Field Theory: It's called Super for a reason
71 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Hmmm Kyle I think you need to come watch the game with us. Seriously it'd be worth the trip up.
I can't help but keep drawing the analogy to cricket. Gaps between deliveries and overs, setting the field etc. While all of that is terrible viewing you don't mind it because it's part of the game, it tells you things you need to know too. When the teams line up (in football) very quickly I can tell stuff about what might happen in the upcoming play much like a cricket fan would get information about a possible delivery by how the field is set (or something, I'm still learning cricket).
10 seconds wouldn't be long enough. A big part of the game is the play itself. The quarterback gets the message from the coach (checks the play on his cheat-sheet if he needs to) and then barks out some string of words that tells each player what they need to do (that's all the "zulu 25 break zoom 3 texas" stuff). Then they have to line up and do it. Meantime the defence is doing something similar.
Also yes they could play both sides of the ball (and they used to when it first started) but then it would more like league, and if you want to watch league do that instead.
-
@Stephanie Nope it's Madden and Michaels this year and you should come join us at Four Kings
@Jake was that your am-cam footage? Either way should the Steelers win we'll want coverage of the ensuing carnage
-
then barks out some string of words that tells each player what they need to do (that's all the "zulu 25 break zoom 3 texas" stuff).
Or if you're Peyton Manning you do this from the time the play ends, all through the huddle, then again at the line until the clock reaches 2... Every. Single. Play.
-
I can't imbed these vids but, Like Naly, I enjoy it when the players are mic'd up, but the coaches are funnier.
Players wired for sound (best of 2008)
Coaches wired for sound (best of 2008) -
I'm was a Union fan before I left NZ (still would be if I could get / afford games on TV in the US) and had the same attitude about American Football that a lot of people have expressed here: it's too slow and not as athletic because the player aren't on the field for the whole game / wear pads etc.
I think part of that attitude comes from the natural inclination to believe that our national game is "better" than theirs; the other part comes from a simply lack of familiarity. The games are different; I no longer try to argue that one is better than the other.
Believe it or not, once you've watched it for a while the pace of the game doesn't seem slow anymore, and it's a lot more strategery than Rugby (not to belittle Rugby strategy)... it's like a game of chess (with a 40 second clock.)
And I don't think that you can seriously argue that the players aren't in as good a shape as Rugby players. It may seem that way if you haven't watched much, and maybe the type of athleticism is different (see previous comments,) but these guys are full-time, professional football players who take the game very seriously. If they aren't in the best shape possible and playing as hard as possible they aren't on the team.
-
Not mine. I got here a few months after they won in 06. And unfortunately I'll be watching the game in a leafy, middle class neighbourhood, rather than in raucous Oakland, centre of the Pittsburgh undergraduate population, so I won't be near any rioting this time around.
There was a letter in the campus newspaper last week admonishing students not to set couches on fire in the event of a victory. They didn't mention flipping cars though.
Plus, what Haydyn and Robert said. I'm still a novice, but I like the pacing so far. As with test cricket, it adds to the drama. And if every time the whistle blew I expected someone standing a yard away to smash into me regardless of who had the ball, I'd be wearing a helmet too.
-
the other part comes from a simply lack of familiarity
Trust me: I am familiar with this game. I am married to someone who owns a set of Houston Texans tumblers. I'm afraid I just don't like it that much. (Apart from TD celebrations, big brass bands, and announcers losing their shit.)
-
a set of Houston Texans tumblers
I imagine that Texans fans do an awful lot of drinking. Then again, you should've seen me this year when the Jets beat the Pats in overtime.
-
That TO video can't be right - he didn't drop the ball!
I'll be at the Sports Cafe on Courtenay Place with the rest of the NFL tipping league that I belong to. We do our own in-house gambling (purely for entertainment purposes obviously). So if y'all get bored at Four Kings.....
-
@Kyle: The quarterback isn't doing a drawing to "remind" the other players what they're doing. They may be using a different set up every single time.
Ah yup. Do I need irony tags now?
Also yes they could play both sides of the ball (and they used to when it first started) but then it would more like league, and if you want to watch league do that instead.
Well it would still be football, just with less people on the sideline. Not everyone would have to play both ways.
But I think all the various blockers on the offense, most of them could probably be rushers on the defense. There just doesn't seem to be any point to having completely different offense/defense, they just do it because they can afford to and the rules allow it.
In my limited experience of the game, it wouldn't lose very much if you had 15 - 20 starters to cover all the specialist positions, and then a reserve bench, but once you replace a player they can't come back in (like rugby).
-
Something i forgot to mention is that the American Embassy always has a shindig for the big game. I don't know if it's open to the public though.
-
Also yes they could play both sides of the ball
There just doesn't seem to be any point to having completely different offense/defense
I'm being pedantic here, but don't Guards and Tackles often play both sides of the ball?
-
In my limited experience of the game, it wouldn't lose very much if you had 15 - 20 starters to cover all the specialist positions, and then a reserve bench, but once you replace a player they can't come back in (like rugby).
But then you'd be watching rugby.
It's kind of like saying badminton would be better if the court was bigger and they used a ball, like tennis. Or that baseball would be better if it was more like cricket etc
If you have players on both sides they lose their specialisation. Blockers are pushing people out of the way in very precise ways. Rushers are trying not to get pushed. They may all look like big fat guys but they are all built differently (blockers need to be less mobile than rushers) and wear different gear.
-
Guards and Tackles often play both sides of the ball?
Not "often", "sometimes" and they are usually injury replacements.
Linebackers occasionally swap sides too, but if they do it's mostly a play designed specifically to use their skill set somehow (i.e. "hit that guy hard")
-
Sigh, it's obviously a boring day for Hadyn: some of the Superbowl ads are already up
-
Not sure the US Embassy is known for throwing shindigs open to the general public HG.
You deserve an invitation though.
-
You deserve an invitation though.
Ha! yeah I should by now :)
This just in security at Raymond James Stadium being run through supercool Microsoft Surface:
It's seriously slick -- maps are integrated with planning and voice communications software so the field commanders can immediately assess incident responses and personnel deployments, with the ability to initiate radio contact directly from the interface.
there's a video at that link too in which they use the term "counter-snipers"
-
If you have players on both sides they lose their specialisation.
Not necessarily.
That's like saying Daniel Carter should only kick goals, he should never tackle or run the ball, or kick in open play.
Or Beckham should only take free kicks, never play the other 99% of the game.
Or McCullum should only bat, never keep wickets.
Even if there is some small loss of specialist skills through making most of the positions play both way - would the game be any worse? After an adjustment period of a few years, I'm sure the game would be just as good.
I can't think of another sport where players normally only play offense or defense, not both. And I can't think of a good reason for it, other than, football has enough money that they can afford to have a roster of a gazillion players for a sport with... 11 on the field?
-
Or Beckham should only take free kicks, never play the other 99% of the game.
Which is pretty much what happens when he plays in the US.
We might be onto something here…
-
Gah. LegBreak bet me to the punchline.
-
I can't think of another sport where players normally only play offense or defense, not both.
Netball.
-
That's like saying Daniel Carter should only kick goals, he should never tackle or run the ball, or kick in open play.
It sounds stupid, but is it? He'd probably do the non goal-kicking stuff, rather than the goal-kicking, and he might be an awesome goal-kicker, but does it really strike you as that unlikely that there is no-one out there who ain't great at the rest of rugby, but is better than DC at goal-kicking?
Of course there is.
And that there is no-one out there who couldn't hold a candle to DC at kicking and running with the ball, but could tackle better than him?
Of course there is. They're not playing international rugby because tackling is all they do and that ain't good enough, but why would you think it impossible?
-
He'd probably do the non goal-kicking stuff, rather than the goal-kicking, and he might be an awesome goal-kicker, but does it really strike you as that unlikely that there is no-one out there who ain't great at the rest of rugby, but is better than DC at goal-kicking?
Of course there is.
And that there is no-one out there who couldn't hold a candle to DC at kicking and running with the ball, but could tackle better than him?
But who’d get to pose for the ads?
-
I can't think of another sport where players normally only play offense or defense, not both.
Netball.
or football (aka soccer), unless you think it's a good idea for Christiano Ronaldo to play in goal
-
HG;
You're getting a bit sensitive there.
That's 1 player out of 11 in football and hockey. The rest do both (to varying degrees)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.