I know I shouldn't care about people whose job is to literally try and get reactions from people, but Steven Ruiz's snotty little "wasn't watching the game, what did I miss?" tweet is so lame to me
It’s funny these new age NFL writers, like Ruiz, with all their charts and stats, are now victory lapping over a one game sample, which is the exact opposite of what they claim to stand for. Just another shill moving the goalposts when it’s convenient.
it's just so lame to me to give no credit when a guy is playing well. he ranked him the 19th best QB, 9 spots behind Gino Smith, which is objectively absurd. and then when he finally plays poorly you jump out and say see I was right along.
Of course, guys like Ruiz believe they are always the smartest guy in the room because of some hipster opinion they cooked up. Tbh the entire Ringer ethos seems to be this...dressed up think-pieces, fancy design and littered with poor logic and agenda.
I'm glad America's top football writer is back, because it's a great excuse to broach a very House of Strauss topic.
Is all of football media a cargo cult? Are 200 million NFL fans waving wooden rifles labeled "Purdy MVP" or "protect the quarterback" like they hope that aliens will return?
Basically, I don't think that what is discussed on pre-game shows, in newspapers, and on NFL twitter really resembles what coaches and players think about on a daily basis. In fact, I don't think a lot of it is in touch with reality. And yet so many NFL fans don't realize that talking heads focusing on the QB or a very select handful of players completely misses the beauty of the game.
Football offenses are predetermined. The coach makes a play call and everyone is expected to execute it. Yes, it's successful if it gains over 5 yards. But there are also 11 matchups on the play that determined how it transpired, and NFL teams spend HUGE amounts of time on Mondays going through every play and giving every starter a grade for each play. This guy was late. This guy got beat and blew up the play. This guy didn't block hard enough downfield and left 15 yards on the table.
But the playcall is like a watch mechanism. Every part needs to win their matchup, or be at the right place at the right time for the whole thing to works. On film, often the reason a play didn't work is the opposite of what a low information fan believes happened. They see a Purdy misfire, but totally miss that the play broke down because the tight end got beat immediately. Or they see a big CMC run and don't realize that all he had to do is run behind Trent Williams, who took out two defenders.
Of course, when CMC catches a 30-yard wheel route it's the same as when Lebron slashes or Wemby exists: it's immediate and visceral and impressive. But in general, I think that the average fan will have a much better hit rate understanding whether an NBA player won his matchup versus, say, a tackle, or a wide receiver. And I don't think basically any NFL fans understand how quarterbacks are actually performing — what's on Kyle's Monday grading sheet? Curry doesn't need four or five teammates to win their matchups to get a shot off.
Media has tried to level up its football IQ but I'm not sure there's market demand for it. The Manningcast started as two legends sharing their knowledge for the game but it's turned into a talk show. Earlier this year, a bunch of NFL players shouted out Brian Baldinger for his twitter breakdowns of individual plays and players that closely resemble what teams do in film sessions. The fantasy world actually does a pretty good breakdown using former players to identify what actually happened in given plays — maybe that's where the demand comes from, people with skin in the game who want to understand better.
Instead of intelligent commentary, we're left with a bunch of former players all auditioning to be the next Steven A Smith or Charles Barkley. Or stats journalists waving synthetic metrics like QBR.
Anyway, I have no idea how Purdy actually played, and I watched the whole game. I have a feeling it wasn't good based on the score. Your take that obviously the QB is the most important player is true, but I'd argue it's just not that meaningful.
Of course, it's what they're talking about on TV today and if you went into a Polk St bar, that's the conversation you'd be able to strike up. I just wonder how much longer pro football can be by far the biggest thing in America while its customers — the viewers — hardly understand it.
I know I shouldn't care about people whose job is to literally try and get reactions from people, but Steven Ruiz's snotty little "wasn't watching the game, what did I miss?" tweet is so lame to me
It’s funny these new age NFL writers, like Ruiz, with all their charts and stats, are now victory lapping over a one game sample, which is the exact opposite of what they claim to stand for. Just another shill moving the goalposts when it’s convenient.
it's just so lame to me to give no credit when a guy is playing well. he ranked him the 19th best QB, 9 spots behind Gino Smith, which is objectively absurd. and then when he finally plays poorly you jump out and say see I was right along.
Of course, guys like Ruiz believe they are always the smartest guy in the room because of some hipster opinion they cooked up. Tbh the entire Ringer ethos seems to be this...dressed up think-pieces, fancy design and littered with poor logic and agenda.
I'm glad America's top football writer is back, because it's a great excuse to broach a very House of Strauss topic.
Is all of football media a cargo cult? Are 200 million NFL fans waving wooden rifles labeled "Purdy MVP" or "protect the quarterback" like they hope that aliens will return?
Basically, I don't think that what is discussed on pre-game shows, in newspapers, and on NFL twitter really resembles what coaches and players think about on a daily basis. In fact, I don't think a lot of it is in touch with reality. And yet so many NFL fans don't realize that talking heads focusing on the QB or a very select handful of players completely misses the beauty of the game.
Football offenses are predetermined. The coach makes a play call and everyone is expected to execute it. Yes, it's successful if it gains over 5 yards. But there are also 11 matchups on the play that determined how it transpired, and NFL teams spend HUGE amounts of time on Mondays going through every play and giving every starter a grade for each play. This guy was late. This guy got beat and blew up the play. This guy didn't block hard enough downfield and left 15 yards on the table.
But the playcall is like a watch mechanism. Every part needs to win their matchup, or be at the right place at the right time for the whole thing to works. On film, often the reason a play didn't work is the opposite of what a low information fan believes happened. They see a Purdy misfire, but totally miss that the play broke down because the tight end got beat immediately. Or they see a big CMC run and don't realize that all he had to do is run behind Trent Williams, who took out two defenders.
Of course, when CMC catches a 30-yard wheel route it's the same as when Lebron slashes or Wemby exists: it's immediate and visceral and impressive. But in general, I think that the average fan will have a much better hit rate understanding whether an NBA player won his matchup versus, say, a tackle, or a wide receiver. And I don't think basically any NFL fans understand how quarterbacks are actually performing — what's on Kyle's Monday grading sheet? Curry doesn't need four or five teammates to win their matchups to get a shot off.
Media has tried to level up its football IQ but I'm not sure there's market demand for it. The Manningcast started as two legends sharing their knowledge for the game but it's turned into a talk show. Earlier this year, a bunch of NFL players shouted out Brian Baldinger for his twitter breakdowns of individual plays and players that closely resemble what teams do in film sessions. The fantasy world actually does a pretty good breakdown using former players to identify what actually happened in given plays — maybe that's where the demand comes from, people with skin in the game who want to understand better.
Instead of intelligent commentary, we're left with a bunch of former players all auditioning to be the next Steven A Smith or Charles Barkley. Or stats journalists waving synthetic metrics like QBR.
Anyway, I have no idea how Purdy actually played, and I watched the whole game. I have a feeling it wasn't good based on the score. Your take that obviously the QB is the most important player is true, but I'd argue it's just not that meaningful.
Of course, it's what they're talking about on TV today and if you went into a Polk St bar, that's the conversation you'd be able to strike up. I just wonder how much longer pro football can be by far the biggest thing in America while its customers — the viewers — hardly understand it.
“An RB”? Dont want to be that guy ... just breaking ‘em. Happy Holidays all. Ethan, thanks for the good reads.