I'm going to go with tradition here and say bad.  i mean I have to think contact practice and full pads and all have some essence to conditioning players and getting them ready to go in big games.  I really don't like this move by the league and think it's going to do more bad than good here.

Edited September 13, 20178 yr by USABomberfan

The Blue Bomber practices that I've attended this year, not one had full contact or pads. The Blue squad is remarkably healthy this year. It was by design not to practice with pads or contact. When I reported that,  SF27 said "it's a good idea in theory". 

Ambrosie as an ex-player, must be easily sold on the idea as this decision is early in his career as Commissioner.  Naturally the CFLPA is onboard. Team managements must be on board as well, thinking how much they will save on injuries and injury replacements.

No team makes money by having full contact during practice. Fans should see a higher level of talent because there will be fewer star players missing games due to injury. 

I think old school dave richie types will be unhappy with this.. everyone else will see the benefits of less impacts and overworked muscles.   I assume the hitting and contact will still come in the form of sled and dummy work?

 

can't see this as a bad thing.. only glaring issue I have is that refinement of technique for tackles, shedding tackles/blocks, and breaking tackles is going to be tougher now. 

I don't like the change. You need to practice the things that you do in games at least once a week. You don't have to practice hitting or tackling because you already know how to do it? It then follows that you don't have to practice route running or power turns or footwork or jamming or getting off the jam anything else for that matter because you already know how by the time you're a pro.

This change will really hurt replacement players. No training camp means no hitting practices at all. Not sure how you evaluate a replacement DL or OL if you don't see how they can hit or absorb a hit. A guy who knows where to be and has great footwork may fail miserably when you add hitting to the mix. In season training for the OL and DL will just be a dance.

Time will tell, but I bet the level of tackling goes down, and it's not at a high level now.

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

I don't like the change. You need to practice the things that you do in games at least once a week. You don't have to practice hitting or tackling because you already know how to do it? It then follows that you don't have to practice route running or power turns or footwork or jamming or getting off the jam anything else for that matter because you already know how by the time you're a pro.

This change will really hurt replacement players. No training camp means no hitting practices at all. Not sure how you evaluate a replacement DL or OL if you don't see how they can hit or absorb a hit. A guy who knows where to be and has great footwork may fail miserably when you add hitting to the mix. In season training for the OL and DL will just be a dance.

Time will tell, but I bet the level of tackling goes down, and it's not at a high level now.

No offense, but I think any fan (not just you) who thinks they know better about this than players. former players and our commissioner ... have a mistakenly high opinion of themselves. If the players like this, I'm all for it.

I'm sorry but the players liking it doesn't hold as much weight as that. Guys don't want to get hit in practise? no ****. Doesn't say anything about how good or bad this is from a performance standpoint, it only says that players don't want to have to hit or be hit in practise. 

Form tackling is a dying skill. This accelerates it

12 minutes ago, Mike said:

No offense, but I think any fan (not just you) who thinks they know better about this than players. former players and our commissioner ... have a mistakenly high opinion of themselves. If the players like this, I'm all for it.

This thread is about is it good or bad for the league. You're suggesting that anyone who disagrees with the league has a mistakenly high opinion of themselves. I fart in your general direction. What's the purpose of having a discussion at all if only one opinion is allowed? 

23 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

I'm sorry but the players liking it doesn't hold as much weight as that. Guys don't want to get hit in practise? no ****. Doesn't say anything about how good or bad this is from a performance standpoint, it only says that players don't want to have to hit or be hit in practise. 

does it? or does it say they are tired of getting injured/bell rung, bruised and battered in practice then having to take those ailments into the next game?  You are assuming they don't want the contact due to laziness essentially.. where as it seems like its more so to protect the players.. you can't deny that people can and do get injured, sometimes badly, in practice (see Dan West on.. his victim escapes me at the moment.. Watson possibly?)

18 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

This thread is about is it good or bad for the league. You're suggesting that anyone who disagrees with the league has a mistakenly high opinion of themselves. I fart in your general direction. What's the purpose of having a discussion at all if only one opinion is allowed? 

no, hes saying that their opinion is more justifiable and easier to follow then yours.   as they have lived and seen the effects of the former practice method.  Fan versus living, breathing proof.. whom to believe and trust in their choice..  *rubs chin thoughtfully*

 

I don't think anyone is against trying to prolong a player's career by not subjecting them to too many injuries through practice or potentially sustaining head injuries in various drills.  But I feel if they don't specifically address all the small issues that arise where the rule goes vague, there's going to be too much lightening the load going on that there'll be unintended consequences come game time.

O'Shea said last week that they can practice tackling through certain drills with out having pads on. 

5 minutes ago, Jpan85 said:

O'Shea said last week that they can practice tackling through certain drills with out having pads on. 

I'm sure they can, but I don't suspect they're using robots modeled after RBs and Wideouts running full speed across the field.

When has there been full speed tackling in practices during the season. 

38 minutes ago, SPuDS said:

does it? or does it say they are tired of getting injured/bell rung, bruised and battered in practice then having to take those ailments into the next game?  You are assuming they don't want the contact due to laziness essentially.. where as it seems like its more so to protect the players.. you can't deny that people can and do get injured, sometimes badly, in practice (see Dan West on.. his victim escapes me at the moment.. Watson possibly?)

Of course what I said is correct. I never said anything about laziness, that's something you are reading into it when it was never there. All I said was players don't want to hit/get hit in practise, which can be for a variety of reasons including laziness or self preservation or what ever else. 

All I said was the players being in favour of the move doesn't mean anything about how it will impact performance, we simply don't know that from their statement, all we can tell from that is that they don't want contact, which has been a player position for ever basically. 

Just now, 17to85 said:

Of course what I said is correct. I never said anything about laziness, that's something you are reading into it when it was never there. All I said was players don't want to hit/get hit in practise, which can be for a variety of reasons including laziness or self preservation or what ever else. 

All I said was the players being in favour of the move doesn't mean anything about how it will impact performance, we simply don't know that from their statement, all we can tell from that is that they don't want contact, which has been a player position for ever basically. 

well how can you argue against self-preservation then?  These guys careers rarely last long.. if doing this can give them an extra 2-3 years AND protect them from having mental or joint/muscular issues when retirement does come,  how is it a bad thing?  Because the potential for a poor showing on the game field?  

 

I dunno man, I think the rewards outweigh the risks in this case.   Guys only get so many seasons out of their bodies in the current model.. if they get a few more and are more able bodied when they do retire.. I can't see this as a bad concept. 

 

Now, if tackling and play in general nosedives over the course of this season and next, I would say its become too detrimental.  I do see the point where these guys are paid.. and usually well.. to put their bodies on the line.  They chose this avenue to make their money. 

My first thought when I heard this was:  what idiot coach in the CFL is practicing with full contact in pads after training camp?  This is either window dressing and it will have limited impact on anyone, or there was a coach somewhere who thinks it is 1990.  And anybody who thinks that teaching outstanding tackling requires pads and full contact, hasn't watched a Seattle Seahawks game over the last 5 years. 

This isn't the end of civilization.  It is the acknowledging today's reality and making sure that some idiot coach doesn't get scared that his job is on the line and wants to make the fans happy by telling them that he made the players wear full pads after a loss.

3 minutes ago, SPuDS said:

well how can you argue against self-preservation then? 

I'm not, I am arguing with Mikes position that because the players say they like it there's no way it can be a negative move. 

Again, reading more in than was ever there. 

2 minutes ago, MC said:

My first thought when I heard this was:  what idiot coach in the CFL is practicing with full contact in pads after training camp?  This is either window dressing and it will have limited impact on anyone, or there was a coach somewhere who thinks it is 1990.  And anybody who thinks that teaching outstanding tackling requires pads and full contact, hasn't watched a Seattle Seahawks game over the last 5 years. 

This isn't the end of civilization.  It is the acknowledging today's reality and making sure that some idiot coach doesn't get scared that his job is on the line and wants to make the fans happy by telling them that he made the players wear full pads after a loss.

I've never heard of such a thing.

For those who want to talk about how terrible tackling is today, they should look at real game footage from the 60's, 70's, 80's and so on.  You will see busted tackles all over the screen in every era.

And we used to teach and be taught to go low and put your head in front of the ball carrier.  The stress to the head and neck of every player was crazy.

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

This thread is about is it good or bad for the league. You're suggesting that anyone who disagrees with the league has a mistakenly high opinion of themselves. I fart in your general direction. What's the purpose of having a discussion at all if only one opinion is allowed? 

No, I think he's suggesting you have a mistakenly inflated opinion of yourself based on how you worded your first post in this thread. You speak in absolutes and it comes across as though you know better than actual players what is best for them. It also sounds like you're of the opinion things will only get worse because of these changes. On what are you basing that opinion?

Up until this change yesterday, teams were only allowed 17 full contact/padded practices per season, anyway. That's not even once per week. And they were optional, meaning that number could be even less. Supposedly, the Stampeders never practice in pads and they're arguably the most fundamentally and technically sound team in the league, when it comes to tackling as well as their offensive and defensive lines' techniques. Does losing 17 (at most) full contact/padded practices over the course of a 20-week (or 21 starting next year) really mean players are going to lose out on important learning? Seems pretty unlikely to me, especially because the players' association is supportive of the change.

30 perfect tackles in practice don't equal 30 perfect practices in a game.  

The game is evolving and tackling needs to be apart of the evolution.  Look at Rugby and how there is a move towards the rugby style of tackling  (grabbing the player and rolling with them) in football instead of the traditional football style (hitting them hard and knocking them down).   This is being taught at entry level club football today.   I am in favor of the change.

Edited September 14, 20178 yr by Bob the Bomber

1 hour ago, Jpan85 said:

O'Shea said last week that they can practice tackling through certain drills with out having pads on. 

Rugby tackling?  If guys learned how to wrap up like they do in Rugby, I think there would be a lot fewer busted tackles

57 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

No, I think he's suggesting you have a mistakenly inflated opinion of yourself based on how you worded your first post in this thread. You speak in absolutes and it comes across as though you know better than actual players what is best for them. It also sounds like you're of the opinion things will only get worse because of these changes. On what are you basing that opinion?

Up until this change yesterday, teams were only allowed 17 full contact/padded practices per season, anyway. That's not even once per week. And they were optional, meaning that number could be even less. Supposedly, the Stampeders never practice in pads and they're arguably the most fundamentally and technically sound team in the league, when it comes to tackling as well as their offensive and defensive lines' techniques. Does losing 17 (at most) full contact/padded practices over the course of a 20-week (or 21 starting next year) really mean players are going to lose out on important learning? Seems pretty unlikely to me, especially because the players' association is supportive of the change.

A few points:

I'm not the only one who disagrees with the new contact-less practices even folks in the league like BC's O Line coach disagree ( http://3downnation.com/2017/09/13/b-c-lions-coach-laments-practice-rule-changes/ ). I'd bet that he's not alone although the rest aren't likely to come right out and say it.

Mike's using the old "the pros know more than you, so you're wrong" argument, when I know he didn't agree with absolutely everything that some of our GM's and coaches have done in the past and had no problems disagreeing with those pros when he thought they were wrong. These forums are pretty much built on questioning what the pros think.

Just because players like a change, doesn't automatically make it a good change and we don't even know that all the players like the change anyway.

Riddle me this.... Why do players need to practice everything except hitting? 

Riddle me this 2... How can you evaluate mid-season replacements (especially OL and DL) who weren't with the team during training camp? (Hint: Up until the rule change you could have a padded practice or two if  you needed them.)

Why do all Blue Bomber quarterbacks during practice wear yellow jersey's while every other player wears white or blue?

With multi million dollars of damages at stake what  can the CFL say when asked about mitigating concussions, if they don't institute a policy and agreement of no contact during practices? "Well we couldn't have no contact during practice because it's not like a game." Then a legit question from across the room,  "you don't let qb's get contacted during practice, do you?" 

Edited September 14, 20178 yr by Rod Black

2 hours ago, Sard said:

Rugby tackling?  If guys learned how to wrap up like they do in Rugby, I think there would be a lot fewer busted tackles

Maybe.  There's a subtle difference and the rules in rugby are way more strict.  I was shocked.  I took up rugby about 5 years after I finished up with football and there's a degree of "if you can tackle, you can tackle" as my buddy who recruited me said but he instincts are different.  You actually need to tackle and with great form, you can't pop a guy and you can't drag him down by his ankles either.

Say this for sure, the amount of contact in any rugby practice I've been in pales in comparison to the amount in any football practice I was in, different era albeit.  Rugby is absolutely the more physical game in totality.

 There's a crew of high school football coaches who think they are Vince Lombardi and still torture kids in practice but aside from a little live tackling and scrimmage there should be no full contact.