What the 2009 regular season taught us about stupid football cliches

The league is definitely changing – with the enforcement of the no-contact-after-5-yards rule, and the addition of the Brady Rule, QBs who can read defenses and pass quickly out of the pocket (or even on the run) now have a distinct advantage. Goodbye, NFL of the 70s. Hello, tomorrow.

Generally these rules lead to a less contact and more skill at certain positions. And more scoring. Both of which I think make for a better game. That being said, it still leaves room for seeing some great hits to happen

I’m pretty all the teams in the AFC are 1-6 in scoring defense.

You need to read your own article.

Franchise QB? You are calling Mark Sanchez a franchise QB over Matt Schaub??? And did we forgot Rothelisberger as well? Not only is that laughable, but its absolutely wrong. I mean, I dunno about you…but you can give me him at QB over Sanchez and Flacco.

I get the point of what you are trying to say, that in today’s NFL, a team can’t have a QB that is strictly a game manager anymore. That I would agree with….

we had two teams with rookie QB’s go to the playoffs (they played well, but not “franchise quarterback” level). We saw Jake Delomme and Kerry Collins go 25-7. We saw running teams dominate last year: CAR, NYG, TEN. At least they did in the regular season.

Now, last year may be an exception, but this is the first year I can remember just one running/defense/badQB team in the playoffs and not more.

This is my same refutation to people who say “Defenses cannot dominate in this league” when just last year Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Tennessee all dominated with their defenses.

You can make it into the playoffs without having a solid rushing attack, however, of the teams in the playoffs right now in the AFC, so many of them still use a variation of the run by utilizing the screen pass and dump-offs…yeah, I agree that straight up running the ball seems so much more difficult to do in the league now.

However, I think in order to be successful in the playoffs, you need to be able to run the ball…let’s take a look at the past few Superbowl winning teams – Great Defensive Play and Good Running Attack – Steelers 08-09, Giants 07-08 (Jacobs/Bradshaw/Ward and great defense), Colts 06-07 (Honestly, Manning did not have a stellar playoff season, but the defense and the Addai/Rhodes combo helped carry the team for 3 of the 4 games) – I don’t think you can solely rely on the pass to win it all…maybe to make it into the playoffs you can, but to win it all, I still think you gotta run the ball.

Only two teams in that list.. pittsburgh and texans didn’t make it, and both those teams were at least in the picture until the end, and both finished with a winning record.

While it may not be cliche and stats probably won’t back it up BUT:

It’s always said that time of possession many times determines which team wins games. While that may hold true in some instances Week 2 against the Dolphins it didn’t. The Colts held the ball for 14 minutes and 53 seconds and scored 27 points. That’s making the most of your opportunities.

Not sure where one finds it, but I suspect that this probably inversely-correlates with pass-dominant teams like IND, SD, NE having top offenses but TOP on the lower end of the scale, while running teams like NYJ, BAL, CAR are on the outside or barely made the post season.

Am I really that indifferent to the NFC that I can’t name any team that’s predominantly a passing team, and same for rushing aside from Carolina? Yes, I am.

Then of course there’s the famous Miami game, which underscores both TOP and franchize QB issues. Hell, the dominant run game and stop the run items as well. That game was a bit extreme, but a great example of what wins football games in 2009. Top QB + execution > run game + run D + TOP.

The Colts, Chargers, Giants, Steelers, and Texans all had dominant passing attacks despite sub par running games.

Even the borderline “franchise quarterbacks,” like Matt Schaub, …

So the league’s leading passer, the team’s starter for 3 years, and a player the team traded 2 second round draft picks for….but he’s not the Texans’ franchise QB?

Please lay out your objective (not subjective) guidelines for establishing who qualifies as a franchise QB.

I keep coming back to the 2006 Baltimore, NE, and Chicago games.

The Balt game was a heavyweight slugfest with neither O really clicking, but when we had to, we ran it. And by that I refer to a late drive that consumed about 7 minutes and consisted of about 8-9 rushes for 50-60 yards. To close out the game against an excellent D. That’s a little more than “just when we had to.” Because balt knew it was coming and we still imposed our will, it suggests we could have done it all day long. Impressive.

One week later, we were pretty balanced against NE and ran to keep them honest, ran when we needed to, and ran it down their throats for the winning TD. But both offenses were on fire in that game, and in the second half, it was probably our no-huddle attack that wore the Pats down, allowing the run game to emerge like a beautiful flower pushing its way through melting snow.

Two weeks later in the SB, Manning had just an okay game as a passer. As a play-caller, he was great and our RBs racked up a ton of yards (is that mgrex03’s 191 yarder up there?). Part of that was the weather, part was Chicago’s Tampa-2 playing deep safeties, and part was Manning’s play-calling. Oh, throw in Addai’s 10 receptions. (RBs totaled close to 300 total yds from scrimmage.)

That year we were not really a running team, but we had more aspects to our run game than ever before or since. I don’t know that we NEEDED it in any game aside from the Balt game; the rest of the O package did well enough in the other games and a lesser run game coupled with good RB-receiving games would have sufficed.

Last year we failed on second and 2 and, like Belichick making his 4th and 2 call earlier this year, we had no confidence in getting it on 3rd down either. The ensuing pass play resulted in a sack.

But you all know all this; the reason I am pointing it out is that we NEED a run game, but it need not be dominant. 18’s play-calling will be key in getting the runners the ball in the right situations. We will need to get the yardage when we need to, but don’t necessarily need 100+ yards. When the time comes to protect the lead, then we might rack ‘em up, especially if the no huddle has tired out the opponent’s D by the 4th quarter.

Keep in mind Clark is having his best year and we have two RBs who can catch and run well—the 4-5 yard passing game might well replace the parts of 2006’s run game that we do not have. Also, this year we have better deep threats than we did in 2007 (no Marv) or 2008 (diminished Marv). That should keep safeties deeper, allowing the run game to do better.

I WOULD like to see at least 25 runs for 100 yards in all our playoff games, but if we go 30 for 90, it probably won’t be the end of the world. That’s probably carrying enough of the burden. 35 for 150+ and we KNOW it’s a winning game—not because we depend on the run, but because if it’s going that well, we can dictate multiple facets of the game AND control clock.

Mark Sanchez’s name has disappeared from the post?

Peyton should be able to gun for 51 TDs and 5000 yards if everyone is healthy and if he plays for 16 full games with Wayne, Clark, Gonzalez, Garcon, Collie, and Addai.

Donovan MccNabb ranked 17th……..

Flacco? 15th

Sanchez? 23rd.

Warner? 12th.

Having a great passer onyour team certainly helps in every way, but saying:

If your team does not have a “franchise quarterback” (ie, a dominant player who can make plays throwing the football on a consistent basis) your team is not in the post-season

Is obviously absurd. Teams get in based on any number of factors. Take the Texans for instance. If Shankopatomus Kris Brown hits 2 field goals along the way, we’re in. But of course he had an ABYSMAL season.

Do you need a good qb to get in the playoffs? It doesn’t hurt, but you need alot of help from the other 21 guys.

I havent read this whole thread but it seems to me like BBS is trying to replace one cliche with another.