peyton-manning-wants-denver-broncos-play-faster

[Chef Zambini]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9181794/peyton-manning-wants-denver-broncos-play-faster-2013
read the article, THEN comment.

[weazel]

makes sense... but killing time on the clock doesnt hurt either.

[Chef Zambini]

the receivers like it?
what about the run game?
what about the defense?
Ask a defender how they feel about forcing a punt, going to the sidelines, and in less than 3 minutes of real time,(thanks to a commercial break) they are back on the field because the O only spent 45 seconds to throw 3 incomplete passes.
anyone remember dan fouts ?

[weazel]

the receivers like it?
what about the run game?
what about the defense?
Ask a defender how they feel about forcing a punt, going to the sidelines, and in less than 3 minutes of real time,(thanks to a commercial break) they are back on the field because the O only spent 45 seconds to throw 3 incomplete passes.
anyone remember dan fouts ?

psssst... Manning doesnt run the team.

[Chef Zambini]

Manning runs the offense and you probably have posted a dozen times saying as much.

[weazel]

Manning runs the offense and you probably have posted a dozen times saying as much.

correct... but he doesnt run the front office. They will do what they want to do, if you watched the games last season you can see the offensive play calling was not all on Manning.

[spikerman]

I think several members of the coaching staff, including Gase, have said the same thing.

[cmc0605]

Manning might not run the team, but whether or not the front office will admit it, he has a say in how things go. That's one of the luxuries of being a future hall of fame QB.

Regardless, the front office should do what works. Last year, the offensive production stepped up when Manning was calling the shots in no-huddle tempo.

[Joel]

This IS a head-scratcher from anyone who knows offense like Manning does. Folks so inclined may dismiss concerns solely because Zams, but his points are valid: Long drives are fundamental to good offense. They: 1) Tire opposing defenses, 2) rest ours and 3) keep the ball away from opponents in an age when offenses are more productive than ever.

This topic belongs in Football 101 right next to "run to establish the pass" (teams were once allowed to DEFEND against passing, making it difficult until/unless they were FORCED to bring guys up to runstop.)

I wonder if there's some additional context the article omitted. I'm not old enough to remember watching Air Coryells teams, but grew up watching the same thing when the Run 'n Shoot dueled the No Huddle, when Elway and the Three Amigos didn't knock off one of them: I'm long accustomed to worrying about scoring too fast. The Giants were praised for their long pounding drive to open SB XLII; they only got a FG, but held the ball for 9:59 while Tom Brady could only watch. Anyone who thinks that wasn't critical to their 17-14 victory is just ignoring all the season scoring records NE shattered that year.

The old saying is supposed to go all the way back to Sammy Baugh: "We never lose; we just run out of time." A good running game is how teams do that to opponents; "matriculating the ball down the field," not throwing incomplete passes, nor even 70 yard bombs. How many times have we seen a team take the lead with two or three minutes left against a great team and thought, They left them too much time...? That happens to teams whose average drive is 4:00 a lot more often than those whose average drive is 7:00. What if Cincy hadn't left 3:00 on the clock when they kicked a FG to take a 16-13 lead in SB XXIII?

There's got to be something ESPN's not telling us. I know Goodell's trying to turn the NFL into a flag arena league, but it hasn't gotten THAT bad—has it...? :tsk:

[MOtorboat]

This IS a head-scratcher from anyone who knows offense like Manning does. Folks so inclined may dismiss concerns solely because Zams, but his points are valid: Long drives are fundamental to good offense. They: 1) Tire opposing defenses, 2) rest ours and 3) keep the ball away from opponents in an age when offenses are more productive than ever.

This topic belongs in Football 101 right next to "run to establish the pass" (teams were once allowed to DEFEND against passing, making it difficult until/unless they were FORCED to bring guys up to runstop.)

I wonder if there's some additional context the article omitted. I'm not old enough to remember watching Air Coryells teams, but grew up watching the same thing when the Run 'n Shoot dueled the No Huddle, when Elway and the Three Amigos didn't knock off one of them: I'm long accustomed to worrying about scoring too fast. The Giants were praised for their long pounding drive to open SB XLII; they only got a FG, but held the ball for 9:59 while Tom Brady could only watch. Anyone who thinks that wasn't critical to their 17-14 victory is just ignoring all the season scoring records NE shattered that year.

The old saying is supposed to go all the way back to Sammy Baugh: "We never lose; we just run out of time." A good running game is how teams do that to opponents; "matriculating the ball down the field," not throwing incomplete passes, nor even 70 yard bombs. How many times have we seen a team take the lead with two or three minutes left against a great team and thought, They left them too much time...? That happens to teams whose average drive is 4:00 a lot more often than those whose average drive is 7:00. What if Cincy hadn't left 3:00 on the clock when they kicked a FG to take a 16-13 lead in SB XXIII?

There's got to be something ESPN's not telling us. I know Goodell's trying to turn the NFL into a flag arena league, but it hasn't gotten THAT bad—has it...? :tsk:

The game has changed. You and Zam need to deal with it.

There's a reason New England unleashed the hurry up last year and that Chip Kelly was hired by the Eagles. The game is changing. The rules are changing. Running the football to control the game is something that is the past.

[Joel]

Turnovers are still THREE TIMES more likely passing than running (and that's if we don't bother moving fumbled receptions from the "rushing" to "passing" column.) The game's changed so much every year I check the NFL rushing average is still 4.2 yards per carry as it's been for decades, enough to consistently get conversions in three plays. The main change is putting pass defense in strait jackets so thick "establishing" the pass is no longer needed: Teams can pass at will whether others try defending or not. That's bad for competition, and thus interest, and thus ratings, and thus profits; the NFL will eventually learn that the hard way.

Meanwhile, long offensive drives still tire opposing defenses and rest ours, and the best way to prevent opponents unleashing the Hurry Up is still to keep them on the sidelines.

[shank]

zam-and-joel-in-same-thread-exit-this-way

[MOtorboat]

Turnovers are still THREE TIMES more likely passing than running (and that's if we don't bother moving fumbled receptions from the "rushing" to "passing" column.) The game's changed so much every year I check the NFL rushing average is still 4.2 yards per carry as it's been for decades, enough to consistently get conversions in three plays. The main change is putting pass defense in strait jackets so thick "establishing" the pass is no longer needed: Teams can pass at will whether others try defending or not. That's bad for competition, and thus interest, and thus ratings, and thus profits; the NFL will eventually learn that the hard way.

Meanwhile, long offensive drives still tire opposing defenses and rest ours, and the best way to prevent opponents unleashing the Hurry Up is still to keep them on the sidelines.

The game has changed. The hurry up offense, and rythym is more important to offense now than time of possession,

[Timmy!]

Ya I hate it when we score lots of touchdowns. We need to stop doing that.

[Joel]

The game has changed. The hurry up offense, and rythym is more important to offense now than time of possession,
Yet I keep hearing people say the only way to beat guys like Manning, Brady, Rodgers and Brees is to keep them off the field. If anything, handicapping defense has made time of possession more important than ever, because dog teams that got pounded 30 years ago throwing Hail Marys all game actually have a chance now. For Petes sake, Joe FLACCO won a Super Bowl with a D eligible for Social Security!


Ya I hate it when we score lots of touchdowns. We need to stop doing that.
Who said don't score lots of TDs? All I said was take our time doing it. What I really hate is when the other team scores MORE TDs; then it doesn't matter how many we score. And in an era when touching their passers or receivers just results in automatic first downs and suspended Pro Bowlers, the best way to prevent them scoring isn't playing defense (increasingly impossible,) it's keeping the ball.

[MOtorboat]

Yet I keep hearing people say the only way to beat guys like Manning, Brady, Rodgers and Brees is to keep them off the field. If anything, handicapping defense has made time of possession more important than ever, because dog teams that got pounded 30 years ago throwing Hail Marys all game actually have a chance now. For Petes sake, Joe FLACCO won a Super Bowl with a D eligible for Social Security!

Except that is clearly not the formula. So, people may be saying it, but it's simply not true.

Out scoring teams in the passing game, and forcing turnovers are the keys. I know you mentioned that the passing game is more turnover prone, but the running game is less scoring prone.

[Chef Zambini]

wht do the NFL teams bother monitoring time of posession?
you say the game has changed?
nothing has changed about fatigue and strategy.
when a defense does not have time to rest and make adjustments while on the sideline, they fail to stop the other team from scoring and CONTROLING THE CLOCK !
apass happy offense leads to a game weary defense... their own !
see the reality! we didnt loose games last year because we could not score.
We lost games when we were scoring 30+ points but our D spent too much time on the field !
HILLMANS kick returns for TDs were awesomebut...
they also sent a tired, weary, in need of a breather and a chance to discuss adjustments D,(who had just been scored apon, right back on to the field.
the objective has merit... increase the offensive play count, good idea.
manning wants to do it by speeding up the playcalling and execution.
I better way, a more team oriented way, is to increase the play count with 15 play drives that result in a TD and take 12 minutes off the board, instead of 2 minute drives of 5 plays.
the game has changed may be true , but...

long sustained drives will always wear down their defense while resting ours.
long sustained drives keeps our offense on the field and theirs off !

[Chef Zambini]

long sustained drives?
run the ball and stay in bounds.

[Joel]

Except that is clearly not the formula. So, people may be saying it, but it's simply not true.

Out scoring teams in the passing game, and forcing turnovers are the keys. I know you mentioned that the passing game is more turnover prone, but the running game is less scoring prone.
I've crunched the numbers; the net balance still favors running. I don't have the exact figures at the moment (though I posted them last year if you feel like a search,) but it's like 2 more yards/play and twice the TDs for thrice the turnovers. Sound like a good trade? Just because everyone does the same thing doesn't make those doing it best geniuses; sometimes it just means the one-eyed man rules the land of the blind.

On the other hand, Tom Coughlin's still playing tough D, slogging it out on the ground and passing when he has the need or a chance for a quick score. He beat the Pats in two SBs doing that, and had to go through an NFCCG in Lambeau both times. Here are the possible (not mutually exclusive) explanations for that:

1) Coughlin's smarter than Belicheat and McCarthy.
2) The Giants roster is more talented than NEs or GBs.
3) Coughlin maintains team discipline better than Belicheat and McCarthy.
4) Coughlin runs a better system than Belicheat and McCarthy.

I know which way I'd bet. ;) For that matter, NEITHER of this years Conference Champs exactly have Manning, Brady, Rodgers or Ryan—but beat ALL those guys with tough D and consistent running.

Until the mid-eighties good teams ran more than they passed because passes increased turnovers and lowered time of possession. All the penalties have changed is the second part. Scoring isn't significantlly harder on the ground or easier through the air than it ever was; the only change is the frequency of each TYPE of play. In fact, the popularity of the West Coast and spread offenses have actually reduced passings single biggest advantage: Yards per completion. Higher completion percentages may have offset that, but I'm not sure.

Regardless, the pendulum is almost required to swing back toward running soon. Not as far as in the past, of course, but I don't foresee a one-dimensional game where runs are as rare as passes were a century ago. It ruins suspense and excitement, which is just bad for business. It also dramatically increases lucks role (and however good todays QBs are, three times the turnovers means luck will always be a bigger factor passing.) Victory through luck is good for bad teams, but that's bad for business, too. People like upsets, but don't want to see the best teams lose weekly by sheer random chance and favorable officiating.

In between all the blather about how we should have passed on 3rd and 3 when the NFL rushing average has been 4.2 per carry since I was in grade school we lost sight of the fact that if our running game had been good enough to deliver that NFL average gain we wouldn't have had to worry about Mr. "laser, rocket arm" losing the game with a third turnover in DOT. Peyton knows that as well as anyone: That's why he called the run on 3rd and 3. If you want to win your fantasy football league, get Megatron; if you want Denver to win a SB, find the next Peterson. And guards who give line surge (please!)

[Joel]

long sustained drives?
run the ball and stay in bounds.
You don't even have to stay in bounds anymore until the last five minutes of a half. Just pound the rock till the D sees stars, kick your PAT, and say, "OK, ya'll have 0:28 to score. :)"

[Timmy!]

Dear mods, please change thread title to "how to win in 1991, or Zam and Joel's big circle jerk of the past...your choice. TIA.

[MOtorboat]

I've crunched the numbers; the net balance still favors running. I don't have the exact figures at the moment (though I posted them last year if you feel like a search,) but it's like 2 more yards/play and twice the TDs for thrice the turnovers. Sound like a good trade? Just because everyone does the same thing doesn't make those doing it best geniuses; sometimes it just means the one-eyed man rules the land of the blind.

On the other hand, Tom Coughlin's still playing tough D, slogging it out on the ground and passing when he has the need or a chance for a quick score. He beat the Pats in two SBs doing that, and had to go through an NFCCG in Lambeau both times. Here are the possible (not mutually exclusive) explanations for that:

1) Coughlin's smarter than Belicheat and McCarthy.
2) The Giants roster is more talented than NEs or GBs.
3) Coughlin maintains team discipline better than Belicheat and McCarthy.
4) Coughlin runs a better system than Belicheat and McCarthy.

I know which way I'd bet. ;) For that matter, NEITHER of this years Conference Champs exactly have Manning, Brady, Rodgers or Ryan—but beat ALL those guys with tough D and consistent running.

Until the mid-eighties good teams ran more than they passed because passes increased turnovers and lowered time of possession. All the penalties have changed is the second part. Scoring isn't significantlly harder on the ground or easier through the air than it ever was; the only change is the frequency of each TYPE of play. In fact, the popularity of the West Coast and spread offenses have actually reduced passings single biggest advantage: Yards per completion. Higher completion percentages may have offset that, but I'm not sure.

Regardless, the pendulum is almost required to swing back toward running soon. Not as far as in the past, of course, but I don't foresee a one-dimensional game where runs are as rare as passes were a century ago. It ruins suspense and excitement, which is just bad for business. It also dramatically increases lucks role (and however good todays QBs are, three times the turnovers means luck will always be a bigger factor passing.) Victory through luck is good for bad teams, but that's bad for business, too. People like upsets, but don't want to see the best teams lose weekly by sheer random chance and favorable officiating.

In between all the blather about how we should have passed on 3rd and 3 when the NFL rushing average has been 4.2 per carry since I was in grade school we lost sight of the fact that if our running game had been good enough to deliver that NFL average gain we wouldn't have had to worry about Mr. "laser, rocket arm" losing the game with a third turnover in DOT. Peyton knows that as well as anyone: That's why he called the run on 3rd and 3. If you want to win your fantasy football league, get Megatron; if you want Denver to win a SB, find the next Peterson. And guards who give line surge (please!)

Coughlin threw the ball 60 percent of the time in their last Super Bowl season. The team totaled only 1400 rushing yards and had 4700 passing. Their offense was 9th in points and 8th in yards. Their defense was 25th in points and 27th in yards.

He threw the ball 40 times in the Super Bowl alone.

Numbers don't show what you think happened.

[rationalfan]

y'all realize an offense can play faster in the interest of executing more plays and STILL operate a long, sustained drive. right?

[Chef Zambini]

Dear mods, please change thread title to "how to win in 1991, or Zam and Joel's big circle jerk of the past...your choice. TIA.very amusing.

[TXBRONC]

very amusing.

You're as amusing as watching a gorilla picking its ass. :heh:

[BroncoJoe]

Last year, I believe we ran something like 68 or 69 plays/game. The #1 team was the Patriots with a whopping.....



74.

[Chef Zambini]

Last year, I believe we ran something like 68 or 69 plays/game. The #1 team was the Patriots with a whopping.....



74.bingO!
and how did our broncos and the pats do in this years superbowl?
moral of the story.
geta running game you can count on.

[Chef Zambini]

You're as amusing as watching a gorilla picking its ass. :heh:spend alot of time at the zoo, do you?
Primates, they are so adorable.
especially the ones around here.

[BroncoJoe]

bingO!
and how did our broncos and the pats do in this years superbowl?
moral of the story.
geta running game you can count on.

Baltimore = 65. Huge difference, right Zam?

[slim]

Baltimore = 65. Huge difference, right Zam?

Too bad it wasn't 64. The last one of regulation was a doozy.

[LawDog]

2011, the Broncos lead the league in rushing, were 21st in time of possession with an average per game under 50% ( http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/team-time-of-possession-statistics/2011/ )

2012, the Broncos were 4th in offensive plays ( http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9181794/peyton-manning-wants-denver-broncos-play-faster-2013 ) and 8th in time of possession with a per game average over 52% ( http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/team-time-of-possession-statistics/2012/ ), and had the best win-loss record in the league.

Yeah, I think they are headed in the right direction.

/End of this ridiculous discussion...

[Chef Zambini]

2011, the Broncos lead the league in rushing, were 21st in time of possession with an average per game under 50% ( http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/team-time-of-possession-statistics/2011/ )

2012, the Broncos were 4th in offensive plays ( http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9181794/peyton-manning-wants-denver-broncos-play-faster-2013 ) and 8th in time of possession with a per game average over 52% ( http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/team-time-of-possession-statistics/2012/ ), and had the best win-loss record in the league.

Yeah, I think they are headed in the right direction.

/End of this ridiculous discussion...thats the TEBOW effect.
12 3 and outs, unless he fumbled or got INT'd on second down, and then miracle runs in the last 2 minutes.
2011 is an anomoly, nice cherry pick !

[LawDog]

thats the TEBOW effect.
12 3 and outs, unless he fumbled or got INT'd on second down, and then miracle runs in the last 2 minutes.
2011 is an anomoly, nice cherry pick !

2011 - 21st TOP at 49.48%; 2010 - 28th TOP at 46.88%; 2009 - 13th at 50.31%; 2008 - 25th at 47.81% ...

Please point to where I cherry picked. Or was a Tebowless 2008 an anomaly as well? And how about 2010, did Tebow trash the TOP over the last three games of the year?

That, Zam, is called being PWNED...

[GEM]

The day football comes down to crunching numbers....shoot me in the ******* head.

[Poet]

The Ravens don't exactly pound the ball like the Steel Curtain did.

The Giants won a SB by throwing the ball a lot. Just before that they won a SB by having a great running game. The moral of the story is that today's NFL has several blueprints in which a team can build to.

[Chef Zambini]

2011 - 21st TOP at 49.48%; 2010 - 28th TOP at 46.88%; 2009 - 13th at 50.31%; 2008 - 25th at 47.81% ...

Please point to where I cherry picked. Or was a Tebowless 2008 an anomaly as well? And how about 2010, did Tebow trash the TOP over the last three games of the year?

That, Zam, is called being PWNED...lawdog, we failed to run the ball with conviction in all of those years.
the JMCD years were all pass junkie years, shanny was a total pass junkie out of control once gibbs and kubiak left.

[Joel]

Coughlin threw the ball 60 percent of the time in their last Super Bowl season. The team totaled only 1400 rushing yards and had 4700 passing. Their offense was 9th in points and 8th in yards. Their defense was 25th in points and 27th in yards.

He threw the ball 40 times in the Super Bowl alone.

Numbers don't show what you think happened.
I'm unsure we can go by NYs totals, because they AREN'T as talented as other teams and are often trailing at the end of the game; even Woody Hayes didn't throw in that situation. Their '07 D was ranked 7th in yardage, but dropped TWENTY spots by 2011 after losing 5 starters. Ground-pounding to win the game by ToP DOES demand a good D; otherwise teams frequently find themselves behind and forced to pass.

The 2007 team threw 53.7% of the time and ran 46.2%, a pretty balanced split with more running than the NFL average 45.1%. In SB XLII it was 58.7/41.2, but 10 of their passes and just 2 of their runs came on the final drive when they were down 14-10 with 2:00 to play; again, running in THAT situation is suicidal. In SB SLVI they were also behind on their final drive and threw 6 times, running only 3, but we all remember the image of them RUNNING on the final play and trying to stay out of the endzone so the clock kept moving.

If we had a great running game we wouldn't have scored 28 points but lost a playoff game because we couldn't convert 3rd and 3 and threw an interception in DOT. That really is the bottom line.

No one pounds the ball like the great running teams of the '70s, but the Ravens don't win most games by having Flacco drop back and lob floaters to whoever runs under them. They will if forced, but their 1901 rushing and 3739 passing yds last year are indicative of a team that emphasizes running and employs it whenever possible.

[Thnikkaman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GgflscOmW8