Pro Football's Cherished Myths

[HTH 67]

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/articl...NjUyMzYyWj.html

[MahSoonerz 0]

bump - good read

 

It's bad science, looking at only the extremes rather than overall trends, but still good food for thought.

[FFOpie 0]

What a horrible article.

 

Let me pull out only stats to support my own argument.

[roroco 75]

What a horrible article.

 

Let me pull out only stats to support my own argument.

Agreed.... Horrible article...

 

These are not even myths...they are coaching staples... WSJ should be ashamed for publishing that crap.

[shasha 0]

Agreed, pretty stupid arguments. You can take a statistic and make it look like you want in almost any case.

 

The defense wins championships things wasn't discounting the need for an offense, it basically said that you need a defense in order to win, meaning to me that you need both sides of the ball to be working, not just trust your team to outscore your opponent every week. A pretty thoughtless statement and very weak.

 

His arguments for kicking games not being important is equally stupid. Ask the Bills, the Pats and the Colts about how important a kicking game is. And if we are talking field position, well his argument that the league leading punters were all on losing teams, well that makes sense since they would probably be punting from their own side of the field most of the time. Good teams will be pooch kicking or scoring.

 

The comment about the Cardinals needing to improve their passing game and defense because adding a running game won't help is just plain retarded. An effective running game will control the clock by sustaining drives. It gives you more options to score with and it makes your passing game more effective. The Cardinals had two 1000+ yd WR's and had a top 10 defense if I recall correctly. Add a running game to that and they will win more games. Also in the late parts of the season the field is usually muddy, the ball is frozen and the wind is blowing everywhere, you need to be able to move the ball on the ground. Thinking differently displays a lack of understanding the game.

 

The argument about the draft not creating parity is pretty stupid too. It creates the opportunity for parity, you can't force a team to be smart, all you can do is provide the chance to get better. Matt Millen is a great example here. The Tom Brady example is definitely not the norm, but the exception. He does nothing to point out the great oversight by many teams (NE as well for waiting till the 6th round) nor does it take into account Carson Palmer or Peyton Manning who helped to turn their franchises around. Lets be realistic here, that Brady draft pick was as much incredible luck as anything, there were 198 picks that went before him and over 30 teams that could have picked him before the Pats. And it isn't like they were SB champs with the 30th pick that year, they weren't that great a team.

 

The pass completion and age of the running QB statements are pretty misguided as well. Examples of bending a statement to make a point in your favor. Pass completions are of course important to winning, it sustains drives and scores points. So if I completed 1 pass, picked up a first down and then missed my next 3 that wouldn't matter? If I completed 4 10 yd passes and missed my next 3 that wouldn't matter either? It kills the drive. Hell I probably would have turned the ball over. Of course in this guys version of football I don't need a RB or a defense to stop the other team or a kicker to get 3 points either. I guess that he would go for it on 4th down instead of punting.

 

The age of the running QB is just an observation that the game has changed, not saying that running QB's are the only thing going. The days where you take every single QB that can run and make him a WR is over. It still happens, but 12 years ago you didn't have a McNabb or a Vick. They would have been RB's, safetys or WR's. We have a lot more guys that can get you yardage by running than we have ever had in the past. That doesn't mean they will win more games, it just means that there are more of them out there. McNair and McNabb both got to a SB, Vince Young won the BCS, and Big Ben, while he isn't an option QB, his mobility is his biggest strength and he won a SB. Vick also was the first QB to win a playoff game at Lambau.

 

Time for bed.

[fstop 0]

It's actually not even new. I've read this Allen Berra guy before. He's just recycling an article that's been published before. He's just using different examples this time. He's famous for claiming to be so smart and logical, claiming that everyone else is wrong and using one example to prove it. He'll write something like baseball isn't ruled by large market teams and offer as proof that fact that the Twins sometimes make the playoffs, failing to add that the Twins are in a division of small market teams and that teams like the Yankess make the playoffs every year and can easily buy their way out of bad decisions and injuries.

[football_scooter 0]

I am dumber for having read this.

 

"7. "Dome teams have the advantage."

 

I've never even heard that.

[FFOpie 0]

Allright, it's agreed then, lets egg his house and set his dog on fire in front of his kids.

[The Moose 0]

I am dumber for having read this.

 

"7. "Dome teams have the advantage."

 

I've never even heard that.

 

I was thinking the same thing. The only statement I've heard that's close to that is about kickers that play their home games in a dome. It makes sense too, since they don't have to worry about wind.

[jwvdcw 0]

"Great teams are built around the kicking game."

 

I have never heard anyone say this.

[football_scooter 0]

"Great teams are built around the kicking game."

 

I have never heard anyone say this.

 

I've heard "special teams and defense wins football games"

 

but never just the kicking game.

[Blitzen 0]

#11: Back-up QBs are essential to winning Superbowls.

 

Well duh...every team that has ever won a Superbowl had a back-up QB.