By: Tim Truemper

Tim Truemper — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 13:07:51 +0000

The chess piece analogy is ridiculous. Chess pieces have defined movement roles. The Queen is the most versatile, but it can be argued that all the others are limited by the rules of the game. Pieces don’t move to different roles of movement. Never liked that analogy.
With that being said, glad Chase provided the history lesson about those players who were versatile in running, receiving, return roles.
I will have to object slightly about the 1970’s offensive innovation being “stuffed in a burlap sack.” Certainly offensive production (prety much pasing numbers) were deflated. But much of that had to do with defensive sophistication. In the 70’s, the level of pre-snap shifting and movement increased. Multiple formation offenses such as with Dallas and KC were expanding. Landry brought back the shotgun. Don Coryell was expanding the route options in his passing offense approach. And onward. There were your stodgy teams like the Rams and Vikings but there were others doing more. The deal was that in the 60’s in the NFL, teams did the basic Brown, Red, and Split formations. Recieivers dependably lined up on only one side. This Green Bay style offense of low novelty and high execution was more common. The AFL and Landry (my Dallas bias showing) influenced offensive innovation toward the trends I described above.

By: Chase Stuart

Chase Stuart — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 19:49:35 +0000

In reply to Richie. I am sure if we look hard enough, we can find someone calling Elroy Hirsch peripatetic at some point in his career.

Comments on: Tavon Austin Is a New Breed Of Player, Like So Many Before Him

By: Tim Truemper

By: Chase Stuart