ESPN Magazine A-11 Article

[JRutledge]

There is a reason we do not look to sports writers to understand basic rules.

Peace

[TXMike]

I hope every NFHS official sends a note to the national body expressing your opinion of this and of what the NFHS should do. Give them sample language if you wish. Once again, it is left to the officials to protect the integrity of the game.

[newmdref]

I read this article a few days ago and saw it as an example of coaching ingenuity but "Offensive Revolution".....Not. Hey, I get it, if I was the coach of, what appears to be, a lilly white (and I am white), undersized, man handled HS football team that was taken to the wood shed just about every game I would be searching for some way to neutralize my opponents as well especially since I lacked the ability to go head to head with them and be successful. The scrimmage kick formation or any variant of it as a base offense in college or the NFL will never happen and it should be stopped at the HS level. Players play football and people watch football in person or on TV because its a battle not a track meet or a magic show. I grew up in Baltimore and still live in the area. I am obviously a Ravens fan and I don't think we scored a touch down in the 12 years prior to this year, lol. Hell we won a Super Bowl with a defense, a kicker and an offense who's sole purpose was to give the defense time to rest. You can't swing dead cat around here without hitting something purple with Ravens on it, proof enough thats its not all about scoring, offense and trickery unless you have 40 players under 5'10" and 160lbs.

[OverAndBack]

Cue Kurt in 4....3....2.....1.....

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by newmdref

The scrimmage kick formation or any variant of it as a base offense in college or the NFL will never happen

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

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There is a reason we do not look to sports writers to understand basic rules.

Peace

"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."

[JRutledge]

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

[TxJim]

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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by LDUB

"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."

Yeah, they got that one wrong.

[bossman72]

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!"

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by bossman72

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!"

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

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

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.