How is 54-51 even football anymore?

Chapow":auyxppcg said:

StoneCold":auyxppcg said:

Sgt. Largent":auyxppcg said:

You guys are acting like last night was a funeral, and it's not. It's just not.

Click to expand...

More like a coronation. Many, many people are saying they want all games to be like this.

Click to expand...

I've seen people say that they thought it was fun to watch. I've seen people say that they thought it was entertaining. Neither one of those things means people want all games to be like this. I haven't seen or heard a single person say they want all games to be like this.

And yes, I understand that just because I haven't seen or heard it doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but "Many, many people" are saying this? Are you sure you're not exaggerating just a wee bit?

Click to expand...

Popeyejones":1jv361qn said:

knownone":1jv361qn said:

When shootouts become the new normal games are boring to watch.

Click to expand...

When did shootouts become the new normal. IIRC scoring is up by about 3 points per game total.

Click to expand...

mrt144":a97spnxz said:

Fade":a97spnxz said:

The rule changes over the years, have culminated to this.

The new QB rules kept Goff alive. He would've been absolutely hammered, and fallen on by D-Lineman, on those sacks. D-Lineman are pulling up, and doing things to not get flagged.

Goff should've been limping off the field after that game. He was fine. Mahomes too. There is a price to pay for dropping back in the NFL that many times, not anymore.

They can't hit receivers going over the middle of the field which has taken the fear factor out of going over the middle, and really softened the game up.

It is basketball on grass. BORING.

I want to watch a full contact sport where it is dangerous if you take risks, and there is a price to pay.


This is why people do not like watching the pro-bowl, it is not that bad yet, but I don't know maybe in 20 years it will be with a few more rule changes.


SCHEME WISE

There is no catching up, in terms of killing it off.

The Rams run outside zone w/Jet Motion. They have a "key" defender. Based on how the "key' defender is aligned (or misaligned) They hand it to Gurley, or give it to the Jet player. It is a simple read, and puts the offensive players in space against players that are out of position. The air-raid run to grass concepts they use off of the playaction behind it again creates 1 on 1s out in space, and if they suck up to play the run they are wide open, with no repercussions for catching the ball over the middle (can't hit them), or down the field for that matter.

I give McVay a lot of credit here. He has built a simple, sound, effective, hard to stop scheme. The only way you can stop it is how they stop it in college. Have better athletes, and a monster D-Line that can wreck the game from the interior.

But here is the thing. It is hard to get that sort of athletic disparity at the pro-level. Everyone is good.

So the only answer is to start running it too. This attack is spreading like a virus already. Evolve or die.

Just like it did in college 15-20 years ago. Remember when most major D1 colleges ran pro-style offenses? Pepperige Farms remembers.

This sort of scheme wouldn't have worked in the NFL 20 years ago, but with the new rules it is the way to go.

Copycat league, the new wave is upon us.

It doesn't mean all games are going to be 50-50 going forward, and that is not necessarily what I am disappointed about. it just means that in general games are going to be higher scoring due to much softer play.

If you like softer play good for you. I don't.

Click to expand...

I think another underappreciated aspect of the changes is that the player biometrics alone have changed to a significant degree. And not just biometrics but measurable physical actions.

To a large extent strategy and tactics are developed around necessity and aptitude. What do you need to do and what means do you have to achieve it.

Back around the 1950s, the talent available would have a snowball's chance in hell of replicating the Saints, Rams, Chiefs, whoever offense. Not even crudely ape it. QBs of yore really did not have the ability to consistently put the ball in the same zip code as a receiver more than 25 yards from the line. Receivers couldnt even get 25 yards from the line in close to the amount of time they can now. But hey, they had a bunch of relatively 'big guys' who can get in the way of other big guys and let fast and agile guys make the moves (or in Jim Brown's case just defeat them head on like peas bouncing off Kevlar). Not only physically less capable of our current meta but also absent having spent 12 formative football years even thinking about alternatives way to move the ball because of the athletic status quo.

Couple this with imposing more restrictions on what the D could do over time in the passing game, from head hunting restrictions over the middle, to 5 yard cushions, and a heavy dose of hindsight, and it's not a total mystery that we are where we are.

But I think the athletic advancement of players opening tactics is overlooked a lot of times. There were always be relative Antonio Browns and Marshawn Lynch's and Tyreek Hill to their era (Walter Payton, Barry and Deon Sanders) where their physical abilities are obviously greater than their peers but...the overall level of athleticism of every player has changed paradigms a lot. Imagine some of the Run N Shoot offenses of yore with the talent today. Imagine Drew Brees in Bill Walsh's WCO. Obviously the flaw in this is you can't just teleport specific players in and just leave it at that but this drives at my point that you can't separate the ability to do something capably from the underlying people executing the ideas you want to run. A past iteration of the NFL would not comport to the strategic and tactical SOPs they did if they had the exact same athletic talent levels the current NFL has. You trot out Drew Brees from the time machine and have him throw 40 yard dimes 50 times in practice and I think at least half the 1950s coaches would take a look at that.

So let's tie this back to how football advancement follows from the ground up - you have better athletes at a younger level building on previous knowledge of how to use their talents and abilities and focusing on maximizing those talents and abilities, players at a younger level being sorted into positions that suit them in regard to the here and now of HS and College and then NFL coaches behind the curve trying to run old hat with talent that has been learning a slightly different game their entire lives. And then you have a coach in the NFL everyone once in a while draw on their experiences and find an inefficiency somewhere - physical size of players, route and blocking schemes, and then capitalize on it for a short amount of time until other coaches integrate this new info into what they want to do. We saw Pete do this with Sherman and now bigger, in place rangy (as opposed to fastest and most agile. Literally, they can cover more range in one static area because of their size than a smaller CB could) CBs with a penchant for tackling isn't just a Seattle novelty but an interesting choice other NFL teams can and do make.

Also, on your tangent about softer play - I think tackling is essential to football as I know it. I don't have a preference for a more or less physical game inherently, but all the things I can do without such as headshots against slot receivers, pile driving QBs after the let the ball loose, tend to lean towards a less physical game even if I am trying to remain consciously neutral about physicality. That taking away absolutely gratuitous punishment opens up new offensive possibilities over the middle is a positive thing to me though because I like seeing how people adapt to change. As long as tackling remains though, football will always be more than basketball on grass even if they start to resemble one another more and more. And FWIW Ultimate Frisbee already captures the melding of basketball and football as best I can imagine.

Click to expand...

StoneCold":27luqavq said:

I'm not exaggerating, I'm extrapolating from a very, very small sample size.

Click to expand...