1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Dammit, this is why I was rooting for the Rams

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout' started by Major, Feb 4, 2002.

  1. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,681
    Likes Received:
    16,205
    http://www.sportingnews.com/voices/paul_attner/20020204.html

    <B>Pats' conservative approach will catch on in copycat NFL </B> :(

    <I>The Patriots dared to dream. They dared to think they could win a Super Bowl when few thought likewise. They dared to believe they could finish off a season improbable to conceive, much less execute. They dared to accept the challenge of manhandling the Rams' receivers, a concept so frightening that it has been foreign to everyone else in the league.

    They dreamed what makes sports so entertaining, so invigorating, so mesmerizing: the thought that this dead-end bunch of players -- waiver-wire alumni, discards, has-beens and wannabes and an aw-shucks quarterback who fell asleep in the locker room before the biggest game of his life -- not only could take on the symbol of all that is mighty in the NFL, but emerge triumphant.

    These Patriots, sure to lose by at least 14 points, once 0-2 in September, their starting quarterback sidelined with a crushing injury, their main hope just to win one game, now will become the rallying point for every downtrodden team, for every unobtainable goal, for every outrageous wish. My God, if they could do this, if they could stand up to the almost mythical St. Louis offense, one of the mightiest the NFL has produced, and outplay the Rams, outthink them and, in the most unlikely ending to this incredible game, win on a 48-yard field goal as time expired, why can't the rest of us be similarly rewarded if we too refuse to accept the inevitable?

    In Super Bowl history, only the Jets' sweet victory over the Colts in the third version of this extravaganza will outshine what the Patriots accomplished Sunday in their 20-17 win in Super Bowl 36. It was an extraordinary demonstration of the power of "team," because there is no way the Patriots should be this good. They just believe they are, and for them, that has been enough.

    "You see it in sports all the time," linebacker Willie McGinest says. "You got a bunch of guys who believe in themselves, but no matter what they do, nobody gives them a chance. People need to believe in us now."

    But it was quarterback Tom Brady, that former backup now Super Bowl MVP, who might have put it best: "Well, we've got a whole team full of underdogs, and now we're the top dogs.

    Outside the NFL, the Patriots' exploit will be the fodder of nostalgic reminiscing for years to come: how the coaching of Bill Belichick this postseason has been among the most brilliant in league history; how their aggressive secondary coverage, bent on beating up the Rams' receivers, turned a track meet into a marathon and made Kurt Warner seem somewhat human; how their opportunistic defense forced three turnovers, which ultimately became 17 points; how their quarterback could throw for just 92 yards before the final 90 seconds, then complete five passes for 53 yards to set up Adam Vinatieri's second game-winning kick in their last three playoff games.

    But within the NFL, this Patriots victory will have long-term effects far more impactful than nostalgia. This already is a league in which the offensive expansion of the Rams is an exception rather than the norm. And now the Patriots' seasonlong blueprint for success -- a constantly changing defense, exceptional special teams and a conservative, low-risk offense built to avoid mistakes rather than generate points -- will convince even more owners and coaches that less passing and more clock-controlling schemes are shortcuts to league championships.

    Want more offensive pizzazz in the NFL, more Rams-like copycats? Forget it. The Patriots have taken care of that.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fans may love the fun created by the Rams -- even the Patriots admit they enjoyed watching St. Louis play -- but they have won only one Super Bowl in the three years of their prime. And that's not good enough. Opponents look at the Rams and see too much time -- too much time to develop the precise, downfield, vertical nature of the philosophy, too much time to assemble the special quarterback and legion of gifted receivers needed to execute it properly. And the one thing lacking in this league is time because owners watch too many other clubs such as the Patriots sprint from awful to good virtually overnight and expect their own team to make a similar turnaround.

    So, to most coaches, it makes no sense to hope you can find another Warner, with his remarkable accuracy and strong arm. They will look at how Belichick took Brady, a sixth-round draft choice, and coached him well enough so that he rarely makes mistakes and almost always makes the pivotal play, and they will convince themselves they can do the same with their quarterback.


    They will worry about the ever-increasing complexities of defenses -- "this is a defense-dominated league, no question about it," grumbles Cowboys consultant Ernie Zampese, who has coached offense in the NFL for four decades -- and will quickly decide that the most efficient, safest offensive solution is to teach the short-passing, high-percentage approach of the Patriots or, even more so, the West Coast scheme. That's right -- the brilliant creation of Bill Walsh is helping to dumb down offense in the NFL.

    Unlike the vertical (read: downfield for more than 15 yards) passing approach of St. Louis, the newest generation of short-passing, West Coast teams has taken Walsh's scheme and turned it into a yawner that produces endless quick completions, limited points, few risks and way too many punts.

    Instead of the Rams' daring, we have the Steelers-Patriots AFC championship game in which, at one juncture, the teams had produced 10 points and 10 punts. Really, which offensive teams besides St. Louis are enjoyable to watch? The Packers because of Brett Favre. The 49ers because they run the Walsh system right. Any team coordinated by Norv Turner, another teacher of the vertical offense. The Colts because of Peyton Manning. The Vikings -- if Randy Moss decides to try, which he doesn't do often enough despite commissioner Paul Tagliabue's claims to the contrary. The Eagles? Donovan McNabb is fun, for sure, but the Philadelphia offense remains a work in progress.

    "Troublesome" is how Walsh views the NFL's offensive state. "I see way too much inadequate quarterback play," he says. "I see teams that execute poorly and don't use their personnel very well. Quite frankly, I don't see a lot of good football from week to week."

    This is today's NFL: The league's completion percentage this season (59.0) was the highest in history, a reflection of the controlled, low-risk backbone of the West Coast offense. But the yards per completion (11.5) was an all-time low. And remember, that's despite the Rams' influence. The Patriots now are Super Bowl champions despite having only the 19th-best offense in the league this fall.

    "Everything on offense is programmed, there is no individuality," says Ron Wolf, the former Packers general manager. "There are some brilliant offensive minds in this game, but they have systems, and they are sticking to them regardless. When I first started, if you saw a stiff come into the game on defense, you went after him. Now, if it doesn't fit into the script and the computer, that doesn't happen. So what if the defense has gone to a five-man front? Stick to the plan. It's called CYA football -- cover your ass."

    So coordinators are being hired to run a "system" even if the team's personnel doesn't fit. The Lions went from 9-7 to 2-14 in large part because they were ill-suited to execute coach Marty Mornhinweg's West Coast approach. The Bills tried the West Coast way in 2001 even though quarterback Rob Johnson will never be mistaken for the prototype West Coast quarterback. The result was miserable. They gained decent yardage, but on third down and in the red zone, they flopped. With a new offensive coordinator for 2002, you had better not mention West Coast offense in Buffalo anymore.

    "I want the Bills' offense," says general manager Tom Donahoe. "I don't like systems. Too many guys are wedded to a system, and they run it come hell or high water even if the personnel doesn't fit it. Good coaching is putting your players in positions where they have a chance to be successful. And I don't see that happening enough in this league. The problem with the West Coast is, unless you have Steve Young and Jerry Rice, it's not going to be the same."

    How many games did you see this past season where teams were inside the 20, yet either didn't throw one pass into the end zone or tried one of those overused fade patterns with no chance of success? Ah, but they didn't waste a chance to kick that beloved field goal.
    </I>
     
  2. RocketMan Tex

    RocketMan Tex Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    18,452
    Likes Received:
    119
    Offense wins games, but defense wins championships.

    If the Texans adopt the Pats system and wind up winning a Super Bowl, I wouldn't be disappointed in the least.
     
  3. bobrek

    bobrek Politics belong in the D & D

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 1999
    Messages:
    36,288
    Likes Received:
    26,645
    Didn't the guts of this article appear after the Ravens won last year's Super Bowl? The Ravens were a very conservative team offensively.
     
  4. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,681
    Likes Received:
    16,205
    <B>Offense wins games, but defense wins championships. </B>

    Tell that to the Titans in '99. Or the Eagles. Or the Bears.

    Neither one will win a championship, more often than not. You need a good defense and offense, and either a great offense or defense. All 4 of the teams in '99 and '01 had that (STL '99, STL'01, TEN, NE) and they were close games. In '99, the offense won out. This year, defense won out.

    I would prefer the great offense and good defense over vice-versa. The reason is that, for 31 of the 32 teams, they aren't going to win a Superbowl. I'd rather those games be fun to watch, which 5-yd passes are not, in my opinion.

    <B>Didn't the guts of this article appear after the Ravens won last year's Super Bowl? The Ravens were a very conservative team offensively.</B>

    Agreed, and lots of teams followed that philosophy this year (Bears, Patriots, for example). Spurrier and Martz might be the only truly interesting offensive minds in the game right now.
     
  5. Desert Scar

    Desert Scar Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2000
    Messages:
    8,764
    Likes Received:
    11
    I don't agree with this point that much. The Pats are not the Rams, but they throw the ball and are somewhat aggressive offensively. It is not like they are the Ravens or the Giants from last year or the Bucs or Steelers of this year. The Pats had balance in the way the awesume Cowboys team had balance, except the Pats are obviously not as good as those treams. I am just glad a run-run-pass-punt and let the defense play teams like the Raven's or TB didn't win (even though I kind of like TB as a team, I hate the way they play offense).
     
  6. haven

    haven Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 1999
    Messages:
    7,945
    Likes Received:
    14
    Actually, that truism is patently untrue. When you look back at the average ranking of the champions' offense and defense in any sport, you usually find a slight tilt toward offense. There isn't much of a difference... but if anything, the opposite is true.

    Hell, it wasn't true with the Patriots. They had the #13 offense in the league... and the #24 defense, I believe.

    St. Louis had the #1 offense, and the #2 defense. So both of these teams had offensive bents.
     
  7. kidrock8

    kidrock8 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2000
    Messages:
    6,414
    Likes Received:
    4
    Amen Major.

    I hope that Spurrier kicks ass at Was, and teams will follow suit in having an open offense.
     
  8. TheFreak

    TheFreak Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 1999
    Messages:
    18,304
    Likes Received:
    3,310
    You really think New England has a "great" defense? I just don't see it. I would hesitate to call any team GREAT in any aspect of the game nowadays in the NFL. I mean the '85 Bears and the late 80s Giant teams, the Steel Curtain, etc, those were great defenses. How can anyone call this New England team great? I don't even know that I would even call the Ram defense a "good" one. I think they're probably a decent defense, but good? Same with the New England offense -- I wouldn't call it a good one.

    I think nowadays you can only really be very good on one side of the ball, because of the restrictive nature of trying to build a team. It's almost like you have to pick offense or defense, and try to become a good team that way. Kinda sucks in my opinion.
     
  9. haven

    haven Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 1999
    Messages:
    7,945
    Likes Received:
    14
    Well, the Rams ranked #1 and #2 in offense and defense :). Of course, I think their front line was always a little iffy, and it got covered up because teams had to play from behind constantly... and were throwing constantly. That usually makes a defense look worse than it is, but with the Rams LB's/secondary... maybe not.

    I feel bad for the Rams (but not Martz)... I think they probably had the best team since that last Packers super bowl team. Just couldn't win when it counted, for whatever reason.
     
  10. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,681
    Likes Received:
    16,205
    <B>You really think New England has a "great" defense? I just don't see it. I would hesitate to call any team GREAT in any aspect of the game nowadays in the NFL. I mean the '85 Bears and the late 80s Giant teams, the Steel Curtain, etc, those were great defenses. </B>

    Well, great is relative to the other defenses in the league. I think its difficult to compare between eras. What the Patriots defense is great at is scheming. Of course, scheming against the crappy offenses in today's league is not too difficult. However, their ability to disrupt the more creative passing attacks is unique (Rams, Colts). They give up tons of yardage, but they hold the score down fairly well against today's competition.
     
  11. Rocketman95

    Rocketman95 Hangout Boy

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    48,984
    Likes Received:
    1,445
    Didn't I see a stat at the beginning of the game that New England's defense ranked 24th in the league?

    I could care less about what kind of offense a team runs. I want my team to win, and I can watch any kind of football. If my team wins playing the Ravens offense, or they win using a Rams-style offense, I don't care. My team being the Super Bowl champion is all I care about.
     
  12. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,681
    Likes Received:
    16,205
    <B>Didn't I see a stat at the beginning of the game that New England's defense ranked 24th in the league? </B>

    24in yardage; 5th in Scoring.

    <B>If my team wins playing the Ravens offense, or they win using a Rams-style offense, I don't care. My team being the Super Bowl champion is all I care about.</B>

    Sure, when watching YOUR team. How about watching two teams that you have no real rooting interest for? Is a dink-and-dunk offense there just as enjoyable as a wide-open offense?
     
  13. francis 4 prez

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2001
    Messages:
    22,025
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    Tell me about it. Bad offenses suck. And who said the patriots actually throw deep. Didn't appear that way for mister 145 yards quarterback Tom Brady. I actually couldn't believe I saw only 80 something yards for him in the 4th. What I don't understand is why the Pats style should win out over the Rams based on one crappy game for an offense. I mean yes the D did hold them out of the endzone fairly well but the Rams offense simply wasn't clicking. If it hits anywhere near on all cylinders they should win. If NE doesn't have a perfect zero turnover game (which even ball control doesn't guarantee) they might not win. If a receiver doesn't fall down and allow an INT maybe the Rams win. Somehow thinking last night debunked a Rams style game is stupid. The Rams win that game more often than not and I wish more teams would see that and copy them. Please help us Spurrier.

    Actually I'd love to be an OC for a football team. Granted football is my least understood of the 3 major sports and I would be pretty much clueless, but I'd love to X and O with the best of them and institute a Tecmo Super Bowl type offense. All I would need is a Joe Montana quality QB and Rice quality WR. Screw running and ball control. Just score dammit.
     
  14. Desert Scar

    Desert Scar Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2000
    Messages:
    8,764
    Likes Received:
    11
    I don't think the Pats had a "great defense". It wasn't even as good as the Steeler's defense or Raven's defense. That Pat's do have a great secondary, decent front 7 and are very well coached. But they do not a dominanting defense that I think of when I think of "great defenses", they have a disciplined and oppertunitistic defense, but gosh, they gave up over 400 yards yesterday.

    To me the Pats showed you could still with with nether a great defense nor great offense but balance. They had a good defense that limited big plays but not yardage, fantastic special teams, and a balanced offense. Think of it this way, the Pats got at least decent performances in all phases in each playoff game they won, but I would overall say the Pats offense chiefly won the Pittsburgh game, the special teams chiefly won the Raiders game, and the defense chiefly won the Superbowl. You can be good all over and win, that is their lesson (sounds like a Cheech and Chong movie).

    Overall I would say offense has won the better part of the rings over the last 5 years (3-2). Denver's 2 rings were definetly do to their O, the Rams 1st one was due to O. Those teams both had overall average defenses that looked better than they were because their offense gave them a lead and chewed up the field. Perhaps the most complete team in this whole period was the Vikings. But they choked it away in the NFC championship game against an inferior opponent. Denver got lucky that year because they would have faced an even better offense in the Super Bowl than they had going for them.
     
  15. Rocketman95

    Rocketman95 Hangout Boy

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    48,984
    Likes Received:
    1,445
    I really could care less. For one thing, I rarely watch games that don't involve a team I have an interest in, one way or another. I have this weird thing where I end up rooting for one of the teams for whatever reason.
     
  16. TheFreak

    TheFreak Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 1999
    Messages:
    18,304
    Likes Received:
    3,310
    Scar -- I wouldn't even say the Pats had "balance"....their offense just isn't very good.
     
  17. Gascon

    Gascon Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2000
    Messages:
    1,111
    Likes Received:
    3
    Teams that make plays when they need to win championships.

    I love the hard-nosed, conservative-minded NFL. It's like Chess. It's like War. You can see the teams measuring their opponent's defenses and finding the best way to exploit them. You can see the teams adjust to cover their weaknesses. I love it.
     
  18. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,681
    Likes Received:
    16,205
    <B>I love the hard-nosed, conservative-minded NFL. It's like Chess. It's like War. You can see the teams measuring their opponent's defenses and finding the best way to exploit them. You can see the teams adjust to cover their weaknesses. I love it.</B>

    I don't mind the tough, dominating defenses or trying to take advantage of defensive weaknesses. However, many teams don't do that. If the other team has a bad secondary, the offensive team STILL doesn't go deep, because they simply believe in the dink-and-dunk method.

    I guess I like teams that go out and try to win games instead of just trying to not lose them, which is basically what the dink-and-dunk is (don't take any chances, score a little and rely on your defense). It works, and I understand WHY teams choose it -- I just wish it didn't work so well.
     
  19. Drewdog

    Drewdog Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2000
    Messages:
    6,099
    Likes Received:
    7
    Im just glad they didnt show Kurt Warner's wife after every play. God that got soooooo anoying 2 years ago w/ the Rams and Titans in Super Bowl 34.
     
  20. Desert Scar

    Desert Scar Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2000
    Messages:
    8,764
    Likes Received:
    11
    I disagree with this. They have 2 probowl QBs with great arms. They have a great receiver and 1 good one who is a burner. They also have a TE and backs that can catch, and Smith was a prety hard nosed runner all playoffs when they needed him. Their offense made plenty of plays when their team needed to, and amassed well over 300YPG average in the playoffs against some very good defenses. It was nothing like the trully pathetic Raven's offense we say last year.

    I don't know if the reference is such, but I don't see the Pats as a dink and dunk. They didn't hit them, but they tried deep balls in all the games if I remember, and Patten and Brown get down the field fast. I don't think they are nearly as conservative offensively as either team in last years superbowl or say the Iggles, Bears, Steelers or Tampa of this years' playoff teams.
     

Share This Page