About What The Super Bowl Teams Do Differently Than The Colts

[Track Guy]

I'll start off by explaining that watching Seattle's offense gave me ideas about some of the changes I want our offense to make and watching the Patriots offense gave me more ideas about some of the changes I want our defense to make. After all, if we're going to go to the Super Bowl, we'll likely have to beat New England along the way. So being able to defend their offense is important. Anyways here were my observations:

 

Seattle's offense:

• The running game opened up the pass for them. Without a single completion until about 24 min in the game, Wilson went on to average nearly 12 yards to each pass attempt. A good running game - even in this pass happy era of the NFL - makes a big difference.
• The threat of an athletic QB like Wilson running can force the opposition to use their linebackers in ways they otherwise wouldn't. 

New England's offense:

• Short passes are the key for these guys. Brady is excellent at finding the open man. He gets the ball out quick, and their receivers create separation quickly. They aren't elite "#1" receivers - but they are quick guys who run good routes to get the ball in space and create some YAC. Brady isn't an elite downfield thrower and the Patriots don't have a great O-line. The Patriots understand this, and play to what their personnel does best, and it works really well. 
• They like to utilize their backs with passes and inside runs. They'll usually run it between the tackles with Blount and they'll usually hit Vereen on a screen, a flat route, or short over the middle. They don't run too many outside handoffs.

The main things I draw from this is that our offense, much like the Patriots should play to it's strengths. What we have is a QB who is athletic and can make all of the throws. Tight end is a relative strength, and our receivers are able to make plays downfield. To enhance the strengths of our offense, we really need to bolster the running game like Seattle. I believe the best way to do that is to improve our offensive line, but bringing in another running back would help too. I also think Luck should run just a little bit more. He should still be careful about it, but I think if he ran it just a bit more often we'd be better off as an offense for it. 

 

Then on defense - we have to be able to defend short passes and inside runs. After the AFCG, the defending the run part was already super obvious. But even if we can defend the run - and I think upgrades to the defensive line and/or inside linebackers can help a lot with that - we still have to make sure we've got the manpower to not let shiftier receivers get so much space before the catch and YAC. Sound tackling and good cover skills are must haves for any new acquisitions to our linebacking or secondary units. 

[Mr.Debonair]

Josh McDaniels is a very good OC. Sucks as head coach but very creative OC. Adjusts in-game well too.

[Synthetic]

Well both the teams you named actually have something called a run game, which the Colts do not have whatsoever. 

[Superman]

I don't think there's any need to emulate the style or approach of other teams, especially on offense. Our offense is missing one thing, and that's a good offensive line that can make the run game work. A more effective chain mover at WR would be nice, and a scatback would be a luxury, but our offense was productive enough. We just have to get better on the ground.

[jvan1973]

Well both the teams you named actually have something called a run game, which the Colts do not have whatsoever.

Please explain to us what a run game is Saints fan

[Track Guy]

I don't think there's any need to emulate the style or approach of other teams, especially on offense. Our offense is missing one thing, and that's a good offensive line that can make the run game work. A more effective chain mover at WR would be nice, and a scatback would be a luxury, but our offense was productive enough. We just have to get better on the ground.

 

Oh I agree for sure on offense. My main takeaway wasn't that we have to emulate Seattle, but that Seattle demonstrated clearly to me, just how much the run will open up the passing game and make us more efficient. They play with mostly un-drafted WRs and don't rack up big numbers through the air, but their efficiency passing is great because of their running attack. I think we have a better offense than they do, at least far superior personnel in the passing game. I don't want to see us without a completion for 24 minutes. It's mostly the defense that I think we have to consider specifically tailoring to the teams that are successful. And that may be the wrong approach too, which if so luckily I'm not Ryan Grigson, but I just see that Brady & Belichick aren't going anywhere and Seattle with their mighty defense got 4 tds dropped on them. 

[Superman]

Oh I agree for sure on offense. My main takeaway wasn't that we have to emulate Seattle, but that Seattle demonstrated clearly to me, just how much the run will open up the passing game and make us more efficient. They play with mostly un-drafted WRs and don't rack up big numbers through the air, but their efficiency passing is great because of their running attack. I think we have a better offense than they do, at least far superior personnel in the passing game. I don't want to see us without a completion for 24 minutes. It's mostly the defense that I think we have to consider specifically tailoring to the teams that are successful. And that may be the wrong approach too, which if so luckily I'm not Ryan Grigson, but I just see that Brady & Belichick aren't going anywhere and Seattle with their mighty defense got 4 tds dropped on them. 

 

I get it.

 

I will say that Seattle's defense was banged up, and for whatever reason, their pass rush wasn't getting home. Avril missed the second half. Only 13 pressures on 51 dropbacks. I've thought that their defense can be had, but you have to give the QB a little bit of time, and then the underneath stuff opens up (which is what always happens against mostly zone defenses). 

 

Our defense needs to cover the middle better, and rush the passer better. Everyone's worked up about stopping the run, but I think our issues against the Pats' run game are more about coaching and execution than they are about scheme or personnel. 

[21isSuperman]

I don't think there's any need to emulate the style or approach of other teams, especially on offense. Our offense is missing one thing, and that's a good offensive line that can make the run game work. A more effective chain mover at WR would be nice, and a scatback would be a luxury, but our offense was productive enough. We just have to get better on the ground.

One thing I've noticed between the two Super Bowl teams is that they invest mostly in places the QB can't affect.  So they'll sign big name free agents on defense and use high draft picks on their defense or OL.  When it comes to their receivers and TEs, they're mostly an average group.  Obviously, Gronk is the best TE in the game.  But LaFell, Edelman, Baldwin, and Kearse are all average-to-good players.  I wouldn't consider any of them to be top 20 receivers.  They seem to rely on their QB to make decent WRs look better than they are.  I think that's something the Colts should start to emulate.  Let your stud QB elevate the guys around him and invest more in places where your QB can't elevate guys, like the defense.

[Superman]

One thing I've noticed between the two Super Bowl teams is that they invest mostly in places the QB can't affect.  So they'll sign big name free agents on defense and use high draft picks on their defense or OL.  When it comes to their receivers and TEs, they're mostly an average group.  Obviously, Gronk is the best TE in the game.  But LaFell, Edelman, Baldwin, and Kearse are all average-to-good players.  I wouldn't consider any of them to be top 20 receivers.  They seem to rely on their QB to make decent WRs look better than they are.  I think that's something the Colts should start to emulate.  Let your stud QB elevate the guys around him and invest more in places where your QB can't elevate guys, like the defense.

 

I would say that they've done a better job of identifying and acquiring talent in those areas that the QB can't make up for. They both obviously have better defensive playmakers. The Pats have a better offensive line, the Seahawks offensive line is patchy but they run block much better than ours does...

 

But both teams have spent considerable resources on receiving talent, with varying degrees of success. The Seahawks obviously gave up a fortune for Percy Harvin, and he bombed out. They've drafted receivers and running backs in the 2nd and 4th rounds, guys like Richardson, Norwood, Michael, etc. They just haven't gotten a lot of production out of them.

 

The Pats have avoided drafting receivers early, almost as a rule, but they have spent money on them. And Gronk was a 2nd rounder. Also, Brady isn't a downfield passer, with the exception of one season in his career, really, so they'd be wasting resources grabbing receivers who threaten down the field. 

 

The problem with our roster on defense is that Grigson just hasn't drafted a lot of defensive players period. Fifteen out of 22 draft picks are offensive, and of the 7 defensive guys, only one came in the first four rounds (and he's looking like a disappointment at the moment). He had to patch some holes with free agents and lower tier guys, who aren't going to be big time playmakers, generally speaking, unless you throw around BIG money, and that fails more often than it works.

 

The truth is that it's been a relatively short period of time for this regime (we're still two years behind the Seahawks), and they've only had a finite amount of resources. Blowing consecutive firsts doesn't help, either.

[Cribbsfaircatch]

The biggest difference is competition amongst themselves. Reggie Wayne is not a starter on either team. Trent Richardson is not getting carries on either team. Laron Landry would've stayed on the bemch or been a situational player. Coaching and how the organizations are run is the biggest difference.

[Smonroe]

The biggest difference is competition amongst themselves. Reggie Wayne is not a starter on either team. Trent Richardson is not getting carries on either team. Laron Landry would've stayed on the bemch or been a situational player. Coaching and how the organizations are run is the biggest difference.

 

Neither team have great WRs, IMHO ours are better. Agree about Reggie though.  I'll even say their lines aren't that much better, man by man.  They have better schemes and get more out of their guys than we do.  (Our line did do a very good job pass protecting in the last three games).

 

Also agree about the coaching.  It's very obvious that those teams know how to make adjustments.  And how to game plan against the weaknesses of other teams. 

[Cribbsfaircatch]

Neither team have great WRs, IMHO ours are better. Agree about Reggie though. I'll even say their lines aren't that much better, man by man. They have better schemes and get more out of their guys than we do. (Our line did do a very good job pass protecting in the last three games).

Also agree about the coaching. It's very obvious that those teams know how to make adjustments. And how to game plan against the weaknesses of other teams.

I mentioned those players because I feel that Pagano has a relationship w/ Reggie and refused to make him 2nd string because of it. It got to the point where Luck wasn't even lookin in Reggie's direction because he couldn't get separation.

Landry started because of his contract, not his abilities. Same for Trent Richardson. Carroll and Belichick are not playing inferior players. The best people will play on their teams. Can't say that for Chuck and co. Also seems like Grigson has a say in who plays in gms, thats not happening w/ Carroll or Belichick.

[Valpo2004]

I noticed both teams didn't have a great deal invested in WR's. 

[BullsColtsFan1]

Balance on offense and a strong defense

[The Fish]

I noticed both teams didn't have a great deal invested in WR's. 

 

 

This is a very good point. No high picks, no big money on either squad. The best of the two groups was a UDFA, Edelman. 

[Valpo2004]

This is a very good point. No high picks, no big money on either squad. The best of the two groups was a UDFA, Edelman. 

 

Edelman was a 7th round pick actually . . . but close enough.

 

Seattle didn't have a single WR on their roster that was drafted by any team.

 

Lafell was a 3rd round pick by the Panthers but the Pats where paying him only 3M a season.  

 

To me this sort of thing sort of shows that we certainly don't want to invest in a big money Free agent WR like DT or Dez.

[lollygagger8]

A running game opens up the pass for every team in the NFL not just the Seabirds or the NE Cheaters. Luck is excellent off of play action. We need that run game to produce.... bad. 

 

Brady set a SB record with dink and dunk passes....which Luck could take some notes on.

We did very well throwing to RB's out of the backfield in the playoffs when we finally started doing it.

 

Also, exploiting mismatches is what it's all about. When Revis went out for a couple of plays against us in the AFC Championship game, we didn't even test his replacement. But as soon as there's a replacement CB in for the Seabirds, Brady goes right after him and ends up throwing a TD. 

 

I also wish Pep would integrate a lot more slants in his offense. 

[mintor]

I'll start off by explaining that watching Seattle's offense gave me ideas about some of the changes I want our offense to make and watching the Patriots offense gave me more ideas about some of the changes I want our defense to make. After all, if we're going to go to the Super Bowl, we'll likely have to beat New England along the way. So being able to defend their offense is important. Anyways here were my observations:

 

Seattle's offense:

• The running game opened up the pass for them. Without a single completion until about 24 min in the game, Wilson went on to average nearly 12 yards to each pass attempt. A good running game - even in this pass happy era of the NFL - makes a big difference.
• The threat of an athletic QB like Wilson running can force the opposition to use their linebackers in ways they otherwise wouldn't. 

New England's offense:

• Short passes are the key for these guys. Brady is excellent at finding the open man. He gets the ball out quick, and their receivers create separation quickly. They aren't elite "#1" receivers - but they are quick guys who run good routes to get the ball in space and create some YAC. Brady isn't an elite downfield thrower and the Patriots don't have a great O-line. The Patriots understand this, and play to what their personnel does best, and it works really well. 
• They like to utilize their backs with passes and inside runs. They'll usually run it between the tackles with Blount and they'll usually hit Vereen on a screen, a flat route, or short over the middle. They don't run too many outside handoffs.

The main things I draw from this is that our offense, much like the Patriots should play to it's strengths. What we have is a QB who is athletic and can make all of the throws. Tight end is a relative strength, and our receivers are able to make plays downfield. To enhance the strengths of our offense, we really need to bolster the running game like Seattle. I believe the best way to do that is to improve our offensive line, but bringing in another running back would help too. I also think Luck should run just a little bit more. He should still be careful about it, but I think if he ran it just a bit more often we'd be better off as an offense for it. 

 

Then on defense - we have to be able to defend short passes and inside runs. After the AFCG, the defending the run part was already super obvious. But even if we can defend the run - and I think upgrades to the defensive line and/or inside linebackers can help a lot with that - we still have to make sure we've got the manpower to not let shiftier receivers get so much space before the catch and YAC. Sound tackling and good cover skills are must haves for any new acquisitions to our linebacking or secondary units. 

 

 

big diff was defense, easy no brainier , other was Reggie should not of  play he was  hurt witch cause ty hilton  to suck , moncreif and nicks.   ty. was double team all night  , because of Reggie .  moncreif  had good cb on him  all 3 wr's got shut down and we lost on offense.  all new england had to do stop the run and stop luck they did .