Four Things I Learned From the Super Bowl
Things I learned from the Super Bowl:
1) You’ll Only Go as Far as Your QB Will Take You: As Steelers fans we’re accustomed to pounding the rock. That is, playing physical run first football that will allow us to dictate the type of game (re. physical) that we’re willing to play. This was especially true under Cowher, a man that never saw a game that couldn’t be made better with a couple of more 3 yard carries up the middle.
However, we quickly forget that Cowher never won anything (i.e. Super Bowl) until he finally had a QB. We also forget that despite a truly great D and really good running game, the last two Super Bowl’s the 70’s Steelers won featured great passing attacks with TWO hall of fame WR’s and a hall of fame QB. The lesson here? That it’s next to impossible to win consistently, and against elite teams especially, without a franchise QB and a (at least) good passing game.
It’s no longer enough to run the ball well, win the time of possession battle, and play tough as nails defense. Now you must be able to chuck the ball and put up points as well. It’s possible to win a lot of games with a really good D and running game, but it’s unlikely you’ll be able to sustain that success year to year (See the Ravens up and down teams in the last decade) and even more unlikely you’ll be able to win a SB. This is perhaps especially true in our current era of the NFL, which will someday be known as the golden age of the QB. Seriously, people don’t appreciate how many great QB’s are playing now (P. Manning, Brady, Big Ben, Warner, Rivers, Brees, Favre) and how many good and maybe someday great QB’s are up and coming (Rogers, Ryan, E. Manning, and Schaub in particular). If you have a great QB you can win and compete year after year. If you don’t, you better play great D, run the ball effectively, and hope that you can get lucky in some big games (J-E-T-S). And then you better trade your scrubs to Eric Mangini to move up and get your QB.
In other words, it’s no mistake that three of the last four QB’s in the playoffs (Manning, Favre, Brees) might all one day be in Canton.
2) Pass Defense is MORE Important than Run Defense: This is a pass-first league. Shut down the Saints run game (the Colts undersized defensive front did). Make them one dimensional. And then watch Brees go 32-39 for 2 TD’s and no interceptions. Many of the QB’s in the NFL are so good now that it hardly matters if you keep their teams from running the ball effectively. The Colts were the worst running team in the NFL this year, the Chargers the second worst. AND they both went to the playoffs. And one almost won a Super Bowl.
That is, a lot of offenses are designed to be more or less one dimensional now. The goal isn’t to run to set up the pass, but pass short to set up the long pass and supplement the passing game with a few running plays to make 3rd down a bit shorter (and therefore to keep your QB from getting killed.). Take away the run from these teams and they will shrug and kill you with the pass. You must be able to both build a D around covering the pass AND rushing the passer effectively in order to defend these teams.
This is why LB’s like Larry Foote are quickly becoming obsolete (I mean, the Lions are cutting him for crying out loud) - if you can’t cover an RB or TE, then teams will keep throwing to that match up all day. Lighter, slightly smaller, much more athletic LB’s like Timmons are the future.
3) Coaches Willing to Take Chances Will Win More Big Games than They Lose: Tomlin took a lot of flack for calling an onside kick in the GB game earlier this year. Bellichick took a lot of flack for going for it on 4-and-2 against the Colts earlier this year. Sean Payton got praise out the wazoo for starting the second half of the game with an onside kick AND going for it on 4-and-1 at the goal line last night. The thing is, these were all right calls from coaches that have all won Super Bowls. In a hyper competitive league in which ever facet of your game and your opponents game is dissected every week, you’re sometimes going to have to take a chance in order to gain a real competitive advantage. Sometimes the decision is situational - like not trust your D to close out a game against a superb QB like Manning or Rogers.
It is true that sometimes gunslingers get shot and likewise sometimes gamblers lose their shirt, but NFL coaches have been so risk adverse in the past that even statistically sound decisions (like going for it on 4th and short OR using a surprise onside kick - which has a 60% of success by the way) somehow seem foolhardy to them. With so many great teams getting great QB play, however, a coach that’s willing to do something unconventional will win more often than he loses. Manning and Caldwell played it safe last night, Payton and Brees didn’t. The result of the game was due in large part to Payton’s willingness to buck convention and try something unexpected. He’ll have a bright and shiny new ring to show for it in a few months.
Fortune favors the bold my friends. Or, to put it in a slightly different manner, while establishing yourself as an unconventional thinker who sometimes will go for it on 4th and short or onside kick might not always work out in the short term (sometimes your attempts will fail), it will give you the reputation as a risk taker and it will make teams spend time preparing for things that they wouldn’t always prepare for. This will give you a competitive advantage. And more often than not you’re “unconventional” coaching decisions will work out more often than not.
4) The Effectiveness of a Ground Game Should be Measured by Situational Utility, NOT by Overall Numbers: As I’ve said earlier, the most important thing and NFL team can have to ensure continued success is a franchise QB. However, running the ball still has an important place in the game - that is, it allows you to avoid red zone interceptions (we know something about this), to convert short yardage downs, and to supplement a high risk passing game with a low risk change of pace attack. It’s nice to be able to produce gaudy rushing numbers, but it’s much sound and fury signifying nothing if you can’t convert a third and short or kill the clock in the last 4 minutes.
Obviously it didn’t bother the Saints much that they couldn’t run the ball the entire game (and it didn’t help the Colts that they were able to run it effectively), EXCEPT when they couldn’t punch it in at the end of the first half AND when they couldn‘t convert in certain short yardage situations earlier. The passing windows are so small and the defensive packages so complex in the red zone that the ability to run effectively will save you a lot of potential game changing interceptions inside the 20 - just ask Kurt Warner. It is precisely in these types of situations that a good running game comes in handy. You’re not going to win a whole lot of big games on the run alone, but you’re not going to win a whole lot of big games without being able to run when you really need to. On this particular point, the Saints got lucky last night. Their lack of a good situational running game was offset by Payton’s daring call at the beginning of the second half as well as by the Colt’s equal ineptitude to convert a short yardage down.
The play action is an aspect of the passing game most helped by an effective ground attack, although we didn’t see much of it last night. This is for two reasons: 1) The Saints couldn’t run it all night and knew that any play action attempt would get sniffed out pretty quickly, and 2) The Saints played a base nickel defense against the Colts and therefore more or less let the Colts run the ball on them with only three down linemen playing most of the time. Thus the Saints defenders wouldn’t have been suckered in by a play action fake because they were looking pass the whole game. It turned out to be a smart strategy.
The Saints more or less let the Colts run the ball when they wanted to, but the Colts are not a team that’s going to be satisfied running the ball 30 times a game and trying to win a field position battle. And they shouldn’t be, not against the Saints at least. Drew Brees is going to chew up any defense - the only way to beat him is going to be to: 1) Force turnovers/bad throws with pressure, or 2) Force him into turnovers/bad throws by continually being able to score points to keep him continually playing from behind. Without Freeney they simply couldn’t put pressure on Brees, so they had to go the latter route.
But, back to my point, even though Addai put up good numbers (13 runs for 77 yards and a touchdown…that’s a 5.9 average folks) when it came down to converting a third and short near the end of the first half he couldn’t do it. While the Colts put up reasonably good rushing numbers (especially for them) they failed to run when they really needed to and that, in part, cost them the game. Make no mistake, a run first offense wouldn’t have won this game, but neither was an offense that couldn’t run well in key situations. Addai’s stats are nice, but they certainly don’t tell the true story about the Colt’s rushing attack.
29 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Good read
Minor issue first, please change Rogers to Rodgers. The rest is so well formulated, that only that issues seemed to pull away my attention.
Aside from that, I agree with your main point about situational running. Further, if you want to make it an argument about the probability of winning, a passing game with a situational running game would definitely be extremely successful.
However, one of the reasons I thought the onside kick call was brilliant is that it kept Peyton and the Colts offense off the field for even longer. The drive at the end of the first half was constrained by field position, and so basically it had been over an hour, maybe closer to 75 minutes that they had gone without rhythm. Which brings me to my point, to beat QBs like Peyton you obviously need a pass rush, which we have, but you can also keep them off the field and out of rhythm. The latter can be accomplished by a strong D or an excellent running game. I do not see it as cut and dry whether or an excellent passing attack with situational running or an excellent running game with situational passing would definitively be more successful. Sanchez nor Flacco is the QB that Ben is, so when they need to throw more, they fail more often than not.
Looking at it two ways: if our general tendency is to come out and throw first, and then that gets taken away, is it possible to then go back and establish the running game? Conversely, if we run at the beginning and they play to stop that, we then have potentially the best play-action QB in the league, and can throw until they scheme to stop it again. In essence, they would be playing into our hands and allowing Ben time and space. I think this is the core argument: by making running a more integral part of our base offense, it widens our potential options, rather than narrowing them down by passing to set up the run.
Troy Pull-a-muscle? :(
Nice job.
Well – thought out analysis.
Coaches Willing to Take Chances Will Win More Big Games than They Lose
I think that a lot of the reason for that is the ‘keep them off-guard’ factor. I suspect that our season would have gone better this year if we had taken more chances, not less. I think most of us felt that the big weakness in the offensive play-calling this year was that it was too predictable. There might have been good reasons for that which are not evident from outside, but if not I’m hoping we see a few more inventive plays and a greater use of the ones we already run next year. If there was some reason, I hope it gets fixed.
"You learn more in failure than you do in success." - Mike Tomlin
#2
Pass Rush and Pass D are becoming much more important than a run D. You can’t be a complete turnstile up the middle pressure off the edges and corners who can hold their own for more three seconds are vital in today’s football.
Pass Protection
Likewise, protecting the QB will be critical. If BB has time he stays healthy and can complete passes.
by Steeler Nation VA on Feb 9, 2010 7:48 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed that pass D is more important
Therefore, we should not be paying $7M per year for a nose tackle that doesn’t even play on passing downs. Nor should we waste our first-round pick on a new nose tackle.
Something I came across of interest
I found this blog by a statistician who does both baseball and politics (both of which I am happy to ignore in the context of this blog). This particular article looks at the statistical analysis behind Payton’s “gambles”. Basically it says that the NO coach isn’t a gambler… he is just very smart.
by Cold_Old_Steelers_Fan on Feb 9, 2010 10:47 AM EST reply actions
Good stuff (and a side note about the Saints defense)
I agree totally about the situational running. Very important point. Regarding the NO nickel look, what they were in was a 3-3-5. A lot of college teams use it to combat the spread game because it gets an extra athlete on the field but allows you to keep six in the box. The best offensive counter to the 3-3-5 is to get into the I (or into double tight or some sort of heavy set) and pound away at it, but the Colts weren’t willing to do that because that would have taken them out of their 11 personnel (1 TE and 1 RB), which is clearly their favorite. Still, I was suprised that they didn’t at least try to get NO out of the 3-3-5 by giving them a little bit of the heavy stuff. Maybe they’re just so used to Manning having the answer that they don’t feel they have to counter-adjust. In any case, the Saints D won the X and O battle with the Indy O. Great job by Gregg Williams…
Golf is a contact sport. Football is a collision sport.
by cliff harris is still a punk! on Feb 9, 2010 12:36 PM EST reply actions
I agree that the Saints defense played a good game and had a scheme that kept Manning from killing them deep, but I’d hardly say that the Colts offense failed to capitalize on the weaknesses of the Saints defensive scheme. The Colts put up over 400 yards, including 99 on the ground and 5.2 ypc. The Colts had two 3 & outs if you include one that started on their own 1 where they just tried to run out the clock, but they got multiple first downs on every other drive and didn’t punt again.
The Saints moved the ball just as well as the Colts, which shortened the game and made the score as low as it was. The Saints also got a huge advantage on special teams with the onside kick, 3 long FG’s instead of one missed one, and better returns. The Saints TD drives were of 58 and 59 yards. The Colts’ TD drives were of 96 and 76 yards.
Obviously the game turned on the interception and I don’t mean to diminish that play, but the Colts’ offense was very effective for the rest of the game.
charity standing orders
Yeah, I'm with you on the Colts
I’m not saying they did a bad job. But by the 3rd qtr the Saints had taken over the tone of the game. Their offense and specials were really dictating things. I thought a different look from Indy on O might get NO out of their game plan. It was going exactly like Payton and Williams wanted it to. I would liked to have seen Indy change it up and try to disrupt their rhythm. It was worth a shot. Might have changed the momentum.
Then again, Indy doesn’t really do plan B. They ride with Payton, which is usually good enough.
Golf is a contact sport. Football is a collision sport.
by cliff harris is still a punk! on Feb 9, 2010 7:17 PM EST up reply actions
One caveat.
Great defense beats a great offense. There were no great defenses this year, outside of the Jets, and rookie QB’s don’t win either.
Especially in a Super Bowl (two weeks) a defense gets an advantage. A great QB is needed because you are going to have to step outside your comfort zone on offense to win, and a big time play maker at QB sure helps, but an elite defense with that much time can do more than just slow down the other team, they can turn the game.
I think last years Steelers team could have beat either of these teams. We would have made two or three big plays and set our offense up to succeed. Then Ben would have delivered like he did all last year.
Great offense beats great defense
That’s why the Colts were in the Super Bowl and not the Jets. This is not your grandfather’s NFL.
I’m not saying you shut down the great offense, I’m saying a great defense will put their team in a position to win.
The Saints defense is better than people give credit because their coordinator is great but the talent isn’t.
The Jets had a rookie QB. Look at Ben’s rookie year compared to the next year. You still need to make plays on offense to win. A great Defense will take points off the board and give their offense a better chance to score. Like we saw last year, you still need a great QB to win the Super Bowl. But without the great defensive plays we had we aren’t in that game in the 4th quarter. The defense also sealed the win.
by Phantaskippy on Feb 10, 2010 3:07 AM EST up reply actions
Jets didn't beat Colts
because they had too many injuries to too many key players. They had lost Washington long before the play-offs, TJ was out of gas and playing hurt and Shone Greene (who had been great up to that point) got knocked out of the game. The Jet pass defense was hobbled with Bart Scott playing hurt and losing their second best cornerback (the rest were not up to the job).
They still might have lost but I think without the injuries to Scott, Strickland and Greene the Jets had a real shot at winning. Sanchez was doing ok as a rookie qb in that game.
I think great defense (with the turnovers) and a solid offense can win SB.
by Cold_Old_Steelers_Fan on Feb 10, 2010 9:13 AM EST up reply actions
Execution is more important.
All credit to Sean Payton for having the guts and go for the onside kick. But if Hank Baskett holds onto that ball then we would have been discussing something else.
My point is more credit should be given to the execution of the onside kick than the call itself.
"He had no teeth, and he was slobbering all over himself. I'm thinking, 'You can have your money back, just get me out of here. Let me go be an accountant." I can't tell you how badly I wanted out of there."
- Denver rookie QB John Elway, on Jack Lambert, after Lambert and the Steelers knocked Elway out of his first game as a pro (1983).
Agree with all except #3
The only reason Sean Payton or Mike Tomlin were praised for gambling is because their gambles just happened to work out. Ideally, though, an NFL coach shouldn’t need to go for broke until it’s fairly late in the game. Payton was just showing the world that he would do anything to keep the ball away from Peyton Manning. And Tomlin showed the world that he thinks his defense can’t stop anybody (he even said so after the game).
Perhaps on occasion, but is this the way that you want to coach consistently? I don’t think so. I want a defense that can stop the opponent, so you don’t need to be afraid of QBs like Manning—or Brees for that matter. A defense that pressures the QB and stops the run. You’ll win a lot more games when you know you can count on your team to perform. But in the SB, the Saints just played a lot better on both sides of the ball than the Colts. Payton’s gambles weren’t decisive in the outcome.
Gambles also force opponents to plan
Gambles also force future opponents to game plan for those gambles/trick plays. That is the real value of the wild cat offense. The zone blitz on defense also forces the offense to spend time on blitzes they may or may not see.
by Steeler Nation VA on Feb 9, 2010 7:53 PM EST up reply actions
look at my earlier post
A statistician, who normally works baseball stats, posting the stats for choosing the plays Sean Payton choose over the conventional plays in those situations. Sean did not gamble. He played the odds correctly and succeeded.
by Cold_Old_Steelers_Fan on Feb 10, 2010 9:22 AM EST up reply actions
I agree totally about situational running. A team needs to be able to run the ball when they want to. Likewise, great teams dictate when they will pass, long and short. Short passes are becoming a form of the running game. But at times, 3rd and goal from the 1, you need to have the personnel and the plays to get the TD. That includes a 2nd TE (Spaeth) who can block. An OC who is not so predictable that a 2 year old can call the plays based on the formation.
When you have the lead in the 4th quarter, you need to dictate that you are going to run the ball and control the clock and get 1st downs. Pass plays, either stop the clock or take you down the field too fast and give the ball back with too much time left on the clock.
by Steeler Nation VA on Feb 9, 2010 8:09 PM EST reply actions
Run Run and Run some more
If you have a lousy QB you have to be able to run the ball. If you have a great QB running the ball well enough to be a threat keeps the D off your QB limits his exposure to big hits and opens up the play action pass. Sure the rules have changed you can now win a championship with a great passing game and average D and running game. I don’t think it should change your offensive scheme especially when teams are building defenses to compete with the Colts and Pats and a pass happy league. what other offenses are doing doesn’t need to effect what your offense does if you have a defense that can stop them. Get pressure on Manning and Brady and they fold tough to do but true. Keep Manning on the bench or on his back and the Colts become very beatable you can’t put all your eggs in one basket. Make Manning and Brady ( who is extremely overrated his winning has been more about the taping and the system than his ability IMO)have a bad day and they are done.
Good read, good thoughts
wish I have time to elaborate, but I like the take on the situational running
"Now that I'm here, I don't want to just be here, I want to be here for a long time." Hines Ward, 1998 4th round draft pick.
by kick him in the head on Feb 10, 2010 9:00 AM EST reply actions
If people are building defenses to stop the pass..
then it should be able to run easier on them…. just a thought
Steelers football is 60 mins.
Why would Arians want to run the ball?
by StoneColdSteel on Feb 10, 2010 10:12 PM EST up reply actions
I dunno
silly me :) It just seemed like the path of least resistence if defenses were preparing to stop the pass more, they get smaller, faster, and lighter – the bus would thrive…..
Steelers football is 60 mins.
by tannofsteel84 on Feb 12, 2010 4:03 PM EST up reply actions
We draft 4 fullbacks, and say: Here are the tight ends you wanted.
"Our O-line is developing, they just don’t show it." From "Buc It" a Bucs fan.
I think that a very strong D as Our D of last year will control enough any O if the CB´s as somebody
pointed before, that are able to close the WR up to 3 seconds will become very important, but somebody as athletic as Polamalu can change anything prepared to face Our D, that´s why the colts and the cheatriots just fade away in front of jets and texans.
We lost totally Our D character by going to (win) preventing D w/o pressuring the QB in the last´s year SB.
But to have a dominant D We need Urgently a dominant NT, maybe Cam Thomas in the 2º round, and if it is possible C.J. Spiller or Campbell in the 1º round. Maybe Gerhart in the 3º.
BluegrassSteeler, You just stole My idea of a post. I think that it should be “Things We learned from The SB”, and I just had thought to include: 1) A good OC just needs ONE offensive series to understand where He will not run. 2) This season should belong to the Vikings, but Favre and mostly the vikings just had too many turnovers, and also He lost His window of opportunity, w/o The Steelers in the run. 3) Our D with Polamalu is just too much for the colts and cheatriots, and last but not least, 4) Manning just hates any form or reminiscence of “Black and Gold”. And so on…
O sales tickets,...and let D rest a little, and D Win Championships.

by 



















