NFL Diminishing Fundamentals?

[newtogolf]

When I say "launch", I mean like Ryan Clark going completely airborne. Surely to God they aren't teaching that "technique". My coaches in high school called it "firing" into, or through the ball carrier, but they never wanted us airborne because you lose all leverage.

We were taught to launch, as in dive and wrap burying your helmet into the guys chest or ball to cause a fumble. We ran drills with tacking dummies where we ran up to it, and dove through the air into the dummy.

[sc13ntific]

When I say "launch", I mean like Ryan Clark going completely airborne. Surely to God they aren't teaching that "technique". My coaches in high school called it "firing" into, or through the ball carrier, but they never wanted us airborne because you lose all leverage.

Yeah no one ever teaches a player to go airborne for a tackle. I was always taught to aim at the bellybutton and hit through the ballcarrier. You aim at the bellybutton but you are trying to hit the backbone if that makes sense. Going airborne for an offensive or defensive player only works in very specific situations and honestly its the most predictable thing a player cann do. Once you are airborne you can only move in that one direction.

[newtogolf]

Yeah no one ever teaches a player to go airborne for a tackle. I was always taught to aim at the bellybutton and hit through the ballcarrier. You aim at the bellybutton but you are trying to hit the backbone if that makes sense. Going airborne for an offensive or defensive player only works in very specific situations and honestly its the most predictable thing a player cann do. Once you are airborne you can only move in that one direction.

You're right, but it's a taught tackling method, just as they teach tackling a guy around the ankles, and the common method you described. The "launch" is taught to tackle a receiver going up for a catch or crossing over the middle where they are basically a sitting duck.

[sc13ntific]

You're right, but it's a taught tackling method, just as they teach tackling a guy around the ankles, and the common method you described. The "launch" is taught to tackle a receiver going up for a catch or crossing over the middle where they are basically a sitting duck.

That, in my opinion, is an error in coaching. You shouldn't teach a defensive player to try to tackle a player going for a catch. You should teach the defensive player to attack the ball, try to get an interception or a tip. Not every coach is a good coach, esp in the peewee and HS ranks. I was lucky enough to have great coaches all through that time.

[jamo]

That, in my opinion, is an error in coaching. You shouldn't teach a defensive player to try to tackle a player going for a catch. You should teach the defensive player to attack the ball, try to get an interception or a tip. Not every coach is a good coach, esp in the peewee and HS ranks. I was lucky enough to have great coaches all through that time.

This I agree with.

You can't compare Rugby to Football. Both are different types of games played at different levels of exertion. Rugby is closer to soccer in that the plays develop organically and the action is close to constant. There are also very few open field runs as most of the time the action is rather centered around the ball, when the ball carrier is tackled it is usually in a closed space. Football is all set plays and moving players through open spaces, esp on offense. The tackles can occur in a closed space or out in the open. Therefore the hits are more violent.

These two I disagree with. Rugby has just as many open field play as football. Pretty much anytime the backs get the ball after a scrum in rugby they are in the open field. IMO the biggest reason football hits are more violent is because they have the added cushion (no pun intended) of the helmet and pads. As a defender if you launch in rugby you will be seriously hurt, while in football the worst that the defender can get is a concussion.

As for Harrison, the only part of him that hit Cribbs was his head, that has to be throwing himself at Cribbs.

[newtogolf]

That, in my opinion, is an error in coaching. You shouldn't teach a defensive player to try to tackle a player going for a catch. You should teach the defensive player to attack the ball, try to get an interception or a tip. Not every coach is a good coach, esp in the peewee and HS ranks. I was lucky enough to have great coaches all through that time.

I thought I had good coaches as well. I see alot of guys in college or pros go for the ball but miss and watch the receiver make the catch and score. If I'm not sure I can get to the ball I'd rather crush the receiver and make sure he doesn't catch it, and if by chance he does he paid a price for doing so. I don't consider that an error.

[iacas]

Just like the Ryan Clark hit on Wes Welker last year

That one was penalized (correctly). Harrison's weren't.

Yeah, but the rule is actually on the books. NFL hasn't made it a priority for the refs to enforce the rule. And if Harrison can't play without leading with his helmet than he's far less skilled than I took him for.

Harrison doesn't lead with his helmet. He hits with his shoulders, as you're taught, and occasionally tries to use his arms as with the one hit: you can see his arms extend out in the one hit, clearly.

In the Merriweather hit you can clearly see him cock his head back and deliver a blow with his helmet. The Clark on Welker hit was in the same vein. Both were dirty. The Harrison hits were not like either of those though.

The Harrison hits weren't like those, right.

No I didn't play football, like I said earlier I played rugby. Rugby is a sport based mostly around arm tackles.

Because you don't fire your shoulder into the body and through the person. It's a different kind of tackle because it's a different kind of game.

[jamo]

Because you don't fire your shoulder into the body and through the person.

Yes you do. You hit with your shoulder and wrap up or tackle with your arms. But because you aren't wearing pads you can't just hit with the shoulder, you need to wrap up. Either that or I misunderstand what "fire through the body" means.

[iacas]

Yes you do. You hit with your shoulder and wrap up or tackle with your arms. But because you aren't wearing pads you can't just hit with the shoulder, you need to wrap up. Either that or I misunderstand what "fire through the body" means.

Uh, yes, you seem to have.

They're different actions for different sports and purposes.

[jamo]

Uh, yes, you seem to have.

Then what are those different purposes? In both cases you are trying to bring the ball carrier to the ground and/or dislodge the ball.

Either way, the difference between rugby and football is not my point. My point is that hits such as Merriweather's, Clark's, and Harrison's are not good for the game. Harrison might not have been flagged but the fine that the NFL handed out seems to say that they didn't like what he did.

[alomar123]

Harrison is a great linebacker. This is football, and big hits make the league. If you listen to the older players they say that the qbs tried really hard not to throw the ball on the inside where the defense can get a lickin on them. Now the qb throws in the middle of the field all day. The NFL wants more offense and less defense, this year seems to be all about head to heads, while last year was all about qb hits. They always seems to divert their attention to whats hot that year.

[iacas]

Either way, the difference between rugby and football is not my point. My point is that hits such as Merriweather's, Clark's, and Harrison's are not good for the game.

Merriweather's, Clark's, and Harrison's hits aren't in the same category, despite your insistence. Keep saying it though and maybe it'll come true???

[BostonSully]

I wasnt calling Rugby a sissy sport Jamo, got alot of respect for it. But thats completely different, an arm tackle on a person wearing no pads is way different than trying to arm tackle a 6'2 245lb fully armored freight train.

[mcgriff]

My main point was Harrison made a really stupid football move on Massaquoi. The hit he laid down was done with zero awareness for the clock, field position, and situational awareness. What this tells me is Harrison is a bad football player (not) or he was trying to hurt the guy. Make the play first is what I say. If you happen to put the guy down for a bit, bonus.

His stuff is borderline legal and within the rules. Still doesn't make it a clean way to play. The Cribb's hit was laid down from Cribb's blindside. Harrison clearly lowers his helmet not to tackle....Cribbs was wrapped up, but to put a hurt on Josh. I have no problem with that actually. But, get rid of the head hits. What's the big deal? Why are so many people crying about losing head shots? We simply don't teach our kids to tackle like that. Once you drop the head, you are out of the play.

I see pile ons as a bigger problem actually. You know, the play is dead and guys are still spearing and kneeing their way into the tackle. Lame.

[iacas]

My main point was Harrison made a really stupid football move on Massaquoi. The hit he laid down was done with zero awareness for the clock, field position, and situational awareness.

Disagree. It wasn't at the end of the game and the Browns aren't a great team. I could make the point that banging some bodies at that point in the game would have more of an effect on the outcome than letting the guy catch the ball (he wasn't - he was going to drop it regardless) to kill a teeny bit more clock.

Besides, James Harrison leads the NFL (IIRC - or he's close) in forced fumbles. There's a lot of upside and the only downside is "the clock would have stopped"? Weak sauce. The play was fine.

The Cribb's hit was laid down from Cribb's blindside.

If you say so. He's a runner. You get to tackle him from any angle.

I don't think many people appreciate the speed at which this stuff happens. I play recreational hockey and we see big hits that aren't on purpose simply because you're going hard for the puck, think you can beat the guy, and the other guy feels the same exact way.

[mcgriff]

Browns were moving the chains toward the end of the half with score 7-3. 2 minute warning was the play previous. If Massaquoi catches that pass they gain, what, 2 yards? Clock continues to run and Browns have to do a timeout or hurry up with a guy in his first game at QB. The Browns suck so I am not sure why you wouldn't let them have the 2 yards and let the clock run. Basically, do you want your opponent to have 2nd and 10 with the clock stopped or 2nd and 8 with the clock running with under 2 minutes in the half? Unless you need the ball back on offense, the defense wants the clock running if your opponent is driving on you with under 2 minutes to go.

[Fourputt]

The NFL wants more offense and less defense, this year seems to be all about head to heads, while last year was all about qb hits. They always seems to divert their attention to whats hot that year.

This is the key point here as far as the NFL is concerned. They want offense. Almost every rule change over the last 20 years has been to give the offense a little more help and make it harder for the defense to do its job. Watch closely and about 25% of the big pass receptions are made possible by a deceptive push-off from the receiver at some point in his route. If the defender does the same thing, it's the biggest gift in football, a spot foul for interference. If the receiver actually gets called for it, it's at most a 10 yard penalty, a cheap price for preventing a turnover. I've seen too many games turn on a single questionable defensive interference call. It's one thing if it's blatant, but there are too many times when I simply don't see the difference between the handfighting that goes on all the way down the field, then suddenly the flag is thrown against the defender for no apparent change in the action.

The NFL wants the offense to succeed. They don't like those 9 to 3 games because it hurts their bottom line. Just keep weakening the defense and the numbers will look better on the scoreboard, even though the quality play hasn't actually improved - the NFL can raise the cost of ads during the games to improve their bankroll, and that's after all what it's all about.

[newtogolf]

Browns were moving the chains toward the end of the half with score 7-3. 2 minute warning was the play previous. If Massaquoi catches that pass they gain, what, 2 yards? Clock continues to run and Browns have to do a timeout or hurry up with a guy in his first game at QB. The Browns suck so I am not sure why you wouldn't let them have the 2 yards and let the clock run. Basically, do you want your opponent to have 2nd and 10 with the clock stopped or 2nd and 8 with the clock running with under 2 minutes in the half? Unless you need the ball back on offense, the defense wants the clock running if your opponent is driving on you with under 2 minutes to go.

If you ever played defense you'd know that your job is to put the hit on guys any chance you get. I've never heard a coach tell a defensive player to let the guy catch a ball. You either go for the ball or go to crush the guy, that's football. In your example, what happens to Harrison if he lets Massaquoi catch it, misses the tackle and they score? It's a rough sport people seem to forget that.