NFL Playoff Predictions thread

[Kneel B4 Zod]

which part of you disagreeing with? that the Colts offense is worse now than it was 2 years ago? I think it certainly is, but that 2004 offense was one of the best in football history. I find it hard to believe that teams weren't playing a lot of nickel and dime back then - or if it was the case, it was b/c the running game back then was too good to allow this.

Re: the defense, they have lost a few key players, which must be hurting them. there is now way this defense is as good as it was in 2004. it was ok then, bad now.

edit: I'm not completely in love with DVOA, but it attempts to isolate offensive performance from defensiv, which traditionally stats really don't do. you can look at the 2004 Colts here and this year here

[Needle77]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it hard to believe that teams weren't playing a lot of nickel and dime back then

[/ QUOTE ]

KBZ,

They didn't actually. Teams felt that the best way to stop the Colts was to pressure Peyton and for the entire season they were just blitzing him on pretty much every down. This trend carried into '05, but then we saw teams that run 3-4 defenses that do alot of zone-blitzes were able to contain him more.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I find it hard to believe that teams weren't playing a lot of nickel and dime back then

[/ QUOTE ]

KBZ,

They didn't actually. Teams felt that the best way to stop the Colts was to pressure Peyton and for the entire season they were just blitzing him on pretty much every down. This trend carried into '05, but then we saw teams that run 3-4 defenses that do alot of zone-blitzes were able to contain him more.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmm ok. either way though, the offense is less effective now. this is going by traditional stats or by advanced stats. and ditto goes for the defense.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I find it hard to believe that teams weren't playing a lot of nickel and dime back then

[/ QUOTE ]

KBZ,

They didn't actually. Teams felt that the best way to stop the Colts was to pressure Peyton and for the entire season they were just blitzing him on pretty much every down. This trend carried into '05, but then we saw teams that run 3-4 defenses that do alot of zone-blitzes were able to contain him more.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmm ok. either way though, the offense is less effective now. this is going by traditional stats or by advanced stats. and ditto goes for the defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah Needle said it, back then other teams said "We'll make Peyton's arm beat us" which might just go down as the worst coaching strategy in NFL history

The offense is less PRODUCTIVE now, but no less effective. Peyton still scores almost at will, it just takes a little longer. The problem is that without that large cushion to force other teams to pass, the D is exposed for what it is, a fast bad incredibly undersized squad that is effective against the pass, and abysmal against the run.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]

Yeah Needle said it, back then other teams said "We'll make Peyton's arm beat us" which might just go down as the worst coaching strategy in NFL history

[/ QUOTE ]

then I guess the Pats were the only ones who did it [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

The offense is less PRODUCTIVE now, but no less effective. Peyton still scores almost at will, it just takes a little longer.

[/ QUOTE ]

but both of these things can't be true. A team that takes more plays to score is leaving much more room for error - more passes thrown means a higher chance for interceptions, more running plays and catches means a higher chance for fumbles, more plays means there is a higher chance for drive killing holding penalties, etc etc. this means their points scored will go down, as will their total yards, as will their points per possession. and this is exactly what the stats say:

2004 Yards/Game: 404.7
2006 Yards/Game: 379.4

2004 Points per Drive: 2.93
2006 Points per Drive: 2.8

2004 TD's per Drive: .367
2006 TD's per Drive: .324

as far as pure offensive performance goes, it's always preferable to score in fewer plays. if teams could score on 80 yard bombs on every play, they would.

if what you say is true (the offense just takes longer to score now), then the above per possession stats should be the same. if the defense is worse now, then the yards/game should actually be BETTER now, but in fact it's worse.

(now, it's not a LOT worse, and is still great. but it's a step backwards)

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
then I guess the Pats were the only ones who did it

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep for a time, Coach B really had Indy's number, nothing lasts forever it seems.

[ QUOTE ]
as far as pure offensive performance goes, it's always preferable to score in fewer plays. if teams could score on 80 yard bombs on every play, they would.

if what you say is true (the offense just takes longer to score now), then the above per possession stats should be the same. if the defense is worse now, then the yards/game should actually be BETTER now, but in fact it's worse.

(now, it's not a LOT worse, and is still great. but it's a step backwards)

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm saying is that they've only really managed to delay the inevitable. Peyton still scores alot, now it's just slower.

Yes longer drives do allow a greater chance to fail, no question there.

Lastly a question for you. Why would Yard/game go up. If the drives are longer, meaning that the time expended to go the same distance is higher, wouldn't that allow for fewer yards. Simple version (assuming 30 min total TOP):
Drives take 3 min=10 drives of 80 yards=800 total yards
Drives take 8 min=3 or 4 drives of 80 yards=300-400 t. yards.

Cody

[MacGuyV]

So I'm changing my SB pick to NE over Chicago.
Niss' point about Rivers got me thinking - SD reminds me alot of Pittsburgh two years ago: Rothlisburger started hot, faded towards the end, and that carried over into the playoffs where they were lucky to beat the Jets and then got pounded by NE. They're also similar defensively in that they were/are impossible to run on, but probably overrated vs. the pass.
Of course it's debatable if NE has the receiving weapons to exploit this, but since every team has weaknesses I'd rather it be there than QB.

[onlinebeginner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
KC seems like a trendy upset pick. Imo Indy will roll in this one. A few things to consider:

-Indy is 8-0 at home this year including wins over Jacksonville, Tennessee, Philly, and Cincy

-KC is 3-5 on the road this year with their only wins over Oakland, Arizona, and St Louis

-Two years ago they met in the playoffs, Priest Holmes ran for 200+ yards and Indy still won by more than a touchdown.


I havn't seen what the point spread for this game is, but based on the public opinions that I've heard so far, I think I'd be all over Indy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indy was a much better team 2 years ago. They averaged about a TD more per game, and their run defense was not historically bad.

(granted, KC was better as well).

but anyway, Indy has been really limping down the stretch. I don't put much stock into games played 2 years ago by basically 2 different teams. I'm taking the points here.

[/ QUOTE ]

People say this but I'm not sure what the basis is. If you actually watch the games, teams play the Colts in almost constant Nickel and Dime, which means Peyton will beat you in 12 plays instead of 3, so naturally the numbers are down.

Also, the Colts D was never good, they were simply benifeting from the 14-28 point leads that Peyton and Co. would put up. Now that D's have slowed, but not stoped, the out front scoring, the D isn't defending only the pass anymore and racking up INTs at an alarming rate.

Watch the games, don't just read the box scores.

All that said, KC-38 IND-34

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

That is exactly right, the colts D is designed to stop the pass. That's why when the offense is firing on all cylinders they're basically impossible to beat. Otherwise though, if a team has time to run against them they are jus garbage.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm saying is that they've only really managed to delay the inevitable. Peyton still scores alot, now it's just slower.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, it's slower, and not as effective. that's what Points/drive shows.

[ QUOTE ]
Why would Yard/game go up.

[/ QUOTE ]

after further review, I think I was wrong about that

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
KC seems like a trendy upset pick. Imo Indy will roll in this one. A few things to consider:

-Indy is 8-0 at home this year including wins over Jacksonville, Tennessee, Philly, and Cincy

-KC is 3-5 on the road this year with their only wins over Oakland, Arizona, and St Louis

-Two years ago they met in the playoffs, Priest Holmes ran for 200+ yards and Indy still won by more than a touchdown.


I havn't seen what the point spread for this game is, but based on the public opinions that I've heard so far, I think I'd be all over Indy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indy was a much better team 2 years ago. They averaged about a TD more per game, and their run defense was not historically bad.

(granted, KC was better as well).

but anyway, Indy has been really limping down the stretch. I don't put much stock into games played 2 years ago by basically 2 different teams. I'm taking the points here.

[/ QUOTE ]

People say this but I'm not sure what the basis is. If you actually watch the games, teams play the Colts in almost constant Nickel and Dime, which means Peyton will beat you in 12 plays instead of 3, so naturally the numbers are down.

Also, the Colts D was never good, they were simply benifeting from the 14-28 point leads that Peyton and Co. would put up. Now that D's have slowed, but not stoped, the out front scoring, the D isn't defending only the pass anymore and racking up INTs at an alarming rate.

Watch the games, don't just read the box scores.

All that said, KC-38 IND-34

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

That is exactly right, the colts D is designed to stop the pass. That's why when the offense is firing on all cylinders they're basically impossible to beat. Otherwise though, if a team has time to run against them they are jus garbage.

[/ QUOTE ]

The one thing I'd correct about what you wrote (that actually ties in with the thread that KBZ and I hijacked) is the Colts Run D is actually above average at home, where they are 8-0. It could be the crowd getting them pumped, it could be the turf that helps their speed, but whatever it is, they're better in the Dome.

Cody