Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles

    Crazy NFL Offensive Numbers

    Maybe it's me, I don't know. But I'm having a hard time getting all that excited about the numbers being put up by NFL offenses. The number of 300 yard passing games, 400 yard passing games (Romo had 500 yesterday -- in a loss!) the high scoring games, the #s of catches that even pedestrian receivers are accumulating, the touchdown pass numbers. The assault on the career record book. All of it. Peyton Manning.

    Feels so bloated to me and feels like so much of it is driven by the changes in the rules that make playing pass defense almost impossible. I'm in favor of rules that have made the game safer, for sure, but some of the rules that have nothing to do with safety have made it virtually impossible to defend against the pass -- or at least against some passing schemes. Credit to the offensive minds for taking advantage of the rules, but still. Not a fair fight in many instances, and that's making it less interesting for me.

    What it's bringing me back to is the steroid era of baseball. While it was happening, and Bonds and Sosa and McGwire and many others were putting up superhuman numbers, everyone had their heads in the sand as to what was allowing those numbers to be put up. The ride was just so much fun. Now I know in football these numbers are not the result of steroids or any other type of cheating, but still because (at least in my mind) it's so much attributable to unfair rules, it's hard to give as much credit as I otherwise would like to, to these players putting up these numbers. The rules being what they are has devalued all these records that are being set, and will continue to be set this year.

    Feels like at some point they're going to again change the rules, to bring back some balance, and we'll look back on this mini-era and say, "yes, he set record X, but that was under those old silly all-offense rules."

    Anyone else care to weigh in on this?

  2. #2
    You think you have it bad, try living in the Broncos' teevee market. While rooting for a team that historically is known for its defense (and is having a terrible year, but that's another story).

    It's fun watching them, but that game was very losable for the Broncos. Putting up Arena Football stats in October is what Peyton Manning teams do. They go 15-1, who cares.

    More generally, yeah, I think how one plays good defense has to be rethought versus even five years ago. I can't be convinced that absolutely no one is juicing, either, although I'm not sure what the benefit would be for QBs or WRs, other than recovering from injuries faster. Can we at least agree that if a major juicing scandal breaks in a few years, we can dispense with the surprise and feigned moral outrage like we had in baseball?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northwest NC
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    Feels so bloated to me and feels like so much of it is driven by the changes in the rules that make playing pass defense almost impossible. I'm in favor of rules that have made the game safer, for sure, but some of the rules that have nothing to do with safety have made it virtually impossible to defend against the pass -- or at least against some passing schemes.
    Can you clarify or give examples of the rules that you think have caused this? I know they are trying to protect the QB to the point that it doesn't even seem like football sometimes but I'm not sure that has a huge effect on crazy stats and unbelievable scoring numbers. Not trying to discredit you but I'm just curious as to which exact rules are you referring to?
    "The future ain't what it used to be."

  4. #4
    Dev11's Avatar
    Dev11 is offline Commissioner of Statistics, DBR Podcast
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Boston
    Quote Originally Posted by DUKIECB View Post
    Can you clarify or give examples of the rules that you think have caused this? I know they are trying to protect the QB to the point that it doesn't even seem like football sometimes but I'm not sure that has a huge effect on crazy stats and unbelievable scoring numbers. Not trying to discredit you but I'm just curious as to which exact rules are you referring to?
    There are a few. Leading with the helmet and attacking the 'defenseless receiver' draw 15 year penalties, so receivers are able to go across the middle with less fear. Also, pass interference is more readily called, as is roughing the passer. Basically every personal foul is an easier penalty to draw these days, because the NFL doesn't want to see players getting concussions.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Dev11 View Post
    There are a few. Leading with the helmet and attacking the 'defenseless receiver' draw 15 year penalties, so receivers are able to go across the middle with less fear. Also, pass interference is more readily called, as is roughing the passer. Basically every personal foul is an easier penalty to draw these days, because the NFL doesn't want to see players getting concussions.
    Of these, I personally am dubious about anything other than pass interference interpretations having an appreciable effect. And I'm not sure it's just the concussion issue - I think long touchdowns and flinging the ball all over the field sells the product, too. Anyway, it may have taken more guts to reach for a high pass or stretch for one in front of you in years past, but it's not like crossing routes and finding a hole in the middle of a zone weren't a large part of the game nonetheless. I think more pinpoint accuracy from passers is just as important in not getting guys beheaded in the middle of the field.

    I do think pass interference has changed, though, and I think it's become too hairtrigger and robs the defensive player of the ability to play for the ball himself. If an offense puts the ball in the air, that's a ball that's up for grabs, at least to a degree.

    In any event, I don't sympathize with players penalized for rocking guys in the middle of the field. If they're capable of clobbering the "defenseless" receiver, they're there in time to knock the ball out of his hands, too. Or, just tackle him without crushing him. Likewise on the helmet stuff. If players leading with the helmet and blowing up defenseless receivers was the "part of the game" holding back offenses, then I'm not going to mourn its death. People differ on the underlying philosophical principles of football and what it all means and what it was intended to be, but in my humble opinion, while physical toughness and a battle of strength and will are a part of the game, bone-jarring, gigantic collisions and laying people out at risk of serious injury isn't what was originally envisioned. It's just not sporting in any sense.

    But, all that said, to tommy's initial point, it does seem that it's not "fair" these days to defenses when faced with a highly meshed offense clicking behind a passer like Manning or Brady or whoever. I'm not opposed to some attempts to try to get scores down and make it look a little more difficult to throw for 5,000 yards and 50 TD's in a season. But I'm not sure how to do so - maybe it's the basketball fan in me, but it does seem generally correct to me that (a) a player going out for a pass shouldn't be unduly hindered in his ability to run and/or catch the ball, and (b) a player throwing a pass shouldn't be hit, other than accidentally, after throwing the ball. Maybe it's just a fundamental flaw in the game that it took coaches and players a century to figure out and fully exploit. It used to be, of course, that passing was considered risky, due to the lack of yardage for an incompletion and the risk of interception. But once Bill Walsh decided it was worth that risk if you could complete 65-70% of your passes if you were willing to settle for less yardage, and it was more effective and consistent than running, well, maybe it was only a matter of time. We've now had a generation of coaches and two generations of players grow up under the prevailing thought that offense is based on putting the ball in the air, and that short and intermediate passing opens up the run and vertical passing, and they've started to perfect it.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Albemarle, North Carolina

    The biggest change is...

    Quote Originally Posted by DUKIECB View Post
    Can you clarify or give examples of the rules that you think have caused this? I know they are trying to protect the QB to the point that it doesn't even seem like football sometimes but I'm not sure that has a huge effect on crazy stats and unbelievable scoring numbers. Not trying to discredit you but I'm just curious as to which exact rules are you referring to?
    You can't touch a receiver 5 yards past the line of scrimmage. The Patriot defenses in the early 2000's used to abuse the Colts wr's on their routes. After that rule went into the NFL wr's had more freedom and db's were put at a disadvantage big time.
    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge" -Stephen Hawking

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by DUKIECB View Post
    Can you clarify or give examples of the rules that you think have caused this? I know they are trying to protect the QB to the point that it doesn't even seem like football sometimes but I'm not sure that has a huge effect on crazy stats and unbelievable scoring numbers. Not trying to discredit you but I'm just curious as to which exact rules are you referring to?
    Yeah, as some of the other guys have already said, over the years there have been a number of rule changes that limit the ability to hit the quarterback, limit the ability to hit receivers, restrict the ability of DB's to bump receivers off of their desired patterns or paths, restrict the ability of DB's to make plays on the ball, etc. Just as important as the actual rule changes though, I think is the much stricter enforcement of the rules prohibiting roughing the quarterback, defensive holding, illegal contact, and pass interference. Defensive players essentially can't touch receivers beyond the first 5 yards no matter what, and D-linemen have to restrain themselves in their pass rush to avoid getting flagged for roughing the QB, which is seemingly any time the QB is hit after he's released the ball + maybe a half step by the oncoming rusher -- if he even gets that much.

    Again, I'm all for the rules that are needed to enhance player safety, and some of these are. But some aren't. And though some of these rules are needed, the result, at least for me, is that a lot of these records that are being set are not all that impressive. It's just too easy.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Quote Originally Posted by Dev11 View Post
    ...Basically every personal foul is an easier penalty to draw these days, because the NFL doesn't want to pay out settlements to players getting concussions.
    There, I fixed it for you.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cary, NC
    I'm not an NFL guru by any stretch, but I think the offensive numbers being put up this year are more due to the influx of great young quarterbacks over the last three years. Not too long ago there were basically two elite quarterbacks - Manning and Brady - and 28 guys still trying to learn the position. Now there's probably 10 or 15 guys capable of competently running on offense, many of whom can both run and throw.

    Things go in cycles, and that's just where things are now. I remember maybe eight years ago there was an influx of elite wide receivers - Moss, Owens, Chad Johnson before he went crazy, Keyshown Johnson, etc. And before that it was defensive ends - Jevon kearse, that Peppers guy from UNC. Now the QB's are running the league.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by JNort View Post
    You can't touch a receiver 5 yards past the line of scrimmage. The Patriot defenses in the early 2000's used to abuse the Colts wr's on their routes. After that rule went into the NFL wr's had more freedom and db's were put at a disadvantage big time.
    I know people point to this as the reason offenses are going nuts, but a year or two prior to the Colts complaining about the Patriots, the Kurt Warner Rams destroyed everything in sight. They did that against defenses that were allowed to be more physical (until they ran up against the, um, Patriots). Explosive offenses were around prior to Bill Polian crying about bullies on the playground.

    Personally, I think DBs are at a bigger disadvantage because of the rules about hitting high. Hit high, penalty, likely fine. Hit too low, possible fine, maybe end someone's career. Do nothing, receiver lowers his head into you while standing there, penalty, likely fine.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by UrinalCake View Post
    I'm not an NFL guru by any stretch, but I think the offensive numbers being put up this year are more due to the influx of great young quarterbacks over the last three years. Not too long ago there were basically two elite quarterbacks - Manning and Brady - and 28 guys still trying to learn the position.
    Is this really true? Five years ago, in 2008, the league boasted Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, (would've had Tom Brady but got hurt in game 1 and missed the whole season), Ben Roethlisberger, and Kurt Warner, all of whom were at or near the top of their games. The league also had Eli Manning, Matt Ryan, Philip Rivers, Jay Cutler, and Joe Flacco, all about to come into their own.

    Ten years ago, the quarterback ranks included Manning and Brady, of course, along with Brett Favre, Donovan McNabb, Steve McNair, and Daunte Culpepper. Not as deep as the current crop of the 2008's, I grant you, but still, more than two really good QB's.

    But go back another five years, to 1998, and you'd have Manning, Favre and McNair, along with John Elway, Dan Marino (close to the end, true), Troy Aikman, Randall Cunningham, Steve Young, and Drew Bledsoe.

    I think there have always been a solid group of very good-to-great QB's in the league. Sure, one could probably find an odd year or two here or there where this wasn't the case, but big picture I do believe there has always been a solid group, not just two or three.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by JNort View Post
    You can't touch a receiver 5 yards past the line of scrimmage. The Patriot defenses in the early 2000's used to abuse the Colts wr's on their routes. After that rule went into the NFL wr's had more freedom and db's were put at a disadvantage big time.
    ?? this says the 5-yard rule went into effect in 1979 ...

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/4...forever/page/3

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Albemarle, North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Reilly View Post
    ?? this says the 5-yard rule went into effect in 1979 ...

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/4...forever/page/3
    It wasn't being enforced though. Kinda similar to shots to the head now, the rule was always there for obvious fouls but they would let the ticky tack things go. Now if you flicked someones ear or breathed in their face they call 15 yard penalties
    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge" -Stephen Hawking

Similar Threads

  1. ACC Offensive Statistics
    By Saratoga2 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-10-2011, 12:47 PM
  2. Offensive and Defensive Efficiency
    By davekay1971 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-02-2010, 03:21 PM
  3. Offensive Language by students
    By DukieBoy in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 12-02-2009, 04:09 PM
  4. Defensive and Offensive Coordinators
    By NYC Duke Fan in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-13-2008, 12:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •