- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 11/4/08 at 11:55 am to Lester Earl
quote:
how is that wacky? its all the same
-brad and force
Lester, you're no different than SFP half the time. You argue for the sake of argument. Why don't you go pick up a copy of a nickel defense book published under the critique and review of the AFCA, and tell me what you learn about terminology.
ETA: We ran a 3-5-3 in high school. That was due to the size issues we had during my junior and senior seasons. Essentially, it was a variation of the nickel. Look that one up.
This post was edited on 11/4/08 at 11:59 am
Posted on 11/4/08 at 11:55 am to Lester Earl
well in Tepper's case, I think he did take the 4-2-5 guys straight to the 3-4 in the bowl game. just stood Arnold Miller up and moved on of the safeties to .... DROP LB. IIRC. Could be wrong.
Posted on 11/4/08 at 12:05 pm to brad8504
I dont have to pick up a book.
i know the nickel is used to defend the pass exclusively
you dont play "nickel" on obvious running situations, even in a 4-2-5 defense.
you obviously arent schooled on the terminonlogy part, because if anything is different, it is the terminonlogy. Which is what makes the defenses different to begin with, or they wouldnt have different names.
im not arguing to argue. Im arguing to try and teach you guys. Thats all. Dont take it the wrong way.
i know the nickel is used to defend the pass exclusively
you dont play "nickel" on obvious running situations, even in a 4-2-5 defense.
you obviously arent schooled on the terminonlogy part, because if anything is different, it is the terminonlogy. Which is what makes the defenses different to begin with, or they wouldnt have different names.
im not arguing to argue. Im arguing to try and teach you guys. Thats all. Dont take it the wrong way.
Posted on 11/4/08 at 12:17 pm to brad8504
i guess brad doesnt have his AFCA handbook on hand
Posted on 11/4/08 at 12:29 pm to Lester Earl
No need to have one. Terminology and implementation of a plan (i.e., scheme) means different things to different coaches.
You obviously aren't schooled enough in the game to understand that. You ever hear of disguising schemes?
It's just like a dime package, LE. If you use six DBs, it doesn't matter what kind of grouping it is. It can be a FS, two SS's, and three CB's; FS, SS and four CB's; etc...
I initially stated, in response to SFP--who said the 4-2-5 is NOT A NICKEL DEFENSE--that it IS IN FACT A NICKEL DEFENSE BECAUSE IT UTILIZES FIVE DEFENSIVE BACKS, HENCE THE TERM "NICKEL."
But, goddamn, some of you people are so fricking hardheaded and stubborn, it's not like talking to a brick wall.
You obviously aren't schooled enough in the game to understand that. You ever hear of disguising schemes?
It's just like a dime package, LE. If you use six DBs, it doesn't matter what kind of grouping it is. It can be a FS, two SS's, and three CB's; FS, SS and four CB's; etc...
I initially stated, in response to SFP--who said the 4-2-5 is NOT A NICKEL DEFENSE--that it IS IN FACT A NICKEL DEFENSE BECAUSE IT UTILIZES FIVE DEFENSIVE BACKS, HENCE THE TERM "NICKEL."
But, goddamn, some of you people are so fricking hardheaded and stubborn, it's not like talking to a brick wall.
Posted on 11/4/08 at 1:05 pm to brad8504
quote:
Just for the record, SFP only likes to argue for the sake of argument
not true
nickel and 4-2-5 mean 2 very different things
4-2-5 teams go "nickel" also, if you didn't know. 1 S is replaced by a CB
quote:
He likes to argue the logistics of the spread offense and what separates it from the spread option; yet, he fails to recognize that all the spread option philosophy is doing is incorporating the option into the shotgun spread formation.... no shite?
2 completely different offenses
WV 06/07 and TT don't run close to the same offense, even with TT running out of the spread
why? there is no OPTION element to it
Posted on 11/4/08 at 1:07 pm to brad8504
quote:
It's just like a dime package, LE. If you use six DBs, it doesn't matter what kind of grouping it is. It can be a FS, two SS's, and three CB's; FS, SS and four CB's; etc...
sounds like high school bullshite to me
Posted on 11/4/08 at 1:09 pm to brad8504
quote:
I initially stated, in response to SFP--who said the 4-2-5 is NOT A NICKEL DEFENSE--that it IS IN FACT A NICKEL DEFENSE BECAUSE IT UTILIZES FIVE DEFENSIVE BACKS, HENCE THE TERM "NICKEL."
but it's 2 completely different formations
hell what defines the # notations on the defense? philosophy
what is the difference in a 3-3-5 and a 3-4, other than the usage of the players? nothing
but are a 3-3-5 and a 3-4 the same thing? not at all. you can even make the "nickel" argument not work b/c of the USAGE of the players. in a 3-3-5 you will have 1 S drop into the box, which theoretically makes it a 3-4. is it a 3-4? no
same with a 4-2-5 and a nickel formation. 2 completely different concepts with completely different usages of players. now can a 4-2-5 S play the inside slot pass coverage like a NB? yes. but so can a LB in a 4-3 also. is that a nickel? frick no
Posted on 11/4/08 at 1:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
There you go over thinking things again. All you're doing is babbling.
I suggest you attend some AFCA-sanctioned clinics and tell me your discoveries once you leave there. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you, or any other know-it-all moron on this site over this.
There's no need for me to refer to any of the clinics, because I've already sat in on a few, and I'm well-versed on the subject. You and your technicalities, along with your thorough examination and dissection of some of the most simplistic concepts and facts of reality, are truly a waste of time.
I suggest you attend some AFCA-sanctioned clinics and tell me your discoveries once you leave there. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you, or any other know-it-all moron on this site over this.
There's no need for me to refer to any of the clinics, because I've already sat in on a few, and I'm well-versed on the subject. You and your technicalities, along with your thorough examination and dissection of some of the most simplistic concepts and facts of reality, are truly a waste of time.
Posted on 11/4/08 at 1:52 pm to brad8504
If they were both the same thing, then they would share the same name.
Because they have a name for each, they obviously both mean different things.
It's really not that hard to understand.
Because they have a name for each, they obviously both mean different things.
It's really not that hard to understand.
Posted on 11/4/08 at 1:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
And another thing you dumb arse, when you watch a game, it's easier for the commentary to refer to a formation as a nickel or dime package for the very reason I stated: It's easier to identify from a casual perspective.
Posted on 11/4/08 at 1:55 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
If they were both the same thing, then they would share the same name.
Because they have a name for each, they obviously both mean different things.
It's really not that hard to understand.
What's so hard to understand that the 4-2-5 is a nickel package? Are you two really this ignorant?
Posted on 11/4/08 at 1:57 pm to brad8504
The word you two are overlooking is "package".
Posted on 11/4/08 at 2:03 pm to brad8504
quote:
What's so hard to understand that the 4-2-5 is a nickel package?
if the AFCA says so
Posted on 11/4/08 at 2:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
but are a 3-3-5 and a 3-4 the same thing? not at all. you can even make the "nickel" argument not work b/c of the USAGE of the players. in a 3-3-5 you will have 1 S drop into the box, which theoretically makes it a 3-4. is it a 3-4? no
There are different variations within the 3-3-5. There are stack alignments and then there is the umbrella alignment.
You do realize that none of this is concrete, right? It is subject to change at the discretion of each coach. If a coach wants to use a SS to play an OLB in a 3-4 or a 4-3, there should be no problem with calling it what you want. That's why new defenses are devised on an ongoing basis.
Posted on 11/4/08 at 2:06 pm to Lester Earl
You see, LE, you can't even provide a reliable source to back up your claim. Talk to any coach about it, and 9/10 will tell you the same thing. It's a nickel package. But I'll just leave it all up to you and the other expert, SFP.
Posted on 11/4/08 at 2:19 pm to brad8504
quote:
im not arguing to argue. Im arguing to try and teach you guys. Thats all. Dont take it the wrong way.
Teach...........
Come on.
Teach......
Dude, if we took a test on all concepts of football. I'm supremely confident, bordenline Obamaish, in my abilities to answer more questions correctly than you.
Teach...........
Posted on 11/4/08 at 2:20 pm to brad8504
I haven't read this whole thread, but FYI Patterson runs the defense, calls every defensive play...The DC doesn't have much control whatever his name is.
Posted on 11/4/08 at 2:22 pm to belowpar
quote:
I haven't read this whole thread, but FYI Patterson runs the defense, calls every defensive play...The DC doesn't have much control whatever his name is
This I believe as Patterson has a strong defensive background.
But Bumpas has 30 years of football under his belt, played in the SEC, and if your gonna compare this situation and read it that way then Muschamp is a goat.
We all know Saban ran the defense but still Muschamp was successful implementing his system after he left him.
This post was edited on 11/4/08 at 2:24 pm
Page 4 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News