Comments for 18 Plays-Jaguars at http://18to88.com , comment 1 to 30 out of 20 comments http://18to88.com Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:42:34 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/18-plays-jaguars.html#comment-1049 And the Glitter Kitties got spanked - Anonguy Sun, 20 Sep 2009 10:49:08 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/18-plays-jaguars.html#comment-1023 The Colts run most of their plays from the same basic formation. You won't see massive formation changes no matter the package of players. They'll show the same look whether they are running two TE (with Clark in the slot), or one TE (with Collie in the slot and Clark in tight). You shouldn't confuse that with running the same game plan. The Colts' goal is to reveal nothing by the formation. You can't observe it and determine much of anything. Once the snap happens, however, anything is possible out of the base set. What you can do is obviously different when you have a TE in the slot verses a WR in the slot. - DZ Fri, 18 Sep 2009 06:19:25 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/18-plays-jaguars.html#comment-1022 The second part (The Colts thought Tamme/Robinson are better than Collie) IS true. Sure, there were a couple of plays where they put Collie in the slot, that's to be expected. It wasn't the base offense, however. The base offense was a 2 TE set. That's what the Colts WANT to run, with the option of subbing in Collie from time to time. Once Gonzo left, the other two TEs were gone. You can't say "Their game plan didn't change, just their personnel, and it was only out of necessity." when the personnel are dramatically different. You aren't running the same game plan if you are running three wides with Clark as a true TE, than if you are running 2 wide, a true TE, and Clark as a flex TE/WR depending one what you want on any given play. There is a MASSIVE difference between the two. It won't always show up in terms of formation, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. Because the Colts cannot play Collie wide. If they feel it necessary to put him on the field, the absolutely have to play three WRs. That means there is a direct link between Collie and Garcon. Collie on the field means Garcon (because Gonzo is hurt) has to play too. They can play Garcon without Collie, but they can't play Collie without Garcon (or Baskett) to play wide. - DZ Fri, 18 Sep 2009 06:07:42 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/18-plays-jaguars.html#comment-1021 "The Colts clearly thought that Garcon/Collie was better than Garcon/2nd TE, but they clearly thought that Gonzo/2nd TE was better than Gonzo/Collie. Why? That's the question that hasn't been answered." That second part isn't true. They put Gonzo/Collie in the game a few times. In fact, the play where he got hurt was a 3-wide set with Collie in the slot and Clark tight. They used the same set the play before. Manning's INT came from that set. All of these were before the injury. You can't say a 2-TE set is "better" than a 3-wide set. They both have their advantages. The point remains that when Gonzo went down, they abandoned their 2-TE set. Why? Because Collie plays the slot and Garcon plays out wide and having Collie on the bench in favor of Tamme/Robinson was not in the picture once AG was unavailable. None of this suggests a link between Collie and Garcon. It was just a coincidence that the roles they play on offense dictate that they have to be on the field at the same time. Either that or they have a 2TE set with their number 1 and 4 receivers on the field, which just doesn't make sense with Collie available. Just look at Clark. He was playing from the slot (almost) exclusively pre-injury. Post-injury he was playing tight to the line while Collie played the slot. There was always a guy in the slot. Their game plan didn't change, just their personnel, and it was only out of necessity. - Guy Fri, 18 Sep 2009 05:53:00 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/18-plays-jaguars.html#comment-1020 Listen, I understand what you are saying. I don't think it answers the problem. Collie ISN'T one of the best players. Tamme and Robinson are better options than Collie based on the fact that they started the game. If they are better options than Collie, they certainly better than Garcon. The combo of Collie/Garcon must be seen as preferable than the combo of Garcon/2nd TE, but that still shows there is a definite link to have Collie and Garcon on the field at the same time. Collie can't play outside (and Garcon can't play the slot which is why he didn't get in the game in the 3 wide set earlier), so they can't run Collie/2 TE. The only options are: Garcon/2 TE Collie/Garcon/Clark Now, they decided that the second option was better. That's fine, but I find it dramatically worse than than Gonzo/2 TE, and not just because of the drop off from Gonzo being out. I think the 2 TE set is the most effective thing the Colts have, and they do too, which is why they started the game with it. Losing Gonzo takes away not only the player, but the package. The Colts made two substitutions not one. Clearly, there is a link between Collie and Garcon which you denied. The offense IS more limited with the 1 TE set. I did watch it. To sum up: 1. The Colts offense is more limited in terms of options without 2 TEs in the game. It changes the number options Manning has presnap. The run game will be better over time with two TEs than with three wides (by personnel, not by formation...formation doesn't matter) 2. The Colts clearly thought that Garcon/Collie was better than Garcon/2nd TE, but they clearly thought that Gonzo/2nd TE was better than Gonzo/Collie. Why? That's the question that hasn't been answered. - DZ Fri, 18 Sep 2009 05:17:12 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/18-plays-jaguars.html#comment-1019 Oh. Hmm. Must have been the IndyStar website then. - LukeM Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:59:11 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/18-plays-jaguars.html#comment-1018 I've never seen somebody so hell-bent on being right no matter what. I thought I was helping you with this conundrum, apparently you've already made up your mind. If you care to actually try to comprehend what I am saying, read on. "By your logic, the Colts depth chart looks like this: Wayne Gonzo Clark Tamme-Robinson (depending on need) Collie, Garcon, " I didn't say this. I said the WR's are Wayne, AG, Collie, and Garcon. "So then, when Gonzo got hurt, the Colts went with Collie in the slot because they like him better than Garcon, but then they had to play Garcon wide and take out the 2nd TEs?" They put Collie in the slot because he is a slot receiver and they needed him on the field because he is better than Garcon. They weren't going to put him wide because he isn't ready for that. They weren't going to leave him on the bench because then they wouldn't have their best players on the field. I am repeating myself here. "So they benched two players they clearly thought were more effective early, because they just HAD to play Collie first and Garcon second? That scarcely makes sense, but even if it did, it still suggests a Collie/Garcon link." What two players did they bench? Tamme/Robinson? That's not two players, that is 1 position that was being played by two players. And "more effective early"? When were they more effective? More effective than what? "The personnel types matter. Taking the extra TE out and inserting Collie in the slot over Clark (who goes back to true TE), affects the audibles that Manning can call. It affects the run game. It affects routes because now Clark is running TE routes instead of slot routes." Go back and watch the game and then try to tell me that Clark didn't assume the position of the 2nd tight end after the injury. You won't be able to do it. And it doesn't effect anything like you said. It's the same exact formation, just with different personnel. In fact, this is what I've been saying. They did this so they COULD run the same plays they had practiced, and didn't have to rearrange the whole offense based on 1 injury. If you don't think Manning can adjust to having Clark on the line mid-game, and Collie in the slot, then you severely underestimate him. "2 TEs (regardless of where they line up) creates greater flexibility in play calling. Manning can quickly audible to more of a power run or max protect simply by waiving Clark or Tamme back to the end of the line. When Collie is the game that disappears." So why did the running game excel when Collie was in? Why didn't they put two tight ends in to run the ball? Why was Clark split wide exclusively before the injury and not "waved back to the line" to run the ball? The fact is that the running game was as good if not better when Collie was in the slot. Addai scored his TD from that formation. They had the same run/pass mix from that formation. The Jags were playing nickel every time Collie was in. The Colts had the same advantage in the running game with that matchup than they did with Clark against a linebacker. "Even if some formations look the same, the offense is very different with Collie over Tamme/Robinson (regardless of how you diagram the substitution pattern)." Not true, sir. Watch the game again. I know you've seen it multiple times, but watch it and think about what I have been saying. Watch Clark specifically. "The logical move would have been to play Garcon for Gonzo, and stick with the extra TE over Collie. That didn't happen, and I want to know why." I told you why. Collie and Garcon on the field was more desirable than Tamme/Robinson and Garcon on the field. Before the injury, when they went 3-wide, they pulled Tamme/Robinson and replaced them with Collie. Garcon didn't get on the field then, why would he be in over Collie any other time? Seriously think about it. - Guy Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:58:06 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/18-plays-jaguars.html#comment-1017 No, it's not. I visited it last night and today without incident. It's a legitimate site. I go there all the time. - DZ Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:47:32 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/18-plays-jaguars.html#comment-1016 The website listed above "smartfootball" is a virus. DZ, you should delete that link. - LukeM Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:44:32 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/18-plays-jaguars.html#comment-1015 That argument makes no sense. By your logic, the Colts depth chart looks like this: Wayne Gonzo Clark Tamme-Robinson (depending on need) Collie, Garcon, So then, when Gonzo got hurt, the Colts went with Collie in the slot because they like him better than Garcon, but then they had to play Garcon wide and take out the 2nd TEs? So they benched two players they clearly thought were more effective early, because they just HAD to play Collie first and Garcon second? That scarcely makes sense, but even if it did, it still suggests a Collie/Garcon link. The personnel types matter. Taking the extra TE out and inserting Collie in the slot over Clark (who goes back to true TE), affects the audibles that Manning can call. It affects the run game. It affects routes because now Clark is running TE routes instead of slot routes. 2 TEs (regardless of where they line up) creates greater flexibility in play calling. Manning can quickly audible to more of a power run or max protect simply by waiving Clark or Tamme back to the end of the line. When Collie is the game that disappears. Even if some formations look the same, the offense is very different with Collie over Tamme/Robinson (regardless of how you diagram the substitution pattern). The logical move would have been to play Garcon for Gonzo, and stick with the extra TE over Collie. That didn't happen, and I want to know why. Your explanation (they like Collie more than the TEs and Garcon)doesn't fit the facts. - DZ Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:10:39 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/18-plays-jaguars.html#comment-1014 They didn't want Clark relegated to the traditional tight end spot. They wanted to use him in the slot where they could use his versatility against the linebackers. Meanwhile, they had wide receivers 1 and 2 split wide. When AG went down, they had to put Collie in the game. He's the next option. He's the third guy. They weren't going to put Garcon in and leave Collie out. It just so happens that Collie plays the slot position best, or it is what he has practiced the most. Probably the latter. That's it. That's the answer. The confusion is in what you wrote down on your paper. Collie did NOT go in for Tamme/Robinson. He went in for Clark and Clark took the other TE spot. The main point I am trying to make is that the fundamental offense DID NOT CHANGE. Not at all. They still had a guy in the slot, two guys split wide, one guy tight, and one RB. That was the game plan. Whether those guys have "TE" or "WR" next to their names on the roster is irrelevant. - Guy Fri, 18 Sep 2009 03:58:46 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/18-plays-jaguars.html#comment-1013 My labeling of the plays as "2 TE" or "1 TE", had nothing to do with formations, I was tracking the personnel. The Colts made a personnel change after the injury. No more Tamme and Robinson, and a lot of Collie. That's what has to be explained. "They like Collie more" doesn't fly. If they did, they would have started him. - DZ Fri, 18 Sep 2009 03:44:16 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/18-plays-jaguars.html#comment-1012 I know what you are talking about, but it doesn't answer the question...why do that after the injury? If they really liked Collie in the slot better than Tamme, why not start with Collie in the slot? Collie didn't get in the game at that slot until Gonzo went out. Your explanation is tidy but it makes no sense based on what happened. If your analysis is correct, they would have started the game in the same set they ended it, only with Gonzo on the field instead of Garcon. - DZ Fri, 18 Sep 2009 03:41:16 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/18-plays-jaguars.html#comment-1011 I just went over the game again, and I can tell you exactly what happened. They didn't start going 3-wide all of a sudden after the Gonzalez injury. They were going 3-wide the entire game. The only thing is that Clark was working the slot before the injury, and Collie was there after the injury. It was still a 3-wide set. The fact that Clark is labeled a tight end is what is confusing. Essentially, they subbed Collie in for Clark, Clark in for the 2nd TE spot, and Garcon in for AG. They ran the exact same offense before and after the injury, they just did it with different personnel. You may ask, why not just sub-out Gonzo and keep Clark in the slot? Well, then you have Tamme or Robinson in the game and Collie on the sideline. Clearly they like Collie better than those other tight ends. So there you have it. There is no relationship between Garcon and Collie and needing them to be on the field at the same time. That was just the best way to run the gameplan they prepared. If you watch where Collie lines up after the injury you will see the point. He always lines up on the wide side of the field, the same place Clark had been lining up. After the injury, Clark was always on the short side of the field, playing the traditional tight end position in place of the 2nd tight end. Writing 2-TE or 3-WIDE on your sheet is what messed you up. If you had written 3-wide every time clark was split out (or when it really was 3-wide) you would see very few 2-TE sets on your sheet. Maybe 1. Maybe 2. - Guy Fri, 18 Sep 2009 03:35:50 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/18-plays-jaguars.html#comment-1010 I can't answer the question as to why, but on every (or almost every) play before the injury, I marked 2TE on my sheet. As soon as Gonzo went down, I don't believe I had 2TE marked even once. The Colts were moving the ball effectively, so there didn't seem to be any reason for the change other than they play Collie and Garcon together as a unit. It makes no sense, I know. But that's what they did. The change was instant, and it was wholesale. It was not inconclusive. It did not look like a response to the Jags defense, as they never at any point went back to the two TEs (that I saw). Something about Garcon being in the game required Collie instead of a TE. I would love to know what that was. - DZ Fri, 18 Sep 2009 01:59:34 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/18-plays-jaguars.html#comment-1009 Not sure I'm getting your point about the offense when compared to the AG injury. They may have altered their offensive game plan due to what they saw the Jags doing. I can't see any reason why losing your number 2 receiver would prompt offensive sets with more receivers... I'm thinking they would have done that whether he was hurt or not. Nevertheless, it's inconclusive either way. - Guy. Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:19:34 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/18-plays-jaguars.html#comment-1005 A little off the subject, but I have high hopes for this. Colts signed Hank Baskett. He didn't produce alot of stats, but he was an all acadameic honoree (great for colts offense) and he is a big high jumping target. (6'4" 240 lbs. and high jump champ of college) If he can get clicking, I think he could be a sleeper possession receiver. - Derek Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:28:45 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/18-plays-jaguars.html#comment-1004 @JC that actually makes me feel better. The -3 line that looked ridiculously low had me nervous that Vegas knows something I (and most people I had heard talking about the game) don't. - shake n bake Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:22:59 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/18-plays-jaguars.html#comment-1003 Thinks the Fish are going to win Monday night. I don't, but they do. - J.C. Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:45:53 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/18-plays-jaguars.html#comment-1001 Does anyone here read www.smartfootball.com ? I really think this guy has a good head on his shoulders when it comes to the Xs and Os of football. - Anonguy Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:26:56 +0100