Was Shanahan Wrong Deactivating Haynesworth vs. Indy

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

We agree to disagree, but when give up up 171 yards rushing on 28 carries for an average of 6.1 yards a carry, you are not going to win many games. .

You really think he would have made a difference out there?? Guys that are actually in good football shape were sucking wind, just how effective do you think he would have been?

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

You really think he would have made a difference out there?? Guys that are actually in good football shape were sucking wind, just how effective do you think he would have been?

Who knows... he was not even active or in uniform.
You would think we are the first team to see the hurry up offense. We did not handle it well.
If the Hurry up is incredibly effective as you describe why does Manning only have one Superbowl win? The reality is Hasslett did not do of good job of preparing his game plan. He went light with very few DL and we got gashed in the running game.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

Who knows... he was not even active or in uniform.
You would think we are the first team to see the hurry up offense. We did not handle it well.
If the Hurry up is incredibly effective as you describe why does Manning only have one Superbowl win? The reality is Hasslett did not do of good job of preparing his game plan. He went light with very few DL and we got gashed in the running game.

Plus he went into the game with only five DL active. Why on earth would you go into a game against a QB like Manning with only five D linemen? The point can be argued that Haynesworth may or may not have made a difference, but I maintain neither did the guys that did play make a difference. 179 yds. rushing is just unacceptable and brings into question the wisdom of anyone who says the team played well enough to win. No sacks, 479 yds total offense and a DL that looked as though they were playing hide and go seek for most of the game.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

Plus he went into the game with only five DL active. Why on earth would you go into a game against a QB like Manning with only five D linemen? The point can be argued that Haynesworth may or may not have made a difference, but I maintain neither did the guys that did play make a difference. 179 yds. rushing is just unacceptable and brings into question the wisdom of anyone who says the team played well enough to win. No sacks, 479 yds total offense and a DL that looked as though they were playing hide and go seek for most of the game.

Because perhaps the coaching staff felt Mannings pass ability was more important to stop vs. the run? cut back on the DL and throw in more CB's or safeties? I'm just guessing.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Because perhaps the coaching staff felt Mannings pass ability was more important to stop vs. the run? cut back on the DL and throw in more CB's or safeties? I'm just guessing.

I agree that could have been a reason, but Manning is so efficient at his position that you have to "force" him into making mistakes. Chances are better at accomplishing that with pressure than with coverage simply because it's so difficult to confuse him with coverages. Last night we tried to confuse him and wound up confusing ourselves.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

I agree that could have been a reason, but Manning is so efficient at his position that you have to "force" him into making mistakes. Chances are better at accomplishing that with pressure than with coverage simply because it's so difficult to confuse him with coverages. Last night we tried to confuse him and wound up confusing ourselves.

I have a problem with that, simply because we had 4 clean shots at INTs, and got a strip fumble from him. That certainly says to me that the "plan" worked, it was the execution that failed. (channeling my inner zorn).

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I have a problem with that, simply because we had 4 clean shots at INTs, and got a strip fumble from him. That certainly says to me that the "plan" worked, it was the execution that failed. (channeling my inner zorn).

I also really don't think we confused ourselves. Yes it looks like our DL is confused and not sure where to line up and not getting into 3 point stances but I believe that was designed just for Manning. Make it look like we are confused, don't show what our plans are, hope he doesn't change the play call to suit his offense better, and fake the blitz periodically.

The problem is Payton is just so good at what he does. Then there was all the plays I felt the Colts offense held that were not called. But whatever.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

I agree that could have been a reason, but Manning is so efficient at his position that you have to "force" him into making mistakes. Chances are better at accomplishing that with pressure than with coverage simply because it's so difficult to confuse him with coverages. Last night we tried to confuse him and wound up confusing ourselves.

I see your point, given time Payton will pick anyone apart so lets get a good rush on him and force mistakes. I understand.

The other way is to take away his biggest threat, his passing ability. It sounded like the run was not the Colts best attribute this year and the bigger threat was the pass. So take away the pass and he's left with a mediocre run. That alone should have helped. Problem was the Colts run game was better then we thought and Payton still found away to get his WR's the ball. Although it's not hard when the CB's are running down field not looking for the ball even after the WR turns to look for the ball. I'm so glad Hall said he had a bad day cause he is guilty of this many times over yesterday.