The first year of the so-called new coverage rules is just about in the bag. In the wake of Manning's record-breaking year, I decided to do a little research to see if this was truly the year of the passer and if the new coverage rules had that big effect. Take some stats into mind ( I went quick, so forgive me if I missed something): Teams with over 200 YPG passing: 23 (compares to 22 in '03 and 24 in '02) Teams with over 250 YPG passing: 8 (5 in '04 and 8 in '02). Doesn't seem to be a huge difference. Players with over 100 receptions: 1 (4 in '03 and 5 in '02) Players with over 1000 receptions: 24 (14 in '03 and 22 in '04) Players with a reception over 70 yards: 15 (25 in '03 and 25 in '04) Hmm..didn't give the big players more touches. Maybe it made the average players better? Top INTs for the season by a player: 9 (9 in '03 and 8 in '02) Players with more than 5 INTs: 20 (20 in '03 and 21 in '02) Top passes def by a player: 23 (23 in '03 and 24 in '02) Players with more than 15 PDs: 21 (21 in '03 and 24 in '04) Doesn't seem to have had a huge effect on the top corners either. So the top receivers didn't improve. In fact, they went down a little. The top corners didn't get hurt drastically. Who filled the gap? Top receptions by a TE in 2002: Shockey 74 Heap 68 Gonzales 63 TEs in 2003: Gonzales 71 Sharpe 62 TEs in 2004: Gonzales 102 Witten 87 Johnson 82 Gates 81 McMichael 73 Wiggins 71 Shockey 61 And if you look at TDs by TEs, you would also see some impressive numbers by Franks, Graham, and Crumpler. Was this the year of the TE, or did they get pushed by the rules? Are the LBs and safeties the ones that were more hurt by the rules?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cowboy71)</div><div class='quotemain'>Call it what you like.....better enforcement then.</div> Its not what i like, it is the truth
I don't understand what you are saying BF1. Do you think they just didn't follow through on their plan, or that this never happened in the competition committee? (By the way, sorry for a "news" article that has Collinsworth tied to it). http://www.nfl.com/news/story/7660049 Referees are no longer going to allow defensive backs to push, clutch, grab or hold receivers past five yards as they have done in the past. For those of you who may be saying that this has always been illegal, you would be correct. However, what is illegal and what is enforced as illegal is not always one in the same. I believe in baseball the strike zone in the rule book is supposed to go from the knees to the chest, but it took a reemphasis on the high strike from the commissioners office to get it called. The controversy that led to this "point of emphasis" on the existing illegal contact rule came from the AFC Championship Game last season. New England defenders were allowed to be incredibly physical against Indianapolis. Colts general manager Bill Polian, a member of the competition committee, was outraged that his receivers did not get any calls. In the playoffs, most referees -- though they won't admit it -- call fewer penalties. The idea is to "let 'em play" and to keep the focus on the players, not the officials, during playoff games. Veteran teams often take advantage of this subtle change and push the rules when the games get tight. Give the Patriots credit; they pushed the rules, got away with it, and won their second Super Bowl in three years. When the competition committee reconvened in the offseason, Polian led the charge for change. Even the defensive-minded coaches like Jeff Fischer seemed to agree that it was time to get back to the rule as it was written. The final act in this play was from a non-voting member of the competition committee: Rams head coach Mike Martz. Martz had been quietly seething for years at how his talented receivers had been harassed beyond the five-yard legal contact zone. His only words were, "I have a tape." After viewing the various infractions committed by defenses beyond the five-yard bump zone, the committed voted to make illegal contact one of the major points of emphasis for this season.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cowboy71)</div><div class='quotemain'>I don't understand what you are saying BF1. Do you think they just didn't follow through on their plan, or that this never happened in the competition committee? (By the way, sorry for a "news" article that has Collinsworth tied to it). http://www.nfl.com/news/story/7660049 Referees are no longer going to allow defensive backs to push, clutch, grab or hold receivers past five yards as they have done in the past. For those of you who may be saying that this has always been illegal, you would be correct. However, what is illegal and what is enforced as illegal is not always one in the same. I believe in baseball the strike zone in the rule book is supposed to go from the knees to the chest, but it took a reemphasis on the high strike from the commissioners office to get it called. The controversy that led to this "point of emphasis" on the existing illegal contact rule came from the AFC Championship Game last season. New England defenders were allowed to be incredibly physical against Indianapolis. Colts general manager Bill Polian, a member of the competition committee, was outraged that his receivers did not get any calls. In the playoffs, most referees -- though they won't admit it -- call fewer penalties. The idea is to "let 'em play" and to keep the focus on the players, not the officials, during playoff games. Veteran teams often take advantage of this subtle change and push the rules when the games get tight. Give the Patriots credit; they pushed the rules, got away with it, and won their second Super Bowl in three years. When the competition committee reconvened in the offseason, Polian led the charge for change. Even the defensive-minded coaches like Jeff Fischer seemed to agree that it was time to get back to the rule as it was written. The final act in this play was from a non-voting member of the competition committee: Rams head coach Mike Martz. Martz had been quietly seething for years at how his talented receivers had been harassed beyond the five-yard legal contact zone. His only words were, "I have a tape." After viewing the various infractions committed by defenses beyond the five-yard bump zone, the committed voted to make illegal contact one of the major points of emphasis for this season.</div> I am saying there was an effect. I am also saying it is not a new rule, refs were allowing certain teams to cheat. It just bothers me when people refer to them as "new rules" I live in florida, and on sports talk radio moron dolphins fans call in all the time and talk about how mannings record should have an asterix because of the new rules. Fact of the matter is that they did same crackdown when marino broke record. I just was a little annoyed didnt mean to blow up on you. You da Man
I hear your pet peeve - sorry to jump into it. For the record, I think it had little to do with Manning's record...I'm on your side. Thus, why I started the research. Based on the reserach, my opinion is that it really didn't effect the DBs that much, and thus wasn't a big factor in Manning's performance. I didn't see Vinny blowing up for 35 TDs this year because of the "new rule"
