JCBoston Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 If you're Tony Dungy, you go empty backfield and throw. Yeah, it's Peyton Manning, but he nearly got taken down for a safety.
ofiba Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 If you're Tony Dungy, you go empty backfield and throw. Yeah, it's Peyton Manning, but he nearly got taken down for a safety. He never even saw the hit. Lucky he didn't fumble.
DrDawkinstein Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 if only the Colts had a mobile QB like Losman, they couldve ran a roll out...
High Mark Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 I jsut posted the same tpoic. Shotgun 5 wide is never a good idea... is there a way to delete my thread?
JCBoston Posted January 4, 2009 Author Posted January 4, 2009 if only the Colts had a mobile QB like Losman, they couldve ran a roll out... As much as I dislike Dick Jauron, this just goes to show that any play, regardless of the call, is good if it works or bad if it doesn't.
jad1 Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 As much as I dislike Dick Jauron, this just goes to show that any play, regardless of the call, is good if it works or bad if it doesn't. No, it shows that no matter the QB is, you don't put your team in a position that one breakdown can lose you the game. You play the percentages, and on that play the percentages called for a run. The old saying that only three (really four) things can happen on a pass, and only one of them is good still holds true whether your QB is a sure-fire Hall of Famer or a never-was/has-been.
Max997 Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 you have to leave a back in to at least give the impression that you might run or at worst to protect Peytons blind side
Big Turk Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 He never even saw the hit. Lucky he didn't fumble. Better bench him cause he can't even get rid of the football or see a blindside blitzer coming...
BuffOrange Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 No, it shows that no matter the QB is, you don't put your team in a position that one breakdown can lose you the game. You play the percentages, and on that play the percentages called for a run. The old saying that only three (really four) things can happen on a pass, and only one of them is good still holds true whether your QB is a sure-fire Hall of Famer or a never-was/has-been. I like the percentages of the HOF QB against the worst pass defense in the league.
Big Turk Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 If you're Tony Dungy, you go empty backfield and throw. Yeah, it's Peyton Manning, but he nearly got taken down for a safety. only problem with this is Manning calls his own plays, so the call had like a 0.00005% chance of having come from Dungy...
My Friends Call Me Tebucky Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 I like the percentages of the HOF QB against the worst pass defense in the league. Yep. When you can't run the ball or stop the other team on defense, you try to win the game through the air. Don't see what's so confusing about it. A completion there ends the game. Does anybody really think Addai would have picked up the first down on a run? I don't. As the above poster said, it goes to show you the primitive thinking regarding play calling: good if it works, bad if it doesn't. I don't think anybody was bitching about the play-calling when the Colts took 7 minutes off the clock on their previous drive by mixing runs and passes, or when Arizona sealed their win today by throwing the ball on their last drive.
jad1 Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 I like the percentages of the HOF QB against the worst pass defense in the league. Under the right circumstances, sure. But if you don't protect the QB, and calling a no-back formation inside the ten (on the road) is not protecting the QB, the defense doesn't have to guess or read the play. They know it's going to be a pass, and at that point they cease to be the worst pass defense in the league. It was a pretty stupid playcall, no matter who the QB was.
BuffOrange Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 Yep. When you can't run the ball or stop the other team on defense, you try to win the game through the air. Don't see what's so confusing about it. A completion there ends the game. Does anybody really think Addai would have picked up the first down on a run? I don't. As the above poster said, it goes to show you the primitive thinking regarding play calling: good if it works, bad if it doesn't. I don't think anybody was bitching about the play-calling when the Colts took 7 minutes off the clock on their previous drive by mixing runs and passes, or when Arizona sealed their win today by throwing the ball on their last drive. Yah, I'm getting a kick out of these espn guys talk about the Cardinals newfound ability to milk the clock with hard-nosed physical running. Apparently they didn't see the final 4 minutes get killed by 3rd down completions.
BuffOrange Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 Under the right circumstances, sure. But if you don't protect the QB, and calling a no-back formation inside the ten (on the road) is not protecting the QB, the defense doesn't have to guess or read the play. They know it's going to be a pass, and at that point they cease to be the worst pass defense in the league. It was a pretty stupid playcall, no matter who the QB was. Manning accounts for any free rushers and unloads in time pretty much always though. I'm not sure what happened there, but I think the TE might've missed his assignment.
jad1 Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 Manning accounts for any free rushers and unloads in time pretty much always though. I'm not sure what happened there, but I think the TE might've missed his assignment. Well that's the problem with the play, right? A TE misses the assignment and the season basically ends because the called formation doesn't protect the QB against a missed assignment. Keep a back in and Manning has a blocker or an outlet in the flat. The crowd noise is also loudest near the end zone, so the possibility of a lineman not hearing the count and getting off the blocks late is even greater. The Chargers front seven must have loved that call. Watch the snap, head directly for Manning. No run responsibility at all. The Colts couldn't have made it easier for them.
Thurman#1 Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 No, it shows that no matter the QB is, you don't put your team in a position that one breakdown can lose you the game. You play the percentages, and on that play the percentages called for a run. The old saying that only three (really four) things can happen on a pass, and only one of them is good still holds true whether your QB is a sure-fire Hall of Famer or a never-was/has-been. One breakdown can lose you the game on any play. A dropped snap, a missed handoff, a totally missed block allowing a defender to be there when the ball was exchanged (remember that from earlier this year?). You always need good execution. And if you don't get it, you're always out on a limb.
BuffOrange Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 Well that's the problem with the play, right? A TE misses the assignment and the season basically ends because the called formation doesn't protect the QB against a missed assignment. Keep a back in and Manning has a blocker or an outlet in the flat. The crowd noise is also loudest near the end zone, so the possibility of a lineman not hearing the count and getting off the blocks late is even greater. The Chargers front seven must have loved that call. Watch the snap, head directly for Manning. No run responsibility at all. The Colts couldn't have made it easier for them. If you really think the likelyhood of getting 2-3 yards is greater with a run, then fine, I can agree to disagree. When you say things like: "no matter the QB is, you don't put your team in a position that one breakdown can lose you the game" or "they were lucky not to turn it over" - that just comes across as the exact same thought process that causes lots of coaches to suck at game management - ie they're more concerned with avoiding criticism than they are putting their team in the best position to win the game.
jad1 Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 If you really think the likelyhood of getting 2-3 yards is greater with a run, then fine, I can agree to disagree. When you say things like: "no matter the QB is, you don't put your team in a position that one breakdown can lose you the game" or "they were lucky not to turn it over" - that just comes across as the exact same thought process that causes lots of coaches to suck at game management - ie they're more concerned with avoiding criticism than they are putting their team in the best position to win the game. Game management is exactly what I'm talking about. Game situation should dictate playcalling to a great extent. The Colts call that play on their 30 with the same result, not such a big deal. Manning isn't hemmed in by the goal line, and they still have room to punt if it fails. But losing yards inside the 10, with the lead late in the game is completely unacceptable. The playcall, or rather the formation, raised the risk of that happening. I have a hard time agreeing with the concept of trying to win a game that you are leading late into the fourth quarter by calling risky plays in shadow of your own goalposts, especially on the road. Good coaching understands this. The Colts have good coaches, so this call, whether it was made by Manning or Moore, was a brain fart.
Recommended Posts