'Redben' over at nfluk.com made valid criticisms of some of the points made in my Vikings-Jets Monday night report:
This caused me to revisit the game, as well as look at the statistics and drive charts. What I found was surprising; had I been watching the same game?-the Vikings had indeed attempted more pass plays in the opening half than I had originally credited, and as redben pointed out, it was more a case of inability to get any form of offense started, as opposed to rigidly sticking with only run plays.
American football is a unique sport in that it creates games with such distinct momentum shifts and a mixture of the incredibly memorable against the immediately forgettable plays that I had convinced myself of a play-calling trend that was perhaps not there. Therefore the running plays, although largely held in check by the Jets, did at least acquire short yardage which grabbed my attention. The broken pass plays and incompletions slipped my memory when writing the report.
I had fallen into the trap that befalls many sports commentators out there; assessing trends that you convince yourself you are seeing instead of what is actually happening in front of you.
That is not to say that I have become a fan of Brad Childress' play-calling all of a sudden. I still find him to be overly cautious and predictable; but the fact remains that he had attempted to move the ball aerially in the opening half.
Part of the attraction of the sport for me is this hidden complexity; reviewing the game afresh with relevant statistics and drive charts can completely change your perspective of the action. As, of course, analysing the game again free from the emotional involvement of being a Vikings fan with a more objective cap on.
American football is a sport of smoke and mirrors and different perspectives. When I first began watching in 2005 or so, I found the game to take too long to complete, and by last season I was concerned that the games to be too fast with too little on field action.
Take this article in the Wall Street Journal for example. Even as a relatively seasoned American football fan I found the headline statistic on the small percentage of time the ball was in play during a game to be fascinating.
But in another way, such a statistic is utterly worthless; it is the equivalent of measuring the amount of time the pieces in chess are actually in movement, or dismissing the athleticism of the 100 metre sprint as it is over in 10 seconds.
I realised that I like the fact that a game takes 3 hours or more to complete. The best games are those that play out slowly like a classic film; there are constantly developing plot lines as the plays go by, there are heroes and villains, moments of dramatic action and emotion, as well as periods of calm.
Watching just the action from the ball being snapped to the whistle blowing in an NFL game gives a black and white picture of what happened sequentially, but only by watching the moments between the plays can you monitor the personnel changes, the one-on-one strategical match-ups and appreciate the intangibles such as momentum shifts and players putting in great performances.
No other sport combines strategy with agility, skill, aggression and violence in such a captivating manner.
'I'd take issue with a number of points there.
The Vikings defense isn't weak. It hasn't dominated at the line of scrimmage the way it has in the past but it remains a classic bend-but-don't-break Tampa 2. We give up yards but not points. Despite frequently being left in difficult situations due to the offenses inability to move the ball and its turnovers the defense has conceded just 4 touchdowns in 4 games (the other two we've conceded were by the offense).
Failing to pick up the blitz isn't really the fault of the O-line. The additional rushers should be getting picked up by other blockers and on Monday it was the backs in particular who were at fault. One of the major reasons we improved as the game went on was because the backs started picking up on their blocking assignments and Favre was able to stand in the pocket.
Moss beat Cromatie for his touchdown. He needs an accurate pass as well but he blew by the coverage.
The Jets threw the ball 44 times to 30 rushes and 2 wildcat rushes. Sanchez' completion percentage was under 50% and in the first six Jets possessions he threw ball deep six times but completed only two. So much for conservative play calling failing to take advantage of a weak Vikings secondary. In the second half in particular Sanchez struggled to get a completion.
AP only ran the ball 18 times for a very healthy 4.9 ypc. Gerhart added another 2. Favre threw 34 times and on a further 4 occasions was forced to run due to pressure from the Jets. We were no more successful throwing on early downs than running on early downs in the first half of the game. In six possessions we threw on all downs twice and failed to move the ball any further than when we ran on the first two downs. So much for conservative playcalling costing us.
The Jets play 8 in the box a lot regardless of the opposition running game. Rex Ryan schemes his defense that way (he takes after his father). Ryan's defense's rely on the CB's and FS being able to cover the secondary without any help. That's why players like Ed Reed and Darelle Revis are so important to their success.'
This caused me to revisit the game, as well as look at the statistics and drive charts. What I found was surprising; had I been watching the same game?-the Vikings had indeed attempted more pass plays in the opening half than I had originally credited, and as redben pointed out, it was more a case of inability to get any form of offense started, as opposed to rigidly sticking with only run plays.
American football is a unique sport in that it creates games with such distinct momentum shifts and a mixture of the incredibly memorable against the immediately forgettable plays that I had convinced myself of a play-calling trend that was perhaps not there. Therefore the running plays, although largely held in check by the Jets, did at least acquire short yardage which grabbed my attention. The broken pass plays and incompletions slipped my memory when writing the report.
I had fallen into the trap that befalls many sports commentators out there; assessing trends that you convince yourself you are seeing instead of what is actually happening in front of you.
That is not to say that I have become a fan of Brad Childress' play-calling all of a sudden. I still find him to be overly cautious and predictable; but the fact remains that he had attempted to move the ball aerially in the opening half.
Part of the attraction of the sport for me is this hidden complexity; reviewing the game afresh with relevant statistics and drive charts can completely change your perspective of the action. As, of course, analysing the game again free from the emotional involvement of being a Vikings fan with a more objective cap on.
American football is a sport of smoke and mirrors and different perspectives. When I first began watching in 2005 or so, I found the game to take too long to complete, and by last season I was concerned that the games to be too fast with too little on field action.
Take this article in the Wall Street Journal for example. Even as a relatively seasoned American football fan I found the headline statistic on the small percentage of time the ball was in play during a game to be fascinating.
But in another way, such a statistic is utterly worthless; it is the equivalent of measuring the amount of time the pieces in chess are actually in movement, or dismissing the athleticism of the 100 metre sprint as it is over in 10 seconds.
I realised that I like the fact that a game takes 3 hours or more to complete. The best games are those that play out slowly like a classic film; there are constantly developing plot lines as the plays go by, there are heroes and villains, moments of dramatic action and emotion, as well as periods of calm.
Watching just the action from the ball being snapped to the whistle blowing in an NFL game gives a black and white picture of what happened sequentially, but only by watching the moments between the plays can you monitor the personnel changes, the one-on-one strategical match-ups and appreciate the intangibles such as momentum shifts and players putting in great performances.
No other sport combines strategy with agility, skill, aggression and violence in such a captivating manner.
No comments:
Post a Comment