Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Behind the NFL's Touchdown Binge
WSJ ^ | 09 Sep 2009 | MATTHEW FUTTERMAN

Posted on 09/10/2009 2:27:17 AM PDT by BGHater

As Scoring Soars, One Professor Sees Parallels in Nature; the 'River Basin' Theory

When the Pittsburgh Steelers and Tennessee Titans open the NFL season Thursday night, they will headline a brand of football that is nearly unrecognizable from the days when Jack Lambert and Mean Joe Greene were pulverizing ball carriers at the line of scrimmage.

Today's NFL offenses spread out across the field, stretching defenses and creating wider holes of flow and penetration. In this game, balletic receivers like Pittsburgh's Santonio Holmes are the NFL's defining talents.

The NFL has become so fast and efficient that last season, teams each scored 22.03 points per game, the highest since 1967, while all the league's 32 teams combined for 11,279 points—the most in NFL history.

The game has become less cluttered. Offenses averaged just 3.09 turnovers (interceptions and fumbles) per game, the lowest of all time by more than 10%, and offensive lines allowed just 4.04 sacks per game—also the lowest ever. Even place kickers set a new mark: They made a record-high 84.5% of their field-goal attempts.

Some football thinkers believe these numbers speak to a temporary period of offensive dominance in the NFL—just one more high point in an endlessly fluctuating historical curve. But if you venture a bit beyond the particulars of football, to the principles of science, there's another argument to be made: that the NFL's high-speed, high-scoring offenses are a reflection of one of the laws of nature—the tendency of all things to evolve toward efficiency.

Adrian Bejan a professor of mechanical engineering at Duke University, likens the NFL's evolution to a river's effect on its basin. (Stay with us, here.)

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Science; Sports
KEYWORDS: efficiency; nfl; power; speed; touchdowns
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 next last

1 posted on 09/10/2009 2:27:18 AM PDT by BGHater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Why winning athletes are getting bigger
2 posted on 09/10/2009 2:30:12 AM PDT by BGHater (Insanity is voting for Republicans and expecting Conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BGHater
Specifically, while the average human has gained about 1.9 inches in height since 1900 ...

I thought it would be more than that. I’m 5’10”, just slightly over average. When I visit museums and check out the old clothing I’m always amazed at how small people were. The WW I uniforms on display are absolutely tiny. My father was a WW II vet and stood 5’8” - about average with his contemporaries. I check out my grandson and his friends and have to look up at them - they are over 6’ and still in their middle teens.

3 posted on 09/10/2009 3:40:43 AM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BGHater
I think the level of offense dramatically changed from the 1972 season on when the NFL moved the hash marks on the field to be parallel with the goal posts. The result was obvious: it freed up a LOT more room for offenses, and the first result was a dramatic increase in running yards. Later changes in rules to protect quarterbacks and to stop the "bump and run" on wide receivers also dramatically increased scoring, too.
4 posted on 09/10/2009 4:28:26 AM PDT by RayChuang88 (FairTax: America's economic cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BGHater

Paralysis by analysis.

The NFL has intentionally and incrementally tied the defense’s hands. Soon tackles will be abolished to be replaced with two-hand touch and a polite suggestion that the ballcarrier take a knee or step out of bounds.

The result is inflated scores and a cynical manipulation of results that would make the NBA hang its head in shame.


5 posted on 09/10/2009 4:28:42 AM PDT by relictele
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott

“The average human” is not the average American.


6 posted on 09/10/2009 4:31:37 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: relictele
If we allowed the "bump and run" defenses and moved the hash marks back to the college football standard, we would get a DRAMATIC drop in offensive scoring. The result will be games where the winning team may end up scoring no more than 14 to 17 points at best.
7 posted on 09/10/2009 4:37:07 AM PDT by RayChuang88 (FairTax: America's economic cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RayChuang88

Offense, defense, passing, running, scoring, special teams...all stats that pale before the only one that really matters...Ratings.


8 posted on 09/10/2009 4:56:58 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: trisham

Guess not. We must be growing faster than most.


9 posted on 09/10/2009 5:05:06 AM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: relictele
I agree. This article is buncombe.

that the NFL's high-speed, high-scoring offenses are a reflection of one of the laws of nature—the tendency of all things to evolve toward efficiency.

OK, but wouldn't that apply to the defense as well as the offense? Shouldn't the defense also evolve towards efficiency?

Over time, a river relentlessly wears away its banks and, as a result, water flows faster and faster toward its mouth. When obstacles fall in its way, say, a tree, or a boulder—or in the case of an NFL offense, beefy linebackers like the Baltimore Ravens' Ray Lewis or the Chicago Bears' Brian Urlacher—it will figure out how to wear those away, too.

Ray Lewis is a far cry from an inanimate rock or pile of dirt. In fact, Ray Lewis represents a defensive evolution. I daresay the stats against the Ravens are below the league average.

I'm not a big football fan, but I do agree with other posters that the rules have changed to benefit the offense. At some point, a genius coach will come along and figure out new ways to defend against the new offenses, and a new process of adjustment will begin.

10 posted on 09/10/2009 5:32:34 AM PDT by Huck ("He that lives on hope will die fasting"- Ben Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanac)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BGHater
Ironic that he's publishing this theory on the opening gameday of the Titans vs the defending champion Steelers, who are not thought of as speedy or prolific in terms of scoring points. These champs, generally speaking, win the day by neutralizing speed, offense... and not known for outscoring or outquicking their opponents. This theory may have some merits but this a glaring and possibly significant exception.
11 posted on 09/10/2009 5:48:26 AM PDT by Dysart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dysart

Plus, the Steelers defense is outstanding, a clear contradiction to the thesis that offenses are dominant.

Big Ben is a proven winner, but he doesn’t have to put up gaudy passing numbers.


12 posted on 09/10/2009 5:56:08 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BGHater
Basically, the NFL has brought the "Jordan Rule" into the league to protect their QBs and boost scoring to keep the $$$$ increasing.

Thus defenses aren't allowed to sneeze at the QB without some kind of penalty. Now known as the "Brady Rule".

13 posted on 09/10/2009 6:07:08 AM PDT by Proud_USA_Republican ("The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

Yes, that was the thrust of my point, possibly not articulated very well. Defense rules the game, still.


14 posted on 09/10/2009 6:14:51 AM PDT by Dysart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Huck
OK, but wouldn't that apply to the defense as well as the offense? Shouldn't the defense also evolve towards efficiency?

Warhead vs. armor -- there's no such thing as an impenetrable defense. In the race for optimization, offense wins out over defense in the long run because defense is reactive to offense.

15 posted on 09/10/2009 6:17:45 AM PDT by kevkrom (Obama's Waterloo: a "hockey mom" with a laptop and a Facebook account)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
Warhead vs. armor -- there's no such thing as an impenetrable defense. In the race for optimization, offense wins out over defense in the long run because defense is reactive to offense.

Except that armor is inanimate, like the river rocks and dirt. It's another false analogy. The offense has the ball, and calls the play. But the defense is active. It's not simply absorbing the blows, is it?

When the defense confuses the offense with complicated blitzes, with various players up on or near the line of scrimmage, they are technically on defense, but they are acting offensively--attacking.

It seems to me the offense has to react to innovations in defense just as much as the other way around. Wasn't the shotgun, and the west coast offense, a reaction to the way defenses were pressuring the quarterback? Like I said, I'm a casual football observer, so I could be wrong. But it seems to me the offense has to react to the defense. Or else why call audibles? Why play action? That's all "defending" against the defense.

16 posted on 09/10/2009 6:44:28 AM PDT by Huck ("He that lives on hope will die fasting"- Ben Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanac)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RayChuang88

I don’t see how the hashmarks change much. Yes when the ball is spotted on the college marks it means the near sideline is closer, but the far sideline is further, the over width of the field is the same. The only scoring I see as easier is field goals, with the ball always inbetween the posts the kicker has a lot less necessary steering. But the rest shouldn’t change that much, scoring tends to be higher in college, though that could be as much about the lack of experience in the defensive players as anything else.


17 posted on 09/10/2009 6:55:20 AM PDT by discostu (When I'm walking a dark road I am a man who walks alone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Huck
You're correct in that the analogy is flawed, but in the end, while both sides are reacting to each other, at the end of the day, the offense does have more control over the course of play than the defense does. The difference is minimal enough that an "attacking defense" such as employed by Pittsburgh can dominate a game more than a potentially powerful offense can, but on the whole, a high-powered offense is better than a high-powered defense, especially as the game plans continue to improve toward optimum, and the NFL rule changes favor offenses more.

One thing missing from the analysis of why scoring has increased is the change in how missed field goals are handled -- the 7-8 years of extra field position given up on a missed field goal has encouraged fewer teams to settle for 3 and play more aggressively, which I believe has added to, if only in small amount, the number of touchdowns scored.

18 posted on 09/10/2009 6:59:05 AM PDT by kevkrom (Obama's Waterloo: a "hockey mom" with a laptop and a Facebook account)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: discostu
I don’t see how the hashmarks change much. Yes when the ball is spotted on the college marks it means the near sideline is closer, but the far sideline is further, the over width of the field is the same.

By making one side of he field shorter, it becomes easier for the defense to defend runs to that side, and they can overload the "long side" more to stop that side as well. By making them spread out more evenly, it gives runners (and receivers on short passes) more chances to find gaps and weak spots, because they have two "good" sides to choose from.

19 posted on 09/10/2009 7:01:16 AM PDT by kevkrom (Obama's Waterloo: a "hockey mom" with a laptop and a Facebook account)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Over time, a river relentlessly wears away its banks and, as a result, water flows faster and faster toward its mouth.

Right, like the meandering lower Mississippi prior to channelization.

20 posted on 09/10/2009 7:02:53 AM PDT by Sherman Logan ("The price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections." Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson