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 ...
One of the things the Steeler offense has been able to do over the years, and do it by design, is hold the ball and win the 'time of possession' game. First, the other teams 'speed' does not mean a thing if they are sitting on the bench. Second. Playing defense is more physically demanding than offense. If you can force the opponents defense to spend too much time on the field, by the 4th quarter, they will be physically exhausted and prone to mistakes.
Style points don't matter and a flashy 80 yard bomb does not put any more points on the board than a 10 minute long smash mouth 80 yard touchdown drive. But the 10 minute drive does far more damage to the other team's chances of scoring or stopping future scores.
Games are shorter now because of clock rule changes (to keep games ~3 hours, but provide commercial time). You’d have to factor that in somehow before an honest comparison could be made.
I’ve seen that on Dish Network a few timesbefore, where they have the regular game telecast on one channel, and have other channels that offer other camera views.
Watch the NFL films show on Herb Adderly. Almost every tackle he made would be a penalty today. Players like Nitschke and Butkus would be fined every week.
I like your idea re: camera views. I feel that way about baseball. I’d prefer to watch at bats from behind the catcher, not behind the pitcher. And if it’s gonna be behind the pitcher, I’d like it dead on, not at an angle. It’s be awesome if it were like a video game, and you could cycle through 3 or 4 different angles. Heh, for all our troubles these days, things can’t be THAT bad if this is what I’m complaining about .
I don’t know if you have to be a deep fan, I’m not a big fan of baseball but I prefer a pitchers duel over a shootout. I think you have to be a fan of tension. In a defensive battle, regardless of the sport, both teams are one screw up from losing, and that’s very exciting to watch, every pitch matters, every swing could win the game.
You totally make sense, a lot of the football writers complain about the ball follow cameras and want the coach’s camera view (which the networks get but only ever use on replays). Hopefully as the age of technology progresses we’ll be able to pick our own primary feed.
There’s a lot that plays into the higher college scores. Being a defensive football junkie I don’t watch much college, but I actually would like the college hashmarks in the NFL to make field goals harder, I’m getting tired of 50 yard+ field goals and I think if the kickers had to steer the ball more that would go away.
Ahem - 5-10 average my friend, hate to burst your bubble.
I can see the hash marks definitely changing how plays get designed, I’m just not sure closer in favors the offense. I can think of a lot of play designs, and even seen a few in the little college and occasional high school I watch, that really takes advantage of that huge gap. Just something as simple as putting a receiver on the far numbers suddenly can really take a player out of the game as the distance from the corner to the opposite C gap increases dramatically.
The obvious defensive counter to the more-efficient offense is to disrupt the quarterback at the beginning of the play. Defensive strategies and players will adapt on that basis.
I think the NFL rule changes since 1972 were intentionally meant to increase the scoring and offensive yards. (The AFL from 1960-1969 had a more wide-open style that the fans seemed to like.) After the merger in 1970, I think the league wanted to make changes that were likely to increase their TV audience.
I think the narrower hash marks made a difference. Also, the goal posts were moved from the end-line to the goal-line. The soccer-style kickers were now in range for a field goal almost as soon as their team crossed midfield. (I’ve lost track of how many times the rules for kickoffs changed. When I was a kid, the ball was kicked from the 40-yd line.)
NFL games used to end if the teams were tied when time expired. And there used to be no home-field advantage for the playoffs based on regular season records. Some of the best teams would clinch their divisions early, then take it easy for the last couple of games.
The NFL players are bigger and faster now. But that probably helps the defense as much as the offense. I think the rule changes have had more of an effect on scoring.
The rules protect defensive linemen even more than they protect quarterbacks.
OK, Sorry. I’m actually 5’10 1/2”.
;-)
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.