I obviously copied this one...
"The quarterback is staring at the receiver too long."
When you hear this during a telecast, chances are it might be true one out of every five times. Most of the time, the quarterback is throwing into man coverage where the defender is running with the receiver and not even looking at the quarterback. So whether the quarterback is staring at one receiver has no bearing on the outcome of the play. The only time staring too long could be a problem is when the receiver is going across the field and there is a safety or linebacker who is free in the middle and goes where the quarterback looks. But, generally, when you hear this phrase, disregard it.
"He threw into double coverage."
Yes, sometimes quarterbacks do throw into double coverage. But most of the time, it's a matter of the ball being in the air and a safety or some other defender reacting to it. It's almost always not double coverage. You must remember that you're dealing with extremely gifted athletes in the NFL. When the ball is in the air, defenders leave their receiver and run to where the ball is thrown. So sometimes there just happens to be more than one defender in the area when the ball gets there. It looks like maybe he was covering the guy, but that's not always true.
"The safety didn't get there in time."
When you see a long pass down the sideline, and it's completed over the cornerback with the safety coming over to make the tackle, or just miss knocking down the ball, you'll hear broadcasters say, "Well the safety didn't get over there in time." Well, the safety wasn't supposed to be over there. The safety was in the middle of the field helping protect the corner from inside routes. It was the corner's responsibility to cover deep over the top. Almost always, it's not true when they say that.
"The quarterback isn't being asked to win the game, just not to lose it."
This is my favorite cliché of all. I want to turn off the TV when I hear that. Being an ex-quarterback, that is a slap in the face! They're saying that, no matter what I do, I can't get credit. But if anything goes wrong, I'll take the blame.
I've played in a wide-open offense and I've played in a very controlled, measured offense. And I can say this: The controlled, measured offense is much, much harder to play. Because when you get less throws and are asked to manage the game -- run it at a slower pace -- the quarterback has to be much more precise.
When the quarterback is asked to play a more conservative style, that means he's generally going to run the ball more and be asked to pick up more third-down passing situations. And throwing on third down is the hardest thing to do in the National Football League. It's like a basketball player -- if he gets to shoot 20 times a game, he has a much better chance of being in rhythm. If he's asked to shoot just five times a game and expected to make three out of every five, that's hard to do.
So if a broadcaster tells you that a team is playing a conservative offense because it has a young quarterback and you just want the quarterback not to lose the game, keep this in mind: A conservative offense, believe it or not, is harder for a young quarterback to run.
"The offense is too predictable."
What offense isn't predictable? You can only do two things: run or pass. So that's a 50-50 proposition. And if it's third down and more than a couple of yards, you know it's a pass. But that's always the first phrase uttered out of anybody's mouth as soon as a team doesn't score enough points.
When you're not physically capable of getting things done against a defense, it does make you look very predictable. But who are we to question the play calling? The coaches sat in film sessions all week and spent about 95 hours getting ready for the game, and you're going to second guess every call you didn't like in a football game? I watch plenty of film and talk to the coaches every week, yet I still know next to nothing compared to the coaches who are preparing the game plan. If it's not working, it's not because it's too predictable.
On running quarterbacks -- "That's what they bring to the table."
So you're going to differentiate a quarterback based on his ability to run and pick up three yards? Maybe the most so-called "pocket passer" in the league right now is Drew Bledsoe. The fact that he's not running for first downs on a consistent basis is really hurting the Buffalo offense, isn't it? Case closed.
"He's a players' coach."
I'm happy to report this cliché has pretty much died off. It was a hot phrase about two years ago. Somehow, it became fashionable to think that a coach had to be tuned in and hip with the players. Everybody realizes now that it's not a good phrase. It's demeaning to the coach, really. I think we're learning that pro football is such a difficult world, and discipline, organization and hard work is the name of the game. There are no exceptions.
It's gotten to where it is almost derogatory to call a head coach a "players' coach." To me, it describes a coach who doesn't have complete control of his football team. And I know a lot of head coaches who take it the same way. They would get insulted to be called a players' coach because the connotation is that they are easy and soft.
The comparison is to being a father. Do you want to raise your child properly or do you want to be his best friend? If you're going to be his best friend, then you're going to let him get away with keeping his room messy, not doing well in school, and just being a spoiled brat. Or are you going to be his father and make him work hard and make him be courteous to people? What's the difference between that and a pro football coach?