Thursday, January 15, 2009

The Tebow experiment is inevitable




Nice of Tim Tebow to end the suspense early. But the debate on his future will continue unabated, and not just on blog posts and sports talk radio.

This debate has nothing to do with his place in college football history or fast-tracking his path to sainthood. Without taking another snap for the Gators, Tebow is already on the short list of the best to play the college game.

The commentary on his impeccable character is tiresome, but Tebow has already won a Heisman Trophy and two national championships. (If not for some very sketchy voting patterns this year, he would have two Heismans.) He could leave Gainesville next spring with two statues and three national titles, which would be unprecedented. I have no idea if he is a better college player than Doc Blanchard, but he's in the team picture.

Yet there is a far more intriguing argument on the table: Where does Tebow fit in the NFL? Does he fit in the NFL at all? I won't pretend to know the answer but I can guarantee there is no shortage of NFL executives and coaches dying to find out. And anybody who dismisses Tebow on the grounds he's just another college athlete who can't play the NFL game is on a different page from the people who will decide his football future.

In November I wrote a story about the re-emergence of single wing-based formations and plays -- a.k.a. the "Wildcat'' -- in the NFL and college football. Tebow's name kept coming up, and without provocation. Example: When I spoke with Baltimore Ravens offensive coordinator (and former Miami Dolphins head coach) Cam Cameron, he was talking about playing in the NFL with a full-time single wing-style quarterback. He expressed skepticism and then added, "Maybe Tebow can do it.''

I hadn't asked him about Tebow. But he mentioned Tebow just the same. Kansas City ChiefsChan Gailey, who has been a head coach in both the NFL (Dallas Cowboys) and college (Georgia Tech), did the same thing. And so did Patriots head coach Bill Belichick, who introduced Tebow into our interview by saying, "Tebow, obviously, is a special one.'' offensive coordinator

The NFL is fascinated with Tebow because he represents a potential evolutionary step in offensive professional football. (Emphasis here on potential because it's all a guessing game at this point.)

Belichick says, "To win in the NFL you have to be able to throw the ball.'' And that is unquestioned. However, the complexity and athleticism of NFL defenses challenge the passing game in such ways that smart offensive minds are constantly trying to find a means to make the quarterback a more effective and dangerous player. They all would love to find a quarterback who is a threat to pass or run on every snap. All of them.

The option game has been a staple of college football for decades, whether in the Oklahoma T-formation under Bud Wilkinson in the 1950s or the Texas and Oklahoma wishbones in the 70s or the Vince Young/Pat White zone-read option in this decade. Yet the option has never translated to the NFL on the theory that professional defenses are too fast and too physical. Option reads would be ineffective because NFL players would overwhelm it with speed. And the quarterback would get mauled.

Slowly, however, rigid old rules are loosening. There is no movement afoot to install the Air Force flexbone in the NFL, but there is absolutely an interest in using option principles to complicate defensive preparation. "Somebody, someday is going to run the option in the NFL,'' says Gailey, "and when that happens, all bets are off.''

For now, the goal is more modest. Gradually, over the past several seasons -- culminating in the Miami Wildcat -- NFL teams have experimented with direct snaps to a single wing-style tailback. (With the Dolphins, that was Ronnie Brown). This forces the defense to account for an extra player as a potential ballcarrier and reduces the number of bodies they can commit to the box.

If that player is a threat to pass, the game is fundamentally changed.

Michael Vick proved himself a dangerous runner in the NFL. But he was never a consistently accurate thrower. Likewise Vince Young, albeit with a lesser body of work. Long before either of them, Randall Cunningham and Steve Young were effective throwers and dangerous scramblers, but with few designed running plays. The truth is the NFL has never had a player who can consistently threaten defenses equally with his arm and his feet. And the NFL collectively wonders if Tebow is that guy.

As I quoted Belichick in the Dec. 1 issue of Sports Illustrated, "It's going to be very interesting to see what happens when Tebow comes into this league. There aren't many players who can run and throw.''

Yet at lower levels of the game, dual-threat quarterbacks are becoming the norm. In youth and high school games, teams are running spread offenses with zone reads and quarterback off-tackle runs. It's remarkable that Joe Flacco and Matt Ryan were so successful in the NFL as rookies this year, and they are both traditional pocket quarterbacks in the mold of Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. But as Belichick says, "There's a lot of interest in what you could do with a real athlete back there, like an Elway, with his ability to run the ball.''

Said Gailey in SI, "Over the next 10 or 15 years, it's going to evolve because the runner-thrower is the kind of quarterback the college game is producing now.''

Tebow is the prototype of that quarterback. At 6-foot-2½, 238 pounds, he is big, strong and relatively fast. (Not Vick fast, but not Manning slow, either). He has the girth and toughness to withstand hits, although probably not a full season's worth of NFL hits. ("Look at how short the careers are for running backs in the NFL,'' says Belichick.). As a passer, Tebow is no Ryan, but he is a far more accurate thrower than Vick or Young.

The challenge for NFL thinkers is how best to use Tebow. Can he be a full-time quarterback? (Not likely, unless he is re-made as a pocket passer). How many times can he carry the ball, making himself a threat without getting, as Belichick says, "broken in half?'' (Maybe 10 times a week? Maybe only five?). Can an NFL offense function effectively with two quarterbacks. Say, Tyler Thigpen for 40 snaps and Tim Tebow for 20? What would this do to your salary structure? Is a Super Bowl worth paying two quarterbacks NFL-starter money?

No answers here. Not yet. But know this: The questions are being asked by the people who write the checks. The Tebow Experiment is forestalled for a year, but it will absolutely take place.

Why We Love Sports VHSCA All Star games inspire

Sometimes I wonder if the sports media and the sports fans forget why we all love sports in the first place.

Let's face it: nobody becomes a sports writer because they love to wrestle with deadlines and unreturned phone calls and athletes who give only cookie-cutter, bland quotes that add nothing to a story. No, we became sports writers to watch the games we love and share the experience with others via the written word.

At least, that's why I became one.

But everyone takes sports so seriously these days, it's easy to lose sight of the fact that these are just games. Games meant to played and fun meant to be had. Granted, a certain level of professionalism and seriousness are needed once someone starts pulling in millions of dollars annually to play said game, but still ... it's just a game.

And this week was my reminder of that.

All this week I've been covering the Virginia High School Coaches Association (VHSCA) all-star games for my job at HRVarsity.com. Girls and boys basketball, girls and boys soccer, girls volleyball, softball, baseball and football were all on display, showing us some of the finest graduated high school seniors one last time before most of them go off to college.

As of this writing, the East teams had won all but one of these games -- the girls soccer match on Wednesday -- but that's not really what's important here. At least, not to me.

Yeah, winning's nice, but the athletes I've talked to all week just go on and on about having a good time, hanging out with friends and competitors and having fun playing a game they all love.

Because again, it's just a game. No scandals, no controversies. Nothing about a player being paid more than he's worth, nothing about some asanine NCAA rule resulting in the premature death of collegiate program, nothing about alleged performance-enhancing drug use. Just the game itself, unadulterated and in its purest form.

Not only is it fun for the kids playing and the people coaching, but it was fun for me as well.

Just watching these games, talking to the local kids making their last mark on the high school game ... I enjoyed being in an atmosphere where winning wasn't the end-all, be-all for the whole story. During the season we spend so much time focusing on who's winning the district, who's advancing to regionals and eventually onto the state tournament.

But here? In the VHSCA all-star games? It's just the kids playing the game they love to play with peers, sometimes teammates. And there's something innocently simplistic about that.

When Lafayette (Williamsurg, Va.) graduate Mike Scruggs tells me how much fun he's having playing alongside former district rivals in the boys soccer game, it's refreshing.

When Nansemond River (Suffolk, Va.) baseball coach Mark Stuffel goes on and on about how good his former catcher Justin Topping is, it's nice to see the smile of pride on his face -- but not nearly as nice as the smile on Topping's face as he stands there with a bat in his hands.

First Colonial (Virginia Beach, Va.) took the state's Eastern Region girls soccer title this year, and it was something to see teammates Katherine Sautter, Kristina Stewart and Liz Payne get one more chance to play together -- especially since Sautter and Stewart won't be playing in college.

We often forget these are just games, and sometimes we're even guilty of forgetting that sometimes these games are played by kids. Not every high school athlete plays in college, and even most of those who do won't go on to pro careers. They play because it's fun, because it's what they love to do.

And because I love these games too (but don't have the athletic ability to play them), I became a sports writer. And if nothing else, this past week served as a reminder to me of why we play and follow sports.

For a week, the deadlines weren't a nuisance and the threat of overtime didn't make me cringe and groan. For a week, I enjoyed the games with an innocence and wide-eyed wonder I haven't felt since I was a child.

If only more sports writers and fans could have such an epiphany. The world of sports would probably be a much different, much happier, place.

Why We Love Watching Pro Sports!

nfl_zoom.jpgTo steal a line from the movie Coming to America: “did you happen to catch the professional football contest on television last [weekend]? The Giants of New York triumphed over the Packers of Green Bay by kicking an odd-long shaped ball through a big H. It was most exhilarating”!

Being a die-hard Giants fan, I have been flying high all week, and am finding it hard to stop thinking that “we” (the Giants) are actually going to the Superbowl! My feelings of elation, which I presently share with millions of New Yorkers, got me thinking: what is it about big-time sports that can make us feel SO good (or, at other times, so bad)?

I have come up with 5 primary reasons why humans are naturally drawn to high-level athletic competition. If you are not a big sports fan, read along anyway…this article may help you understand why your spouse/sibling/boss turns into a different person during the “big game”.

Why We Love Watching Pro Sports!

nfl_zoom.jpgTo steal a line from the movie Coming to America: “did you happen to catch the professional football contest on television last [weekend]? The Giants of New York triumphed over the Packers of Green Bay by kicking an odd-long shaped ball through a big H. It was most exhilarating”!

Being a die-hard Giants fan, I have been flying high all week, and am finding it hard to stop thinking that “we” (the Giants) are actually going to the Superbowl! My feelings of elation, which I presently share with millions of New Yorkers, got me thinking: what is it about big-time sports that can make us feel SO good (or, at other times, so bad)?

I have come up with 5 primary reasons why humans are naturally drawn to high-level athletic competition. If you are not a big sports fan, read along anyway…this article may help you understand why your spouse/sibling/boss turns into a different person during the “big game”.

WHY LOVE SPORTS?

We all are obviously here for one reason, to express our love for what we love; sports. We also want to meet people that share what we love, I've met some great people here who love sports and are not afraid to showcase their opinions. But when I was writing my mega fantasy football series, the question dawned at me; why do we love sports?

Yeah, good question, why do we love sports? Is it because of the joy it brings? How about watching the team you loved for so many years become one of the best (White Sox fans)? Or is it just because we can watch it and relax from everyday troubles?

I don't have the answer why the world has fallen in love with the sport. It's not an easy answer, though, I do know why I love my sports and there is not one single reason. Why do I watch the Indianapolis Colts? I've been a fan during the Jeff George, Jimmy Harbaugh and now the Peyton Manning days. I remember the 3-13 season of 1998 to the AFC Championship game against the Pittsburgh Steelers. While I can't remember much of the George days, it must have been painful to watch. Now, why do I enjoy the Colts? Easy, I've fallen in love with the team, I want my wife's hair dyed white and my hair blue on the day we get married. Though that's a long way from now (I have to find someone willing to first) but it goes to show the lenghts people go for sports.

Why do I like the 3 Philly teams (Phills, Sixers, Flyers)? They are hometown and I have an affliation with each of them. The Phillies have been inconsistent since '93, but it's fun having that feeling each year thinking; "This has to be the year". The Phillies have brought in Kevin Millwood, David Bell, Jim Thome, Billy Wagner and Jon Lieber in the last few years and you are always thinking that, "This is the year". But when September comes, the choking begins and we prepare for our year in 2006.

So what about the Flyers and Sixers? I was suffering during the lockout days and even though my favorite NHL player, John LeClair, is now gone, I still love this team. Peter Forsberg is great to have and Simon Gagne has been a favorite the past 3 seasons. We always feel the need that we have to have a good goalie. Hextall was great, John Vanbiesbrook was good at times, then came Brian Boucher/Roman Cechmanek and Jeff Hackett who did not provide the long-term spark we needed. Robert Esche seemed like "The One" but now Antero Niittymakki is the one who needs it.

So why do we love sport? You are the one who has to answer that question but while some may be front runners, we are all a part of the Best Damn Sports Nation (sorry jbold)!

NASCAR sport

As the proud owner of a Honda and a Toyota, I've been following the to-bail-or-not-to-bail dance between the federal government and the Big Three automakers from a slight reserve. Forgive me, but as I've worked as a producer on a television show about NASCAR and written lots of articles about the sport in recent years, I'm most concerned about the fate of Jimmie Johnson and Dale Earnhardt Jr. Given the brutal financial climate, I should, out of pure self-interest, support whatever measures will preserve NASCAR. Nevertheless, I can't help but think that Detroit's version of the Troubles is the right time to put the sport out of its misery.

I don't recommend euthanizing NASCAR lightly. This is the sport that gave us sporting icons like Dale Earnhardt, Cale Yarborough, and the King, Richard Petty. I appreciate NASCAR's cutthroat competition, consider it a major sport, and think of the drivers as world-class athletes. But let's face facts—even if Ford, GM, and Chrysler get the cash they want from the taxpayers, they are going to have to pull back heaps of sponsorship dough from stock-car racing. Brian France, the CEO of NASCAR and grand pooh-bah of the sport, wrote a letter to Congress lobbying for the bailout, but that won't be nearly enough to win favor with the automakers, who will be slashing costs with a band saw, not a scalpel.

The Big Three and NASCAR have a symbiotic, deeply intertwined relationship. The adage "Win on Sunday, sell on Monday" has defined the way Detroit views NASCAR—as an extension of its core business. Roughly 75 percent of Sprint Cup teams—NASCAR's top division—drive American brands (the rest are with Toyota), and that percentage increases further down the NASCAR ladder. Beyond outfitting the race teams with chassis and souped-up engines, Ford, GM, and Chrysler provide manpower, technical support, and—the plasma that courses through the sport's veins—sponsorship: at the tracks, at media/marketing events, and everywhere else that NASCAR touches down. There is a simple cause-and-effect in the automaker/motorsports relationship. Poll after poll shows that there's a huge overlap between racing fans and buyers of American cars. Both tend to be fiercely loyal to preferred brands, which is a big reason why NASCAR shot to the top of the sporting food chain not so long ago.