Banning the 3 point stance

One of the heavy-hitter doctors, neurologist named Julian Bailes who used to work for the Steelers and now for West Virginia U., has baning the 3-point stance on his list of changes that could and probably should be made to make the sport safer.
I talked to Bailes a bunch this season because of the Tebow concussion story and when he suggested no 3-point stance it was like the light bulb went on above my head.
Such an obvious solution. Yes it will change the game some, but probably for the better.

Half the college teams are playing out of a shotgun the majority of the time. It's been proved by the likes of Rich Rod and Meyer that u can run the ball out of the spread. At some point NFL teams are going to get tired of teaching QBs how to dropback as more and more run the spread through high school and college.

Football is fast becoming a blood sport. The NFL is especially brutal. Guys are simply too fast, big and strong. The collisions and the hard stops and starts, the bodies can't hold up.
Anything that makes the sport safer and lowers the body count is simply a no-brainer.

 

Well, a) Rich Rod has bombed like a buffalo turd in a birthday cake the last two seasons, I wouldn't be using him as an example for much of anything these days.

b) The physical result of banning the 3-point stance is to make starts less explosive: i.e., run slower.

c) Football has been a "blood sport" for well over 100 years; it was almost banned by Teddy Roosevelt in 1905, a threat which led to the legalization of the forward pass.

d) Since apparently you want the rules to be changed because NFL coaches will "get tired of teaching QBs to drop back," why even bother with a snap. At the beginning of every play, the ref hands the ball to the QB 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage, blows his whistle and the play starts. Why bother teaching the annoying center snap.

Seriously, if the game is going to retain any even remotely recognizable form, dramatic improvements in protective gear will have to be made. My guess is eventually helmets will be made much larger with cushioned exteriors, which theoretically should cut down on concussion-type injuries.

 

Not saying that there couldn't be some type of equipment improvements, but unless you can pad the inside of the skull, there's not much that can be done to a helmet to prevent concussions. The brain slamming into the skull is the problem.

As for Rich Rod, West Va had one of the best rushing teams in the country for several years. The fact that it's not working in Michigan is besides the point. Enough of these spread teams have shown you can run the ball from the shotgun. Then of course there is the wildcat.

But forget about all that stuff, the game is brutal and getting more brutal.
I'm the last guy on earth who wants to abolish football, that would pretty much put me out of a job. I love the game and accept the fact that it will always be a meat grinder. But at some point you have to say, 'What can we do to make it safer?' And this seems like a very reasonable idea considering that linemen setting up in two-point stances is a fairly common thing at all levels of the game.
We're already moving in this direction, why not just speed it up?
I'm 39 and I think the odds are that this is something we will see in my lifetime.

 

Get serious about testing for what is making these players so strong and fast.

Steroids and HGH

 

Terrible idea. I guess the next thing will be banning trap blocks, or maybe any blocking scheme in which a lineman pulls. Think of the risk of a violent collision when a 300-pound man gets a running start at the guy he's trying to block and the defender might not see him coming!

Seriously, aren't there more concussions from hits in the open field than at the line of scrimmage anyway? I can't remember the last time I saw a guy knocked out by a hit when the opponent was just coming out of his three-point stance.

And ralph, West Virginia had a great running game under Rich Rodriguez because they had a great running quarterback. Nobody is going to run that offense in the NFL, not the way the Mountaineers ran it with Pat White at quarterback.

 

Good point regarding the cumulative effect of all of the hits. The talk about the three-point stance makes more sense in that light, but I still think it is a changing something too fundamental to the game and it really won't solve the problem.

The game is bad for your health. There is no doubt about that. And I don't think most players understand that when they start out, but they certainly should know by the time they get to the NFL.

Trying to turn it into a 7-on-7 drill isn't going to make that issue go away.

 

Well, at least this won't hurt Larry Craig's chances.

 

Seriously. This is football, not duck, duck, goose.

 

When I played on the O-line in high school, we used a 4-point stance. Seriously. Of course, we were an option team that literally had a bruiser of a QB who couldn't throw.

I agree with all who have said banning the 3-point (or 4-point) stance won't solve the problem of concussions. The increased size and speed of the players is something that can't be legislated, and it means the open-field contact will producer fiercer collisions, regardless of whether the players start from a standing position or in a crouch.

Check on the injuries for arena football players. I bet there still were a bunch of concussions, even though that's not a running league.

 

Ask Tommy Tubbervile how he likes the spread O zone blocking.

 

You can run the ball out of Spread if you have a QB who can run the zone read. Otherwise without a line who can run block you are going nowhere.

The 3 point stance as key cause of football concussions is a silly notion.

Very few places teach leading with head any more as a drive blocking technique. Most teach coming up with fists to numbers to knock defender back, then getting legs under and driving. Same with zone blocking - line takes j step to play side then leds with fists to numbers of first defender.

Taking the 3 point stance out of football would ruin the game.