xan

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.

BlackandBlue

Exactly right. Aesthetic, but done to prove a point and ask a question, which was never answered. Only my own shortcomings were pointed out, not once, but twice (thanks WhoDat for the redundant post, as always, you’re on top of things ) I think posting on a football related board, using shrewd wording, is a bit much. I too post in a hurry sometimes, so my pose is not always accurate. But it is more accurate than 99% of the other drool you’ll find here.
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

The waiting drove me mad....
I don't want to hear from those that know...
Everything has changed, absolutely nothing's changed

Eddie is a....draftnik?

RDOX

You know, on a very serious note, I absolutely love posting on this board because of the fact the this seems to be the 1% that doesn\'t drool, and more importantly, doesn\'t make a personal attack when you make a post in disagreement. I suspect that this is an older, and more educated group than say, the old New Orleans Saints board, or SR.com.

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.

JKool

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. 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?

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

mutineer10

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]

JKool

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?

JKool

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\"?

JKool

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]

mutineer10

I \"mentioned\" the Steelers and Saints in the same post, I didn\'t \"compare\" the two.

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]

JKool

Heya Mutey.

Sounds like a comparison, no? :hallucine:

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).

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks