Quantcast
Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I appreciate it when guys are big enough to apologize for making a mistake.   Here's a paragraph taken from an ESPN article:

Ohio State coach Ryan Day apologized to Nebraska for the Buckeyes offense not taking a knee in the final seconds of Saturday's 52-17 win at Ohio Stadium.  Leading 45-17 in the final minute, the Buckeyes reached the Nebraska 2-yard line. Rather than take a knee, freshman quarterback Jack Miller ran into the end zone.  "I feel bad about that," Day said. "I had a younger quarterback in the game, and I didn't feel like we had the personnel to take the knee, and I probably should have done that. So I just want to publicly apologize to them, to [Nebraska coach] Scott [Frost]."

So, I don't want to take anything away from Ryan Day's apology.  And this isn't about whether Ohio State should or should not have tried to tack on another score at the end of a blow-out win.   The Ohio State coach already has answered that.   But I do have one question for the coaches out there:  What kind of personnel do you need to have in the game in order for the QB to take a step back and take a knee (or accept the snap in the shotgun formation and take a knee)?   Yeah, in a perfect world, you might want to have two RB's in the game, one on each side of the QB, to provide additional protection for the QB if some D-lineman, who's all pissed off because he's getting ready to lose the game, comes charging through.  But do you really need a particular 'personnel' in order to take a knee? 

 
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Perspective said:

I appreciate it when guys are big enough to apologize for making a mistake.   Here's a paragraph taken from an ESPN article:

Ohio State coach Ryan Day apologized to Nebraska for the Buckeyes offense not taking a knee in the final seconds of Saturday's 52-17 win at Ohio Stadium.  Leading 45-17 in the final minute, the Buckeyes reached the Nebraska 2-yard line. Rather than take a knee, freshman quarterback Jack Miller ran into the end zone.  "I feel bad about that," Day said. "I had a younger quarterback in the game, and I didn't feel like we had the personnel to take the knee, and I probably should have done that. So I just want to publicly apologize to them, to [Nebraska coach] Scott [Frost]."

So, I don't want to take anything away from Ryan Day's apology.  And this isn't about whether Ohio State should or should not have tried to tack on another score at the end of a blow-out win.   The Ohio State coach already has answered that.   But I do have one question for the coaches out there:  What kind of personnel do you need to have in the game in order for the QB to take a step back and take a knee (or accept the snap in the shotgun formation and take a knee)?   Yeah, in a perfect world, you might want to have two RB's in the game, one on each side of the QB, to provide additional protection for the QB if some D-lineman, who's all pissed off because he's getting ready to lose the game, comes charging through.  But do you really need a particular 'personnel' in order to take a knee? 

 

C'mon Perspective.  Ohio St had their second string line in.  Those guys must have weighed about 185 pounds on average. :rolleyes: Their qb would have been defenseless out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m curious to know how many times Nebraska threw the ball in the fourth quarter after the game was out of reach

 If the team winning by a large margin has to run the ball to not be accused of running up the score then shouldnt that apply to the losing team as well? 

 Because what kind of backwards shit would you be playing if you said one team is allowed to conduct their offense however they see fit but the other team has to run it the way we choose to not be accused of bad sportsmanship? 

I miss seeing 110-0 scores like in the past. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, notwithstanding my initial attempt to focus this question on the issue of whether you need to have a certain personnel in a game in order to run the "take a knee" play, nolebull and hornet are addressing the unasked question of whether a team should ever call off the dogs and stop trying to score.  While I think I've heard all the arguments on both side of this issue, I'll go ahead and ask the question:   is there ever such thing as "running up the score?" 

Does it matter who's in the game for the team that's way ahead?   Does it matter what plays the team ahead is running?  If so, why?  If 2nd and 3rd string WR's are finally getting into the game, is it bad form for the offense to continue throwing the ball to these kids?   If you contend that the offense can continue to pour it on, no matter what the score and no matter how much time is left in the game, would it be OK for the offense to call unused timeouts to stop the clock and allow them to run one or two more plays in an effort to win the game by 49 points instead of 42?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think you can be accused of running up the score if you have backups and 3rd stringers in. No matter if they are passing it or running a no huddle. 

Now they could be questioned about clock management if they are passing it late in the fourth up big, but if they want to get the backups real game reps, I’m not against it. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like when a coach lets the backups in a basketball game at the end of a game and the kids try to score, no matter how far up their team is, the announcers and fans don't make a deal about them running the score.  Yet in football, there seems to be this ethical issue.   And us football folks are supposed to be tough.:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

First question - I don't think there is a specific personnel grouping needed to take a knee. Granted, in high school we tell the refs and they make sure there is nothing crazy happening. At the end of the day, you're down in college as soon as your knee touches the ground. I think he was just trying to cover himself from being accused of running it up. Which leads to the second question - can you run it up? I think that depends. If you're kicking onside and throwing go balls against a team that is down 45-17, that's kind of a jerk move (again, I'm speaking as a HS football coach) but it's also not even a running clock yet in FL. But, if the backups come in and your running like a bubble screen or hitches or calling an inside run and you score another TD, that's not running it up. Those kids work hard every day too. They deserve to have fun. It's no fun for the 2nd or 3rd RB to run into an 8 man rush or the WRs to go out and block on the perimeter. Let the kids play. If it ends up 52-17 or 59-17, it is what it is. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Coach said:

First question - I don't think there is a specific personnel grouping needed to take a knee. Granted, in high school we tell the refs and they make sure there is nothing crazy happening. At the end of the day, you're down in college as soon as your knee touches the ground. I think he was just trying to cover himself from being accused of running it up. Which leads to the second question - can you run it up? I think that depends. If you're kicking onside and throwing go balls against a team that is down 45-17, that's kind of a jerk move (again, I'm speaking as a HS football coach) but it's also not even a running clock yet in FL. But, if the backups come in and your running like a bubble screen or hitches or calling an inside run and you score another TD, that's not running it up. Those kids work hard every day too. They deserve to have fun. It's no fun for the 2nd or 3rd RB to run into an 8 man rush or the WRs to go out and block on the perimeter. Let the kids play. If it ends up 52-17 or 59-17, it is what it is. 

The running clock is bad enough. If you shut down the 2nd and 3rd stringers, when will they ever get a chance to run normal plays? In the past few weeks, in games with the running clock, I have seen officials allow trailing teams to stand around for what seems like minutes before snapping the ball. On one occasion, the refs called a water break and the clock continued to run. The trailing team had the ball the entire 4th quarter and ran the ball a total of eight times gaining just over 20 yards. It was ridiculous and total mismanagement by the officials. Why not just end the game after three quarters, give the losers a participation award, and send them home? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HornetFan said:

The trailing team had the ball the entire 4th quarter and ran the ball a total of eight times gaining just over 20 yards. It was ridiculous and total mismanagement by the officials. Why not just end the game after three quarters, give the losers a participation award, and send them home? 

Because then they wouldn't be able to go on social media the following week and brag about how they shut out the team that won in the 4th quarter.   :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Perspective said:

Because then they wouldn't be able to go on social media the following week and brag about how they shut out the team that won in the 4th quarter.   :P

The game was 28-0 at the end of the 1st quarter. From that point on, it was stall on every snap and try to run out the clock, and the officials didn't enforce the play clock.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, HornetFan said:

The game was 28-0 at the end of the 1st quarter. From that point on, it was stall on every snap and try to run out the clock, and the officials didn't enforce the play clock.

I understand, Hornet.   I was just kidding around and responding to your question of why they just don't end the game when it gets to 'that' point, instead of letting the team that's losing just go into the football equivalent of the four corners offense.   I've literally heard fans of teams on the wrong side of a running-clock beat-down walk out of the stadium saying stuff like "moral victory; we held them to 7 points in the second half" when the team ahead maybe got the ball twice in that second half and when they did, they were playing 2nd and 3rd team kids.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Perspective said:

I understand, Hornet.   I was just kidding around and responding to your question of why they just don't end the game when it gets to 'that' point, instead of letting the team that's losing just go into the football equivalent of the four corners offense.   I've literally heard fans of teams on the wrong side of a running-clock beat-down walk out of the stadium saying stuff like "moral victory; we held them to 7 points in the second half" when the team ahead maybe got the ball twice in that second half and when they did, they were playing 2nd and 3rd team kids.  

Exactly, thank you. I don't like to see a team beat down on another team when the game is a total mismatch. Coaches on both sides should use lopsided games as an opportunity to give playing time to younger players to let them gain experience in actual game conditions. When political correctness is used as a tool to artificially make mommies and daddies of the losing team feel better about the athletic inabilities of little Johnny, the game of football suffers. The running clock is a prime example of political correctness. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, HornetFan said:

The running clock is bad enough. If you shut down the 2nd and 3rd stringers, when will they ever get a chance to run normal plays? In the past few weeks, in games with the running clock, I have seen officials allow trailing teams to stand around for what seems like minutes before snapping the ball. On one occasion, the refs called a water break and the clock continued to run. The trailing team had the ball the entire 4th quarter and ran the ball a total of eight times gaining just over 20 yards. It was ridiculous and total mismanagement by the officials. Why not just end the game after three quarters, give the losers a participation award, and send them home? 

 

1 hour ago, HornetFan said:

Exactly, thank you. I don't like to see a team beat down on another team when the game is a total mismatch. Coaches on both sides should use lopsided games as an opportunity to give playing time to younger players to let them gain experience in actual game conditions. When political correctness is used as a tool to artificially make mommies and daddies of the losing team feel better about the athletic inabilities of little Johnny, the game of football suffers. The running clock is a prime example of political correctness. 

The running clock is for the safety of the players. Most of the time, the Head Coach of the team who is trailing is the person most encouraging of the running clock. That Coach wants to get his players out in one piece in the fastest possible time. Scheduling could and should possibly be looked at to create better and more even matchups, and districts by factors other then Geography and population of the school. That might cut down on the amount of running clocks yearly in High School Football in the state of Florida. The purpose of High School Football is for the enjoyment and participation of the players, most of whom will not go on to play the sports anymore after they graduate from High School. Not to create entertaining matchups and pique the interest of posters to a High School Football message board.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s why I hate with a passion when teams intentionally schedule mismatch games. It’s bad for the starters because they don’t play after halftime. It’s bad for the fans because they most likely leave at halftime of a useless blowout, thus getting screwed out of half the game. And it’s bad for the losers because the coach set his team up for an impossible task, only to be humiliated by a superior opponent. It’s embarrassing and irresponsible to send a team out for slaughter. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about a bunch of 1A schools being beat on by Madison County. The mismatches have been 8A teams playing in Central Florida (Orange and Seminole Counties). These schools have student populations of 4000+. If a coaching staff can't pull together a reasonably competitive team from that size student population, they are probably coaching the wrong sport. Good teams will get blown out occasionally, whether it be because of a off day, maybe too many turnovers, or just a better opponent that day. I'm sorry, but I'm old school. The running clock to my generation is like throwing in the towel. When the game gets that far out of hand, the opposing coaches should agree to put in the subs and let them finish the game. That way, the losing team can still leave at the end of the game with some pride.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I will say about some of those 8A schools in the Orlando area is that they've either never had success or they have a student population that doesn't value football. Schools that tend to be large with a heavy population of Hispanic students tend to care more about soccer, baseball and basketball than football. It's mainly because their families didn't grow up watching football so it isn't as big of a deal. A great example is Poinciana. They are historically one of the worst football schools around but they won a State Championship in basketball a few years ago. So the athletes are on the campuses for sure. But if the programs have no history of success then the athletes see no reason to play.

Another factor is the laid-back transfer rules. Now, kids can essentially consolidate talent on teams. So that also adds to some of these massive blowouts - especially when districts consist of teams like Cypress Creek being made to play teams like Osceola and Lake Nona. Of course they'll get blown out. It's going to be like that for the foreseeable future though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, HornetFan said:

The running clock to my generation is like throwing in the towel. When the game gets that far out of hand, the opposing coaches should agree to put in the subs and let them finish the game. That way, the losing team can still leave at the end of the game with some pride.

I suspect the reason why there is a 'running clock' rule now is because too many times, the opposing coaches didn't see eye to eye on how many points were enough (or how many points were too many) - especially in rivalry games, or when the subs should start playing, or when timeouts should be called, or what plays are appropriate to run, etc.   To a certain extent, the running clock rule was implemented to save a coach from his own pride.  Remember a few years back?  In the third quarter, running clock was "optional" for the team that was getting beat.  It wasn't until the 4th quarter that it was mandatory.   But, too many 'old school' coaches felt like agreeing to running clock in the 3rd quarter was a sign of weakness or, as you put it, throwing in the towel.  So they refused to do it.   And the 35 point differential at the beginning of the 3rd quarter turned into a 50+ differential by the time the 3rd quarter ended.  Hurt egos are one thing.  Hurt players are another story.   I'm pretty sure that's why running clock now becomes mandatory at whatever point in the second half the difference becomes 35 or more.   At that point, it's just a matter of getting the game over with a little sooner to protect the players.  Oh, and it's worth noting that not all schools are as deep as others.  Some schools are lucky to have a full squad of second-stringers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Perspective said:

I suspect the reason why there is a 'running clock' rule now is because too many times, the opposing coaches didn't see eye to eye on how many points were enough (or how many points were too many) - especially in rivalry games, or when the subs should start playing, or when timeouts should be called, or what plays are appropriate to run, etc.   To a certain extent, the running clock rule was implemented to save a coach from his own pride.  Remember a few years back?  In the third quarter, running clock was "optional" for the team that was getting beat.  It wasn't until the 4th quarter that it was mandatory.   But, too many 'old school' coaches felt like agreeing to running clock in the 3rd quarter was a sign of weakness or, as you put it, throwing in the towel.  So they refused to do it.   And the 35 point differential at the beginning of the 3rd quarter turned into a 50+ differential by the time the 3rd quarter ended.  Hurt egos are one thing.  Hurt players are another story.   I'm pretty sure that's why running clock now becomes mandatory at whatever point in the second half the difference becomes 35 or more.   At that point, it's just a matter of getting the game over with a little sooner to protect the players.  Oh, and it's worth noting that not all schools are as deep as others.  Some schools are lucky to have a full squad of second-stringers. 

The running clock does not assure that a team will back off and avoid injuring players on the opposing team. Having officials fail to enforce the play clock during the running clock can add to the frustrations of players that are hoping to get some actual playing time late in the game, especially when it's apparent that the trailing team is making no effort to run plays in the prescribed time. I think the people who thought of the running clock are probably the same people that came up with participation awards to make every kid a "winner". 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, HornetFan said:

 I think the people who thought of the running clock are probably the same people that came up with participation awards to make every kid a "winner". 

I think the people who thought of the running clock are probably the same people who routinely got their butts kicked when they played football.  :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2020 at 1:54 PM, Coach said:

One thing I will say about some of those 8A schools in the Orlando area is that they've either never had success or they have a student population that doesn't value football. Schools that tend to be large with a heavy population of Hispanic students tend to care more about soccer, baseball and basketball than football. It's mainly because their families didn't grow up watching football so it isn't as big of a deal. A great example is Poinciana. They are historically one of the worst football schools around but they won a State Championship in basketball a few years ago. So the athletes are on the campuses for sure. But if the programs have no history of success then the athletes see no reason to play.

Another factor is the laid-back transfer rules. Now, kids can essentially consolidate talent on teams. So that also adds to some of these massive blowouts - especially when districts consist of teams like Cypress Creek being made to play teams like Osceola and Lake Nona. Of course they'll get blown out. It's going to be like that for the foreseeable future though. 

For Poinciana sake, the district that we have been put in the last 2 times really was one of the biggest issues. With football not being a top sport for our students.  Poinciana was placed in impossible districts for the talent level on the field. Kids only see losses and why would they want to join? Other sport coaches refusing to let "their" players participate in football. That is the way it was. The basketball team had the best linebackers, receivers and running backs in the school. But they are all chasing the NBA dream. Trying to change it, One week at a time!

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Beek said:

For Poinciana sake, the district that we have been put in the last 2 times really was one of the biggest issues. With football not being a top sport for our students.  Poinciana was placed in impossible districts for the talent level on the field. Kids only see losses and why would they want to join? Other sport coaches refusing to let "their" players participate in football. That is the way it was. The basketball team had the best linebackers, receivers and running backs in the school. But they are all chasing the NBA dream. Trying to change it, One week at a time!

I'm not knocking the school; they have athletes on that campus. As for the coaches on that campus not allowing multiple sport athletes, shame on them. It does the athletes a disservice in either sport by trying to hoard them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...


×
×
  • Create New...