Do these two statements contradict each other?

“An offensive revolution is coming to the NFL. Can anyone stop it?”

“The A-11 isn't close to legal in the NFL, and probably never will be.”

False advertising in the article header.

One of the guys I worked a basketball game earlier this month said he ran into the A-11 here in Nebraska, in a freshman game. He ended up having the same school in the playoffs, and asked the varsity head coach if he uses any of the A-11 stuff, and the coach looked at him like he was crazy. Apparently, the freshman coaches at that school slipped some of that stuff in without letting the varsity coach know. What a riot.

They dont need it in the NFL, because they can report in in/eligible number variations.

If they wanted something like it, they wouldn't use such a Rube Goldbergish means as a scrimmage kick formation numbering exception, they would simply abolish or alter the eligible receiver numbering rule they adopted decades ago. And I could see them doing that, because at the time they adopted the rule they picked up most of their rule chages from the colleges, while nowadays rules changes are as likely to come down from the pros into the colleges as vice versa.

As to the semi-prediction made by the article regarding roughing the passer, if the NFL did that it would probably wind up making the avg. offense more conservative than now. That's because if they adopted the kind of strict liability that exists now re contacting the kicker, they would surely have to adopt a similar caveat that it would not apply if the passer left "usual passing position". Which means that rather than passing up that additional protection for their expensive passers, teams would station them in "passing position" permanently.

Robert

"Normally used for punts, the rule stated that as long as the player receiving the snap was seven yards behind center, any teammate wearing the jersey of an eligible receiver (between Nos. 1 and 49 or 80 and 89) was permitted to go downfield."

:confused::confused::confused:

The writer in the article suggested that Bill Walsh created an offense that took advantage of a rule. All Bill Walsh did was create an offense that allowed players to do things they did not traditionally do. Actually they were running similar offenses with John Unitas in the 50s and 60s, Walsh just had success with the concept and created more plays with a specific concept. He did not take advantage of a rule to run that offense. And the article was a little misleading by suggesting that all players could go out for a pass. That is also not true; only 5 players can go out for a pass. There are just 11 eligible numbers but most are illegal by position. This was never stated clearly in the article.

You have to read the entire thing, not pull out one or two lines. ;)

Peace

It's a shame that most fans and stupid sportswriters forget that the very integral portion of this game is strategy of maneuvering all body types and skills on your side of the ball forward, not just a few. The game was not meant to be a track meet. The game includes having to out maneuver big, strong, slow guys weighing 300+ pounds who have bricks for hands, who may have superior feet, making others maneuver around them at a risk. (I added the superior feet so everyone knows I’m talking about players, not umpires). Lets get to the point: A-11 is just flag football without the flags.<O:p</O:p

Yeah, they got that one wrong.

So the NFL want's more offense?

Wait a sec, there was a league that had a ton of scoring and different rule changes geared towards offensive scoring... Oh yeah! the Arena Football league. Let's watch some of their games... oh wait...

See, I guess people want to watch real football (NFL) instead of basketball with an oddly shaped ball (AFL / A-11FL)

"But bossman, my offense would give the Lions a FIGHTING CHANCE against these other teams!"

What that means is, he took advantage of all the rules!

You gotta admit...Arenaball was a lot of fun. I'm not a snob, myself, so it doesn't have to be [pretentious quote]"Real"[/pretentious quote] for me to enjoy it for what it is. Or was. It did last 22 years and did get a lot of people to watch. Not nearly as much as the NFL, but then, it's not an either/or situation, is it?

Sure, the NFL is the most popular football league, but it's not the only one. And I don't think the AFL had an oddly-shaped ball, did it? It looked different, but I'm not sure it was oddly-shaped. May have been a tiny bit thinner for passing, don't know for sure.

You might be right, but the AFL is taking a year off. The XFL could not last more than 1 year. The Euro League is not defunct. And the USFL could not last and tried to sue the NFL to maintain. The NFL must be doing something right. People might complain that there is not enough scoring, but all those leagues had gimmicks associated with their games to them a no one seems to be watching. Even the CFL tried to work in this county and they only lasted a year or two. I do not think people are looking for a video game football style league. That might be changing, but nothing else seems to work.

Peace

OTOH, the year the WFL started playing, the NFL adopted most of their rules either directly or in spirit, so it appears the NFL was scared.

Three, not 'a year or two'. And helped produce quality officials such as Bill Vinovich, #52. And was attractive to Modell because of the exposition due to the CFL team. Modell had a large debt and a new team was the way to get rid of that debt.

I didn't say the NFL wasn't doing something right. There's no question, it's the absolute highest level of football, the best football and probably the best and most popular sports league in human history. I love it.

But I have room in my pallette of things I like for things that aren't the NFL. That's just me. If it's not you, that's cool, too. I dug the USFL, warts and all (the new one ain't gonna play a game, and neither is the UFL). I liked watching Arenaball for a bit.

The NFL has constantly tweaked its game over the years to make it as appealing as possible. The rules changes in 1974 (coincident with the WFL, they may or may not have been in response to it) and 1978 and the tweaks over the years have been made with the idea of keeping offense and scoring and excitment up when defense has seemingly gained an advantage. Fans like the ball in the air. Yet, the game we watch today is still very similar to what they watched in 1958. Bigger players? Yep. Faster? You bet. More window dressing? Yeah. But still basically the same game. A great game. But not the only game, IMHO, worth giving some attention to.

My only suggestion is that even if you like other leagues that does not mean others like those games too. And the fact that those leagues fell off, to me is a suggestion that everyone is not totally hip with the rules or style of play of all those games. One of the reasons I feel the NFL is loved, is because it has some tie to the past. If you totally change the game, you might totally change who watches it. And I do not see the NFL or any other level totally allowing such rules to come into their game because the game would look nothing like it did even 100 years ago. Rules changes are usually in place to make slight changes in the game, not completely destroy its foundation.

Peace