Famine, Flood, and Lackluster Quarterbacking: A Deconstruction of Narrativity in Football

[PhillyB]

Objectivity is good. Football fans appreciate objectivity. They especially appreciate it when analyzing football recent football histories: it seems patently unfair when a player's historical (which could mean last season, or ten years ago) or current merit is weighted differently based on factors unrelated to performance, like what team he plays for, how he speaks, or what role he is assigned in popular media by a narrative-driven league. Pretty much everyone agrees that players should be judged objectively.

But first let's ask: is there any such thing as objectivity? Can we really objectively analyze a football player's performance?

In a brilliant 1980 essay, legendary historian Hayden White outlined the problem with objectivity in even the simplest historical matters. Case in point: the historical annals of, say, Gaul (modern France) in the 8th century AD. Here is a snapshot of the recorded history of Gaul between the years 709-734, as culled from volume one of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica:

 

 

This seems like a reasonable collection of events to include in a history. Duke Gottfried was a Bavarian duke, so his death seems significant. King Charles slaughtered the Saxons and then won at the battle of Poitiers - great, all good stuff. But a closer examination begs some questions. Why was the Battle of Tours in 732 left out when it was so much more consequential? Why is "Saturday" mentioned with as much gravity as the battle itself? Why is "great crops" weighted the same as Theudo's victory at Aquitaine? What the hell happened in 726, 728, 729, and 730? Were they all on vacation?

Whatever the answer, the inclusion of seemingly nominal events like a bad crop year and that silly flood in 712 is actually the most revealing of all: those events are included in a history because they bear immediate importance to the writer. The writer's supposedly objective history is actually completely subjective because he is a prisoner of his time and his situation. His very survival depends on crops not being bad, so for that reason alone it's worth a mention. And a little historical digging reveals that Duke Gottfried donated his castle to the writer's patron when he died; suddenly the good duke's inclusion as a historical figure looks financially motivated, not historically accurate. Therefore this history is not the history of Gaul, but rather a history framed by the annalist's own biological and economic necessities. A new history of Gaul in the same period might look much different. 

Got that? Good. Histories aren't objective because the selection of facts is framed by the worldview of the historian selecting them. And this brings us to Andrew Luck and the Indianapolis Colts.

 

"CAN SOMEONE PLEASE DIG UP DUKE GOTTFRIED AND START HIM AT LEFT GUARD"

 

If there was ever a case for declaring "objective" football history as truly subjective, it's Andrew Luck. Hayden White argues that narratives fill the gaps in bullet-pointed annals and integrate them into some kind of story with greater meaning; like the annalist of Gaul, sports journalists, national writers, pundits, coaches, and legions of fans have been channeled into a narrative about Andrew Luck. Much like the annalist of Gaul selected an event that supported his ulterior motives and wrote it as objective history, so too can writers select for traits about a football player that fit their narrative. Here is an example:

 

 

Wow, that Andrew Luck sure is clutch! Three second-half touchdowns last week to lead the league. He's better than Brady! The stats show it and you can't debate them, because correlation equals causation and dammit he just has that drive and lunch pail leadership! I sure like that guy!

Of course if you adjust Luck's week seven performance so that it doesn't isolate metrics that highlight his performance, his results are much less exceptional.

 

 

Keep removing qualifiers like "second half" and Luck's performance drops even further. Add in more complex metrics like "first half interceptions that put your team in a 15+ point hole" and suddenly dragging yourself out of it in garbage time doesn't seem so impressive an accomplishment. This are silly examples, of course, but that's the rub. Those silly examples are exactly what the Andrew Luck narrative has survived on over the past three years: bits and pieces cherry-picked to suit an overarching narrative. Floods and famines, if you will, a history great to certain interested parties but hardly an objective whole that indicates the reality of the situation.

Much like the annals of Gaul crumble as a useful narrative upon closer analysis, so too does Andrew Luck's media-driven stature as one of the league's best passers fall apart under intense statistical scrutiny, comparative analysis, and the unforgiving prowess of defensive players who have forced him into cringingly bad throws this season. His defense isn't doing him any favors - they're currently ranked bottom in the league - but part of that's because he's been putting them in bad situations with turnovers. His nine interceptions are tied for third in the league, behind Bradford, Stafford, and Peyton Manning, all of whom are having atrocious years.

Andrew Luck is a quarterback with a high ceiling playing very poorly. More significantly than that he is playing much worse than the level automatically granted to him by the league's dominant narrative that Andrew Luck is a football great. No, this year he is worse than marginal: he is legitimately one of the worst quarterbacks on one of the worst teams in the NFL.

Last week's game against the New Orleans Saints is a microcosm of his entire season - some would argue his career - so let's take a look at his latest egregious, inexcusable interception to see exactly what's going on. Luck's first interception came at 2:23 in the first quarter. Here the Colts line up with a 3WR 1TE set. The back goes into motion to run a rout at the top of your screen; Luck's primary is the slant run by T.Y. Hilton (circled in yellow.) The Saints appear to be in cover three, with the corners and free safety playing deep zones and the linebackers playing the middle of the field. Stephone Anthony (bracketed in red) is watching for a drag, short slant, or anything up the seam that requires him to go after a receiver - or jump a route.

 

 

Watch what happens. Luck eyes Hilton's slant the entire way. The linebacker reads Luck's eyes as the route progresses, squatting down in the zone, and as soon as Hilton makes his cut inside the linebacker jumps the route. Hilton tries to adjust and come back to it, but it's too late.

 

 

Greg Cosell's fantastic analysis has further shown that Luck was throwing for a three-step slant while Hilton was breaking in at five steps. Staring him down only made it worse. Drew Brees and the Saints quickly took advantage, putting a touchdown on the board and beginning what would turn out to be a complete trouncing of the Colts. Later in the half Luck gave the defense a similar gift downfield on a fly route after the two minute warning, staring his receiver the entire way down the field (and ignoring a wide-open man up the seam on the other side.) Result: 20-0 halftime score, in favor of the Saints.

By repeatedly making fundamental, JV-squad level errors like staring down his receivers and missing the middle linebacker, Andrew Luck put his team in a position to lose - and, once again, put himself in a position to score garbage-time touchdowns and once again quantifiably corroborate us the kinds of narratives we so neatly derive if we're looking for them. This coming Monday night, the Carolina Panthers have the opportunity to visit a merciless pounding on the Annals of Andrew Luck, utilizing a hard-hitting, quickly-reacting defensive backfield to take advantage of his mistakes. Monday night the Andrew Luck narrative can end on before the eyes of the entire world on national television and Panthers fans, at long last, can put away reflexive defense of their quarterback at the narrative's opposite pole.

On Monday night the narrative of Andrew-Luck-as-great-quarterback will go quietly into the dark night. And unlike the Battle of Tours, nobody will be able to narrate the Carolina Panthers out of existence.

View full article

[d-dave]

Do you really see this as the end of the Luck for Hall of Fame story?  I think the world will give him a mulligan for this season because he's Andrew Luck.  

Love that you're using the history of Gaul =)  No one pays enough attention to the history of the middle ages!  And I love the point about it's what's NOT said that's almost as important (or more so) than what is said!

Again, great post!  I hope you are making money off these!

[FootballMaestro]

Let the deconstruction commence!!!

[London Loves Luke]

I'm not sure yet - is this the Fug the Colts weekly thread?

[PhillyB]

Do you really see this as the end of the Luck for Hall of Fame story?  I think the world will give him a mulligan for this season because he's Andrew Luck.  

Love that you're using the history of Gaul =)  No one pays enough attention to the history of the middle ages!  And I love the point about it's what's NOT said that's almost as important (or more so) than what is said!

Again, great post!  I hope you are making money off these!

it's tempting to read hyperbole into these types of statements but i honestly believe it's happening. the narrative has been crumbling for a while now. espn shows have been running with topics like "have we criminally overrated luck?" and more and more articles are launching criticism of his playing at the basest level.

i think if the panthers drag him up and down the field in a multi-sack, multi-turnover performance on monday night football that the colts (and specifically andrew luck) will see a palpable fall from grace that's unprecedented in his career. i think people will finally openly admit he's not elite, or anywhere near it.

[Moorgan]

"merciless pounding on the Annals of Andrew Luck"

There's something about that makes me feel dirty...violated...hopeful?

[TheRed]

Nice work as usual.

It's hard to say with Luck really. He's only 26. I think that football team as a whole is a bit of a mess right now.

For me, I'm not going to be too hard on him because we have seen how things take a turn for the worse under these conditions with our own team before. It's for that reason that I am not going to be involved much in any piling on. I also am not at all completely writing off the Colts like some of our fans seem to be doing this week.

Edited October 29, 2015 by TheRed

[frash.exe]

That caption with Luck sitting on the ground was priceless

 

I first learned about subjective bias in the NFL when people would talk about how good Delhomme was, that he was almost Brady level. People would literally say, "well if you take Delhomme's worst games out his passer rating is comparable to Peyton Manning." I was like really? Take Peyton Manning's worst games out and the gap reappears so what the hell kind of point is that?

[Mr. Scot]

Remember prior years when we were worried about Newton being ruined by poor line play and such?

You're watching it happen in Indy.

I've argued with a couple of people that David Carr actually could have been a quality NFL quarterback if the Texans hadn't screwed him up. I'd call this evidence that that'strue, and sad.

The graphic they put up on MNF a few weeks back about how many different linemen he's had was jaw dropping. Despite what some thought watching Indy draft multiple receivers, Ryan Grigson has done a horrible job building around his quarterback.

Could he be beyond repair? If they don't fix the team's issues, yeah he could be.

First step is firing Grigson.

[FootballMaestro]

The media, has been glossing over Luck's faults (turnover prone, staring down receivers, padding stats after large deficits, terrible division, etc.), in order to fit their narrative/not be wrong, or perceived as over-anxious/premature with praise.

[PntherPryd]

My favorite college course of all time was Historiography.  For a full semester we studied nine different accounts of the War of the Roses.  Yes, I learned a hell of a lot about the period, but the best lesson was in one of subjectivity (and therefore objectivity).  Brilliant article that is perfectly timed.

And that background face of Luck on your charts had me rolling.  Pieing everything you post this week.

[Asurfaholic]

These series are the reason I joined huddle. Great stuff!

[PhillyB]

Remember prior years when we were worried about Newton being ruined by poor line play and such?

You're watching it happen in Indy.

I've argued with a couple of people that David Carr actually could have been a quality NFL quarterback if the Texans hadn't screwed him up. I'd call this evidence that that'strue, and sad.

The graphic they put up on MNF a few weeks back about how many different linemen he's had was jaw dropping. Despite what some thought watching Indy draft multiple receivers, Ryan Grigson has done a horrible job building around his quarterback.

Could he be beyond repair? If they don't fix the team's issues, yeah he could be.

First step is firing Grigson.

agree. grigson has built that offense backwards and its a losing strategy. the panthers DL may actually be the nastiest they've faced so far this year, so it should be a visual spectacular for fans monday night

[PhillyB]

"merciless pounding on the Annals of Andrew Luck"

There's something about that makes me feel dirty...violated...hopeful?

why, what a strange coincidence! i should pay more attention to how i order my words!