CSNbbs
A new idea for a coach - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: CUSAbbs (/forum-514.html)
+---- Forum: CUSA Team Talk (/forum-432.html)
+----- Forum: Liberty (/forum-46.html)
+----- Thread: A new idea for a coach (/thread-830715.html)

A new idea for a coach - Ewglenn - 10-20-2017 08:44 PM

Would y'all be interested in a coach that runs the triple option? I always hated playing the service academies or GT. They are so efficient and it levels the playing field in terms of talent gap. Maybe a good triple option could cause problems for teams leading to wins?

Last year records
Air Force 10-3
Army 8-5
Navy 9-5
GT 9-4

RE: A new idea for a coach - GE and MTS - 10-21-2017 07:29 AM

It is good to think outside the box but I am afraid it wouldn't be effective for Liberty. Talent isn't the issue in Lynchburg. Not to mention a school like Georgia Southern who ran/runs it and those that do have trouble finding non-conference games as teams hate having to prepare specifically for it and it has a higher risk of injury to defenders.

RE: A new idea for a coach - WesternSkillet - 10-21-2017 11:52 AM

I usually think teams that have high academic standards or have struggled through most of their history as being good candidates for the triple threat (TT). I also think there is room for one TT per conference. Some schools that come to mind include Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Oregon State, Kansas, Illinois, Tulane, Rice, etc.

Who would want to play Liberty if LU ran the triple threat : )

RE: A new idea for a coach - SlyFox - 10-23-2017 09:27 AM

Don't worry about scheduling. We have that under control. I like thinking outside the box but keep in mind that we do have a roster stocked with young talent at QB & WR. The arrival of an option coach would most certainly send them transferring in a heartbeat.

RE: A new idea for a coach - BeatNavy - 10-25-2017 07:42 AM

(10-21-2017 07:29 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  ... it has a higher risk of injury to defenders.

Can you provide a list of the injuries left in the wake of the several TO offenses currently being run in FBS? There should be a lot of them.

RE: A new idea for a coach - GE and MTS - 10-25-2017 06:48 PM

(10-25-2017 07:42 AM)BeatNavy Wrote:  
(10-21-2017 07:29 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  ... it has a higher risk of injury to defenders.

Can you provide a list of the injuries left in the wake of the several TO offenses currently being run in FBS? There should be a lot of them.

Seriously? It's common knowledge that the triple option uses cut blocking, which is extremely dangerous to defensive players:

https://raleighco.com/sports/cut-it-out-why-are-low-blocks-still-legal-in-football/

https://sports.yahoo.com/news/florida-state-defensive-line-banged-181803395--ncaaf.html

RE: A new idea for a coach - BeatNavy - 10-26-2017 10:45 AM

(10-25-2017 06:48 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(10-25-2017 07:42 AM)BeatNavy Wrote:  
(10-21-2017 07:29 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  ... it has a higher risk of injury to defenders.

Can you provide a list of the injuries left in the wake of the several TO offenses currently being run in FBS? There should be a lot of them.

Seriously? It's common knowledge that the triple option uses cut blocking, which is extremely dangerous to defensive players:

https://raleighco.com/sports/cut-it-out-why-are-low-blocks-still-legal-in-football/

https://sports.yahoo.com/news/florida-state-defensive-line-banged-181803395--ncaaf.html

Neither of those links give a list. Thousands of games, there must be a list.

Also, if cut blocking were outlawed, a lot of QBs would be taking more serious hits from blitzing LBs and DB. You do know that RBs blocking incoming blitzers routinely cut block, right?

RE: A new idea for a coach - GE and MTS - 10-26-2017 04:11 PM

(10-26-2017 10:45 AM)BeatNavy Wrote:  
(10-25-2017 06:48 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(10-25-2017 07:42 AM)BeatNavy Wrote:  
(10-21-2017 07:29 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  ... it has a higher risk of injury to defenders.

Can you provide a list of the injuries left in the wake of the several TO offenses currently being run in FBS? There should be a lot of them.

Seriously? It's common knowledge that the triple option uses cut blocking, which is extremely dangerous to defensive players:

https://raleighco.com/sports/cut-it-out-why-are-low-blocks-still-legal-in-football/

https://sports.yahoo.com/news/florida-state-defensive-line-banged-181803395--ncaaf.html

Neither of those links give a list. Thousands of games, there must be a list.

Also, if cut blocking were outlawed, a lot of QBs would be taking more serious hits from blitzing LBs and DB. You do know that RBs blocking incoming blitzers routinely cut block, right?

Obviously you didn't read the articles. The second article says this:
Quote:The triple-option scheme calls for cut-blocks that, though legal, put defenders at risk. Florida State hopes the injuries aren't serious for a defensive line already thin on experience.

''Those guys that cut and chop like that, it's crazy,'' Fisher said. ''I'd rather play more conventional teams. Just because of the chance of injuries that occur.''

Starting defensive tackle Eddie Goldman went down during the first series, and his replacement, sophomore Justin Shanks, was hurt in the second series. Starting nose guard Nile Lawrence-Stample was injured in the second quarter. All three were lost for the game with lower leg injuries. Goldman was seen on crutches and wearing a boot on his left foot after the game.
I bolded the quote that was specifically relevant to your ridiculous request. Nobody keeps a running list of injuries by a specific offensive scheme but I provided plenty of quotes saying that cut blocks are dangerous. Please provide your evidence to the contrary.

As for running backs picking up blitzers, why can't they pick up blitzers with regular blocking? I've seen that done a million times and it is safer and more efficient as it would allow them to release and be a receiver rather than rolling on the ground.

RE: A new idea for a coach - BeatNavy - 10-30-2017 10:38 AM

(10-26-2017 04:11 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(10-26-2017 10:45 AM)BeatNavy Wrote:  
(10-25-2017 06:48 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(10-25-2017 07:42 AM)BeatNavy Wrote:  
(10-21-2017 07:29 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  ... it has a higher risk of injury to defenders.

Can you provide a list of the injuries left in the wake of the several TO offenses currently being run in FBS? There should be a lot of them.

Seriously? It's common knowledge that the triple option uses cut blocking, which is extremely dangerous to defensive players:

https://raleighco.com/sports/cut-it-out-why-are-low-blocks-still-legal-in-football/

https://sports.yahoo.com/news/florida-state-defensive-line-banged-181803395--ncaaf.html

Neither of those links give a list. Thousands of games, there must be a list.

Also, if cut blocking were outlawed, a lot of QBs would be taking more serious hits from blitzing LBs and DB. You do know that RBs blocking incoming blitzers routinely cut block, right?

Obviously you didn't read the articles. The second article says this:
Quote:The triple-option scheme calls for cut-blocks that, though legal, put defenders at risk. Florida State hopes the injuries aren't serious for a defensive line already thin on experience.

''Those guys that cut and chop like that, it's crazy,'' Fisher said. ''I'd rather play more conventional teams. Just because of the chance of injuries that occur.''

Starting defensive tackle Eddie Goldman went down during the first series, and his replacement, sophomore Justin Shanks, was hurt in the second series. Starting nose guard Nile Lawrence-Stample was injured in the second quarter. All three were lost for the game with lower leg injuries. Goldman was seen on crutches and wearing a boot on his left foot after the game.
I bolded the quote that was specifically relevant to your ridiculous request. Nobody keeps a running list of injuries by a specific offensive scheme but I provided plenty of quotes saying that cut blocks are dangerous. Please provide your evidence to the contrary.

As for running backs picking up blitzers, why can't they pick up blitzers with regular blocking? I've seen that done a million times and it is safer and more efficient as it would allow them to release and be a receiver rather than rolling on the ground.

Thanks for the anecdote.

This season, I starting tracking DL of Army's opponents. For the first five games, the DL who started against Army all played in their team's game the following week. Most of them started the following week, and in the cases where they didn't start the following game, they were facing teams which rely heavily on the passing game.

I stopped tracking after five games because results were basically what I expected.

Do guys get injured from cut blocks? Sure. Do guys get injured in a myriad of other ways on the football field? Definitely.