Why BBS' conclusions are wrong.

I’d like to know who blew which coverage lane on that kick, too, just as an outside observer.

Matt Bowen of the National Football Post was a career special team contributor (as well as defensive starter) who knows all the intricacies of proper lane designation in kick coverage units. He’s also a great columnist who breaks down the X’s and O’s particularly well and disseminates it for public consumption. Maybe you could use your pull to see if he could break down the play and see who blew what lane in depth, BigBlueShoe?

‘Tis just a thought, but it’d definitely make for an interesting discussion, especially since he could give an overview of the entire ST play, not just the respective roles of Triplett or Hughes.

As an aside – he has already looked at the play and says:

5. Cromartie’s kick return: How big was that? To take a kick back near mid-field in a two-minute situation to win the game is priceless. Cromartie presses the kick coverage, doesn’t hesitate and uses pure speed to attack an open lane. For Indy, that play is going to sit with them all offseason, because they didn’t attack their lanes and couldn’t get off of blocks. On top of that, great field position in a 2-minute situation changes the way you call plays from an offensive perspective. Great return.

To me, that says two things – he didn’t specifically name Hughes as a culprit, and the mention of an “open lane” suggests a team-wide issue, not just one guy. One guy by himself can’t shut down an ‘open lane’ – you need several in their correct spacings and of equal depth to blanket the lane. Finally, he critiques players for ‘not getting off their blocks’ – Hughes looks bad because he was downfield and potentially had a shot at Cromartie, but at least he got off his blocks. It seems the rest of the kick coverage unit didn’t, and while they don’t look as bad because they didn’t whiff, they didn’t even do the most elementary part of their job as a coverage player. At least Hughes did that.

Maybe if you asked him, Bowen could break it down even further and explain all the points he raised?

The definition of a fact is – something known to exist or have happened.

Whether or not someone missed a gap can be determined. (By the Colts coaching staff, I assume.) A fact by definition can be either true of false and can be disputed.

The unicorn is green. Is a fact. Subject to verification, but a fact none the less.

Facts are often equated with truth, falsely.

So 1 and 2 are examples of you guys disagreeing about facts.

Opinion are judgments or beliefs based on insufficient verifiable facts.

So 3 and 4 are opinions. (Tough to disagree a healthy Gonzo is a big upgrade over White, But I’m sure someone does.) I bet Gonzo is back next year , his cap hit is pretty low.

Regardless, 95% of the conflict on SB is caused by facts and opinions being presented as absolute truth. That’s a fact. (Which could be true or false.)

Let’s not even get into truth, blogs really aren’t conducive to such trivialities. If it is truth you seek, might I humbly suggest you take a philosophy class or find your nearest religious leader. Get back to us in 30 or 40 years and report your results.

Again, just my opinion.

The seam Cromartie exploited was to the left of Jerry Hughes. This is a fact.
Nate Triplett was aligned to the left of Hughes on the coverage team. This is a fact.
As a coach myself, I have never instructed nor have I witnessed a coverage unit that calls for a player to be responsible for a lane on the other side of another player. This again is a fact.
You stated since Polian believes Conner is the next David Thornton that would lead to the exit of Clint Session. Thornton and Conner (to this point) were both predominantly contributors at the SLB position whereas Session has contributed at the WLB position. The fact is Conner has been contributing at a position other than the one Session plays. The logic there does not fit.
Gonzalez’s value is very much disputable and each individual is entitled to his/her opinion of it. However, it is an absolute fact that his presence would affect (not effect there, friend) the offense. You could argue he would be a negative presence even but there is no denying he would have an effect on the Colts offense.
While we’re at it, there is no such thing as a “partial fact”, as you put it. A fact is by definition indisputable. It’s quite funny that the very premise you are attacking me on is one you don’t understand yourself.
Also you’re welcome for my posting here. I will gladly continue to do so despite your misguided attacks on me.

Actually the addition of Gonzalez making an effect on offense is a fact. He will be in the game rather than another receiver, say Blair White. Whether or not that effect is positive or negative would be an opinion

There’s a lot of wisdom to letting the guys who practice kick coverage play kick coverage… In our case, the guys who are supposed to practice kick coverage were injured, resulting the the backup kick coverage getting injured, resulting in some “dudes off the street” playing kick coverage with a spring loaded recliner, an old tire, a couple of busted up used tacking dummies and everybody’s favorite draft pick, Jerry Hughes. Apparently, the old tire missed it’s lane and aimed the finger of blame at Hughes, knowing that local sports bloggers would attack what they see as the biggest draft bust in 46 years.

In short, that play was so important that Mr. Franchise, Peyton Manning himself should have been on coverage if he was one of the best 11 players available.

Oh, and a touchback would have been nice. Really. If you are going to belt one out of the endzone, this is the time to do so.