Playing with a lead. (710 ESPN) + M. Hasselbeck

[*]The Colts played with a lead for more minutes than any other team last year but still only went 9-8,

Salk says it proves Pete's "win in the 4th quarter" theory and having QB that can pull out the win in crunch time.

This shocks me because Indy had Jonathan Taylor! So how did they let their leads evaporate? Poor defensive play?


https://sports.mynorthwest.com/category ... =Mike+Salk

Hour 4-The Matt Hasselbeck Show

Matt Hasselbeck joins Mike Salk to discuss how much we can take away from the Seahawks improved play to end the season, where they need to improve most and give his thoughts on the NFL head coaches that were fired this week.

Plus, we do a some rapid fire NFL playoff questions and Matt shares his favorite QB WR playoff duos to watch in Ranked.

https://sports.mynorthwest.com/category ... =Mike+Salk

In Case You Missed It!

Past Matt Hasselbeck Shows

https://sports.mynorthwest.com/category ... eck%20Show

I don't agree it proves anything as there are way more variables than what Hass talked about. What it does prove is while they had a decent defense that defense could not hold leads. The whole win, in the end, thing while great TV and all also puts the whole game on the offense. If they fail its the offense's fault forget the fact the defense kept giving up the lead.

Who was the team with the 2nd most minutes with a lead and 3rd. 1 team does not a pattern make. What about last year etc etc.

Weird.

Does that also prove what the Analytics say that a passing down is 3x more effective than a running down?

That being the best at running the ball means little? That there is little to no correlation between having the most effective rushing offense and being a winning team?

(Not just a sample size of one...take a look at top rushing teams in the NFL, a few winning teams on it but quite a few losers too.)

A sample size of 1 hardly proves anything though except that Carson Wentz is not a QB you can expect to win with.

It proves that Ancient Aliens, through targeted mutations to our DNA, created Homer Sapiens (doh!), and left us asking the question: "Who's your Daddy!" :snack:

John63":o0muwvu1 said:

I don't agree it proves anything as there are way more variables than what Hass talked about. What it does prove is while they had a decent defense that defense could not hold leads. The whole win, in the end, thing while great TV and all also puts the whole game on the offense. If they fail its the offense's fault forget the fact the defense kept giving up the lead.

Who was the team with the 2nd most minutes with a lead and 3rd. 1 team does not a pattern make. What about last year etc etc.

Click to expand...

I think if your defense holds opponents to a point average that ranks them in the top 10... they are doing a pretty good job of limiting points. We also had the 4th best redzone defense in the league this year and finished better than the Rams, KC, GB, and Niners on 3rd down (14th).

We weren't world beaters in terms of passing yardage surrendered, but given the holes we had, we adjusted pretty well to finish where we did and were far from bad.

Your offense shouldn't have to score that much with a top 10 scoring defense If it can function better than the bottom half of the league on 3rd down. The defense was good enough.

Absolutley true though that the offense has to function at a much better than average efficiency to take advantage of what our defense offered.