Jump to content

2020 NFL Discussion


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, IUFLA said:

The 85 Bears and Lawrence Taylor beg to differ...

The 85 Bears and LT can stack up with anyone or any team, at any time, in terms of ability to pressure the QB. But those are also the exception more so than the rule back then. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I love Chris Ballard an uncomfortable amount.  What a treat after the Grigson years.

And the folks in Boston are really upset. Not only does Brady announce he is leaving. It's St. Patrick's day, and all the bars are closed.

Cavallari says Cutler "lazy" and "unmotivated Geez...any Bears fan could have saved her 10 years of trouble...

Posted Images

52 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

The 85 Bears and LT can stack up with anyone or any team, at any time, in terms of ability to pressure the QB. But those are also the exception more so than the rule back then. 

I'd have to go back and watch some Youtube but I thought Buddy said something along the lines of make the QB have 2-3 seconds to make a decision and we'll win every game. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FritzIam4IU said:

 

Great part about that video was they shot it I believe 2 days after their Monday night loss to Miami. Walter didn't want anything to do with it so that's why he looks superimposed or whatever the term is in it's final release. 

The world as we know it now. Can you imagine a team doing something like this before week 14?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

Part of that has to do with how offensive schemes have changed. You want as many offensive play makers as you can on the field, so you inherently have less guys blocking which means less time to drop back. 

Another part of that is the type of athletes rushing the QB in today's NFL. Some of the best athletes in the world are now rushing the QB, and every team has guys like that. That wasn't true 40 years ago.

 The 85 Bears and LT can stack up with anyone or any team, at any time, in terms of ability to pressure the QB. But those are also the exception more so than the rule back then. 

So going back to the statement that piqued my interest, I think you're onto something with the first part of this statement, but miss the mark with the second and third quotes...

You're right in the fact that teams rarely, if ever, keep backs or tight ends in to block, so the O line is it for protection...

Now, I know 2 things,,,1} that sacks don't tell the whole story, and 2} lies, damn lies, and statistics...BUT...

I went to https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ and looked at the decade of the 80s for sack statistics...

In 1980, defenses averaged 36.8 sacks per team

81 36.5

82 (strike year) 24.9

83 43.3

84 46.9

85 46.6

86 42.8

87 39.8

88 37.0

89 39.5

Since 2010, only twice (2013 and 2018) has the average been right at 40 per team. The rest of the time it hovered in the mid 30s.

And while I only mentioned the 85 Bears and LT, Reggie White, Chris Doleman, Derrick Thomas, and Mark Gastineau played during the 80s. They were World Class back then, too.  I'd put that group against any in the current league...And back in the 80s, as rico pointed out, they were geared to stop the run...and they could still knock your junk in your watch pocket...

There may be analytics that can shed more light on it...pressure, QB hits, etc...

And don't even get me started on the greatness of Deacon Jones... ;)

  

Edited by IUFLA
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

So going back to the statement that piqued my interest, I think you're onto something with the first part of this statement, but miss the mark with the second and third quotes...

You're right in the fact that teams rarely, if ever, keep backs or tight ends in to block, so the O line is it for protection...

Now, I know 2 things,,,1} that sacks don't tell the whole story, and 2} lies, damn lies, and statistics...BUT...

I went to https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ and looked at the decade of the 80s for sack statistics...

In 1980, defenses averaged 36.8 sacks per team

81 36.5

82 (strike year) 24.9

83 43.3

84 46.9

85 46.6

86 42.8

87 39.8

88 37.0

89 39.5

Since 2010, only twice (2013 and 2018) has the average been right at 40 per team. The rest of the time it hovered in the mid 30s.

And while I only mentioned the 85 Bears and LT, Reggie White, Chris Doleman, Derrick Thomas, and Mark Gastineau played during the 80s. They were World Class back then, too.  I'd put that group against any in the current league...And back in the 80s, as rico pointed out, they were geared to stop the run...and they could still knock your junk in your watch pocket...

There may be analytics that can shed more light on it...pressure, QB hits, etc...

And don't even get me started on the greatness of Deacon Jones... ;)

  

Quarterbacks were less likely to throw it away back then.  I stand by my point that QBs have less time to throw downfield in today's game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 5fouls said:

Quarterbacks were less likely to throw it away back then.  I stand by my point that QBs have less time to throw downfield in today's game.

True...seems there were quite a few QB's that scrambled around furiously back in the day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, 5fouls said:

Quarterbacks were less likely to throw it away back then.  I stand by my point that QBs have less time to throw downfield in today's game.

I'm not sure how you could quantify the first statement...

The second is debatable...I know the pass rushers of today have better 40 times than their 80s counterparts, but I don't think you can use that solely as evidence...The WRs are faster too, so they wouldn't need as much time to get down the field for longer passes...

I know the trend in the NFL is toward more mobile QBs that can buy themselves some time with their speed and elusiveness...

But I think it's more a risk/reward decision on the part of the coaches...Vince Lombardi once said, "Three things can happen when you pass the football, and two of them are bad." Longer passes of course have a lower completion percentage and probably the same, if not higher, chance to be intercepted. 

The shorter passes are more efficient simply through a higher completion percentage and the fact that it gives superior athletes, as @KoB2011 said in his first post, one on one coverage  or a seam in a zone with the chance to do even more damage in space...

Edited by IUFLA
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, IUFLA said:

So going back to the statement that piqued my interest, I think you're onto something with the first part of this statement, but miss the mark with the second and third quotes...

You're right in the fact that teams rarely, if ever, keep backs or tight ends in to block, so the O line is it for protection...

Now, I know 2 things,,,1} that sacks don't tell the whole story, and 2} lies, damn lies, and statistics...BUT...

I went to https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ and looked at the decade of the 80s for sack statistics...

In 1980, defenses averaged 36.8 sacks per team

81 36.5

82 (strike year) 24.9

83 43.3

84 46.9

85 46.6

86 42.8

87 39.8

88 37.0

89 39.5

Since 2010, only twice (2013 and 2018) has the average been right at 40 per team. The rest of the time it hovered in the mid 30s.

And while I only mentioned the 85 Bears and LT, Reggie White, Chris Doleman, Derrick Thomas, and Mark Gastineau played during the 80s. They were World Class back then, too.  I'd put that group against any in the current league...And back in the 80s, as rico pointed out, they were geared to stop the run...and they could still knock your junk in your watch pocket...

There may be analytics that can shed more light on it...pressure, QB hits, etc...

And don't even get me started on the greatness of Deacon Jones... ;)

  

This is really interesting information and I think leads to an interesting discussion of causation and correlation. Given that we know teams are throwing more frequently now, but the sack numbers don't seem to be changing, what do we think is the root cause of that?

My hypothesis would be that given all the changes to the game (rules, players, schemes, etc.), quarterbacks are getting the ball out of their hands much quicker now than they used to. This truly is, in my mind, because of a multitude of factors. Someone posted the Vince Lombardi quote about passing outcomes, but I'm not sure that lines up with today's NFL. The short and intermediate passing games these teams can use is very efficient and generally low risk. 

Would love to hear others thoughts on this. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

This is really interesting information and I think leads to an interesting discussion of causation and correlation. Given that we know teams are throwing more frequently now, but the sack numbers don't seem to be changing, what do we think is the root cause of that?

My hypothesis would be that given all the changes to the game (rules, players, schemes, etc.), quarterbacks are getting the ball out of their hands much quicker now than they used to. This truly is, in my mind, because of a multitude of factors. Someone posted the Vince Lombardi quote about passing outcomes, but I'm not sure that lines up with today's NFL. The short and intermediate passing games these teams can use is very efficient and generally low risk. 

Would love to hear others thoughts on this. 

Good post.  And really don't have anything to add other than I think back to the Montana 49ers.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

This is really interesting information and I think leads to an interesting discussion of causation and correlation. Given that we know teams are throwing more frequently now, but the sack numbers don't seem to be changing, what do we think is the root cause of that?

My hypothesis would be that given all the changes to the game (rules, players, schemes, etc.), quarterbacks are getting the ball out of their hands much quicker now than they used to. This truly is, in my mind, because of a multitude of factors. Someone posted the Vince Lombardi quote about passing outcomes, but I'm not sure that lines up with today's NFL. The short and intermediate passing games these teams can use is very efficient and generally low risk. 

Would love to hear others thoughts on this. 

 

3 minutes ago, rico said:

Good post.  And really don't have anything to add other than I think back to the Montana 49ers.  

All of this has roots in Bill Walsh's West Coast offense concept. Interestingly enough, Walsh's initial idea was conceived when he was an assistant to Paul Brown with the Bengals. Strong armed Greg Cook had went down to injury, and the back-up, Bears cast-off Virgil Carter didn't have Cook's arm strength...Described here...

I know it has evolved a lot, but i think most of today's offenses still have roots the West Coast offense, incorporated with the read-option...

And I think we can all agree that part of the reason QBs get rid of the ball more quickly is the precision the offenses demand. 

It is an interesting conversation...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

 

All of this has roots in Bill Walsh's West Coast offense concept. Interestingly enough, Walsh's initial idea was conceived when he was an assistant to Paul Brown with the Bengals. Strong armed Greg Cook had went down to injury, and the back-up, Bears cast-off Virgil Carter didn't have Cook's arm strength...Described here...

I know it has evolved a lot, but i think most of today's offenses still have roots the West Coast offense, incorporated with the read-option...

And I think we can all agree that part of the reason QBs get rid of the ball more quickly is the precision the offenses demand. 

It is an interesting conversation...

Another thing to throw in the fray is the use of the TE(s) in today's game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rico said:

Oh yeah, you really didn't hear about them in the 70's.  Racking my brain...Casper? 

Ditka in the 60s was the first true TE weapon in my opinion...John Mackey, the aforementioned Dave Casper, Charlie Sanders, and Jackie Smith were great weapons too, but we're essentially lighter lineman who blocked as much as they caught passes (and, as you previously stated, it was a running league during their time). 

To me, Ozzie Newsome was the first guy who was more a receiver than a blocker/receiver. Shannon Sharpe, Brent Jones, and Kellen Winslow Sr were the bridge to today's ultra-mobile, speedy tight ends whose main job is to catch passes and stretch defenses...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, rico said:

Oh yeah, you really didn't hear about them in the 70's.  Racking my brain...Casper? 

Ozzie Newsome played in the late 70's.

Russ Francis

John Mackey finished his career in the early 70's

Charlie Sanders

Jackie Smith

Charle Young

Billy Joe Dupree

Of these listed, imo Francis, Newsome and Sanders would have been most similar to modern day Tight Ends.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, rico said:

Oh yeah, you really didn't hear about them in the 70's.  Racking my brain...Casper? 

Bob Trumpy of the Bengals was considered a pass catching tight-end in the 70's.  He caught more than 40 passes TWICE in his career.

Casper had 40 or more catches five times, with a peak of 62.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

Someone posted the Vince Lombardi quote about passing outcomes, but I'm not sure that lines up with today's NFL. The short and intermediate passing games these teams can use is very efficient and generally low risk. 

That was essentially my point with this statement, although I think I could have been more clear...

2 hours ago, IUFLA said:

Vince Lombardi once said, "Three things can happen when you pass the football, and two of them are bad." Longer passes of course have a lower completion percentage and probably the same, if not higher, chance to be intercepted. 

The shorter passes are more efficient simply through a higher completion percentage

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another factor is defenses key on what they expect.  In today's NFL, teams are going to pass 95% or more of the time on 3rd and 4.  Back in the 70's and 80's, they probably ran 70% of the time on 3rd and 4.  The pass rush on certain down and distance was just not as intense. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

Another factor is defenses key on what they expect.  In today's NFL, teams are going to pass 95% or more of the time on 3rd and 4.  Back in the 70's and 80's, they probably ran 70% of the time on 3rd and 4.  The pass rush on certain down and distance was just not as intense. 

Except the Bronco's of the 80's....that damn shuffle pass on 3rd and 4.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

Another factor is defenses key on what they expect.  In today's NFL, teams are going to pass 95% or more of the time on 3rd and 4.  Back in the 70's and 80's, they probably ran 70% of the time on 3rd and 4.  The pass rush on certain down and distance was just not as intense. 

Yardage is always a factor, but it would be interesting to see raw numbers regarding that...

22 minutes ago, rico said:

Except the Bronco's of the 80's....that damn shuffle pass on 3rd and 4.....

That and the other 2 ironclad certainties I've noted in my time watching football...

If the Bart Starr Packers had a 2nd and 1, he was gonna throw it long...

And if the Ditka coached Bears had anything over a 3rd and 5, they were running a draw play...use to drive me nuts...bet McMahon wasn't a fan either...

Edited by IUFLA
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

Yardage is always a factor, but it would be interesting to see raw numbers regarding that...

That and the other 2 ironclad certainties I've noted in my time watching football...

If the Bart Starr Packers had a 2nd and 1, he was gonna throw it long...

And if the Ditka coached Bears had anything over a 3rd and 5, they were running a draw play...use to drive me nuts...bet McMahon wasn't a fan either...

It's probably why McMahon would call all those audibles and piss off Ditka...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if the NFL lifted the tv ban this year? Reason I'm asking and I'm thankful but as a Bears fan in Indy when Colts are home it automatically means other station doesn't carry games. This week we get Colts on Fox at 1 and Bears on CBS at 1 as well. Thankful but curious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...