Anyone who watched the Dolphins-Colts game on Monday Night Football this week, will probably immediately know where I’m coming from with this post. If you didn’t, you can read the recap of the game and check out the box score.
My major point gets back to something we’ve discussed previously and that is the fact that you can control field position and time of possession all you want…you can manage the game until the cows come home…but you better get the ball in the end zone or you are giving yourself a prime opportunity to lose.
Not to mention that if your team is built offensively to eat up clock than you’re probably going to have problems scoring quickly, if you need to, like if you’re down 4 points with over 2 minutes left the game.
The Dolphins-Colts game on Monday was an extreme, but perfect, example of this. Here, one team - the Dolphins - had the ball for 45:07 and another team - the Colts - had it for 14:53.
The Colts scored 27 points off of 3 TD’s and 2 FG’s while the Dolphins scored 23 points off of 2 TD’s and 3 FG’s.
Dolphins QB Chad Pennington threw one interception and the Dolphins’ kicker, Dan Carpenter missed one FG (of course, if he’d made it, the Dolphins still would’ve lost). Indianapolis had zero turnovers.
Of course, it’s also important to note that part of the reason the Dolphins were able to have the ball for so long was because Indy was capable of scoring so quickly. Miami, obviously, would’ve preferred to put themselves in a position to control the clock by stopping Indianapolis on defense…that didn’t happen, Miami kicked more FG’s than they scored TD’s, and they lost the game.
The passing/running stats for Indianapolis also call into question the need for a running game to support the passing game, as they only rushed the ball 11 times for 61 yards while throwing it 23 times for 303 yards. Yes, that’s 5.55 yards per rushing attempt, but the Colts threw the ball 68% of the time and 8 of those 11 rushes came in the first half, so Miami knew what was coming.
This analysis would be more relevant to the Browns if we knew what the hell they were trying to do on offense. Personally, I don’t. I know that Inadequinn told Terry Pluto on Sunday after the game that he has to go to Mike Furrey when he has him one-on-one in the corner…like Terry, I struggle to understand why this is. It’s not as if finding Furrey in single coverage is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow type opportunity. Teams are never going to double Mike Furrey with Braylon Edwards on the field.
Inadequinn added that it’s better to throw the ball away in that situation than to throw an interception and lose out on the field goal attempt. Games like this one between Indianapolis and Miami make me wonder if Inadequinn’s approach is flawed.
How valuable, really, is a field goal?
Could it be better to take a risk and try to make a play in pursuit of a TD - with the possibility of throwing a pick - than to settle for a shot at scoring three points?
Scoring touchdowns is the name of the game. When you break it down like that, football isn’t so complicated.
