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 thought that way last week then thought about the trade deadline and new year and I don't think it is possible.
    • I think Frank and the OC knew his strengths and weaknesses and didn't put in too many plays that they knew Rivers would have a hard time executing.  They did let him take a deep(ish) shot sometimes.  I'm not sure they were overly conservative at all.
    • Great sumary, 100% accurate.
    • Rodgers only has himself to blame for not running that ball in on 3rd down. He had a clear lane to the EZ.   The decision to go for it should have been mostly irrelevant because 4th down wouldn’t have happened if he did run. And if he doesn’t get there...it’s going to be 4th and short...which makes the case for going for it even stronger.   Rodgers is a great QB...but he made a critical mistake.
    • You seem bitter after a tough loss.   New Orleans is likely to lose Brees (if not a retirement in the coming weeks, likely after next year).  That leaves Tampa Bay, a team you guys could have very well beaten yesterday (dominated time of possession, won the turnover battle, etc... that TD at the end of the half and a few other plays really changed that game, though if you looked at that stat sheet aside from the score, you'd probably have thought GB won).  The rest of the NFC South isn't too big of a threat in the next couple years.  The NFC East is a dumpster fire.  The NFC North is a division you should win for a few more years if Rodgers is your QB.  The NFC West seems like the toughest overall division in the NFC, but they underperformed this year - the Seahawks seem to be on the decline, I don't think Goff is good enough to get the Rams over the hump on an annual basis, not really sure what to think of the 9ers and the Cardinals have a good young coach and QB.    No reason why Rodgers can't at least get back into the SB in the coming years in GB.  The other top QBs in that conference (Brees and Brady) are on the wrong side of 40.  Wilson, Murray and a couple other QBs seem to be a level below those two and Rodgers.  Matt Ryan's getting old, Dak Prescott's coming off a bad injury, and after those 2 I see a pretty big decline in NFC QBs (especially if Stafford leaves the conference).     The AFC on the other hand had 4 QBs who were 26 or younger in the divisional round.  It looks like the Chiefs and Bills with Mahomes and Allen are going to be very tough for a long time coming.  Herbert looks to be the real deal with the Chargers as does Burrow with Bengals, the Ravens and Titans have ridiculous running games and solid Ds and likely will be threats for years to come.  Really, aside from having a hard time believing a few teams (i.e., NYJ, HOU, DEN) will be any good in the foreseeable future (I'd throw Jax in there, but who knows if they get Trevor).  Otherwise, I can see perennial powerhouse PITT declining as Roethlisberger ages/retires.     Overall, I think Rodgers has a much better shot of getting to the SB if he stayed in Green Bay than if he came to the AFC.  The AFC, at least for the next few years, seems like a much stronger conference than the NFC overall and has multiple up-and-coming QBs, whereas several of the top dogs in the NFC have QBs who will likely be retiring before A-Rod does, and definitely before A-Rod is 'washed up'.
  • Members

    • coltsfanej

      coltsfanej 277

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • lincolndefan

      lincolndefan 67

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • buccolts

      buccolts 2,405

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Moe

      Moe 27

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • bluebombers87

      bluebombers87 576

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Gramz

      Gramz 2,168

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Shepman

      Shepman 131

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Hark

      Hark 336

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Coltsfan1953

      Coltsfan1953 108

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • jal8908

      jal8908 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...