SEEING RED
Scoring zone stats ill-defined, distort success rates
THE BEST way to watch football, these days, is to be a Q. A “Q” is someone who wears a blank, dim-witted expression, opens his mouth wide to form an O, then allows his tongue to droop from his mouth to form a Q.
Try it. There’s nothing to it. And that’s the point.
Late in last Sunday’s game, the Patriots, leading the Jets 22-6, had a first-and-goal. The Pats killed the clock with low-risk handoffs before kicking a field goal to remove all doubt. And that’s what happened, final score, 25-6.
This made indisputable, practical, game-ending sense. Yet it was entered for your future edification as a red zone failure, something the Pats must improve upon. After all, first-and-goal from the 5 and they had to kick a field goal. That’s a colossal failure! Even if it cemented the win.
It doesn’t matter if red zone stats are so misleading and misapplied that they’re worthless. The NFL and its obedient TV, radio, and print and digital media have mindlessly determined that they’re essential, that they enlighten us, help us understand the game.
Years after red zone stats were introduced, we know where the red zone begins — at the 20 and closer — but still don’t know when it begins, as in on what down. It’s another of those mystery stats to which we’re supposed to pledge unconditional allegiance.
In the meantime, countless games are won by red zone “failures.”
But fourth-and-6 from the 19 and first-and-goal from the 2, they’re all the same, and they all tell the same story. And no matter how stunningly stupid, these stats and many others will remain as a valuable guide to better understand football as presented by those who don’t understand football.
So sit back and assume the suggested empty-headed facial position. And that’s your Q tip for the day.