Too Much Offense in the NFL

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

What about all those 3's in the NBA as well. Why do teams get rewarded for taking a shot thats available without any real offense and is worth 50% more than a 2 point shot. The 3 is available at any time during a shot clock. Also there is no 3 second rule if you just stand there is the corner 3 spot unlike in the Paint for 3 seconds. A lot of the 3's shooters wouldnt play any real minutes in the NBA in the 1990s etc.

I think the original intent was to allow for something relatively difficult and exceptional to create drama and entertainment, but it's just become way too easy as skill levels have evolved.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think the original intent was to allow for something relatively difficult and exceptional to create drama and entertainment, but it's just become way too easy as skill levels have evolved.

You dont think larry bird could of hit tons of 3s if wanted to and so many of the greats in the past?

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

You dont think larry bird could of hit tons of 3s if wanted to and so many of the greats in the past?

Basketball hadn't been "Moneyballed" yet with analytics, to realize it was a much more efficient shot then a mid-range 2.

If it had, Bird would have put up much more 3's. Also, much more hand-checking and physical defense at the perimeter, made a 3 a much tougher shot then it is now.

It's still a tough shot, don't get confused. Most normal people can't hit an NBA length 3 to save their lives. It's just practiced much more now through repetition, then it used to be, from a much younger age by promising young players.

Math has shown us, the only shot that might be more efficient to take, is a dunk...and even then it's pretty damn close.

...and what Steph Curry has done, regularly hitting shots from 5-10 feet beyond the 3 point line...that's...that's not normal. From a physics standpoint it should be nearly impossible. It's more demoralizing then a dunk over your best defensive player, when you try to double team a guy out by the half court line, and he can still get himself free and put up a high value shot (for him anyways).

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Basketball hadn't been "Moneyballed" yet with analytics, to realize it was a much more efficient shot then a mid-range 2.

If it had, Bird would have put up much more 3's. Also, much more hand-checking and physical defense at the perimeter, made a 3 a much tougher shot then it is now.

It's still a tough shot, don't get confused. Most normal people can't hit an NBA length 3 to save their lives. It's just practiced much more now through repetition, then it used to be, from a much younger age by promising young players.

Math has shown us, the only shot that might be more efficient to take, is a dunk...and even then it's pretty damn close.

...and what Steph Curry has done, regularly hitting shots from 5-10 feet beyond the 3 point line...that's...that's not normal. From a physics standpoint it should be nearly impossible. It's more demoralizing then a dunk over your best defensive player, when you try to double team a guy out by the half court line, and he can still get himself free and put up a high value shot (for him anyways).

right you are rewarded with bail out 3..which counts the same as driving to the lane getting off a tough assist getting fouled hard but still make the shot..then you make the FT...

they just need a 3 second rule within a few feet out the the 3 line...or a 3 should be 2.5 points really in value...its not worth 50 percent more than 2 in terms of difficulty

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

right you are rewarded with bail out 3..which counts the same as driving to the lane getting off a tough assist getting fouled hard but still make the shot..then you make the FT...

they just need a 3 second rule within a few feet out the the 3 line...or a 3 should be 2.5 points really in value...its not worth 50 percent more than 2 in terms of difficulty

You're only rewarded if you actually hit the shot, and teams are still allowed to defend the 3 point line. There's no Manute Bol rule for defenders on the perimeter.

[JollyElm]

As a rabid Buffalo Bills fan (Go Buff!!!!!!!!), I miss the mud bowls, the snow bowls and all of that deliciousness. The weather being an extreme factor was a beautifully entertaining thing, but now they employ a thousand people (snow archaeologists?) and machines to dig down and find the turf, until all you see is a field of green. Gimme the white and brown again!!!!!!!!!!!

Back to the OP's point, the way Andre Reed fearlessly covered the middle of the field, getting absolutely hammered whether or not he caught the ball, is something that is gone with the (lake effect) wind. For safety's sake, that's obviously a very good, necessary thing, but for smash mouth football it's a bit of a shame.

The biggest problem I see these days are the roughing the passer penalties (yes, contrarians, I know you're going to state something to the effect of, "RTP penalties are actually down this year"). There has got to be a lot more leeway on what constitutes a foul. Protecting the QB is one thing, but the examples have to be more blatantly penalty worthy. It's a risky job, so if you stay in the pocket, you have to expect the hammer to come down. If an LB gets to you right after you release the ball, come on now!! That's NOT a penalty. If you toss the ball and a DE takes a few steps and then clobbers you, that IS a penalty. There's got to be a better balance. Those free 15 yards and a first down on a ridiculous call can decide games.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

As a rabid Buffalo Bills fan (Go Buff!!!!!!!!), I miss the mud bowls, the snow bowls and all of that deliciousness. The weather being an extreme factor was a beautifully entertaining thing, but now they employ a thousand people (snow archaeologists?) and machines to dig down and find the turf, until all you see is a field of green. Gimme the white and brown again!!!!!!!!!!!

Back to the OP's point, the way Andre Reed fearlessly covered the middle of the field, getting absolutely hammered whether or not he caught the ball, is something that is gone with the (lake effect) wind. For safety's sake, that's obviously a very good, necessary thing, but for smash mouth football it's a bit of a shame.

The biggest problem I see these days are the roughing the passer penalties (yes, contrarians, I know you're going to state something to the effect of, "RTP penalties are actually down this year"). There has got to be a lot more leeway on what constitutes a foul. Protecting the QB is one thing, but the examples have to be more blatantly penalty worthy. It's a risky job, so if you stay in the pocket, you have to expect the hammer to come down. If an LB gets to you right after you release the ball, come on now!! That's NOT a penalty. If you toss the ball and a DE takes a few steps and then clobbers you, that IS a penalty. There's got to be a better balance. Those free 15 yards and a first down on a ridiculous call can decide games.

I've seen some of the old school, terrible weather games, and what a site those were to see. Different levels of toughness in the game back in its day. Slightly off topic but the toughness that the football players had back in the day is rarely seen today.

I agree the penalties are definitely a source of these inflated numbers as well.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

As a rabid Buffalo Bills fan (Go Buff!!!!!!!!), I miss the mud bowls, the snow bowls and all of that deliciousness. The weather being an extreme factor was a beautifully entertaining thing, but now they employ a thousand people (snow archaeologists?) and machines to dig down and find the turf, until all you see is a field of green. Gimme the white and brown again!!!!!!!!!!!

Back to the OP's point, the way Andre Reed fearlessly covered the middle of the field, getting absolutely hammered whether or not he caught the ball, is something that is gone with the (lake effect) wind. For safety's sake, that's obviously a very good, necessary thing, but for smash mouth football it's a bit of a shame.

The biggest problem I see these days are the roughing the passer penalties (yes, contrarians, I know you're going to state something to the effect of, "RTP penalties are actually down this year"). There has got to be a lot more leeway on what constitutes a foul. Protecting the QB is one thing, but the examples have to be more blatantly penalty worthy. It's a risky job, so if you stay in the pocket, you have to expect the hammer to come down. If an LB gets to you right after you release the ball, come on now!! That's NOT a penalty. If you toss the ball and a DE takes a few steps and then clobbers you, that IS a penalty. There's got to be a better balance. Those free 15 yards and a first down on a ridiculous call can decide games.

Most don't do it yet, but I've seen a couple QB's flop like an Italian Soccer player who just saw a ghost.

Hope it doesn't become commonplace, but if you incentivize it like they have...it sure will.

Oh, and all these amazing comebacks we've seen lately. It's feeling a lot like early 2000's NBA, Tim Donaghy era reffing. Less about favoritism and more about keeping the games close, just to keep fans invested in the games.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

You're only rewarded if you actually hit the shot, and teams are still allowed to defend the 3 point line. There's no Manute Bol rule for defenders on the perimeter.

Hitting a 3 is not hard to do when there is no 3 second rule near the 3 point line. There are many players on benches in the NBA and not in the league that can hit 80 percent from 3 that is wide open which I would to me means not hard to do...probably even a higher rate. There is a reason there are so many wide open 3s..(or at least no hands in the face or very very late contest)

You can say teams are allowed to defend the 3..so why not take out the 3 second rule in the paint because teams are allowed to defend the paint as well. So why even put a 3 second rule in paint..

so your 'allowed too' argument does not work here as there already are rules in place to 'fix' issues.....baseball now doing this with getting rid of the shift.


I believe they banned the slam dunk for awhile, afterall why ban it , you were allowed to defend the dunk as well

[BobC]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Hitting a 3 is not hard to do when there is no 3 second rule near the 3 point line. There are many players on benches in the NBA and not in the league that can hit 80 percent from 3 that is wide open which I would to me means not hard to do...probably even a higher rate. There is a reason there are so many wide open 3s..(or at least no hands in the face or very very late contest)

You can say teams are allowed to defend the 3..so why not take out the 3 second rule in the paint because teams are allowed to defend the paint as well. So why even put a 3 second rule in paint..

so your 'allowed too' argument does not work here as there already are rules in place to 'fix' issues.....baseball now doing this with getting rid of the shift.


I believe they banned the slam dunk for awhile, afterall why ban it , you were allowed to defend the dunk as well

The obvious need for a 3-second rule in the paint has more to do to create a level and more fair playing field for those playing in the vastly larger area of non-professional basketball. Of all the major sports, height in basketball is likely the most overly advantageous attribute that can exist, and has literally nothing to do with a player's actual talent or ability. People can work on quickness, jumping ability, hand-eye coordination, and so on, but you can't teach or learn height. So, for the vast number of kids playing basketball at say the junior high or high school level, you are already at a severe disadvantage if you aren't lucky enough to have a student or two that is excessively tall for their age, and that actually wants to play. Remove the 3-seconds in the paint rule and you'll end up having the lucky school/team with a super tall player just have him/her stand in front of the basket and wait for their teammate to simply toss the ball to them, and they just turn around and drop it through the hoop. The shorter opposing players aren't tall enough to stop it and that isn't a game, it is just a joke. Making the opposing team's excessively tall player have to move in and out of the paint at least gives the shorter team a fighting chance to try to defend and somehow stop or at least slow down the taller player's advantage.

Changing this most basic of rules at just the pro level would likely alienate a lot of fans that otherwise expect the game to be played at least somewhat similarly to how it was when they themselves played it. That is actually one of the true beauties of baseball. Even an average looking person of typical/normal height and weight could become a superstar ballplayer. Meanwhile, the average NBA player looks almost nothing like a normal, everyday person.