View Single Post
  #17  
Old 10-05-2018, 01:27 PM
Dam8610 Dam8610 is offline
Post whore
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 5,995
Thanks: 102
Thanked 1,595 Times in 925 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sherck View Post
Some slightly slower thoughts on the game than what Racehorse gave us!

1. From the game thread, Luck in his last 2 games is 78 for 121 (64.4%), 828 yards, 7 TD, 2 INT for a QBR of 96.71. ESPN is also recording that in those two games, Colts receivers dropped 11 passes. 89 for 121 73.5% completion rate.
I have zero worries about Luck going forward; he is back.

2. Granted, I don't think the Pats defense is all that (espectially when compared to some of the D-Lines we have played recently) but for a patchwork O-Line to hold any NFL defense to only 1 sack is pretty impressive. They sucked on the first series at at times in the 1st half but gave Luck time to eat ham sandwiches in the pocket during the 2nd half. Braden Smith showed he deserves to be on an NFL field and Clark has just impressed me. Well done, Gentlemen.

3. Grant and Rogers have been give AMPLE opportunity to step up and show that they are a WR2 in the league and neither have done so. Huge opportunity last night to make a statement and both wimpered out. I agree that at least one top 4 round draft pick next year has to be WR and I would like to see some free agency choices brought in as well. We have T.Y. Hilton and then a bunch of WR3s and WR4s on the roster.

4. Like the rookie RBs. They both have their role and will get better has AC comes back and our RT position settles in.

5. Well, for who we had on the field, I am not horrified by our defense. Missing two top CBs, misisng our best LB, having our 2nd best LB knocked out early. Having our best interior pass rushers injured in Hunt and Autry. Yeah, in the end getting 38 points scored on you is not a good showing but they honestly played well enough for the Colts to win the game if the offense had been able to produce.

6. That said, we need more talent on defense. I hope that the free agent market can deliver a few studs next year along with a 1st round pick to infuse more talent.

7. I thought the gameplan on both sides was solid to good. Offense was innovative and was KILLED by dropped balls. Defense was a bit soft early (I like the muddle huddle rush 2 drop 5 approach) but really played well for most of the 2nd half.

8. Lost the first half 24 - 3. Tied the second half 14 - 14. Progression; I will take that.

Long rest and hopefully get all our walking wounded. I think we will see a much better team in the second half of the season.

Walk Worthy,
1) Luck is fine. Good news.

2) Clark got flat out beat by Trey Flowers on that sack, but the OL held their own otherwise.

3) Not many good options on the FA market. There's some names, but the only player that excites me as anything more than a 1 year stopgap is Golden Tate. There are a few interesting second tier second chance guys like Kelvin Benjamin, Kevin White, and Brandon LaFell, but those aren't guys you count on to be a WR2.

4) Hines is a playmaker who needs to see the field often but likely can't handle a full workload. Wilkins is a decent compliment, but I think Mack could be a better one if he can ever get back on the field.

5) No Darius Leonard plus the offense putting the defense in bad positions several times throughout the game, so it's no surprise they gave up 38 points. Someone really needs to drill into Luck's head the importance of ball security. That will make him a better QB and lead to the team winning more.

6) Preach. The free agent market seems to be loaded on defense next year, especially for DL, but I'd like to see at least 2 of the likely 3 top 50 picks the Colts will have go to the defensive side of the ball, if not all 3.

8) Won second half 21-14, though I don't like that the drive before the last one ate so much time. If there's one thing this offense seems to lack at this point, it's the ability to gain chunk yardage when needed.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by omahacolt View Post
i was wrong.
Reply With Quote