After reading the pure shit that comes from Cimini and Jenny Ventras, I would think this can clearly qualify as an article. The diatribe some of these so called media types deliver is worth less than a bag of dicks. You took the time to research or even plagiarized work you gathered from other sources and its way more informative than the shit ESPN calls "news". (Not accusing you of plagiarizing, just saying sometimes when I write stuff, I build upon what I read from multiple sources and condense important points into one context - just want to make sure the masses don't get the wrong idea about what I just said). I added the link to the Denver Bronco's site cause the guy expanded on specifics of the EP system as well as others. I think your article/blog/opinion got the ball rolling for a lot of people to become educated on the subject. Making people, myself included, look for more in depth information is a great way to educate the fan-base and start a good conversation. Props to you my friend.
Look at this, he writes better stuff than Cimini and he's humble too. I remember this post from week 1 that was just from some blogger too, that was like 100x better than any of the NFL "breakdown" segments or articles you'd find in the newspapers or talking head shows. http://www.cowboysnation.com/2011/09/jets-week-part-one-bad-week-to-miss.html http://www.cowboysnation.com/2011/0...campaign=Feed:+cowboysnation+(Cowboys+Nation)
Plagiarizing is getting info from one source, research is getting it from multiple sources. I forget who said that.
The Glass reference is lost on me. But no, its not plagiarized. For the most part everything stated is fact, therefore it will come off the same where ever you read it. There is no two ways to say Erhardt went to Pitts under Cowher; its just true. There are no two ways to say Weis was OC on the Jets and Pats; its just true. And no two ways to say, for example, Cavanaugh worked for Buddy Ryan, Brian Billick and Rex Ryan; again its just true. To say there are a few offensive systems, well its either true or overly simplified. Here its certainly overly simplified for the sake of convo and to make the point that Rex made choices between systems rather than people. That is perhaps the only opinionated, non-factual, portion of the article. I tried not to make any untrue statement that couldn't easily be supported by actual fact or a plain viewing of certain facts.
The thing of it is, and the article doesn't touch on it....is the evolution of the rules since the base offenses were developed. Grasping that evolution, is something Tom Moore, and NE did very well. It's a little less important in the Erhardt flavor, but deadly to the Schitty System.
Certainly the rules have changed. But the point here was not rules. It was simple enthusiasm for the new offense. Earhardt-Perkins can be anything the OC wnats it to be. The only qualifier is the OC hisself. Hopefully, as seen in that one year in Dallas, Sparano is innovative.
That was a very interesting article, but I think that its important to recognize that the reality is that its a LOT more complicated than simply distilling it down to 3 separate offensive concepts. No one who has watched the Pats offense since 2007 would recognize ANY similarity to what Parcells did in the 80's. What HAS remained from those 3 systems is the LANGUAGE. I think that's the great value left from those systems. The Semantics of football is perhaps the least understood aspects of the game by most fans, yet it is so critical. The ability to give the most amount of data in the fewest number of words is NOT an easy chore, especially when you consider the limited time you have to coordinate 11 individuals into a unified task. While the Pats have gone thru 3 different OC's, and the offense has morphed from "Cory Dillon ground and pound" to "air Brady", the basic language has remained the same. giving it a continuity that has served the Pats well. The same goes for defenses as well. There the semantics are equally important, in fact maybe more so, because most of the communication between players is occurring at the LOS just seconds before the snap. No longer is the call from the sidelines the key element, since sight adjustments at the LOS are becoming the norm rather than exception on BOTH sides of the ball. Make no mistake about it, these are unique languages that have developed over time, and you can't expect players to understand a new one, any more than they can be expected to speak fluent Chinese in a few weeks. What usually happens when there is a change in the offensive concepts is that the new OC will translate HIS concepts into the "old" language. The idea being its easier for one guy to learn a new language than 53 guys The other point that should be made is that successful teams are more about molding the system to the individual talent available, than try and fit the talent INTO the system. Its the "don't put a square peg in a round hole" metaphor. Again it was a very interesting and thought provoking article. I appreciate the guy who bumped it.
Probably the most intelligent troll of your illustrious career. Guess something really did rub off from the article.
I thought I put that in there. Its a system, a language. Its on the OC to run it. Since its a known system, there are many coaches to swap in and out.
