Thank you. Its way overly simplistic and was only an attempt at encouraging discussion on my fansite. Having it reprinted and quoted outside of its original context causes me a little... concern. It shouldn't be taken too serious.
Because I'm not qualified to be an authority and I was overly simplistic in order to introduce a conversation.
Ah, I got'cha. But no need for concern. That was very informative and, while I don't mean to speak on anyone else's behalf, I think many of us (myself included) need that simplistic stuff because it helps us understand better.
But, I do stand by my enthusiam for the new old offense. I think/hope Sparano will do a good job. I'm glad Rex intends to get involved offensively. I think Schotty was doomed to fail and I'm happy he is gone. I'm glad we are not going West Coast (though I vastly understated the variations of what West Coast means).
That will probably be a short-lived trend as teams load up on talent in the defensive backfield and offenses begin to capitalize on the weakening of focus on the ground game. These things tend to balance themselves out regardless of how the NFL tries to stack the deck.
Well that is great and was the intent. But a few times when the thing has been called an "article"... that's the concern. It was no more than a "blog post" by a fan. To date though, the worst criticism I received was that I mispelled Belichick as Belicheck and Weis as Weis. So I do stand behind it as valid opinion. It hasn't been countered as incorrect.
I would call it an analysis, and a good one, although I was one of the people who mis-categorized it as an article. An 'article' of that magnitude wouldn't have nearly as much research and thought put into it, and would include a dozen or so anonymous quotes to anger the fans.
I do intend to use Anonymous's quotes in the future. That dude is an ass but he says some controversial, funny, quotable stuff.
One good way to look at the cyclical aspect is to look at the late 60's especially in the AFL. Passing offenses were very much in vogue as the AFL tried to spice up the game and compete with the NFL. That lead to killer pass rushes, like the Purple People Eaters and the Steel Curtain and the NFL went back to balanced offenses after the merger, which is what won most of the Super Bowls in the 70's. When the high-octane passing attacks reappeared in San Diego and Miami and later Houston they were much less effective in the grand competition. The phase we are in now is definitely a passing era but it will be followed by a balanced era almost as certainly as the late 60's were followed by the 70's.
I think global warming may lead to more passing. But an unexpected el nino/ la nina may allow a ground and pound team to unexpectedly advance one or two years. That's what I am hoping for. j/k
While I agree with you about counteraction and the cyclical nature of things, the NFL shot-callers (as I'm sure you know) strongly favor Offense because it's profitable. Everything from P.I. to protecting the QB to the new Overtime rule is based on more Offense, specifically Passing Offense. Perhaps it's my cynicism, but at this point, I'm convinced that as soon as Defenses discover how to consistently thwart today's Passing Offense, the NFL will implement new rules and elements that continue to keep Defense behind the 8-ball.
I think it was a great read, and I felt like I was reading this from a major media production. Very informative and much more what I want to read than articles how Jets fans probably don't like the Giants/Pats Super Bowl.
If Orwell or Philip K. Dick were to write a story about the future of the NFL, I imagine it would involve federal authoritarians stationed at each corner of the field to ensure that teams obey the rule of No More Than 15 Rushing Attempts per game.
We need a Barry Sanders replicant. But alas, the light that burns twice as bright will only last half as long.
