CSNbbs

I like the fact most of the coaches comes with High School backgrounds.The offenses run by High schools are intergrated in College and Pro ball, the hurry up Speed sweep option ran out of the pistol being the more difficult to defend imo.

I believe the High school backgrounds help them relate to the youths of today easier, because they are a closer to their age and the kids are a different bunch then 10 years ago. The coaches today grew up with Social Media and cell phones being the norm.

Good luck to our Staff and players, Go Blazers and lets support our team.

I heard the same thing from McGee. I'll believe it when I see it on the field.

Won't be able to play as fast if that new rule passes.

(02-21-2014 12:18 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote: [ -> ]I heard the same thing from McGee. I'll believe it when I see it on the field.

We heard a lot of things from McGee.

(02-21-2014 12:20 PM)hooverblazer Wrote: [ -> ]Won't be able to play as fast if that new rule passes.

I don't think that new rule will have a huge effect

I also don't think it passes.

Malzahn took exactly the right approach to them claiming it will prevent injuries. "Show me the data."

(02-21-2014 12:18 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote: [ -> ]I heard the same thing from McGee. I'll believe it when I see it on the field.

I don't think I have heard a coach in any sport not say he wants a fast paced offense soon after they were hired. I think they get the speech delivered to them along with the keys to the building.

IIR, Jax State put up some pretty crazy offensive numbers.

i think the hurry up spread is exactly the offense we need to be running. My opinion is we can recruit to that style better vs a pro style.

I like these coaches. Could be the best staff we've ever had. They do have a lot of gaps to fill though.

(02-21-2014 12:20 PM)hooverblazer Wrote: [ -> ]Won't be able to play as fast if that new rule passes.

That rule won't affect the game even if it passes. How many snaps in football happen with 30 seconds or more left on the play clock? That's almost impossible, even with teams that go fast all the time.

The injury argument is dumb. More injuries happen when you go faster because there are more snaps in the game, so there are more steps and more collisions. By that logic, we should just play 5 games a year or 10 minute quarters for the sake of player safety.

No coach is going to admit that the game is too fast for them to coach well. The player safety issue can provide a handy cover for any desire to reduce the speed of the game to their level of competency.

Show me the data.

Who is to say that having better cardio & having the players in better shape isn't actually a good thing?

I worry about fast tempo offenses because those usually mean not great defenses. But Clark is a defensive guy so hopefully he knows how to balance things out.

(02-22-2014 12:43 PM)thebernreuter Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-21-2014 12:20 PM)hooverblazer Wrote: [ -> ]Won't be able to play as fast if that new rule passes.

That rule won't affect the game even if it passes. How many snaps in football happen with 30 seconds or more left on the play clock? That's almost impossible, even with teams that go fast all the time.

The injury argument is dumb. More injuries happen when you go faster because there are more snaps in the game, so there are more steps and more collisions. By that logic, we should just play 5 games a year or 10 minute quarters for the sake of player safety.

I guess everyone knows by now that there is absolutely no data to substantiate that no huddle offenses are responsible for more player injuries. What is often lost in the clutter is the fact that even with many teams going to no huddle offenses recently, the average time between the point when the ref puts the ball in play and the the point when the ball is snapped hasn't increased appreciably in the last ten years. That period still averages about 30 seconds with the difference being about a half second. If some no huddle teams average more snaps a game it is because they are more effective in moving the ball and sustaining drives. The advantage of the no huddle is that since the offensive team can snap the ball at anytime, the defensive team can't substitute and are often not set up properly for the next play. This proposed rule isn't about injuries or speed of play, it is about defensive orientated coaches like Sabin needing to be bailed out with a rule change because they have been getting their butts beat by no huddle teams.

Pardon the reference, & don't take & run with this BBF, but Gene Stallings said if you stop them on 3 plays you don't have to worry about it.

(02-22-2014 11:51 PM)CajunBlazer Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-22-2014 12:43 PM)thebernreuter Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-21-2014 12:20 PM)hooverblazer Wrote: [ -> ]Won't be able to play as fast if that new rule passes.

That rule won't affect the game even if it passes. How many snaps in football happen with 30 seconds or more left on the play clock? That's almost impossible, even with teams that go fast all the time.

The injury argument is dumb. More injuries happen when you go faster because there are more snaps in the game, so there are more steps and more collisions. By that logic, we should just play 5 games a year or 10 minute quarters for the sake of player safety.

I guess everyone knows by now that there is absolutely no data to substantiate that no huddle offenses are responsible for more player injuries. What is often lost in the clutter is the fact that even with many teams going to no huddle offenses recently, the average time between the point when the ref puts the ball in play and the the point when the ball is snapped hasn't increased appreciably in the last ten years. That period still averages about 30 seconds with the difference being about a half second. If some no huddle teams average more snaps a game it is because they are more effective in moving the ball and sustaining drives. The advantage of the no huddle is that since the offensive team can snap the ball at anytime, the defensive team can't substitute and are often not set up properly for the next play. This proposed rule isn't about injuries or speed of play, it is about defensive orientated coaches like Sabin needing to be bailed out with a rule change because they have been getting their butts beat by no huddle teams.

for the past 30 years almost all of the rule changes that affected the play of the game have been beneficial toward the offense. for that reason I think its a good rule. the issue I have is them trying to pass this off as a safety issue instead of waiting until next year and doing it for the right reasons.

Another way you can handle this is to control the ball on offense, thereby giving your defense more time to rest.