotlandshire for the next Level 1 course, you do realise that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 00:51
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:You're gonna show up next week and find out you've been appointed Assistant Wide Recievers Coach, and they're already organising you a lift to Scotlandshire for the next Level 1 course, you do realise that? No courses til Feb but yes I can see this being a plausible scenario. I don't really know anything about how thin on the ground coaches etc are for teams over here. Is everyone really *that* desperate?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 01:19
|
|
|
that owns dude have fun and protect ya neck. and head
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 07:52
|
|
|
Can someone with a PFF subscription break down what it comes with? Do you get access to their raw data? Like, I know I can see their grades for every player, but in addition to seeing say, Rob Ninkovich's PFF grade, can I also see things like hits/hurries/tackels for losses, things I can't find in other NFL databases like profootballreference? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
Vando posted:No courses til Feb but yes I can see this being a plausible scenario. I don't really know anything about how thin on the ground coaches etc are for teams over here. Is everyone really *that* desperate? It's more a case of "you can never have too many coaches" than outright desperation; you can put a team on the field with a minimal staff, but the more guys you have who can help with coaching and who know vaguely what they're doing, the better the team gets. Also a way of keeping you in the sport when a clodhopping lineman sits on your knee in Week 6 and you're on the happy gas wondering whether it's really worth it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
Pron on VHS posted:Can someone with a PFF subscription break down what it comes with? Okay, what you get is: Yes to your above questions, though trying to look at past year's data sucks. You can also do things like pull up receptions / thrown at per game by receivers, as well as reception charts like this (I know the passing versions have been shown before):  You can also pull up individual game rankings for most of these stats. For quarterbacks you can pull up their passing under pressure page as well. Defensive stats are a bit murkier, but here's what that looks like:  I don't believe tackles for losses are available btw. At the end of the day, I personally don't believe it's worth paying for, but to each their own.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 21:18
|
|
|
Ahhh so using some manual arithmetic a PFF subscriber could find out the total # of hits/hurries/sacks a defense has accrued in a season? That's exactly what I want, I'm trying to create a model to help predict scoring for O/Us and need a proxy variable to represent basically how tough a defense plays the pass (opposing QB TD/INT ratio is my other variable for this, trying to find a way to include both without getting too much co-linearity) Having a more accurate representation of pass rush is huge, as sacks don't tell the whole story. Might have to buy the subscription. Also if anyone with good knowledge of statistics (specifically regression models) wants to jump in and help/mentor me through this that would be really awesome  
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 21:27
|
|
|
Not sure if this is the right thread having never ventured into this subforum before, but being a fan from England whose knowledge is about as deep as a game of Madden can give me I have a question and the rookie thread's probably as good a place as any to ask it. I've been watching football occasionally for a few years and I have a very vivid memory of watching a Sunday night game some time ago (living in England it was gone midnight) and a football player gave an interview through the medium of an animatronic deer head. It's basically what got me into the game. Please tell me I'm not insane and this actually happened. If it did and someone can dredge up video of it I'll love you forever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
Sounds like Clinton Portis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 02:35
|
|
|
The Aguamoose posted:Not sure if this is the right thread having never ventured into this subforum before, but being a fan from England whose knowledge is about as deep as a game of Madden can give me I have a question and the rookie thread's probably as good a place as any to ask it. Did you see headlights too? If so, it's Colt McCoy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 06:02
|
|
|
The Aguamoose posted:Not sure if this is the right thread having never ventured into this subforum before, but being a fan from England whose knowledge is about as deep as a game of Madden can give me I have a question and the rookie thread's probably as good a place as any to ask it. It was some lovely o-lineman on the Broncos I'm pretty sure. My google-fu is weak and I can't find it, but I remember it had to do with the Broncos lineman had some agreement where they never talked to the media and wouldn't even introduce themselves on SNF/MNF. So his way around it was talking through the deer head to reporters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 06:13
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:Did you see headlights too? If so, it's Colt McCoy. I think this joke might have been lost on me slightly... Cactus Jack posted:It was some lovely o-lineman on the Broncos I'm pretty sure. My google-fu is weak and I can't find it, but I remember it had to do with the Broncos lineman had some agreement where they never talked to the media and wouldn't even introduce themselves on SNF/MNF. So his way around it was talking through the deer head to reporters. That explanation as to why definitely rings a bell, I think that's it. Unfortunately searching for 'Broncos Lineman Animatronic Deer Head Interview' still isn't getting me anywhere with trying to find it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 19:27
|
|
|
The Aguamoose posted:I think this joke might have been lost on me slightly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfFW-Yezv0k
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 05:41
|
|
|
The Aguamoose posted:I think this joke might have been lost on me slightly... It was George Foster. I can't find the video even with the name, but he fits the profile as a 1st round pick bust for the Broncos.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 10:06
|
|
|
Hi everyone just thought I'd drop by, I'm a long-time lurker of here and some various other interests, thought I'd first just say hello! Long-time Colts fan (since I was really little), although I'm not exactly sure about all the rules, thus why I dropped by here first. Can someone better explain what legal blocking is? I've been so confused about what is actually a hold and what isn't so I can get upset at the refs more
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 18:22
|
|
|
Cate the Great posted:Hi everyone just thought I'd drop by, I'm a long-time lurker of here and some various other interests, thought I'd first just say hello! The basic distinction is a block is when you're in someone's way and stop them from making a tackle. A hold is when the guy you're blocking is making moves around you and you can't block him anymore. So if you grab onto him and stop him from making a tackle, then that's a hold. I'm sure someone else can give a more technical description, but that's the basics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 18:27
|
|
|
Zorkon posted:The basic distinction is a block is when you're in someone's way and stop them from making a tackle. I get that.  But sometimes I see jersey grabs and they don't call it, then sometimes I see someone essentially get tackled and they call that a hold. It just seems really very broad. My dad could never quite explain it to me and he used to coach football and play as a lineman, and my mom is pretty clueless about anything beyond the basics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 18:40
|
|
|
Cate the Great posted:I get that. The problem is compounded by the fact that there is typically holding on every play, it's just not always called. Officiating is a dark and mystical art
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:The problem is compounded by the fact that there is typically holding on every play, it's just not always called. Officiating is a dark and mystical art Okay so I'm not just dumb about this. It always seemed so subjective, unlike some of the other rules.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
It's often said the unspoken rule is that blockers can get away with grabbing the jersey or whatever as long as their hands stay inside, on the front of the defender's chest. It's when they move outside, like a hug or start grabbing onto limbs that holding gets called.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 19:20
|
|
|
Cate the Great posted:I get that. The resident TFF officiating expert Trin gave a really good holding explanation post a while back. Maybe check his thread and ask if he still has it to repost. This gist with grabbing a jersey is that it's legal as long as you let go once the person is past you. If you continue grabbing it and pull the person back/down with it, that's a hold. This whole thing is complicated by the fact that if the hold does not impact the play, then it's not a hold. IE, if a run goes left and a flanker out wide right holds a DB, they probably won't call that as it didn't have a chance of affecting the play. This is all from my imperfect memory, so grain of salt, etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 19:22
|
|
|
Rooster Brooster posted:The resident TFF officiating expert Trin gave a really good holding explanation post a while back. Maybe check his thread and ask if he still has it to repost. Ah alright then. What about illegal blocking techniques? I've never really asked about that to my dad and he grew up in a different era of blocking. I only vaguely know what a chop block is, it is when your block goes to take out the legs from the side, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 19:31
|
|
|
Cate the Great posted:Ah alright then. What about illegal blocking techniques? I've never really asked about that to my dad and he grew up in a different era of blocking. I only vaguely know what a chop block is, it is when your block goes to take out the legs from the side, right? What you're thinking of is a cut block, which is legal as long as it's not from the blindside. A chop block is when you take out the knees while the defender is engaged above the waist with another blocker.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 19:52
|
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:What you're thinking of is a cut block, which is legal as long as it's not from the blindside. A chop block is when you take out the knees while the defender is engaged above the waist with another blocker. Does the side count as a blindside or does it have to be from behind, or is it more a mysterious judgement call by the judge on whether the person being blocked was unaware? And that makes sense, now I at least know what a cut and chop block are. Any other type of blocks that are problems that I don't know about? I only really hear penalties that I remember for cut, chop, and holding.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 19:56
|
|
|
Cate the Great posted:Does the side count as a blindside or does it have to be from behind, or is it more a mysterious judgement call by the judge on whether the person being blocked was unaware? I confused the rules with cut blocking with the Hines Ward rule. Whoops  Cut blocking from the blind side is legal; it's also really dangerous and can cut a player's season or career short.quote:Article 5 Illegal Cut Block. It is an Illegal Cut Block if: As for more blocks, you've got crackbacks, illegal block above the waist, and the Hines Ward rule, which technically falls into the domain of blocking I'd say (any hit delivered with the shoulder or forearm delivered to the neck or head is illegal/15 yard penalty for delivering a blindside hit to the head of a defender) As recently as 4 or 5 years ago there was a lot of untoward poo poo going on as far as blocking went. You should check out the rules thread, though, Trin can probably correct all of the poo poo I messed up
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:I confused the rules with cut blocking with the Hines Ward rule. Whoops Thanks, I think I'll do that, I just thought my question was a bit more simple and could be explained in this thread. Guess I'm going deeper than I thought!
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 20:17
|
|
|
For practical purposes re:holding, it basically never gets called inside the tackle box unless it's horribly blatant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 01:49
|
|
|
McKracken posted:For practical purposes re:holding, it basically never gets called inside the tackle box unless it's horribly blatant. And the reason for it is that it's practically impossible for offensive linemen to do any effective blocking without technically holding. The speed and size of defensive players has evolved beyond the original concepts of the rules on blocking. Offenses would have to give up passing completely if some level of holding wasn't allowed, as it would not be possible to protect the quarterback long enough to get a pass off. The refs have developed a set of interpretations of what they'll allow so as to let the game proceed in a reasonable way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 02:48
|
|
|
OK, here's Blocking 101. We'll begin at the beginning; what does the rulebook think a block is? You might be surprised; it's a very broad definition. All rule references are NCAA unless otherwise stated. Rule 2-3-1-a: quote:a. Blocking is obstructing an opponent by contacting him with any part of the blocker's body. I would say that being able to legally block players who are not the runner is one of the two features that, more than any other, differentiate American (and Canadian!) football from the other codes. (The other is, of course, the forward pass.) In the category of "poo poo you probably didn't know": this is a very wide-ranging definition of a "block". For instance, when a linebacker shoulder-charges a running back who's carrying the ball, and knocks him down, that's technically a block; it's not a tackle unless there's some sort of encircling or holding element to the contact. This is why you'll see a lot of "Exception: Against the runner" in the blocking rules; because otherwise it would be very hard to legally stop him. Now that we know that: from now on, "block" and "tackle" are used in their common, "offensive players stopping defensive players getting to the runner" and "defensive players stopping the runner" senses. I'll also take this chance to note that the "offense" is the team that is in possession, the "defense" is the team that isn't; and that these designations change after a change of possession. There are four different types of block. The first is a block that is delivered from behind an opponent and the contact is at or below the waist. This is known as "clipping". It's almost never legal to clip someone and it's a very rude thing to do. NCAA has a lot of very complicated words (rule 9-1-5, if you want to look them up), which basically amount to "no clipping unless you're running a few very specifically-designed plays". NFL rules allow clipping above the knee in close line play (and if it's a run that's going outside the tackles, it must be at the point of attack), which is just one of the many reasons why their current push for player safety is hypocritical bullshit. If illegal, clipping is a 15-yard personal foul. The second is a block that is delivered from behind an opponent and above the waist; this is known as a "block in the back". Blocks in the back are subject to mostly the same restrictions as clipping in both rulebooks; but because they're not considered to be player safety fouls, they carry 10-yard penalties when illegal. Some things to consider about blocks from behind; it's not a foul if you commit to a block from the front, and then the opponent turns his back on you right before you make contact. A block in the side is not in the back, no matter how much the coach jumps up and down. Touching someone in the back is not blocking in the back, no matter how convincingly the opponent falls over. So now we have blocks from the front and below the waist. The rulebook calls them "blocks below the waist", which some people insist on shortening to "BBW". Everyone else calls them "cut blocks". Blocking below the waist is sometimes legal; never on a kick play or after a change of possession, but on normal scrimmage downs it's quite easy to block legally below the waist. If it is illegal, however, it's a 15-yard personal foul. There are some quite technical rules about who exactly can block below the waist, when they can do it, and how they should do it, but this is Blocking 101, so I'll take anything more detailed to the rules thread. The reason they exist is mostly to discourage blocks to the side of an opponent's knee, or blocks that the opponet doesn't see coming, which is a really good way to cause a lot of very quick damage; but I don't think that cut blocking is inherently dangerous as long as it's heads-up and the other guy can see it coming, and it does serve a very useful purpose in allowing small players to usefully be in blocking schemes against bigger players without requiring double-teams. And finally, you have a block in the front and above the waist, which is just a "block". Blocking is legal at any time while the ball is live, as long as the player being blocked is not obviously out of the play, and as long as the block isn't illegal in some other way (such as if it's pass interference or illegal contact); the NFL has a few further restrictions on blocks that opponents don't see coming. Double-team blocking is legal as long as both players are individually blocking legally, and as long as the blocks are either both above the waist or both below the waist. A high/low or low/high combination block is a chop block, which in any sane rulebook is always illegal. However, since the NFL doesn't give a gently caress, chop blocking is legal on a running play and it doesn't even have to be at the point of attack. When it is illegal, it's a 15-yard personal foul. It is illegal for blockers to grab onto each other in some way while blocking; this is called interlocking inteference, although you'll never see it happen because it isn't coached. It is also illegal on a free kick for three or more players to come within one yard of each other to block opponents; this is an illegal wedge, and likewise. There are a few further restrictions on use of the hands while blocking. "Illegal use of hands" was by far a more common call than a certain other foul until push blocking was legalised back in the 60s; before then, the hands could not be used legally in advance of the elbow (Gene Upshaw was a master at push blocking without getting caught) and players were expected to use their bodies to block. Now that's legal there are a lot fewer illegal use of hands calls; but let's consult Rule 9-3-3-a: quote:A teammate of a ball carrier or a passer legally may block with his shoulders, his hands, the outer surface of his arms or any other part of his body under the following provisions. Again, most of these rules enforce themselves because it's not worth coaching players not to follow them. The one thing that does get called is hands to the face; they're all 10-yard penalties. So, that's blocking. Hope you enjoyed yourself. What? Oh, right. 9-3-3-b. quote:1. The hand(s) and arm(s) shall not be used to grasp, pull or encircle in any way that illegally impedes or illegally obstructs an opponent. Before we move on to the implications of this, I'll just note that it is usually legal for the defense to hold or block offensive players in the back, as long as they're attempting to get to the runner or the ball; what they can't do is just e.g. grab a pulling guard to stop him pulling to the point of attack, or grab a reciever to stop him running his route. So now it's "what's the deal with holding?" And really, that's a whole post in and of itself. The full explanation is here, in last year's rules thread (you may have to scroll down a little to get to it). In summary, though; there's a shitload of things that are technically holding ("you could call holding on every play!" is an exaggeration, but not too much of one), but we tend to no-call most of them because most plays would have ended up more or less the same regardless of whether that guy was being held. Obvious holds that obviously affect the play are much rarer than things that are technically holds. Now, you then have to add those conscious no-calls to no-calls made when we were looking at the block but couldn't see enough to make the call, no-calls made because there's five offensive linemen and two officials to cover them and there's always going to be someone who we aren't looking at, and no-calls made when we were looking right at it and hosed it up anyway, and that's a lot of holding that doesn't get called. And the thing about "hands inside is okay" isn't really literally a thing; what it is is shorthand to avoid having to constantly explain that if the hands stay inside the blockee's frame, it's really loving hard to see what he's actually doing with them, so you might as well not waste your time trying to find a technical hold in there, and go find his teammate who's just been beaten at the point of attack and is about to resort to a big old bearhug to salvage things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Blocking Thesis You're seriously the best I was kind of intimidated to go posting in the rules thread. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
Cate the Great posted:You're seriously the best I was kind of intimidated to go posting in the rules thread. You really shouldn't be, it's just Trin rules-clowning the rest of us like he just did here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 17:34
|
|
|
Badfinger posted:You really shouldn't be, it's just Trin rules-clowning the rest of us like he just did here. Awww, it's amazing how little and how much I know. I keep surprising myself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 17:53
|
|
|
At this moment in the Cards/Falcons game, the qb stats are as follows: Lindley: 2/7 for 18. Skelton: 2/7 for 6. But the "QB Total" for AZ shows 4/14 for 18 yards? How does that work?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:39 |
|
|
JPrime posted:At this moment in the Cards/Falcons game, the qb stats are as follows: The total is removing yards from sacks, individual passing yards don't have sacks count against them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2012 21:53
|
|