The Future of Football might be the past

[knownone]

I cringe when people critique an argument's flawed logic while using the same flawed logic in their counter-argument. In this case, he’s basing his entire argument on his foolishness for believing one game was the future of the NFL (Chiefs/Rams). He then counters that argument by presenting an argument based on one game, the Super Bowl.

He follows this up with an even dumber example to prove his point using college football which has even less transfer across the NFL than the Superbowl.

All of this culminating in the proposition that the future of football is a 'talking point'; which only counters the narrative of his talking points.

Here's the thing, there is more evidence to support the NFL becoming more like the Rams/Chiefs game. Also, Bill Belichick didn't use some wacky unseen tactic from yesteryear to stop the Rams offense; he literally used the same tactics the Vikings used in 2017 against the Rams. Now you may consider him a genius for doing that, however, he's also one of the only coaches who had more than a week to prepare for the Rams.

The only thing the Superbowl is evidence of is that a coach cannot hide an average QB for an entire season and win a Superbowl while relying on his offense. Is it indicative of a trend that offense will not continue to dominate? No. The Chiefs scored 31 points in a half, with a first-year starter at QB, using a similar system as the Rams against Patriots.

The QB continues to be the key to the NFL, that's the only cyclical reoccurrence worthy of note this season.

 

[Uncle Si]

I cringe when people critique an argument's flawed logic while using the same flawed logic in their counter-argument. In this case, he’s basing his entire argument on his foolishness for believing one game was the future of the NFL (Chiefs/Rams). He then counters that argument by presenting an argument based on one game, the Super Bowl.

He follows this up with an even dumber example to prove his point using college football which has even less transfer across the NFL than the Superbowl.

All of this culminating in the proposition that the future of football is a 'talking point'; which only counters the narrative of his talking points.

Here's the thing, there is more evidence to support the NFL becoming more like the Rams/Chiefs game. Also, Bill Belichick didn't use some wacky unseen tactic from yesteryear to stop the Rams offense; he literally used the same tactics the Vikings used in 2017 against the Rams. Now you may consider him a genius for doing that, however, he's also one of the only coaches who had more than a week to prepare for the Rams.

The only thing the Superbowl is evidence of is that a coach cannot hide an average QB for an entire season and win a Superbowl while relying on his offense. Is it indicative of a trend that offense will not continue to dominate? No. The Chiefs scored 31 points in a half, with a first-year starter at QB, using a similar system as the Rams against Patriots.

The QB continues to be the key to the NFL, that's the only cyclical reoccurrence worthy of note this season.

You nailed it... and reiterated exactly what the author said. Football is cyclical more than gimmicky, and that the next new thing doesnt just happen as simply as what people were pushing for. As he said, quite clearly.. the future takes time and is painful. He's literally calling out people who jumped to either side after one game, and that there is always a scheme that can thwart another.

He also used the Miami-Badger game to demonstrate that sheer obviousness of matchups vs. schemes, as that game was a one game example of how either can be true.

 

[Uncle Si]

and the Seahawks?

Article by Drew Magary of Deadspin. Some of it is tongue-in-cheek, but some correlation to the current Hawks. Thought it worth discussing as the draft, free agency and RWs contract come into play.


https://deadspin.com/the-future-of-football-is-a-lie-1832393001

"The NFL, which shamelessly copies college football schemes while simultaneously holding them in contempt, will soon follow suit. The Rams already use motion to catch defenses in vulnerable positions. Defenses, ugh, will adjust to this. You’re gonna see more smallish, quicker defenses deployed to keep similar offenses harnessed, and then you’ll see those offenses switch to a power game to mess those plans up. Belichick, primal marsh creature that he is, boned up on his history and beat the Rams essentially by changing defenses after the headset radio shut off and playing an old-fashioned style that forced the Rams to grind out yardage, which they couldn’t. Keep in mind that the Rams were also supposedly the future of this sport 17 years ago. As on Sunday, Belichick had other ideas back then." (edited for language)

This dovetails with my wish that more NFL coaches were scholars of the game and could lean on making that which is old new again with a twist or a stunt here and there.

I think they are.. but they are also creatures of habit and consistency.

BB is fascinating because of the risks hes willing to take. Most coaches, at any sport, find their strength and ride that to success.

And when it stops being successful they are out of a job and waiting for someone else to ask them to do the same thing.

Not talking about ingenuity here either... most coaches are uniquely creative in their own ways. But its rare for a head coach to be consistently flexible as there strongest attribute.

Its why McVay will be interesting to watch over the years. Hes young, already successful and seems keenly aware of what just happened to him

Yes, absolutely. I really don't give coaches in the NFL a fair shake a lot of times, hoping they are excessively less prone to their own humanity. I wish I could fully explain why I hold coaches especially to such a high standard but perhaps it's because I've been told over and over and over again they're absolutely the best at their craft to the point of being beyond critique...and yet I'm totally unsatisfied by the notion there's only one guy as good as BB. It bugs me a lot actually that one guy seems to get it so much more than other coaches who are part of the coaching pantheon.

I think within football, more than other games and even sports, consistency in execution is integral to success and yet as you point out, many coaches interpret that as locking on to one successful thing and then riding it to the end of its usefulness. And yet we have an object lesson that honing intuition on when to switch things up might be just as valid as consistent practice and execution of tactical football ideals.

That intuition is not only supported by past success but simply by longevity in the HC position. And this isn't something that just naturally develops with coaching tenure as Marvin Lewis in Cincy shows to an extent.

To your point on McVay, I am keen on seeing if he and Nagy can use their experience as building blocks for future decisions. I wish we had an intriguing situation like that with the Hawks but we don't.

I think part of that is because the NFL game requires so much planning, detail and attention to detail, coaches tend to get locked in to a particular way of going about it.

I coach academy soccer and we often discuss coaches in that sport at the top of the game. There are some real innovators. One claims to have "broken futbol" a few years ago.

yet, time and again, we see these coaches teams come up against just the right team/system/style that counters all of their innovation, and without fail, these very innovative coaches take the loss on the chin rather than change.

 

[Mick063]

I'm not against putting most of the money in the defense. Just as long as it is in the pass rush.

The Patriots defensive front revealed what Goff really is. A sophomore.

This is how the Giants won their two most recent Super Bowls. They were average in just about every area, but were elite in getting after the Quarterback. Sheesh, look at the one year transformation of the Bears despite their own sophomore quarterback.

Pay Frank Clark and get a couple more like him.

 

[John63]

I agree that the Pats did a Pete for that game, However, the difference is the Pats do what they need to do to win, if that means a Pete fine if that means a Chiefs fine, We don't we do a Pete even when it's obvious we should not. That is the difference between Bellechik and nearly every coach out there, he is not afraid to change everything if he can win, Others to include PC will not, that are going to do what they do win or lose.

 

[knownone]

I cringe when people critique an argument's flawed logic while using the same flawed logic in their counter-argument. In this case, he’s basing his entire argument on his foolishness for believing one game was the future of the NFL (Chiefs/Rams). He then counters that argument by presenting an argument based on one game, the Super Bowl.

He follows this up with an even dumber example to prove his point using college football which has even less transfer across the NFL than the Superbowl.

All of this culminating in the proposition that the future of football is a 'talking point'; which only counters the narrative of his talking points.

Here's the thing, there is more evidence to support the NFL becoming more like the Rams/Chiefs game. Also, Bill Belichick didn't use some wacky unseen tactic from yesteryear to stop the Rams offense; he literally used the same tactics the Vikings used in 2017 against the Rams. Now you may consider him a genius for doing that, however, he's also one of the only coaches who had more than a week to prepare for the Rams.

The only thing the Superbowl is evidence of is that a coach cannot hide an average QB for an entire season and win a Superbowl while relying on his offense. Is it indicative of a trend that offense will not continue to dominate? No. The Chiefs scored 31 points in a half, with a first-year starter at QB, using a similar system as the Rams against Patriots.

The QB continues to be the key to the NFL, that's the only cyclical reoccurrence worthy of note this season.

You nailed it... and reiterated exactly what the author said. Football is cyclical more than gimmicky, and that the next new thing doesnt just happen as simply as what people were pushing for. As he said, quite clearly.. the future takes time and is painful. He's literally calling out people who jumped to either side after one game, and that there is always a scheme that can thwart another.

He also used the Miami-Badger game to demonstrate that sheer obviousness of matchups vs. schemes, as that game was a one game example of how either can be true.

Right, but he's making a sort of nihilistic argument on the basis that nothing last forever. Which is easy to do when you are not presenting an opinion of your own just tearing down the opinions of others.

I don't think the NFL as a whole is cyclical. Outside of the QB/Coach, I think the NFL is random.

If we are to believe the NFL is cyclical and that this cyclicality is evidence of the history of the NFL teaching us anything about future trends, then you'd first have to reconcile with the fact that one team has been in or won the Superbowl for half of the last two decades; using an offense that was every bit as gimmicky as the Rams when they first started using it, the framework with which is still the offense they use today.

 

[Uncle Si]

Change taking time is a solid argument about the NFL.

From Dan Fouts Chargers to Martz' Rams, the Run-N-Shoot, Wildcat, Read-option... permanence is fleeting in a game where history is the only blueprint for success

Its not nihilistic, just pointing out that changes tend to need much more time (as he states) then a few games or even a season before they take on permanence.

He calls out, rightly, those fretting 54-51 as the new normal and suggests again that as teams scramble to be the new Rams, some team will set up to beat that team (Wisconsin-Miami example)

The cyclical nature of the NFL is that nothing lasts because teams vary their approaches so much. Power football gives way to innovative passing, then pass cedes to run then back to pass and on and on.

I agree with you that the nfl is changing, so does the article. Ots illustrating it may not be as simple as many assumed

 

[Tical21]

This talk of offensive explosion is a little extreme. Teams now average approximately 3 ppg more than they did in the 70s.

 

[NINEster]

Welcome back to 2011/2012?

Have we already forgotten the legacy of Harbaugh & Carroll in the NFC West?

It's also interesting to note the other Harbaugh on the east coast would give Belichick's team fits when his defense and running game were on point.

High flying offenses typically struggle in the postseason to win championships. By January, there's more film to combat these offenses along with the increased intensity of postseason play by defenses, and of course the weather factor as well in some cases.

The formula is still applicable but for the Seahawks, Lynch ran out of gas combined with Wilson and the LOB getting paid. Niners offensive scheme getting long in the tooth and the mass exodus of defensive players ended that era as soon as Harbaugh left (but it was trending that way without major changes on the offensive side of the ball).

And therein lies the issue with building teams this way -- lifespan isn't too long. Relying on smash mouth running game will wear down that type of team, and you often handicap your team if you need it to be explosive.

What the Patriots have done with their roster is remarkable......their RBs have to be versatile enough for numerous types of offensive schemes. And of course Brady has the discipline and experience to play game manager if needed.

Brady was the only QB in the NFL who could have played the dink and dunk against the Seahawks in the SB and won.

 

[JimmyG]

I get so sick of people complaining about how our offense is draconian and how Pete "refuses to adapt". First of all, Carroll's approach has been extremely successfully since getting here. We are clearly one of the most successful franchises in the league since Pete took over.

Second, the Super Bowl was absolutely awesome. You have the Rams, with wunderkind Sean McVay, completely shut down on the national stage. Meanwhile, the Patriots, one of the few teams that still regularly uses a fullback in the league, grinds out a victory, churning out 154 yards of offense.

I do think that the Rams struggles were partially due to Goff being young, inexperienced, and in way over his head, but I do find it hilarious that the Patriots won with a boring ass offense and the "modern offense" media darling in the process.

 

[Spin Doctor]

I get so sick of people complaining about how our offense is draconian and how Pete "refuses to adapt". First of all, Carroll's approach has been extremely successfully since getting here. We are clearly one of the most successful franchises in the league since Pete took over.

Second, the Super Bowl was absolutely awesome. You have the Rams, with wunderkind Sean McVay, completely shut down on the national stage. Meanwhile, the Patriots, one of the few teams that still regularly uses a fullback in the league, grinds out a victory, churning out 154 yards of offense.

I do think that the Rams struggles were partially due to Goff being young, inexperienced, and in way over his head, but I do find it hilarious that the Patriots won with a boring ass offense and the "modern offense" media darling in the process.

Just think of where we could be if Pete had a clue about the offense. We've been successful because of Pete's defense, and the fact that we have a Quarterback. When the Seahawks won the Super Bowl, we won because we had one of the best defenses of all time. All of our star players were on their rookie contracts, and we went out and grabbed guys like Avril, Bennett and other depth players. That 2013 defense is on par with the 2000 Ravens and 1985 Bears, and they even have a nickname like the purple people eaters.

The problem with Pete is he wants to play football one way, regardless of the personnel he has available to him. His passing game is hilariously outdated, and our situational football on offense is also laughably bad. Pete's offense is a boat anchor, it really is holding him back as a coach.

I've said this once, and I'll say this again. At this point Pete is Marty Schottenheimer. He is a good coach that will get you to the playoffs, but won't be able to get you anywhere in the playoffs. Since the ill fated 2014 Super Bowl, the Seahawks have a sub .500 win-rate in the playoffs. This will continue until Pete trusts his QB, and offensive staff not to mess things up. Pete needs to stop playing baby sitter.

 

[Tical21]

Russell Wilson just had the most efficient season of his career. Its working!!!!! HELLO!!! I'm not a cursing person but man. Wake up!!

 

[chris98251]

I get so sick of people complaining about how our offense is draconian and how Pete "refuses to adapt". First of all, Carroll's approach has been extremely successfully since getting here. We are clearly one of the most successful franchises in the league since Pete took over.

Second, the Super Bowl was absolutely awesome. You have the Rams, with wunderkind Sean McVay, completely shut down on the national stage. Meanwhile, the Patriots, one of the few teams that still regularly uses a fullback in the league, grinds out a victory, churning out 154 yards of offense.

I do think that the Rams struggles were partially due to Goff being young, inexperienced, and in way over his head, but I do find it hilarious that the Patriots won with a boring ass offense and the "modern offense" media darling in the process.

Just think of where we could be if Pete had a clue about the offense. We've been successful because of Pete's defense, and the fact that we have a Quarterback. When the Seahawks won the Super Bowl, we won because we had one of the best defenses of all time. All of our star players were on their rookie contracts, and we went out and grabbed guys like Avril, Bennett and other depth players. That 2013 defense is on par with the 2000 Ravens and 1985 Bears, and they even have a nickname like the purple people eaters.

The problem with Pete is he wants to play football one way, regardless of the personnel he has available to him. His passing game is hilariously outdated, and our situational football on offense is also laughably bad. Pete's offense is a boat anchor, it really is holding him back as a coach.

I've said this once, and I'll say this again. At this point Pete is Marty Schottenheimer. He is a good coach that will get you to the playoffs, but won't be able to get you anywhere in the playoffs. Since the ill fated 2014 Super Bowl, the Seahawks have a sub .500 win-rate in the playoffs. This will continue until Pete trusts his QB, and offensive staff not to mess things up. Pete needs to stop playing baby sitter.

I had a long ass reply to this and once again it dissapeared with no reason, notification. But in essence it was concerning those that have no sense of history, that many are what we despised about the 49ers whom we looked at as entitiled for many years, thiose that get pissed off because they picked the wrong guys in their fantasy leagues and expect success to go on indefinetly, most of us that have been here before 2011 seen the ups and downs of the first 25 years, in the NFL success is almost impossible to maintain given ownership changes, coaching changes, GM changes etc. The Patriots whom so many compare everyone with have had down years also.

The fact we missed one damn year of the playoffs and were back last year is really amazing, I think John and Pete have a 3 year plan this time instead of a 5 year plan, sure it will take hitting on some F.A. and draft picks like before, it also depends on health. Why jettisoning high mileage players is also important, not popular but necessary to keep salary manageble and not have a lot of dead money on non contributors. Easier said then done when you work as close to these guys as they do. But has to happen. Why I think KJ is possibly on his way out. Between Kam and Sherm and Earl, Cliff they should see a pattern.

We had a run game that was based on a elite back and a scheme that was dyfunctional due to types of players and rule changes. Adaption to the rules is one of the more difficult aspects of coaching. Cable could not and thats why Solari is here. We have big bidy guys that are allowed to use thier size making holes for backs that are running with power more often then not now instead of asking these same behemoths to do in a closet agility drills they are not built for.


As long as the rules alllow Lineman to lock up on defenders and drive them we can run, that won't change and has not since the 30's, they can't grab a jersey anymore and there are some other aspects that changed but still force against force is still allowed and a mainstay in run blocking. Thats why Pete relies on it and everyone knows the rest of his mandates.


If you do it well you can control the game and not get flushed into a shoot out you may lose or create turnovers with.

Yes we have Russell Wilson, sadly he is a safety valve if the run game goes wrong for some reason. Pete never liked to count on his QB's even at USC, he used them, but counted on defense and a Run game.

Which may be why if my memory isn't wrong the last one from there to have prolonged success was Carson Palmer. Everything else around the QB was very good or elite, and the defense very very good.


Yes it may not be as entertaining as the Cheifs and Rams for scoring, but seems to me a Super Bowl was just won by a outdated offense against that high flying offense.

 

[mrt144]

Chris, the SB was just won by the most tactically fluid and best NFL coach in history, things Pete aint. Dont just analogize the parts you like.

Pete is who he is, the onus is on him to support his vision, he has nothing to prove to anyone but himself given his success and what he thinks makes the game go round.

That game was won because BB aint too proud to win by adjusting to the opponent and borrow stuff wholesale from other teams and coaches to do it. That he can get his dudes to proficiently do so is what he does.

 

[chris98251]

Chris, the SB was just won by the most tactically fluid and best NFL coach in history, things Pete aint. Dont just analogize the parts you like.

Pete is who he is, the onus is on him to support his vision, he has nothing to prove to anyone but himself given his success and what he thinks makes the game go round.

That game was won because BB aint too proud to win by adjusting to the opponent and borrow stuff wholesale from other teams and coaches to do it. That he can get his dudes to proficiently do so is what he does.

So if your such a great analyst when was the last time a top 10 passing team and average defense won a Super Bowl with no runnijng game to speak of ?

I bet I can look at history and find more top 10 rushing teams with a defense that won it pretty easily.


Averages play out that if you run well and have a good defense you win more Super Bowls, could be because you can shut down a single dimension offense if you have a good DC. Pete for all intent and purposes is our DC with Norton his balance and driver.

Pete also has won a few National Championships a Super Bowl with his formula, I think that since he has been coaching and all his mentors have used a lot of the same schemes varied in ways yes and won I will stick to his philosophy.

 

[mrt144]

What in the world are you even going on about at this point in relation to something I wrote?

 

[truehawksfan]

There is no question Pete’s defensive system works. But, he obviously needs the talent and experience.

In 2017, everybody remembers the 42-7 blow out loss against the Rams at Century Link. But, we didn’t have Kam, Sherm, or Avril and Wagner was hobbling around the field.

However, in Week 5, we beat the Rams 16-10. Goff threw for 288 yds, 2 Ints, 2 sacks and a 46 QB rating. Gurley ran for 43 yds. Before you say way too early in the season, they didn’t get rolling until we faced them at CenturyLink, the Rams scored 46, 20, 41 and 35 pts in weeks 1-4.

Obviously, it’s going to be nearly impossible to replace players like Kam, ET, Sherm, KJ, Bennett, Sheldon Richardson, Avril, etc.

We need a help. We need an OLB, DT, Rush End, S, but will experience in Pete’s system help? We know defenses always catch up to offensive systems so will the players experience playing and being exposed to their system help?