The Keep-Manning-Off-the-field Strategy Does Not Work

Exhibit A - Miami vs. Indy. 45 min. of possession and more yards than Indy...yet still lost.

Manning excels in hurry-up situations because he calls his own plays from the line of scrimmage. Forcing Manning into a no-huddle situation will only get you burned.

The best strategy, from what I've seen, is to try and match them while hoping for a mistake by the Colts offense.

Everybody falls for the theory that you must run against the Colts to keep Manning off the field. Here are the problems with that:

1. Manning is better in the hurry offense than in the normal offense.
2. The Colts defense is MUCH better when they have 8 men in the box -- Bob Sanders gets to play the run instead of the pass (Sanders is amazing vs. the run, so-so vs. the pass)

So, by running on them, you play right into their hands. The only team that DOESN'T take a run-first approach to the Colts is San Diego, and they're been pretty successful vs. Indy. The Steelers aren't afraid to get into a shoot-out w/ Manning Either.

Thoughts?

Let's Air it out!

Man I just can't call it....Niners just have too many ?s right now for me to believe they can properly execute any gameplan.

Just no consistency so far.

Originally posted by verb1der:
Man I just can't call it....Niners just have too many ?s right now for me to believe they can properly execute any gameplan.

Just no consistency so far.

But do you think we should come out with the "run-n-shoot" or the "run-n-punt" to start the game?

The MIA game is a perfect example, but I think that "keeping Manning off the field" is better than trying to go for a shoot out. Not to mention, our secondary is arguably better than MIA

I say we come out aggressively.

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by verb1der:
Man I just can't call it....Niners just have too many ?s right now for me to believe they can properly execute any gameplan.

Just no consistency so far.

But do you think we should come out with the "run-n-shoot" or the "run-n-punt" to start the game?

Run & punt was definitely the offense with Hill.

Originally posted by FourNine49:
The MIA game is a perfect example, but I think that "keeping Manning off the field" is better than trying to go for a shoot out. Not to mention, our secondary is arguably better than MIA

exactly, there's no better defense than eating TOP, and keeping Manning off the field, and hoping the D can create turnovers.

Originally posted by FourNine49:
The MIA game is a perfect example, but I think that "keeping Manning off the field" is better than trying to go for a shoot out. Not to mention, our secondary is arguably better than MIA

Not to mention that I think we play very well out of the nickel -- Tarell Brown plays a mean 3rd corner. I think RB Donald Brown is out this week for them too.

Originally posted by verb1der:
Man I just can't call it....Niners just have too many ?s right now for me to believe they can properly execute any gameplan.

Just no consistency so far.

That's a very good point. In my honest opinion, it's not necessarily a choice between a ''run-and-gun" versus "a run-and-punt".

With the way we've been playing of late, we need to take things back to fundamentals: clock management, tackling, tighter zones on defense, swarming the ball-carrier, and so on. Taking care of the little details that we can [hopefully] control can increase our likelihood of making this game competitive.

We need to polish ourselves before we even occupy the thought of countering what Peyton and company are going to do.

With that being said, LETS GO NINErRRRRRSSSS!!!

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by FourNine49:
The MIA game is a perfect example, but I think that "keeping Manning off the field" is better than trying to go for a shoot out. Not to mention, our secondary is arguably better than MIA

Not to mention that I think we play very well out of the nickel -- Tarell Brown plays a mean 3rd corner. I think RB Donald Brown is out this week for them too.

Bly is our nickel corner. And Roman goes in on dime packages. I hardly ever see Brown in

Originally posted by verb1der:

Originally posted by FourNine49:
The MIA game is a perfect example, but I think that "keeping Manning off the field" is better than trying to go for a shoot out. Not to mention, our secondary is arguably better than MIA

exactly, there's no better defense than eating TOP, and keeping Manning off the field, and hoping the D can create turnovers.

But, like I said, that just plays to Manning's strengths. Football is all about creating mismatches, and nobody's better than Manning out of the no-huddle/hurry-up. So by giving Manning less time to work with, all we're doing is ensuring that our D has to play a mismatched fight against the Manning hurry-up.

Originally posted by nickbradley:
Exhibit A - Miami vs. Indy. 45 min. of possession and more yards than Indy...yet still lost.

Manning excels in hurry-up situations because he calls his own plays from the line of scrimmage. Forcing Manning into a no-huddle situation will only get you burned.

The best strategy, from what I've seen, is to try and match them while hoping for a mistake by the Colts offense.

Everybody falls for the theory that you must run against the Colts to keep Manning off the field. Here are the problems with that:

1. Manning is better in the hurry offense than in the normal offense.
2. The Colts defense is MUCH better when they have 8 men in the box -- Bob Sanders gets to play the run instead of the pass (Sanders is amazing vs. the run, so-so vs. the pass)

So, by running on them, you play right into their hands. The only team that DOESN'T take a run-first approach to the Colts is San Diego, and they're been pretty successful vs. Indy. The Steelers aren't afraid to get into a shoot-out w/ Manning Either.

Thoughts?

Let's Air it out!

But so many other variables aren't being accounted for here. For one, I seriously doubt the Colts score 100% of the time when they go into hurry up mode so basing your argument on one game doesn't make much sense. Two, I'd consider it a good thing if he's constantly going no huddle because that probably means we're winning.

Me personally, I favor the approach of long drives to keep him off the field because that limits the amount of time he has to cause damage. I'd rather we make him play catch up with us and not the other way around.

True enough he's a damn good QB but he's far from invincible. New England showed the league how to beat him awhile ago. That being, use slow sustaining drives to limit his TOP, don't let the Colts receivers get outside (where they're most deadly), and blitz like there's no tomorrow.

If we can do that....I like our chances.

Originally posted by FourNine49:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by FourNine49:
The MIA game is a perfect example, but I think that "keeping Manning off the field" is better than trying to go for a shoot out. Not to mention, our secondary is arguably better than MIA

Not to mention that I think we play very well out of the nickel -- Tarell Brown plays a mean 3rd corner. I think RB Donald Brown is out this week for them too.

Bly is our nickel corner. And Roman goes in on dime packages. I hardly ever see Brown in

my mistake.

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by verb1der:

Originally posted by FourNine49:
The MIA game is a perfect example, but I think that "keeping Manning off the field" is better than trying to go for a shoot out. Not to mention, our secondary is arguably better than MIA

exactly, there's no better defense than eating TOP, and keeping Manning off the field, and hoping the D can create turnovers.

But, like I said, that just plays to Manning's strengths. Football is all about creating mismatches, and nobody's better than Manning out of the no-huddle/hurry-up. So by giving Manning less time to work with, all we're doing is ensuring that our D has to play a mismatched fight against the Manning hurry-up.

No matter what we do, "keep him off the field" or "go into a shoot out".....we have no chance unless we keep the score close.

don't u think the game will ultimately end up with Manning creating mismatches?

Originally posted by verb1der:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by verb1der:

Originally posted by FourNine49:
The MIA game is a perfect example, but I think that "keeping Manning off the field" is better than trying to go for a shoot out. Not to mention, our secondary is arguably better than MIA

exactly, there's no better defense than eating TOP, and keeping Manning off the field, and hoping the D can create turnovers.

But, like I said, that just plays to Manning's strengths. Football is all about creating mismatches, and nobody's better than Manning out of the no-huddle/hurry-up. So by giving Manning less time to work with, all we're doing is ensuring that our D has to play a mismatched fight against the Manning hurry-up.

No matter what we do, "keep him off the field" or "go into a shoot out".....we have no chance unless we keep the score close.

don't u think the game will ultimately end up with Manning creating mismatches?

IDK about creating, I think more of recognizing mismatches. But that's arguable. Either we have to play stellar in all facets of the game, or Manning has to have an off-game. Maybe a combination of both