excellent piece by Mike Lombardi in SI

[dave mcbride]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writ...yths/index.html

[playman]

on the other hand, the steelers were quite successful with running the football and stopping the run. but i agree that a good pass rush helps the corners. and indeed a missed FG is a turnover

[Tarannau 29]

Aren't those points all just stating the obvious??

 

1) Of course there is more to football tactically than simply establishing a run game to open up the field, and teams that try to simply run might not be to too successful, but he uses examples of teams that establish the passing game in the 1st half, as opposed to teams that FAIL to esablish the run.

 

2) I thought everyone knew that secondary and pass-rush defense are intertwined?

 

3) OF COURSE the turnover ratio is only relevent dependent on what each team does with the possessions it gives you. So some teams can still be successful with a poor one, i.e. the Giants. But its still indicative of momentum and the amount of possessions.

[Mark Long Beach]

Aren't those points all just stating the obvious??

 

1) Of course there is more to football tactically than simply establishing a run game to open up the field, and teams that try to simply run might not be to too successful, but he uses examples of teams that establish the passing game in the 1st half, as opposed to teams that FAIL to esablish the run.

 

2) I thought everyone knew that secondary and pass-rush defense are intertwined?

 

3) OF COURSE the turnover ratio is only relevent dependent on what each team does with the possessions it gives you. So some teams can still be successful with a poor one, i.e. the Giants. But its still indicative of momentum and the amount of possessions.

 

 

Um.. I think the article was a very good one.

 

Exposing cliche's that are treated as gospel by the anouncers and casual fans as bupkis is a good thing. Especially when shown just how incorrect they are with some good facts behind the explanation.

[BillnutinHouston]

Great article. Not sure how good I feel about the McKelvin pick now. Maybe we should have picked a DE in the 11th spot.

[Bill from NYC]

Great article. Not sure how good I feel about the McKelvin pick now. Maybe we should have picked a DE in the 11th spot.

 

You can't have too many corners.

 

Signed,

 

Marv Levy and Dick Jauron

[ans4e64]

That was the worst article I've ever read. How does that man have a job? And I'm being serious. I think he's clueless when it comes to football.

[ChicagoDan]

I liked the column.

 

Another type of football broadcasterism which always makes me chortle is as follows:

 

When a running back takes his time in the backfield and has a nice gain, the announcers show the replay and say "see how patiently he waits for the hole to develop--great job"

 

Then you flip the channel and a running back explodes through the hole for a nice gain, the announces show the replay and say "see how he hits the hole immediately, he doesn't dance around behind the line, he just hits it hard--great job"

[dave mcbride]

That was the worst article I've ever read. How does that man have a job? And I'm being serious. I think he's clueless when it comes to football.

What is the basis for your critique? Lombardi worked in the front office of numerous organizations for 22 years, incidentally.

[ans4e64]

What is the basis for your critique? Lombardi worked in the front office of numerous organizations for 22 years, incidentally.

 

Going back to the poster above, I think that saying, "no corner can stop a wideout from getting open if he has to cover him for a long time" is stating the obvious. The difference between good and bad corners is not "shut down" completely, its how LONG they can cover them for before they eventually get open. The average play in the NFL lasts somewhere between 4 and 6 seconds, and being able to cover a WR for that amount of time is what makes one great, or "shut down."

 

Everybody knows that you can't just have a great set of corners, or a great pass rush individually. Pass defense is a team philosophy just like the rest of football is. Just as no corner can cover a wideout for a length of time, no offensive tackle can block a DE for any length of time either. There are most certainly defensive ends that can get to the QB a whole lot quicker, and there are most certainly corners who can cover WR's longer. That is the difference, and to say that a corner that can cover for a longer length of time (or "shut down") is a myth to the game is extremely ignorant and shows a lack of knowledge. Its common sense.

[eball]

You can't have too many corners.

 

Signed,

 

Marv Levy and Dick Jauron

"Are you sure he's dead? I could have sworn I heard a whinny. Hit him again."

 

-- Bill from NYC

[Acantha]

Great article. Not sure how good I feel about the McKelvin pick now. Maybe we should have picked a DE in the 11th spot.

Just any random DE would do?

[Ozymandius]

I disagree. That was a pretty mediocre article. Points 2 and 3 are just common sense and not even worth stating. You don't say... a missed FG is like a turnover?... who exactly is he debunking there? As for point #1, I want to see waaaay more data than what he supplied, especially across several seasons, before I give his opinion credence.

[Astrobot]

Best part (besides the Clements signing not doing anything to improve the SF defense) was :

 

Instead of listening to the cries of many that they needed to improve their pass defense, the Vikings signed defensive end Jared Allen. Allen will singlehandedly improve a porous unit that allowed 4,500 yards in the air last season. Defensive backs are nice to have, but a special pass rusher is what can make a defense shine.

 

I would have preferred a DE, too, but remember that the top DE's were off the board at our pick. Chris Ellis may surprise, but I think he won't be any more special than Hargrove--moments of brilliance, and many series of ehhh.

[cantstopbeastmode]

That story sucked. The guy seems to think hes groundbreaking, but he's not. We all know that teams do pass a lot, as well as the fact missed fgs are bad. And believe it or not, we all knew that cbs cant do anything without a rush. This isn't meant to be a shot at the original poster, I'm just saying.

[Dibs]

I disagree. That was a pretty mediocre article. Points 2 and 3 are just common sense and not even worth stating. You don't say... a missed FG is like a turnover?... who exactly is he debunking there? As for point #1, I want to see waaaay more data than what he supplied, especially across several seasons, before I give his opinion credence.

I'd say it was narrow minded & totally misrepresentative myself. What I mean by that is it seems he has latched onto one piece of information & formulated an opinion without considering the many other factors which may well counter that opinion. He also takes a commonly used saying & attacks the literal meaning of the saying rather than the common meaning.

 

1. The running game.

He mainly bases his premise upon the "eye opening" stats of the 5 playoff teams'(SEA, GB, IND, DAL, NE) ranked for runs in the first half(31st, 29th, 28th, 27th, 26th). Does he factor into the situation that amongst those 5 teams there are the top 2 QBs in the league......and another 2 which would be considered in the top 6.

Simply looked at, if you have a STAR QB who has the ability to perform at a much greater level than the norm......it would just make logical sense that you would endeavour to use their skills at a higher rate than the norm, thus maximizing your asset.

 

Also, he does not mention where the other playoff teams ranked which IMO is necessary to establish a true comparison.

For instance......and I can't quickly get the first half stats alone, but......

Playoff teams JAX, PIT, NYG, TEN & SD were ranked 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th & 7th in rushing yards per game.

Playoff teams TEN, JAX, PIT, WASH, SD, NYG & NE were ranked 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 8th & 9th in rushing attempts per game.

 

2. Shut down corner.

Here he is turning the saying of 'shut down corner' into an extreme & then saying....."Ha, that extreme cannot be achieved." He is just being semantic about the term.

The term shutdown corner does not generally mean that the corner isn't fallible....or doesn't have off days. What it means is having a CB good enough to take solo coverage responsibilities for the opposition #1 receiver thus freeing up the rest of the secondary. Most CBs are not good enough to be able to attempt this on a regular basis. Those that are good enough to be used in this capacity have become known as 'shut down corners' even though they do not legitimately shut down their opposing WR for the entire game.

 

3. Turnover battle is key.....FGs are just like turnovers.

This is complete bollocks(the FG thing).

Whether the TO battle is a key factor in causing the end result of a game.....or whether it is the natural product caused by other factors is a different argument to what he puts forward. In fact, he does not put up any argument to debunk the theory except for his FG thing and TOs at the end of a half. Quickly.....just a few he could have used.....struggling teams will likely turn the ball over more frequently due to the extra pressure of needing to get things done.....they may well have lesser players who are prone to cause more turnovers due to lack of skill.....obviously the reverse will count for good teams/players......long bombs on 3rd/4th downs which are intercepted and not returned are not that detrimental......neither are fumbles on 4th down when attempting a run when in OK field position.

 

His focus however was on missed FGs.....that they should be counted as TOs.

The term turnover has a literal meaning. If one wanted to add(or subtract) things to alter that meaning, there would be many more situations to focus upon which are far more detrimental than missing a FG(which is often a calculated risk weighing up the potential 3 points scored against the loss of yards).

 

To compare a missed 45 FG attempt on 4th down where the only real alternative is to punt(likely resulting in a touchback....totaling 15 yards field position difference) to throwing an interception on 1st/2nd/3rd down is ridiculous.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

Also, he does not mention where the other playoff teams ranked which IMO is necessary to establish a true comparison.

For instance......and I can't quickly get the first half stats alone, but......

Playoff teams JAX, PIT, NYG, TEN & SD were ranked 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th & 7th in rushing yards per game.

Playoff teams TEN, JAX, PIT, WASH, SD, NYG & NE were ranked 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 8th & 9th in rushing attempts per game.

Those numbers don't really say much against his point. His point is NOT that good offensive teams don't emphasize the run AT ALL, but rather that they run far more in the 2nd half than they do in the 1st half. Simply pointing out that playoff teams are good at running the ball in total does little to counter the point he's making.

 

Just playing 's advocate.

[Dibs]

Those numbers don't really say much against his point. His point is NOT that good offensive teams don't emphasize the run AT ALL, but rather that they run far more in the 2nd half than they do in the 1st half. Simply pointing out that playoff teams are good at running the ball in total does little to counter the point he's making.

 

Just playing 's advocate.

You dead right......I would love to get the stats for all of the playoff teams rushing attempts in the 1st half(the whole league for that matter) but I can't find it in anywhere......and even for me that would be waaay too much time spent to figure out just to see if a theory is correct or not.

 

Logic states that good teams get ahead in games & therefore would emphasize the run in the second half(the opposite true of bad teams) thus effecting the overall rushing stats.......but the overall stats was the only thing I had to work with.

 

It still seems overly simplistic to draw the conclusion he did from those 5 teams when 3 of them have future HOF QBs & a fourth has one of the better QBs in the league......thus promoting a much higher emphasis on the passing game over the running game. All 5 of the QBs ranked in the top 10 in pass attempts.

 

At a guess I would imagine that the rest of the playoff teams (JAX, PIT, TEN, NYG, SD, WASH & TB) all ranked fairly highly in the 'runs in the 1st half' category.......with no real coincidence that only 1 of them ranked in the top 10 in pass attempts.

 

Seems to me that not only did he ignore the whole 'top QB' factor but 'selectively chose' the information he gave in order to back up his point.

[dave mcbride]

That story sucked. The guy seems to think hes groundbreaking, but he's not. We all know that teams do pass a lot, as well as the fact missed fgs are bad. And believe it or not, we all knew that cbs cant do anything without a rush. This isn't meant to be a shot at the original poster, I'm just saying.

If that article sucked, then explain to me the fact that 5-6 corners are taken in the first every damn year, and personnel types are often quoted as saying "you can never have enough corners"? Does everyone buy it? No. But more than a few do, so it's not as everyone knows it. I never thought about missed FGs counting in the TO battle, but he's right -- they should. The better point is about the running game, and it should matter to Bills fans because they've been living through it. When Mularkey arrived in 2004, he was all about "establishing the run": he advocated it publicly, and coached his games that way, particularly early in the season before it blew up in his face. And you can't tell me that your run-of-the-mill Bills fan doesn't think that "establishing the run" is the purer way to play football ...

[ROCCEO]

I read the article yesterday so forgive me if Im a little off on a few points of it, but this is what I recall. It is not a fantastic article IMO , it offers some insight but I agree with what another poster said about taking one point of view and just pushing it forward.

 

The QB thing is a big factor, look at the teams he uses as an example. Oakland and Minn, they had two of the worst QB situations in the league last year. When your QB is Tarvaris Jackson and you have a beefy O-line and C. Taylor and AP, what is one supposed to do? Also, the teams that he cites as being great by getting out to early lead have all-pro QBs. We all know that if ur QB is bunk you're probably not going very far. Also, the turnover battle is critical, i think that his denial of this idea is used to illustrate the concept that missed FGs are turnovers. I agree, they are equally valuable as a turnover if not more. We wonder why coaches punt inside of the opposition's 40.

 

Does anyone else think that maybe Lombardi chose to illustrate the point about the Raiders running successfully but not winning much as a jab at his former employer?

 

Ive enjoyed some of Lombardi's articles but this one merely had its moments. Whomever edited the story needs to step up their game as well. That thing reads like a community college term paper.