Upcoming NCAA restrictions on blocking:Threat to Triple O?

[glsjunior]

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Latest+News/2011/February/Football+Rules+Committee+recommends+restrictions+o n+blocking

To some of you offensive gurus, particularly fans of Ga Southern and other triple option teams, is this as much of a threat to the offense as I think it will be? Especially regarding the restrictions of blocking below the waist for backs coming out of the backfield.

[PaladinFan]

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Latest+News/2011/February/Football+Rules+Committee+recommends+restrictions+o n+blocking

To some of you offensive gurus, particularly fans of Ga Southern and other triple option teams, is this as much of a threat to the offense as I think it will be? Especially regarding the restrictions of blocking below the waist for backs coming out of the backfield.

Could be. I don't think it will have a massive effect, but it may change one or two things they have to do. My impression is this rule is more in line with trying to help with player safety in the defensive backfield as widereceivers and running backs chop block unsuspecting defenders following the play.

Besides, hard to argue that anyone getting blocked below the waist against Georgia Southern will be "unsuspecting." Their entire offense is predicated on being able to do that.

[cmaxwellgsu]

I don't think it will be that big of a deal. Most cut blocks are done by linemen anyway.

[MplsBison]

Could be. I don't think it will have a massive effect, but it may change one or two things they have to do. My impression is this rule is more in line with trying to help with player safety in the defensive backfield as widereceivers and running backs chop block unsuspecting defenders following the play.

Besides, hard to argue that anyone getting blocked below the waist against Georgia Southern will be "unsuspecting." Their entire offense is predicated on being able to do that.

NDSU faced the same thing when playing Cal Poly back in the Great West.

Basically, they'd tell every offensive player not carrying the ball to go after someone's knees.


This is a good rule change. A lot of times I see kids out there basically diving for shoe-laces...the art of cut blocking is not automatic. It takes some time and obviously teams don't have the time to devote to it. I'd rather see teams devote time to proper engagement and blocking high on a player, using your hands, etc. The proper way to block someone.

[CropDuster]

I don't think it will be that big of a deal. Most cut blocks are done by linemen anyway.

I agree, most of the cut blocks are done against the D line, rarely do they happen down field or in space.

[The Eagle's Cliff]

As long as the block begins above the waist, which is the case with receivers, they'll be legal. That being said, it wouldn't surprise me to see SoCon officials get it wrong. If the change is implemented, coaches will be brought up to speed at the rules clinic in the summer and officials will usually be hired to evaluate technique in practices and scrimmages.

Maybe we should take the pads off, put skirts on, stop keeping score, and sing Kumbaya after TD's. Wishy-washy eggheaded academic's have been chipping away at this game for nearly a century. The NCAA was formed specifically to regulate college football with the likes of Knute Rockne, Pop Warner, and Alonzo Stagg defending football to Congressional Committee's.

[slostang]

NDSU faced the same thing when playing Cal Poly back in the Great West.

Basically, they'd tell every offensive player not carrying the ball to go after someone's knees.


This is a good rule change. A lot of times I see kids out there basically diving for shoe-laces...the art of cut blocking is not automatic. It takes some time and obviously teams don't have the time to devote to it. I'd rather see teams devote time to proper engagement and blocking high on a player, using your hands, etc. The proper way to block someone.

I remember more than one Cal Poly player ending his career to knee injuries suffer on the green stuff you call turf in the Fargo Dome. I say that is more of a threat to players knees than Cal Poly's triple option offense. I think that the NCAA should do college football a big favor and look at banning "old style" astro turf fields.

[MplsBison]

I remember more than one Cal Poly player ending his career to knee injuries suffer on the green stuff you call turf in the Fargo Dome. I say that is more of a threat to players knees than Cal Poly's triple option offense. I think that the NCAA should do college football a big favor and look at banning "old style" astro turf fields.

Which Poly player ended his Career on the Fargodome turf? You only get two games...none that I recall.

I do know for fact that one of NDSU's starting DE on the 2007 team had his season ended by a Poly cut block. Dirty stuff.

At least the Poly player hurting himself on the turf would be his own fault.

[MplsBison]

As long as the block begins above the waist, which is the case with receivers, they'll be legal. That being said, it wouldn't surprise me to see SoCon officials get it wrong. If the change is implemented, coaches will be brought up to speed at the rules clinic in the summer and officials will usually be hired to evaluate technique in practices and scrimmages.

Maybe we should take the pads off, put skirts on, stop keeping score, and sing Kumbaya after TD's. Wishy-washy eggheaded academic's have been chipping away at this game for nearly a century. The NCAA was formed specifically to regulate college football with the likes of Knute Rockne, Pop Warner, and Alonzo Stagg defending football to Congressional Committee's.

Might as well get rid of hard shell helmets too. Only girls need those.

But then again, who needs brains when you attend a regional undergraduate university?

[slostang]

Which Poly player ended his Career on the Fargodome turf? You only get two games...none that I recall.

I do know for fact that one of NDSU's starting DE on the 2007 team had his season ended by a Poly cut block. Dirty stuff.

At least the Poly player hurting himself on the turf would be his own fault.

Chad Simonson ended his career from a noncontact knee injury he suffered at the Fargo Dome. I can not remember the other players name. I am sure there are other players from other teams with similar stories. I love the new synthetic infill turfs. The old stye are dangerous and should be phased out.

I can see where you would say that a player making a cut on astro turf and his knee giving out is his fault. He should have known better. xoopsx

[Baldy]

Might as well get rid of hard shell helmets too. Only girls need those.

But then again, who needs brains when you attend a regional undergraduate university?
Seems you find yourself in your usual position. Being wrong.....AGAIN. xlolx
Actually, Georgia Southern is a National Carnegie Doctoral-Research University.

Try again. xnonox

[Twentysix]

Seems you find yourself in your usual position. Being wrong.....AGAIN. xlolx
Actually, Georgia Southern is a National Carnegie Doctoral-Research University.

Try again. xnonox

I think he meant poly.

[MplsBison]

Chad Simonson ended his career from a noncontact knee injury he suffered at the Fargo Dome. I can not remember the other players name. I am sure there are other players from other teams with similar stories. I love the new synthetic infill turfs. The old stye are dangerous and should be phased out.

I can see where you would say that a player making a cut on astro turf and his knee giving out is his fault. He should have known better. xoopsx

I'm all for replacing the turf in the Fargodome in the early 2000's when infill turfs were getting popular. It's a combination of they're too cheap and poor design of the facility.

[MplsBison]

Seems you find yourself in your usual position. Being wrong.....AGAIN. xlolx
Actually, Georgia Southern is a National Carnegie Doctoral-Research University.

Try again. xnonox

Ok - lets try again:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf10311/pdf/tab31.pdf


My dear sweet jesus...GSoU ranked #472 out of 679 total at $1.5 million in R&D expenditures. Just behind research powerhouses like U of Wisconsin Oshkosh and Minnesota State Mankato. You guys keep plugging away...maybe next year you'll hit $2 million! xlolx

Here are some notables in Georgia:

GA Tech - #27 @ $522 million
UGA - #51 @ $350 million
GSU - #146 @ $77.7 million

[MplsBison]

I think he meant poly.

Absolutely not, Poly is a very well respected engineering and agriculture school.

[eaglesrback]

Ok - lets try again:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf10311/pdf/tab31.pdf


My dear sweet jesus...GSoU ranked #472 out of 679 total at $1.5 million in R&D expenditures. Just behind research powerhouses like U of Wisconsin Oshkosh and Minnesota State Mankato. You guys keep plugging away...maybe next year you'll hit $2 million! xlolx

Here are some notables in Georgia:

GA Tech - #27 @ $522 million
UGA - #51 @ $350 million
GSU - #146 @ $77.7 million

I guess you like spending just like the Government Ehh? The more ya spend the better off we all are.
Is that what your sayin? Back to the subject, as far as these "new" soccer rules in football, If you want to play P$ssy football,then go play Soccer.

[cmaxwellgsu]

I agree, most of the cut blocks are done against the D line, rarely do they happen down field or in space.

Exactly those tend to try to form a wall like a return downfield. So having them on the ground would be counterproductive.

[glsjunior]

Ok - lets try again:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf10311/pdf/tab31.pdf


My dear sweet jesus...GSoU ranked #472 out of 679 total at $1.5 million in R&D expenditures. Just behind research powerhouses like U of Wisconsin Oshkosh and Minnesota State Mankato. You guys keep plugging away...maybe next year you'll hit $2 million! xlolx

Here are some notables in Georgia:

GA Tech - #27 @ $522 million
UGA - #51 @ $350 million
GSU - #146 @ $77.7 million

Ouch.

[Gringer1]

I'm not sure what wasteful spending has to do with blocking schemes, but ok. These rules won't change much for option oriented teams. The linemen are the main guys who cut and they only do it around the line of scrimmage, so this rule is more of an enforcement of the way teams were already playing.

[Blueandwhitefightfight]

Ok - lets try again:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf10311/pdf/tab31.pdf


My dear sweet jesus...GSoU ranked #472 out of 679 total at $1.5 million in R&D expenditures. Just behind research powerhouses like U of Wisconsin Oshkosh and Minnesota State Mankato. You guys keep plugging away...maybe next year you'll hit $2 million! xlolx

Here are some notables in Georgia:

GA Tech - #27 @ $522 million
UGA - #51 @ $350 million
GSU - #146 @ $77.7 million

A lot of Georgia Southern's "research" is not reported to the NSF because it isn't in the area of science or technology. Most of our "research" is in nursing and education. That will soon change as we are about to open a new College of Engineering in the fall.

Some of the Ga Tech $ goes to GSU throught the GTREP (Ga Tech Regional Eng. Program).

Also, our College of Science and Technology just got a huge grant from the Dept. of Energy to build a state-of-the-art alternative fuels laboratory. It will be one of 4 in the country on a college campus with the technology (my neighbor is a grad student in the program and was telling me about it the other day).


Not bad for a University that just became a research University less than 5 years ago.





Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnyways. Back to football.


The new rules probably won't affect us much at all. Like others have said, the cut blocks are only on defensive lineman. WR's and A-backs block at the chest usually. If not they just run into the defender and de-cleat them.

[FormerPokeCenter]

Triple option blocking, both the wishbone and the veer doesn't so much rely on "cut blocks" as it does with smaller, athletic linemen firing out, with flat backs and getting on the defender's hip. Standing up and belly rubbing is for sumo wrestlers. If zone blocking is taught correctly...well, let me rephrase that...if cut blocking calls are made correctly by the officials, I don't see the enforcement of this rule having any effect on any team that runs the triple option effectively.

I watched Poly run zone blocking schemes against McNeese last year and I didn't see anything other than good, hardnosed football with an offensive line that stayed low and got on the defender's hip. If the O-line is quick, what you see a lot is they overshoot the defender and the defender trips over them trying to get to the ball, but that's not a chop or a cut block, which is intentionally diving at the shins and ankles. That crap needs to be outlawed, but veer blocking? Hopefully, they'll teach the officials how to call it properly....

[Poly's Brutality]

Triple option blocking, both the wishbone and the veer doesn't so much rely on "cut blocks" as it does with smaller, athletic linemen firing out, with flat backs and getting on the defender's hip. Standing up and belly rubbing is for sumo wrestlers. If zone blocking is taught correctly...well, let me rephrase that...if cut blocking calls are made correctly by the officials, I don't see the enforcement of this rule having any effect on any team that runs the triple option effectively.

I watched Poly run zone blocking schemes against McNeese last year and I didn't see anything other than good, hardnosed football with an offensive line that stayed low and got on the defender's hip. If the O-line is quick, what you see a lot is they overshoot the defender and the defender trips over them trying to get to the ball, but that's not a chop or a cut block, which is intentionally diving at the shins and ankles. That crap needs to be outlawed, but veer blocking? Hopefully, they'll teach the officials how to call it properly....

NOW we're talkin'. Appreciated. Once again, a knowledgeable fan (thank you), not a puff dragon with buffalo chips on his shoulder.

[Baldy]

Ok - lets try again:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf10311/pdf/tab31.pdf


My dear sweet jesus...GSoU ranked #472 out of 679 total at $1.5 million in R&D expenditures. Just behind research powerhouses like U of Wisconsin Oshkosh and Minnesota State Mankato. You guys keep plugging away...maybe next year you'll hit $2 million! xlolx

Here are some notables in Georgia:

GA Tech - #27 @ $522 million
UGA - #51 @ $350 million
GSU - #146 @ $77.7 million


A lot of Georgia Southern's "research" is not reported to the NSF because it isn't in the area of science or technology. Most of our "research" is in nursing and education. That will soon change as we are about to open a new College of Engineering in the fall.

Some of the Ga Tech $ goes to GSU through the GTREP (Ga Tech Regional Eng. Program).

Also, our College of Science and Technology just got a huge grant from the Dept. of Energy to build a state-of-the-art alternative fuels laboratory. It will be one of 4 in the country on a college campus with the technology (my neighbor is a grad student in the program and was telling me about it the other day).


Not bad for a University that just became a research University less than 5 years ago.





Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnyways. Back to football.


The new rules probably won't affect us much at all. Like others have said, the cut blocks are only on defensive lineman. WR's and A-backs block at the chest usually. If not they just run into the defender and de-cleat them.

Chop blocked by the facts, Bison Boy.
You're down to your last strike. xlolx

[elon77]

I watched Cal Poly play ODU last year and all I saw was good old fashion hard nose football. I knew Cal Poly would be good, because I'm on this site, many of the ODU fans seemed surprised. Also, after watching GSU and Wofford run similar offenses for several years I knew ODU would have their hands full. It seemed Cal Poly did more with less. Personally I hate option offenses, but when they are working properly it's like watching a ballet, somewhat. You know what I mean???????????????

[Redwyn]

Ok - lets try again:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf10311/pdf/tab31.pdf


My dear sweet jesus...GSoU ranked #472 out of 679 total at $1.5 million in R&D expenditures. Just behind research powerhouses like U of Wisconsin Oshkosh and Minnesota State Mankato. You guys keep plugging away...maybe next year you'll hit $2 million! xlolx

Here are some notables in Georgia:

GA Tech - #27 @ $522 million
UGA - #51 @ $350 million
GSU - #146 @ $77.7 million

While I did chuckle at this post (mostly because of the words Oshkosh and Mankato...man those are funny words) - NSF reported funding is usually only a percentage of a university's actual R&D expenditures, and only if you're in one of the hard science fields. Medical research is NIH funded so isn't included (this is why Rockefeller University isn't near the top of this list, they are by far one of the richest research universities I've ever seen), and niche research is usually by private grant. A great example is SBU. We're listed at 75, but actually take in substantially more money for research than the list allows. I would also wager that our R&D control of Brookhaven National Labs and Cold Spring Harbor National Labs isn't tallied in either.

As for Georgia Southern, I imagine that they do substantially more than 2 mil a year in research (nowadays 2 mil barely funds a single project!). We're not talking GA Tech here, but they probably hold their own.

[Franks Tanks]

Triple option blocking, both the wishbone and the veer doesn't so much rely on "cut blocks" as it does with smaller, athletic linemen firing out, with flat backs and getting on the defender's hip. Standing up and belly rubbing is for sumo wrestlers. If zone blocking is taught correctly...well, let me rephrase that...if cut blocking calls are made correctly by the officials, I don't see the enforcement of this rule having any effect on any team that runs the triple option effectively.

I watched Poly run zone blocking schemes against McNeese last year and I didn't see anything other than good, hardnosed football with an offensive line that stayed low and got on the defender's hip. If the O-line is quick, what you see a lot is they overshoot the defender and the defender trips over them trying to get to the ball, but that's not a chop or a cut block, which is intentionally diving at the shins and ankles. That crap needs to be outlawed, but veer blocking? Hopefully, they'll teach the officials how to call it properly....

What you said! I played in an option scheme in prep school and you are 100% correct. Some of the blocks are cut blocks, the majority are not. Sometimes linemen are asked to cut the backside DL or LB, but that is all done within the tackle box already.

[cmaxwellgsu]

I watched Cal Poly play ODU last year and all I saw was good old fashion hard nose football. I knew Cal Poly would be good, because I'm on this site, many of the ODU fans seemed surprised. Also, after watching GSU and Wofford run similar offenses for several years I knew ODU would have their hands full. It seemed Cal Poly did more with less. Personally I hate option offenses, but when they are working properly it's like watching a ballet, somewhat. You know what I mean???????????????

I see the similarity you mean. People talk about playing assignment football meaning defense, but it works the same way on the offensive side.

[MplsBison]

While I did chuckle at this post (mostly because of the words Oshkosh and Mankato...man those are funny words) - NSF reported funding is usually only a percentage of a university's actual R&D expenditures, and only if you're in one of the hard science fields. Medical research is NIH funded so isn't included (this is why Rockefeller University isn't near the top of this list, they are by far one of the richest research universities I've ever seen), and niche research is usually by private grant. A great example is SBU. We're listed at 75, but actually take in substantially more money for research than the list allows. I would also wager that our R&D control of Brookhaven National Labs and Cold Spring Harbor National Labs isn't tallied in either.

As for Georgia Southern, I imagine that they do substantially more than 2 mil a year in research (nowadays 2 mil barely funds a single project!). We're not talking GA Tech here, but they probably hold their own.

Sorry I'm skeptical about your opinion here. The document clearly states "all funds" and not "all funds for NSF grants". I think the point is that the NSF keeps statistics on university R&D expenditures for the sake of the statistics themselves (ie the trends and so on), not for the sake of logging the amount of funding by the NSF. If you see what I mean. As in, the topic of research expenditures itself is of interest to the NSF due to its socially scientific importance.

And your point about medical research is incorrect as well, as the NSF includes medical colleges in the listings. I believe medical research expenditures funded by the NIH would show in the "federal" bin for source of funds.



Anyway, the point was simply that a few overzealous GSoU fans think they graduated from a research university. Not true, as I showed.

[MplsBison]

A lot of Georgia Southern's "research" is not reported to the NSF because it isn't in the area of science or technology. Most of our "research" is in nursing and education. That will soon change as we are about to open a new College of Engineering in the fall.

Some of the Ga Tech $ goes to GSU throught the GTREP (Ga Tech Regional Eng. Program).

Also, our College of Science and Technology just got a huge grant from the Dept. of Energy to build a state-of-the-art alternative fuels laboratory. It will be one of 4 in the country on a college campus with the technology (my neighbor is a grad student in the program and was telling me about it the other day).


Not bad for a University that just became a research University less than 5 years ago.





Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnyways. Back to football.


The new rules probably won't affect us much at all. Like others have said, the cut blocks are only on defensive lineman. WR's and A-backs block at the chest usually. If not they just run into the defender and de-cleat them.

I'm happy to hear that your school has invested in a college of engineering. Congrats. Minnesota State Mankato has had a college of Eng for a while now. Glad to see you're doing similar things.

Also excited to see that GSoU will be conducting research on the emissions of engines running on biofuels instead of regular gasoline, using the $250k grant to purchase cutting edge emissions analyzing equipment for the federal government. That will definitely help you guys on your rapid rise up to $2 million in research expenditures a year.

https://my.georgiasouthern.edu/index.php?option=com_content&id=1000



The grant will go towards purchasing new, cutting-edge equipment for the Renewable Energy Laboratory in the University’s Allen E. Paulson College of Science and Technology. The equipment will be used to measure and analyze the emissions released when engines run on biofuels instead of diesel or gasoline. The lab at Georgia Southern will be one of only several universities in the nation equipped with this advanced technology.



Sounds exciting. I wonder if there will be a paper soon about the emissions of bio-diesel tending to have a smell like french fries?

[MplsBison]

Triple option blocking, both the wishbone and the veer doesn't so much rely on "cut blocks" as it does with smaller, athletic linemen firing out, with flat backs and getting on the defender's hip. Standing up and belly rubbing is for sumo wrestlers. If zone blocking is taught correctly...well, let me rephrase that...if cut blocking calls are made correctly by the officials, I don't see the enforcement of this rule having any effect on any team that runs the triple option effectively.

I watched Poly run zone blocking schemes against McNeese last year and I didn't see anything other than good, hardnosed football with an offensive line that stayed low and got on the defender's hip. If the O-line is quick, what you see a lot is they overshoot the defender and the defender trips over them trying to get to the ball, but that's not a chop or a cut block, which is intentionally diving at the shins and ankles. That crap needs to be outlawed, but veer blocking? Hopefully, they'll teach the officials how to call it properly....

Cut blocking is not diving at the the shins or ankles. More proof that no one teaches the skill anymore.

A proper cut block has the blocker extend his shoulder pads through the defenders thigh pads. That's a cut block. If done correctly, it will always result in the legs of the defender being cut out from underneath him (hence the name).

The problem with cut blocks is that today's players are so athletic and fast that defensive coaches now teach them to accept the cut block, ride it down and then pop right back up and make the play. In a sense, it's basically useless because the blocker has taken himself out of the play and allowed the defender to continue pursuit. That's why, IMO, it's better to teach proper engagement of the hands and extension of the arms - the correct way to block up high.


And no one...I mean no one...at any level, high school, college NFL, pop warner teaches shoulder blocking anymore. It's archaic. You might as well go back to leather helmets.

Proper blocks start with correct hand placement, continues with arm extension and end with great leg drive. This isn't the 1950's anymore.

[seantaylor]

Cut blocking is not diving at the the shins or ankles. More proof that no one teaches the skill anymore.

A proper cut block has the blocker extend his shoulder pads through the defenders thigh pads. That's a cut block. If done correctly, it will always result in the legs of the defender being cut out from underneath him (hence the name).

The problem with cut blocks is that today's players are so athletic and fast that defensive coaches now teach them to accept the cut block, ride it down and then pop right back up and make the play. In a sense, it's basically useless because the blocker has taken himself out of the play and allowed the defender to continue pursuit. That's why, IMO, it's better to teach proper engagement of the hands and extension of the arms - the correct way to block up high.


And no one...I mean no one...at any level, high school, college NFL, pop warner teaches shoulder blocking anymore. It's archaic. You might as well go back to leather helmets.

Proper blocks start with correct hand placement, continues with arm extension and end with great leg drive. This isn't the 1950's anymore.

Wow. You know clearly nothing about GSU's offense. If these defensive players are accepting the cut block against us, our speed and execution will put up monstrous numbers on any team with this technique.

[FormerPokeCenter]

Cut blocking is not diving at the the shins or ankles. More proof that no one teaches the skill anymore.

A proper cut block has the blocker extend his shoulder pads through the defenders thigh pads. That's a cut block. If done correctly, it will always result in the legs of the defender being cut out from underneath him (hence the name).

The problem with cut blocks is that today's players are so athletic and fast that defensive coaches now teach them to accept the cut block, ride it down and then pop right back up and make the play. In a sense, it's basically useless because the blocker has taken himself out of the play and allowed the defender to continue pursuit. That's why, IMO, it's better to teach proper engagement of the hands and extension of the arms - the correct way to block up high.


And no one...I mean no one...at any level, high school, college NFL, pop warner teaches shoulder blocking anymore. It's archaic. You might as well go back to leather helmets.

Proper blocks start with correct hand placement, continues with arm extension and end with great leg drive. This isn't the 1950's anymore.


What we have here is a failure to communicate.

The terms Cut Block and Chop Block are almost always used interchangeably. Chop Blocks have always been understood to be the diving at the shins and ankles. That's why people who cut or chop block get no respect. You cut, or chop the person's legs out from under them. It's always been dangerous and it's traditionally led to fights in the NFL.

While you've described what you BELIEVE a cut block to, I think you're erroneously assuming that everybody uses the same nomenclature you do.

From where I sit, what you've actually described is a cut-off block. We're going to have to agree to disagree about whether this is taught currently. Based on what I've seen from a number of programs, I believe that pretty much ALL veer and triple O teams teach the cut-off block. Nichollls, Airforce, Georgia Tech, Cal Poly, Navy and Georgia Southern have all used this to great effect.

Apparently, we're doomed to be victims of semantics for the purposes of this discussion. And - as an aside - if you consider traditional cut blocking to be a "skill" then I'm not sure we have much to talk about....

I think, though, that I do understand what you're trying to say, which seems to be a lamnetation that cut-off blocking is not taught these days.....Again, I find myself forced to disagree with that for reasons listed above.

Effective cut-off blocking technique is what creates the running lanes and sets up the cutback which makes the triple option so dangerous. I'm not aware of anybody teacing that it's ever okay to get cut off. In fact, that's sorta anathema to every defensive doctrine I'm aware of. Most people, when playing straight technique, teach that - depending on alignment - you deliver a blow to the offensive lineman with your inside arm and shoulder, try to close down the gap and keep your outside arm and leg free and read and react to the lineman's point of attack by reading his hat and that you fight through cutoff blocks.

And, at the risk of being redundant and just to be clear, a cut off block - where the lineman steps OVER and UP to put himself between the defender and the running lane - is pretty much a staple base blocking scheme used by pretty much EVERY team running the veer or triple option. And, again, to be clear, this isn't the same as a "cut or chop block", but i digress.

There might be some confusion because the defenders often trip over the blocker and to the uninitiated, I can see how the two look similar, but they're nothing alike.

In review, a properly performed cut-off block is done by a lineman who fires out with a FLAT back, and his point of attack is the defender's hip. If the defender stands up and tries to catch the offensive lineman, then the lineman oftentimes ends up "below" the defenders waist, but that's not by design, it's merely happenstance occassioned by the defender's poor technique.

In summary, a cut block is where the blocker intentionally tries to take the defnders legs out. This is not a cut off block and is counterproductive to the triple option's goal of establishing running lanes that work to let the defender take himself out of position to make plays.

Hopefully, this primer's been somewhat illustrative and informative. If not, I can recommend a remedial vocabulary primer on offensive line blocking techniques ;)

[Baldy]

Sorry I'm skeptical about your opinion here. The document clearly states "all funds" and not "all funds for NSF grants". I think the point is that the NSF keeps statistics on university R&D expenditures for the sake of the statistics themselves (ie the trends and so on), not for the sake of logging the amount of funding by the NSF. If you see what I mean. As in, the topic of research expenditures itself is of interest to the NSF due to its socially scientific importance.

And your point about medical research is incorrect as well, as the NSF includes medical colleges in the listings. I believe medical research expenditures funded by the NIH would show in the "federal" bin for source of funds.



Anyway, the point was simply that a few overzealous GSoU fans think they graduated from a research university. Not true, as I showed.

Sorry, every student who has graduated from Georgia Southern since 2006 has graduated from a research university designated by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Forgive me if I take their word over some blowhard internet troll. xnodx

[MplsBison]

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

The terms Cut Block and Chop Block are almost always used interchangeably. Chop Blocks have always been understood to be the diving at the shins and ankles. That's why people who cut or chop block get no respect. You cut, or chop the person's legs out from under them. It's always been dangerous and it's traditionally led to fights in the NFL.

While you've described what you BELIEVE a cut block to, I think you're erroneously assuming that everybody uses the same nomenclature you do.

From where I sit, what you've actually described is a cut-off block. We're going to have to agree to disagree about whether this is taught currently. Based on what I've seen from a number of programs, I believe that pretty much ALL veer and triple O teams teach the cut-off block. Nichollls, Airforce, Georgia Tech, Cal Poly, Navy and Georgia Southern have all used this to great effect.

Apparently, we're doomed to be victims of semantics for the purposes of this discussion. And - as an aside - if you consider traditional cut blocking to be a "skill" then I'm not sure we have much to talk about....

I think, though, that I do understand what you're trying to say, which seems to be a lamnetation that cut-off blocking is not taught these days.....Again, I find myself forced to disagree with that for reasons listed above.

Effective cut-off blocking technique is what creates the running lanes and sets up the cutback which makes the triple option so dangerous. I'm not aware of anybody teacing that it's ever okay to get cut off. In fact, that's sorta anathema to every defensive doctrine I'm aware of. Most people, when playing straight technique, teach that - depending on alignment - you deliver a blow to the offensive lineman with your inside arm and shoulder, try to close down the gap and keep your outside arm and leg free and read and react to the lineman's point of attack by reading his hat and that you fight through cutoff blocks.

And, at the risk of being redundant and just to be clear, a cut off block - where the lineman steps OVER and UP to put himself between the defender and the running lane - is pretty much a staple base blocking scheme used by pretty much EVERY team running the veer or triple option. And, again, to be clear, this isn't the same as a "cut or chop block", but i digress.

There might be some confusion because the defenders often trip over the blocker and to the uninitiated, I can see how the two look similar, but they're nothing alike.

In review, a properly performed cut-off block is done by a lineman who fires out with a FLAT back, and his point of attack is the defender's hip. If the defender stands up and tries to catch the offensive lineman, then the lineman oftentimes ends up "below" the defenders waist, but that's not by design, it's merely happenstance occassioned by the defender's poor technique.

In summary, a cut block is where the blocker intentionally tries to take the defnders legs out. This is not a cut off block and is counterproductive to the triple option's goal of establishing running lanes that work to let the defender take himself out of position to make plays.

Hopefully, this primer's been somewhat illustrative and informative. If not, I can recommend a remedial vocabulary primer on offensive line blocking techniques ;)

A chop block is a 15 yard penalty. It occurs when one player blocks a defender high and another blocks him low or cuts him at the same time (also called a "high-low"). It's extremely dangerous, hence why it's illegal in the game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_%28American_football%29#Chop_Block


So it's hard for me to take the rest of your post serious when you refer to a penalty as standard blocking vocabulary.

[MplsBison]

Sorry, every student who has graduated from Georgia Southern since 2006 has graduated from a research university designated by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Forgive me if I take their word over some blowhard internet troll. xnodx

Carnegie Link (http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/lookup_listings/view_institution.php?unit_id=139931&start_page=institution.php&clq={%22ipug2005_ids%22%3A%22%22%2C%22ipgrad2005_i ds%22%3A%22%22%2C%22enrprofile2005_ids%22%3A%22%22 %2C%22ugprfile2005_ids%22%3A%22%22%2C%22sizeset200 5_ids%22%3A%22%22%2C%22basic2005_ids%22%3A%22%22%2 C%22eng2005_ids%22%3A%22%22%2C%22search_string%22% 3A%22georgia+southern%22%2C%22level%22%3A%22%22%2C %22control%22%3A%22%22%2C%22accred%22%3A%22%22%2C% 22state%22%3A%22%22%2C%22region%22%3A%22%22%2C%22u rbanicity%22%3A%22%22%2C%22womens%22%3A%22%22%2C%2 2hbcu%22%3A%22%22%2C%22hsi%22%3A%22%22%2C%22tribal %22%3A%22%22%2C%22msi%22%3A%22%22%2C%22landgrant%2 2%3A%22%22%2C%22coplac%22%3A%22%22%2C%22urban%22%3 A%22%22})

GSoU is not classified as a research university. The basic classification is "Doctoral/Research Universities". In other words, they lump every school that grants a single PhD into the same camp. They do this irregardless of how many PhD's are granted, how many doctoral programs are offered or how much actual research is conducted at the school.

The same Carnegie classification page points out the truth: "Graduate Instructional Program: S-Doc/Ed: Single doctoral (education)". You have single a doctoral program, in education. That makes sense because GSoU was a normal school.

It's not a research university. Sorry.

[eaglemachine]

Carnegie Link (http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/lookup_listings/view_institution.php?unit_id=139931&start_page=institution.php&clq={%22ipug2005_ids%22%3A%22%22%2C%22ipgrad2005_i ds%22%3A%22%22%2C%22enrprofile2005_ids%22%3A%22%22 %2C%22ugprfile2005_ids%22%3A%22%22%2C%22sizeset200 5_ids%22%3A%22%22%2C%22basic2005_ids%22%3A%22%22%2 C%22eng2005_ids%22%3A%22%22%2C%22search_string%22% 3A%22georgia+southern%22%2C%22level%22%3A%22%22%2C %22control%22%3A%22%22%2C%22accred%22%3A%22%22%2C% 22state%22%3A%22%22%2C%22region%22%3A%22%22%2C%22u rbanicity%22%3A%22%22%2C%22womens%22%3A%22%22%2C%2 2hbcu%22%3A%22%22%2C%22hsi%22%3A%22%22%2C%22tribal %22%3A%22%22%2C%22msi%22%3A%22%22%2C%22landgrant%2 2%3A%22%22%2C%22coplac%22%3A%22%22%2C%22urban%22%3 A%22%22})

GSoU is not classified as a research university. The basic classification is "Doctoral/Research Universities". In other words, they lump every school that grants a single PhD into the same camp. They do this irregardless of how many PhD's are granted, how many doctoral programs are offered or how much actual research is conducted at the school.

The same Carnegie classification page points out the truth: "Graduate Instructional Program: S-Doc/Ed: Single doctoral (education)". You have single a doctoral program, in education. That makes sense because GSoU was a normal school.

It's not a research university. Sorry.

And a PHD in logistics/supply chain: http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/strategic/index.php?s=227

True, we do not currently do as much research some of the other larger schools in the state, however to say we are not a research university is not true. GSU is classified as a research university because, as you pointed out, they offer PHD's which....require and involve research studies and programs. That is the reason for the classification. GSU is also increasing the amount of research done at the school at a rapid rate (along with enrollment standards) hence all of the new research programs being added. GSU has many nationally ranked and well respected academic programs. It is a good school academically and better than most people give it credit for. Heck, we just became a University in 1990 and have gone from 6k to 20k students in that time. That is a lot of growth in just 21 years. I personally picked GSU because they were the only school in the state to offer my degree of Graphic Communications Management and because I loved the school.

BTW, what is your beef with GSU and why are you even talking about this?...this is a football discussion board. This board is for me to say stuff like GSU will beat the crap out of whatever your team is on the field not argue about the academic pros and cons of different educational institutions.

[cmaxwellgsu]

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

The terms Cut Block and Chop Block are almost always used interchangeably. Chop Blocks have always been understood to be the diving at the shins and ankles. That's why people who cut or chop block get no respect. You cut, or chop the person's legs out from under them. It's always been dangerous and it's traditionally led to fights in the NFL.

While you've described what you BELIEVE a cut block to, I think you're erroneously assuming that everybody uses the same nomenclature you do.

From where I sit, what you've actually described is a cut-off block. We're going to have to agree to disagree about whether this is taught currently. Based on what I've seen from a number of programs, I believe that pretty much ALL veer and triple O teams teach the cut-off block. Nichollls, Airforce, Georgia Tech, Cal Poly, Navy and Georgia Southern have all used this to great effect.

Apparently, we're doomed to be victims of semantics for the purposes of this discussion. And - as an aside - if you consider traditional cut blocking to be a "skill" then I'm not sure we have much to talk about....

I think, though, that I do understand what you're trying to say, which seems to be a lamnetation that cut-off blocking is not taught these days.....Again, I find myself forced to disagree with that for reasons listed above.

Effective cut-off blocking technique is what creates the running lanes and sets up the cutback which makes the triple option so dangerous. I'm not aware of anybody teacing that it's ever okay to get cut off. In fact, that's sorta anathema to every defensive doctrine I'm aware of. Most people, when playing straight technique, teach that - depending on alignment - you deliver a blow to the offensive lineman with your inside arm and shoulder, try to close down the gap and keep your outside arm and leg free and read and react to the lineman's point of attack by reading his hat and that you fight through cutoff blocks.

And, at the risk of being redundant and just to be clear, a cut off block - where the lineman steps OVER and UP to put himself between the defender and the running lane - is pretty much a staple base blocking scheme used by pretty much EVERY team running the veer or triple option. And, again, to be clear, this isn't the same as a "cut or chop block", but i digress.

There might be some confusion because the defenders often trip over the blocker and to the uninitiated, I can see how the two look similar, but they're nothing alike.

In review, a properly performed cut-off block is done by a lineman who fires out with a FLAT back, and his point of attack is the defender's hip. If the defender stands up and tries to catch the offensive lineman, then the lineman oftentimes ends up "below" the defenders waist, but that's not by design, it's merely happenstance occassioned by the defender's poor technique.

In summary, a cut block is where the blocker intentionally tries to take the defnders legs out. This is not a cut off block and is counterproductive to the triple option's goal of establishing running lanes that work to let the defender take himself out of position to make plays.

Hopefully, this primer's been somewhat illustrative and informative. If not, I can recommend a remedial vocabulary primer on offensive line blocking techniques ;)

We have a great offensive line coach who we're very happy with. If for some reason he leaves, we might need your resume Poke. You describe it just like a former offensive linemen we had.

[MplsBison]

And a PHD in logistics/supply chain: http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/strategic/index.php?s=227

True, we do not currently do as much research some of the other larger schools in the state, however to say we are not a research university is not true. GSU is classified as a research university because, as you pointed out, they offer PHD's which....require and involve research studies and programs. That is the reason for the classification. GSU is also increasing the amount of research done at the school at a rapid rate (along with enrollment standards) hence all of the new research programs being added. GSU has many nationally ranked and well respected academic programs. It is a good school academically and better than most people give it credit for. Heck, we just became a University in 1990 and have gone from 6k to 20k students in that time. That is a lot of growth in just 21 years. I personally picked GSU because they were the only school in the state to offer my degree of Graphic Communications Management and because I loved the school.

BTW, what is your beef with GSU and why are you even talking about this?...this is a football discussion board. This board is for me to say stuff like GSU will beat the crap out of whatever your team is on the field not argue about the academic pros and cons of different educational institutions.

Again, congrats. I find it funny that the school (and apparently alumni that post on message boards) will tell anyone that will listen that the school has gained the prestigious "Doctoral/Research" status from the Carnegie Foudation. Like that's equivalent to being in the AAU or something. Yes, you have the status...you and hundreds of other colleges in this nation that grant PhD's.

You have a doctor of education program and you literally just started classes in the fall of 2010 that will enable a prospective graduate student to obtain a PhD in "Logistics/Supply Chain Management", perhaps by 2014.


We can agree to disagree, but my opinion is that it's misleading to refer to GSoU as a "research university" in a general sense, which implies a university that has many doctoral programs and conducts hundreds of millions of dollars worth of research every year.

[cmaxwellgsu]

Again, congrats. I find it funny that the school (and apparently alumni that post on message boards) will tell anyone that will listen that the school has gained the prestigious "Doctoral/Research" status from the Carnegie Foudation. Like that's equivalent to being in the AAU or something. Yes, you have the status...you and hundreds of other colleges in this nation that grant PhD's.

You have a doctor of education program and you literally just started classes in the fall of 2010 that will enable a prospective graduate student to obtain a PhD in "Logistics/Supply Chain Management", perhaps by 2014.


We can agree to disagree, but my opinion is that it's misleading to refer to GSoU as a "research university" in a general sense, which implies a university that has many doctoral programs and conducts hundreds of millions of dollars worth of research every year.

And you give a damn for what reason? Your North Dakota buddies won't play with you anymore? I guess NDSU is just some Ivy League school that's just outside their footprint.

[MplsBison]

And you give a damn for what reason? Your North Dakota buddies won't play with you anymore? I guess NDSU is just some Ivy League school that's just outside their footprint.

Basically just to confound those who like to claim their school is a research university in a general sense and think they won't be challenged on it. That's all.

[Baldy]

Carnegie Link (http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/lookup_listings/view_institution.php?unit_id=139931&start_page=institution.php&clq={%22ipug2005_ids%22%3A%22%22%2C%22ipgrad2005_i ds%22%3A%22%22%2C%22enrprofile2005_ids%22%3A%22%22 %2C%22ugprfile2005_ids%22%3A%22%22%2C%22sizeset200 5_ids%22%3A%22%22%2C%22basic2005_ids%22%3A%22%22%2 C%22eng2005_ids%22%3A%22%22%2C%22search_string%22% 3A%22georgia+southern%22%2C%22level%22%3A%22%22%2C %22control%22%3A%22%22%2C%22accred%22%3A%22%22%2C% 22state%22%3A%22%22%2C%22region%22%3A%22%22%2C%22u rbanicity%22%3A%22%22%2C%22womens%22%3A%22%22%2C%2 2hbcu%22%3A%22%22%2C%22hsi%22%3A%22%22%2C%22tribal %22%3A%22%22%2C%22msi%22%3A%22%22%2C%22landgrant%2 2%3A%22%22%2C%22coplac%22%3A%22%22%2C%22urban%22%3 A%22%22})

GSoU is not classified as a research university. The basic classification is "Doctoral/Research Universities". In other words, they lump every school that grants a single PhD into the same camp. They do this irregardless of how many PhD's are granted, how many doctoral programs are offered or how much actual research is conducted at the school.

The same Carnegie classification page points out the truth: "Graduate Instructional Program: S-Doc/Ed: Single doctoral (education)". You have single a doctoral program, in education. That makes sense because GSoU was a normal school.

It's not a research university. Sorry.

If you would read the link you posted instead of trolling, you would clearly see stated that Georgia Southern is grouped in the, "DRU: Doctoral/Research Universities" classification.

Again, I will take Carnegie's word over the uneducated opinion of an anonymous internet troll any and every day of the week.

Sorry.

[jdeal]

So your original point is that people who attend regional undergraduate universities have no need for brains. Oh please take pity on those who werent fortunate enough to be accepted into that intellectual mecca that is North Dakota State University and thanks for educating us poor old ignorant southerners on something as technical and complicated as football.

[Baldy]

BTW, what is your beef with GSU and why are you even talking about this?...this is a football discussion board. This board is for me to say stuff like GSU will beat the crap out of whatever your team is on the field not argue about the academic pros and cons of different educational institutions.

This particular Bison fan seems to get involved in quite a few discussions regardng Georgia Southern. Most Bison fans don't even like the guy...
I don't think any sane person could answer that question. It's probably something as simple as a bad case of "short man complex".

[FormerPokeCenter]

A chop block is a 15 yard penalty. It occurs when one player blocks a defender high and another blocks him low or cuts him at the same time (also called a "high-low"). It's extremely dangerous, hence why it's illegal in the game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_%28American_football%29#Chop_Block

So it's hard for me to take the rest of your post serious when you refer to a penalty as standard blocking vocabulary.


Thank you for that informative link, which confirms that the two terms are often used interchangeably and erroneously. See the entry directly above the one you're quoting. I believe I said something along those very lines when I lamented our inability to communicate because of our very obvious language barrier. Do you often find it difficult to take "yes" as an answer in real life, too? ;)

Moreover, if you go back and re-read, you'll also see that my comments regarding your first description of the technique, indeed your earlier lamentation about Cal Poly's technique focus on what I believe to be your misunderstanding about what you're seeing when Cal Poly executes zone blocking in the triple option. Again, the NCAA ruling won't have any effect on any triple option teams because triple option teams don't teach cut blocking, they teach cut-off blocking which is different. Moreover, triple option teams want the line to fire off flat back, get on the defenders hip and then continue to block downfield, setting up and supporting the cutback. They don't want them on the ground where they would present an impediment and a hindrance to the cutback lanes. If you think otherwise, it's pretty clear you just don't understand the TO or the veer...

I can see where you might think you've watching players who've been taught to "cut block," but that would be a gross oversimplification and a less than knowledgeable understanding of what you're seeing. I don't say that to insult you, merely to suggest that you may want to look at that game again, paying closer attention to obvious details that you pretty clearly missed and perhaps re-evaluate your analysis of triple option blocking.

Obviously, there's no law that says you have to.

It's a free country and dilettantes are entitled to their own opinions, regardless of how erroneous they may be ;)

[Poly's Brutality]

+1 on the PokeCenter (and thanks again for good info), +1 Baldy nails it too.

No need for "research", university or not, every Southerner already knows a buffalo chip when they see one.

[Blueandwhitefightfight]

+1 on the PokeCenter (and thanks again for good info), +1 Baldy nails it too.

No need for "research", university or not, every Southerner already knows a buffalo chip when they see one.

A what? I'm from the south; I have lived in Georgia my entire life. Never have I heard of a buffalo chip. Is that like a buffalo wing?

[eaglemachine]

A what? I'm from the south; I have lived in Georgia my entire life. Never have I heard of a buffalo chip. Is that like a buffalo wing?

I think that is the buffalo version of a cow patty....

[eaglemachine]

Again, congrats. I find it funny that the school (and apparently alumni that post on message boards) will tell anyone that will listen that the school has gained the prestigious "Doctoral/Research" status from the Carnegie Foudation. Like that's equivalent to being in the AAU or something. Yes, you have the status...you and hundreds of other colleges in this nation that grant PhD's.

You have a doctor of education program and you literally just started classes in the fall of 2010 that will enable a prospective graduate student to obtain a PhD in "Logistics/Supply Chain Management", perhaps by 2014.

We can agree to disagree, but my opinion is that it's misleading to refer to GSoU as a "research university" in a general sense, which implies a university that has many doctoral programs and conducts hundreds of millions of dollars worth of research every year.

As I stated before, most GSU alumi and students realize we are not in the classification of an ivy league school or any other major university that offers a mulitude of PHD programs and have long standing major research programs, but as you stated, you can not deny that GSU is classified as a research university and are classified as such reguardless of your opinion. I for one am very proud of Georgia Southern for the continued growth in academics over the past 10 years and am glad to see we now meet the requirements to be classified as a Research University.

Now back to the topic at hand, Georgia Southern would run your NDSU Bison into the ground. Hope we meet in the playoffs :)

[MplsBison]

If you would read the link you posted instead of trolling, you would clearly see stated that Georgia Southern is grouped in the, "DRU: Doctoral/Research Universities" classification.

Again, I will take Carnegie's word over the uneducated opinion of an anonymous internet troll any and every day of the week.

Sorry.

I already said they were in my post. Read it.

It wasn't claimed that GSoU is a "Doctoral/Research University", it was claimed that they are simply a "research university". Untrue, as I've showed.

[MplsBison]

So your original point is that people who attend regional undergraduate universities have no need for brains. Oh please take pity on those who werent fortunate enough to be accepted into that intellectual mecca that is North Dakota State University and thanks for educating us poor old ignorant southerners on something as technical and complicated as football.

I didn't say peep about NDSU. You implied that on your own.

[MplsBison]

Thank you for that informative link, which confirms that the two terms are often used interchangeably and erroneously. See the entry directly above the one you're quoting. I believe I said something along those very lines when I lamented our inability to communicate because of our very obvious language barrier. Do you often find it difficult to take "yes" as an answer in real life, too? ;)

Moreover, if you go back and re-read, you'll also see that my comments regarding your first description of the technique, indeed your earlier lamentation about Cal Poly's technique focus on what I believe to be your misunderstanding about what you're seeing when Cal Poly executes zone blocking in the triple option. Again, the NCAA ruling won't have any effect on any triple option teams because triple option teams don't teach cut blocking, they teach cut-off blocking which is different. Moreover, triple option teams want the line to fire off flat back, get on the defenders hip and then continue to block downfield, setting up and supporting the cutback. They don't want them on the ground where they would present an impediment and a hindrance to the cutback lanes. If you think otherwise, it's pretty clear you just don't understand the TO or the veer...

I can see where you might think you've watching players who've been taught to "cut block," but that would be a gross oversimplification and a less than knowledgeable understanding of what you're seeing. I don't say that to insult you, merely to suggest that you may want to look at that game again, paying closer attention to obvious details that you pretty clearly missed and perhaps re-evaluate your analysis of triple option blocking.

Obviously, there's no law that says you have to.

It's a free country and dilettantes are entitled to their own opinions, regardless of how erroneous they may be ;)

No, no one refers to a chop block and a cut block interchangeably, except you. Why would someone refer to a penalty and a type of legal block interchangeably? They're completely different things. For example, one involves 2 blockers and the other involves only one blocker. Pretty simply to see that they're entirely different.

The times NDSU played Poly, it was clear that their blockers were taught to go after knees. They achieved their goal in one game and ended one a players' career. There is no mistake about it. Hopefully their HC took the OL coach with him to Army and things have gotten better at Poly, but I don't know since we thankfully haven't scheduled them again.

When they return to playing with modern, accepted schemes - I will welcome them on NDSU's schedule. The day is coming.

[MplsBison]

As I stated before, most GSU alumi and students realize we are not in the classification of an ivy league school or any other major university that offers a mulitude of PHD programs and have long standing major research programs, but as you stated, you can not deny that GSU is classified as a research university and are classified as such reguardless of your opinion. I for one am very proud of Georgia Southern for the continued growth in academics over the past 10 years and am glad to see we now meet the requirements to be classified as a Research University.

Now back to the topic at hand, Georgia Southern would run your NDSU Bison into the ground. Hope we meet in the playoffs :)

You do not meet the classification of "Research University" because there is no such classification ranking at the Carnegie Foundation. The correct term is "Doctoral/Research University", which refers to schools that meet one set of criteria (Doctoral) or meet another (Research). Hence the "/".

You may realize that you're not in the same classification as genuine research universities, but you do not propagate that opinion on this board that I've observed in this thread. You do the opposite, referring to GSoU as a research university. That would put them in the same company as GTech and UGA, when clearly they're not in that class.

[cmaxwellgsu]

No, no one refers to a chop block and a cut block interchangeably, except you. Why would someone refer to a penalty and a type of legal block interchangeably? They're completely different things. For example, one involves 2 blockers and the other involves only one blocker. Pretty simply to see that they're entirely different.

The times NDSU played Poly, it was clear that their blockers were taught to go after knees. They achieved their goal in one game and ended one a players' career. There is no mistake about it. Hopefully their HC took the OL coach with him to Army and things have gotten better at Poly, but I don't know since we thankfully haven't scheduled them again.

When they return to playing with modern, accepted schemes - I will welcome them on NDSU's schedule. The day is coming.

So how many chop blocks were called against Cal Poly in this atrocity of a game? If the kid whose career was ended due to an illegal block, you have a point. Otherwise you're just a message board blowhard who doesn't know what he's talking about.

[MplsBison]

So how many chop blocks were called against Cal Poly in this atrocity of a game? If the kid whose career was ended due to an illegal block, you have a point. Otherwise you're just a message board blowhard who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Even though they weren't chop blocks, I still have my original point: it's dirty. I never said it was illegal.

[FormerPokeCenter]

I already said they were in my post. Read it.

It wasn't claimed that GSoU is a "Doctoral/Research University", it was claimed that they are simply a "research university". Untrue, as I've showed.

In post #9 on this thread, you called them a "regional undergrad university." In the response, post #11, Baldy corrected your misconception and told you that GSU is a Doctoral-Research University. After a few rambling bloviations, you finally, in post #28 tried to deflect and change the topic by proclaiming the following: " Anyway, the point was simply that a few overzealous GSoU fans think they graduated from a research university. Not true, as I showed. "

The truth of the matter is that YOU claimed they were a regional undergraduate university and you were proven wrong. You've wasted copious bandwidth trying to change the topic to something you could be less wrong on.

Now you seem to be arguing that GSU is a Research-Doctoral University, exactly like they told you it was in Post #11. Again, do you have much trouble taking YES as an answer in real life?

There's either a reading comprehension problem or you're very clearly simply stirring the pot....

[FormerPokeCenter]

I didn't say peep about NDSU. You implied that on your own.

Speaking of intellectual meccas, I believe the term you were looking for is "inferred"....Implied is something he would have done had he made a post which suggested a correlation between concepts that's not based in fact. You seem to be taking his mockingly sarcastic condescension as evidence that he deduced or inferred an intent in your post that wasn't there.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but he wasn't being serious. He was mocking you. Do they teach topics like sarcasm, mockery and condescension in research universities, research-doctoral universities, or perhaps plain old regional undergraduate universities?

[FormerPokeCenter]

No, no one refers to a chop block and a cut block interchangeably, except you. Why would someone refer to a penalty and a type of legal block interchangeably? They're completely different things. For example, one involves 2 blockers and the other involves only one blocker. Pretty simply to see that they're entirely different.

The times NDSU played Poly, it was clear that their blockers were taught to go after knees. They achieved their goal in one game and ended one a players' career. There is no mistake about it. Hopefully their HC took the OL coach with him to Army and things have gotten better at Poly, but I don't know since we thankfully haven't scheduled them again.

When they return to playing with modern, accepted schemes - I will welcome them on NDSU's schedule. The day is coming.

Again, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but first you lament that the "art" of cut blocking isn't an inherent skill and that coaching staffs don't properly teach it. Then, you decry it as dirty stuff.....Which is it? Is it a dying artform? Or is it Dirty stuff? You post a link that specifically mentions that the two concepts are often used interchangeably in an incorrect manner, then deny that there's any confusion about the terms, or that they can and are used interchangeably. What's amusing is that you want to cite your link as a dispositive authority, yet dismiss it's claims about interchangeability as utter claptrap.

Wow...and I thought I had issues! ;)

Moreover, your view that a named penalty can exist without a corresponding named action is somewhat laughable. It would be totally laughable were it not so pathetic.

How can you name a penalty in the absense of an illegal activity? A chop block is illegal, so there's a chop block penalty. They didn't just decide to start using the name chop block without the actual technique existing....

I'm betting the purposefully abstruse routine probalby works for you since most people try to avoid tarbaby arguments.

[cmaxwellgsu]

Even though they weren't chop blocks, I still have my original point: it's dirty. I never said it was illegal.

There's nothing dirty about it at all. It is a blocking technique used in ours and other schemes. We don't have anyone diving at the knees in our blocking schemes. As Poke said, it's all about taking a guy off his feet by aiming at his hip. Diving at the knees would be counterproductive since the blocker would be at high risk for injuring himself, as well as not being able to get up fast to go after someone else. Maybe flag football is more your speed.

[MplsBison]

In post #9 on this thread, you called them a "regional undergrad university." In the response, post #11, Baldy corrected your misconception and told you that GSU is a Doctoral-Research University. After a few rambling bloviations, you finally, in post #28 tried to deflect and change the topic by proclaiming the following: " Anyway, the point was simply that a few overzealous GSoU fans think they graduated from a research university. Not true, as I showed. "

The truth of the matter is that YOU claimed they were a regional undergraduate university and you were proven wrong. You've wasted copious bandwidth trying to change the topic to something you could be less wrong on.

Now you seem to be arguing that GSU is a Research-Doctoral University, exactly like they told you it was in Post #11. Again, do you have much trouble taking YES as an answer in real life?

There's either a reading comprehension problem or you're very clearly simply stirring the pot....

He did say "Doctoral-Research", which to me implies a logical 'and' while the true term is "Doctoral/Research", which as I understand the classification implies a logical 'or'. But I think it's safe to say, based on this thread, that every GSU alum fancies the school as a research university, generally. They've latched onto the Carngie classification like an elementary school kid that wins a blue ribbon at track and field day. "See! I knew it! Carnegie says we're doctoral slash research! Must mean we're a research university!". Even their president will tell anyone who will listen about the good fortune of GSoU to be bless with such a distinction.


It's basically meaningless. And the point I've been trying to drive home (without much success) is that a school can qualify for the classification just by offering a single PhD degree. That's it. Because then they're technically doctoral. But like I said, it really doesn't mean much of anything because it's such a broad classification that many schools are lumped into. And many of those, I might add, are definitely regional universities that primarily exist to educate undergraduates.

So the most important thing to get out of all this is that the Carnegie classification does NOT mean that it's incorrect to refer to GSU as a regional undergraduate school. That's still basically true. They have probably 17k undergrads, which is their bread and butter. And without a doubt they're regional as they have "Southern" right in their name. You can't get more regional than being a directional school.


Yes I did refer to it as regional undergraduate with the intent of teasing them. I know just from reading the board for a while that many GSoU alumni hate the fact that they're not perceived as a statewide institution like UGA, GTech and GSU. But that's just the reality of it.

When GSoU gets to the level of offering around 20 PhD programs and conducts around 50 million dollars worth of research, then yeah I would say it's fair that they be considered a research school. But as is, with just a PhD in education and ~2 million in research a year? Nope.

Please don't waste any more of your time trying to convince me otherwise. I know I won't be able to convince them, so it's a pointless exercise in both directions.

[FormerPokeCenter]

I'm not trying to convince you. I'm merely doing "Research" into whether or not you actually READ what other people post.

I only ask because the very first post they made about the subject was in response to your dig about being a regional undergrad school and they replied with the VERY point you're now trying to make.

Rather than admit the guy responded appropriately, you've taken four or five pages of responses to take him to task for using a DASH instead of a FORWARD SLASH. And, from that, you've apprently INFERRED that he meant something entirely different.

Wow! Really, from a 15 degree variation in a shortened line segment, you deduced nefarious overreaching intent??

Ever considered working for the FBI as a profiler?

[MplsBison]

Speaking of intellectual meccas, I believe the term you were looking for is "inferred"....Implied is something he would have done had he made a post which suggested a correlation between concepts that's not based in fact. You seem to be taking his mockingly sarcastic condescension as evidence that he deduced or inferred an intent in your post that wasn't there.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but he wasn't being serious. He was mocking you. Do they teach topics like sarcasm, mockery and condescension in research universities, research-doctoral universities, or perhaps plain old regional undergraduate universities?

No, implied was correct for the context.

[MplsBison]

I'm not trying to convince you. I'm merely doing "Research" into whether or not you actually READ what other people post.

I only ask because the very first post they made about the subject was in response to your dig about being a regional undergrad school and they replied with the VERY point you're now trying to make.

Rather than admit the guy responded appropriately, you've taken four or five pages of responses to take him to task for using a DASH instead of a FORWARD SLASH. And, from that, you've apprently INFERRED that he meant something entirely different.

Wow! Really, from a 15 degree variation in a shortened line segment, you deduced nefarious overreaching intent??

Ever considered working for the FBI as a profiler?

I clarified the point I was trying to make in the post prior to yours. It's not that GSoU has a base classification of "Doctoral/Research" in the Carnegie system. Read the post.

[MplsBison]

Again, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but first you lament that the "art" of cut blocking isn't an inherent skill and that coaching staffs don't properly teach it. Then, you decry it as dirty stuff.....Which is it? Is it a dying artform? Or is it Dirty stuff? You post a link that specifically mentions that the two concepts are often used interchangeably in an incorrect manner, then deny that there's any confusion about the terms, or that they can and are used interchangeably. What's amusing is that you want to cite your link as a dispositive authority, yet dismiss it's claims about interchangeability as utter claptrap.

Wow...and I thought I had issues! ;)

Moreover, your view that a named penalty can exist without a corresponding named action is somewhat laughable. It would be totally laughable were it not so pathetic.

How can you name a penalty in the absense of an illegal activity? A chop block is illegal, so there's a chop block penalty. They didn't just decide to start using the name chop block without the actual technique existing....

I'm betting the purposefully abstruse routine probalby works for you since most people try to avoid tarbaby arguments.

I have not decried cut blocks as dirty. They're not, when performed correctly (shoulder through thighs).

I said that when NDSU played Poly they were going after knees and that was dirty.


The link I posted shows that a chop block is a penalty. Thus it's not a legitimate term for a blocking technique and anyone that disagrees has either lost touch with modern football or simply has no idea what they're talking about.

[MplsBison]

There's nothing dirty about it at all. It is a blocking technique used in ours and other schemes. We don't have anyone diving at the knees in our blocking schemes. As Poke said, it's all about taking a guy off his feet by aiming at his hip. Diving at the knees would be counterproductive since the blocker would be at high risk for injuring himself, as well as not being able to get up fast to go after someone else. Maybe flag football is more your speed.

There's nothing dirty about a proper cut block or this weird "get on their hip" thing that you guys are championing. Obviously not a modern blocking technique, but not dirty nonetheless.

I agree that diving for knees is counterproductive, but that's what happened and it is dirty.

[FormerPokeCenter]

There's nothing dirty about a proper cut block or this weird "get on their hip" thing that you guys are championing. Obviously not a modern blocking technique, but not dirty nonetheless.

I agree that diving for knees is counterproductive, but that's what happened and it is dirty.

Really? Not a modern technique?

So you're saying it went out with the singlewing and the flying wedge?

That's interesting.....EVERY team in the NFL uses some variation of zone blocking, which is predicated on stepping over and up, and getting on the hip. See the attached from Wikipedia, with citations for the dates which the various offenses in the NFL and the BCS began using zone blocking. There's even an excellent textual description of the use of lateral steps, and mention of the waist and hip as the focal point of attack.

Clearly, this is another of those NFL "Throwbacks" promotions, right? ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_blocking

[MplsBison]

Really? Not a modern technique?

So you're saying it went out with the singlewing and the flying wedge?

That's interesting.....EVERY team in the NFL uses some variation of zone blocking, which is predicated on stepping over and up, and getting on the hip. See the attached from Wikipedia, with citations for the dates which the various offenses in the NFL and the BCS began using zone blocking. There's even an excellent textual description of the use of lateral steps, and mention of the waist and hip as the focal point of attack.

Clearly, this is another of those NFL "Throwbacks" promotions, right? ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_blocking

Zone blocking is not a blocking technique. Its a scheme for deciding which defenders will be blocked by which offensive blockers. There are various techniques that different coaches teach their players to employ during plays that utilize a zone blocking scheme.

As I said before, no one making money by coaching the modern game teaches a blocker to put their shoulder on a defender's hip in a zone blocking scheme. Modern blocking is done with hand placement, arm extension and leg drive.

[FormerPokeCenter]

Zone blocking is not a blocking technique. Its a scheme for deciding which defenders will be blocked by which offensive blockers. There are various techniques that different coaches teach their players to employ during players that utilize a zone blocking scheme.

As I said before, no one making money by coaching the modern game teaches a blocker to put their shoulder on a defender's hip in a zone blocking scheme. Modern blocking is done with hand placement, arm extention and leg drive.

Maybe in pass protection, but in the zone blocking relied upon by triple option and veer teams, cut-off blocks are most effectively done by a covered lineman firing off with a flat back and getting to the defender's hip. (The term covered lineman is significant. ) In triple option blocking, there's not really a focus on hand placement and arm extension. Triple Option teams generally smaller, more nimble and athletic linemen. They're not going to belly rub or play pattycake with the defender, they're going to try to fire off, get on his hip, create some running lanes and then try to get to the next level on downfield blocking. It's a SIMPLE concept. Now, if the defender stands up and plays a poor technique, to the dilettante, it'll look like the offensive lineman is going for the defender's knees when that's not the case.

In situations where a defender is in a gap, or in an offset alignment, there's a fair amount of hand placement particularly on double teams, sometimes little more than a hand shuck or chip by one lineman, usually on the play side, to keep the defender from stunting away from the block and enabling the backside lineman to complete his lateral step to get on the defender's play side hip. Hand placement is not the big deal you think it is and arm extension isn't relaly either, in a triple option, because you WANT the lineman between the defender and the ball carrier to establish running lanes. And, when the defender tries to run around the block, or give ground to get outside the cut-off block, it sets up the cutback by using the defender's aggressive pursuit against him.

This is the way the triple option is coached. That's not a debatable point. Your whole assertion that teams are coached to take out the knees is ridiculous because that defeats the purpose of establishing running lanes, setting up the cutback and getting the OL to the second level of defenders....

Again, what we have here is a failure to communicate. Specific words mean specific things.....I'm sorry that the definitions don't change to suit exactly what it is you think you mean you're trying to say when you're being purposefully abstruse ;)

[MplsBison]

Maybe in pass protection, but in the zone blocking relied upon by triple option and veer teams, cut-off blocks are most effectively done by a covered lineman firing off with a flat back and getting to the defender's hip. (The term covered lineman is significant. ) In triple option blocking, there's not really a focus on hand placement and arm extension. Triple Option teams generally smaller, more nimble and athletic linemen. They're not going to belly rub or play pattycake with the defender, they're going to try to fire off, get on his hip, create some running lanes and then try to get to the next level on downfield blocking. It's a SIMPLE concept. Now, if the defender stands up and plays a poor technique, to the dilettante, it'll look like the offensive lineman is going for the defender's knees when that's not the case.

In situations where a defender is in a gap, or in an offset alignment, there's a fair amount of hand placement particularly on double teams, sometimes little more than a hand shuck or chip by one lineman, usually on the play side, to keep the defender from stunting away from the block and enabling the backside lineman to complete his lateral step to get on the defender's play side hip. Hand placement is not the big deal you think it is and arm extension isn't relaly either, in a triple option, because you WANT the lineman between the defender and the ball carrier to establish running lanes. And, when the defender tries to run around the block, or give ground to get outside the cut-off block, it sets up the cutback by using the defender's aggressive pursuit against him.

This is the way the triple option is coached. That's not a debatable point. Your whole assertion that teams are coached to take out the knees is ridiculous because that defeats the purpose of establishing running lanes, setting up the cutback and getting the OL to the second level of defenders....

Again, what we have here is a failure to communicate. Specific words mean specific things.....I'm sorry that the definitions don't change to suit exactly what it is you think you mean you're trying to say when you're being purposefully abstruse ;)

In the entire thread, I've never said that TO teams are coached to take out knees.

I said that what I saw of Poly was that their players did this to NDSU's defenders. That was not me mistakenly seeing them try to get on NDSU defenders' hips and thinking they were going for knees. Anyone can tell the difference between what you describe above and diving for someone's knee.


And as you pointed out, every team in the NFL runs a zone RUN blocking scheme of some sort - and I still now say to you that none of them try to get on defender's hips. Watch on Sundays and you don't see that.

[FormerPokeCenter]

I clarified the point I was trying to make in the post prior to yours. It's not that GSoU has a base classification of "Doctoral/Research" in the Carnegie system. Read the post.

You've been yammering about what you INFERRED the other posters meant because of a short line segment that was rotated 15 degrees off of what you thought it should have been, not based on anything they actually said.

But, I'll consider the matter closed, as you previously acknowledged that you were yanking their chain and that they did, in fact, respond appropriately. The remaining posts were just bloviation and wasted bandwidth.

[MplsBison]

You've been yammering about what you INFERRED the other posters meant because of a short line segment that was rotated 15 degrees off of what you thought it should have been, not based on anything they actually said.

But, I'll consider the matter closed, as you previously acknowledged that you were yanking their chain and that they did, in fact, respond appropriately. The remaining posts were just bloviation and wasted bandwidth.

You still display an inability to even comprehend the obvious point that I was making. And the point I was making had nothing to do with a dash vs a slash, so you obviously didn't even read it.

You've settled nothing, but I'll be quite content if you do not respond further.

[slostang]

Mpls does have a point. His hat rest on it. :)

[The Eagle's Cliff]

The Georgia Regents classify Georgia Southern as one of two "Regional" Universities (Valdosta State being the other) while UGA, Tech, State, and the Medical College are Doctoral Research Universities. When Georgia Southern earned the distinction of Research University from the Carnegie Foundation, the Regents claimed Southern would remain a "Regional" for "administrative" purposes. As a lifelong resident of Georgia, let me translate: "Georgia Southern is not close enough to Atlanta to be deemed worthy of anything." While the majority of the population of Georgia lives in the Atlanta-Metro area, the majority of actual Georgians live at or below the fall line which is Columbus-Macon-Augusta. Our time will come, but it's a slow process because every step forward we take, 5 steps must be given to the 4 "northern" schools.

We had a president fired in the 90's for promoting Ga Southern too much. The regents replaced him with Bruce Grube, UC-Berkley via St Cloud, MN. He did a good job of putting Southern "in its place" and is directly responsible for the shambles our athletics program fell in to. Ironically, NDSU was an early beneficiary of his influence with their victory here in 2006 against the first completely inept team we've fielded in the modern era.

[FormerPokeCenter]

You still display an inability to even comprehend the obvious point that I was making. And the point I was making had nothing to do with a dash vs a slash, so you obviously didn't even read it.

You've settled nothing, but I'll be quite content if you do not respond further.

You made no point on that whole portion of the thread other than it was your intent to inflame, which you admitted. While it's obvious you'd be content to have the last word, it's a pity you didn't indicate that you were simply yanking the Ga. Southern poster's collective chain early on.

The rest of us thought you were actually trying to have a serious conversation about Doctoral Research colleges in a thread about triple option blocking....

My suggestion on that whole having to have the last word thing?

Buy a cat ;)

[JohnStOnge]

The safety thing in football is getting out of hand. Seriously. If you don't want to take a chance of getting hurt: Play chess.

[seantaylor]

The Georgia Regents classify Georgia Southern as one of two "Regional" Universities (Valdosta State being the other) while UGA, Tech, State, and the Medical College are Doctoral Research Universities. When Georgia Southern earned the distinction of Research University from the Carnegie Foundation, the Regents claimed Southern would remain a "Regional" for "administrative" purposes. As a lifelong resident of Georgia, let me translate: "Georgia Southern is not close enough to Atlanta to be deemed worthy of anything." While the majority of the population of Georgia lives in the Atlanta-Metro area, the majority of actual Georgians live at or below the fall line which is Columbus-Macon-Augusta. Our time will come, but it's a slow process because every step forward we take, 5 steps must be given to the 4 "northern" schools.

We had a president fired in the 90's for promoting Ga Southern too much. The regents replaced him with Bruce Grube, UC-Berkley via St Cloud, MN. He did a good job of putting Southern "in its place" and is directly responsible for the shambles our athletics program fell in to. Ironically, NDSU was an early beneficiary of his influence with their victory here in 2006 against the first completely inept team we've fielded in the modern era.

Don't listen to this. This is just the garbage some of our fans actually want to believe. Grube was a very good president. He did more for the school academically than any other president we've ever had. He wasn't the biggest athletic booster, but so what. He was a nice guy, and bled blue.

Lets not get this twisted. If Grube grew up in Cummings, Georgia, he would be universally lauded by our fans. But, he is a "liberal, socialist from California."

Some of our fans got mad at the Hatcher firing, but again, make no mistake. Sammy Baker was the reason for hiring a bum like Hatcher, and he is still being held up by some of our so-called fans. I had no problem with the way Hatcher was fired, he should have been fired the year before.

Keel is a good guy, and so far, a good president, with the one glaring issue of continuing to employ Sammy. But, I think we are in good hands, just like we were with Grube.

[FormerPokeCenter]

I have not decried cut blocks as dirty. They're not, when performed correctly (shoulder through thighs).

I said that when NDSU played Poly they were going after knees and that was dirty.


The link I posted shows that a chop block is a penalty. Thus it's not a legitimate term for a blocking technique and anyone that disagrees has either lost touch with modern football or simply has no idea what they're talking about.

I'll offer a clarification of sorts. As a fan of the triple option and a guy with experience in the veer and whishbone, I've always been taught to "cut-off block" to the playside and to "check block" when making a block back against a lineman on the back side who's lined up either in the gap or is covering another lineman.

Targeting the defender's playside hip with the blocker's backside ear has always been the "point of attack" so to speak in either case. Depending on where the blocker executes his check block, I can see where it might be described as a "cut-block" and I acknowledge that people use that term all the time.

The cut-off block technique performed backside ear through playside hip basically has the same net effect as your description of driving the shoulder pads through the thighs. Poh-tay-toe, Poh-tah-toe....

The good triple option teams strive for a surge off the line, cut off blocks and establishing running lanes and setting up the cutback. To that end, diving at shoe laces, as you described some cutblocking techniques, is counter productive. Likewise, the notion that Cal Poly targets the knees flies in the face of what I saw with my own eyes. Poly fits the mold of most triple option teams. They've got smallish, quick offensive linemen who utilize great technique.

If smallish guys fire off with a flat back against a defense that's prone to standing up, it's going to look like the defender is getting hit in the knees. If the defender stays low, a blocker aiming for his knees would have to be 15 to 18 inches off the ground, which is also counterproductive as the defender can simply make the tackle over them.

Watching Cal Poly, I saw good technique, a surge and plenty of downfield blocking. Those things don't happen if the team has been coached to "go for the knees."

I'll concede that you probably saw what you think you saw. I just think it was probably poor technique on the part of the defender who either stood up or was playing passive enough to let someody get to his knees....

[clawman]

I remember more than one Cal Poly player ending his career to knee injuries suffer on the green stuff you call turf in the Fargo Dome. I say that is more of a threat to players knees than Cal Poly's triple option offense. I think that the NCAA should do college football a big favor and look at banning "old style" astro turf fields.

Hey, my EWU Eagles have done their part by adding new and beautiful RED turf!!
So many times refs don't get the basic calls right. Now add more details and we'll have to have review on every play to see who did what.
I am especially concerned with the interpretation of unsportsmanlike calls this year, specifically celebration could be called as live ball vs dead ball fouls.
Can't wait to see the first time a TD is called back because a player raised his fist or slows down before he crosses the goal line and the points are taken off of the board.

[Tuscon]

Hey, my EWU Eagles have done their part by adding new and beautiful RED turf!!
So many times refs don't get the basic calls right. Now add more details and we'll have to have review on every play to see who did what.
I am especially concerned with the interpretation of unsportsmanlike calls this year, specifically celebration could be called as live ball vs dead ball fouls.
Can't wait to see the first time a TD is called back because a player raised his fist or slows down before he crosses the goal line and the points are taken off of the board.

Gimme a break with the excessive celebration calls anyway. If a kid wants to do the worm in the endzone, let him. After all, isn't all of this supposed to be entertainment? I don't really understand how it's unsportsmanlike if they aren't jumping in the opposing players faces.

As far as slowing down, it can be said there is some strategic value in letting the clock run a little more.

[The Eagle's Cliff]

Don't listen to this. This is just the garbage some of our fans actually want to believe. Grube was a very good president. He did more for the school academically than any other president we've ever had. He wasn't the biggest athletic booster, but so what. He was a nice guy, and bled blue.

Lets not get this twisted. If Grube grew up in Cummings, Georgia, he would be universally lauded by our fans. But, he is a "liberal, socialist from California."

Some of our fans got mad at the Hatcher firing, but again, make no mistake. Sammy Baker was the reason for hiring a bum like Hatcher, and he is still being held up by some of our so-called fans. I had no problem with the way Hatcher was fired, he should have been fired the year before.

Keel is a good guy, and so far, a good president, with the one glaring issue of continuing to employ Sammy. But, I think we are in good hands, just like we were with Grube.

LOL...like we're in good hands with your buddy Barry. Good to see you're still following Alinsky's guidelines when making a point, though 'Skins.