
It was Super Bowl 39. The Eagles were driving in fits and starts down the field. They were down ten points but it felt like it could have been a hundred.
What should have been a thrilling contest felt dull and lifeless. My friends munched on miniburgers and downed beers, already amusing themselves with chatter about surf rock and Space Ghost references. I stared at the TV trying to find something to love about the game.
I knew the Patriots scored 24 points, I just wasn’t sure how. Tom Brady dinked and dunked my memories into oblivion. The exacting nature of Bill Belichick’s disciplined defense sucked the air out of every Eagles drive before the seemingly inevitable Donovan McNabb interception.
I felt numb. When did football turn into this?
The Patriots dynasty, confirmed that night, was built entirely on storylines that played well to the crowd and reducing the game to a series of scribbles on a whiteboard.
One of the reasons I started Fuhbaw, started obsessing critically about football, applying ideas I've stumbled across in the course of my life to a sport that I thought I left behind, is the degree to which I hate the Patriots Way.
It's not that I hate the New England Patriots per se. After years of being a middling franchise, their jump to elite status is encouraging for the bulk of the league's middle class. And Tom Brady's abilities despite his abilities is an entertaining if not entirely too saccharine narrative. Plus, the emphasis on team in a team sport – which if one pays too close attention to the commentary can seem like anything but – speaks to hallowed football principles.
Yet those virtues disguise vices.
(Show me a pre-Randy Moss highlight reel of the Patriots that doesn’t end in a field goal.)
There’s a couple things going on here. Belichick’s brilliant game plans deceive opponents, transforming deficiencies in talent into perceived strengths. A great coaching job to be sure. But we watch sport to witness superior athletic talent on display, not to be duped by the illusion of talent.
To accomplish this, the coaching staff squashes the individual identities of the talent that they do possess. Randy Moss is a notable exception (and perhaps the only reason I can watch the Pats without cringing). It’s one thing to enforce the team concept for the betterment of the team and thereby the betterment of the sport. It’s quite another to strip talent of its uniqueness to maintain an illusion.
It’s the four yard outs and draw after draw. It’s the two-gap responsibilities and cover three shell. It’s bend but don’t break. It’s “just do your job” screamed on the sidelines.
All this translates into boring, belabored football. The victories over such football evoke relief more than triumph, freedom from the low level hum of mind numbing precision.
I feel like I'm constantly tipping my cap to Belichick's evil genius exploits. As a fan, at some base level, one simply desires success, perhaps at whatever cost. But the cost is important.
Yes, we watch our teams and hope they win. But if our teams lose we don’t necessarily walk away with nothing. We still witnessed. We were there. We can remember the beautiful catch improbably plucked out of the air. We can remember perhaps heroics in defeat. We can concede defeat to the superior team or the lucky team.
Why wasn’t there more outrage over Spygate? Because Spygate didn’t change anything. It just confirmed what we already knew to be true. Belichick’s Patriots steal from the sport what isn’t rightfully theirs.
Defensive signals. Victory. Doesn’t matter.
I know this may sound like a diatribe. Perhaps it is. I don’t mean it any outsized outraged way. Belichick is paid to do what he does and he does it remarkably well.
He’s also a fantastic villain. Bloodless, arrogant, intelligent, and frumpy. He’s no hero for sure… but he could be an anti-hero.
This is all to say I won’t be joining my man Zac at Throwing Into Traffic in his measured dreams about Patriots West.
Zac makes several great points. And the language of his dream could come to pass. Matt Cassel in KC and Josh McDaniels in Denver make the AFC West an instantly more interesting division.
But I cannot root for this spread of the Patriots Way. And I may not have to rail against it. Watching Romeo Crennel blow down his house of cards in Cleveland and Eric Mangini jealously guard his toy train set in New York, it became abundantly clear New England's success isn't easily duplicated.
McDaniels could break that mold, he after all opened up the Patriots offense and realized a space for Randy Moss to flourish. But considering the horrendous start McDaniels is off to thus far I can't express any confidence either way.
What I do know, whether it's a culture war or a castle storming, pitchfork in hand I know what side I'm on.
Tuesday, April 7
Burn Your Passport
fuhbaw: bill belichick, broncos, chiefs, josh mcdaniels, matt cassel, nfl, patriots
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I have to say that I disagree with you.
On the one hand, I agree that it's almost criminal to ignore the unique talents and abilities of your players, to force them to conform to a prebuilt scheme. Rather, schemes should take advantage of player's strengths, the unique things they bring to the field.
On the other hand, however, I disagree that, in some sense, the purpose of sport is to watch athlete pitted against athlete, that the team that should win is that with the superior athlete. Sports in general, and football in particular, should not be simple athletic competitions. Part of the beauty of the game is the strategy, the way in which you can win simply by outsmarting your opponent, by planning better than him. That's the glory of the game, the intersection of mind and brawn, and the union of both into a meticulously run plan that relies on incredible athleticism to lead to victory.
I also disagree with some of your points about the frequent boredom of Pats games. Yes, the Patriots don't play "beautiful football." Their games at times are not as exciting as those of high-octane offenses. However, there's a certain beauty to watching something done well. Further, and more broadly, I don't think the Patriot system and emphasis on scheme and execution is the cause of the blandness of their games. Bill Walsh and his West Coast Offense with the 49ers originate the dink-and-dunk short pass execute kind of game offensively (although the philosophy existed before him and existed afterwards in completely unrelated places). However, his teams also gave us some of the greatest moments in football history - The Catch, Montana's drive to end Super Bowl XXIII.
I guess my basic point is that I'm seeing an emphasis on pure athleticism in this post, a hostility to system and scheme. A sense that a victory can only be earned through superior athletic talent, that victories gained by superior preparation and planning and strategy are illegitimate. I do not agree. The Patriots Way may make for boring football, but that's not due to the emphasis on scheme per se as much as to the scheme and philosophy that Bill Belichick adopted.
Thanks, Doug, for your thoughtful answer.
You make a great point, that team sports, especially football, is in large part about strategy. Watching Rex Ryan's Ravens 3-4/4-3 hybrid or Dick LeBeau's Steelers zone blitz and watching those schemes executed perfectly are sights to behold. And they're not pretty in any traditional sense.
But those schemes heighten the talent at hand. My qualms are with Belichick's genius at turning his weaknesses into strengths schematically. It's a tricky and purely aesthetic point. But I think aesthetics are important.
I'm speaking to something that can't be quantified and is therefore a difficult proposition. In a certain sense I'm starting from that mind numbing feeling I have at so many Patriots victories. I will say that the use of Randy Moss's skill set in the Patriots offense changed a lot of things for that team. Brady averaged about 26-27 td's a year to 11-12 int's before Moss. Afterward the jump to 50-8 was astounding and directly attributed in my mind to Moss. Welker does everything asked of him and does it well. But Welker doesn't change the offense, he merely runs the bubble and slip screens and short hooks better with more consistency than Jabar Gaffney or Reche Caldwell. I definitely applaud the Pats use of Moss, reviving his career and transforming a very dainty offense into a dangerous one.
I don't think athletic talent should always take precedence over scheme/strategy. What's important is the *fusion* of those two. Watching aging slowing linebackers suffocate drives because of excellent scheme handcuffing Richard Seymour's skills into rigid two-gap responsibilities is not my idea of football that puts its best talents on display. It's effective, indeed. But when the pendulum swings the other way and athleticism triumphs over scheme (see Fitzgerald Larry in the playoffs) I think we can all agree that some aspect of witnessing sport is affirmed.
It's a viewer's perspective thing. You can watch ESPN Classic all you want, but watching something live unfold is what gives sports a considerable power that it has over more scripted forms of entertainment.
I think Belichick is a helluva coach, I said as much in the post. But the way he accomplishes his considerable success places him at odds with why I and a lot of people watch sports. I tip my cap to his success, but refuse to endorse his philosophies because they often take the fun out of it. And that's what sports should be: fun.
I'm so glad you were able to put what I feel about Belichick and the Pats into words - thank you!
Post a Comment