Yeah, that was SAS, as I recall. Just what you’d expect from a guy who pretends to be an expert on literally every sport and team at any given point in time and hasn’t launched a measured take in his life.
Why is the NFL playing bad football now?
- Thread starter TomRicardo
- Start date
I mean, Sports Illustrated seemed to agree that quote is admitting he couldn’t read defenses outside - according to him - of some coverages, so it wasn’t just me that interpreted his comments that way. It’s literally in the headline they used to describe his comments (yes, I did read the article at the time, and it’s how I interpreted his comments).
Your point about Shanahan offenses is exactly the point I’m making: everything is schemed from the sideline with little seemingly adjusted pre-snap anymore based on how the defense lines up. Also, I wasn’t just talking about running quarterbacks, I was talking about guys (and teams as a whole) that rely heavily on elite athleticism, which Mahomes has and has been a human highlight reel for years.
I understand your point, I think you’re just splitting hairs over what you interpret as “reading defenses” versus what I interpret it as (pre-snap blocking adjustments, blitz pickup, Mikes, audibles when mismatches are identified, quick releases). I mean, even Mac Jones and Zack Wilson, as terrible as they are, can identify a zone, man, nickle, - most basic defensive alignments. But I rarely see them or any other younger NFL QB making “correct” pre-snap adjustments the way we saw guys doing it 10 years ago.
To my eye, it’s because most modern quarterbacks struggle with defenses that play disguised and rotational coverages. Many of today’s QBs don’t pick it up pre-snap and react accordingly after the snap (usually with elite athleticism, or in Mac’s case, panic and turnovers). In a way I don’t blame them, I think it’s a coaching issue. I described it as “helicopter coaching” earlier, which is the best way I can think of to describe it. McDaniels did it year 1 with Mac, then when Mac was left to read defenses and make pre-snap adjustments on his own, the wheels came off. But he’s not alone.
In fact, I genuinely could not tell you who’s regularly recognizing these types of coverages and assignments pre-snap and making the correct adjustments in 2023. Russell Wilson probably? Dak Prescott? Rodgers of course when he’s on the field. After that - no idea. Just watch any game with guys drafted in the last ~5, 6, 7 years, look for this specifically, and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
Your point about Shanahan offenses is exactly the point I’m making: everything is schemed from the sideline with little seemingly adjusted pre-snap anymore based on how the defense lines up. Also, I wasn’t just talking about running quarterbacks, I was talking about guys (and teams as a whole) that rely heavily on elite athleticism, which Mahomes has and has been a human highlight reel for years.
I understand your point, I think you’re just splitting hairs over what you interpret as “reading defenses” versus what I interpret it as (pre-snap blocking adjustments, blitz pickup, Mikes, audibles when mismatches are identified, quick releases). I mean, even Mac Jones and Zack Wilson, as terrible as they are, can identify a zone, man, nickle, - most basic defensive alignments. But I rarely see them or any other younger NFL QB making “correct” pre-snap adjustments the way we saw guys doing it 10 years ago.
To my eye, it’s because most modern quarterbacks struggle with defenses that play disguised and rotational coverages. Many of today’s QBs don’t pick it up pre-snap and react accordingly after the snap (usually with elite athleticism, or in Mac’s case, panic and turnovers). In a way I don’t blame them, I think it’s a coaching issue. I described it as “helicopter coaching” earlier, which is the best way I can think of to describe it. McDaniels did it year 1 with Mac, then when Mac was left to read defenses and make pre-snap adjustments on his own, the wheels came off. But he’s not alone.
In fact, I genuinely could not tell you who’s regularly recognizing these types of coverages and assignments pre-snap and making the correct adjustments in 2023. Russell Wilson probably? Dak Prescott? Rodgers of course when he’s on the field. After that - no idea. Just watch any game with guys drafted in the last ~5, 6, 7 years, look for this specifically, and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
Last edited:
I think what Mahomes meant is that he knew the reads for each play -- e.g. something like, for a particular play if you get middle of the field open, then you read the deep defender on the strong side high/low -- but he couldn't have told you everything the defense was doing and why they were doing it, and where the weaknesses were.
I think you've got blinders on. Most QBs have always struggled with disguised and rotational coverages. There have never been more than a small handful of QBs (like 3-4 at most at any given time) who could consistently decipher that stuff and could be relied upon to make all of those reads you're describing. If anything, younger QBs are more prepared now than ever because college defenses at the top level are more sophisticated schematically than they used to be.
Tom Brady isn’t playing this year, of course there was going to be a drop off in quality of play
Thanks for posting.
Brady was careful not to offend, but clearly doesn’t think much of some of the QB play in the NFL today and in particular in New England.
He also called out lack of coaching the fundamentals. Good listen.
No way! Draft JJ, give him the reins of the front office and a private jet to keep himself warm in Miami during the week. I wish.
Wouldn't it be super interesting if BB leaves, the Pats draft MHJ and Brady comes back to NE as QB? Fairly ridiculous, I know, but boy would that be a story!
To me, watching a great ground game stuff it down a defenses throat 4 yards at a time is great football. That’s the great OL teamwork that is missing from todays game. And because that way of playing has been devalued, there aren’t dominant RBs like Payton, Sanders, etc. Guys with physical tools like that are probably being channeled into LB in the Carroll defense, as per that great post upthread.
it’s a shame because there should be different styles. You can’t tell me that watching Earl Campbell drag three guys downfield wasn’t great to watch. I came across a Mike Alstott highlight reel the other day that blew me away. Dude was a wrecking ball, unstoppable. When’s the last time anyone even used a fullback, the dude in SF is one, any others?
I think the game is poorer for the lack of diversity of offensive styles.
I’ll also question whether the dominant style is always more exciting. Watching :04 tick off when the QB misses a short slant is boring. Lots of those.
Last edited:
Just came across this and wanted to share. Hits a lot of what’s been discussed here. https://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/analysis/nfl-offense-scoring-penalties-efficiency-2023/
I'm not an expert in this, but it sure feels like every college and pro team runs basically the same offense now. Mostly (or exclusively) shotgun or pistol, RPOs, QBs who can run with it, one-back sets with usually (not always but usually) 3 WRs. Lots of WR bubble screens. Very little under center, downhill running or traditional play action, very little two TE power sets.
I know others have mentioned what the shotgun has done to QB play. In under-center pass plays, timing is often linked to a QB's steps. A 5-step drop, plant, and throw. Rhythm. The shotgun takes that away and forces the QB to guesstimate the timing.
Anyway, it feels a little like MMA. Again, not an expert on that, but watching it, it seemed like at the beginning of MMA, there truly were a host of different disciplines and you could SEE the difference out there, even to non-expert eyes. But now it seems like everyone uses some form of ground and pound, and jujitsu is very common in the sport. Maybe the rules make it the best discipline so everyone gravitates towards it. It's not that you never see a knockout by spinning heel kick, but usually fights end up on the mat with somebody getting a choke or something like that.
Feels like the NFL has evolved to where everyone is basically doing the same thing. I'd rather have diversity and see different ways to attack. But again, non-expert eyes here just reporting what I *think* I'm seeing.
This is an incredible analysis – thanks for sharing. It feels like the Pats’ offense is exhibit A of most of these trends – less scoring, fewer explosive plays, and lower completion rates despite more shorter passes (to say nothing of more sacks).
It also maybe explains some of the their drop-off from 2021 to today, despite having similar personnel, as the defensive schemes and penalty trends seem like they are making life harder on teams who have skill personnel (like Henry, Bourne and JJSS) who historically have thrived in the middle of the field.
#ButMacSucks
Thanks for sharing.
From that sharp article, this point supports what RBYB is saying:
"Average combined points per game by year, Weeks 1-6:
The 2020 season must be understood with the context that no fans were allowed to attend games due to COVID. As a result, road offenses received a solid boost, and collectively, teams found it easier to audible at the line of scrimmage. That resulted in a scoring rise which disappeared immediately in 2021."
"Average combined points per game by year, Weeks 1-6:
- 2010: 41.8
- 2011: 45.4
- 2012: 46.5
- 2013: 45.9
- 2014: 46.7
- 2015: 46.6
- 2016: 45.9
- 2017: 44.4
- 2018: 48.3
- 2019: 44.7
- 2020: 50.8*
- 2021: 47.8
- 2022: 43.3
- 2023: 43.4
The 2020 season must be understood with the context that no fans were allowed to attend games due to COVID. As a result, road offenses received a solid boost, and collectively, teams found it easier to audible at the line of scrimmage. That resulted in a scoring rise which disappeared immediately in 2021."
The article implicitly assumes that the state of play in the NFL since 2011 is normative and that any change that reduces offense from those levels is necessarily bad. I guess that’s a take.
Like I said upthread, some of y’all don’t appreciate good defense.
Yep. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with a 21-17 game that's well played, even if it's not high scoring. It doesn't make fantasy owners happy, but smothering defense is a joy to watch. Bad offense - offensive ineptitude, however, is not. So as long as the scoring decrease is because of good defense and not bad offense, I'm on board.
Like Super Bowl 53...I actually thought that was a hell of a defensive game by both teams and wasn't a case of bad offense.
I think that's an overly simplistic way of looking at it.
I have not been a fan of the offensive era of the NFL. Personally, I think the stretch during the Pats' first 3 SB wins--2001-2004--was the best "football" I've ever seen. No, it didn't hurt that my team was the best (FWIW, I also feel the same way about the '86 Celtics team). But it was almost a perfectly balanced game -- between offense and defense, pass and run, athleticism and toughness.
But that era is gone for a lot of reasons -- it began with Polian-style rule making, then you had fantasy and concussions, to say nothing of nepo baby owners and a commissioner doing their bidding instead of what's in the best interest of the game. All of which is outside the scope of the article but I think the writer kind of assumes as a starting point.
As for the article itself, I think it focuses less on "offense is down and defense is up so the game sucks" as "offense is down because of defensive schemes (ie, not plays), and it's being replaced with a lot of conservative play calling and short passes that fall incomplete." That may be "good defense" in that it is limiting points but it is not good football. Put another way, the NFL is still an offensive-oriented league but the offense is now bad.
This was posted on the first page and it seemed like most folks just blew by it to list their own reasons. But Warren Sharp looks at this stuff to make money, not posts.
People should read it - not skim it. It touches on a lot of the points brought up here plus more. It also does not argue that offense being down is bad.
Just saw you posted it… sorry man. You were on top of it. It really is an excellent read and has no bias. Just facts.
I am just glad Sharp is getting eyeballs here. I get that we have some experts in this forum (mostly fans of other teams besides the Pats) so maybe his content is too basic for them but it does feel appropriate for the rest of us.
Sharp agrees that defenses are better btw - not sure where that criticism came from.
Sharp argues that there are also a bunch of other factors including poor offensive creativity (see the teams cited in the quote above and if you are a NE fan you know its accurate), officiating points of emphasis etc.
Last edited:
From the article (the ellipsis omits a digression about point spreads that I don’t think is relevant):
You can agree or disagree with the author’s points, but the article most certainly does argue that offense being down is bad.
Ah, I wondered when you would get there - Sharp starts the piece with anecdotal complaints he has heard about the NFL. He is using them as a framing device. He is pretty fact and not value based in that piece. That said, I think its fairly self-evident that casual sports fans prefer excitement like big scoring plays. I think the argument that offense being down may cost the league eyeballs is definitely fair.
The author notes that there are more blowout games, which is reflected in the margin of victory being at its highest since 2014. And while you think the point spread discussion is not relevant, the fact that underdogs are failing to get close enough to the favorites is a trend that indicates that games are less competitive than they have been in recent years.
Nothing wrong with a well played 21-17 or even 17-14 game. And he makes a point about DPI being called less; nothing exciting about a nice deflection by a DB being flagged for DPI.
But viewers are going to far less interested in watching an 18-3 field goal fest, with several nice pickups by the offense negated by ineligible player downfield penalties.
The Sharp details on emphasis penalty calling is what bugged me the most, specifically DPI calls being down substantially, and ineligible downfield calls happening more regularly. This means offenses can't be more easily bailed out by a contested bomb being called for DPI, and they can't more readily pass on RPOs when even one lineman gets a good enough push on his block that he exceeds 1 yard. But rules are rules - why emphasize certain calls and deemphasize others? Change the rules!
That in mind, I actually prefer less DPI, as it's still incredibly hard to call when both receiver and defender are grabbing hands and pushing as the ball is in flight. But I fail to see why ineligible downfield couldn't be moved to the 3 yard limit that the NCAA uses. It would broaden the LOS, allow for more blocking in space (which is always fun to watch - just don't hold!), and likely land some more short passes into long YAC runs.
That in mind, I actually prefer less DPI, as it's still incredibly hard to call when both receiver and defender are grabbing hands and pushing as the ball is in flight. But I fail to see why ineligible downfield couldn't be moved to the 3 yard limit that the NCAA uses. It would broaden the LOS, allow for more blocking in space (which is always fun to watch - just don't hold!), and likely land some more short passes into long YAC runs.
As a consumer of the sport as an entertainment product, penalties and replay are the two biggest issues for me. There are times when flag-fests make it unwatchable, and replay seems to have evolved in a way that sucks the joy out of bang-bang plays while creating more interruptions and delays - with an apparent mindset in which the default interpretation is usually the least entertaining outcome (eg, spotting balls short of the sticks or the end zone, reversing an apparent catch because of some technicality). Both penalties and replay seem rooted in the league's peculiar obsession with quasi-legal game management. Given football's inherently physical and chaotic nature, there are just too many opportunities for refs to call something - so it becomes very difficult to string together more than a couple plays in a row without something getting whistled or reviewed - and then you have arbiters on the field and in control centers trying to interpret and enforce things appropriately.
I think the league needs to do some soul-searching along the lines of what Theo has done for MLB - step back and think about what it is that people like about the game and adjust accordingly. I fear that there isn't the same sense of urgency in football since ratings are high, but that hubris could eventually be costly.
I think the league needs to do some soul-searching along the lines of what Theo has done for MLB - step back and think about what it is that people like about the game and adjust accordingly. I fear that there isn't the same sense of urgency in football since ratings are high, but that hubris could eventually be costly.
Pats had Jakob Johnson (now on the Raiders) after Develin. Patrick Ricard in Baltimore is really good. He's down to about 40% of the snaps this year (64% last year). Alec Ingold is paving roads in Miami 40% of the snaps. CJ Ham is, IMO, the 2nd best FB in the league behind Jusczyk.
IMO, not having a fullback is killing teams running games. If you want to run everything out of the gun, read option, etc. it works with guys that can run themselves like Mahomes/Allen/Hurts, etc.
If you you've got an immobile QB and you're running play action, put a FB in there in the eye(I), use him as your blocking back and let the running back roll into the flat.
The lack of a fullback on the Pats has been driving me nuts. Rhamondre is not quick enough to take every handoff from the gun, a non-running start, and make guys miss.
FB has been an endangered position for awhile now. There’s fewer than 20 league wide and there’s less of a pipeline at the college level as offensive philosophies change.
I think eventually offenses will shift again. When defenses have fully caught up to the modern game, it will likely do so with incredibly fast, athletic defenders. Which, of course, is awesome. But they'll be vulnerable to something, and it may turn out that the best way to attack a modern defense is to just sledgehammer them to death. It's easy now to say that that won't work, but people thought that the 46 defense was impregnable...until offenses figured it out. So maybe we'll see a resurgence of the FB spot down the road.
It really is amazing though how much the NFL is impacted by the college game. Shouldn't be surprising, but in some ways I'd think it would be the other way around.
It really is amazing though how much the NFL is impacted by the college game. Shouldn't be surprising, but in some ways I'd think it would be the other way around.
Having just seen this alstott compliation- I’ll see if I can find it - I bet you’re right that the way to beat the Carroll defense as described in that excellent earlier post is to find the next power runner, invest in great run blockers, a leading fullback, 2 TE sets, and just pound away at these athletic and mobile (but smaller) LBs. I remember one of those great John Facenda NFL shows with Earl Campbell flattening dudes, and some LB -Jack Lambert? - you know how they would fit away to players sitting there in their 70’s velour and big-ass collared leisure suits- was saying that by the time the fourth quarter rolled around, you wanted to quit because you knew you were going to have to try to tackle him again every play and your body just couldn’t handle the punishment.
Just had visions of Jakob lead blocking for Stevenson/Elliott, 3 TEs Henry, Gesicki and Brown with Cunningham at QB. THAT would be extremely entertaining.
agree. what attracted me to soccer when I first started following the Premier League is that it flows. I can’t stand the choppiness of an NFL game.
of course the PL’s miserable video replay regime is making it increasingly NFL-like, where big plays require several minutes of replay followed by an inexplicable call, thus draining the game of momentum and fun.
I think that's what we're hankering for - interesting failure! There's little interesting about Mac settings all-time completion percentage records when the throws are all within 2 yards of the LOS with no YAC. Try different stuff!
Also think there are too many commercials especially when they sometimes go back to back with a 2MW
I’d maybe get rid of a couple of sets of commercials but add them in for halftime (to keep sponsors happy/money flowing)
QBs continue to get knocked out (Lawrence looks like latest)
This upcoming weekend you will see 10 starting QBs (1 out of 3 teams) who are somwhere between terrible and almost competent, and each of which arguably could be out of the league next year altogether. My list:
Tim Boyle
Bailey Zappe
CJ Beathard
Mitch Trubisky
Jake Browning
Aidan O'Connell
Joe Flacco
Baker Mayfield
Jameis Winston
Josh Dobbs
This upcoming weekend you will see 10 starting QBs (1 out of 3 teams) who are somwhere between terrible and almost competent, and each of which arguably could be out of the league next year altogether. My list:
Tim Boyle
Bailey Zappe
CJ Beathard
Mitch Trubisky
Jake Browning
Aidan O'Connell
Joe Flacco
Baker Mayfield
Jameis Winston
Josh Dobbs
Putting Baker on this list is legit insanity. He’s not in the same conversation as some of the others here.
The only guy who is probably not going to be on a roster next year is Flacco. The rest will be backups somewhere. They aren’t good but they will have jobs. Even Zap zap zap.
Put Bryce Young on the list over Baker, IMHO. Baker has been solid this year overall. 2800 yards. 90.0 rating.
There are some really bad things happening at the QB position this year, but Baker isn't one of the bad. He's not Jake Browning incredible, of course, but solid.
We're at, I believe, 51 different starting quarterbacks this season.
There were 68 different starting qbs last season.
There is still a long way and a lot of shitty quarterbacks left to play.
There were 68 different starting qbs last season.
There is still a long way and a lot of shitty quarterbacks left to play.
Wasn't this more or less the Pats plan, to zig when the NFL was zagging? Except they got TE's who aren't good blockers and no fullback, and no depth at RB. I still think it'd be a good path forward, just needs far better execution.
Mayfield’s career numbers are right about the same as Trubsiky’s and Winston’s
player A: 61% CMP, 87.0 rating, 2.7 INT%, 6.22 NY/A
player B: 61% CMP, 87.0 rating, 3.4 INT%, 6.78 NY/A
player C: 64% CMP, 86.0 rating, 2.5 INT%, 5.88 NY/A
I’d say all of those guys belong in the same group of barely competent NFL QB. Capable of giving you good games and awful games (or good quarters and awful quarters). Just like Mac Jones can look decent against Philly and Buffalo and absolute trash most of the rest of time time.
Mayfield is having a better year (clearly) and has a little more upside but he’s definitely in the same general tier as Winston and Trubisky, even if slightly closer to the top of the tier.
I think the biggest issue in the “running game to counter the current pass heavy trend” theory is OL play is awful across the pros and colleges. Guys who are big and mobile are shifting to defense in college. Between the pass heavy schemes, mobile QB’s (blocks don’t need to be sustained as long) and the big pay days as pass rushers and pocket disrupters in the pros, there’s a huge shortage of quality linemen in the college ranks. You still get a few stars, as we see now with Fashanu, Alt etc, but there’s so little depth in the college ranks that finding a half decent backup in the pros is almost impossible for most teams
The other problem of course is that a run-heavy offensive scheme has to be paired with an elite defense. Barring rule changes, your opponent is likely to be a passing offense with multiple big play threats (as we see with almost every good team). Once you get down 2 scores, having a team built around a running game with a mediocre QB isn’t really effective at coming back quickly. And if you have a better-than-mediocre QB, you need to build around him. Which means paying him and paying receivers to enhance/optimize his skill, and less money to spend on defense etc
I think we’re past the tipping point and the smash mouth ball control style is dead. You might get a perfect storm for a year or two where a young stud bell cow RB on a rookie contract finds his way to a team with a great OL and elite D but it’s not a sustainable way to build a team. QB are too expensive, as are pass rushers and DB, good power backs who can run and catch are exceedingly rare and OL talent is too thin league wide.
I think the 2014 Pats are a good example of what the “optimal” offense will look like. Premium OL, elite QB and a coach/scheme that can/is willing to play smash mouth (Blount vs the Colts) but isn’t based around that identity.
the next evolution of offense will likely be some of these big-play dependent offenses failing to win super bowls and realizing they need to add in packages and players to play smash mouth occasionally. Too many offenses these days are reliant upon “home run hitting” and if you run into a good defense and don’t have the power running game (or the coaching ability) to adjust, you’re done. The 2016 Falcons and 2007 Pats are where I see a lot of these modern offenses going. Coming up short when their big play WR get stopped.
The bolded has always been true, even back in the 70s. If you are a run-based offense with a mediocre-at-best QB, and you fall behind two scores, it has always been difficult to come back from that.
I personally think a way out of this is to go to an old school college approach - massive run heavy offense, with an elite running QB. Like the old wishbone offenses. Those athletic, not super great at passing but incredibly dynamic running QBs won't cost very much money, allowing you to invest in elite skill players, OL, and defense. Have three of those QBs on your roster so if one gets hurt you have another one with the same skill set ready to go. Run versions of the Wing T, use tons of misdirection, and smash smaller defenses which are made to stop high-powered passing attacks.
Yes if you fall behind you're in trouble. But that's always been the case. And this setup allows you to allocate your financial resources such that you can build elite defenses and offensive lines to make it work.
I know it's a pipe dream and teams won't go this route.
What's interesting is that a predominant philosophy/approach to offense should theoretically produce the opportunity for a contrarian approach to potentially also be successful. For example, if everyone was looking for pass-catching backs in their offense, it would drive up the price for those, and drive down the price for backs that aren't as effective in the pass. So, there would potentially be a market opportunity to grab a great run-first running back that wouldn't be a great pass-catcher. Similarly for other positions. If everyone is focusing on pass-blocking linemen, a team could go the other direction and pick up good run-blocking linemen.
But, we don't seem to really see that in football. It doesn't seem like we have teams trying to break the mold and realize market opportunities to win with a different approach than what is mainstream. I think that is disappointing, because I think that is one of the things that makes sports interesting. You have teams utilizing different approaches and you see which approach wins out.
But, we don't seem to really see that in football. It doesn't seem like we have teams trying to break the mold and realize market opportunities to win with a different approach than what is mainstream. I think that is disappointing, because I think that is one of the things that makes sports interesting. You have teams utilizing different approaches and you see which approach wins out.