Whether you agree or disagree with the article, I found it well researched and documented and it made me go HMMMMM. That's what good articles are supposed to do, make you think.
As a football die hard and a defensive scheme junky, I never felt there was anything wrong with the pre-1994 version of the game, so those negative comments he mentioned were enlightening.
For the record, my ONLY complaint about the new passing rules is when the flag is thrown because a receiver was a victim of INCIDENTAL contact. If I were on the "committee" , I would require that the ref determine that the defender had somehow impeded the receiver more than 5 yds down the field. THe same with PI, the ref would have to believe that the defender somehow interfered with the receivers ability to catch the ball before it arrived. Mere contact wouldn't and SHOULDN'T apply.
Also I often see receivers initiating the contact and still get flags. I'm happy they are supposedly looking more closely at offensive PI, though it doesn't seem to be resulting in many flags.
Ken - I agree. I haven't been watching football nearly as long as you and only have a fraction of the knowledge of the game, but I do remember reading articles in the early 1990s about the "demise" of the NFL and how it was lagging behind the NBA and MLB in popularity. How times have changed.
I think the article is wrong in that the rule changes weren't made explicitly to improve offense. First and foremost, the changes were made to increase excitement in the game - to generate more fan interest. Improving the passing game was one way to do that, since the game had a heavy defense/run tilt back then. Clearly their changes succeeded.
The rule changes noted in the article improved the passing game but they also were things to increase excitement. There were also 2 rule changes at that time which the article didn't mention, but factor into the point that it was an excitement concept, not just more offense concept:
1) Kickoff moved from the 35 to the 30. Explicitly to allow more kick returns - more excitement - and to give offenses better field position. Compare that to what happened with the recent change back.
2) The outright elimination of instant replay. Beforehand, replay could be used on anything and everything. It added a boatload of dead time to the game. It took forever to get replay back, and when they did, it was done in a limited manner with an emphasis that a decision needed to be made within 2 minutes. Eventually, they stopped caring about the 2 minute rule unfortunately.
The NFL's rule changes back then made the game safer and more exciting. Very few penalties were added as a result - just the additional QB protection for the most part. Unfortunately, the rule changes nowadays try to make the game safer, but also to make the game easier for Peyton Manning to win. Thus, ridiculous penalties, an extreme passing tilt, and generally less excitement because of it. I think the NFL needs to go back to that 1994 philosophy on rule changes and not the current philosophy.