DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Is football really a "team" sport anymore?

I have been milling this over for a few years now and just wanted to throw it out to my fellow dawgs for some friendly banter.

For years we have heard football is a team sport, that there is no "I in team", but is that really true? Sure, obviously it is a group of players unlike tennis, boxing, or golf, but would it be better to think of it as an individual game played in a team concept?

It still boils down to match-ups and there is the old saying you are only as strong as your weakest link. If the team was the preeminent factor, the weakest link wouldn't matter.

I am beginning to think the individual players are more important than any concept of team.

Any comments?? I would be interested to hear what you think.

Only someone who has never played the game of football would even pose this question.


The greatest football player of all time said this just this week, "Football is the ultimate team sport".

Its just like Baseball Peen, the idiots get all the press and the big contracts ie TO, Randy Moss, Ray Lewis, Vick. I'm worried our young players look up to these guys. We already see some self-centeredness in Edwards. I think one of Frye's ints was because Braylon didn't finish off his route.

LOL....you don't know what I have or have not played.

If you want to add something worthwhile...do so....if you want to be your usual self...I guess there is nothing I can do about it.

That is part of what i am talking about. I think it has changed a great deal over the years.

Now you have the play of the day, the hit of the week, etc. Has the culture changed it into an individual sport of sorts??

Sure it has, Kids today don't want to be Jerry Rice or Paul Warfield. They want to be Ocho Cinco and TO. Thats the guys getting the shoe deals and all the press.

That's impossible, Walter Payton passed a few years back.

Football is probably the major sport that needs teamwork the most - hockey is close, more needed in hockey than basketball, IMO.
Baseball the least... D in baseball is important, but there's so much pitcher-hitter, and most defensive plays are solo, even a 5-3 putout is two small solo efforts.

Sure, football boils down to (several) matchups (always has), but the weakest link is still that. And if it's weak enough, you have to cover for it... which means something else is weakened.

Playmakers have always gotten the attention.... because they make plays.

Interesting thought.

The focus is definitely more on the individual - that's what they use to sell a team - the big name.

Its not like the NBA, though where teams just forget their fundamentals and try to ourscore one another - I don't think. They just use that stuff to market the game. The league tries to make it more "entertaining" - thus the rules favoring wide-outs, etc. IMO, they just introduce more judgement calls so the refs have more control over the game, but that's another thread <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

One guy can't win it all for you or even be that great of an impact w/o at least a decent supporting cast. Ask Peyton Manning if its a team sport. Especially on offense, if one guy screws up - the play's pretty much over. The world's greatest LB is rendered useless if his DL sucks.

Society in general is more "individual" focused - but again - that's another thread. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Oh yeah, I forgot about baseball. Look at the Indians. How many guys can bunt or hit behind the runner these days? The big money goes to the guy who can hit it out of the park. The guy thats on Sports Center everyday.

Fans around here will say yes, then blame everything on the QB. to answer your question, there is no bigger team sport - if the C falls down after the snap the RB could have a 5 yd loss, if everyone blocks right, the RB can have a TD - even slow ones (Droughns 75 yard run last year). It takes everyone in this spport. 6 of the front 7 can do their jobs, but if the 7th doesn't fill the hole - then the opposing RB gets a huge gain. It's a team SPORT - but it's a ME BUSINESS.

I think it's a variable as to what's "allowed to transpire" Peen.

IMO- New England shows that team is the ultimate winner. They replace players,parts of their coaching staff and the list goes on,but still they're winners.

Then you have teams who "permit" personalities and individuals to run the assylum. I'm of the immovable opinion that the team concept wins out. We've seen TO be permitted twice now,to be a cancer to the team concept in both San Fran and Philly and just what a shake up it caused to both teams.

Yet in N.E. it seems like "insert player here" works pretty well because of the "team philosophy".

So I feel the trend goes both ways and as has always is the case,team wins out. I know it's not football,but just look at our U.S. Basketball "team". It's been a court full of superstars,but no "team concept". Just ego's trying to out do each other. So how have we faired there?

IMO- It proves that superstars and ego's don't win games,teams do. And depending on wheather BE starts or not this Sunday we'll see if we're headed in the "team" direction or the "ME,me,me" direction. I certainly hope it's as a team where everyone is held to the same standard and ethics that makes for great teams instead of the other direction or we are in for a long haul here.

JMHO

You know Soup....sometimes I wonder about you, but that is pretty good.

But that doesn't really satisfy my question....I think FA has also added to making it a me game as well.

I was going to answer that Jim Thorpe and George Gipp died a long time ago, so how could either of them have been quoted last week... but you beat me to it with another good answer... <img src="/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />

Well, how else can I put it. The NFL makes it a "me business" more than the players. It loves TO, Chad Johnson, etc. Why? Because good or bad, people are talking about the NFL - these guys get people talking who don't watch the NFL - it's a marketing ploy. FA helped the NFL become a huge "me business" as Chad Johnson is loved by fans all over the place, he'd get a huge salary anywhere for the marketing alone. Arizona signed Emmitt Smith to get people into their stadium. Montana went to KC, TO to Philly and now Dallas, who knows where he'll be next year. Anyway you slice it, the NFL is spoken about. The only "me business" run better is the NCAA - they get ALL the money because the players aren't allowed to - that's a complete crock - thse players make the schools millions but can't accept money - think about that for a bit. I'm tired and hungry, I hope what I just wrote doesn't come across as mindless jibberish (like most of my posts <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> I stole your punchline).

It's accepted that a player will dance after a TD, or a D-back will pump his chest after a routine tackle. It's the culture of the game and I'm not sure it's that much of a generational thing.

In baseball, you still don't do that, or you'll get some chin music. Deion Sanders admitted in an interview that he could showboat in football, but he couldn't very well dance at the plate after he hit a HR.
In hockey, if you showboat too much, you look like a fool and will probably eat an opponent's elbow at the opportune moment. There's a line, and most know when it's been crossed in hockey and baseball. There's a line in football, too, but it's further away.

If you're saying players are more "I-centric" - I don't think yau'd get any arguments there. Absolutely. Money and fame - especially money.

Well, Peen, I think it depends upon the perspective. Your original post doesn't specifically state but rather imply that it is our perception of the game that takes away the team aspect.

For example, I am sick of hearing about a quarterback's wins and loses like a pitcher. While it may be the most important position no one uses that same mentality on a running back, middle linebacker or right guard. Or kicker for that matter. How many games are won/lost on a last minute kick?

I think the sports media, the fans in general have overhyped the game and when you consider the money being passed around it contributes to the feeling that you have. I think kids wanted to grow up to be like Johnny Unitas, or Walter Payton just like they do today with guys like Vick or Manning, or Tomlinson. The difference today is a bit societal and also due to the large media markets, access and merchandise.

So I think your post is going in that direction. What is the perception by us. And I say that we tend to focus on the few on the team we see as leaders and not the team in general.

As far as schemes and packages that coaches use, I see that as a natural growth of a sport that is fielding bigger, faster atheltes that demands new approaches to winning the game. Not to mention the damn meddling with the rules. (people don't want to watch the doomsday defense, the purple people eaters or the orange crush, they want to watch the greatest show on turf starring T.O.)

nice post sir!

has to be and is the only team sport left basically...

My dream Super Bowl (ther than the Browns winning) is to watch a triple overtime game ending 3-0 with STELLAR defense (not bad offense).

I don't know, but probably way more than a pass, run or int.

You're kidding.

<img src="/images/graemlins/saywhat.gif" alt="" />
<img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

LOL


Peen, I don't know either just a thought about that.

But it does seem we pay more attention to the individuals on the team than the overall group. And yes, that includes us on this board with any one particular player regardless of the position. Especially qb. I think as I was trying to post earlier that that is pretty much part of what we do. We see the individuals that make up the whole instead of just the whole. And if one piece doesn't fit we look elsewhere.

It's a thought provoker. Chicken or the egg when you get down to it.

The best example of a "team" in the NFL I can think of is the Patroits and maybe the Bears. The worst example I can think of a team is The Colts. The team is made up of 2 players according to everyone Peyton and Marvin...

There is no I in team but there is a "ME"

ask any 10 year old to name 2 football players and odds are you are gonna get Ray Lewis and TO. ITs the espn generation. They showcase turds and the guys that just play hard and do their job doesnt get recognized.

I asked my 10 year old and he said Mike Vick and Payton Manning... <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Yes.

~Lyuokdea

Most "team" sports are comprised of individual match-ups...

Sure it would. If you have 10 good players and 1 lousy one, and on every running play that guy misses his block, the play is likely to not be successful. Now what would happen is that other good players would try to cover for him to make the play work, thus making their own ability to do THEIR job weaker....

No different than in baseball, if Pujols is up and first base is open, I'm going to walk him and pitch the next, weaker guy...

In basketball if your center can't play defense I'm going to pound it inside....

They are all team sports but in the end, they are all made up of individual match-ups...

One last example.. if I've got a 6'5", 240 lb WR and you've got a 5'10" 190 lb corner, I'm going to try to exploit that individual match-up... and in the end, if I'm right and it works, my WR is going to get all of the credit. It still took the line blocking well and the qb throwing well to make it work....

The individual players are more important for marketing purposes and for hype... but when it comes to winning, the whole team is still more important.

How so?

Are we playing poorly because we are a bad team or have bad players?

I have played on three different levels of football including High School, College, and Semi Pro. At all levels I developed some of the best friendships a person could ever ask for. The reason we are so close is because as a Team, we spilled our guts during 2 a days, on Friday Nights, Saturday afternoons, and Saturday Nights. We fought hard and exhausted ourselves. At the end of the day, the only thing we ever cared about was the Win.

All of us would put aside our Individual accomplishments when we lost. I think the important thing to know though, is I played at lower levels of competition (Division 3 College and Semi Pro ball). We played for the love of the game and the hopes that we would get a shot at the NFL, CFL, NFLE, or AFL. But at the end of the day, we played for the love of the game and we played for each other. I do think that many guys in the NFL and some D1 athletes are satisfied if they get their recognition even if they lose the game.
I don't think they are all like that, but I do think there are a select few who tend to give the league a bad rap.

Just my .02.

Raleigh

And thanks for that input....again, i am not throwing this out there to really take a side. It is something I have been thinking about for a while now though I do lean towards team not being the critical factor any longer.....but I guess there is no right or wrong answer....possibly no answer at all.....just one of those questions you might throw around while sitting around the bar sipping a favorite beverage.

Both.

I think we have enough poor players that we are a bad team. Add to that our good players are all young enough that they have enough trouble being good at their own job without being able to cover for anybody else... and a 3rd thing, our poor players are in positions of great importance...

Well at least for you DC Dawg the Terps BB team is off to a great start. Looking at their schedule they could go 12-0 or 14-0... and Fridge is BOWLin'. <img src="/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />

It's a good question 'Peen, but IMO you need to ask the men who have been on the most successful "teams" in football history, and who their leaders were. What did they preach,...why were they successful,....what set them apart.

I think it is obvious to even the most casual observer, that if you make it important, teamwork, to include taking care of each other, will take care of business.

I realize your thread is probably geared to the Browns, but I will mention Jim Tressel in a passing fancy. I believe that his sincere emphasis on the team and people would have made him the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs had he selected that route instead of coaching. Sure glad he selected the latter. His, and Bill Belichick's records speak for themselves.

My only comment to that is college ball and pro ball are worlds apart.

It is much easier to promote the team concept at the college level.

True, but WHAT is the major difference that makes it easier ??

It's the money and the ego(s) that go along with it. Don't know how BB does it, but he makes it work.

It's still a team sport, and you will always need leaders to lead it.

JMO

[quote].I think FA has also added to making it a me game as well. [/quote

I think you can add the salray cap to that too whiich forces teams to trade someone simply because they make too much money.