Listen to this....

[gbr93]

As another poster said, it's not really about tackling -- it's about getting in a position to tackle. Our problem is our guys haven't been able to get off blocks and/or are out of position to make the tackle. Too many times an OL takes out a linebacker and/or the next "safety" value is out of position. The reason the defense worked so well with David/Ruud was they got around the OL (that was trying to take them out) and made the tackle. Once this happens the defense will be much better.

Agree 100%

That was me who made that post

You: "Go back and watch those exact highlights you just posted. Just because they teach you that way doesn't mean that is the only way you can be effective. Yes I was exaggerating by saying always, but at least 50% of the tackles he made in that highlight where of him wrapping up knees or feet. You can be effective doing it. I know proper tackling form and why it is taught that way, but in games you rarely get the chance to square someone up and tackle like that. You have to be an athlete and do whatever it takes to get them to the ground, which is what Lavonte does."

Well when one "exaggerates"- AKA purposely lying to try to make a point, you lose all credibility, are you "exaggerating"/lying to make a point now by saying 50%?

You said purposely "diving at knees and feet, rarely if ever maklng a tackle the way I describled. That isnt how tackling is taught at the LB spot or how it happens on the majority of plays. Note that in many of the times LD tackles at the knees- he isnt diving, hes starting out high and slides down. A "shimmy" technique which is a natural progression from the classic form tackle. As I mentioned before- when you over run a play, are on the ground or have already taken the wrong angle- sometimes you are forced to do something else. But no one in modern football is taught to as you suggest "dive at feet and ankles" to be a great LB, you tackle and get power through your hips and trunk. Today tackling is taught the way I said for a reason, it is the most effective way to tackle and it happens the most in games- if not we wouldnt bother teaching it that way. BTW we dont just teach tackling straight up, we teach feet to feet lowered hips and hip roll from all angles with the exception of directly behind. No DC wants arm tackles and most DI college LBs cant take down most DI college RBs consistently with arm tackles. I think we can all agree, the current LBs starting for NU arent doing very well taking players to the ground using arm tackles- they certainly wont improve on that when we play in Conference against the big backs in the B1G.

I never said that was the proper way to tackle nor did I say that is what needs to be taught or what is being taught. All I was saying, is that you don't have to have proper form to be a good tackler. You just have to be an athlete and get guys to the ground, and Lavonte was the best, by doing it many different ways.

 

[jmfb]

No

To be a good tackler you will base in and have proper form

LD has excellent form on most of his tackles-

The only ones he doesnt are the ones again where he has overrun the play, is on the ground, way out of position. Again arm tackles, diving at knees and ankles isnt how NUs LBs are going to have success in the B1G

LD wouldnt be in the NFL or did well at NU if he 'rarely if ever" or even the revised 50% didnt tackle with good modern form.

This isnt the backyard or Pop Warner football where you send Billy to the garbage lid and Tommy to the popcicle stick and the best athlete always makes the tackle. Everyone has great athletes in college football. DI backs run through sloppy, junk yard tackling. Lots of great athletes fail in College football.

If "good tackler" didnt have to use good form AND it was a great advantage to have LBs "dive at knees and ankles" that is what coaches would teach. But since it isnt, we dont.

 

[gbr93]

No

To be a good tackler you will base in and have proper form

LD has excellent form on most of his tackles-

The only ones he doesnt are the ones again where he has overrun the play, is on the ground, way out of position. Again arm tackles, diving at knees and ankles isnt how NUs LBs are going to have success in the B1G

LD wouldnt be in the NFL or did well at NU if he 'rarely if ever" or even the revised 50% didnt tackle with good modern form.

This isnt the backyard or Pop Warner football where you send Billy to the garbage lid and Tommy to the popcicle stick and the best athlete always makes the tackle. Everyone has great athletes in college football. DI backs run through sloppy, junk yard tackling. Lots of great athletes fail in College football.

If "good tackler" didnt have to use good form AND it was a great advantage to have LBs "dive at knees and ankles" that is what coaches would teach. But since it isnt, we dont.

You're missing my point. Therefore, I digress.

 

[The Dude]

Football really isn't astrophysics. Like many fields (i.e., finance), football coaches have complex and at times ridiculous terminology that makes it seem more complicated than it usually is, and makes the gap between their knowledge and the average onlooker seem greater than it really is.

I've never liked the stance some fans take that, because we don't have coaching experience, we aren't able to make any valid criticisms of coaches. Baloney. If you're trying to critique an astrophysics thesis paper without any astrophysics education, then you're probably clueless. But football? It's eleven guys trying to advance the ball and eleven other guys trying to stop them. You don't need a PhD to have a good idea of what's going on. Just some solid analytical intelligence and observation skills.

Yeah that's one of the more annoying cop-outs around these parts. +1

It's almost as if people don't realize if they're going to use that kind of argument, then they're not qualified to say a coach is doing a good job. It goes both ways. Might as well shut the board down.

 

[VectorVictor]

Now, when you send your kid to kindergarten, is it the teacher's responsibility to potty train them or are the kids already supposed to be potty trained so they can concentrate on other stuff.

Funny you mention this, as my kiddo has multiple classmates in Kindergarten that aren't potty trained, don't know their letters/numbers, can't write their name, don't know their parent's names, etc. Parents anymore expect teachers to raise their kids in addition to teach them, and that just doesn't work.

And first grade is even worse, as there's no 'mandatory' kindergarten in some states. Imagine a kid walking into first grade that doesn't know the above things, still craps their pants, and the parents tell the teacher 'he's your problem'. This is what teachers deal with now...but I digress.

---

Going back to football, Fox Sports SW had a piece a year or two ago about how inexperienced and improperly trained peewee football coaches aren't teaching kids proper tackling techniques for years, and it's manifesting itself in the high school and college ranks, as kids have to be 'retrained' to tackle properly and still revert back to what they learned initially when they're not paying attention.

Not saying that's an excuse for everyone...but when you've been trained early on to do something a certain way, it's hard to break it.

This blows my mind. My little guy can't start pre-school until he's 4 AND potty trained.

Welcome to Texas Public Education. :-|

 

[Hunter94]

Football really isn't astrophysics. Like many fields (i.e., finance), football coaches have complex and at times ridiculous terminology that makes it seem more complicated than it usually is, and makes the gap between their knowledge and the average onlooker seem greater than it really is.

I've never liked the stance some fans take that, because we don't have coaching experience, we aren't able to make any valid criticisms of coaches. Baloney. If you're trying to critique an astrophysics thesis paper without any astrophysics education, then you're probably clueless. But football? It's eleven guys trying to advance the ball and eleven other guys trying to stop them. You don't need a PhD to have a good idea of what's going on. Just some solid analytical intelligence and observation skills.

Yeah that's one of the more annoying cop-outs around these parts. +1

It's almost as if people don't realize if they're going to use that kind of argument, then they're not qualified to say a coach is doing a good job. It goes both ways. Might as well shut the board down.

ing

yup, Bo doesn't like the fans.....the fans don't like his coaching.....no love lost here.