/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/52484515/GettyImages-630503412.0.jpeg)
The Colts Playoff chances were pretty slim heading into Week 16, but the first of five games the Colts needed went their way Saturday, so when they started in Oakland they were still alive. But just like we've seen over and over and over, the Colts inconsistency reared its ugly head again, the Colts fell behind big early, and had a comeback fall just short, losing 33-25 to the Raiders, officially ending the Playoff hopes of a team that really didn't deserve to have said hope.
With yet another disappointment, the focus normally turns to who's to blame for such a bad game, and normally it's easy to find, or you can just blame everyone, which if you want to do that after Saturday's debacle I'm not going to argue with you. But I saw (or heard) in too many places that this loss falls solely on QB Andrew Luck, which is patently false. Now, he clearly had some issues, namely the two interceptions, one of which occurred in the end zone. On the whole this year he's been much better at not turning it over, but those were not good, and both led to touchdowns. Which leads us to...
The Defense was atrocious Sunday. They allowed touchdowns on five straight possessions. I sadly can't search any where to see how often that happens, but my guess is not very often. I quickly looked at some of the huge number games under Peyton Manning and found a couple four consecutive drive TDs, but never five. When you give up a touchdown on five straight possessions and the blame goes elsewhere, maybe he/she should re-assess how they watch games. You'll see in the numbers that it's not even close who played worse.
I did like the call to try the fake field goal early in the game. My only argument against it would have been to just go for it with your Offense, who are clearly better equipped to gain five yards than Pat McAfee, but I like the aggressive call. The Colts were an underdog in the game, and if Chuck Pagano only knew his Defense would give up touchdowns on five straight drives he would have liked that decision even more.
Time for some numbers. Let's jump in.
Non-Adjusted Stats for Week 16:
Statistic | Offense | Rank | Defense | Rank | Off/Def Above | Off/Def Below | Record |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DSR | 76.7% | 12 | 84.2% | 31 | N | N | 7-0 |
ANPY/A | 8.207 | 10 | 9.088 | 28 | N | N | 10-1 |
Turnovers | 3 | 28 | 0 | 23 | N | Y | 9-1 |
Yds/Drive | 39.10 | 8 | 41.73 | 30 | N | N | 4-4 |
ToP/Drive | 2:23.5 | 23 | 3:16.8 | 32 | N | Y | 8-2 |
Yds/Play | 7.377 | 3 | 6.465 | 22 | N | N | 6-2 |
Orange Zone Eff | 57.1% | 19 | 83.3% | 26 | N | N | 5-2 |
First Downs/Drive | 2.00 | 12 | 2.45 | 29 | N | N | 4-2 |
3rd/4th Down | 44.4% | 14 | 60.0% | 30 | N | N | 4-3 |
Avg Start Pos | 24.3 | 25 | 32.5 | 24 | N | Y | 6-6 |
3 and Outs | 3 | 10 | 2 | 24 | N | N | 1-1 |
RZ Eff | 100.0% | 1 | 100.0% | 26 | N | N | 4-0 |
Plays/Drive | 5.300 | 21 | 6.455 | 28 | N | Y | 4-6 |
Penalty Yds / Play | 0.415 | 7 | 1.310 | 6 | Y | N | 5-4 |
RB Success | 55.0% | 10 | 41.7% | 11 | Y | N | 3-4 |
Yds/Carry | 4.29 | 16 | 5.68 | 27 | N | N | 1-3 |
Ranking - Week (32) | 15 | 32 | 27 | ||||
Ranking - Season (480) | 190 | 468 | 413 |
Adjusted Stats for Week 16:
Statistic | Offense | Rank | Defense | Rank | Off/Def Above | Off/Def Below | Record |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DSR | 77.5% | 12 | 82.9% | 32 | N | N | 7-0 |
ANPY/A | 7.505 | 13 | 7.938 | 26 | N | N | 10-1 |
Turnovers | 2.5 | 29 | 0.8 | 21 | N | Y | 9-1 |
Yds/Drive | 38.14 | 8 | 40.67 | 29 | N | N | 4-4 |
ToP/Drive | 2:39.6 | 16 | 3:13.5 | 31 | N | Y | 8-2 |
Yds/Play | 6.670 | 8 | 6.180 | 20 | N | N | 6-2 |
Orange Zone Eff | 52.2% | 25 | 79.4% | 28 | N | N | 5-2 |
First Downs/Drive | 2.12 | 9 | 2.45 | 31 | N | N | 4-2 |
3rd/4th Down | 47.4% | 13 | 60.7% | 31 | N | N | 4-3 |
Avg Start Pos | 28.0 | 18 | 29.0 | 19 | N | Y | 6-6 |
3 and Outs | 2.4 | 8 | 2.1 | 27 | N | N | 1-1 |
RZ Eff | 100.1% | 2 | 92.6% | 28 | N | N | 4-0 |
Plays/Drive | 5.799 | 15 | 6.553 | 29 | N | Y | 4-6 |
Penalty Yds / Play | 0.219 | 2 | 1.154 | 6 | Y | N | 5-4 |
RB Success | 53.6% | 11 | 44.9% | 14 | Y | N | 3-4 |
Yds/Carry | 3.82 | 22 | 5.57 | 27 | N | N | 1-3 |
Ranking - Week (32) | 11 | 32 | 24 | ||||
Ranking - Season (480) | 153 | 466 | 394 |
Some thoughts:
- As you can see, the Offensive woes are really only in two categories: Turnovers (it was bad), and Orange Zone Efficiency, where they had six drives inside the Raiders 35 yard line, but only scored three TDs and a field goal, and the Raiders have struggled on Defense stopping other teams, so it's even worse than it seems. Once they got to the 20 they were fine (2/2), but those missing points hurt them dearly.
- I said above that the Colts got inside the Oakland 35 six times, so driving the ball wasn't really an issue, and you can see they were in the top half of the league last week in Drive Success Rate, 3rd/4th Down, Three and Outs, and Yards per Drive. They moved the ball fine, just didn't finish a couple of drives.
- The Overall Offensive numbers, when compared to every other game this NFL season, ranks in the top 3rd of 2016. On the flip side, the Defense ranked 466th out of 480 total games, which is in the bottom 3% of all games played. But sure, if you want to blame Andrew Luck because he makes a lot of money, or you have an agenda, be my guest in showing your ignorance.
- As you'd expect, all the Defensive drive stats are garbage, ranking 28th or worse in a whole slew of them. They gave up 60% on 3rd/4th down, including the final one of the game that sealed the win for the Raiders. It was a play that absolutely should have been made by Vontae Davis, and when he doesn't make those types of plays, this Defense has no chance for success.
- What did the Defense do well? They were only in the top half of the league last week in two categories: Drawing penalties and RB Success Rate, which has only won games at 36% this year. The Defense is finally rounding into Chuck Pagano's vision I guess.
Season Stats through Week 16 (Adjusted):
Statistic | Offense | Rank | Best | Defense | Rank | Best | Record | Win % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DSR | 75.3% | 6 | Falcons | 73.0% | 27 | Giants | 84-15 | 0.848 |
ANPY/A | 6.441 | 9 | Falcons | 6.738 | 28 | Broncos | 103-13 | 0.888 |
Turnovers | 1.71 | 18 | Falcons | 1.24 | 27 | Chiefs | 110-27 | 0.803 |
Yds/Drive | 33.68 | 7 | Redskins | 34.18 | 29 | Texans | 74-22 | 0.771 |
ToP/Drive | 2:57.0 | 5 | Lions | 2:40.0 | 16 | Texans | 95-32 | 0.748 |
Yds/Play | 5.452 | 14 | Falcons | 5.844 | 31 | Broncos | 75-27 | 0.735 |
Orange Zone Eff | 57.5% | 14 | Cowboys | 58.1% | 20 | Giants | 80-40 | 0.667 |
First Downs/Drive | 2.03 | 6 | Falcons | 1.95 | 27 | Texans | 74-25 | 0.747 |
3rd/4th Down | 43.2% | 7 | Saints | 40.8% | 24 | Texans | 79-30 | 0.725 |
Avg Start Pos | 28.7 | 22 | Raiders | 27.9 | 7 | Raiders | 104-43 | 0.707 |
3 and Outs | 3.14 | 7 | Redskins | 3.28 | 20 | Texans | 58-34 | 0.630 |
RZ Eff | 75.4% | 3 | Titans | 68.2% | 22 | Giants | 76-38 | 0.667 |
Plays/Drive | 6.161 | 4 | Lions | 5.797 | 23 | Texans | 78-44 | 0.639 |
Penalty Yds / Play | 0.717 | 6 | Packers | 1.085 | 2 | Titans | 66-47 | 0.584 |
RB Success | 47.0% | 10 | Saints | 50.6% | 30 | Ravens | 46-81 | 0.362 |
Yds/Carry | 4.03 | 19 | Bills | 4.56 | 27 | Ravens | 48-55 | 0.466 |
Overall | 7 | Falcons | 27 | Giants |
A few things:
- Even with the one game without Andrew Luck, this Offense has overachieved my preseason expectations. The overall numbers sometimes get overshadowed by a Turnover number that isn't all that good (18th in the NFL), but this team can move the ball better than 80% of the NFL, and are the best overall Offense in the Andrew Luck era. Want some optimism? That's it.
- The Defense isn't any different than we thought. They stink.
Week-to-Week Comparison:
Colts | Opponent | Non-Adjusted | Adjusted | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Week | Offense | Defense | Total | Offense | Defense | Total | |
1 | Lions | 17 | 469 | 252 | 65 | 453 | 293 |
2 | Broncos | 329 | 384 | 411 | 218 | 454 | 406 |
3 | Chargers | 186 | 157 | 124 | 146 | 158 | 93 |
4 | Jaguars | 230 | 220 | 217 | 200 | 311 | 294 |
5 | Bears | 174 | 352 | 282 | 177 | 433 | 370 |
6 | Texans | 271 | 304 | 327 | 138 | 429 | 330 |
7 | Titans | 28 | 379 | 132 | 34 | 316 | 99 |
8 | Chiefs | 409 | 333 | 436 | 401 | 286 | 413 |
9 | Packers | 208 | 322 | 283 | 258 | 234 | 258 |
10 | BYE | ||||||
11 | Titans | 140 | 269 | 168 | 179 | 194 | 168 |
12 | Steelers | 206 | 457 | 412 | 219 | 462 | 412 |
13 | Jets | 43 | 6 | 1 | 68 | 25 | 9 |
14 | Texans | 340 | 218 | 308 | 180 | 329 | 290 |
15 | Vikings | 20 | 69 | 5 | 7 | 78 | 3 |
16 | Raiders | 190 | 468 | 413 | 153 | 466 | 394 |
The Colts Offense is ranked 6th in consistency, and you can see why when you put every game next to each other. They had one dud (Chiefs), one slightly below average game (Packers), and everything else above average, with four of them being in the top 15% of the league this year. Overall, however, the Colts rank just 28th in Consistency, which means on the whole, you really can't tell from week to week which team you're going to see. This has been the case for five years now. One week they'd look like Super Bowl contenders, and the next they lose by 30 to a bad team.
This deserves its own post so I won't get into too much here, but this is the reason a regime change is necessary right now (well, really a year ago, but I digress). The numbers are right here in black and white. When you don't know what you're going to get, it's far worse than even knowing that you're going to be bad. When the owner is expecting multiple Super Bowls, this is definitely not the way to do it, and his continued backing of Chuck Pagano and Ryan Grigson is a direct contradiction to this end goal.