Brain versus Brawn
Michael Lewis is a very good writer. He, the writer of 'Moneyball' and "The Blind Side," is probably the most notable writer of books about sports today. 'Moneyball' dissects the growth of sabermetrics in baseball: an idea that statistics can be used not just to describe the game, but also to draft, manage and win games.
What I think sets him apart from other writers is his ability to humanize beyond what we normally see; he talks about these themes and arguments within the context of people. 'Moneyball' centered on Billy Beane, the cocky rebel who runs against the grain of nearly every other GM. In 'The Blind Side', its Michael Oher, who is more feral man-child than football player.
But what I find to be the most interesting is the long-awaited discussion about offense and defense historically in football. The eternal question, what wins: offense or defense?
The first part is that we have to remove the fallacy that an individual determines the success of a football team. No one in football does anything by themselves. The best example is an interception; it can be caused by many factors. The QB could have made a bad throw, or misread the coverage, but the WR could have run the wrong route, or not fought for the ball faithfully or the QB could have been hit as he threw. That last bit is important as it can be caused by many factors: the RB could have missed the chip block on the rusher, the center might have misread the blitz and ran the wrong protection, or the most relevant to Michael Lewis: the LT could have been beat by the rusher. All this goes to show that although individual achievement is important, it is not localized in one position: In order for a football team to win, every player (or least a preponderance of more than one) need to do their jobs.
So, the question offense or defense has to be answered in a broader way. The answer is that there is no answer: both are necessary. But every respondent will answer the question with an answer predetermined by their passion. Whatever they care most about is what wins football games.
This is best illustrated by another comparison of opposites: Bill Walsh or Bill Parcells? Which Bill will you put your stock in. At some point in the late 90s or early 2000s, two-thirds of the NFL was coached by a descendant of Wals or Parcells. This is fascinating because these men exemplify the extreme edges of the offense/defense question.
Bill Walsh didn't think that coaching affected defense that much. Bill Parcells got into coaching specifically to coach defense. Walsh thinks that good defense is all about having the right personnel on defense. Parcells thinks too much thinking is bad for football. Walsh seeks to make passing less risky and more boring. Parcells is about passion through violence. Walsh is about precision, Parcells is about disruption.
Now, those are the extremes and reduces dynamic coaches into one-note examples. But it is an instructive way to look at the interaction of offense versus defense in football. Even there, the differences are a fallacy.
When comparing Walsh and Parcells, it is likely to see Parcells as the neaderthal. He is the one preaching that the winner is bigger, tougher and more physical/scary/passionate while Walsh attempts to beat you in an almost clinical pre-programmed ways. Walsh always scripts the first 25 plays of any game; Parcells belittles that by saying "they never got to play #8." But there is a fallacy to Walsh's thinking that might be hard to see.
Walsh says that good defense is all about getting the 'right personnel." He says that because he sees defense as inherently reactive. A WR goes out and knows where he is going; he makes the cut, and hopefully the QB is aware and the ball is delivered just as he makes his break and is open. The CB is running with the WR, sees the break, and then has to react. His ability to get to the receiver in enough time to make a play is paramount to his effectiveness. Hence, there is no way to coach it; either the CB has the reaction time to recognize, the physical strength stop immediately and reverse direction and the speed to close on the receiver. In a defense that is constantly reacting, the physical is paramount.
But Parcells' coaching career is about defense being proactive, not reactive. Reactive can work: The Cover-2 defense currently popular in the NFL is reactive in that it asks the front four to handle pressure, the Lbs to cover in space, and the FS to help against the run. It doesn't disrupt the offense so much as exhaust them by keeping everything in front of them. When executed well, it gives up no big plays and forces the offense to be patient with little chunks. Ironically, the offense that works the best against the cover-2 defense is the west-coast short passing game offense. Even more ironically, the cover-2 defense is known as well that can be executed without huge individual stars or talents....the same conditions that created the short-passing game offense.
So reactive can work, but its not the only way. Walsh only sees it that way because his mind was geared towards offense.
Not so Parcells. He saw that defense can be molded to be proactive, to attack. He was not against strategy and scheming. He did scheme, but it was schemes were designed to put his individual performers in position to wreck havok. And, at that, he was very good.
Also, although Walsh's 'West Coas Offense' is not run by everyone (meaning that his principle of a rhythm passing attack with precise routes is THE passing philosophy in the league), Walsh did not have a companion defensive philosophy. Parcell's defense of "we are bigger and faster than you and we will prove it on every play" can also be seen on offense. Big Offensive Linemen, bruising back, 'Smashmouth football' is perfectly aligned with Parcell's notion of coaching football.
Thing is, Parcells still requires exceptional players and then finding ways to cut them loose. Walsh's system is notable in that it requires less exceptional players and more committed coachable players. Like Walsh said, he wanted a systematic philosophy, one dependent on scheme not player. We all remember Joe Montana, but we should note that Bill Walsh had helped other QBs previous to Joe Cool have career years, and with Steve Young would continue after Joe Cool. Also, Walsh's system implemented by his disciples have done amazing things to QBs around the league. Its a system that is successful on its own, whereas Parcells' system presupposes voracious talent.
And maybe that makes Walsh more important, but it doesn't make Parcells a neaderthal.
What I think sets him apart from other writers is his ability to humanize beyond what we normally see; he talks about these themes and arguments within the context of people. 'Moneyball' centered on Billy Beane, the cocky rebel who runs against the grain of nearly every other GM. In 'The Blind Side', its Michael Oher, who is more feral man-child than football player.
But what I find to be the most interesting is the long-awaited discussion about offense and defense historically in football. The eternal question, what wins: offense or defense?
The first part is that we have to remove the fallacy that an individual determines the success of a football team. No one in football does anything by themselves. The best example is an interception; it can be caused by many factors. The QB could have made a bad throw, or misread the coverage, but the WR could have run the wrong route, or not fought for the ball faithfully or the QB could have been hit as he threw. That last bit is important as it can be caused by many factors: the RB could have missed the chip block on the rusher, the center might have misread the blitz and ran the wrong protection, or the most relevant to Michael Lewis: the LT could have been beat by the rusher. All this goes to show that although individual achievement is important, it is not localized in one position: In order for a football team to win, every player (or least a preponderance of more than one) need to do their jobs.
So, the question offense or defense has to be answered in a broader way. The answer is that there is no answer: both are necessary. But every respondent will answer the question with an answer predetermined by their passion. Whatever they care most about is what wins football games.
This is best illustrated by another comparison of opposites: Bill Walsh or Bill Parcells? Which Bill will you put your stock in. At some point in the late 90s or early 2000s, two-thirds of the NFL was coached by a descendant of Wals or Parcells. This is fascinating because these men exemplify the extreme edges of the offense/defense question.
Bill Walsh didn't think that coaching affected defense that much. Bill Parcells got into coaching specifically to coach defense. Walsh thinks that good defense is all about having the right personnel on defense. Parcells thinks too much thinking is bad for football. Walsh seeks to make passing less risky and more boring. Parcells is about passion through violence. Walsh is about precision, Parcells is about disruption.
Now, those are the extremes and reduces dynamic coaches into one-note examples. But it is an instructive way to look at the interaction of offense versus defense in football. Even there, the differences are a fallacy.
When comparing Walsh and Parcells, it is likely to see Parcells as the neaderthal. He is the one preaching that the winner is bigger, tougher and more physical/scary/passionate while Walsh attempts to beat you in an almost clinical pre-programmed ways. Walsh always scripts the first 25 plays of any game; Parcells belittles that by saying "they never got to play #8." But there is a fallacy to Walsh's thinking that might be hard to see.
Walsh says that good defense is all about getting the 'right personnel." He says that because he sees defense as inherently reactive. A WR goes out and knows where he is going; he makes the cut, and hopefully the QB is aware and the ball is delivered just as he makes his break and is open. The CB is running with the WR, sees the break, and then has to react. His ability to get to the receiver in enough time to make a play is paramount to his effectiveness. Hence, there is no way to coach it; either the CB has the reaction time to recognize, the physical strength stop immediately and reverse direction and the speed to close on the receiver. In a defense that is constantly reacting, the physical is paramount.
But Parcells' coaching career is about defense being proactive, not reactive. Reactive can work: The Cover-2 defense currently popular in the NFL is reactive in that it asks the front four to handle pressure, the Lbs to cover in space, and the FS to help against the run. It doesn't disrupt the offense so much as exhaust them by keeping everything in front of them. When executed well, it gives up no big plays and forces the offense to be patient with little chunks. Ironically, the offense that works the best against the cover-2 defense is the west-coast short passing game offense. Even more ironically, the cover-2 defense is known as well that can be executed without huge individual stars or talents....the same conditions that created the short-passing game offense.
So reactive can work, but its not the only way. Walsh only sees it that way because his mind was geared towards offense.
Not so Parcells. He saw that defense can be molded to be proactive, to attack. He was not against strategy and scheming. He did scheme, but it was schemes were designed to put his individual performers in position to wreck havok. And, at that, he was very good.
Also, although Walsh's 'West Coas Offense' is not run by everyone (meaning that his principle of a rhythm passing attack with precise routes is THE passing philosophy in the league), Walsh did not have a companion defensive philosophy. Parcell's defense of "we are bigger and faster than you and we will prove it on every play" can also be seen on offense. Big Offensive Linemen, bruising back, 'Smashmouth football' is perfectly aligned with Parcell's notion of coaching football.
Thing is, Parcells still requires exceptional players and then finding ways to cut them loose. Walsh's system is notable in that it requires less exceptional players and more committed coachable players. Like Walsh said, he wanted a systematic philosophy, one dependent on scheme not player. We all remember Joe Montana, but we should note that Bill Walsh had helped other QBs previous to Joe Cool have career years, and with Steve Young would continue after Joe Cool. Also, Walsh's system implemented by his disciples have done amazing things to QBs around the league. Its a system that is successful on its own, whereas Parcells' system presupposes voracious talent.
And maybe that makes Walsh more important, but it doesn't make Parcells a neaderthal.