More insight into "Score First" Offense

[Legend of Luck]

So, I know we have all been wondering what "Score First" actually means. Well this article on Colts.com clears a lot of that up.

 

The article reflects on our post-season turnover issues. We were +13 in turnover differential during the regular season, (which I believe was #1 in the league. Could be wrong.) but committed 8 in just 2 playoff games.

 

Pep basically says that they spent a lot of time watching the footage from the first half of the Chiefs game and the entire Patriots game, because he wanted to see why we got into such big holes.

 

His opinion is that our sudden jump in turnovers had a lot to do with our situation in those games, being down by quite a bit. He thinks that being behind in the game made the team play a little more dangerously to try to erase those deficits.

 

So, what I personally think the "Score First" means is just that, score first. To break it down, I think that they will be very aggressive and focus more on passing until they have a lead, then turn more toward the run game once a lead is established, versus last season, where we tried very hard to force the run to start games, dug ourselves a hole, and had to rely on Andrew to dig us out.

 

Thoughts?

[shakedownstreet]

pass to get a lead, run to keep it. sounds like old fashion football to me

 

you don't see it much more in this pass happy league, but it's about the most satisfying way to win a game

[21isSuperman]

It comes across as backwards to me, especially for the Chiefs game.  From what I recall, the Chiefs scored first, then the Colts scored with ease.  Then the turnovers started.  From what I saw, it wasn't being down a lot that led to turnovers, it was turnovers resulting in us being down a lot. 

 

Also, I think you're reading into it too much.  Analysts like to throw around terms like "run-first" or "West Coast offense" to label teams.  I think what Pep is trying to say with his "score-first" and "No Coast offense" is that the Colts aren't going to stubbornly stick to a script.  So we won't run the ball when we are losing just to say we are a run-first team, we will do what we must to win (ie. score, be it by runs or passes).  The goal of the offense is to score points, so that's all he's focused on; he won't run the ball just to say we're run-first.  Now, to say that the Colts aren't going to stubbornly stick to a script is a little ironic given what happened last year, but that's another story.

[akcolt]

It comes across as backwards to me, especially for the Chiefs game.  From what I recall, the Chiefs scored first, then the Colts scored with ease.  Then the turnovers started.  From what I saw, it wasn't being down a lot that led to turnovers, it was turnovers resulting in us being down a lot. 

 

Also, I think you're reading into it too much.  Analysts like to throw around terms like "run-first" or "West Coast offense" to label teams.  I think what Pep is trying to say with his "score-first" and "No Coast offense" is that the Colts aren't going to stubbornly stick to a script.  So we won't run the ball when we are losing just to say we are a run-first team, we will do what we must to win (ie. score, be it by runs or passes).  The goal of the offense is to score points, so that's all he's focused on; he won't run the ball just to say we're run-first.  Now, to say that the Colts aren't going to stubbornly stick to a script is a little ironic given what happened last year, but that's another story.

IT would be a pleasant change to be a score first team and to be a score first and often team then hit them with the hammers

[shakedownstreet]

so we want to score first & often. defensively we want to stop the other team from scoring at all. brilliant!!!

[Legend of Luck]

so we want to score first & often. defensively we want to stop the other team from scoring at all. brilliant!!!

lol, I see why it comes across as elementary.

 

But I think the message is to just be more aggressive and throw some haymakers from the start instead of waiting till we HAVE to.

[Coffeedrinker]

That explains whey they fell so far behind in so many games last year.  They didn't know they were supposed to score first.  

 

Pagano must have been talking to Pep about a past game and Pagano said, "It was one of those games where you knew who ever had the ball last would score and win the game." 

 

Pep must have misunderstood and played all those games to score last.  I'm glad THAT got cleared up during the offseason.

[Coffeedrinker]

So, I know we have all been wondering what "Score First" actually means. Well this article on Colts.com clears a lot of that up.

 

The article reflects on our post-season turnover issues. We were +13 in turnover differential during the regular season, (which I believe was #1 in the league. Could be wrong.) but committed 8 in just 2 playoff games.

 

Pep basically says that they spent a lot of time watching the footage from the first half of the Chiefs game and the entire Patriots game, because he wanted to see why we got into such big holes.

 

His opinion is that our sudden jump in turnovers had a lot to do with our situation in those games, being down by quite a bit. He thinks that being behind in the game made the team play a little more dangerously to try to erase those deficits.

 

So, what I personally think the "Score First" means is just that, score first. To break it down, I think that they will be very aggressive and focus more on passing until they have a lead, then turn more toward the run game once a lead is established, versus last season, where we tried very hard to force the run to start games, dug ourselves a hole, and had to rely on Andrew to dig us out.

 

Thoughts?

There is a bit of circular logic in Pep's thinking.  In the two playoff games the Colts were down (sometimes down big) BECAUSE of the turnovers.  So to turn around and say that the turnovers were because they were down big is not 100% accurate.  In the Pats game his first INT was when the score was 0-0, his second the score was 12-21 and his third the score was 22-36 early in the 4th quarter.  That is not down big, IMO.  IN the Chiefs game the Colts were down by 21, 21 (a big hole) and 14 (while they were staging the comeback).

 

So, like I said, circular logic.

[That Guy]

Can we just employ a "score most" offense? It seems simpler in theory.

[Coffeedrinker]

so we want to score first & often. defensively we want to stop the other team from scoring at all. brilliant!!!

I just hope the rest of the NFL don't try that same philosophy, could make things difficult.

[Warhorse]

Well, no matter what you score, you are never guaranteed a win....however.......

 

If you never allow a score....you can never lose.

[Coffeedrinker]

Well, no matter what you score, you are never guaranteed a win....however.......

 

If you never allow a score....you can never lose.

Groooooooooooooovy, man.

 

But I don't know, I don't like that whole playing not to lose thing... I'd rather play to win!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;)

[AntonMcG]

It comes across as backwards to me, especially for the Chiefs game.  From what I recall, the Chiefs scored first, then the Colts scored with ease.  Then the turnovers started.  From what I saw, it wasn't being down a lot that led to turnovers, it was turnovers resulting in us being down a lot. 

 

Also, I think you're reading into it too much.  Analysts like to throw around terms like "run-first" or "West Coast offense" to label teams.  I think what Pep is trying to say with his "score-first" and "No Coast offense" is that the Colts aren't going to stubbornly stick to a script.  So we won't run the ball when we are losing just to say we are a run-first team, we will do what we must to win (ie. score, be it by runs or passes).  The goal of the offense is to score points, so that's all he's focused on; he won't run the ball just to say we're run-first.  Now, to say that the Colts aren't going to stubbornly stick to a script is a little ironic given what happened last year, but that's another story.

 

Exactly.

[Smonroe]

I'd be more for a "Score the Most" offense.

[Defjamz26]

Not sure why he's looking just at the post season and turnovers. We had the hole issue during the regular season. I remember a lot of people around the web would joke and say that whenever the Colts play someone, we automatically spot them 14 points. We were always playing catch up with teams, hence the high number of comeback wins. More often than not we went into half time being down by at least 2 scores.

 

I hope what Pep means is that he wants to put more points on the board each quarter so that we aren't always playing from so far behind. That's what I understand "score first" to mean. Score as quick and often as possible so we either have the lead or are only down by a field goal. The rest is on the defense.

[lollygagger8]

How bout we keep it this simple: 

 

Less FG's, more TD's. 

 

 

 

Sorry Vinateri! 

[ProblChld32]

Concept seems so Vanilla it just might work 

[Superman]

I would suggest watching the video if you want to get a better sense of Hamilton's comments. The editorializing between the article and the OP are framing his comments in a way that's a little more specific than I think he meant them to be.

[Jason_]

So, I know we have all been wondering what "Score First" actually means. 

 

 

 

Really?  I pretty much took it to mean they want to do what it takes to be the first team to score. ;)

[Legend of Luck]

I would suggest watching the video if you want to get a better sense of Hamilton's comments. The editorializing between the article and the OP are framing his comments in a way that's a little more specific than I think he meant them to be.

Just from his comments, on paper, the way he specifically mentioned being behind and having to catch up, I felt that that could be inferred.

[throwing BBZ]

There is a bit of circular logic in Pep's thinking.  In the two playoff games the Colts were down (sometimes down big) BECAUSE of the turnovers.  So to turn around and say that the turnovers were because they were down big is not 100% accurate.  In the Pats game his first INT was when the score was 0-0, his second the score was 12-21 and his third the score was 22-36 early in the 4th quarter.  That is not down big, IMO.  IN the Chiefs game the Colts were down by 21, 21 (a big hole) and 14 (while they were staging the comeback).

 

So, like I said, circular logic.

 

 Almost as if he is answering to message board complaints. Ugh!

 Good teams can run the ball Inside PERIOD! It sets up the whole of the Offense package.

 You just Can`t be predictable.

  Our GM STANK it up with ___, ___, & Link on the roster.

 Onward & Upward. Pep will do fine, but Andrew has to improve as a decision maker and be more accurate to begin with.

[Superman]

Just from his comments, on paper, the way he specifically mentioned being behind and having to catch up, I felt that that could be inferred.

 

I understand how you get there, and those comments are obviously open to interpretation. It's just that I watched the video first, and that's not what I got from it. The article draws some conclusions that I personally didn't, and then your OP draws conclusions based on the article. Those conclusions might be correct, but that's not how I took his comments.

 

When he made his comment about the Chiefs game, he was answering a question about whether the team has spent more time watching the film of the first half when they fell behind, or the second half when they came back. He said they're more concerned with the first half, since they'd rather not fall behind like that. Those comments were an extension of the previous question and comment, about why they committed so many turnovers in the playoffs after taking such good care of the ball through the regular season. And I thought his answer to that was purposely diplomatic. He seemed like he didn't want to call Luck out for making bad decisions with the ball. (That's my opinion, anyways.) The article kind of ties all those things together, but like I said, I didn't think he was talking about the offensive philosophy moving forward. 

[jvan1973]

Almost as if he is answering to message board complaints. Ugh!

Good teams can run the ball Inside PERIOD! It sets up the whole of the Offense package.

You just Can`t be predictable.

Our GM STANK it up with ___, ___, & Link on the roster.

Onward & Upward. Pep will do fine, but Andrew has to improve as a decision maker and be more accurate to begin with.

there were a few playoff teams with poor rushing attacks. So no, not all good teams can run up the middle

[CoachLite]

Every team has a natural "fit" that gives them an advantage against their opponent. That fit isn't the same for every opponent, however. It is the coach's job to find, understand and exploit that fit - generally using modifications to plays in the playbook. It's not just Xs and Os, but player's skill, talent and interaction with teammates.  Rather than "run first", or "score first", it should be "exploit the opponent".

 

Once an opponent realizes they can be exploited, and they don't have an answer ... You win.  Winning is more than just scoring more points - it's an attitude.  PS, Colt5 I hope you realize that pic is Albert Bentley,