There are two things I have absolute faith in. Well, ok, there's a lot
more than two things that I have absolute faith in, but for this, I'm going
to focus on two:
1. Statistics never lie. Never. You just sometimes really have to look to
find the reason why something is the way that it is.
2. History is a great teacher. Those who fail to learn from the past, are
doomed to repeat it.
The Chiefs absolutely, positively, without question "can win" this game
Sunday at Indianapolis. (Note that I did not say "will win". Gotta give
you a reason to come back on Friday for the picks).
But, contrary to what the national media, the local media, the
possibly-drunk, hot-as-hell 33 year old tossing washers in Lot G says (hey,
wait a minute ...), ignoring all their reasons why the Chiefs are (somehow)
THE biggest underdogs on the board this week, I offer you this:
The Chiefs CAN win this game, for two primary reasons.
1. The Colts defense (aka "statistics").
2. The St. Louis Rams (aka "history").
(2) doesn't make much sense on the surface, I know. History? How is
history a helper for us here? The Chiefs have never won at Indy, posting a
perfect 0-5 record there. The Colts have won 12 or more games 8 straight
seasons. They've won 7 of the last 8 AFC South titles, have reached the
Super Bowl 2 of the last 4 years, and have a championship to show for it.
The Chiefs haven't won more than 4 games in a season since 2006, haven't
won more than 3 in a row since 2004, and have beaten exactly one team on
the road since 2003 that had a .500 or better record when we faced them
(denver, last year ... in the midst of losing 8 of 10 to close their season
at .500. Not exactly a "statement victory").
That ... and what the hell do the Rams and Chiefs have in common? Other
than a horrendously bad stretch of football, a couple traded coaches and
players, and a common state border?
I'll get back to (2). Let's open with (1), shall we?
The Colts, to put it bluntly, absolutely suck at the four main things a
defense needs to excel at: sacks, turnovers, yardage allowed, and third
down conversion rate.
(I know "points allowed" is critically important ... but if you're
routinely pressuring the quarterback, you're getting off the field on third
down, you're at least even in the turnover margin, and you're not letting
teams march up and down the field on you, odds are, your "points allowed"
will be in the top 10.)
Let's start with the first category, sacks. Perhaps (and I don't agree
with this), perhaps this is the most important defensive stat, because if
you can pressure the quarterback consistently, it hides a multitude of
other sins.
So let's establish a fact right off the bat. The Colts CANNOT rush the
quarterback. Period. They've faced three relatively immobile passers so
far (Schaub, E Manning, orton), plus the relatively mobile (yet talentally
challenged) David Garrard.
So far, the Colts have four sacks. Four. No, that is not a typo -- Tamba
Hali has nearly matched the ENTIRE Colts pass rush in four fewer quarters
of football.
Here is how they got to four:
(Note: all stats to follow pulled from nfl.com's game recaps, play by play
logs, and/or team statistics pages. I'm good when it comes to useless
facts and information, but I'm not nfl.com good).
1. Schaub sacked on 1st and 10 at the Indy 31, 6:02 left, 1st quarter.
Houston would kick a field goal on this drive to make the score 10-0
Texans.
2. Schaub sacked on 3rd and 12 at the Houston 22, 4:12 left, 2nd quarter.
Houston punted to end the drive, score was 13-0 Texans.
3. E Manning sacked on 3rd and 1 at the Indy 48, 1:17 left, 2nd quarter.
Indy 17, Giants 0. Manning fumbled on the play, Colts recovered, then
knelt out the half. Score was 17-0 Colts.
4. Orton sacked on 1st and 10 at the denver 20, first play of the 3rd
quarter. denver scored a touchdown four plays later to make the score
13-10 Colts.
That's it. Four sacks in four games. Two of the four had no impact on the
drive -- Houston kicked a field goal, and denver scored a touchdown. A
third one was on 3rd and long; even if they hadn't sacked Schaub in that
situation, the odds are Houston would have thrown incomplete or short of
the down-to-gain, and punted anyways. (Teams convert 3rd and greater than
8 less than 15% of the time).
Only the sack and fumble recovery of Eli Manning can be counted as an
impact play ... but is it really? Already up 17-0, right before the half?
It might have aborted any thoughts of a Giants comeback, but anyone who
watched that game knew it was already over by the time Manning was sacked
and Freeney recovered the fumble.
Furthermore, look at when they recorded those sacks. Mid first quarter,
late second quarter, late second quarter, first play of the second half.
Uuh, fellas? That's nice and all ... but where the hell are the fourth
quarter momentum changers? Where's the critical tackle behind the line on
3rd and 6 when you're up 2 late in the 4th quarter (like KC got at
Cleveland)? Where's the goalline stand directly caused by the opposing
team's offensive line being unable to block your front four (think KC / San
Diego)? That's right -- it ain't there. Four sacks through four games is
awful enough on its own. It looks even worse when you put it into a proper
context.
Now, pay attention. Because part two of the stats lesson is about to
begin. And to be honest, this is the part that both shocked me ... and has
me happier than a boozer on a winery tour in Central Missouri (hey, wait a
minute ... come on, stop taking cheap shots at yourself ...)
When you can't generate a pass rush, you're inviting teams to open it up
against you. You're begging teams to toss the rock down the field.
Amazingly ... only denver has really done this so far:
Schaub: 9/17, 107 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT, 67.3 rating.
E Manning: 13/24, 161 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT, 85.6 rating.
orton: 37/57, 476 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT, 89.5 rating. (More on this anomaly
coming up).
Garrard: 17/22, 163 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT, 127.7 rating.
Average: 19/30, 227 yards, 1.5 TD, 1 INT, 92.5 rating.
Which begs the question: why aren't teams taking advantage of the Colts
lack of a pass rush (and questionable secondary due to injury concerns)?
Easy. They can't stop the run. At all:
Texans: 42 carries, 257 yards, 3 TD.
Giants: 43 carries, 160 yards, 0 TD.
donkeys: 18 carries, 47 yards, 0 TD. (Again, stay tuned. This game makes
ZERO sense statistically ... until you dig deeper. Then, it makes PERFECT
sense ...)
Jaguars: 35 carries, 174 yards, 2 TD.
Average: 35 carries, 160 yards, 1 TD.
Add the averages together. 160 yards on the ground, 227 in the air.
They're giving up almost 400 yards a game! I don't care how good your
offense is, you aren't going to be better than .500 if you can't get off
the field defensively. If you are routinely giving up long drives for
points, you're going to lose more often than you win. Ask the 2002 Chiefs
-- after four games, the Chiefs had topped 40 points twice, had topped 30
points 3 times ... and sat at 2-2 because their defense had also given up
30 plus points three times, and could not stop anyone on third down.
The Colts D hasn't been "32 Defense" bad yet ... but they're inching closer
to that mark of distinction. They've given up 30 plus twice in four weeks
(and the Jaguars aren't exactly an "offensive juggernaut" or a "legitimate
playoff contender" at this point). Week one they couldn't stop the run.
Week two, a blowout victory at home ... but the Giants still rolled up over
330 yards of offense. Week three, if denver hadn't crapped their pants at
five crucial junctions (detailed below), they likely win a game in which
they dropped 500 plus yards of offense on the Colts. And last week, the
Jaguars were virtually unstoppable. Yes, the Jacksonville Freaking
Jaguars.
When the Colts D needs to make a play, to get Manning and his boys back on
the field, the bottom line is, they can't. Or at least haven't so far.
(And as a quick side note: did you all catch the Colts end-game strategory
on Sunday? Their head coach called a timeout to FORCE JACKSONVILLE TO TRY
TO SCORE when the game was tied, and the Jaguars were letting the clock run
out to go to overtime! Jim Caldwell admitted as much. He had NO
confidence his defense would hold if they lost the coin flip, so he decided
to try to steal the game late by stopping the Jaguars at midfield, then
trying a long field goal as time expired.
Yes, I know, ignore the ass backwards logic of having so little faith in
your defense, that you put the game in the hands of your defense. Because
I completely understood (and somewhat agreed with) the decision. Isn't
this what we wanted the 2002 Chiefs team to do? We, the fans, knew that
defense couldn't stop a quadrapalegic from running for 150 and a couple
scores. We, the fans, knew the only way the Chiefs could win most weeks
was to find innovative ways to get the offense onto the field. Whatever
you think of Jim Caldwell, and I don't think much of him, give him credit.
He KNOWS how awful his defensive unit is, and is willing to do ANYTHING to
get his unit that can win him a game (the offense) onto the field. Too bad
Richard A. Vermeil never figured that out during his tenure here. Back to
the post!)
The most damning stat though, is third down conversion rate. If you're
giving up more than half of your third down attempts, you're in a world of
trouble. (For comparison's sake, the best defenses tend to give up 30% on
third down. Currently, the Ravens lead the league in 3rd down stops at
24%. Second best? Your Kansas City Chiefs, at 27%). Let's look at the
stats:
Texans: 6/11 (and 1/1 on 4th down).
Giants: 3/11 (and 0/1 on 4th down).
donkeys: 5/15 (and 1/4 on 4th down).
Jaguars: 9/13 (did not attempt a 4th down conversion).
Average: 6/12 (and 1/2 on 4th down).
Now, 50% is not nearly as bad as I expected, to be fair. But that's for a
reason. In statistics, you always have an "outlier". In this case, that
denver game from week three that, on the surface, defies logic. denver
rolled up 500 plus yards of offense. The Colts defense was on the field
for nearly 36 minutes. And yet, they won comfortably.
How, you ask? The idiocy of josh mcdaniels' playcalling, that's how.
As a special "Inside the Numbers" within an "Inside the Numbers" ... wow,
that sounds even more retarded than it looks ... anyways, here is every
single donkeys play call inside the Red Zone from that game, and why it
cost them a game that pretty much every freaking statistic known to mankind
says they should have won going away:
(really, if you're a denver fan ... well, seek professional help. They are
the denver broncos. But seriously, if you're a denver fan, and you weren't
chucking empty beer or whiskey bottles at your television after witnessing
this game, I'd question how big of a fan you are. Someone should have been
fired over this performance, the play calling was (is?) THAT awful ...)
* Drive one: 2nd quarter, 5:18 remaining, Indy up 13-0.
1st and goal at the 1: maroney up the middle, no gain.
2nd and goal at the 1: maroney up the middle, no gain. Timeout Indy.
3rd and goal at the 1: orton incomplete, threw it away.
4th and goal at the 1: maroney off tackle, no gain. Replay overturned a TD
ruling on the field.
You can't fault the first three downs play calling, to be honest. My only
b*tch would be that you pound it again on third down. Why risk the INT and
the sure points a field goal gives you?
(Because josh mcdaniels refused to take the free points. Sweet Jesus,
would this bite them in the ass later on ... wait, I'm getting ahead of
myself ...)
So first three downs, perfectly acceptable, and certainly a little unlucky
given the situation. But fourth down? First, why are you not kicking the
field goal at this point? Take the points, its still the first half. (And
spare me the "but they were at the one yard line" argument. Exactly.
Three plays already, and they hadn't gotten in).
But if you are going to go for it, why in the hell are you running sideways
at the goalline? Pound it up the middle again, or if you're going to try
to take it outside, roll the QB out (you know, that designed QB rollout
that the donkeys have been running to perfection since the Dan Reeves
days?), so he can either take off ... or have a passing option! (Think
Matt Cassel on goal-to-go against San Diego four weeks ago. This is the
EXACT play Charlie Weis called -- Cassel rollout, easy TD lob to Moeaki.
Good God, josh. We use the same f*cking playbook, for crying out loud. To
think I used to believe we were screwed for a decade because of your
presence. Now? I just thank God you're there. I love being wrong about
people sometimes).
* Drive two: 2nd quarter, :28 remaining, Indy up 13-0
1st and 10 at the 16: orton to gaffney, out of bounds at the 7.
2nd and 1 at the 7: orton incomplete.
3rd and 1 at the 7: orton incomplete.
4th and 1 at the 7: field goal to end the half. 13-3 Indy.
On the surface, this looks perfectly acceptable ... but that's why I'm
here. Because one obvious question jumps out looking at 2nd and 3rd down.
Why did denver not run it on one of the yard-to-go situations? Aah. That,
I can answer.
(Because they had pissed away ALL THREE of their timeouts earlier in the
drive!)
The drive started at the denver 39, with 1:49 to play. There is NO
justifiable reason to even BEGIN to think about taking a timeout until the
clock is under 40 seconds. NONE, save for being required to due to injury
in the last two minutes of the half, as per the NFL rule book.
denver used timeout number one at the 1:10 mark ... after orton plowed up
the gut on 3rd and 1 for a first down. What the f*ck? What justifiable
reason is there to call a timeout here? You were in a jumbo formation, you
pounded it for the first, who cares if 15 seconds bleed off? You'd much
rather trade the time with 1:10 to go, than find yourself up sh*ts creek
with :20 to go, like would eventually happen.
denver used timeout number two at the :55 mark ... after a 30 yard
completion to the Indy 30. This is justifiable ... if you hadn't just used
your first timeout ON THE PRIOR PLAY! Really? You don't have two or three
plays called in the huddle inside of two minutes to play? Unreal.
denver used its final timeout at the :28 mark ... after a 5 yard completion
on 2nd and 1. This makes some sense ... only, the reason it had to use the
timeout is because eddie royal failed to get out of bounds. ed, buddy?
You're inside of 30 seconds to go, running a crossing pattern designed to
pick up 3 yards, the first down ... and stop the clock by getting out of
bounds!
Oy.
But wait! It gets better!
* Drive three: 3rd Quarter, 3:50 to play, 20-10 Indy.
1st and 10 at the 17: orton incomplete.
2nd and 10 at the 17: orton incomplete.
3rd and 10 at the 17: orton complete to royal.
4th and 9 at the 16: field goal. 20-13 Indy.
Can't blame denver for taking the points. I'd have done the same thing.
What I would NOT have done, however, is thrown a 1 yard pass on 3rd and 10,
and trusted the wide receiver to make something happen. That's a play you
call on 1st down. Not on 3rd. So now we're at 12 snaps inside the 20, and
denver has 6 points, 0 first downs, and 2 plays with positive yardage to
show for it. That's just super coaching guys, super job. And we're STILL
not done.
* Drive Four: 4th quarter, 7:45 to play, 20-13 Indy.
1st and 10 at the 19: buckhalter offtackle for three.
2nd and 7 at the 16: orton incomplete, intended for thomas.
3rd and 7 at the 16: orton complete to gaffney for four yards.
4th and 3 at the 12: orton incomplete, intended for lloyd.
Two nit-picks here. (1) again, I hate throwing it short of the yard to
gain on a makeable third down, and then betting on the receiver to make a
move or bust a tackle to pick up what you need. It's stupid. It's
absolutely stupid. The only person I know that hates this more than me, is
John Madden. And if a Hall of Fame Coach and broadcaster whose video game
revolutionized the sport, if HE thinks its stupid, I feel very safe in
defending my opinion that it is stupid. (2) Go back to the first Red Zone
drive. Here's where not kicking the field goal there bites you in the ass.
denver almost has to go in the position they find themselves in, because a
field goal doesn't change the dynamic here. If you kick the field goal,
you're down 4. You still need a stop and a touchdown. So, in this spot,
given this exact circumstance, mcdaniels made the right decision to go for
it.
IF, however, you took the points on the first drive like you should have,
then a field goal here cuts it to 1 ... meaning you only need a score to
win. ANY score. A touchdown, a field goal, a safety. ANYTHING wins it
for you, had you kicked on drive one and kicked here. It's the little
things that bite you in the ass in this game. Like not taking gimme points
in the first half.
"But Stevo! But Stevo!" I can hear you screaming. "Indy scored on their
next drive! denver still would have needed a touchdown anyways!" To which
I reply ... true. But instead of only needing a touchdown, they needed two
now, which directly affected the play calling on ...
* Drive Five: 4th Quarter, 2:23 to play, Indy 27-13.
1st and 10 at the 17: orton incomplete to the end zone.
2nd and 10 at the 17: orton incomplete to the end zone.
3rd and 10 at the 17: whoops. False start. Make that
3rd and 15 at the 22: orton to buckhalter for two. Timeout denver.
4th and 13 at the 20: orton incomplete to the end zone.
The play calling here was fine, given the situation. But go back to my
rant in drive four. If you had taken the two field goals in drives one and
four, you'd only be down 8 here. There wouldn't be the sense of panic that
results in three bombs to the end zone. Instead, you'd be in your normal
offense, playing to tie. If this is a 27-19 game at this point (as it
should have been), you'd probably try a run on 1st down (with the two
minute warning looming, you can do that with no clock ramifications. That,
and denver still had all three timeouts). Figure you get the average the
Colts give up (5.0 yards / carry), and you've got 2nd and a long 5 / short
6. With all three timeouts. At the 12. You can do ANYTHING you want to
at that point.
Instead, because of the idiocy from earlier in the game, the Colts could
lay back, defend the end zone, because they knew what had to be coming
(rushed passing attempts to the end zone).
denver went 5/15 on third down, and 1/4 on fourth down. They went 0/5 on
third down inside the red zone, and 0/3 on fourth down. That's why they
lost -- they beat themselves with horrendous play calling, stupid decision
making, and (on drive one) some incredibly bad luck (the odds of you not
scoring on two plays up the middle from the one have to be about the same
as the odds of me getting laid tonight. Slim and none, and none is a heavy
15 point favorite).
So ... to recap the statistics portion of why the Chiefs can win this game:
* The Colts can't stop the run, or the pass.
* They can't get off the field on third down.
* They can't pressure the quarterback. Oh, and
* They're one amazingly piss poor coached game away from being 1-3.
And they're about to face the two coordinators who wrote the Bible on how
to beat Peyton Manning and crew.
So I ask ... why CAN'T the Chiefs win this game?
Furthermore ... and this is what I wanted to write up last night, but real
life got in the way ...
I've been thinking about this season a lot lately. Probably because I have
nothing else going on. I've read (like many of you) the columns and blog
postings on "teams going from worst to first", "how soft the Chiefs
schedule is", "the Chiefs haven't beaten anybody good, this is just a
fluke ..."
And yesterday, it hit me.
History.
As Dan Dierdorf best put it:
(al michaels) so now they've gotta go 80 yards in 58 seconds.
(frank gifford) with no timeouts.
(pause)
(dan dierdorf) but we've seen it before.
(frank gifford) oh yeah.
We have seen this script before. In our own kittie litter pile to boot.
(OK, fine, that's not fair. In Missouri's manure pile. Is that better? I
mean, how do you describe our "good friends" across the state in an
accurate manner, that doesn't involve noting the stench of the city, the
crime ridden neighborhoods, the watered down slop and foam that they pass
off as "liquid refreshment"? How? How do you accurately describe St.
Louis without invoking words like "kittie litter" and "manure pile"? You
can't. They gave us Nelly and Chingy. Kittie litter it is).
Week five, 1999. This hot as hell (at the time) 22 year old was sitting in
section 109 that day, witnessing a miracle. Adam Vinatieri missing from 25
yards out as time expired, to give the Chiefs a one point victory. Its
been twelve years, and I still can't believe he missed that kick.
Vinatieri doesn't miss kicks like that.
But across the state that beautiful early October afternoon, another
miracle was unfolding. The Rams had opened 3-0, like the Chiefs this year.
Just like this year's Chiefs, a good reason why was two vastly improved
coordinators taking over the game planning (for the Rams, that would be
Mike Martz and Peter Guinta; for us, Charlie Weis and Romeo Crennel).
Another good reason why? A solid veteran running back brought in for
leadership and his ability to change the game, a dude known as Marshall
Faulk. They had an epic draft that spring, grabbing Torry Holt in round
one, Dre Bly in round two. They had gone out and, on the advise of their
new coaching and front office hires, raided their former employer to grab a
starting QB ... by the name of Trent Green, from the Redskins. But they
also had time to shop a HyVee in rural Iowa and pluck a stock boy by the
name of Kurt Warner off the floor.
They got off to a fast 3-0 start entering the bye. They beat two sh*tty
squads (Baltimore, Cincinnati), and also beat the defending division
champion at home (Atlanta, fresh off their 14-2 Super Bowl run). Sounding
familiar still?
The key to their rapid fire start? Easy. A vastly improved defense that
gave up only 27 points in the first three games. (The Chiefs have given up
37 so far, although it should be 30, I refuse to recognize that horsesh*t
TD the 49ers got as time expired).
And just like this year's Chiefs, EVERYONE was predicting reality would set
for the Rams in week five, when the 49ers came to town. You know, the
49ers. Who (at the time) had posted 18 consecutive 10 win seasons. Had
made the playoffs 17 of the last 18 years, had won the division 14 of the
last 18 years, had won 5 of the last 18 Super Bowls, had played in 9 of the
last 18 NFC Title Games. Quarterbacked by Steve Young, powered by Garrison
Hearst and Charlie Garner, the receiving combo of Terrell Owens and and
Jerry Rice. A still very stout defense anchored by Dana Stubblefield,
Merton Hanks, Tim McDonald, and Ken Norton Jr. This, everyone said, is
when the Rams parade comes crashing to a halt. A nice feel-good story, but
just that, a story. Nothing to take seriously.
(And in case anyone doubts that, in case anyone believes that the Rams were
taken credibly from the opening notes of the season, I give you the cover
of Sports Illustrated from October 18, 1999, the issue that came out the
week after the 49ers came to town:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/cover/featured/9712/index.htm )
Everyone doubted them. Only ... the Rams DESTROYED the 49ers that day. It
was 21-3 before the 49ers even knew what hit them, en route to a 44-20 ass
kicking. The Rams never looked back en route to a 13 win, Super Bowl
championship season. They weren't a fluke. They were the real thing.
Only, nobody knew it until they faced a "test" -- and aced it.
In hindsight, we should have seen it coming. Kurt Warner led his teams to
three Super Bowls in a decade, and deserves a bust in Canton. Marshall
Faulk will be a first or second ballot Hall of Famer. Isaac Bruce and
Torry Holt will get there eventually. As should head coach Dick Vermeil.
The foundation was there. It was just "too young", "too unproven", "too
unseasoned" to really be THAT good, THAT soon. Or so everyone thought.
Do you see the similarities here come Sunday? The Chiefs (I agree) haven't
faced a playoff team yet. Our quarterback inspires fear in his fans more
than confidence. Yeah, we can run the ball on anyone, but again, who have
we faced? Yeah, our defense looks faster, better, more cohesive, but
again, is that us, or the opposition?
(And more to the point: like that 49ers team from 1999, are the Colts
(gasp) overrated? Are they at the end of their run, and Sunday is the game
that begins their fall (and our rise?) The 49ers never recovered from that
loss, falling to 4-12 in 1999. The 49ers have never been the same since,
posting a losing record 10 of the last 12 years (and well on their way to
11 out of 13). I'm not saying the Colts are on the verge of a collapse.
What I am saying, is that the defensive stats say the Colts are a .500 team
(which is, coincidentally, exactly what their record is). The Chiefs have
enough talent on offense to exploit the matchup advantages we have. And if
you put a gun to my head, and made me wager on the final outcome solely
based on the coaching staffs in this game, I wouldn't even blink at
dropping a C Note on the Chiefs, the disparity is that ridiculous).
I say all this for a reason. And it is this:
When you (ok, me), when I look at the 2010 Chiefs ... well ... don't you
see at least flashes of those 1999 Rams? Jamaal Charles juking defenders
in the flat like Marshall Faulk? D Bowe catching 45 yard razzle-dazzle
flea flicker bombs ala Torry Holt? A relentless young front four led by
convicted drunken killer Leonard Little? Wait, I mean led by convicted
ball-grabber Shaun Smith?
A rock solid draft class that is stepping up from day one? A veteran WR
(Isaac Bruce for the Rams / Chris Chambers for the Chiefs) willing to step
aside and let the young guns shine? A defense led by youth, a sprinkling
of veteran presence, and a belief in themselves that we haven't seen in at
least a decade around here?
Sunday, the Chiefs play the Colts. Just like 12 years ago, ironically on
the same exact day (Sunday, October 10), at the same exact time (high
noon), within sight of the same freeway (I-70) the Rams faced their
"Mission Impossible" against the 49ers.
Anyone who says the Chiefs have no chance, anyone who says the Chiefs are
frauds, are imposters, and are about to get their bells rung in a brutal
knock of reality, either hasn't seen these Colts play ...
Or doesn't understand their National Football League history ...
No comments:
Post a Comment