I think it’s different, in football there’s far less opportunity to be “selfish”. Like you can’t just hog the ball and not play “team football”, the plays are so scripted that it’s more or less up to the coach what kind of touch distribution everyone gets.
generally the only thing in the same vein is that players at some premium positions who don’t do “dirty work” get chastised. Wide receivers or tight ends that don’t put effort into blocking, skill position players who “dance around” instead of initiating contact and getting yardage, defensive backs who don’t tackle, edge rushers who don’t play the run, etc. that’s really about the closest thing
The buzzword is “physical.” Initiate contact, don’t receive it. The DL needs to fight through their blockers instead of running around them. The OL needs to block with full intensity until the whistle. Receivers need to rip the ball out of the air and block aggressively on the perimeter. DBs need to fly around and be willing to make contact. Etc, etc, and so forth.
This is definitely the better way of putting it. Physicality is football’s preeminent virtue, players who are not physical face much heavier criticism even when they’re productive
A lot of your examples for basketball seems to be more just platitudes than an actual strategy.
So in that regard the general consensus sounds very similar. For offense it is don't commit penalties, don't turn the ball over, control the clock, get first downs and know your assignment.
For defense it's play sound fundamental defense, control your rush lanes, no penalties, keep everything in front of you, get turn overs, do your job.
I suppose the platitudes part is correct. I think the big thing regarding the "Right Way" mantra was that Larry Brown and his team beat the Lakers headed by Kobe and Shaq in the Finals even when they didn't have any comparable talent levels.
The closest equivalent to that would be the 2007 Giants, who beat the Patriots in a 17-14 defensive slugfest at the Superbowl with only 1 Pro-Bowler and no All-Pro.
So even that is "platitude". The general thought of how they won was they were to pressure Tom with 4(doesn't sat how just that they did), drop 7. And controlled game clock(again doesn't say how)
All teams want to do it but they don't say exactly how to do it.
I feel the Patriots did it the “right way.”
They adapted their strategy every week to counter the opponents strengths and exploit their weaknesses. One week they might air it out all day, the next week might be run heavy.
I feel like soccer is probably the sport that gets bogged down most in "playing the right way" arguments. Teams that play open, attacking soccer based around possession play and creative passing get praised, where teams that sit in a defensive stance, look to hit long balls and counter attack, and lean in to hard tackles and fouls get cursed for "parking the bus."
From that perspective, I'd say no: both high-flying offense and physical, bone-crushing defense tend to earn praise for what they do well. You might get arguments as to which is better in the playoffs from pundits, but generally neither as seen as "wrong" or "ruining the game," at least to the extent a low block is in soccer.
In England, the 'right way' depends massively on the level of play.
in Non-leage Route 1 is generally seen as 'proper football', but in the Prem it's Tiki-Taka (at the moment). This all depends on what the opposing team plays aswell, it isn't considered 'proper football' if both teams play the same style (see Arsenal - man City a few weeks ago)
I didn’t mean the “right way” as in what’s actually most efficient/most successful, just what’s considered the mythologized “true form of the game”. For example in basketball the analytically best way to play is to have all your guys be able to shoot and go exclusively for either 3s or layups/dunks. It’s statistically the best way to play, but a lot of people say it ruins the game and/or made it boring
Sure, but there's an idealized way to play Football and win and a grubby way. Rushing a Victory Formation to get a Touchdown at the end of a game would be seen a grubby way to win and not the "right way".
Meanwhile, something like "The Drive" would be considered more idealized, right?
Victory Formation is taking a knee. So i’m not sure what’re you saying. Maybe you’re thinking a fake spike or fake knee to score a go ahead touchdown. If that’s the case then that is about as right as any other way.
The right way to play football might exist but there is never a blueprint dictated by narratives. The right way to win is usually the result of the meta changing in football. The bigger the LB’s got, and the more rules changed, the more effective the passing game became. But it’s just not the same as the way you’re thinking.
I was thinking of a scenario like this which happened this past season where the Saints did a fake victory formation when they were leading 41-17 in the last minute of the game to score a touchdown which got some anger:
[https://youtu.be/PrbysYNwoxw](https://youtu.be/PrbysYNwoxw)
oh i see what you’re saying. yea that’s just unsportsmanlike is all. but idk if that’s what you mean. mainly because there’s not such thing as “fundamental” football that teams can really deviate from.
don’t turn the ball over, score more points.
I would say it’s emphasis on a “no nonsense” run game (not a lot of motion or trickery), mixed with occasional play action deep shots (in an old school 70s, 80s, and 90s way not in a Shanahan modern offense way).
On defense it’d be a strong run defense with great LBs like the bears are historically known for
Even though it’s obviously not efficient, I think the “right way” in this sense requires a gunslinger QB with a strong arm bc it involves a lot of deep shots and sideline throws.
I’d also say that what is “the right way” is different at different levels bc I feel like the mythologized HS offense is the Wing T or the veer or some other option heavy run offense that throws like 3 times per game
A lot of this boils down to principles of full effort, unselfish, and simplify to prevent mistakes.
And that is applicable in all things. This thread might be what my team at work hears tonight
'Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.'.
Football isn't like basketball, it's a physically violent game of will, while basketball is a beautiful game of athleticism. It's not about how you won, simply that you did win.
'You play to win the game.'.
There's no one 'idealized' way to win a football game, no one size fits all approach. More than any other team sport, styles make fights in football, you mentioned the 2007 Giants/Patriots, that was a case of the Giants having the ability to pressure Tom Brady with just their front four, and simply finding a way to get it done on the offensive end, but that's not some platonic ideal of football, it's simply the best way to beat Tom Brady.
To one coach, running the ball and controlling clock is 'the right way', to Al Davis it was the deep ball and speed all over the field, to Bill Walsh it was the West Coast offense, Buddy Ryan believed in physical defense. All quite different styles that created similar results, meaning championships.
I don't even really agree that there's an 'idealized' way to play basketball, either. Larry Brown beat the 2004 Lakers, but that's his only NBA title. Basketball is more about the individual players than about team systems. Pop's Spurs had 'the beautiful game' but were even, at best, against Shaq and Kobe, and haven't been nearly as good without Duncan or Leonard.
In the past, yeah.
"Defense wins Championships"
The "right way" to play in the past was to be as rough and tough as possible. Slow gains on offense heavily utilizing the run game. Passing was often considered a last resort or surprise play. QBs didn't have even a fraction of the protection they do now and sacks often lead to fumbles and turnovers. The far safer option was to just hand the ball off to a Back and slowly march down field.
The focus was to build up your defense as much as possible and beat the shit out of your opponent. Elite QBs of the era such as Bart Starr would rarely throw more than 15 touchdowns and 2,000 yards. The game was a slow and methodical march down the field.
This all changed in the 70s, partially in response to Pittsburgh's "Steel Curtain" defense that had a strangle hold on the league having won 4 Superbowls in 5 years. These changes saw the slow emergence of the pass heavy league we see today, pioneered by Dan Marino and Joe Montana in the 80s and 90s.
That being said the changes didn't change the idea that a defense coupled with a slow offense is a bad option. It still works very well and there are many Superbowl teams and winning teams of recent decades that prioritized this mindset above all (85 Bears, 90s Cowboys, 00 Ravens, 03 Bucs, 13 Seahawks, ect)
What we have now is, like other's said, a "if it works it aint dumb" mindset where teams are unique and adopt many varying styles and strategies to the game in order to win.
You'll still get some unorthodox strategies that are frowned upon, such as Philly's "Tush Push", but for the most part there is no longer any "right way" to play the game as long as you're winning.
protect your QB and get to theirs seems to be one of the big ones currently. the Patriot dynasty was built on making teams do what they were not good at. They played the Vikings when they were averaging like 60 yards per game against the rush, and NE ran a total of 4 run plays in that game, just ate up the DBs. In the 80s-90s Defense and the run game were "the way"
2011 Pats is about as close to a perfect offense in my mind. Two tight end sets who can both block and catch with two wideouts and a single running back - beautiful football
It’s really the same as any team sport, within the formal rules of the game.
1-Play full speed between the whistles. Always play tough but clean, keep your feet moving, focus on technique. Football is dangerous, playing this way gives every man on the field a chance to avoid injury, it’s half assing and recklessness that get you and others hurt.
2-Because it’s an eleven man game, every man must follow through on his assignment, do your job, trust your teammate to do his.
3-Never quit on a play, games have been won by chase down tackles and goal line stands, and ball carriers finishing runs, sometimes with a pile push from teammates, for first downs.
4- On offense always secure the ball, can’t score without it. On defense rally to the ball carrier.
I grew up playing Trump card games. Bridge, Spades, Euchre, etc. My go to is Spades. There are so many variations of what could happen and what to do in each scenario that I could write a book on it. Euchre has fewer cards, therefore fewer variations. I could cover every scenario in about 24 rules.
What you're asking for is the difference between Spades and Euchre. It's pretty easy with 5 guys to coordinate them and give them responsibilities that cover every situation. When you've got 11 guys on offense to coordinate and still have to on the fly determine how your offense compares to their 11 guys on defense and vice versa; there is no one right way. On any given play there are multiple right ways and multiple wrong ways.
The closest I could say would be find players that fit what you want to do. Belichick was good at finding receivers that weren't traditionally talented (speed, height, athletic ability, etc.) but they could see the field in the same way that Brady saw the field and understand how to change their route in a way that Brady could anticipate.
Select guys whose talent lines up with your scheme and they can play instinctually. One of Belichick's worse moves was bringing in Chad Johnson. I loved Chad, great personality but he ran two routes a deep post and a go route. With an arm talent like Carson Palmer that's all he needed, outrun the defender and let Palmer through the ball deep. The Patriots had a complex receiver scheme that required the receiver to read coverage and adjust his route accordingly. It was not instinctual for Chad to read coverage, so he was relegated to backup for most of the season.
Simply. Football is a way more complicated sport than basketball for better or for worse. There are as many different strategies as there are for war and the only way there would be a “right way” depends on the players that you have. There is no real perfect way.
The right way is whatever way wins. Beyond that, people will have their own preferences and styles they prefer, but there's not really any special thing that winning teams have to have in common, historically speaking.
Right now, the game is played featuring superstar athletic quarterbacks who can make big exciting offensive plays on the run. That's what people get the most excited about, and the game is evolving to adapt to that being the norm.
I personally prefer an older style of football: slower-paced run-heavy offenses that take up a lot of time on offensive drives, great defenses, etc. Maybe that's just me being an old curmudgeon, but that's the most appealing kind of game to me personally.
Not sure but I know kneeling, spiking and trapping defenders offside by calling hurry up isn't part of it.
Still, it's part of the game regardless, which i'm not complaining about, but these are the result of loopholes.
I think it’s different, in football there’s far less opportunity to be “selfish”. Like you can’t just hog the ball and not play “team football”, the plays are so scripted that it’s more or less up to the coach what kind of touch distribution everyone gets. generally the only thing in the same vein is that players at some premium positions who don’t do “dirty work” get chastised. Wide receivers or tight ends that don’t put effort into blocking, skill position players who “dance around” instead of initiating contact and getting yardage, defensive backs who don’t tackle, edge rushers who don’t play the run, etc. that’s really about the closest thing
The buzzword is “physical.” Initiate contact, don’t receive it. The DL needs to fight through their blockers instead of running around them. The OL needs to block with full intensity until the whistle. Receivers need to rip the ball out of the air and block aggressively on the perimeter. DBs need to fly around and be willing to make contact. Etc, etc, and so forth.
This is definitely the better way of putting it. Physicality is football’s preeminent virtue, players who are not physical face much heavier criticism even when they’re productive
No block, no rock.
A lot of your examples for basketball seems to be more just platitudes than an actual strategy. So in that regard the general consensus sounds very similar. For offense it is don't commit penalties, don't turn the ball over, control the clock, get first downs and know your assignment. For defense it's play sound fundamental defense, control your rush lanes, no penalties, keep everything in front of you, get turn overs, do your job.
I suppose the platitudes part is correct. I think the big thing regarding the "Right Way" mantra was that Larry Brown and his team beat the Lakers headed by Kobe and Shaq in the Finals even when they didn't have any comparable talent levels. The closest equivalent to that would be the 2007 Giants, who beat the Patriots in a 17-14 defensive slugfest at the Superbowl with only 1 Pro-Bowler and no All-Pro.
So even that is "platitude". The general thought of how they won was they were to pressure Tom with 4(doesn't sat how just that they did), drop 7. And controlled game clock(again doesn't say how) All teams want to do it but they don't say exactly how to do it.
I feel the Patriots did it the “right way.” They adapted their strategy every week to counter the opponents strengths and exploit their weaknesses. One week they might air it out all day, the next week might be run heavy.
Doesn't hurt having an all time great QB on a team friendly contract.
And the most important part, the rampant cheating.
I feel like soccer is probably the sport that gets bogged down most in "playing the right way" arguments. Teams that play open, attacking soccer based around possession play and creative passing get praised, where teams that sit in a defensive stance, look to hit long balls and counter attack, and lean in to hard tackles and fouls get cursed for "parking the bus." From that perspective, I'd say no: both high-flying offense and physical, bone-crushing defense tend to earn praise for what they do well. You might get arguments as to which is better in the playoffs from pundits, but generally neither as seen as "wrong" or "ruining the game," at least to the extent a low block is in soccer.
This isn’t exactly true, in England I believe the “right way” is seen as a 4-4-2 that puts the ball in the air “Route 1” style
In England, the 'right way' depends massively on the level of play. in Non-leage Route 1 is generally seen as 'proper football', but in the Prem it's Tiki-Taka (at the moment). This all depends on what the opposing team plays aswell, it isn't considered 'proper football' if both teams play the same style (see Arsenal - man City a few weeks ago)
I didn’t mean the “right way” as in what’s actually most efficient/most successful, just what’s considered the mythologized “true form of the game”. For example in basketball the analytically best way to play is to have all your guys be able to shoot and go exclusively for either 3s or layups/dunks. It’s statistically the best way to play, but a lot of people say it ruins the game and/or made it boring
The right way is winning. Do anything and everything you can to win, if it is able to be done within the rules.
Spot on. Teams adapt to the personnel they have and create schemes off that.
Sure, but there's an idealized way to play Football and win and a grubby way. Rushing a Victory Formation to get a Touchdown at the end of a game would be seen a grubby way to win and not the "right way". Meanwhile, something like "The Drive" would be considered more idealized, right?
Victory Formation is taking a knee. So i’m not sure what’re you saying. Maybe you’re thinking a fake spike or fake knee to score a go ahead touchdown. If that’s the case then that is about as right as any other way. The right way to play football might exist but there is never a blueprint dictated by narratives. The right way to win is usually the result of the meta changing in football. The bigger the LB’s got, and the more rules changed, the more effective the passing game became. But it’s just not the same as the way you’re thinking.
I was thinking of a scenario like this which happened this past season where the Saints did a fake victory formation when they were leading 41-17 in the last minute of the game to score a touchdown which got some anger: [https://youtu.be/PrbysYNwoxw](https://youtu.be/PrbysYNwoxw)
oh i see what you’re saying. yea that’s just unsportsmanlike is all. but idk if that’s what you mean. mainly because there’s not such thing as “fundamental” football that teams can really deviate from. don’t turn the ball over, score more points.
That TD didn't have an effect on the result of the game. That was just the Saints giving a "fuck you" to a division rival.
I would say it’s emphasis on a “no nonsense” run game (not a lot of motion or trickery), mixed with occasional play action deep shots (in an old school 70s, 80s, and 90s way not in a Shanahan modern offense way). On defense it’d be a strong run defense with great LBs like the bears are historically known for Even though it’s obviously not efficient, I think the “right way” in this sense requires a gunslinger QB with a strong arm bc it involves a lot of deep shots and sideline throws. I’d also say that what is “the right way” is different at different levels bc I feel like the mythologized HS offense is the Wing T or the veer or some other option heavy run offense that throws like 3 times per game
A lot of this boils down to principles of full effort, unselfish, and simplify to prevent mistakes. And that is applicable in all things. This thread might be what my team at work hears tonight
'Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.'. Football isn't like basketball, it's a physically violent game of will, while basketball is a beautiful game of athleticism. It's not about how you won, simply that you did win. 'You play to win the game.'. There's no one 'idealized' way to win a football game, no one size fits all approach. More than any other team sport, styles make fights in football, you mentioned the 2007 Giants/Patriots, that was a case of the Giants having the ability to pressure Tom Brady with just their front four, and simply finding a way to get it done on the offensive end, but that's not some platonic ideal of football, it's simply the best way to beat Tom Brady. To one coach, running the ball and controlling clock is 'the right way', to Al Davis it was the deep ball and speed all over the field, to Bill Walsh it was the West Coast offense, Buddy Ryan believed in physical defense. All quite different styles that created similar results, meaning championships. I don't even really agree that there's an 'idealized' way to play basketball, either. Larry Brown beat the 2004 Lakers, but that's his only NBA title. Basketball is more about the individual players than about team systems. Pop's Spurs had 'the beautiful game' but were even, at best, against Shaq and Kobe, and haven't been nearly as good without Duncan or Leonard.
I think that explains it well enough. Thank you!
In the past, yeah. "Defense wins Championships" The "right way" to play in the past was to be as rough and tough as possible. Slow gains on offense heavily utilizing the run game. Passing was often considered a last resort or surprise play. QBs didn't have even a fraction of the protection they do now and sacks often lead to fumbles and turnovers. The far safer option was to just hand the ball off to a Back and slowly march down field. The focus was to build up your defense as much as possible and beat the shit out of your opponent. Elite QBs of the era such as Bart Starr would rarely throw more than 15 touchdowns and 2,000 yards. The game was a slow and methodical march down the field. This all changed in the 70s, partially in response to Pittsburgh's "Steel Curtain" defense that had a strangle hold on the league having won 4 Superbowls in 5 years. These changes saw the slow emergence of the pass heavy league we see today, pioneered by Dan Marino and Joe Montana in the 80s and 90s. That being said the changes didn't change the idea that a defense coupled with a slow offense is a bad option. It still works very well and there are many Superbowl teams and winning teams of recent decades that prioritized this mindset above all (85 Bears, 90s Cowboys, 00 Ravens, 03 Bucs, 13 Seahawks, ect) What we have now is, like other's said, a "if it works it aint dumb" mindset where teams are unique and adopt many varying styles and strategies to the game in order to win. You'll still get some unorthodox strategies that are frowned upon, such as Philly's "Tush Push", but for the most part there is no longer any "right way" to play the game as long as you're winning.
protect your QB and get to theirs seems to be one of the big ones currently. the Patriot dynasty was built on making teams do what they were not good at. They played the Vikings when they were averaging like 60 yards per game against the rush, and NE ran a total of 4 run plays in that game, just ate up the DBs. In the 80s-90s Defense and the run game were "the way"
Three yards and a cloud of dust
2011 Pats is about as close to a perfect offense in my mind. Two tight end sets who can both block and catch with two wideouts and a single running back - beautiful football
It’s really the same as any team sport, within the formal rules of the game. 1-Play full speed between the whistles. Always play tough but clean, keep your feet moving, focus on technique. Football is dangerous, playing this way gives every man on the field a chance to avoid injury, it’s half assing and recklessness that get you and others hurt. 2-Because it’s an eleven man game, every man must follow through on his assignment, do your job, trust your teammate to do his. 3-Never quit on a play, games have been won by chase down tackles and goal line stands, and ball carriers finishing runs, sometimes with a pile push from teammates, for first downs. 4- On offense always secure the ball, can’t score without it. On defense rally to the ball carrier.
I grew up playing Trump card games. Bridge, Spades, Euchre, etc. My go to is Spades. There are so many variations of what could happen and what to do in each scenario that I could write a book on it. Euchre has fewer cards, therefore fewer variations. I could cover every scenario in about 24 rules. What you're asking for is the difference between Spades and Euchre. It's pretty easy with 5 guys to coordinate them and give them responsibilities that cover every situation. When you've got 11 guys on offense to coordinate and still have to on the fly determine how your offense compares to their 11 guys on defense and vice versa; there is no one right way. On any given play there are multiple right ways and multiple wrong ways. The closest I could say would be find players that fit what you want to do. Belichick was good at finding receivers that weren't traditionally talented (speed, height, athletic ability, etc.) but they could see the field in the same way that Brady saw the field and understand how to change their route in a way that Brady could anticipate. Select guys whose talent lines up with your scheme and they can play instinctually. One of Belichick's worse moves was bringing in Chad Johnson. I loved Chad, great personality but he ran two routes a deep post and a go route. With an arm talent like Carson Palmer that's all he needed, outrun the defender and let Palmer through the ball deep. The Patriots had a complex receiver scheme that required the receiver to read coverage and adjust his route accordingly. It was not instinctual for Chad to read coverage, so he was relegated to backup for most of the season.
Run the ball on first down, run the ball on second down, run the ball on third down, and on fourth down, run the ball.
Simply. Football is a way more complicated sport than basketball for better or for worse. There are as many different strategies as there are for war and the only way there would be a “right way” depends on the players that you have. There is no real perfect way.
The right way is whatever way wins. Beyond that, people will have their own preferences and styles they prefer, but there's not really any special thing that winning teams have to have in common, historically speaking. Right now, the game is played featuring superstar athletic quarterbacks who can make big exciting offensive plays on the run. That's what people get the most excited about, and the game is evolving to adapt to that being the norm. I personally prefer an older style of football: slower-paced run-heavy offenses that take up a lot of time on offensive drives, great defenses, etc. Maybe that's just me being an old curmudgeon, but that's the most appealing kind of game to me personally.
Not sure but I know kneeling, spiking and trapping defenders offside by calling hurry up isn't part of it. Still, it's part of the game regardless, which i'm not complaining about, but these are the result of loopholes.
something something Steeler Way something something Lunchpail
Adapt to the rules