Football Outsiders likes the Colts... sort of

by BigBlueShoe on Jul 20, 2007 10:42 AM EDT in Analysis Comment 14 comments

I had the chance to interview Mike Tanier of Football Outsiders on the SBNSR a few nights ago. Tanier is one of their better writers. He completed two articles recently that are must reads for Colts fans. The first one is his breakdown of all the QBs in the league. Naturally, he ranked the Colts QBs first because of Manning. He then ranked the Patriots second. On the SBNSR, he told me the amount of hate mail he was getting from dumbass Patriots fans was bordering on the absurd. One guy went so far as to say the Super Bowl last season was "rigged." In other news, the New England Patriots unveiled their new fan helmets for 2007:

The Patriots are #1!

The second article of note written by Tanier is an excellent piece on the 1981 Baltimore Colts. This article really takes you into the bowels of a bad football team, headed by a meddling, drunken owner (Robert Irsay), incompetent coaches, and a roster divided. The 1981 Baltimore Colts were a big reason why the franchise moved from Baltimore to Indianapolis. Here is the most interesting segment from Tanier's article:

The Eagles crushed the Colts 38-13 in Week 11. "I'll be honest," Eagles quarterback Ron Jaworski said after the game. "I don't remember a game like this where we could do whatever we wanted on offense." Jaws also probably couldn't remember a game in which the other team's owner [Irsay] grabbed a headset and started calling plays on the sidelines. Irsay, sitting in the coaching box at Veterans Stadium, got fed up with his team's performance in the third quarter, picked up a telephone, and ordered McCormack to replace Jones with backup quarterback Greg Landry. Irsay later appeared on the sidelines, ordered Jones back into the game, and called several plays. Needless to say, coaches and players were stunned. And a little displeased.

Can you imagine if that happened today? Something like that might actually revivie the floundering "Worldwide leader" kown as ESPN.

Articles like Tanier's 1981 Colts article are things you just don't see written in media like the Indy Star or The Booyah Network. Football Outsiders has gone on to rank the WRs, RBs, and the OLs in the NFL as well. For the WRs, Bill Barnwell ranked the Dallas Cowboys WRs first over the Colts. Barnwell's argument for this is weak, at best. Basically, he suggests the if Tony Romo had started the 2006 season, Terrell Owens and Terry Glenn would have had insane stats. Not sure I buy that. Romo thrived against garbage competition (Tampa Bay, New York) and choked against real defenses (Philly, Seattle). He played especially bad down the stretch. Despite that, when it is all said and done, no one who knows anything about football is going to say Terrell Owens is better than Marvin Harrison, or Terry Glenn is better than Reggie Wayne. If they do, they don't know football. That simple.

Per usual, our resident Cowboy cheerleader, Terry, was flaunted the Football Outsiders WR review. All I can say is everyone has an opinion, and Barnwell's is both wrong and unsupported.

The Cowboys' receivers are #1!

Despite Barnwell's retarded WR ranking, his article on RBs, co-written with Alex Carnevale, was pretty accurate, ranking the Colts at #13. I can only assume Carnevale's influence helped remove Barnwell's head from his butt.

All in all, the evaluations are good, and I'm looking forward to their take on the Colts defense. Hopefully, Tanier will write the article and not Barnwell.

0 recs | Comment 14 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Its very supported BIgBlue

you just choose to ignore his metrics which are extremely valid. If Romo did play the entire year, Cowboys receivers would blow away Colts receivers in every category. Romo only had a few bad games last season which actually is remarkable for a first year starter.

Don't kid yourself, T.O. and Glenn are very bit as good as Wayne and Harrison and we both know Witten is a much better TE than Clark.

You will see this prove first hand in 20 days when Romo and the Boys abuse your first team defense for a few series before the backups and rookies take over.

by Terry on Jul 20, 2007 11:45 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Ifs and buts

Bledsoe only started the first 5 games. The 13 games where Romo started only raised Glenn's DVOA 4%. Witten's went up 2%. Owen's jumped by 20% but he was hurt early while Bledsoe was still the starter and was adjusting to a new offense.

If someone has a better way to try to fill out the Cowboys receiver's numbers for a full season under Romo feel free to put it up. Owen's DVOA increased 20% in the 13 games with Romo that's +1.54% DVOA per game. Times 16 that equals 24.6% still worse than Wayne or Marvin.

I'll give you Witten over Clark. Witten doesn't give the credit he deserves for his great play.

While we are playing Ifs and buts with last season I'll take a healthy Clark and Stokley. I wonder what the Colts passing offense could do then?

by shake n bake on Jul 20, 2007 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Terrell Owens being average...

is in the same league as Tom Brady being awesome. It's such "conventional wisdom" that everybody accepts in the face of all evidence to the contrary, and in fact you're considered crazy if you look at the emperor and realize he's in spandex.

Terrell Owens is awesome. When it comes to getting in the end zone or fighting for the ball in the end zone, there is NO ONE better. And this is with broken fingers, etc. Give TO to Manning, and he's going to throw 60 TDs. That's my measure. Harrison with Manning - still awesome. Without Manning - his speed has already diminished to the point where he would be an above average role player due to exceptional route running.

Reggie Wayne is maybe an 80 on a scale of 100, where Randy Moss was maybe a 95 in his heyday. The Colts offense responds in real time to the defense, and I think people have no idea how much that makes their receivers look better than they would on other teams.

by SteveW on Jul 21, 2007 3:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Steve

I agree that anybody who says T.O. is "average" is wrong. When healthy and motivated, he's clearly an elite receiver. However, I don't think anyone can take anything away from Marvin.

True, he may have lost a step, but he was never a burner to begin with. In fact he may have gotten the most out of his physical abilities than any WR in history. T.O., for example, has 3 inches and 33 pounds on Marvin. Perhaps this contributes to T.O. being better suited to fight for balls in the end zone?

And since the two receivers came into the league the same year, it makes for easier comparisons (how convenient). You say that NO ONE is better at getting into the end zone than T.O. However, having been in the league for the same amount of time, Marvin has 122 TDs while T.O. has 114. And T.O. has had the advantage of much better size and speed.

Finally, you make the argument that it's the Colts offense that makes the receivers look good. This is kind of a chicken/egg deal: how do you know that it's not the receivers that make the Colts offense good? For example, one of the reasons the Colts offense is able to respond "in real time to the defense" is because Marvin is one of the best ever at recognizing coverages and breaking off his patterns to get open when Peyton is in trouble. His rapport with his QB is legendary and well-documented. This is an invaluable skill for a WR, and one that many don't have, and one that nobody does as well as Marvin.

In sum, yes T.O. is damned good. If he stays healthy and motivated (big "ifs") he'll certainly be a Hall of Famer. But before Marvin is done, he'll be one of the top 2 WRs of all time, with an outside shot to be the best.

by ctnyc on Jul 21, 2007 9:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course it's the old chicken-egg thing

But we can't have it both ways. Either Manning is Jesus-in-cleats, or the receivers are, but they aren't enough better than everybody to be both.

In fact, I think it's the system they have, enabled by Manning's ability to control the football field. As a QB talent (the throwing the ball throught the tires stuff) Manning is good but not even top-10 type stuff all time.

It's just my opinion, but I think Manning is the enabler of all of their awesomeness. You could plug in any other highly talented receiver like Glenn into their offense and he will have astronomical numbers too. Harrison has longevity which is required and that certainly makes him top notch (plus I agree on reading coverages, but that can be taught). However, Owens has longevity too, and if he was on Manning's offense he would have (superlative above astronomical) numbers. Owens likes to catch touchdowns, and he would therefore listen to Manning. And yes, it is Owens size to some extent, but that's part of the package. He's not required to play small just because he's big.

And T.O. on three teams (is that right?) with QBs that you and I would both agree are lesser than Manning, with no rapport, with many games lost to antics, is still only 8 TDs behind Harrison who is re-writing record books, or at least signing his name right in underneath Jerry Rice. Again, if TO had Manning at some point in his career, we can only imagine.

by SteveW on Jul 21, 2007 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

I agree with most of what you say, except for the first sentence. I'll revise my chicken/egg analogy a little bit: why can't both be great? Perhaps we are blessed with a truly special QB and a truly special WR at the same time. It's not having it both ways if both parties are truly great. I don't want too much of my philosophy-major stuff to come out and bore everybody, but perhaps greatness is reserved for those symbiotic relationships where truly special players make each other the best they can be. I do think they're enough better than everybody (although as I say, Marvin may have lost a step). Manning/Harrison will likely finish with far and away the best QB/WR combo numbers in history. Of course, many factors play into this, longevity and playing for one team being key ones. But that sounds like enough better to me. We can always speculate what other combos might have done if they'd had the chance, but it is only speculation. Perhaps they wouldn't have meshed like Peyton and Marvin. At any rate, Peyton and Marvin are the ones who are actually getting it done.

And don't get me wrong, again T.O. is a fine receiver. But while Marvin has had Peyton, T.O. has physical advantages that Marvin doesn't. Is this a wash? Who knows. But Garcia (in his prime) and McNabb are not exactly chopped liver, so it's not like T.O. has had Rex Grossman throwing to him.

At any rate, if I were picking an all-time team, I would take Marvin over T.O. They certainly bring different styles to the table, and the production is similar (although I think Marvin has an edge), but Marvin does it without all the baggage. And in a team game, that's important too.

by ctnyc on Jul 21, 2007 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, one more thing

I also meant to mention your comment about how reading coverages can be taught. I agree completely that this can be taught, but have to add that it is not always learned. Plenty of WRs and QBs with tremendous physical gifts have flamed out due to ego or simple lack of intelligence. And as the premise of my choosing Marvin is largely based on his maxixmizing his less-than-spectacular physical gifts with superior intellect, I don't think the "it can be taught" argument should minimize Marvin's accomplishments. It can be, but should not be assumed. At any rate, I still contend that Marvin does it better than anyone.

by ctnyc on Jul 21, 2007 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Terry

Once again you state an opinion as fact. You offer absolutely no substantiating evidence. Why should I trust your biased opinion? Shake n Bake has helpfully given some stats that cast serious doubt on your assertions. Do you have any stats or proof of any sort to refute him, or is your argument solely along the lines of "don't kid yourself" or "everybody knows"?

Personally, I think T.O. and Glenn are fine receivers. But they aren't Marvin and Reggie. And yes, the stats back that up.

As for Romo, you say he had "a few bad games." His last five games stunk. His completion % was 60.5, he had 6 TDs and 8 INTs, and his rating was 77.1 over that span. Do you think maybe the league figured him out? Oh wait, I know, the sun was in his eyes....

by ctnyc on Jul 20, 2007 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

77 rating doesn't stink

average yes, but it certainly doesn't stink. Actually, the only really bad game he had all season was against the Eagles, all other games he was either great or no worse than mediocre and like I said before, extremely remarkable for a first year starter.

I don't need stats to back up my opinion, I know a good player when I see him. I know thats all Colts fans care about, but there is more to being a great player than posting numbers.

by Terry on Jul 21, 2007 12:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course

there's more to being a great player than posting numbers. I'd trade all of Peyton's gaudy stats for a few more Super Bowls. And, for example, Peyton did a masterful job executing the Colts game plans in the playoffs, even though his numbers were not what we've come to expect from him.

It's one thing to be a homer, think your players are the best, and sit on your couch every Sunday cheering on your team. There's nothing at all wrong with that -- it's what true fans should do. But it's quite another thing to come onto a website and try to convince everybody that your team's players are the best. If you're going to do that, you need to offer some sort of valid, objective reasons for your arguments. If you expect anybody to take anything you say seriously, you'll have to do better than "I know a good player when I see him."

And here's some bonus statistics for you: according to ESPN the Magazine, "No receiver lost more yards (448) and more TDs (4) to dropped passes than T.O." Yes, he had a broken finger. And Marvin has played with a wrist injury for two years now. But I guess the injury excuse is only valid for non-Colt receivers....

by ctnyc on Jul 21, 2007 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs