The NFL has always been the epitome of parity in professional sports; the “any given Sunday” mantra always profoundly entrenched in the minds of fans, journalists, and coaches alike. Six weeks through the 2011 season though, something seems to have gone terribly wrong. There are a lot of good football teams this year, but there are also a lot of bad football teams – not much in between.
So what’s the deal?
An easy answer would be some teams simply responded to the lockout better than others. Another explanation tossed around is that this season is the aftermath of the previous (uncapped) season. Then there’s the notion that some teams in quarterback disarray are tanking on purpose for the chance at Andrew Luck – a notion that for the sake of my own sanity I will call ridiculous.
I believe that teams are swinging on opposite sides of the success pendulum for a far more fundamental reason: If your organization is not innovative, mentally flexible, and apathetic to external opinions, then failure is merely a ticking time bomb.
The most glaring example of the aforementioned is the evolution of the league into the passing era. It doesn’t take a football guru to notice it either. If your team failed to acquire a quarterback that could go out and win a game – as opposed to some successful teams of the past that simply told their quarterback to not lose the game – then you are behind the pack and in the process of dealing with the consequences.
The passing onslaught that has overcome the NFL today is no accident; this was simply the natural progression of the game based on the development of the athletes in the NFL. In 1980s and early 90s, the offense had an advantage running the football because the defensive linemen of that era were not running the 10 yard cone times that they are today – their body fat and agility were not even comparable. It took them longer to get off the ball or get in position to cover their gaps. This, partially, is why the prototypical 3-4 defense was so successful in that era. Instead of asking big defensive linemen to shoot through and penetrate, even numbered (Bear Bryant) techniques allowed those big guys to be as big as they wanted because they were only asked to “hold” the line, and cover two gaps instead of one. The risk was you wouldn’t be able to generate as much pressure in the passing game, but I’m sure you’ve heard the adage a hundred times from coaches that coached in that era “if you can’t stop the run, you will lose.” And it was true; if you could stop the run during that time it went a long way toward your team’s chances of success.
Athletes evolve though, and the style of football should evolve as a result. Many coaches that were supremely successful in previous eras are finding themselves scratching their heads. A perfect example is Bill Parcells, and those that stubbornly follow his principles. In his mind, he won a world championship with his brand of football and therefore it was a winning philosophy as long as the pieces were in place. Well, he now finds himself retired after more than 2 decades of trying to replicate those New York Giants teams of the late 80s.
I’m not here to advocate one style of football over another, but there was a natural trend in how athletes were developing and some coaches/managers were able to grasp the big picture better than others. Bill Belichick, for instance, was a part of those Erhardt – Perkins style offenses that relied heavily on bruising offensive linemen and setting up the play action pass. He realized, though, that this style of offense was dated and it needed to be altered with the progression of the modern athlete. The Patriots still use the Erhardt – Perkins numbering system for routes and alignments, but it has been tailored to the modern era of football – to the point where it is now a spread offense.
How does a predominantly run oriented offense evolve into one of the best passing offenses the league has ever seen? Innovation, mental flexibility, and apathy to external opinions.
Today, we are seeing prime examples of this on the defensive side of the ball as well. There was a time when every team in the league could identify their defense as a 1 gap (usually 4-3) defense or a 2 gap (usually 3-4) defense. That is no longer the case. More and more teams are finding that they need to have some mix of both 1-gap and 2-gap alignments in order to avoid predictability. Some coaches, such as Rex Ryan and his brother Rob, are on the verge of eliminating gap assignments entirely. To them it is a limited, simple, and dated method of stopping the run. In today’s NFL you can hold your opponent to 20 yards rushing and lose by 30, or your opponent can run for 200 yards and you can win. It is an entirely flip flopped trend relative to what this league has seen essentially since its commencement.
Being employed in the NFL today is a tough, tough business. Believe me, most of these coaches and personnel employees earn every penny they make. However, I firmly believe that to be successful you must be willing to innovate your schemes (in all three phases) in order to remain ahead of the trends of your opponent. Often, that will require you to have the mental flexibility to adopt a philosophy that is polar opposite of your fundamental beliefs. And in order to implement these innovations, you must be willing to remain apathetic to any external criticism you may endure in the process. These qualities are what will allow a Head Coach or General Manager to succeed with longevity as the NFL moves forward into the unknown.