This is one of the main things non-fans don’t understand about American football (to be referred to as “football” for the remainder of this post): it’s not all about the physical aspect of the game. The coaches and coordinators on the sidelines are just as big a part of the game as the players are. They’re not stopping every 12 seconds to “talk it over,” they’re subbing in player packages and notifying everyone of the play. It’s not a game of “flow” or non-stop action; football is about planning and strategy; it’s a chess game. Most NFL or college coaches would tell you that many games are won or lost in practice the week before a game is actually played.
Chess is a very good analogy. They are talking it over, to an extent, between downs. The co-ordinators are feeding information to the head coach and decisions are made as to sticking with a plan or improvising, correcting and countering. I can’t see how any of that is exciting for the fans, though. It does lack flow in the on field action, it’s starts and stops over and over.
Thanks for this. It is ridiculous the way any comparison turns into a nationalistic knob waving competition. Both sports are physically demanding, and both are ‘tough’ in different ways. I still love League, though seeing it only rarely. Union I fell out of love with because of the dominance of kicking and the Hooray Henry tossiness of many fans. But I understand the first part fo that has changed, and I’ll watch a game sometimes when it is on in a bar I am at.
I just have never understood why so many rugby fans seem to feel the need to claim football is a “sissy” game in some way. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it. But knowing people who’ve played both sports at a pretty serious level I wouldn’t put one group of them as more “manly” than the other.
It’s exciting for fans because when you understand the game you can see and predict the strategy in play, and when there **is **on-field action, there’s a **LOT **of on-field action. There are players all over the field and TV often doesn’t do the game justice; especially on pass plays when the receivers are out of frame a half second after the ball is snapped. Every player on both sides of the ball has a specific job to do on every single play; no one is ever completely “out of play.”
But it’s not for everyone.
And once you understand the basics of the game, you can spend a lifetime doping out the strategy and tactics on the field on any given down. The variations in offensive and defensive formations, shifts, routes, zones, blocking schemes, etc. are mind-boggling. No one understands it all. That has amply been demonstrated to me recently, for example, by watching Nick Saban’s Alabama defense on the field. The confusion his shifting schemes generate in the opposing offense is a sight to behold. Then to have it all turned around, and used against him by his former acolyte, Will Muschamp, in the early part of the National Title Game. Wow. The evolution of the game is continuous, and really fascinating.
People really do it a lot of injustice when they say it’s just a bunch of grunts running around for a few seconds.
Also, are you (not you, specifically, DC) going to tell me that players like Trent Richardson, Mark Ingram, Julio Jones, and Javier Arenas are “areobically unfit”?
(If you’ll pardon the Bama homerism, that is.)
I know, as is probably obvious, rather little about American football. So, here’s a question - how much does the result of a game depend on the strength and/or skill of the players and how much on the strategy and planning of the coach? Also, to what extent do the players have to make tactical decisions whilst playing?
Depends on the level of play.
At the high school or college level, there is often a vast difference in size and ability of the players from different schools, which can easily negate even the most brilliant of coaching strategy, and the team with bigger, stronger, faster players can just steamroll the opposition.
In the NFL, the difference between a great team and a bad one, talent-wise, is arguably very thin. Lots of teams go from last to first or at least make huge strides (or collapses) from season to season. Coaching and strategy have a lot to do with the success or failure of a team at the NFL level. A team with great talent but crappy coaching almost always fails. Success is predicated on a balance between on-the-field talent and good coaching.
As far as players making tactical decisions on the field, usually depends on the team and the coaching staffs’ confidence in their players, particularly the quarterback. Peyton Manning, for example, has a lot of freedom to make his own calls, though he’s still not calling his own plays. The offensive coordinator gives him several plays at a time and he chooses among them by calling audibles at the line before the play begins. Almost all QB’s have the option of changing plays at the line depending on what the defense is showing.
That’s just the QB, and that’s just presnap reads. During the play there are is a tremendous amount of on-the-fly tactical decision making by every player on the field. Even the most basic, untrusted and unproven rookie QB has to make tactical decision during the play, even beyond which receiver is open. (Which is itself quite the tactical decision-making.) He still has to be aware of and manage hot reads when the blitz is coming, for instance. Every QB in the league does this. And all but the most dunderheaded QBs have to properly read option routes.
At the pro level it’s 50/50. The coaches must put the players in a position to succeed, and then the players must execute. If either side isn’t up to snuff the team has no chance.
As I said above, all players must make tactical decisions every single play. The main job of coaches is to design plays that confuse the other team’s players. That’s pretty much all coaches do in their 100-hour work weeks. No effort is required to confuse the opponents if the opponents aren’t making tactical decision. Since that’s pretty much what all their effort is devoted to, you can imagine the level of awareness required from a player.
I don’t think it can be dissected. Imho, I’ve seen a ton of games decided by coaching, players, weather, luck, referees making the wrong/right call, accidents, mistakes, etc. etc. etc. I’ve also seen something called a “breakdown,” where a single, simple error at the beginning of the play causes a domino affect that adversely affects the outcome of the play vs many previous examples where the outcome was vastly different. Brilliant coaches sometimes make bad decisions as well (e.g. the time Belicheck went for it on 4th down and gave the game to Peyton Manning and the Colts.)
Imho, through all the complexity, there’s art. Trying to say simplify it and to say one part had this effect doesn’t encompass the number of things going on. It’s like saying Van Gogh’s paintings are brilliant because of one color.
There’s no doubt that the American football coaches have far more influence over what happens on the field than their rugby and league counterparts. All a rugby coach can do during a particular game is set a basic gameplan at the start and maybe adjust at half-time (or occasionally sending messages through replacements etc). As someone who has grown up watching rugby I like the fact that the players on the field are left to make the tactical decisions and then carry them out on the field. The few American football games I’ve seen seem to be overstructured to my taste. I prefer more improvisiation by the players.