The Big Play
I hate this term. I hate this term more than Baby Boomers lamenting the thuggery of the NBA (and I really love basketball). I hate this term more than that dude from Florida with the billboards. I almost hate it more than that turdbox Skip Bayless. This term has dulled the minds of sports-loving Americans everywhere, reducing the mental workings of the game to its basest clichés of observation and discussion.
There is this constant myth that prevails throughout football, especially in the NFL but slowly filtering down through the college levels, that games can be decided with the big play. Just as in baseball with the glory of the home run, the football quarterback has been harkened to as a figure of glory because of the possibilities that arise from his position. He is the center of attention. He holds the power to change the game by the very essence of his nature, a figure who can inject hope as quickly as he can be assigned blame.
But fans love guys who make “big plays”, because it’s much easier to discern value from big plays than through consistent production and ability. Like people who believe the actual act of getting on base is more important than the archaic nature of stealing and getting on base.
Big plays, though, are moments. They should be a part of the game but should not derive true value. A person who makes lays makes good ones and bad ones, and often you want someone who can mix an dmatch. but it was a moment, a discrete period where two athletes brought themselves to a common goal. It wasn’t a big play as much as it was a necessary one, one to keep the goals alive. The defense did the brunt of the work. Yet the majority of the glory from mainstream media typesgoes to the QB and his trusty receiver. Michael Jordan wasn’t a great basketball player because he made big shots to end games. He was a great basketball player because he shot an efficient 50 percent from the field…as a 2-guard…facing constant double and triple-teams during his prime…and developing effective countermeasures to make those defenses moot.
But this myth of the big play persists, because it’s easier to find these defining moments of conclusion and acceptance, focusing on outcomes over processes. It’s why you see pernicious stats like 15+ and 25+ appearing, only to amplify that yes, your quarterback is capable of throwing it deep. That he can make your life easier with one snap of the button. How do you think Rex Grossman got into the league?
And yes, I’m talking about Riley v. Longshore. Riley has shown that yes, he is capable of big plays, bringing the offense to unbelievable outcomes, but only by being handed the Golden Ticket of the most talented offense to ever run through Strawberry Canyon. Riley had four NFL worthy receivers and played free-for-all offense only when his team was in huge come-from-behind situations. But his big plays were, just like Manning-to-Tyree, necessary. It wasn’t like the game was tied or the Bears were trying to clinch the game. This was to come back and win in dire circumstances. These plays demanded success or the result would be a loss.
So while you may think Riley deserves to start because he’s able to come-from-behind, has anyone considered the fact that he might not be that good at holding a lead either? We only have one side of the coin with Riley, just like we flip the coin with Longshore and see his 4th quarter stats. As open season begins and the competition between the two heats up, we’re going to find out which side lands face-up.
Share your thoughts of “being clutch” in the comments.
(Image credits here and here)
- None Found
Logging you in...
With that said, I still think there's still something about those amazing moments. Maybe its inherent, or psychological. But there's some reason why the Big Play of 1982 sticks out the most in most Cal fans' head, rather than what the team did on 3rd and 8 in the second quarter. Granted, the media may play a large part, but I believe there's something about sports fans that desire and immediately retain great plays.
They don't define our sports, but it's a big reason why sports are so amazing.
As for the Riley comebacks, much can be said, most which will be saved for later discussions. But much like Tedford has said before, too much credits is given to QBs when things go right, and too much blame when things hit the fan.
Not that I don't think there's a place for great plays. They're exciting, they're part of the game, and they deserve their mention. But it's only a part of the process. You have to grit and grind too.
What I'm trying to say is that the more plays an individual is called on to make, the team suffers because the focus goes on that one player. Whether it's a power forward in basketball or a quarterback in football, they can only do so much on their own.
However, I would contest that the reason Riley is successful is due to his mental state during a game. Nate, when confidence diminishes for whatever reason, becomes a victim to the game around him. Riley's mind is constant. You can see he just plays the game. It is dangerous, very dangerous, he lets his instincts take over and in many cases that is extremely effective. Dangerous but effective. You can see his how his head works just how he lines up at the line of scrimmage. He is not a "tailored" player. This is a hard concept to explain, but i guess the easy way to think about this is over thinking a situation. However, what makes him dangerous is he lets his instincts take control completely. I am not saying this is all good or all bad. It just the style of ATHLETE he is, its a mental capacity which defines a lot of players. It is the opposite of Nate.
Nate is the control player, he is the assessment player, he analyzes each down and every step and tries to live by the system implemented. He is right to follow a system, it is highly effective however the system is devised to showcase the player, Nate at times tries to showcase the system, obviously not intentionally, but he tries to fit everything into what he has been taught and the problem with any system is the lack of elasticity. At some point the sytem fails, and an ATHLETE must be an athlete. No system to guide you. Nate has the ability to improvise but he has to have the confidence in his abilities, that when the system falters he has to let his god given instincts guide him. He doesn't allow this when he gets behind. He gets rattled. When he is confident he is a baller! end of story. keeping that confidence may be the key to his success.
Nate is what a coach wants, he is predictable. And therefore easier to coach. Kev is the wild child, no one ever knows where he is going to go, but he makes plays. It is a balance. It must be altered for both.
You make an excellent point, Kevin has been allowed to run wild while we are behind, because nothing works up until that point, and so his style is not criticized. We will see what happens if he plays from the start of a game. he is unproven, regardless of what everyone says, he is still unproven. And he is scary...
We will see which one puts their hand up in a few weeks. However, the guy that has his still up when $#&^ hits the fan, thats the guy we will want for the long haul.
Good job summarizing the main points:
"However, I would contest that the reason Riley is successful is due to his mental state during a game. Nate, when confidence diminishes for whatever reason, becomes a victim to the game around him. Riley’s mind is constant. You can see he just plays the game. It is dangerous, very dangerous, he lets his instincts take over and in many cases that is extremely effective."
Both quarterbacks have strengths (Riley's attacking mode and Longshore's pocket awareness) and weaknesses (Riley's need to make a big play versus Longshore's overthinking it) related to their main characteristics. Will either be able to subvert their weakness or at the least limit them so they don't hinder their respective games?
What do you mean by being slow? Longshore has one of the quickest releases in the conference and he sidesteps the pass rush a lot. If you're talking about mobility to run out of the pocket or pick up yards with his feet, that doesn't have much to do with throwing picks.
And the team had pretty much mailed it in the last two games. Few were really trying 100%, so it was hard for Longshore to have a good game.
Give Me Bad Numbers: Pac-10 Quarterback Analysis, Part II | Bears Necessity
Comments by IntenseDebate
Loading IntenseDebate Comments...Contact Us
Got a tip, question or want to advertise with us? Use the contact form or talk to us using the address below:
Subscribe to RSS or E-mail
Copyright © 2025 Bears Necessity &bull Site Feed (RSS)
RockinBiz 3 Column by Nathan Rice &bull Modified by lawvol
Powered by WordPress
Comments are closed.