This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

All shotgun, all one back by ACross

It is going to be inconsistent and unreliable. It will be useless should a decent team helicopter in on our pathetic schedule.

The scheme is the thing. None of our beat writers ask any questions about the scheme, except about how it is going to be more friendly to WR and "more downfield" and "more explosive."

The best pro offenses run a mixture of formations, shotgun, under center, one back, two back. So did Michigan last year.

I really don't know why people are optimistic about this jazzercize offense.