ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum   ColtFreaks.com Home Page

Go Back   ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum > Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum > Indianapolis Colts Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 11-12-2018, 08:39 AM
DrSpaceman DrSpaceman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 3,349
Thanks: 212
Thanked 674 Times in 311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by YDFL Commish View Post
He read the play...he made the play...he just let him get 1 foot to much. It happens. A Pagano coached team is totally unprepared for that play.
He didn't make the play. He made the first down

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.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-12-2018, 08:41 AM
DrSpaceman DrSpaceman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 3,349
Thanks: 212
Thanked 674 Times in 311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoBigBlue88 View Post
Multi-faceted:

1. Their drop depth seems consistently off. 3rd-and-11, they'll drop to 15. There is no successful scheme that does that.

2. It's not a pure zone scheme. They play Cover 1 man maybe 5-10% of the game. Problem is, they are AWFUL in man coverage and show it from pre-snap. I think they disguised coverage effectively once today, but other than that, they tell you what they're going to do before the snap EVERY play.

And that MIGHT work if you have Freeney, Mathis, Sanders, Brackett etc. But I don't know if fans realize how rare it is to have the talent some of those 2005, 2007, 2009 Colts defenses had. You CAN play this scheme a bit when you have the talent those units had, but it takes YEARS of drafting extremely well. I don't know if the Colts have that timeline available with Luck.

3. The scheme largely renders its safeties irrelevant. No one is going to test Malik Hooker deep. It's not because they are scared of Hooker, but rather because there is no need to throw deep when the MOF or 10-15 yard comebacks are always automatically conceded.

It feels like they play 9 on 11 sometimes when they play a Cover-2 shell where safeties drop 20+ yards off the ball, and everyone else drops 10-15 off themselves. Why would any QB ever throw deep then?

4. Even if the DL was playing well for argument's sake (it wasn't, and Hunt and Autry have been irrelevant for weeks now), they wouldn't be disrupting anything because, like today, they allow these little RB leakout flares on a quick step drop that are no-brainers for QBs and gain at least 5-10 yards every time.
All true.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-12-2018, 09:08 AM
GoBigBlue88 GoBigBlue88 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,297
Thanks: 132
Thanked 1,180 Times in 356 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrSpaceman View Post
All true.

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.
They were playing Cover-1 man on the Moncrief TD. It wasn't a result of getting burned by tightening zones. It was a result of...

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.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-12-2018, 09:15 AM
Colt Classic Colt Classic is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 1,681
Thanks: 200
Thanked 448 Times in 282 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeveJones007 View Post
Re-read #6. GBB specifically named edge rushers and said the D cannot work without a dominant edge. He’s right about a lot of things, but evidence shows that he overreached on #6.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-12-2018, 10:06 AM
DrSpaceman DrSpaceman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 3,349
Thanks: 212
Thanked 674 Times in 311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoBigBlue88 View Post
They were playing Cover-1 man on the Moncrief TD. It wasn't a result of getting burned by tightening zones. It was a result of...

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.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-12-2018, 10:33 AM
YDFL Commish YDFL Commish is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Mt. Pleasant Wisconsin
Posts: 3,379
Thanks: 1,973
Thanked 2,211 Times in 1,191 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoBigBlue88 View Post
Multi-faceted:

1. Their drop depth seems consistently off. 3rd-and-11, they'll drop to 15. There is no successful scheme that does that.

4. Even if the DL was playing well for argument's sake (it wasn't, and Hunt and Autry have been irrelevant for weeks now), they wouldn't be disrupting anything because, like today, they allow these little RB leakout flares on a quick step drop that are no-brainers for QBs and gain at least 5-10 yards every time.
The above 2 points are very much sore spots with me. I'm expecting caching and player improvement in both areas.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-12-2018, 11:02 AM
rcubed's Avatar
rcubed rcubed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 4,132
Thanks: 933
Thanked 1,476 Times in 814 Posts
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-12-2018, 11:42 AM
Discflinger's Avatar
Discflinger Discflinger is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: In My Head
Posts: 626
Thanks: 370
Thanked 279 Times in 164 Posts
Default

All in all, I love the new identity Ballard and Reich are creating in Indianapolis. Give it time.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-12-2018, 12:09 PM
Chaka's Avatar
Chaka Chaka is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 859
Thanks: 337
Thanked 667 Times in 286 Posts
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Chaka For This Useful Post:
Racehorse (11-12-2018)
  #40  
Old 11-12-2018, 03:31 PM
VeveJones007 VeveJones007 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 3,111
Thanks: 1,209
Thanked 1,114 Times in 612 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colt Classic View Post
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.
You can't have debate without semantics. Without semantics, we're all just blabbering into the void...oh, wait, you're right.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
ColtFreaks.com is in no way affiliated with the Indianapolis Colts, the NFL, or any of their subsidiaries.