Long thoughts on short passing

If you're going to rip me in a serious way, please get my quotes right. I didn't say that Cleveland fans were Hitler zealots. I compared the mob mentality, as exemplified by what I've seen in the Dawg Pound, with newsreel shots of the old Hitler rallies.

Mob psychology is an ugly thing because you never know when a mob can turn vicious, in an instant, and inflict the most unspeakable atrocities. I've seen it happen outside the arena of sports. It happened, to a lesser extent, at Cleveland Browns Stadium in that bottle-throwing riot last year, and I'm sure there were many people who are normally pretty well balanced who got caught up in it. That's what mob psychology does to human beings, and I hate all manifestations of this phenomenon.

When I was in the army I was stationed in Germany for 15 months. I talked to some people about the Hitler years and how ordinary individuals could get so caught up in such evil. Mixed in with much of the phony hand-wringing and mea culpas were a few genuine attempts at understanding.

"We had been weak," one woman told me, "but when we acted as a mob we became strong, and what we did ... my God, it was like being in the power of a mindless monster ... it is a nightmare to think about."

There was much more, of course, and I had little sympathy for these people, not when six million innocent lives were lost, but that quote about the mindless monster always stayed with me.

So let this serve as an answer to John of San Francisco and Joshua of Kent, Ohio, and Mike of Stamford, Conn., who were so critical of my sentiments. And to Brady Portaro of Cleveland, who felt that my statement, "trivializes the mob mentality," and "reeks of anti-semitism," let me ask you something. How many of your relatives perished in the Holocaust? With the exception of one brother and two sisters, my father's entire family was wiped out. I mean all of them. My mother was luckier. She only lost about half her relatives. I noted that you're working in the MBA program at Indiana, and I assume you're not old enough to remember those years, so may I suggest that you try to take a look at Leni Reifenstahl's film, Triumph of the Will. Look carefully at those faces, especially in the mob shots, note the passion and fervor. It might help you understand that when people are stirred to a fever pitch, anything is possible.

My call for help in trying to solve the puzzle of the diminishing long ball drew many responses. Thank you, thoughtful e-mailers, and I'll try to cover everything that Jimmy hand-carried over in his gunny sack.

Charlie of Miami feels that quarterbacks' arms are weaker. Can't say I go along with this. Scouts are still looking for the gun.

Adam from Walnut Creek, Calif., feels that the advent of bigger receivers has produced bigger corners, who bump them on the line and then feed them into the double-zone, thereby nullifying serious downfield activity. Can't say I go along with this one, either. The double zone has been around for a while, and even in the days when a defender could mug a receiver all the way downfield, the yards-per-catch figure was higher.

John of Dallas cites the lack of talent at the QB position, also the inclination toward more blitzing. I'll go along with the first observation, but more blitzing? I don't think so. I see three-man lines rushing, with a linebacker also coming, but that's not a blitz. It's still a four-man rush. If anything, the defense seems to be laying back in coverage more, and the passers are just throwing underneath it.

Another double-dipper from M. Cole of Toronto. QBs now aren't as bold as the gunslingers of the past were, plus there are better corners now who are tough to beat deep, so they'll give up the short stuff. Again, I'll agree with half of this. Every year I do a kind of chart, comparing quarterbacks of today with those of 20 years ago, and the old era always wins. I haven't done it yet this season, but I will pretty soon and I'm sure my results will be the same. The cornerback stuff? Uh uh. There were better corners in the era when most defenses played man to man, and these guys had to cover all over the field. I'm talking about Willie Brown and J.J. Johnson and Mike Haynes and Lester Hayes and Herb Adderley and Mel Renfro and Roger Wehrli, remember him? And more recently, Deion Sanders. Only one player of today, Aeneas Williams, can compare with them, and he's on the downside.

Tim of Burlingame, Calif., cites the rise of the Cover 2 defense. Nope, it's been around since the 1970s, perhaps even earlier, and the Rams, when they were going good, tore it up. So did Brett Favre last Monday night, when he had time to throw.

Bruce of Oakland ("please give my regards to the Flaming Redhead, unless I'd have to duel you, in which case never mind." Her response: "Aren't I worth fighting for?") is a non-dueling mathematician who offers a statistical analysis to my expression of astonishment that of the 21 leading yards-per-catch receivers last year, only one has a better average this season. His thesis is that I've chosen people with extreme statistics, thus those numbers are likely to come back toward the average the following year. Well, using that theory, then the numbers for the top rushers will all drop the next season, and so will the top punters and passers. In short, everybody who's on top will move closer to the median. I've always loved the study of statistics, but I think you'll agree that the ones I presented defy normal probability.

Much better is his idea that short passing might get the receivers beaten up, but long passing is rougher on the QBs, who have to hang in the pocket longer, ergo, shorter throwing is safer for the guys paid the most money. Maybe, but I still see many instances of passers taking a seven-step drop and waiting and waiting and then throwing underneath.

Paul of London and L.A., the odd couple, says that "the emergence of the 6-foot-7, 325-pound defensive end (uh uh, too big ... the 325-pounders are inside) altered the mindset of the average NFL exec. Suddenly QBs had to be giants to survive in the NFL." And he adds that those big, strong guys aren't athletically gifted enough or confident or brave enough to get the ball downfield. Well, Drew Bledsoe's a big guy and he's been around for a while and he isn't afraid to go deep. And I really haven't seen that new breed of big, musclebound dinkers, except maybe for that 6-2, 230-pound lady wrestler, Nicole Bass, who sued the WWE, but maybe I'm missing something.

I don't mean to make fun of your theory, especially after you offered such nice words of encouragement.

I'm solidly in the corner of Geoff of Denver because he refuses to call the Walsh Offense the West Coast Offense ("and risk another Z rant,"), and I thank you, brother, for sparing my feelings. He offers three reasons for the short ball. 1) None of the teams have the personnel, such as a young Jerry Rice, to turn a five-yard slant into a big gainer, which was such an important component of the Walsh attack; 2) The QB's arm strength and ability to stretch the field are less important than his ability to make quick reads and avoid mistakes, and 3) the NFL passing game in general is built on avoiding risk.

Yes, I'll go along with all three, but I'm still amazed that only one of last year's top yards-per-catch receivers is up from 2001. Thanks for the nice sentiments.

Mike of Dallas feels that the comeback route is choking off serious yardage. It's always been around. Joe Namath used to specialize in what he called the "deliberate underthrow." And many times it was used to set up something deeper, via the double move. And thank you for saying nice things about my work.

Craig of San Francisco says that the Patriots' victory over the Rams in the last Super Bowl exposed the folly of having your receivers "running track meets with a football for a baton," and Belichick's defense has proliferated throughout the league. Yes, but if you remember, St. Louis made a late run at New England and scored twice in the fourth quarter to tie the game, and it was Tom Brady's final drive that pulled it out.

Still on the subject (three more to go ... bear with me), Nick of Bloomfield, N.J., agrees that low-risk passing is proliferating, but then he wonders if it's possible to keep your average up if the number of passes also goes up, and he ends it with the question: Has anyone ever led the league in both receptions and yards per catch? Oh boy, a research project, just what I need at 1 a.m. Well, Nick, you're a nice guy, so let me take a quick look ...

It is now 2:25 a.m. The quick look has turned into an hour and 25 minutes. The Flaming Redhead has been asleep for quite a while. So has Little Jake, the kitten. The lights are out all over New Jersey, including Bloomfield. You know how these research things go ... you get all immersed in old struggles ... all the great receivers of yesteryear have been parading across my desk ... Dante Lavelli and Alyn Beals and Big Jim Benton and Petey Pihos. Here's what I found. It's been done twice. Don Hutson led the league in both catches (34) and yards per catch (24.9) in 1939, and Elroy "Crazylegs" Hirsch did it in 1951 with 66 catches and 22.7 YPC, also 17 TDs, during a 12-game season.

Scott of Knightdale, N.C., wonders if the long ball might be dying because coordinators don't have the cojones to let 'em rip. Sort of, but it's all in keeping with the idea of safer passing.

Ryan of NYC says he notices corners playing 10 yards off the receiver, with deep safety help, thus forcing everything underneath. Uh uh, if it's a two-deep zone, the corners press and then turn the guy over to the deep man. Sometimes they play off as a mixer, but if they do it too often, and allow all sorts of easy access underneath, they'll find themselves in a less stressful line of work, such as recreation director for the YMCA.

OK, we're through with the long ball. Terminado! And on to other activities. Jon of Minneapolis, and thank you for your comment on my Winborn piece, sees Dick Vermeil's offensive success in K.C. as an ironic counterpart to Mike Martz's struggles in St. Louis. Not me. I'm still in Martz's corner. I think he's one of the best and most innovative offensive thinkers in the league. Hey, we just spent a few hours ripping the play-it-safe mentality, so let's cut Mike a little slack. It's the personnel who've done him in, not the theory.

Jon-Luc of Boston ... ça va bien, Jon-Luc? ... wants to know if there's a place in the Hall of Fame for a pure special teamer. Of the names you mentioned, only Steve Tasker's has ever come up. I like quirky stuff, and I'd go for him, but only if I didn't feel there was someone else in the same package who was better.

Eric, South Jersey Expatriate, wants to know if anyone has ever had as rapid an ascent and descent as Kurt Warner, assuming he's through, which is an awful thing to assume, but I duck no questions here, hypothetical or otherwise. Yes. Greg Cook, Cincinnati Bengals, 1969. A wonderful rookie QB who injured his shoulder and never was effective again. Second question: The huge bonuses, etc., paid first-round draft choices create such high-risk operations that it might make sense to trade the pick every year for functional vets, would it not? Bill Parcells agrees with you. He hated first-round drafts ("You can never sign them ... they disrupt your salary structure," etc.). The problem is teams must answer to the fans and the media and they must also sell their share of trinkets. This is called promotion. And if one or two of those trade deals would go sour, the heat would be intense.

I have thought over your last question: "Where can I get someone to pay me to research this properly? I've got to pay for grad school." Here's what I've come up with. Try DeFilippo Freight Hauling and Construction in McKees Rocks, Pa.

Mandi of Ames, Iowa, can't understand why the 49ers offense is so static, so choked off, so uninspired. I think that Jeff Garcia's go-to receiver, Terrell Owens, is in a slump, for some reason. I don't think Steve Mariucci feels right now that he has the personnel to open up the attack. And when a QB is shorn of his go-to guy, well it's a bad situation. No. 1 example: Bledsoe's collapse when Ben Coates hit the wall in New England.

Mitul of Montreal hates the fickleness of the bandwagon set -- on it for Patrick Ramsey, off it for Brady. It has ever been thus, and always will be. Journalists are looking for new angles. Fans are looking for new toys. Tommy Maddox, Chad Pennington, Rodney Peete for a while ... all aboard, everybody, but get ready to jump off as soon as the wagon hits the first bump. Thanks for not including me among those front-runners, Mitul ... may I call you Mit?

Steelers questions. Curt of Uniontown, Pa., home of Chuck Muncie ... terrific back, greatly underrated ... wants to know what's with the defense. Same personnel guy who said Michael Strahan isn't performing well after he signed the big renegotiated contract also mentioned the same ailment for some of the Steelers defensive guys who got serious cash in the offseason. This kind of thinking makes me nervous, but who knows? I saw the Raiders and Patriots gnat-attack them to death, spreading them out, etc. OK, that happens and you adjust. But the Saints driving for scores on seven of their first eight possessions? This is serious, and unfortunately, I didn't see the game. I could fake this and give you some blah blah, but you deserve better. Give me one more look at the Steelers against someone who doesn't run a freak show offense, OK? Thanks for your comments.

Adam of Walnut Creek, whom we've heard from before, lays the Steelers problem on the "old and slow safeties." Same guys as last year and they both couldn't have hit the wall at the same time, could they? Usually you can get by with one canny veteran at a safety spot, à la Kurt Schulz, but a pair becomes a problem. I realize that I'm tap dancing here, but honestly, I need another look.

Cleveland's QB controversy, Couch vs. Holcomb, courtesy of Ned of Brampton, Ont. Was Holcomb really all that much better than Couch against the Ravens, considering he also threw two picks, and he was a facing a defense that was playing it soft, with a lead, and was minus Ray Lewis? Here's what I saw. I saw the team pick up the tempo and respond to Holcomb with more of a flair than it had shown under Couch. I saw it on the Jets, when Pennington replaced Testaverde. And on the Lions, when Harrington stepped in for McMahon. Sometimes it just happens, and a coach has to recognize that and act accordingly. But it's a tough pill to swallow, when you've devoted years of teaching and big $$$ to one guy. And thank you for the nice things you said.

Brad of Pensacola, Fla., salutes Tom Coughlin's foresight in packing the middle of his defense with two sturdy tackles, Stroud and Henderson. Tom comes from the Bill Parcells school, which believes that you must be firm up the middle -- tackles (or noseguard), MLB, strong safety. Could the Jags' pair make my all-pro checklist? Sure, if I notice consistent excellence.

Ravens questions. First one from John of Baltimore. "Have you ever seen a linebacker carry a team through his emotions and actions like Ray Lewis?" Yes, Lawrence Taylor on the Giants. Second part, am I willing to go out on a limb and pick the Ravens over the Colts? Well, I go out on a limb every week, and I made it an if pick. Yes if Lewis plays, no if he doesn't. And thanks for your support.

Tom of Baltimore wants to know if I like the Ravens' young safeties. What's there not to like? They're active and blessed with good instincts. How about the O-line, now that Mulitalo is back to guard and Brooks is at tackle? I liked Brooks against Cleveland, didn't like him against Denver. Mulitalo, as you know, was one of my all-pro guards last year. When you switch a guy's position you usually weaken yourself in two places, the one he's left and his new one. Trying to work another guy in at your problem spot, in this case RT, presents only one area of concern -- unless the guy is an absolute stiff, then it's a big area.

Steve of Seal Beach, Calif., wants to know what's wrong with the Titans. I can only repeat what I wrote in the rankings -- best receiver (Mason) hurt, and the guy who's supposed to pick up the slack, Dyson, dropped three balls last week. George is nowhere, for some reason. Wycheck's range keeps getting shorter, McNair has thrown seven picks in the last two games. Defensively, every QB they face seems to have a career day against them. Aside from that, things are just fine.

Have a comment or question for Dr. Z? Click here.

 

Related information

Multimedia

Visit Video Plus for the latest audio and video