workhorse said:
Actually the Colts defense is designed for the linebackers to make most of the tackles too. The Colts' linemen are all quick and undersized by most standards (Corey Simon is the exception and he has only been there one year) and quick. They are supposed to penatrate and disrupt. Everyone is told to go after the quarterback and tackle the running back if he comes your way. By penatrating and disrupting is keeps the blockers focus on the linemen and away from the linebackers to make the tackles. I mean how else could Rob Morris have a couple seasons with 130 tackles? I wasn't saying that Freeney was among the league's leaders for tackles, I was just pointing out that his numbers weren't too far off from Seymour's. Neither of them are expected to have great numbers when it comes to that, both are counted on to make big plays when they are needed.
Good info. It seems to work for the Colts. There is more than one way to skin a cat. The only nagging doubt is whether it is a defensive scheme that works very well mainly with weaker teams or teams with a somewhat weak offensive tackle. So far, history has shown that it doesn't seem to work that well against the stronger teams or in the playoffs - no question, in terms of the 'on any given Sunday', maybe it's just a string of breaks. But until it goes the other way, you just have to wonder. I think the acid test will be this year when the Colts play the NFC East and the AFC East and also Cincinatti and Denver. If Freeney, and the Colts team for that matter, do well against those teams, that will be solid support for considering him an elite player. On the other hand, if his stats against those teams aren't all that stellar, I don't think it would be fair to say it's just a 'down year' - it would have to bring into question whether he is an elite player or just one who is hyped. The topic will probably come up again after the season, so maybe we'll have a chance to compare notes.
workhorse said:
Maybe we'll just have to disagree on this point, but turnovers seem to have more of an effect on the outcome of a game than stops on third down. Besides, that not the only thing he does, it's an added benefit to the sacks.
Well, I can't argue at all that turnovers aren't a very significant indicator. I can certainly agree with them being an added benefit - no question about that. But if I had a choice between DL play that stopped third downs and drives versus one turnover in 3 games, I would pick the stop because it has the most leverage on the most number of drives- but maybe that's just my take on the matter. And, of course, the most important of either category is for that contribution to come in games against tough opponents and in playoff games - I'm sure of that.
workhorse said:
If you double team both with both tight ends, then you can't throw to them and you limit the number of options you have in your passing game. Not to mention who is going to block to linebackers or force them to drop into coverage by running a pattern?
Well we couldn't agree more on that. This is where coaches earn their money - making these kind of tradeoff choices. I guess if the defense has two top dude defensive ends who will get to the QB frequently if they are not double teamed, you kind of have to opt for the blocking. The Patriots seemed to be in this situation a lot last year. And even keeping the tight ends and a back in, Tom Brady got banged around way more than fans wanted to see - and I'm sure he wasn't happy about it either. Injuries to the OL kind of forced the issue. I don't want to commit heresy, but I have to wonder why a quick release short passing game including the TEs isn't and wouldn't have been a slightly better choice - just me wondering. But you have to admit that it worked last year against the Colts with Freeney and Brock and Mathis and enough other teams to make the playoffs and win a playoff game.
workhorse said:
San Diego was the best team not to make the playoffs and they were better than several that did. It's hard to argue game by game and it takes too long. I could point out in the Seattle that many of the Colts starters didn't play much since it came the week after there first loss. Or I could mention most of the games that you point out Freeney was shut out, Mathis had good games. Freeney is a weapon on the Colts' defense that teams now scheme against. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but many times it can cost the team in another way.
No problem including SD and I certainly agree that we can drop Seattle - I should have thought of that. But if you are hand picking, maybe you would include the second Jaguars game which was certainly when there no losses yet. And Freeney had a goosegg for that one also - arguably, Jacksonville is your chief rival and a very important opponent. I didn't replay the Chargers game to see what tradeoffs SD made to win. Certainly with Freeney's 5 solo tackles including 1 sackwith the forced fumble (leading to a TD), no matter what they did it doesn't seem like a good tradeoff to allow that kind of damage - but it worked for some reason. I did notice that SD kept Reagor, Williams, and Tripplett to total of 5 solo tackles. By the way, I presume you know that one play counted as a tackle, sack, and forced fumble all for that one play for Freeney - but, as I said, it led to a Colts TD. Of the other 4 tackles, one did not stop a drive. On the other 3, SD scored 2 FGs and a TD so that gets back to the notion of stopping drives for no score being the critical contribution.
workhorse said:
I wasn't trying to be sh***y. But I find it hard to believe that if someone said you can have Dwight Freeney on your team, as is, many here would say no. BTW, why did you change my name in my posts?
I hear you. However, you probably catch the drift from all of my comments that I truly wouldn't even use Freeney on the majority of downs because I don't subscribe to the Colt's current defensive scheme - but, again, I readily agree that it works reasonably well - make that quite well - except for the playoffs. I wouldn't use a roster slot to sign Freeney as a free agent, even for nominal dollars (because he wouldn't be a key contributor for the type of defense I think is most effective overall). If he was on the roster, for whatever reason, I would imagine I would use him in 3rd and long unless I was getting burned by long draw/running plays picking up first downs in that situation with him in.
Well, apologies for mistyping your handle. Mea Culpa. Geez - I just looked at my typing this time and I did it again. Hope I didn't offend.
Thanks for interesting thoughts and discussion.