Football's Progressive Conservatism

For once, Chuck Klosterman reading has led me to do a post not related to music- he just wrote an article about football that was quite good. I think I'll be buying the new book.

His thesis was that football has "conservative values" alongside liberal tendencies, and that this explains the overwhelming popularity of the sport in America. I can kind of see his point: while its schemes, technology, and rules change rapidly, its self-image always revolves around the idea of blue-collared tough guys who are nevertheless morally upstanding. I should note that these archetypes are more stereotypical than typical: conservatism does not depend on anti-intellectualism and obscurantism any more than liberalism depends on aimless innovation.

I can see some other connections, too. For instance, even as the rate of passing plays continues to rise (hardly any teams run more often than pass anymore, as even Pittsburgh now passes upwards of thirty times per game), the personalities around the game continue to insist on the vital importance of the running game. Now, I don't believe that these people are wrong- a successful running game remains the surest method of controlling the ball and, by extension, the game- but it's an almost schizophrenic situation, in which the game is thriving on pass-heavy offenses but claims to be as run-oriented as ever.

Even more intriguing is football's bizarre social structure: while it is certainly the faces of the teams who receive the most attention, financial and otherwise- quarterbacks, receivers, running backs- there are frequent celebrations of the faceless. The left tackle, for instance, is one of the most highly paid players in the game these days, as is his primary antagonist, the right defensive end. In fact, the even more obscure defensive tackle has had a minor renaissance over the last few years, with the play of Kris Jenkins, Albert Haynesworth, Vince Wilfork, and others garnering national attention. Periodically, the offensive line as a gestalt is praised- the "vaguely Marxist" collective (as described by Michael Lewis in The Blind Side) of largely anonymous laborers sometimes take center stage in media. The rhetoric of football especially praises them, declaring the trenches to be the most critical location on the field. Again, I believe that this is in fact correct, but it is the sort of observation that requires more focus and expertise than the typical football fan is likely to have.

In no other sport are the subtleties simultaneously explained and mysterious- while the typical fan, thanks to the efforts of commentators and writers, knows the huge importance of line play, he remains largely uneducated with regards to the mechanics of it. It is very rare for such a person to blame anyone except the closest lineman should a defender sack the passer, despite the fact that a number of other factors could be and often are the true reason for the result (whether a blown assignment by a teammate, a missed read by the quarterback, or simply a slow-developing play). Almost all the rules of the game tilt the field in favor of defensive linemen (the ability to change positions before the snap, the ability to rip, swim, and grab cloth, etc.), so the speed of the passing game is hugely important in their performances: anything more than four seconds is a very long time to hold off a three hundred-plus pound athletic man who can do more to you than you can to him and who can actually see the location of the ball.

Another interesting phenomenon is this: centers and tackles, on average, have the highest IQ scores of any players on the field, followed by quarterbacks, middle linebackers, guards, and then a pretty random assortment afterward. So, the most intelligent players tend to play the offensive line. However, the instructions to the offensive line are often quite simplistic, especially with zone-blocking schemes (it essentially boils down to "protect this patch of dirt"). Meanwhile, defensive linemen, ostensibly the less intelligent men, are given more complicated instructions on average- twists, stunts, gap protections, etc. How do we explain this? Why does the simple offensive line need more intelligence than the chaotic defensive line? Because the offense's primary intellectual responsibility is to respond to the complexity of the defense: it requires analysis-on-the-fly capabilities, whereas the defender simply needs to remember and execute his basic responsibility- go here at this time and by this route. After that, his assigned duty is done, and he has complete freedom to perform his particular duty that play (usually a simple pursuit of the ball).

My last observation is this: no team plays up its blue-collar simplicity and toughness quite like the Steelers, although some of the Midwestern teams come close (Vikings, Packers, Bears). Pittsburgh bills itself as a brutal running team with a vicious defense. However, since the departure of certain key running offense personnel (Jerome Bettis, Alan Faneca, and Jeff Hartings, primarily), the offense has revolved increasingly around Ben Roethlisberger, Santonio Holmes, and Hines Ward (although, in fairness, he is one of the few receivers who could be said to be key to a running game). Pittsburgh now passes as much as any other team, largely due to the inefficacy of Willie Parker and the patchwork offensive line, with Rashard Mendenhall's recent emergence being an unknown factor going forward. We'll see where that goes.

The defense, meanwhile, is even more complicated and contradictory: far from simple, Dick LeBeau's schemes are downright byzantine in their intricacy, with zone blitzes, deception, and discipline being more important to it than blind aggression or even athleticism. Even so, the majority of the defensive personnel is, in fact, that way- James Harrison and LaMarr Woodley are two of the most intimidating specimens at linebacker in the league, the defensive backs rank among the hardest hitting in the game, and the defensive line is one of the meanest and strongest around. But even the base formation, the 3-4, carries the rightful reputation of being a cerebral and unorthodox system. The modern game began with and still embraces the 4-3, but the defenses with the best reputation for toughness over the last decade- New England's from its title runs, Baltimore's, and Pittsburgh's- have all used four linebackers.

As football increasingly focuses on the most colorful and innovative actions, its rhetoric and its figureheads continue to emphasize the nuts and bolts of the game, and its anti-climactic features: its defense, which exists for the sole purpose of preventing action; the offensive linemen, who exist to prevent even defensive action; and the running game, which derives most of its benefit from the fact that it uses up time without allowing a high amount of play. Contradictory? Yes. Confusing? At times. American? Undoubtedly.