|
No quit in the Saints
I've read some posts on yesterdays game and ya'll have about covered everything.
The only thing I'd like to add is this: This team obviously hasn't quit on Haslett. Now, I've been leading the "Fire Haslett" crowd. However, I'm not so sure. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if they did fire him, but I've seen some big signs of improvement from the defense the last 2 games. Maybe they're coming together, maybe not. We'll see these next 2 games. These coaching decisions are though. I think most folks would have gotten rid of Marty Shotenheimer (sp?) but he's doing pretty good this year. Just remember, it doesn't make any differnece how you get in the playoffs, you just need to get there. Peace ;) |
No quit in the Saints
I don\'t know if you\'re been \"leading the fire Haslett\" crowd, and I don\'t know that the Saints\' decision is as tough as people make it out to be.
The situation in SD is different b/c Marty has been so successful in the past. Holmgren too (though I think he should be fired), and Shannahan (also needs to go) are in similar positions. IMO, coaches rarely miss the playoffs for three or four straight years and then turn it around - sometimes they miss it a few times in the beginning of their tenure as they built \"their team\" but they don\'t make the playoffs, sink to mediocrity for four years, and then all of a sudden lead their team to the SB. Our coaching staff is hurting this team. What\'s disappointing to me is how easily people on this board can be swayed. The team plays poorly and AB and Haslett need to be run out on a rail. They come from behind to win against another bad team to get to 6-8 and all of a sudden Haslett deserves to stay. How does the propoganda continue to work? Haven\'t you all been burned enough? |
No quit in the Saints
WhoDat --
Like I said, it wouldn\'t hurt my feeling if he were fired. But, if they make the playoffs, he must be doing something right. I don\'t understand the NFL anymore. I don\'t know why teams come out of nowhere and do great or why teams who won the previous year suck the following year. If this defense plays great the next 2 weeks then I can live with Haslett being the coach. BTW, there\'s nothing wrong when someone changes their mind. It\'s called keeping an \"open\" mind. Not saying you\'re closed minded .. I\'m just saying ... There\'s no right or wrong way to get it done in the NFL. |
No quit in the Saints
Propoganda? Now I\'m REALLY laughing.
I\'m with you BC, but then again I usually am. I know that sometimes ya just need some fresh Blood, and so I wouldn\'t lose any sleep is Haz was released, but I\'d feel bad for him to be sure. Some folks wanna hold him responsible for everything from Personell decisions they can\'t be sure he\'s responsible for to the weather on Game Day. Because I defend him I\'m accused of all sorts of things. Defending the guy doesn\'t mean I think he\'s the best football coach on the planet, but like I\'ve said before -- and JKool said much better (he\'s talented like that) -- the players, in my opinion, are most at fault. Haz can\'t coach Pathon into not fumbling that ball yesterday, and by the time you\'re in the NFL you souldn\'t have to be \"coached up\" on the basics of the game. Have their been some draft busts? Sure. So? All teams have \'em...all coaches. Lotta folks here in Dallas weren\'t too happy with Bill Parcell\'s draft this year. Go figure. Parcells keeps saying publically that the fans don\'t have a clue...more often than not I\'m inclined to agree with him. ;) |
No quit in the Saints
Quote:
|
No quit in the Saints
Quote:
Why is it that NE can achieve every year? Tennessee for so long? Indy? Philly? What, they just have players who play up? They have high turn over just like every other team in the league - why is it that the Saints are ALWAYS undisciplined and the Patriots NEVER are??? Just lucky with players I guess. |
No quit in the Saints
Defending Haz for assumptions none of us can know -- that you post as what we sould all see clearly-- as a fact as opposed to Blaming Aaron Brooks for an offensive line that clearly does NOT excell in either or run or pass blocking (one example of many)...you either can\'t see the difference or won\'t.
However, I\'m not going to tee it up for you so you can drag the whole board into it...again. I see it, and I\'m not the only one who see\'s it, so knock yourself out Whodat. As for all those teams you mention, which one\'s have won the Superbowl? NE doesn\'t do it \"Every Year\", only the last few, and Bill was run right out of Cleveland wasn\'t he? Why don\'t you bottle it up and see if you can sell it, cause I\'d love to watch you attempt to market your nonsense and negativity. No go away and root for the team to lose. Oh, wait, you\'re back on the wagon again huh? |
No quit in the Saints
Tic,tic,tic.
|
No quit in the Saints
Quote:
|
No quit in the Saints
Quote:
I place that move on the shoulders of LoomBoom and Baby Mule. THEY are responsible for getting the players and negotiation of contracts. Hazlett may have wanted T-Bucky, but a Scott Pioli or Rich McKay would have either laid the law down to Hazlett or gotten a better deal. Shows the competence of the Front Office group. Everyone, including myself, has called for Hazlett\'s head on a plate. But, on reflection, with all of the other political mess that is involved with stadium, move, etc. going on, I don\'t blame Benson for wanting not to fire Hazlett. I DO want to see Mickey LoomBoom, Baby Mule, Moss, and McCarthy gone. I want to see Venturi as Director of Player Personnel or chief scout, and Pease as D-Coor. I\'d like to see us lure the Bills O-Coordinator here, or Mike Holmgren as O-Coordinator. Add Mike Sheppard to the gone category, too. My first priority would be getting a high powered GM in place here, with a competent scouting and player personnel department also. :cool: |
No quit in the Saints
Quote: (from Saintfan)
________________________________________________________ Haz can\'t coach Pathon into not fumbling that ball yesterday, and by the time you\'re in the NFL you souldn\'t have to be \"coached up\" on the basics of the game. ________________________________________________________ I completely disagree with this concept. I\'ve been a \"professional\" and world class athlete and there\'s no amount of coaching that I couldn\'t use to make me better. Only someone who\'s never been at that level could make this kind of ignorant assumption. Every athlete needs superior coaching, especially on the basics because that\'s the foundation of your talent. If you can\'t coach the basics, which is an issue with the Saints over the last few years, then you aren\'t a superior coach, and shouldn\'t be coaching at the highest level. This is the crux of what I see as the argument against the incumbent staff, because well coached teams don\'t make the mind boggling and repetitive mistakes that this team does. |
No quit in the Saints
Quote:
Coaching is leading, teaching, and motivating. This is something that doesn\'t happen from the front office on down. There isn\'t an ounce of leadership here. That\'s why they mill around, and look lost. |
No quit in the Saints
Quote:
Two guys both think that the coaches should be held liable... but where is the searing criticism of those two guys? They obviously hate the team and blame Haslett and Brooks for everything right? LOL. I guess some people are just happy being losers, and will support a guy to the end no matter how bad he is, or the group he manages is. At some point folks, you have to start holding a guy accountable - whether it\'s his fault or not. What courtesy has Haslett not been extended? Certain members of this board blamed everyone but Haslett and Brooks in 2001, 2002, 2003, and now they\'re doing it in 2004. Some things don\'t change... But Xan, RDOX, I agree with you guys too. |
No quit in the Saints
At this point in the scheme of things, I\'d be surprised to see a change in any of the leadership roles in the Saints organisation. There\'s too much invested to actually hold anyone accountable, because otherwise one would look to have a 100% turnover, and that\'s not in the cards. To attract a quality coaching staff to assume the reigns, Benson would to have to yield complete control over operations (Saban in particular), and the true idiots at the top will never let that happen. Too much money is being made at the highest level to make them change.
The only way to get an owner\'s attention is not to go to the games, not to buy tickets, not to buy merchandise, and to ridicule each decision mercilessly. The only way to hurt rich people is to make them poor. However, in (a half-hearted) defense of the current coaching staff, there needs to be a willingness and capacity of the players to actually LEARN the basics. Yet, this team is built around the kind of players the staff has selected and for whom the current team is rallying. Given the evidence, so far, willingness is there for the players. Selection and coaching is the Management\'s responsibility. And they\'ve failed to demonstrate meriting an NFL role. |
No quit in the Saints
Quote:
Looks like a catch 22... |
No quit in the Saints
First, I agree with RDOX. The biggest problem with this team is the front office. I\'ve said this many times, but I keep getting talked out of it - I don\'t know what that says for me or the truth of the statement, but there are arguments that need to get made here that haven\'t.
Second, the next biggest problem is coaching. Saintfan\'s quote of me was with respect to this: when I guy drops the ball or a guy jumps offside, that is his fault. Sure it is the coaches job to correct that, but it isn\'t obvious that it is the coaches\' fault when this happens. When a three guys jump offside for the thirteenth time in four games, that IS a coaching problem (at the very least they\'re not focusing on a critical problem in practice). Now, it is hard to say which coach is at fault, since there is an assistant coach structure. Thus, blame falling on Haz is not obvious, even in these cases. That was my point - people jump to conclusion about somethings entirely too quickly, and with very little evidence. My defense of Haz last year was based on that claim. This year, I think that there is reason to think that his inability to correct his own poor coaching or the poor coaching of his assistants or the mental errors of some of his more prominent players in five years is reason to let him go. Third, if credentials are needed, I\'ve played, coached, and refereed football at relatively high levels. I certainly believe that coaching matters, BUT it is not all that matters - as RDOX points out the players\' desire to learn, ability to learn, and general climate for learning matter A LOT too. Fourth, there is no way people can continue to simply say things like \"there is no leadership here\" - this is ambiguous in the worst of ways. There are different kinds of leadership, they show up in different places (from the front office to the water boy), and it has different effects on different people. Try and tell me that Charles Grant isn\'t a leader, that Deuce isn\'t a leader, that Joe Horn isn\'t a leader, that Pease isn\'t a factor in Grant\'s new found fire, etc. Fifth, don\'t tick off Halo or JoeSam. They work hard in the trenches everyday. All they want is a cool place for people to converse - not a place where people badger each other. People will respond to interesting arguments, there is no need to direct them at each other. |
No quit in the Saints
Kool, that is far better said than anything I would have come up with. Very well summed up, and I agree with you 150% is every aspect.
RDOX, I think you might have done well as a coach in the Ditka era, but I\'m not so sure you\'d be very well recieved by today\'s players. Now, of course, I\'ve only played High School Football, so I have no NFL experience, but I know what I see and hear, and what you describe is \"old school\". I\'m not knocking it, but I don\'t think it\'d work either...not today. |
No quit in the Saints
Christ.......what a bunch of frigging malcontents. The whole lot, no matter which side of whatever issue you\'re on. I read the threads in this forum, and I can\'t come to any other conclusion than to think that the particular topic--be it Haslett\'s coaching, Jones\' tackling, Loomis\' \"GM-ing\", whatever--is secondary to folks who just want a chance to try to convince everyone else they\'re smarter or more knowledgable than everyone else. It\'s tiresome, man...tiresome. At least I can avoid the threads with either \"Sunshiner\" or \"Moonshiner\" in the title...you can pretty much be forewarned that those are destined to be nothing more than pi$$ing contests between the two blocs. But a guy might have thought that something titled \"No quit in the Saints\" might have been safe.
Now.....please excuse that momentary rant, and go back to your sniping. |
No quit in the Saints
I think the question here is:
What makes a successful team? Is it coaching? Is it players? Is it schemes? Is it luck? The answer is ............ Yes !! It\'s all of the above. I don\'t care how good a coach is, coaching alone doesn\'t get it done. And you can have the most talented players and still not have a winning season. And you can have good coaching and talented players and still not be a winner. Injuries can derail that. So, it doesn\'t hurt to be a little lucky. The real question here is: What\'s the problem with the Saints? Well, IMO, there is no ONE single problem that would magically fix everything. Most coaches would tell you that players are more responsible for success and failure. They\'d also tell you that coaching does play a big part. On that note, I\'d say maybe some Saints\' fans have overrated the talent on this team. Take our receiveres for example. Joe Horn, no doubt, is a hell of a receiver. But after that who have we got? Donte? Sure, he\'s fast as lightening but that doesn\'t make him a great receiver. Then there\'s our O-line. One of the worst in the league, IMO. And there\'s more problems in the talent pool than those!!! Could coaching fix that? Doubtful. If we did get a proven coach, I\'d image you would see a lot of new faces on the team. Who do you guys want? Parcells? Gruden? Vermil, Shannahan? Holmgren? What kind of seasons are they having? What\'s responsible for their lack of success? Coaching? Who cares what they did in the past. I don\'t !! |
No quit in the Saints
Quote from Puddinhead:
________________________________________________________ Christ.......what a bunch of frigging malcontents. The whole lot, no matter which side of whatever issue you\'re on. I read the threads in this forum, and I can\'t come to any other conclusion than to think that the particular topic--be it Haslett\'s coaching, Jones\' tackling, Loomis\' \"GM-ing\", whatever--is secondary to folks who just want a chance to try to convince everyone else they\'re smarter or more knowledgable than everyone else. It\'s tiresome, man...tiresome. At least I can avoid the threads with either \"Sunshiner\" or \"Moonshiner\" in the title...you can pretty much be forewarned that those are destined to be nothing more than pi$$ing contests between the two blocs. But a guy might have thought that something titled \"No quit in the Saints\" might have been safe. ________________________________________________________ Fortunately for you, I am trained in abstract thinking, and I will endeavor to break down this complex thread for you... but before I do unwillingly condescend to respond to your rant, I only know what I know, and look for informed opinions to augment that knowledge, so please don\'t count me in on your \"who\'s genitalia are bigger\" overgeneralizatoin. The \"No Quit\" concept has been uniformly acknowledged for this team. There are very few examples of quitters, and given this team\'s makeup, those players are obvious. This group are willing and they have great talent and capacity to use that talent. Here\'s where the thread gets complicated... All oars have to be rowing in concert and in the same direction. \"No quit\" is meaningless if only looked at from the athlete\'s perspective. While there\'s no evidence that the Staff is quitting, their job is to learn from the behaviors and limitations of the team they have and the teams they play against. While it is clear there is every intent to win games, the issue is how this Staff has repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot adjust, they cannot communicate and they cannot teach. They are \"No Quit\" on their baseline assumptions on how to win. So, to conclude, counterpointing (is that too complex a concept?) is essential to gaining enlightenment, and properly directed \"no quit\" attitude will ultimately gain satisfaction, and thus this thread\'s gentle prodding toward that mission. |
No quit in the Saints
What a profound post, considering the condescending nature. A fellow intellectual, perhaps? What I find most interesting, is your proficiency with parlance, but your lack of execution with sentence structure itself, which leaves me questioning- do you strictly use eloquent verbiage as a way to intimidate those you interact with?
|
No quit in the Saints
Quote:
Thank you, Mr. Will. :brood: |
No quit in the Saints
Quote from BlackandBlue:
________________________________________________________ do you strictly use eloquent verbiage as a way to intimidate those you interact with? ________________________________________________________ it should read, \"to intimidate those with whom you interact?\" :poke: I stand in abject sorrow for any unsupported parry that has caused harm, but I will not apologize for nor renounce command over my native toungue. I realize that this is no excuse, but I was a bit rushed to post and was somewhat loose with syntax. Thanks and I will try to be more diligent. (no, really!) I appreciate the posters who spend the extra time to construct well honed, precise and concise arguments and observations. And it is humbling to be recognized by them for my own. Anyway... Is it my imagination, or is it possible that with all the recent injuries for the Eagles, Vikings, Falcons and Seahawks, that there COULD be a straight shot to the Superbowl if the D shows up like it has the last two weeks? Is that a reason not to quit?? |
No quit in the Saints
Quote:
Saintfan. I may have done well in the Ditka era, and I\'m sure that I\'d do well today, because what this LEAGUE lacks for the most part is a sense of discipline. That word is not synonomous with punishment by the way. I see a lack of personal discipline (self discipline) in Brooks, Jones, Hodge, Sullivan, and others on this team. I see a lack of discipline in the front office, in not being able to guide a new Head Coach (yes, he is new) with regard to player selection, player pay, and player control. What has gone on in this organization has been that everyone sort of went their own way, relied on raw talent alone, and just played when they wanted to. What you see in Charles Grant, Willie Whitehead, Brian Young, Will Smith, & Darren Howard is the result of an old school guy (from the Ditka era) taking charge of a talented group of guys and molding, teaching, motivating, and helping them to do well. It has taken most of this season to get there. Why? Because the scheme is too complicated. I believe that he dumbed it down some and these guys saw some success. They are 100% better than at the beginning of the season. Why? Discipline! Demanding that a player reach down and get some more that he doesn\'t think he/she has. Has anyone seen the movie Miracle? Herb Brooks was one of the DITKA ERA coaches. What did he do? He took a group of college kids who had never seen each other before and made a TEAM that beat the finest Hockey team that the world had ever seen. Because one says that you need to be tough with a group of players, doesn\'t mean that you chain them in a dungeon somewhere. Watch what Parcell does next year, he may no win the SB, but I\'d be willing to bet that Dallas is in the running for each game. Same with Coughlin, Same with Mora. The secret of success as a coach is to get a player to look inward and bring out the very finest effort that he/she can bring. There are as many various styles as there are coaches. One thing for certain, you can\'t be buddies, you have to stay across the line, slightly aloof, reachable when necessary, but always demanding the best from your team. That has not been done here. I believe that Hazlett suffers from something called \"Role Ambivilence.\" That is, he still wants to play and be thought of as a stud linebacker, and not a Head Coach. He wants to be one of the guys. He can\'t. He\'s the Head Coach, and needs to act and perform like one. One day he will. Hopefully, here. Hopefully, this last part of the season, and into next year. |
No quit in the Saints
Quote:
|
No quit in the Saints
Quote:
What all of these guys had is stability in their teams. They knew each other and played with each other; AS A UNIT! This is what I think that Parcells brought to New York Giants, and Jets, then New England, and will bring it to Dallas somehow. But with the free agency \"era\" there is no stability, and no permanence. These folks move every time the wind blows, if the soup is cold, or the tea is hot. Turley moved because he didn\'t like the food here, for God Sake. I am personally tired of seeing what I consider a group of spoiled, ingnorant, overpaid children go out to play a game, that is supposed to be fun, and then gripe over whether or not a fan booed them or some such. I stand by my statement that Aaron Brooks would be a towel boy at the car wash if he couldn\'t throw a football. |
No quit in the Saints
Quote:
B&B will probably know who they are... They call me mister know-it-all I am so eloquent Perfection is my middle name and....whatever rhymes with eloquent |
No quit in the Saints
Quote:
do you strictly use eloquent verbiage as a way to intimidate those with whom you interact? can\'t finish a word with a preposition my friend! LOL [insert steam coming from the big guy\'s ears] [Edited on 21/12/2004 by WhoDat] |
No quit in the Saints
A \"prime\" example Danno...and you thought BandB was the only one. :band2.sml:
|
No quit in the Saints
Quote:
I\'m gonna have to pull that one off the shelf tonight! |
No quit in the Saints
RDOX is right, old school wins. It\'s not \"the internet, stupid!\" There\'s a reason why superior coaches always win. Watch Washington next year. They will be a force because they are and will be well coached and prepared. Just two or three smart players away from making the NFC their *******.
Oh well, BnB and RDOX, I guess we\'ll have to bear the brunt of understanding HOW to say what we MEAN to say without boring the crap out of each other. |
No quit in the Saints
Quote:
And if you’re referring to the greatest bassist ever to walk on this planet, danno, I have no idea what you’re talking about ;) |
No quit in the Saints
Quote:
Personally, I am fed up with being flamed because I say something cogent like \"The league lacks discipline,\" or \"I do believe in the old school type of coaching.\" I appreciate the way that Saintsfan disagrees or states his opinion differently than mine. We then find a point at which we can agree and/or compromise on the point, and remain CIVIL!!!!! It\'s refreshing not to read!! \"AB DA MAN!!\" \"WURD!!!\" YOU IS STUPID!\" YOU IS RACIST!\" Because you point out the fact that a player does not seem to be playing up to their potential. At any rate, thanks guys. |
No quit in the Saints
Well, now that I\'ve maveled at all of your eloquence, for which I am profoundly thankful, let us return to the pedestrian matters at hand.
First, Billy, I agree (shock) that many things work must work in concert to generate success. Of course, you don\'t think that it is pointless to assess these factors individually, at least some of the time, right? Also, it is obvious that one problem or another can be magnified or hidden by others, and sometimes it is impossible to gain evidence for exactly the claim one wants to make, but that doesn\'t make it worth not trying, does it? Second, Saintfan, thank you for the kind words. I think we agree 100% ;) on those points. Third, Xan, well put point about counterpoint. :notworthy: I am still left wondering what you you have to say about the coaching points that were made earlier before this thread was hijacked for pretty prose. You do agree that any particular (singular?) fumble, dropped pass, offsides penalty, etc. should not be attributed to the coach, right? I think that is all that Saintfan was pointing out. We, I\'m sure, are all in agreement that there is no one who can\'t benefit from coaching (barring some inability to learn) - enjoy the double negative. Fourth, RDOX, I too am a fan of both Ditka Era and Old School coaching (though I\'m slightly fuzzy on the distinction). However, as you note, the effectiveness of the coaching sometimes depends a good deal on who is being coached, much the same way an excellent speech for one crowd is a total failure for another (think nobel prize award speech given to six year olds). I\'m wondering if in this new \"soft\" NFL certain styles of coaching are becoming much less effective. I know that back when I coached high schoolers, we had to have a certain level of \"kid gloves\" or the school board would be on our azzes. Thus, I think that players coming up through the system are becoming much less equiped to deal with the styles of coaching that you and I may favor - making it less effective on our new NFL prima donnas. What do you think? |
No quit in the Saints
Yall biotches is krazy talkn dis shiz!
Sorry, I can\'t even do it on purpose. Anyway... I\'m all about the \"old school\" style of coaching. In effect, it\'s what I was going on about so heavily last week during my salvo on Brooks. Someone (RDOX, I think) mentioned the simplification of the defensive scheme as a possible reason the defense has miraculously improved over the past couple of games. It\'s true we\'ve faced a couple of troubled teams, but we faced some lousy teams earlier in the season (49er\'s, Cards) and we couldn\'t stop them, either. I\'d like to see a similar \"old school\" simplification of the offense. Slow it down, run-oriented, short passing, god-awful-irritating-to-watch (but effective) football. I hearken back to the Steelers example. They\'re probably the most stable team in the NFL right now, and it\'s no coincidence they are led by an old school, discipline-minded head coach, who incidentally also fits the mold of the coach who\'s been given ample time to build the team to his liking. It\'s true, we\'re not the Steelers. Fact is, we\'re probably superior to them in regards to raw talent. But they bring a well-coached, well-executed attack to every game, and their record shows it. [Edited on 22/12/2004 by mutineer10] |
No quit in the Saints
mutey,
Oh no you didin! You just did the following: (1) Mentioned the Saints and the Steelers in the same post. (2) Said the Saints have talent. (3) Failed to say what \"old school\" coaching is/means. How is that even possible? :popcorn: |
No quit in the Saints
In all seriousness though, I am interested in what people take \"old school\" coaching to be. I have some intuitions about this, but I think it might be fun to explore.
Someone made the point earlier about good coaching involving keep a distance from the players - not being their buddy - and that sounds right. Is that \"old school\" or is that just good coaching? What else might be essential to being \"old school\"? |
No quit in the Saints
PS - Puddin\', \"Malcontents\" - what an indefectible choice of words!
3... Good God, man, what is with you and the multiple posts??? :P [Edited on 22/12/2004 by BlackandBlue] |
No quit in the Saints
Quote:
As for \"old school\" coaching, and \"old school\" football in general, I think I did (in essence) reveal what it means to me: 1) Simplification - you\'ll notice I used the word multiple times. It could also, I suppose, refer to what is regarded as \"smash-mouth football.\" My theory is that a bunch of fundamentally sound, well-coached players - (utilizing a simplified game plan) - will beat an extremely talented, poorly-coached squad - (utilizing a complex scheme) - almost every time the two face each other. Remember K.I.S.S. - Keep it simple, stupid. This leads us to... 2) Discipline - Discipline is not simply the stereotypical Lombardi or Bryant having at his players like some deranged drill sergeant. It\'s got more to do with the players listening to, learning, believing in, and finally executing what they\'re taught. A squad of fundamentally sound, hard-working players who\'ll do as they\'re taught should be a head coach\'s dream. This leads us to... 3) Execution - The real meat and potatoes. Our team of fundamentally sound, hard working players properly executing the simplified game plan they\'re coaching staff has laid out for them. Focus on the run and short-passing game. Work the clock. Limit turnovers and penalties. Keep our defense, and thereby their offense, off the field as long as possible. I realize this is easily argued, I\'m simply responding to what I consider \"old school\" football. Most every great NFL coach, and the teams he led, stuck to a simple plan, well-learned and well-executed by the players at hand. I don\'t think it\'s beyond us... Anybody else? [Edited on 22/12/2004 by mutineer10] |
No quit in the Saints
Heya Mutey.
Quote:
I like your work on the idea of \"old school\" football so far. I can\'t say that I have a lot to add. I do think that as you describe \"discipline\" it should be broken down into three groups (some of which may be old school, and some not): (1) desire to learn and play the game on the part of the players, (2) professional attitude with respect to how the game is played, and (3) ability to maintain mental focus in adverse situations. On a related note, I do agree that focus on a strong running game is key to an \"old school\" style. However, I am not a fan of old school style if it means giving up on innovation. I think the following innovations are of import and are reason to think that some teams ought to abandon a desire for an \"old school\" style: (1) Zone Blitzing. It\'s genius. (2) Three WR sets. Good for teams that have elusive rather than power backs. (3) Zone Blocking Schemes. Allowing runners to get more movement prior to crossing the line and chose gaps - genius. (4) No more \"Option\" plays. Protects the QB and doesn\'t look stupid. I\'m sure there are more. However, I think the KISS idea is great for people who are learning to play the game or teams with a large turnover trying to learn to play together, but the chess match can be won by those who think outside the box. So, as far as game planning goes, I\'m not necessarily a fan of the \"old school\" ideals. In terms of practice, I think we may need more \"old school\" - but I\'m not convinced that the old ways are always the best ways (and I\'m sure you\'ll agree). |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:07 AM. |
Copyright 1997 - 2020 - BlackandGold.com