#31
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
He was in position to make the play, but didn't stop it. Yes we saw Pagano coached teams do much worse, but still, if this team is to make it back to the top of the league and not merely be another good but not great team, those are plays you have to make. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
But I think we saw early on the problem with the Colts secondary playing up to close. Donte Moncrief beats them deep and scores a TD. These corners are not good at all in man to man, one on one coverage. Its why we are seeing this. That plus the mentioned lack of a pass rush. After that first deep score I think they decided to stay back and keep everything in front of them. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
1. Jags spreading out Colts, and Arthur Maulet having to play CB this week. Maulet sucks. 2. Hooker rotating over a tad late (I'm sure a read held him, but I'd need to see the full route tree) 3. A poor tackle by Hooker then erased by Maulet tackling Hooker off Moncrief. I don't think you can look at that play and say "see, this is what happens when you tighten your zones!" Mostly because it wasn't zone coverage. I do think you can look at it and say: we need to do a better job hiding man coverage before the snap if we're going to play man. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
He said rushers but named edge rushers specifically. I can't imagine at this point he'd turn down a rusher that plays anywhere, but thanks for the semantics.
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I know they were playing man coverage, that's what I said But whether it is playing man or tightening the zones, the point is these corners are not great at playing any sort of tight coverage. Which is why I think they are playing so far off. That and with no pass rush to speak off they again don't want to get beat deep, knowing the QB is going to have time and the WRs will have time to get downfield. But really yesterday, do the Jags have any real WR "threats" beside Moncrief, and we all know he is a moderate "threat" at best? I would think somehow they could have just made sure he was covered the rest of the game even if you have to use an extra guy in coverage for him. But it goes back to lack of pass rushers and a lack of talent at corner. No scheme is going to be able to cover for those problems over the course of a whole game or over the course of a season. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#37
|
||||
|
||||
fun first half. shit second half.
the ability in the second half for the jags to turn every 3rd and 10+ into an easy first down was driving me nuts. zero points from us in the second half. we deserved to lose that game. |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
All in all, I love the new identity Ballard and Reich are creating in Indianapolis. Give it time.
|
#39
|
||||
|
||||
Thanks GBB. Your thoughts and impressions are always insightful and interesting to read. After going through this thread, I feel like the comments this week are overly focused on the negative aspects of yesterday’s game, perhaps understandably because of the stressful second half. I’m not disagreeing with the majority of your comments really, but I did think there were some notable positives that really haven’t been discussed, and I’d be interested in any responses to let me know if I’m misreading the situation:
1) The offensive line continues to dominate our opponents. No sacks again this week, and it didn’t really even seem like Luck faced a lot of pressure. Maybe our rushing stats weren’t as great this week, but it seemed like JAX was determined not to let our RBs beat them and perhaps that helped open up the passing game in the first half. 2) Ebron and the other TEs. With the notable exception of Alie-Cox’s miscue in the second half, the TEs performed exceptionally well yet again this week. 3) Our passing game thoroughly dominated the JAX defense in the first half. Remember, JAX’s defense, even after yesterday, allows on average only 200.6 yards per game. 4) The vaunted return of Leonard Fournette was a dud. He averaged 2.2 YPC on 24 carries against our defense, certainly not what JAX was hoping for. Backup Carlos Hyde did even worse – 1.7 YPC on 5 carries. 5) Though we had no sacks, we recorded nine tackles for a loss (versus only 3 by JAX). I couldn’t quickly find a team stat to see how this stacked up to other teams, but it seems like we beat our opponents in this category nearly every week. Ultimately, however, we just had a hard time making these count yesterday because we’d let JAX convert on 3rd down. I’ll add one general comment on the negative side – it seems like the Colts’ tackling has really regressed over the last several games. There were several critical missed tackles this game which allowed JAX to continue drives that otherwise would have stalled much earlier – most notably the Moncrief miss and the fake field goal, but those certainly weren’t the only ones. I think if our tackling was surer (as it was earlier this season), the game wouldn’t have been nearly as close. |
The Following User Says Thank You to Chaka For This Useful Post: | ||
Racehorse (11-12-2018) |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
You can't have debate without semantics. Without semantics, we're all just blabbering into the void...oh, wait, you're right.
|
|
|