Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18
  1. #1
    Prophet's Avatar
    Prophet is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    17,388

    Banning the A-11 offense is a bad idea

    [size=12pt]Banning the A-11 offense is a bad idea[/size]
    By Michael Weinreb
    Special to Page 2
    Updated: March 2, 2009, 2:27 PM ET
    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,130

    Re: Banning the A-11 offense is a bad idea

    Can you imagine trying to come up with a defense for that?
    Wait, if there's cat food in this bag............................
    I HAVE TO CHECK ON JOLLY!!!!

  3. #3
    C Mac D's Avatar
    C Mac D is offline Posting to P'own
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    13,530

    Re: Banning the A-11 offense is a bad idea

    banning it is a way to raise the white flag... "We don't want to think of anymore creative defenses... let's just outlaw it. We're American, that's the easiest way out..."
    Disclaimer: I'm an idiot.

  4. #4
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,935

    Re: Banning the A-11 offense is a bad idea

    What would this world come to if we allowed original thoughts to flourish......

    The mindless masses would awaken and squash the .........Well I better stop there.
    Don't want another green dot now do I......
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  5. #5
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,604
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Banning the A-11 offense is a bad idea

    They didn't necessarily "ban" the offense.
    They just closed the loophole in the rules that the offense was exploiting.

    Basically this offense did away with a traditional offensive line.
    Any of the 11 players were eligible to catch a pass before the snap because they lined up in a "kick formation" every time and every kid's jersey number was within a certain number range.


    It is creative to be sure, and it was rather successful too, but this isn't an example of coming up with new formations that force defenses to adjust.
    It is an example of breaking the eligible reciever rules without actually breaking them.

    There are reasons that we set rules for the number of eligible recievers, and the number of people on the line, etc.
    They are there for both safety and parity sake.
    Circumventing the rules by finding loopholes seems pretty Belichick-like to me.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  6. #6
    V4L's Avatar
    V4L
    V4L is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    20,612

    Re: Banning the A-11 offense is a bad idea

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxZpyMn8lgA

    Doesnt look that hard to stop

    I love the Riverside ones haha.. The QB gets rushed by like 2 kids and stands there all day haha

  7. #7
    Mr Anderson's Avatar
    Mr Anderson is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,692

    Re: Banning the A-11 offense is a bad idea

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    They didn't necessarily "ban" the offense.
    They just closed the loophole in the rules that the offense was exploiting.

    Basically this offense did away with a traditional offensive line.
    Any of the 11 players were eligible to catch a pass before the snap because they lined up in a "kick formation" every time and every kid's jersey number was within a certain number range.


    It is creative to be sure, and it was rather successful too, but this isn't an example of coming up with new formations that force defenses to adjust.
    It is an example of breaking the eligible reciever rules without actually breaking them.

    There are reasons that we set rules for the number of eligible recievers, and the number of people on the line, etc.
    They are there for both safety and parity sake.
    Circumventing the rules by finding loopholes seems pretty Belichick-like to me.
    They're not breaking them?

    [img width=450 height=300]http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2008/0811/pg2_diagram1_600.jpg[/img]
    To my knowledge, "R" and "E" are ineligible receivers.

  8. #8
    Randy Moss's Avatar
    Randy Moss is offline Pro-Bowler
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    453

    Re: Banning the A-11 offense is a bad idea

    good to see that they finally fixed the loophole

  9. #9
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,935

    Re: Banning the A-11 offense is a bad idea

    "Mr" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    They didn't necessarily "ban" the offense.
    They just closed the loophole in the rules that the offense was exploiting.

    Basically this offense did away with a traditional offensive line.
    Any of the 11 players were eligible to catch a pass before the snap because they lined up in a "kick formation" every time and every kid's jersey number was within a certain number range.


    It is creative to be sure, and it was rather successful too, but this isn't an example of coming up with new formations that force defenses to adjust.
    It is an example of breaking the eligible reciever rules without actually breaking them.

    There are reasons that we set rules for the number of eligible recievers, and the number of people on the line, etc.
    They are there for both safety and parity sake.
    Circumventing the rules by finding loopholes seems pretty Belichick-like to me.
    They're not breaking them?

    [img width=450 height=300]http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2008/0811/pg2_diagram1_600.jpg[/img]
    To my knowledge, "R" and "E" are ineligible receivers.
    Can't resist anymore........... ;D

    Which one is the #1, #2, and #3?
    ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  10. #10
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,604
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Banning the A-11 offense is a bad idea

    "Mr" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    They didn't necessarily "ban" the offense.
    They just closed the loophole in the rules that the offense was exploiting.

    Basically this offense did away with a traditional offensive line.
    Any of the 11 players were eligible to catch a pass before the snap because they lined up in a "kick formation" every time and every kid's jersey number was within a certain number range.


    It is creative to be sure, and it was rather successful too, but this isn't an example of coming up with new formations that force defenses to adjust.
    It is an example of breaking the eligible reciever rules without actually breaking them.

    There are reasons that we set rules for the number of eligible recievers, and the number of people on the line, etc.
    They are there for both safety and parity sake.
    Circumventing the rules by finding loopholes seems pretty Belichick-like to me.
    They're not breaking them?

    [img width=450 height=300]http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2008/0811/pg2_diagram1_600.jpg[/img]
    To my knowledge, "R" and "E" are ineligible receivers.
    In a normal formation, yes.
    However, there was a loophole that allows all 11 players to be potentially eligible on what is known as a scrimmage-kick formation, if everyone is wearing numbers between 1-49 and 80-99.
    It is a stupid loophole, more or less inserted to make fake punts/onside kicks legle.

    The loophole has since been removed.

    I am on the same page as you, I think that they were exploiting a rule to create an unfair advantage.
    I am glad it was changed.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Good idea - Bad idea?
    By Bkfldviking in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-20-2009, 10:11 PM
  2. Good idea or Very Bad Idea?
    By Bkfldviking in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-08-2009, 09:32 AM
  3. Atlanta considers banning baggy pants
    By BadlandsVikings in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 08-29-2007, 09:11 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •