NFL

[DeeSpencer 26,082]

Back on NFL matters - was chatting to a mate the other day about helmets and how they've become a weapon over the years. I can see the day where no player (offensive and defensive) will be allowed to lead with his helmet - in any situation. Incidental contact might be allowed much like it is in marking contests in the AFL.

The reason I say this is because it needs to be fair for all. For instance, a RB can lead with his helmet when he's not outside of the tackle (and in that situation he can hit an opposition player anywhere) yet a DB needs to always hit below the shoulders when leading with his helmet (the knee has become a target) We all like to see the big hits but with litigation the way it is, change will happen (it's already started of course with the 'Crown of the helmet rule')

Yep heads up football is what they are preaching in high schools now and it should slowly follow through to the Pros. The idea is you tackle with your head up. That way your arms and shoulders make the contact not the helmet. They will react to the targeting of the knees as well. It's come about from players not being allowed to go high so they now go low.

The other thing that the NFL needs desperately is a MRP. I know our one is a joke but they hand our indiscriminant fines that don't touch the surface on what these guys earn. They then rarely hand out suspensions but the most recent guy got his 2 game downgraded to 1. The two 1 game suspensions before that got let off on appeal. NFL is a lot of ways would be much easier to get clear definitions of illegal hits considering all the camera angles in HD and the helmets and so forth. If they are serious about preventing concussion then a simple MRP and demerit system will do wonders for weeding out dirty players. A proper fines and carry over point system will allow players to actually understand what they've done wrong.

[Strafford 182]

The MFC losing for the past number of years just puts people into foul moods. We're all looking for answers and some feel like they know the solution but the truth is we have absolutely zero influence. Just a whole bunch of opinions - sometimes we're right but often we're wrong.

All we can really do is hope for the best. At least with Roos we know we've got a capable coach who should be able to get the best out of the list.

There is that, plus a few trolls on both sides of the various arguments, who just love stirring the pot when emotions are high. Just like you I am hopeful the MFC is on the right track as well

[Strafford 182]

Anyway my frustrating sports fan life continues with the Bears. We finally get a coach in who has a clue about offense, O line play and protecting and utilising your above average QB in Cutler and our successful defense goes over the hill age wise and then has injury after injury. 3 DT injured, 2 starting line backers injured, gun CB Tillman playing on a dodgy knee and most of the rest of the defense is average as well. Bears are 4-3 and we've been in the games in the losses but the combined win total of our opponents isn't pretty (Minn, Cinn,

Seeing what Rob Ryan has done with the saints and watching Rex get the Jets back and going this year I think it might be time that the Lovie Smith 4-3 Tampa 2/cover 2 is out and we go for a 3-4 defense.

Hey the Bears can't be too bad you have beaten the mighty Bengals, although our other loss is to the Browns Not sure on the change of defensive scheme. Rob Ryan wasn't that great at the Boys and a 4-3 really works for the Bengals as a base defensive scheme. As you have mentioned your injuries and an older unit may be more the problem rather than the scheme ?

[Strafford 182]

Back on NFL matters - was chatting to a mate the other day about helmets and how they've become a weapon over the years. I can see the day where no player (offensive and defensive) will be allowed to lead with his helmet - in any situation. Incidental contact might be allowed much like it is in marking contests in the AFL.

The reason I say this is because it needs to be fair for all. For instance, a RB can lead with his helmet when he's not outside of the tackle (and in that situation he can hit an opposition player anywhere) yet a DB needs to always hit below the shoulders when leading with his helmet (the knee has become a target) We all like to see the big hits but with litigation the way it is, change will happen (it's already started of course with the 'Crown of the helmet rule')

Kinda ironic that a device for player protection has become part of the concussion problem. If it wasn't for the fact that the hard hat has become an iconic image associated with the NFL I could have see them ditching it for the softer style of head protection worn in the AFL. Guys wouldn't be leading with their heads then, although perhaps blowing my theory out of the water was what happened in the AFL after they tightened the rules on head high contact, players started leading with their heads to pick up free kicks...

[Macca 17,034]

Kinda ironic that a device for player protection has become part of the concussion problem. If it wasn't for the fact that the hard hat has become an iconic image associated with the NFL I could have see them ditching it for the softer style of head protection worn in the AFL. Guys wouldn't be leading with their heads then, although perhaps blowing my theory out of the water was what happened in the AFL after they tightened the rules on head high contact, players started leading with their heads to pick up free kicks...

Yep, there's nearly always a flow on effect with any rule change in any sport. I wonder sometimes if any forethought is given when rules are changed. However, who could have foreseen the explosion in the amount of rotations in the AFL in the last few years?

The 'continuous flow' in the AFL was 'supposed' to make players more tired but the coaches just increased the amount of rotations as a counter measure. The only way to go back to positional play is to get rid of the interchange altogether and just have 'reserves' on the bench (IMO) But you now what? ... there's probably a way to overcome that as well !

Btw, back in the day, as you're no doubt aware Strafford, ducking your head was frowned upon and the umpires would nearly always ping you for it. But of course, we've had the 'Geish' for 15 years now - a more clueless administrator I've never seen!

What was this thread about again?

[DeeSpencer 26,082]

Hey the Bears can't be too bad you have beaten the mighty Bengals, although our other loss is to the Browns Not sure on the change of defensive scheme. Rob Ryan wasn't that great at the Boys and a 4-3 really works for the Bengals as a base defensive scheme. As you have mentioned your injuries and an older unit may be more the problem rather than the scheme ?

Yeah but that was round 1 and a Bengals special effort with brainless penalties and dumb coaching that got us to that win. Don't get me wrong I like the Bengals and watched Hard Knocks, really like some thing Marvin Lewis does but also doubt whether he's quite championship quality. The bears can beat good defensive teams with the offense at its best. But any team with a good offense will beat us. Hence the giants got close even with their O crawling along and Wash, Saints and Lions beat us.

4-3 seems to hold up really well when you get a pass rush from the front 4. I'm thinking Giants superbowl runs and when the bears have been good. Seattle at the moment are the same. But when you don't get anything from consistently rushing 4 I like the flexibility a 3-4 provides. The league is heading that way as well. Time for Trestman to make a statement on his defense after this season. I know he wanted to keep a good thing going but now that's over he has to show he can get a coordinator to shape a defense. Otherwise he's just the inverse of Lovie.

[DeeSpencer 26,082]

Yep, there's nearly always a flow on effect with any rule change in any sport. I wonder sometimes if any forethought is given when rules are changed. However, who could have foreseen the explosion in the amount of rotations in the AFL in the last few years?

The 'continuous flow' in the AFL was 'supposed' to make players more tired but the coaches just increased the amount of rotations as a counter measure. The only way to go back to positional play is to get rid of the interchange altogether and just have 'reserves' on the bench (IMO) But you now what? ... there's probably a way to overcome that as well !

Btw, back in the day, as you're no doubt aware Strafford, ducking your head was frowned upon and the umpires would nearly always ping you for it. But of course, we've had the 'Geish' for 15 years now - a more clueless administrator I've never seen!

What was this thread about again?

Nope only way to get positional play back is to paint big lines across the field and enforce how many can be in each segment of the ground at a time. Changing from a bench to soccer style subs would only mean more talls and smalls are replaced by midfielders and guys who can play flexible positions. Thus ruining one of the great things of our sport that it's not based purely on guys of a specific size and shape.

Luckily for the AFL we already have those lines placed on the field. Not to mention umpires who do nothing when the play is at the other end or middle of the ground (goal umpires). All we need to do now is enforce a rule that says at any stoppage of play (ball up or throw in) each team must have 3 players inside each of the respective forward or back 50's.

[DeeSpencer 26,082]

Whilst we are on rule changes the other thing the NFL must do at the end of this season is scrap the redskins nickname. It's appalling.

[Macca 17,034]

Nope only way to get positional play back is to paint big lines across the field and enforce how many can be in each segment of the ground at a time. Changing from a bench to soccer style subs would only mean more talls and smalls are replaced by midfielders and guys who can play flexible positions. Thus ruining one of the great things of our sport that it's not based purely on guys of a specific size and shape.

Luckily for the AFL we already have those lines placed on the field. Not to mention umpires who do nothing when the play is at the other end or middle of the ground (goal umpires). All we need to do now is enforce a rule that says at any stoppage of play (ball up or throw in) each team must have 3 players inside each of the respective forward or back 50's.

That could work.

However, the AFL aren't interested. They are more interested in being a large corporation that makes lots of money. As custodians of the sport, they fail in my book. It's all about the dollars and maximising crowd numbers and TV viewers - that's their main aim.

Hogan will have to run up and down the ground all day - that's a given.

[Strafford 182]

Yeah but that was round 1 and a Bengals special effort with brainless penalties and dumb coaching that got us to that win. Don't get me wrong I like the Bengals and watched Hard Knocks, really like some thing Marvin Lewis does but also doubt whether he's quite championship quality. The bears can beat good defensive teams with the offense at its best. But any team with a good offense will beat us. Hence the giants got close even with their O crawling along and Wash, Saints and Lions beat us.

4-3 seems to hold up really well when you get a pass rush from the front 4. I'm thinking Giants superbowl runs and when the bears have been good. Seattle at the moment are the same. But when you don't get anything from consistently rushing 4 I like the flexibility a 3-4 provides. The league is heading that way as well. Time for Trestman to make a statement on his defense after this season. I know he wanted to keep a good thing going but now that's over he has to show he can get a coordinator to shape a defense. Otherwise he's just the inverse of Lovie.

Lack of respect for Marvin and the Bengals Not that I disagree, although Marvin has been pretty good for the most part since that first game. Yeah we should have beaten your guys, but we were probably lucky to beat Macca's Pack as they suffered a few key injuries early and we had a few other things go our way. So I guess it all evens out in the end.

There are arguments both for and against either scheme I guess, although neither is really used in its pure form. The Bengals at times use what you could be described as 3-4 formations. Probably the biggest disadvantage with a 3-4 is finding that elite nose tackle that is so key to it's success. It is probably easier to find 3-4 defensive ends as compared to the 4-3 variety and they don't cost as much coin, but finding that nose tackle is tough.

[Strafford 182]

That could work.

However, the AFL aren't interested. They are more interested in being a large corporation that makes lots of money. As custodians of the sport, they fail in my book. It's all about the dollars and maximising crowd numbers and TV viewers - that's their main aim.

Hogan will have to run up and down the ground all day - that's a given.

People love forwards, especially big forwards kicking goals. Surely the AFL realises this. Multiple players kicking 100 plus goals per season could only be good for the game and ratings in my view. They have changed some rules to penalise backmen, but flooding, zones etc are the real killers.

[Macca 17,034]

This, from Sports Illustrated's 'MMQB'* ...

... Where the Game is Headed

The Washington Red-White-and-Blueskins have a 1st-and-10 at the Monarchs’ 40-yard line. Both sides are set before the snap, but football looks different than it used to. Offensive lineman are squatting at the line of scrimmage, the three-point stance having been outlawed; the constant clashing of the helmets in the trenches is no longer part of the game, to reduce the number of subconcussive hits

The NFL sets an example that trickles down to youth leagues across the country, but these players are also the ones who trickle up. In time they may bring with them tackling techniques taught by programs such as USA Football’s Heads Up Football (backed by the NFL), to take the head out of the game, and a different way of thinking about concussions.

[DeeSpencer 26,082]

This, from Sports Illustrated's 'MMQB'* ...

... Where the Game is Headed

Another great MMQB article. And written by a woman!

And yet we put up with dribble like Mark Robinson's trash on the Essendon sage and Damian Barrett's sliding doors segment on AFL.com.au

[Strafford 182]

The Master brought up an interesting point in the move towards the 3-4 base defensive scheme in the NFL probably as a reaction to the passing attacks. Which I think is an interesting debating point in relation to the merits of the 4-3 in comparison. In the AFC North we have the Steelers the poster child for the 3-4 and the Ravens who run a hybrid. The Bengals we do love our 4-3.

Personally I hope more teams start running the 3-4, as I know the Bengals under Mike Brown who isn't really into change, and has only just recently discovered that having more than one scout is a good idea for one example, will not change and will stick with the 4-3. Thus the Bengals will have less competition finding the players best suited to the 4-3, which I believe helped the Steelers for many years finding those late pick gems when they were one of the few teams running the 3-4. Not so easy these days is it Steelers with more teams moving to the 3-4? As an added bonus the Bengals run game which isn't that flash even with the addition of Gio Bernard can only become more effective, because there is no way there will be enough really good nose tackles to go around and they are vital to the schemes success.

I could be totally wrong of course

Edited October 26, 2013 by Strafford

[Gorgoroth 13,023]

I was told last night that the Rams sounded out Favre for a return...

Thankfully he said no. The guy could hardly move in his last season and I'm sure he hasn't got younger and fitter since then.

Crazy!

[Strafford 182]

I was told last night that the Rams sounded out Favre for a return...

Thankfully he said no. The guy could hardly move in his last season and I'm sure he hasn't got younger and fitter since then.

Crazy!

Favre also also just said he can't remember his daughters childhood. That isn't a good sign. Although I am presuming he wasn't an absent father I know I shouldn't joke about such a serious issue.

[Macca 17,034]

Favre also also just said he can't remember his daughters childhood. That isn't a good sign. Although I am presuming he wasn't an absent father I know I shouldn't joke about such a serious issue.

Favre specifically talks about his memory loss being caused by receiving big hits during his career. Not even a hint that he was an absent father. From what I know about Favre he could never be accused of being an absent father. Quite the contrary in fact.

Brett makes mention of only one particular year when his daughter played soccer. His daughter also played multiple years at other sports. The headline is quite misleading (as is the story in all honesty)

I get that people got a bit frustrated by Favre's retirement/comeback stuff but seriously, this story and the reaction to it is way over the top. He may indeed have some ongoing issues health wise but hopefully only in relation to his joints etc (which he could be able to recover from with rest, time and the right treatment)

Favre absorbed an enormous amount of punishment in one of his last games - the 2010 NFC Championship game against the Saints (classed as the 2009 post season) He took a lot of late hits that day and he'd already played out nearly his entire career. Gutsy performance and I had nothing but admiration for the bloke for continuing to get up (even though he was at the Vikes!)

The following is another classic example of our how a headline can be so misleading ...

'I can't remember my daughter's childhood' NFL legend Brett Favre reveals memory loss caused by football career.

Favre said: ‘I think after 20 years [in the NFL], God only knows the toll’.

To have such an icon of the game talk about the damage it has caused him will put the NFL under new pressure to do something about brain-related injuries.

Edited October 27, 2013 by Macca

[cowboy_from_hell 2,390]

Someone in Washington has trademarked the name Washington Bravehearts.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000269535/article/washington-redskins-nix-bravehearts-team-name

Another rule change thought of was to make the fumble a dead ball. This would stop players leading with the helmet to pop out the ball and cause the fumble. But as Macca raised a RB can smash his head into the scrimmage.

[cowboy_from_hell 2,390]

People love forwards, especially big forwards kicking goals. Surely the AFL realises this. Multiple players kicking 100 plus goals per season could only be good for the game and ratings in my view. They have changed some rules to penalise backmen, but flooding, zones etc are the real killers.

Why is it when on the odd occasion we talk AFL in the NFL thread it is always logical and spot on?

[Macca 17,034]

Someone in Washington has trademarked the name Washington Bravehearts.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000269535/article/washington-redskins-nix-bravehearts-team-name

Another rule change thought of was to make the fumble a dead ball. This would stop players leading with the helmet to pop out the ball and cause the fumble. But as Macca raised a RB can smash his head into the scrimmage.

Tony Kornheiser doesn't like it because it reminds him of Mel Gibson! (Tony is a Washington fan and has a radio show based from the City)

[cowboy_from_hell 2,390]

Tony Kornheiser doesn't like it because it reminds him of Mel Gibson! (Tony is a Washington fan and has a radio show based from the City)

Yeah I'm a big fan of the PTI boys. The Aussie version is a very poor replica.

[Macca 17,034]

Yeah I'm a big fan of the PTI boys. The Aussie version is a very poor replica.

I guess we're at least trying to learn from the best (we need to try a lot harder!)

Anyway, for those who are interested, here's Bill Simmons' latest column from 'Grantland' ... 'Don't Call It a Comeback'

Also, 'NFL Kickoff' is an excellent preview show ... Trey Wingo, Mark Schlereth and (often) Tedy Bruschi go through all the upcoming games (shown at around about 5pm, Saturdays on ESPN (our time)

From Bill's column ...

CHIEFS (-7.5) over Browns

Jason Campbell — on the road, in Arrowhead — going against a ferocious Kansas City defense that feasts on sloppy QBs who make poor decisions? And I'm getting less than 14 points?

49ers (-16) over Jaguars

Good news, London — we're bringing another atrocious NFL team overseas for you! Hope you enjoy.

[titan_uranus 25,044]

Another great MMQB article. And written by a woman!

And yet we put up with dribble like Mark Robinson's trash on the Essendon sage and Damian Barrett's sliding doors segment on AFL.com.au

So true.

Imagine having a Monday Morning article in the realm of MMQB, or my personal favourite, TMQ with Gregg Easterbrook. Someone just providing an unbiased take on statistics, tactics, trends, players, etc. Would be fantastic.

Instead, we get Mark Robinson's 'The Tackle'. Putrid filth.

[Macca 17,034]

Once again, the TV games ...

Monday

4.00am Buffalo at New Orleans (OneHD)

7.05am NY Jets at Cincinnati (Fox1)

7.25am Washington at Denver (OneHD)

11.30am Green Bay at Minnesota (OneHD & ESPN)

Tuesday

11.30am Seattle at St. Louis (ESPN)

... all the other week 8 games

[Strafford 182]

Favre specifically talks about his memory loss being caused by receiving big hits during his career. Not even a hint that he was an absent father. From what I know about Favre he could never be accused of being an absent father. Quite the contrary in fact.

Brett makes mention of only one particular year when his daughter played soccer. His daughter also played multiple years at other sports. The headline is quite misleading (as is the story in all honesty)

Tongue firmly in cheek on my part mate

Yep the headline was misleading, but was being used to lead into the broader issue of concussions in American football, which of course would only be magnified in countries such as the UK who see the NFL as competition.

For all that I agree that there is some quality sports journalism in the US there is also as much rubbish there as there is in Australia. The around the league writers on the NFL site are woeful on the whole for example and I've listened to their podcast a couple of times and I swear you could gain us much insight into the game by having a convo in a pub with two Australians who had only ever watched one game. At times it seems as if the US sneezes we catch a cold, in so many areas, politics, culture, sports etc. So many things in the AFL are blatant rippoffs from the NFL.