Under 50 plays equals disaster
I don't edit much out of The Morning After (a consistent problem for me), but one item I didn't get to was the imbalanced offensive play count from many games yesterday.
As a Jerricho Cotchery owner, it was frustrating to watch the Jets run a grand total of four plays in the third quarter. You can't score if you aren't on the field, and that is often an overlooked factor in someone's lame afternoon, especially wide receivers and running backs. Cotchery and the Jets made up for it in other quarters, but let's look at some teams that stayed on the field Sunday. Any teams under 50 plays is struggling.
5. The Lions ran 49 plays, while the Redskins had 64. Would be nice to see Detroit to something on grass.
4. The Panthers only ran 47 plays to 75 for the Saints. Still not sure how they won that game.
3. The Seahawks ran only 43 plays to 63 for the Steelers. Very easy to see how they lost.
2. The Bucs managed to run only 39 plays to 77 for the Colts. Now that's a ball control game plan working to perfection! The Colts attacked Tampa like many teams attack them. Kenton Keith almost had more touches (33) than the Bucs had plays.
1. The Ravens-49ers had the same imbalance: 76 plays for Baltimore and 38 for San Francisco, yet the 49ers were a missed Joe Nedney field goal away from winning. Something is seriously wrong with the Baltimore offense to go without a touchdown in that game.
The best fantasy afternoon anyone had out of this group was Tampa's tight end Alex Smith scoring twice. And gaining six yards.
Comments
In terms of time of possession, the Steelers had the most dominant half of football I've ever seen.
They held the football for all but about a minute and-a-half of the third quarter, and nearly 25 minutes out of the final 30. (I'd love to know where that achievement stands in the record books.)
On a 10+ minute drive to open the second half against the Seahawks, Roethlisberger and company overcame three holding penalties and a 10-yard sack before eventually scoring a touchdown. Granted, it wouldn't have been possible without Seattle's ineptitude on 3rd down defense, but it was impressive nonetheless.
Posted by: Flip D. | October 8, 2007 03:23 PM
As a frustrated Frank Gore owner in multiple leagues, I have to ask when SF is going to decide just to keep pounding the ball with him. It was nice to see him get a few receiving yards, though.
Posted by: Nathan | October 8, 2007 03:58 PM
It's a chicken and egg question with Gore. He's at 3.6 yards-per-carry. That's more than LT2, but that makes it harder to stick with. I stubbornly think he'll turn it around. In my PPR league, he's the RB11, so it could be worse.
Posted by: gregg | October 8, 2007 04:35 PM
Pitt is a fraud, you watch. Once they play a decent team they'll be routed. Oh wait, they lost to Arizona. You can't be serious in your observations. Watch New England play football. Then you will know what dominant really is.
Posted by: Mike | October 8, 2007 05:36 PM
how does gore carry the ball 16 times in a close game?
i don't care if his ypc is 2. he's gotta carry the ball more.
Posted by: matt | October 8, 2007 11:11 PM