Here's one way to slow down up tempo offenses

[Ldlane]

You lost me at Rich Rodriguez....:biggrin:

First, let me say if anyone can do it, it's gonna be CNS and CKS.

Second, what we might want to do is 1) Watch film on tendencies (It's done), 2) Script the defense (I'm sure some of that is done.) The biggest problem that we have is that you can't send in and out sub packages. CNS loves to do this and that's why we get caught.

Third, I think "Bull Rushing" every down is unfair to the offense.

Why not simply go back to allowing the defenses to do what they used to could do before all the rule changes were implemented to boost scoring? That would solve a lot of the issue. We've put so many rules in to benefit the offense its pathetic.

Once the ball is spotted the team ought to be able to snap it when they want. But the ref should not spot the ball at a different pace for one team simply because of the style offense they run. It shouldn't matter to the ref what style offense is run. Part of the reason for the spotting of the ball and signaling "ready for play" by the ref is to allow both teams a fair shot at getting lined up. Much like the umpire signaling to the pitcher (in baseball) when he can throw a pitch.

Take into account all of the rules that favor the offense what realistically can defenses do to "adjust"? The rules are so imbalanced toward the offense it's pathetic. Rich Rodriguez even admitted such and admitted that his type offenses takes advantages of those rules. So what have we left the defenses to do to "adjust?".

 

[Bamabuzzard]

This isn't about our coaches being able to adjust. It is about the broader principle of changing the rules in such a manner that the game has evolved (via rule changes) into putting defenses in a position to where they don't have room to make adjustments. Then on top of that we've got refs unable to make appropriate calls on the field because of the "pressure" to help offenses run the style of offense they want.


Rather than changing the rules (years ago) to help the offense why didn't we just say "the offenses will have to adjust"? Yet when the defenses have now gotten into that same situation we say "then adjust". You don't find that a bit hypocritical?

You lost me at Rich Rodriguez....:biggrin:

First, let me say if anyone can do it, it's gonna be CNS and CKS.

Second, what we might want to do is 1) Watch film on tendencies, 2) Script the defense (I'm sure some of that is done. The biggest problem that we have is that you can't send in and out sub packages. CNS loves to do this and that's why we get caught.

 

[TideFan in AU]

Then why can't we have have a ref step in against someone "milking the clock" and say, "Snap the ball so the other team gets some time left on the clock." One thing that ticks me off in basketball is a ref holding the ball when we are in-bounding the ball and letting the defense set up in the press. The best way to beat the press is to inbound before the defense sets up. If that is the way my team can gain some sort of advantage against superior athletes then that's the way you do it. Strategy! If a team went to "No-Huddle" the refs would have to be faster with getting the ball set. Once they see you get in the huddle then yes they are going to take that time. I guess that is human nature.

I just don't see a "clock" being placed inside of the "clock" for snapping the ball. You may only snap the ball after then ball has been set by the official (but no sooner than setting the ball and only after setting the ball) after the time period of 5 seconds after the ball is set and no sooner than placing of the ball by the official (Not 3, or 4 but 5 seconds after the placing of the ball). etc....... Sounds like we are going to toss the "Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch"!

Defensive Coordinators are going to have to start being more creative to respond to new offenses.

The refs are still missing procedural penalties because of the tempo, and that is not fair no matter how you slice it.

 

[B1GTide]

Sports are not played on a level field. In fact, the reason that we have coaches and managers in sports is to try and tilt the field as much as possible on every play.

Each team leverages every possible advantage and the team that is best able to do so often wins. Sometimes talent alone is enough to carry the battle, but when teams are close in relative talent, the better tactician usually wins.

These are just tools used to tilt the field. Both sides trying to game the system and their opponent. I don't really see a right or wrong on either front - just gamesmanship.

 

[Ldlane]

It's funny that we are having this discussion, when the 40 sec. rule came out CSS said that it would aid offenses because the QB has more time to read the defense.

I think that the "hypocrisy" will drive innovation in coaching. Maybe new formations, new types of athletes. Maybe we should take the play clock back to 24 sec. or even down to 15 sec. This will force DC's to innovate. My feeling is that the "sub packaging" days are drawing to an end and hybrid defenses are going to have to be created or you'll see more M2M or more man/zone defenses.

This isn't about our coaches being able to adjust. It is about the broader principle of changing the rules in such a manner that the game has evolved (via rule changes) into putting defenses in a position to where they don't have room to make adjustments. Then on top of that we've got refs unable to make appropriate calls on the field because of the "pressure" to help offenses run the style of offense they want.


Rather than changing the rules (years ago) to help the offense why didn't we just say "the offenses will have to adjust"? Yet when the defenses have now gotten into that same situation we say "then adjust". You don't find that a bit hypocritical?

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Sports are not played on a level field. In fact, the reason that we have coaches and managers in sports is to try and tilt the field as much as possible on every play.

Each team leverages every possible advantage and the team that is best able to do so often wins. Sometimes talent alone is enough to carry the battle, but when teams are close in relative talent, the better tactician usually wins.

These are just tools used to tilt the field. Both sides trying to game the system and their opponent. I don't really see a right or wrong on either front - just gamesmanship.

As I asked above. Years ago when we began changing the rules on what a defense could do because we deemed it an "unfair advantage". Why didn't we just say to the offenses "then adjust". Yet years later after countless rule changes to benefit the offense we now have a situation that that the defenses are in now. We tell them "then adjust"?

 

[Bamabuzzard]

It goes back to what type game do we want. We're headed toward sandlot football. We can give it a fancy name but at the end of the day that's all it is. Technique and skill are giving way to we can snap the ball before you're ready. So if that's what you like you're in luck.

It's funny that we are having this discussion, when the 40 sec. rule came out CSS said that it would aid offenses because the QB has more time to read the defense.

I think that the "hypocrisy" will drive innovation in coaching. Maybe new formations, new types of athletes. Maybe we should take the play clock back to 24 sec. or even down to 15 sec. This will force DC's to innovate. My feeling is that the "sub packaging" days are drawing to an end and hybrid defenses are going to have to be created or you'll see more M2M or more man/zone defenses.

 

[Ldlane]

Whenever there is a questionable play on the field that a coach feels might be reviewed, I notice they go to the HUNH to run a play before the review. It's all about manipulation.

The refs are still missing procedural penalties because of the tempo, and that is not fair no matter how you slice it.

 

[B1GTide]

As I asked above. Years ago when we began changing the rules on what a defense could do because we deemed it an "unfair advantage". Why didn't we just say to the offenses "then adjust". Yet years later after countless rule changes to benefit the offense we now have a situation that that the defenses are in now. We tell them "then adjust"?

Beacause of the $$$. Fans want to see TDs.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Beacause of the $$$. Fans want to see TDs.

That's what I was wanting someone to admit. Let's be honest as to what's going on here. We're not worried about "fair", unless it impacts the offense. We're actually fooling ourselves and thinking that these coaches running the HUNHO are some sort of gurus when all that has happened is we've changed the rules, changed the rule and changed them again to where we've gotten a "game" tilted so far in one direction that it's really not a "game" anymore. It is a scripted money machine.

 

[Ldlane]

BTW - When a team "Bull Rushes" the LOS every single down (like Va. Tech did the other night) 8 against 5. Don't you think the risk of injury is higher to your tired OL and QB?

 

[imauafan]

BTW - When a team "Bull Rushes" the LOS every single down (like Va. Tech did the other night) 8 against 5. Don't you think the risk of injury is higher to your tired OL and QB?

Conventional wisdom says the bull-rushing DL should get tired more quickly than the OL and QB.

 

[Ldlane]

Not a LB that shoots the gap!

Conventional wisdom says the bull-rushing DL should get tired more quickly than the OL and QB.

 

[rgw]

If they just regulated the minimum time to set the ball and call it live, I think it would make it more fair to the defense. I'm not saying the defense should get leisurely substitution, but they should be able to sub one or maybe two gassed defenders quickly and still get set.

 

[Ldlane]

Again, you will just put a "Clock" within a "clock" and it will be even harder to officiate.

If they just regulated the minimum time to set the ball and call it live, I think it would make it more fair to the defense. I'm not saying the defense should get leisurely substitution, but they should be able to sub one or maybe two gassed defenders quickly and still get set.

 

[TideFan in AU]

Beacause of the $$$. Fans want to see TDs.

Some fans want football to become basketball on grass, but a lot of us don't. 49 - 45 Pac 12/WAC games do nothing for me. I get annoyed at the sheer ineptness of the defenses in that type of game. I much prefer our games with LSU or even UGA in the SECCG. Even though that game was high scoring (ny my definition), it was a tough, physical, game of two teams knocking the crap out of each other and running the ball down each other's throats. If I liked to see two teams running all over the place with wide open receivers and no contact, I'd probably watch basketball...

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Actually if the refs would just do their job as it is already written in the rule book then nothing will need to be done. The refs are to spot the ball and rule "ready for play" when everyone (including all the officials) is in place. I think we've already addressed the issue. It's about money. It's not about the spirit of the game or how the game was intended to be played. We tilted the rules so far in one direction to benefit the offense that the game is becoming a shell of what it was intended to be. All for the sake of our society associating "great teams" with who can score the most points. The video game generations. That's all it is. But if that's what you like...

Again, you will just put a "Clock" within a "clock" and it will be even harder to officiate.

 

[Ldlane]

It's not about the spirit of the game or how the game was intended to be played. We tilted the rules so far in one direction to benefit the offense that the game is becoming a shell of what it was intended to be.

OK BB! I'll agree to disagree because it's about personal choice. But now you're getting into "original intent", as if Coach Thomas Jefferson had some sort of plan for football. LOL! Starting to be funny stuff.

I'll just say that the intent is to score more points than your opponent scores and be done with it! The best offense is the offense that scores points!

 

[Bamabuzzard]

OK BB! I'll agree to disagree because it's about personal choice. But now you're getting into "original intent", as if Coach Thomas Jefferson had some sort of plan for football. LOL! Starting to be funny stuff.

I'll just say that the intent is to score more points than your opponent scores and be done with it! The best offense is the offense that scores points!

I think we've agreed to disagree a few pages back. You're right. It is a matter of choice. You have no problem structuring the game to vastly favor the offense. I do. Let's move on.

 

[pigsinspace]

Actually if the refs would just do their job as it is already written in the rule book then nothing will need to be done. The refs are to spot the ball and rule "ready for play" when everyone (including all the officials) is in place. I think we've already addressed the issue. It's about money. It's not about the spirit of the game or how the game was intended to be played. We tilted the rules so far in one direction to benefit the offense that the game is becoming a shell of what it was intended to be. All for the sake of our society associating "great teams" with who can score the most points. The video game generations. That's all it is. But if that's what you like...

Why is there one official rushing to set the ball when his "team" isn't ready? The official spotting the ball should at least make sure the zebras are where they are supposed to be before signalling the ball in play. Otherwise, they might as well be wearing jerseys for the HUNH team.