Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
It makes sense only in the scenario where you're conceding that the opposing offense is demonstrably better than yours (and still only with a significant caveat that I'll get to).
Let's say it's a situation where my offense will score 2/3 of the time against a 'representative' average NFL defense and yours will score 1/2 the time. Over 12 possessions, I'm scoring 8 times, you're scoring 6. Somewhere in there you have to 'make up' 2 scores. Now if you bring that down to 8 possessions, my offense will score 5 times, yours will score 4. Now you only have to 'make up' 1 score. You've increased your odds and decreased your margin by 50% by limiting possessions.
But what that analysis so often fails to take into consideration is the respective defenses and the fact that both offenses AREN'T playing the same 'representative' average NFL defense. They're playing the other teams. So if you're the Colts, let's say that you'll concede the 2/3 vs. 1/2 offensive distinction against that represnetative squad (which isn't a given) - it's still irrelevant because the Chiefs offense is playing your defense and your offense is playing our defense. So whatever the 'representative' figure might be ceases to matter. The Colts have a better defense than we do so that gap closes to where it's probably something like 6/10 both ways.
So at that point it just doesn't matter how many possessions there are. What matters is execution. And you're going to execute better on the things you do well. So as an offense, just go out there and do what you do well. Stop trying to change things up and get out of your comfort zone. Go play your style and try to simply play it better than the opponent does.
|
That's a good way of explaining it, and I agree. (Most especially with the bolded chunk.)
If the Colts think they can run the ball, they'll try to prove it (and they probably will). But, if they accidentally rip off a 70-yarder for a TD, are they going to ask the refs for a do-over because they surrendered some clock? I think not.
The entire question is about
who does
what better in
which situations. That's what has always been about and that fact is magnified on offense given the rule changes we've seen. A defense can give up 50 points, but make key plays in critical situations that turn a game (see the Rams). STs can flip a field or put up points that change a gameplan you've worked on all week long.
Although those are factors in almost every game, I think this particular issue is mainly about O vs O (as you rightly point out). However, the fact is that, if every team could dominate TOP, every team would. In the end, possessions are only important if you do something with them.
A good example is this; everybody under the NFL sun was talking about how the Ravens would be effective against the Chargers due to their killer run game and their ability to limit Rivers' possessions. Turnovers killed that plan (well ... and some remarkably creative defensive scheming which I personally covet). We all know that every game turns on a few critical plays. Chiefs win when those plays happen in our favor when we have the ball. That's how we're built and that's what we'll live or die with.
FAX