The fallacy of "Keep Colts offense off the field"

[PatsFanInVa]

I saw an enlightening snippet on the late 70s "Air Coryell" Chargers teams. They mentioned how crappy that defense was, and interviewed one of their defensive guys. "We just scored too fast," was the first thing he said.

You need balance. You need to be able to compete in a shootout, if it comes to it. But a shootout is a free-for-all, and that's pretty much a flip of the coin, if everything's not just right.

I'm not a fan of criticizing the given week's game plan, because I think we're all amateurs compared to the Pats' coaching staff. In previous years, it's safe to say other NFL coaching staffs were amateurs compared to the Pats' coaching staff. The fact that they don't make ALL other NFL teams look like amateurs, can not logically be followed by the supposition that they would not make ME look like an amateur... so I don't get all happy about how we "shoulda woulda coulda" played the game. People here call me a cheerleader for that reason and others.

But in fundamental terms, keeping another team's defense on the field is so tried and true it's almost not worth discussing. Think about it - if you have the ball for 40 minutes, that's 40 minutes of your team controlling tempo and threatening to score, 40 minutes of that defense knowing one slip results in the dreaded big play, 40 minutes of them hustling like hell... For the same net result of trading scores.

When was the last time you heard "Well the offense is really worn down, they've been on the field for 40 minutes?" It's not the same.

Forget making this specific to the Colts. I just don't see any argument that makes sense, AGAINST winning the time of possession battle. And that translates to "keeping the ______'s offense off the field."

PFnV

 

[sieglo]

When you are talking about a team that is so heavilly weighed to a talented offense and less talented defense like the Colts, you accept the fact that their offense will be more efficient than the Patriots in putting points on the board.

That's OK because the Patriots have better balance on offense and defense. By taking offensive possessions away from the Colts, you are minimizing the advantage they have on offense, and you are maximizing the efficiency of YOUR offense by tiring an already mediocre defense.

This is incorrect. Setting aside turnovers and special teams plays that result in points, if the Colts offesne is "more efficient than the Patriots in putting points on the board" then they will win. Every time. It's axiomatic.

Let me give you an example.

Let's say that the Patriots are a great running team. All they do is run the ball. Their average drive lasts 8 minutes and 80% of those drives result in touchdowns (forget field goals for now). The Colts offense is a high powered, super efficient passing game. Their average drive lasts two minutes and they score touchdowns 80% of the time as well.

Who wins this hypothetical clash? Answer: It's a tie. Both teams score equally efficiently -- 80%, whether they run and chew the clock or pass and don't chew the clock.

Assuming both teams get an equal number of possessions, for the Pats to win, the offense generally has to be more efficient than the Colts in terms of one thing -- average points scored per drive. The time these drives take makes ZERO difference to the outcome mathematically.

That being said, pounding the rock may have a couple of advantages:

- It leaves Manning sitting cold on the sideline, which may take him out of rythm and impact his offense's efficiency in terms of average points per drive.
- It wears down the Colts defense, which may make the Patriots offense increase in efficiency in average points per drive later in the game.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

This is incorrect. Setting aside turnovers and special teams plays that result in points, if the Colts offesne is "more efficient than the Patriots in putting points on the board" then they will win. Every time. It's axiomatic.

Let me give you an example.

Let's say that the Patriots are a great running team. All they do is run the ball. Their average drive lasts 8 minutes and 80% of those drives result in touchdowns (forget field goals for now). The Colts offense is a high powered, super efficient passing game. Their average drive lasts two minutes and they score touchdowns 80% of the time as well.

Who wins this hypothetical clash? Answer: It's a tie. Both teams score equally efficiently -- 80%, whether they run and chew the clock or pass and don't chew the clock.

Assuming both teams get an equal number of possessions, for the Pats to win, the offense generally has to be more efficient than the Colts in terms of one thing -- average points scored per drive. The time these drives take makes ZERO difference to the outcome mathematically.

That being said, pounding the rock may have a couple of advantages:

- It leaves Manning sitting cold on the sideline, which may take him out of rythm and impact his offense's efficiency in terms of average points per drive.
- It wears down the Colts defense, which may make the Patriots offense increase in efficiency in average points per drive later in the game.

You're probably wrong, and here's why:

For your scenario to work, efficiency has to be a constant. Peyton is 80% efficient against a fresh-as-a-daisy defense, and 80% efficient against a defense that's been on the field for 10 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes, etc. Unless Peyton is that much of an anomaly, the better example is:

Peyton:
80% efficient against a D on the field up to 15 minutes of clock time
85% efficient against a D on the field 15-30 minutes of clock time
90% efficient over 30 minutes clock time

Brady:
70% efficient against a D on the field up to 15 min.
75% efficient against a D on the field 15-30 min.
80% efficient against a D on the field greater than 30 min.

Obviously, the numbers are made up.... but you get the point. Leaving aside special teams, turnovers, etc., the above "straight line" increases would suggest that the task is to keep our D on the field only 15 min. of the game, and to keep the Colts' D on the field 45 min., to match efficiency levels of QBs.

Now, I would submit that Brady's efficiency against a beaten down D increases more steeply -- after all, there is more wiggle room when you aren't measuring against so high an initial number, and Brady is known for comebacks, competitiveness, etc. Manning is known for being able to whomp you with a big play anywhere from 3 to 6 times a game... just a statistical monster.

These stats could be derived with work, and something tells me this work is done at the NFL level. They won't be straight-line increases, like we see above... some QBs will (comparatively) excel early in the game. Some will take more advantage of the beaten down Ds. Some, for reasons known only to God, will (probably) invert the expected curve. "Garbage time" skews all stats as well. But over all, I would bet any amount of money that across the NFL, QBs are better against a defense that's been on the field for over 30 minutes.

So in the case of a high-powered offense with a more "threatening" scoring efficiency than your own (see above example,) you can clearly make the case that you need to keep them at their minimum efficiency, while increasing your own efficiency by grinding down their defense, thereby leveling the playing field for the respective offenses.

Again -- I don't make this case to comment on last Sunday's game plan, because I just don't feel qualified to do that.

But in the abstract, the flat-line efficiency argument falls apart unless it is statistically proven that a given QB's efficiency does not improve against a tired defense. The assumption going in has to be that it does, until proven otherwise.

PFnV

edited to say: this is probably a better analysis using teams rather than quarterbacks, since run game efficiency isn't captured here. My bad. Same point stands using either measure though.

 

[JoeSixPat]

You're probably wrong, and here's why:

For your scenario to work, efficiency has to be a constant. Peyton is 80% efficient against a fresh-as-a-daisy defense, and 80% efficient against a defense that's been on the field for 10 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes, etc. Unless Peyton is that much of an anomaly, the better example is:

Peyton:
80% efficient against a D on the field up to 15 minutes of clock time
85% efficient against a D on the field 15-30 minutes of clock time
90% efficient over 30 minutes clock time

Brady:
70% efficient against a D on the field up to 15 min.
75% efficient against a D on the field 15-30 min.
80% efficient against a D on the field greater than 30 min.

Obviously, the numbers are made up.... but you get the point. Leaving aside special teams, turnovers, etc., the above "straight line" increases would suggest that the task is to keep our D on the field only 15 min. of the game, and to keep the Colts' D on the field 45 min., to match efficiency levels of QBs.

Now, I would submit that Brady's efficiency against a beaten down D increases more steeply -- after all, there is more wiggle room when you aren't measuring against so high an initial number, and Brady is known for comebacks, competitiveness, etc. Manning is known for being able to whomp you with a big play anywhere from 3 to 6 times a game... just a statistical monster.

These stats could be derived with work, and something tells me this work is done at the NFL level. They won't be straight-line increases, like we see above... some QBs will (comparatively) excel early in the game. Some will take more advantage of the beaten down Ds. Some, for reasons known only to God, will (probably) invert the expected curve. "Garbage time" skews all stats as well. But over all, I would bet any amount of money that across the NFL, QBs are better against a defense that's been on the field for over 30 minutes.

So in the case of a high-powered offense with a more "threatening" scoring efficiency than your own (see above example,) you can clearly make the case that you need to keep them at their minimum efficiency, while increasing your own efficiency by grinding down their defense, thereby leveling the playing field for the respective offenses.

Again -- I don't make this case to comment on last Sunday's game plan, because I just don't feel qualified to do that.

But in the abstract, the flat-line efficiency argument falls apart unless it is statistically proven that a given QB's efficiency does not improve against a tired defense. The assumption going in has to be that it does, until proven otherwise.

PFnV

edited to say: this is probably a better analysis using teams rather than quarterbacks, since run game efficiency isn't captured here. My bad. Same point stands using either measure though.

Thank you...

To put it a different way - which do you think would be a better game planning tactic using the Colts as an example:

One that gives the Colts ample opportunity to put 40 points on the board?

Or one that limits them to half as much based upon the limited time they will have the ball and tires out an already mediocre Colts defense?

All things being equal, keeping the scoring low, in the worst case scenario, keeps your team within striking distance, as the Patriots were last week - and that was with an even TOP breakdown between the teams. And in the best case scenario it allows you to maintain your lead and hold onto the win.

The more the Colts have the ball the more their offensive efficiency becomes magnified.

Rather than engage in an offensive shootout with the Colts or another offensively oriented team, my preference every time is to engage them in smashmouth, beat up their defense, control the clock football, winning a 17-14 game....

It's a no brainer for me - apparently not for everyone else.