In Praise of Bill: Why Belichick Is the NFL’s Best Coach

In 333 BC, a young king came to the ancient city of Gordium and was presented with an ancient puzzle: the Gordian Knot.

It had been prophesied that the man who untied the knot would become king of Asia. Many men had attempted to undo the knot; all met with failure.

The king took a look at the knot, unsheathed his sword and cut the knot neatly in half.

The young man had contemplated and put to use two facts: one, that it was impossible to untie the knot and two, that fact was irrelevant.

When it comes to problem-solving, many of us are depressingly linear in our thoughts: we see a knot and immediately move to untie it. If that should fail, we often continue with the failed strategy, dashing our heads fruitlessly against the problem.

That’s why Bill Belichick is my favorite coach.

I won’t use the tired “genius” trope here…Belichick himself would likely deny any pretensions to brilliance. I will say Belichick is more likely than any other coach in the NFL to employ unconventional thinking, appearances be damned.

I read an article recently by Joe Posnanski on si.com in which the author went to a Kansas City Royals game with noted baseball thinker Bill James.

In it, James advanced the theory that the reason the Royals seem content to lose conventionally was the desire to maintain the appearances of professionalism.

James said, for example, the Royals could exclusively acquire pitchers who threw under 90 miles per hour, effectively cornering the market on such players.

James said such a plan probably wouldn’t work, but said the reason the Royals refused to do this was because their professional veneer (already dimmed by having a low payroll in a small market) would disappear completely.

So the Royals continue on, trying to play with the strong-armed pitchers no one else wants.

What I admire most about Belichick is his ability to removing such obstacles to winning. Entertainment, fashion, and ego (even, as some critics allege, good sportsmanship) are all sacrificed.

Belichick gives mind-numbing press conferences. He dresses like a college freshman who’s late for an 8 a.m. class. He uses defensive schemes with one down lineman. He takes intentional safeties to improve his field position. He plays wide receivers at nickelback.

He’s not angling for a book deal or a gig in the broadcast booth; he is a man, by all appearances, who is completely devoted to winning.

Take the Richard Seymour trade for example. Belichick traded a popular player, a player he seemed to like, a player who’d been with him for three Super Bowl titles and beyond, and traded him for a 2011 first-round pick from Oakland.

2011.

Why? Well, because there will likely be a rookie salary cap in 2011, and the Raiders will likely continue to play poorly. The Pats, in other words, would end up with a reasonably-priced, very high draft pick.

Who makes moves like that? What coach or general manager is honestly considering the state of their franchise two years down the road. We’ve all seen GMs make panic trades to save their jobs. How many are willing to take a two-year delayed payoff?

There’s also the feature that ran in the NFL preview issue of ESPN: the magazine. Belichick, it is revealed, has his assistant coaches do research projects on the specific areas he wishes to learn more about.

One assistant went above and beyond in his project, creating a system for evaluating personnel that was better than the one the Pats were using at the time. The team adopted it.

Simple? Yes, but (as any person in the real world can tell you) demonstrably good ideas often aren’t adopted. Minefields of ego and bureaucracy stand between any good idea and implementation.

The fact that the team was able to objectively judge a new idea and implement it without hassle is heartening and, I believe, creates an atmosphere conducive to winning.

Certainly, I enjoy watching Belichick because I am a Patriots fan, but I also like to think it is because I like to see the game improve as well.

By the way, that young king at Gordium was named Alexander III of Macedon. He became known as Alexander the Great after conquering much of the world by his 30th birthday.

Read more NFL news on BleacherReport.com

Why The Patriots QB Situation Is Scary

It’s become hard to fathom exactly what Bill Belichick is thinking regarding Patriots quarterbacks.

The Patriots have recently cut two quarterbacks, Kevin O’Connell and ex-Raider Andrew Walter, making that position perilously thin as the team enters the regular season. Currently, there are only two on the roster: Brady and undrafted rookie Brian Hoyer.

The Kevin O’Connell cut was particularly surprising, given the fact that the Patriots had invested a third-round pick in him the year before. In fact, he had overtaken Matt Gutierrez (who played well in preseason) as third quarterback behind Brady last year.

This snafu comes one year after Brady demonstrated conclusively that he was, in fact, mortal. Just this month, in fact, we have seen continued fragility—the sore shoulder suffered after Albert Haynesworth’s sack.

Of course, Matt Cassel stepped in and played well last year, but several factors contributed to that. Most notably, Cassel had spent years learning the team’s offensive system. As a longtime backup, he was able to develop slowly—to learn the game before being thrown to the wolves.

Even still, Cassel had problems adjusting at first (witness his high sack total in the early games). However, the familiarity with the team and its personnel undoubtedly helped him lead the team to an 11-5 record and nearly to the playoffs.

Contrast that to our current situation. If Brady should go down early, Hoyer would be the team’s only real option at quarterback. That should scare any fan.

Hoyer, despite being impressive in the final preseason game, is still a rookie. Rookies, even talented ones, need a good deal of time to develop, and the fact that Hoyer went undrafted means NFL teams did not see him as a finished product.

(Of course, NFL teams are often comically wrong when it comes to personnel, but the odds that Hoyer can step in and play immediately are similar to my odds of winning the lottery.)

Even were the Pats to pick up a veteran player, the situation would still be troublesome. Quarterback is the hardest position to learn in football, and the veteran would have to step in without the benefit of training camp or preseason games.

Daunte Culpepper tried that with the Lions last year, and we all saw the results.

Unfortunately, the quarterbacks in the league with recent Patriots experience are all currently employed by other teams. Gutierrez was picked up by Scott Pioli and the Chiefs. O’Connell was signed by the Lions.

Should the Pats have to make an emergency call in the middle of the season, to whom would it go? Vinny Testaverde?

Read more NFL news on BleacherReport.com

The NFL Needs a New Feeder System

College football serves many purposes. It gives pride to students and alumni. It provides athletes a chance at an education. Colleges make a lot of money from it. It gives us another day of football.

As a feeder system to the NFL, though, it is woefully inadequate.

The biggest problem with college football is that of scale: there are simply too many colleges for the available talent pool.

Certainly, this serves to bring in a larger audience for the sport (more colleges, more students, alums and promotion), but it does little for the quality of competition.

As a result of the talent disparity, those players who do possess NFL-calibre talent often physically outmatch their opposition.

Brute strength or superior speed is usually enough to succeed at the college level, leaving such players unprepared for the technique-driven and planning-intensive world of pro football.

Quarterbacks, for example, rarely throw against press coverage in college, but that coverage is used frequently at the pro level. The reason? There simply aren’t enough corners in college football talented enough to press receivers and get back into coverage.

The realities of college football also causes coaches to adopt schemes that do not exist in the NFL.

Certain offenses (like the spread) are set up to take advantage of the lack of cornerback depth in the college game, while others take advantage of the overall lack of team speed (compared to the pro level).

Take Michael Crabtree’s situation, for example. Crabtree, while at Texas Tech, did not run several routes that NFL teams run, because the Texas Tech offense does not employ such routes.

While the college team may benefit in the form of more wins, Crabtree is left relatively unprepared to play a part in an NFL offense.

He will have to learn the routes while simultaneously adjusting to the higher speed and talent in the NFL: things which are, in themselves, hard to compensate for.

Furthermore, players in college do not benefit by their labor. They are forced by the very narrow definition of “student-athlete” to work for free while the colleges and NCAA profit by means of promotion, TV money, and the like.

Supporters justify this situation by noting that the athletes are given the opportunity at a college education by means of scholarships.

That is all well and good, but it should be noted that many players with NFL-level talent aren’t given an option: they must either play in college or not at all.

Even missing a year from the college game is a severe detriment to NFL entrance (as Maurice Clarett or former USC receiver Mike Williams could tell you).

What then, would be a sensible solution? Clearly, high school graduates have nowhere near the level of physical development or maturity that the pro game requires.

Perhaps a developmental league ought to be set up for players between high school and the pro game.

Players would receive a modest salary and would receive instruction in pro-style techniques and strategies (the league would be an excellent place to develop coaches as well).

Such a league would consist of only a few teams, placed in areas where the NFL would like to develop its presence. Only the best of the best would be invited to play, ensuring an extremely high level of competition.

The NFL could even market the league, promoting its stars of the future (you laugh, but we live in a world where the draft is a highly-rated event).

Certainly, this could never happen in the real world. Too many people make too much money in the current system for there to be a change.

However, such a change would be the best way to improve the pro game.

The NFL Halftime Show (a Play in One Act)

A TV set.

TELEVISION PERSONALITY, EX-COACH, LOUD GUY, UNINTELLIGIBLE GUY, and FORMER PLAYER are sitting at a desk. They are FAKE LAUGHING at something.

TELEVISION PERSONALITY: Welcome back to the NFL Halftime show. What a first half we just had! What are your thoughts?

LOUD GUY (loudly): THE FIRST TEAM PLAYED HORRIBLY! IF THEY WANT TO WIN, THEY SHOULD PLAY BETTER!

UNINTELLIGIBLE GUY: [unintelligible]

FAKE LAUGHTER all around.

TELEVISION PERSONALITY: I think we can all agree on that.

EX-COACH: I’d like to make a really obvious point right here.

Sounds of general agreement.

FORMER PLAYER: I’d disagree, because I’m hoping to get my own show, showcasing my contrarian viewpoints.

LOUD GUY (loudly): YOU COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG!

TELEVISION PERSONALITY: Before anyone can interject any facts into this argument, let’s go through highlights around the league.

Each announces game highlights. For some reason, UNINTELLIGIBLE GUY narrates twice as many as everyone else.

EX-COACH: I tell ya, [the player featured in the last highlight] is a heckuva football player!

REST OF AMERICA: Yeah, because he just made a highlight-worthy play, you idiot!

FORMER PLAYER: Things were better back when I played, despite the fact that players weighed hundreds of pounds less and frequently showed up to games drunk. Did you notice that I’m a Hall-of-Famer?

TELEVISION PERSONALITY: You’re going to have to put that story on hold, because we’ve got ACTOR MAKING A PLUG in the studio.

Enter ACTOR MAKING A PLUG.

ACTOR MAKING A PLUG: Hello. Even though the movie I’m promoting is a romantic comedy, I’m here because I occasionally watch football games. Go see my latest movie, opening on Friday!

TELEVISION PERSONALITY: ACTOR, who do you think will take over the second half?

ACTOR MAKING A PLUG: The…Yankees?

Exit ACTOR.

TELEVISION PERSONALITY: All right, we’re (mercifully) about to return to the game. Any final thoughts?

LOUD GUY: THE SECOND HALF WILL BE FULL OF ACTION! BANK ON IT! I’D ALSO LIKE TO TRADEMARK THE PHRASE ‘BANK ON IT.’

FORMER PLAYER: Since I used to be a quarterback, I’m going to say quarterback play will be the key to the game.

UNINTELLIGIBLE GUY: [unintelligible]

TELEVISION PERSONALITY: Well, that’s it for us. Enjoy the second half of Lions-Bills.

Flourish. Exeunt omnes.

Bill Belichick and The Obsolescence of Sports-Media Access

With the massive problems facing traditional media, the entire journalism industry has been engaging in a good bit of self-reflection. In the digital age, how can newspapers, television, and radio compete in a world where news can seemingly travel instantly?

Sports journalists should not be immune from this introspection. Players, teams, and leagues have begun to distribute news directly to the consumer, bypassing the traditional structure. When one can learn about leagues folding via Facebook and players retiring through Twitter, what does the future hold for professional sports journalists?

To understand sports journalism’s current state, we must examine its origins.

Sports writing evolved in an incredibly different world than the one we inhabit today. In the days before television and even radio, a sportswriter was a vital (perhaps the only) connection to one’s local sports team.

The size of their audience equaled roughly the size of the team’s fan base. As such, they wielded tremendous power.

Broadcast media changed the picture, but a few gatekeepers kept tight control of information. People could now watch games without venturing to the local ballpark, but their options were still limited—with few broadcast networks, it was hard to keep up on the day-to-day developments of each team.

The Internet, though, has led to an incredible shift, one that is just now coming to fruition. Breaking stories, for example, has become incredibly de-valued. Information immediately spreads throughout the web, with each blog and news site adding its own take on the event.

Essentially, this means there is no real incentive to go to the site that broke the news. One can simply go to their outlet of choice (ESPN.com, deadspin, local newspaper’s web site, what have you) and get pretty much the same story.

Without an audience driven by breaking news, it becomes increasingly hard for news sources to justify the “access apparatus.” Truth be told, though, the necessity of access is already being attacked from another angle.

Bill Belichick exemplifies the new attitude towards sports journalists. Belichick is famous for giving boring, information-free press conferences, and ensuring his players do likewise. He has cultivated a no-frills public image, free of the eccentricities that make for good feature stories. He knows that his job hinges upon his win-loss record and championships, not the whims of a few beat writers.

Belichick either recognizes, or merely benefits from, the current situation in sports journalism: the power of these writers, and even television personalities, is at its nadir.

Indeed, coaches and athletes from all sports are becoming much savvier in the way they deal, or don’t deal, with the media. Athletes now have ways they can address fans directly (Twitter would be a good example), without the risk of others corrupting (or even merely editing) the message.

With the drastic increase in outlets and a corresponding increase in the need to fill air and column space with criticism and controversy, is there any wonder why more and more athletes are choosing social networking sites over writers?

Therefore, we are left with a media scene in which access is neither interesting nor profitable.

In the future, therefore, we can expect to see fewer outlets with access. To be sure, access does allow for serious, investigative journalism, but day-to-day information will increasing come directly from the team.

The majority of sports media, then, will find itself serving principally for analysis. Stories will focus less on what happened than why a certain thing happened, and what might happen in the future.

In such a scenario, traffic would be driven to the sites with the best analysis (and, let’s face it, best marketing) instead of those with the most breaking news. In other words, the barriers that prevented nonprofessionals from sports writing will be completely gone.

Oh, brave new world that has such people in’t!

After Further Review: Analyzing NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s First Two Years

We’re fast coming up on the second anniversary of Roger Goodell’s succession to the NFL commissioner’s job, so it seems as good a time as any to review his tenure.

Unfortunately, I’d rate Goodell’s performance thus far as poor, for the following reasons.

 

Possible labor troubles ahead

Goodell inherited an NFL with the coziest labor-management situation in its history. Indeed, few sports leagues have enjoyed such a long period of relative peace, and this can partly explain the NFL’s place at the top of American sport.

Now, however, the league’s situation is uncertain. The owners have bowed out of a collective-bargaining agreement that seemed beneficial to both sides. The players union, after the death of Gene Upshaw, has taken a more hard-line stance than in recent years.

The stage seems set for a significant problem.

Truly, some of these circumstances are beyond Goodell’s control, but as nominal leader of the league, he must shoulder the responsibility of righting the ship. Should he fail, the league faces the uncertainty of an uncapped year and a possibly disastrous work stoppage.

Given the stakes of this problem and the apparent lack of progress thus far, Goodell cannot be rated highly in this department.

 

Player conduct

Goodell’s major issue when he first took the job was policing player conduct better. Certain fans felt the behavior of players had been lawless and urged the league to deal with violations more harshly.

Goodell has definitely done so, but the question remains if such an approach is right.

Many fans have an almost sadistic desire that sports leagues “get tough” on players, ignoring the fact that they would not like to work under such conditions. Should someone’s livelihood be threatened by a mere arrest?

This problem is exemplified by the Michael Vick decision. The idea that a six-game suspension could accomplish what a two-year prison sentence could not is laughable.

To be sure, Vick’s crimes were horrible, but what does the suspension do besides hinder his attempt at a comeback?

This is not to say the commissioner’s power to censure players should be revoked. Instead, I believe it should be applied to protect the integrity of the game, not as a supplement to the country’s legal system.

If, though, Goodell wishes to continue to use his power to punish lawbreakers, it would at least be beneficial for him to set down guidelines for punishment. Currently, players are caught in a kind of limbo—they have no idea how the league will punish them for their infractions.

 

Draft woes

Goodell has altered the way the NFL draft functions, and most believe the changes are not for the better.

The league recently announced it would change the draft’s format, moving it to prime time on a Thursday and extending the event to three days.

I believe this decision is a big mistake.

The league’s selection meeting has long been the envy of other sports leagues. It has become an event unto itself—it’s covered live by two networks, and seemingly the entire Internet spends the preceding months speculating as to possible selections.

The draft is uniquely suited to take advantage of the breezy nature of weekends: Casual viewers can tune in and out at their own pace, able to follow the event at their leisure (and between other activities). Die-hard fans can follow all the action, as they have both days off.

However, the event is not exactly action-packed and pales in comparison to other prime time programs. As the time offers more options than weekend television, ratings for the draft will likely suffer.

Should interest in the draft wane, a key part of the league’s power will be lost.

 

“No Fun League” continues

Goodell has continued in the footsteps of his predecessor (Paul Tagliabue) in fining players who engage in “excessive celebration.”

I by no means want sportsmanship in the NFL to suffer, but we must remember that the NFL is, at heart, entertainment.

Are Chad Johnson’s (sorry, Ochocinco’s) celebrations a vital threat to the heart of the sport?

Is Wes Welker’s snow angel celebration (yes, he got fined for that) showing up an opponent?

There are occasions when such actions go beyond what is acceptable (Keyshawn Johnson’s “throat slashing” comes to mind), but that is precisely why the commissioner is given discretion in such matters—so he can determine when a celebration is fine-worthy and when it is not.

 

The NFL remains incredibly popular, to be sure, but I feel it has made a series of missteps that severely hinder the product on the field. Should the league continue down this road, I believe it could be overtaken by other sports.

Four Storylines for the 2009 Patriots Season

Despite the season-ending injury to Tom Brady in the first game of the season, the Pats had a surprisingly successful 2008 campaign. Very few teams could survive the loss of their franchise, never mind post an 11-5 record.

The team enters the 2009 NFL season with heightened expectations: they are, after all, a year removed from a 16-0 season. With that in mind, let’s examine the four story lines that will determine if this year will be a successful one.

 

1. Tom Brady’s knee

Perhaps no joint in recent memory has been as heavily scrutinized as Brady’s injured left knee, with good reason: it will likely either make or break the season.

When it was revealed that the surgically-repaired knee had become infected, many media personalities debated if Brady would ever be able to play again. Instead, Brady has since defied expectations, and it now appears he’ll be able to start the season.

How the Patriots handle his return will show their degree of confidence in Brady’s recovery. If they return to the pass-happy, shotgun set they’ve used for the past two years, then they likely have complete faith in the knee.

If not, the team can fall back on a talented stable of running backs, but such a switch in tactics will make scoring difficult, and winning, consequently, less likely.

 

2. Secondary concern

The team’s defense was not impressive overall last year, and the secondary was a big part of it. Football Outsiders ranked last year’s team 26th in its defensive efficiency ratings against the pass.

Both of last year’s starting cornerbacks (Deltha O’Neal, Ellis Hobbs) are gone, and the team has replenished the position via free agency (Shawn Springs, Leigh Bodden) and the draft (Patrick Chung, Darius Butler).

With second-year men Jonathan Wilhite and Terrence Wheatley, this defensive backfield will sport an entirely different look from last year’s iteration.

Whether the makeover will lead to an improvement has yet to be seen.

 

3. What O-Line will we see?

I’ve believed the team’s offensive line has needed an infusion of new talent for some time now.

The quality of the line play seemed to deteriorate toward the end of the 2007 season, culminating in a Super Bowl in which the Giants defensive line ran roughshod over the O-line.

We did see an increase in sacks last season, but much of that was due to Matt Cassel’s inexperience at quarterback as opposed to the line itself.

The line is aging, though. Guard Logan Mankins is the only starter at this time who is under 30. Draftee Sebastian Vollmer is an interesting pickup, but he’s seen more as a project than an immediate contributor.

When you add all the above to Brady’s knee concerns, it’s clear the offensive line will be a recurring theme throughout the year.

 

4. Will Laurence Maroney prove his worth?

Maroney, a former first-round pick, has been somewhat of a disappointment over his career. He’s shown flashes of explosiveness, but hasn’t stayed healthy enough to become a consistent contributor.

Now he faces serious competition: the team signed Fred Taylor over the off-season, and may be looking to split carries between Taylor and Sammy Morris. Should this happen, there would be precious few opportunities for Maroney to prove himself.

Maroney has potential, but must run with more decisiveness, or it’s likely the Patriots will look to go another direction.

Must-Flee TV: Five Ways to Improve Annoying NFL Television Coverage

I often watch NFL games in spite of, not because of, the media coverage surrounding them.

Let’s face it: In today’s sports television scene, there are numerous trends that hamper coverage of the games. Instead of surrounding the game with solid analysis and sober thought, networks ensconce today’s contests in promos and talking heads.

The following is my list of helpful suggestions to improve the overall quality of game coverage (and why they probably won’t be followed).

 

1. Stop hiring former athletes just for the sake of hiring former athletes.

I think we can all understand why networks almost exclusively hire former players to serve as analysts and color commentator—former players are known to the public and have established fanbases.

However, being good on television is a talent unto itself. NFL players, no matter how successful their pro careers may have been, usually do not possess that talent. For every successful player-analyst (like Ron Jaworski), one can think of numerous disasters (Emmitt Smith’s wholesale slaughter of the English language, for example).

Furthermore, does anyone watch the games (or even the pregame shows) to see their former heroes? (To be fair, trying to guess what Shannon Sharpe is saying is an excellent way to amuse oneself every Sunday afternoon.)

I’d really rather networks hire people who are talented at talking and who know the game, and I suspect most fans feel that way as well.

 

2. A pregame show does not need 19 analysts.

NBC’s Sunday night crew is the prime example of this—why do they need Dan Patrick, Keith Olbermann, Jerome Bettis, Bob Costas, Tiki Barber, and Peter King? Surely there’s some overlap there.

I really think that’s the reason why NBC’s show is the least watchable out there—there’s no consistent voice to it, merely a cast of celebrities struggling for airtime. How can so many people be expected to provide cogent analysis at halftime?

Of course, the networks’ reasoning on this is simple and ties in to the above point: If one player brings in one fanbase, two players will bring in two fanbases. What we see now is that thinking taken to its logical extension, and there’s probably no way the networks will reverse themselves as long as the product (NFL games) sells so well.

(ESPN’s Bill Simmons goes on an excellent rant on this topic here.)

 

3. Devote more time to actual analysis of games.

It seems NFL coverage is divided into two categories—highlights and feature stories. What little time that is spent on actual analysis is usually gobbled up by obvious statements (“Tom Brady is a great quarterback”) or contentions cynically designed to create controversy (think anything Skip Bayless has ever said, or ever will say).

One thing I’d like to see examined more is the thinking that goes into the game. Why did the coach choose to run in that situation? Which coaches take the most chances, and why? How does equipment alter bad-weather games?

We get some of that, but it’s only snippets—designed to fill space in the short lull between plays. If the color man forgets to mention (or fails to notice) something, it’s forever lost. In a game where winning and losing are often separated by a single play, little things matter.

 

4. Try hiring outside the box.

Sadly, the high-profile problems with Dennis Miller and Tony Kornheiser will likely prevent the networks from ever following this advice.

However, is it that bad to bring in different voices to speak about the game? The analyst pool seems disturbingly incestuous—old ones seem to pop up again and again, no matter what level of success they may have achieved.

New voices could stimulate viewers to think about the games from a different angle, which could never be a bad thing.

 

5. The promos, oh God, the promos.

Memo to CBS: I, like all American males under 93 years of age, do not watch 60 Minutes. I do not particularly care what Andy Rooney is complaining about this time. The only thing you’ve shown in the past four years that I considered watching was that feature on LeBron James (and then I realized the promo gave away the best part—the three quarters-court, underhanded shot).

So could you limit yourself to five reminders that 60 Minutes is, in fact, coming up next (except on the West Coast)? Thanks.

As a matter of fact, I think there needs to be some level of coordination for commercials in general. Too often, the same commercials are repeated ad nauseam, leading me to swear never to buy the products advertised. (Want to send a NFL viewer into fits of rage? Three words: “Saved by Ze-rrrroooo.”)

 

That’s it. Five simple ways to improve NFL coverage exponentially.

The Lifecycle of a Scheme: How The Innovative Becomes Mundane

A short time ago, I wrote an article examining how the Wildcat was used successfully against more-talented teams (taking a hint from a Malcolm Gladwell piece). The dynamic was similar to other David-Goliath matches: a “lesser” team adopted an unconventional method to best a “better” opponent.

However, there’s another issue to be considered: What happens when Goliath adapts?

Teams create (or reanimate) schemes to disrupt the equilibrium of the league. Unsuccessful teams, seeking to change the status quo, change the way they play to use what talent they have, exploit another team’s weaknesses or simply to confuse successful teams.

Buffalo’s “no-huddle” offense ran plays in quick succession to prevent other teams from substituting players on defense. In the ’90s, the team rode this offense to four consecutive Super Bowl appearances.

The Wildcat creates confusion on the part of opposing teams, increasing the likelihood that the offense has a successful play. Last year’s Dolphins, one season removed from a 1-15 debacle, used this offense to gain a division title.

Bill Walsh’s West Coast offense exploited the talents of weaker-armed, but accurate, quarterbacks. Walsh’s achievement as a coach need not be recounted here.

We can track the life cycle of schemes like we can any other organism. They’re born, they struggle for dominance, and they die. At some point, all of these schemes lose their value to the unsuccessful teams.

Why?

Basically, Goliath discovers the benefits of the sling. The bigger, better teams learn that the scheme exploits certain inefficiencies, and begin to run the scheme with more talented players.

For example, a good portion of the league now runs a variation of the West Coast offense. With good teams now using it (and defenses preparing for it), its use to less-talented teams is severely reduced.

At this point, several things can happen to original underdog.

-The original team can acquire better personnel.

Bill Walsh, although he developed the West Coast Offense in Cincinnati, took his scheme to the 49ers. He then drafted highly-skilled players (Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, etc.) to run it and began winning Super Bowls.

-The team could once again become unsuccessful.

Buffalo, having lost its Super Bowls, regressed, and has not seen much success since.

-The team could innovate again.

This is unlikely, as finding a scheme that works is incredibly difficult.

A parallel can be drawn to the film industry, where there is a great divide between Hollywood and independent film-making.

To make up for the lack of whiz-bang effects and bankable movie stars, independent filmmakers will often mess with the realities of the medium. They use such techniques as non-linear storytelling, multiple endings, and breaking the fourth wall.

Hollywood will occasionally co-opt these techniques, though. Nonlinear storytelling, once reserved for arthouse cinema, has been used in such major movies as “Pulp Fiction” and “Memento.”

Now, nonlinear storytelling is used as shorthand to indicate that a director wants to muse about reality and perception. What was once avant-garde is now mainstream.

Scheme changes can often bring about short-term success for a franchise. However, without continual improvement, a team could find itself skewered by the very revolution it helped to create.

« Previous Page

NFL Sport Channel Latest

• Just How Far Would You Go?
• Sorry Rex, But It Isn’t Happening
• Super Bowl Predictions: Five Stat-Free Reasons Why the Eagles Will Reach The Super Bowl
• Seahawks Attempt to Turn Corner With Heavy Pursuit of Pete Carroll
• Bill Cowher Unlikely to Coach in 2010