Pat Kirwan proposes defensive theories that make no sense
by Brad Wells on Feb 11, 2010 9:00 AM EST
in Bad Journalism
Email
PrintPat Kirwan, the former-NFL general manager who once thought it smart to have Peter Carrol coach the Jets, thinks the Saints have created the ultimate blueprint to stopping the Colts offense:
When the New England Patriots beat the St. Louis Rams in Super Bowl XXXVI, they built a defense that became the blueprint for playing "Greatest Show on Turf" in the years to come. The same thing may have happened Sunday when Williams went to a 3-3-5 defense (three defensive linemen, three linebackers and five defensive backs).After talking with Saints linebacker Scott Fujita on Monday, I better understand the flexibility the package offers, such as good pressure calls and lots of opportunities to drop eight defenders into coverage. The Saints were fine with the Colts running the ball and bet on the idea that Indianapolis wouldn't stick with the run. With 19 rushes to 45 passes, New Orleans showed it was right.
There's just one problem with Kirwan's little theory: It's horsesh*t. And I love how he feels he gets confirmation on his theory from Saints linebacker Scott Fujita. WTF is Fujita going to say other than his defense is great and is the modern version of the "Purple People Eaters?"
If you listen to Kirwan on NFL Sirius Radio, he likes to talk a lot about how smart he is only to find out that much of what he says turns out to be wrong. He stated all week that if Dwight Freeney plays the Saints will have success running at him.
The Saints ran for 2.8 a carry in Super Bowl 44.
Also, if the Saints defense is so awesome at stopping the Colts offense, how can Kirwan explain Indy's 432 yards of offense, with nearly 100 yards on the ground at 5.1 a carry? Peyton Manning threw for 333 yards, completed 68% of his passes, and had a QB rating of over 88.
Um, this is the blueprint to stop Indy? Maybe defensive "theories" like this are why Kirwan is still not working in the NFL.
If you want a real reason why the Colts lost Super Bowl 44, ask a real GM, not Pat friggin Kirwan.
30 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Good clean
Lacking an insult tirade critique. I accept.
Indianapolis Colts, taking focus away from my DBacks every Sunday.
by JustAJ on Feb 11, 2010 9:17 AM EST via mobile reply actions
+10
Draft Mocker/ Co-Leader of yearly 7 round live mock draft at MtD
by TheAngelsColts on Feb 11, 2010 9:40 AM EST up reply actions
Awesome
I’m glad you commented on that story. What complete and utter crap. And I’m sure “this is the year the Colts don’t make the playoffs”, blah blah blah. It’s the same bulls*&^ every offseason!
Wait, I thought the Dolphins gave everyone the Blueprint
See here and here and here and here.
Or was it the 49ers? The 3-4 defense? Belichick? Every time the Colts lose/almost lose, it is a blueprint on how to beat them. Then the Colts don’t lose for multiple months, when another stupid “blueprint” article will be written.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
Creator and developer of the Winning Stats.
by mgrex03 on Feb 11, 2010 9:40 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
How come I'm the first one to rec this?
"I am in favor of censorship ‐ not against what is supposed to be sexy or dirty, but against what is idiotic." -Jean Renoir
Random fact of the week from the empty void that is my mind: Even though the Colts lost, it was a good season. Random facts will resume next week when I recover.
I think the blueprint
is to have both Karma, Destiny and Fate on your side.
"It's the greatest job in the world until Peyton comes off the field and you think his thumb might be broken and there's three minutes left in the AFC Championship Game and you're down by three to New England and you haven't taken a snap all year. Yeah, it's a great job until that point." - Jim Sorgi
Ha ha ha
I’m not trooling thats just really funny
by mississippisaintsfan on Feb 11, 2010 11:38 AM EST up reply actions
Kirwan article
Kirwan used a poor word: “stop”,,no defense can stop Colts,,however I agree with him that a 3 -3 -5,,with 8 dropping back at least 50% of time is most effective. The Colts run game is NOT effective,,they can get 10 yard runs occasionaly against this defense,,,but in critical situations,,they must throw to have a chance.
A good counter to this defense would be no running backs,,but 4 wide outs,,NE runs this occasionally: am hoping Gonzo comes back strong, to give Colts this opportunity. Certainly Baskett was no help,,,a huge disappointment..I live near Philly,,,seen him often and he was impressive a couple years ago,,do not know what happenned to him in Indy. Colts sure could have used Sanders, Gonzo and Hagler in superbowl,,convinced game would be far different.
Good find BBS. I hope everyone goes to this scheme. I can live with 400+yards.
Our defense didn’t stop the Saints. We have some needs to fill there and that will take care of the dink and dunk up and down the field. It is not someone’s defensive scheme that beats the colts, it is whether our defense can get off the field on 3rd down.
Blueprint? Halarious!!!
Most teams have the 3-5-5 in their playbook. It’s like people think all sports fans are too stupid to know anything. The generalization of this sport when it comes to writing articles is becoming sickening. I already saw an article on the Saints possibly becoming a dynasty. But watch, if they lose in week 1, articles will be written on how it’s time to panick, perhaps to rebuild, or fire some coaches. I guess all we can really do is try to laugh at this nonsense.
3-3-5
I actually like the idea schematically. Can you imagine playing a three safety look with Bethea and Bullitt playing more tradition roles and Sanders being allowed to roam free and make plays? On run plays you simply collapse down two of the safetys to support and it’s more or less like a traditional 3-4. (I’m not saying we should adopt this, it just intrigues me.)
However, the comment about the Saints stopping the Colts is a little off base. Correct me if i’m wrong, but didn’t the Colts only punt twice? Once on the dropped ball by Garcon and once when trying to run out the first half? Not exactly a dominating defensive performance.
It really comes down to the final score and not the rest of the stats
It’s almost a Madden-esque assessment of the situation, but it’s fitting in this case. The Colts had 100 more total yards on offense than the Saints, but still lost the game. Joseph Addai had more rushing yards than the Saints had total rushing yards. Peyton Manning passed for more yards than Drew Brees, so what happened?
There are a few reasons with the Colts lost the game on offense. Play calling certainly was an issue in the first half when the Colts opted to run the ball three times to try to take a seven point lead into halftime. It was a conservative call against a defense known for producing turnovers and the safest bet would have been to try to run for the first down, but it resulted in a three and out. It’s the perfect example of coaching not to lose. A pick six would have been a disaster in that situation (though at worst, it would have been 10-10 tie going into halftime assuming the PAT was made), but there’s no reward without risk. You have the MVP of the league and a chance to go for the jugular. Why not take one shot? You just stuffed the Saints on 4 and goal and you strike while the iron is hot.
Dropped passes certainly did not help the Colts, but this is a problem that plagues every offense. What killed the Colts was a lack of execution in other areas. It’s more important to find ways to finish drives. Forcing Matt Stover to attempt a 51-yard field goal is only slightly less risky than it would have been to go for it on 4 and long like Bill Belichick likely would have done in that situation (he did in Super Bowl XLII against the Giants), but one can’t know which call would have been correct. The Colts defense was unable to secure the one-point lead for the offense and gave up the go-ahead touchdown and the two-point conversion.
As far as punts go, the Colts punted only once and the Saints punted twice. The Saints succeeded in forcing the Colts to accept two field goal attempts, though only one was successfully made by Stover. The Colts defense forced the Saints to attempt three field goals, all of which were over 40 yards and made by Hartley. The Saints also succeeded in winning the turnover battle against the Colts when Porter got the pick six from Manning. The successful onside kick took a possession away from the Colts, which gave the Saints a chance to take their first lead in the game.
The Saints were also effective in the return game with Roby returning four kicks for 25.5 yards per return and Reggie Bush managed to get some yards in his one punt return. The Saints effectively stifled any punt return game for the Colts because no yards were gained in the punt return game for the Colts in two Saints punts. Simpson had five kick returns and more return yards, but was less effective with 22.2 yards per return. The Saints offense thus had shorter fields to work with as a result of their return game.
Football games are won as a unit and lost as a unit. Where the Colts managed to succeed in gaining yards against the Saints defense, they failed to finish drives for scoring opportunities. Matt Stover missed a field goal attempt from 51 yards. Peyton Manning threw an interception late in the fourth quarter. The Colts failed to get into the end zone in their final drive when they needed a touchdown to stay in it. Some of these were bad plays by the Colts, but the Saints defense also did its job. If you can’t score, it’s hard to match up against the number one ranked offense in the league.
I’m not coming here to gloat because I still think the game was well played on both sides. I was nervous before Tracy Porter intercepted Peyton Manning because I knew Manning was so good at guiding his team to a comeback and the possibility of the game going into overtime was frightening. Having to win a coin toss for a second time in the game would not have been easy. Plus, everyone would have to hear about the whining about sudden death overtime rules. Even when Manning was driving towards the endzone on that final drive, I was still worried. The Saints defense managed to do its job and stop the comeback attempt, which was good enough.
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
Why didn't
we hear about the blueprint to stop the Saints after they barely squeaked out a win against the Vikings after getting 5 turnovers. Because they won.
It seems every time the Colts lose a big game, Peyton is labeled a choker and there is a new blueprint to stop the Colts. Wake me up when this turns out to be the case.
I guess this makes Belichick's
3-4 not the blueprint, the thing that actually once, you know, stopped the Colts.
I thought the 3-4 was Manning’s kryptonite?
Please, the Saints did not win because of defense, they won because of mistakes the Colts made and that onside kick and their own Offense.
EVH+DLR=BFFs........ God I Hope So!!
Funny, I don't seem to remember the Colts having any trouble moving the ball when they had it.
Onside kicks and going for it on 4th down are despiration moves, not strategy. That’s Fisheresque thinking.
Good defensive coaches scheme based on their players’ talent, not what “scheme” works. If you have enough talent at LB and Secondary you can run 3-3-5, but if you don’t, you can’t. Bad coaches are the ones who look at their players and say “we run the 46 here, you have to learn it.”
There is no magic bullet. No one else in the NFL could run the Colts offense the way Manning runs it.
The Saints “success” against the Colts offense was situational, not scematic.
by vintagephoenix on Feb 11, 2010 12:45 PM EST reply actions
i’m sorry, but there was a definite strategy to the 4th down and the onside kick. i thought the most appealing aspect of going to for it on fourth down was that, even if unsuccessful, the colts were going to have to be at least a little conservative in their clock management until they got that first down. If the saints take the FG, they are simply saying that 3 points is worth it to put the defense back on the field against one of the finest two minute quarterbacks ever. It didn’t have to work out the way it did (the colts could have thrown on first down from the 1 and gotten a first down), but for all the talk of “you need TDs, not FGs when you play peyton manning,” i thought it was a perfectly reasonable strategy. it’s not like they were going for it from the 4 yard line.
as far as the onside kick, sean payton seemed to be confident that he had seen a recurring tendency of the colts front line guys to start running before the kick and felt like he could exploit that. sure, it was a risk, but was giving manning the ball at the saints 40 that much worse than giving it to him at his own 25 or 30. In the 7 possessions the Colts had where they were leading or down by 7 or less, Manning crossed the New Orleans 40 on 5 of them.
who cares about giving it to him at the 40 when he’s going to get there the majority of the time anyway and you might get a turnover out of the deal!
Payton probably also the saw the tendency
of Hank Butterfingers Baskett on any of the game film he watched… good idea to kick toward his side of the field.
How can you not love a team that does this?
All that is predicated by the notion that they couldn't stop Manning, and that's kind of my point.
It’s why I call it despiration, not strategy. They went on 4th down because they felt they had to, not “well when we don’t score, the Colts will get the ball on the 1yd line and that’s as good as a punt.”
The onside kick is a perfect example of the “brilliant when it works, idiot when it doesn’t” play. They went for it because they felt they were never going to catch up if they didn’t do something desperate (sp). It was a coin flip that came up heads when they needed heads, it wasn’t a choice of tails because technically the “heads” side of a coin is actually a little heavier causing there to be a slight statistical advantage in choosing tails.
by vintagephoenix on Feb 12, 2010 8:59 AM EST up reply actions
Yes
The Saints won because they were desperate and lucky, not because they were the better team on Sunday. Keep telling yourself that.
"There are those that make it happen, those that watch it happen, and those that stand around and wonder what the hell happened." -- Drew Brees
this was no blueprint for stopping the colts
but you have to admit that it was a pretty successful method of slowing them down. Indy had 87 yards on their final drive, so the 432 total yards number is a bit misleading. I thought the real success of the saints defense was forcing Indianapolis to run so many plays to get their yards. excluding the two second quarter three and outs (unfortunate drop & clock milking), Indy ran 11, 11, 10 & 12 play drives for 286 yards.
objectively speaking, 286 yards in 4 drives is outstanding (71 yds per possession!)…..but when you take 22:17 in game clock to do it, you’re experiencing at least some friction to what you’d like to be doing. when you allow the other team to eat the clock as well, then you’re just not going to have very many possesssions
Let's see this "blueprint"
Against Coyer with a healthy:
1) Freeney
2) Sanders
3) Jackson
4) Hagler
all that adds up to a Saints FAIL!!! It would also be nice if some laundry would have come out on all that Saints offensive holding and Saints defensive pass interference.
sooooo looking forward to having those guys back and healthy next year
assuming Jackson will be back…
How can you not love a team that does this?
Read this
The 3-3-5 is nothing new that Manning has seen, it was not about scheme, it was about execution.
This article was released before the AFCCG against the Jets, the Houston Texans DC had to write this, god knows why, but here it is:
http://www.nj.com/jets/index.ssf/2010/01/containing_indianapolis_colts.html
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Stampede Blue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
