<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Finding Fault</title>
		<description>Comments for Finding Fault at http://www.18to88.com , comment 1 to 14 out of 14 comments</description>
		<link>http://www.18to88.com</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 07:13:03 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/finding-fault.html#comment-2272</link>
			<description>How is a 6-0 team mush (Denver)? - djcolts</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:38:47 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/finding-fault.html#comment-2270</link>
			<description>The 2008 Colts were like 6-1 against &quot;quality opponents&quot;.  There is nothing more meaningless than &quot;quality wins&quot; and &quot;who you've played&quot;.

It doesn't matter if a team has only played bad teams, as long as they blow out those bad teams.  FO proved it a few years ago.  Blowing out bad teams is a better indicator of team strength than beating good teams in close games. - DZ</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 01:23:43 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/finding-fault.html#comment-2269</link>
			<description>Sounds like J.C. is a little sad about the Pats being 1-4 in their last five meetings with the Colts.

I seem to remember watching an AFC Championship game in January of '07 in which the Colts were the &quot;better team.&quot;

And how about a pretty convincing slaughter of the 4-2 Cardinals? It would seem to me that they are two games better than the 2-4 fish. Although, I do give the Fish credit for being the best 2-4 team in the league.  - Zackasaurus Rex </description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:24:25 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>You guys</title>
			<link>http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/finding-fault.html#comment-2265</link>
			<description>Have played mush.

The best team you've beaten are the 2-4 Fish who held the ball for 50 minutes.

AND......you play mush the rest of the way as well except for us and, what, AT Baltimore?

I feel like this is going to play out all to familiarly for you guys.  You beat the shit out of the whole NFL, Peyton wins the MVP and you get beaten by a better team in January.

Hopefully you'll have 3-5 devastating injuries to blame it on or you might just quit being fans. - J.C.</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:26:52 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Injuries</title>
			<link>http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/finding-fault.html#comment-2255</link>
			<description>Too broad and general and applies to all teams equally?

Well, that's MY main concern.  Reggie, Dwight, Gonzo, the CBs (where the HELL did Lacey come from?!?!). We've been dinged and done more than well so far, but.....

I'm pretty comfortable at kicker and inside the 40 feel Stover might even be an upgrade.  40+ not so much, but once you hit 50 yards, neither he nor Vinny is money. Might as well try McAfee if you really need a three from downtown.

Anybody read Bettis's stream of consciousness blog/article on SI.com (I think)?  Pretty amusing--I loved his bit exonerating The Sanchize from eating a hot dog (&quot;Hey, I've eaten my share of hot dogs on the sideline. Hamburgers, too.&quot; Big surprise!) and then he ripped LA a new one as an NFL town--he's very pessimistic than an NFL franchise would ever work there, having lived through it himself. Interesting and well-reasoned. A decent, entertaining writer.

So now if the Jags don't settle in London and CAN'T settle in LA, I think the only alternative left is Anchorage. No, wait, crap, that means I'd see a lot of the Glitter Cats here in Seattle. Maybe Vegas? - Bob M</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:09:59 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/finding-fault.html#comment-2251</link>
			<description>They're averaging shorter distances on 3rd down? That's kind of a shock to me. The Run D has been better, and with a few exceptions, it seems like opposing drives are shorter. I would've guessed that the average 3rd down distance went up, not down, due to better 1st and 2nd play.

The only thing I'd change is run blocking. They're improving, but they still aren't able to run like they did in the championship season, and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to reach that level. - Willy Duer</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:56:59 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/finding-fault.html#comment-2245</link>
			<description>Also, I think it'll get better as the secondary gets healthy.  When Jennings is your 5th CB instead of your #2...your third down % should improve. - DZ</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:27:23 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/finding-fault.html#comment-2244</link>
			<description>Part of the third down conversion problem is that Indy is facing a shorter average third down than last year.  

That's on the DTs and the run D. - DZ</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:26:27 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>I agree except #3</title>
			<link>http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/finding-fault.html#comment-2241</link>
			<description>I would substitute 3rd Down percentage allowed for Defensive Tackle.  The Colts D is 27th in 3rd downs at 43.5% which is up from last season but still a small reason for concern. - Go Horse!</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 06:39:39 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mcafee from long range?</title>
			<link>http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/finding-fault.html#comment-2240</link>
			<description>I have thought all season that they should let Pat Mcafee kick any field goal over 45 yards or so. They wouldn't have to set a distance on it necessarily, just any time Caldwell feels he gives them a better chance than Stover/Vinateri. He did it his whole college career, fairly well. He was a semi-finalist for the Lou Garza award, and he was second team all big east as both kicker, and punter. Atleast according to Wikipedia. The only issue I see with this is the possibly fragile ego of the other kickers... - Nickaveli</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 06:29:45 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Since we're at it...Linebackers</title>
			<link>http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/finding-fault.html#comment-2239</link>
			<description>A little thin there. - Merr</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 05:42:37 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Works for me...</title>
			<link>http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/finding-fault.html#comment-2237</link>
			<description>I was just &quot;mortified&quot; that after that &quot;dismal&quot; performance against the Rams... Peyton was no longer the leader in YPA.  (The traditional measure)  But I like your way much better. - Doug England</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:49:00 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/finding-fault.html#comment-2236</link>
			<description>Depends on how you count.

It's actually Rodgers, then Roethlisberger if you count just YPA.

However, if you take YPA including sack yardage (which is the better stat for this purpose), it's the Colts by a bunch.

I should have said, &quot;The Colts lead the league in YPA, having only allowed two sacks&quot;

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/2_992_Passing_YPA.html - DZ</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:39:56 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Nit picking the nit picker</title>
			<link>http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/finding-fault.html#comment-2235</link>
			<description>Isn't Big Ben now the leader in YPA? - Doug England</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:30:33 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

