The Cowboys exhibit this balance with Tony Romo’s excitable arm paired with TO, whose speed and downfield abilities are stabilized by Jason Witten. Marion Barber’s powerful, downhill running with a penchant for finding the endzone was last year paired with the more graceful yard-eater Julius Jones, and now is complimented by Mr. 7.6 ypc Felix Jones.
On the other side, the Vikings have an outstanding line paired with one of the league’s best backs. Their defense is also tops, but their lack of an effective passing game will most likely destroy their playoff chances. The success of one part of an offense depends on the success of another. The success of the team depends on the fluid functioning of all its parts, offense and defense alike.
Or at least that’s the way football’s been. The obvious exception is the 2006 Chicago Bears. A defense so powerful that it made up for its laughable passing game. Back then Thomas Jones and Cedric Benson was a pretty formidable running tandem, but Rex Grossman was at his very best an “eccentric” passer.
So in some respects this answers the question: it is possible to synthesize a team’s balance by overachieving in one or more spectrums. However, at least to the extent that history dictates, this balance is tenuous at best, and banking on your heavy side over-performing is beyond risky.
But in many ways that is what the Raiders have done. When they drafted Darren McFadden instead of someone they actually needed, many thought they assured themselves another top pick in the ’09 Draft. They don’t have much of a defense, and their passing game really relied on Jamarcus Russell and Javon Walker both clicking at training camp; but boy can they run. All reports from Raiders camp are that McFadden has only exceeded expectations, and the guys behind him are nothing to scoff at, either.
In Justin Fargas, McFadden, and Michael Bush, the Raiders have three legitimate rushing threats. Whether or not Bush gets as many carries as he deserves, each of these backs has the potential to go for 150+ yards each game.
Obviously, this won’t be enough. It’s hard enough to win games on nothing but offense (see: Bengals), and relying solely on a run game is the same approach that landed the Raiders towards the bottom of the league last season, albeit with a slightly less talented backfield.
Even if somehow Jamarcus realizes the potential the Raiders expect of him this year, the Raiders are still looking at a modest gain. They’re still a receiver or two shy of a truly dangerous aerial attack, making the net gain of their O over the offseason the replacement value of McFadden over Dominick Rhodes.
It has been proven that transcending the give-and-take relationship is possible, but only in extreme circumstances and with trivial gains. The pieces of a football team aren’t usually as interchangeable as in other sports, the obvious exception being McFadden at Arkansas. Position molds aren’t as malleable in football, and the NFL’s position rules make it even harder to rearrange parts without sacrificing the efficiency of the function.
I like to think of the 2001 Patriots as the manifestation of this balance in football. They were a bunch of no-names, underdogs to the star-studded Rams team in Super Bowl XXXVI. At that time the team electing to be introduced as a team instead of individually was still a rather radical image that captured the essence of a strong unit overpowering a strong group of talent. However, their level of success the following years makes that group seem more the product of outstanding talent development and coaching than the embodiment of cohesion.
Still, the Raiders provide an interesting case study as to how possible overcompensation is on a football team. Basketball players are often talked about having the ability to make those around them better, but what kind of affect can a player have from a more restrained role?
No comments:
Post a Comment