The problem with the need for snappy sports-writing and attention grabbing angles and headlines is that that approach clashes badly with the game of American football. The story of most games is more accurately told through consistency of good or above average play by one unit, which is often both difficult to notice amongst the frequent disruptions and stoppages in play, and less exciting to report on.
It's therefore a dream scenario when a single 'game-defining' incident occurs, that journalists can seize upon and base a whole report around, often ignoring the trends of the game up until that point.
Instead, journalists have helped create a mythology around events that have defined the sport; 'The Immaculate Reception', 'The Catch', and the 'The Snow Plow Game'. The history of American football is littered not by remembering three hours of action of any given game, or even great scoring drives or defensive stands, but through snapshots of a single play, and rebuilding the memories from that moment.
And without wishing to sound like a cheesy commerical, that's why I value sites like Football Outsiders; because I know I can visit with my head swimming in the aftermath of a game like New York-New England and not be force-fed easy answers as to why things turned out that way.
Indeed, in the aftermath of the game, FO's Ned Macey was struggling with the same issues:
' A little over an hour after the game, I haven't exactly figured everything out, but I just wonder if anyone can make a coherent "rings = greatness" argument anymore for individual players. Tom Brady in 2001 and 2003 was nowhere near the QB that Tom Brady is in 2005-2010. If Tom Brady had the defense he's had since 2004 in 2001 and 2003, I guarantee he would have lost in both of those years. After all the time I feel we've (and anyone with any sense of objectivity) beaten our heads against the wall on this, and with all the evidence that no individual player wins Super Bowls, it just won't die. Instead, the lesson is going to be that Sanchez, thanks to two successful playoffs (for his team) with a great defense (this year's may not be great but played great over the past two weeks) is now a "winner," while Brady must have lost something. It just is really dumb and intellectually embarrassing for whoever does it. I suggest keeping a list of anyone who writes it and then remembering to never take anything they say seriously again.
If you want to play the ridiculous psychology nonsense with this game, it isn't Sanchez=winner, it has to be Belichick got his team in the wrong frame of mind by benching Welker. That's at least a storyline that doesn't fail every sense of logic because it is unprovable in either direction. I don't think it impacted the game, but I do bet his players thought it was the wrong move.
As for the game itself, I don't think there's a ceiling on what an offense without star receivers can do, but the failure to adjust was sort of amazing to watch. Brady looked so uncomfortable when he couldn't get the ball out quick, leading to all the sacks and some incompletions where he held the ball and got jumpy. But, this is the same offense that put up 45 on the same defense, so I think it is a one-game thing. The Pats would obviously be better served with better wide receivers, but they won three Super Bowls with equal or worse receivers, and I've seen the Colts look bad in the playoffs with some pretty good wide receivers. I think the better lesson of the Colts' failures and this game plus the 2007 Super Bowl is that no matter how good your offense is, in the playoffs you will sometimes have to win some games with defense.'
No comments:
Post a Comment