I think BB coached to win the game. I think that if he had a super-secret, use only when you need it play, he would have used it.
That said, I think there was also some 'testing' going on here.
Here is my opinion on this. BB put together the gameplan with some ideas about what would work best against the Colts. The gameplan he used may not necessarily have been what he would have if this were a playoff game, but rather he used schemes and concepts he felt comfortable with, but wanted to test. In other words, he played to win the game, but used it also as an opportunity to try some things that he had not used against the Colts, particularly defensively. We saw a scheme that he had never used before against Manning and the Colts, and IMO, it worked very, very well. After all, aside from a fluke TD at the end of the half, and the reality is unless they got 20-30 yards or more on that play the half was going to be over, we allowed 13 points to the Colts offense. 3 were set up by a very bad pi call (however that was on 1st down, so there is no certainty they wouldn't have still gotten the 3) and 7 came off a turnover and a drive starting on our 32.
We gave them things to take, and survived it very, very well.
I think the scheme we used yesterday will be PART OF the playoff gameplan, IF we meet again.
I also felt consistently throughout the game that what BB was doing was playing a scheme that clearly identified to the Colts what we were taking away at all cost, and what we were 'allowing' them to do. I felt this was a gameplan of baiting them early into how we wanted to defend them in the second half. However, we never made significant changes. I will point out however, that our defense played better and better thorughout the game. (Addai had 71 yards on his first 9 rushes and then 41 on his last 17)
Had we begun to struggle on D I think there were changes that BB anticipated making to take confuse the colts based on how we played them early. However, I didn't see us ever making those changes.
I expect that if we do meet them again, we will play a mix of what we played yesterday, and the unknown backup plan.
I think the 4-2 nickel with a 43 alignment and Harrison as an OLB, with an OLB at DE was a test. BB wanted to see if we could effectively defend them that way. I don't think he expected to stay in it all game, but the game played out so he could.
IMO, it simply added another layer of scheme that we can use against them in the future, and the best result happened, it worked, we won the game and never had to abandon it.
Offensively, I think the gameplan was similar to what we will see if we meet again, overall. I think the play calling was influenced by what happened early where they ran something like 20 of the first 23 plays. The score also dictated the play calling. Playing ahead we would have been more aggressive. In a close game we will be more conservative. But for a few miscues, we moved the ball very well. I dont remember a drive that we were stopped on other than by an Int (both times we were driving and had them on their heels) or a crippling penalty that put us in 2nd and 20+. (The one consistent conservative decision I saw us making yesterday was when we got in those long yardage situations. That is typical of this coaching staff, but more and more this year, we have just thrown it regardless of the distance to go. I think that was a gameplan issue, not risking turning the ball over and giving the chance of a big swing).
Overall, I do not buy that BB would hold back anything or do what doesnt give us the best chance to win in order to make them think we will do it again next time.
Ultimately if you do something other than what gives you the best chance to win, you will fail anyway, and all youve doenis show them what you WON'T do next time.
