Byrne: The Colts went toe-to-toe with the Patriots, but got outplayed in the battle of wits

[Soul_Survivor88]

Kerry Byrne does it again! Really fascinating read. You can click on the link to read it in its entirety. But here's a good excerpt of the piece....

Byrne: Few foes able to outwit Patriots

We witnessed a classic example of a smart team out-muscling a dumb team Sunday night, as the Patriots schooled the Colts, 34-27, in the highly anticipated rematch of the AFC title game that launched Deflategate.

In recent years, the Patriots physically steamrolled the Colts. But on Sunday, they won a battle of wits, playing smart, efficient football when the Colts played dumb, inefficient football. Indy’s mental malaise was compounded by a third-quarter panic attack and self-doubting bouts of inadequacy in the face of the Patriots, who dominate this so-called rivalry year after year.

[.....]

Quarterbacks Tom Brady and Andrew Luck each passed for 312 yards and three touchdowns. The Patriots ran for 116 yards; the Colts 120. Brady was sacked twice for a loss of 11 yards; Luck, three times for a loss of 23 yards. The Pats ended the day with 417 yards of offense; the Colts 409.

So the game was an even match physically. But it was a mismatch mentally. The smart team won. The dumb team lost.

The Colts, their tiny craniums apparently overwhelmed by the moment, made the biggest gaffe of the game — a comically bad effort some have called one of the dumbest plays in history.

The entire football world knows the story of Indy’s inept botched punt. We don’t need to rehash the details here. Suffice it to say, the Colts suffered a mental meltdown in every way: coaching, formation, intuition, execution. You name it.

But Indy’s stupidity is only half the story. A dumb opponent might have blown the opportunity handed them, much like the dumb Browns did Sunday against the Broncos.

The Patriots, however, are not a dumb opponent. They live to feast on opponent mistakes — as the Intelligence Index proves year after year. The smart Patriots quickly took advantage of the short field, driving 35 yards in just six plays to score a touchdown and build an insurmountable 34-21 lead early in the fourth quarter.

It was an instant-classic moment in the history of the Intelligence Index.

 

[JMC00]

Colts offense first 6 drives in the 2nd half

3 plays, 9 yards- PUNT
6 plays, 14 yards- PUNT
6 plays, 17 yards- DOWNS
3 plays, -7 yards- PUNT
6 plays, 7 yards- PUNT
9 plays, 56 yards- DOWNS


Eh, they went toe to toe for one half and that was it and really the perception of them going toe to toe in the 1st half was helped by a very fluky pick 6.

 

[FourierSeries]

If you remember the game in Indy last year, it was close until late in the game when we pulled away and turned it into a blow out. You could have said the same thing about that game. The fact is we still beat them on the road.

If we play them again in Foxboro, with Sheard, Hightower, Stork, LaFell, etc, we all know what will happen. I don't know if we are lucky enough to get them again in the playoffs for the 3rd consecutive year, unfortunately.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

Colts offense first 6 drives in the 2nd half

3 plays, 9 yards- PUNT
6 plays, 14 yards- PUNT
6 plays, 17 yards- DOWNS
3 plays, -7 yards- PUNT
6 plays, 7 yards- PUNT
9 plays, 56 yards- DOWNS


Eh, they went toe to toe for one half and that was it.

I think that actually reinforces what Byrne is saying. The Colts dominated time of possession throughout the game, but needed to make a greater number of plays to put up fewer points (and even then, were aided by a fluky pick-six). Whereas a smart, more efficient offense needs only a minimal effort to score the maximum number of points. So while both teams matched each other in total offense and yardage, the Colts were outmatched in efficiency, and lost to the better-coached team.

 

[Sicilian]

The Patriots today are No. 3 on the Cold Hard Football Facts Intelligence Index, our measure of all-around efficiency in all phases of the game, behind only a pair of fellow intellectual heavyweights, the well-coached Packers and Steelers.

 

[BingoBrown]

I think it was that intentional safety game in Denver where the Pats came out
with a fumbled ball and still was Denver's ball.

 

[Oswlek]

I think it was that intentional safety game in Denver where the Pats came out
with a fumbled ball and still was Denver's ball.

Yup. And unlike this past one, the replay showed Brady clearly fall on it with full possession right away.

 

[Ring 6]

I think that actually reinforces what Byrne is saying. The Colts dominated time of possession throughout the game, but needed to make a greater number of plays to put up fewer points (and even then, were aided by a fluky pick-six). Whereas a smart, more efficient offense needs only a minimal effort to score the maximum number of points. So while both teams matched each other in total offense and yardage, the Colts were outmatched in efficiency, and lost to the better-coached team.

No. The patriots dominated the game except for a fluky pick 6 and the colts piled up meaningless yards late in the game in garbage time.

 

[oldrover]

The patriots dominated the game except for a fluky pick 6 and the colts piled up meaningless yards late in the game in garbage time.

This.

 

[Oswlek]

Yeah, Byrne has a long history of attributing statistics to the wrong cause. "Intelligence" here is really a combination of special teams, turnovers and maroon/red zone defense.

 

[DarrylS]

Byrne is the only person on earth who can quantify the meaning of "Football Intelligence".

Have always thought CHFF is way too complicated for most viewers.. but give him credit for trying..

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

Yeah, that caught me off guard. I never expect to see the Steelers ranked so high. But one of the reasons is that Byrne's Intelligence Index rewards teams for their red zone efficiency. The Steelers are masters of Cover-2 defense and along with the Patriots, they are the only team in the NFL to score on every red zone trip this season. So far, Pittsburgh's offense has come away with touchdowns 75 percent of the time in the end zone, which is just ahead of New England's 73.91 percent success rate.

 

[zydecochris]

Kerry Byrne does it again! Really fascinating read. You can click on the link to read it in its entirety. But here's a good excerpt of the piece....

Byrne: Few foes able to outwit Patriots

Whether or not you agree with this, I thought it was interesting (I've never seen this type of analysis). They are using the coldhardfootballfacts.com definition of "Intelligence Index", which they defined as:

Bendability - Scoreability = Intelligence, where Bendability is the yards allowed per point scored (a bigger number means the defense is making the offense use maximum effort per point scored, an intelligent defense) and Scoreability is the number of yards per point scored (a smaller number means a more efficient offense, that is an efficient, good, intelligent offense). The difference is what they call Intelligence, i.e., for a high Intelligence you want a big Bendability number and a small Scoreability number. Interesting. They give examples in the link that Chiuba posted. As can be seen in the link below, they had the Patriots as the most intelligent team last year, followed by Green Bay.

Final 2014 Intelligence Index: Patriots NFL's Smartest Team; Redskins Dumbest

One thing that stood out in the link that Chiuba posted was this quote: "The Pats’ opponents this week, the New York Jets, pose a greater intellectual challenge than the Colts. The Jets are No. 9 on the Intelligence Index, after finishing the 2014 season under Rex Ryan at No. 30.that the Jets coached by Rex Ryan".

Of course, it has only been five games for the Jets this year which isn't much of a sample size, but perhaps Todd Bowles has the Jets playing smarter than Rex Ryan did. Of course, their record is 4-1, which perhaps an even stronger indicator that Bowles is an improvement over Ryan.

 

[Oswlek]

Have always thought CHFF is way too complicated for most viewers.. but give him credit for trying..

It's not that it is complicated, it is that he doesn't quite understand that stats that he puts together. Or, perhaps that would be better said that he doesn't understand the context of the stats that he puts together.

 

[The Gr8est]

I think it was that intentional safety game in Denver where the Pats came out
with a fumbled ball and still was Denver's ball.

And the Superbowl against the Giants where Pierre Woods had clear possession of a Giants' fumble.

 

[zydecochris]

Byrne is the only person on earth who can quantify the meaning of "Football Intelligence".

Have always thought CHFF is way too complicated for most viewers.. but give him credit for trying..

Agreed. It would be silly to think that this index completely quantifies football intelligence, but it doesn't hurt. Just like any stat, it doesn't tell the full picture but arguably it is useful information.

 

[DarrylS]

It's not that it is complicated, it is that he doesn't quite understand that stats that he puts together. Or, perhaps that would be better said that he doesn't understand the context of the stats that he puts together.

IMO DVOA just does not flow all that well.. and defining it gets ever murkier. I like what he tries to do, and I understand it for the most part, but it is not something that the average viewer will not buy into.. it is almost a foreign language for most.

Not much of this makes good conversation.. How does the Jets Defensive Hog Index and Defensive Real Passing Yards Per Attempt matchup to the Patriots Offensive Hog Index and real Passing Yards per attempt???

Overall = Overall position in Quality Stats Power Rankings
QS = Quality Standings
SCOR = Scoreability
BEND = Bendability
RPYPA = Real Passing Yards Per Attempt
DRPYPA = Defensive Real Passing Yards Per Attempt
QBR = Real Quarterback Rating
DQBR = Defensive Real Quarterback Rating
OPR = Offensive Passer Rating
DPR = Defensive Passer Rating
PRD = Passer Rating Differential
OHI = Offensive Hog Index
DHI = Defensive Hog Index
REL = Relativity Index.

 

[Oswlek]

it is almost a foreign language for most.

Which is sad because it's really not that difficult. Some of the inner mechanics can take work to grasp (though, unlike BSPN, they are happy to share the data if someone asks about it) and there can be odd anomalies, but the primary figures are pretty straightforward.

 

[zydecochris]

It's not that it is complicated, it is that he doesn't quite understand that stats that he puts together. Or, perhaps that would be better said that he doesn't understand the context of the stats that he puts together.

Agreed. I would argue it is like any other stat, it provides information but not the whole story. Does NBA scoring average tell how good a player is? Well, it provides some information, but there are all sorts of other sophisticated stats that give additional information, PER, assists, rebounds, etc., etc. Then, very importantly, the savvy NBA watcher (or GM) supplements those stats with what their eyes see in watching games. What the eyes see is perhaps MOST important, but stats can help to provide additional information and perhaps educate what those eyes should be looking for.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Colts offense first 6 drives in the 2nd half

3 plays, 9 yards- PUNT
6 plays, 14 yards- PUNT
6 plays, 17 yards- DOWNS
3 plays, -7 yards- PUNT
6 plays, 7 yards- PUNT
9 plays, 56 yards- DOWNS


Eh, they went toe to toe for one half and that was it and really the perception of them going toe to toe in the 1st half was helped by a very fluky pick 6.

in reality the colts did very little outside the first quarter and begnning of the second.