shakadave

I don't agree with the theory that it's good to keep the other team's (i.e. Colts') offense off the field. According to this theory, it is bad to throw a 60-yard TD pass. Better to run for 3 yards. If your QB throws from his own 40 and you catch it at the 50 wide open, then don't run with it --- sit down!

No matter how many drives each offense gets over the length of the game, each team gets an equal number of possessions. To "shorten" the game is just to bet that you convert a higher % of your drives than your opponent does WHEN THE # OF DRIVES IS SMALL. This is mathematically invalid unless you assume the other team really is better --- not just their offense, but (their offense over your D) vs. (your offense over their D). If the other team really is better, you should lose whether the # of possessions is large or small. You're just betting on a greater chance of a "fluke" win with fewer possessions for each side.

If you keep the Colts offense off the field a lot, then you have very few drives yourself, so you'd better score a high % of TDs when you DO have the ball. But if you're able to do that, maybe you're not the worse team after all!

__________________
Please, God, don't let us ever suck as bad as the 2011 Cowboys did in the Jets opener.
* * * * *
"I got a little shine on and showed you guys a little taste of my speed."

----Vince Wilfork, Jan. 7, 2007

Digger44

This is pure foolishness. Nobody ever claimed that a WR should fall down after a catch. Can you please cut the crap and stop making up stories no one ever posted. Great way to bend someones theory so you look good. Very typical biased journalism.


How is it that if you keep the Colts offense off of the field that you have fewer drives? That is not a fact and does not have to work that way whatsoever. In fact turnovers and punts would give us more drives. Again, look at the other side of the coin.

SVN

keep the other offense off the field is a logic which every team tries to do against any team it plays...i dont know a team/gameplan/ which would say.."let s keep the cleveland offense on the field or lets keep the colts offense on the field"...
unless maybe you played the 06' raiders..
this is such a cliched logic by the analysts which means nothing...
keeping the opposition offense of the field IS the game of football...just doesnt happen as people wish which is why its sports.

shakadave

a) Thanks for the civil tone.
b) Of course nobody ever claimed a WR should fall down. I didn't say they did. But it's consistent with the theory of trying to minimize the time the other team's offense is on the field.
c) I don't really consider myself a journalist.

I'm making an assumption here. Whenever we hear the "keep opponent's offense off" strategy, it's always implied that we're talking about having long drives ourself, keeping our offense out there a long time. (People don't just mean "stop the other team to get their offense off the field --- that's obvious. The theory is mentioned when WE have the ball.) Longer drives for our offense mean fewer total drives.

__________________
Please, God, don't let us ever suck as bad as the 2011 Cowboys did in the Jets opener.
* * * * *
"I got a little shine on and showed you guys a little taste of my speed."

----Vince Wilfork, Jan. 7, 2007

CheerforTom

But what's wrong with having fewer total drives that result in points? If they're longer, they're more likely to do so, are they not?

In any case, I think the whole "keep the offence off the field" applied specially to Manning in this game. The guy's just been a nuclear bomb this year. I don't think that would've been the case against just anybody. It wouldn't surprise me if it was a part of the game plan to try to minimize Manning's chances, regardless of what that did to us.

Digger44

a) When you post material like Keegs you deserve a civil tone.
b) A WR falling down is only consistant with pure foolishness. That is so ridiculous that I cannot even believe you try to make an argument for that. Please give me a break.
c) Nobody here considers you are journalist. It is an expression. I am sorry you didn't understand that.


The assumption is highly flawed. It certainly is not implied that we must have long, slow drives. It implies that you take advantage of the defenses weakness and score. It just so happens that Indi's weakness is the running game. You try to point out that 60 yards is better that 3 yards, but the Colts gave up about 150 yards rushing in the total game. With 33 carries that averages out to be 4.5 yards a run. That is excellent. All you had to do is watch the 4th quarter of the Colts/Broncs game to understand that a ground game doesn't have to mean a slow drive. Our RBs are excellent and can slow down the game or speed it up as needed.

sieglo

Shakadave's argument is that if Manning scores on X% of his possessions, it doesn't matter whether we keep him off the field or not with a powerful running game. Either way, we will need to score on X+Y% of our possessions in order to beat him. Both teams basically get the same number of possessions in a game.

The only good argument I can think of for the "keep Manning off the field" strategy is that by sidelining Manning and making him sit around on the bench for big chunks of time, he cools off and gets out of rhythm. I think there's some merit to this argument but I would counter by pointing out that there hasn't been a heck of a lot that's taken Manning out of rhythm so far this year.

CTPatsFan

In theory, keeping the opposing O off the field keeps them from scoring, allows your D to be rested and wears down the opposing D making it easier for your O to move the ball as the game wears on. When you have a strong running game, it should be able to move the ball down the field against a (considered) weak rush D, score and take time off the clock.

INTs, short fields after punts/ko's, unsuccessful gimick plays and play-continuing penalties throw a wrench into the works. This was a self-inflicted loss and I think that is what is so frustrating for many of us. Not the end of the world, just frustrating.

There are always exceptions to the theory, but most of the time they hold true. I'm excited about the state of our running game and was disappointed that it wasn't the focus of the gameplan (and still yielded 150 yards).

__________________
Relegated to LURKER status thanks to work.

18 year STH, although games are fewer and farther between.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

the taildragger

Here's what I don't get...on paper at least, the clear mismatch is their soft defense against our offense. Perhaps not as much in the Antowain Smith era, but certainly the past few years anyway. Problem for the Colts is obviously they aren't built to play a ball possession style game, even though it makes more sense for THEM to keep US off the field, and limit the # of possessions we get.

I'm not saying we should run less or more (Maroney is obviously a great weapon, but that team isn't giving up 5.4 a rush WITH Bob Sanders...and Tom is still our best weapon and...it's all complimentary -- you can't just run against any team in this league -- you have to mix it up if you want an effective ground game or passing game -- just ask Peyton who gets 99% of his big plays off play-action, or Edge who got most of his production from the virtual vacuum created by their passing attack). I would've like to have seen less draws and K-faulk and more power 2-TE running...that wham stuff was great early on...so I guess you could criticize maybe HOW we ran more than HOW OFTEN.

I always blame/credit the execution of the players FIRST, and then I criticize/credit the gameplan only if the players are executing as well as they can. We just weren't sharp Sun night, and that starts with Tom and trickles down to the receivers (though it has more often trickled UP to him this season)...there isn't much margin for error in this league, especially against THE elite team, and certainly we don't have the ability to sling it in the vicinity of our receivers and hope they make circus catches (Watson is almost becoming a disappointment -- he's got to be able to make those catches in coverage deep down the field -- or at least prevent a pick from happening -- or we won't be throwing it down there much more).

Sometimes you just make a horrible throw (that first pick from Tom gets my vote for worst throw of his ENTIRE career -- at least the one he flung in Miami in '04 was in a late desperate situation where we needed to make a play -- good news is most QBs throw up ducks like that on a regular basis). Sometimes the ball is a little high (and sometimes you have to keep it high because there's a tackle right in front of you -- so I'm not putting it all on Tommy either), but we have to find a way to tighten it up a little bit and we've got plenty of time to work it out. The difference between Tom and Peyton will always be the fact that one guy is asked to thread the needle all the time...the other guy gets paranoid defenses playing 10 yards off his receivers and crapping their pants.

Though we can expect incremental progress in the passing game, I continue to believe it will remain a work in progress throughout the season...it will be better in January than it is now, and perhaps more than adequate to get it done, but certainly not as good as it could be next season.

Call me crazy, but I think Denver is, right now, the best team in the league (yes, I know they can't beat Indy).

But if what we saw Sunday night is clearly the best team in the league -- i.e. that which stands in our way -- then count me among the optimists -- you could argue that the path this year is set up better than ever.

Last year we just got smacked down, at least we now control our own destiny. We've proven when we show up with the right mindset (not too tight -- Denver last January -- or perhaps too c0cky -- Sun night) we can blow teams off the board...even on the road.

Being under the radar is a lot bigger than most pundits think (don't tell me the disrespect doesn't get our guys playing with more fire)...look what happened to Pittsburgh this year...that bullseye is for real.

the battle may be lost, but the war is not.

Hasta la dome baby.

p.s. BONUS RANT: I'm so sick of hearing the pundits exonerate Manning for playing on a bad team...the Marino comparisons are ridiculous...Marino was infrequently incompetent, he didn't have a legacy of failure like Manning...you can't play on the winningest team in the league over your career and be 3-6 in the postseason.

He looks like he's on a mission this year and he gets my vote for MVP, but the ring's the thing...he's on a GREAT TEAM -- They're always picked to beat EVERYONE. Yeah, the D is historically bad, BECAUSE THEY SPEND EVERYTHING ON O...they're built to outscore teams and thrive on shootouts...there are no excuses...ten million pro bowlers last year! YOU ARE NOT BEATEN BY THE BETTER TEAM WHEN YOU LOSE A GAME IN WHICH YOU ARE FAVORED BY 10-POINTS. You can't pretend it's all about your QB when you win and then fraudulently absolve the guy when they lose...if you're getting blitzed to hell, maybe it's because Dick Labeau doesn't think you can handle it -- learn to run at or dink off the blitz, DEAL WITH IT...or you will NEVER win a championship.

And if/when he does get a ring, I can't wait to read Manning apologists tell us how it does nothing to enhance the legacy of his greatness, because the QB is only one man out of 53.

YOU HAVE HOMEFIELD, YOU NO LONGER HAVE VANDERCHOKE, YOU HAVE THE MOST UNSTOPPABLE TEAM IN HISTORY...IN THE NAME OF ARCHIE MANNING, JUST WIN ONE FREAKING SB FOR GOD'S SAKE...you are the most talented QB of all time (no, I don't really believe that) on the most significant position in team sports...just do it!...otherwise have the dignity to spare us all from your next tidal wave of commercials.

shakadave

YOU ARE MAKING MY POINT! As foolish as you think a WR falling down is, that's how foolish you should deem the fallacious theory that I'm campaigning against.

But the minute you score, you bring the Colts offense back out, instead of keeping them off the field. My point is sort of what you're getting at here --- scoring is better than this overrated notion of keeping Manning off the field.

__________________
Please, God, don't let us ever suck as bad as the 2011 Cowboys did in the Jets opener.
* * * * *
"I got a little shine on and showed you guys a little taste of my speed."

----Vince Wilfork, Jan. 7, 2007