|
Doppelganger posted:How can you tell if a receiver is a bad route runner? I always hear people talk about how well players do in this area, but I don't understand how you could know that unless you studied their playbook.  The fuzziness is supposed to represent drifting. The number one problem bad receivers have is drifting away from the quarterback which allows the defense to get under the receiver and intercept passes. Rounded routes are bad because it is harder to react to a hard stick and cut than to someone that chops their feet 3 steps and then cuts. It hurts but good receivers will just stick a leg and go. It will be hard for anyone to MS Paint what a QB might read. It's a very very advanced thing. Some of the easier markers are things like safety depth, LB depth and presnap motion, ie, a line backer coming up like he's going to blitz. Shallow safeties you'd want to run a guy behind. Probably a guy under as well, they are probably covering for a linebacker who might be leaving the area. It's complicated and none of us are professional quarterbacks!
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2010 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 11:40 |
|
|
Larch posted:I think we really need to all get on the same page with this. We need to pick one and stick with it. Is he All Day, or AD? or is he AP as per his initials. PJ is lame, even though he is clad in purple and displays running qualities that would make the messiah envious. A"AD""PJ"P or AADPJP for short. It's really the only way.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2010 04:42
|
|
|
ThatOtherGuy posted:Yeah, Dallas and New England not being in the Villans category was not expected. 4th best quarterback to ever play the game: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_rating_career.htm They have 3 very solid running backs and a great WR group. Dez Bryant is going to light the league up. Get ready for it. Their linemen are also in a band.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2010 14:56
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:Ah yes, the measure that makes Aaron Rodgers and Matt Schaub better than Dan Marino. Truly the stat of kings. QB stands for quarterbacks not kings. They take the snap from center and distribute the ball according to the play called. QB rating determines which quarterbacks are better. Happy to help you here in the newbie thread.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2010 15:08
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Less than you'd think. Players are a little faster and a little stronger, but by the early 80s speed and strength were being emphasized so it isn't like comparing the game to the 40s or 50s. I kind of disagree. The top end speed hasn't gotten much better, there are a few more really fast guys but the combination of speed and strength has definitely improved. The DE and Linebackers are now huge masses of muscle that somehow still have good speed. There have been pretty huge increases in the physicality of the league since the 90's. kyuss posted:
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2010 13:54
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:So I ordered a Ravens jersey and it finally arrived, after only 3 months. I couldn't select the number and I couldn't find many places that shipped to my country, so I got number 23, McGahee. Is he any good? He was a superstar in college and has definitely had one of the more interesting careers. Here is him showcasing his flexibility. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92ifz2qqtm8 And here he is showcasing his previously undiagnosed narcolepsy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbDS5WKhdwM
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2010 21:41
|
|
|
HeroOfTheRevolution posted:Maybe it was just me, but I always wore a cup when playing football. I know the pros don't, but they're insane. I prefer my balls covered, but my main sport was hockey and if you don't wear a cup in hockey you'll probably be sterile after two or three games. Especially as a goalie. I never really noticed much inhibition of motion to tell the truth. It was literally impossible for me to move in a cup. Especially after your thighs get bigger. Even worse the cup would sit a half inch or so off my skin which meant its plastic edges came crashing down when I got hit. It took one practice for me to never wear a cup again.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2010 13:30
|
|
|
nous_ posted:Thanks! One more question: if a player got knocked out and dropped the ball before touching the ground, would that still be ruled a fumble or is the play dead at the moment of injury? I'm thinking of that helmet to helmet hit on Willis McGahee in the AFC championship a few years back. I don't think it was flagged, but he was knocked out immediately and dropped the ball. I don't remember what the ruling on possession was. It's a fumble. The only thing that stops a play is the helmet coming off the ball carrier in a few leagues. The NFL did not do this a few years ago but I think they may have added that rule this year or last.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2010 21:13
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:The play design is a screen left to either the kicker in motion or the left wing - and they actually had an 8-on-5 out there for that - but the holder freaked out when he saw the pass rush and just launched it. That destroys your numbers advantage because of the 8, most are ineligible receivers, of course. I also believe they lined up for that, there was a penalty, and then they tried it again. It has lost all it's surprise element.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2010 02:17
|
|
|
crm posted:Somebody explain how the "lining up" stuff works? I know you have to have 7 men on the line of scrimmage, but I've heard stuff like "the tackle is uncovered" and I'm not exactly sure what the deal there is. I don't think you got a very good definition so here's my crack at it. Everyone in the backfield is an eligible receiver. The outermost players, on the LOS, on both sides are also eligible receivers. The outermost player on the line of scrimmage (for each side) is covering the guys inside of him, making them ineligible. For instance, you have a tight end and a wide receiver on the right hand side. 1) The receiver and TE are off the line. The tackle is uncovered and eligible (and the formation is likely illegal because the TE probably needed to be on the line to make 7, I think the tackle needs to report even if he isn't running a route but I'm not positive). 2)The receiver is off the line and the TE is on the line. The TE is covering the tackle and both the TE and WR are eligible receivers, the tackle is not. 3) The receiver and TE are both on the line. The receiver is covering the TE and the TE is ineligible. The WR probably hosed up here. When you see receivers go out you often see them point at the zebra next to him (line judge?) and he's basically asking I'm off the line, you got that right? so he can make sure he isn't accidentally covering/uncovering someone when he shouldn't be.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2010 22:51
|
|
|
Doppelganger posted:One thing I hear people talk about sometimes is how good of a route runner somebody is. How do people gauge this? It's not like we can look up the playbook or anything. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3324645&pagenumber=3&perpage=40#post379329100
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2010 00:28
|
|
|
Roflsaurus Wrecks posted:Couple random questions: what is the skill gap like between college football and the NFL? I would think that on any given day a very good college baseball team could beat a mediocre MLB team (though I could be wrong about that). But could Auburn beat the Panthers? Just look at Reggie Bush and Vince Young. Those guys were so dominant when they played they essentially ran all over the field and their teams ended up with like 90 combined points or whatever. They get to the NFL and Reggie Bush is an important but unspectacular part of his offense and VY is a decent quarterback at best with his running ability hardly standing out. This is a man that got anywhere on the field whenever he wanted in college. College linemen would get so manhandled that they wouldn't stand a chance. And if you can get 2 yards whenever you want for the 2 point you won't be needing the 2 points. Bashez fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Dec 22, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2010 01:19
|
|
|
Oodles of Wootles posted:http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/college/rosters/2001/mmi/ To sort of correct your edit, they had 17 players on that team go in the first round. That is bananas. They would still be crushed by any NFL team.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2010 20:44
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:So I guess the answer to the question depends on what you're looking at. Line play is considerably faster and more sophisticated now than it was back then, but the speed burners are just about the same speed they ever were. This isn't really true. I mean, back in the day you might have one guy running sub 4.5 and he would be able to outrun everyone else. Now every speed guy is about that level or faster. The pure speed of the fastest of the fast hasn't increased much. But the amount of fast as hell guys has. Agility has significantly increased as well. The important thing is we have a great farm system to feed the best athletes into the NFL now which wasn't really in place in the 60s.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2010 19:39
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Of course they were. What makes you think they weren't? Pro football was considered inferior to College football, guys weren't preparing to play professional football. We now have a dedicated system of training athletes with access to weight rooms and off season training camps starting in middle school. The NFL went from well gently caress it I was good in college maybe I can put on a leather hat to 10 year old kids dedicating every waking moment of their life for their big NFL break. Plenty of guys in the 30's were preparing for a draft, just not for the NFL. (Hopefully that isn't what you were talking about). The NFL was not a viable career choice for decades after that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2010 00:16
|
|
|
Doppelganger posted:Is there an actual origin to "no respect" or is it just a generic attitude? A bunch of idiots get motivated when they think someone isn't giving them enough respect so coaches feed this poo poo like crazy to motivate people. Belichick is really good at this. This goes hand in hand with bulletin board material. If someone says something like "oh yeah we feel like we can score a touchdown against them and hopefully our defense will carry us" you blow that poo poo up and post "oh yeah we feel like we can score" somewhere the defense will see it all the time and then post "our defense will carry us" so that the offense gets angry too. After that you see if you can't suss out some signals from your video, while listening to some Bon Jovi.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2011 08:31
|
|
|
antwizzle posted:Sorry if this is a totally dumb question, but why are QBs in both NCAA and NFL permitted to "throw it away" out of bounds, while intentional grounding is a penalty? It seems to me that in both cases the point is the same, for a QB in trouble to get rid of the ball with no chance of it being intercepted and thus avoid loss of yards from a sack. I'm sure I'm missing something though. This isn't a dumb question, it's just a dumb rule. I hate it as a QB bootleg is nearly impossible to actually sack if the QB doesn't have his head up his rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2011 15:06
|
|
|
deep square leg posted:I came in to ask a question pretty much about this. I've been reading people saying things like "the superbowl could be the battle of the sixth seeds!" but I don't see how it's such a big deal. In Australia's AFL this would be remarkable because there's a single league ladder. In the NFL it seems conceivable, even likely, that a couple of divisions could share the best teams in the league. Isn't that the point of having wildcards? It's extremely unlikely the best teams actually go to the superbowl. Football is a weird game that way, I don't think anyone's confused that the Seahawks are better than the Saints. Or the Jets Pats for that matter.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2011 14:47
|
|
|
some6uy008 posted:What are the pros and cons of it and why isn't it heavily used in the NFL like it is in college? Spread offense basically exploits the fact that 11 college dudes can't cover a 50 yard wide field. Professional players are fast enough to be able to.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2011 18:11
|
|
|
Midget Fist posted:Hey, I was wondering, has a gridiron-team always been divided into two teams, offensive and defensive? Or did it start out as one team where everyone played both sides? If so, when did that happen? I tried reading up on it but couldn't find this out, thanks:) It's called playing ironman and it used to happen all the time. It still does in peewee to highschool depending on how good an athlete is but come highschool time you're really picking a specialty and spending almost all of your time there.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2011 20:58
|
|
|
Strange Matter posted:I've been watching College Football lately, and something has been on my mind. Why do college games have such huge scores? I'm regularly seeing games with 50+ points put up, often against teams with far fewer. Is it that it's harder to build a reliable defense with a 4 year turnaround on players, or is there something else? College defenses lack the speed to cover the entire field as well as professional teams. Typically the best players get put on offense so you can control how often they get the ball. This leaves most of the fastest guys on offense against probably 10 guys that have no prayer of matching up with him athletically.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2011 21:23
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Not intrinsically. Some guys are significantly better at one side because it's their dominant side or they can't mirror the footwork effectively or something like that. You can generally hide a blind side blocker's deficiencies in pass blocking a bit more, although that's less true than it used to be, but it doesn't matter whether the blind side is the left or right per se. I don't think this is true at all, the blind side blocker is the most important because he's blocking the guy that the Quarterback cannot see. Those are the ones most responsible for strip sacks, fumbles, and injuries.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2011 07:35
|
|
|
Kibner posted:Only up to a certain level of competence. The Saints have been fine with a league average/slightly above average LT. They spend their money on the interior line, instead. The theory is that the LT just has to chip or engage the opposing rusher briefly. Just long enough so that Brees can step up into the pocket and make an accurate throw. If the inside guys fail, you slide and make the throw. The important distinction here is that it is significantly harder for the inside guys to fail because the guys that they are having to block are significantly slower and there is much less area to guard because they are pinned in by other players. This is the reason a good pressure line is talked about as having good edge rushers and why ends and OLBs tend to lead in sacks. The Saints aren't intentionally avoiding upgrading LT, it's hard to upgrade because it's the most sought after line position and the most difficult to play and there are a lot of ways to get worse than Bushrod. Brees is also one of the best at small steps to avoid pressure. jeffersonlives posted:I was talking playing LT for a righty QB vs. playing RT for a lefty quarterback, which are both blind side tackle spots, as the original questioner asked. I understand, I'm saying that you can't hide a blind side tackle's mistakes because the quarterback cannot directly see him. Mistakes on that end are magnified because of turnovers.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2011 22:06
|
|
|
McKracken posted:This was the whole point of what Jefferson posted, there are things you can do to take pressure of your blindside tackle so that you can make life livable with Anthony Munoz. No, he said it was easier to cover the blind side than the non blind side. Which isn't true simply due to the fact that the quarterback can adjust for problems he can see much better than ones he can't. jeffersonlives posted:You can generally hide a blind side blocker's deficiencies in pass blocking a bit more, although that's less true than it used to be, but it doesn't matter whether the blind side is the left or right per se. This just isn't true. The blind side tackle is supposed to be your best pass blocker.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2011 05:02
|
|
|
I don't really care about Tebow's being religious; everyone in the NFL is. I care about the whole "Doctors tried to abort me but God saved me and all I got was a hosed up throwing motion."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2011 17:22
|
|
|
sc0tty posted:At what point does a QB become 'a runner?'. Wouldn't this give advantage to QBs that like to scramble out of the pocket, whilst still remaining behind the line of scrimmage. I'm probably over-stating the advantage this gives, but I just watched Cam Newton (and now watching Tebow) and from a newbies point of view it seems like a no brainer for a QB to have a decent running game as a plan B. If you've got the ball cradled in your arm you aren't going to get any quarterback protections. These protections really aren't generating much advantage because they go away when you look like you're trying to run or exist basically only while you're throwing. Any player can get the slide protections but you are down where you start sliding and so you lose a shitload of yards this way. If referees spot the ball correctly (which they seem not to, unless I'm mistaken on the rules). And you can hit the quarterback with your helmet, but you can't tuck your helmet and go head first. There's also a forcefulness provision on the knee hits.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
Sleepy Beef posted:Yeah I see exactly what you mean by that video except in that video the LB actually does blitz and it's an end that backs off into coverage (same difference really). I have no idea to tell if your explanation is correct or not but that seems like even if there are other factors, that would be a significant problem in itself. You restated exactly what you quoted as if it were different.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
Sash! posted:The 1980 Holiday Bowl taught us any time on the clock is a dangerous thing. Required obviously: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHkABO0VwCg
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2012 17:02
|
|
|
Chilly McFreeze posted:
This isn't a dead ball, it's illegal touching and a spot foul. If the kicking team touches it; it can be returned by the receiving team, risk free, since they can always elect to go back to the spot it was illegally touched. Illegal touching won't offset a hold or anything like that though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
MonsterUnderYourBed posted:My main point I think is that both metrics are pretty flawed, but the defensive metric is slightly less so given that from my experience there are more occasions where the Offence's primary goal is not "run up the score", than occasions where the Defence's primary goal is "block the score". If the offense isn't trying to score than the defense isn't really trying to block the score, is it? This is such a fringe concern however. These stats are less good because a terrible offense can effectively score points on your own defense through lovely field position, low TOP, and directly through turnover. A very good offense can also make your defense look worse by scoring quickly. The same concerns exist the other way, as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
Edit not GDT
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
Hirams Bitch posted:So the Stafford fake clock TD that was so beautiful - I know they need to review every scoring play, but if they determined he didn't get in, what would have happened? He never got tackled either, and ran into the end zone without ever being down. Anyone know what the call could have been? He would be down where he was when the whistle blew.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2013 08:26
|
|
|
dokmo posted:1. Why is "prevent", as in "prevent defense", pronounced that way? I feel like it's because it's easier to yell at players with the long E on the first syllable. Assuming that's even what you mean.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2013 05:44
|
|
|
hifi posted:usually you are pointing out the mic backer: It's Mike! They are all named. Mike is middle, Sam is strong, and Will is weak.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
StoicFnord posted:I have a question. You'll lose the ball, which is the single worst mistake you can possibly make. Edit: The ball is pointier and a little harder to handle and you're going to get blown the gently caress up if you've got the ball out and flying around a lot. Rugby requires wrapping up (I think most do, anyhow, not too familiar with their rules, which is going to slightly slow down the tackle. In the NFL a guy is going to launch his shoulder right in to the ball a fraction of a second before you get it secured. It's just way harder to pull off. Bashez fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Nov 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 11:40 |
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:Wife asked a question last night and I realized I might not really know the answer. What exactly is accomplished in a huddle that can't be accomplished without it? She is a newcomer who is used to seeing no-huddle offense and expressed the thought that teams who huddle must not know their plays as well as the teams who don't. I said that a no-huddle offense must necessarily be working with a smaller playbook, and she took that as a statement that she was right. That is, the players in a huddle discuss what everyone will do on the next play because they don't have every play down pat in their heads. Talking to your teammates without the defense hearing. Ideally in a no huddle they won't understand what you're saying, but that won't last the whole game. Just look at Super Bowl 37 for how much information leaks can affect a game, even when the defense isn't directly getting the calls.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 23:52
|
|