What is a Pro-Style Offense?

I wanted to discuss the concept of a pro-style offense. I’ve heard this over many years, I’ve had a vague understanding this, but I’ve never really read anything that provided a more precise definition (at least, nothing I can really remember). By “explain,” I’m not necessarily thinking about nitty-gritty details of specific plays (e.g., blocking schemes, receiver routes, etc.) but rather more general principles and concepts. I wanted to talk about the latter, mainly to see if you guys agree or not with my understanding.

Before I start I need to make one clarification. Pro-style is not necessarily synonymous with NFL offenses, especially if we’re thinking about current NFL offenses. My understanding is that current NFL offenses blend pro-style offenses and spread passing offenses. When I say “pro style” I’m referring specifically to the NFL offenses prior to blending the run-and-shoot–i.e., early 90s or prior to that.

OK, let’s start. Here’s how I would sum up a pro-style offense: Continue reading “What is a Pro-Style Offense?”

The Press is Failing to Deal with Trump’s Falsehoods

Today I’m seeing a lot of tweets like the following:

Ryan Lizza ratchets up the rhetoric:

I agree with Lizza, but I think we’re past the point of simply calling out Trump for his lies–including using the word “lies” to do so. There was and probably still is debate among the press to use that word, but more and more journalists and news outlets seem more willing to use it now. In my opinion, we’re way past that issue. What should the press do instead? I’m not entirely sure, but here’s one thing that comes to mind. Continue reading “The Press is Failing to Deal with Trump’s Falsehoods”

Notes on The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt

A thread for thoughts and questions about this book. (Note: The posts may not correspond chronologically with the book.)

Here’s a brief description of the book. Haidt has three ideas to explain why people have great difficulty agreeing upon political and religious matters. First, most people are influenced by intuition and emotions, more than reason, when it comes to choosing political and religious positions. Haidt uses the metaphor of a rider (reason) sitting on an elephant (intuition). For the most part the elephant is in control. Second, for Westerners morality involves reducing harm, and that which does not harm someone is morally acceptable. Haidt argues that there are actually five other moral domains, and conservatives tend to use all six, while liberals tend to think in one or two. This can create a barrier and source of misunderstanding between the two groups. Finally, religion has the power to cohesion in a group, but it also can impair judgment and reasoning. (I’m not sure about the last point, because I haven’t completed that section of the book.) With this knowledge I believe Haidt’s goal is to help people from different political and religious backgrounds to better understand and communicate with one another.