Gregg Easterbrook made an observation in his November 6 column that got me thinking. Here’s Easterbrook:
The Colts ran early, hoping to wear New England down. On most passing plays, Peyton Manning was in the shotgun spread; on most rushing plays, under center. This cue seemed so obvious and basic that I assumed the Colts had in store lots of passing plays with Manning under center. Instead, through most of the contest, whether Manning was in the shotgun or under center told you what the action would be. Umm … don’t expect New England to miss this kind of thing.
I’ve played a lot of flag football in my time. Most flag football games redound with goofy plays. You’re in the huddle and someone says, I’ll be quarterback and I’ll roll right and throw a lateral back to Lyle on the left sideline and then Lyle looks for Slim deep on the stop and go.
But I’ve also played many games with quarterbacks (and they always have to be quarterback) who care only about execution. Every play is a square out or square in. Always 15 yards. The idea is, if the quarterback and receiver execute, the defense doesn’t matter.
I hate playing with those guys.
Now back to the NFL. Why was Indianapolis so unimaginative? Perhaps Dungy is an execution guy. He’s going up against the best team in football. So he tells himself that New England is too good to be fooled. Instead of adjustments he focuses his team on execution.
I don’t know about Dungy, but I’m convinced that many coaches fit this mold. Think Jim Mora. The more important the game, the more condensed the game plan. Keep it simple. Win with better execution. Then lose.
This is not the Bill Belichick way. He is Mr. Fun.
First of all, Tony Dungy has very little to do with offensive play-calling. That’s the domain of OC Tom Moore and Peyton Manning.
Now, if I understand your premise, then I would suggest the Colts are some hybrid of execution and imagination. You’ll never see a double reverse throwback to the QB with them. So in that regard it is about execution and precision. That the key skill players in the passing game have been together so long allows them to be successful with this approach.
However, this “execution philosophy” comes with infinite flexibility. Peyton Manning goes to the line of scrimmage on every play with the entire playbook at his disposal, and plays are chosen based on the defense presented at the time. So it’s definitely not the case of one simple play (e.g. 15 yard square in) run regardless of the defense, with success reliant on execution regardless of the defense. The Colts playbook is short on gimmicks, but it is nevertheless vast and fully available at all times.
This doesn’t explain their predictability in the 2nd half against the Pats, although I would respectfully suggest that it didn’t quite reveal itself the way Easterbrook suggests. I say respectfully as I am a big fan of TMQ. As a Colts fan, I particularly appreciate his anti-Pats bias, nearly as much as I despise Simmons frantic insight-free homerism (which I also read religiously and voraciously).
Posted by by Shayne on November 12, 2007 at 4:30 pm