Defense the way it used to be.
oldn...@mindspring.com
Check out this NFL video on the 1978 big changes in the passing rules that started it all:
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-top-ten/09000d5d8111333a/Top-Ten-Things-that-Changed-the-Game-1978-rule-changes
Don Shula, then of the rules committee, explains the changes with film illustrations of "before" and "after", and explains the purpose.
These are the changes that quickly killed off the exciting, big-play, low-percentage deep-passing game of Namath and Unitas, and created the high-percentage, safe, ball-control passing game of from the first version of the West Coast Offense until today.
The biggest change was to stop the DBs and LBs from bothering the WRs, and they've kept following up on that until today the WRs can prance around untouched wherever they want. In Sunday's game Simms explained "If the DB gets
in the path of where the WR wants to go, even by accident, that's pass interference." Geeze -- compared to the "bump and run" ("mug and thug") of pre-78 ... the old-time players would choke at this sissy-fication of the game.
If they brought back those old rules today, they'd have to give body bags to the stadium ground crews to collect whatever body parts of receivers like Welker they could find after the game.
MZ
> Regarding the much observed disappearance of defense...
>
> Check out this NFL video on the 1978 big changes in the passing rules that started it all:
>
>
> Don Shula, then of the rules committee, explains the changes with film illustrations of "before" and "after", and explains the purpose.
>
> These are the changes that quickly killed off the exciting, big-play, low-percentage deep-passing game of Namath and Unitas, and created the high-percentage, safe, ball-control passing game of from the first version of the West Coast Offense until today.
>
> The biggest change was to stop the DBs and LBs from bothering the WRs, and they've kept following up on that until today the WRs can prance around untouched wherever they want. In Sunday's game Simms explained "If the DB gets
> in the path of where the WR wants to go, even by accident, that's pass interference." Geeze -- compared to the "bump and run" ("mug and thug") of pre-78 ... the old-time players would choke at this sissy-fication of the game.
>
> If they brought back those old rules today, they'd have to give body bags to the stadium ground crews to collect whatever body parts of receivers like Welker they could find after the game.
Papacarl has made the argument (which makes sense to me) that the bump
and run could potentially make things safer by slowing down players
and reducing the impact.
Michael
carl is correct, i'd say. even if they allowed more contact, they
still have the rules against: head shots, horse collar, defensless
receiver, clothes line, forearm and so on...
what it would probably do to chage the game, IMHO other than the
obvious hinderance to wr's.
1. very, VERY fast and shifty smaller wide receivers with elite speed
would come into demand
2. very VERY big and physical wide receivers would come into demand
3. you would see the re-emergence of one of a kind running backs being
drafted in the first round.
All in all, wide receivers that are above and beyond the pack as far
as skill set goes would all be swooned over in the draft...
You would also see more attention given to REAL football... Actually
having no choice but to run to set up the pass.
I for one would LOVE to see that.
Brian Billick had it right when he recently said that passing was
killing the game. Once "football" as it once was is lost for good, it
is not "football" any longer. It is just a stupid ass fast food game
of catch for our stupid ass times.
John C TX
The problem with changing rules on one part of the field is it has
consequences elsewhere. If you change how OL block it affects the
time the WR has to get open. If you change how WR are treated you put
more or less pressure on the OL.
Look at the reaction when Brady got hurt? Now you can't even safely
tackle a QB below the knees. Everyt8ime they think about changing a
rukle they should just call PC & ask his opinion.
paddy_nyr
SCORE !!!
Papa Carl
<oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3398739.252.1318319786866.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqgd7...
Papa Carl
"MZ" <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote in message
news:35789089-a1a6-4141...@q25g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
Hell YES ! Go watch a good high school game where they can nail a receiver
coming out....contact controls where the passing game goes, and it is all
face to face in control contact...no cheap shots...then the guy who gets
free wins the battle....not doing that and letting guys go free into full
speed patterns sets up these horrendous collisions...AND...it sets up the
attitude for it to happen...you are busting your ass to cover someone, can't
touch him, have to let him run wild even before the ball is in the air and
when you get your chance to nail him you do....it is flat out competitive
human nature to do that I think.
Papa Carl
"Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:c47da9e8-150f-4746...@n15g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
variety of athlete which expands the game. If you were around when the AFL
began to show it could play with the other league you know that one of the
things that set it apart was bump and run...they played it where others
didn't...and it works and it puts the game back into an area where more flat
out football needs to be played and not this spread mess that is now getting
fairly predictable and boring...at least to me. Guys go to actually execute
skills they don't use anymore and it made it a better game on both sides of
the ball.
Papa Carl
"John C TX" <johnc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:71c402a6-b41d-491c...@h13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Frankly...I think if you called any "old" former player or coach you would
get similar answers. Guys who have a stake in how it is played now will not
jump into that because they are part of the "now"....but I know a lot of
older guys who think exactly like I do on this issue...almost everyone I
ever coached with a a few who have been in the NFL too. But...I really need
a job after they crashed my pension so I'll take that job John...you go
ahead and be my agent.
John C TX
> "John C TX" <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:71c402a6-b41d-491c...@h13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
the ramifications a change of the rules brings.
>But...I really need
> a job after they crashed my pension so I'll take that job John...you go
> ahead and be my agent.
:)
Papa Carl
:)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually compared to what the "corporation" I was working for did...that
would be a good deal. I should have stayed in education and coaching.
oldn...@mindspring.com
That may well be true overall, I don't remember WRs being particularly prone to injury in the olden times.
But not running today's plays. Back then the D-players could do anything they wanted to receivers until the ball was in the air headed to one. Only if one blocked a receiver from catching a catchable ball that was coming down into his hands did a flag get thrown.
If anyone ran today's crossing routes against the Steel Curtain, Lambert and Ham would have sent heads rolling across the field.
Namath's possession receiver across from Maynard, George Sauer, was an all-pro, really superior. But he isn't at the top of the Jets leader lists because he retired early at age 27, because he was tired of taking the physical beatings that went with being a WR.
Papa Carl
<oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:29463416.26.1318363161836.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqgd7...
So all you did was prove it is a physical game and always has been. The
game for the TE could become a much bigger deal and you control that stuff
over the middle by having a good interior running game. It was still a more
controlled game.
MZ
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2011 8:41:47 AM UTC-4, MZ wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 3:56 am, oldn...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > > Regarding the much observed disappearance of defense...
>
> > > Check out this NFL video on the 1978 big changes in the passing rules that started it all:
>
> > >http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-top-ten/09000d5d8111333a/Top-Te...
>
> > > Don Shula, then of the rules committee, explains the changes with film illustrations of "before" and "after", and explains the purpose.
>
> > > These are the changes that quickly killed off the exciting, big-play, low-percentage deep-passing game of Namath and Unitas, and created the high-percentage, safe, ball-control passing game of from the first version of the West Coast Offense until today.
>
> > > The biggest change was to stop the DBs and LBs from bothering the WRs, and they've kept following up on that until today the WRs can prance around untouched wherever they want. In Sunday's game Simms explained "If the DB gets
> > > in the path of where the WR wants to go, even by accident, that's pass interference." Geeze -- compared to the "bump and run" ("mug and thug") of pre-78 ... the old-time players would choke at this sissy-fication of the game.
>
> > > If they brought back those old rules today, they'd have to give body bags to the stadium ground crews to collect whatever body parts of receivers like Welker they could find after the game.
>
> > Papacarl has made the argument (which makes sense to me) that the bump
> > and run could potentially make things safer by slowing down players
> > and reducing the impact.
>
> That may well be true overall, I don't remember WRs being particularly prone to injury in the olden times.
>
> But not running today's plays. Back then the D-players could do anything they wanted to receivers until the ball was in the air headed to one. Only if one blocked a receiver from catching a catchable ball that was coming down into his hands did a flag get thrown.
>
> If anyone ran today's crossing routes against the Steel Curtain, Lambert and Ham would have sent heads rolling across the field.
demolished. There are WRs bigger than Jack Lambert. :)
The need for safety is justified. Players have gotten bigger, faster,
and stronger, which generally means bigger collisions. I just don't
think the league is taking the proper approach here. Improving
helmets, reporting concussions, etc is good policy. Long overdue
stuff, really. But limiting hits to the point where you cripple the
game is not good. This insanity they've done with kickoffs is stupid
too.
Papa Carl
<oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:23805923.632.1318456506629.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbac9...
On Tuesday, October 11, 2011 7:20:11 PM UTC-4, MZ wrote:
> On Oct 11, 3:59 pm, oldn...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 11, 2011 8:41:47 AM UTC-4, MZ wrote:
Sure there are -- but then today's LBers are a lot bigger than Lambert too.
While 5'9" receivers, like Welker, are scatting around untouched making QBs
look good.
> The need for safety is justified....
Yes, but the rule changes that opened up passing to create the way the game
is played today had nothing to do with safety concerns -- they were
motivated entirely by the desire to increase scoring. Watch the video.
Shula doesn't say a word about health or safety, it's all "increase
scoring".
Today's safety concerns are entirely legit, but a completely different
thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Amen Grinch...we agree.....first comes astroturf...and you can run a Hell of
a lot faster on that stuff, be "quicker" if you are more athletic and it is
harder and less forgiving when you hit....then came all the rules you are
talking about....the safety issues they are into now are all about the game
generated from those changes. Honestly...I think the "non-football" fans
who are now into going to the games and even some who may be watching are
waiting for the first guy to get killed on the field...it is becoming
gladitorial in some respects....people I have met have NO idea what these
collisions are like. The market is there and the League is going to sell to
that market even if it ruins the game in the long run.
oldn...@mindspring.com
> On Oct 11, 3:59 pm, oldn...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 11, 2011 8:41:47 AM UTC-4, MZ wrote:
> > > > Regarding the much observed disappearance of defense...
> >
> > > > Check out this NFL video on the 1978 big changes in the passing rules that started it all:
> >
> > > >http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-top-ten/09000d5d8111333a/Top-Te...
> >
> > > > Don Shula, then of the rules committee, explains the changes with film illustrations of "before" and "after", and explains the purpose.
> >
> > > > These are the changes that quickly killed off the exciting, big-play, low-percentage deep-passing game of Namath and Unitas, and created the high-percentage, safe, ball-control passing game of from the first version of the West Coast Offense until today.
> >
> > > > The biggest change was to stop the DBs and LBs from bothering the WRs, and they've kept following up on that until today the WRs can prance around untouched wherever they want. In Sunday's game Simms explained "If the DB gets
> > > > in the path of where the WR wants to go, even by accident, that's pass interference." Geeze -- compared to the "bump and run" ("mug and thug") of pre-78 ... the old-time players would choke at this sissy-fication of the game.
> >
> > > > If they brought back those old rules today, they'd have to give body bags to the stadium ground crews to collect whatever body parts of receivers like Welker they could find after the game.
> >
> > > Papacarl has made the argument (which makes sense to me) that the bump
> > > and run could potentially make things safer by slowing down players
> > > and reducing the impact.
> >
> > That may well be true overall, I don't remember WRs being particularly prone to injury in the olden times.
> >
> > But not running today's plays. Back then the D-players could do anything they wanted to receivers until the ball was in the air headed to one. Only if one blocked a receiver from catching a catchable ball that was coming down into his hands did a flag get thrown.
> >
> > If anyone ran today's crossing routes against the Steel Curtain, Lambert and Ham would have sent heads rolling across the field.
>
> Haha if you inserted them into today's lineup, they'd most likely get
> demolished. There are WRs bigger than Jack Lambert. :)
Sure there are -- but then today's LBers are a lot bigger than Lambert too.
While 5'9" receivers, like Welker, are scatting around untouched making QBs look good.
> The need for safety is justified....
Yes, but the rule changes that opened up passing to create the way the game is played today had nothing to do with safety concerns -- they were motivated entirely by the desire to increase scoring. Watch the video. Shula doesn't say a word about health or safety, it's all "increase scoring".
Today's safety concerns are entirely legit, but a completely different thing.
> Players have gotten bigger, faster,
Percy Flage
Can you two lovebirds get a room? FFS.
... and let us know when you're, once again, fighting like a married couple.
--
Percy Flage
"Life is too short to have to explain everyday."
Dean McEwen Jr
Dean McEwen Jr
pussy style air attack (a.k.a. west coast offense) to win. So the NFL
changed rules to try and legislate great Defenses out of the game. I
believe it's called 'Football' 'cause of running the ball and playing
defense, they might as well call it 'Airball' now.
R�vNsf�n �
news:15520-4E9...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
: The NFL was just mad 'cause great Defenses made it too hard for the
Hey stewpid, ...I posted the link and article regarding why the NFL has
changed the rules to you last season when you were still posting as Ricky
Bobby. It is to appease and regain the European fan base lost because of NFL
Europe, thanks to the defensive minded teams, like the Bears, sent over
there and that played exhibition games and regular season NFL games in
London and their NFL Europe games in Madrid and Frankfurd. Those folks
complained that the NFL game was too long and lacking the excitement that
they obviously experience regularly with their hooligan filled national
soccer games. If they stopped fighting long enough they would notice just
how boring their national sport is.
Just because you post as a fan of every NFL team and also post anonymously
while posing as myself and others, ...this doesn't mean you have to be
stewpid in the process.
Now bring out your mini-me RavNsfan poser, or another former NFL fan that no
longer posts, so you can heckle me and then pat your various characters on
their virtual behinds again Butters'
--
~Drew
"Talk is cheap ...lets just play"
Johnny Unitas - Baltimore Colts
Dean McEwen Jr
R�vNsf�n �
: news:15520-4E9...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
:: They had NFL Europe in '78? I don't think so, idiot.
::
:
"R�vNsf�n �" <noem...@nospam4me.org> wrote in message
news:4e977329$0$10846$b426...@news.qis.net...
Every time I think your stewpidity has leveled off, you take another nose
dive. Only a mental paraplegic such as yourself would believe that the
changes that are impacting today's game were enacted through rule changes
in
the late 70's.
Butters' I have been beating you about the head with facts and reality for
the past 3+ years now to damn near death in several instances, ...someone
else will have the task of shoving this one up your ass so that you can
fully peruse and understand.
--
~Drew
"Talk is cheap ...lets just play"
Johnny Unitas - Baltimore Colts:
R�vNsf�n �
: R�vNsf�n � wrote:
:
: > Now bring out your mini-me RavNsfan poser, or another former NFL fan
: > longer posts, so you can heckle me and then pat your various characters
on
: > their virtual behinds again Butters'
: This fucking guy is a treat, hehe,
Well now Butters', this certainly does speak toward the more than passing,
in fact, obsession like interest you have been posting regarding the
condition my man junk of late.
: Hey slapnut, you better be careful of who you point your finger at next
: time,
Phuck you Butters', ...you obviously forget what I did to you the last time
you started swinging your purse at me.
: and please keep your x-poasts out of alt.flame.niggers.
Just like the anonymous hypocrite that you are JDOxbig, you try to tell me
to keep my posts, ...not poasts, ...out of the steelers NG while you go
about doing the exact opposite.
I understand why "soc.penpals" would appeal to your inner-closet side
Butters', ...but c'mon now, ...alt.flame niggers, ...really? Surely there
must be one white somewhere within the NFL Nation forums that won't reject
your insatiable urge to slobber knobs.
--
~werd