Smoot Lays The Smack Down (Redskins vs. Colts)

Yeah, we took two shots deep in the Steelers game. The first was off the play action bootleg where Rex rolled out and tried to hit Stallworth (yeah, I count that as deep.) The next was when Banks had that big return, Rex dropped back and tried the pump and go to Moss, which also fell incomplete.

Which brings us back to the Colts game. Again, just go back and look at the game tape--you never see the Colts safeties on the screen. They played two deep safeties and dropped seven every. Single. Down. Or almost every single down.

So the concept of "well we should've taken a shot deep because if not they're going to stick a safety in the box"...the Colts never dropped a safety in the box. The idea that we should've taken a shot deep just for the sake of taking one, even if there was practically no chance whatsoever of the pass being completed given how many guys were in coverage, is flawed.

I guess it would've made fans feel better, but it wouldn't have helped to win the football game.

You do not seem to grasp the concept of keeping a defense honest. If you want to run and throw short passes on long drives, as you stated above, you have to keep the safeties from creeping up. This is why everyone in the league takes strategic shots occasionally. Not all the time, just occasionally. And our average of one a game (at best) is not really "occasionally."

Your notion that it is IMPOSSIBLE to complete a deep ball on cover 2 is also problematic. It's difficult but not impossible, as evidenced by the fact that someone does it every week.

You seem to be bringing black-and-white thinking to a shades-of-grey topic.

I wasn't talking about going deep all the time. Of course deep throws are low percentage. I believe I used the adjective "occasional."

I simply alluded to the fact that taking an occasional shot keeps the defense honest. We haven't really done that yet this year. And such shots can be taken safely, without much fear of a turnover. Many teams do this.

A lack of taking shots is only problematic if it is chronic. We haven't yet had a chance to see if it is chronic. But we haven't taken shots in the first two games - that is all that I was saying.

Some people are not convinced Beck can accurately throw deep, as a result it's an element of his game they're anxious to see. The time will come when he will have to prove he can.

I saw it. I just didn't see any opportunity when the Redskins "needed" to stretch the field versus the Colts.

And I don't think I ever said there was a time against the Colts

You do not seem to grasp the concept of keeping a defense honest. If you want to run and throw short passes on long drives, as you stated above, you have to keep the safeties from creeping up. This is why everyone in the league takes strategic shots occasionally. Not all the time, just occasionally. And our average of one a game (at best) is not really "occasionally."

Your notion that it is IMPOSSIBLE to complete a deep ball on cover 2 is also problematic. It's difficult but not impossible, as evidenced by the fact that someone does it every week.

You seem to be bringing black-and-white thinking to a shades-of-grey topic.

I'm not saying you're wrong about safeties creeping up. Nor am I saying it's impossible to throw deep on a cover 2 defense.

I'm saying the Colts never dropped a safety into the box the entire game. I'm saying, in this one particular game, of which John Beck is taking criticism for, in which he was instructed by his offensive coordinator to take what the defense gave him, this particular defense dropped seven guys into coverage on nearly every down.

As I said before, their safeties were so deep, they were rarely on the screen. Keeping the defense honest, in this case, in this one particular case, was a moot point, because the safeties were never in the box, and were essentially being "kept honest" the entire game.

When they did bring a safety on a blitz, Beck picked it up and hit Santana Moss on a cross route that went for the first down. They only dropped that safety into the box when the Redskins were on their 20 in the red zone.

The rest of the time, despite the short passes and the running game, the Colts never put a safety in the box. You can't "keep a defense honest" when they've already shown that they have no intention of letting you get deep on them, short passes and run game be damned.

I fully expect the gameplan to be different versus the Ravens. I'm just stating that I don't think it's fair to criticize John for not "taking a shot" to keep a defense honest that was already paying things pretty honest.

Matt Schaub attempted forty 20+ yard passes last season out of 574 attempts. He attempted 48 20+ yard passes in 2009 out of 583 attempts, which was Kyle Shanahan's last season there.

Andre Johnson's also had a 1500+ yard season in 2009. What this means is that a hell of a lot of the yards he got were from short and intermediate passes.

The Texans had a remarkably efficient passing game, and they didn't go deep that often.

Besides, with the touchback off kickoffs as king this season, teams will have to be able to move the chains or suffer in the field position battle.

If you don't mind me asking, where did you get that info?

I'm not saying you're wrong about safeties creeping up. Nor am I saying it's impossible to throw deep on a cover 2 defense.

I'm saying the Colts never dropped a safety into the box the entire game. I'm saying, in this one particular game, of which John Beck is taking criticism for, in which he was instructed by his offensive coordinator to take what the defense gave him, this particular defense dropped seven guys into coverage on nearly every down.

As I said before, their safeties were so deep, they were rarely on the screen. Keeping the defense honest, in this case, in this one particular case, was a moot point, because the safeties were never in the box, and were essentially being "kept honest" the entire game.

When they did bring a safety on a blitz, Beck picked it up and hit Santana Moss on a cross route that went for the first down. They only dropped that safety into the box when the Redskins were on their 20 in the red zone.

The rest of the time, despite the short passes and the running game, the Colts never put a safety in the box. You can't "keep a defense honest" when they've already shown that they have no intention of letting you get deep on them, short passes and run game be damned.

I fully expect the gameplan to be different versus the Ravens. I'm just stating that I don't think it's fair to criticize John for not "taking a shot" to keep a defense honest that was already paying things pretty honest.

I didn't criticize Beck at all. Not once. In fact I mentioned the Steelers game in which Beck did not play. I've been talking about our offensive scheme.

My basic argument has been that it would be helpful to take an occasional shot down the field and we have not done much of that to this point. I have admitted that the sample size is small and things can change. I cannot understand why this argument is so controversial or problematic for you.

I'm not saying you're wrong about safeties creeping up. Nor am I saying it's impossible to throw deep on a cover 2 defense.

I'm saying the Colts never dropped a safety into the box the entire game. I'm saying, in this one particular game, of which John Beck is taking criticism for, in which he was instructed by his offensive coordinator to take what the defense gave him, this particular defense dropped seven guys into coverage on nearly every down.

As I said before, their safeties were so deep, they were rarely on the screen. Keeping the defense honest, in this case, in this one particular case, was a moot point, because the safeties were never in the box, and were essentially being "kept honest" the entire game.

When they did bring a safety on a blitz, Beck picked it up and hit Santana Moss on a cross route that went for the first down. They only dropped that safety into the box when the Redskins were on their 20 in the red zone.

The rest of the time, despite the short passes and the running game, the Colts never put a safety in the box. You can't "keep a defense honest" when they've already shown that they have no intention of letting you get deep on them, short passes and run game be damned.

I fully expect the gameplan to be different versus the Ravens. I'm just stating that I don't think it's fair to criticize John for not "taking a shot" to keep a defense honest that was already paying things pretty honest.I've made essentially this argument as a defense of a pretty efficient Mark Brunell before, so I'm sympathetic to what you're saying.

Modern passing offense has exploded since 2006 though, when the cover two was most prominent. You certainly don't have to throw deep to beat some of the more discipline-based defenses. Those true cover two teams are never going to cheat up on the shorter routes because the philosophy is to give up certain areas of the field. You can win simply by out executing them. They just like their chances.

The problem comes now that the cover two isn't prevalent anymore. You're basically certain to see a number of man to man coverages against any team in any game. Teams that can't go deep against man are going to get destroyed, because their run game is just going to get outnumbered. But thats a somewhat new development in the last four years.

If the Colts really did nothing but sit in two deep all day, which I don't doubt, it's only because it was the preseason. And that would explain John Beck's 14-17 day: he just killed a predictable coverage, as he should have.

I agree, GTripp, which is why I think the gameplan for the Ravens will be a lot different than it was here, and why Beck (provided he starts) will possibly take advantage of some holes in their secondary.

The Ravens are now playing a rookie, and a third year player who has only had 1 pass defensed and new interceptions in two seasons with the Ravens. And Bernard Pollard will probably be playing at strong safety, but I think he'll be in the box because he blows in coverage.

There's some holes to exploit there, with our first team offense, and I think Beck will take a few more shots with our vet receivers working on young players, especially with the Ravens gameplanning against us.

Going to be an interesting game.

If you don't mind me asking, where did you get that info?

Espn.com stats. Go the "Splits" section. Scroll down a bit to "By Pass Play", and you'll see them.

Example: Peyton Manning Stats, Splits - Indianapolis Colts - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/splits/_/id/1428/peyton-manning)

What I want to know is when will ESPN's new qb rating become relevant. It feels like it's been virtually ignored by the entire media this preseason, and I figured they'd introduce it before the preseason to let people get acclimated to it through the preseason so it'd be more smooth sailing by the time the regular season started. Instead of hearing anything about the new qb rating method, I've seen multiple references to the old one, including analysts talking about how Grossman had a 107 (I think, not definite) qb rating against the Steelers.