How is 54-51 even football anymore?

[Sgt. Largent]

Nope sorry I loved it.. in the end this is entertainment for me and who can say that wasn't entertaining as hell?

Well watching Punt Pass and Kick is Entertaining to to some people and you don't have to worry about injuries. Maybe thats where the game is headed.

There was eight sacks and three defensive scores..........and two straight defensive stops with interceptions to end the game.

Enough with the "where's the defense" old curmudgeon takes. "OMG I LOVE ME SOME 9-6 FOOTBALL GAAAA!!!"

This isn't happening every week, this was THE highest scoring game in MNF history. Just so happened to be between two crazy high powered offenses and two terrible defensive backfields. Perfect storm for what we saw last night.

Yes it's what the league wants, cause the league and owners would prefer not to have to stop playing their sport because of CTE class action lawsuits.

At the least generous you can almost hear people saying "I wish offenses were less competent and most drives resulted in punts" because at a certain point that's almost indecipherable from wanting 'better defense'.

Right, that's really what you're saying if you didn't like last night's game. "I know there was a bunch of sacks, defensive scores and interceptions for the people who like defense...........................but I'd rather see more punts than TD's."

 

[mrt144]

Well watching Punt Pass and Kick is Entertaining to to some people and you don't have to worry about injuries. Maybe thats where the game is headed.

There was eight sacks and three defensive scores..........and two straight defensive stops with interceptions to end the game.

Enough with the "where's the defense" old curmudgeon takes. "OMG I LOVE ME SOME 9-6 FOOTBALL GAAAA!!!"

This isn't happening every week, this was THE highest scoring game in MNF history. Just so happened to be between two crazy high powered offenses and two terrible defensive backfields. Perfect storm for what we saw last night.

Yes it's what the league wants, cause the league and owners would prefer not to have to stop playing their sport because of CTE class action lawsuits.

At the least generous you can almost hear people saying "I wish offenses were less competent and most drives resulted in punts" because at a certain point that's almost indecipherable from wanting 'better defense'.

Right, that's really what you're saying if you didn't like last night's game. "I know there was a bunch of sacks, defensive scores and interceptions for the people who like defense...........................but I'd rather see more punts than TD's."

The only other way to pare down the total score would be to reduce the number of drives by both teams. So alternatively the opinion could be "I wish both teams had less drives". But even that is a weird thing to wish for as a central plank of your football viewing experience - The means to achieve that would seem to necessitate both teams putting together 7 minute drives over and over and whoever gets the ball last seems in the catbird seat to end the game. So with a 75% hit rate on a total of 5 or 6 drives we're looking at a much less gawdy ~21-28 points per team?

To phrase it another way, that fan sentiment would sound like "I wish both teams were competent but at a much slower pace". At this point it just feels like preferring vanilla to chocolate.

Hell, you could change football to only allow each team a set amount of drives per game to get towards that sweet spot of outcome preference but then are you really watching football any longer? Is college football OT really the crucible of football?

 

[StoneCold]

Well watching Punt Pass and Kick is Entertaining to to some people and you don't have to worry about injuries. Maybe thats where the game is headed.

There was eight sacks and three defensive scores..........and two straight defensive stops with interceptions to end the game.

Enough with the "where's the defense" old curmudgeon takes. "OMG I LOVE ME SOME 9-6 FOOTBALL GAAAA!!!"

This isn't happening every week, this was THE highest scoring game in MNF history. Just so happened to be between two crazy high powered offenses and two terrible defensive backfields. Perfect storm for what we saw last night.

Yes it's what the league wants, cause the league and owners would prefer not to have to stop playing their sport because of CTE class action lawsuits.

At the least generous you can almost hear people saying "I wish offenses were less competent and most drives resulted in punts" because at a certain point that's almost indecipherable from wanting 'better defense'.

Right, that's really what you're saying if you didn't like last night's game. "I know there was a bunch of sacks, defensive scores and interceptions for the people who like defense...........................but I'd rather see more punts than TD's."

I wouldn't characterize it that way at all. To me it seemed the Offense played up tempo, high risk, high reward strategy that was able to take advantage of weak defenses on both teams. Just because the defenses were able to scrape a few crumbs doesn't mean there was great defensive play. And understand there were a few good defensive plays, but for the most part they were just lucking into stops or turnovers.

Not looking for more or less punts, just great play. I get as excited about a 3rd and 2 stop as I do a 20 yard pass play.

EDIT To Add: There was over 900 yards of offense. No one is hanging a defensive hat on those numbers.

 

[mrt144]

There was eight sacks and three defensive scores..........and two straight defensive stops with interceptions to end the game.

Enough with the "where's the defense" old curmudgeon takes. "OMG I LOVE ME SOME 9-6 FOOTBALL GAAAA!!!"

This isn't happening every week, this was THE highest scoring game in MNF history. Just so happened to be between two crazy high powered offenses and two terrible defensive backfields. Perfect storm for what we saw last night.

Yes it's what the league wants, cause the league and owners would prefer not to have to stop playing their sport because of CTE class action lawsuits.

At the least generous you can almost hear people saying "I wish offenses were less competent and most drives resulted in punts" because at a certain point that's almost indecipherable from wanting 'better defense'.

Right, that's really what you're saying if you didn't like last night's game. "I know there was a bunch of sacks, defensive scores and interceptions for the people who like defense...........................but I'd rather see more punts than TD's."

I wouldn't characterize it that way at all. To me it seemed the Offense played up tempo, high risk, high reward strategy that was able to take advantage of weak defenses on both teams. Just because the defenses were able to scrape a few crumbs doesn't mean there was great defensive play. And understand there were a few good defensive plays, but for the most part they were just lucking into stops or turnovers.

Not looking for more or less punts, just great play. I get as excited about a 3rd and 2 stop as I do a 20 yard pass play.

EDIT To Add: There was over 900 yards of offense. No one is hanging a defensive hat on those numbers.

Teams that can employ a high risk high reward strategy shouldn't pursue it even if they find success in it? Teams that can do this should alternatively try to draw the game down to rest on the weakest unit of their team? What? I can't help but feel like Hawks fans are crabs towards the middle of the pot demanding those erstwhile crabs who have clawed their way up to stop it.

I dont ever really like making the assumption of jealousy but it really feels like some of this aversion to the character of high scoring games stems from a latent "that which we arent good at and goes against a core philosophy of our staff shouldnt work and shouldnt be achievable by anyone else."


How much are fans going to contort themselves to justify why they didn't like the game?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I wouldn't characterize it that way at all. To me it seemed the Offense played up tempo, high risk, high reward strategy that was able to take advantage of weak defenses on both teams. Just because the defenses were able to scrape a few crumbs doesn't mean there was great defensive play. And understand there were a few good defensive plays, but for the most part they were just lucking into stops or turnovers.

Not looking for more or less punts, just great play. I get as excited about a 3rd and 2 stop as I do a 20 yard pass play.

EDIT To Add: There was over 900 yards of offense. No one is hanging a defensive hat on those numbers.

No one said on this thread, or anywhere on the internet that there was great defensive play last night.

But there were great individual defensive plays, again 8 sacks, three defensive scores and clutch interceptions.

Our point is if you're one of the people complaining about lack of defense, what are you actually asking for, and how would that have made the game more exciting or better for you................cause also again, what you're saying is "I'd like to see more punts and less TD's."

Makes no sense. Just a bunch of old farts grumbling about the state of the NFL, like it was super exciting back in the day when you could concuss Jim McMahon by pile driving him into the ground, so what, more guys have serious CTE brain damage?

It's a terrible take, and completely missing the point of why the NFL wants to be an offensive league now.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Yeah, as much as I didn't like 100 plus points, the more I think back on the game, there certainly was some really good defensive plays mixed in there. And the Rams pass rush was clearly the difference in that final attempt to win it by KC.

 

[Fade]

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

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

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

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

It is basketball on grass. BORING.

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


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


SCHEME WISE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copycat league, the new wave is upon us.

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

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

 

[mrt144]

One reason I can understand for less drives per game is that it increases the consequential impact of each drive, i.e. each drive imparts more meaning on the game.

But my rebuttal to that is that you only really make that observation in hindsight relative to high scoring games. In the moment of a high scoring game is going ahead 38-35 on the 18th drive of the game less consequential than going ahead 9-6 on the 8th drive of the game with a quarter of play left? I think you can only think that in hindsight as you dont know how many total drives will remain in the game. You might have a hunch or guess as to how either will play out in the fourth but to me, imparting more meaning on each drive because of less drives isnt inherently how the game should function nor does it make sense from some teams aptitudes and operational guidelines.

More on that after lunch...

 

[253hawk]

Nope sorry I loved it.. in the end this is entertainment for me and who can say that wasn't entertaining as hell?

21 penalties from an 'all-star' ref crew kinda ruined it for me and neither team even broke 100 yards rushing. It was like watching a basketball game.

 

[StoneCold]

At the least generous you can almost hear people saying "I wish offenses were less competent and most drives resulted in punts" because at a certain point that's almost indecipherable from wanting 'better defense'.

Right, that's really what you're saying if you didn't like last night's game. "I know there was a bunch of sacks, defensive scores and interceptions for the people who like defense...........................but I'd rather see more punts than TD's."

I wouldn't characterize it that way at all. To me it seemed the Offense played up tempo, high risk, high reward strategy that was able to take advantage of weak defenses on both teams. Just because the defenses were able to scrape a few crumbs doesn't mean there was great defensive play. And understand there were a few good defensive plays, but for the most part they were just lucking into stops or turnovers.

Not looking for more or less punts, just great play. I get as excited about a 3rd and 2 stop as I do a 20 yard pass play.

EDIT To Add: There was over 900 yards of offense. No one is hanging a defensive hat on those numbers.

Teams that can employ a high risk high reward strategy shouldn't pursue it even if they find success in it? Teams that can do this should alternatively try to draw the game down to rest on the weakest unit of their team? What? I can't help but feel like Hawks fans are crabs towards the middle of the pot demanding those erstwhile crabs who have clawed their way up to stop it.

I don't ever really like making the assumption of jealousy but it really feels like some of this aversion to the character of high scoring games stems from a latent "that which we aren't good at and goes against a core philosophy of our staff shouldn't work and shouldn't be achievable by anyone else."


How much are fans going to contort themselves to justify why they didn't like the game?

I want to see the defensive crabs climb to the top and kick your butts back down. :rumble:

No problem with that style of offense. Football evolves, someone comes up with a new wrinkle that works until someone comes up with a way to beat it. You said something similar up thread. What I'm saying is I would hate to see the league focus solely on offense.

Pete and the Seahawk's developed a defense that was tough to beat. I'm not football smart enough to describe it all, but after 2013, you saw lots of teams copy it. Keep everything in front and hit them in the mouth as often as you can. But it was vulnerable to dink and dunk and crossing patterns. What I see in LA and KC and the Chargers for that matter, is a lot of dink, dunk and cross.

I had to go look up total yards in the last Rams Hawks game, almost 800 yards, so not that different. Defenses are playing catch up, I just hope teams don't abandon it all together and just go for the show. I hope they evolve a scheme that takes advantage of the high risk offenses.

 

[Sox-n-Hawks]

Time to replace the entire DB coaching staff for both teams.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Copycat league, the new wave is upon us..

That's what they said about;

- the forward pass
- wing T
- Run and Shoot
- West Coast
- Read Option
- Chip Kelly Up Tempo
- RPO

On and on, there's always the next new thing...........and then you know what happens? The league catches up, because very smart coordinators spend 18 hours a day dissecting and coming up with schemes to defend.

Yes it's much harder now with the rules, but it's not impossible. So give McVay credit, but his offense will become mortal as defensive coordinators learn how to slow it down.......and his own players start getting hurt, old and/or less effective running it.

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

 

[StoneCold]

Copycat league, the new wave is upon us..

That's what they said about;

- the forward pass
- wing T
- Run and Shoot
- West Coast
- Read Option
- Chip Kelly Up Tempo
- RPO

On and on, there's always the next new thing...........and then you know what happens? The league catches up, because very smart coordinators spend 18 hours a day dissecting and coming up with schemes to defend.

Yes it's much harder now with the rules, but it's not impossible. So give McVay credit, but his offense will become mortal as defensive coordinators learn how to slow it down.......and his own players start getting hurt, old and/or less effective running it.

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

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

I also agree that D coordinators will catch up...Unless more rules come in that hamstring the D. And I hope they don't do that.

 

[jammerhawk]

Well, it sure was exciting to watch, as both teams scored quickly and frequently. Beyond some strip sacks and a few INT plays late there really wasn’t much real Defense to watch. Both teams gave up lots of long receptions and, but for the turnovers there wasn’t much between the two teams.

I like to watch good D as much as I like a wide open passing contest, neither side played well defensively. The game was exciting to watch as both teams had the answers offensively for the D of the other team. I think both can be had if they can be slowed down and the opponent’s O kept off the field or not allowed to play bombs away. Once you figure out how to slow both these O’s down they are beatable teams.

Both of the Saints and the Patriots are better football teams and will be stronger when the playoffs happen.

Still it was certainly fun to watch. Lousy refereeing though.

 

[Chapow]

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

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

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

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

 

[mrt144]

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

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

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

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

It is basketball on grass. BORING.

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


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


SCHEME WISE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copycat league, the new wave is upon us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[mrt144]

One reason I can understand for less drives per game is that it increases the consequential impact of each drive, i.e. each drive imparts more meaning on the game.

But my rebuttal to that is that you only really make that observation in hindsight relative to high scoring games. In the moment of a high scoring game is going ahead 38-35 on the 18th drive of the game less consequential than going ahead 9-6 on the 8th drive of the game with a quarter of play left? I think you can only think that in hindsight as you dont know how many total drives will remain in the game. You might have a hunch or guess as to how either will play out in the fourth but to me, imparting more meaning on each drive because of less drives isnt inherently how the game should function nor does it make sense from some teams aptitudes and operational guidelines.

More on that after lunch...

So my follow up here.

Basically if you have a team that can average a high amount of points per drive relative to peers you want to smooth out variance by having more drives and reaping a higher total score through more opportunities. More opportunities are better for more competent offensive teams (and in general it's almost always better to create offensive opportunities with your defense stopping the opposing offensive drive. Yes, there are fringe cases where an opponent scores 'too early' and cedes an offensive opportunity that benefits you but...in general you want to generate your own offensive opportunities through defensive stops although it's not a total deal breaker if your offense is that good. Rather a situational dealbreaker in the playoffs)

The corollary for defense is that if you have a good defense you want to give your opponent as few drives as possible while you are leading. You want to push the variance of a drive outcome up when you have the lead. Even if you give an opposing offense more opportunities, depending on the aptitude of the opposition this can be a good, neutral or bad thing. To make this a concrete example, think back to that 2015 Bears game - forcing the Bears to punt on every drive was why giving them 9 or 10 drives while building on our lead isn't any worse than giving the Bears 5 to 6 drives with a stalled lead.

We all know how these theoretically tie in to complementary football and can even see our own Hawks as one end of the spectrum of this at least in purported identity to strive for - get the lead or stay within 3 points of the lead, squat on the lead with a strong rushing game, let the defense clean up the few opportunities the opposing offense gets. It can and does work but I think to some extent the tactics and talent in achieving this paradigm are more important than chasing the paradigm at all. And that is distinctly different than having the ability and desire to score as much as possible and putting together a credulous enough defense against most teams to make it work.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

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

Certainly not me. I said above I would have been losing my mind if our defense played like that last night.

But as an impartial viewer? That game was entertaining as hell, one of the most entertaining I've ever seen.

I just don't think it's some great indicator of how every game's going to be from here on out. Every game isn't being coached by Reid and McVay and has all those offensive weapons and firepower on both teams.

Yes the league is moving towards more offense, but still plenty of room to play good defense if that's how your organization wants to build it's team. Like we did, the Broncos did and now the Bears are doing.

 

[mrt144]

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

Certainly not me. I said above I would have been losing my mind if our defense played like that last night.

But as an impartial viewer? That game was entertaining as hell, one of the most entertaining I've ever seen.

I just don't think it's some great indicator of how every game's going to be from here on out. Every game isn't being coached by Reid and McVay and has all those offensive weapons and firepower on both teams.

Yes the league is moving towards more offense, but still plenty of room to play good defense if that's how your organization wants to build it's team. Like we did, the Broncos did and now the Bears are doing.

The NFL is a two steps forward one step back league. :lol:

 

[Sgt. Largent]

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

Certainly not me. I said above I would have been losing my mind if our defense played like that last night.

But as an impartial viewer? That game was entertaining as hell, one of the most entertaining I've ever seen.

I just don't think it's some great indicator of how every game's going to be from here on out. Every game isn't being coached by Reid and McVay and has all those offensive weapons and firepower on both teams.

Yes the league is moving towards more offense, but still plenty of room to play good defense if that's how your organization wants to build it's team. Like we did, the Broncos did and now the Bears are doing.

The NFL is a two steps forward one step back league. :lol:

The Jerry Dipoto special.