The Most Damaging Player Suspension Debate… Taking the Charge Out of the Passing Game

July 30, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Babe Ruthless and Loyal Homer.

Last season the San Diego Chargers made the decision to commit to an offense featuring its passing game.

After many seasons with success on the ground behind future Hall of Fame running back LaDanian Tomlinson, the Chargers felt it was time to put the ball in the air more. To support that initiative, the Chargers signed quarterback Philip Rivers to a six year contract extension that was worth $92M.

Over the course of the season, the Chargers found a great deal of success in the new aerial commitment, finishing the season with the fifth best passing offense in the league. And the biggest reason for that success, other than the arm of Philip Rivers, was the work of two other offensive standouts, tight end Antonio Gates and wide receiver Vincent Jackson.

Gates and Jackson last season combined for more than 2,300 receiving yards (nearly half of the team’s entire production), and 17 touchdowns, earning them both Pro Bowl invitations.

The results were so positive that the Chargers in the off-season made the decision to release Tomlinson.

After that decision became action, there was no turning back. While Darren Sproles and rookie Ryan Matthews should prove to be worthwhile replacements on the ground, the results earned in the air last season was enough to warrant a full commitment to the passing game. With Rivers (a two-time Pro Bowl selection himself) behind center, and two Pro-Bowl targets for him to throw the ball to, what could possibly go wrong?

I’ve got three letters for you: D.U.I.

Six months ago, Vincent Jackson pleaded guilty to a 2009 DUI charge (his second incident), and was consequently suspended for the first three games of the 2010 NFL season for violating the league’s substance abuse policy.

Now the “Super Charged” passing game that was supposed to feature a Pro Bowl quarterback, Pro Bowl wide receiver, and Pro Bowl tight end, will only feature two of those to kick off the first three weeks of the regular season (two of which are games against AFC West rivals Kansas City and Denver).

Without Jackson on the field the Chargers will have to rely almost entirely on Gates. The problem is that opponents know that and will be able to focus on Gates much more without worrying about covering Jackson. As far as other wide receivers are concerned, it will fall to Malcolm Floyd and Legedu Naanee to carry the bulk of the receiving load during this season’s opening weeks. Both players are a far cry from the Pro Bowl abilities of Vincent Jackson. Floyd did catch 776 yards last season, but that was due to the fact that defenses had to key on both Jackson and Gates, which allowed Floyd more opportunities to get open. As for Naanee, he was good for only 242 receiving yards.

This loss of a primary receiving target comes at the worst possible time for the Chargers. They already sent Tomlinson packing, who even in a statistically bad year found the end zone twelve times, and now are forced to go without a 1,000 yard receiver for the first three games of the season.

In a division where each of the teams (yes, even the Oakland Raiders) made very solid improvements during the off-season, the Chargers can ill-afford to give up any ground if they hope to successfully defend the division crown. But rather than enter the season with one of the league’s most dangerous passing games, the team will have to find a way to survive without the man who is the balance on offense and a key weapon.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The Overcoming Team Obstacles Debate – Plan Ahead… “It Wasn’t Raining When Noah Built The Ark”

September 25, 2009

Read the debate intro, Sports Geek’s argument and Loyal Homer’s argument about which is the easier obstacle for a team in the NFL to overcome, a week one injury to the star player, or the slow decline in performance by the team’s veteran leader.

Which brand of life’s lemons is easier to make lemonade from?

It is difficult to gauge which is the worst of two different situations, because each presents a unique set of complications that must be addressed. In the case of this debate, the choice was to discuss which is the lesser of two evils – to lose your star player to injury, or to deal with the decline if performance of a once-productive veteran.

When a player is lost to injury, the coach’s “choice” of whom to play is already made for them. Thanks to the injury that was sustained, the coach is forced to look towards the backup player, who is expected to step in and fill the hole vacated. This may help eliminate some second-guessing on the part of the head coach, but the level of talent that is placed on the field is markedly less than before the injury took place.

As Sports Geek points out, coaches prefer black-and-white issues. When a coach has to decide how to utilize a now less-reliable veteran, it creates many complicated questions that can be difficult to answer. With those questions comes scrutiny and the potential for conflict within the organization, especially if the coach is perceived to have made the wrong choice.

Loyal Homer brings up the fact, though, that the sudden loss of a star player creates problems because a team must redesign their entire gameplan to accommodate that loss. Using Loyal Homer’s example of Brian Urlacher, the Chicago Bears had built their defensive gameplan around the expectation that Urlacher would be on the field. Urlacher, as noted by Sports Geek, has been one of the best defensive players in the NFL for nearly a decade. When Urlacher went out with a wrist injury during week one of the season, Bears head coach Lovie Smith was forced to redesign his entire strategy at a moment’s notice to compensate.

Both Sports Geek and Loyal Homer made very strong arguments, but I am awarding this verdict to Loyal Homer.

There were key example raised by Loyal Homer that ultimately won the debate was regarding the San Diego Chargers. Since 2001, the Chargers offensive gameplan has been simple – feature running back LaDainian Tomlinson and force the opposing defenses to stop him. Tomlinson was such a powerful presence on offense that he single-handedly carried the Chargers to FOUR AFC West Division Championships. During that same time, the Chargers only had two losing seasons, in 2001 (Tomlinson’s rookie year) and 2003.

2008, as mentioned by Loyal Homer, was a different type of season for the Chargers, though. As Tomlinson’s performance began to decline, the Chargers were forced to look to the other players on their team, such as quarterback Philip Rivers, tight end Antonio Gates, and backup running back Darren Sproles, to help pick up the slack. The reason that the Chargers have been successful in doing this is because they had time to prepare and develop their players. A smart coach doesn’t “put all his eggs in one basket”. Instead, he relies very heavily on the stars of today while planning for and developing the stars of tomorrow. In the case where a star player is injured while in his prime, the coach doesn’t have the luxury of that preparation. Instead, the coach must start a player who may not yet be fully prepared for full-time competition in the NFL.

When you consider the example that Sports Geek raised about the New England Patriots, who still managed to win 11 games without quarterback Tom Brady, you cannot ignore the fact that they still missed the playoffs, which Loyal Homer pointed out. If Brady were healthy and could have earned the Patriots just ONE more win, they would have reached the postseason. They did not reach the playoffs, though, essentially making their 11-5 record worth the exact same value as the Detroit Lions’ 0-16 record. At the end of the year, neither team won enough games to extend their season, so both failed in what they had tried to accomplish.

Neither is an ideal situation. What makes the injury to a star player a more damaging loss is simply the fact that there is no planning or preparation for it. A good coach with the foresight to read the writing on the wall can plan for the eventual phasing out of a star player whose time is simply running out in the NFL, and can begin to phase in the next generation of star talent.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!


The NFL Pre-Season Debate – Should the NFL Just Forget About Pre-Season?

August 20, 2009

Read Bleacher Fan’s argument that the NFL does not need a pre-season and Loyal Homer’s argument the NFL should maintain a pre-season.



It is NFL training camp, and veteran professional football players hate it. It is hot at the tail end of the summer, especially when they are forced to spent time away from their families and go through the motions for a team they already know they made. After camp pre-season hits, which consists of four full length games with rosters sometimes topping 80 players. It is a maze of players that coaches promise playing time. There is no way around it – for veteran NFL players, the pre-season sucks.

Football fans hate it, too. They are forced to pay full price for pre-season games that do not make any impact on the regular season. In some cases, when fans refuse the $100 ticket price to watch a game where their favorite players will only play for two series (at best), they are threatened with a local blackout of the game. That sure is endearing for the fans.

It is the NFL pre-season, and it seems everyone – except the owners – hates it.

So, why does the NFL pre-season exist? Coaches will argue that seeing the players compete in game situation that do not count toward the overall record is a positive thing. Some players – especially undrafted rookies (folks like San Diego Chargers tight end Antonio Gates and Arizona Cardinals quarterback Kurt Warner) argue that they need the time to prove themselves worthy of a spot on an NFL roster. Some really geeky fans (even more than me…) will watch the NFL Network wire to wire since they are showing EVERY pre-season game on the channel in 2009. The real reason pre-season exists? These games make money for the owners. Big time. They do not have to pull out all the “game day” stops they usually do to impress fans and create the ultimate fan experience, but they DO get to charge full price for tickets. That is a lot of margin for very little investment… a.k.a. an owners dream.

Fortunately, enough fans and players seem to have expressed their disdain for the pre-season that owners and the NFL are considering the option of expanding the regular season to absorb the normal pre-season schedule. In other words, the crappy games that never counted could become the early start to the regular season, a regular season that would expand to 20 games, rather than the normal 16.

While that option would make fans and owners happy, now the players would be unhappy, as cited by NFLPA union chief DeMaurice Smith. Smith believes extra regular season games would take a real toll on players, and the already high number of injuries we see in the NFL would become even higher.

Given both sides of the discussion and the general impression of the pre-season by all relevant parties, the question for today’s debaters to argue is:

Does the NFL even need a pre-season? Rather than having a four game pre-season and 16 game regular season, the debaters will argue to retain the current system or replace it with 20 regular season games.

Bleacher Fan will argue that the NFL does not need a pre-season while Loyal Homer will argue that the NFL should retain the pre-season.

Argue your sides strongly – the future of the NFL may depend on it!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.