Gimmick Offenses Beware [Archive]

FlabLoser

02-12-2014, 05:42 PM

The committee also recommended a rules change that will allow defensive units to substitute within the first 10 seconds of the 40-second play clock, with the exception of the final two minutes of each half, starting with the 2014 season.

“This rules change is being made to enhance student-athlete safety by guaranteeing a small window for both teams to substitute,” said Calhoun. “As the average number of plays per game has increased, this issue has been discussed with greater frequency by the committee in recent years and we felt like it was time to act in the interests of protecting our student-athletes.”

Call this the Saban rule. Saban is the only coach I have heard make this ridiculous argument.

So they are going to solve player fatigue by giving a 10 second window for a defense to gather itself and figure out who to haul ass off the field. Brilliant.

And then have different substitution rules depending on how much time is left in the half and how much time the play clock is started with. WTF....

Todd4State

02-12-2014, 05:42 PM

mic

02-12-2014, 05:45 PM

I can already hear the whining that will come out of Oxford...

DownwardDawg

02-12-2014, 05:48 PM

Call this the Saban rule. Saban is the only coach I have heard make this ridiculous argument.

So they are going to solve player fatigue by giving a 10 second window for a defense to gather itself and figure out who to haul ass off the field. Brilliant.

And then have different substitution rules depending on how much time is left in the half and how much time the play clock is started with. WTF....

I've been saying this would happen for a year now, since Saban voiced his "concern". There was a sports neurologist on tv backing Saban up 100% though within weeks of Saban making those comments. The Dr. stated that he trains the team physicians and trainers what to look for between plays to evaluate players with potential head injuries. Not being able to have the extra time eliminates this from happening.
I knew this was coming. Once a few doctors get behind it, it's over.

AROB44

02-12-2014, 05:48 PM

I can already hear the whining that will come out of Oxford...

And Auburn...

Todd4State

02-12-2014, 05:49 PM

Call this the Saban rule. Saban is the only coach I have heard make this ridiculous argument.

So they are going to solve player fatigue by giving a 10 second window for a defense to gather itself and figure out who to haul ass off the field. Brilliant.

And then have different substitution rules depending on how much time is left in the half and how much time the play clock is started with. WTF....

Devil's advocate here: To me, I would think that if a defensive player isn't set, that in and of itself puts them at a slightly higher risk of injury.

To be a little bit more tangible- let's say I'm a linebacker and I sprain my ankle on a play. Because of how some teams like Auburn play, I am forced to choose rather I should stay out there and play hurt because my team can't sub, thus possibly causing my injury to become worse because I'm still running on it, OR fall down to the ground and be booed because the Auburn fans think I'm intentionally trying to slow them down by faking an injury when I'm really not.

FlabLoser

02-12-2014, 05:49 PM

I understand that it's within the rules, but I don't think it's what football is meant to be. Basically, it's taking advantage of a loop hole in the rules.

...said every opponent of the forward pass 150 years ago.

FlabLoser

02-12-2014, 05:50 PM

Devil's advocate here: To me, I would think that if a defensive player isn't set, that in and of itself puts them at a slightly higher risk of injury.

To be a little bit more tangible- let's say I'm a linebacker and I sprain my ankle on a play. Because of how some teams like Auburn play, I am forced to choose rather I should stay out there and play hurt because my team can't sub, thus possibly causing my injury to become worse because I'm still running on it, OR fall down to the ground and be booed because the Auburn fans think I'm intentionally trying to slow them down by faking an injury when I'm really not.

There are ways to get an injured player out of the game and nobody gives a shit about fans booing.

BeastMan

02-12-2014, 05:52 PM

Todd4State

02-12-2014, 05:53 PM

I've been saying this would happen for a year now, since Saban voiced his "concern". There was a sports neurologist on tv backing Saban up 100% though within weeks of Saban making those comments. The Dr. stated that he trains the team physicians and trainers what to look for between plays to evaluate players with potential head injuries. Not being able to have the extra time eliminates this from happening.
I knew this was coming. Once a few doctors get behind it, it's over.

I could see that happening as well with a player getting a concussion and then having to stay in.

The bottom line is those offenses take advantage of the rules and bend them at times. I've seen Ole Miss run plays before the sticks were set.

AlSwearengen

02-12-2014, 05:54 PM

My big complaint with it is, that it doesn't give the refs enough time to review bad calls. It ****ed us in the egg bowl on multiple occasions.

BeastMan

02-12-2014, 05:54 PM

If defenses had a fair amount of time to sub we wouldn't have seen the fake injuries we saw last year just for a whistle. That doesn't belong in football but is a defense manipulation of rules to combat the HUNH current upper hand within the rules. There is a common sense middle ground

BeastMan

02-12-2014, 05:55 PM

My big complaint with it is, that it doesn't give the refs enough time to review bad calls. It ****ed us in the egg bowl on multiple occasions.

Yet another issue

Todd4State

02-12-2014, 05:57 PM

...said every opponent of the forward pass 150 years ago.

Come on now. At least teams were able to have defensive backs in the game 150 years ago in an opportunity to defend the forward pass.

ETA: Not to mention the fact that the rules have changed over the years as football has progressed. Any change regarding hurry up offenses would not be any different than the five yard zone when a DB can hit a receiver.

Todd4State

02-12-2014, 06:00 PM

There are ways to get an injured player out of the game and nobody gives a shit about fans booing.

So, you think it's OK to boo players that are legitimately hurt? Sportsmanship has to come into play at some point.

Goat Holder

02-12-2014, 06:01 PM

You obviously have a point, but I quit giving a damn about the good of the game a long time ago. Now, it's all about MSU getting an advantage. This rule HELPS MSU, so I support it.

Goat Holder

02-12-2014, 06:03 PM

I agree, I hate the hurry up. There's a reason the clock rules are the way they are about out of boards, 2 minutes, etc.

I also don't blame teams who exploit the rule either. But I don't want to hear their bitching when they close the loophole.

Goat Holder

02-12-2014, 06:04 PM

They don't need to make any drastic change but some common sense middle ground is fine by me.

Right on.

dawgoneyall

02-12-2014, 06:11 PM

It is only fair. The offense can sub at their pleasure now. Why shouldn't the defense be allowed the same?

chef dixon

02-12-2014, 06:20 PM

I like the rule. Football is becoming such a gimmick... its pretty rampant and is finally making its way into big time programs. Although I think the last 2 minutes thing is a little harsh. I feel like you should be able to go as fast as you'd like in the 4th quarter if you are down by a couple scores.

ckDOG

02-12-2014, 06:23 PM

NCAA is ready to deal with your smoke and mirrors. I hope it passes. http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/football-rules-committee-adjusts-targeting-rule-defensive

Seems reasonable to me. I'd still rather there be an emphasis on the refs maintaining a consistent pace after a play rather than the offense dictate how they do their job. Just bc a player shoves the ball in a refs chest near the LOS doesn't mean the ref should be compelled to set the ball. Speed up your offense as much as you like but that doesn't mean the ref should facilitate that.

I would also like there to be an emphasis on watching that the offense has been set long enough before snap or motion. I see a lot of up tempo situations where a motion man never was really set before beginning the motion. That's a penalty. This isn't arena league.

ShotgunDawg

02-12-2014, 06:26 PM

My big complaint with it is, that it doesn't give the refs enough time to review bad calls. It ****ed us in the egg bowl on multiple occasions.

THIS

The problem isn't the hurry up offenses, the problem is the refs have no clue how to officiate when it is being run. 2 things would solve the problems for me.

1. After a close catch, or debatable play, the refs hold the ball until the replay officials have a chance to review.

2. The chain gang and refs must be in correct position before the ball can be snapped. Can't tell you how many times I see these offenses being run and the chain gang isn't close to being in position and the refs have their backs turned to the ball when it is snapped.

I don't care about the substitutions, and I am fine with the hurry up strategy. The problem is that the integrity of the game is at risk because the officials have no idea how to manage the game when the hurry is being run.

maroonmania

02-12-2014, 06:35 PM

I hope it passes too.

I just don't think it's good in the spirit of the game for a team to basically bubble screen their way to a cheap TD just because the defense isn't allowed time to get set. I understand that it's within the rules, but I don't think it's what football is meant to be. Basically, it's taking advantage of a loop hole in the rules.

I agree, the hurry up thing is getting ridiculous. A defense should be allowed to set itself before the play starts. I wish they would have a MINIMUM amount of the play clock that has to run before you can snap the ball along with a Maximum time. For example, once the ball is spotted you have to wait 5 seconds (for example) before a snap is allowed. I personally don't think an offensive play that is successful because they caught the defense not set and ready is within the spirit of the game. I could see making an exception in the last 2 minutes of each half but that's it.

ShotgunDawg

02-12-2014, 06:37 PM

drunkernhelldawg

02-12-2014, 06:44 PM

I agree with it. I'm not a fan of the cheapie touchdown.

messageboardsuperhero

02-12-2014, 06:45 PM

I like the rule and agree with Todd's premise (although UM and Auburn fans will hate this rule). Is football really meant to be played as if it's a race to the line and whoever gets there first has an advantage?

The whole idea of hurrying up and trying to snap the ball before your opponent is ready just sounds like a bunch of 10 year olds on the playground. It's just cheap. That's just my opinion.

thf24

02-12-2014, 07:06 PM

Seems reasonable to me. I'd still rather there be an emphasis on the refs maintaining a consistent pace after a play rather than the offense dictate how they do their job. Just bc a player shoves the ball in a refs chest near the LOS doesn't mean the ref should be compelled to set the ball. Speed up your offense as much as you like but that doesn't mean the ref should facilitate that.

I agree. That's always bothered me, both in this context and in general. The refs need to try to move at the same pace at all times, no matter what either team wants to do. I don't care if it's the opening scrimmage play or the last few play of the game. Decide whether you're going to spot the ball at a casual pace or breakneck speed at all times and stick to it. Don't let the one side dictate the pace at which you, an impartial arbiter, do your job.

FlabLoser

02-12-2014, 07:11 PM

blacklistedbully

02-12-2014, 07:43 PM

Auburn will be more hurt by this than OM. The biggest problem with defending Auburn is getting lined up and identifying their formation. OM will be effected because they just throw bubble screens, but Auburn could be the one that has the bigger problem.

My guess is that Auburn will delay their set up and the line and still get in their formation fast and run a play following the 10 seconds.

i would think Ole Miss would be hurt more. As you say, Auburn could easily wait 10 seconds before adopting their formation, then snap it just as quickly after set as before. But Hugh Freeze and Ole Miss are all about trying to get you winded and not giving you any time to get set before running a play. They're about getting you on your heels and keeping you that way, and if they can't, they're in trouble.

dawgs

02-12-2014, 07:54 PM

dawgs

02-12-2014, 08:01 PM

@Flab

Saban and Bielema have complained and made horrible arguments making them sound dumb. My issue is giving the defense time to sub to adjust to the offense. Ex: An offense has a shotgun formation w/2 WRs, 1 RB, 1 TE, & 1 H-back motioning to run the ball. A defense can handle this in their base package. The advantage the offense has is that they have a 5 WR set ready to quick sub and bubble screen on a quick count not giving the defense the time to sub accordingly or adjust. It's smoke and mirrors and not outsmarting X's and O's. It's like finding that unstoppable play on Madden and running it over and over. They don't need to make any drastic change but some common sense middle ground is fine by me.

the rules have ALWAYS allowed for the defense to sub if the offense subs. when the offenses go into high gear, the offenses aren't subbing, it's the same 11 every play. that's what this rule is directed towards. eliminating a smaller, faster, better conditioned team's advantage. ****ing horseshit imo.

WE would have benefited from running up tempo imo fwiw. that has been one of my biggest complaints under mullen, that we are letting Ds dictate shit, when we should be dictating things to them. we'll never have the size and athleticism of bama or lsu across the board, but this could give us an advantage. i find it totally ludicrous that msu fans can't see this and would oppose us moving in that direction.

i view this as if the ncaa eliminated press defense in basketball because it wouldn't allow the in bounding team to bring the ball up and set up their offense set and get the play from the coach. you could even argue that the press increases the number of trips down the floor, thus increases the injuries, and therefore, by the same logic used here, should be outlawed. anyone thing press defense in basketball should be made illegal?

DownwardDawg

02-12-2014, 08:03 PM

but saban can keep putting 270 lb LBs and 350 lb OL out there to crush smaller opponents. but no injury threats there. such bullshit. it's a different facet of the game. tempo and speed and conditioning are as much a part of the game as power and strength imo.

Read my post on the 1st page. This is all about allowing doctors and trainers the time to evaluate players between plays. It has nothing to do with fatigue or player size. this is another step the NCAA is taking to try and reduce head injuries.

dawgs

02-12-2014, 08:07 PM

Read my post on the 1st page. This is all about allowing doctors and trainers the time to evaluate players between plays. It has nothing to do with fatigue or player size. this is another step the NCAA is taking to try and reduce head injuries.

how many times have you seen a doctor run on the field in a game involving non-HUNH offenses because he thinks he can tell a guy has a head injury form the sideline? a guy that gets hit to the point he might have a concussion is usually laid out on the field and the clock stops. guys that get damage from repetitive small hits aren't getting pulled out of games from the sidelines because that shit isn't noticeable from the sidelines, and the damage from those hits don't show up until after the fact.

dawgs

02-12-2014, 08:08 PM

It is only fair. The offense can sub at their pleasure now. Why shouldn't the defense be allowed the same?

DEFENSES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ABLE TO SUB WHEN OFFENSES SUB. THIS RULE ONLY APPLIES WHEN OFFENSES KEEP THE SAME 11 GUYS ON THE FIELD PLAY AFTER PLAY AFTER PLAY.

dawgs

02-12-2014, 08:10 PM

what happens when we are down a couple of scores with 6 minutes left and want to run HUNH in an attempt to come back, but instead we have to let 10 precious seconds tick off the clock even though we aren't subbing offensive players?

DownwardDawg

02-12-2014, 08:11 PM

how many times have you seen a doctor run on the field in a game involving non-HUNH offenses because he thinks he can tell a guy has a head injury form the sideline? a guy that gets hit to the point he might have a concussion is usually laid out on the field and the clock stops. guys that get damage from repetitive small hits aren't getting pulled out of games from the sidelines because that shit isn't noticeable from the sidelines, and the damage from those hits don't show up until after the fact.

Well, I'm not a doctor and I assume you aren't either, but I watched a full segment on some sports show (can't remember which one) with a Neurologist explaining exactly what he looks for between plays to help evaluate head trauma. He spoke in depth and explained that he teachers trainers these techniques. Is the nuerologist full of shit? I don't know. But I knew the minute I saw that interview it was just a matter of time. It's over.

dawgs

02-12-2014, 08:15 PM

Well, I'm not a doctor and I assume you aren't either, but I watched a full segment on some sports show (can't remember which one) with a Neurologist explaining exactly what he looks for between plays to help evaluate head trauma. He spoke in depth and explained that he teachers trainers these techniques. Is the nuerologist full of shit? I don't know. But I knew the minute I saw that interview it was just a matter of time. It's over.

well when i see doctors throwing flags or running on the field to stop plays from happening, HUNH or not, i'll believe they can tell shit from the sidelines and actually do something about it. but as of now, i've never seen it happen. obviously i'm not talking to a guy laid out, i'm talking about a guy otherwise standing up fine and lining up for the next play.

ckDOG

02-12-2014, 08:20 PM

the rules have ALWAYS allowed for the defense to sub if the offense subs. when the offenses go into high gear, the offenses aren't subbing, it's the same 11 every play. that's what this rule is directed towards. eliminating a smaller, faster, better conditioned team's advantage. ****ing horseshit imo.

WE would have benefited from running up tempo imo fwiw. that has been one of my biggest complaints under mullen, that we are letting Ds dictate shit, when we should be dictating things to them. we'll never have the size and athleticism of bama or lsu across the board, but this could give us an advantage. i find it totally ludicrous that msu fans can't see this and would oppose us moving in that direction.

i view this as if the ncaa eliminated press defense in basketball because it wouldn't allow the in bounding team to bring the ball up and set up their offense set and get the play from the coach. you could even argue that the press increases the number of trips down the floor, thus increases the injuries, and therefore, by the same logic used here, should be outlawed. anyone thing press defense in basketball should be made illegal?

Couple of disagreements here.

I don't find it surprising at all that the NCAA has removed some advantage from the HUNH offense. I think many folks were expecting changes sooner than later. I'm glad Mullen doesn't have to make philosophy changes now since we didn't sell out to a trend that was going to be handicapped eventually.

Second, I don't think the fast break analogy is fair. Players aren't forcing the officials to adapt the way they do in football. HUNH stresses the officiating crew to the point they miss calls. I think the better analogy would be if basketball players were allowed to hurry up the inbounds after out of bounds plays. The refs controls the pace of that exchange in basketball and they should control the pace of the transitions between plays in football. It should be consistent for both teams throughout the game. I think the hurried snap is akin to an inbounding basketball team encouraging the ref to allow them to inbound faster to eliminate substitutions and to catch the other team off guard. A faster pace doesn't bother me as long as it's consistent and the officials control the opportunity for it.

DownwardDawg

02-12-2014, 08:20 PM

well when i see doctors throwing flags or running on the field to stop plays from happening, HUNH or not, i'll believe they can tell shit from the sidelines and actually do something about it. but as of now, i've never seen it happen. obviously i'm not talking to a guy laid out, i'm talking about a guy otherwise standing up fine and lining up for the next play.

I definitely see your point. I was just pointing out what the doc stated on tv. When doctors start making these type statements to the NCAA, things get changed quick.

dawgs

02-12-2014, 08:26 PM

Couple of disagreements here.

I don't find it surprising at all that the NCAA has removed some advantage from the HUNH offense. I think many folks were expecting changes sooner than later. I'm glad Mullen doesn't have to make philosophy changes now since we didn't sell out to a trend that was going to be handicapped eventually.

Second, I don't think the fast break analogy is fair. Players aren't forcing the officials to adapt the way they do in football. HUNH stresses the officiating crew to the point they miss calls. I think the better analogy would be if basketball players were allowed to hurry up the inbounds after out of bounds plays. The refs controls the pace of that exchange in basketball and they should control the pace of the transitions between plays in football. It should be consistent for both teams throughout the game. I think the hurried snap is akin to an inbounding basketball team encouraging the ref to allow them to inbound faster to eliminate substitutions and to catch the other team off guard. A faster pace doesn't bother me as long as it's consistent and the officials control the opportunity for it.

last time i watched basketball, the refs don't handle the ball after made baskets and players can throw it in as fast as they can grab it, step on the end line, and throw it.

::looks up at tv::

yep, basketball still works that way.

after timeouts and stuff, the refs hold the ball while the teams get back on the court, but that's like the refs in football holding up the play if the offense subs so the defense can sub, whcih is already allowed in the rules.

edit: you can also DEFINITELY argue that pressing in basketball requires a lot more exertion by the refs to properly officiate the game.

Political Hack

02-12-2014, 08:35 PM

I feel better about the Auburn, A&M, and OM games already... although we should win 2 out of 3 regardless.

DownwardDawg

02-12-2014, 08:39 PM

I feel better about the Auburn, A&M, and OM games already... although we should win 2 out of 3 regardless.

Me too. For the record, I hope the gimmicky HUNH offense is squashed tomorrow. I hate it.

blacklistedbully

02-12-2014, 08:47 PM

Hey, why not take the gimmicks to an extreme. Let's sign 1 or 2 7' dudes, a tall guy to play QB and run nothing but quick 5-yard pass patterns, throwing it so high that only the 7' dude can catch it and the DB can't reach it. We won't need him to run much, just get 5 yards every play. Won't even need an O-line worth a damn. Just run the same couple of plays every time. March right on down the field. :cool:

dawgs

02-12-2014, 08:50 PM

Me too. For the record, I hope the gimmicky HUNH offense is squashed tomorrow. I hate it.

i have a problem with implementing any rule because you simply don't like something, and i haven't heard any compelling evidence against the HUNH. it's merely the most recent chess move in football, now it's up to the defenses to figure out the best/most effective way to stop it (at least with regards to the read option aspect, it's already kinda happening, at least slowing it down). it's not a format that should be made illegal simply because traditionalists don't like it. why not outlaw the shotgun and the pistol and no back formations too? we should just limit all offensive formations to 5 OL, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 RB, 1 FB, and 1 QB.

dawgs

02-12-2014, 08:51 PM

OurState

02-12-2014, 08:53 PM

You obviously have a point, but I quit giving a damn about the good of the game a long time ago. Now, it's all about MSU getting an advantage. This rule HELPS MSU, so I support it.

It helps us vs two teams. It helps us when we lead. It also makes any game where one team is down big over. There are time having up tempo play cakes sense. I think this will make a lot of games more boring.

Political Hack

02-12-2014, 08:55 PM

ckDOG

02-12-2014, 08:57 PM

last time i watched basketball, the refs don't handle the ball after made baskets and players can throw it in as fast as they can grab it, step on the end line, and throw it.

::looks up at tv::

yep, basketball still works that way.

after timeouts and stuff, the refs hold the ball while the teams get back on the court, but that's like the refs in football holding up the play if the offense subs so the defense can sub, whcih is already allowed in the rules.

edit: you can also DEFINITELY argue that pressing in basketball requires a lot more exertion by the refs to properly officiate the game.

I know smart ass, that's why I said "after out of bounds plays". Out of bounds and fouls disrupt the flow of play. That's why it's up to the ref to establish order after the disruptions. Playing as fast or as slow between the whistles is part of the game.

In football the game is disrupted by tackles. There is disorder after a play and it's up to the ref to get the ball, have the chains moved, count players, regulate substitutions, etc. They can't do that properly when the offense is shoving a football down their throats telling them to do their job faster.

ETA: if you are okay with the offense being able to speed the game up by getting the ball set quickly, you should also be okay with a defender sitting on the ball and keeping the ref from setting it so his D has a chance to get organized. I think both are stupid. Let the ref control setting the ball at a reasonable consistent pace.

DownwardDawg

02-12-2014, 09:08 PM

i have a problem with implementing any rule because you simply don't like something, and i haven't heard any compelling evidence against the HUNH. it's merely the most recent chess move in football, now it's up to the defenses to figure out the best/most effective way to stop it (at least with regards to the read option aspect, it's already kinda happening, at least slowing it down). it's not a format that should be made illegal simply because traditionalists don't like it. why not outlaw the shotgun and the pistol and no back formations too? we should just limit all offensive formations to 5 OL, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 RB, 1 FB, and 1 QB.

Well, I'm not implementing any rule. The NCAA is and I haven't talked to them lately and asked if they consulted physicians before impementing the rule. I don't care. I am a MSU fan and we should all hate that stupid shit. It gave us fits so I am for anything that helps us. The rest of the country can go 17 themselves. Goodbye gimmicky pussified offense.

JiggleBilly

02-12-2014, 09:56 PM

It would be nice, but the ncaa loves'em some offense.

dawgoneyall

02-12-2014, 11:37 PM

but why should the offense have the first option. This will be a good rule.

dawgs

02-13-2014, 01:05 AM

I know smart ass, that's why I said "after out of bounds plays". Out of bounds and fouls disrupt the flow of play. That's why it's up to the ref to establish order after the disruptions. Playing as fast or as slow between the whistles is part of the game.

In football the game is disrupted by tackles. There is disorder after a play and it's up to the ref to get the ball, have the chains moved, count players, regulate substitutions, etc. They can't do that properly when the offense is shoving a football down their throats telling them to do their job faster.

ETA: if you are okay with the offense being able to speed the game up by getting the ball set quickly, you should also be okay with a defender sitting on the ball and keeping the ref from setting it so his D has a chance to get organized. I think both are stupid. Let the ref control setting the ball at a reasonable consistent pace.

Let me explain this very very clearly. This only occurs when the offense doesn't sub. If the offense subs, the D has a chance to sub. When there are penalties or the chains are moved or anything like that, the refs usually stop the pace of the game. They might not literally count 10 seconds off the play clock, but the D has time to get organized and probably make subs if they are organized.

IMO the tackle on a typical play is the equivalent of a made basket. A foul is the equivalent of a foul. An injury the equivalent of an injury. A timeout is the equivalent of a timeout. Etc etc etc. in all of those situations except the typical tackle/made basket, the refs can let the teams get their subs in and get organized.

Of course, if you think the D laying on the ball is the equivalent of an O going HUNH, then you've already made up your mind because I don't see these as equivalent at all. Maybe if the offense was snapping the ball before the refs blew it into play that'd be the equivalent of the D laying on the ball, but that's illegal just like the D can't lay on the ball.

NewTweederEndzoneDance

02-13-2014, 09:39 AM

Jack Lambert

02-13-2014, 09:41 AM

What do they do if the play clock goes out? Is the REfs going to tell the QB it ok to snap it?

ckDOG

02-13-2014, 10:14 AM

Let me explain this very very clearly. This only occurs when the offense doesn't sub. If the offense subs, the D has a chance to sub. When there are penalties or the chains are moved or anything like that, the refs usually stop the pace of the game. They might not literally count 10 seconds off the play clock, but the D has time to get organized and probably make subs if they are organized.

IMO the tackle on a typical play is the equivalent of a made basket. A foul is the equivalent of a foul. An injury the equivalent of an injury. A timeout is the equivalent of a timeout. Etc etc etc. in all of those situations except the typical tackle/made basket, the refs can let the teams get their subs in and get organized.

Of course, if you think the D laying on the ball is the equivalent of an O going HUNH, then you've already made up your mind because I don't see these as equivalent at all. Maybe if the offense was snapping the ball before the refs blew it into play that'd be the equivalent of the D laying on the ball, but that's illegal just like the D can't lay on the ball.

I don't know why you keep trying to explain the existing rules. I know what they are. We have philosophical differences. You think the offense is allowed to control the tempo of what the refs do bt end of play and the setting of the ball. I don't.

Have you not observed what HUNH tries to do? They will run all plays to the weak side of their nearest hash. After the play, they won't sub and they hurry the ref along to put the ball in play. They then line up and snap the ball at their leisure. The snap may not occur within 10 seconds but they've effectively taken away a possibility for the defense to make personnel adjustments. My opinion is the offense shouldn't have that luxury if the defense isn't allowed to stall the ref. Nobody technically controls the ball between tackle and the ref setting the ball for play so why should either team be able to influence the tempo the refs do their job?

The 10 second rule is essentially a timer for refs. Since nothing can happen between the end of a play and when it is next set for play, the NCAA is essentially saying, "it should take approx 10 seconds for the crew to get the ball and set it. Refs, make sure you get it set by 29 ticks. Any substitutions, coaching, etc can now happen in a reasonable and known timeframe"

So now when the HUNH is running the same play over and over exploiting a matchup the defense has no time to adjust to bc the offense hurried the ref along, defensive staffs know they have 10 seconds to work with after a play to adjust. It's objective and the same for both teams. No issues with me. Beyond that, you are still allowed to play as fast as you like, you just won't have any help from the officials in making that happen.

blacklistedbully

02-13-2014, 10:47 AM

The rule already is that if the offense subs, the defense has to be allowed to sub. So that already solves your issue.

Those of you for this rule proposal are either not seeing the bigger picture, or are blinded by your giddiness over Ole Miss fans being upset about it. What is your attitude going to be when we are down 16 with 10 minutes to go and we need to jump into our own hurry up but have to sit there and let 10 seconds run off the clock for free whether we are ready to snap it or not?

Don't get down by 16 with 10 minutes to go. If you are, chances are the other team has earned it. Besides, that's not insurmountable under the proposed rules. What you're really probably looking at is an extra 5-7 seconds, as your guys on O will be set at the line ready to snap the ball as soon as the clock hits 29 ticks. The way it is now, even in HUNH, teams are taking a few seconds at least to get set, then snap. The O can use the 10 seconds to get in formation, begin the snap count, then actually snap it exactly at 29 seconds left.

Also, the rule would not be in effect for the last, what, 2 minutes? If we need more than one 2-minute drive to get back into a game, then we most likely deserve to lose.

thunderclap

02-13-2014, 10:55 AM

Somewhere Bucky Freeze is gnawing the shit out of some tree trunks.

sandwolf

02-13-2014, 11:06 AM

After the play, they won't sub and they hurry the ref along to put the ball in play.

I know the ball carrier is instructed to always hand the ref the ball so that it will be set faster, but what else do they do to hurry the ref along?

NewTweederEndzoneDance

02-13-2014, 11:07 AM

Have you not observed what HUNH tries to do? They will run all plays to the weak side of their nearest hash. After the play, they won't sub and they hurry the ref along to put the ball in play. They then line up and snap the ball at their leisure. The snap may not occur within 10 seconds but they've effectively taken away a possibility for the defense to make personnel adjustments. My opinion is the offense shouldn't have that luxury if the defense isn't allowed to stall the ref.

Why should the defense be allowed to sub if the offense doesn't? So that the defense can specifically tailor its personnel to down and distance each and every play? Why should they get to do that if the offense isn't changing its personnel? Why should an offense not be allowed to exploit a mismatch? Isn't that the entire purpose of sports, exploiting mismatches?

And to the thought that if we're down at the end we deserve to lose - that's just... hell, I'm just staring blankly at the screen right now because that is a horrible opinion. I want my team to play hard and try to win the game all the way until the final seconds have run off the clock.

ETA: hell, with what some of you think - let's just turn the clock back to 1950 and tell teams they can only run 3 plays: HB up the middle, HB left, HB right - line up and play boys and may the best men win! Because it's got to be "fair", so what's more fair than simple man on man action? Can't have all this cheatin' and complex play callin'

blacklistedbully

02-13-2014, 11:18 AM

Why should the defense be allowed to sub if the offense doesn't? So that the defense can specifically tailor its personnel to down and distance each and every play? Why should they get to do that if the offense isn't changing its personnel? Why should an offense not be allowed to exploit a mismatch? Isn't that the entire purpose of sports, exploiting mismatches?

And to the thought that if we're down at the end we deserve to lose - that's just... hell, I'm just staring blankly at the screen right now because that is a horrible opinion. I want my team to play hard and try to win the game all the way until the final seconds have run off the clock.

ETA: hell, with what some of you think - let's just turn the clock back to 1950 and tell teams they can only run 3 plays: HB up the middle, HB left, HB right - line up and play boys and may the best men win! Because it's got to be "fair", so what's more fair than simple man on man action? Can't have all this cheatin' and complex play callin'

Maybe you're "staring blankly at your screen" because you're just too damned stupid to grasp the concept. Way to misquote me in a failed attempt to discredit my opinion, asshole. Here's what I actually said:

Don't get down by 16 with 10 minutes to go. If you are, chances are the other team has earned it. Besides, that's not insurmountable under the proposed rules. What you're really probably looking at is an extra 5-7 seconds, as your guys on O will be set at the line ready to snap the ball as soon as the clock hits 29 ticks. The way it is now, even in HUNH, teams are taking a few seconds at least to get set, then snap. The O can use the 10 seconds to get in formation, begin the snap count, then actually snap it exactly at 29 seconds left.

Also, the rule would not be in effect for the last, what, 2 minutes? Don't get down by 16 with 10 minutes to go. If you are, chances are the other team has earned it. Besides, that's not insurmountable under the proposed rules. What you're really probably looking at is an extra 5-7 seconds, as your guys on O will be set at the line ready to snap the ball as soon as the clock hits 29 ticks. The way it is now, even in HUNH, teams are taking a few seconds at least to get set, then snap. The O can use the 10 seconds to get in formation, begin the snap count, then actually snap it exactly at 29 seconds left.

Also, the rule would not be in effect for the last, what, 2 minutes? If we need more than one 2-minute drive to get back into a game, then we most likely deserve to lose.

None of that suggests I'm saying we shouldn't play hard to the end and try to win. Your whole damn post on this subject reeks of ignorance.

sandwolf

02-13-2014, 11:26 AM

If we need more than one 2-minute drive to get back into a game, then we most likely deserve to lose.

Hold on, what? That is completely ridiculous. I mean, couldn't it just as easily be argued that if a team can't stop the opposing offense from scoring multiple times at the end of a game to come back and win, then they deserve to lose? A team only "deserves" to lose if they score fewer points than their opponent.

dawgs

02-13-2014, 11:36 AM

I don't know why you keep trying to explain the existing rules. I know what they are. We have philosophical differences. You think the offense is allowed to control the tempo of what the refs do bt end of play and the setting of the ball. I don't.

Have you not observed what HUNH tries to do? They will run all plays to the weak side of their nearest hash. After the play, they won't sub and they hurry the ref along to put the ball in play. They then line up and snap the ball at their leisure. The snap may not occur within 10 seconds but they've effectively taken away a possibility for the defense to make personnel adjustments. My opinion is the offense shouldn't have that luxury if the defense isn't allowed to stall the ref. Nobody technically controls the ball between tackle and the ref setting the ball for play so why should either team be able to influence the tempo the refs do their job?

The 10 second rule is essentially a timer for refs. Since nothing can happen between the end of a play and when it is next set for play, the NCAA is essentially saying, "it should take approx 10 seconds for the crew to get the ball and set it. Refs, make sure you get it set by 29 ticks. Any substitutions, coaching, etc can now happen in a reasonable and known timeframe"

So now when the HUNH is running the same play over and over exploiting a matchup the defense has no time to adjust to bc the offense hurried the ref along, defensive staffs know they have 10 seconds to work with after a play to adjust. It's objective and the same for both teams. No issues with me. Beyond that, you are still allowed to play as fast as you like, you just won't have any help from the officials in making that happen.

i guess i just don't see why running plays quickly is any more of an offensive philosophy than running the play clock down to 1 or 2 seconds before snapping it and shortening the game. if the offense can't snap the ball int he 1st 10 seconds of the play clock, then the offense likewise shouldn't be able to snap it in the last 10 seconds of the play clock.

furthermore, if the offense is sticking with the same personnel on the field, why should the D get to fine tune their D personnel? football is about playing the mismatches and finding your advantages. if you are a smaller, well conditioned team, that's your advantage over a bigger, stronger team. i just don't see how having a huge OL and overpowering a team and playing ball control and running the play clock down to 1 second is any more "real football" than being a quick team capable of out running you and out conditioning you and snapping the ball as fast as it's blown into play. they are just at opposite ends of the spectrum.

look, i get that people don't like it. i don't mind it and wish we'd do it more because i think it'd benefit us in a huge way and i like winning football games. but just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be made against the rules.

blacklistedbully

02-13-2014, 11:39 AM

Hold on, what? That is completely ridiculous. I mean, couldn't it just as easily be argued that if a team can't stop the opposing offense from scoring multiple times at the end of a game to come back and win, then they deserve to lose? A team only "deserves" to lose if they score fewer points than their opponent.

If we need more than one unanswered 2-minute drive to get back in a game, then we do most likely deserve to lose. That does not mean we cant' end up deserving to win if we continue to fight and scrap. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Note that I said to get back in a game, meaning we're talking about a situation where we're down by 3 or more scores so late in the game that we need at least two 2-minute unanswered drives just to get within striking distance, still needing another drive to win.

Yes, if we find ourselves in that position we most likely deserve to lose because they other team most likely has kicked our ass pretty badly. Again, this is not to say we should quite fighting, but it is to say it's silly to suggest we'd be getting cheated from our rightful chance to compete by this rule change. We had the same rightful chance as the other team when the game started.

dawgs

02-13-2014, 11:47 AM

THIS

The problem isn't the hurry up offenses, the problem is the refs have no clue how to officiate when it is being run. 2 things would solve the problems for me.

1. After a close catch, or debatable play, the refs hold the ball until the replay officials have a chance to review.

2. The chain gang and refs must be in correct position before the ball can be snapped. Can't tell you how many times I see these offenses being run and the chain gang isn't close to being in position and the refs have their backs turned to the ball when it is snapped.

I don't care about the substitutions, and I am fine with the hurry up strategy. The problem is that the integrity of the game is at risk because the officials have no idea how to manage the game when the hurry is being run.

then get the refs better training and conditioning, but don't make stupid rules.

blacklistedbully

02-13-2014, 11:58 AM

[QUOTE=NewTweederEndzoneDance;133652]Why should the defense be allowed to sub if the offense doesn't?

How about this, smart guy, Why should the defense not have the same opportunity to sub as the offense? Why does it seem so unfair to you that the defense be given the same chance? Can not the offense still substitute players to counter the defensive changes?

And no, the "entire purpose of sports" is not to exploit mismatches. Exploiting mismatches is but one tool to use when trying to win a contest, and is not even used on every play. Strategy often calls for play-selection that is not necessarily a designed mismatch. There are any number of plays and reasons for plays in a game that have nothing whatsoever to do with "creating mismatches".

dawgs

02-13-2014, 12:00 PM

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24440587/ncaa-proposes-rule-changes-for-targeting-defensive-substitutions

dawgs

02-13-2014, 12:10 PM

Why should the defense be allowed to sub if the offense doesn't?

How about this, smart guy, Why should the defense not have the same opportunity to sub as the offense? Why does it seem so unfair to you that the defense be given the same chance? Can not the offense still substitute players to counter the defensive changes?

And no, the "entire purpose of sports" is not to exploit mismatches. Exploiting mismatches is but one tool to use when trying to win a contest, and is not even used on every play. Strategy often calls for play-selection that is not necessarily a designed mismatch. There are any number of plays and reasons for plays in a game that have nothing whatsoever to do with "creating mismatches".

you've lost your damn mind if you don't think football coaches are always setting up or exploiting a mismatch when they are calling plays. the whole offensive gameplan is centered around things like screens and quick drop backs and draws against fast pass rushing DL, or getting a WR/RB/fast TE matched up on a LB or S that can't cover, or getting the RB on the edge in space so he can make a bigger slower guy miss, or etc etc etc. the whole thing is setting up and exploiting mismatches. sure some plays don't attack the mismatch because it's setting up the exploit. but if you don't think it's not on the minds of the coaches from the moment they start watching film to the moment the game ends, then you don't know shit.

ckDOG

02-13-2014, 12:17 PM

I know the ball carrier is instructed to always hand the ref the ball so that it will be set faster, but what else do they do to hurry the ref along?

They run to the LOS to get ready to snap. Some crews maintain their speed in setting regardless of offense pace but you see them also hurrying to keep the pace of the offensive players. A ref should not be influenced by either team's tempo. It is being proposed that they can't by rule. We can blame that on teams pushing the limits of the existing rules and the officials who catered to it.

blacklistedbully

02-13-2014, 12:17 PM

dawgs

02-13-2014, 12:25 PM

And for those of you who insist this would take away the opportunity to make a comeback because of the extra minute-or-so that might be taken per drive, you should consider that it would likely just change the point at which a coach would decide it's time to start running the HU. Instead of factoring in, say, 2 minutes to score, the coach will simply factor in 3 and, if behind, make his move a little sooner. Don't lose sight of the fact that, in the situation you're talking about, the willingness to go for it on any potential 4th down play is much more a factor in the success of those kind of drives than whether it takes 2 versus 3 minutes to successfully complete those drives.

If you're down by 16 in the 4th Q, your coach will need to consider going to HU perhaps 2-3 minutes earlier in the half than you would have otherwise. Sure, it's a more desperate situation, but in all likelihood your play up to that point got you to this position. You then deserve to be desperate.

sorry but there is no amount of arguing you can do to get me to agree with you on this point. it's a football game that's 60 minutes long. if you screw the pooch and go down 42-0 somehow in the 1st quarter, you should be able to go balls to the wall tempo for the next 3 quarters if you think it'll be your best chance to comeback. if you are down 10 points with 3 minutes left, you should be able to go as fast as the ball is set.

what if the 2 minute mark is hit 3 seconds into the 10 second run off? can the offensive team snap immediately? or are they ****ed and watch 7 invaluable seconds tick away and can't snap it until the 1:53 mark? and if they are ****ed, i guess every team that's ever been down 1 score with ~2 minutes left deserves to lose.

blacklistedbully

02-13-2014, 12:27 PM

you've lost your damn mind if you don't think football coaches are always setting up or exploiting a mismatch when they are calling plays. the whole offensive gameplan is centered around things like screens and quick drop backs and draws against fast pass rushing DL, or getting a WR/RB/fast TE matched up on a LB or S that can't cover, or getting the RB on the edge in space so he can make a bigger slower guy miss, or etc etc etc. the whole thing is setting up and exploiting mismatches. sure some plays don't attack the mismatch because it's setting up the exploit. but if you don't think it's not on the minds of the coaches from the moment they start watching film to the moment the game ends, then you don't know shit.

This is so ignorant I'll give you a quick single example just to show you how you "don't know shit". Your team is ahead by more than a TD with a minute left in the game, the other team has their timeouts. They know their only chance is to stack the box, leaving themselves extremely vulnerable to the pass. Does your coach "exploit the mismatch" and call a pass to take advantage of the lack of DB support? The answer is almost always, "No!'. Your coach uses strategy rather than mismatches, even though he knows he is giving the defense the advantage of the mismatch. He does this because he knows it's better to either keep the clock running or force the other coach to use a precious timeout.

There are so many other examples as to make your post asinine at best. and like you did before, you are making the stupid mistake of a claiming I say it "never happens' or "isn't a significant part of the game".

I correctly said it is not the purpose of sports, rather it is one of many tools that are used in a contest.

ckDOG

02-13-2014, 12:32 PM

dawgs

02-13-2014, 12:43 PM

This is so ignorant I'll give you a quick single example just to show you how you "don't know shit". Your team is ahead by more than a TD with a minute left in the game, the other team has their timeouts. They know their only chance is to stack the box, leaving themselves extremely vulnerable to the pass. Does your coach "exploit the mismatch" and call a pass to take advantage of the lack of DB support? The answer is almost always, "No!'. Your coach uses strategy rather than mismatches, even though he knows he is giving the defense the advantage of the mismatch. He does this because he knows it's better to either keep the clock running or force the other coach to use a precious timeout.

There are so many other examples as to make your post asinine at best. and like you did before, you are making the stupid mistake of a claiming I say it "never happens' or "isn't a significant part of the game".

I correctly said it is not the purpose of sports, rather it is one of many tools that are used in a contest.

ok, my bad, i didn't take into account running out the clock situations. kinda like a kneel down with 20 seconds left isn't exploiting the fact that the defense is usually standing upright and not firing off the ball. you know good and ****ing well what i meant though. don't be an asshole.

so let me rephrase it, to either take a big lead or a late lead, coaches are constantly coaching towards and looking for mismatches to take advantage of. but once they either take a big lead or a late lead when running clock is the most important part of the situation, they usually aren't as aggressive about exploiting the mismatches. HOWEVER you will sometimes see coaches in the situation you listed pop up and throw a pass for a 1st down to seal the game. they exploited the mismatch.

and maybe individual sports are more about who is the fastest or strongest or whatever, but team sports are all about working together to find mismatches and maximize your opportunity to win. maybe you don't call it a mismatch, but literally everything is about mismatches. in baseball there are defensive shifts and pitchers try to hit spots where they know the hitter is weaker or throw offspeed/breaking pitches to guys that mash fastballs. in basketball, teams try to get their big men matched up on a guard so he can post him up, or get a a big man out on the guard so he can drive around him, or draw a double team so there is an open man on the court. LITERALLY EVERYTHING IN TEAM SPORTS IS ABOUT FINDING THE BEST MATCHUPS (MISMATCHES) TO GIVE YOUR TEAM THE BEST CHANCE TO WIN. it's why coaching is valuable, the best coaches are best at finding the mismatches on the field/court and using them to their advantage. sean payton and chip kelly are masters of it in football. phil jackson is a master of it in basketball. john madden is the ultimate master of it in baseball.

i get that a lot of yall don't like it. but there's lots of shit i don't like, but i also don't think it should be against the rules or illegal.

blacklistedbully

02-13-2014, 12:47 PM

sorry but there is no amount of arguing you can do to get me to agree with you on this point. it's a football game that's 60 minutes long. if you screw the pooch and go down 42-0 somehow in the 1st quarter, you should be able to go balls to the wall tempo for the next 3 quarters if you think it'll be your best chance to comeback. if you are down 10 points with 3 minutes left, you should be able to go as fast as the ball is set.

what if the 2 minute mark is hit 3 seconds into the 10 second run off? can the offensive team snap immediately? or are they ****ed and watch 7 invaluable seconds tick away and can't snap it until the 1:53 mark? and if they are ****ed, i guess every team that's ever been down 1 score with ~2 minutes left deserves to lose.

Wow, you are one dense mofo! If you're down 42-0 in the first Q, you should go balls deep, but this rule change does not change that. It just make you have to go to the HUNH sooner. If you no longer have time to do it under the rule change, then you should not have let your ass get whipped that badly to begin with.

As far as the rule change goes, they have said the rule does not apply in the last 2 minutes. I would assume this likely means the offense will not get penalized if the snap the ball quickly and the clock is under 2 minutes.

In your example of being down 10 points with 3 minutes left, the rule change might cost you 3 potential additional plays. If the other team just scored to put you 10 points down, then you should have stopped them from scoring if you wanted to win. That or your coach should have realized there was a good chance he'd need to manage the clock a little earlier than the year before when he'd have had time for maybe 3 more plays.

This rule change is not unfair and does not take away the ability to make comebacks, etc, no matter how much you bitch, moan or cry about it.

dawgs

02-13-2014, 12:47 PM

The defense is allowed, by rule, to sub when the offense doesn't. Matters of practicality remove the odds that that happens often - I'm not saying that should change. My opinion is that offenses have been removing the possibility of quickly subbing a guy or two by influencing the pace of play through hurrying the refs between tackle and ball set. This is an advantage to the offense that, in theory, should be removed by good officiating policies (consistent pace not catering to either team), but now is being eliminated, by rule.

i don't think it's that difficult to make subs even if the offense is going HUNH. you know all week when you are playing auburn/oregon/baylor/etc., you work out a predetermined rotation ahead of time, the guys subbing in are next to the coach right at the LOS helmets on, and as soon as the offensive player's knee hits the ground those guys rotating in are sprinting onto the field and the guys on the field know that it's their time to rotate out. even on a dive up the middle for no gain, it['s takes ~10 seconds or so for the bodies to get up and the ball to be set before the play clock really even runs - maybe there's a few seconds of crossover there, but not much. if you can't spring ~30 yards from the sideline to the middle of the field and get in position in that 10 seconds, then you probably shouldn't be playing football.

Johnson85

02-13-2014, 12:48 PM

I've often wondered why hockey teams don't find 800 lb people to plop in front of the goal.

Also wonder why we don't recruit a high jumper to block FGs and PATs.

I think hockey teams basically have moved that route. Not sure if they addressed it after the last lockout, but one of the complaints was that goals and their protective equipment had gotten much bigger and drastically reduced scoring.

NewTweederEndzoneDance

02-13-2014, 12:49 PM

Why should the defense be allowed to sub if the offense doesn't?

How about this, smart guy, Why should the defense not have the same opportunity to sub as the offense? Why does it seem so unfair to you that the defense be given the same chance? Can not the offense still substitute players to counter the defensive changes?

And no, the "entire purpose of sports" is not to exploit mismatches. Exploiting mismatches is but one tool to use when trying to win a contest, and is not even used on every play. Strategy often calls for play-selection that is not necessarily a designed mismatch. There are any number of plays and reasons for plays in a game that have nothing whatsoever to do with "creating mismatches".

This guy wants to return to the 1930s - mano e mano. You're an angry dude.

The entire point of football is to take the ball into the opponents endzone, is it not? By definition, the offense (i.e. the team in possession of the ball) dictates what happens on the field. So by your logic, since the offense gets to decide where the ball is going, the defense should be given the same opportunity, and every other play they should be allowed to tell the offense what play to run.

edited to fix quotation issue

ckDOG

02-13-2014, 12:50 PM

i guess i just don't see why running plays quickly is any more of an offensive philosophy than running the play clock down to 1 or 2 seconds before snapping it and shortening the game. if the offense can't snap the ball int he 1st 10 seconds of the play clock, then the offense likewise shouldn't be able to snap it in the last 10 seconds of the play clock.

furthermore, if the offense is sticking with the same personnel on the field, why should the D get to fine tune their D personnel? football is about playing the mismatches and finding your advantages. if you are a smaller, well conditioned team, that's your advantage over a bigger, stronger team. i just don't see how having a huge OL and overpowering a team and playing ball control and running the play clock down to 1 second is any more "real football" than being a quick team capable of out running you and out conditioning you and snapping the ball as fast as it's blown into play. they are just at opposite ends of the spectrum.

look, i get that people don't like it. i don't mind it and wish we'd do it more because i think it'd benefit us in a huge way and i like winning football games. but just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be made against the rules.

Again, I'm okay with playing as fast or slow as you like. That's a matter of strategy. I just want the time bt plays to be as consistent and reasonable as possible. That's ref time, not offensive philosophy time. The refs did a bad job keeping this consistent and now there is a rule to address it.

dawgs

02-13-2014, 12:53 PM

Wow, you are one dense mofo! If you're down 42-0 in the first Q, you should go balls deep, but this rule change does not change that. It just make you have to go to the HUNH sooner. If you no longer have time to do it under the rule change, then you should not have let your ass get whipped that badly to begin with.

As far as the rule change goes, they have said the rule does not apply in the last 2 minutes. I would assume this likely means the offense will not get penalized if the snap the ball quickly and the clock is under 2 minutes.

In your example of being down 10 points with 3 minutes left, the rule change might cost you 3 potential additional plays. If the other team just scored to put you 10 points down, then you should have stopped them from scoring if you wanted to win. That or your coach should have realized there was a good chance he'd need to manage the clock a little earlier than the year before when he'd have had time for maybe 3 more plays.

This rule change is not unfair and does not take away the ability to make comebacks, etc, no matter how much you bitch, moan or cry about it.

3 additional plays is huge when down 10 points and 3 minutes left. that's materially changing the outcome of games based on your dislike of HUNH. that's a completely unintended consequence. i'm not dense, i'm just not blinded by my disdain for HUNH. there is no logic behind the rule besides "some of us don't like it, so we are going to say things that sound good about injuries, but in reality no studies have proven anything".

as for the 2 minute comment, the point is that sometimes the 10 second run off would begin before the 2 minute mark and end after the 2 minute mark. should the offense be able to snap it immediately at the 2 minute mark as the rule wouldn't be in effect in the final 2 minutes of the half, or does the offense have to let invaluable seconds tick away because the play clock was started at 2:01 instead of 2:00.

dawgs

02-13-2014, 12:56 PM

NewTweederEndzoneDance

02-13-2014, 12:56 PM

Again, I'm okay with playing as fast or slow as you like. That's a matter of strategy. I just want the time bt plays to be as consistent and reasonable as possible. That's ref time, not offensive philosophy time. The refs did a bad job keeping this consistent and now there is a rule to address it.

that's not what the rule does. the rule takes whatever time elapses between plays before the ball is set by the ref, and then adds a mandatory 10 second play clock runoff before a play can be snapped. So they are not adding "just 10 seconds uniformly", they are adding whatever the officials give you in general AND THEN 10 more seconds. So if it takes 20 seconds to get the ball from under the scrum and set it, the offense then has to wait 10 more seconds of actual play clock running time before they can snap it, even if both teams spend the entire 10 seconds set on the line and just waiting.

blacklistedbully

02-13-2014, 12:57 PM

[QUOTE=blacklistedbully;133700]

This guy wants to return to the 1930s - mano e mano. You're an angry dude.

The entire point of football is to take the ball into the opponents endzone, is it not? By definition, the offense (i.e. the team in possession of the ball) dictates what happens on the field. So by your logic, since the offense gets to decide where the ball is going, the defense should be given the same opportunity, and every other play they should be allowed to tell the offense what play to run.

No, the entire point of football is to end the game having more points than your opponent. There's this thing called, "defense". Perhaps you've heard of it? Most football purists I know value a great defense over a prolific offense. You are really uninformed if you think the offense dictates what happens on the field. The defense often presents itself in such a way as to dictate to the offense what will be run. That's why, if a team has a QB who can't hit the side of a barn with a pass, but has a stud running game, the defense will often stack-the-box. The offense really doesn't want to throw the ball, but may actually be forced to if the defensive scheme succeeds in stopping the run.

dawgs

02-13-2014, 01:00 PM

I think hockey teams basically have moved that route. Not sure if they addressed it after the last lockout, but one of the complaints was that goals and their protective equipment had gotten much bigger and drastically reduced scoring.

hockey makes entire line changes in a matter of seconds during the pace of play. but apparently it's impossible to organize a couple of DL to rotate every 3 plays or so when there's easily 10 or so seconds between a tackle being made and the ball being set by the ref and the play clock starting.

dawgs

02-13-2014, 01:06 PM

[QUOTE=NewTweederEndzoneDance;133755]

No, the entire point of football is to end the game having more points than your opponent. There's this thing called, "defense". Perhaps you've heard of it? Most football purists I know value a great defense over a prolific offense. You are really uninformed if you think the offense dictates what happens on the field. The defense often presents itself in such a way as to dictate to the offense what will be run. That's why, if a team has a QB who can't hit the side of a barn with a pass, but has a stud running game, the defense will often stack-the-box. The offense really doesn't want to throw the ball, but may actually be forced to if the defensive scheme succeeds in stopping the run.

the point of defense is to stop what the offense is doing. whether is a slow pace power running attach or a fast pace HUNH attack (passing based or read option based). the offense dictates the pace they want to play and the defense tries to disrupt that pace. that's how the game is played. the defense is very valuable because the best defenses can disrupt the offensive gameplan, sometimes good defenses ever disrupt HUNH by creating 3 and outs, making tackles for losses, and breaking up passes, and basically never letting the offense get on a roll and picking up the pace of play. that's literally the point of the game. if the offense is reeling off 7 yard gains play after play, the defense shouldn't get an extra 10 seconds to break up the offensive pace, the offense has earned that right by dominating the D to the point that they are getting good gains. it's up to the D to step up and make a stop to earn that breather.

ckDOG

02-13-2014, 01:07 PM

i don't think it's that difficult to make subs even if the offense is going HUNH. you know all week when you are playing auburn/oregon/baylor/etc., you work out a predetermined rotation ahead of time, the guys subbing in are next to the coach right at the LOS helmets on, and as soon as the offensive player's knee hits the ground those guys rotating in are sprinting onto the field and the guys on the field know that it's their time to rotate out. even on a dive up the middle for no gain, it['s takes ~10 seconds or so for the bodies to get up and the ball to be set before the play clock really even runs - maybe there's a few seconds of crossover there, but not much. if you can't spring ~30 yards from the sideline to the middle of the field and get in position in that 10 seconds, then you probably shouldn't be playing football.

I think you are right in theory. The issue is when the HUNH is clicking in the far hash (from defense perspective) it becomes really tough to make the sub even if you have your guy ready to sprint on the field. That's a lot of ground to cover that turns it into a very risky situation. If you can't manage that in the 10 seconds, I agree with you, tough shit. I think a lot of teams got very good at getting that ball set a few ticks quicker than 10 and that turned into a big advantage that I don't think should exist.

ckDOG

02-13-2014, 01:20 PM

that's not what the rule does. the rule takes whatever time elapses between plays before the ball is set by the ref, and then adds a mandatory 10 second play clock runoff before a play can be snapped. So they are not adding "just 10 seconds uniformly", they are adding whatever the officials give you in general AND THEN 10 more seconds. So if it takes 20 seconds to get the ball from under the scrum and set it, the offense then has to wait 10 more seconds of actual play clock running time before they can snap it, even if both teams spend the entire 10 seconds set on the line and just waiting.

I don't think you read that correctly. Here is what the article I read states:

The committee also recommended a rules change that will allow defensive units to substitute within the first 10 seconds of the 40-second play clock, with the exception of the final two minutes of each half, starting with the 2014 season.

Under this rule proposal, the offense will not be allowed to snap the ball until the play clock reaches 29 seconds or less. If the offense snaps the ball before the play clock reaches 29 seconds, a 5-yard, delay-of-game penalty will be assessed. Under current rules, defensive players are not guaranteed an opportunity to substitute unless the offense substitutes first. This part of the rule will remain in place in scenarios where the play clock starts at 25 seconds.

So that said, it's the same 10 second period for everybody since the 40 second clock starts immediately after a play is signaled dead.

dawgs

02-13-2014, 01:20 PM

I think you are right in theory. The issue is when the HUNH is clicking in the far hash (from defense perspective) it becomes really tough to make the sub even if you have your guy ready to sprint on the field. That's a lot of ground to cover that turns it into a very risky situation. If you can't manage that in the 10 seconds, I agree with you, tough shit. I think a lot of teams got very good at getting that ball set a few ticks quicker than 10 and that turned into a big advantage that I don't think should exist.

if the ball is set in <10 seconds, it's a play run into the middle of the line and the offense was stuffed. if the offense takes the ball outside or downfield, it'll take more than 10 seconds. and in all reality, there's rarely more than 2-3 plays in a row where a HUNH might get the ball set in <10. eventually there will be a long play or something to the outside or a incomplete pass or a pile up that takes time for everyone to get up or something that leads to well over 10 second between the end of the play and the ball being set. have your guys organized and ready for that play if there's a couple plays in a row where they are getting the ball set in <10 seconds.

again though, if the offense is conditioned to keep playing fast, the D should be able to get better conditioned to play fast too.

ckDOG

02-13-2014, 01:22 PM

aren't republicans (and most of this board is republican/conservative) supposed to be in favor of correctly enforcing what's on the books instead of piling on another rule to try to fix the failure to implement the ones on the books?

LOL. Don't ever call me a republican again. No I'd rather there not be a rule but I think some crews did a bad job controlling the pace of dead periods. When that happens, sometimes you have to be reactionary and force the issues.

blacklistedbully

02-13-2014, 01:22 PM

3 additional plays is huge when down 10 points and 3 minutes left. that's materially changing the outcome of games based on your dislike of HUNH. that's a completely unintended consequence. i'm not dense, i'm just not blinded by my disdain for HUNH. there is no logic behind the rule besides "some of us don't like it, so we are going to say things that sound good about injuries, but in reality no studies have proven anything".

as for the 2 minute comment, the point is that sometimes the 10 second run off would begin before the 2 minute mark and end after the 2 minute mark. should the offense be able to snap it immediately at the 2 minute mark as the rule wouldn't be in effect in the final 2 minutes of the half, or does the offense have to let invaluable seconds tick away because the play clock was started at 2:01 instead of 2:00.

I have never said I dont; like the HUNH. This is a mistake you are making in damn near every post you make, that is, putting words in my mouth I didn't say, then trying to base your argument on this false premise. You also keep making the mistake of assuming this is an all-or-nothing thing. There are not taking away the HUNH, they are simply giving the defense an extra few seconds between plays. You do get that the way it is now, HUNH offenses burn at least few seconds on each snap, right? They have to wait until the ball is set, then they have to line up, including the WR's making sure they are in proper position, obeying the rules, etc. In most cases they have to make a quick play-call so the WR's will know what route to run, and the line will know how and who to block and look for (who is Mike, etc). This take a few seconds at least. I see nothing in the proposed rule that says the offense can't go ahead and line up just like always and make their play call. Instead of having the ability to snap it at 5 seconds elapsed, they'll have to let another 5 seconds tops.

The real impact here is that defenses will be allowed to make substitutions, just like offense already can, and/or they'll get a legit chance to get set for the next play. How is it more fair to give the defense no time to set up? It takes a little longer for the defense because, not knowing the play in advance as the offense does, they have to get set for any possibility. They also have to turn their backs on the offense to get back, then turn around again to find their spot and get set. Everybody in the offense is going to be within a few yards of the LOS, so it's easier and quicker for them to do it. The recent growth of the HUNH has tended to give the offense an unfair advantage in this regard, IMO.

blacklistedbully

02-13-2014, 01:25 PM

hockey makes entire line changes in a matter of seconds during the pace of play. but apparently it's impossible to organize a couple of DL to rotate every 3 plays or so when there's easily 10 or so seconds between a tackle being made and the ball being set by the ref and the play clock starting.

The present rule does not allow defensive substitution unless the offense elects to sub first. This proposed new rule would change that.

bluelightstar

02-13-2014, 01:27 PM

The present rule does not allow defensive substitution unless the offense elects to sub first. This proposed new rule would change that.

Defense can sub now, but they run the risk of the offense snapping it quickly if they try to do so.

dawgs

02-13-2014, 01:28 PM

LOL. Don't ever call me a republican again. No I'd rather there not be a rule but I think some crews did a bad job controlling the pace of dead periods. When that happens, sometimes you have to be reactionary and force the issues.

well at least we can agree on one thing, ha

i'd still rather the focus be on training the refs. but i'd also want the refs to still hurry to set things up at the end of the half/game when a team is trying to make a comeback. so there is a time and place for the refs to take it upon themselves to put a little hustle in their step.

blacklistedbully

02-13-2014, 01:32 PM

the point of defense is to stop what the offense is doing. whether is a slow pace power running attach or a fast pace HUNH attack (passing based or read option based). the offense dictates the pace they want to play and the defense tries to disrupt that pace. that's how the game is played. the defense is very valuable because the best defenses can disrupt the offensive gameplan, sometimes good defenses ever disrupt HUNH by creating 3 and outs, making tackles for losses, and breaking up passes, and basically never letting the offense get on a roll and picking up the pace of play. that's literally the point of the game. if the offense is reeling off 7 yard gains play after play, the defense shouldn't get an extra 10 seconds to break up the offensive pace, the offense has earned that right by dominating the D to the point that they are getting good gains. it's up to the D to step up and make a stop to earn that breather.

Bullshit! The defense may actually like what the offense is choosing to do in certain game situations. That's why they'll sometimes even invite them to do it.

The point of defense is to make it so your teams score more points than the other team, period. If your team has a nice lead late, the defense will often allow the offense to "succeed" at running the ball for 4 yards a carry, or complete short passes to the middle of the field so they can prevent the receiver from getting OB.

Again, the point of defense is prevent the other team from scoring more points than your offense

blacklistedbully

02-13-2014, 01:42 PM

LC Dawg

02-13-2014, 02:26 PM

I don't know if it's been discussed but one thing I would like to see changed in regard to the HUNH is to extend the players area on the sideline or at least allow a certain number of players to be out of the players box. Once a team running HUNH reaches the opponents 25 yl it becomes almost impossible to substitute defensively. Once the defensive player steps on the field he is offsides and the player coming out of the game could be offsides for a while, depending on where he was at the end of the preceding play. Before the 25 the defense is taking a chance of not being in position after a substitution but past the 25 they are also taking a huge chance of being flagged for offsides. So basically once the offense reaches their opponents 25 yl the offense almost totally dictates substitution. If they want to substitute then the defense will also be allowed to but if they don't substitute the defense is almost obilgated to play with who's on the field. Maybe I'm just overthinking it but it seems the HUNH has too much of an advantage over the defense in this situation.

NewTweederEndzoneDance

02-13-2014, 03:00 PM

No, the entire point of football is to end the game having more points than your opponent. There's this thing called, "defense". Perhaps you've heard of it? Most football purists I know value a great defense over a prolific offense. You are really uninformed if you think the offense dictates what happens on the field. The defense often presents itself in such a way as to dictate to the offense what will be run. That's why, if a team has a QB who can't hit the side of a barn with a pass, but has a stud running game, the defense will often stack-the-box. The offense really doesn't want to throw the ball, but may actually be forced to if the defensive scheme succeeds in stopping the run.

Um, unless I missed something, you have to have the ball cross the goal line (or go between the goal posts) in order to score points. The offense dictates the game because the offense dictates where the ball goes. period. The goal of a defense is to stop an offense. The goal of an offense is not to stop a defense. An offense that tailors their plays to what the defense is doing, still decides where the ball goes and how it gets there. The reason a great defense is preferred over a great offense by many, is because a great defense is good at preventing the offense from being successful, by adapting to where the offense chooses to take the ball.

Let me break this down for you so I'm clear:
1. the point of football is to score more than the other team
2. in order to score points you must first POSSESS the ball
3. scoring points is achieved by moving the ball into a scoring position
4. you move the ball into scoring position by moving it, or attempting to move it, through spaces where the defense is not (i.e. choosing where the ball goes on each play)
5. the point of defense is to stop the offense from scoring (don't give me your BS about situational crap - the job of a defense is "don't let the offense score". period.)
6. defenses achieve their goal by stopping the offense from taking the ball to the place where the offense desires to take the ball

So, yes. The offense controls the game, though that does not mean that an offense successfully controls the game. Like I said, are you in favor of letting the defense call every other play run by the offense? Because they need the "same opportunity" as the offense, as you put it.

blacklistedbully

02-13-2014, 03:30 PM

Um, unless I missed something, you have to have the ball cross the goal line (or go between the goal posts) in order to score points. The offense dictates the game because the offense dictates where the ball goes. period. The goal of a defense is to stop an offense. The goal of an offense is not to stop a defense. An offense that tailors their plays to what the defense is doing, still decides where the ball goes and how it gets there. The reason a great defense is preferred over a great offense by many, is because a great defense is good at preventing the offense from being successful, by adapting to where the offense chooses to take the ball.

Let me break this down for you so I'm clear:
1. the point of football is to score more than the other team
2. in order to score points you must first POSSESS the ball
3. scoring points is achieved by moving the ball into a scoring position
4. you move the ball into scoring position by moving it, or attempting to move it, through spaces where the defense is not (i.e. choosing where the ball goes on each play)
5. the point of defense is to stop the offense from scoring (don't give me your BS about situational crap - the job of a defense is "don't let the offense score". period.)
6. defenses achieve their goal by stopping the offense from taking the ball to the place where the offense desires to take the ball

So, yes. The offense controls the game, though that does not mean that an offense successfully controls the game. Like I said, are you in favor of letting the defense call every other play run by the offense? Because they need the "same opportunity" as the offense, as you put it.

Oh, you're clear, you're just wrong. And you just keep digging yourself a deeper & deeper hole.

1. the point of football is to win. You win by scoring more points than the other team. You can win without your offense ever scoring a single point.
2. In order to score points your offense is not required to possess the ball. Your defense can score via INT, fumble recovery or safety, and your ST can score via punt return, kick-return or blocked kick returned for score.
3. scoring points is achieved any number of ways, not necessarily "moving the ball in scoring position".
4. you move the ball any number of ways, including ramming it straight down the other team's throat, right into the teeth of their defense if that's what works for you.
5. the point of defense is to make sure your team has more points than the other team when the game ends. What you call "situational crap" is telling about your lack of knowledge on this subject. "Situational crap", as you foolishly call it is a HUGE part of the game. You are colossally ignorant on the subject if you think a defenses job is simply to "not let their offense score". Sometimes the defense's job is to "not let them score a TD, and hold the other team to a FG. Often the defense's job is to let an offense progress down the field, so long as it take the other team longer to do it. They will intentionally allow the other team to complete passes underneath, for instance, in order to trade that for time run off the clock. This is so basic I can't believe you're even trying to make this ridiculous argument. Maybe you've heard of "prevent defense" before? It's not called "prevent" because it's goal is to prevent the other team from scoring. It's called prevent because the goal is to prevent the other team from scoring too quickly, and is used when your team's lead is believed to be enough to not allow time for the opponentt to score enough to win.
6. defenses achieve their goal by winning the game, and they win the game by making sure their team has more points than the other's. While there are certainly subsets of this, and strategies for achieving this, not the least of which is to limit the other team's scoring as much as possible, it is a simpleton's approach to think you can boil it all down to "their goal is to stop the offense from scoring all the time". That would imply their defensive strategy would never change unless it weren't working. That would imply a defense with a significant lead wouldn't ever choose to give up a time-consuming scoring drive late in a game to a team they know they'll beat if there is then not enough time left to score again. That happens ALL THE TIME.

Wise up, man!

MabenMaroon

02-13-2014, 03:33 PM

I personally don't see the rule being implemented. With or without it doesn't mean a great deal in the grand scheme of things. The HUNH has created some nightmares for some DC's for sure but it doesn't win championships ( Auburn won on botched FG attempts by UAT ). WV with Rich Rod folded in the big games, Kelley at Oregon always folded when it was for all the marbles. TAMU and Manziel did not beat any Top 25 teams this year ( sound familiar? ) and I could go on.
As far as TSUN goes, let them run their hokie gimmicky crap, I don't want them or Auburn having any excuses when we paddle those fannies going forward. A good defense will always prevail if the complimentary offense doesn't blow it for them.

dawgs

02-13-2014, 03:48 PM

Dawg, sometimes your team flat out doesn't have a "mismatch to exploit". They have to win via other methods, including strategy. To say that "exploiting mismatches" is everything is just not true, period. It is a means to an end if you can do it, but it not all-encompassing, is not the whole point of sports, and is often not even an option.

uh dude, strategy is finding your best matchups and exploiting them. yeah in some cases you may not have a mismatch to exploit, but you find your best matchups and target them. i thought it was understand that "mismatch" = "most favorable matchup" for the purposes of the discussion. and that's part fo the strategy. what do you think strategy is? running plays that don't set up a weakness to exploit or attack a weakness? sure you can do that, but that's not going to win you many football games against a decent team.

dawgs

02-13-2014, 03:49 PM

dawgs

02-13-2014, 03:53 PM

Kelley at Oregon always folded when it was for all the marbles.

if losing on a last second FG in the national title is "folding when it was for all the marbles", i'd love to see msu start folding when it was for all the marbles.

hilarious to me how the oregon narrative is so distorted.

also hilarious to me that only the instances where a HUNH team lost are brought up, when there's plenty of more traditional offensive teams that have gotten their asses kicked in big games too. like those ohio st teams in the title games. or ND to bama. or lsu to bama.

"all these pro-style offenses just keep folding when it's for all the marblezzzz|!!!|!!!!!111!!"

blacklistedbully

02-13-2014, 04:08 PM

uh dude, strategy is finding your best matchups and exploiting them. yeah in some cases you may not have a mismatch to exploit, but you find your best matchups and target them. i thought it was understand that "mismatch" = "most favorable matchup" for the purposes of the discussion. and that's part fo the strategy. what do you think strategy is? running plays that don't set up a weakness to exploit or attack a weakness? sure you can do that, but that's not going to win you many football games against a decent team.

Still wrong. If the whole enchilada were about "finding your best matchup" there wouldn't be more than a couple of plays in the playbook for a lot of schools. Most coaches believe in finding something of a balance offensively, for instance. They like to see their offense spread a little evenly between run & pass. They don't necessarily do this to "set up the matchup later", but rather to keep the opposing team's defense honest. Sure. sometimes it's about running a play specifically designed to set up a later play (pounding the ball up the middle relentlessly until the defense cheats up, then play-action pass to exploit). But a ton of it is again, to keep the opposing defense honest and guessing.

Do you not see that the difference between us is not that, "I'm saying exploiting mismatches is not a part of the game"? I've said repeatedly that it is a factor. You are wrong because you're contending it's everything, and that every play is either a designed mismatch or a set-up for the upcoming designed mismatch. That's just not true. It's a part of the overall strategy when game-planning, but it's not how the whole damn game is called. I guaran-damn-tee you Mullen's strategy at the beginning of a game is going to be different if the game gets outta hand one way or the other. Mismatches be damned, if we're down large late in the game, it won't matter that our best mismatch is to run Robinson up the middle versus a 3-man front. It won't matter that our worst matchup is to try passing against a defense that is expecting it and has maximum support with a nickel-package, or whatever. He'll throw the damn ball right into the teeth of that defense because it's the only strategy at that point that could possibly result in a win, even if the odds are slim at best.

Really Clark?

02-13-2014, 04:08 PM

if losing on a last second FG in the national title is "folding when it was for all the marbles", i'd love to see msu start folding when it was for all the marbles.

hilarious to me how the oregon narrative is so distorted.

also hilarious to me that only the instances where a HUNH team lost are brought up, when there's plenty of more traditional offensive teams that have gotten their asses kicked in big games too. like those ohio st teams in the title games. or ND to bama. or lsu to bama.

"all these pro-style offenses just keep folding when it's for all the marblezzzz|!!!|!!!!!111!!"

Your right in reality with that Auburn and Oregon game. But the perception is Oregon was a 47 ppg team that was held to 19 pts. That's where a lot of people see it as them folding. Not the final score but in the comparison. It's a perception. You can make the same case for the perception with Auburn in 2010 and this year. In 2010 they avg 42.7 ppg before the title game and 40.6 ppg this year prior. Perception.

NewTweederEndzoneDance

02-13-2014, 04:12 PM

Oh, you're clear, you're just wrong. And you just keep digging yourself a deeper & deeper hole.

1. the point of football is to win. You win by scoring more points than the other team. You can win without your offense ever scoring a single point.
2. In order to score points your offense is not required to possess the ball. Your defense can score via INT, fumble recovery or safety, and your ST can score via punt return, kick-return or blocked kick returned for score.
3. scoring points is achieved any number of ways, not necessarily "moving the ball in scoring position".
4. you move the ball any number of ways, including ramming it straight down the other team's throat, right into the teeth of their defense if that's what works for you.
5. the point of defense is to make sure your team has more points than the other team when the game ends. What you call "situational crap" is telling about your lack of knowledge on this subject. "Situational crap", as you foolishly call it is a HUGE part of the game. You are colossally ignorant on the subject if you think a defenses job is simply to "not let their offense score". Sometimes the defense's job is to "not let them score a TD, and hold the other team to a FG. Often the defense's job is to let an offense progress down the field, so long as it take the other team longer to do it. They will intentionally allow the other team to complete passes underneath, for instance, in order to trade that for time run off the clock. This is so basic I can't believe you're even trying to make this ridiculous argument. Maybe you've heard of "prevent defense" before? It's not called "prevent" because it's goal is to prevent the other team from scoring. It's called prevent because the goal is to prevent the other team from scoring too quickly, and is used when your team's lead is believed to be enough to not allow time for the opponentt to score enough to win.
6. defenses achieve their goal by winning the game, and they win the game by making sure their team has more points than the other's. While there are certainly subsets of this, and strategies for achieving this, not the least of which is to limit the other team's scoring as much as possible, it is a simpleton's approach to think you can boil it all down to "their goal is to stop the offense from scoring all the time". That would imply their defensive strategy would never change unless it weren't working. That would imply a defense with a significant lead wouldn't ever choose to give up a time-consuming scoring drive late in a game to a team they know they'll beat if there is then not enough time left to score again. That happens ALL THE TIME.

Wise up, man!

You are entirely too arrogant about something that you refuse to even look at from any angle but your own point of view.

If you think that the most desired outcome of any defensive series (outside of needing to let the other team score so your own offense can get it back) is to LET THE OTHER TEAM SCORE, in any fashion whatsoever, then you are the one who will "just keep digging yourself a deeper & deeper hole." Here is your quote: "5. the point of defense is to make sure your team has more points than the other team when the game ends." I'm pretty sure that not letting the other team score at all qualifies as putting your team in position to have more points than the other team. Maybe my math skillz are just lacking though.

You also cannot score without having possession of the ball, with the exception of causing a safety. Arguing otherwise is silly. You interjected the terms "offense" and "defense" into my points yourself in an attempt to discredit what I said. So now, despite being angry at other people "putting words in your mouth", you are doing the exact same thing.

I can see that you are unwilling to consider anything but your own self-proclaimed expert opinion. So I will just leave you to it.

blacklistedbully

02-13-2014, 04:51 PM

You are entirely too arrogant about something that you refuse to even look at from any angle but your own point of view.

If you think that the most desired outcome of any defensive series (outside of needing to let the other team score so your own offense can get it back) is to LET THE OTHER TEAM SCORE, in any fashion whatsoever, then you are the one who will "just keep digging yourself a deeper & deeper hole." Here is your quote: "5. the point of defense is to make sure your team has more points than the other team when the game ends." I'm pretty sure that not letting the other team score at all qualifies as putting your team in position to have more points than the other team. Maybe my math skillz are just lacking though.

You also cannot score without having possession of the ball, with the exception of causing a safety. Arguing otherwise is silly. You interjected the terms "offense" and "defense" into my points yourself in an attempt to discredit what I said. So now, despite being angry at other people "putting words in your mouth", you are doing the exact same thing.

I can see that you are unwilling to consider anything but your own self-proclaimed expert opinion. So I will just leave you to it.]

It is not a question of me being arrogant. It's you being so very, very wrong that I'd feel like an imbecile if I conceded one of your points. Make a good one, and I'll concede. But keep posting asinine BS and I won't. Call that arrogance if you want, but it'd just be another thing you got wrong today. In fact, I treat everyone with respect unless they are the first to get insulting. You did, so you're getting the straight dope with the gloves taken off.

At this point, it truly takes a moron to not grasp the concept of a defense dropping into a soft zone to prevent a "quick score", being willing to give up a FG or even a TD if they achieve their real goal of eating clock and winning the game.

I will try again to break it down to a really, really, obvious and narrow situation in hopes you can make the logical leap to understanding the rest:

Your team is winning 14-3 with 2 minutes left in the game. You have got to this point by being aggressive, blitzing, leaving your safety exposed, but it's worked to this point, as your d-line has been able to get to the QB all day. The ONLY way you can lose now is if the other team scores a quick TD, successfully gets an onside kick, then drives the field again for another TD. If you continue exposing your safety this way, there is a chance that QB will manage to elude the pressure and hit a streaking WR or Hail Mary for a TD that quickly makes the score 14-9, which they convert to 14-11 in a 2-point conversion. Now the other team has 1:50 left, 3 timeouts, and is down by just 3. They can try the onside, or could even kick away, use their timeouts and rely on their defense to cause a 3 & out. Either way, game on.

Alternatively, at 14-3, with 2 minutes left, the defense can abandon the aggressive blitzing style, and choose instead to rush 3 or 4, bring in extra DB help and tell them to make sure they keep everything in front of them and guard against sideline routes. While this makes it more possible for the other team to march down the field, either by running or completing short passes in the middle, it costs the other team at least minutes rather than potentially seconds to score, and/or forces them to use their timeouts. So the other team must decide to risk heaving the ball up where all those DBs you have playing back have a better chance of deflecting or intercepting, or they take what the defense is giving them, almost assuredly burning the entire 2 minutes and all their timeouts before finally scoring to make it 14-11, game over.

The aggressive approach you had been using may have had the best chance of preventing a score at all, but runs the risk of allowing a single big play to change the game. I guarantee you that if you offered any coach the option of being up 14-11 with the game either over or seconds from being over with the other team kicking off and no timeouts, versus being up 14-3 with the other team having the ball, 2 minutes and 3 timeouts, but you with a chance to win 14-3 instead of 14-11, EVERY DAMN COACH IN THE WORLD WOULD TAKE 14-11 WIN EVERY TIME!!

That is why nearly every team does it, and why some do it too soon (us versus Auburn this year). The goal is to win the game, period. Sometimes your chances are actually better if you remember that is the point and not to see how few points you can give up. Your approach is the very definition of, "Penny-wise, pound-foolish".

dawgs

02-13-2014, 04:59 PM

Still wrong. If the whole enchilada were about "finding your best matchup" there wouldn't be more than a couple of plays in the playbook for a lot of schools. Most coaches believe in finding something of a balance offensively, for instance. They like to see their offense spread a little evenly between run & pass. They don't necessarily do this to "set up the matchup later", but rather to keep the opposing team's defense honest. Sure. sometimes it's about running a play specifically designed to set up a later play (pounding the ball up the middle relentlessly until the defense cheats up, then play-action pass to exploit). But a ton of it is again, to keep the opposing defense honest and guessing.

Do you not see that the difference between us is not that, "I'm saying exploiting mismatches is not a part of the game"? I've said repeatedly that it is a factor. You are wrong because you're contending it's everything, and that every play is either a designed mismatch or a set-up for the upcoming designed mismatch. That's just not true. It's a part of the overall strategy when game-planning, but it's not how the whole damn game is called. I guaran-damn-tee you Mullen's strategy at the beginning of a game is going to be different if the game gets outta hand one way or the other. Mismatches be damned, if we're down large late in the game, it won't matter that our best mismatch is to run Robinson up the middle versus a 3-man front. It won't matter that our worst matchup is to try passing against a defense that is expecting it and has maximum support with a nickel-package, or whatever. He'll throw the damn ball right into the teeth of that defense because it's the only strategy at that point that could possibly result in a win, even if the odds are slim at best.

of course no one runs the same exact plays over and over and over. why? because even an overmatched player can eventually figure out exactly what's coming his way and get a jump on the play. that's why you set shit up.

you are getting hung the **** up on semantics i think. when the coaches gameplan, they are looking for the best points of attacks on the defense. that's the matchups we either feel we have a mismatch in out advantage OR if we don't have any advantages, at least what we think will create the best matchups for us. of course if you are down 35 points, you are abandoning the game plan a bit. and of course if you are up 35 points, you are abandoning the game plan a bit. but the point is that when our coaches sit down to look at film, they are looking for the best points of attack and how we can position ourselves to maximize success at those points of attack. that's called coaching. that's called strategy. that's called playing the matchups in your favor.

how about this, matchups are the biggest driving force in game planning every week. if the games get out of hand either way, the game plan obviously is going to change to fit the situation of the game. but there's a reason that certain elite players rarely get run towards or that certain elite CBs rarely get thrown towards. similar, it's why certain elite OL get run behind more or certain elite WRs get thrown to more.

likewise a defense knows where their weaknesses are and the strengths of an offense through game planning, so they work to scheme around their weaknesses and prevent the offense from exploiting the matchup. of course that often opens up a matchup elsewhere and the best offenses adapt to exploit that. and the best defenses change and hide their looks enough so that the offense has trouble predicting where the weakness is on any given play.

but to deny the game of football is anything except a game of maximizing your matchups is just plan ignorant.

dawgs

02-13-2014, 05:02 PM

Your right in reality with that Auburn and Oregon game. But the perception is Oregon was a 47 ppg team that was held to 19 pts. That's where a lot of people see it as them folding. Not the final score but in the comparison. It's a perception. You can make the same case for the perception with Auburn in 2010 and this year. In 2010 they avg 42.7 ppg before the title game and 40.6 ppg this year prior. Perception.

but oregon's D held auburn's prolific offense to 22 points in the 2010 title game. but oregon's D didn't get any more respect for that performance, they are still considered to be a bad D even though they've been pretty much a top 20-25 D by every metric since 2008 or so.

perception that's against the facts is just the dumbass general public eating up nonsense.

NewTweederEndzoneDance

02-13-2014, 05:04 PM

]

bunch of jibber jabber that has nothing to do with anything I have said

I'm done arguing with you because I am convinced you don't actually read anything you are responding to. And if you believe that me "staring blankly at my screen" over a quote you posted about deserving to lose if we're down at the end of the game is insulting, thus allowing you to "take the gloves off" and hurl as many insults as you feel are necessary, then you need to purchase yourself a larger pair of big girl panties. But, hey if it makes you feel better to be a douche, go for it.

dawgs

02-13-2014, 05:06 PM

]

It is not a question of me being arrogant. It's you being so very, very wrong that I'd feel like an imbecile if I conceded one of your points. Make a good one, and I'll concede. But keep posting asinine BS and I won't. Call that arrogance if you want, but it'd just be another thing you got wrong today. In fact, I treat everyone with respect unless they are the first to get insulting. You did, so you're getting the straight dope with the gloves taken off.

At this point, it truly takes a moron to not grasp the concept of a defense dropping into a soft zone to prevent a "quick score", being willing to give up a FG or even a TD if they achieve their real goal of eating clock and winning the game.

I will try again to break it down to a really, really, obvious and narrow situation in hopes you can make the logical leap to understanding the rest:

Your team is winning 14-3 with 2 minutes left in the game. You have got to this point by being aggressive, blitzing, leaving your safety exposed, but it's worked to this point, as your d-line has been able to get to the QB all day. The ONLY way you can lose now is if the other team scores a quick TD, successfully gets an onside kick, then drives the field again for another TD. If you continue exposing your safety this way, there is a chance that QB will manage to elude the pressure and hit a streaking WR or Hail Mary for a TD that quickly makes the score 14-9, which they convert to 14-11 in a 2-point conversion. Now the other team has 1:50 left, 3 timeouts, and is down by just 3. They can try the onside, or could even kick away, use their timeouts and rely on their defense to cause a 3 & out. Either way, game on.

Alternatively, at 14-3, with 2 minutes left, the defense can abandon the aggressive blitzing style, and choose instead to rush 3 or 4, bring in extra DB help and tell them to make sure they keep everything in front of them and guard against sideline routes. While this makes it more possible for the other team to march down the field, either by running or completing short passes in the middle, it costs the other team at least minutes rather than potentially seconds to score, and/or forces them to use their timeouts. So the other team must decide to risk heaving the ball up where all those DBs you have playing back have a better chance of deflecting or intercepting, or they take what the defense is giving them, almost assuredly burning the entire 2 minutes and all their timeouts before finally scoring to make it 14-11, game over.

The aggressive approach you had been using may have had the best chance of preventing a score at all, but runs the risk of allowing a single big play to change the game. I guarantee you that if you offered any coach the option of being up 14-11 with the game either over or seconds from being over with the other team kicking off and no timeouts, versus being up 14-3 with the other team having the ball, 2 minutes and 3 timeouts, but you with a chance to win 14-3 instead of 14-11, EVERY DAMN COACH IN THE WORLD WOULD TAKE 14-11 WIN EVERY TIME!!

That is why nearly every team does it, and why some do it too soon (us versus Auburn this year). The goal is to win the game, period. Sometimes your chances are actually better if you remember that is the point and not to see how few points you can give up. Your approach is the very definition of, "Penny-wise, pound-foolish".

wow, so you are saying gameplans can be adjusted mid-game depending on the situation? ******* dude, what kinda morons do you think we are? of course shit changes depending on score, time on the clock, and unexpected wrinkles the opponent throws at you.

you are really really really stretching this whole "strategy" argument. next time i say that matchups are the driving force behind gameplanning, i'll make sure to list every instance where a team might choose to kneel the ball or run the clock or chunk a hail mary instead of sticking with the best matchups as identified by the game plan and identified over the course of the game.

blacklistedbully

02-13-2014, 05:27 PM

of course no one runs the same exact plays over and over and over. why? because even an overmatched player can eventually figure out exactly what's coming his way and get a jump on the play. that's why you set shit up.

you are getting hung the **** up on semantics i think. when the coaches gameplan, they are looking for the best points of attacks on the defense. that's the matchups we either feel we have a mismatch in out advantage OR if we don't have any advantages, at least what we think will create the best matchups for us. of course if you are down 35 points, you are abandoning the game plan a bit. and of course if you are up 35 points, you are abandoning the game plan a bit. but the point is that when our coaches sit down to look at film, they are looking for the best points of attack and how we can position ourselves to maximize success at those points of attack. that's called coaching. that's called strategy. that's called playing the matchups in your favor.

how about this, matchups are the biggest driving force in game planning every week. if the games get out of hand either way, the game plan obviously is going to change to fit the situation of the game. but there's a reason that certain elite players rarely get run towards or that certain elite CBs rarely get thrown towards. similar, it's why certain elite OL get run behind more or certain elite WRs get thrown to more.

likewise a defense knows where their weaknesses are and the strengths of an offense through game planning, so they work to scheme around their weaknesses and prevent the offense from exploiting the matchup. of course that often opens up a matchup elsewhere and the best offenses adapt to exploit that. and the best defenses change and hide their looks enough so that the offense has trouble predicting where the weakness is on any given play.

but to deny the game of football is anything except a game of maximizing your matchups is just plan ignorant.

No, what is truly, deeply ignorant is your continued insistence that I'm suggesting matchups don't play a big role in game planning or play-calling. For the umpteenth time, I am saying they do. Why is it so freaking hard for you to grasp that? Am I not communicating in English?? What we disagree on is the contention that it is the ONLY thing, and that every play called is either to exploit a matchup or set one up. In the course of a game, that's just not true. Sometimes strategy dictate that you don't go for the best matchup, but rather the play that makes the most sense regardless of matchup.

Is it really so impossible for you to understand?

Really Clark?

02-13-2014, 05:30 PM

but oregon's D held auburn's prolific offense to 22 points in the 2010 title game. but oregon's D didn't get any more respect for that performance, they are still considered to be a bad D even though they've been pretty much a top 20-25 D by every metric since 2008 or so.

perception that's against the facts is just the dumbass general public eating up nonsense.

That's why I included Auburn. There is not a perception that Auburn folded, rightfully so, because they won. But their offense was held in check mostly as well. To the victor go the spoils. There are perceptions that facts dispute, doesn't mean perceptions don't become the general accepted fact. And that doesn't just include sports but it does happen.

Was Oregon's D bad or was it their competition that caused the perception. People believed the PAC-12 weak overall therefore their numbers were skewed. The actual numbers and the adjusted numbers (for their competition) show that they were a Top 25 D, in fact a Top 10 D in the adjustment for ppg. Perception, a weak conference therefore their totals were skewed and it showed in the title game because the offense was held in check. Reality, they were two evenly matched teams on the field that night and both defenses played closer to their adjusted ppg totals than the offenses. Auburn adjusted defense total 18.27 ppg, Oregon adjusted total 15.5 ppg. The offensive differential from their avg ppg favored Auburn so Oregon was held in check more.

MabenMaroon

02-13-2014, 05:34 PM

blacklistedbully

02-13-2014, 05:41 PM

I'm done arguing with you because I am convinced you don't actually read anything you are responding to. And if you believe that me "staring blankly at my screen" over a quote you posted about deserving to lose if we're down at the end of the game is insulting, thus allowing you to "take the gloves off" and hurl as many insults as you feel are necessary, then you need to purchase yourself a larger pair of big girl panties. But, hey if it makes you feel better to be a douche, go for it.

Girl panties, really?? What, are you 10? Your contention that I didn't actually read your posts before tearing them apart is ludicrous, as I have even used your same, numbered, point-by-point to address each adn every mistake you made.

And if you're gonna come on here and try to now claim that your response of, "staring blankly at my screen" was anything less than an insult, then you are either stunningly stupid or a liar. Also, your repeated attempts to take my comments out-of-context is both intellectually dishonest and bush. I've explained this to you in detail before, yet you still don't get it. Am I supposed to sit back, let you get all condescending on me while simultaneously responding with the most ridiculous counter-argument, and then just play nice with you?

When you act like a tool, posts insulting remarks, and have to resort to "putting words in peoples mouths" to support your own weak POV, then you deserve the shitstorm that comes down on you, and have no real right to cry about it. Man the FU or STFU. If you choose to take a shot at somebody because you disagree, then don't cry like a baby when they retaliate.

blacklistedbully

02-13-2014, 05:58 PM

wow, so you are saying gameplans can be adjusted mid-game depending on the situation? ******* dude, what kinda morons do you think we are? of course shit changes depending on score, time on the clock, and unexpected wrinkles the opponent throws at you.

you are really really really stretching this whole "strategy" argument. next time i say that matchups are the driving force behind gameplanning, i'll make sure to list every instance where a team might choose to kneel the ball or run the clock or chunk a hail mary instead of sticking with the best matchups as identified by the game plan and identified over the course of the game.

I think you're the kind of morons that make absolute statements that are too easily disproved, are apparently unable to grasp the simplest of nuances, are quick to attribute remarks-not-made by another who disagrees with you in an effort to discredit their POV and support your own argument.

That answer your question?

dawgs

02-13-2014, 06:50 PM

OK, name me one HUNH that has won the NC .... one? ....

auburn 2010

dawgs

02-13-2014, 06:52 PM

I think you're the kind of morons that make absolute statements that are too easily disproved, are apparently unable to grasp the simplest of nuances, are quick to attribute remarks-not-made by another who disagrees with you in an effort to discredit their POV and support your own argument.

That answer your question?

you know good and ****ing well what i meant about the mismatches comment. stop being obtuse and an internet asshole.

blacklistedbully

02-13-2014, 07:14 PM

you know good and ****ing well what i meant about the mismatches comment. stop being obtuse and an internet asshole.

What I said about mismatches:

And no, the "entire purpose of sports" is not to exploit mismatches. Exploiting mismatches is but one tool to use when trying to win a contest, and is not even used on every play. Strategy often calls for play-selection that is not necessarily a designed mismatch. There are any number of plays and reasons for plays in a game that have nothing whatsoever to do with "creating mismatches".

You were the first to get insulting, and it started with the above comment I made. Yet, later in the thread you acknowledged that it is true that there are points in the game and circumstances that might trump the "mismatch'. I have consistently stated that exploiting mismatches is a huge part of the game, just not the "entire purpose of the game" or the "everything and only thing of the game. You are the one who elected to be an "internet asshole" about it, as did Tweeder.

dawgs

02-13-2014, 07:18 PM

excuse me while i roll my eyes. when coaches game plan they look for weaknesses to exploit. they don't sit around wondering if they'll abandon a risky passing game if they are up 4 TDs in the 2nd half, that's just basic ****ing shit that anyone who has every watched the sport understands and knows without needing to sit around game planning for.

you said that sports aren't about mismatches. i think outside of aforementioned situations when games get out of hand or time necessitates leaving the game plan (hail mary, running out clock, etc. - did i miss one? i don't want you to spend 5 ****ing pages telling me i'm a moron for not listing every end game scenario so consider this my ****ing catchall), mismatches or at least favorable matchups (since you felt the need to point out sometimes there aren't mismatches, so yeah, when western carolina plays bama, there aren't any favorable mismatches for western carolina, but they do have some matchups that are more favorable than others) are the very core of every strategy implemented in sports. hell, you can argue running out the clock or kneeling down is a "mismatch" because you've gained advantage of the clock and are taking steps to wrap up the victory.

MabenMaroon

02-13-2014, 07:23 PM

auburn 2010

wrong

blacklistedbully

02-13-2014, 07:29 PM

excuse me while i roll my eyes. when coaches game plan they look for weaknesses to exploit. they don't sit around wondering if they'll abandon a risky passing game if they are up 4 TDs in the 2nd half, that's just basic ****ing shit that anyone who has every watched the sport understands and knows without needing to sit around game planning for.

And there you go again, attributing comments to me I didn't make in a failed effort to win the argument.

Of course coaches look for weaknesses to exploit when they game plan. I never said they didn't. I disagreed that "the entire purpose of sports is to exploit mismatches". While we could debate whether the entire purpose of sports is to win (It's not, though it's usually the main goal), I believe,as I said, that "exploiting mismatches" is but one of the tools coaches can & do use in an effort to win the game. The tools they use in the course of a game are many and varied, and do not, IMO always involve exploiting mismatches. I provided you with solid examples in support of my POV. You kept coming back with attributing remarks to me I didn't make, or took them out-of-context, then would go on & on explaining why the comments I didn't make were wrong.

paco

02-13-2014, 08:15 PM

To me, a BIG problem is defensive players playing hurt to stop the flow of the game. I think any palyer that stopped the clock with an injury should be held out for four minutes.

dawgs

02-13-2014, 08:30 PM

And there you go again, attributing comments to me I didn't make in a failed effort to win the argument.

Of course coaches look for weaknesses to exploit when they game plan. I never said they didn't. I disagreed that "the entire purpose of sports is to exploit mismatches". While we could debate whether the entire purpose of sports is to win (It's not, though it's usually the main goal), I believe,as I said, that "exploiting mismatches" is but one of the tools coaches can & do use in an effort to win the game. The tools they use in the course of a game are many and varied, and do not, IMO always involve exploiting mismatches. I provided you with solid examples in support of my POV. You kept coming back with attributing remarks to me I didn't make, or took them out-of-context, then would go on & on explaining why the comments I didn't make were wrong.

so it's the use of "purpose of sports" that you don't like. sorry it's probably not the best word choice. and it's obvious that i didn't literally mean that the only reason to have a sport is to exploit a weakness.

how about the entire point of game planning is to identify mismatches/weakness/favorable matchups and implement a strategy to exploit those to maximize you chances of winning the game. even if a specific play isn't intended to exploit a weakness, it's often setting up a future play. maybe you run a dive into the back of the OL for no gain, then later use it to set up a play action pass when you notice the safeties crashing in hard. maybe you fake a reverse and notice the DE doesn't contain at all, so you later actually run the reverse for a big gain. that's all exploiting weaknesses. maybe you've identified a corner than can get beat on a stop-go route by watching tape. you don't run stop-go routes on him all game, but you wait for the right moment to exploit it. strategy and utilizing mismatches/weaknesses/favorable matchups are so intertwined, i don't even begin to understand how you can believe anything you are saying about them being separate entities.

and the only instances you've pointed out are end game scenarios where a team is in the lead and wants to run clock (they probably got there by exploiting the opponents weaknesses) or a team is behind and needs to air it out every play in an attempt to come back or a D needs to play a softer zone to prevent a big play when they have the lead late. these are common ****ing sense scenarios that no ******* person in their right mind would ever expect a team to continue stick to the game plan they spent all week building. no one is going to wonder why the coach didn't stick to exploiting the mismatch of the RT run blocking on the DE when they have the ball at midfield, down 4 points, and only 2 seconds on the clock. everyone knows you throw a ****ing hail mary at that point. no one argues otherwise. to try to use that as a "gotcha" on me is ****ing idiotic.

dawgs

02-13-2014, 08:43 PM

To me, a BIG problem is defensive players playing hurt to stop the flow of the game. I think any palyer that stopped the clock with an injury should be held out for four minutes.

i wouldn't necessarily say 4 minutes, but i would be in favor of sitting out 4-5 plays. at least enough time for the trainer to give you a reasonable once over.

blacklistedbully

02-13-2014, 09:08 PM

so it's the use of "purpose of sports" that you don't like. sorry it's probably not the best word choice. and it's obvious that i didn't literally mean that the only reason to have a sport is to exploit a weakness.

how about the entire point of game planning is to identify mismatches/weakness/favorable matchups and implement a strategy to exploit those to maximize you chances of winning the game. even if a specific play isn't intended to exploit a weakness, it's often setting up a future play. maybe you run a dive into the back of the OL for no gain, then later use it to set up a play action pass when you notice the safeties crashing in hard. maybe you fake a reverse and notice the DE doesn't contain at all, so you later actually run the reverse for a big gain. that's all exploiting weaknesses. maybe you've identified a corner than can get beat on a stop-go route by watching tape. you don't run stop-go routes on him all game, but you wait for the right moment to exploit it. strategy and utilizing mismatches/weaknesses/favorable matchups are so intertwined, i don't even begin to understand how you can believe anything you are saying about them being separate entities.

and the only instances you've pointed out are end game scenarios where a team is in the lead and wants to run clock (they probably got there by exploiting the opponents weaknesses) or a team is behind and needs to air it out every play in an attempt to come back or a D needs to play a softer zone to prevent a big play when they have the lead late. these are common ****ing sense scenarios that no ******* person in their right mind would ever expect a team to continue stick to the game plan they spent all week building. no one is going to wonder why the coach didn't stick to exploiting the mismatch of the RT run blocking on the DE when they have the ball at midfield, down 4 points, and only 2 seconds on the clock. everyone knows you throw a ****ing hail mary at that point. no one argues otherwise. to try to use that as a "gotcha" on me is ****ing idiotic.

Why don't you try re-reading the thread. You have now said a lot of the things I've said all along, with some minor differences. And unless you are also Tweeder, then the majority of those dumbed-down examples were for him, as he actually was insisting that the entire purpose of sports, no matter what was to exploit weaknesses, and that a defense's job is always, regardless of circumstance to stop the offense from scoring, etc, etc. He could not fathom that it is not only possible, but common for a defense to adopt a defensive strategy at some point in the game that may ultimately allow an opposing offense to score in exchange for eating clock and reducing the threat of a "quick score'. He went on and on about the defense's sole job being to stop the other offense from scoring, period. I was trying to explain their job, like everyone's job is to try to win the game by whatever means makes sense, and sometimes it makes sense to play conservatively, trading yards gained and first downs for time consumed.

Yes, that's common sense for most of us, but apparently not for everyone.

Cabo32

02-13-2014, 09:45 PM

So Saban wants to stop the game from evolving...got it

smootness

02-13-2014, 09:57 PM

So Saban wants to stop the game from evolving...got it

This isn't really the natural evolution of the game because there's literally nothing a defense can do to combat an offense that immediately runs up to the line. There is no weakness to exploit...it just gives the offense a huge advantage, and it's why we're seeing absurd offensive numbers everywhere. I certainly don't want to see good defenses get torched regularly.

bannedwayne

02-13-2014, 09:58 PM

To me, a BIG problem is defensive players playing hurt to stop the flow of the game. I think any player that stopped the clock with an injury should be held out for four minutes.

This is a much bigger problem than a hurry up offense. It infuriates me to see a guy go down in pain and come back in the next play, smiling.

Eliminating the hurry up probably isn't going to pass, and I hope that's the case. To be honest, the game is more exciting fast paced - NCAA should be making rules against defenses trying to find a stupid way around the hurry up and not penalizing the offense.

On the other hand, 10 seconds is pretty quick. Does anyone actually snap it that fast outside of 2 minutes? Is 10 seconds enough time for a defense to sub?

smootness

02-13-2014, 10:10 PM

On the other hand, 10 seconds is pretty quick. Does anyone actually snap it that fast outside of 2 minutes?

No, which is why this rule is far more practical than people are getting. Offenses don't snap it that fast...but they run to the line quicker than that, and the threat of them snapping it is what keeps the defense from doing much. So the defense is left to not sub and to make quick, basic calls while the offense then can take their time and draw up anything.

The HUNH is not some brilliant strategy. It just exploits the already inherent advantage the offense has. I'm ok with a rule to swing that back to make it a little more even, especially considering that unfettered offense is pretty much ruining football.

Todd4State

02-13-2014, 10:21 PM

So Saban wants to stop the game from evolving...got it

Evolving? You do realize that one of Auburn's main running plays is the veer? There's nothing that any of these offenses do that is new- aside from maybe the Diamond formation and even that is stretching it since that's basically a modification of the wishbone.

The only thing that they do is run a lot of plays up tempo.

I have to laugh at people that think that Mahlzahn is a genius. At best he is an innovator, if that.

blacklistedbully

02-13-2014, 10:23 PM

Todd4State

02-13-2014, 10:28 PM

No, which is why this rule is far more practical than people are getting. Offenses don't snap it that fast...but they run to the line quicker than that, and the threat of them snapping it is what keeps the defense from doing much. So the defense is left to not sub and to make quick, basic calls while the offense then can take their time and draw up anything.

The HUNH is not some brilliant strategy. It just exploits the already inherent advantage the offense has. I'm ok with a rule to swing that back to make it a little more even, especially considering that unfettered offense is pretty much ruining football.

Well said, but here's one of my issue with it- there are rules in place such as the sticks must be set before a ball is snapped. The officials must be set before the ball is snap. The players must be set. That's what is different here with this as opposed to the wishbone, WCO, spread, whatever else. The rules are being bent to the extreme to say the least. This to me is as much about the officials doing their job as anything. And then you add the risk for injury in there with it.

Other than that, I don't have a problem with it. I have no problem with the plays that they run- which are similar to what a lot of people run and have run over time. I don't care about any of that. I just ask that the rules be properly enforced. It's not fair for Team A to have to abide by one set of rules because they run a pro-style offense and then Auburn is allowed to bend them.

FlabLoser

02-13-2014, 10:30 PM

I've seen a couple of people post about it being possible, but not practical for the D to sub if the O doesn't. But my understanding is that the D is prevented by rule if the O does not sub. Anybody have the actual rule?

There is no rule against defensive subs. There is a danger a guy doesn't run off in time and the ball is snapped with 12 guys on the field.

Todd4State

02-13-2014, 10:31 PM

I've seen a couple of people post about it being possible, but not practical for the D to sub if the O doesn't. But my understanding is that the D is prevented by rule if the O does not sub. Anybody have the actual rule?

I think the rule is if the offense subs then they have to allow the defense a chance to sub. If the offense doesn't sub, the defense is still allowed to sub if they want to, but of course in doing so, Mahlzahn will probably run a play.

Really Clark?

02-13-2014, 10:51 PM

wrong

Uh...yes they were. This was an article from the summer of 2009. His first year they were not able to go full out but their championship year it was HUNH offense. Same as this year. Teams have just even quicker running it. Such as Auburn this year.

http://smartfootball.blogspot.com/2009/06/gus-malzahnauburn-tigers-run-game.html?m=1

NewTweederEndzoneDance

02-14-2014, 09:54 AM

Pollodawg

02-14-2014, 09:59 AM

I read all of these posts aimed at belittling one another and think for the barest second that I am back the other board. **shudders**

NewTweederEndzoneDance

02-14-2014, 10:02 AM

I read all of these posts aimed at belittling one another and think for the barest second that I am back the other board. **shudders**

I agree, and I am sorry that I stooped to that level. I'm done with it though, so hopefully it dies

Pollodawg

02-14-2014, 10:04 AM

I agree, and I am sorry that I stooped to that level. I'm done with it though, so hopefully it dies

That wasn't just addressed at you either, man. lol That's anytime people resort to shit slinging when they've exhausted logical arguments.

ckDOG

02-14-2014, 10:11 AM

No, which is why this rule is far more practical than people are getting. Offenses don't snap it that fast...but they run to the line quicker than that, and the threat of them snapping it is what keeps the defense from doing much. So the defense is left to not sub and to make quick, basic calls while the offense then can take their time and draw up anything.

The HUNH is not some brilliant strategy. It just exploits the already inherent advantage the offense has. I'm ok with a rule to swing that back to make it a little more even, especially considering that unfettered offense is pretty much ruining football.

Smootness gets it.

The offense will still be able to snap the ball as quick as the ref and clock rules allow and disguise their formations by running to the line quickly. Under this rule there would now be a consistent and objective time frame that this can be allowed to happen. The defense now has a consistent/predictable time in which they can make a quick sub to adjust to matchup issues or gassed players. And most importantly, the refs can't **** it up unless they take too long. Fortunately, that 10 sec clock measures their performace in an obvious way so I doubt we have issues with that.

No doubt does it swing the balance towards the defensive side of the ball, but there was previously nothing a defense could do to counter this inherent advantage towards the offense other than time outs (that's a fair argument) or faking an injury (that's poor form). Since they can't influence the pace of play between tackle and snap the way an offense can, I'm okay with a rule to address this since the refs failed at doing it themselves.

ETA: why is there a smiley face in my title? Make it go away. Has yancy hacked the board?

blacklistedbully

02-14-2014, 10:54 AM

In sum - I feel dirty that I have now stooped to your level, so thanks for that.

YOUR EXACT WORDS
Let me break this down for you so I'm clear:
1. the point of football is to score more than the other team
2. in order to score points you must first POSSESS the ball
3. scoring points is achieved by moving the ball into a scoring position
4. you move the ball into scoring position by moving it, or attempting to move it, through spaces where the defense is not (i.e. choosing where the ball goes on each play)
5. the point of defense is to stop the offense from scoring (don't give me your BS about situational crap - the job of a defense is "don't let the offense score". period.)
6. defenses achieve their goal by stopping the offense from taking the ball to the place where the offense desires to take the ball

MY REPLY
Oh, you're clear, you're just wrong. And you just keep digging yourself a deeper & deeper hole.

1. the point of football is to win. You win by scoring more points than the other team. You can win without your offense ever scoring a single point.
2. In order to score points your offense is not required to possess the ball. Your defense can score via INT, fumble recovery or safety, and your ST can score via punt return, kick-return or blocked kick returned for score.
3. scoring points is achieved any number of ways, not necessarily "moving the ball in scoring position".
4. you move the ball any number of ways, including ramming it straight down the other team's throat, right into the teeth of their defense if that's what works for you.
5. the point of defense is to make sure your team has more points than the other team when the game ends. What you call "situational crap" is telling about your lack of knowledge on this subject. "Situational crap", as you foolishly call it is a HUGE part of the game. You are colossally ignorant on the subject if you think a defenses job is simply to "not let their offense score". Sometimes the defense's job is to "not let them score a TD, and hold the other team to a FG. Often the defense's job is to let an offense progress down the field, so long as it take the other team longer to do it. They will intentionally allow the other team to complete passes underneath, for instance, in order to trade that for time run off the clock. This is so basic I can't believe you're even trying to make this ridiculous argument. Maybe you've heard of "prevent defense" before? It's not called "prevent" because it's goal is to prevent the other team from scoring. It's called prevent because the goal is to prevent the other team from scoring too quickly, and is used when your team's lead is believed to be enough to not allow time for the opponentt to score enough to win.
6. defenses achieve their goal by winning the game, and they win the game by making sure their team has more points than the other's. While there are certainly subsets of this, and strategies for achieving this, not the least of which is to limit the other team's scoring as much as possible, it is a simpleton's approach to think you can boil it all down to "their goal is to stop the offense from scoring all the time". That would imply their defensive strategy would never change unless it weren't working. That would imply a defense with a significant lead wouldn't ever choose to give up a time-consuming scoring drive late in a game to a team they know they'll beat if there is then not enough time left to score again. That happens ALL THE TIME.

Wise up, man!

I know your type. You're the type that mistakenly thinks he's the smartest guy in the room, throws out a condescending BS post thinking you're above it all, but when you come up against someone who can put you in your place, as I have, and you realize you're not, in fact the smartest guy in the room, you try other tactics, like making false accusations, and now this silly "holier-than-thou, I feel dirty" nonsense.

You're out of your league, junior, and the sooner you realize it, the less punishment you'll endure. You need to understand that, if anybody else cares what we've exchanged here, they can go through the thread and see I have not taken you out of context, or any other such nonsense. I took your exact words in their exact context and responded to them directly. If you can't see that, well, perhaps that explains why it's so easy to deconstruct your nonsense.

Next time either be respectful when you start a debate with someone, or pick a fight with someone your own size, short-stack.

ETA: And before you try again to accuse me of being too arrogant to actually listen to anybody else's POV, etc, those who know me realize that's not true. If I'm proved wrong I man up, admit it, and apologize, as I did not that long ago to Engie.

dawgs

02-14-2014, 11:31 AM

let me just say that if you gameplan for your D and ST to carry the scoring load for you, you are going to lose a lot of games. i bet you loved the 2007 season though.

blacklistedbully

02-14-2014, 01:35 PM

let me just say that if you gameplan for your D and ST to carry the scoring load for you, you are going to lose a lot of games. i bet you loved the 2007 season though.

Why do you keep insisting that I'm saying something I'm not? All I was doing was countering the incorrect notion he was taking that the "defense's sole and only job at all times is to prevent the other's team offense from scoring, and that the "entire purpose of sports is to exploit mismatches".

Those are absolute statements that are flat out wrong. Saying that does not mean they are not important goals, tools or objectives toward accomplishing a victory, just that they are not hard-and-fast, absolute, every-time things.

You and I have already agreed that finding and exploiting mismatches is a HUGE part of game-planning and play-selection, but could also agree that there are situations and/or times in a game that call for a different strategy. Now it seems you want to start the BS all over again by AGAIN implying I'm saying something I'm not. Just because I correctly point out that you don't actually have to have your offense driving the field, getting in position to score and scoring your points for you to win, doesn't mean I think you shouldn't want them to, or gameplan for them to do it.

Just because I counter Tweeder's assertion that an offense's job is to always figure our where the defense won't be, then attack that space, with the reality that sometimes you don't give a damn and just roll with your strength regardless of where the D is, that doesn't mean I'm saying you never do that, or don't often do that. Do you really think when we play UT-Martin next year we're going to be hyper-focused on every play to try and run away from their defense, or are we just as likely to line up and pound the rock right down their throats?

One of the big problems you and Tweeder seem to have is you keep making these absolute statements that are just not absolute. Then when I point out some solid exceptions that go well beyond "hair-splitting" you guys get your dander up and try to attack me on stuff I didn't say, as if I've taken the position that what you've said "never happens", instead of accepting that what I'm actually saying is it doesn't "always happen" and that it's more than just an anomaly when it doesn't. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

At least with you, we seem to agree on 90% of it, but Tweeder is on another planet with his insistence on his absolute statements and theories on what "the entire purpose of sports is" and what a "defenses job is at all times".

sandwolf

02-14-2014, 01:52 PM

5. the point of defense is to make sure your team has more points than the other team when the game ends. What you call "situational crap" is telling about your lack of knowledge on this subject. "Situational crap", as you foolishly call it is a HUGE part of the game. You are colossally ignorant on the subject if you think a defenses job is simply to "not let their offense score". Sometimes the defense's job is to "not let them score a TD, and hold the other team to a FG. Often the defense's job is to let an offense progress down the field, so long as it take the other team longer to do it. They will intentionally allow the other team to complete passes underneath, for instance, in order to trade that for time run off the clock. This is so basic I can't believe you're even trying to make this ridiculous argument. Maybe you've heard of "prevent defense" before? It's not called "prevent" because it's goal is to prevent the other team from scoring. It's called prevent because the goal is to prevent the other team from scoring too quickly, and is used when your team's lead is believed to be enough to not allow time for the opponentt to score enough to win.

You are a ****ing moron.....every time that a defense steps on the field, their ultimate goal is to prevent the offense from scoring. Period.

I know your type. You're the type that mistakenly thinks he's the smartest guy in the room.....

The irony in this comment is absolutely overwhelming.

Cabo32

02-14-2014, 06:10 PM

This isn't really the natural evolution of the game because there's literally nothing a defense can do to combat an offense that immediately runs up to the line. There is no weakness to exploit...it just gives the offense a huge advantage, and it's why we're seeing absurd offensive numbers everywhere. I certainly don't want to see good defenses get torched regularly.

And there's nothing that offenses can do against 6'3 dbs...260lb line backers and 300lb+ DL that are constantly being rotated in an out...this is just Saban using his power bc two teams(aub and tamu) run this offense and he doesn't know how to stop it...other than bitching about "player safety"

Cabo32

02-14-2014, 06:21 PM

I watched auburn play us, bama, sec and nc game...I agree with you in the veer...but hell who has the personal to run that successfully against a Saban led defense?? Not too many folks...so what do you do..crank up the tempo and tire out those big bastards to level the playing field...

blacklistedbully

02-14-2014, 08:07 PM

You are a ****ing moron.....every time that a defense steps on the field, their ultimate goal is to prevent the offense from scoring. Period.

The irony in this comment is absolutely overwhelming.

The irony of you calling me a moron is the overwhelming thing, you absolute imbecile. And I do mean that sincerely. The level of stupidity on display by you is astonishing. I'm surprised you know how to use the keyboard on your PC to type this shit.

Hey dumbass, the ultimate goal of ANY player is to win the game, PERIOD! If that means the defense adopts a prevent defense late in the game, KNOWING DAMN FULL WELL IT INCREASES THE CHANCE THE OFFENSE WILL BE ABLE TO MARCH DOWNFIELD and eventually score, but will force them to take SO MUCH TIME that they don't have enough left to take the lead before times runs out, then that is an example that proves how ****ing stupid you really are! It is done all the damn time at pretty much every damned level of football. It's been done for decades.

In fact, prevent defense is often criticized by some who claim it, "prevents you from winning", yet coaches who get paid millions of dollars to make that call, make it ALL THE TIME, if sometimes too soon.

I pray you have someone close to watch over you to do stuff like make sure the lids up on the toilet before you try to take a dump.

I can hardly believe there are actually people that are literally so damned stupid that they can't grasp this simple concept.

ETA: Oh, and as far as whether or not I think I'm the smartest guy in the room, I don't consider that. I'm very ****ing smart, to be honest, but I can also tell there are several other obviously smart folks in here that I would not presume to be smarter than. But where you're concerned, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever. Were you and I the only ones in here, I would easily be the smartest, but then that would be no great feat, nothing to brag about. My ****ing pet Rat Terrier is smarter than you.

sandwolf

02-15-2014, 04:38 PM

The irony of you calling me a moron is the overwhelming thing, you absolute imbecile. And I do mean that sincerely. The level of stupidity on display by you is astonishing. I'm surprised you know how to use the keyboard on your PC to type this shit.

Hey dumbass, the ultimate goal of ANY player is to win the game, PERIOD! If that means the defense adopts a prevent defense late in the game, KNOWING DAMN FULL WELL IT INCREASES THE CHANCE THE OFFENSE WILL BE ABLE TO MARCH DOWNFIELD and eventually score, but will force them to take SO MUCH TIME that they don't have enough left to take the lead before times runs out, then that is an example that proves how ****ing stupid you really are! It is done all the damn time at pretty much every damned level of football. It's been done for decades.

In fact, prevent defense is often criticized by some who claim it, "prevents you from winning", yet coaches who get paid millions of dollars to make that call, make it ALL THE TIME, if sometimes too soon.

I pray you have someone close to watch over you to do stuff like make sure the lids up on the toilet before you try to take a dump.

I can hardly believe there are actually people that are literally so damned stupid that they can't grasp this simple concept.

ETA: Oh, and as far as whether or not I think I'm the smartest guy in the room, I don't consider that. I'm very ****ing smart, to be honest, but I can also tell there are several other obviously smart folks in here that I would not presume to be smarter than. But where you're concerned, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever. Where you and I the only ones in here, I would easily be the smartest, but then that would be no great feat, nothing to brag about. My ****ing pet Rat Terrier is smarter than you.

Hahaha, you can try to put it as many different ways as you want to, but it makes you no less of a complete ****ing idiot if you think that the goal of the defense is anything other than to keep the other team from scoring.

dawgs

02-15-2014, 04:56 PM

just because defenses do score sometimes, that does not mean their primary goal is to score. their primary goal is to stop the opposing offense, and sometimes that leads to the defense scoring off a turnover.

blacklistedbully

02-15-2014, 04:59 PM

Sorry I'm not posting as often as before. I'm trying to teach my dog, Skipper to type so sandwolf can exchange with a mental peer. Skip's still struggling with the typing part, though I've no doubt he's already got the brain to match SW.

Be patient, sandwolf. We'll see if we can find you a match so you don't get as humiliated as much.

blacklistedbully

02-15-2014, 05:26 PM

Ok, so it turns out I have to type for Skipper, but here's what he says to sandwolf, Tweeder and anyone else who claims the defense's job is always to stop the other offense from scoring, and that they never adopt a strategy that would actually allow the offense to score so long as it takes more time:

I have found for you a video of former NFL HC Brian Billick explaining exactly what my owner, blacklistedbully has been saying all along, that there are absolutely situations where a defense's job or goal is not to prevent a score, but rather to force the other offense to use up time instead. He even specifically says at the 1:08 mark that the defense, "maybe even let's them score, cause the odds are in your favor".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6QQ4ZkKIeo

Good boy, Skipper! Now maybe even sandwolf & Tweeder will finally get it, and accept they were just wrong on this one. Hell, if an animal with a brain as small as yours can see it, why not them as well?