Maybe it's just me but am I seeing more receivers open by 20 yards this year than I have in the past? Baseball is a team sport but you are doing the same thing on every team. Football is a team sport but it relies on people being where they are supposed to be depending on the situation. Players are playing with different players and learning new systems all the time.
Am I just looking for something to blame on the transfer portal?
- Thread starter Glenn's Take
- Start date
Feel like I saw more basketball blowouts last year as well, but maybe that’s because I was watching mainly uk 
Same reason that the 70s Cowboys or Steelers would mop the floor with most NFL teams today, in spite of far bigger and better athletes just about everywhere. Cohesion matters a lot in football.
I think you missed the point. If 2 teams of equal talent play in football and one team played together for 20 games, would they beat a team that had been together 2 games.? Not a yes/no question. I need percentages.
Uhhhhh.....no.
Near 100% of the time, when you put it like that. Seems pretty obvious except 20 games is not a very long time. We'll, maybe nowadays, but teams used to stay together and they were much better for it
Jmo but what you are seeing is related to nil portal era. Right now, vast majority of the staffs out there just have not figured out how to recruit and manage players in this new era.
A selfish set of players can just shut down an entire season if it isn't going well. We saw it here the last two years where the team, despite fighting for bowl eligibility, just quit and preserve themselves for the next bag. We're seeing the same thing at Carolina and we're going to see it at a&m. Lsu is one loss from being there.
Its just the current era. I don't know how coaches do it. I guess that's why most that could retired.
For those teams that have playoff expectations and pressure the high level players will indeed shut down and protect themselves for the draft. The current bowls not involved in the playoffs are currently on precarious ground and when they expand (you know it’s inevitable) they will disappear or become a part of the expanded playoff. That might add one additional loss before disengagement and at some point will affect the evaluation of possible playoff teams as two teams might have a common opponent and one played a certain team when they were fighting for a playoff spot and the other when they disengaged
Cmon bro your telling me no matter how much social cohesion the fridge isn’t Aaron Donald that’s crazy
The reps together as a unit because of the portal may be a little bit of it, but that should also theoretically affect the offense too.
Personally, I’d say that offense has just generally evolved faster than defense in the last several years. Way more pre-snap shifts and motions, RPOs, choice routes, etc. designed to either confuse the defense or force them to make exploitable decisions mid-play than there were even 10 years ago and the rules are still just as offense friendly as ever. This may be compounded by the fact that it anecdotally seems to me like defenses may be countering by more aggressively hunting turnovers and big negative plays instead of just sitting back trying to contain. Better offense and more defensive gambles equals more busted coverage and big plays.
Personally, I’d say that offense has just generally evolved faster than defense in the last several years. Way more pre-snap shifts and motions, RPOs, choice routes, etc. designed to either confuse the defense or force them to make exploitable decisions mid-play than there were even 10 years ago and the rules are still just as offense friendly as ever. This may be compounded by the fact that it anecdotally seems to me like defenses may be countering by more aggressively hunting turnovers and big negative plays instead of just sitting back trying to contain. Better offense and more defensive gambles equals more busted coverage and big plays.
The non bcs bowl games will have to offer nil checks to players for playing. Its their only hope.
Lol! Same could be said for the 90's Cowboys and the 2000's Patriots. Continuity is huge in football. The athletes are better today but the overall product is not. Free agency and now NIL are hurting the end product, IMHO. Still good but a really good football team that stays together, especially linemen, is a thing of beauty. Like synchronized diving...They just know the system and each other that well.
Our team will be easy better later this season if the o line stays healthy. They are already good but have only been together a short while. I look for our run game to get better as well as our pass protection.
Continuity is big in other sports but huge in football.
Those great nfl teams spent careers together.
Im telling you that 250 lb off linemen and 270 lb d tackles wouldn't hold up.
Were you alive then..old enough to remember those teams?
How about the 90s Cowboys? How would they fare today?
How about the 96 UK Wildcats basketball team?
Dude, I'm 53.
Just use common sense. The game is so much faster now, the players are 10 times stronger and it is way more analytical. The training these guys go through, just to get on a practice squad, is astronomical compared to what they went through even 10 years ago.
There isn't a single offensive or defensive line that could do anything against the lines we are seeing today.
You’re trying to say that the one advantage a 1990's era team MIGHT have, cohesion, would trump all the other advantages todays players have and it’s laughable. Just stop.
So, you're also saying that the 96 bball cats can't compete today? And yes, I'm saying cohesion is massively important in football. Way more than bball.
Nevertheless, look at the rosters from back then and their size and speed. The biggest area of difference is offensive lineman, where, not coincidentally, cohesion probably matters more than any other area of the field. Just look at the 70's Steelers defensive line. Hell, just look at their whole defense. If you wouldnt take those guys today, I think you're the one that's being laughable. They were huge, fast and they literally tried to kill opposing players. It was part of the game plan, to hurt the other players. Players these days would call foul and go home crying. Not kidding!
You didn't answer me about the 90's Cowboys or the 2000's Patriots. So, I assume you think these cobbed together rosters would be better than those too? If so, that's fine. It's perfectly ok to disagree. After all, we are a Bball school and I don't expect you to know football! Lol!
I'm not much older than you but when talking about those 70's teams, the age difference is massive. I actually watched them while you were on your momma's knee.
Manning, Brady and others relied on timing plays and finesse football. The stars are what people remember about those teams but it was the linemen that allowed that timing and scheme to work.
Again, it's ok to disagree but it means less to me knowing that you weren't old enough at the time to actually know what you're disagreeing with.
Yeah if equal talent the cohesive team is going to win like 90% of the time. Look at Indiana. Nowhere near the talent of an Ohio State or Texas the last two years and they beat everyone. Good coaching, team cohesion, and style.
Of course the 1996 Cats would man handle these teams today. The athletes of the 90’s and 2000’s were just as elite as the ones today. They maybe a little better overall today but the best ones easily compete. It wasn’t the 1930’s.So, you're also saying that the 96 bball cats can't compete today? And yes, I'm saying cohesion is massively important in football. Way more than bball.
Nevertheless, look at the rosters from back then and their size and speed. The biggest area of difference is offensive lineman, where, not coincidentally, cohesion probably matters more than any other area of the field. Just look at the 70's Steelers defensive line. Hell, just look at their whole defense. If you wouldnt take those guys today, I think you're the one that's being laughable. They were huge, fast and they literally tried to kill opposing players. It was part of the game plan, to hurt the other players. Players these days would call foul and go home crying. Not kidding!
You didn't answer me about the 90's Cowboys or the 2000's Patriots. So, I assume you think these cobbed together rosters would be better than those too? If so, that's fine. It's perfectly ok to disagree. After all, we are a Bball school and I don't expect you to know football! Lol!
I'm not much older than you but when talking about those 70's teams, the age difference is massive. I actually watched them while you were on your momma's knee.
Manning, Brady and others relied on timing plays and finesse football. The stars are what people remember about those teams but it was the linemen that allowed that timing and scheme to work.
Again, it's ok to disagree but it means less to me knowing that you weren't old enough at the time to actually know what you're disagreeing with.
Not sustainable for a top program
which is why that style of recruiting fails at top programs
The average O lineman weight was 255lbs in the 70s. 315 now. Mid 90s was when the average hit 300.
I think the 96 cats can compete, sure, but the parity in college basketball is ten times what it was back then. There won't be anyone pissing their pants just because UK 1996 is on the other side of the court.So, you're also saying that the 96 bball cats can't compete today? And yes, I'm saying cohesion is massively important in football. Way more than bball.
Nevertheless, look at the rosters from back then and their size and speed. The biggest area of difference is offensive lineman, where, not coincidentally, cohesion probably matters more than any other area of the field. Just look at the 70's Steelers defensive line. Hell, just look at their whole defense. If you wouldnt take those guys today, I think you're the one that's being laughable. They were huge, fast and they literally tried to kill opposing players. It was part of the game plan, to hurt the other players. Players these days would call foul and go home crying. Not kidding!
You didn't answer me about the 90's Cowboys or the 2000's Patriots. So, I assume you think these cobbed together rosters would be better than those too? If so, that's fine. It's perfectly ok to disagree. After all, we are a Bball school and I don't expect you to know football! Lol!
I'm not much older than you but when talking about those 70's teams, the age difference is massive. I actually watched them while you were on your momma's knee.
Manning, Brady and others relied on timing plays and finesse football. The stars are what people remember about those teams but it was the linemen that allowed that timing and scheme to work.
Again, it's ok to disagree but it means less to me knowing that you weren't old enough at the time to actually know what you're disagreeing with.
As far as the 2000's Patriots and the 90's Cowboys, well, Tom Brady is generational and that wasn’t all that long ago, so yeah, they could compete, but in my opinion, I don't see the 90's cowboys as a team that could win anything of note today.
The game is simply too big, strong and physical today.
Latest
-
01
KSR Football
Kentucky Preparing for a "Hungry" South Carolina in a Hostile Environment
-
02
KSR
Good luck trying to slow down Franck Kepnang
-
03
KSR Basketball
Add a BBN United Basketball Open Practice to a Busy Weekend for UK Sports
-
04
KSR Women's Basketball
New WNBA mock draft has Clara Strack teaming up with Caitlin Clark
-
05
KSR Football
NFL Draft Buzz Building for Lance Heard