Wharton

No, you said "Much like the rest of this, because you're mistaken into thinking that they're two entirely separate things (and because you're trying, just like with the Richt/Fox/Derrick Brooks comment, to extrapolate something that isn't there). You pull to trap. It's one assignment." So basically your answer was "because I said so." You didn't explain how they were the same, or why someone would refer to them separately if they were the same, you simply stated that they were the same.

Oh really? Perhaps you were referring to this comment: "You can be good at trapping without having the athleticism/agility to be effective in getting there"? I'm actually sorry I missed that comment because it sure seems to me like you're saying that pulling and trapping are NOT the same act. But moreover, you're horribly incorrect in suggesting that the end result of all pulls is a trap. That's ludicrous, and your coach would either be embarrassed to know that you never learned better than that from him or, as mentioned, is a complete idiot who shouldn't be employed. Instead the trap is when a defensive lineman has been left unblocked, usually proceeding into the backfield, and is then contacted by a vacating lineman. Most pulls, on the other hand, involve a simple lead where the pulling lineman moves to an area and engages the first defender available, which should always be beyond the line of scrimmage (otherwise the play has been blown up).

I agreed that we don't knock people off the ball, but we simply don't trap much (if at all). By all means, point me to a particular play and let me take a look at it. We do pull, but we don't trap, although I guess at this point you genuinely wouldn't know the difference.

Dude, I'm pretty sure I destroyed you when I showed that NFL.com makes a distinction between pulling and trapping, but in regards to the posters, I believe B&B rather explicitly said "I don't think it's incorrect to say there's a difference." Or Ide saying that the two were "very different." Meanwhile you don't have anyone at all agreeing that they're the same. The closest you have is B&B saying that they're in the same family, which is correct because as I detailed at the outset, they both involve movement by the linemen.


Look, you tried to correct me and you ended up embarrassing yourself. Granted, it's the first time you've exposed such a glaring lack of football knowledge so I understand why you're particularly peeved and are continuing to try and pretend like you didn't screw up, but everyone knows you did. If you continue to disagree, fine, but NFL.com and pretty much every other source says that you're wrong. I'm perfectly fine with you believing something that happens to be wrong, but you should stop trying to correct me, especially when the official site of the National Football League says that you're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.


Oh, and this might help you learn something Magnus:
"Definition (of trap block): A blocking scheme where a defensive player is allowed through the offensive line only to be blocked by another player behind the line."

Or this one:
"TRAP BLOCK: When a player is allowed through the enemy line only to be blocked by surprise from another player behind the line. Also called a mousetrap."

Sounds a lot like:

doesn't it?

 

Like I said.

They are. You have to pull to trap. You're arguing they're two entirely different things, that there's some mysterious "pull block".

I said all traps are pulls. I also stated that there were some linemen movement that involved sealing, but I also didn't say "most" like you incorrectly did.

4:05 1st Q, week 11 v/s bears was one I found after about 15 seconds of notes. Reyes pulls outside, looks to trap the end. Poor execution, but the intent's there. Now I've seen us pull outside with the guard to lead upfield and using the FB to be the contain blocker, which is generally an awkward and un-executable play for us.

They don't differentiate. Just like Rivera's comment, you're making it out to be something for your necessity rather than what's actually there. The only one thing you have is a diagram that shows a seal block which you're suggesting is all pull blocking. The terminology of which I looked for, and was completely unable to find anywhere else.

That would be an awesome point for you if I ever said otherwise. It was your contention that we pull, but don't trap, and that most blocks aren't traps.

 

This is about as exciting as watching snails fuck.

 

When you refer to someone being good at A and bad at B, then by definition, A and B are differentiated. When you describe A and B in separate ways, then they are separate actions. The trap leaves a man unblocked to induce penetration, at which point a blocker from another part of the line engages them from the side. A typical pull involves all defensive linemen covered, with one blocker leading the runner to make a block downfield.

Look, I know you simply can't ever admit that you're wrong unless I've badgered you about it for weeks or even months. You never have been able to admit your mistakes and you never will, because you lack the courage or the honor. I understand that and accept it, but at least everyone knows exactly how wrong you are, and how spineless you are in refusing to ever admit a mistake.

 

awesome. The copout defense again.

I stand behind what I said. You can dislike it, but it's how people use it.

 

i'm still confused. isn't this a contradiction? or is that we are finess power running team?

 

WTF

 

HeadAche is off his meds and escaped from his handlers. He's trying to continue a fight with me he already lost.

HeadAche:
No, it's not a contradiction. We are and always have been philosophically a power running team. In the interview with Fowler, Henning is talking about how after Stephen Davis went down we couldn't do the runs we wanted to do because of the injuries, ineffectiveness from Mitchell, and because Foster isn't good for our scheme. So we ended up doing a lot of dancing and cut-backs rather than the lead blocking plays we've always done. Others have noted many times that the types of runs Henning called changed late in the season when Foster was the starter, presumably because we lacked the ability to run our usual lead plays. Henning also notes in that article that, if all goes according to plan, we'll be that power running team again.

 

your post was 12/26/05 asserting that we were a power running team ... which i think it more than clear by that point that we were not. just one of many, many examples where you try to act like an expert but are shown to be an idiot

 

Seriously man, you're making a fool of yourself. Are any of the other Collin-haters jumping in to support you here? No. Why wouldn't they? Because even they can see that you're humiliating yourself by acting like you're proving me wrong about something when all you're doing is proving your own idiocy.

Look at what Henning said:
"At the end of last year, we were running the ball well. But it wasn't power running, it was more finesse running."

Why would Henning qualify his statement by pointing out that our running style changed toward the end of last year? Why would he include that phrase at all, if as you claimed, we had never been a power running team?

Henning also said, "The ability for us to be a power running team will depend on the changes we've made at center and right guard."

Doesn't that sound like we intend to be a power running team again? Doesn't that indicate exactly what I said about our ability to engage in the power running game we prefer being limited last year by Mitchell's ineffectiveness?

And lastly, "If we can, we will lean on that, because off of that comes good play-action and big plays downfield."

Doesn't that sound like our offense throughout Fox's tenure? Henning explained that we weren't able to be that power running team we have always been late last year for various reasons, but that the staff plans to get back to that this season. Really, it shouldn't be that hard to understand even for an admitted retard.


You embarrass yourself, HeadAche, because you're stupid and desperately want to pretend that you're not. Honestly, ask around. See if you can find even one person in this world who isn't your mother that will tell you that you're intelligent and that you have something to add. Heck, you've even admitted how stupid you are at times when you're on your meds and feeling less confrontational. No one respects what you have to say because what you say is so stupid, and because you're an asshole when you say it. I can get away with being a dick because people know that what I say has value. You can't. Look at the rubble that is your life and tell me that you can get away with it.