THE NFL HITS A NEW LOW -- OR DOES IT?

SETTING: Monday Night Football, October 26, 2009
LOCATION: FedEx Field, Washington D.C.
OCCASION: Philadelphia Eagles 27, Washington Redskins 17
PRINCIPAL FEATURE: The ultimate in degradation of a head coach

Jim Zorn may not be the greatest front-line combat play caller the game has known, as indicated by the Redskins’ lack of success so far this season. Nevertheless, he is still the team’s head coach, and rather than unceremoniously fire the man, the club owners have chosen instead to demote him to a position which more resembles that of chief clerk and bottle washer.

Throughout this past Monday evening, some clown upstairs carried out his newly-assigned duties of deciding upon every Redskin offensive action to be undertaken, via phone contact with the bench and thence the quarterback. Meanwhile, this writer had the displeasure of watching the camera’s continual focusing on Coach Zorn, who forever seemed to be studying his play sheet in an after-the-fact effort to figure out what his legions had just finished running off.

If we understand the gridiron game correctly, the head coach’s responsibility is to defeat his opponents as often as possible. He represents football’s counterpart to Wellington at Waterloo, Eisenhower in the ETO, and MacArthur in the Philippines. Failure to carry out this sacred mission can result in nothing other than dismissal.

Apparently the muddleheaded Washington club ownership views it differently. Don’t order the fellow to clean out his desk and be off the premises by sundown. Oh no, it’s far more meaningful to simply strip him of his most fundamental on-the-field role, i.e. actively directing the team’s every move from opening kickoff to final whistle, week after week and season after season.

Can the reader imagine what the effect would have been if some franchise’s top dogs had ever tried to pull this sort of “go stand in the corner, Bad Boy” business on Paul Brown, Vince Lombardi, or Jimmy Johnson?

On one hand, we must applaud Zorn for maintaining his composure under the unfriendly camera and daily condemnation by the press. However, we’d have much preferred to see him exit from the stage while thumbing his nose at the front office bigwigs. When a man is no longer allowed to play his role to the hilt, he should refuse ignominious position reduction to sidelines observer.

Perhaps, however, the conclusions we’ve expounded upon to this point aren’t really warranted. Isn’t it equally possible that the Redskins’ management has started the ball rolling in the direction of a brand new era for professional football? Supposing we have a look at what new grid action vistas may lie ahead for us.

As in any other corporate endeavor, the end goal is optimum profitability. And who bears the main responsibility for such achievement? The top level management corps, right?

Wouldn’t it make more sense in the relatively near future for the task of winning football games to become vested with those chaps occupying mahogany desks, rather than the harried field coach and his staff?

We might suggest making offensive play selection and defensive deployment throughout any game a Board of Directors’ duty. After all, such conglomeration of executive tycoons, bankers, insurance advisers, lawyers, and other competent persons are the ones who must answer to the stockholders. What should prevent said groups from taking the bull by the horns and directing bench activity?

Our first recommendation, therefore, would be to revise the NFL’s scheduling system so that games may be played only when Boards of Directors were holding their meetings – say the third Thursday of each month. The one hour of action time regulation would have to be expanded, of course, to where perhaps a full day might be required, considering the lengthy executive deliberation required.

Furthermore, immediately after an opening kickoff, the team in possession’s board membership, viewing the game on closed circuit TV, would move, second, and vote upon each ensuing offensive play from scrimmage. The results could be promptly emailed to the appropriate party in the stands, for retransmission to the quarterback by radio.

Contrarily, the defending board in another city would take appropriate play-by-play deployment action to dictate such strategic steps as number of pass rushers, linebacker movement, and specific downfield receiver coverage.

In due course, it might well become advisable for each club to have separate boards of directors, one to handle offense and the other defense.

Board responsibilities would obviously include determining when any questionable field official decision calls for a challenge, subject to majority vote, with a yea answer sent by email, instructing the emasculated head coach to throw the red flag.

It would make further sense for board action to be required in determining when time out should be called, and even personnel assignment. For example, the email message from the conference room might say “Pull Schmaltz out at left guard and put in Gittleheimer”.

Taken altogether then, perhaps we all owe a debt of gratitude to the Washington Redskin ownership for having introduced a brand new and most exciting element to our blessed gridiron game. An apology just may be in order for our undue and rash opening criticism.