One of these days I'll actually post my article about the three step drop. By the time I do, the damn play will have been banned from football, along with all forms of contact in football.
Anyway, the reason for the delay is because I want to pick up a couple of the main points coming out of the weekends games and I guess I might generally just run down some of the games, as and when things come to mind of interest. There are two main issues that I want to address though.
The first is to do with the Eagles and their defensive coordinator position currently held by Juan Castillo, the former offensive line coach. Basically with Steve Spagnuolo of the Rams likely to get the chop at the end of the season, many people are lining him up to replace Castillo as the Eagles Defensive coordinator for next year.
And I simply want to ask; why? In fact, let me ask you another question, just out of interest; Which team leads the NFL in sacks right now?
Answer; the Philadelphia Eagles.
See while everyone has been busy lately criticising Castillo for his schemes, people seem to have over looked the fact that the Eagles are actually one of the better defenses out there. They're not perfect, not by any means, but they're pretty good. They'll need some tweaking in the off season; getting the coverages sorted out to make the best use of the available talent, as well as sitting down with that young linebacker corps and watching some film to explain to them better about run fits etc. But otherwise that's not a bad defense and it can only get better in the off season with the right work.
The problem with the Eagles is not their defense. The problem with the Eagles is their offense.
Simply put, it sucks. And has sucked for most of 2011. The Eagles are practically in a league of their own when it comes to getting down into the red zone and then not producing a score. They are brilliant for 80 yards as they rip great chunks out of people in the open field, then they clam up (and stink it up) in those last 20 yards.
Juan Castillo is not the man to blame for the Eagles woes, it's Andy Reid. He's the guy that has at his disposal LeSean McCoy, Ronnine Brown, Mike Vick, Vince Young, DeSean Jackson, Riley Cooper, Jeremy Maclin, Jason Avant, Brent Celek and Jason Peters, to name just a few. That's an offense that a heck of a lot of teams in the NFL would kill for. And yet that is also an offense that has struggled to put points on the board when it mattered most, not to mention the hoard of turnovers they've given up.
All this finger waving at Castillo is pure bullshit. It's a distraction from the real issue here, which is that Andy Reid is struggling to get to his side of the "Dream Team" working the way it should. While the Panthers and Broncos have adjusted their respective offenses to accommodate the running abilities of their quarterbacks, what have the Eagles done? What adjustments have they made to get the most out of Vick?
And what about LeSean McCoy? McCoy is the second leading rusher in the league by yards. He leads the league in touchdowns with 17, which is three more than Cam Newton and five more than the closest running back (Marshawn Lynch). He leads the league in runs of 20+ yards with 14. And perhaps most tellingly, he leads the league in rushes for a first down, with 84, which is sixteen more than the next player on the list, Maurice Jones-Drew.
Yet he only averages 18 carries a game?
You have without doubt one of the most explosive players in the entire NFL on your team, yet you feed him the ball less than the 49ers feed Gore, or the Falcons feed Michael Turner. An especially odd decision given how much trouble the Eagles have had in the red zone.
All this means that I can't take criticism and talk of Juan Castillo being fired seriously. I don't mean that he wont get fired, just that I don't think he should. Considering this is his first season as a defensive coordinator I think he's done really well so far and again, I think an off season of work and preparation by the Eagles could yield some great results.
The question is whether the Eagles offense can lift its game next season and start to actually make that defensive work count for something. The Eagles have the personnel to make a Super Bowl run, I think everyone agrees on that. But until Andy Reid stops making excuses - and people stop making excuses for Andy Reid - then this same old sorry, tired Eagles saga will just repeat itself again season after season.
Now I'm going to take an interlude in my ramblings before I get to the second major issue I wanted to address, and talk about the Panthers. Mainly to give them a lot of credit for their 48-16 win against the Buccaneers.
All thoughts about the Buccaneers horrible run defense aside, I was impressed by the Panthers actually making use of running backs DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart, who I've long pronounced to be the best running back tandem in the NFL. Long time readers will be aware that this has been a hobby horse of mine for a while, bemoaning the John Fox/Jake Delhomme era because of the absolute abandonment of an otherwise excellent running game.
It was nice then to see it revived on Saturday. It also points to what is - in my opinion - one of the funniest things about the Cam Newton story. When Cam throws the ball a lot he invariably racks up the yards, rushes for a score, does his stupid Superman celebration... and then the Panthers still end up losing the game. On the other hand when the Panthers manage the game better and lean on their rushing attack, they often end up winning, and doing so comfortably.
C'est la vie, as they often say in France (along with "We Surrender!!").
I was also excited about the 49ers win over the Seahawks, although there was a slight downer in that they gave up their first rushing touchdown of the season. Naturally people have been hailing Jim Harbaugh again, as they have been all season long, but forgive me if I don't hang a poster of the guy on the wall just yet.
See I'm a 49ers fan and as a result I've endured misery for years now. I'm delighted that finally the 49ers are winning games and going back to the playoffs, even doing so in style. However I don't see what Jim Harbaugh has to do with it. Harbaugh is an offensive coach, not a defensive coach. And this 49ers offense has been almost as bad as those that preceded it. Alright, so maybe they haven't turned the ball over as much this year, and maybe there hasn't been as many sacks this year, but fundamentally the offense still sucks balls.
On the other hand I still don't hear anyone talking about Vic Fangio. Without looking at Wikipedia, can you even tell me who Vic Fangio is? If you didn't know already then you've probably guessed that Fangio is the defensive coordinator of the 49ers. It's this man and his defensive staff who should be getting the plaudits, along with whoever the specific people were that drafted or approved the signing of Justin Smith, Aldon Smith, Issac Sopoaga, Ray McDonald, Navorro Bowman, Ahmad Brooks, Patrick Willis, Parys Haralson, Chris Culliver and Carlos Rogers, to name just a few.
I don't blame Harbaugh, there's not really a lot he can do about it. He doesn't write the articles in the press or force people to talk about him on sports radio. I just think it's unfair that he's getting all the credit for something that essentially happens on the opposite side of the ball. That's not to say that he doesn't have some influence on it - I'd be shocked if he didn't - but most of the donkey work throughout the year will have been done by Fangio and his staff, work for which they are not getting their dues.
Vic, in the incredibly unlikely event that you're reading this, I thank you and your staff on behalf of 49ers fans everywhere.
Also congratulations to Drew Brees who has now surpassed Dan Marino for the single season passing yardage record. I'm undecided yet as to whether this should be considered more or less of an achievement than when Marino set the record. Not that it really matters that much, either way it's still a heck of a thing to have done.
The question is whether or not you think that it's easier to break the record now because teams throw the ball more than they did back then, or whether you think that it's precisely because teams throw it more now - which means that defenses are built to stop the pass - that makes Brees's achievement superior. An interesting debate to have over a pint I think.
One quarterback who wasn't setting any records though was Tim Tebow. I'd be gutted to see Tebow and the Broncos stumble at such a late stage, but it was inevitable that he was going to have a shitty game at one point. No fourth quarter heroics this time. Just four fourth quarter picks.
It should be noted that once again the Broncos receivers continued to demonstrate why there will be little demand for their services in the offseason, dropping passes like the ball was smeared in shit. Of course as always that doesn't fit the main press narrative, so we very rarely get even an acknowledgement of that fact. The Broncos defense also struggled for a change, which means the Broncos season now comes down to the final game against the Chiefs; win and they're in the playoffs. Or they can lose, and if the Chargers beat the Raiders then they're still in, but that's playing it risky.
Right, finally back on track and the other thing that I originally wanted to talk about, which was Joe Webb and the Vikings.
One play after Adrian Peterson suffered a sick looking injury to his knee (he could be doubtful even for week one of the 2012 season), quarterback Christian Ponder suffered a concussion and was eventually yanked from the game. In his place came Joe Webb. Webb went on to throw for two touchdowns and run in another with his feet. After the game the press went wild. Everywhere you look now, people are calling for Joe Webb to be the starter next year. My advice? Just hold the fuck up a second. Let's just recap Webb's numbers from Saturday's game shall we?
4/5 for 84 yards and 2 touchdowns.
Yes, four of five. He threw five passes and now all of a sudden people are putting him up on a pedestal and talking about him like he's the greatest thing to happen to the Vikings since they dumped Brad Childress. All this despite the various warning signs around the league about this kind of thing, namely Caleb Haine, Matt Cassel and Kevin Kolb.
Those are three names that should remind people that sometimes things aren't always what they seem. Yes, sometimes players have great games, or at least very good games. But one or two good games does not suddenly anoint someone with starting quarterback traits. It's a good place to begin, but long term success is not guaranteed.
Now don't get me wrong, Webb is a good player and has done well in every appearance he's had off the bench and in pres-season in Minnesota. But people are talking about him like he's the instant answer to all of Minnesota's many woes, and I'm just a little amazed at how quickly people are prepared to give up on Ponder, a first round pick who has done pretty well in his first few showings.
There is still one game left this year and I suspect the Vikings will be unlikely to throw Ponder back into the fray just for that single meaningless game. That means Webb could get the chance to start an actual regular season game for a change. I'm willing to bet that it may not quite be the touchdown bonanza that people think it will, depending on what kind of team the Bears put out.
I'll just finish by reminding people that in his last five starts as quarterback (not including this week), Ponder has lead the Vikings offense to score an average of 23 points per game. When Ponder went down injured this week the game was tied at 10-10, so it wasn't like Joe Webb came on and turned around a lost game either. In an age of instant gratification I'm beginning to worry that everyone involved in the football world has lost their sense of perspective.
So that's Week 16 in the books. Pick wise I came in at 13-3 for week 16, taking my season tally to 159-84, which I've just discovered is better than any of the analysts at FoxSports.com (both for the week and the season) and only two behind Accuscore and Pigskin Pick'em (both of whom I beat for the week) with one garbage week left to go.
Tomorrow I expect to put up my article on the three step drop. Slightly ironic that a post about the quick passing game has taken so long to be released.
Showing posts with label Cam Newton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cam Newton. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Saturday, November 05, 2011
Work, Cam Newton and an alternative to the NFL
So I'm going to cover three things today.
The first is an advanced warning that in about two weeks time all my work shifts are changing ahead of the Christmas period. This means that the likely hood is that my production of posts will a) drop in number as I'll have less time to dedicate to the blog, and b) become more erratic, as the time and times that I have to work on the blog will be less consistent from week to week. Which is a pain in the butt to say the least, but bills must be paid etc.
The second thing I want to address is some of the extreme hyperbole surrounding Cam Newton, because it's now reaching ridiculous proportions.
Cam has had a great rookie season so far by anyones standards. I'm slowly being converted to the Cam Newton bandwagon. Slowly. In fact this season has probably surpassed anything that even the most ardent of pre-season Newton supporters thought possible. It has been something quite remarkable to watch. But ProFootballTalk.com appears to be leading the growing charge among the press in putting Cam Newton up there as a "top ten quarterback".
Now just hold the f**k up a second. Top ten quarterback? In eight games so far this season Newton has won two, lost six, beating the 2-6 Jaguars and the 3-4 Redskins, while losing games to the Cardinals, Packers, Bears, Saints, Falcons and Vikings. Now I appreciate that wins and losses aren't all the fault of the quarterback, so let's take a closer look at his individual numbers according to the NFL.com stats page on Newton.
So far Newton is averaging about a 60% completion percentage for the season. He consistently fell below this in weeks 3-5, twice coming close to just 50%, but got a huge boost in week 7 against Washington when he completed 18/23 for a 78% completion rating, which pulled his season rating back up again. His average yards per completion is currently 8.3, but even that is riding largely on two games (Redskins and Cardinals) which hauled it up from his normal sub 10 yard showings, though the 4.6 against the Jaguars does pull it down somewhat to kind of compensate.
Newton has so far thrown 11 touchdowns in these 8 games, but then three of those came last week against the Vikings. A more typical showing from Newton is to throw just one touchdown. He also has 9 interceptions, though the Packers and Falcons games accounted for 6 of these in just two games, so normally Cam has actually been pretty good at not turning the ball over. He also has given up 17 sacks so far, but I'm actually prepared to call this a good result for Cam, because if it wasn't for his running ability then he'd have given up way more behind what is frankly a bit of a shambles of an O-line.
So there we see, some good, some bad. But Cam is not a top ten quarterback. Nor should we expect him to be. He's a rookie and for a rookie, yes, he's playing pretty darn well. However I think some people need to get a reality check. He hasn't suddenly become a first ballot hall of famer overnight. If he progresses with his career in the same manner he has this season, then you can expect good things for him in the future. I just wish sometimes the press would tone it down a little. Calling him a top ten quarterback in the NFL is not only misleading, but it serves his career no good to make such wild claims, which will undoubtedly be turned against him in the future at an opportunity of the media's choosing.
So that's one and two out of the way, now for the main event.
Number three of the things to cover today is my crazy ass idea for an alternative league to the NFL, or rather how I would approach such a task if some mysterious benefactor dropped $20 million in my lap and said "make it happen". This is by no means an exhaustive list of my many mental ramblings on this subject and if and when I think of new things to add, I'll drop back here to edit and update. If anyone has any suggestions, by all means leave a comment or email me here;
keepingthechainsmoving@live.co.uk
Let the madness begin!
First off the bat is the need to avoid some of the difficulties suffered by the NFL as a result of it's status as a legal entity. Now realistically speaking, the NFL is a series of franchises, not able to conduct profitable business if separated. If the Dallas Cowboys dont have access to games with other NFL teams, then they don't sell tickets, they don't generate TV money and they go out of business pretty sharpish.
The law doesn't quite seem to see it that way however. So the immediate goal would be to create a single entity, a league that not only organises the schedule and lays down the rules, but actually legally owns all the franchises and the assets attached to those franchises. Team "owners" would purchase the right to run the franchise and all its associated operations (player signings, coaching decisions etc) in a fixed location and then the revenues from the league as a whole would be pooled together and dished out to the "owners" (as well as a cut for the league entity), perhaps with some locally generated income purely kept for the local franchises.
I'll admit that I haven't given a huge amount of thought to that side of it.
So where would these franchises be based? How many? What would the league structure look like?
Well the priority is to try and hit markets that don't already accommodate football teams, or if they do then accommodate some of the NFL's lesser franchises. It's also important I think to try and keep the franchises reasonably co-located, literally within a few hours drive of each other if possible. The purpose of this is to keep down the travel costs early on, while starting to build the rivalries between local teams that make football special.
Preferably the league would start with no less than six teams, located in one local division. Nothing is worse than the approach adopted by the UFL, where they had just four teams on the go. That hardly makes for an enticing season. At least with six teams you get five home games and five away games, with a league wide bye in the middle, allowing for 11 weeks of football. If two divisions of six could be formed that would be even more ideal, with the winner of each division meeting at some neutral site for a bowl game.
This also plays well into the timing I'm thinking of, namely somewhere in the late April to mid July region. The obvious purpose of this is to dodge going head to head with the NFL like a raging bull. It's also a time when the football news dries up and fans are left dangling for any slight sliver of something that might be interesting and football related. A decent outdoor league would do the trick nicely.
Of particular interest to me, area wise, are;
- The North West, including Tahoma and Spokane in Washington; Portland, Oregon; and Vancouver and Surrey across the border in Canada.
- California, including, Sacramento, San Jose, Fresno, Bakersfield and Riverside, possibly with Las Vegas, Nevada and/or Tuscon, Arizona thrown into the mix.
- Texas, specifically San Antonio, Corpus Christi, Austin, Lubbock, maybe Fort Worth (a little close to the Jerrah Dome!) and maybe Houston, or Oklahoma City if you're prepared to travel a bit North.
- North Eastern, including Providence, Rhode Island; Hartford, Connecticut; Springfield, Massachusetts; Albany, New York; and possibly some other cities in and around that area.
- Northern New York, including Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, perhaps Albany in this one, maybe Pittsburgh, maybe a cross border incursion to Hamilton in Canada.
- Central North, basically centered around a northern Ohio/Northern Indiana/Michigan type division, including Akron, Columbus and Toledo in Ohio, with maybe Fort Wayne, Indiana; and Grand Rapids, Michigan, thrown in, or perhaps a more south Ohio/Kentucky type look, with Dayton and Cincinnati, Ohio; Louisville and Lexington, Kentucky; with a few other cities thrown in.
That's just a brief, off the top of my head (and Google maps aided) list. Obviously the presence of willing backers and available stadiums would dictate much of where any actual league took place.
So now we've got our league set up, but who's going to play in it? The level of football can't match the NFL right? Well... probably not quite that level, no. But every year a ton of kids from college who are pretty handy football players either go undrafted and unsigned, or at the very least get dumped from NFL training camps never to return, not even on the practice squad. There is actually a reasonably decent talent pool to choose from, the key is just to hold off the draft until November-December time, to give the wannabe but never will be NFL players a chance to slip through all the appropriate cracks in the NFL system and give them time to realise that they're best shot is to take an offer from the alternate league, or else go join the unemployment line with everyone else.
So we now have a pool of players, but how to assign them? A draft, like the NFL?
Well actually I'm thinking not. I understand why some players complain about the draft system. It really isn't that fair. Your choices when selected by a team are basically sign, or sit out for twelve months. So I'm thinking of a system altogether a little more complex, but probably more fair in the long run. Basically the league would issue teams with a bunch of blank contracts of varying values, based on draft order.
They would range from long term contracts with solid guaranteed salaries and nice signing bonuses, down to one or two year deals with virtually no guaranteed money and crappy signing bonuses. If we use the NFL's 32 team system for a moment just for convenience, the team with the worst record would be issued with the best contract, then perhaps the next five or six teams would be issued with a second tier contract, the next ten teams with a third tier, and so on down, going through the "draft order" over multiple rounds, so that each team ended up with seven contracts of gradually decreasing values.
On draft day/week they would then be free to offer these contracts to whoever they pleased in a giant free for all, and the players would be free to agree to whichever deal they liked most. So maybe they sign with the highest offer, or maybe they turn down a slightly better offer in favour of joining a winning team. Teams could trade the contracts as much as they like, just like teams trade picks now. The draft day/week would be less of a formal, structured event and more of a lot of haggling over the phone with the occasional announcement that so and so player has just signed a deal with abc team.
At the end of the process, each team has to offer all of it's contracts to somebody (well they don't have to, but the contracts are only good for that rookie signing period). Any players left who haven't been offered deals become "undrafted" free agents. Any player who has been offered one or more contracts but refused to sign any is deemed ineligible for the season and must reapply next year. This way teams get to try and sign players who they perhaps wouldn't normally, while players get at least some say in who it is they ultimately end up playing for, although weaker teams still hold the balance of power somewhat.
So now we have teams and those teams have players. But how do we get the word out?
The answer is right in front of you. The Internet. There are many reasons why the UFL failed, but prime among them was the fact that their web presence was shocking. Their website was total garbage. They had a YouTube channel, but it had nothing worthwhile on it. No player profiles, no highlight reels from their college days, no game highlights (or at least very short, badly shot ones).
For the amount of money that the UFL had, they surely could have invested in - at the very minimum- some "Prosumer" cameras and got some local college media students to shoot the games from a decent vantage point, then posted 10-20 minute highlight reels on their YouTube channel, so at least the general public had some idea of what a UFL game looked like.
I'm just stunned at the lack of a forceful online presence. In this day and age it doesn't cost a lot for a business with millions to spend to get itself established on the web and to get its content out there for fans to see. Maybe if they'd earned enough hits, they might even have been able to persuade someone to give them a TV deal of some sort.
So we've got our teams, who have their players, and we're getting the word out about the league. But what are the fans going to see on the field that differs from the NFL? What's the selling point? This is where I mainly go into rant mode about all the little changes that I'd like to make to football, so excuse me if I kind of go off on one. I'm pretty sure that not everyone would like these changes, but then this is just me farting out ideas so take it for what it is - the ranting of a semi-madman.
- The kick off would be moved back to the 35 yard line and all kicking is to be done in the punting style. That includes kick-offs, field goals, free kicks and punts. No holders, just a snap to the kicker who steps up and kicks, without the ball touching the ground. Illegal touching rules still apply to the kicking team except on kick-offs and the receiving team may return any kick that comes down inbounds and doesn’t touch the end zone (automatic touchback), with the exception of an extra point. I just hate the whole holding and placekicking business. Just punt kick the thing and let's get on with it.
- The clock would not stop on an incomplete pass, it would keep running. The only way to stop the clock is with a foul, a time out or throwing the ball out of bounds/running out of bounds. I've just never understood why the clock stops for an incomplete pass, but not a failed run for example. The only thing I can think of is because it would prompt teams in the lead to chuck that thing all the way downfield, hoping that it doesn't get picked off. This also means no spike plays, but hey, you might just get a QB lining up and kicking in desperation!
- The college rules regarding when a receiver gets one foot down in bounds to make a catch and when a runner is ruled down would be used. I've always hated it when a receiver makes a catch, then gets touched by the faintest glance of an opponents foot and is then deemed down. Just make every player who goes down, down, regardless of whether they've been touched or not.
- Once the ball has been pitched or handed off by the quarterback (or the first person after the center to touch the ball) it can no longer be thrown. This precludes any kind of reverse pass, half back pass or flea flicker type plays, which I've always hated. Dont ask me why, I just hate them.
- The roughing penalties would be changed so that incidental contact to the quarterback or kicker would not be flagged. Only blatant late hits or deliberate shots at the kickers standing leg (without attempt to block a kick) will be flagged. Hitting the quarterback below or including the knee would be permitted.
- One of my pet hates now, I'd make sure offensive pass interference was properly enforced and put a ban on receivers "rubbing" past each other, to pick off defenders. I hate it when offenses do that. To me that's effectively a "get a first down for free" card, and it especially bugs me some of the more blatant examples of offensive pass interference that I've seen. We have to give everyone a chance to make a fair play, not just the offense.
- The "Tuck" rule dies. If the quarterback gets hit and loses the ball in the act of throwing a pass then tough s**t, that's a fumble.
- To give offenses a break for a minute, I'd also stop defensive players from jumping into the neutral zone. I don't understand how if an offensive lineman twitches that is considered to be this big deal, but a defensive man can step right across the line trying to jump the snap count and providing the ball isn't snapped is allowed to recover back to his position. Not anymore. Instant offsides flag I think.
- Intentional grounding rule changed. I hate it when defensive guys make a great play and a quarterback can just toss the ball away to deny the sack. So I'd change it so that any quarterback regardless of where he is on the field, who is in the clutches of a defender, must either complete or nearly complete his intended pass. Throwing the ball out of bounds will be considered intentional grounding.
- Speaking of balls, I'd rather use the college style ball with the white markings on one half, to make it easier for both players and fans to track it. After all, the fans are what football is all about.
- From a league standpoint, official warnings and suspensions would replace the NFL's system of fines. I understand that the fine money is given to charity, but the NFL's fining policy has almost zero consistency and at times appears to be geared towards just extracting money from players for the sake of building up the charity pot. It also fails to change behaviour in most cases.
- Officials would be trained to identify concussion like symptoms and have the authority under obvious circumstances to eject a player from the game on medical grounds.
So there you go. There's my crazy ass plan for an alternative league to the NFL. If anyone wants to give me $20 million to get it going, you just go right ahead. I'll be back tomorrow for my week 9 picks.
The first is an advanced warning that in about two weeks time all my work shifts are changing ahead of the Christmas period. This means that the likely hood is that my production of posts will a) drop in number as I'll have less time to dedicate to the blog, and b) become more erratic, as the time and times that I have to work on the blog will be less consistent from week to week. Which is a pain in the butt to say the least, but bills must be paid etc.
The second thing I want to address is some of the extreme hyperbole surrounding Cam Newton, because it's now reaching ridiculous proportions.
Cam has had a great rookie season so far by anyones standards. I'm slowly being converted to the Cam Newton bandwagon. Slowly. In fact this season has probably surpassed anything that even the most ardent of pre-season Newton supporters thought possible. It has been something quite remarkable to watch. But ProFootballTalk.com appears to be leading the growing charge among the press in putting Cam Newton up there as a "top ten quarterback".
Now just hold the f**k up a second. Top ten quarterback? In eight games so far this season Newton has won two, lost six, beating the 2-6 Jaguars and the 3-4 Redskins, while losing games to the Cardinals, Packers, Bears, Saints, Falcons and Vikings. Now I appreciate that wins and losses aren't all the fault of the quarterback, so let's take a closer look at his individual numbers according to the NFL.com stats page on Newton.
So far Newton is averaging about a 60% completion percentage for the season. He consistently fell below this in weeks 3-5, twice coming close to just 50%, but got a huge boost in week 7 against Washington when he completed 18/23 for a 78% completion rating, which pulled his season rating back up again. His average yards per completion is currently 8.3, but even that is riding largely on two games (Redskins and Cardinals) which hauled it up from his normal sub 10 yard showings, though the 4.6 against the Jaguars does pull it down somewhat to kind of compensate.
Newton has so far thrown 11 touchdowns in these 8 games, but then three of those came last week against the Vikings. A more typical showing from Newton is to throw just one touchdown. He also has 9 interceptions, though the Packers and Falcons games accounted for 6 of these in just two games, so normally Cam has actually been pretty good at not turning the ball over. He also has given up 17 sacks so far, but I'm actually prepared to call this a good result for Cam, because if it wasn't for his running ability then he'd have given up way more behind what is frankly a bit of a shambles of an O-line.
So there we see, some good, some bad. But Cam is not a top ten quarterback. Nor should we expect him to be. He's a rookie and for a rookie, yes, he's playing pretty darn well. However I think some people need to get a reality check. He hasn't suddenly become a first ballot hall of famer overnight. If he progresses with his career in the same manner he has this season, then you can expect good things for him in the future. I just wish sometimes the press would tone it down a little. Calling him a top ten quarterback in the NFL is not only misleading, but it serves his career no good to make such wild claims, which will undoubtedly be turned against him in the future at an opportunity of the media's choosing.
So that's one and two out of the way, now for the main event.
Number three of the things to cover today is my crazy ass idea for an alternative league to the NFL, or rather how I would approach such a task if some mysterious benefactor dropped $20 million in my lap and said "make it happen". This is by no means an exhaustive list of my many mental ramblings on this subject and if and when I think of new things to add, I'll drop back here to edit and update. If anyone has any suggestions, by all means leave a comment or email me here;
keepingthechainsmoving@live.co.uk
Let the madness begin!
First off the bat is the need to avoid some of the difficulties suffered by the NFL as a result of it's status as a legal entity. Now realistically speaking, the NFL is a series of franchises, not able to conduct profitable business if separated. If the Dallas Cowboys dont have access to games with other NFL teams, then they don't sell tickets, they don't generate TV money and they go out of business pretty sharpish.
The law doesn't quite seem to see it that way however. So the immediate goal would be to create a single entity, a league that not only organises the schedule and lays down the rules, but actually legally owns all the franchises and the assets attached to those franchises. Team "owners" would purchase the right to run the franchise and all its associated operations (player signings, coaching decisions etc) in a fixed location and then the revenues from the league as a whole would be pooled together and dished out to the "owners" (as well as a cut for the league entity), perhaps with some locally generated income purely kept for the local franchises.
I'll admit that I haven't given a huge amount of thought to that side of it.
So where would these franchises be based? How many? What would the league structure look like?
Well the priority is to try and hit markets that don't already accommodate football teams, or if they do then accommodate some of the NFL's lesser franchises. It's also important I think to try and keep the franchises reasonably co-located, literally within a few hours drive of each other if possible. The purpose of this is to keep down the travel costs early on, while starting to build the rivalries between local teams that make football special.
Preferably the league would start with no less than six teams, located in one local division. Nothing is worse than the approach adopted by the UFL, where they had just four teams on the go. That hardly makes for an enticing season. At least with six teams you get five home games and five away games, with a league wide bye in the middle, allowing for 11 weeks of football. If two divisions of six could be formed that would be even more ideal, with the winner of each division meeting at some neutral site for a bowl game.
This also plays well into the timing I'm thinking of, namely somewhere in the late April to mid July region. The obvious purpose of this is to dodge going head to head with the NFL like a raging bull. It's also a time when the football news dries up and fans are left dangling for any slight sliver of something that might be interesting and football related. A decent outdoor league would do the trick nicely.
Of particular interest to me, area wise, are;
- The North West, including Tahoma and Spokane in Washington; Portland, Oregon; and Vancouver and Surrey across the border in Canada.
- California, including, Sacramento, San Jose, Fresno, Bakersfield and Riverside, possibly with Las Vegas, Nevada and/or Tuscon, Arizona thrown into the mix.
- Texas, specifically San Antonio, Corpus Christi, Austin, Lubbock, maybe Fort Worth (a little close to the Jerrah Dome!) and maybe Houston, or Oklahoma City if you're prepared to travel a bit North.
- North Eastern, including Providence, Rhode Island; Hartford, Connecticut; Springfield, Massachusetts; Albany, New York; and possibly some other cities in and around that area.
- Northern New York, including Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, perhaps Albany in this one, maybe Pittsburgh, maybe a cross border incursion to Hamilton in Canada.
- Central North, basically centered around a northern Ohio/Northern Indiana/Michigan type division, including Akron, Columbus and Toledo in Ohio, with maybe Fort Wayne, Indiana; and Grand Rapids, Michigan, thrown in, or perhaps a more south Ohio/Kentucky type look, with Dayton and Cincinnati, Ohio; Louisville and Lexington, Kentucky; with a few other cities thrown in.
That's just a brief, off the top of my head (and Google maps aided) list. Obviously the presence of willing backers and available stadiums would dictate much of where any actual league took place.
So now we've got our league set up, but who's going to play in it? The level of football can't match the NFL right? Well... probably not quite that level, no. But every year a ton of kids from college who are pretty handy football players either go undrafted and unsigned, or at the very least get dumped from NFL training camps never to return, not even on the practice squad. There is actually a reasonably decent talent pool to choose from, the key is just to hold off the draft until November-December time, to give the wannabe but never will be NFL players a chance to slip through all the appropriate cracks in the NFL system and give them time to realise that they're best shot is to take an offer from the alternate league, or else go join the unemployment line with everyone else.
So we now have a pool of players, but how to assign them? A draft, like the NFL?
Well actually I'm thinking not. I understand why some players complain about the draft system. It really isn't that fair. Your choices when selected by a team are basically sign, or sit out for twelve months. So I'm thinking of a system altogether a little more complex, but probably more fair in the long run. Basically the league would issue teams with a bunch of blank contracts of varying values, based on draft order.
They would range from long term contracts with solid guaranteed salaries and nice signing bonuses, down to one or two year deals with virtually no guaranteed money and crappy signing bonuses. If we use the NFL's 32 team system for a moment just for convenience, the team with the worst record would be issued with the best contract, then perhaps the next five or six teams would be issued with a second tier contract, the next ten teams with a third tier, and so on down, going through the "draft order" over multiple rounds, so that each team ended up with seven contracts of gradually decreasing values.
On draft day/week they would then be free to offer these contracts to whoever they pleased in a giant free for all, and the players would be free to agree to whichever deal they liked most. So maybe they sign with the highest offer, or maybe they turn down a slightly better offer in favour of joining a winning team. Teams could trade the contracts as much as they like, just like teams trade picks now. The draft day/week would be less of a formal, structured event and more of a lot of haggling over the phone with the occasional announcement that so and so player has just signed a deal with abc team.
At the end of the process, each team has to offer all of it's contracts to somebody (well they don't have to, but the contracts are only good for that rookie signing period). Any players left who haven't been offered deals become "undrafted" free agents. Any player who has been offered one or more contracts but refused to sign any is deemed ineligible for the season and must reapply next year. This way teams get to try and sign players who they perhaps wouldn't normally, while players get at least some say in who it is they ultimately end up playing for, although weaker teams still hold the balance of power somewhat.
So now we have teams and those teams have players. But how do we get the word out?
The answer is right in front of you. The Internet. There are many reasons why the UFL failed, but prime among them was the fact that their web presence was shocking. Their website was total garbage. They had a YouTube channel, but it had nothing worthwhile on it. No player profiles, no highlight reels from their college days, no game highlights (or at least very short, badly shot ones).
For the amount of money that the UFL had, they surely could have invested in - at the very minimum- some "Prosumer" cameras and got some local college media students to shoot the games from a decent vantage point, then posted 10-20 minute highlight reels on their YouTube channel, so at least the general public had some idea of what a UFL game looked like.
I'm just stunned at the lack of a forceful online presence. In this day and age it doesn't cost a lot for a business with millions to spend to get itself established on the web and to get its content out there for fans to see. Maybe if they'd earned enough hits, they might even have been able to persuade someone to give them a TV deal of some sort.
So we've got our teams, who have their players, and we're getting the word out about the league. But what are the fans going to see on the field that differs from the NFL? What's the selling point? This is where I mainly go into rant mode about all the little changes that I'd like to make to football, so excuse me if I kind of go off on one. I'm pretty sure that not everyone would like these changes, but then this is just me farting out ideas so take it for what it is - the ranting of a semi-madman.
- The kick off would be moved back to the 35 yard line and all kicking is to be done in the punting style. That includes kick-offs, field goals, free kicks and punts. No holders, just a snap to the kicker who steps up and kicks, without the ball touching the ground. Illegal touching rules still apply to the kicking team except on kick-offs and the receiving team may return any kick that comes down inbounds and doesn’t touch the end zone (automatic touchback), with the exception of an extra point. I just hate the whole holding and placekicking business. Just punt kick the thing and let's get on with it.
- The clock would not stop on an incomplete pass, it would keep running. The only way to stop the clock is with a foul, a time out or throwing the ball out of bounds/running out of bounds. I've just never understood why the clock stops for an incomplete pass, but not a failed run for example. The only thing I can think of is because it would prompt teams in the lead to chuck that thing all the way downfield, hoping that it doesn't get picked off. This also means no spike plays, but hey, you might just get a QB lining up and kicking in desperation!
- The college rules regarding when a receiver gets one foot down in bounds to make a catch and when a runner is ruled down would be used. I've always hated it when a receiver makes a catch, then gets touched by the faintest glance of an opponents foot and is then deemed down. Just make every player who goes down, down, regardless of whether they've been touched or not.
- Once the ball has been pitched or handed off by the quarterback (or the first person after the center to touch the ball) it can no longer be thrown. This precludes any kind of reverse pass, half back pass or flea flicker type plays, which I've always hated. Dont ask me why, I just hate them.
- The roughing penalties would be changed so that incidental contact to the quarterback or kicker would not be flagged. Only blatant late hits or deliberate shots at the kickers standing leg (without attempt to block a kick) will be flagged. Hitting the quarterback below or including the knee would be permitted.
- One of my pet hates now, I'd make sure offensive pass interference was properly enforced and put a ban on receivers "rubbing" past each other, to pick off defenders. I hate it when offenses do that. To me that's effectively a "get a first down for free" card, and it especially bugs me some of the more blatant examples of offensive pass interference that I've seen. We have to give everyone a chance to make a fair play, not just the offense.
- The "Tuck" rule dies. If the quarterback gets hit and loses the ball in the act of throwing a pass then tough s**t, that's a fumble.
- To give offenses a break for a minute, I'd also stop defensive players from jumping into the neutral zone. I don't understand how if an offensive lineman twitches that is considered to be this big deal, but a defensive man can step right across the line trying to jump the snap count and providing the ball isn't snapped is allowed to recover back to his position. Not anymore. Instant offsides flag I think.
- Intentional grounding rule changed. I hate it when defensive guys make a great play and a quarterback can just toss the ball away to deny the sack. So I'd change it so that any quarterback regardless of where he is on the field, who is in the clutches of a defender, must either complete or nearly complete his intended pass. Throwing the ball out of bounds will be considered intentional grounding.
- Speaking of balls, I'd rather use the college style ball with the white markings on one half, to make it easier for both players and fans to track it. After all, the fans are what football is all about.
- From a league standpoint, official warnings and suspensions would replace the NFL's system of fines. I understand that the fine money is given to charity, but the NFL's fining policy has almost zero consistency and at times appears to be geared towards just extracting money from players for the sake of building up the charity pot. It also fails to change behaviour in most cases.
- Officials would be trained to identify concussion like symptoms and have the authority under obvious circumstances to eject a player from the game on medical grounds.
So there you go. There's my crazy ass plan for an alternative league to the NFL. If anyone wants to give me $20 million to get it going, you just go right ahead. I'll be back tomorrow for my week 9 picks.
Friday, October 07, 2011
The Eagles and Panthers in the red zone
So I forgot to tally up my picks for Week 4. Largely on account of the fact that I shit out again, but there you go. For the record I was 11-5 in week 4, which looking at it now doesn't actually look that bad. That puts me up to 37-27 for the season, which looks worse than I just thought it would. Hmm, my perceptions are playing games with me today.
Which is almost coincidental because today I want to talk perceptions. Or more specifically, the perceptions surrounding certain offenses.
See, we all know what Cam Newton has achieved on the field so far this season, regularly lobbing the ball down field in a manner that appears to my cynical eyes to be a hail mary type pass. We've also seen the Eagles tear great chunks out of people with both the run and the pass. But what intrigues me about both of those teams is their lack of success at converting all that accumulated yardage into touchdowns. Which brings us to the wider question; why do some teams suck in the red zone?
The reasons are many. A lot of them boil down to the same issue though, time and time again; space. Or rather, a lack of space. Providing for the fact that the end zone itself is ten yards deep and the red zone is measured from the 20-yard line in, that gives an offense 30 yards to work with, vertically speaking. Perhaps a better way of putting it is that the defense only has 30 yards to defend vertically and that's really the crux of the problem.
It's not that offenses become inherently less capable the closer they get to the hallowed ground at the end of the field, it's the fact that defenses have less things to worry about all of a sudden. And as the space available gets more and more compressed, the less the defense has to worry about. The types of routes they're likely to face from wide receivers in the passing game gradually shrinks from a tree of about 10-12, down to maybe 8-9 around the 20 yard line, and then down to perhaps 5-6 from the 5 yard line, and then slowly down to 3-4 from there on in.
There are two mitigating factors, but we'll get to those later.
For now we need to concentrate on the wide outs and the first routes to go are the deep routes. The 40 yard fade route off a 5-step drop by the quarterback will - from the 20 yard line - mean that the receiver doesn't catch the ball until he's in the stands, in the tunnel, or has run into a wall. There is simply not enough room to execute that play without some sort of significant and beautifully timed delay by the receiver. Get it right and you might just make the catch in the end zone. Get it wrong and you wont make it far enough down field for the catch.
The deep post route is also off the menu. You can run a post of sorts, but in the slightly more compressed space it won't be caught until the receiver is in the end zone and he'll probably have to bend the route horizontally across the end zone, leading the quarterback dangerously close to the safety on the opposite side of the field. By extension this also nullifies the post-corner route somewhat.
The 20 yard comeback is also off the menu. In this route the receiver runs like the wind for 20 yards, then slams on the brakes and comes back to the sideline. Hence 20 yard comeback. Except this route is predicated on selling the 'go' route to the corner, the notion being that a full speed receiver running down field has the potential to go deep and must be covered full speed. Except now the corner knows that's not going to happen. He knows that you only have 30 yards to work with, so you're not going to be speeding anywhere. That sets him up perfectly to get under the comeback and jump it.
Most other routes are good for the next 15 or so yards until we come to the 5-7 yard line region. Here we start to lose some of the medium-deep routes, mainly those that kind of bridge the gap. The 15 yard deep in - often referred to as the 'Dig' - is basically lost, as by the time the receiver makes the break they'll be running out of the end zone. The deep out at the same depth is also gone. The fade route off a 3-step drop is largely gone (though not the one step fade). It becomes difficult but not impossible to run a form of the skinny post route. And finally the pure 10-yard hook is lost, as again the threat of a deeper route is lost, although a 10-yard curl is manageable.
It's around this time that the structure of the defense also begins to change. As the vertical depth of the field compresses, it becomes less and less useful for the defense to run a standard cover 2 shell, with both safeties back deep. They simply don't have the threats they otherwise would. This can allow corners (if cover 2 is still played) to take slightly wider alignments on their receivers, knowing that any inside break will be funnelled right into their safeties, who are now playing much closer to the line of scrimmage.
As the depth gets reduced right down, you also begin to see more man coverage, with a single high safety to cover the middle of the end zone, freeing up the strong safety to come down and play the run and/or blitz. Some teams will dispense with the high safety all together, preferring to bring both down close to the line, where they can blitz, play close run support and still get back into a coverage position in the middle of the end zone if needed.
The much more compacted nature of the defense now begins to favour variety and aggression on the part of the defensive coordinator. It's not like he's going to get burnt deep over the middle in this situation (off play action for example) and because of the short distances involved for dropping coverage players, he can be a lot more creative in his blitz schemes and still be confident that everyone will get into place on time.
Probably the most significant advantage conferred on the defense at this point - and why the offenses in Philadelphia and Carolina are struggling in particular - is that speed no longer kills. Someone like a DeSean Jackson or a Steve Smith (the Carolina version) derive much of their threat to opposition defenses due to their speed in the open field. Once you get DeSean Jackson humming along there's not a lot of people that can catch him.
But down in the red zone the space simply doesn't permit such free running. By the time Jackson has hit full stride he'll either be back in the locker room or his quarterback will be lying on the ground as a result of the heavy pressure. It's at times like this that tall, strong, wide bodied players come to the fore. Guys like your Andre Johnson's, your Calvin Johnson's, your Brandon Marshall's. Guys like Plaxico Burress for the Jets and Dez Bryant for the Cowboys. And tight ends.
Tight ends suddenly become big targets. They're strong enough to shed off most coverage defenders, and the linebackers that they can't out strength they can usually out run. They can make tough catches in tight spots and still hold onto the ball all the way to the ground. And in the face of additional pressure from the defense, the fact that they often run routes right down the eye line of the quarterback (in the middle of the field) makes them easy targets to find in quick decision situations.
It's precisely these kind of players that both the Eagles and Panthers lack. They both have tight ends, good ones at that, but down in the red zone that's about all they have.
Now I've painted a pretty bleak picture from the offenses stand point, but it's not all doom and gloom. As we've seen, a big bodied receiver can be very difficult to stop. Just look at the success Matthew Stafford has had this year with the Lions when throwing to Calvin Johnson in the red zone. But as I mentioned earlier, there are also two other advantages that the offense holds, and they're both advantages for a similar reason.
That reason is the short distance between the line of scrimmage and the goal line. Out in the open field a rushing play that only makes 3 yards is not a great gain. It's ok on first down I suppose, but not much use on third and ten. From the three yard line though, a three yard run is a touchdown. On third down and ten with the ball on the 50 yard line, a dump off pass to a running back who picks up 6 yards before being tackled is a win for the defense. The same situation from the 5 yard line results in another touchdown.
And that's what the defense has to be wary about. Short runs and passes suddenly become very dangerous. The shorter the distance, the more dangerous it is. With the ball on the two the defense has to make a choice; when they see run action in the backfield, do they plow in en masse? Doing so gives them a good shot at stopping the 2 yard run, maybe their only shot. But it also leaves them vulnerable to a simple play fake that gets a tight end in a few yards of space on one edge, and boom, you got another touchdown.
So what about if the offense lines up in an empty set? Let's say we're talking about the Green Bay Packers with Aaron Rodgers at quarterback. Now Rodgers isn't just one hell of a throwing quarterback, he can sprint to. So are you prepared to put a spy on him? Doing so leaves you one man down in your overall coverage. And are you even sure your guy can keep up with Rodgers? The only alternative is to bring six rushers, fill every gap along the offensive line, and hope that your remaining guys can cover Greg Jennings, Donald Driver, Jermichael Finley etc man to man. That's a decision I'm glad I don't have to make.
Even a simple screen pass can be dangerous. Whether it's hitting a wide receiver on the perimeter, or a little dump off to a back from ten yards out, the screen game has lots of damaging potential in the red zone, because even a small gain can result in a score.
Which is why I'm so surprised at the lack of scoring from both the Eagles and Panthers. They've had their opportunities, that's not their problem. They're getting down into the red zone and putting up video game numbers of yards along the way. And the stupid thing is both teams have the perfect set of tools for this kind of work. Having bashed DeSean Jackson and Steve Smith, allow me to now explain.
The Panthers have Cam Newton and Jonathan Stewart. Even if we discount DeAngelo Williams for the second on account of his poor season thus far, the Panthers still have two perfect tools for scoring in the red zone. With Cam Newton you have an incredible athlete, whose strength and agility for his size is very impressive. We've seen flashes of what he can do, but the Panthers really need to give this guy a lot of latitude down in the red zone. Go empty, let him have a read of the field, and if he doesn't like it he can run it in himself.
You can even incorporate this with Stewart, a big back with great power who can deliver tremendous hits to defenders, by having run action in one direction with Stewart and with Cam Newton rolling out the opposite side. The threat of these two players travelling in two different directions is enough to give defenses nightmares. With the weapons they have, the Panthers really should be lethal in the red zone. Right now they're not.
The Eagles should be doing even better. They have Mike Vick for a start. He may not be quite as strong as Newton when it comes to breaking tackles, but Vick is probably a step or two quicker, and certainly accelerates quicker. The threat Vick poses to run out of empty sets or on bootlegs off the running game is probably the greatest among all quarterbacks in the NFL. Yet what do we see from the Eagles? Dive/Toss plays up the middle, with complicated blocking and ball handling that the Eagles don't seem to have got the hang of just yet.
To me it seems like a waste. Almost as much of a waste as their lack of a screen game right now. This is what the Eagles under Andy Reid have lived by for years. The combination of McNabb to Westbrook was one of the most dangerous screen games in the entire NFL (which makes it all the more puzzling as to why McNabb is struggling with the screen game in Minnesota). In all honesty, while LeSean McCoy may not be as comfortable with screens as Westbrook was, he's certainly faster than Westbrook was. Right around the red zone would be a great place to get that screen game rolling, especially as we've seen plenty of evidence this season demonstrating how athletic the Eagles linemen can be in open space.
I dunno, it just baffles me that the Eagles and Panthers are struggling as bad as they are. They have the players to make it happen, no question. Play calling? Err.... not so much. Though given how bad they've been so far, I'd expect experienced coaches like Andy Reid and Ron Rivera to get their teams knuckled down into some red zone work during practice over the course of this week.
Of course I also keep waiting for the Cowboys and Vikings to learn how not to blow 20 point leads as well....
So there you have it. That's me vented for another day. Tomorrow I'll be back to do my picks for week 5, with a reduced work load this week as the bye weeks begin. Till then, have fun and spread the word about your favourite blog.
What do you mean which one?
Which is almost coincidental because today I want to talk perceptions. Or more specifically, the perceptions surrounding certain offenses.
See, we all know what Cam Newton has achieved on the field so far this season, regularly lobbing the ball down field in a manner that appears to my cynical eyes to be a hail mary type pass. We've also seen the Eagles tear great chunks out of people with both the run and the pass. But what intrigues me about both of those teams is their lack of success at converting all that accumulated yardage into touchdowns. Which brings us to the wider question; why do some teams suck in the red zone?
The reasons are many. A lot of them boil down to the same issue though, time and time again; space. Or rather, a lack of space. Providing for the fact that the end zone itself is ten yards deep and the red zone is measured from the 20-yard line in, that gives an offense 30 yards to work with, vertically speaking. Perhaps a better way of putting it is that the defense only has 30 yards to defend vertically and that's really the crux of the problem.
It's not that offenses become inherently less capable the closer they get to the hallowed ground at the end of the field, it's the fact that defenses have less things to worry about all of a sudden. And as the space available gets more and more compressed, the less the defense has to worry about. The types of routes they're likely to face from wide receivers in the passing game gradually shrinks from a tree of about 10-12, down to maybe 8-9 around the 20 yard line, and then down to perhaps 5-6 from the 5 yard line, and then slowly down to 3-4 from there on in.
There are two mitigating factors, but we'll get to those later.
For now we need to concentrate on the wide outs and the first routes to go are the deep routes. The 40 yard fade route off a 5-step drop by the quarterback will - from the 20 yard line - mean that the receiver doesn't catch the ball until he's in the stands, in the tunnel, or has run into a wall. There is simply not enough room to execute that play without some sort of significant and beautifully timed delay by the receiver. Get it right and you might just make the catch in the end zone. Get it wrong and you wont make it far enough down field for the catch.
The deep post route is also off the menu. You can run a post of sorts, but in the slightly more compressed space it won't be caught until the receiver is in the end zone and he'll probably have to bend the route horizontally across the end zone, leading the quarterback dangerously close to the safety on the opposite side of the field. By extension this also nullifies the post-corner route somewhat.
The 20 yard comeback is also off the menu. In this route the receiver runs like the wind for 20 yards, then slams on the brakes and comes back to the sideline. Hence 20 yard comeback. Except this route is predicated on selling the 'go' route to the corner, the notion being that a full speed receiver running down field has the potential to go deep and must be covered full speed. Except now the corner knows that's not going to happen. He knows that you only have 30 yards to work with, so you're not going to be speeding anywhere. That sets him up perfectly to get under the comeback and jump it.
Most other routes are good for the next 15 or so yards until we come to the 5-7 yard line region. Here we start to lose some of the medium-deep routes, mainly those that kind of bridge the gap. The 15 yard deep in - often referred to as the 'Dig' - is basically lost, as by the time the receiver makes the break they'll be running out of the end zone. The deep out at the same depth is also gone. The fade route off a 3-step drop is largely gone (though not the one step fade). It becomes difficult but not impossible to run a form of the skinny post route. And finally the pure 10-yard hook is lost, as again the threat of a deeper route is lost, although a 10-yard curl is manageable.
It's around this time that the structure of the defense also begins to change. As the vertical depth of the field compresses, it becomes less and less useful for the defense to run a standard cover 2 shell, with both safeties back deep. They simply don't have the threats they otherwise would. This can allow corners (if cover 2 is still played) to take slightly wider alignments on their receivers, knowing that any inside break will be funnelled right into their safeties, who are now playing much closer to the line of scrimmage.
As the depth gets reduced right down, you also begin to see more man coverage, with a single high safety to cover the middle of the end zone, freeing up the strong safety to come down and play the run and/or blitz. Some teams will dispense with the high safety all together, preferring to bring both down close to the line, where they can blitz, play close run support and still get back into a coverage position in the middle of the end zone if needed.
The much more compacted nature of the defense now begins to favour variety and aggression on the part of the defensive coordinator. It's not like he's going to get burnt deep over the middle in this situation (off play action for example) and because of the short distances involved for dropping coverage players, he can be a lot more creative in his blitz schemes and still be confident that everyone will get into place on time.
Probably the most significant advantage conferred on the defense at this point - and why the offenses in Philadelphia and Carolina are struggling in particular - is that speed no longer kills. Someone like a DeSean Jackson or a Steve Smith (the Carolina version) derive much of their threat to opposition defenses due to their speed in the open field. Once you get DeSean Jackson humming along there's not a lot of people that can catch him.
But down in the red zone the space simply doesn't permit such free running. By the time Jackson has hit full stride he'll either be back in the locker room or his quarterback will be lying on the ground as a result of the heavy pressure. It's at times like this that tall, strong, wide bodied players come to the fore. Guys like your Andre Johnson's, your Calvin Johnson's, your Brandon Marshall's. Guys like Plaxico Burress for the Jets and Dez Bryant for the Cowboys. And tight ends.
Tight ends suddenly become big targets. They're strong enough to shed off most coverage defenders, and the linebackers that they can't out strength they can usually out run. They can make tough catches in tight spots and still hold onto the ball all the way to the ground. And in the face of additional pressure from the defense, the fact that they often run routes right down the eye line of the quarterback (in the middle of the field) makes them easy targets to find in quick decision situations.
It's precisely these kind of players that both the Eagles and Panthers lack. They both have tight ends, good ones at that, but down in the red zone that's about all they have.
Now I've painted a pretty bleak picture from the offenses stand point, but it's not all doom and gloom. As we've seen, a big bodied receiver can be very difficult to stop. Just look at the success Matthew Stafford has had this year with the Lions when throwing to Calvin Johnson in the red zone. But as I mentioned earlier, there are also two other advantages that the offense holds, and they're both advantages for a similar reason.
That reason is the short distance between the line of scrimmage and the goal line. Out in the open field a rushing play that only makes 3 yards is not a great gain. It's ok on first down I suppose, but not much use on third and ten. From the three yard line though, a three yard run is a touchdown. On third down and ten with the ball on the 50 yard line, a dump off pass to a running back who picks up 6 yards before being tackled is a win for the defense. The same situation from the 5 yard line results in another touchdown.
And that's what the defense has to be wary about. Short runs and passes suddenly become very dangerous. The shorter the distance, the more dangerous it is. With the ball on the two the defense has to make a choice; when they see run action in the backfield, do they plow in en masse? Doing so gives them a good shot at stopping the 2 yard run, maybe their only shot. But it also leaves them vulnerable to a simple play fake that gets a tight end in a few yards of space on one edge, and boom, you got another touchdown.
So what about if the offense lines up in an empty set? Let's say we're talking about the Green Bay Packers with Aaron Rodgers at quarterback. Now Rodgers isn't just one hell of a throwing quarterback, he can sprint to. So are you prepared to put a spy on him? Doing so leaves you one man down in your overall coverage. And are you even sure your guy can keep up with Rodgers? The only alternative is to bring six rushers, fill every gap along the offensive line, and hope that your remaining guys can cover Greg Jennings, Donald Driver, Jermichael Finley etc man to man. That's a decision I'm glad I don't have to make.
Even a simple screen pass can be dangerous. Whether it's hitting a wide receiver on the perimeter, or a little dump off to a back from ten yards out, the screen game has lots of damaging potential in the red zone, because even a small gain can result in a score.
Which is why I'm so surprised at the lack of scoring from both the Eagles and Panthers. They've had their opportunities, that's not their problem. They're getting down into the red zone and putting up video game numbers of yards along the way. And the stupid thing is both teams have the perfect set of tools for this kind of work. Having bashed DeSean Jackson and Steve Smith, allow me to now explain.
The Panthers have Cam Newton and Jonathan Stewart. Even if we discount DeAngelo Williams for the second on account of his poor season thus far, the Panthers still have two perfect tools for scoring in the red zone. With Cam Newton you have an incredible athlete, whose strength and agility for his size is very impressive. We've seen flashes of what he can do, but the Panthers really need to give this guy a lot of latitude down in the red zone. Go empty, let him have a read of the field, and if he doesn't like it he can run it in himself.
You can even incorporate this with Stewart, a big back with great power who can deliver tremendous hits to defenders, by having run action in one direction with Stewart and with Cam Newton rolling out the opposite side. The threat of these two players travelling in two different directions is enough to give defenses nightmares. With the weapons they have, the Panthers really should be lethal in the red zone. Right now they're not.
The Eagles should be doing even better. They have Mike Vick for a start. He may not be quite as strong as Newton when it comes to breaking tackles, but Vick is probably a step or two quicker, and certainly accelerates quicker. The threat Vick poses to run out of empty sets or on bootlegs off the running game is probably the greatest among all quarterbacks in the NFL. Yet what do we see from the Eagles? Dive/Toss plays up the middle, with complicated blocking and ball handling that the Eagles don't seem to have got the hang of just yet.
To me it seems like a waste. Almost as much of a waste as their lack of a screen game right now. This is what the Eagles under Andy Reid have lived by for years. The combination of McNabb to Westbrook was one of the most dangerous screen games in the entire NFL (which makes it all the more puzzling as to why McNabb is struggling with the screen game in Minnesota). In all honesty, while LeSean McCoy may not be as comfortable with screens as Westbrook was, he's certainly faster than Westbrook was. Right around the red zone would be a great place to get that screen game rolling, especially as we've seen plenty of evidence this season demonstrating how athletic the Eagles linemen can be in open space.
I dunno, it just baffles me that the Eagles and Panthers are struggling as bad as they are. They have the players to make it happen, no question. Play calling? Err.... not so much. Though given how bad they've been so far, I'd expect experienced coaches like Andy Reid and Ron Rivera to get their teams knuckled down into some red zone work during practice over the course of this week.
Of course I also keep waiting for the Cowboys and Vikings to learn how not to blow 20 point leads as well....
So there you have it. That's me vented for another day. Tomorrow I'll be back to do my picks for week 5, with a reduced work load this week as the bye weeks begin. Till then, have fun and spread the word about your favourite blog.
What do you mean which one?
Monday, March 14, 2011
A 2011 Hail Mary
Well, I've finished looking at the Quarterbacks ahead of the 2011 draft (if there is one). There is always the chance I'll come back to this, especially given the potential for a work stoppage giving me more time for further review. At the very least I'm happy for now that I know enough about most of them. So let's begin.
Blaine Gabbert: If I had a ten foot barge pole, I wouldn't touch Blaine Gabbert with it. In fact, if you gave me your ten foot barge pole, I wouldn't even touch him with that. And it has nothing to do with poor hygiene. It has everything to do with the fact that he looks terrible on film.
I watched one game where he faced a three man rush on a regular basis, and he was bailing out of the pocket before those three were even close. In the NFL, staring down the face of a high speed blitz, I can see Gabbert collapsing like a wet house of cards. I just wouldn't go near him.
Cam Newton: I hate Cam Newton already and he hasn't even entered the league yet. I've never known someone to receive so much hype, while showing such a lack of transferable talent. He runs quickly, I get that. He cuts with an insane level of agility. As a wide receiver or running back, Newton could probably have a reasonable shout providing he could learn to run routes.
But as a Quarterback he looks doomed to end as a bust. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the amount of times I saw him under throw receivers who were open down the field. He just seems to lack any demonstrable consistency or skill throwing into tight windows that will transfer to the NFL. He'll either tear the league to pieces with his feet, or they'll tear him to pieces in the pocket.
Ryan Mallett: I'm still undecided on Mallett. Apparently he's an asshole of the highest order. There are question marks over possible drug use. All in all, a lot of things that could seriously impact his career, and they're all things I can't really do anything to assess.
On the field, he's fine. I have zero questions about his level of playing ability. But a lack of hard work and leadership, if these things are indeed true, could seriously effect his ability to blend in with a team. I'm just not sure right now.
Jake Locker: Much the same as Newton, I worry about Locker as a passer. I'm not convinced. I certainly wouldn't use a first rounder on him. He can run and sometimes he can throw great, but consistency from the pocket? I'm just not happy with Locker. I can see him being a Jimmy Clausen type.
Colin Kaepernick: This is a running theme, but I'm not sold on Kaepernick as a passer. A lot of this comes down to the legacy of certain spread offenses in college that encourage QB running and option plays over pocket passing. Unfortunately NFL pockets collapse much quicker and some of the linebackers can run just as quickly as guys like Kaepernick.
Christian Ponder: Sold! Excellent footwork, passing and vision. I like Ponder a lot. I think he's slipped quietly under a lot of radars thanks to the Newton/Gabbert/Mallett trifecta of hype. Ponder will probably slip out of the first round, providing someone with a value pick later on.
Ricky Stanzi: My favourite. He was ok at the combine, but on film Stanzi looks fantastic. The way this kid drops passes into tight windows over his receivers shoulders is something special to behold. Stanzi might drop right down, maybe even to the fifth round. I'd happily use a first on this kid (I believe in trusting your instincts) but given that he's not highly sought after at the minute, you could hold till the second at least and still pick up the best prospect in this years Qb class (in my opinion).
Andy Dalton: At the combine, he barely put a foot wrong, but I'm not completely sold on Dalton. Partly that's because of a chronic shortage of film for this kid, but even the stuff I've seen throws up some question marks. In general though Dalton should do fine. He might take a little more time than some of the others, but he'll get there. Should prove to be a safe pick outside of the top 44.
Jeff Van Camp: Will likely still be there when the sixth and possibly seventh round comes about. At that price he'd be a complete bargain. I could happily take Van Camp with a late first rounder, though obviously there is no need. He'll slip. But teams could be looking back on this kid in years gone by and kicking themselves for passing him up.
Accuracy? Check. Arm Strength? Check. Vision? Check. Cool in the pocket? Check.
Watching Van Camp, the most obvious feature was the total lack of decent protection from his O-line and running backs. Yet he stayed in the pocket, braved it out, and made some great throws under severe pressure. Can't speak highly enough of Van Camp.
Kellen Moore: Nobody is talking about Kellen Moore. He'll probably still be there when the last name is called on the final day of the draft. Which is a shame. People are looking at Moore as a backup, as an undrafted rookie that might fill a roster spot for the future.
Honestly? I'd take Moore over Gabbert, Newton, Kaepernick or Locker in a heartbeat. Just like that. The kid has a lot of talent as a pure passer, but it would appear being a QB at Boise State isn't enough to draw the scouts attention. Shame. Damn shame.
Mike Hartline: QB for the Kentucky Wildcats in case you were wondering. An arrest for alcohol intoxication and disorderly conduct could have scuppered any chance of a career before it potentially begins. Which is unfortunate.
I remember watching Hartline for the first time. I was actually looking at Randall Cobb, when Hartline caught the eye. He has great anticipation. It's almost like he's watched the game already and now he's just going back to exploit openings. I hope Hartline gets a shot because he has untapped talent.
Of the quarterbacks then, who will make my rookie watchlist? Well, nothing is set in stone yet. There is still plenty of time to do more work and change my mind, but I see these guys making it at the minute:
- Christian Ponder,
- Ricky Stanzi,
- Jeff Van Camp,
- Kellen Moore,
- Mike Hartline,
- Ryan Mallett (for now)
- Andy Dalton (for now)
I'll probably be concentrating on the world of running backs next me thinks. I'll report back when I've gone through the lot. I'm probably half way through the list of players that I'm interested in.
Also I'm working on a piece now, in little chunks when I have the time, about how as an outsider looking I think Football can tell us a lot about America as a whole. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Spell it out
Before I get round to finishing my AFC South preview, I just want to have a moan, because God knows I love me a moan.
I want to moan about the fact that TV pundits have turned otherwise decent/quiet fans into half knowledgeable ass hats.
I was reading an article about Tim "My Parents Couldn't Have Wished For A Better Poster Child On Their View Of Abortion" Tebow. In the comments section I noticed someone bashing Tebow. Now this is not a freak occurrence. Lot's of people bash Tebow.
But this was not your normal Tebow bashing. Normally people will just say "he sucks" without any qualifier, which allows me to laugh at their simple brains and bask in my own shining wisdom (uhm, didn't you say at the end of your last post that "Cam Newton sucks" without a qualifier?)
This one was different though. It was something about horrible accuracy and not being able to fit the ball into tight windows.
This is patently nonsense, as we've seen in his brief NFL career that Tebow can both a) throw accurately and b) fit the ball into tight windows.
What we're seeing then is the product of someone who has spent way too much time listening to Sirius Radio and not actually watching what's happening on the field. They're simply regurgitating an answer that was probably provided by their favourite pundit in response to the question "What do you think of Tim Tebow?"
What's more worrying for me is it is another example of the English Language (both English UK and English US. Why you people couldn't just call it "American" is beyond me. But I'm digressing... in brackets no less), another example of the English Language being progressively stripped of it's meaning and relevance by overuse, buzzwords and management speak.
Tight Windows. Dynamic Playmaker.
These kind of terms seem to get thrown up every two minutes and attached to every player that moves. Apparently everyone can either throw into tight windows or they can't. Seemingly anyone capable of running 40 yards in less than 5 seconds is considered dynamic.
And while I try to explain why I like certain players and what their particular skills are that attract my attention, all too often I get the feeling lately that TV pundits - and subsequently your average fan - have just got a list of adjectives and superlatives (technically almost the same thing) written on a card somewhere with a key guide to point out which ones to use for good players and which ones to use for bad.
It's becoming increasingly hard to figure out just why some pundit or former executive likes this player or that. Instead we just get lists of generic-to-the-position attributes.
Maybe it's for the same reason that NFL scouts are notorious for hedging their bets; because generic, catch all statements allow you to leave more doors open than a torture chamber for people with OCD.
I'd just like to see people be more committal with their evaluations and stop feeding the public cookie cutter lines that make no sense and share little in common with the facts of the matter.
P.S. Cam Netwon still sucks.
P.P.S. I've just had a phone call to go out drinking. The AFC South will have to wait till tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)