Football University - Zone Blocking

Welcome to another installment of MHR's Football University. Today we'll go over the central identity of the Broncos offense: the "zone block" system. It is one of the least understood systems in football, and the techniques employed in the system are misunderstood to the point of absurdity.
For instance, are you aware that zone blocking is not just a "run blocking" system? Did you know that zone blocking is not used on every down by zb teams? Or did you know that zone blocking can not be run without the controversial "cut block"?
We'll discuss the meaning of the zone block, as well as the techniques employed. We'll explain why some people think the techniques are dirty, as well as why the techniques are safe and approved from the NFL all the way down to the high school level.
Zone blocking is a succesful system and is gaining adherents in the NFL every year. Click "read more" below to learn about this facinating concept.
What is a zone block?
Zone blocking is a different way of approaching the jobs of the offensive linemen. On almost every OL, the idea is to match up with an opposing defensive lineman and to block him.
In the zone block (which we'll call "zb", not to be confused with "zone blitz") each OL stays shoulder to shoulder and starts to move in the direction of a run play. (We'll discuss pass zone blocking a little later). They will either block an opposing player 1:1 or 2:1. On the 2 to 1 blocks one of the OLs will break off of the block to go to what is called "the second level". Here, a LB is blocked. That is the simple idea behind the zb.
Why is zb so special?
For several reasons.
- You don't need the big, tough guys found from the most elite colleges high in the draft to build a good group. You need smart, fast, agile guys. This makes your line cheaper, and easier to get. This also means you can spend high picks on other needs.
- All teams (even Denver) train against man blocking schemes throughout the season. Very little training is done at the player level against zb. (Coaches can adjust for the zb, but it causes players to use tactics they aren't used to using. For instance, many 1 gap DTs need to switch to 2 gap, or have to learn not to pursue tackles in confined space. See the recent University article on gaps and techniques).
- The cut block (which we'll discuss in a moment) scares defensive players for two reasons. One, it hurts to get hit on the thigh (where the common peronial nerve is the target). Two, defensive players are not used to being taken to the ground, and this is a common occurance in the zb.
- It makes runs hard to read. Inside runs do not have a specific route for the RB. He "one cuts" a target of opportunity, making defensive plays harder to prepare (more on "one cut" in a moment).
- It makes RBs easier to get. You don't need the most expensive, high round picks. You just need a "one cut" runner.
Denver, like all other teams, will have penalties. Denver doesn't chop block more or less then any other team. What Denver does do purposely is "cut block". Chop blocking is illegal and dangerous. In fact, it is illegal because it is dangerous.
Chop blocking is when one player blocks an opposing player above the waist, while another player blocks the player below the waist. It is dangerous because the opposing player will brace himself one way or the other, and the blocks are pushing the player in two directions and can injure the opposing player's knee(s).
Chop blocking and cut blocking are different blocks, but sometimes you will hear the two terms confused with each other. Chop blocking has nothing to do with zone blocking.
Ok, then what is a cut block?
A cut block is any cut below the waist. Some people think that cut blocks are inherently dangerous or dirty. They are not. There are plenty of teams (even at the high school level, such as the high school that I was defensive coordiantor for most of my coaching days) that use cut blocks. Blocking below the knees is both dangerous and illegal. It is not a part of zone blocking, and not a part of fair play in football.
Blocking into a player's thigh is a critical component of zone blocking, and every zone blocking team does it multiple times per game. Interestingly enough, cut blocking is done by every team in every game, whether they zone block or not.
Remember that in a zb the OL is moving together in the direction of the run play. What if the defensive line is moving in the same direction? That's right; you can't square up and block a guy slanting the same direction you are moving in. So the only way to block the opposing player is to lower your head (you should already be running with a low center of gravity) and put your helmet in front of the player's thigh. You can tackle from the side or the front so long as your helmet is in front of the opposing player when the contact happens. You then drive your shoulder pad into the opposing player's thigh as hard as you can. This should bring down the opponent.
What's the issue of "dirty play" by Denver?
It's a shame I have to waste time discussing this. The NFL has ruled that the cut blocks (as used by Denver) are safe, effective, and fair. But if you don't like Denver and think you know better than the NFL (who has to consider liability issues), than you might ignore this point. The fact is, the biggest complainers in the past are now using the same system as Denver, while trying to claim they use it "differently" than Denver. There is no "difference" in the required cut block against a 1 gap DL slanting in the direction of a run play. All zb teams will execute a block to the thigh in this situation. For Denver to be "different" they would have to go for the knees or below the knees. If they did this they would be penalized. The fact is, Every team cut blocks the same way. There is no "different" cut block.
Anyone who has taken either PPCT or defensive tactics in law enforcement is aware of the common peronial nerve. It is a target for batons or knee strikes and is considered a safe place to strike without causing an injury. The NFL also recognizes the upper thigh as a safe and legal (meaning "fair in the NFL") place to aim a block.
For Denver to play dirty or outside of the rules they would have to aim the block at a player's knees or below the knees. This would not only be dangerous and against the rules, but a terrible way to block. Anyone who has actualy played the game (and I'm not talking about Madden '07, which I haven't messed with) knows that the center of gravity you would have to lower yourself to would put you on your own knees. You would also likely miss your block because you have further down to go to get to your block.
As an issue of "rules" or "NFL legality" the cut block is a settled matter. It has been reviewed and challenged many times by players and teams who do not like to be hurt (and the cut block does hurt). The NFL (which has a reputation above all other sports for ensuring safety in the game, and also wants to avoid liability) has ruled the cut block as used by Denver and other zb teams to be a safe, effective, and fair method.
INTERMISSION

Ok, back to the action...
As an issue of ethics, a thing can be inside the rules but still be unethical. The best arguments against cut blocking as used by Denver fall into two areas.
- Is it ethical to use a method that uses pain to gain an advantage,
- Is there a higher probability of injury?
As to the frequency of injuries, there is no evidence that Denver or any other team causes more injuries because of their method of cut blocking. Some people will point to players who have been injured in games against Denver's OL. But they leave out key information.
Players in Denver have made illegal blocks below the knees. So has every other team. To be intentional, a player would be ejected and or suspended. In one of the most memorable cases, Igor Olshansky (SD) was penalized for attacking Tom Nalen (DEN) for what Igor thought was an illegal block. The block was ruled illegal after the game by the NFL (and rightly so). But it was also ruled unintentional. Olshansky's actions (while understandable) were intentional. As a matter of rules, what Nalen did was more serious. As an issue of ethics, Olshansky acted with intent, while Nalen didn't. Even though Nalen's action was unintentional, the result could have been catastrophic. That is why he was fined. But had his action been intentional he would have been ethicaly wrong as well.
Denver has not been determined to be using blocks to the knees or below the knees as a part of their "dirty system", for which they would be sanctioned at the team level. Denver has not been fined or penalized at the team level, and (since Denver switched to the zb scheme) an OL or TE has not been found to have executed an intentional block to or below the knees on a zone block play. People will continue to point to injuries that have happened, but you could just as easily point to the number of players injured in any type of scheme or method to try and make a point. With liability as an issue, it would not pay for the NFL to allow a method that can lead to serious injury, and the NFL has spoken.
Now that the bs is out of the way, what is a "one cut" runner?
Denver doesn't need the best RBs in the world. They need a zb OL and a one cut RB. A "1C" is a runner (he can be either powerful or fast) who starts to run in one direction, and when he sees a hole open up in the defense he cuts back to that opening and runs in a straight line. This goes against the instincts of most players.
Some RBs "juke", which means they fake side to side movements, and use agility to gain yards. Other players commit right away and dedicate themselves to a play or a direction.
But 1Cs must have patience. They must be able to run towards the direction of the play, have the vision to not commit until the see an opening, and the discipline to make "one cut" towards the hole and to stick with it. They must also have the confidence to pick a hole, since the coordinator doesn't pick it for him. (There is an exception, but this is a little more comlicated. See the link at the end of the article for more on "outside and inside" zones. For now, let's stick with the basics.)
Another key for a 1C is the ability to keep one's legs moving during a tackle. This is because most RBs like to spin or juke (or use other moethods), but a 1C usualy faces tackles in confined spaces where other methods don't work (confined because the second level is full of OLs, not just LBs). I would have made a terrible 1C. I played rugby in college, and could not (for the life of me) keep running when my legs got wrapped. I was already preparing myself to hit the ground. Here again, the 1C does what does not come naturaly to most RBs.
Do zb teams zb every running play?
No. On some quick penetration plays on short yardage (by either the RB or FB) the zb team can do either method (zb or common block) to fool the opposition. On all other run plays the team can go either way to throw off the opposition.
How does zb work in a pass play?
When zone blocking methods are employed during a pass play, the method is called "zone locking". A combination of man and zone locks are used in each pass play by a zb team (some players are assigned a man, while others are assigned a zone on the same play). It is also a complex subject that deserves its own article. Information on zone locking is in the link later in this article.
~~~~~~~~~
The best article on the net I have found for those of you who want to read more is here:
http://espn.go.com/ncf/columns/davie/1440703.html
Many articles (including wikipedia and several other mainstream sites) have articles that use incorrect terminology or don't know the difference between a defensive tackle and a defensive end. Bob Davie is considered an excellent Xs and Os coach (as his ESPN bio states), and the best conferences I've been to included his input. He's a college football guy, but his material is always sound and he has terrific illustrations in his article. He's an idol of mine when it comes to preparing defenses.
~~~~~~~~~~
As always, fire away with any questions or comments. I'll try to get to everything as long as the article is still on page one or two.
Go Broncos!
0 recs |
156 comments
Comments
OK,
Then with no viable FB, we fail on the goal-line when we try and power it in.
by broncodude793 on Mar 16, 2008 5:31 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Good thinking!
First, the zb really doesn't decrease the need for a FB for a couple of reasons.
- The FB is expected to zb just as much as the TEs do. In fact, TEs and FBs are better able to zb than common block because they already have (it would be assumed) the agility and quick feet to be effective.
- Because Denver combines the zb with a West Coast Offense, the FB is a valuable tool for screen plays.
This raises a point I meant to include in the main article, but forgot. I'm glad you reminded me. One thing that people complain about is unneccasary blocks that happen behind or away from the play. It should be remembered that there is NO "away from the play" in a zb scheme. Since the runner will always be expected to cut back, it is imperative that blocks happen behind (away) from the play.
Next, on goaline situations the team can either force the ball ahead with common blocking, or force the ball ahead with a zb. The FB in Denver's scheme is extra important because Denver often runs a play that sends the FB out for a screen (even though it most often is just to pull defenders away).
The FB has become less important as TEs and multiple TE sets have gained in popularity. With many team playing zone defenses (like the cover two systems) the TE gains in prominance because of his ability to exploit seams. Even in the Denver system we use RBs converted into FBs instead of "pure FBs". Until Denver goes to a 3 TE system (as opposed to just 3 TE sets on occasion), the FB will still have a role.
In case anyone is thinking about it, yes, the zb can be used in a 3 TE system. The reason the zb would be prefered in 3 TE systems is because TEs are natural zone blockers (more so than big, beefy OLs).
by Steve Nichols on Mar 16, 2008 6:08 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Awesome article!
by bcfunderburk on Mar 16, 2008 8:59 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the kind words
by Steve Nichols on Mar 17, 2008 4:08 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see.
by broncodude793 on Mar 16, 2008 9:32 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I would venture to say...
Further down the road, I expect the position to be replaced by an extra TE.
by Steve Nichols on Mar 17, 2008 4:07 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Professor styg dropping in
In observing the habits of fellow Broncomanaics I have noticed the adherence to the "late in the draft RB" philosophy, and perhaps more than any physical skill, it is patience that sets these late round and undrafted choices head and shoulders above their peers in terms of Denver's system. These are players that know well before the draft that they may not be with a team come training camp, and that they have a long ways to go to reach their dreams in the NFL. Nothing will be handed to them and they are prepared to accept that, and keep working. In life they must exercise patience, and they become good at it, so that when Bobby Turner, Denver's main coach for these young RBs, tells them, "Wait, be patient, keep reading and keep focusing, and when the opportunity is there, give it everything you got," when he is talking about following blocks, these CFAs and 6th rounders just nod in appreciation and go out and do just that, because that is what they have always done, and that is what they tell themselves everyday, about life in general. They aren't learning a new skill, just a new way of applying it.
Foremost is knowledge that patience isn't in the DNA. It is mental clarity, emotional control, and physical acuity all brought to bear on a single span of moments that may cover a few seconds or a lifetime. And it has to be practiced, honestly and often, if one wants to be proficient with it. You can't ask Tatum Bell, a young man with so much talent that everyone around him, including himself, was always wondering why he wasn't already where he was supposed to be going, to slow down and be patient and expect him to just be able to do it. Watching him run into the backs of his blocks with frequency is the ultimate concretization of an inner turmoil he may never fight through.
In fact, in Classical Literature 401, just down the hall, we are studying this same virtue in the character of Jean ValJean, hero of Les Miserables. As an ex-convict, welcomed by no one and bitter towards humanity, he was given shelter by a kind priest. Later in the evening he stole the priest's silver candlesticks, the priest's only valuable possessions, and attempted to escape, only to be caught by the local guard, who recognized the priest's valuables. When they presented him to the priest, to return the candlesticks and subsequently be hauled back to prison, the priest claimed that he had actually given Jean the silver, and that it had not been stolen. In disbelief, after the guards had left, Jean Valjean asked the priest why he had spared his life (to return to jail at that time would have been a life sentence for ValJean). The priest replied: "Take the silver. With it, I am buying your soul from the Devil, and I am giving it to God." Jean ValJean had every reason to be virtuous for the rest of his days. But he wasn't. At least, not right away. He tried and failed many times to exercise virtues like honesty and patience, but he did try to exercise them. With exercise came aptitude and proficiency, and after he had lived a long, full life, he finally obtained mastery in time to secure his most treasured value, the love of his daughter.
Nobody said patience is easy.
By the by, if any of you are interested in this discussion, you can join in down the hall in C.Lit. 401.
HT, why are all your students giggling??
by Jeremy Bolander on Mar 16, 2008 9:44 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Thank you again Styg
I'm sure the giggling is either because of my infamous intermissions or because I presently sit in my boxers typing by the night light coming from our kitchen.
Yes, patience is a wonderful thing. Today, we as a society value immediate gratification and flashy "slam dunks" and "bomb passes" in sports. Give me Petrosian and his careful but long winded positional play that eschewed tactics for strategy, or give me an offense that wears down the opponent, or an Ali that rope-a-dopes. Give me a basketball team that actualy passes the ball, or a football team that works together. Good points all Styg.
by Steve Nichols on Mar 17, 2008 4:04 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
This should not get lost in the shuffle
by MattR on Mar 17, 2008 5:07 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
by sallyyoullk230 on Mar 17, 2008 1:31 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes indeed!
by Steve Nichols on Mar 17, 2008 3:56 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
WRONG WRONG WRONG!!! AGAIN!!
"The chop block occurs when a player (usually an offensive linemen though not always) blocks another (usually a DL or LB but not always) from the side or the back, below the waist, OR when the defensive player is engaged with another offensive player and therefore defenseless."
So your definition of a CHOP block only covers one area in the actual definition of a CHOP block. If the block is above the waist, and from the back, then it is a CLIP. If the block is above the waist, and 'from the side', then it is legal only if the blockers helmet is in front of the player blocked, and in this case it could still be a CLIP, but its up to referee judgment.
The REAL definition of a CUT block is as follows...
"The cut block occurs when a player (usually an offensive lineman though not always) blocks another (usually a defensive lineman or LB though not always) below the waist, with his helmet in front of the player."
Notice the phrase "in front of the player", as a blocker is considered 'in front' as long as his helmet is on the front side. Any block below the waist, not deemed from the front, is a CHOP block, and not a CUT block.
Therefore Hoosierteacher's statement that, "A cut block is any cut below the waist", is also wrong. As the block must be from the front to be considered a CUT.
Lastly, a CUT block is not always legal, as Hoosier teacher states. I have already shown that blocks below the waist are CUT blocks ONLY when deemed from the front. All blocks from below the waist, and from the back or the side, are CHOP blocks.
However, a block from the front, BELOW THE KNEES, is termed an "ILLEGAL CUT BLOCK". This is a simple truth that Hoosierteacher refuses to accept.
And this is where the Donkeys come into the picture. It is widely known that the Donkeys illegally CUT block, and the only proof that is needed, are the disproportionate numbers of Donkey caused injuries as a result of Dirt Donkey OL Illegal Cut and Chop Blocks. (I have listed all these injuries before, but what the hell, so here it is again!)
Oct. 25, 2004: Cincinnati defensive tackle Tony Williams suffered a broken ankle when illegally cut blocked (AHA! See Hoosier teacher, I just cut and paste this) by Broncos right tackle George Foster.
Sept. 19, 2004: Jacksonville defensive end Paul Spicer suffered a broken leg on a low cut (I guess you could call it this as well Hoosierteacher, but it's still illegal, and still termed a CUT) by Broncos left tackle Matt Lepsis.
Dec. 1, 2002: San Diego defensive tackle Jamal Williams suffered a dislocated ankle when blocked from behind (IE Chopped) by Broncos guard Steve Herndon. Denver's Herndon, Shanahan Apologize To Chargers' Williams:
(http://www.cbssprtsline.com/nfl/story/5981625)
Oct. 28, 2001: New England linebacker Bryan Cox suffered a broken leg on a play involving Broncos right guard Dan Neil. Cox said he was chop blocked in the back of his leg by Neil; Neil denied hitting Cox. Broncos' Neil Fined for chop on Patriots' Cox - Breaks Cox's Leg
(http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/clayton_john/1272089.html)
Oct. 21, 2001: San Diego defensive lineman Maa Tanuvasa suffered a broken ankle on a cut block by Lepsis.
2001: (I could not find the exact date) Neil was fined $52,941.18 - the equivalent of one game check - for two leg whips against the Oakland Raiders in a Monday night game.
On top of all these, and there are many more, it does not stop at 2004 as the Chargers Igor Olshanski can attest....
November, 2006: Denver Broncos center Tom Nalen has been fined $25,000 by the NFL for a cut block on San Diego's Igor Olshansky in the final minute of the Sunday night's loss to the San Diego Chargers. (Thats funny Hoosierteacher, cause if it was a CUT block, then how could it be illegal? AHA! I can be sarcastic too!)
Check out this Sports illustrated article from 2004. Beautiful when the truth is right in front of you.
Broncos Have the Dirtiest Players - 3 in Top 10
(http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/players/10/12/poll.dirtiest/)
Hoosierteacher, I have spelled this out for you several times, so please read it numerous times until you get it. Its really a collection of simple truths, backed by a rediculous amount of evidence (something you did not use, except for you supposed HS coaching experience, if that matters anyway)!!
DONKEYS ARE DIRTY!! ILLEGAL CUT BLOCKS EXIST!! AHA!!
Go Raiders!!
OakFoSho
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 1:36 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm sorry you disagree (with the NFL and me)
Some of your comment is based on opinion, and people can differ. However, some of your comment is just plain wrong.
Where to begin?
First, as I pointed out (and you ignored), anyone can take any list of injuries and try to make a case out of it. However, you continue to ignore the following facts:
First, the NFL reviews every injury for three reasons.
- liability
- rules infractions
- the need to reconsider an existing rule for safety concerns
I don't know where you get your definitions. Here is "clipping", straight from the NFL Rulebook:
"Clipping: Throwing the body across the back of an opponent's leg or hitting him from the back below the waist while moving up from behind unless the opponent is a runner or the action is in close line play."
In case you don't know, the "close line of play" is any area between the tackles and extending out lateraly 3 yards in either direction.
There are two blocks that you may be confusing with chop blocking. If you are getting your definitions from the internet and not from the official NFL rule book (as I am), you may have missed these penalties (both are 15 yard violations) -
- Illegal low block
- Illegal crackback block by offense
Last, the term "illegal cut block" is not an NFL sanctioned term. And here is where I get to enjoy myself.
Other than the two terms I used above, "chop block", "clipping", and "illegal block above the waist" are the only blocks described by the NFL rules book as penalties. I don't mean to embarass anyone, but the term "cut block" is a method term, and is used by players and coaches. It is not a rule, nor an infraction. What you choose to call "illegal or legal cut blocks" are not defined as such by the NFL. They use the terms I have provided. Cut block is not listed as a penalty.
Perhaps, my friend, we are both in error. I wasn't aware that you might have been refering to Canadian Football, with which I am unfamiliar.
Thanks for playing.
by Steve Nichols on Mar 17, 2008 3:53 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Standing Ovation.
"Perhaps, my friend, we are both in error. I wasn't aware that you might have been refering to Canadian Football, with which I am unfamiliar.
Thanks for playing."
You sir, are the man! HoosierTecher, the G.O.A.T.
by ejruiz on Mar 17, 2008 7:19 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Learn the rules buddy....
Try Try Again, Donkeys!!
OakFoSho
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 2:21 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure...
That some are inside or outside the tackle box has no bearing on the conversation.
by Steve Nichols on Mar 17, 2008 2:31 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
AGAIN.....
OakFoSho
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 2:36 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Since Hoosierteacher....
By the way Hoosierteacher: Clipping Below the Waist, is listed as a 15 YARD PENALTY!!! SO MUCH FOR YOUR ARGUMENT THAT CLIPPING DOES NOT EXIST IN NFL RULES TERMINOLOGY!!! WRONG AGAIN!!!
AHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAH! YOU ARE A PERSON THAT MAKES UP RULES TO TRY AND WIN ARGUMENTS!!! That is Hilarious. YOU HAVE BEEN REFUTED IN DEBATE YET AGAIN soooooooo,
TRY TRY AGAIN SMART GUY!!!
Denial is not a river in Egypt!!!
OakFoSho
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 2:44 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
MY BAD MY BAD....
http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/penaltysummaries
Make something else up Hoosierteacher, cause proving you wrong time and time again is hilarious, and you are providing comedy to all my friends that are reading my posts, and sending me info via E-Mail to refute you. Its not just me man, as in Raider Nation, are all laughing at you. You are an embarrassment, even for a Donkey!
OakFoSho
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 2:46 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
IN FACTI HAVE FOUND ANOTHER.....
OakFoSho
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 2:50 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
You really need to read
And try to avoid the "shifting premises" error whenever you get proven wrong. Just nut up and let it go.
Better yet, make a diary laying out the case for "Dirty Donkies". Something that we can sink our teeth into, and which doesn't keep getting derailed by semantic issues, which has been addressed to death. Most of the readers of the site are happy with what they have learned about the terminology, but dwelling on this any longer just delays all of our potential for more learning and more growth.
Your case, and where all of this is coming from, is you want to make an argument about the moral inferiority of the Broncos. So write a diary and make it. Lay it out so it can't be ignored or marginalized. We'd like to see it, because none of us are interested in ignoring potential sportsmanship issues with our team. Just understand that it will need to be a solid case because we firmly believe otherwise. Making a case against HT's moral inferiority (which is what this has degenerated to) should hardly be suitable compensation for a serious debater, especially considering you're not going to convince anyone here, where HT has done nothing but provide value and insight since his arrival.
There is too much sound and fury over trivial semantics. Put that effort into a diary where it could do some good.
by Jeremy Bolander on Mar 17, 2008 3:32 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
You input comes after about...
Try Try Again!!
OakFOSho
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 3:36 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again, I type to fast.....
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 3:37 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
My input
I won't go back and review each post to point out exactly who changed what where, but I can confidently state that the GOOD that has come out of this is that we have gained some excellent clarification from HT, brought about by your badgering, and even some of your input (when you're not practicing ad hominem). It seems like a win-win up to this point.
I don't suppose you read my whole post and are considering a "Dirty Donkies" diary? ;)
And its ok to not correct your spelling errors all the time. If we see spelling errors we almost universally ascribe them to fast typing and hasty posting. Maybe in the future users will be able to edit posts instead of just diaries and stories. I know that is a feature I would really like, as I am a frequent hasty poster. I'm trying to get better though. Using the "preview" button more, mostly.
by Jeremy Bolander on Mar 17, 2008 4:06 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
First of all your regurgitation facts again....
Inside the Tackle box a block , below the waist, from the back is a CHOP. YOU EVEN MENTION THE TACKLE BOX, BUT COMPLETELY MISINTERPRET THE RULES, AGAIN!!! Regardless of how many times your refuse to accept this, like showing what a clip is OUTSIDE OF THE TACKLE BOX, it doesn't matter, because this definition does not even cover the area of discussion, IE illegal CHOPS and CUTS INSIDE THE TACKLE BOX!! TRY TRY AGAIN COACH!!! AHAHAHHAHAHHAHA! COACH MY ASS!!!
Also, don't try and educate me on a position I played, or the Tackle Box. Why? Because if you look back at our previous discussion on the previous post, I already refuted this argument by defining WHAT THE TACKLE BOX WAS, and you know very well that you don't need to explain this, as I already did, SMART GUY!!
Also, the referee does have a judgement call on a clip, that is why what often appears to be a clip is not called, because the blocker's head got to the front side, and the referee deemed it legal. Try Try Again Smart Guy, or should I say COACH!!! AHAHAHA!! I feel bad for those kids!
This guy has tried to make up rules, as well as his own interpretation of those NFL rules. Worthless, Post, that disproves nothing, YET AGAIN!! If you want to talk about CLIPPING and the Tackle Box, then get your facts straight before you try and educate the already educated, SON!!
And if you have a problem with the Donkey dirty play, don't blame me, just face the facts, look at the evidence, and then close your mouth as you continue to regurgitate the same outdated/made-up/crap, that you try and pass off as truth, because you are SUPPOSEDLY a HS football coach. Not that that matters, cause there are some TERRIBLE HS coaches, that teach the totally wrong things, IE Hoosierteacher.
Try Try Again, SON!!! AHA!
Hoosierteacher = Regurgitater = Worthless POST!!
OakFoSho
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 2:11 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
WOW!! I type toooo fast......
Please forgive the line in the 1st paragraph that reads....
", as the NFL and you are confusing the rules, not me"
this line should read.....
"You are confusing the NFL rules, not me"
OakFoSho
PS Hoosier teacher will try and use these typos against me, because he has no factual evidence left to stand on...
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 2:18 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
All of your points...
You brought up the issue, I gave you the NFL's position, and I see no further point in feeding your fantasy that you are more an expert than the rule book.
And by the way, you waste an awful lot of thread space correcting your errors (spelling and such). You don't need to do that here. As long as you don't get personal, your views are going to be judged by the thoughts behind them and not your composition skills.
by Steve Nichols on Mar 17, 2008 2:39 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Provide Sources.......
make up all you want, but list your sources if you want me to believe your make believe posts!!
AHA!! Denial is not a river in Egypt!!
OakFoSho
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 2:57 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am not sure why I am responding
Why isn't the chop block (below the waist), even if done inside the tackle box, called a penalty? Too many guys could lose their careers with serious knee injuries. --Ken Johnson, Champaign, Ill.There is a difference between a chop block and a clip. Clipping, as defined in the NFL rulebook, is as follows: There shall be no clipping from behind, below the waist against a non-runner. This does not apply to offensive blocking in close-line play, where it is legal to clip above the knees, but it is illegal to clip at or below the knees. Close-line play is that which occurs in an area extending laterally to the position ordinarily occupied by the offensive tackles and longitudinally three yards on either side of the line of scrimmage. In close-line play, if an offensive player's block, legal or illegal, is followed by a block rolling up the back of the legs of the defender, the action is illegal and is considered unnecessary roughness.
A chop block is a foul by the offense, in which one offensive player blocks a defensive player in the area of the thigh or lower, while another offensive player blocks the same defensive player high or above the waist. Both clipping and chop blocks are personal fouls and carry a 15-yard penalty. The rule is very tough in this situation because these blocks can cause serious injury
(emphasis mine)
by MattR on Mar 17, 2008 3:31 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
and the illegal below the knees block
Clipping below the waist we all know takes place outside the tackle box so is not applicable to the ZB discussion.
Similar for Illigal block above the waist.
And chop block was defined by Jerry Markbreit above.
So those are the five illegal blocks that are in the NFL rulebook that you linked to.
by MattR on Mar 17, 2008 3:36 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
About Clipping and an Illegal block....
OakFoSho
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 3:42 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Been there, done that
Can we at least agree that in the official NFL rulebook there are only five penalties for illegal blocks?
- Chop block.
- Clipping below the waist.
- Illegal crackback block by offense.
- Illegal low block.
- Illegal block above the waist.
by MattR on Mar 17, 2008 3:50 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes we can!!
OakFoSho
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 4:00 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, what are these rules then?
I know we have all agreed that clipping as a penalty must occur outside the tackle box. I think we can agree that illegal blocks above the waist and illegal crackback blocks are not relevant to the discussion.
So that leaves two penalties that we need definitions for: Chop Block and Illegal Low Block.
I have not found actual definitions of these penalties on the NFL site, just a page that lists them as penalties. The closest think I came for a chop block was from former ref Jerry Markbreit. So I am taking that as "official" until I find something better.
by MattR on Mar 17, 2008 4:26 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well done Matt
Your last two comments are great material. But (as we're all learning together today), no amount of arguing works with an eccentric.
Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find an online reference to the NFL rules. I think it is material that the NFL wants people to purchase. There is an abbreviated version on the NFL site, but it is VERY abbreviated. There is also information (as I mentioned earlier) that is either counterfactual or incomplete.
Great job, but again, facts won't help sneaky. Keep up the great work. You are the the person I'm trusting on the salary cap, since I have tried to read the material and still have a hard time deciphering it. You have made it as clear as can humanly be done, but much of the information still escapes me. : )
by Steve Nichols on Mar 17, 2008 3:46 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Working on a salry cap update
Back on topic - I am guessing that some of the defensive line injuries occur when players jump back from a blocker coming at their thighs so the contact ends up lower (at the knees/ankles). Am I offbase? And is that something that is left to the ref's discretion?
by MattR on Mar 17, 2008 3:56 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
YOU HANEN'T!?!?!? AHA!
Denial is not a river in Egypt!
OakFOSHo
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 4:05 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol! You Haven't found it?
OakFoSho
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 4:06 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
The source you cite
by Steve Nichols on Mar 17, 2008 4:56 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look through the site......
OakFoSho
"Kill the Lion, Eat the Sheep, Ride the Donkey!!"
by OakFoSho on Mar 18, 2008 1:29 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
THIS IS AN ADMISSION OF YOUR LIE!!!
"Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find an online reference to the NFL rules."
If thats the case Smart Guy, then why did you reference the NFL Rules Book if you did not have it. In a previous post on this very article you stated...
"I don't know where you get your definitions. Here is "clipping", straight from the NFL Rulebook: Clipping: Throwing the body across the back of an opponent's leg or hitting him from the back below the waist while moving up from behind unless the opponent is a runner or the action is in close line play."
YOU ARE WORTHLESS, and this is an admission of that fact. You cited in your post the NFL RULES BOOK, but you have just admitted that you have not ACTUALLY found a source. YOU ARE WORTHLESS!!
I now call into question the validity of all your post. You are a hypocrite, that makes up sources simply to win a debate. Low, even for a blog. While I may need another class on debate (NOT LIKELY THE WAY I HAVE HANDLED YOU), you need a class in ETHICS.
I cannot believe that you would actually admit a lie, in the very same Article conversation in which you made that lie up. It here for all too see, WORTHLESS!!
OakFoSho
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 4:21 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did you notice the word "book" in there?
This Digest of Rules of the National Football League has been prepared to aid players, fans, and members of the press, radio, and television media in their understanding of the game.It is not meant to be a substitute for the official rule book. In any case of conflict between these explanations and the official rules, the rules always have precedence.
In order to make it easier to coordinate the information in this digest, the topics discussed generally follow the order of the rule book.
by MattR on Mar 17, 2008 4:30 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
If he says he has a copy......
OakFoSho
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 4:38 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
what has he made up
by MattR on Mar 17, 2008 4:43 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
(laughing)
I told another commenter that I couldn't find an online reference for the rule book. I also stated that I think the NFL wants people to buy it, and that is why it may not be available.
I also stated that I have the actual BOOK RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME. I also stated that I had borrowed it from a friend of mine who coaches about 45 minutes from my home.
Are done looking foolish yet? I don't think you can top this latest idiocy of yours. Haven't you read anything I wrote?
Are you ready to apologize, or are you going to fall back on your, "I was only joking stunt"?
"You are a sad, strange little man" - Buzz Lightyear
by Steve Nichols on Mar 17, 2008 5:03 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
You have failed several burdens of proof
One burden of proof you have NOT met is showing that these injuries are in statistical excess of the same figures of any given NFL team in a sufficiently long time period, that is, depending on how much weight you wish to give your argument, at least one standard deviation above the NFL average of defensive line injuries among opponents. Had you met this burden, you would have shown that Denver DL opponents have been disproportionately injured in the given time period.
Another burden you have failed to meet is showing that this disproportional level of injuries (which you have failed to prove) was caused by the Bronco's employed offensive scheme(s). I agree that this is a difficult thing to prove, however, it is down right impossible with the premise of disproportionality has not even been established.
You have shown that opposing defensive linemen have been injured in Bronco's games. Bravo.
by poorboywilly on Mar 17, 2008 1:31 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of Course Donkey fans like this....
Denial is not a river in EGYPT!!
OakFoSho
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 2:24 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you poor
The NFL has reviewed everything that has been put on the table regarding the matter, and continued to support the position of zb teams like Denver. There's just no arguing with that, unless someone thinks they have more knowledge, more research, more experts, more testimony, more film, more doctors, more game officials, and more lawyers than the NFL. But you can't argue with conspiracy theorists.
by Steve Nichols on Mar 17, 2008 2:47 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Keep lying to yourself.......
You make a new mistake when you say....
"They allow cut blocking, and have not sanctioned the Broncos for the technique nor have they changed the rule."
Actually this rule is up for debate every year, and it has been modified and re modified several times since the year 2000. Try Try Again Smart Guy. Also, look back over the examples of injuries, the articles I list as proof, and you can clearly see that the NFL has sanctioned the Donkeys several times.
Denial is not a river in Egypt!!
OakFoSho
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 3:02 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh Come On...
If it were truly illegal, the NFL would change the rules or ask the referees to call it on every single play, niether of which has happened or will happen.
by super7 on Mar 17, 2008 9:27 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Olshansky
Nalen got fined 15,000 for that block, nobody else on the Denver line moved. It was a spike play; Nalen is quoted as saying he thought Olshansky 'twitched', so he went after his tibia. That shows intent no matter how you rationalize it. Jamal Williams claims he was hit after the whistle far away from the action, he was out for the year.
The Broncos get great production from their RBs so I can't say it isn't effective, but if you play that close to the line, you are bound to cross it more often.
by Brian on Mar 17, 2008 9:47 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
on an unrelated subject.....
by mdierk on Mar 17, 2008 10:25 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brian
A hit after the action is wrong. On the other hand, if the hit happens behind (away from) the play, it may not be a problem. One cut runners start in one direction, then cut back the other way through a hole of opportunity. For this reason, blockers away from the play must keep their blocks. I understand Williams' claim. Here again, was the issue cut blocking in a zone block system, or was it just a flagerant foul that happened away from the play? It wasn't deemed a team issue, and the rules weren't changed as a result.
by Steve Nichols on Mar 17, 2008 3:04 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whenever Hoosierteacher.....
Just so you know, I no longer believe that the Tuck Rule Play in the Snow Bowl, effected the outcome. The reason is that, the Pats are cheaters, and they most likely taped our signals and practices, just like everyone else's. Therefore, not only did they get all the help in the world from the refs with the Tuck Rule Play, but they needed to cheat as well. This just re-affirms that the Cheat-triots dynasty is a total farce. I feel bad for not just the Raiders, but for the entire NFL, and the fans, including Donkeys, who had this great game hijacked by a bunch of cheater for so long. This is almost as bad as Steroids, as they are both cheating.
OakFoSho
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 3:17 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem is...
The tuck rule was a terrible rule, but it wasn't "all the help in the world from the refs" that cost the raiders the game. The officials interpreted an existing rule correctly, and that's what bothers you.
Instead of admitting that the tuck rule (as well as rules pertaining to blocking) are the rules you have to play by, you would rather blame the officials or the NFL or some other team. You just can't conceed that you have a basement team.
The delicious irony is that the tuck rule was introduced to the NFL by none other than Al Davis himself, and it bit him in the butt. (He is listed as the sponsor of the rule, though I doubt he was smart enough to write it up himself).
As long as you are going to resort to ad hominems (look it up, and look up epistomology too since Styg is over your head later in this thread, and go out and by a copy of the NFL rule book too) there really is no reason to continue the discussion.
Your sole contribution is to insult people, to make accusations about peoples honesty regarding their history (coaching in my case) or reading the rule book, and just acting like a young fool. Your "references" are non topical, and you keep retreating from points when you lose them and try to create new ones (look up the term "straw man argument" while you're at it).
I'm here for people who want to learn, want to teach, or want to converse (even to debate). You are none of these. You are here to act like a fool, and you don't need me to help you with that.
I wrote in the comments of another diary that I though you deserved an arena, since it seemed like you might have grown up a bit. Since you haven't, you'll have to waste your comments on someone else. Try back in another few months if you're grown up a bit. I wish you well, and look forward to conversing with you when you've learned a little bit about class. I know you'll get there at some point. In the meantime, you can carry on the discussion with people who have more tolerance for childlike behavior than I do.
Best of luck to you in your environmental studies and to your team.
by Steve Nichols on Mar 17, 2008 4:21 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again sttribute things to me that I have not said!
Again, your trying to administer a low blow. Are you a man, or a little girl that likes to kick men in the nuts? It will not work, as the Tuck Rule is not the deciding factor, the cheating is. The truth will soon be out in the open, when the Pats own former employee brings down the house in front of Congress or an NFL board.
OakFoSho
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 4:44 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
HT
by Brian on Mar 17, 2008 4:19 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think...
I would hope that if this is the case the NFL would take it into considertaion. It is reasonable to think that the Charger's would lead the charge (pun unintended) in making a complaint to the NFL, and that the NFL would evaluate the matter. It may be reasonable to assume that the Chargers' organization either doesn't consider it a matter, or they have made a case that the NFL has rejected.
Regardless of whether there is an existant issue or not, I hope the breakdown was helpful. SD's 3-4 scheme is an attacking 1 gap system, and vulnerable to the zb offense for that reason. While the Pats play a 2 gap 3-4, they seem to have some troubles because of the ease of which OLs get to their second level.
by Steve Nichols on Mar 17, 2008 4:32 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not specifically dealing with
As far as more injuries against the Chargers? The level of intensity on that play kind of sums it up for me. The rivalry may not seem as big to fans who are used to hating on the faders, but it has been building up on the field for years, and it should really blow up when both teams get to the top together. It was ssupposed to be there this year and last, but the Broncos didn't really have a leg to stand on, so it became more of a onesided affair, with the promise of bitter battles in the future.
by Jeremy Bolander on Mar 17, 2008 4:59 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brees
by Brian on Mar 18, 2008 9:17 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
HT!
by Jon Tollerud on Mar 17, 2008 2:21 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Of Course you would defend him...
Again, Denial is not a river in Egypt!!
OakFoSho
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 2:30 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
ALSO.....
I on the other hand, have provided sources, and what do you Donkeys do, deny that they are true, without actually proving that they are false.
Again, Denial is not a river in Egypt!!
OakFoSho
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 2:34 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sneaky
http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/digestofrules
or the specifics here:
http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/definitions
by Jon Tollerud on Mar 17, 2008 2:53 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I already listed that source above....
About the Fool comment.
1. Fool, in Oakland where I grew up, is a term of endearment, used rediculousy often, in everyday speech.
2. If a person refuses to accept the truth, as I have sourced it for him on several occasions, then they are either blind, or a fool. I would not presume to know which one Hoosierteacher is!
Denial is not a river in Egypt!
OakFoSho
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 3:07 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oops! Ridiculously!! Aha!
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 3:09 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the support Jon
sneaky will continue to throw out personal comments and to question people no matter how much patience they try to exhibit. At this point I think sneaky's words and my words on the matter speak for themselves, and there isn't much more to add.
Thanks again for having my back.
by Steve Nichols on Mar 17, 2008 3:15 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
tackle box?
Are you talking about close line play?
Close Line Play: The area between the positions normally occupied by the offensive tackles, extending three yards on each side of the line of scrimmage. It is legal to clip above the knee.
http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/definitions
I'm off to the basement to look in my tackle box, fishing season will start soon.
by fire Bill Callahan on Mar 17, 2008 7:34 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fellow Broncomaniacs
Sneaky's error isn't a factual error. It is an epistemological one; i.e. he is making a statement with no claim to evidence, and then attempting to support it with unrelated evidence. This is what is meant when someone is accused of making "Arbitrary" statements.
"Arbitrary" means a claim put forth in the absence of evidence, perceptual or conceptual; its basis is neither direct evidence nor any kind of theoretical argument. It is sheer assertion with no way to validate it or connect it to reality.
This doesn't mean that someone issuing arbitary claims won't TRY to connect it to reality, just that by the nature of the idea's creation, they won't be successful. An arbitrary idea has no cognitive status whatsoever. Such claims are not to be regarded as true or false: it is simply to be dissmissed as irrelevant. Truth is established by a body of evidence IN CONTEXT; the false is pronounced false because it contradicts the evidence IN THAT CONTEXT. The arbitrary does not relate to that evidence in that context. It is the human equivalent of the noises made by a parrot...squaking that sounds like something familiar, yet without content or significance.
I will note parenthetically that the words expressing an arbitrary claim may be judged as true or false in some other cognitive context (i.e. identifying injuries caused by Denver linemen can be true) but only when they are not put forth arbitrarily. For example, if a parrot says "2+2=4", it doesn't mean that he knows math or understands what 2+2 means. When Sneaky claims that "Denver linemen have caused injuries," he is essentially doing the same thing. Without any context or standards, what he is uttering is completely arbitrary (as HT pointed out by noting that they aren't the only ones to have ever caused an injury). In both the parrots case and Sneaky's the verbiage does not express an idea; they are merely conceptual symbols that mean something in particular contexts, but nothing in these particular cases (which have either no context--parrot, or arbitrary context--Sneaky.)
It is not our responsibility to refute arbitrary assertions--to try to find or imagine arguments that will show his assertion to be false is a fundamental error to even attempt. To do so validates his argument completely, since you are essentially saying that you will accept an arbitrary claim is fact and go from there.
There is only one way to deal with an arbitrary assertion.
Dismiss it out of hand as irrelevant and inadmissable.
by Jeremy Bolander on Mar 17, 2008 3:09 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Ha ha
by Jon Tollerud on Mar 17, 2008 3:14 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks Styg
sneak would benefit from a good debate class (another thing I coached, which you already know about). He might start with the basics before he even gets to fallacies. Not getting personal would be an excellent place to start. It instantly ruins credibility.
by Steve Nichols on Mar 17, 2008 3:24 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its not my fault that....
Frankly, why stop clowning, when you make it so easy and fun!
OakFoSho
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 3:51 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
WOW!!
What is it with you and the term epistemological? Is that like your favorite word, or are you trying to sound smart, cause you use it a lot?
Denial is not a river in Egypt!
OakFoSho
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 3:28 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, I like the word "Epistemelogical"
For anyone who isn't familiar with the term, Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the means and method of human cognition, i.e. how we learn and understand knowledge. I have used the term twice here, but yeah, that is two more times than it probably should be seen on a football site. On the other hand, this site is filled with readers and contributors hungry for ever more knowledge, so in that light, it seems relevant.
I'm not refusing to make a connection, I am refusing to consider the arbitrary, which I find your claim of "Dirty Donkies" to be. If you think there is a connection between a random list of injuries and a moral appraisal of sportsmanship, by all means, make the connection and enlighten us, preferably via diary (they are easy to make and if you know HTML they can come across as pretty sharp and well organized, as opposed to these rambling threads).
by Jeremy Bolander on Mar 17, 2008 3:47 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Diary on this?
OakFoSho
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 3:54 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whatever
by Jeremy Bolander on Mar 17, 2008 4:12 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
BTW
That and a distaste for HT, of course.
by Jeremy Bolander on Mar 17, 2008 4:16 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
ENOUGH!
If we put every single thing under the microscope, we would have a yellow hanky fest and the games would last 6 hours!
Defenders are taught about ways they could be blocked by the offense. If they can't headle it, they need to enter into another line of work.
Football is a collision sport. Anyone could be injured at any time.
There is no need to get personal and look like a fools trying to score points. Show some maturity when posting. We can disagree all we want, but this is a forum and an outlet to talk about a game we all love. Folks, we still have over a month before the draft and 4 to 5 months before training camp.
We all need to be reminded that we come on this site to get more information and enjoy the content that is MHR.
by mdierk on Mar 17, 2008 3:15 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Amen n/t
by Steve Nichols on Mar 17, 2008 3:26 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I did not say ZB was dirty.....
Don't get it twisted, this is an argument about the specifics of rules that Hoosierteacher misinterprets and fouls up.
And as for showing class when posting, this all from a person with the quote
"fader nation is a conquered nation."
Practice what you preach buddy. Try Try again Donkeys!!
OakFoSho
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 3:31 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
See the thing is
by MattR on Mar 17, 2008 3:41 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do practice what I preach...
I do enjoy how worked up you get over all of this. That's entertainment.
If you can't take it, then by all means, feel free to leave.
by mdierk on Mar 17, 2008 3:42 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually....
Served!!
OakFoSho
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 3:46 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sigh
This is a site for Denver fans and vistors. Denver fans are expected to talk trash here. When you take it to someone elses place it is classless. Isn't that right? When people go to see their own team play as visitors to oakland it's ok to rough them up according to you.
(Oh right. When called on anything you call it a joke and blame the person you were speaking to).
You have clearly lost a lot of credibility on your definitions, as well as how you argue. You should probably admit your definitions and understanding of certain football terminology was just a joke, and blame us for not getting it.
by Steve Nichols on Mar 17, 2008 4:04 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sneaky,
by broncodude793 on Mar 17, 2008 4:07 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
With that, you score the wnning point.
Cases in point:
- Saint comes to our site and airs a grievence. He does so without getting personal, and keeps his class.
- Guru and myself go to Saint's site to wish him well on his new daughter. Class.
- Mdierk has an anti-faider signature. It appears in a Denver fan site. No class lost.
- Fans from across the spectrum go to the Skins site to offer condolences for Taylor. Class.
- Unmentioned person goes to another team's site and trash talks the opposing team, then lowers himself to accusing people about their backgrounds and making facetious comments (and not understanding the simple concept of epistimology, even after having it explained for him), and keeps moving the goalposts after being made to look foolish (blocking in and out of the box) - classless.
by Steve Nichols on Mar 17, 2008 3:58 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hoosierteacher Proves Himself....
"Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find an online reference to the NFL rules."
If thats the case, then why did he reference the NFL Rules Book if he did did not actually have it. In a previous post on this very article he stated...
"I don't know where you [Sneaky] get your definitions. Here is "clipping", straight from the NFL Rulebook: Clipping: Throwing the body across the back of an opponent's leg or hitting him from the back below the waist while moving up from behind unless the opponent is a runner or the action is in close line play."
He is worthless, and this is an admission of that fact. He cited in his post (written above) the NFL RULES BOOK, but he has also admitted that he has not ACTUALLY found a source. HE IS WORTHLESS!!
I now call into question the validity of all his posts. He is a hypocrite, that makes up sources simply to win a debate. Low, even for a blog. While I may, as he says, need another class on debate (NOT LIKELY THE WAY I HAVE HANDLED HIM), Hoosierteacher obviously needs a class in ETHICS.
I cannot believe that he would actually admit a lie, in the very same Article conversation in which he made that lie up. It's here for all too see, WORTHLESS!!
OakFoSho
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 4:29 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey,
by broncodude793 on Mar 17, 2008 4:31 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
This deserves a comment:
I also stated that I have the actual BOOK RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME. I also stated that I had borrowed it from a friend of mine who coaches about 45 minutes from my home.
Are done looking foolish yet? I don't think you can top this latest idiocy of yours. Haven't you read anything I wrote?
Are you ready to apologize, or are you going to fall back on your, "I was only joking stunt"?
"You are a sad, strange little man" - Buzz Lightyear
by Steve Nichols on Mar 17, 2008 4:39 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your an UNETHICAL......
OakFoSho
"Kill the lion, eat the sheep, RIDE THE DONKEY!!"
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 4:48 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
What's the problem?
Do you think that:
A. The Broncos do not commit more illegal blocks than other NFL teams, but the NFL should change the rules.
B. The Broncos commit more illegal blocks than other teams and are called for more penalties because of it.
C. The Broncos commit more illegal blocks than other teams, but the refs don't notice. (Which means you accuse the NFL of poor officiating.)
D. The Broncos commit more illegal blocks than other teams, and the refs know it but choose not to call penalties. (Which means you accuse the NFL of favoritism.)
These are the only logical possibilities. Either the Broncos aren't cheating, or they are cheating and are penalized more than other teams, or they are cheating but the refs are too stupid to catch it, or they are cheating but the NFL allows it.
So Sneaky, which is it?
by fire Bill Callahan on Mar 17, 2008 8:41 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
What do you guys think of my sig?
by broncodude793 on Mar 17, 2008 3:40 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Hey Sneaky,
Obviously you both agree to disagree.
Put it to rest.
No one cares if you did or didn't misdefine a scheme or word. It's childish to make a scene over this or if someone is playing dirty.
If someone is playing dirty, then it's the League's responsibility to interveine and dish out punishments.
Lastly, injuries are a thing of the game and can be related to many a thing such as over exertion.
End this and if you guys still want to bicker, argue over if the scheme will develop into being used by every team or something.
This is a football site.
by broncodude793 on Mar 17, 2008 4:26 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I take ETHICS very seriously........
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 4:32 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
He did not have the online source
The trash talking is fine. It is the tossing around of terms like unethical and challenging the honesty of a respected poster that is completely unacceptable here at MHR, even from a Raiders fan.
by MattR on Mar 17, 2008 4:40 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I said one or the other........
- The Book Title
- The book copy write info, IE the publisher and year, and state,
- the page #s
OakFoSho
"Kill the lion, eat the sheep, RIDE THE DONKEY"
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 4:53 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
He shows
Obviously, we will not let this happen.
by broncodude793 on Mar 17, 2008 4:55 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
What are you calling the real source?
by MattR on Mar 17, 2008 4:58 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
For crying out loud.
The title?
Official rules of the national football league 2007.
Publisher information?
Triumph Books, ISBN 978-1600780288 '07
Pages?
The copy I have has 240 pages, unless you count the pages in the back with re-order information for next year's copy. There is also an advertisement page for a record and fact book that you can order. Neither of those two pages is numbered. If you want to count them then there would be 242.
There is a picture of a Seahawks player on the cover. There is also some pen markings on the cover where my buddies grand daughter wrote on the book.
That's all of the circus entertainment you get from me. Perhaps now you can perform a trick and apologize.
I didn't think so.
by Steve Nichols on Mar 17, 2008 5:37 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
by Jeremy Bolander on Mar 17, 2008 5:49 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
That won't be enough.
by Russ on Mar 17, 2008 5:57 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whoops
by Russ on Mar 17, 2008 5:58 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Correct link
by Russ on Mar 17, 2008 6:00 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think this is a direct link
Hilarious (as most Chappelle stuff is)
by MattR on Mar 17, 2008 6:05 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
You need to put yourself in others shoes
Let's use ethics here. Everyone has different ones. What you seem suitable or necessary may not seem like that to someone else.
by broncodude793 on Mar 17, 2008 4:34 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Secondly,
As you put it, you must have proof to be ethical. Well, then where is your proof that if you don't pertain to ethics by and by that you're worthless?
by broncodude793 on Mar 17, 2008 4:37 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
85 comments, I guess I should chime in. ;)
You are the most dangerous kind of "ethical person" in this country, even more than the occasional terrorist. And one day your kind will come face to face with my kind. Me and other freedom lovers will win the battle of "ethics" with your enviro-nazi counterparts.
I bet your favorite show right now is that humanity-hating "When We are gone" BS being aired on the Discovery Channel. you enviro-nazis could help speed things along by jumping off the tallest bridge you can find. :P
HT,
Excellent peice and it was very informative. I hope next time I hear dimwits, I mean pundits, talking about our scheme I can yell at them for screwing up the terminology. I've heard chop block used as often to describe our ZB system as i have heard cut block.
Broncodude793,
Did I just cross the line with my "attack" on Sneaky? :)
by Tim Lynch on Mar 17, 2008 4:41 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Hey, don't link this enviro-nazi with Sneaky :)
by MattR on Mar 17, 2008 4:49 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
HT, you're doing a good job writing the articles in a way that will provoke a friendly debate as in a downhill runner vs. a juking guy, which more productive in today's league? Not, an in your face brawl as he seems to want.
by broncodude793 on Mar 17, 2008 4:52 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, I grew up in a place
Go to China, India, or any other third world nation out there and see what filth they live in. We do a pretty damn good job keeping our ecosystems clean, but is that ever good for Sneaky and his environazis?? hell no, it's always America's fault...never the other major polluters.
Sure we dump the most crap into the air, but what can I do about that? All I can do is try to keep waste from my garbage from ending up in the "Great Western and Eastern Pacfic Garbage Patches". :)
by Tim Lynch on Mar 17, 2008 4:52 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know you have won a debate.....
God Bless America!!!
OakFoSho
"Kill the lion, eat the sheep, RIDE THE DONKEY!!"
by OakFoSho on Mar 17, 2008 4:56 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha
I don't consider that a debate. A debate is non offensive.
I could understand this if Sneaky was blowing of steam since his team is 4-12, and signed a WR to a gargantuin contract when many wanted him axed before hand, who couldn't play with Brett Favre, work with Shanny, and then goes to the Raiders?
You're naive if you don't think Hall and or Walker will blow. Walk's got his contract now. Nice guarentee, too. If Hall gets inked like that, you will truly see what an outspoken player is. The two best players on that team now are just great character guys, huh?
Well, that last paragraph had nothing to do with this, but I wanted that off of my chest.
Back to scheduled programming...
by broncodude793 on Mar 17, 2008 5:01 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are absolutely right
I heard some pundit make the point that if we spend billions of dollars on alternative fuels and it turns out global warming was a hoax, who cares? In the worst case we have helped reduce pollution while eliminating the thorny political relationship we have with dictators who happen to have oil.
by MattR on Mar 17, 2008 5:05 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I always here America should do more...
Basically we throw money at anything and everything without actually doing anything except fleace taxpayers like myself. I would prefer to have EVERYTHING decentralized and localized. Pollution would disappear in a matter of weeks, because no one likes to dump human feces in their own backyards. It's government and corporations that allow themselves to dump feces in other people's backyards.
This is the one crux that has forever kept me from being a democrat. More government and more taxes isn't the answer and it will never be the answer. The answer is less government and NO taxes. :P
Oh and why aren't the enviro-nazis in third world nations demanding environmental standards?? Have you seen the amount of destruction of the environment committed by nations like Mexico, China, India, Colombia, Haiti, nearly all African nations, ect ect. Why are AMERICANS blamed for it? Go protest the real polluters of the Earth.
by Tim Lynch on Mar 17, 2008 5:19 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am sort of an environmentalist,
by Tim Lynch on Mar 17, 2008 5:21 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
re Whackos
by MattR on Mar 17, 2008 5:40 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am a Ron Paul supporter, 'nuff said about
by Tim Lynch on Mar 17, 2008 5:49 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
We sound like different flavors of libertarian
Which brings up a related point. It is difficult for regulation to work when the people in charge of doing the regulation don't believe that regulation is the answer. I would bet the subprime mortgage mess would never have happened if the government was actually doing the regulation they should have. Instead they were suing states to prevent them from enforcing their own consumer protection laws.
As for your last point - I think the answer is that the protesters think (a) the US actually has the ability to make these changes (they are all after all the leader of the free world and not some poor nation that can barely feed itself) and (b) there is a better chance that someone in the US will listen to them. Whether these are fair assumptions or not, I do believe they are the rationale behind the decision.
by MattR on Mar 17, 2008 5:36 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
As long as physical force
In fact, I am trying to do my part: a hydroelectric powerplant (small in the neighborhood of 4MW) is one of my major projects up here in Alaska.
But Physical force is the crux of the issue: when a government taxes you beyond reason and directs that money where the political pull is greatest, you are being physically robbed. Our country and its government have become a gigantic "Political favor" machine, where any economic group who cares to can seize the controls of the machinery and for a short while direct government proceeds (taxes of everyone else) to their ends, until someone seizes the machinery from them. Government is being used as a club for whichever group happens to get its hands on it, for as long as they can manage to keep it. In the meantime, the heart of the country, people who everyday commit their time and energy to producing something see their efforts slowly eroding and their morale degrading in rythm to the erosion. You work hard everyday to create enough values to survive by, then go to bed at night, unsure if what has been left to you after taxes have raided your bank account, federal deficit spending has raided the value of your dollar, and the "lobby of the month" has raided your personal property by telling you that you can't expand your house because of "environmental regulations", and the fear and panic is REAL. You can't help but feel that SOMETHING is wrong and that somehow you are the victim of some invisible attack occurring just on the periphery of your vision.
On the one hand you tell yourself that they can't really mean to be causing you to suffer, or that you might be part of the problem.
On the other hand, you are going tohave to work twice as hard tomorrow, and the next day and the next, if you are going to be able to make it. That bad feeling you get is the implicit knowledge that if push came to shove, it would be someone pushing and shoving you, and that it won't be an easy or safe thing to do to fight back. The pushing and shoving has already begun. Almost all of us feel the nudges, some of us have been struck down, a tragic few have been literally destroyed by the process.
It is a process of intiating physical force the most unamerican, and un-HUMAN thing that can be done. It is at this level that any ideology risks going from valuable environmental policy or eccentric nature worship to being a destroyer of human life and values.
by Jeremy Bolander on Mar 17, 2008 5:39 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
my bad
I wish.;)
by Jeremy Bolander on Mar 17, 2008 5:43 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree for the most part
by MattR on Mar 17, 2008 5:48 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I support physical force when it's
by Tim Lynch on Mar 17, 2008 5:52 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm incorporated :(
Being incorporated only pertains to your tax status, or more accuartely, the way that the government treats profits earned by your corp. My corp structure is for the government to ignore the profits until they are paid out to me (and I have to pay them ALL out, for that "privelege") or someone else, at which point they are considered taxable.
(several paragraphs below this have been deleted, regarding the vilification of corporations. At a cetain point, in a football blog, enough is probably enough. :))
by Jeremy Bolander on Mar 17, 2008 6:16 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
all about the power
by MattR on Mar 17, 2008 6:34 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
No,
It was different from his "You're unethical!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's here for all too see, WORTHLESS!!" Or...his denial comment.
You basically voiced what we're all thinking. You acted in defense where has his was blatant and intentional.
by broncodude793 on Mar 17, 2008 4:47 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
HT
There is something to be said about having a stud running back who is also a 1C type of runner. TD was a 6th rounder yes, but how many 6th rounders have ever played like TD? I think only a few 1st rounders have ever played like TD. ;)
by Tim Lynch on Mar 17, 2008 4:57 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I would take the Mike Anderson circa 2000
by mdierk on Mar 17, 2008 4:58 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
On 1Cs
Portis, by the way, turned out not to be the 1C we thought he was. Never the less, he was an excellent runner. Part of his issue with managment was his refusal to 1C.
by Steve Nichols on Mar 17, 2008 5:13 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
thanks for the portis clarification
by MattR on Mar 17, 2008 5:21 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really wish I could have seen
by MattR on Mar 17, 2008 6:39 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well guys, I have a couple of projects due,
I doubt I'll be on tomorrow as I have Driver's Ed., but keep the Faider Phonies in line for me. =-).
Hopefully I'll remember about MHR Radio.
Happy St. Pat's Day.
signed,
BroncoDude
by broncodude793 on Mar 17, 2008 5:06 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I think I may have comment envy...
I had no idea ZB is so easily related to environment, politics, ect. I am a major offending party for doing that, I apologize. :)
by Tim Lynch on Mar 17, 2008 5:36 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
No need my friend.
At any rate, I am grateful that I finaly broke 100 comments. As you can see though, the sign of a good story or diary isn't the number of comments, but oftentimes the quality. At least we got to learn a little about the zb system, as well as the depths to which some people will go to try to hang on to their delusions. Frankly, I've read some terrific posts that got no comments or very few.
As for politics, the environment, etc, it's fine with me. It may be off thread, but the University articles (as I see it) are a place for discussion, debate, and socializing. I would hope the subject might stay on football (even if it goes into areas not dealing with the article itself), but at least the political comments were respectful.
Sorry for the poop. But that's what you get when delusional people pop in to say hi. : )
by Steve Nichols on Mar 17, 2008 5:48 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still have comment envy...
Yet it is still cool to have 120 or so comments on one thread.
by Tim Lynch on Mar 17, 2008 5:54 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Amen.
Sometimes learning is harder than others! :)
BTW, regarding good articles and diaries: I have seen that happen a lot. You just never know what the community is going to feel like talking about, and sometimes it is what the one critical contributor has to add to a conversation that determines whether it gets commented up to 20, 30 50 or more. If that person decides not to comment or doesn't catch the post before it bumps, a lot of good knowledge gathering opportunities are probably lost. So, really, overlooked or standalone gems are found everywhere on the site, including in the comments.
I know you do a great job of getting responses out there for everyone, and I know it is appreciated, at least by me. I am working to do the same thing, but a lot of the times I just nod at the comments I agree with. Not great feedback, but I'm getting better!
by Jeremy Bolander on Mar 17, 2008 5:56 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
If that one critical contributor is Sneaky
And once it became a flamewar instead of a discussion, the topic wandered drunkenly. The environment? Puleez! This is a football forum. I have my own opinions, and I was tempted to respond to one regular who I think is full of it, at least on THAT topic, but that's how forums turn into free-for-alls and die. Let's stick to football and go to alt.environment or alt.politics or something if we've got other bees in our bonnets.
I found HT's comments extremely enlightening as usual and thought it made a nice follow-up to your impassioned argument for drafting Chris Johnson. While I doubt we'll draft him at 42 even if he's available, IF Shanahan decides to spend a pick on a returner that early you really made a good case for him. And your description of his virtues, his patience before hitting the hole, etc., dovetails beautifully with HT's discussion. I found myself drooling over the thought of him running behind our line or stretching the field as a complement to Marshall. A 4.24 forty one-cut runner with patience, who's coachable? MY gawd! I am becoming so edgikated heer. You guys have made an addict out of me.
by spock on Mar 18, 2008 1:44 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks
Bad news: he is rising up the draft boards. I predicted that the knocks against him would be too much to overlook (for scouts), and that the players just behind him would start bumping him down the board. It could still happen, with more than a month for the draft to get here, but he went from being a late 2nd-early 3rd to being securely in the top of the second, so I guess I was just dreaming. He is the 6th rated RB going into the draft right now, and his stock is still rising. Not good. Easy come, easy go.
Excellent points on staying "on point." This thread got way off in a lot of places, which happens sometimes, but usually not until days after the post has gone up, when most readers have come and gone. I for one will take your advice and try to do a better job of staying on point. I naturally ramble, so that's easier said than done.
by Jeremy Bolander on Mar 18, 2008 2:22 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heh.
Great class, HT! Well done.
by Jeremy Bolander on Mar 17, 2008 6:03 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know, I had read your
but this afternoon I saw 80+ comments and said to myself, "I need to get in on this action!". ;)
by Tim Lynch on Mar 17, 2008 6:04 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
HT- good work as usual...
And lastly, let's feel sorry for him:
Cutler > Russel (Except for BMI)
by jadunn on Mar 17, 2008 7:22 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Thank you
by Steve Nichols on Mar 19, 2008 2:55 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure you all will never admit any of this.....
Denial is not a river in Egypt!
OakFoSho
"Kill the Lion, Eat the Sheep, RIDE THE DONKEY!!"
by OakFoSho on Mar 18, 2008 1:34 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Fine
by fire Bill Callahan on Mar 18, 2008 5:59 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
150 + Posts.....
OakFoSho
by OakFoSho on Mar 18, 2008 1:34 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Sneaker might not be a raiders fan
by Arctic Bronco on Mar 18, 2008 2:27 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Cleanup on isle 4! Cleanup on isle 4!
There was one good question about the role of fullbacks before the troll showed up. If there are any more on topic questions from people that actually want to learn something, I fear it will be lost in all the crap.
As HT correctly stated in the original article, a block must be ABOVE THE KNEES and IN FRONT. Then along comes the troll (who incorrectly called a clip a block from behind above the waist in troll's original post) and claims that a block below the knees and in front is an illegal cut block. HT NEVER SAID IT IS LEGAL TO BLOCK BELOW THE KNEES. Again, the article clearly states a block must be above the knees. Then 120+ garbage posts follow which do nothing to advance the understanding of the game, but do make the troll fat and happy.
I have no idea what Sneaky's real reasons for being here. But his behavior fits the classic troll like patterens. Trollus gargantuous. I can't beat Sneaky in an argument, not because he's right, but because his skull is thicker than mine, and quite frankly, he has more time on his hands than I do. You just can't beat a troll, the only way to deal with one is to starve it.
To Sneaky: You are right. I admit it. The Broncos commit illegal cut blocks on every play. The try to hurt players on other teams. Most of the refs are too blind to catch them and the ones that notice allow it. The NFL allows the Broncos to cheat. If there was justice in the world, every member of the Bronco O line would have a lifetime ban from the NFL and fines exceeding their rookie contract. There is a huge anti-raider consipircy in the NFL and has been for 25 years. Al Davis is the smartest man in the game today. The raiders made great moves with walker and kelly's contracts, they will both be All Pro next year. And russel will soon be considered the greatest QB ever to play the game. Now go eat your cookie.
by fire Bill Callahan on Mar 18, 2008 6:34 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Great subject HT
Thank you for your insite.
As for the problem of trolls, well just build a bridge over them, and ignore them. We just need to ignore the tin cans he places on the bridge. Everyone knows goats love those tin cans.
If you have no idea what I just typed, consider reading this.
by dpurvis on Mar 18, 2008 9:52 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I think
Uhm, in case anyone was interested in trapping goats...
..or something.
by Jeremy Bolander on Mar 18, 2008 2:11 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 


































