brandonchristensen said:ESPN, someone on right now about the 'ineligible play'
"This is Bill Belichick, if he has to, he will CHEAT."
brandonchristensen said:ESPN, someone on right now about the 'ineligible play'
"This is Bill Belichick, if he has to, he will CHEAT."
I foresee Vereen walking over the the refs a half dozen times or so just to remind them, you know, that he's legal.tims4wins said:
Awesome. Already in their heads. This was a one time situation. They ran it 3 times and never again in the game. They won't run it again all year, or maybe ever again under BB. Hope Pagano has them working on it all week.
P'tucket said:I foresee Vereen walking over the the refs a half dozen times or so just to remind them, you know, that he's legal.
Yes, he can, and that's why you can see both Vereen and Hooman, lined up wide right, immediately run into the backfield behind Brady at the snap on the throw to Gronk.Shelterdog said:
I think he can take a lateral even if he's ineligible so if they totally ignore him watch him take a pass for an easy 15 yards.
Dollar said:Yes, he can, and that's why you can see both Vereen and Hooman, lined up wide right, immediately run into the backfield behind Brady at the snap on the throw to Gronk.
8slim said:There's no way McDaniels will go run heavy for several drives without it being effective. And I don't want him to, this isn't the 1970s Big Ten.
Mix it up. Play fast. Tire then out and then maybe go run heavier in the 2nd half to put them away, if it's working.
Erik Hanson's Hook said:
This is at least the second time you've equated running the ball with football from the dark ages. I just don't understand the aversion some posters on here have about the running game.You're not the only one, either. Since the Miami game, those in favor of a more balanced attack have been shouted down or marginalized by some sarcastic "Run the the ball! Amirite guyz?" posts that I just don't get. Balance is bad?
Once it was clear we were getting the Colts, I got excited because I thought there was no way the "throw-the-ball-fifty-times-a game!" crowd could justify not running the ball against a team we've previously dominated in the trenches. But, lo and behold, it's happening. I'm already seeing calls for more passing because, well "They THINK we're gonna run...so let's surprise them!" As Bruschi has been saying, let's not over-think this. If/when they prove they can stop the run (and yes I know the calculus changes with Stork out and Jones/Redding back)...then yes, change it up. [SIZE=13.63636302948px]Passing is sexy, but if the Pats somehow get beat throwing 50 fifty times, I'll be all kinds of pissed.[/SIZE]
TL;DR - handing the ball off 10-15 times a half against a team you can run against does not make you a member of the 1970's Big Ten. Actually, what it does is prevent you from morphing into the all-pass/no-run, post-Edgerrin/all Peyton Indianapolis Colts.
/rant over
Remagellan said:Why is this still an issue. The play was legal, and the NFL on review said it was legal. The players were announced as ineligible by the refs during the game as defined by rule. Since when is using a legal formation "cheating"?
P'tucket said:I foresee Vereen walking over the the refs a half dozen times or so just to remind them, you know, that he's legal.
MentalDisabldLst said:
Maybe our thread should be titled "AFC Championship game, Indy vs New England: Barely Legal"
Bravo.singaporesoxfan said:
Makes sense. The Indy vs Denver game was "Indy vs Denver: That Doesn't Look Like 18"
Stitch01 said:The post 8slim was responding to suggested running the ball even if the Colts shut it down, and giving it more than a few drives if its not working. That's silly IMO. The Pats are only going to get 8 to 12 possessions, pounding away and running the ball if its not working is silly. I think running 10-15 times a half is a pretty solid game plan heading in, but running for the sake of running regardless of gameflow is a silly suggestion that does reek of the 1970s and doesnt make a lot of sense.
Sort of IMO. They struggled against the run, but Im not sure when we sat before the game and talked about the OL struggling we were thinking of a game where Brady threw for a billion yards and put up 35 points unaided by turnovers or big special teams plays while getting sacked twice and not being forced into any mistakes by the pass rushSMU_Sox said:So another take this FWIW... Football outsiders called hat Pats Ravens game correctly. Heir breakdown before the game was actually quite prescient and if I weren't on the mobile I'd link it. Let's face it, games are inherently random but we build narratives around them anyway because human beings can't function otherwise. Yes, not truly everything is random though. We knew going in that the Ravens had a good front seven and our O-Line could struggle. That happened. But tipped passes, guys playing out of their minds, an off day for a coach, those things are random and play a huge outcome in determining an outcomes results.
Most FO expected lines.outcomes are between (and this is just from memory this year) 0 to 5 points. If a team is expected to win by more than that it's a good indication that they are clearly a better team. Simple and makes sense. Without giving away anything I can't let's leave it at I'm not remotely scared of the Colts this Sunday no matter how you slice the data or weigh the data in the later season. Now -7.5 is a bitch of a line and I'm not saying to pull the trigger there but... Winning by 7 or more (which makes the .5 a pain) is a reasonable outcome. Frankly I think this turns into a route.
I don't have a Premium subscription and don't follow their betting tips, but how do they square having the Ravens and Colts separated by almost 20 points of weighted DVOA with giving the Colts only a 2-5% less chance of beating the Patriots? Intuitively that just doesn't really compute to me.Stitch01 said:Sort of IMO. They struggled against the run, but Im not sure when we sat before the game and talked about the OL struggling we were thinking of a game where Brady threw for a billion yards and put up 35 points unaided by turnovers or big special teams plays while getting sacked twice and not being forced into any mistakes by the pass rush
Sort of curious about your thought process around the FO data here. I have the FO premium subscription too and, ignoring the fact that FO has been lighting money on fire against the spread for two years, I dont get why you'd not be remotely scared of the Colts if you were concerned about the Ravens game just using FO predictions. Without giving anything away, I can't remember exactly what the projected Pats-Ravens spread was last week, but I know what it was within a point. If you take the projection as a vig-free money line they give the Colts a 2%-5% less chance of beating the Pats than they gave the Ravens and their expected outcome was only 1.5-2.5 points different than it was for this week's game. They definitely think we're more likely to beat the Colts, but its pretty marginal and they certainly don't forsee a rout as the most likely outcome.
I dont totally understand what you are trying to say here (I dont think the problem with the 2002 team was that they didnt run the ball enough as much as it was that the personnel sucked and they played from behind more than the '01/'03/'04 teams) but do agree that passing is better post 2004. Based on the history of the poster 8slim is responding to, I dont think he's looking for a 50-50 split Sunday.Devizier said:
Honestly, you don't need to go back to the 1970s; just harken back to the pre-Polian competition committee days.
The 2001 Patriots passed and ran roughly the same amount (482 PA, 473 RA). The next season, they want balls to the wall with the short passing attack, which resulted in a major (and unsuccessful) shift in the offense (605 PA, 395 RA). The season following, the Patriots win the Superbowl again with a more balanced offense (537 PA, 473 RA). This is despite that rushing attack was pretty bad by that point, with their 3.4 Y/A ranking 30th in the NFL. Only Jacksonville and Tennessee were worse. Enter Corey Dillon, and now you have a run-focused attack (485 PA, 524 RA).
That was the last season before the Polian competition committee rule changes. Dillon was hurt for parts of 2005 and 2006, and the Patriots looked behind the curve on league offenses. Enter Moss and Welker, the rest is history.
They give a predicted outcome based partly on DVOA but also other factors such as homefield, injuries, etc. Its a bit black box-y so its hard to analyze other than whether it works or not, and it hasnt worked over the last two seasons after having a pretty good track record prior to that. I just took their prediction for each game and translated it into a vig-free money line, the percentage came out very close because their predictions for each game were pretty close to each other.Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:I don't have a Premium subscription and don't follow their betting tips, but how do they square having the Ravens and Colts separated by almost 20 points of weighted DVOA with giving the Colts only a 2-5% less chance of beating the Patriots? Intuitively that just doesn't really compute to me.
Fwiw, the Patriots scored more points and had a higher offensive DVOA in 2002 than in either 2001 or 2003.Devizier said:Honestly, you don't need to go back to the 1970s; just harken back to the pre-Polian competition committee days.
The 2001 Patriots passed and ran roughly the same amount (482 PA, 473 RA). The next season, they want balls to the wall with the short passing attack, which resulted in a major (and unsuccessful) shift in the offense (605 PA, 395 RA). The season following, the Patriots win the Superbowl again with a more balanced offense (537 PA, 473 RA). This is despite that rushing attack was pretty bad by that point, with their 3.4 Y/A ranking 30th in the NFL. Only Jacksonville and Tennessee were worse. Enter Corey Dillon, and now you have a run-focused attack (485 PA, 524 RA).
That was the last season before the Polian competition committee rule changes. Dillon was hurt for parts of 2005 and 2006, and the Patriots looked behind the curve on league offenses. Enter Moss and Welker, the rest is history.
Stitch01 said:I dont totally understand what you are trying to say here (I dont think the problem with the 2002 team was that they didnt run the ball enough as much as it was that the personnel sucked and they played from behind more than the '01/'03/'04 teams) but do agree that passing is better post 2004. Based on the history of the poster 8slim is responding to, I dont think he's looking for a 50-50 split Sunday.
Devizier said:
The 2001 Patriots passed and ran roughly the same amount (482 PA, 473 RA). The next season, they want balls to the wall with the short passing attack, which resulted in a major (and unsuccessful) shift in the offense (605 PA, 395 RA). The season following, the Patriots win the Superbowl again with a more balanced offense (537 PA, 473 RA). This is despite that rushing attack was pretty bad by that point, with their 3.4 Y/A ranking 30th in the NFL. Only Jacksonville and Tennessee were worse. Enter Corey Dillon, and now you have a run-focused attack (485 PA, 524 RA).
No we didn't and that's the point. Not a single media member ever slammed the 49ers of the 80's. Walsh was a genius and Joe Cool was the best. That was the party line, despite the fact the 49ers totally gamed the salary rules; which is fine for them but nobody called them on it until much later and they barely raised an eyebrow over it. The media loved those 90's Cowboys teams, totally turned a blind eye to the White House and all the shenanigans so long as Jimmy and Irvin gave them colorful quotes. The bottom line is those teams (mostly head coaches) made it easy for the media and filled a lot of notebooks; it's a quid pro quo situation. BB doesn't do that and never will so the media has hated the Pats for it ever since.Ferm Sheller said:
Many people hate the Patriots because they have been so successful (I guess they are sick of seeing them win and/or are jealous). These people will look for any reason, rational or not, to slam the Pats and what they have achieved. The goal isn't to be accurate, it's to be inflammatory and therefore cause irritation to the Pats' fanbase. If Pats fans are irritated, they have "won". The best thing to do is ignore them.
We saw the same thing with the Niners teams of the 80s and early 90s and the Cowboys of the early 90s (and probably other "dynasties").
Christopher Price @cpriceNFL 3m3 minutes ago
Per @footballzebras, Walt Anderson will work as referee for Pats-Colts.
Kenny F'ing Powers said:Jesus Christ. What happened to New England fans?
I get wanting to discuss the game, and obviously there are a lot of nerves involved with the AFCCG, but holy shit. This is a fantastic match up for the Patriots. Luck is still very prone to making mistakes, and that type of QB falls right into BB's wheelhouse. The running game isn't good, the line isn't good, their WR/TE are OK - but largely negated by our secondary - and their defense is average at best. the collective anus puckering in New England is frightening.
- Andrew luck is scary.
- Herron is awesome.
- Indy's D is way better than when we saw them earlier in the year.
- The coaching staff may have the ability to read minds.
What I said! But don't abandon the run if it doesn't work on the first or second drive.pappymojo said:I think people are suggesting that the Patriots run against the Colts simply because it was so effective against them earlier in the year. Jonas Gray ran for 200 yards and four touchdowns against this team. Keep running the ball until they prove they can stop it.
I think he left out the part about getting ahead first. Everybody (eventually) tries to shorten the game once they're leading. It makes sense to hold the ball for a while if you can run on a team - once they're behind, they want as many chances as they can get, and you don't.Stitch01 said:Shortening the game and minimizing possessions when you are a much better team than the opponent is pretty terrible strategy.
Kevin Youkulele said:I think he left out the part about getting ahead first. Everybody (eventually) tries to shorten the game once they're leading. It makes sense to hold the ball for a while if you can run on a team - once they're behind, they want as many chances as they can get, and you don't.
I clarified, but he didn't say that. He wants to keep running and shorten the game even if the run isnt working, which means its unlikely the Pats are ahead.Kevin Youkulele said:I think he left out the part about getting ahead first. Everybody (eventually) tries to shorten the game once they're leading. It makes sense to hold the ball for a while if you can run on a team - once they're behind, they want as many chances as they can get, and you don't.
OK. I agree that continuing to go run heavy if it hasn't worked for 2 drives is not smart.Stitch01 said:I clarified, but he didn't say that. He wants to keep running and shorten the game even if the run isnt working, which means its unlikely the Pats are ahead.
Remember, the original post suggested running it and going run heavy until they prove they can stop it, and not just for a few drives. Running the ball for 3 or 4 drives regardless of results seems way too conservative to me given the Pats personnel.
Reggie's Racquet said:What I said! But don't abandon the run if it doesn't work on the first or second drive.
The only way Indy can win this game is through turnovers and if Luck gets hot.
Running the ball, controlling the clock , shortening the game, minimizes the chance that these things occur.
I think the bolded point is almost academic. Not that I disagree with it at all.8slim said:
Yeah, like others I heartily disagree with this.
Abandoning the run completely, like they did in the 2nd half against Baltimore, would of course be overkill. But if we were to use the run primarily on the first couple of drives and have nothing to show for it it would be silly to keep running and running when you have Brady, Gronk, Edelman, LaFell, and Vereen at your disposal.
Shortening the game when you have a distinct offensive advantage is crazy. You do the opposite, maximize possessions and play fast. That way a turnover or freak play has less impact.
In the regular season game the Pats threw 30 times and ran 44. In the first half, though, it was 20 passes and 22 runs. Much more balanced (actually pretty damn run-heavy by Pats standards). The Pats ran the ball on 13 of their last 16 plays in the game. So then, when they had a 2+ score lead in the 4th quarter, was when they "shortened the game".
Replicating that 2nd half in the first half this week as some seem to be suggesting (22 runs, 10 passes) would seem crazy.
Thats all cool, and its certainly not a crazy opinion to think this is going to be a blowout or an easier game than last week (Id concur), I just didnt understand using the FO prediction for this week after they nailed this week's game as support for that hypothesis. They're more confident in the Pats this week, but not by very much, and they forsee a closer game than most of this board from what I can tell.SMU_Sox said:Some things. I did some digging around too. Enjoy? Probably not but it's more food for thought.
1) Let's remember that everything I said (and most other people who are in the weeds with this issue) about FO was/is with a huge grain of "take this FWIW". I can't stress that enough.They have been AWFUL ATS this year and last. Although last year at least their top 5 picks ATS most weeks did ok. If you count the 3 pushes they had last year their top five picks ATS went 46-36-3 for 54.1%. Take out the pushes and you're at 56.1%. That's not amazing but it's not shabby. Not so this year. 38-41-1 through week 16. Could be random. It's a black box but we do know they don't use the same elements in DVOA for predictions. I can't find a link for that because they've mentioned it in the premium content before as a NB. It's a different formula and it adds things like weather too.
2) I'm saying I think it will be a blowout. Not them. That's just my take. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I love the matchup.
3) Through week 16 teams favored to win by between a FG and a TD won 60% of the time this year and 64% last year. Once you get to above a TD that team won 78% of the time through week 16 of 2014 and 90% of the time in 2013. Typically it's closer to mid 80's to 90's and not a lousy 78%. I can't say how much the Pats are favored by until after the game but the expected outcome last week was NE -3.5 (or near there). I also can't easily tell you their record by teams only favored by say -3.5 vs -6.5. quick edit: that's something you can estimate but I wish I could check it SSS issues aside.