Before 2011, there were just two men who had ever thrown for 5,000 yards in one season. Dan Marino did it in 1984, in a season that was so legendary for its time it really just looks like numbers that Ruth put up in 1927 or Gretzky in 1981. The other man was Drew Brees in 2008, who fell 15 yards short of breaking the record. Here's the thing about that Brees season, though: It wasn't that great. He had to throw the ball 635 times. He only completed 65.0% of his passes (it is amazing how great Brees has been at accuracy that having that number legitimately deserves an "only" qualifier). He threw 17 interceptions. He ended up with a passer rating of 96.2. His team did lead the league in scoring, but ended 8-8, last in its division, and missed the playoffs for the 2nd straight year. It was obvious that throwing for gobs of yards doesn't automatically ensure success. This was true in 2009 and 2010, as Matt Schaub and Philip Rivers led the NFL in passing yards for teams that finished 8-8 and 9-7, and like Brees, at home in January.
Then 2011 happened. Ten QBs topped 4,000 yards, which had been done before in 2009, but six of them topped 4,600 yards. Four topped 4,900 yards (Aaron Rodgers undoubtedly would have also if he played in Week 17), and three got to 5,000 yards. Two passed a record that had stood for 27 years. We had a sport have a similar sort of season just 13 years ago. In fact that sport had a decade of similar league-wide production relative to the norm, and we ended up calling it "The Steroid Era" and it included tarnishing the name of the Greatest Hitter of the last 40 years, as well as future Hall-of-Famers. Of course, in that sport, steroids were being used, but we still had a sport who's offensive records were being re-written each year. In 2002, 16 MLB players hit 40 home runs. That was unheard of. In 2011, 6 NFL players topped 4,600 yards. That is also unheard of. One sport became embroiled in scandal. The other sport is mostly being lauded for its excitement and exquisite play by its top quarterbacks.
I hate this development. I like defense. I like the challenge of being able to stop offenses. I believe that excelling at this end of the ball is relatively more important than excelling at offense. I believe this is true of every sport (switch it to pitching in baseball instead of 'defense'). This is an odd position to take as a person who's favorite NFL team has been offense-first for 15 years, and who's QB really started this era of incredible QB play, where teams basically devalued defense for offense, but it is what I truly believe. I'm someone who thinks a perfectly executed blitz is just as exhilarating as Aaron Rodgers heaving the ball 40 yards to Jordy Nelson, who then catches it because he can outrun someone who isn't allowed to touch him after 5 yards. I'm someone who loved that football was a sport that allowed great offense teams and great defense teams to be as successful; a sport that allowed for more than one way of building a winning team. I'm afraid that this is no longer the case today.
The reason that I'm not a huge fan of the NBA is that I feel the league is unfair. Not in the way that baseball is unfair (no salary-cap to limit spending), but unfair because one player can make a disproportionate impact. Landing one all-time great player can truly be all a franchise needs. The lucky bounce of a ping-pong ball (or shady pick of an envelope) and a franchise can be set. It doesn't really take that much ability to be the GM of a basketball team, or at least the GM of a championship one. Just get a superstar. Just be lucky to get LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan. And then you are set. The NFL might be becoming the same way. Just get a QB and you are set.
With the relaxed rules, having a great QB is now of disproportionate importance in the NFL. The Patriots, Saints, Packers, Giants and before them, Colts, all won really just because they had a great QB. If you don't have one (you didn't draft one), well then it is becoming a 'no soup for you' situation. The NFL hasn't totally crossed into the NBA area yet. I mean, there is still tremendous parity year-after-year (once again, half the playoff teams for 2011 did not make it in 2010). However, that parity is lessening. From 2002-2007 six teams made the playoffs in back-to-back-to-back seasons (the Pats from 2003-2007, the Seahawks from 2003-2007, the Eagles from 2002-2004, the Packers from 2002-2004, the Broncos from 2003-2005 and the Colts in all of those years). Two of those teams were QB first teams (Colts, Packers). One was a defense first team fattening up in a mostly weak division in the weaker conference (Eagles). Two were offense first teams that relied on their run game and superior o-line play (Denver, Seattle). The other started out as a defense first team, became a team led by its QB, and then switched back to defensive excellence, and finally ended with the most dominant season I have ever seen (Patriots). In the past four years, here are the teams that have made back-to-back-to-back trips: Colts (2008-2010), Patriots (2009-2011), Packers (2009-2011), Saints (2009-2011), Ravens (2008-2011), Eagles (2008-2010). Six teams, in a shorter amount of time. Other than the Ravens and Eagles, all have. Only one really did it with defense (Baltimore). Contrast that with the three that did it with defense in the earlier set (Pats, Broncos, Eagles). None have done it primarily running the ball, except for the third Eagles team and the Ravens. QBs are ruling the day. QBs are all you need to succeed year to year in the NFL.
Will we ever see a team like the mid-90's Chiefs, who made the playoffs 6 out of 7 years starting three different QBs in that time frame, with the only one close to great being Joe Montana playing out the string of his career? How about the Tampa-2 Bucs, who made the playoffs 5 out of 6 years from 1997-2002, and had three different QBs start playoff games (Dilfer, King, Johnson). Offense is ruling the day. It is impossible to see teams like the Packers, Saints, Patriots, and before Manning got injured, Colts ever missing the playoffs, just because they made good with their QB. The worst part of the problem is, is the NFL really worse this way?
The NFL QB conundrum isn't totally analogous with the NBA superstar problem because at least some of these teams actually developed their amazing QB like the Packers, or didn't get one due to the luck of a draft lottery (or tanking games in the NFL, as it were) like the Patriots. That said, this new NFL will probably never look like the old NFL. There will probably be multiple teams challenging the 500 point mark each year, and nearly ten QBs throwing for over 4,000 yards. Having this many 5,000 yard passers will probably not happen, but league-wide passing numbers should rise each year. Again, does this make the game any worse? Probably not, but as a fan of defense, it does for me.
Now we have come to a crossroads. There are 6 frontrunners for the Super Bowl. The 15-1 Packers. The 13-3 Patriots, 49ers and Saints, and the 12-4 Steelers and Ravens. If one of these 6 doesn't win the Super Bowl it will be a huge upset. This is also a perfect set of teams. Three have great HOF QBs and offenses that scoredd 500 points. The other three were the best three defenses in the NFL. Undoubtedly there will be matchups where great offense will face great defense. It really will be interesting to see if defense can at least still rule January. 2004 was actually similar. That was really the first year of the passing expansion, a year where a 39 TD 11 INT, 4700 yard season wasn't the best season put up by a QB (BTW, that would be good for 4th or 5th in 2011). In those playoffs there were three matchups that had a great offense take on a great defense. The defense won each time (Jets over Chargers, Patriots over Colts, Eagles over Vikings). The one difference is that time, other than the Jets, the great defense were at home. We'll have to see if one of these defenses can go on the road and take on great offenses. It definitely will be a good way to test if defense is still a viable way of building a champion in the NFL.
The most exciting prospect is probably the 49ers. The Ravens and Steelers are respected enough that people believe they are both definite title contenders (apart from the reservations on Flacco). They've been great defenses for 12 years now. The 49ers are new. Their defense is possibly the best out of the three. Despite that, and the fact that a potential game against the Saints will come in Candlestick Park, few people think the 49ers really have a shot. I do. In reality, I hope they do. I'm rooting for these teams. Teams that can play defense. Teams that don't give up 400 yards a game. I'll go for them. I'm marking it down right now, that if the 49ers and Saints do play next Saturday, I am picking the 49ers. I have to believe that defense still matters. Hopefully, next year, when 10 more QBs throw for 4,000 yards, I can take solace that at least defense matters in January. If not, well then, we might as well call the NFL what it is: Arena League, but outdoors and with better team names.
Then 2011 happened. Ten QBs topped 4,000 yards, which had been done before in 2009, but six of them topped 4,600 yards. Four topped 4,900 yards (Aaron Rodgers undoubtedly would have also if he played in Week 17), and three got to 5,000 yards. Two passed a record that had stood for 27 years. We had a sport have a similar sort of season just 13 years ago. In fact that sport had a decade of similar league-wide production relative to the norm, and we ended up calling it "The Steroid Era" and it included tarnishing the name of the Greatest Hitter of the last 40 years, as well as future Hall-of-Famers. Of course, in that sport, steroids were being used, but we still had a sport who's offensive records were being re-written each year. In 2002, 16 MLB players hit 40 home runs. That was unheard of. In 2011, 6 NFL players topped 4,600 yards. That is also unheard of. One sport became embroiled in scandal. The other sport is mostly being lauded for its excitement and exquisite play by its top quarterbacks.
I hate this development. I like defense. I like the challenge of being able to stop offenses. I believe that excelling at this end of the ball is relatively more important than excelling at offense. I believe this is true of every sport (switch it to pitching in baseball instead of 'defense'). This is an odd position to take as a person who's favorite NFL team has been offense-first for 15 years, and who's QB really started this era of incredible QB play, where teams basically devalued defense for offense, but it is what I truly believe. I'm someone who thinks a perfectly executed blitz is just as exhilarating as Aaron Rodgers heaving the ball 40 yards to Jordy Nelson, who then catches it because he can outrun someone who isn't allowed to touch him after 5 yards. I'm someone who loved that football was a sport that allowed great offense teams and great defense teams to be as successful; a sport that allowed for more than one way of building a winning team. I'm afraid that this is no longer the case today.
The reason that I'm not a huge fan of the NBA is that I feel the league is unfair. Not in the way that baseball is unfair (no salary-cap to limit spending), but unfair because one player can make a disproportionate impact. Landing one all-time great player can truly be all a franchise needs. The lucky bounce of a ping-pong ball (or shady pick of an envelope) and a franchise can be set. It doesn't really take that much ability to be the GM of a basketball team, or at least the GM of a championship one. Just get a superstar. Just be lucky to get LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan. And then you are set. The NFL might be becoming the same way. Just get a QB and you are set.
With the relaxed rules, having a great QB is now of disproportionate importance in the NFL. The Patriots, Saints, Packers, Giants and before them, Colts, all won really just because they had a great QB. If you don't have one (you didn't draft one), well then it is becoming a 'no soup for you' situation. The NFL hasn't totally crossed into the NBA area yet. I mean, there is still tremendous parity year-after-year (once again, half the playoff teams for 2011 did not make it in 2010). However, that parity is lessening. From 2002-2007 six teams made the playoffs in back-to-back-to-back seasons (the Pats from 2003-2007, the Seahawks from 2003-2007, the Eagles from 2002-2004, the Packers from 2002-2004, the Broncos from 2003-2005 and the Colts in all of those years). Two of those teams were QB first teams (Colts, Packers). One was a defense first team fattening up in a mostly weak division in the weaker conference (Eagles). Two were offense first teams that relied on their run game and superior o-line play (Denver, Seattle). The other started out as a defense first team, became a team led by its QB, and then switched back to defensive excellence, and finally ended with the most dominant season I have ever seen (Patriots). In the past four years, here are the teams that have made back-to-back-to-back trips: Colts (2008-2010), Patriots (2009-2011), Packers (2009-2011), Saints (2009-2011), Ravens (2008-2011), Eagles (2008-2010). Six teams, in a shorter amount of time. Other than the Ravens and Eagles, all have. Only one really did it with defense (Baltimore). Contrast that with the three that did it with defense in the earlier set (Pats, Broncos, Eagles). None have done it primarily running the ball, except for the third Eagles team and the Ravens. QBs are ruling the day. QBs are all you need to succeed year to year in the NFL.
Will we ever see a team like the mid-90's Chiefs, who made the playoffs 6 out of 7 years starting three different QBs in that time frame, with the only one close to great being Joe Montana playing out the string of his career? How about the Tampa-2 Bucs, who made the playoffs 5 out of 6 years from 1997-2002, and had three different QBs start playoff games (Dilfer, King, Johnson). Offense is ruling the day. It is impossible to see teams like the Packers, Saints, Patriots, and before Manning got injured, Colts ever missing the playoffs, just because they made good with their QB. The worst part of the problem is, is the NFL really worse this way?
The NFL QB conundrum isn't totally analogous with the NBA superstar problem because at least some of these teams actually developed their amazing QB like the Packers, or didn't get one due to the luck of a draft lottery (or tanking games in the NFL, as it were) like the Patriots. That said, this new NFL will probably never look like the old NFL. There will probably be multiple teams challenging the 500 point mark each year, and nearly ten QBs throwing for over 4,000 yards. Having this many 5,000 yard passers will probably not happen, but league-wide passing numbers should rise each year. Again, does this make the game any worse? Probably not, but as a fan of defense, it does for me.
Now we have come to a crossroads. There are 6 frontrunners for the Super Bowl. The 15-1 Packers. The 13-3 Patriots, 49ers and Saints, and the 12-4 Steelers and Ravens. If one of these 6 doesn't win the Super Bowl it will be a huge upset. This is also a perfect set of teams. Three have great HOF QBs and offenses that scoredd 500 points. The other three were the best three defenses in the NFL. Undoubtedly there will be matchups where great offense will face great defense. It really will be interesting to see if defense can at least still rule January. 2004 was actually similar. That was really the first year of the passing expansion, a year where a 39 TD 11 INT, 4700 yard season wasn't the best season put up by a QB (BTW, that would be good for 4th or 5th in 2011). In those playoffs there were three matchups that had a great offense take on a great defense. The defense won each time (Jets over Chargers, Patriots over Colts, Eagles over Vikings). The one difference is that time, other than the Jets, the great defense were at home. We'll have to see if one of these defenses can go on the road and take on great offenses. It definitely will be a good way to test if defense is still a viable way of building a champion in the NFL.
The most exciting prospect is probably the 49ers. The Ravens and Steelers are respected enough that people believe they are both definite title contenders (apart from the reservations on Flacco). They've been great defenses for 12 years now. The 49ers are new. Their defense is possibly the best out of the three. Despite that, and the fact that a potential game against the Saints will come in Candlestick Park, few people think the 49ers really have a shot. I do. In reality, I hope they do. I'm rooting for these teams. Teams that can play defense. Teams that don't give up 400 yards a game. I'll go for them. I'm marking it down right now, that if the 49ers and Saints do play next Saturday, I am picking the 49ers. I have to believe that defense still matters. Hopefully, next year, when 10 more QBs throw for 4,000 yards, I can take solace that at least defense matters in January. If not, well then, we might as well call the NFL what it is: Arena League, but outdoors and with better team names.
