even though the coaches may use it to describe the intensity of their players, couldn't one argue that the other team made the play flat?

 

We're trying to come up with a single answer that will apply to every time a coach uses this phrase, and that's not going to happen.

 

I can only say that when I refer to a team being flat, I'm referring to the attitude / focus they bring to the field to begin with...and that has absolutely nothing to do with the team on the other side of the line of scrimmage.

 

However, I do agree that the phrase is over-used, and some coaches are using it on occasions when the root issue was simply that they got OUTHUSTLED and OUT-PLAYED.

I often hear "They were flat" when someone describes a loss. Personally, I think "flat" is just an excuse for when you really got your butt kicked. Teams that meet a faster, athletic team look "flat" because the team they are playing is better. Things they have been able to do in other games, they suddenly don't work. It isn't because they are "flat". They don't work because the team they are playing is better. Those open holes and blocks that were easy all year suddenly aren't there and the loser just can't admit the other team might be better. So they say they were "flat". I find it almost laughable when there is a big, hyped game and the losing team says "we were flat". That is bull. So what does everyone else think? How does a team ever come out "flat" for a big game? Or is "flat" just an easy excuse when you don't want to admit the other team is better?

 

I said these exact same things in aonther thread last year (tried to find it, but I couldn't). "We were flat" is a copout, a hollow excuse that disrepects the opponent that just beat you because it implies that we could've and should've beaten them, but couldn't overcome out "flatness." No, in reality you played a bad game or at least below the level of the quality of your opponent and that very same opponent probably had a whole lot to do with your play was so poor. You weren't flat - you simply weren't good enough that particular game to beat your opponent, so give them their props and forget the tired, whiny excuses, such as "we were flat" or "We didn't come to play today." Love that one, too!

I often hear "They were flat" when someone describes a loss. Personally, I think "flat" is just an excuse for when you really got your butt kicked. Teams that meet a faster, athletic team look "flat" because the team they are playing is better. Things they have been able to do in other games, they suddenly don't work. It isn't because they are "flat". They don't work because the team they are playing is better. Those open holes and blocks that were easy all year suddenly aren't there and the loser just can't admit the other team might be better. So they say they were "flat". I find it almost laughable when there is a big, hyped game and the losing team says "we were flat". That is bull. So what does everyone else think? How does a team ever come out "flat" for a big game? Or is "flat" just an easy excuse when you don't want to admit the other team is better?

 

I love your reasoning for the thread, and generally agree with you. It's a way overused term, that I've learned to accept, and just dismiss.

 

Typically when I hear someone say "flat" about a team, I just assume that things happened in the game that they are unable to see/recognize and it's the only answer a layman can come up with. It's the easy answer.

 

There are exceptions to this rule, though. Very rarely, but occasonally, I've seen teams "overlook" an opponent and it cost them.

We played flat in more games we were supposed to win than in games that were thought to be tough ones. I agree it's an overused excuse, but I don't think when teams are evenly matched either should come out flat, although I have seen it happen.

I don't think anyone should use "flat" in a "big" game. If I use the term "flat" I would mean it to be their intensity level wasn't there for a particular game. It normally happens the week after a big game against a seemingly weaker team. Normally I may say they game out flat in the first half (no intensity)and then realized at halftime that wasn't going to work and they pull away in the second half. I don't think I ever have used it for a whole game or as an excuse for a loss, especially a big game loss.

Every team I have ever coached usally comes out "Flat" against teams they think they will blow out. I can usally tell in the pregrame how we will play based on them just going through the motions. I have never had a team come out flat for a big game.

The HHS - St. X game definitely got me on this thought, but if you read a lot of the threads like I do it is amazing how often that flat excuse comes up. Heck, in the HHS - Simon Kenton Frosh thread where HHS won the game 42-0 someone is asking in a post if SK was flat. I saw flat used in several threads the past few days and I finally could not take it any more. There is ZERO chance that St. X. was "flat" for the Highlands game. The only time I can think that a team might truly be "flat" is if they are highly favored to win a game and they just don't practice hard enough all week and they don't bring intensity to the field. In any game that is expected to be a challenge, teams don't show up flat.

 

How do we know this? This was a big game for Highlands, no doubt. However, this was not a big game for St. X. For St. X, this was just another game. Colerain, Elder, and Moeller are big games for them. Like I said before, my opinion on the term flat is that it's a mental state before the game even starts. It has nothing to do with the opposing team. Plus, you have to recall we're talking about kids here. It's very easy for them not to be focused.

Personally, I have always thought of the "flat" comment as meaning the team thought they already had the game won, and were not mentally ready to play. It might just be me, but is what I always thought.

 

That's it. Same here. :thumb:

At the high school level we must remember that we are dealing with 15-18 year old kids that have their minds on many things and at any given time you do not know which item they are on. It is a huge challenge for a coach to overcome. So when I hear the term flat i'm thinking the mental state of the kids.

As an excuse, it is often overplayed.

 

However, as a player, I think it is possible to not be "as up" for a game as you should have been. When there is a big rivalry game or two back to back, it's often human nature to go into the next week without the same emotion because it's hard to "get up" every single week with the same intensity as the week before. Just my take.

As an excuse, it is often overplayed.

 

However, as a player, I think it is possible to not be "as up" for a game as you should have been. When there is a big rivalry game or two back to back, it's often human nature to go into the next week without the same emotion because it's hard to "get up" every single week with the same intensity as the week before. Just my take.

 

If you "can't get up" for a nationally televised game playing a powerhouse from across the river , there is something wrong,but flat isn't the right word for it. Plain and simple,they didn't play good enough to win,better words for it would be outplayed and outcoached !!

If you "can't get up" for a nationally televised game playing a powerhouse from across the river , there is something wrong,but flat isn't the right word for it. Plain and simple,they didn't play good enough to win,better words for it would be outplayed and outcoached !!

 

I wasn't referring to the quote from the St X coach. I was referring "in general" terms. Having never played on National TV I can't say what that would be like. :thumb:

How do we know this? This was a big game for Highlands, no doubt. However, this was not a big game for St. X. For St. X, this was just another game. Colerain, Elder, and Moeller are big games for them. Like I said before, my opinion on the term flat is that it's a mental state before the game even starts. It has nothing to do with the opposing team. Plus, you have to recall we're talking about kids here. It's very easy for them not to be focused.

 

I have a good friend whose son plays for St. X. He did bring up a decent point, I thought. X had soundly beaten St. X (Louisville) and annihilated Trinity the week before the HHS game. He said he heard his son and friends talking about how the HHS game would be a blowout as well, since HHS was generally perceived to be on par with both St. X and Trinity. His son and friends were more excited/focused about their upcoming game with Elder the following week. He did feel that their team wasn't as "up" for the HHS game as they should have been and came out "flat" (there's that word again!). But he is also smart enough to know that, flat or not, HHS was clearly the better team that night, outplayed St. X. in every facet of the game, and deserved the win. But I do think it is very likely that St. X didn't see this as nearly as big a game as HHS and HHS benefitted from all the extra emotion.

I like to relate football performance to golf. Even Tiger fails to make the cut some days, so why would football be any different? Maybe its bio-rhythms or hormones or nerves for some players that fail to perform at peak efficiency on a given day or night. Maybe its not enough sleep. Maybe its a little luck? Maybe its simply a matter of football smarts, speed, power and size advantages for one team or another. Maybe its heart! Maybe coaching. Maybe officiating. Maybe momentum and its psychological effects on team. So many variables! You can pick one or pick them all, but they can all be lumped together and be called either an outstanding performance or a 'flat' football team. And it doesn't even matter who wins. A team can win and still be decribed as 'flat.'

 

Think of the thousands of decisions being made each game on a football field by the sum total of 22 players and a half-dozen coaches! No wonder you never know what's going to happen and why you play the game! When all else is more or less equal, its the team with the players and coaches making the most correct decisions that end up on top, and in some cases the decisions are right but a player slips or a ball is tipped, and the player or team ends up looking bad, and then someone describes them as 'flat.'

 

So often an 'excuse' like 'flat' is simply a vague or simplified explanation of a result or an expression of disappointment. Usually there are very logical explanations why one team beats another, but who has time to listen to all that from a coach or truly analyze what each player did on every play of the game? That's why they go over game film!

 

So pump up your players like game balls so they won't be described as flat!

I have a good friend whose son plays for St. X. He did bring up a decent point, I thought. X had soundly beaten St. X (Louisville) and annihilated Trinity the week before the HHS game. He said he heard his son and friends talking about how the HHS game would be a blowout as well, since HHS was generally perceived to be on par with both St. X and Trinity. His son and friends were more excited/focused about their upcoming game with Elder the following week. He did feel that their team wasn't as "up" for the HHS game as they should have been and came out "flat" (there's that word again!). But he is also smart enough to know that, flat or not, HHS was clearly the better team that night, outplayed St. X. in every facet of the game, and deserved the win. But I do think it is very likely that St. X didn't see this as nearly as big a game as HHS and HHS benefitted from all the extra emotion.

 

I know some Elder people, and they've said the same over the years. Playing a Kentucky team on national television just isn't a big deal to them, like it is for teams over here. People just assume it's a big game for both. There's no question that Highlands was the better team that night and deserved to win that night.