Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Some graphing on our passing offense (nothing we didn't know) that I found interesting


Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, Dogg63 said:

I agree, but to be fair, the Pats' only healthy receivers on the 53 right now are Damiere Byrd, Gunner Olszewski, and Jakobi Meyers.

Yes.....but he is last. WR or no, the discourse by some around here is that he was a better option than Rivers. Do you think Rivers would be last if he were on the Patriots?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Four2itus said:

Yes.....but he is last. WR or no, the discourse by some around here is that he was a better option than Rivers. Do you think Rivers would be last if he were on the Patriots?

You can’t even read the chart LOL it’s breaking down the rate of teams passing the ball versus what would normally be expected, not a measure of their efficiency doing so. Makes sense the Pats are last, they’ve played without their starter and their WR’s are pretty banged up. It’s more or less just breaking down what teams can be classified as run first vs pass first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Grigson's Gaffes said:

You can’t even read the chart LOL it’s breaking down the rate of teams passing the ball versus what would normally be expected, not a measure of their efficiency doing so.

I know exactly what is says, and it still reflects on Cam's ability to create a passing game. If you can't see that, too bad. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

I know exactly what is says, and it still reflects on Cam's ability to create a passing game. If you can't see that, too bad. 


If you know what it says and that’s your interpretation, I wouldn’t be saying “too bad” to anyone. The Colts are below the league expected average as well, are you going to say that reflects on Rivers or is that a product of Reichs play calling? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Grigson's Gaffes said:


If you know what it says and that’s your interpretation, I wouldn’t be saying “too bad” to anyone. The Colts are below the league expected average as well, are you going to say that reflects on Rivers or is that a product of Reichs play calling? 

One is just below, one is last....by a large margin. I said "too bad", because you pointed out what I posted, and incorrectly said I didn't know how to read the chart, and added LOL...laughing out loud. 

 

I'm done with this interaction. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Bottom 5 in attempts will do that to you..

Wow, what a surprise!   Another dishonest post by you!   Shocking!

 

We’re bottom 5 only because we’ve had our bye week.   We average 33 pass attempts per game.   So give us 33 more for the bye week and we’d be right in the middle of the pack.  
 

You complained week one for passing too much.  Now you’re complaining we’re passing too little.   But the stats that you swear by prove you wrong.  Whoops!

This is yet another example of how you use stats to complain.   And it’s completely dishonest!   Again, par the course for you!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Wow, what a surprise!   Another dishonest post by you!   Shocking!

 

We’re bottom 5 only because we’ve had our bye week.   We average 33 pass attempts per game.   So give us 33 more for the bye week and we’d be right in the middle of the pack.  
 

You complained week one for passing too much.  Now you’re complaining we’re passing too little.   But the stats that you swear by price you wrong.  Whoops!

This is yet another example of how you use stats to complain.   And it’s completely dishonest!   Again, par the course for you!

 

We're 23rd in pass attempts per game right now (so now bottom 10 average), and that's not middle of the pack....., and we were lower before our last outing with 44 attempts which drove the average up. Prior to last game, we were 30.8 which would rank 28th (bottom 5).

 

So sorry, was quoting that stat I remembered, which was an AVG from before our last game. lol

 

I will complain when we throw too much vs bad run Ds like Jax, which was a bad game plan. And I'll complain if we run too much against a poor passing D. 

 

I know, crazy right. Trying to pass against a bad pass D. Or run vs a bad run D.... Who would have thought! 

 

You're like an old lady looking for crack to say, you're wrong!... Well, calling us middle of the pack is wrong, and you just did that... Whooooops!

 

Bottom 5, bottom 10, still bad. It's not close to dishonest. Calm down with the old lady outrage act.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

We're 23rd in pass attempts per game right now (so now bottom 10 average), and that's not middle of the pack....., and we were lower before our last outing with 44 attempts which drove the average up. Prior to last game, we were 30.8 which would rank 28th (bottom 5).

 

So sorry, was quoting that stat I remembered, which was an AVG from before our last game. lol

 

I will complain when we throw too much vs bad run Ds like Jax, which was a bad game plan. And I'll complain if we run too much against a poor passing D. 

 

I know, crazy right. Trying to pass against a bad pass D. Or run vs a bad run D.... Who would have thought! 

 

You're like an old lady looking for crack to say, you're wrong!... Well, calling us middle of the pack is wrong, and you just did that... Whooooops!

 

Bottom 5, bottom 10, still bad. It's not close to dishonest. Calm down with the old lady outrage act.

 

 

 

Yeah....   No.

 

You started this by stating we're bottom 5 in pass attempts.    WRONG!     Your facts are incorrect.

 

Now you change the argument that by saying by pass attempts per game we're 23rd.    So,  it's not as bad as you first claimed.    Thanks for doing the homework for me!     I always appreciate when you prove you wrong!

 

Give us 33 more pass attempts for the bye week and we'd be right in the middle of the pack.  15th.

 

And throwing 33 pass attempts is fine.   Only someone who doesn't know football and lives to prove arguments by using only stats would make such an argument.    Thanks for proving how little you know about football.   As if there's something wrong with throwing 33 times a game..   smh!  LOL!     Did you happen to check the record of the teams who have thrown more?    I'll bet you didn't.    Do you think some of those teams wish they had thrown less and won more?

 

Did you happen to notice why we didn't run more against J'Ville?   The predictions week one is that the Colts might run for 150-200 yards that week.   Certainly easily over 100.     We ran for 86.    So, we were having great success passing and little success running.   So, we passed.    Again, the difference between knowing football and loving stats.    Thanks AGAIN for proving my points.    All of them.

 

Don't look now,  but this "Old Lady" is crushing you and your lame arguments.   And proving how dishonest you are.

 

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

 

Quote

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Yeah....   No.

 

You started this by stating we're bottom 5 in pass attempts.    WRONG!     Your facts are incorrect.

 

Now you change the argument that by saying by pass attempts per game we're 23rd.    So,  it's not as bad as you first claimed.    Thanks for doing the homework for me!     I always appreciate when you prove you wrong!

 

Give us 33 more pass attempts for the bye week and we'd be right in the middle of the pack.  15th.

 

And throwing 33 pass attempts is fine.   Only someone who doesn't know football and lives to prove arguments by using only stats would make such an argument.    Thanks for proving how little you know about football.   As if there's something wrong with throwing 33 times a game..   smh!  LOL!     Did you happen to check the record of the teams who have thrown more?    I'll bet you didn't.    Do you think some of those teams wish they had thrown less and won more?

You've lost it..

 

Do you understand what an average is?

We are 23rd in AVERAGE PER GAME.... 

We're not middle of the pack. We're bottom 10.

 

We were bottom 5 in AVERAGE before we played Cinci and had to go pass happy to win.

21 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Did you happen to notice why we didn't run more against J'Ville?   The predictions week one is that the Colts might run for 150-200 yards that week.   Certainly easily over 100.     We ran for 86.    So, we were having great success passing and little success running.   So, we passed.    Again, the difference between knowing football and loving stats.    Thanks AGAIN for proving my points.    All of them.

 

Don't look now,  but this "Old Lady" is crushing you and your lame arguments.   And proving how dishonest you are.

Again, you've lost it. Do you not understand a typical game plan tries to exploit an opponent's weakness. Jax was bottom 5 vs the run last year, did nothing to improve, and are bad again this year. Instead of trying to exploit that (like most sane coaches would), we went pass happy with a QB new to the org, without a preseason....

 

Tell yourself whatever you want. You look silly arguing this.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, EastStreet said:

You've lost it..

 

Do you understand what an average is?

We are 23rd in AVERAGE PER GAME.... 

We're not middle of the pack. We're bottom 10.

 

We were bottom 5 in AVERAGE before we played Cinci and had to go pass happy to win.

Again, you've lost it. Do you not understand a typical game plan tries to exploit an opponent's weakness. Jax was bottom 5 vs the run last year, did nothing to improve, and are bad again this year. Instead of trying to exploit that (like most sane coaches would), we went pass happy with a QB new to the org, without a preseason....

 

Tell yourself whatever you want. You look silly arguing this.

 

The person who lost it is you.   You posted,  IN THIS THREAD,  that we were bottom-5.   Turns out,  we're not.   We're bottom 10.

 

And, as I noted,  only you would complain about throwing 33 times a game.   

 

Once again,  you demonstrate how little you know about football.    You try to twist facts to make your point.   Your incorrect point.   Funny how you again use the J'Ville game when you think it helps you make a point.   Because the previous day you told me NOT to use because it was "irrelevant".   Your word,  not mine.   So, it's irrelevent when I make a point with it,  but it's perfectly fine when you try to use it.   How classicly YOU!

 

Don't look now,  but I'm running circles around your argument.

 

Now,  not only aren't stats your friend,  but words aren't your friend either.  This just keeps getting worse for you.

 

The more you post about this,  the worse it gets for you.   But, by all means, keep doubling down on a losing hand.  You have a lot of experience doing that.    Carry on!

 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

The person who lost it is you.   You posted,  IN THIS THREAD,  that we were bottom-5.   Turns out,  we're not.   We're bottom 10.

lol. you said we were middle of the pack. we're not. IN THIS THREAD.... ( using your old lady caps).

i used our ranking from before last game.... 

10 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

And, as I noted,  only you would complain about throwing 33 times a game.

If that means we're imbalanced and on the low end of the spectrum, which it does and we are, then yes, I'll point it out.

10 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Once again,  you demonstrate how little you know about football.    You try to twist facts to make your point.   Your incorrect point.   Funny how you again use the J'Ville game when you think it helps you make a point.   Because the previous day you told me NOT to use because it was "irrelevant".   Your word,  not mine.   So, it's irrelevent when I make a point with it,  but it's perfectly fine when you try to use it.   How classicly YOU!

 

Don't look now,  but I'm running circles around your argument.

 

Now,  not only aren't stats your friend,  but words aren't your friend either.  This just keeps getting worse for you.

 

The more you post about this,  the worse it gets for you.   But, by all means, keep doubling down on a losing hand.  You have a lot of experience doing that.    Carry on!

 

running circles... lol... it's funny how you hype your own posts...

and i'm not the guy that doesn't know the concept of what an average is.... 

 

anyway, like I've said, we're waiting for a meaningful contribution from you. or any glimmer of actual football knowledge. please carry on with your outrage-adjectives and anecdotal pontification. keep high fiving yourself while you run circles... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2020 at 2:34 PM, Four2itus said:
On 10/30/2020 at 1:45 PM, Grigson's Gaffes said:

 

I know exactly what is says, and it still reflects on Cam's ability to create a passing game. If you can't see that, too bad. 


No offense but the graph isn’t about pass completions. It’s about attempts. Are they passing or running more? 
 

All this graph shows is the play calling.  That NE is calling fewer passing plays. 
 

You could try to argue that they are calling less passes because of their faith level in their QB but I think that would be a very faulty argument considering that NE has not had much to throw to at WR. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Air2theThrown said:

You could try to argue that they are calling less passes because of their faith level in their QB but I think that would be a very faulty argument considering that NE has not had much to throw to at WR. 

If Cam Newton was good at being QB, he would use the weapons available in a manner that would allow one of the best coaches in the history of the game, to create a passing offense to be somewhere better than last place in that chart. That is far from being a faulty argument. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Four2itus said:

If Cam Newton was good at being QB, he would use the weapons available in a manner that would allow one of the best coaches in the history of the game, to create a passing offense to be somewhere better than last place in that chart. That is far from being a faulty argument. 


You still don’t understand the chart, which is amazing to me, because you’ve had multiple people try to explain it to you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I see many of the draft "experts" talk about what the Colts will do in the draft.   The QB position, even with all the improved scouting techniques is a highly flawed .   If you look at history some interesting facts come out. Drafting a QB in the first round is a high risk endeavor    In the past 9 Years 20 QBs have been drafted in the first round.  I wanted to come up with some metrics to see the % that have worked out with the team that they drafted them   I am "measuring" the results with the simple question,   Would the NFL team make the same draft decision, at their position in that years draft, in hindsight - Its a YES/NO decision   For the ones that are still TBD (last few years) I counted these as YES. The selection of Goff as a "NO" is not that he is a horrible QB, but a simple question.... If you could do the pick again would you take Goff at number 1 overall.....  my guess is the Rams would have gone another way   2012 Draft Round 1 1st Andrew Luck - YES 2nd Robert Griffin - NO 8th Ryan Tannehil - NO 22nd Brandon Wheedon - NO   2013 Draft Round 1 16th EJ Manuel - NO   2014 Draft Round 1 3rd Pick Blake Bortles - NO 22nd Johnny Manziel - NO   2015 Draft Round 1 1st - Jameis Winston - NO 2nd Marcus Marriota  - NO   2016 Draft Round 1 1st Jared Goff - NO 2nd Carson Wentz - YES 22nd Paxton Lynch - NO   2017 Draft Round 1 2nd Mitch Trubiski - NO 10th Pat Mahomes - YES 12th Deshaun Watsun - YES   2018 Draft Round 1 1st Baker Mayfield - YES 3rd Sam Darnold - NO 7th Josh Allen - YES 10th Josh Rosen - NO 32nd Lamar Jackson - YES   With this data, drafting a QB in the first round is a 30% hit rate   The folks that want to give up 2 or 3 first round picks to move up to get Fields or Wilson may want to think deeper on this   From my perspective, and looking at the analytics it would appear that drafting the best BPA OL, DL , CB, or even WR,  available at 21 is the safest approach   And going with an extremely low risk/ low cost FA (Winston) or if the deal is decent, offering a trade to get Matthew Stafford. (Stafford route is my first choice), but I wouldnt want to  get fleeced   If the right LT isnt there at 21, there are a few FA OTs that we could pick up       Let me know your thoughts...........      
    • I know right? Word outa GB is that Love has not fared well to this point in any facet and doesn't look all that but yet some want the Colts to trade for him... Ha!! 
    • Brady had to finally go to the NFC to play Brees and Rodgers in the post-season as neither one made it to any of his 9 SBs.
    • Without getting over the top, yes, it would work and it'd probably work pretty well.. like SB contender well.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...