tskyler
Active Member
- Messages
- 218
- Reaction score
- 28
I will confess upfront that I look at the NFL from an odd perspective. I am horrible at evaluating talent. My X's and O's would get me laughed out of a pop warner huddle. I do have an insatiable taste for the weird though. I am interested in the little bizarre things that most people consider unimportant or side issues at best. I do think this unconventional wisdom has its place. Especially, when something has the opportunity to change the overall game in a significant way. I don't think that anyone would argue that rule changes can have some effect on the game at a deep level. For example, in the early 90's and the beginning of the salary cap era, I think there were many who agreed with me that it would have a big impact on the way teams draft. I also believe many will agree that the accumulation of QB protection and anti-receiver contact rules have dramatically improved the incentives to pass. Most football scholars accept this as canon now. However, there are many rule changes that I focus on that most of you will probably dismiss as game changers, that nevertheless, I think are profound.
For instance: I do not believe Roy Williams (Safety) suddenly got exposed by smart Offensive Coordinators, lost a step, or lost passion for the game. I believe, the Roy Williams horsecollar rule destroyed him as a player. The rule remove a key skillset, his ability to make up for slow coverage with a quick horse collar tackle. Without the move, receivers that beat him, got more yards after the catch and he became a liability. Attempts to use other approaches made him less effective and more hesitant and compounded the problem.
I also believe the Marion Barber rule (Stiff arm) last year had deeper consequences than most realize since he didn't play enough with the injury last year to make things apparent.
I will get to the point now. I think the most important rule change in the offseason is the removal of the wedge on kickoffs. I think this is much more important to the overall game flow than the RW or MB rules. Probably not quite as important as the salary cap in shaping teams but maybe close to the passing rules in changing the outcome of games and the value of certain players. So, to state the theory properly: the removal of the wedge changes the entire special teams strategy. It changes what players are valuable, it changes the tactics within the game. Now, I am not smart enough to know how it changes the game. I will suggest two possibilities . Both will probably be wrong to some degree. But first let me suggest some things that will be true no matter what.
First, Offensive Lineman are less valuable to the kickoff game. If the bruisers can't be used in a wedge the have no reason to be on the field.
Second, Speed becomes more important. Both, kicking and receiving becomes less about getting THROUGH guys and getting TO guys. It becomes less about providing mass to push people away and more about getting to someone to move his angle or make him stumble.
Third, there will be more pressure to move OLine players off the 45 man roster and give those spots to speedy LB's, Safeties, Receivers, and CB's.
Fourth, the longevity of OLine players will be extended and their roles will become less multi-dimensional
Ok, back to my strategic theories.
Theory #1: There will be less scoring and the kicking game will be devalued. This seems like the most likely scenario. If the wedge didn't work well, it is unbelievable that ST coaches would have used it forever. It seems likely that the number of points scored on kickoff will go way down and the avg. starting position will go down too. This means less offensive scores as well, so lower point averages in games. This means that kickoffs will become uninteresting. Kickoff specialists will be a real drain on the roster. Speedy/elusive return guys and speedy in space blockers will be more important since they are the only way to get the ball advanced. How much more valuable is an open question to be answered only by trial and error even in this theory. Maybe, its such a low percentage that return guys are not worth it. Maybe things evolve to a new equilibrium. Who knows? On the other side, is pursuit so easy now that these skills are devalued.
Theory #2: There will still be less scoring but the kicking game is still valuable. Maybe touchbacks will be considered horrible since the average return goes so far down. In this case, Bruce Reed's insistance on angled kicks becomes a critical skill if you want to push offenses back behind the 20 on every kick. These kicks are more nuanced and the kickoff specialist becomes more valuable. Returner, blocker, and pursuit skills are still to be judged after we have data from game just like theory #1.
So, what does this have to do with our draft? Well, obviously we went heavy on special teams. I think under any theory this is good. Every team this year is going to need less big fat bodies and more fast bodies. So, great job Jerry. You could argue that if the return game becomes so insignificant without the wedge that its not worth addressing at since the difference between great ST and horrible ST is so low that it is worthless but I just can't believe that without real evidence. I do believe that we have a real fact that the personnel that are valuable on ST has changed to fit what we have drafted so, I think our moves are prudent.
Kickoff specialist. At first glance, this is a toss up. Do you believe theory one or two? I tend to think one so it would seem bad but I dont think its so simple. Our new kicker is by general agreement MUCH more athletic than any other kicker, EVER. His pursuit becomes a major advantage if under either theory you believe pursuit is valuable. With a typical kicker you have a guy waiting down the field to stop a breakout. If returns go down, that guy is even more uninvolved after the kick than he is in most plays today. So, I think this is a benefit of the doubt choice. The world of ST is changing, we have no idea how things will play out. I'd rather have another arrow in the quiver to deal with changing circumstances.
Lack of many OLine replacements for Flo, Dre, and Kosier. I think this is less conclusive case (I was a huge Max Unger supporter) but I have to think, these guys will last longer. This means carrying less backups. So I give Jerry a tenative thumbs up.
We also drafted a new ST coach this year. Joe D. could be a valuable or poor choice. Joe D. seems like a great move if the world is shifting. He is widely considered the top ST coach. Who better to drive you forward in a changing world? However, the flip side is that maybe someone who is great at doing things one way may not be innovative enough to shift gears. For Example: Parcells was loathe to do anything non-vanilla with the Cowboys even when he had ample evidence that the world had passed his genius by. Counter Example: He did allow Sparano to run the radical Wildcat last year so he did adapt to some degree. I tend to believe that great coaches are innovative until they fossilize as old men, so I am very happy with Joe D's stewardship...
Oh well, that's my PHD thesis on football this year. Thanks for taking the time to read such a long post. Please feel free to unload massively on my insanity. Im a big boy and can take it.
For instance: I do not believe Roy Williams (Safety) suddenly got exposed by smart Offensive Coordinators, lost a step, or lost passion for the game. I believe, the Roy Williams horsecollar rule destroyed him as a player. The rule remove a key skillset, his ability to make up for slow coverage with a quick horse collar tackle. Without the move, receivers that beat him, got more yards after the catch and he became a liability. Attempts to use other approaches made him less effective and more hesitant and compounded the problem.
I also believe the Marion Barber rule (Stiff arm) last year had deeper consequences than most realize since he didn't play enough with the injury last year to make things apparent.
I will get to the point now. I think the most important rule change in the offseason is the removal of the wedge on kickoffs. I think this is much more important to the overall game flow than the RW or MB rules. Probably not quite as important as the salary cap in shaping teams but maybe close to the passing rules in changing the outcome of games and the value of certain players. So, to state the theory properly: the removal of the wedge changes the entire special teams strategy. It changes what players are valuable, it changes the tactics within the game. Now, I am not smart enough to know how it changes the game. I will suggest two possibilities . Both will probably be wrong to some degree. But first let me suggest some things that will be true no matter what.
First, Offensive Lineman are less valuable to the kickoff game. If the bruisers can't be used in a wedge the have no reason to be on the field.
Second, Speed becomes more important. Both, kicking and receiving becomes less about getting THROUGH guys and getting TO guys. It becomes less about providing mass to push people away and more about getting to someone to move his angle or make him stumble.
Third, there will be more pressure to move OLine players off the 45 man roster and give those spots to speedy LB's, Safeties, Receivers, and CB's.
Fourth, the longevity of OLine players will be extended and their roles will become less multi-dimensional
Ok, back to my strategic theories.
Theory #1: There will be less scoring and the kicking game will be devalued. This seems like the most likely scenario. If the wedge didn't work well, it is unbelievable that ST coaches would have used it forever. It seems likely that the number of points scored on kickoff will go way down and the avg. starting position will go down too. This means less offensive scores as well, so lower point averages in games. This means that kickoffs will become uninteresting. Kickoff specialists will be a real drain on the roster. Speedy/elusive return guys and speedy in space blockers will be more important since they are the only way to get the ball advanced. How much more valuable is an open question to be answered only by trial and error even in this theory. Maybe, its such a low percentage that return guys are not worth it. Maybe things evolve to a new equilibrium. Who knows? On the other side, is pursuit so easy now that these skills are devalued.
Theory #2: There will still be less scoring but the kicking game is still valuable. Maybe touchbacks will be considered horrible since the average return goes so far down. In this case, Bruce Reed's insistance on angled kicks becomes a critical skill if you want to push offenses back behind the 20 on every kick. These kicks are more nuanced and the kickoff specialist becomes more valuable. Returner, blocker, and pursuit skills are still to be judged after we have data from game just like theory #1.
So, what does this have to do with our draft? Well, obviously we went heavy on special teams. I think under any theory this is good. Every team this year is going to need less big fat bodies and more fast bodies. So, great job Jerry. You could argue that if the return game becomes so insignificant without the wedge that its not worth addressing at since the difference between great ST and horrible ST is so low that it is worthless but I just can't believe that without real evidence. I do believe that we have a real fact that the personnel that are valuable on ST has changed to fit what we have drafted so, I think our moves are prudent.
Kickoff specialist. At first glance, this is a toss up. Do you believe theory one or two? I tend to think one so it would seem bad but I dont think its so simple. Our new kicker is by general agreement MUCH more athletic than any other kicker, EVER. His pursuit becomes a major advantage if under either theory you believe pursuit is valuable. With a typical kicker you have a guy waiting down the field to stop a breakout. If returns go down, that guy is even more uninvolved after the kick than he is in most plays today. So, I think this is a benefit of the doubt choice. The world of ST is changing, we have no idea how things will play out. I'd rather have another arrow in the quiver to deal with changing circumstances.
Lack of many OLine replacements for Flo, Dre, and Kosier. I think this is less conclusive case (I was a huge Max Unger supporter) but I have to think, these guys will last longer. This means carrying less backups. So I give Jerry a tenative thumbs up.
We also drafted a new ST coach this year. Joe D. could be a valuable or poor choice. Joe D. seems like a great move if the world is shifting. He is widely considered the top ST coach. Who better to drive you forward in a changing world? However, the flip side is that maybe someone who is great at doing things one way may not be innovative enough to shift gears. For Example: Parcells was loathe to do anything non-vanilla with the Cowboys even when he had ample evidence that the world had passed his genius by. Counter Example: He did allow Sparano to run the radical Wildcat last year so he did adapt to some degree. I tend to believe that great coaches are innovative until they fossilize as old men, so I am very happy with Joe D's stewardship...
Oh well, that's my PHD thesis on football this year. Thanks for taking the time to read such a long post. Please feel free to unload massively on my insanity. Im a big boy and can take it.
