|
Post by iamray on Jun 5, 2019 7:58:44 GMT -6
This is the time of year where many teams will compete in 7v7. I know a lot of posters like to point to these events to try and hype up their skill guys. But, seriously, I can't think of a more useless event for football.
In no way does it remotely simulate anything close to a live snap. In fact, I would argue that it is detrimental to a quarterback and receiver to even compete in a 7v7. Quarterbacks need to be able to operate in a chaotic environment; in a confined space under duress, none of which is found in 7v7. Receivers need to expect contact, which they won't get in 7v7. Anybody can be brave going across the field knowing they are not going to be hit. I've seen so many kids come back to camp after a 7v7 and get completely rocked by a safety because they catch the ball and forget they are playing real football.
In short, I think 7v7 is bad for football. It is a recruiting gimmick, which offers little to no value to aspiring players. I can't be convinced that a receiver or quarterback is any good based on 7v7. Its a sham. The only value I can see is the opportunity to network and meet people. But, that's it. More and more college coaches are speaking out against 7v7s, too. David Shaw from Stanford has been highly critical.
What are yall's thoughts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 9:13:28 GMT -6
7 on 7 is overrated. I also agree that it does not simulate real football. But I also believe it does help with the timing between the QBs and WRs. The last few years I didn’t care about Lab’s 7 on 7 games because our strength was in that huge offensive line and those 2 great RBs. But now I can definitely see the need for 7 on 7. The real “recruiting” 7 on 7 season has already happened. That’s when teams like the Louisiana Bootleggers and Deion Sanders’ team “Prime Flex” out of Dallas load their teams up with all of the talent in their areas and build an all star team and travel to different places to play in 7 on 7 tournaments. This year nationals was in Las Vegas I believe. That’s the 7 on 7 I think you’re referring to. High school 7 on 7 games are not for recruiting. It’s mainly to get these kids in sync with each other. Build timing and cohesiveness.
|
|
|
Post by iamray on Jun 5, 2019 9:48:31 GMT -6
7 on 7 is overrated. I also agree that it does not simulate real football. But I also believe it does help with the timing between the QBs and WRs. The last few years I didn’t care about Lab’s 7 on 7 games because our strength was in that huge offensive line and those 2 great RBs. But now I can definitely see the need for 7 on 7. The real “recruiting” 7 on 7 season has already happened. That’s when teams like the Louisiana Bootleggers and Deion Sanders’ team “Prime Flex” out of Dallas load their teams up with all of the talent in their areas and build an all star team and travel to different places to play in 7 on 7 tournaments. This year nationals was in Las Vegas I believe. That’s the 7 on 7 I think you’re referring to. High school 7 on 7 games are not for recruiting. It’s mainly to get these kids in sync with each other. Build timing and cohesiveness. Timing is one thing. I can see where that can be helpful, for sure. I think they could just stay after practice and work on timing. But that timing is going to be much different when the quarterback is facing a pass rush. 7v7 nationals is for prima donnas who love and seek attention.
|
|
|
Post by Raven on Jun 5, 2019 10:00:25 GMT -6
Over-rated may be accurate based on the emphasis some teams place on it, but overall I think it's a positive thing. jklee mentioned the timing factor between a QB and his receivers. That is essential. Even for run-based offenses. It may even be more essential for run-based offenses who don't throw the ball as much during the season. It also helps defenses. Even though many high school teams rely on a run-first mentality, more teams are starting to implement a more complex passing attack. Defensive backs and linebackers who aren't used to seeing a lot of passes thrown their way can benefit from the added dimension that these reps give them. It can also help keep players in shape during the off season. Constantly running routes and playing defense can be an effective substitute for wind sprints. Although it won't help linemen at all. Those guys need to run too. I agree that it will never be a true substitute for real-time game experience, but I think it's effective for what it claims to do. Namely, to help QB, RB and receiver position players develop skills in a game-like situation.
|
|
|
Post by iamray on Jun 5, 2019 10:19:22 GMT -6
Over-rated may be accurate based on the emphasis some teams place on it, but overall I think it's a positive thing. jklee mentioned the timing factor between a QB and his receivers. That is essential. Even for run-based offenses. It may even be more essential for run-based offenses who don't throw the ball as much during the season. It also helps defenses. Even though many high school teams rely on a run-first mentality, more teams are starting to implement a more complex passing attack. Defensive backs and linebackers who aren't used to seeing a lot of passes thrown their way can benefit from the added dimension that these reps give them. It can also help keep players in shape during the off season. Constantly running routes and playing defense can be an effective substitute for wind sprints. Although it won't help linemen at all. Those guys need to run too. I agree that it will never be a true substitute for real-time game experience, but I think it's effective for what it claims to do. Namely, to help QB, RB and receiver position players develop skills in a game-like situation. "but I think it's effective for what it claims to do. Namely, to help QB, RB and receiver position players develop skills in a game-like situation." I appreciate the response. I disagree with this, though. I don't think it helps a QB, RB, or WR. The quarterback is facing no pressure which will never happen in a game. The wide out knows he is not going to be hit, which rarely happens after a catch. And, the running back won't have a battery of linemen to work around. The lack of a pass rush and contact, to me, makes 7v7 useless because it isn't preparing athletes for what they are going to face in a game. I do think you make a good point in stating that it will help kids stay in shape. No doubt about that.
|
|
|
Post by billpayor on Jun 5, 2019 10:39:38 GMT -6
2 things being overlooked in your analysis is Technique and the Quick passOne thing that separates a true passing team from a wannabe is technique. How you catch the ball (hand technique and 'hi pointing' the ball) is just as important as a crisp route. Both of these can be improved by 7 on 7. This is also why teams spend time in practice with skills separate from the line. Every practice. If you've got speedy receivers, you can get them the ball on a quick pass and let him make his move to get to the end zone or 1st down. Your line only needs to provide 2 seconds of protection for this.
Finally, you say facing no pressure will never happen in a game... Are you speaking of every offense in the state or just one team? Because with smaller schools where the line goes both ways, a team full of 'big guys' will tire in the 3rd quarter and not create much of a rush.
I've seen it many times.
|
|
|
Post by fanman on Jun 5, 2019 11:43:45 GMT -6
This is the time of year where many teams will compete in 7v7. I know a lot of posters like to point to these events to try and hype up their skill guys. But, seriously, I can't think of a more useless event for football. In no way does it remotely simulate anything close to a live snap. In fact, I would argue that it is detrimental to a quarterback and receiver to even compete in a 7v7. Quarterbacks need to be able to operate in a chaotic environment; in a confined space under duress, none of which is found in 7v7. Receivers need to expect contact, which they won't get in 7v7. Anybody can be brave going across the field knowing they are not going to be hit. I've seen so many kids come back to camp after a 7v7 and get completely rocked by a safety because they catch the ball and forget they are playing real football. In short, I think 7v7 is bad for football. It is a recruiting gimmick, which offers little to no value to aspiring players. I can't be convinced that a receiver or quarterback is any good based on 7v7. Its a sham. The only value I can see is the opportunity to network and meet people. But, that's it. More and more college coaches are speaking out against 7v7s, too. David Shaw from Stanford has been highly critical. What are yall's thoughts? I have to agree with you. It gives and unrealistic view of what a real football game is like. It may have benefit with timing drills QB to WR. but getting a team ready for huge lineman coming after the Qb with blood in their eyes wanting to kill a QB. not good for preparation IMO
|
|
|
Post by Sixpack on Jun 5, 2019 16:29:54 GMT -6
Sometimes Ray doesn't make a lot of sense.
For instance try to figure out what point is he trying to make in this post. Is it that 7 on 7 is not the same experience as playing in a real game? That can't be his point because nobody needs to be informed of that. It goes without saying. Who ever claimed 7 on 7 is an accurate comparison to a real game experience? Nobody.
On the other hand is his point that 7 on 7 is totally useless? That can't be his point because it would make absolutely no sense to say that. Practice of any kind is not totally useless. If athletes did nothing but pushups and sprints it would not be totally useless. It sure as heck would not be detrimental. First he says 7 on 7 is "detrimental to quarterbacks and receivers" then he turns around and says it helps timing and helps kids stay in shape. Which is it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 17:52:31 GMT -6
Sometimes Ray doesn't make a lot of sense.
For instance try to figure out what point is he trying to make in this post. Is it that 7 on 7 is not the same experience as playing in a real game? That can't be his point because nobody needs to be informed of that. It goes without saying. Who ever claimed 7 on 7 is an accurate comparison to a real game experience? Nobody.
On the other hand is his point that 7 on 7 is totally useless? That can't be his point because it would make absolutely no sense to say that. Practice of any kind is not totally useless. If athletes did nothing but pushups and sprints it would not be totally useless. It sure as heck would not be detrimental. First he says 7 on 7 is "detrimental to quarterbacks and receivers" then he turns around and says it helps timing and helps kids stay in shape. Which is it?
😂😂😂
|
|
|
Post by iamray on Jun 5, 2019 19:52:40 GMT -6
Sometimes Ray doesn't make a lot of sense.
For instance try to figure out what point is he trying to make in this post. Is it that 7 on 7 is not the same experience as playing in a real game? That can't be his point because nobody needs to be informed of that. It goes without saying. Who ever claimed 7 on 7 is an accurate comparison to a real game experience? Nobody.
On the other hand is his point that 7 on 7 is totally useless? That can't be his point because it would make absolutely no sense to say that. Practice of any kind is not totally useless. If athletes did nothing but pushups and sprints it would not be totally useless. It sure as heck would not be detrimental. First he says 7 on 7 is "detrimental to quarterbacks and receivers" then he turns around and says it helps timing and helps kids stay in shape. Which is it?
Oh, come on. The point I made is clear as day. I think 7v7 is useless and overrated. "Is it that 7 on 7 is not the same experience as playing in a real game?" T his is WHY 7v7 is useless and overrated."Practice of any kind is not totally useless." How does practicing drum rudiments make me a better guitar player?"If athletes did nothing but pushups and sprints it would not be totally useless." If a powerlifter does nothing but bench 135, how does it help him become stronger? Benching nothing but 135 would be totally useless for this powerlifter as he would never get stronger without increasing the weight. Just as the quarterback will not get better without practicing against a rush. "First he says 7 on 7 is "detrimental to quarterbacks and receivers" then he turns around and says it helps timing and helps kids stay in shape." ? Nope, I never said it helps with timing. Perhaps you overlooked that just as you did my point somehow. I did say it could help kids stay in shape. This was in response to another poster. I was being courteous. If you read that response correctly, you'll see that I disagree with the part on timing.
In conclusion, 7v7 is useless, unnecessary and overrated.
|
|
|
Post by Sixpack on Jun 5, 2019 22:49:12 GMT -6
Oh, come on. The point I made is clear as day. I think 7v7 is useless and overrated. Ray, I hate to inform you but the point you are trying to make is not as clear as day. It is as clear as mud. You agreed that 7 on 7's help timing "for sure" and even help kids stay in shape. Make up your mind. Are 7 on 7's useless or do they help timing and help kids stay in shape?
This is WHY 7v7 is useless and overrated. They are not the same as a real game experience.
That makes absolutely no sense. Are the practices and drills that all football teams run every day also useless just because they don't simulate a real game?. Like daily pass routes with no contact, practicing running plays over and over with no contact, kicking drills with no contact and all kinds of conditioning drills with no contact. Are all those daily drills also useless simply because they don't simulate a real game? If you want to be taken seriously try to make sense.
How does practicing drum rudiments make me a better guitar player?
LOL! I guess I overestimated you. I gave you credit for being rational. Do you realize how ridiculous that comment is? Drum practice is NOT guitar practice. Drum practice is drum practice. If 7 on 7 games were used to improve baseball skills then I would agree that they would be useless. But on 7 on 7 is FOOTBALL practice and football is what we are discussing so your analogy is comical and once again you make no sense.
If a powerlifter does nothing but bench 135, how does it help him become stronger? Benching nothing but 135 would be totally useless for this powerlifter as he would never get stronger without increasing the weight. Just as the quarterback will not get better without practicing against a rush.
Where did you study logic? At a day care center? If a power lifter DOES NOTHING but bench 135 pounds naturally he won't become stronger but football teams don't ONLY do 7 on 7's do they? If they did you might have a point. But football teams do many other drills and practices besides 7 on 7's just as power lifters do many different drills. Lifting lesser weights once in a while would help a power lifter warm up and therefore would be beneficial and certainly not useless. So again, your analogy of 7 on 7's to power lifting does nothing but fall flat.
Nope, I never said it helps with timing. Perhaps you overlooked that just as you did my point somehow.
You said, "Timing is one thing. I can see where that can be helpful, for sure". Apparently you don't even know what you said.
I did say it could help kids stay in shape. This was in response to another poster. I was just being courteous.
LOL, so now you say things you don't really mean just to be courteous?? Well at least you are polite even if you can't make sense.!
If you read that response correctly, you'll see that I disagree with the part on timing.
No, you were saying that 7 on 7's do not simulate a real game and you do not refer to timing. Your only comment on timing was that you see "how it could be helpful". So, in conclusion it seems you contradict yourself and you don't really know what you mean.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2019 2:17:14 GMT -6
I heard Istrouma beat UHigh in 7 on 7 👀😂😂😂 but don’t sleep UHigh still has talent.
|
|
|
Post by iamray on Jun 6, 2019 8:14:17 GMT -6
Oh, come on. The point I made is clear as day. I think 7v7 is useless and overrated. Ray, I hate to inform you but the point you are trying to make is not as clear as day. It is as clear as mud. You agreed that 7 on 7's help timing "for sure" and even help kids stay in shape. Make up your mind. Are 7 on 7's useless or do they help timing and help kids stay in shape? This is WHY 7v7 is useless and overrated. They are not the same as a real game experience. That makes absolutely no sense. Are the practices and drills that all football teams run every day also useless just because they don't simulate a real game?. Like daily pass routes with no contact, practicing running plays over and over with no contact, kicking drills with no contact and all kinds of conditioning drills with no contact. Are all those daily drills also useless simply because they don't simulate a real game? If you want to be taken seriously try to make sense. How does practicing drum rudiments make me a better guitar player? LOL! I guess I overestimated you. I gave you credit for being rational. Do you realize how ridiculous that comment is? Drum practice is NOT guitar practice. Drum practice is drum practice. If 7 on 7 games were used to improve baseball skills then I would agree that they would be useless. But on 7 on 7 is FOOTBALL practice and football is what we are discussing so your analogy is comical and once again you make no sense. If a powerlifter does nothing but bench 135, how does it help him become stronger? Benching nothing but 135 would be totally useless for this powerlifter as he would never get stronger without increasing the weight. Just as the quarterback will not get better without practicing against a rush.Where did you study logic? At a day care center? If a power lifter DOES NOTHING but bench 135 pounds naturally he won't become stronger but football teams don't ONLY do 7 on 7's do they? If they did you might have a point. But football teams do many other drills and practices besides 7 on 7's just as power lifters do many different drills. Lifting lesser weights once in a while would help a power lifter warm up and therefore would be beneficial and certainly not useless. So again, your analogy of 7 on 7's to power lifting does nothing but fall flat. Nope, I never said it helps with timing. Perhaps you overlooked that just as you did my point somehow. You said, "Timing is one thing. I can see where that can be helpful, for sure". Apparently you don't even know what you said. I did say it could help kids stay in shape. This was in response to another poster. I was just being courteous. LOL, so now you say things you don't really mean just to be courteous?? Well at least you are polite even if you can't make sense.! If you read that response correctly, you'll see that I disagree with the part on timing. No, you were saying that 7 on 7's do not simulate a real game and you do not refer to timing. Your only comment on timing was that you see "how it could be helpful". So, in conclusion it seems you contradict yourself and you don't really know what you mean. "Ray, I hate to inform you but the point you are trying to make is not as clear as day. It is as clear as mud. You agreed that 7 on 7's help timing "for sure" and even help kids stay in shape. Make up your mind. Are 7 on 7's useless or do they help timing and help kids stay in shape?" Come on, man. You know damn well that my point was that 7v7s are useless. I said it numerous times. If you want to argue about why I think they are useless, fine. But argue the point. I don't know how I could say it any clearer: 7V7s ARE USELESS. "Are the practices and drills that all football teams run every day also useless just because they don't simulate a real game?. Like daily pass routes with no contact, practicing running plays over and over with no contact, kicking drills with no contact and all kinds of conditioning drills with no contact. Are all those daily drills also useless simply because they don't simulate a real game?"Of course not. You do know that 7v7 isn't practice? It is a competition. These are two different things. This may be why you are having trouble understanding a very simple point: 7v7's are useless. I clearly referred to these as "events" in my original post. In no way am I talking about practice. A 7v7 is totally useless. "LOL! I guess I overestimated you. I gave you credit for being rational. Do you realize how ridiculous that comment is? Drum practice is NOT guitar practice. Drum practice is drum practice."You said "practice of any kind is not totally useless." Obviously this is not true, so why you would make such a careless statement is beyond me. Again, 7v7 is not practice. It is a separate competition all together. A grossly overrated event which does nothing to help develop a QB, WR or RB. "If they did you might have a point. But football teams do many other drills and practices besides 7 on 7's just as power lifters do many different drills. Lifting lesser weights once in a while would help a power lifter warm up and therefore would be beneficial and certainly not useless."This is how I know you don't know what you are talking about. 7v7 is not practice. In fact, many teams are comprised of players from multiple schools. It is totally useless for a QB from Monroe to team up with a WRs from New Orleans and Baton Rouge (people he will not play a real game with). Yes, some schools will compete as units in 7v7 competitions, but these are events - NOT practices - and these events do absolutely nothing to prepare QBs, WRs or RBs for a real game. "You said, "Timing is one thing. I can see where that can be helpful, for sure". Apparently you don't even know what you said."
You still do this crap? Why didn't you quote the very next sentence of that post? Here, I'll do it for you: "I can see where that can be helpful, for sure. I think they could just stay after practice and work on timing. But that timing is going to be much different when the quarterback is facing a pass rush." I know exactly what I said. I was being courteous in extending an olive branch to someone who was sharing their thoughts. As you can clearly see, I offer a rebuttal to his timing statement. Don't copy and paste to suit your narrative. Keep it all in context.
"LOL, so now you say things you don't really mean just to be courteous??"
Don't we all? This is just stupid. When I run in to someone I haven't seen in a while, I ask how they've been. This is the polite thing to do. If we are being honest, if we actually cared how each other is doing, then why haven't we kept in touch? It is what two people do to be polite. We don't all have to be as brazen and crass as you are. When you check out at a gas station do you tell the cashier to have a "good day?" I do. Do you actually care that they have a good day? Probably not. It is just the polite thing to do."Your only comment on timing was that you see "how it could be helpful." Wrong. You copy and paste worse than the NYT. "I can see where that can be helpful, for sure. I think they could just stay after practice and work on timing. But that timing is going to be much different when the quarterback is facing a pass rush. This clearly shows that I made more than one comment on timing.
" you don't really know what you mean." You clearly don't know the difference between football drills and practice and a 7v7 event. I directly stated 7v7 events in my original post. They are useless. They do not help skill guys prepare for a real game. They glorify the prima donnas of the football world. 7v7 events are not football drills or practice, pal. Now that you know my point - hopefully - do you care to argue it or do you wish to keep arguing semantics and posting mere snippets of commentary?
|
|
|
Post by Sixpack on Jun 6, 2019 10:20:00 GMT -6
Oh, come on. The point I made is clear as day. I think 7v7 is useless and overrated. Ray, I hate to inform you but the point you are trying to make is not as clear as day. It is as clear as mud. You agreed that 7 on 7's help timing "for sure" and even help kids stay in shape. Make up your mind. Are 7 on 7's useless or do they help timing and help kids stay in shape? This is WHY 7v7 is useless and overrated. They are not the same as a real game experience. That makes absolutely no sense. Are the practices and drills that all football teams run every day also useless just because they don't simulate a real game?. Like daily pass routes with no contact, practicing running plays over and over with no contact, kicking drills with no contact and all kinds of conditioning drills with no contact. Are all those daily drills also useless simply because they don't simulate a real game? If you want to be taken seriously try to make sense. How does practicing drum rudiments make me a better guitar player? LOL! I guess I overestimated you. I gave you credit for being rational. Do you realize how ridiculous that comment is? Drum practice is NOT guitar practice. Drum practice is drum practice. If 7 on 7 games were used to improve baseball skills then I would agree that they would be useless. But on 7 on 7 is FOOTBALL practice and football is what we are discussing so your analogy is comical and once again you make no sense. If a powerlifter does nothing but bench 135, how does it help him become stronger? Benching nothing but 135 would be totally useless for this powerlifter as he would never get stronger without increasing the weight. Just as the quarterback will not get better without practicing against a rush.Where did you study logic? At a day care center? If a power lifter DOES NOTHING but bench 135 pounds naturally he won't become stronger but football teams don't ONLY do 7 on 7's do they? If they did you might have a point. But football teams do many other drills and practices besides 7 on 7's just as power lifters do many different drills. Lifting lesser weights once in a while would help a power lifter warm up and therefore would be beneficial and certainly not useless. So again, your analogy of 7 on 7's to power lifting does nothing but fall flat. Nope, I never said it helps with timing. Perhaps you overlooked that just as you did my point somehow. You said, "Timing is one thing. I can see where that can be helpful, for sure". Apparently you don't even know what you said. I did say it could help kids stay in shape. This was in response to another poster. I was just being courteous. LOL, so now you say things you don't really mean just to be courteous?? Well at least you are polite even if you can't make sense.! If you read that response correctly, you'll see that I disagree with the part on timing. No, you were saying that 7 on 7's do not simulate a real game and you do not refer to timing. Your only comment on timing was that you see "how it could be helpful". So, in conclusion it seems you contradict yourself and you don't really know what you mean. Come on, man. You know damn well that my point was that 7v7s are useless. I said it numerous times. If you want to argue about why I think they are useless, fine. But argue the point. I don't know how I could say it any clearer: 7V7s ARE USELESS.
I am arguing the point. The point is you are trying to say 7 on 7's are useless at the same time you are saying they may be helpful. Either admit you made a mistake when you said 7 non 7's are helpful for timing and staying in shape or admit 7 on 7's are not useless. You can't have it both ways which is what you are trying to do.Of course not. You do know that 7v7 isn't practice? It is a competition. These are two different things. This may be why you are having trouble understanding a very simple point: 7v7's are useless. I clearly referred to these as "events" in my original post. In no way am I talking about practice. A 7v7 is totally useless.
You don't understand your own point. Let me get this straight. You are trying to sell the idea that 7 on 7's, which are real competition, are totally useless simply because they don't simulate a real game. But you think practices are not useless even though practices do not simulate a real game either and aren't even real competition. I know you aren't a critical thinker but even you should see the absurdity of that kind of thinking. The fact that 7 on 7's are competition should make them MORE useful than practices not less useful. You said "practice of any kind is not totally useless." Obviously this is not true, so why you would make such a careless statement is beyond me.
Obviously not true? OK. give me an example of practice that is totally useless when applied to the sport the practice relates to. I'm waiting. "If they did you might have a point. But football teams do many other drills and practices besides 7 on 7's just as power lifters do many different drills. Lifting lesser weights once in a while would help a power lifter warm up and therefore would be beneficial and certainly not useless."This is how I know you don't know what you are talking about. 7v7 is not practice. In fact, many teams are comprised of players from multiple schools.
This is how I know YOU don't know what you are talking about. If you think practices are not useless even though practices do NOT comprise players from multiple schools and are not even real competition why do you think 7 on 7's are totally useless even though 7 on 7's DO comprise players from multiple schools and are also real competition. You seem to think competition that does not simulate a real game is useless but practice that does not simulate a real game isn't useless. You are very confused.
You still do this crap? Why didn't you quote the very next sentence of that post? Here, I'll do it for you: "I can see where that can be helpful, for sure. I think they could just stay after practice and work on timing. But that timing is going to be much different when the quarterback is facing a pass rush."
This is just another example of your double talk. You said you see where 7 on 7's could be helpful for timing. You either mean what you said or you don't. The rest of what you said above is just an attempt to say timing may not be helped in certain areas. But you still said timing is helped by 7 on 7's. So quit trying to squirm out of what you said.
Don't we all? This is just stupid. When I run in to someone I haven't seen in a while, I ask how they've been. This is the polite thing to do. If we are being honest, if we actually cared how each other is doing, then why haven't we kept in touch? It is what two people do to be polite. We don't all have to be as brazen and crass as you are. When you check out at a gas station do you tell the cashier to have a "good day?" I do. Do you actually care that they have a good day? Probably not. It is just the polite thing to do. That is the silliest explanation I have ever heard. You directly contradicted yourself in saying that 7 on 7's are totally useless by saying they help kids stay in shape. Now, because you can't admit that you contradicted yourself, you say you said that out of "courtesy" and you try to explain it all away with that silly nonsense above. Is that the best you can do?Wrong. You copy and paste worse than the NYT. "I can see where that can be helpful, for sure. I think they could just stay after practice and work on timing. But that timing is going to be much different when the quarterback is facing a pass rush. This clearly shows that I made more than one comment on timing.
Of course you made more than one comment on timing. And they directly contradicted each other. THAT is the point. You contradicted yourself and you can't admit it.
|
|
|
Post by chalmetteowl on Jun 6, 2019 11:22:19 GMT -6
here's the deal... you can't just play an unlimited amount of full contact live football. 7 on 7 helps teach and hone a lot of QB, WR, LB, and DB skills you use in the real game
|
|
|
Post by warpig on Jun 6, 2019 12:29:29 GMT -6
here's the deal... you can't just play an unlimited amount of full contact live football. 7 on 7 helps teach and hone a lot of QB, WR, LB, and DB skills you use in the real game Do they have worth, & a spot in offseason work & player development? Probably, they do. They are used in-house in many well prepared team’s daily in-season practice plans....but in. Much different way. Allow me to explain: In season, teams will use 7 on 7 to show their respective sides of the ball the coverage looks & pass concepts that the opponent is likely to show. In this case, 7 on 7(pass skel) is very useful. But now the 7 on 7 stuff that goes on during the summer....There are teams that offensively will line up & run crossing/dig routes that would run right into the line of scrimmage & linemen. There are offenses that will send the RB out into the formation for a pass EVERY down...thus leaving 5 man protection every down to protect the QB. On the other side, there are teams whose LBs will begin the play 7-10 yards off the LOS, & already in their drop zones. There are no run/pass keys for LBs to make, so it teaches to run to your pass responsibility every time. There are teams that will have no LBs even in the box when a team has a RB & TE. Why do I say all of this?? Because in some ways, this 7 on 7 stuff has morphed into its own sport, separate of football. Think of it as playing a game of 21 in basketball-you’re still shooting & dribbling, but the rules aren’t exactly the same. 15 yard down markers & such....it’s much different.
|
|
|
Post by iamray on Jun 6, 2019 15:03:18 GMT -6
Come on, man. You know damn well that my point was that 7v7s are useless. I said it numerous times. If you want to argue about why I think they are useless, fine. But argue the point. I don't know how I could say it any clearer: 7V7s ARE USELESS.
I am arguing the point. The point is you are trying to say 7 on 7's are useless at the same time you are saying they may be helpful. Either admit you made a mistake when you said 7 non 7's are helpful for timing and staying in shape or admit 7 on 7's are not useless. You can't have it both ways which is what you are trying to do.Of course not. You do know that 7v7 isn't practice? It is a competition. These are two different things. This may be why you are having trouble understanding a very simple point: 7v7's are useless. I clearly referred to these as "events" in my original post. In no way am I talking about practice. A 7v7 is totally useless.
You don't understand your own point. Let me get this straight. You are trying to sell the idea that 7 on 7's, which are real competition, are totally useless simply because they don't simulate a real game. But you think practices are not useless even though practices do not simulate a real game either and aren't even real competition. I know you aren't a critical thinker but even you should see the absurdity of that kind of thinking. The fact that 7 on 7's are competition should make them MORE useful than practices not less useful. You said "practice of any kind is not totally useless." Obviously this is not true, so why you would make such a careless statement is beyond me.
Obviously not true? OK. give me an example of practice that is totally useless when applied to the sport the practice relates to. I'm waiting. "If they did you might have a point. But football teams do many other drills and practices besides 7 on 7's just as power lifters do many different drills. Lifting lesser weights once in a while would help a power lifter warm up and therefore would be beneficial and certainly not useless."This is how I know you don't know what you are talking about. 7v7 is not practice. In fact, many teams are comprised of players from multiple schools.
This is how I know YOU don't know what you are talking about. If you think practices are not useless even though practices do NOT comprise players from multiple schools and are not even real competition why do you think 7 on 7's are totally useless even though 7 on 7's DO comprise players from multiple schools and are also real competition. You seem to think competition that does not simulate a real game is useless but practice that does not simulate a real game isn't useless. You are very confused.
You still do this crap? Why didn't you quote the very next sentence of that post? Here, I'll do it for you: "I can see where that can be helpful, for sure. I think they could just stay after practice and work on timing. But that timing is going to be much different when the quarterback is facing a pass rush."
This is just another example of your double talk. You said you see where 7 on 7's could be helpful for timing. You either mean what you said or you don't. The rest of what you said above is just an attempt to say timing may not be helped in certain areas. But you still said timing is helped by 7 on 7's. So quit trying to squirm out of what you said.
Don't we all? This is just stupid. When I run in to someone I haven't seen in a while, I ask how they've been. This is the polite thing to do. If we are being honest, if we actually cared how each other is doing, then why haven't we kept in touch? It is what two people do to be polite. We don't all have to be as brazen and crass as you are. When you check out at a gas station do you tell the cashier to have a "good day?" I do. Do you actually care that they have a good day? Probably not. It is just the polite thing to do. That is the silliest explanation I have ever heard. You directly contradicted yourself in saying that 7 on 7's are totally useless by saying they help kids stay in shape. Now, because you can't admit that you contradicted yourself, you say you said that out of "courtesy" and you try to explain it all away with that silly nonsense above. Is that the best you can do?Wrong. You copy and paste worse than the NYT. "I can see where that can be helpful, for sure. I think they could just stay after practice and work on timing. But that timing is going to be much different when the quarterback is facing a pass rush. This clearly shows that I made more than one comment on timing.
Of course you made more than one comment on timing. And they directly contradicted each other. THAT is the point. You contradicted yourself and you can't admit it.
"I am arguing the point. The point is you are trying to say 7 on 7's are useless at the same time you are saying they may be helpful. Either admit you made a mistake when you said 7 non 7's are helpful for timing and staying in shape or admit 7 on 7's are not useless. You can't have it both ways which is what you are trying to do." If we are going to do this at least learn how to quote a post on this board. First, I don't want anything both ways. I've maintained my point that 7v7s are useless. You are hellbent on pointing your old finger up someone's nose simply to address semantics. This is what you've always done. Your BS won't sell. Argue my point: 7v7s are useless. Tell me how they help prepare a QB, WR or RB for a real game of football. I'm waiting."You don't understand your own point. Let me get this straight. You are trying to sell the idea that 7 on 7's, which are real competition, are totally useless simply because they don't simulate a real game. But you think practices are not useless even though practices do not simulate a real game either and aren't even real competition. I know you aren't a critical thinker but even you should see the absurdity of that kind of thinking. The fact that 7 on 7's are competition should make them MORE useful than practices not less useful."I won't keep repeating myself. 7v7s are useless. The rules are different, there is no pass rush, a real game is much longer, a real game is played with linemen, a real game is played with pads, a real game is played with 11 players. None of this is found in 7v7. It's a gimmick. You will never convince me a kid is any good simply by pointing to his 7v7 performance. Practices don't simulate a real game? That is a ridiculous and ignorant response. The very reason to have practice is to prepare for a real game. The purpose of 7v7 is to flaunt and show off. In no way does it prepare kids for a real game. "Obviously not true? OK. give me an example of practice that is totally useless when applied to the sport the practice relates to. I'm waiting."Look who is backpedaling now. You said "practice of any kind is not totally useless." You offered no context, no explanation. Just a poorly worded falsehood. Don't try and have it both ways. You made a mistake with your wording and you got exposed. "This is just another example of your double talk. You said you see where 7 on 7's could be helpful for timing. You either mean what you said or you don't. The rest of what you said above is just an attempt to say timing may not be helped in certain areas. But you still said timing is helped by 7 on 7's. So quit trying to squirm out of what you said."This is what I seriously dislike about trying to have a conversation with you. First, your tone is incredibly arrogant. You rarely ever start a thread of your own. You sit back and search for mistakes in semantics and then attack. You're the first one to call names and hurl insults. Cowardice. In no way am I trying to "squirm" out of what I said. I was being nice to the guy. I offered my opinion on timing. I won't keep repeating it. You just love trying to show people where they might have made a mistake. You could care less about having a discussion. You are dead wrong here. 7v7s are useless. To propel this discussion, you need to tell me why you agree or explain to me how they help prepare kids for a real game. I'm waiting."That is the silliest explanation I have ever heard. You directly contradicted yourself in saying that 7 on 7's are totally useless by saying they help kids stay in shape. Now, because you can't admit that you contradicted yourself, you say you said that out of "courtesy" and you try to explain it all away with that silly nonsense above. Is that the best you can do?"See. This is literally all you can do. Try and point out an error in semantics or grammar. Screw that. Read the post again. I'm being nice to the guy by acknowledging his opinion and then I offer mine. You don't have to like the explanation and I'm sure you can't comprehend it either since it involves a level of decorum you clearly lack."Of course you made more than one comment on timing. And they directly contradicted each other. THAT is the point. You contradicted yourself and you can't admit it."The point is that you think I contradicted myself? How arrogant. The point is:7V7s ARE USELESS. For the sake of discussion - where two or more people invoke thought and response with decorum - you must either agree with my opinion or explain how 7v7s help prepare kids for a real game of football in an attempt to change my mind. I won't admit to something I didn't do. You seem to think those blue stars have afforded you a level of importance above others, but those stars don't mean squat to me. Either argue my point, agree with me or continue along with your diatribe of "but, but you contradicted yourself."
|
|
|
Post by iamray on Jun 6, 2019 15:05:06 GMT -6
here's the deal... you can't just play an unlimited amount of full contact live football. 7 on 7 helps teach and hone a lot of QB, WR, LB, and DB skills you use in the real game Understood. This is what shell days are for. Practice is much more important that a useless 7v7. All skills you think could be honed in 7v7 could just as easily be honed in individual drills.
|
|
|
Post by keysersoze on Jun 6, 2019 18:13:58 GMT -6
7 on 7 is the equivalent of batting practice.
|
|
|
Post by superdome2018 on Jun 6, 2019 18:50:04 GMT -6
I think it is very overrated. I watch on Friday nights a bunch teams that spend all summer playing 7 on 7 and boy does it show. They are typically soft.
I went and watched my nephew play in a tourney and it was laughable. The QB had way way too much time to throw. Plus the WBs weren’t taking proper drop.. Defense were being run that you don’t see in a regular game. Just think it helps QBs get some timing with WRs and helps DBs got some work. But I would t personally play a ton of it I would use my time differently if I were a coach.
|
|
|
Post by Sixpack on Jun 6, 2019 19:55:02 GMT -6
Get back in the wading pool Ray. You are in over your head.
You are hellbent on pointing your old finger up someone's nose simply to address semantics. This is what you've always done. Your BS won't sell. Argue my point: 7v7s are useless. Tell me how they help prepare a QB, WR or RB for a real game of football. I'm waiting.
LOL, your post seems a little rude for someone who claims to be courteous to other people. You don't have to wait long. How's this? 7 on 7's prepare a QB and a WR by improving timing between the two JUST LIKE YOU AGREED in a previous post. So you are only arguing with yourself. 7 on 7's help running backs just like they help all athletes who participate. By helping them get in shape JUST LIKE YOU AGREED IN A PREVIOUS POST. So don't ask me what you have already answered for yourself.
I won't keep repeating myself. 7v7s are useless. The rules are different, there is no pass rush, a real game is much longer, a real game is played with linemen, a real game is played with pads, a real game is played with 11 players. None of this is found in 7v7.
Why do you keep ranting about 7 on 7's not being like a real game. WHO SAID THEY WERE? Show me a post in this thread where anybody said 7 on 7's are like a real game. You can't do it can you? You are simply arguing with yourself and you don't even know it. And when I said practices are useful it never occurred to me that you could be so obtuse that you didn't understand that I was referring to practices that relate to the sport that the practice pertains to. Your comical reply that practicing for drums doesn't help a guitar player still has me laughing.
This is what I seriously dislike about trying to have a conversation with you. First, your tone is incredibly arrogant.
You mean like accusing someone of sticking their old finger up someone's nose. Or saying my BS won't sell. That kind of arrogant?
You rarely ever start a thread of your own. You sit back and search for mistakes in semantics and then attack.
But if I do start a thread I won't contradict myself like you do. When you say 7 on 7's are totally useless and at the same time you say they help develop timing and help kids stay in shape that has nothing to do with semantics. That is abject confusion and a direct contradiction.
In no way am I trying to "squirm" out of what I said. I was being nice to the guy. I offered my opinion on timing. I won't keep repeating it.
You don't have to repeat it. I know what you said. You said you agreed that timing might be helpful. That has nothing to do with just being nice to someone. It is nothing but a way to try and squirm out of what you said.
7v7s are useless. To propel this discussion, you need to tell me why you agree or explain to me how they help prepare kids for a real game. I'm waiting.
Why do you continue arguing with yourself? I wasn't the one who said 7 on 7's help timing and help athletes stay in shape. YOU said that. I'm waiting for you to answer you own question. Tell yourself how timing and conditioning prepare a kid for a real game.
Read the post again. I'm being nice to the guy by acknowledging his opinion and then I offer mine. You don't have to like the explanation and I'm sure you can't comprehend it either since it involves a level of decorum you clearly lack.
I can't believe that after about 20 posts in this thread you still don't have a clue. SEMANTICS has nothing to do with it. When you offered your opinion your opinion was that 7 on 7's help kids get in shape. That negates your whole point that 7 on 7's are totally useless. Can you understand that?
The point is that you think I contradicted myself? How arrogant.
How is pointing out that you contradicted yourself arrogant. You have it just backwards. It's refusing to admit you contradicted yourself that is arrogant.
The point is:7V7s ARE USELESS. For the sake of discussion - where two or more people invoke thought and response with decorum - you must either agree with my opinion or explain how 7v7s help prepare kids for a real game of football in an attempt to change my mind.
LOL! Change your own mind. You are the one who said 7 on 7's help timing and getting in shape. Only in your own confused mind would those two assets be totally useless in a real game.
I won't admit to something I didn't do. You seem to think those blue stars have afforded you a level of importance above others, but those stars don't mean squat to me.
Apparently they mean enough squat to you to cause you to rant about it.
If we are going to do this at least learn how to quote a post on this board. First, I don't want anything both ways. I've maintained my point that 7v7s are useless.
You pointed out two areas in which 7 on 7's are not useless. Then you say 7 on 7's are totally useless. That is a classic example of trying to have it both ways. Let's try it by the numbers since you don't seem to have a lot of common sense. Do 7 on 7's improve timing and help kids get in shape? If your answer is NO then why did you imply that they do in your previous posts? If your answer is YES then why do you say 7 on 7's are totally useless. Huh?.
|
|
|
Post by iamray on Jun 6, 2019 21:49:21 GMT -6
Get back in the wading pool Ray. You are in over your head.You are hellbent on pointing your old finger up someone's nose simply to address semantics. This is what you've always done. Your BS won't sell. Argue my point: 7v7s are useless. Tell me how they help prepare a QB, WR or RB for a real game of football. I'm waiting. LOL, your post seems a little rude for someone who claims to be courteous to other people. You don't have to wait long. How's this? 7 on 7's prepare a QB and a WR by improving timing between the two JUST LIKE YOU AGREED in a previous post. So you are only arguing with yourself. 7 on 7's help running backs just like they help all athletes who participate. By helping them get in shape JUST LIKE YOU AGREED IN A PREVIOUS POST. So don't ask me what you have already answered for yourself.I won't keep repeating myself. 7v7s are useless. The rules are different, there is no pass rush, a real game is much longer, a real game is played with linemen, a real game is played with pads, a real game is played with 11 players. None of this is found in 7v7. Why do you keep ranting about 7 on 7's not being like a real game. WHO SAID THEY WERE? Show me a post in this thread where anybody said 7 on 7's are like a real game. You can't do it can you? You are simply arguing with yourself and you don't even know it. And when I said practices are useful it never occurred to me that you could be so obtuse that you didn't understand that I was referring to practices that relate to the sport that the practice pertains to. Your comical reply that practicing for drums doesn't help a guitar player still has me laughing.This is what I seriously dislike about trying to have a conversation with you. First, your tone is incredibly arrogant. You mean like accusing someone of sticking their old finger up someone's nose. Or saying my BS won't sell. That kind of arrogant?You rarely ever start a thread of your own. You sit back and search for mistakes in semantics and then attack. But if I do start a thread I won't contradict myself like you do. When you say 7 on 7's are totally useless and at the same time you say they help develop timing and help kids stay in shape that has nothing to do with semantics. That is abject confusion and a direct contradiction. In no way am I trying to "squirm" out of what I said. I was being nice to the guy. I offered my opinion on timing. I won't keep repeating it. You don't have to repeat it. I know what you said. You said you agreed that timing might be helpful. That has nothing to do with just being nice to someone. It is nothing but a way to try and squirm out of what you said. 7v7s are useless. To propel this discussion, you need to tell me why you agree or explain to me how they help prepare kids for a real game. I'm waiting. Why do you continue arguing with yourself? I wasn't the one who said 7 on 7's help timing and help athletes stay in shape. YOU said that. I'm waiting for you to answer you own question. Tell yourself how timing and conditioning prepare a kid for a real game. Read the post again. I'm being nice to the guy by acknowledging his opinion and then I offer mine. You don't have to like the explanation and I'm sure you can't comprehend it either since it involves a level of decorum you clearly lack. I can't believe that after about 20 posts in this thread you still don't have a clue. SEMANTICS has nothing to do with it. When you offered your opinion your opinion was that 7 on 7's help kids get in shape. That negates your whole point that 7 on 7's are totally useless. Can you understand that?The point is that you think I contradicted myself? How arrogant. How is pointing out that you contradicted yourself arrogant. You have it just backwards. It's refusing to admit you contradicted yourself that is arrogant.The point is:7V7s ARE USELESS. For the sake of discussion - where two or more people invoke thought and response with decorum - you must either agree with my opinion or explain how 7v7s help prepare kids for a real game of football in an attempt to change my mind. LOL! Change your own mind. You are the one who said 7 on 7's help timing and getting in shape. Only in your own confused mind would those two assets be totally useless in a real game.I won't admit to something I didn't do. You seem to think those blue stars have afforded you a level of importance above others, but those stars don't mean squat to me. Apparently they mean enough squat to you to cause you to rant about it. If we are going to do this at least learn how to quote a post on this board. First, I don't want anything both ways. I've maintained my point that 7v7s are useless. You pointed out two areas in which 7 on 7's are not useless. Then you say 7 on 7's are totally useless. That is a classic example of trying to have it both ways. Let's try it by the numbers since you don't seem to have a lot of common sense. Do 7 on 7's improve timing and help kids get in shape? If your answer is NO then why did you imply that they do in your previous posts? If your answer is YES then why do you say 7 on 7's are totally useless. Huh?. "You pointed out two areas in which 7 on 7's are not useless. Then you say 7 on 7's are totally useless. That is a classic example of trying to have it both ways. Let's try it by the numbers since you don't seem to have a lot of common sense. Do 7 on 7's improve timing and help kids get in shape? If your answer is NO then why did you imply that they do in your previous posts? If your answer is YES then why do you say 7 on 7's are totally useless. Huh?." This is literally pointless. I don't how else to state my point. I just wanted to have a discussion about 7v7s. "LOL, your post seems a little rude for someone who claims to be courteous to other people. You don't have to wait long. How's this? 7 on 7's prepare a QB and a WR by improving timing between the two JUST LIKE YOU AGREED in a previous post."I've already shown how incredibly short-sided and disingenuous this comment is. I'm clearly acknowledging his point while offering my own with the very next sentence. Why not include the entire phrase? Why only include the one sentence, there is no context? Seems shady. These Jim Acosta tactics of yours are ridiculous. Regardless of anything I have said, tell me how a 7v7 can improve timing between a quarterback and wide receiver who don't play together in real games. Tell me how it can improve timing between a QB and WR which won't be affected when the QB has a pass rush in a real game."You said you agreed that timing might be helpful. That has nothing to do with just being nice to someone. It is nothing but a way to try and squirm out of what you said."I can literally do nothing for you if you refuse to accept the truth. You just don't believe me. And this is the arrogance I am talking about. I am literally telling you the damn truth and you have the audacity to sit back with your arms folded and say "Nah ah, you're trying to squirm out of what you said." Who do you think you are? You ask me to explain something I said, I explain it and you say I'm lying? Why would I want to try and explain anything else? "How is pointing out that you contradicted yourself arrogant. You have it just backwards. It's refusing to admit you contradicted yourself that is arrogant."Because I didn't contradict myself, hence I will not admit to doing something I did not do. You offer nothing in terms of discussion. You are only around to try and point to the mistakes of others. I've stated my case. Prove you are here for discussion and debate and argue how 7v7 can prepare a QB, WR, or RB for a real game. Do it, hot shot. You have failed miserably to try and "make a point" here Mr. Bluestar. Your gimmick is tired and just boring to watch. You have literally spent this entire thread saying you don't believe me. A thread about 7v7s, yet all you can do is say you don't believe an explanation I've given. Talk football for a change, General Bluestar. Give it a shot. Hell, you didn't even know a what a 7v7 was. You thought it was practice. Lol. Nice try, pumpkin.
|
|
|
Post by superdome2018 on Jun 7, 2019 9:43:32 GMT -6
Kind of a tie in to the 7on 7. Is the hype machine AAU mindset behind it. I read an article last night being a ULL fan and I came across an article and the headline said prep standout QB to visit ULL so I quickly clicked on it only to learn they are talking about a 2022 kid that is a backup and has thrown for a career 100 yards. That’s laughable.
7on 7 is a tool really best used in the scale of a portion of practice in my opinion. Most of these kids I guess miss workouts with their team to travel to play flag football tourneys. I talked to our coach and he said his guys only did their team 7 on 7s. Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by iamray on Jun 7, 2019 9:49:41 GMT -6
Kind of a tie in to the 7on 7. Is the hype machine AAU mindset behind it. I read an article last night being a ULL fan and I came across an article and the headline said prep standout QB to visit ULL so I quickly clicked on it only to learn they are talking about a 2022 kid that is a backup and has thrown for a career 100 yards. That’s laughable. 7on 7 is a tool really best used in the scale of a portion of practice in my opinion. Most of these kids I guess miss workouts with their team to travel to play flag football tourneys. I talked to our coach and he said his guys only did their team 7 on 7s. Just my 2 cents. Yes, many coaches - high school and college - have been outspoken with the criticism toward 7v7. I would argue that, with AAU, at least you are playing a real game, with all players and game rules. 7v7 doesn't resemble a real game in any of those regards.
|
|
|
Post by CLEAN on Jun 7, 2019 10:18:18 GMT -6
Kind of a tie in to the 7on 7. Is the hype machine AAU mindset behind it. I read an article last night being a ULL fan and I came across an article and the headline said prep standout QB to visit ULL so I quickly clicked on it only to learn they are talking about a 2022 kid that is a backup and has thrown for a career 100 yards. That’s laughable. 7on 7 is a tool really best used in the scale of a portion of practice in my opinion. Most of these kids I guess miss workouts with their team to travel to play flag football tourneys. I talked to our coach and he said his guys only did their team 7 on 7s. Just my 2 cents. I read the same thing on ESPN 1420
|
|
|
Post by mt on Jun 8, 2019 14:04:10 GMT -6
This is the time of year where many teams will compete in 7v7. I know a lot of posters like to point to these events to try and hype up their skill guys. But, seriously, I can't think of a more useless event for football. In no way does it remotely simulate anything close to a live snap. In fact, I would argue that it is detrimental to a quarterback and receiver to even compete in a 7v7. Quarterbacks need to be able to operate in a chaotic environment; in a confined space under duress, none of which is found in 7v7. Receivers need to expect contact, which they won't get in 7v7. Anybody can be brave going across the field knowing they are not going to be hit. I've seen so many kids come back to camp after a 7v7 and get completely rocked by a safety because they catch the ball and forget they are playing real football. In short, I think 7v7 is bad for football. It is a recruiting gimmick, which offers little to no value to aspiring players. I can't be convinced that a receiver or quarterback is any good based on 7v7. Its a sham. The only value I can see is the opportunity to network and meet people. But, that's it. More and more college coaches are speaking out against 7v7s, too. David Shaw from Stanford has been highly critical. What are yall's thoughts? Hey Ray, I respect this. Last couple of years I’ve been heavily into 7 on 7 as well as 11 on 11. I do think 7 on 7 helps with some things. Timing, accuracy(to an extent), route combos, passing windows. On defense it helps with playing in space for sure, breaking down properly, technique(less to grab on to). Now i agree that it does have its moments that don’t equate to live bullets. 4 seconds to throw is like to see go to 3, only one blitz, the ridiculously overrated jump ball catches that seem to attract evaluators too much for my liking. But in this day and age of spread offense I think there’s some good in it. Also believe select 7 on 7 would be better if there were an understanding between the select teams and HS coaches
|
|
|
Post by retired on Jun 10, 2019 9:40:14 GMT -6
Wow, lots of thoughts here, even after having to wade through much of the useless dribble (that seemed to then move to a second thread...)
First, as a few posters have mentioned, there are two different things that fall under the label "7-on-7" : 1) A very controlled drill practicing the passing game without the use of Offensive or defensive lineman. Very useful, particularly if done correctly. 2) The competitive events that happen offseason. This has been growing in popularity, and is mirroring the horrors that is AAU basketball. I consider this for the most part useless, and probably counter productive to in-season success.
I believe the best outcome can be achieved by using #1 above against other like minded teams who understand what is going on. For example, script scenarios and down and distances. In October, the play calls and coverages on 3rd and 7-10 will be different than they would be on 1st 10, 2nd or 3rd and medium/short etc. Work on execution, not score.
Number 2 above just leads to seeing a 3 back team show up on a weekend running 5 wide against nothing but man under 2 deep defenses. As others have mentioned, it also has the ancillary benefit (sarcasm) of bringing the AAU basketball foolishness into HS football.
|
|
|
Post by hypemeup on Jun 10, 2019 10:50:38 GMT -6
Kind of a tie in to the 7on 7. Is the hype machine AAU mindset behind it. I read an article last night being a ULL fan and I came across an article and the headline said prep standout QB to visit ULL so I quickly clicked on it only to learn they are talking about a 2022 kid that is a backup and has thrown for a career 100 yards. That’s laughable. 7on 7 is a tool really best used in the scale of a portion of practice in my opinion. Most of these kids I guess miss workouts with their team to travel to play flag football tourneys. I talked to our coach and he said his guys only did their team 7 on 7s. Just my 2 cents. Great point about the 2022.
|
|
|
Post by iamray on Jun 10, 2019 20:57:31 GMT -6
Wow, lots of thoughts here, even after having to wade through much of the useless dribble (that seemed to then move to a second thread...) First, as a few posters have mentioned, there are two different things that fall under the label "7-on-7" : 1) A very controlled drill practicing the passing game without the use of Offensive or defensive lineman. Very useful, particularly if done correctly. 2) The competitive events that happen offseason. This has been growing in popularity, and is mirroring the horrors that is AAU basketball. I consider this for the most part useless, and probably counter productive to in-season success. I believe the best outcome can be achieved by using #1 above against other like minded teams who understand what is going on. For example, script scenarios and down and distances. In October, the play calls and coverages on 3rd and 7-10 will be different than they would be on 1st 10, 2nd or 3rd and medium/short etc. Work on execution, not score. Number 2 above just leads to seeing a 3 back team show up on a weekend running 5 wide against nothing but man under 2 deep defenses. As others have mentioned, it also has the ancillary benefit (sarcasm) of bringing the AAU basketball foolishness into HS football. I appreciate the input. It’s the “events” which I am referring to. The amount of hype players get from them is ludicrous.
|
|
|
Post by Southplaq on Jun 11, 2019 17:42:41 GMT -6
Honestly, I think we are missing the point here. To me, it's simply an event for the kids. It Gives them something to do to stay competitive and do something that they love (and we all loved) which is to still be able to "play football" in some respect and stay connected to the game of football during the off-season. You guys are making way to much of this. It's for the kids
|
|