I was watching Oklahoma/Missouri game last week and on some plays the Missouri defensive line did not get into 3-point stance.
Wiki says there is a leverage advantage, but I am skeptical. Is there any research?
IMO, the 3-point stance would increase the fatigue faster.
Wiki says that offensive linemen should just barely touch the ground. If so, why do they do it? Rule? How many players must be in the 3-point stance
FTR, I never played any football so I don’t have any experience.
The trick is to get low, hit hard and come up with power. Starting low is helpful .You want to knock the opponent back.
Granted, I only played high school football, but I did play OL and DL positions. The main reason for putting hands down is to change your center of gravity
2 point stance (hands near hips): relatively high, balanced, good for pass blocking. A bit high for good run blocking because your CG is back farther- you don’t get a good “fire off” at the snap. Visibility very good. Used a lot for linebackers and for OL in the shotgun formations.
4 point stance (all fours, more or less) very low, CG far forward, very hard to pass block out of (you have to basically stand back up and go backwards more or less). Used primarily in short yardage situations.
3 point stance- best of both worlds- CG forward, but not so far forward that you can’t easily come up into pass-blocking, and not so far back that you can’t fire off hard as well. That’s why you see it so commonly on both sides of the ball.
Hasn’t one suggestion to reduce concussions and other head injury been to remove the three-point stance and force everyone to be in a two-point stance? If so, would one line get a particular advantage?
No, this hasn’t been suggested anywhere I’ve ever seen and wouldn’t be suggested anywhere reputable. Concussions don’t happen along the line generally speaking and adjusting the stance wouldn’t have an impact on the incidence of them.
From wiki entry on the three point stance:
“…NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has discussed banning the stance from the game due to injury concerns…”
the entry has a phantom footnote so it could be unsubstantiated wiki BS.
As a matter of fact, the NFL is reviewing the 3-point stance.
WAG: the injury concerns would probably have more to do with the knees along the line. Perhaps that’s what he meant, although I’m not sure the 2-point would help with that.
Wow…if that was banned football would get pretty lame.
Either Goddell is even dumber than I thought or that article is poorly written and taken out of context. Concussions simply don’t occur along the line. Eliminating the 3-point stance isn’t going to lessen the number of helmet hits. If anything it will force players to get a running start to compensate for the lack of leverage.
I suspect the article is conflating multiple issues regarding safety. The 3 point stance could perhaps contribute to knee and leg injuries or perhaps there’s some study about repeated head impacts that fall well short of concussions.
OK, here’s what Goodell actually said. (General talk about concussions starting at 5:09 of the video, 3-point stance discussed at 8:09.)
Seems to me that he didn’t say the 3-point stance could be banned, but that it could just disappear.
The Associated Press article inferred that the phrase “it’s possible that would happen” meant a ban, whereas the interviewer just asked him if we could ever see a game without any linemen in a 3-point stance.
So, Omniscient, you’re right, there’s some of that “out of context” here. I thought I could rely on AP…
Alas, upon further review, Goodell is asked if the NFL should “do away” with the 3-point stance, and he answers that “we need to find new ways” to ensure the safety of players.
Make that what you will…
I just watched the video and I think it’s very difficult to interpret that Goodell said in any way the they were considering rule changes to that effect.
The interviewer quoted a member of the competition committee saying that “everything is on the table” in regards to player safety, ranging from rule changes and equipment changes. The interviewer then anecdotally said that “some people are saying” they would do away with the 3-point stance. There was no implication that this came from anyone within the league and was framed as him mentioning the most outlandish possible idea. Goodell gives a non-answer saying that they have changed the game and they’ve changed the culture. He mentions they have created rules regarding techniques that have undue risk of injury, for both head injuries and not. The interviewer then persists asking if he can envision a NFL where players aren’t in a 3-point stance, with no mention of rule changes simply glibly asking if that could happen. Goodell answers that anything is possible and that there will be plays with very few players in that position, however this statement refers to the game that day and is addressing changes in tactics.
Long story short, it’s a real stretch to imply that this is being considered in any real way. Goodell never even mentions it and only evades a question on the topic that was specifically asked as a example of an extreme idea. When he concedes that it’s possible he refers to a game being played under current rules and comments on changes not directed by any rules and only styles and tactics of play.
It should be noted that teams across the league have been employing a “UFO defense” in the last few seasons as a method of confusing teams that aren’t trying to run the ball by confusing the pass coverage and protection schemes and allowing rushers to come on the fly. This isn’t a rules or a safety thing, it’s simply an extreme version of the zone blitz tactic.
I’ve seen the Packers (who normally play a 3-4 defense) recently use two, or even only one, defensive lineman (i.e., in three-point stances) on obvious passing plays.
When I played high school ball, one of the drills was this: two blocking dummies were placed about a yard apart. Two players lined up, and the winner was the one who drove the other back - you lost if you climbed over him or whatever. It encouraged getting as low as possible and digging forward - skills one would need at the one yard line on either side of the ball.
Oh, yeah: Four point stance only need apply.
In every piece I’ve seen on concussions in the NFL, (60 minutes, Real Sports, etc…,) the elephant in the room is concussions on the line. Small head hits – the kind that happen a dozen times every practice for every lineman – are cumulative, and potentially more brain-damaging than any big hit on a receiver. This is what could spell the end for football as a sport altogether. That’s why the NFL is cracking down so hard on big hits, because the bigger problem along the line is unaddressable. That’s also why Goodell didn’t dismiss the 3-point-stance question as irrelevant, which he absolutely would have if he had any study which showed it was.
Bill Belichick first employed this strategy of using only 2 down linemen and pressuring receivers instead of passers in the 1990 Superbowl, where it effectively led the Giants to a win over the high-flying Bills. Then he did it again in 2001, giving the Patriots the win over the high-flying Rams.
On a tangent, it was interesting to see the Giants go the other way in 2007, shutting down the high-flying Patriots by pressuring the passer instead of the receivers. Probably because they ran a 4-3, as opposed to both of those Belichick 3-4 teams.
I’ve seen both the Steelers and Jets employ the cloud defense, and like the Packers are base 3-4 teams.
This is the real issue that they’re trying to dodge. To use famous examples, someone like a Nate Newton or a Mark Tuinei is at far more risk for long-term brain damage than Troy Aikman, who had something like 7 concussions during his career.
Essentially the story goes that these sub-concussion level hits that linemen on both sides of the ball sustain every play are cumulative- they’re right below what the helmets effectively protect against, but don’t impair the player.
What these hits do is cause microscopic damage and the buildup of something called “tau” proteins in their brains, the long term effect of which is erratic behavior, instability, etc… There seems to be a potential genetic component- not all linement obviously suffer from this issue, but the ones that do really suffer.
Google “bennet omalu mike webster andre waters” if you want more- there are literally too many articles to include them here.