Contrary to what certain NFL coaches will tell you, football isn't quite as complicated as say nuclear physics. To be fair, the game isn't exactly basic arithmetic either.
Yet, in this age of the ESPN/talk radio fueled short attention span, the dozens of talking heads polluting the airwaves love to talk in absolutes.
I understand why. After all, I have been a talk show host for four years and have been a featured guest on dozens of radio stations over the past decade. Be it politics or sports, listeners aren't interested in the politically correct world of the sensitive man.
They want concrete opinions. They want you to stick your neck out and they love to call back when you are wrong.
But, few things get me ranting and raving more than absolute statements.
In the NFL, pundits love to talk about how you win the big game.
You've heard all the cliches ad nauseam.
Whether its "defense wins championships," "you win up front," "you need the run the ball and stop the run" or "stay away from turnovers," whatever you believe, 42 different Super Bowls have proven just one thing -- there is far more than one way to win.
For me, it was always Tony Dungy's cover-2 defense. I never thought any team using that as its primary scheme would ever get over the top. Sure, you could win a lot of games but eventually you would hit a team with a smart quarterback, a solid offensive line and you would suffer a painful, death by a thousand cuts, or in this case, a thousand dinks and dunks.
In my mind, the defense was just far too passive and simplistic to get things done in a big time situation. To this day, nine times out of 10, my theory is correct but the Tampa Bay Buccaneers pulled it off in Super Bowl XXXVII. Indianapolis, under Dungy himself, followed in Super Bowl XLI, but that Colts defense was far more aggressive than Dungy's original blueprint.
In Philly, we all know one local talk show lost loves to talk about how the tall, athletic No. 1 receiver is overrated and doesn't help you win championships, often pointing how the New England Patriots faltered in Super Bowl XLII with Randy Moss.
That's probably one of the more comedic theories I've heard since the Pats came into that game 18-0 and the New York Giants needed the stars aligned to win that game. Anyone remember Asante Samuel's dropped interception or David Tyree's brilliant catch? And, oh yeah, didn't a tall, athletic No. 1 receiver -- Plaxico Burress -- catch the winning touchdown?
It was also pretty evident just how important Burress was to the Giants and Eli Manning after they faltered late this season after losing him.
Meanwhile, Larry Fitzgerald almost single-handily jettisoned the Eagles from the playoffs and sent the Cardinals to their first Super Bowl with his Herculean effort in the NFC Championship Game last week.
There are exceptions to every rule.
If you need to run the ball and stop the run, why is Adrian Peterson and the Williams Wall in Minnesota enjoying their offseasons while Fitz and the Cards are getting ready to play for the NFL championship in Tampa?
If you need to stay away from turnovers, how do you explain the 1999-2000 St. Louis Rams and Mike Martz' "Greatest Show on Turf?"
Brett Favre won his one Super Bowl with Edgar Bennett as his primary running threat. Bennett was a nice player but hardly conjured up images of Jim Brown. Meanwhile, John Elway could never get over the hump until he got the big time runner in Terrell Davis.
This season, more time-tested theses will be destroyed.
If Pittsburgh wins, all the "defense wins championships" people will certainly be walking tall, but the Steelers have one of the weakest offensive lines in football today, disproving the "you win up front crowd."
On the other hand, if St. Louis earns the Lombardi Trophy, the "you need to run the ball crowd" will have to stick their collective heads in the sand.
Point is, you can poke holes in anything.
At the end of the say, only one thesis has stood the test of time -- "There are dozens of ways to win a football game."
No comments:
Post a Comment