Nickel Is The Norm In Today's NFL

players adjusting to (what it seems like) a new rule each year for taking down a QB or WR.

Andy Reid explained it best. Its tough to constantly win on 3rd down and keep a drive alive. Being more aggressive on 1st down with passes sets up 2nd and short- which is the dream situation.

Nice banner, Jason!

Mac: Wait a minute, the love of your life was a black women named Shadynasty?

The NFL has become a matchup league. It used to be about which team could line up in a set and still gain yards even when the defense knew what was coming…now it is about trying to catch the defense in personnel mismatches by no huddles.

…but that tried and true old pro set is rarely used at this point. I guess the question is why?

I would venture it’s because fullbacks are a dying breed. Off the top ot their head, can anyone name me 5 very good and active (So Weaver doesn’t count) fullbacks?
All I got is Vonta Leach, Le’ron McClain, Lousaka Polite….and after that I got nothing.

Because it is the most effective set. No one set will be used 100% of the time, but the more one set is effective, the more it will be used. At some point, the effectiveness of that set will diminish until a different set will show higher returns and will start to be used more and more.

Remember the days when the most effective WR was the #1 WR? Over the past few years, you can argue the slot receiver (ie Welker) is the most effective, since he goes against a poorer quality of defender than the #1. The Nickleback is the new secret weapon, and all teams must have a good one to be a good defense. It doesn’t matter if you can totally shut down the #1 and #2 guy if the #3 guy is gashing you over and over…

Giving a lot of hints that they are trying to get some deals sone (trades). After talking about Samuel…..

I had to look at the NFL as a whole, and kind of look at the history of the NFL.

The way of the NFL goes in cycles, and right now it’s definitely heading towards a more spread offense type of ‘way’.

3 WR’s can spread the coverage thinner and provide the QB with more outlets that can do damage. You still have the RB and TE to either block or go short if all your downfield guys are covered. Also 3 WR’s mean 3 different routes to run and more possibility of getting the defense to mess up its coverage.

Another reason the 3-1-1 set is popular because its flexible. When you want a classic running set with a fullback type you can simple accomplish this by moving your te across the formation. The Giants do this with Bear Pascoe about 5 times a game at least.

…the league quietly fell in line with what’s known as “the passing premium.” the most successful run/pass balance was found to be about 60-65% pass in general (assuming an even score; the balance varies on personnel, score, clock, and down/yds to go). this fact was demonstrated years ago amidst the cries of idiots yelling at andy reid about “establishing the run.” (andy reid’s failure with the “passing premium” was that the premium varies on down, with its lowest value on first down, and andy reid disproportionately called for passing on 1st, which in turn increased the rate of 2nd and long and 3 and outs, which probably explains what was really flipping out everyone about the reid-mcnabb regime. but i digress.)

everyone on the bill walsh tree knew that passing was more valuable than running given an even score. all of those coaches, the holmgren descendents, the any reid descendents, passed more than ran. belichick did too despite being a descendent of Parcells. belichick passed 57% of the time his first year as HC of the Pats. two years later the pats threw 61%. the years his teams dominated the league the pats were skewed towards the run, sure, but that was only because these belichick teams exploded offensively via the pass to grab a lead early every game. then after gaining an early lead they would sit on a lead with running, burning more clock, reducing turnovers. this is of course a formula very familiar to reid-era eagles fans. look at the pats’ pass percentages with a tie score those years.

unlike baseball statistical analysis was relatively late to the professional ranks of football. if you want any evidence of this, consider how recent stats geeks are in the NFL fandom and then consider that pro baseball has had a culture of stats geeks going back to the 19th century. after the stats geekery arrived in the NFL (e.g., teams hiring SAS as consultants to bring software and analytic techniques circa 2000) you had coaches eventually finding out why the passing premium worked: it was the mismatches in passing schemes that produced better risk/reward ratios. simply put, you’re putting more pass catchers on the field more often and getting them involved in catching short passes that are more frequently completed and less frequently quashed by sacks. And when you put a 3rd WR or a RB with great pass-catching ability on the field (like Brian Westbrook, who could block and then roll out for a checkdown or a screen) the opponent puts out a lesser athlete in the form of a nickel back. the offense gets better, the defense gets worse. it’s an automatic mismatch. this is the evolution of the passing premium beyond merely passing more often. oh and let’s not forget 3 WRs spreads a defense and makes the RB more potent as a rusher.

the league has pretty uniformly bought into the insight bill walsh made so many decades and lombardi trophies ago: short sharp passing keeps the chains moving. rule changes favoring the offense