Is this all about the show now or is this really a more effective way of tackling?
All about show.
It’s all about blowing people up, making sports center, causing fumbles. It’s not about stopping and tackling anymore.
Causing fumbles is ‘all about show’? I guess it’s a good show when you pick up the ball and run it in for a TD.
You put a hard shoulder square in a guy’s gut and I guarantee you he’ll drop the ball just as often. He might get the wind knocked out of him, but at least he won’t be concussed and suffer dementia when he retires.
I was amazed by the tackle and Welker’s reaction actually. He went down and I thought, oh boy, he isn’t getting up after that. But he got up and his
look was that of ‘come on, that was a lame tackle dude’ and he just went on to do his stuff.
The best part of that play is that the returner actually touched down (you know, “touchdown”?) the football when he got in the end zone. I think that they should reinstate that requirement: no touch down, no touchdown. None of this “breaking the plane” nonsense.
I just have this sneaking suspicion that NFL coaches know more about football than I do. I also strongly suspect that winning games is about who can score the most points. Also, I suspect that scoring points correlates very strongly with possession of the football. If coaches think that stripping the ball is a good way to get possession, they might think that because of statistics showing that this is the case.
I watch a fair amount of football. I see a lot more fumbles coming from ‘strips’ than good hard tackles. Most decent receivers and running backs know how to take a hit and hold onto the ball.
Today’s tackling in football is much different than what I learned. Back in the day I seem to remember being told to plant helmet in belt buckle, wrap up and drive into the ground or if all else fails, shoot for the legs.
A lot of this changed after the notorious tackles that caused paralysis. I can’t remember the name of that pro player years ago who executed a perfect tackle, put the helmet between the numbers, and immediately dropped like a rock, paralyzed from the neck down. Things started to change after that, when players realized that they could lose it all, including the ability to walk, by doing those kinds of tackles.
I agree that there’s probably a focus on turnovers via stripping, that is pushing a lot of this, but the danger of head down tackles has finally been recognized. It only took 50 years.
I’ve noticed that occurring in either rugby or aussie rules football. What’s the deal with that, anyway? How does that fit into the framework of the game? They seem to run across the line, then toward the middle of the end zone before touching down, IIRC.
I’ve noticed that occurring in either rugby or aussie rules football. What’s the deal with that, anyway? How does that fit into the framework of the game? They seem to run across the line, then toward the middle of the end zone before touching down, IIRC.
They run to the middle because the extra point kick is taken from a spot directly upfield from where the ball was touched down, so the closer to the middle the easier the extra point kick.
I’m just guessing that it was once a rule, due to the name of the score. From Wiki: “In 1889, the provision requiring the ball to actually be touched to the ground was removed. A touchdown was now scored by possessing the ball beyond the goal line.”
Call me sensitive, but I don’t like seeing tackles where guys don’t get up (multiple), have their faces broken (Boldin), or correlate to diminished brain function and ability to operate properly after a football career. By god, if highlight reel tackles and crackback blocks get you more fumbles and points in what is ultimately just a game, it must be done.
A lot of this changed after the notorious tackles that caused paralysis.
I think this has alot to do with it. When I played in HS were were “Taught” to just hit as hard as we could, shoulder to should, head to head, didn’t really matter.
We had one practice we did on occasion where the entire team lined up in two rows making an aisle. You basically ran full out from both ends and ran into each other…again, head to head or whatever…I still have back issues today from this idiocy which I was “Taught” in HS.
The perfect example in modern tackling technique was when the so far impressive Ryan Kerrigan of the hapless Redskins twice stripped the ball from Miami’s QB yesterday. He was rushing from right side of the offensive line (his left) and tackled by wrapping his left arm behind the QB while simultaneously swiping at the ball with his right. First time he did it the colorman (who sucked, and seemed to be in love with Miami) exalted how he did it with perfect form.
pro sports have examples of good math and analysis
and examples of people ignoring good math and analysis
so, no way to know for sure until someone writes moneyball for football =)
I just have this sneaking suspicion that NFL coaches know more about football than I do. I also strongly suspect that winning games is about who can score the most points. Also, I suspect that scoring points correlates very strongly with possession of the football. If coaches think that stripping the ball is a good way to get possession, they might think that because of statistics showing that this is the case.
I watch a fair amount of football. I see a lot more fumbles coming from ‘strips’ than good hard tackles. Most decent receivers and running backs know how to take a hit and hold onto the ball.
There must be some statistical analysis going on with tackling. If 1/50 potential tackles yields a fumble, that one fumble must be more profitable than the 49 other ones where the attempted strip leads to a missed tackle and more yards.
There must be some statistical analysis going on with tackling. If 1/50 potential tackles yields a fumble, that one fumble must be more profitable than the 49 other ones where the attempted strip leads to a missed tackle and more yards.
It’s clearly situational as well. There are a lot of situations where tacklers don’t attempt to strip and instead are clearly concentrating on just limiting yards. But in the situations where a strip is possible and warranted, it’s clearly worth it to go for it because it can lead to points on the board.
Call me sensitive, but I don’t like seeing tackles where guys don’t get up (multiple), have their faces broken (Boldin), or correlate to diminished brain function and ability to operate properly after a football career. By god, if highlight reel tackles and crackback blocks get you more fumbles and points in what is ultimately just a game, it must be done.
I’m talking about attempting a strip vs. attempting to ‘wrap up’ the offensive player and just limit their yards. Obviously dangerous tackles like helmet-to-helmet and crackback blocks need to be taken out of the game. Just look at the 2011 Patriots.