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 ...
Yeah the guy is missing the leapfrog of NFL change. The NFL is a copycat league, somebody does something new and cool on offense and everybody steals it, then somebody does something cool on defense and everybody steals it. The Bears won the Superbowl with the 46 and other teams tried it out (given the risk levels of that defense it never really caught on as a base, but teams still use it once in a while). Then came the Niners and their West Coast Offense and not only did other teams steal it the stole the coaches that coached it (the “Walsh Tree” covered nearly half the league at one point). Then came the Pittsburgh’s rise back to regular contention on the strength of the Zone Blitz and 3-4 defense it works best with (at one time The Steelers and the Ravens were the only teams basing in the 3-4) and yup it spread. Then somebody (I think the Rams) imported the Spread Offense from college and that’s still being stolen. But never fear because the Pats brought in the Show Blitz And Don’t Blitz defense largely to confuse Peyton Manning but like so many other things that too has spread. Now, possibly, the hot new thing is the Wildcat, but I don’t think it has the consistent results necessary to be stolen, we’ll see.
It’s an interesting topic, actually. Thanks for the reply. I saw a good show on the NFL channel one sleepless night that broke down the various changes in offense and defense over the years. It taught me quite a bit about the evolution over the years. Based on what I know, I tend to think the various offense-friendly rule changes are probably the most significant factor. It’s been the same in baseball, except that it’s more a matter of field dimensions and equipment than rules—smaller parks, lighter bats, livelier balls, lower mounds, no high strike calls (anything above the belt is a ball), less tolerance for chin music. Sports organizations want offense. It’s only the die hard fan of a sport that likes a tight, low scoring contest. Gimme a 2-1 baseball game, cleanly played, 2 hours and change any day. But people like the long ball. And in football, they like big plays, lots of scoring. Who likes to see a defense grinding it out?
Nice synopsis. That’s exactly the stuff I’m talking about. I don’t know the specifics as well as you do, but yeah, that’s what I’m saying.
But the offense can overload that side as well. Extra tightends for run blocking, or bunched receivers. Plus there’s going to be a built in assumption of the play going to the wide side so reversals should have a better chance of succeeding.
I love to see defenses grinding it out. But I’m a freak. I think the best Superbowl ever played was Iron Curtain vs Purple People eater, 0-2 at the end of the first half, THAT’S football.
It’s simple...
Used to, receivers had to earn their way open. Now, they don’t.
The NFL is slowly but surely turning the game into two hand touch.
Yes sir.
Well, us Steeler fans don't mind so much. ;)
Personally, a well-played, hard-fought game is just as exciting to me if it's 3-0 or 51-49 (or that 1-0 nailbiter in baseball) -- I'm also a soccer fan, though, and you tend to get used to low scoring there as well.
“Sports organizations want offense. It’s only the die hard fan of a sport that likes a tight, low scoring contest. Gimme a 2-1 baseball game, cleanly played, 2 hours and change any day.”
By the way: I say the same thing when someone thinks international soccer is booring. A team holding on to a one point lead for the last 20 minutes of a game can be very exciting.
Yeah, you gotta be a deep, diehard. In any sport. I'm a baseball guy, and I LOVE seeing two dominant pitchers go at it. Hell, I've gone to Yankee Stadium several times to watch my Yankees get beat by excellent pitchers, just because I admire great pitching so much. I watched Glavine beat em in his prime. The Big Unit. Even Pedro, when he was with the Expos (he fanned 13 as I recall.)
My problem with football is that I don't think the camera captures the totality of the action. If follows the ball. I'd like to see more wide shots of the whole field. I'd like to see the QB dropping back, but also see the receivers going downfield, all in one shot. After all, that's the view the coordinators choose to look at. They don't want closeups. They want to see the whole spread.
If you get a good analyst, they can show replays and diagram what the linemen did, which way they blocked, etc, but it's all after the fact. You won't see a receiver bust a move on a defender until after it's happened. You don't really see the actual action, just ball movement. That may be one reason why viewers like big passes, big runs, and don't like to watch defense--you don't really get to see what's going on. Does that make any sense?
Same with hockey. In those sports, you have to care about the team. If you do care, then it’s very suspenseful. It’s almost like the whole game is one big sudden death. But if you don’t care a lot about either team, you don’t feel the tension. You don’t care if the offense is swarming the goal. You don’t feel the suspense. You don’t get that release when they score. So they try to make it like a summer blockbuster movie—lots of “action”, no plot.
I've often said you become a "sophisticated" view of this type of "ball sport" when you are watching the things that happen "off the ball". In basketball, it's seeing the player lay a screen or make a cut to get open for a layup... maybe even "see" the steal before it happens. In football, it's noticing the mismatches, catching the holding penalty before the flag is thrown, and watching how the linebackers react to the play-action fake. In soccer or hockey it's seeing the flow of the attack and anticipating who's going to be in position for the shot or redirection.
On the lines, the roles are reversed. Offensive linemen are essentially defensive in nature (protect the QB, protect the ball carrier, etc), while defensive linemen are offensive in nature (go after the ball carrier, try to sack the quarterback).
One of the things I love about Frank Beamer's "Beamerball" is that he emphasizes that offense, defense, and special teams ALL have opportunities (and really, the responsibility) to score points.
Very well put.
I am a barely occasional hockey viewer, but there are those times when you can just feel a goal coming. Even though it's damn hard to see the puck sometimes.
Good point. Hell, some aggressive d-backs are pretty offensive at reading the QB and intercepting the ball.
Count me in as well. One of the best games I ever attended was watching the local high school defend a 7-2 score through the pouring rain against their rival. Of course, I had a rooting interest in the game.
I'd say more mismatched teams in college ball. In the NFL, the difference in tallent between worst and first is a very small margin.
I’m not sure exactly what effect the hash marks make on the game. I think in high school, where they are even farther out, and talent is often mis-matched, they contribute to the success of sweeps and runners being able to break around the line.
'For all the sophistication of today's game—the greater number of coaches and players, the complexity of the plays, the emphasis on wide-open passing games, the rule changes that favor offense—scoring has scarcely increased. In 1959, the average number of points in an NFL game was 42.7. In 2008, the average number of points scored per game was 44.0.'
It's not as if the Offensive is dominating the Defense. The Defense evolves as well, the amount of specialist for every position is impressive and the evolution continues.
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.