"If you could add one player to your favorite team..."

[brettbrettr]

Jets--Richard Seymour. Maybe Ladanian.

[JupiterUWG]

Falcons: Torry Holt

[VarlosZ]

Alright, this post is just a collection of problems with Assani's posts in this thread. I'm not doing this because I want to show you up, but because it's frustrating to see someone who's knowledgable and studious so frequently ignore evidence, use bad evidence, or misinterpret good eveidence.

Ok, let's get on with it:

[ QUOTE ]
-Brady inherited a team that was just as bad as Manning's Colts. They were 6-10 the year before and 0-2 when Brady took over.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that 2001 Pats team was pretty mediocre -- you could take that to mean that Brady is super-clutch and carried his team, or that their championship that year was a big fluke. That's not my point. The point is that the 2003 and 2004 Patriots had defenses that Manning's Colts could only dream of, and were very good on offense as well, even aside from Brady.

And yes, they both inherited weak teams, but neither one is the general manager; Brady shouldn't get credit for the fact that his front office built a better team than the Colts' front office.


[ QUOTE ]
-The argument that Brady has just had a better defense is bunk. In Brady's first SB win, his D was totally average.

[/ QUOTE ]

See above. The whole team was average in 2001, but the defense was excellent afterwards.

[ QUOTE ]
Last year the Colts were the #2 D in the entire league and Peyton couldn't win one playoff game.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, this is why you need Football Outsiders. The Colts defense was indeed above average last year, but they clearly were not the second best defense in the league. The Colts' opponents scored the second fewest points in the league, but that is emphatically not the same thing as having the second best defense.

How often did the Colts offense punt from inside their own ten, giving the other team good field position? How often did they go three-and-out in general? How often did Manning throw an interception to set up the other team? How often did Harrison, James, or Wayne fumble the ball away?

Points allowed is about much more than simply the quality of a team's defense. (And, while we're on the subject, stop using statistics like "passing yards allowed" to rank teams' pass defense -- you must know why that's a horrible measure of quality.)

A good illustration of this point is the 2004 Jets. According to points scored and allowed, they had a middling offense (16th) and an excellent defense (4th). Those numbers badly misrepresent the actual nature of the team, however. Those Jets faced a slate of unusually good defenses and unusally weak offenses, thus suppressing the point totals for their games. Their offense was extremely conservative and slow-paced -- they hardly ever turned the ball over to give the other team a short field, they threw very few incompletions which would have stopped the clock, and they used a very large portion of the play clock on every down -- again, these factors will depress overall scoring. Finally, their punting game was very good, while their punt returns were quite poor; hence, both teams' offenses in Jets games were playing with longer than normal fields.

Points scored and allowed can't take into account the context under which those points occurred (or failed to occur), and so can't illuminate, for example, the fact that the 2004 Jets had a very good offense with a spotty (if still pretty decent) defense.

[ QUOTE ]
You're going to have to explain this one to me. Manning's Colts have only won 2 games this year by 10 points or more. McNair's Ravens have won 4 such games.

The Colts have played 3 bad teams this year: They blew out Houston, they won by one point over Tennessee, and they won by one point over Buffalo. And don't blame it on the defense either!

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you're right about one thing: the Colts aren't particularly good this year, in spite of their record. What you're wrong about is where the blame lies. The few examples you mentioned not withstanding, by any measure the Colts' offense has been excellent while their defense has regressed badly.

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, Manning has never really been asked to play "game manager." I'm not doubting that he could do it...I'm just saying that we havn't seen it. McNair imo is an excellent game manager. I can't tell you how many times throughout his career he has managed the clock well and gave his team a chance to win.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what "game manager" means, exactly, but from what I can gather from context it has something to do with being inefficient and having a good defense. A big part of it is avoiding turnovers, though, right? Well over his career Manning has fumbled once every 3.1 games, while McNair has fumbled once every 1.6 games, about twice as often. I was surprised to learn that McNair actually has a slightly better attempts per INT rate (37.2 to 34.8), but, as you point out, Manning's offenses have been much more aggressive and vertical than McNair's. I couldn't find career info on sacks per pass play, but I'd wager large sums that Manning's is considerably better.

My point is that Manning is already doing an excellent job of "managing the game." No huddle does not mean "hurry up" -- when the situation calls for it, the Colts take as much time off the clock as everyone else.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you not agree that a time consuming ball control offense will make the D a lot better than an offense which often goes no huddle and passes a lot?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is absolutely wrong, and I'd have to see some serious evidence before I'd even begin to change my opinion about that. On what do you base this assertion?

An offense that grinds the clock does not make the defense any better. It does, however, make the game shorter by reducing the total number of plays and possessions, thus reducing scoring for both teams. This goes back to what I was saying about the 2004 Jets -- if the offense plays in such a way so as to reduce the total number of possessions for both teams, then the team as a whole will allow (and score) fewer points. That might make the defense look better, but it doesn't actually improve its quality.


Ok, that's it for now. Enjoy, I guess.

[TheNoodleMan]

VarlosZ,
[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img],
-noodleman

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
VarlosZ,
[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img],
-noodleman

[/ QUOTE ]
QFT. That was a truly wonderful post to read.

[TheRover]

sadly if there's one thing i've learned from spending too much time on the internet it's that the only people who will pay attention are ones that already agreed anyway with few exceptions. nice post still.

[Golden_Rhino]

Champ Bailey - Packers.

I can't watch Al Harris and Ahmad Carrol stumbling around back there anymore.

[Needle77]

[ QUOTE ]
Ahmad Carrol

[/ QUOTE ]

He's a Jaguar now. He's on their practice squad.

[Mark L]

Eagles: T.O.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
sadly if there's one thing i've learned from spending too much time on the internet it's that the only people who will pay attention are ones that already agreed anyway with few exceptions. nice post still.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just planting seeds -- may bear fruit, I don't know, but I feel better planting them.

Anyway, thanks for the kind words, guys.