Beware The 7-On-7 All-Americans

This weekend’s quarterback retreat event by Steve Clarkson is another reminder of the growing debate about the value of 7-on-7 vs. live tackling 11-on-11.

There is nothing wrong with 7-on-7. The problem is so many “analysts” write glowing reviews of kids off it without noting if there is a difference when you get into a real-game situation. There are things you need to do in a real game that do not get practiced in 7-on-7.

But all you read about is how some kid threw a “dime” at the 7-on-7 with a backward cap or the latest Air Pods in his ears.

USC practices are no different. Even coaches tell me JT Daniels often wins the 7-on-7 periods but on the rare occasions when Clay Helton does 11-on-11 with a live rush, Jack Sears outperforms him.

Petros Papadakis used to call Keith Rivers an “Internet All-American.” Maybe we need to start some quarterbacks, “7-on-7 All-Americans.”

8 thoughts on “Beware The 7-On-7 All-Americans

  1. So the is the same Petros who left Cal during the night without even telling his coaches while in fall camp. And he’s calling anyone else bush? You’re a pip.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “Maybe we need to start some quarterbacks, “7-on-7 All-Americans.”

      This makes about as much sense as something owns would write. Perhaps Miller time started a while ago for Scottie…

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Perhaps the defining play last year for JTD was the infamous short slide he made in the Notre Dame game, coming up short of a first down that could have resulted in a TD. This is in contrast with Sears with is the more aggressive runner and plays the game with ferocity. Let’s face it, in the PAC 12 (HACK 12) the refs are going to try and penalize any team with a 2 TD lead to let the opponent back in the game for TV ratings. That means calling penalties on SC defensive backs and not on the opponents in many cases. So SC’s opponents stand to break up more passes and nab more intercepts, thus nullifying any advantage that a drop back QB might have. A running QB might be the great equalizer. So the best pure passer might actually be a disadvantage. Picking the best practice passer probably is not going to be the most realistic measure for winning. So in the upside-down world of TV ratings football, sometimes the next best player may be better suited for producing wins.

    Same goes with defensive scheme oriented to putting pressure on opponents’ QB’s when the refs are looking to call penalties on rushers or on DB’s. So maybe a containment defense – such as implemented at Cal last year – might work better. REALISM NOT 7-ON-7-ISM.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply to Trojan83 Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.