|
jeffersonlives posted:A really good site that breaks a lot of this stuff down is Smart Football. I just want to echo that this is a pretty good resource for X's & O's related analysis. The updates can be sporadic at times, but they always contain a lot of interesting reads. The breakdown of 4th down decisions (here and here) was particularly interesting. I also like Pro Football Focus, as their ratings/stats are all based off tape analysis. I think they're as objective as possible, at least as a Jets fan I agree with 99% of their analysis of Jets players. Also, for anyone interested in NCAA Football, I can attempt to answer questions to the best of my ability as a former player. I'm not a trivia bank, but I can offer insight as it pertains to rules, strategy, and off-field junk from a player perspective.
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2010 00:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 23:35 |
|
|
A.o.D. posted:That's the theory, anyhow. However, when you have hall of fame receivers and running backs catching the ball in the open field, at best they're getting out of bounds and stopping the clock. At worst they have time to scan the field and make a big rear end play that makes your decision to go prevent look dumb as hell. It should only ever be used in the closing seconds of the 2nd or 4th quarter. It's fairly appropriate when the offense needs a TD and 30+ yards with only time for 1-2 plays left. Outside of those extreme situations it's pretty useless. BIGFOOT PEE BED posted:What is a 'read'? What does a Quarterback actually do when he 'reads' a DE (for example)? Do passing plays generally have the reads built into them? In terms of the example in your question, QB's will commonly read the DE or outside rusher when running some form of option. This is a lot more prevalent at the high school or college level. The blocking scheme will typically call for the last man on the line of scrimmage to be unblocked. The QB will read his actions. The defender will have to commit to his assignment, either to contain or force the QB or to cover the back. If the DE comes at the QB he will option it to one of the backs. If the defender takes contain of the back, the QB can cut inside and keep it. This is very simplified, and option reads can vary with defenders and the action in the backfield, but this is the general idea. McKracken fucked around with this message at 13:37 on Jul 7, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2010 13:31
|
|
|
Doppelganger posted:How can you tell if a receiver is a bad route runner? I always hear people talk about how well players do in this area, but I don't understand how you could know that unless you studied their playbook. The only thing playbook knowledge would impart to an observer would be familiarity with the specific offensive plays. There are a relatively small number of unique routes that exist in football. Someone already posted a passing tree which demonstrates the typical routes that exist in pretty much every offense. There may be variations to these routes specific to a particular team, but this does not alter their purpose. So 2 different teams might utilize a post corner, and they might instruct their players to cut at different angles or run the route in varying lengths, but ultimately you are still running a 2-cut route, faking towards the middle of the field and then extending to the deep corner. The goal of some routes do depend on the context of the play they are being used in, but this is usually fairly evident. So take a drag run by a TE for example. In one play he might be running the underneath drag on a crossing pattern with the intent of scraping/picking the defender on the over route. In this case it is his job to run into the defender, but you should be able to tell this from the context of the assignments of the other players. On another play, perhaps a play action, he might delay for 2 seconds and then run his drag with the intent of getting open when the QB boots around. In this case it's his job to get as far away from the defense as possible, again, this would be evident based on the context. As far as recognizing a poor route, you can usually tell this if the player is unable to create separation from defenders or has a bad habit of reading the defense poorly and thus not making the proper cuts on his routes. Or it can be as simple as someone making lazy cuts, or not working back to the QB on a comeback route.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2010 14:12
|
|
|
terrin posted:Diagram of gaps/techniques to make things clear, inside techniques omitted. It doesn't list 2i, 4i, 6i (but these are much less common), but the weird thing is it omits a 7 considering that's the technique a strong side DE is gonna play most of the time.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2010 01:27
|
|
|
terrin posted:^^ good point added it, yeah I left out the insides as said in the post Doh, missed that comment about the inside techs in your post. The only time they ever really come into play is in goal line situations when you've got 4+ guys on the line or in some stunt/blitz combos with a pre-snap d-line shift.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2010 01:45
|
|
|
Shadow225 posted:Hope you guys enjoy. As for a question: What are the trademarks and base play for the Wing-T offense? The basic idea is misdirection, the backfield action is specifically meant to look similar on all plays of a particular series (series of plays as part of the playbook, not a series of offensive possessions on the field) and this makes it very difficult for a defense to get a good read on the play and keeps each defender guessing as to who has the ball. As for the moment, I'd say the trademark plays (or at least the ones ran most frequently and most effectively) would be the jet sweep, option, dive and trap, although these are plays that could be run by any offense, and the trap is pretty much one of the most fundamental running plays in football. I agree with what Hero said of the similarities between the Wing T and Wildcat. If you look at the Dolphins, a lot of the success of their wildcat plays is predicated on misdirection in the backfield and blocking schemes similar to the wing. I can attempt to put together a more substantial Wing T write up in a future post, I have 5 years of playing experience in a Wing system and 2 years of coaching experience, but I don't have the time at the moment to write up a huge post. Here is a good article on the wildcat in the meantime. http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/jets-at-dolphins-how-the-wildcat-works/
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2010 22:55
|
|
|
Bashez posted:It was literally impossible for me to move in a cup. Especially after your thighs get bigger. Even worse the cup would sit a half inch or so off my skin which meant its plastic edges came crashing down when I got hit. It took one practice for me to never wear a cup again. I tried wearing a cup during one practice my freshman year of high school. It was so ridiculously uncomfortable I never tried it again. Out of all the terrible things that have happened to my body playing football, nothing ever happened to my junk. Maybe 1 or 2 guys I ever played with in high school used a cup at some point, and I know for sure that none of my college teammates ever did. It's really not worth the annoyance as you rarely ever injure that part of your body. Also, a few pages back I said I'd make a post on the Wing T. I've been really busy lately but I'll have that post up by tomorrow hopefully.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2010 05:45
|
|
|
The Wing-T The Wing-T is an offensive system that relies primarily on misdirection to achieve big plays. It hearkens back to good ol' days of football when passing was so under-emphasized that last seasons terrifying performance from Mark Sanchez would still be enough to make him the NFL league leader in passing yards and attempts for every year of the 1930's. The Wing-T is based off of the many permutations of Single-wing formations from the early years of football, and obviously from the T formation. Let's take a look at a typical Wing-T formation you'd see being used today.  Click here for the full 786x376 image. As passing isn't frowned upon like it used to be you'll notice most modern day Wing-T and wing variants make use of at least 1 WR in their base formation (it wasn't uncommon for teams to use double tight formations regularly before the advent of modern passing.) This formation has it's strength to the right, with the Wingback usually 1x1 yard off the TE. The Fullback lines up directly behind the QB with the Halfback offset behind the weakside tackle. Here is an additional graphic of formations that any Wing-T team will run.  Click here for the full 786x976 image. One of the reasons the Wing is still so popular, especially at the high school level, is that you can generate big plays through proper execution of the running game which you might not be able to do through the passing game given the quality of most high school QB's. Another aspect is angle blocking techniques and schemes. Angle blocking, where the blocker takes on only a portion of the defenders body from an angle allows smaller players to still effectively block larger, stronger players by decreasing their force via angles. Additionally, undisciplined defenders are prone to being caught out of position by the numerous offensive keys presented by a Wing-T team. As far as personnel goes, the QB should be athletic enough to be a running threat on boots and option plays, ideally he has a good arm but honestly that's optional. He also has to be able to make a convincing playfake without fumbling all the time. All 3 backs must be decent blockers, often times they will be used at the point of attack or for extra pass protection. This is purely anecdotal, but the fullback was by far the best athlete on any Wing-T team I was ever a part of. Plays Wing plays are commonly referred to using a 3 digit number system. The first digit will designate the formation. The second digit refers to the series of plays and the third digit is the hole. The play is also usually named in addition to it's number code, for example 121 Sweep.  This is the 100 formation, the sweep is part of the Jet/Waggle series which we will refer to as the 20 series, and it hits hole 1. It is an outside running play in which both guards pull around to block so we call it "Sweep." Holes are numbered 1-9 going from right to left. If we look at the play diagram the QB reverse pivots after taking the snap, fakes to the FB and hands off to the HB. Now that we've established the sweep lets take a look at a trap play. 124 Trap  Still in the 100 formation, and the backfield action is still part of the 20 series. The left guard is trapping the defensive tackle and we're running to the 4 hole, so this is 124 Trap. The QB reverse pivots just like on 121, but instead of faking to the FB he gives him the ball, boots out and fakes it to the HB who fakes a sweep on his way to block a second level defender. The DT to be trapped is going to fly into the backfield when the OT blocks down and seemingly leaves him untouched. This makes it 100x easier for the guard to remove him entirely from the play. Even better is that if the DT adjusts his alignment closer to the center to be in better position to defend the trap, he has effectively removed himself from any outside run plays, so feel free to audible to sweep. We don't want the defense to get comfortable yet, so let's call a pass play. 121 Waggle  This is 121 Waggle, which is a play-action. The QB does his reverse pivot, fakes to the FB and the HB who take their steps exactly as if they were really running 121 Sweep. The lineman engage as if they were run blocking (taking care not to go upfield.) The backside tackle protects the QB's backside as he boots left and the pulling guards act as his personal protectors out front. The receivers run their routes as if they're doing a poor job blocking to sell the run, and then find open field. If the TE gets behind the linebacker, and the saftey bites on the run play he should get the ball 100% of the time for major yardage. Even a poor high school QB should be able to hit a wide open receiver no deeper than 12 yards nearly every time. The FB has the option to delay into a pass route if there is no man threatening the gap he is responsible for. The great thing about the waggle is how it will totally mindfuck an unaware defense. If the LB's are keying the guards they're going to read 929 Sweep and fly up to play the non-existent run. If they're watching the HB they will read 121 Sweep and be on the other half of the field, totally removing themselves from the play. If they key the FB and he makes a good fake they're going to plug the interior run gaps and get caught up in the wash. That is the basic premise of the Wing-T. You don't even need to have a plethora of plays to run as long as you have ways to disguise the plays through multiple formations, motions, shifts, etc. There are at least 5 variations of 121 Sweep which takes almost no install time for the offense, yet forces the defense to be aware of all possible looks. This is a video of Auburn's offense under Gus Malzahn, who was the OC at Arkansas when the Wildcat/Wildhog was popularized. I would describe his offense as a modern synthesis of the fast tempo spread offense and the deceptive style of older single wing systems like the Wing-T. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgcBPczLUI0 If anyone wants I can make another post about more Wing-T plays, but I think this covered the basic ideas while covering a fair bit of ground.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2010 20:59
|
|
|
ThatOtherGuy posted:The Wing-T rules. We ran it in high school and we were unstoppable. Seriously. While we had other formations, we probably ran the Wing-T like 80% of the time and we ran two or three plays out of it most of the time and we were still unstoppable. My high school has a very rich tradition of being absolutely terrible at football. They moved to the Wing-T my sophomore year, and it allows them to actually stay competitive despite being athletically overmatched by every single opponent in their division. I love the offense from a personal standpoint, as a TE you're in great position to downblock unsuspecting linebackers and reach lineman. In the passing game you're the #1 read on every midrange crossing pattern. Then I went to college and was by far the least athletic skill player on a team that ran the spread, so I have a special appreciation for the Wing-T.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2010 18:38
|
|
|
Xeras posted:From my understanding a slot receiver is the receiver lined up with a flanker or split end, correct? Why then do I hear often commentators say so and so is a good slot receiver, can't this change based upon formation used? The "slot" is generally meant to refer to the location on the field, in reference to the offensive formation, between the last man on the offensive line and the furthest man to the outside. The receiver in the slot typically splits the difference between the last man on the offensive line and outside receiver. Any receiver can line up in this position, and frequently teams will try to move players around to get a favorable match-up from this position. It's not uncommon to see some of the better receiving tight ends line up like this to exploit match-ups, as the man responsible for a slot receiver will usually be a nickelback or linebacker, players who are not as skilled at pass coverage as the 2 starting corners who will be on the outside receivers. Certain players with excellent quickness and good route running technique can excel from this position as they are usually difficult for a linebacker or backup DB to cover, or the #1 receiver can be motioned or shifted into the slot to isolate him against a weaker defender. quote:I read up on the Bob Davies link mostly regarding defense but I am still uncertain on things such as weak side, strong side. A more comprehensive look at zone and man coverage would be great as well, he talked about the cover 2 playing man underneath, is that then zone or man? I'm not sure which link in the OP you're referring to but the most basic concept of determining the strong side of a formation is the side the TE is on. This can change if the line comes out in an unbalanced look or something else atypical but 99% of the time it's where the TE is. Cover 2 man underneath would be the 2 safeties dropping back to play a 2 deep zone (each man covers half the field) with the remaining LB's & DB's playing man on each receiver. quote:I would love to get a better understanding of most NFL routes for wide receivers in terms of name and use of the routes. I think someone posted a passing tree ITT already.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2010 07:49
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Zones are also pretty complicated and can occasionally lead to screwups where a defender goes with the wrong guy and an offensive player ends up behind the defense with nobody within 20 yards of him. I think my favorite thing in football is seeing 2 defenders botch a crossing route in zone coverage ( or even man too I guess.) Also as far as decent announcers I just remembered that I really like Dan Dierdorf but I'm not really sure why, other than he annoys me less than most other announcers.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2010 08:06
|
|
|
Luminous Cow posted:I have a few stupid questions that I should probably already know. A hard count is when the QB utilizes the cadence in an attempt to draw the defense offsides and gain a 1st down on a short yardage situation. On 4th and 1 the offense will line up and the QB will really emphasize the cadence, yelling and emphasizing certain calls in hopes that a d-lineman will jump. Sometimes this is purely a ploy by the offense to gain a 1st by offsides and they have no intentions of running a play, and will either take a delay of game or call a timeout and then punt. Sometimes they will utilize the hard count until the last second and still run a play. A checkdown on a passing play is when the QB throws to a receiver who is not one of the primary targets or reads. Usually the checkdown receiver runs a much shorter route making it an easier and safer completion for the QB, with the obvious trade off of gaining less yardage. Quite frequently the check down will be to a back who was used in blitz pickup or to chip block against a d-lineman. If no player blitzes to the gap the back was assigned to protect he has the option to run a route. e:Play diagram for checkdown explanation: In this play, which is a play-action pass, the QB will probably be reading from left to right and assuming he has an arm (this is taken from a HS playbook) the left flanker will be his #1 read, and he should throw it to him assuming the CB bites on the play fake. The #2 read is the TE dragging across the middle, and the checkdown in this case is the FB in the flats. McKracken fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Sep 21, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2010 06:14
|
|
|
A lot of this is subject to what coaches are on the sidelines and up in the booth and that varies by team, but basically, as Pop Dog said, the DC/OC will call the play in (except for the HC's who have playcalling duties.) The special teams coaches and assistants are continually preparing whatever unit might be going out onto the field next dependent on game situation. If your team has the ball on it's own 30 with 3rd down and 15 the ST guys will be arranging the punt unit and getting them ready to go if the offense doesn't convert. After the defense/offense comes off the field all the players will go to the benches by position (generally lineman and skill players) and go over any significant plays/looks that took place on the most recent drive with the coach responsible for that unit. For example, If the offensive line is seeing the defense stunt or twist in a way they weren't expecting they'll go over this on the greaseboard with the O-line coach and alter the blocking assignments if need be. After the players are done meeting with their position coaches the OC (or his representative amongst the offensive coaches if he's in the booth) will go over what they want to do on the next drive. During the drive position coaches of the unit on the field might be responsible for rotating and subbing in personnel and sending in hand signals and playcalls. Various coaches also might be assigned specific game scouting responsibilities, in which a coach might watch the defensive line alignments vs. certain formations or look for certain personnel packages of the opposing offense that might tip off a play. Every coach is busy 99% of the time during the course of the game.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2010 08:20
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:I've always found the fakes turn into debacles unless they're practiced a fairly large amount since you need to install at least two to have a successful muddle huddle, and the plays are normally complex and involve precise timing. Most teams just aren't going devote a practice period per day to running muddle huddle fakes, and realistically given the success rates on both you'd probably be better off using that practice period to hone your fake punts instead. You also get the occasional illegal shift, delay, or false start that wouldn't occur if you lined up normally. The muddle huddle (or formation shifts in general) are great if you know you're playing against a team with d-lineman who are undisciplined and have problems reacting only to the snap. I've seen muddle huddles result in 1st downs way more than a successful 2-point conversion.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2010 17:19
|
|
|
-Dethstryk- posted:2) Why do I see players riding exercise bikes on the sidelines? The only thing I can come up with is that it's for bringing heart rates either up or down. Exercise bikes are actually used way more at practice or during a players time getting treatment and doing rehab in the training room, but as C-Euro said it's mainly for an injured player with minor sprains/strains to loosen up, work out swelling in a joint etc. Players, especially backs who split carries, will also hop on to stay warm while their unit is off the field. Bikes at practice are used more as part of the treatment plan for the players who aren't cleared for contact or heavy running. Players will spend some time warming up and working on the bike and doing whatever specific exercises the strength coach or athletic trainers might have them perform dependent on the nature of their injury and what periods of practice they can't participate in. Usually injured guys will do a rehab type workout during positional drills which are mostly physical periods, and then stand by and observe the group periods which are mostly mental periods for the coaches to go over gameplan adjustments and team periods for repping plays. Also for the guys who are really gimpy they might be used while the rest of the team is conditioning.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2010 14:40
|
|
|
Additionally, a lot of routes in the NFL or NCAA are option or choice routes which depend on the receiver reading the coverage of the defense, if they're in zone and what type of zone, or man and adjusting his route accordingly. 1 route might be run differently against cover 2 or cover 3 because the receiver is trying to find the empty space in the zone.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2010 20:46
|
|
|
Zone blocking relies on double teaming on the defensive line up to the backers, and the skills to perform this effectively are near identical to the ones required for guards to pull effectively, so I'd question anyone who claims zone blocking was developed because linemen couldn't pull/trap anymore. This sounds fairly ridiculous. e:And most pro offenses don't rely on one blocking scheme for the entirety of their run game. Zone blocking is really just part of an offensive scheme, not a solution for big fat lineman. e2:This also sounds ridiculous for the reason that offensive linemen now are bigger than they have ever been, and many (if not all) teams still employ man blocking schemes, pull linemen and trap etc. Teams would be unable to run screen plays if the linemen were all too big and unathletic to block in the open field. None of that makes much sense. In fact I'd say it sounds completely wrong. McKracken fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Dec 10, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2010 23:31
|
|
|
Pron on VHS posted:There is a whole chapter dedicated to ZBS, and from what I remember his two main points were a) that ZBS has been around since the 50s, and is nothing new and b) the whole big OL thing I already mentioned. Most aspects of modern football have origins dating back to the 50's or even earlier, so it's possible that concepts of zone blocking have been around since then (I don't know that much about the evolution of the game from that period of time since I haven't read much about that specifically and it predates my existence by a good 35 years) but the zone blocking schemes that are currently implemented are not done so out of reaction to change in OL abilities (that is a really puzzling line of reasoning), but because it's an alternative method for opening running lanes as opposed to the type of blocking you see out of a typical power running game, everybody man on blocking with a kickout. If anything, athletic/smaller linemen would be more suitable for running a pure zone scheme because you have to be able to disengage from the double team and get to a backer at the second level or higher. This is easier if you are faster and more agile for obvious reasons. When I have time I'll see if I can grab some play diagrams from the link that was just posted and compare the blocking schemes in zone plays to other running plays.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2010 02:27
|
|
|
OperaMouse posted:I have some questions about communication. e:There was no post covering this type of stuff in the OP, but I swear jeffersonlives or some other poster made a post about this type of stuff, but if I'm wrong I can append this or make a new post with some pictures and examples from that awesome list of playbooks that was just posted a few days ago. This is dependent on the coaches and their system, and what the gameplan is for the particular week, but some basic things will be true of all teams. I also thought there was a basic offensive plays/pre-snap scheme post in the OP or already in the thread, but I'll try to give a brief answer and I can elaborate on this if I'm mistaken and there is no other similar post. There are not a very large number of unique run plays. Each team will have their zone, sweep, toss, draw, trap, power, iso plays in the running game, there will be slight differences in blocking scheme and how the running backs are coached on technique but these are small details. These plays can be run to different holes by different players, and the play call will include a phrase, number or letter that signifies this. Passing plays are typically grouped by the protection scheme and how many steps the QB will take in his drop. There are only a handful of routes (there should be a passing tree edited in the OP) and while there are certainly a lot of possible route combinations with 5 receivers, there are only so many plays you could diagram out before it would start becoming redundant. By redundant I mean you could diagram a play in 10 different formations that uses some slight variation in routes but is designed to accomplish the same purpose. The reason it might seem like there are thousands of plays per playbook is because of all the modifiers which are applied to the base play. If you take into account all the formations, all the shifts, motions, protections etc which are appended to the base play, there are thousands of variations you could run, but they're never drawn up in the playbook this way. You simply know the 15 different calls for shifts, and the 20 motion calls, and the formation calls, and you just process each bit of information as the play is called. In the huddle, the QB will give the play, which includes the formation, any shifts or motions that will be applied, and the count of the snap. He might also indicate a secondary play if he chooses to audible at the line to another pre-selected play. At the line the QB/C will point out the MLB or the linebacker which the offense users to base their run blocking calls off of. The blocking scheme will most likely change depending on the alignment of the front 7 and the center needs to call this out. The other offensive lineman will make their own calls as necessary after receiving the mike/MLB designation from the center or QB. The guard and tackle might swap assignments in which case they'll make a TAG call. The QB then has to read the defensive coverage and taken into consideration with the alignment might choose to audible from run to pass or from pass to a more favorable pass etc. He'll give whatever the call for the audible is, and then call out the new play. After the final play is decided he has to go through his snap count. All offensive players have to know everything pertinent to them in the offensive playbook. The QB not only has to know every single play, but every single positions responsibility on every one of those plays. The offensive linemen obviously don't have to know any of the routes the receivers run on pass plays, all they need to worry about is the protection scheme. As a TE I don't have to know what the halfbacks steps are for the handoff on sweep I only need to know my blocking assignment, unless I play in a system where the TE might be motioned into the backfield as a ball carrier. In some systems only the QB and WR's might need to know the hand signals and the QB will call it out to the team, in other systems every player might need to know the signals, and their might be different signals for the skill players and the line. Same goes for defense, only the backer calling the play might need to know, or every player might need to know. By way of example/anecdote, I played in a no huddle spread system that operated almost exclusively with hand signals. There were roughly 80 unique plays total, so 80 hand signals for the actual play. Then there were signals for formations, and additional signals for the offensive line on some plays. All in all I'd estimate there was around 100-110 unique gestures that everyone had to know. Each play had a name and a hand signal that attempted to be evocative of the name, although there were some unintuitive overlaps you had to adjust to. All the plays names also followed a theme, so running plays were named after the cities of NFL teams. Play-action was named after the nicknames of D-1 universities, so Miami was a play-action with the outside receivers running off their men and the TE delaying and running a deep drag behind the backers. The hand signal for Miami was self strangling (or the motion you make when you're choking.) Audibles and play call phrases don't change as much as you usually have multiple ways of saying the same thing, so you can constantly rotate usage so the defense doesn't get tipped off. For snap counts you can have White, Black, Yellow, which would be 1, 2, 3 respectively, and Wednesday, Friday, Sunday which are also 1, 2, 3. You could have a hot route designation for the Y receiver be a car maker 1 week (Honda, Nissan, Chevy) and the next time you play that opponent a species of cat (Lion, Tiger.) McKracken fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Dec 15, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2010 21:00
|
|
|
Roflsaurus Wrecks posted:Couple random questions: what is the skill gap like between college football and the NFL? I would think that on any given day a very good college baseball team could beat a mediocre MLB team (though I could be wrong about that). But could Auburn beat the Panthers? The skill gap is quite large. Not quite as large as HS to NCAA, but enormous enough that even the worst pro team would never come close to losing to the best college teams. The speed of the NFL game is much faster (to say nothing of the complexities of offensive and defensive schemes in the pros compared to college.) There was a clip on hard knocks this year with Rex Ryan and Mike Westhoff evaluating a rookie LB from Alabama. They explicitly commented that the difference between the skill level in college and the NFL is so great that even the starting linebacker of a dominant college defense that won a national championship had really no chance of even making the Jets roster (granted the Jets have 2 very good starting inside backers.) I was lucky enough to have a few college teammates go on to the NFL. Now this was a 1AA school formerly in the CAA, so the average talent level is lower than of a BCS conference school but not by a whole lot, and the future pros were just absolutely dominating in all aspects (and none of them are even pro-bowl level players), even against guys who were all-conference players. So now take even the worst pro team, comprised of 53 guys who are at least that good, and probably better and you can see why even the best college team could never beat a bad pro team.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2010 21:32
|
|
|
Kalli posted:A lot of the best and most athletic college players end up as career special teamers who play for 2-4 years off and on and end up being cut and replaced by the best and most athletic college players a year or two down the line. I think a lot of casual NFL fans (not really anyone in this forum) tend to forget that guys like Tony Gonzalez and Jason Taylor and Favre are remarkable outliers and most pro's (who were among the top 5-20 players in their position in all of college football) only manage a few years before they're replaced by the next crop as you described, whether it's because they were not good enough to be anything but a special teamer or they were a very average starter with flaws or holes in some aspect of their game and by the time they are 26-27 they are already outmatched physically by the 22 year old rookies.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2010 21:43
|
|
|
SteelAngel2000 posted:I wonder how the 2001 Miami Hurricanes would have fared against a bad NFL team. That team was stuffed to the brim with NFL talent Was that a Ken Dorsey team? Because there's no way he's leading even the most talented college team of all time to a win against an 0-16 NFL squad. That was a pretty absurd roster for Miami though. The amount (and quality) of players drafted from 02-05 out of Miami is pretty unprecedented.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2010 04:56
|
|
|
Blackula69 posted:They're widely considered the best team of all time, and it would be unanimous if their QB was any good. I was amazed at the brief NFL career he managed to have.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2010 22:50
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Anyone know off the top of their head when it was that NFL players stopped having to have a summer job to make ends meet? Might be wrong on this, but I've seen NFL Films stuff or programs on NFLN about teams or players well into the 60's were guys were not able to rely on football to make ends meet. My guess would be some of the big name guys of that era were comfortable with just their football earnings like Unitas and the like, but not until the mid 70's were most players able to solely rely on their football salary.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2010 04:00
|
|
|
Dominion posted:It varies by position. QBs in particular are almost always crapshoots no matter when they're taken. 1st round QBs are guys with great measurables, great college careers, and are taken by teams desperate for a QB. There's nothing close to a guarantee that that will translate. Go look up Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf. It's like buying a lottery ticket. As far as Leaf goes, you could have made a sound argument that he was a much weaker prospect than Peyton based on college stats. Leaf was 53% in his career for completions and Manning was 63% and they both had pretty similar YPA. Manning also played 3 full seasons as the starting QB where as Leaf declared early. Manning's numbers are consistent while trending upward whereas Leaf really only had one monster year and then declared. But he had great size and arm strength so... e:Also, I'm not sure I'd say it's much easier to assess dlinemen as opposed to quaterbacks. Every year there are can't miss guys who dominate in college and are either complete failures in the NFL or never come close to producing what was expected of them. Suh was a slight degree safer because he was above average even for elite level players of his position. McKracken fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Jan 6, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2011 02:27
|
|
|
Doppelganger posted:What are those fanny-pack things for, just to keep their hands warm? That is their exact purpose. This is why they're called hand-warmers.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2011 08:19
|
|
|
some6uy008 posted:After watching a few segments on ESPN, can someone answer why the NFL doesn't like QBs coming from a spread offense? What are the pros and cons of it and why isn't it heavily used in the NFL like it is in college? In the NFL, or any passing system remotely based off a pro offense, the passing game will contain 3 major series. These are 3, 5 and 7 step passes (there's also the screen game, but that's a bit different.) There are very specific mechanics for the QB to follow after taking the snap and getting into his drop while properly setting his feet and throwing the ball. QB's who run a spread system in college very often do not take snaps under center, and very rarely uses the 3/5/7 footwork that is ubiquitous in the NFL. Footwork of course is a large component of accuracy and the ability of the QB to throw a good ball to his target. The spread offense also typically uses a hyper-simplified read/progression system. In some cases, pre-snap the QB will simply read the secondary to see if the middle is open or closed and take his post-snap action without really reading the post-snap defense. There's also more of a learning curve for a spread QB as opposed to a player who came from a pro-style system.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2011 22:15
|
|
|
Jefferson, the link to Newton's combine workout is the Brady week 12 cut. Fantastic write-up. I think a lot of people latch on to throwing mechanics as far as the arm motion goes because it's one of the most obvious and iconic actions of the game, and it's usually what will be mentioned during broadcasts. As a result, the importance of footwork is usually mitigated or ignored, and it's not something anyone who isn't specifically watching for it will notice. The only time you ever really hear about footwork is during the pre-draft evaluations from guys like Kiper or McShay, and even then it's usually just a superficial mention of "not great footwork" without an actual analysis of what or why. Mayock is the only guy I've ever seen elaborate on his opinions in the realm of footwork or throwing mechanics.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2011 01:23
|
|
|
In relation to your comment that he isn't stepping into his throws, I've yet to see him follow through on the release and I'm 5 minutes into the pro day video. Although so far 75% of his throws have been rollouts.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2011 01:37
|
|
|
Quiet Feet posted:Can somebody explain to me the basic differences between the divisions in college football? Which are considered to have the higher talent? Is it anything like baseball where AAA is the peak, and if so, where do the BCS and NAIA fit into this? I'm pretty sure there might be a much more detailed post covering this in the OP, but anyway here goes: There are 3 NCAA divisions. Division 3 is non-scholarship and the least competitive, although there are some schools like Mount Union that are annual powerhouses and could probably compete with some D-2 programs. Many D-3 schools are small liberal arts colleges. Division 2 schools have 36 full scholarships to award annually. The talent is higher, many players at this division might have D-1 measurables in some areas but have some form of deficiency that makes them unappealing to bigger programs. An example of this would be a running back with 4.4 speed and great lateral quickness, but is only 5'5 and 155 pounds. Division 1 is comprised of 2 subdivisions. What was formerly D-1A is now known as FBS (bowl subdivison) and 1-AA is now FCS (championship subdivision.) This is where probably 97% of future NFL players come from (I just made that number up, but it is exceedingly rare for a D-2 or D-3 player to get invited to camp, let alone make a roster, let alone have more than a few game career.) FBS is the most competitive level, which all of the famous, bigtime programs such as Michigan, Texas, Florida etc belong to. FBS has 85 full scholarships to award annually. The BCS is the format currently used to determine the national champion at the FBS level, and I'm pretty sure Gendo or someone put together a really good post that fully covers this aspect of NCAA in the OP. This is basically where all the top level talent is. FCS schools only have 63 scholarships to award yearly, and they compete in a tournament to determine the champion (as do D-2 and D-3 schools.) The talent at FCS schools is lower than FBS schools on the whole, but this is widely variable dependent on the particular conference. What was formerly the Atlantic 10 conference, and now the CAA, is composed of schools (Delaware, Umass, Richmond etc) which routinely send players to the NFL. Many of these players are only ever special teamers or career backups, but if you consult your favorite teams roster you will probably find at least 1-3 starters who came from FCS schools and the odds are good they came from a CAA school, like Joe Flacco (UDel) or Marques Colston (Hofstra).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2011 00:01
|
|
|
Wollawolla posted:For the past few years it seems like most of the best defenses in the AFC run a 3-4. He plays New England, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, the Jets, and I guess San Diego has a decent defense sometimes too. I don't think he's struggling against 3-4 defenses so much as he's struggling against good defenses, which is reasonable even for Manning. He hasn't really struggled to beat the bad 3-4 defenses because they're bad defenses, I don't think the scheme is a thing. Yeah, there's nothing magical about a 3-4 defense that makes it more difficult to throw against. Many of the better teams in the AFC just happen to use that as their base system.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2011 01:50
|
|
|
some6uy008 posted:Following and after the draft, I keep reading DE moving to OLB and adjusting from a 3point stance to 2 point. There is that much of a different and is there an advantage of 3stance vs 2point stance? The difference isn't so much in the stance, as the way in which the player is utilized and the corresponding difference in technique, fundamentals and ability needed to play well in that role. A 4-3 DE is going to be playing a 5 or 7 tech 95% of the time. His specific responsibilities will differ depending on the DC, but generally he's a run stopper keeping contain and directing flow to the LB's, and the outside pass rush where he will get upfield to the QB's outside leg. A 3-4 OLB has a much more varied set of responsibilities which will usually contain some degree of coverage, varying with ability. He won't always line up on the LOS, so he won't be playing the typical DL techniques, he will have to blitz and cover TE's and backs. He'll have more responsibilities to read the formation and offensive alignments. A lot of defensive linemen don't have the fluidity in their hips that coaches like to see from LB's, and even the players that do have the ability to switch position need time to transition to their expanded roles, particularly in pass coverage. Rushing from a 2 point stance isn't always the same as rushing from a 3 point stance, especially if an OLB is lined up in a ghost technique outside a 4 or 5 tech DE. A good tackle will realize he has inside leverage against an edge rusher from anything outside a 5 tech and kick step infinitely if the rusher is determined to go around his outside. The OLB will have to have a quick enough first step to beat the OT to the outside with pure speed, or throw his balance with a stutter step and than quickly post to the inside while the OT is recovering from his commitment to kick out.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2011 19:49
|
|
|
some6uy008 posted:Follow up question: Even speaking to generalities, there is a fair amount of variety between body types and athletic ability at each position that it's hard to give any sort of universal rule, even a vague one. Some college players who play DE might convert to a DT or NT in the pros, some might play a 7 tech 4-3 DE and some might play a 5 tech 3-4 DE. All DE's are not necessarily similar in size, speed and ability to 3-4 OLB's, but a subgroup of DE prospects which meet a GM's criteria to play OLB will assuredly be scouted to see if they'd transition well to that position. I haven't seen Williams play enough (only see the Texans when they play the Jets or during primetime) to make any accurate predictions, although he certainly does have the size and speed to be an elephant OLB.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2011 17:43
|
|
|
Totally TWISTED posted:I remember reading that there is a baseball website that requires a subscription to have access to a huge array of job postings for all the different levels of baseball. I guess like a monster.com but for baseball only. The only baseball website I know of that requires a subscription is Baseball Prospectus, and while I'm not a member, so I'm not 100% sure, I think that is 100% for stats, news and articles related to such...although if I'm wrong I'm sure the SAS baseball fans can correct me. I've never heard of a website that aggregates NFL job listings. Do you mean for the business side of things, like PR, IT, marketing etc, or a front office/coaching position?
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2011 05:16
|
|
|
Doppelganger posted:I realize nobody here is an NFL coach or coordinator, but when a play is called, is it more to do with what you're trying to accomplish, or trying to anticipate the other side's move? Or, some healthy balance of both? Playcalling is probably the least exact aspect of football. There are tons of factors which might influence an OC/DC. First there's the immediate goal of the offense, converting downs and scoring, and typically (hopefully) an OC will have his core plays which will always result in a successful down if they are executed properly. Lombardi does a pretty good job of illustrating this concept in this famous video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmtVeqMt6dc&playnext=1&list=PL6167EE951A58B61C#t=1m05s Outside of this, you have calls which are specifically meant to keep the defense honest. If they are starting to blitz on a regular basis to disrupt 5 step drops, you will call a screen play, because it is the optimal call in this situation, but not a very good call otherwise(probably.) If the linebackers are starting to cheat up in the gaps because your iso plays are picking up yards, you can playaction with a TE delay up the seams. Calling plays of this type depend on what you've seen on film of the other defenses tendencies and what they have done in the game thus far, which leads into the next point. You should have an idea, from film, of what the opposing coordinator likes to run in certain situations, and you should have feedback from your players and coaches as to what has been happening on the field thus far. All of these things will influence a playcall. The last major component is game situation. Who has the lead, how much time is remaining, field position, down and distance, weather etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2011 00:46
|
|
|
BIGFOOT PEE BED posted:Why do you think Fullback is dying? Is it because defensive ends got quicker, or more 3-4 receiver formations, or anything like that? A lot of it has to do with the evolution of offensive systems and the subsequent impact it had on other positions and personnel and how you can get better utility on limited roster spots by using guys who can perform various roles. I'll give a very brief explanation of how I mean this. Back with the single wing and wing-t, the fullback was the featured offensive player both in the running and passing game, though he would occasionally be used as a blocking back. With the advent of I/Pro formations the faster and more agile backs were used as the feature back to run the ball while the fullback was used as a lead blocker and pass catching threat who could carry the ball on an inside run from time to time, though sometimes as Hero mentioned, they would just be massive brick walls of men who primarily block. With the rule changes that heavily emphasize passing, offenses have an easier time taking advantage of space on the field, and gaining yards, by using 3, 4 or 5 WR sets and a singleback, with TE's, H-backs or RB's at slot positions in those formations to spread the defenses. There isn't much place for a guy who mostly specializes in blocking in an offense like this. Additionally, defensive coordinators are smart enough to run blitz when you line up in I set with a guy like Lorenzo Neal at fullback. Good DC's with even an average run defense will be able to scheme accordingly to shut down a team that's just going to line up and run power, sweep, trap and belly out of I variants. It's so much easier to move the ball by passing than it's ever been, so teams are shifting away from running I-sets as their primary formation. If you're only going to line up in a run heavy set for 15% of your plays, it doesn't make much sense to keep a dedicated blocking back on the roster when you can utilize your 2nd or 3rd HB or TE as a FB in the instances when you want a run heavy formation. Or you can run unbalanced formations with extra linemen since you need backups for those positions on the roster anyway. Or you can still run the ball effectively from a 1 back set if your passing game is doing its job to constrain the defense from lining up in 8 man fronts. I also think it's a lot easier, from a defensive standpoint, to shutdown a lead iso than it is to stop a good pass play that utilizes 4 receivers at different levels to stretch vertical/horizontal seams or flood a zone in a 3 vs. 2 situation. McKracken fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Sep 7, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2011 03:18
|
|
|
Besides Football Scouting Methods, I would recommend some of the Coach of the Year Clinics, and books specifically aimed at coaches if you think your knowledge is up to par to understand the terminology. I wouldn't really buy anything written by a sportswriter or journalist. I know Pat Kirwan has a book, which might not be totally awful, but it also might be aimed more towards completely casual fans so I wouldn't expect any great breakdowns in it. Here is a good book written by the great Tubby Raymond regarding his area of offensive expertise... http://www.amazon.com/Delaware-Wing-T-Passing-Science-Coaching/dp/1585182028/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1316567026&sr=8-2 Here's something on pass defense that I've heard good things about http://www.amazon.com/Coaching-Pattern-Read-Coverage-Tom-Olivadotti/dp/1606790463/ref=sr_1_15?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1316567206&sr=1-15
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2011 02:17
|
|
|
There are a few books I've got queued up but haven't had time to read yet. Maybe we can add a recommended reading list to the OP at some point. I've never come across a book that gives a good general overview of football from a strategy/scheme standpoint while covering coaching points like technique, alignments, assignments etc. There are tons of coaching books and manuals, some are great, some are garbage, so it's hard to give specific reccomendations. I know Gus Malzahn has a book out about no huddle offenses, and while he's clearly a competent and expert source of information there's no garauntee it's presented in a clear and concise manner. Most coaching books are meant to cover a very specific area of offense/defense that the writer is familiar with, so I'd suggest looking for an area you want to learn more about and finding some books and google reviews. There might be sites like CoachHuey that have knowledgeable people commenting on the usefulness of the book. If you really want to learn hands-on, DVR games to rewatch. I've never used NFL seasonpass or those services from NFL.com, but if they provide endzone angles (I'm guessing they don't) that would be a tremendous resource. Watching tape like you are scouting a team attunes you to specific details that are hard to catch in realtime, even for someone experienced who knows what to look for. The caveat with this, is that you need a certain level of baseline knowledge to properly breakdown a play.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2011 22:33
|
|
|
keevo posted:Why do people hate Jay Cutler? Was it only because of the whole him wanting out of the Broncos thing? Some stupid fans in Denver might hate him for this, and some really stupid people in Chicago or in general hate him for not playing the remainder of last years playoff game with a grade 3 MCL tear. There is really no good reason to hate Cutler as a player because he is a really good QB playing with a terrible offensive line. I dunno anything about him off the field.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2011 04:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 23:35 |
|
|
drunk leprechaun posted:Sure you can get by without a great one This was the whole point of what Jefferson posted, there are things you can do to take pressure of your blindside tackle so that you can make life livable with Anthony Munoz.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2011 18:16
|
|