|
Iron Clad Lou posted:I'm having trouble finding good examples of rushers leading with the crown of their helmet. Does anyone have any good videos that explain or demonstrate this? There was the pretty awful hit in the AFCCG where Ridley lowered his head and Pollard laid into him. There's also at least one Peterson run where he just headbutts a defender in the chest and keeps going. [EDIT]Crappy video of the Ridley concussion (this is actually probably inside the tackle box and kinda iffy altogether): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjnOpxm7muI Peterson running through Gay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZx7Y6LyxR4 Jerome Agricola fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Mar 23, 2013 |
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:10 |
|
|
In AP's defense, I think he was at least attempting to lead with his shoulder there and then ends up with a head of steam and plows through Gay's chest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
This is apparently one of the examples that was used to pass the new rule: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yDH6x5JW7M Trent Richardson decapitates Kurt Coleman. "That's the way you play football in the National Football League".
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
Jerome Agricola posted:This is apparently one of the examples that was used to pass the new rule: That is loving brutal and I support the new rule.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
coleman's helmet was kinda coming off already tho. Also i like the new rule but i like just about every new rule (want to see players in skirts in my lifetime)
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 05:28
|
|
|
What is a "tweener"? Mentioned a lot during the draft period.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 08:53
|
|
|
OperaMouse posted:What is a "tweener"? I think it's a guy who falls between the ideal pro sizes for two different positions. Like a college DE who isn't as big as NFL DEs should be and will likely move to OLB.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
A Violence Gang posted:I think it's a guy who falls between the ideal pro sizes for two different positions. Like a college DE who isn't as big as NFL DEs should be and will likely move to OLB. Especially to refer to the difference between a 3-4 rush outside linebacker and a 4-3 pass rushing defensive end - each is the main pass rusher in different systems, and often coming out of college it might not be clear where a guy fits best. You know he's a good pass rusher but he could be a small 4-3 end or a big 3-4 linebacker.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 15:58
|
|
|
Have there been any good books about football strategy and concepts for beginners/novices that has been released since the thread started? I'm looking for something to take my knowledge a bit further and reading TFF this past season has helped tremendously with that. I tried to read smartfootball.com but there was a lot of namedrops that made it difficult to find a starting point and work from there.
Lessail fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Mar 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
Lessail posted:Have there been any good books about football strategy and concepts for beginners/novices that has been released since the thread started? I'm looking for something to take my knowledge a bit further and reading TFF this past season has helped tremendously with that. I tried to read smartfootball.com but there was a lot of namedrops that made it difficult to find a starting point and work from there. I think the best way for a novice to pick up these ideas is to play madden, honestly. They diagram and name the plays and you can see how the plays...play out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:I think the best way for a novice to pick up these ideas is to play madden, honestly. They diagram and name the plays and you can see how the plays...play out. I don't have access to any of the Maddens on PS3/360. I do have a copy of NFL 2k3 and potentially access to any of the Wii Maddens, if that helps anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 07:05
|
|
|
Lessail posted:I don't have access to any of the Maddens on PS3/360. I do have a copy of NFL 2k3 and potentially access to any of the Wii Maddens, if that helps anything. Doesn't need to be a new copy for this purpose. Pick up one that's a couple years old from gamestop for $10.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 07:19
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Doesn't need to be a new copy for this purpose. Pick up one that's a couple years old from gamestop for $10. If you can get one with a career mode that helps too. You can get a handle on the responsibilities of certain positions by playing a few games as one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 14:12
|
|
|
Lessail posted:Have there been any good books about football strategy and concepts for beginners/novices that has been released since the thread started? I'm looking for something to take my knowledge a bit further and reading TFF this past season has helped tremendously with that. I tried to read smartfootball.com but there was a lot of namedrops that made it difficult to find a starting point and work from there. http://www.amazon.com/Take-Your-Eye-Off-Ball/dp/B0078XOX3C
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 15:41
|
|
|
Ozu posted:"Take Your Eye Off the Ball" by Pat Kirwan is really good at explaining why and how to get out of the television watching mindset of the game in order to see how strategies are developed. Quick read, lots of basics. Thanks, I decided to pick that up since I was offered another free Prime trial. I'll give it a read over before trying out one of the Madden games.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
Why is this not a block in the back on Manning? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBlvjtfpPAg
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
Blitz7x posted:Why is this not a block in the back on Manning? Looks to me like the block starts to the side and transitions to the back because of momentum. Manning is going forward, the blocker is going left. The meet at the side, but end up front to back because of the directions they are moving.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
I'd pass on that. One hand at least is in the side, he falls down on his side, and being a QB he's taken a lovely angle and effectively beaten himself by the time he actually gets contacted, so the block didn't affect the play even if it was in the back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
Forgive me if this has been answered before: "getting to the second level" in blocking refers to what? Also, is there a breakdown of O-line and D-line techniques available anywhere?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 07:11
|
|
|
Vaya con Dios!!! posted:Forgive me if this has been answered before: "getting to the second level" in blocking refers to what? Also, is there a breakdown of O-line and D-line techniques available anywhere? As I understand it second and third level blocks are those occurring down field. It's not necessarily as simple as down linemen are first level and linebackers are second level, it's more of a take care of or check your initial assignment and move on to to the next one. Someone jump in if that is incorrect. On D Line techs this seems to agree with what I know about the subject if we're talking about the same thing. e: I ask if we're talking about the same thing because if you're wondering how exactly to teach or play the position that won't really tell you. Grittybeard fucked around with this message at 07:40 on Apr 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 07:35
|
|
|
Grittybeard posted:As I understand it second and third level blocks are those occurring down field. It's not necessarily as simple as down linemen are first level and linebackers are second level, it's more of a take care of or check your initial assignment and move on to to the next one. Someone jump in if that is incorrect. Yup this is correct, here's a picture that I scribbled all over to demonstrate  I literally just randomly googled and found this play, this is just a counter run. 2010 Bills vs Chiefs is a hilarious choice to demonstrate something but here we are. So here the idea is to wash the D-line to the right, allowing Jackie Battle(?) to cut to the backside and find a hole that's being made. In LT Brandon Albert's case, the idea is for him to probably punch at or just slow 98 and then move up to the second level, sealing off the linebacker. 81 comes up to actually block 98, and Brandon Albert wheels around to block the linebacker. If everything holds there should be a huge seam on the weak side. If you're running a run play, at least one lineman will be expected to get to the second level to block. It's a numbers game, 5 offensive linemen vs (most likely) 3 or 4 defensive linemen. So a lineman who's good at getting to the second level is quick and can lock up the linebacker quickly, if he can he's probably going to win. e-also he's going to be good at making a first move and either slowing up a guy for a trap play like this or helping the lineman next to him contain his defender before moving on. GNU Order fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Apr 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 13:28
|
|
|
I've read a few times about the differing levels of importance the different offensive linemen have. I'm not very football-literate, so if someone could tell me (or point me to a post) what roles the linemen are expected to fill, it would really help my understanding of why the different positions are assigned different values.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
The_Hat posted:I've read a few times about the differing levels of importance the different offensive linemen have. I'm not very football-literate, so if someone could tell me (or point me to a post) what roles the linemen are expected to fill, it would really help my understanding of why the different positions are assigned different values. Not sure if this is what you're looking for or it's too basic, but here's a brief rundown of O-line basics and positions http://www.shakinthesouthland.com/2012/4/30/2985335/offensive-line-positions-and-basics
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
That's perfect, thanks a bunch!
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
If you want to know where a play is going, watch the guards. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
If a cornerback pushes a wide receiver out of bounds and that wr comes back in bounds, can he legally catch the ball? Can the cornerback shove the WR out of bounds and then go cover someone else?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
Blitz7x posted:If a cornerback pushes a wide receiver out of bounds and that wr comes back in bounds, can he legally catch the ball? Can the cornerback shove the WR out of bounds and then go cover someone else? NFL Rules, Rule 8, Section 1, Article 6 posted:Ineligible Receivers. All offensive players other than those identified in Article 5 above are ineligible to catch a legal or illegal forward pass thrown from behind the line of scrimmage, including: So yeah, if the wide receiver is dumb enough to line up right next to the sideline, I'm pretty sure the cornerback can just shove them out immediately and ignore them forever (if they want to rely on the official catching that).
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:So yeah, if the wide receiver is dumb enough to line up right next to the sideline, I'm pretty sure the cornerback can just shove them out immediately and ignore them forever (if they want to rely on the official catching that). The exception allows him to come back into play, since he was forced out by the defender. There is another exception to the rule, and it has to do with the QB out of the tackle box. It happened to Tampa Bay last year, I can't remember the exact circumstances other than it seemed like horseshit to me at the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
swickles posted:The exception allows him to come back into play, since he was forced out by the defender. No, the exception is only if he's forced out by a foul by a defender. Weirdly, Article 8 (which actually describes the foul) has this: NFL Rules, Rule 8, Section 1, Article 8 posted:Illegal Touching of a Forward Pass. It is a foul for illegal touching if a forward pass (legal or illegal), thrown from behind the line of scrimmage: I have no idea when (b) can actually apply, though, because it seems like everybody it would otherwise cover are actually ineligible receivers? So I might be out of my rules-lawyering depth here. I don't see anything in this section about the tackle box except some weird thing about players who initially line up as the quarterback. rjmccall fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Apr 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
I think "eligible receiver" in this case refers to people who are allowed to catch the ball based on pre-snap lineup (everyone except the offensive linemen, unless they specifically call them as eligible.) There's a uniform number range, I believe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:No, the exception is only if he's forced out by a foul by a defender. I've seen (b) called several times. Sometimes a receiver will step out of bounds while fighting for position with a defender and neither notices. He then gets called for illegal touching when he catches a pass.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I've seen (b) called several times. Sometimes a receiver will step out of bounds while fighting for position with a defender and neither notices. He then gets called for illegal touching when he catches a pass. I'm arguing a pretty obscure point, which is that I don't think (b) can ever technically apply, because it looks like a receiver who goes out of bounds (unless illegally forced out) is automatically an ineligible receiver. So it's definitely a foul (and I think we've all seen it called before), it's just because of (a) (receiver is ineligible), not (b).
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
Jesus apparently I need a refresher on reading threads. I'll leave my useful editrjmccall posted:I'm arguing a pretty obscure point, which is that I don't think (b) can ever technically apply, because it looks like a receiver who goes out of bounds (unless illegally forced out) is automatically an ineligible receiver. So it's definitely a foul (and I think we've all seen it called before), it's just because of (a) (receiver is ineligible), not (b). e: Oh I missed the earlier discussion. Well rulebooks are weird things, a little redundancy isn't necessarily terrible. Grittybeard fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Apr 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:I'm arguing a pretty obscure point, which is that I don't think (b) can ever technically apply, because it looks like a receiver who goes out of bounds (unless illegally forced out) is automatically an ineligible receiver. So it's definitely a foul (and I think we've all seen it called before), it's just because of (a), not (b). I think von Metternich got it above. "Eligible receiver" means ends and backs who can otherwise legally catch a forward pass. If he steps out of bounds, he remains an eligible receiver based on the definition of the term - he's just not allowed to be the first one to touch the ball. If he became an ineligible receiver, then any receiver who steps out of bounds and continues his route would get flagged for "ineligible receiver downfield." Since that flag is not thrown, they must not be ineligible receivers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I think von Metternich got it above. "Eligible receiver" means ends and backs who can otherwise legally catch a forward pass. If he steps out of bounds, he remains an eligible receiver based on the definition of the term - he's just not allowed to be the first one to touch the ball. I agree that that would be an absurd application of the rules; I just don't get how it's actually supported by the rules as written. I mean, the rule about an ineligible player being downfield specifically mentions a kind of ineligible receiver — T-formation quarterbacks — that's only called out as ineligible in the exact same place as receivers going out of bounds. But it definitely makes for a more sensible rule for the set of eligible receivers to be fully decided by the time of the snap, and everything seems to work out well enough if you just ignore that clause, so I'm sure that's what refs actually do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
Oh, hello there. Figures that the only rules question in three months comes up while I've had a 48-hour internet blackout, doesn't it?Deteriorata posted:I think von Metternich got it above. "Eligible receiver" means ends and backs who can otherwise legally catch a forward pass. If he steps out of bounds, he remains an eligible receiver based on the definition of the term - he's just not allowed to be the first one to touch the ball. There's a difference between "ineligible to go downfield" and "ineligible to touch a forward pass". "Ineligible to go downfield" is something that gets set at the snap and can't change during the down; but your five fat blokes can still become eligible to touch a forward pass during the down. gently caress it, I'll just recap the whole bunch of rules about it. I figure it'll be a nice thing for the thread to have as reference. So, at the snap, Team A gets divided two ways; eligible and ineligible recievers. If you are ineligible, there's two things you can't do during a down that contains a forward pass. 1. You may not touch a legal forward pass unless it has first been touched by an opponent or an official. If it has only been touched by a team-mate, you are still ineligible. NFL requires the touching to be deliberate to be penalised; NCAA does not. 2. You may not go "downfield" prior to the pass being thrown. NCAA permits linemen to go downfield (which they define as "more than three yards past the neutral zone") if the pass does not cross the neutral zone; NFL does not, and they only allow ineligibles one yard downfield unless they're engaged in blocking, in which case they can go as far as they like while engaged in the block and then must stand still when it ends. This is why screen passes are much more effective for NCAA teams, both traditional and bubble screens; in NCAA you can have the fat blokes go miles downfield and/or your recievers start blocking immediately at the snap, while in the NFL you'd be on the hook for ineligibles downfield and/or OPI. So how do we work out eligiblity? First thing we do is look at numbers. On every scrimmage down, Team A must have at least five linemen (that is, players who are on the line of scrimmage) wearing a number between 50 and 79. These players are ineligible by number. This, like most of the formation rules, is so that Team B can have a chance at working out what the play might be by looking at who's where. (This rule does not apply if there is an obvious scrimmage kick formation, in which case Team A can use whatever numbers they like - this is because suicide squad players are usually smaller, faster players whose other position means that they take eligible numbers.) Second thing we do is look at position. All the backs are eligible by position (but a 50-79 number who turns up there remains ineligible by number). The two linemen who are on the end of the line are also eligible. Any lineman who is between the ends is not; this is what people mean by "oh, he was covered up", he was on the line and there was another player outside him. Most usually it happens when the dumbass wide receiver forgets that there's a tight end inside him and lines up on the line (and then ignores the wing official, who's probably yelling at him to GTFO already), and then the tight end goes merrily off on his pass route. Other notes: In the NFL it is an automatic illegal formation foul if you cover up an eligible number, for no very good reason. NCAA, he just becomes ineligible. It's also an NFL foul to have an ineligible number uncovered (nope, no good reason there either), a quarterback under center is an ineligible receiver (I'm sure it made sense when they invented the T formation), 90-99 are ineligible numbers, and ineligible numbers can report eligible. NCAA used to have that last one, but banned it in the 60s to annoy Bear Bryant, who was a big fan of tackle-eligible plays. Final thing; in the NFL only there is the concept of ineligibles downfield on a punt, where only the two ends can go downfield before the kick, in order to create more space on punt returns. OK: so if you are eligible, you can lose your eligiblity if you go out of bounds. This rule exists for a good and simple reason: the game is to be played on the field, and if it wasn't there then you'd soon have receivers running pick plays round the back of the chain crew and the other team's defensive coordinator. NCAA also has a good and simple rule to prevent defenders using the sideline to their advantage; if you are forced out of bounds by a block, then you remain eligible if you attempt to return inbounds immediately. If the defender keeps blocking you, you're fine as long as you keep trying to return; if you use it as an excuse to run that pick with the front stake, tough poo poo. The NFL rule is rather dumber, as we found out last season. Every football coach in the world knows that you're only allowed one bump and it has to be within five yards, right? (Some of them even know that it's an NFL-only rule.) Their competition committee tried to be clever, and said that only an illegal block that forces you out of bounds should let you come back in, on the grounds that every such block in the future of football was going to be illegal contact anyway. Of course they were wrong, because the illegal contact rules go away once the QB leaves the pocket, and defenders can legally block eligible recievers; so if that happens, you can block a receiver out of bounds and he's still on the hook for illegal touching if the ball comes his way. Which is clearly bullshit, but this is the same rulebook that precisely specifies how much white must be showing on a player's
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
What is 3 tech and 5 tech. I assume they refer to DTs. Are these terms new? I have not seem them before this month.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
euphronius posted:What is 3 tech and 5 tech. I assume they refer to DTs. Are these terms new? I have not seem them before this month. It's how they line up  Here's a google result that looks ok at going into depth about it : http://www.dawgsbynature.com/2011/4/11/2082375/draft-terminology-the-three-technique-and-the-five-technique
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
euphronius posted:What is 3 tech and 5 tech. I assume they refer to DTs. Are these terms new? I have not seem them before this month. Here you go: Grittybeard posted:On D Line techs this seems to agree with what I know about the subject if we're talking about the same thing. Specifically 3 techs line up on the outside shoulder of the guard, 5 techs head up on the tackle. There's more info in that article. e: Huh this seems to disagree slightly with that link. So I'm back to not knowing I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:10 |
|
|
There's another naming system that's based around the gaps between center and guard being A-gaps, the G-T gaps being B-gaps, and the T-TE gap(s) being C-gaps.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 21:03
|
|