Diner morning news: Run, Indy, run

I agree with what you say but having cohesion on the offensive line this season will be the biggest help for the running game. Throwing rookie offensive lineman into the fire last year (some of them learning new positions) made it tough to rely on them at critical times. Manning made an honest assessment of the situation last year and likewise i believe he will reassess the situation this year.

I have a friend who is a Colts fan, and I think he would assert that some very dubious officiating calls at the end of the Colts-Chargers playoff game had an impact on the outcome as well. But regardless of the officiating, I find this particular line to be somewhat "splitting hairs"

"Obviously, the running game was not the reason for the loss, but the lack of confidence in calling the run might have been a major factor."

I read the whole article and I understand the point that you make about fourth quarter running being the true indicator of rushing importance on winning football games. But how do you reconcile the choice between having the confidence between Peyton Manning and your running game? Don't good coaches always lean toward putting the game in their best players' hands (regardless of the position)?

Woops, I just read the byline "Manning must be sold on the need to run" after posting that comment. I thought your post was directed toward the Colts' (new) coaching staff. Since Manning has great affect on playcalling, it makes sense that your post would be directed to him.

I recall Peyton having confidence in the running game in 2006, insomuch that Joseph Addai and Dominic Rhodes helped lead the Colts to a Super Bowl title. I think if the tailbacks prove themselves to be up to the challenge, Peyton will gladly rely upon the running game. He is a team player, although many don't often think so. Nice job as always, Lombardi. You should guest host for Jim Rome on his radio show!

I'm a diehard Colts fan and would add this to this story: The Colts either get over-rated or under-rated because of Mannings play. People either say their running game is weak and simply a result of Mannings' ability to make passing plays or the running game is the heart of the offense and without it, Manning isn't as efficient. In reality, the truth is somewhere in the middle. As Lombardi points out, the Colts can win with mostly Manning leading the way with less effort and success from the running game, but with that stated, teams forget the Colts were playing with a mish-moss of offensive linemen most of the last season, coupled with Mannings' knee injury throwing the timing of the passing game off, it led to defenses playing them differently from what we've seen in the past. If going into the season, the Colts are healthy with the roster they have now, we will see a return of their running game and continuity on offense.

It's always been that way with Manning, he feels more control over the pass game's ability to change in live action.

At an Alex Gibbs coaching seminar he describes the difference between his system and that of the Colts. He doesn't knock either system "what they do is great" it's just that he avoids the complex rules series that apply to who gets blocked by particular players. The blocking assignments change vs. every front, for who has a hand on the ground and where or when a safety comes in.

If you don't have time to change the block calls then those rules can work against you on their 'check with me' offense. This means ball placements to he far hash, red zone calls, and groupings changes all have to perform top speed.

Plus there are times you have no choice but to throw vs. the eighth or ninth defender. Now the defense knows which rules apply to which fronts and brings down number eight but lines up in leverage to the weak side so you can't just flip the play and bring an extra blocker over pulling.

so I guess nobody is going to tell me why Rays not rambling anymore

The importance of a running game and the methods of creating a successful running attack is open to much debate as football evolves in the 21st century.

There will always be a correlation between 4th quarter attempts and winning. Because teams will always try and run late with the lead.

In my opinion however, running successfully in quarters 1 and 2 is what gives the team the faith in the running game LATE. So I am very much against the idea of being in the bottom third of running attempts in Q1 and Q2. You just don't establish a belief in your team to be able to run when that critical 3rd and 2 happens late to put the game away with that few attempts early.

I am a big believer in 55%/45% pass/run ratio in Q1 and Q2 adn 45%/55% pass/run ratio in Q3 and Q4 (obviously depending on the score). Today, I think too many teams are drifting into the 60-65% passes in the first half and then wonder why they can't run in the second half when they need to.

I would like to expand on what Mr Murder said. I am a longtime Colts fan and I watch and rewatch each game as a coach would. In my opinion, the Colts offensive system is too static in it's design. It is basically the same base offense as the Steelers used in the 1970's.

The reason Manning HAS to do all the audibles and whatnot is because the base design of the system cannot account for changes in the defense.

You put Manning in Walsh's offense and you would not see any of that.

Tom Moore IS the problem. All of the Colts playoff failures have occurred because the weakness of the design of the Colts offense have been attacked.

Clever defensive coordinators attack the Colts in two ways: Confuse the WRs and confuse the OL. The Colts offense has only a rudimentary option route system for the WRs. Unlike modern offenses where the WR may run a number of different routes depending on the coverage; the Colts WR has a particular route to run - which Manning may change before the snap. Manning uses his uncanny ability to know what coverage is going to played (from his extensive film study) and audibles the WR into a good route. If he is calls it wrong, then that WR is out of the play.

The reason the Colts struggle against 3-4 defensive teams is that those teams have the flexibility to confuse the Colts blocking schemes.

I think it is a sad thing that Manning will play his entire career in Moore's offense. Even when Moore retires they will continue using it for continuity.

I am reminded of Marino's last three years; they ran the same offense his whole career. And at the end, teams knew what they were going to do. Made Marino look worse than he was.

I wish to God that Marino had played one more season in Minnesota; he would have tore it up with that offense there. May have played a couple more years.

While I understand the increasing run ratio by quarter idea -- stake a lead with the passing game, hold it with clock-control running -- this is a flawed formula.

Early in the game, a dominant rush attack is critical for sustaining drives and goal-line situations. And any offensive strategm that becomes too predictable is a priori easier to defend: if DCs know what's coming, they can more effectively counter.

In response to Scott Bolander's post, I whole-heartedly disagree.

Over the years and and the alleged "3-4 teams having the Colts number" is a farse. The reality is whether it was New England, Pitt or San Diego, all of these teams were able to confuse the offensive line, create pressure with 3 or 4 mans pass rushes, while also fast enough to slow down the Colts run game, coupled with poor Colts defense which backed the offense into situations where they were forced to pass or become one-sided. That basically describes the Colts playoff failures during the Dungy era. Teams who have aggressive 3-4 defenses sometime benefit from it, other times it punishes them. Regardless of your comments, the Colts lost 3 times to these teams in the playoffs which went on to win the Super Bowl (NE 2 and Pitt 1), so perhaps it's simply not the Colts, and more to do with the other team either being better or hitting their mark on that day.