National Football Posts' Matt Bowen Breaks Down The Colts Offense

by Brad Wells on Aug 26, 2010 12:10 PM EDT in 2010 Colts Analysis

If you are a chalkboard football fan, NFP's Matt Bowen just became your favorite NFL sports writer:

In the past we have discussed teams such as New England who use multiple personnel groupings and formations. Indy, on the other hand, is just the opposite. They rely on their "Ace" or 212 personnel (2 WR, 1 RB, 2 TE) and "Posse" or 311 personnel (3 WR, 1 RB, 1 TE). Nearly the entire playbook is run with these two personnel groupings on the field. Yes, there is some window dressing involved to align in different formations, but at the end of the day this is what you see from Indy.

Matt then goes into detail explaining the Colts' top passing routes: the china/dig and 4 verticals. It's a must read for people who love charts, diagrams, squiggly lines, and simple explanations that accurately define just how excellent the Colts offense is.

Inside the playbook: Breaking down the Colts

Tweet Comment 6 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

NOBODY BREAKS DOWN THE COLTS OFFENSE!!!!

Oh, wait… you meant “analyzes”… heh… my bad…

------

"How can a pickup truck contain enough mass to unfold into a towering machine? I say if Ringling Brothers can get 15 clowns into a Volkswagen, anything is possible."

Roger Ebert, Transformers review.

by E.M.H. on Aug 26, 2010 1:45 PM EDT reply actions

Garçon ran those dig and slant routes all game long against the Jets.

With two deep passes mixed in.

"Pressure is something you feel if you don't know what the hell you're doing."-Peyton Manning

by P0RKINS2 on Aug 26, 2010 2:25 PM EDT via mobile reply actions

seems fanshot worthy,

great link though.

by torontocoltsfan on Aug 26, 2010 3:26 PM EDT reply actions

Man, that was good.

Awesome bit of understatement:

When a safety plays too shallow, he cannot take the proper angle to the football — thus he gets beat. Essentially, he is playing two routes here in Cover 3 as the deep middle of the field player. Technique has to be solid.

Yeah, solid technique… and blazing speed, covering deep center field when two receivers are running downfield outside the hashes.

Dallas Clark gives us so much.

I hate Joe Namath. That's how long I've been a Colts fan.

by Bobman on Aug 26, 2010 3:38 PM EDT reply actions

Comment at linked article that makes me wonder "Why do people say that?"...

“… however, it really illustrated more of why this (the Cover-2) defense is out of vogue…”

This is something I see occasionally. Heck, BBS even devoted a good deal of a post to it. But it still boggles me. The Cover-2 is out of vogue?

I end up wondering how it could be out of vogue (or “…date”, or “… style”) when it forms the basis of many teams defensive philosophies. The “Cover-2” is really more of a concept than a specific scheme, right? I mean, a 2-deep zone doesn’t dictate what goes on underneath, and someone could have a 3-4 blitz-happy man coverage thing going on near the line and still be running a Cover-2 up top.

I wonder if the notion that it’s something old and perhaps stale is actually restricted to the bend-don’t-break, all zone type of Cover-2, where the QB pressure is generated by the D-line and the linebackers are either used to cover or plug gaps. I think you can still argue that that’s hardly out-of-vogue/date/style, but I get the impression that some self-styled football cognoscenti

------

"How can a pickup truck contain enough mass to unfold into a towering machine? I say if Ringling Brothers can get 15 clowns into a Volkswagen, anything is possible."

Roger Ebert, Transformers review.

by E.M.H. on Aug 26, 2010 4:13 PM EDT reply actions

Ok, the space bar is NOT the post button!!!!

… so I don’t know why my thing posted while I was still typing.

Anyway, like I was saying: I get the impression that some folks who like to blab about football think of the Cover-2 zone with little to no blitzing as being rather stodgy. And in a way it is, but again, I’m hard pressed to see how it’s really “ancient” or “yesterday”.

I do see people who get excitable about defense endlessly praising blitz-happy schemes. Look at Ryan, Bellichick, etc. What are they known for? Blitz schemes. What is the 3-4 supposedly good at? Disguising where the blitz comes from. But none of that contradicts the Cover-2 at all; that’s what’s happening on top.

The real contradiction to a Cover-2 would be a strict man-to-man everywhere. Can anyone name a team that uses that? I can’t (although that may simply be because I don’t know the entire NFL that good, just the Colts regular opponents).

Anyway, I’m just at a loss as to why the mindset exists saying the Cover-2 is something that’s old and not “in vogue”. Maybe it’s because I’m a fan of a team that bases on deep cover zones, but I simply don’t see it.

------

"How can a pickup truck contain enough mass to unfold into a towering machine? I say if Ringling Brothers can get 15 clowns into a Volkswagen, anything is possible."

Roger Ebert, Transformers review.

by E.M.H. on Aug 26, 2010 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions