Two weeks in a row--no cut blocks (of the new kind)

Discussing Army Black Knights football, basketball and more. United States Military Academy sports forum. West Point athletics discussion board.
Dude69
New Recruit
Posts: 53
Joined: December 2016
x 5
Contact:

Re: Two weeks in a row--no cut blocks (of the new kind)

Post by Dude69 » Sun Sep 30, 2018 12:30 pm

No doubt that the rule change takes away a key ingredient to TO effectiveness. To the degree that it critically impacts a TO strategy and effectiveness.

No doubt that the combination of current Army personnel AND a recent enough painful past of abject failure just happens to be such that the full impact of the rule change can be overlooked. But such circumstances are temporary.

That does not alter the fact that the rule change has no merit with respect to the stated reasoning for its existence and does unfairly discriminate against using the TO. The rule should be rescinded next year.

To conclude otherwise is to be like the debutante that mistakes monkey scrawl for fine art.
0 x

Usma80
New Recruit
Posts: 124
Joined: December 2016
x 7
x 9
Contact:

Re: Two weeks in a row--no cut blocks (of the new kind)

Post by Usma80 » Sun Sep 30, 2018 2:44 pm

Exactly right - I punched send on my post before I could add the last line: we should not count on being able to have future option quarterbacks with Hopkins’ passing skills - it’s been 20 years since the last one. The rule sucks and discriminates unfairly.
0 x

User avatar
PrideandDream
New Recruit
Posts: 260
Joined: December 2016
x 5
x 26
Contact:

Re: Two weeks in a row--no cut blocks (of the new kind)

Post by PrideandDream » Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:43 pm

So a couple things here:

1. The rule is trash. This idea that you can't cut downfield is garbage and the way it's defined and interpreted is similar to the targeting rule in my opinion because there is some subjectivity to it when they say it has to be "initiated from the front". And with live action and moving pieces it can be hard to tell was that 5 yards down field or 6? Was he on the side or in the front? Subjectivity should be minimized in the game. It's complicated enough.

2. There has been no data presented or shared broadly that supports a rule change from a safety standpoint. More importantly if there is any data that says it's is unsafe then so what?? This is a violent game played by violent men. If we are making rule changes based on general safety data we might as well close up shop and make it a game of flag football The game carries inherit risk and that is the basic attraction of the sport. Most people won't play football. Not because it's complicated. But mostly because it's hard. Physically hard. Brutally tough. High risk. It is a game for special people that requires courage and strength and perseverance and resilience and teamwork and sacrifice and selflessness and so many other qualities that we are missing in society today. However, to get all that you put yourself in harms way. It's one of the reasons that Blaik compared it so closely to war.

3. There is a difference in a "cut block" taking out a defenders legs and a "chop block" where you post the man high with one player and take out his legs with another. Clearly WPGRAD was unaware of the difference but has now been schooled up.

4. The ability to get second level defenders on the ground makes a massive difference in long runs. As long as defenders are on there feet they have a chance to move, change direction, and influence the ball carrier and slow him down, change his direction or even make a tackle even if engaged with a blocker. This is tremendously reduced laying flat on your stomach on the ground and having to pick yourself up and regain all of your momentum. This would be Armorman's point. It seems the average yards per play are already down significantly this year for the 3 academies from the prior 3 years. Which leads me to think we are grinding it out more and more on the ground. Our current average is 4.68 a carry which is our lowest since 2010 which was back under Ellerson. The only other time we've been under 5 was in Monken's 2nd year when we played a whole host of underclassmen after he'd gutted the program of kids that couldn't make the commitment to play or didn't have the talent to play.

5. I believe where the big difference comes in is in the mental toll it takes on the secondary. Players today, especially defenders do not want to hit or be hit. It is a lost art. Kids today want to run and play football like it's basketball for lack of a better word or comparison. They want to look fast and pretty. When you get physical on every single snap of the game and force them to engage on every single play then you really take a toll on them because they are so unprepared for that. They don't/can't simulate that kind of environment in practice nor do they want to. You just physically beat them into submission and it's much easier to do this to second level players because they lack the size and power to do this over and over. Nor are they trained to do it.

6. This idea that the 4 teams that cut block, Army, Navy, AFA, and Tech, somehow have some massive advantage or that the rule even levels the playing field vs these teams is crazy. It's just doesn't make any sense. The vast majority of Power 5 schools don't even play a Triple Option school. Am I to think that Eastern Michigan and Buffalo rallied against the NCAA to change this rule?? The survey says that about half the folks are against it??? Why is that? Are there more people cut blocking that just the few options schools? I'd be willing to be so. Because it does help level the playing field to some respect. But who are the folks that want it gone?? There has to be some kind of trend here. Are they power 5 schools?? Spread schools?? Are they schools that run a 3-4 defense with small quick guys or do they have a 5-2 and run more of a big run stop defense? I don't know but it would seem fishy to me that it's only about half and half in the survey. I said it once before. Todd Berry isn't smart enough to coordinate a small group of people and move them all in the same direction. Note: see Army offensive stats from early 2000's for proof. So I don't think he's behind it. But maybe I'm wrong. And the last point to this is we aren't having so many upsets amongst the 4 key schools that run the TO that this is some massive issue. I mean we took OK to OT but that's after the rule change. I mean Navy has beat ND a few times in their down years but have we just been mopping up top 20 teams amongst the service academies over the last ten years? We've been competitive yes but we aren't Alabama.

7. Lastly, the ultimate issue here is that the game is being undermined at high levels because everyone wants to eliminate risk in everything we do. Everyone has to be safe. No one ever wants to get hurt physically or emotionally. The money has crept into the college game and made it more and more about entertainment and aligned it more and more with the NFL and TV contracts and less and less with the values and principles that the game teaches. Which in the case of Army undermines what we need to teach Cadets which is to fight and win. To be the aggressor and on the attack all the time. But it's the little things like a small rule change that keeps Corners and Safeties and Linebackers from going to the ground that continue to undermine the game. Look at the NFL. If you sack the QB you can't put all your weight into him on the sack. Clay Matthews has been penalized twice now for that. Not targeting. Not helmet to helmet. Not even a blind side hit. A completely clean from the front tackle where the QB had the ball and the defender takes him to the ground and he's penalized. Changes have been happening for years to increase TV ratings and chase the money most changes have been made to increase scoring but now we see changes made to keep marquis players that score for entertainment value due to injury and potential litigation and future CBA implications. We see the targeting rule all the time in the college game and while it has changed some of the hits we still see it. Note the Liberty punter. Should he have to sit out a half for that? It's a violent game. Eric Legrand was doing everything right when he got hurt playing against us. No rule could have changed that outcome for him. The game has and will always change but at what point do you accept the risk of stepping inside those white lines and the challenge that is in front of you? I have numerous injuries from my playing days that I feel every single day. I watch one of my own players whom I coach break his own clavicle yesterday in a game. Watched another one break both bones in his forearm just a couple weeks ago in practice and leave in and ambulance. Both are dying to be back on the field with their teammates. It's a high risk game. It's a high risk environment.

You can take my thoughts for what they are worth. I cut block a whole bunch of guys in my career at Army. Honestly, I don't ever remember one of them being carted off for serious injury. Maybe I just wasn't that good either. But I can tell you this. The biggest injury I ever personally experienced was on a cut block and there was no contact involved. Planted my foot and heard my knee pop and that was it. And I was the blocker not the blockee. So clearly my personal experience says this whole thing is bogus.

PD
0 x

User avatar
ARMORMAN
New Recruit
Posts: 133
Joined: December 2016
x 2
x 24
Contact:

A powerful, eloquent, and ACCURATE summary of the issue...

Post by ARMORMAN » Sun Sep 30, 2018 7:28 pm

from an actual former player.
Thank you and the rest who chimed in.

There's never really been any debate among those who know; those who have played the game. This is just a horrible rule for us. The only real issue is whether we can muster enough leverage to get this BS removed next year. If not, I guaranfreakingtee you one thing:

Some week, in some game this crap will bite us bad. It may not even be obvious, like a ref throwing a flag on a questionable "cut" block that calls back a 60 yard run in a tight game and puts us back 15 yards instead. It may not be that kind of a flagrant drive-killer. It will likely be less conspicuous and more insidious, like when our SB or our WR is one-on-one with a strong safety, right in front of our B back who's broken through the scrimmage and on his way to a big gain except for that one defender. The safety can now fight off the attempted chest-high block with his hands and arms because our guy can't cut him. So he doesn't go down, he makes the tackle or slows the runner and stops the gain.....It looks like a nice 6 yard advance, but it killed a likely long score. 4 plays later the drive stalls, because we just can't be perfect on every 4 yard gain for 15 plays.....

P&D explained it perfectly.
0 x

ClassVI
New Recruit
Posts: 27
Joined: December 2016
x 2
x 4
Contact:

Re: Two weeks in a row--no cut blocks (of the new kind)

Post by ClassVI » Sun Sep 30, 2018 9:08 pm

P&D, in response to your question in paragraph #6: “But who are the folks that want it gone??”

I will fully admit that I have nothing to back this up, but I believe several years ago I remember Brian Kelly complaining about teams that cut blocked on a regular basis. Maybe it was one of the years that ND played both Army and Navy. I’m not sure exactly what year it was. I would be willing to bet that because ND plays Navy every year, Brian Kelly could be a significant driver of the change. If Notre Dame has an issue with something, then the college football world will listen.

Couple that with teams we have ticked off or beaten recently: North Texas (enough for them to cancel future games), San Diego St, Duke, and of course, WF. I think there are enough vocal coaches to make it an issue.
0 x


User avatar
PrideandDream
New Recruit
Posts: 260
Joined: December 2016
x 5
x 26
Contact:

Re: Two weeks in a row--no cut blocks (of the new kind)

Post by PrideandDream » Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:46 pm

Reasonable explanation ClassVI. Notre Dame gets too much credit and Brian Kelly is a whiner in my book. I wouldn't put it past them.
0 x

User avatar
RABBLE
New Recruit
Posts: 28772
Joined: December 2016
x 55
Contact:

Re: Two weeks in a row--no cut blocks (of the new kind)

Post by RABBLE » Mon Oct 08, 2018 6:17 pm

Correct. When Notre Dame opens its mouth the world listens. Why? As Father Hesburgh once said," College football needs Notre Dame more that Notre Dame needs college football."

Those words , once spoken, by now should be hollow, but are they?

I would like it to be so.
0 x

User avatar
DoubleOvertime99
New Recruit
Posts: 243
Joined: December 2016
x 40
x 19
Contact:

Re: Two weeks in a row--no cut blocks (of the new kind)

Post by DoubleOvertime99 » Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:46 pm

Meanwhile Brian Kelly's out there getting student managers literally killed.
0 x

User avatar
RABBLE
New Recruit
Posts: 28772
Joined: December 2016
x 55
Contact:

Re: Two weeks in a row--no cut blocks (of the new kind)

Post by RABBLE » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:26 pm

A wonderful, concise from a former player who actually knows what he is talking about. I do not but P&D does and is 100% correct from my laymens point of view.

I think this new rule was from those who do not want to coach against the TO. It's a pain in the neck to basically take a week off from their usual coaching norm, to teach their troops a new form of offense which they rarely see from Army, Navy and Air Force plus Georgia Tech.

So they made it harder for the very few teams who employ it due to the restrictions placed upon those schools beside the football issues.

The majority of schools care little for the academies who they consider second class to their high class football programs.

Oh, they will play us but still they do it only on patriotic terms to placate the military and the citizens of the country who like the pagentry but not the tough stuff like actually fighting for a cause (our survival).and they all use it on game day when they are at HOME (always) to foster their agenda.

Like a Brian Kelly who cries all the way to the bank, a Todd Berry, who obviously is still pissed off after Army fired his butt after a 5-42 record or thereabouts and a few other coaching bozos because using the excuse of not playing us at our places because of the the "size" of our stadiums or the energy it takes to defend against our "special' offenses.
0 x


Post Reply Previous topicNext topic