In Defense of Football

National Review ^ | 6 February, 2016 | Davis French

[MtnClimber]

I grew up in the kind of neighborhood where I could walk with my football to the field near my house, kick the ball around a few times, and - within minutes - my friends would be pouring out of their homes ready to play for hours on end. Those were some of the greatest times of my life. On that field, a skinny, nerdy kid who was more comfortable with graph paper and 12- and 20-sided dice could learn how to take a hit and - just as important - how to deliver one. I gained confidence, I was humbled (more than once), and I fell in love with America's new athletic pastime. However, there are some on the left who want to deny kids those kinds of days, to turn America against its favorite sport. To them, football is just too male, too martial, and too darn American.

[Chode]

oh hell yeah...

[Alberta's Child]

I've never been able to get a rational explanation from anyone on this question: Why does the clock run in football when the whistle blows and the ball is dead?

[discostu]

Because it adds a layer of strategy. Football is the only sport where a team can not only control the pace of the game but also the length. Teams can hurry up to get more plays in less time, and they can slow it down to give the other team fewer plays. We’ve seen entire schools of football thought built around the implications of a running clock. The running clock makes the game more complex, more interesting, and gives teams more paths to victory. If the NFL didn’t have a running clock Belichick’s “make Peyton sit on the bench” strategy can’t exist. If the NFL didn’t have a running clock Chip Kelly’s blur offense can’t exist.

[Alberta's Child]

And yet the combination of a running clock and free substitution makes for a very slow game, when consider all the "down" time.

I'm not even sure how much the running clock really impacts the end result on the field (in terms of giving one team an advantage over another), anyway. I checked this quickly and came across some numbers on this:

1. The Houston Texans averaged 69.9 offensive plays per game this past season, the most in the NFL. The St. Louis Rams averaged the fewest (57.5). Neither team was terribly impressive.

2. The Denver Broncos and Carolina Panthers had the exact same average: 66.2 plays per game.

3. New England averaged 65.7 and Arizona averaged 64.7, for whatever that's worth.

4. For all their offensive plays, Houston only ranked #15 in possession time this season, at 30:29. Atlanta led the NFL at 32:11, while Philly was the worst at 25:51.

5. San Diego and Houston tied for the league lead in "play count differential," averaging 8.81 more offensive plays per game than their opponents. There doesn't seem to be any correlation between this figure and a team's success. Denver was +1.44 and Carolina was +0.13.

[daniel1212]

One neighbor had a huge backyard. That was the official gathering place. I can’t count the number of hits I took and gave. But it was such fun.

Growing up in a blue collar suburb, we played tackle football for hours in a nearby field in just blue jeans and t shirts, and we played hard but not with meanness. We had one kid who was about 300lbs, and we would push him from behind. He could gain a few years just slowing down, like an ocean liner hitting a dock! Before that age we played in the forests, and even built part of a log cabin until school started.

Then there was my older brother (among 5 kids) who collected the telephone wire the repairmen said he could have and i had a phone system to the kids of other houses about 300 yards thru back yards, with a 6v battery and train transformer. Of course, i also dared tap into my sisters telephone conversation with her BF - once (nothing intriguing). Then there was the homemade gunpowder. And this was with very strict faithful religious parents, with enforced dead lines to be home at, and who employed physical discipline as needed (and it was).

Today it seems like kids only will play for 30- 45 minutes at one things, and many walk down the street alone, some looking fearful or indifferent to others, and only have one or two siblings to interact with at home.

[discostu]

No it doesn’t, because that isn’t down time. As has already been pointed out. That “down” time is when a play succeeds or fails. And really not having the running clock wouldn’t get rid of that time people confuse with being down. That non-down times happens because the game is built around moments of planning and moments of execution, same reason that non-down time happens in baseball (also often confused by people who don’t actually understand the game). You could stop the clock after every play but you’ll still have that time of planning (play calling, adjustments) and the time of execution (snap to whistle). It’s the basic physical structure of the game.

The running clock impacts every single game. At some point every single game will experience at least 1 of: the come from behind attempt 2 minute drill, and/ or the protect the lead 4 minute drill. Those drives are often the drives that decide who wins the game. And of course it can also effect the game in being done poorly, just look at what happens when Andy Reid faces the Pats in the playoffs, hideous clock management both in this year’s Divisional Round and in the SB many years ago. Without the running clock Andy Reid doesn’t get those opportunities to prove he’s not as good a coach as his reputation.

Average plays is a very small fraction of how the running clock effects the game. You’re picking one slice. That slice still has to be coupled with execution. It’s one of the problems Chip Kelly has with the blur, because his Eagles don’t execute for crap his blur just puts his defense back on the field faster. But failure of the strategy is still part of having that strategy available.

One way or the other the running clock changes the most basic concepts of how football works. And for the better. The strategy of football becomes much less interesting if the teams don’t get to fight/ use the running clock.

[Mark17]

Go Blackhawks.

:-)

[rlmorel]

Actually, I’m a huge fan of Big Vince, but don’t let his tub of lard appearance fool you. He isn’t a good example of your point, and nearly every player who has played with and against him says the same thing.

He is older now , but one hell of an athlete.

[Alberta's Child]

I’m trying to imagine how awful and tiresome a hockey game would be if the clock kept running after the whistle blew. LOL.

[Alberta's Child]

Maybe he's a good football player, but that doesn't make him an "athlete" by any objective measure.

He's a fat slob who will likely die an early death unless he gets himself into shape after his NFL career is over. Just read that sentence again and notice how bizarre it sounds. LOL.

[Mark17]

I'm trying to imagine how awful and tiresome a hockey game would be if the clock kept running after the whistle blew. LOL.

I doubt I would like it much.

[Elsie]

Heck; we kids could just...

...WALK OUTSIDE period!!

Now the world calls that FreeRanging children.

[Elsie]

...because of a hidden "dog bomb"

Now the child would be SNATCHED up and thoroughly wiped down with...

[Elsie]

Love the Transgender

[Elsie]

Back then kids entertainment was playing inside, watching TV, or playing outside.

You're dated!

Some of us remember BEFORE TV was around!

[Elsie]

Back atcha: Why not?

[Elsie]

Every year; it’s still the same:

Half of the teams are going to be playing below average.

[Elsie]

The Denver Broncos and Carolina Panthers had the exact same average: 66.2 plays per game.

This got sorted out last night.

[Elsie]

Today it seems like kids only will play for 30- 45 minutes at one things, and many walk down the street alone, some looking fearful or indifferent to others, and only have one or two siblings to interact with at home.

Air conditioning and birth control

[mad_as_he$$]

Sorry but hockey just sucks.