Was the 2011 Colt meltdown all about Peyton's injury?

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

Sure, but you could also say good teams win more games than bad teams too. That's what makes them good teams. I'm not quite sure what the point you're trying to make here, perhaps you can clarify?

The close games indicator is just that luck plays a huge role in it, and it's rarely a sustainable thing. Teams that do well in it one year don't necessarily do well the next, and vice versa. The one thing that can help is having an elite QB. But you don't have to be dominant in the category to do well.

The Seahawks went 5-3 in close games last year and went 13-3 in the regular season. They would tack on two more close wins in the play-offs, but they were hardly a dominant team in close games before the play-offs started. Their division rival and NFCCG competitor, the 49ers, only went 3-2 in close games in the regular season.

All I'm trying to say is there wasn't a significant decline in the Colts in 2010; it had more to do with some bad luck in Manning's usual magic in close games. And there was certainly nothing there to indicate the 2011 team was going to decline so significantly. There was similar talent on that roster, just not at the most important position.

My point is that unless you want to take a deeper look than just record they clearly declined. The fact that they had more close games and lost more of them isn't luck.

 

[BabeParilli]

Once that Colt team clinched the #1 pick, they somehow magically won two of their last 3 games. Right along they made no legitimate attempt to compensate for Manning being gone. They surely, sucked for Luck.

And the 11-5 2008 Pats team had a joke schedule. They lost to every team with a winning record they played, except the Cards who had clinched by the time we played them and would gain absolutely nothing from a win in Foxboro. Plus, they missed the playoffs to a Dolphin team that went 1-15 the season before, and had a losing season the following year.

These two situations aren't even close to being comparable.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

It wasn't just losing Manning, but not having a competent replacement most of the year is what made them awful. I can't even remember the guy's name who took over but he's gotta be the worst QB I've ever seen start more than a couple games ( yes, I have seen Mark Sancehz play and this guy makes Sanchez look like Steve Young). The rest of the team kept some of the games competitive early on until they gave up. I can remember they defintely would've beaten the Steelers, a playoff team that year, with a half decent QB. They were at home, the defense was fired up and playing inspired football against a good team. After they started 0-4 or whatever, didn't see that again all year.

IF they had Orslovsky starting from the beginning and didn't get off to such an awful start, they could have been a borderline .500 team. Still not as good as we were without Brady, but far from the pushover they were.

 

[NormZauchin]

That team was built around Manning for Manning. No run game, with a defense that can't stop the run but can pass rush when your in the lead. I think Manning had just signed a new contract and got paid 27 million that year. That kind of money would come in handy if your player is hurt. They Colts were screwed because all their eggs were in one basket. And that basket broke.

What? No run game? In Manning's rookie year, the Colts had Marshall Faulk who gained 1300 yards. In the following offseason, they traded Faulk to the Colts for second and fifth round draft choices. (The Patriots were supposedly interested in Faulk, but Polian did not want to make a trade to what was then a division rival.) They then drafted Edgerrin James who put up four seasons where he exceeded 1500 yards and exceeded 1000 yards in five of his seven seasons with Manning.

 

[Boogs]

What? No run game? In Manning's rookie year, the Colts had Marshall Faulk who gained 1300 yards. In the following offseason, they traded Faulk to the Colts for second and fifth round draft choices. (The Patriots were supposedly interested in Faulk, but Polian did not want to make a trade to what was then a division rival.) They then drafted Edgerrin James who put up four seasons where he exceeded 1500 yards and exceeded 1000 yards in five of his seven seasons with Manning.

James was gone and probably retired out of the league by 2011.

 

[fightingirish595]

James was gone and probably retired out of the league by 2011.

You say that like its a bad thing. His rookie year was what? 2000? 2001? He led the league in rushing in his first two seasons. What kind of running game did new england have in 2001, or 2003. Can you name the running backs

Edit: rookie year was 1999. last year was 2009. so thats 11 years, and he accumulated over 12000 yards and averaged 4 yards a carry.

Edit: I totally forgot that this is about 2011. Reguardless everything I said is true

 

[Salva135]

Anybody who believes that the Colts didn't intentionally lose that year is delusional. No the players didn't "throw" games , but lets just say management allowed them to lose.

The players definitely didn't tank. They almost screwed it up by beating the Chiefs late in the season for absolutely no reason.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

My point is that unless you want to take a deeper look than just record they clearly declined. The fact that they had more close games and lost more of them isn't luck.

Gotcha, thanks. There's really two parts to this response.

I would agree the Colts declined. If the 2009 Colts played the 2010 Colts, the 2009 Colts would generally win. However, in the context of this discussion about what happened in 2011, I don't believe the decline of the 2010 would have continued in 2011 if Manning were healthy. This wouldn't have become a pattern where they drop down again to a .500 team. They'd still have won 10-13 games and made the play-offs as usual. They had a significant drop-off at QB, and when they corrected that, they won double-digit games and made the play-offs with arguably an even worse roster than 2010.

As for the second part regarding more close games and losing more of them, well yes, and no. There is absolutely an element of luck because we are talking about small sample sizes when it comes to win/loss. The NBA plays 5 times as many games, MLB plays 10 times more, and generally things even out over the long haul. But in short bursts over individual season, yes, it can be misleading.

Barnwell wrote a good synopsis of it here:

http://grantland.com/features/nfl-stats-predicting-success/

Look at the section on Record in One-Touchdown Games.

It’s almost impossible to win a large percentage of close games in the NFL. Even if there was something unique about your team that gave it a late competitive edge, the attrition rate in football is so high as to render many of those advantages moot over a time frame of any significance. Great teams stay great by avoiding close games altogether — they just blow out the competition. Teams with a gap between their point differential and their win-loss record often have that gap come down to their performance in close games, so you’ll see some familiar faces from the last list here.

How did it project 2013? How does “great … except for the Colts” sound again? This stat successfully predicted that the records of teams like Atlanta (7-2 in one-touchdown games in 2012, 3-7 in 2013), Houston (5-0 in 2012, 2-9 in 2013), and Minnesota (5-1 in 2012, 4-4-1 in 2013) were unsustainable, but the 9-1 Colts went 5-1 in one-score games in 2013. Including the playoffs, Andrew Luck is now 15-2 in games decided by seven points or fewer during his pro career.2​

For the record, Andrew Luck is 2-2 in close games so far in 2014.

Barnwell does point out in another article there are two QBs who have been able to consistently do well in this metric. You won't be surprised to find out both are first-ballot HOFers playing against each other today.

http://grantland.com/features/breaking-best-nfl-stats/

Let’s start with a group of teams that were dominant in close games during given NFL seasons. Our arbitrary group of teams played six or more games that were decided by a touchdown or less in those seasons and each of them won 75 percent or more of those games. In all, those teams went a combined 449-102 (81.5 percent) in close contests. If there were really something consistent about how a team performs in the tight ones, these teams would at least emulate their record during the following season. Instead, they went a combined 256-249 (50.7 percent) in those same close games the following year.

On the other side of the tracks are the teams that couldn’t pull out those close games, the ones that didn’t know how to win or finish or whatever. They were the ones that played six or more games and won only 25 percent or less of them. In their downtrodden year, they went a combined 103-479 (17.7 percent). The following year? 241-284 (45.9 percent). Winning the close ones just isn’t a sustainable way to make the playoffs year in and year out.

If there’s an exception to the rule, as with the Pythagorean expectation, it’s having a great quarterback. Peyton Manning was 64-33 in those games with the Colts, and it’s not surprising when you consider how well he managed endgame scenarios. Tom Brady is 43-15 in those same games. On the other hand, Aaron Rodgers is 13-17 in one-touchdown games, and Drew Brees is 22-16 during his time in New Orleans (after going 14-14 as the Chargers starter). So some great quarterbacks seem to drastically outperform the expected regressions, but others don’t.
​

How did this all work out? Well it's too early to say for 2014 although he looks pretty on-the-mark already on a lot of his predictions. We can look at the 2012 numbers though:

Now there are obviously other factors involved such as the draft, roster churn, coaching changes, et cetera. But generally speaking, it is tough to consistently win close games consistently. As Barnwell pointed out, Brady is one of the two elite QBs who have done it well, which is perhaps why most Patriots fans don't understand that teams lose lots of close games.

So in short, yes, there is a lot of luck involved in close games. It could be a fumble bouncing one way vs. another, or a ball batted in the air that is a 50/50 ball between an OL and a LB, or a controversial call (or non-call like the Panthers game). But there is also some skill that can help some teams do better than others consistently. It's like blackjack; nobody wins every hand, but a skilled card-counter can win more than others. Fortunately for us, we've got one of them.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

Gotcha, thanks. There's really two parts to this response.

I would agree the Colts declined. If the 2009 Colts played the 2010 Colts, the 2009 Colts would generally win. However, in the context of this discussion about what happened in 2011, I don't believe the decline of the 2010 would have continued in 2011 if Manning were healthy. This wouldn't have become a pattern where they drop down again to a .500 team. They'd still have won 10-13 games and made the play-offs as usual. They had a significant drop-off at QB, and when they corrected that, they won double-digit games and made the play-offs with arguably an even worse roster than 2010.

As for the second part regarding more close games and losing more of them, well yes, and no. There is absolutely an element of luck because we are talking about small sample sizes when it comes to win/loss. The NBA plays 5 times as many games, MLB plays 10 times more, and generally things even out over the long haul. But in short bursts over individual season, yes, it can be misleading.

Barnwell wrote a good synopsis of it here:

http://grantland.com/features/nfl-stats-predicting-success/

Look at the section on Record in One-Touchdown Games.

It’s almost impossible to win a large percentage of close games in the NFL. Even if there was something unique about your team that gave it a late competitive edge, the attrition rate in football is so high as to render many of those advantages moot over a time frame of any significance. Great teams stay great by avoiding close games altogether — they just blow out the competition. Teams with a gap between their point differential and their win-loss record often have that gap come down to their performance in close games, so you’ll see some familiar faces from the last list here.

How did it project 2013? How does “great … except for the Colts” sound again? This stat successfully predicted that the records of teams like Atlanta (7-2 in one-touchdown games in 2012, 3-7 in 2013), Houston (5-0 in 2012, 2-9 in 2013), and Minnesota (5-1 in 2012, 4-4-1 in 2013) were unsustainable, but the 9-1 Colts went 5-1 in one-score games in 2013. Including the playoffs, Andrew Luck is now 15-2 in games decided by seven points or fewer during his pro career.2​

For the record, Andrew Luck is 2-2 in close games so far in 2014.

Barnwell does point out in another article there are two QBs who have been able to consistently do well in this metric. You won't be surprised to find out both are first-ballot HOFers playing against each other today.

http://grantland.com/features/breaking-best-nfl-stats/

Let’s start with a group of teams that were dominant in close games during given NFL seasons. Our arbitrary group of teams played six or more games that were decided by a touchdown or less in those seasons and each of them won 75 percent or more of those games. In all, those teams went a combined 449-102 (81.5 percent) in close contests. If there were really something consistent about how a team performs in the tight ones, these teams would at least emulate their record during the following season. Instead, they went a combined 256-249 (50.7 percent) in those same close games the following year.

On the other side of the tracks are the teams that couldn’t pull out those close games, the ones that didn’t know how to win or finish or whatever. They were the ones that played six or more games and won only 25 percent or less of them. In their downtrodden year, they went a combined 103-479 (17.7 percent). The following year? 241-284 (45.9 percent). Winning the close ones just isn’t a sustainable way to make the playoffs year in and year out.

If there’s an exception to the rule, as with the Pythagorean expectation, it’s having a great quarterback. Peyton Manning was 64-33 in those games with the Colts, and it’s not surprising when you consider how well he managed endgame scenarios. Tom Brady is 43-15 in those same games. On the other hand, Aaron Rodgers is 13-17 in one-touchdown games, and Drew Brees is 22-16 during his time in New Orleans (after going 14-14 as the Chargers starter). So some great quarterbacks seem to drastically outperform the expected regressions, but others don’t.
​

How did this all work out? Well it's too early to say for 2014 although he looks pretty on-the-mark already on a lot of his predictions. We can look at the 2012 numbers though:

Now there are obviously other factors involved such as the draft, roster churn, coaching changes, et cetera. But generally speaking, it is tough to consistently win close games consistently. As Barnwell pointed out, Brady is one of the two elite QBs who have done it well, which is perhaps why most Patriots fans don't understand that teams lose lots of close games.

So in short, yes, there is a lot of luck involved in close games. It could be a fumble bouncing one way vs. another, or a ball batted in the air that is a 50/50 ball between an OL and a LB, or a controversial call (or non-call like the Panthers game). But there is also some skill that can help some teams do better than others consistently. It's like blackjack; nobody wins every hand, but a skilled card-counter can win more than others. Fortunately for us, we've got one of them.

Thanks for the detailed response. It'd be interesting to see coaches records in close games as well.