In its most recent tissue Sports Illustrated profiled all 32 NFL teams listing their supposed strengths and weaknesses. In the end, SI has the Atlanta Falcons defeating the Pittsburgh Steelers in the 2019 Super Bowl. Could be. Also which, if it comes to pass, would be the first time in NFL history a team won the championship in their home stadium.
They also have the Detroit Lions going 10-6 and missing the NFC playoffs -- again. Given their tougher schedule this year than in campaigns past, yours truly thinks 10-6 is a generous assessment. I would think somewhere between 9-7 and 7-9 is more realistic. But we'll see. If there's ever been a more confounding team over the years -- in any sport -- please feel free to let me know, because I don't. Those guys are about as predictable as Michigan weather.
Nevertheless, one paragraph in the SI Lions' diagnosis jumped out.
"Stafford has led 20 fourth quarter comebacks over the last four years. The most in the league".
Now I'm no math whiz, but even my Jethro brain can do the ciphering on that one. That averages out to five times a year the Lions have been behind in the fourth quarter, only to come back and win.
"He can use his exceptional arm to attack the spaces that open up in Cover 2, which is what teams most commonly use when protecting the lead".
Well hurray for Detroit's modern day Georgia Peach. No wonder he makes the big bucks. (Though Stafford [who has yet to win a single playoff game -- let alone the Super Bowl] having a higher salary than the likes of Brady, Rodgers, and Brees boggles the mind).
At any rate, that begs a question.
Why, tell me WHY, if whatever a team has done for three quarters has resulted in them leading the game -- would they switch strategies in the fourth?
How many times have we seen "prevent" defenses do anything but, and blow up on the team, resulting in a loss?
Answer? Lots.
The Cover 2 mentioned above is a simple zone concept. Two cornerbacks out wide, and two "high" safeties (deep). The problem with it is -- it leaves the middle of the field vulnerable and "in between" routes (15-25 yards) are almost gimmes.
What the defenses are trying to "prevent" is the monster play, and often they do. But if you're going to give a competent quarterback, which Stafford is, 15-20 yard chunks at a time, it doesn't take long to march down the field and score. Throw in a little prudent clock management in various ways, and it can typically be done in a minute or so of "game time".
If the receiving team of the ensuing kick-off then goes three and out, giving the ball back, the very same thing can happen again. A team that might have been ahead by 10 points going into the fourth quarter could then find themselves behind, not to mention the kick in the team morale they will have suffered.
It just seems so dumb. I mean, if you were a baseball pitcher and had been mowing down the opposing batters with fastballs, why would you start throwing them curves and sliders? And if they started to hit them, wouldn't going back to the "heater" be a prudent thing to do?
In the NFL, why change what has worked for you for three quarters? Keep bringing whatever it was.
Nope, I'll never understand "prevent" defenses, when over the years they have become like sticking a "kick me" note on your own backside, then walking into a rowdy bar.
A lot of things can happen, but most of them aren't good. Maybe even painful. And it was your own dumb fault in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment