Of course New England is the slowest team in football, they have Brady just killing their average.Speed may not be the end all indicator on offense, which was the thrust of this piece. but on the defensive side of the ball, I'd much rather be fast than not.
This is a topic I've debated online several times over the years. There's a tendency on the part of some to craft a false-choice dilemma ... that is, the debate is about "big, slow and lumbering" vs. "really fast and really good". Well, OF COURSE I'd take the latter when that's how it's positioned.But that's not the reality. It's quite possible to have a really, really fast linebacker who's not very good at tackling, or has a tendency to mis-read plays. Compare that to a less-fast linebacker who has a nose for the ball and has great tackling technique. I'll take the less-fast LB, please.Same thing with QBs ... I'd rather have a QB that's really good at reading defenses and making plays than one who can just scramble quickly. That's the Brady vs. Vick debate. A QB needs to be "mobile enough" to evade pressure. At the QB position I think speed ranks a couple notches below other skills, such as reading defenses, sensing pressure, seeing the field, etc.Speed augments other skills. Speed by itself does not win football games.