Jump to content
coltsfeva

There’s no “I” in team

Recommended Posts

   I thought of this axiom yesterday while I was watching the interview with Odel Beckham, Jarvis Landry, Myles Garret and Baker Mayfield.

    “Our focus is on our legacy, on getting that green jacket”. Really? Individual accomplishments are the main focus? 

     Odel also referred to his teammates as “he” or “him”, which seemed kind of strange.

       I know players have to consider their individual success and financial concerns for their families but I couldn’t help but think that there might be issues in Cleveland and any other team that consists of players that don’t realize they are only a piece of the team, as a whole.

        Why must players isolate themselves, after a play? 

          Maybe I’m just getting old but, as much as I respect talent, I don’t like the focus on the individual player over the team concept.

  

 

 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That just seems to be the culture of the NFL and NBA.  Individual players have much more power (see: the Antonio Brown saga, which subsequently made some owners pretty nervous).  This makes the players more individualistic and chest-beating (for lack of a better term), which in turn adds to the individualistic culture.  The NHL is completely different in that it's all about the teams and not so much about the players.  Not saying one is better or worse than the other, just that the leagues have their unique cultures.

 

With the specific example you mentioned, I think another factor that contributes is that the guys you listed all have alpha-male personalities and want to be the focus of attention. 

 

Thirdly, add in that the NBA and NFL receive more media attention than the NHL and I think that's another significant factor.  All you hear about is how acquiring OBJ made Cleveland a division contender, how Mayfield showed a ton of promise as a rookie, etc.  If you're OBJ, the entire city of Cleveland has been worshiping you since you got there and you haven't even played a down in a Browns jersey yet.  That's bound to get to your head eventually.

 

The culture of the league + the personalities of players in the league + media attention = players who want to be the focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so much more attracted to the Colts culture than what appears to be rearing it's ugly head in Cleveland, but hey......... BB & Brady won't be around forever, and the league needs a team to despise, so the Browns could fit the bill. 

 

Who'd a thunk it, after so many years of being invisible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, buccolts said:

I am so much more attracted to the Colts culture than what appears to be rearing it's ugly head in Cleveland, but hey......... BB & Brady won't be around forever, and the league needs a team to despise, so the Browns could fit the bill. 

 

Who'd a thunk it, after so many years of being invisible.

What's the saying?

Even a clock is right every 12 hours. In Cleveland's case it's every century. haha

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Yeah, I don't like when players on my football team are trying to win the Masters, either.

 

:)

 

 

Superman, you beat me to it!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Hammonds said:

Superman, you beat me to it!

 

That's the first thing I noticed...I guess they don't care about getting into the Pro Football HOF and wear a yellow jacket!

 

Also, no "I" in team, but there is a "ME" in that word.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a room full of reporters ask question after question for what felt like hours, I think it is unfair to pick apart every comment made by the players. I thought they had a lot of answers that showed that TEAM matters to them as well. I'm not a Browns fan at all, but come on... these guys are football players who want to play football, not spend time trying to carefully construct answers to questions that all start to sound the same after awhile.

 

Just saying... 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Yeah, I don't like when players on my football team are trying to win the Masters, either.

 

:)

 

 

 My bad..I meant Gold. Like I said in the post, maybe I’m getting old :lecture:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Barry Sears said:

Also, no "I" in team, but there is a "ME" in that word.

 

 

You sure?

 

F6mGA.jpg

 

Couldn't resist...

  • Like 3
  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, sreeb2deeni said:

When a room full of reporters ask question after question for what felt like hours, I think it is unfair to pick apart every comment made by the players. I thought they had a lot of answers that showed that TEAM matters to them as well. I'm not a Browns fan at all, but come on... these guys are football players who want to play football, not spend time trying to carefully construct answers to questions that all start to sound the same after awhile.

 

Just saying... 

 

Yeah, I try not to nitpick at players' words during press conferences anymore. Sometimes they say or do something exceptionally dumb (like dyeing their mustache blond, for instance), but most of the time they're getting asked the same derivative questions over and over again. People either criticize them for not being genuine, or criticize them for being too straightforward and not professional enough. In general, I think reporters ask bad questions at pressers, so I don't fault players (and coaches) for giving bad answers. 

 

2 hours ago, coltsfeva said:

 My bad..I meant Gold. Like I said in the post, maybe I’m getting old :lecture:

 

Obviously understood... just had to give you a little jab there, couldn't resist. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2019 at 9:50 AM, coltsfeva said:

   I thought of this axiom yesterday while I was watching the interview with Odel Beckham, Jarvis Landry, Myles Garret and Baker Mayfield.

    “Our focus is on our legacy, on getting that green jacket”. Really? Individual accomplishments are the main focus? 

     Odel also referred to his teammates as “he” or “him”, which seemed kind of strange.

       I know players have to consider their individual success and financial concerns for their families but I couldn’t help but think that there might be issues in Cleveland and any other team that consists of players that don’t realize they are only a piece of the team, as a whole.

        Why must players isolate themselves, after a play? 

          Maybe I’m just getting old but, as much as I respect talent, I don’t like the focus on the individual player over the team concept.

  

 

 

 

 

Lets also keep in mind that these guys likely havn't really met one another or spent any time together.  

 

One of the reasons that training camps are often held in a location away from the team's facility is for team building.  

 

All of that having been said, I do strongly question any team that runs out and spends a bunch of money on high priced free agents.  To me I think this tends to hurt team play.  Guys come in and they generally because of their past play and contract size expect a certain role on the team.  And when their role is different from what they expected it can cause some issues.  Now it's less of a problem with one or two guys because if they get unhappy in a strong locker room, they learn to just figure out what their role is and take it.  But in a jumbled mess of high priced FA's, their unhappiness can feed off of one another and become a cancer.

 

One of the best reasons to build a team through the draft is because drafted players come in at the bottom and grow into their role.  They don't come in with big expectations they come in usually just hoping that they can make it in professional football.  Even guys who are #1 overall picks come into the league mostly just hoping they can make it.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2019 at 9:50 AM, coltsfeva said:

I thought of this axiom yesterday while I was watching the interview with Odel Beckham, Jarvis Landry, Myles Garret and Baker Mayfield.

    “Our focus is on our legacy, on getting that green jacket”. Really? 

 

On 4/3/2019 at 6:35 AM, coltsfeva said:

 My bad..I meant Gold. Like I said in the post, maybe I’m getting old :lecture:

 

Ah. Since you had put the "green jacket" comment in quotes, I assumed a Browns player actually said that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, NFLfan said:

 

 

Ah. Since you had put the "green jacket" comment in quotes, I assumed a Browns player actually said that. 

He did say Gold but I quoted him incorrectly. Even though nearly every player in the NFL would love to make the Hall of Fame, I just thought it revealing how an individual accomplishment was his main focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly! This is why teams like the Raiders and Brown will never amount to anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet Romo fantasized at least once about winning the Masters. Seen him play at a pro-am at Pebble Beach. He's not bad. Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • IMO this is the wrong way to look at it. IMO the reason they drop 7-8 is not because they don't fear the run game - it's because they fear the pass game much more than they fear the run game. This is especially true when you have a combination of 1. Exceptional QB with great receivers and 2. bad running game. In general the level of fear that teams should show is:   1. Fear of great passing attack 2. Fear of bad passing attack 3. Fear of great running attack 4. Fear of bad running attack.    And the distance between 1 and 4 should be light years! And when you get on your team both great passing attack and horrible running attack this forces opponents to send more help to cover.    It is not a coincidence that teams with great running backs like KC(before Hunt got banished) and the Saints(Kamara) and the Rams(Gurley) faced the least amount of stacked boxes ... this goes directly against what you would assume teams would do in a situation where they face elite running backs. The reason is - they just feared those teams passing games MUCH MORE! The passing game dictates how many people you send to cover much more than the running game.    And at the same time teams like Dallas, TEN, JAX had most stacked boxes - it's because the opponents didn't fear their passing game. I'm using just anecdotes here but the data overall supports that. The passing game strength overall dictates coverage vs run support much more than the quality of the run game. The weaker your pass game is the more stacked boxes you will see almost regardless of how good your RB/running game is.    I said 'almost' above because I can see a situation where you need to have some base level of a threat from the run. You need to at least be a threat to run it.   The short answer is ... weak passing game. Notice that this is all relative. No team will 100% leave 8 in the box and not team will 100% leave 8 in coverage. We are talking about percentages. The weaker the passing game, the more attention your run game will get from the defense pre-snap. This is alignment based... now once the snap is made the defenders have to read run and pass keys in order to know whether they should choose optimal strategy for run defense or pass-defense. In general the reason play-action(and RPO) works is because of the THREAT of the run, not the success of the run(it doesn't matter if you run it for 4.2yards a run(where we were last year) or 4.7yard a run(where Reich wants us to be). So ... my point is not that you have to completely ignore the run. You don't ignore it. You still have to keep the threat that you will run it(by running it often enough) in order to make the defenders still read the keys and give you the extra second or so that running the play action gives you while the defenders are reading the run key you are giving(faking to) them. You just don't generally care much if you run for 4.7 or 4.2 when it comes to your passing game or your play-action game. Teams react the same way to 4.7y teams as they do to 4.2y teams when it comes to play action as long as you keep the threat that you will run high enough to make defenders still read their run keys. (now this is another thing I have not seen yet, but expect at some point in the future- some defensive coordinator will say - just screw it - play the pass 100% and don't read the run keys... play the run on your way to the passer and I don't know what will happen then)      Well, that quote is a bit of an exaggeration to bring the point across. You won't really wait for the old timers to die out. Just... the more young blood comes in(Shanahan, McVey, etc.) and tries the new stuff and succeeds with it against the old strategies the more the old timers that are unable to adjust will lose their jobs to the new kids and so on. This pretty much already happened in the NBA. It's a new league now compared to just 5-10 years ago. It didn't happen because the old timers died out, it happened because the new strategies proved better and more efficient and even some of the old timers borrowed from them and incorporated them into their game plans. IMO similar things are happening and will continue to happen in the NFL. It probably will take longer because in general the NFL seems more conservative of a league but IMO it will happen sooner or later.    In 20-30 years I think we will be laughing at things like "establish the run" or "first we need to stop the run", just like we would be laughing at statements like "what this team really needs is more post ups for their center" or "this guy should have just taken one dribble into the 2p range and taken the shorter 20 feet jumper instead of the 24 feet open 3" in the NBA-context right now. 
    • Thats a bummer.  She is talented and her and Matt Taylor worked well together. 
    • "But really what is going to set the tone for us is going to be how we run the football. That is not going to change. We have to run the football. Our goal is going to be a top-five rushing football team. That will set up our play-action pass. That will set up all the big chunk plays. To me that will get us where we want to go.” https://www.colts.com/news/top-takeaways-frank-reich-on-otas-day-1     Just as Reich has stated above I do believe a good ground game opens up more favorable passing opportunities because teams have to committ more personnel than they would like to run defense. That in itself sets up more opportunities for you to get one on one coverage down the field.  I think you get less of those opportunities if you can't run.   If I want more one on one coverage down field I'd like to know how I'm supposed to do that if I don't need to run? I guess maybe you'd say screens or something?  I'm sure he's saying this based off what he's experienced during games and what he's seen on film.
    • One of my issues and I belive Princeton Tiger brought it up also was when your running game is not very effective.  For example in Peytons last years in Indy our run game was abysmal and teams literally ignored all of our play action fakes. Or you can even look at some of our seasons under Pagano.  They dropped 8 and rushed three a large majority of the time because they had little fear that we could do anything on the ground.  Do you think that happens to us with a successful rushing attack? I personally don't believe so.   I think when you are able to run it forces the defense to leave less defenders in coverage.   I don't want to turn this into a long drawn out debate but I believe your contention was it isnt the amount of times you run but more of the effect of the play action itself.  So when the defense is ignoring the play action then what is it that would cause them to honor it again? I believe you would have get some kind of success from your running game which enhances those play action fakes.  It's not just the play action fakes themselves.  I don't really think you need any type of data during a game to tell you that if the defense is committing 8 men or more in the box you've got a better chance of completing passes on the defense.  What causes the defense to committ 8 to 9 men in the box?  A successful running game gets them to do that more often than not.  I think it creates more opportunities for you to face lighter numbers of defenders when you want to pass the ball.   I got to be honest here and say I can't go toe to toe with you on all that stat crunching, but there's just a few things I will just never buy about that data.   And if you're waiting for bodies(us old school thinkers) to die it's going to be a long, long, long time before that happens in the game of football.........
    • He could "beast", and still be a bad addition to the locker room in the long run. 
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...