Grades: Week 2 vs Eagles

[Superman]

Two really good halves, back to back. Too bad they were in two different games, but combining the end of the Denver game and the beginning of the Eagles game, we'd have a 34-13 advantage. Need a solid full game effort one of these days...

 

 

Week 1 grades

Colts vs Eagles box score

Offense, B-: 72 plays, 341 yards, 25 first downs (14 passing,  7 rushing, 4 from penalty), 4/12 on third down, 1/1 on fourth down, 3/4 in the red zone, 2 turnovers, 27 points; finished in the red zone, but the TOs hurt
 
QB: Kind of picking up the same theme as last week. Luck is going to have to snap out of it and make plays. His timing isn't good, his throws are sometimes off target, and he invites pressure rather than taking off with the ball. He could have ran the ball in on the first TD drive rather than dumping it to Bradshaw. There were other opportunities for him to run. He hasn't thrown the ball downfield to stress the secondary. I'm not too irritated with him for the pick, but it did take the go-ahead points off the board. C, I'd like quicker decisions and more playmaking
 
Backs / receivers / tight ends, B-: 
Running game: If not for the fumbles, this would have rivaled the Niners game from last year. For pretty much all game, the run game was successful, and there were several big rips, back to back run gains, etc. Best game from our backs in a while, and if we can get this kind of 1-2 punch with any regularity, it will make a huge difference. But the fumbles... c'mon, Trent. B+, my only complaint is the two fumbles, which isn't characteristic of Richardson
 
Passing game: Another one where I think the QB has to do a better job of taking quick, easy completions, and then letting the ball get downfield and giving his guys a chance at a play. We threw into a lot of tight or even double coverage, so maybe the separation wasn't there regularly, but there were several times where Luck missed the open man or a better opportunity. The screens don't work, for whatever reason. The backs also did a good job as receivers, and probably should have gotten a few more targets. The TE attack was strange, with Doyle getting as many targets as Fleener and Allen combined, but he snuck in for a TD. Reggie had a really nice route and grab, but still doesn't look like he can just get open and make a catch whenever he wants. C+, not a lot of good opportunities, given the flow of the game
 
OL / blocking: Every play wasn't perfect, but this line did what we have been asking them to do. Made running lanes all game long, wherever you wanted them to be, got into the second level and created opportunities for extended pick-ups, finished blocks, etc., and did so with zero penalties. They also didn't blow too many protections. The Eagles' blitzes were effective, but only 4 pressures, and I think those middle blitzes need to be read beforehand by the center and QB, and be picked up by backs or rolled away from. The Eagles don't exactly have a fearsome front, but they have some guys who can make plays in Cole and Barwin, and they were mostly kept away from the QB and the ball in general. WE CAN BUILD ON THIS! B, some letdowns here and there with missed blocks, but overall, we beat their defensive front
 
Defense, C: 65 plays, 458 yards, 24 first downs (13 passing, 9 rushing, 2 from penalty), 5/12 on third down, 3/6 in the red zone, 1 turnovers, 30 points; 7 yards/play won't cut it, too many big plays, need to create more TOs
 
Defensive front: Another reasonably good job against the run, aside from a couple of carries. We have to erase that, because it's just enough to hurt us. Tackled much better, aside from a couple of carries. Take out McCoy's long of 21 yards, and Sproles' long of 19 yards, and those two guys averaged less than 3 yards/carry. McCoy had another for 16 yards. So we need to be more consistent. We got beat on read option a couple of times, but Foles isn't fast enough to really hurt us, and Freeman is our scrape/exchange guy and he didn't play. The pass rush was painfully inadequate, and it was obvious from the second play. They also like to get rid of the ball quick, but Foles had a handful of dropbacks where he could have played a game of UNO before we got pressure. 11 pressures in 37 dropbacks isn't bad, but it's not enough, and those pressures were mostly late pressures. C+, someone has got to step up and get some pressure, and we can't let out 40 yards on two carries
 
Pass defense: Often done in by the pass rush, and more ticky-tack penalties, we gave up some plays. The receivers didn't do the damage, though; they combined for 6 catches for 70 yards. Ertz had a couple plays that really stung, but it was really Sproles, and we all know that feel... Two 50+ yard plays off of short passes for that man. He carried their offense. Without those two plays, we win. McNary got roasted on those, and it really drags this grade down. That halfback angle route that puts a quick RB against our ILBs is a killer. I think the coverage was generally much better than last week, although there were some other letdowns. At least, on most completions, we had a man there to bring the receiver down right away, and even got some PDs. C, five plays of 20+ yards, two of 50+, explains Foles' 8.5 adjusted yards/attempt
 
Special teams: Good special teams play, good coverage, a couple of decent returns,, 2/2 on FGs, punted well (maybe a little too well, but didn't give up more than 8 yards on a return), and a rookie penalty that I must not understand, as I didn't think that was a blindside hit. B+, reserving a higher grade for a special performance from someone

Coaching / playcalling / game management, C:
Defensively, we need to coach that read option better. I guess we're not facing RGIII this year, but anyone who runs more than a 5 second 40 could have taken off for a lot more yardage than Foles was getting. And the mismatch issue changed from a TE to a RB, but I think covering Sproles is a lot different schematically than covering anyone else in the league, basically. I'm good with the defensive gameplan, but more effective blitzing is in order at times, and Manusky isn't quite getting them there. C+, matchups and blitzes, matchups and blitzes
 
I'm fine with the overall offensive gameplan, the run/pass ratio, all that. I don't like a handful of calls, and I'm still looking for more play action. Especially when the run game is working. And make Luck comfortable with running the ball, call some rollouts, there are even some read option opportunities for us. Also, our bubble screens suck, and it's because our WRs aren't blocking well, and we're not cutting the edge defender on the play side, so he's getting a hand on the ball. Need to fix that. And figuring out how to handle 2nd and 4 or 3rd and 9 is critical, moving forward. I've defended Pep against some of the criticisms this week, but there's no question he missed some calls. It's too bad those few calls are standing out among what I thought was a well-called game. C+, can't go higher than this until he rediscovers play action
 
Got the 4th down right, and I thought the rest of the game management was fine. Play calling and execution on the last drive was lacking, but that's on Pep and Luck. B
 
Game balls:
 
No game balls. Get a win, then we can talk.
 
Next, @ Jacksonville. Perfect opportunity to right the ship, but keep in mind these guys sacked Foles five times in the first half in Week 1. 
 
GO COLTS!!!

[SteelCityColt]

Two really good halves, back to back. Too bad they were in two different games, but combining the end of the Denver game and the beginning of the Eagles game, we'd have a 34-13 advantage. Need a solid full game effort one of these days...

 

 

GO COLTS!!!

 

Nice write up as always, can't really disagree with anything here. Same old story, this team is solid in patches but needs to do it for 60 mins. 

[throwing BBZ]

 Good post.
 An obvious lack of pass rush againt another Great LT.
 We got terrible ILB play and mediocre to poor S play.
 I suspect we lack the personnel to fix this going forward. ugh!

[Mr.Debonair]

Great post

[ColtsBlueFL]

Solid recap.  The thing is, It is often uttered but rarely do I agree. Except this time.  We truly did beat ourselves.  Pagano came out and called it 'friendly fire'. Tip of the cap for the Eagles doing what they needed to do be in position to receive the gift.  We wrapped it beautifully handed it to them.  Time to clean up some things and everyone be sharper... mentally as well as physically.

[deedub75]

Didn't Trent fumble the game ball?

[21isSuperman]

I actually tried to pay attention to play action this week.  It seemed to work fine when we did use it.  I don't recall any huge plays off of it, but it helped us get a first down here and there.  Given how the running game was going, I'm disappointed we didn't use it more. 

 

To me, our playcalling is good, but nothing special.  It'll get the job done with the right personnel, but the coaches need to make adjustments.  Manusky, you really want to have McNary on Sproles?  Anyone in the league can tell you that's a mismatch.  As for Pep, I thought the playcalling was pretty good for most of the game.  I really didn't like the 2nd run call on our final drive of the game late in the 4th, but I thought it was otherwise alright.  Again, we need adjustments.  When you see the defense blitzing a lot, switch to some screen (we tried, but Luck's passes were brutally off target) or short passes. 

 

While I did like the fast(er) start we had this week compared to week 1, I'm still not sold on the coaching staff.  I've been pretty vocal on here about my criticisms of Grigson and our coaches and it seems like that's all being reinforced so far this year.

[Superman]

Didn't Trent fumble the game ball?

 

Ouch.

 

I wish I had thought of that, I'd have used it.

[Superman]

I actually tried to pay attention to play action this week.  It seemed to work fine when we did use it.  I don't recall any huge plays off of it, but it helped us get a first down here and there.  Given how the running game was going, I'm disappointed we didn't use it more. 

 

To me, our playcalling is good, but nothing special.  It'll get the job done with the right personnel, but the coaches need to make adjustments.  Manusky, you really want to have McNary on Sproles?  Anyone in the league can tell you that's a mismatch.  As for Pep, I thought the playcalling was pretty good for most of the game.  I really didn't like the 2nd run call on our final drive of the game late in the 4th, but I thought it was otherwise alright.  Again, we need adjustments.  When you see the defense blitzing a lot, switch to some screen (we tried, but Luck's passes were brutally off target) or short passes. 

 

While I did like the fast(er) start we had this week compared to week 1, I'm still not sold on the coaching staff.  I've been pretty vocal on here about my criticisms of Grigson and our coaches and it seems like that's all being reinforced so far this year.

 

The thing about that first Sproles catch, that's the old angle route. Our defense loves when backs and receivers catch the ball on the outside in the flats, and we aggressively pursue them. We usually get there, and then it's about whether we make the tackle (like McCoy at the five getting tackled by Butler, great play, forced a FG). 

 

The angle route, the back comes out of the backfield like he's going to the flat, then he shoots back across the middle of the field. McNary got caught backing up, getting ready to chase Sproles to the flat, and Sproles ran right across his face, caught the ball, and there was no one near him. (Five years ago, Sproles probably goes into the end zone on that play. Thankfully, he ran out of gas and we chased him out, and then they missed the FG.)

 

My point is that that's a tough route to cover for anyone, and especially given the fact that we struggle with crossing routes. We'd really have to devote a DB to Sproles in order to stop that angle route. If it were Freeman, it probably would have been a 20 yarder. 

 

One of the ways to slow it down is to chip the back with a rusher, which we did a few times later in the game, which slows him down getting into his route, and gives the pass rush a little more time to get to the QB, forcing an earlier or less precise throw. 

[21isSuperman]

The thing about that first Sproles catch, that's the old angle route. Our defense loves when backs and receivers catch the ball on the outside in the flats, and we aggressively pursue them. We usually get there, and then it's about whether we make the tackle (like McCoy at the five getting tackled by Butler, great play, forced a FG). 

 

The angle route, the back comes out of the backfield like he's going to the flat, then he shoots back across the middle of the field. McNary got caught backing up, getting ready to chase Sproles to the flat, and Sproles ran right across his face, caught the ball, and there was no one near him. (Five years ago, Sproles probably goes into the end zone on that play. Thankfully, he ran out of gas and we chased him out, and then they missed the FG.)

 

My point is that that's a tough route to cover for anyone, and especially given the fact that we struggle with crossing routes. We'd really have to devote a DB to Sproles in order to stop that angle route. If it were Freeman, it probably would have been a 20 yarder. 

 

One of the ways to slow it down is to chip the back with a rusher, which we did a few times later in the game, which slows him down getting into his route, and gives the pass rush a little more time to get to the QB, forcing an earlier or less precise throw. 

Very well said.  That's one of the things I always struggled with when I played in high school.  They try to teach you to react, but not think.  I think that gets you into trouble.  If you just react to that route, you get beat for a TD.  But if you position yourself to be ready for that route, you may give up a few more yards if he runs to the flat, but you won't be giving up a TD if he runs to the middle

[Gavin]

I think they have to do a better job of flooding the field with our receivers (by receivers I also include TE's). We did an excellent job of this at the 5:22 mark of the 1st Quarter and it got the team an easy td pass to Bradshaw, I think the key to that play was not only passing out of that formation but using Allen to go up like he is running a route for a possible pass his way only to use him as a blocker in a sense at the top of his route giving Bradshaw all kinds of room for the easy catch and TD, That's a play I'd more often from different alignments as well

[IndyFan93]

 QB: Kind of picking up the same theme as last week. Luck is going to have to snap out of it and make plays. His timing isn't good, his throws are sometimes off target, and he invites pressure rather than taking off with the ball. He could have ran the ball in on the first TD drive rather than dumping it to Bradshaw. There were other opportunities for him to run. He hasn't thrown the ball downfield to stress the secondary. I'm not too irritated with him for the pick, but it did take the go-ahead points off the board. C, I'd like quicker decisions and more playmaking

 

Hey Superman, I'm just curious if you have any thoughts on why Luck seems to be struggling like this recently. We all know what he's capable of, so I don't know if he's still just shaking off the rust from the preseason, or if something else is going on. I think most people are surprised because he's done so well his first two seasons and many of us expected him to keep progressing at a high rate. I still fully believe that Andrew is going to be an exceptional quarterback, but I've just seen some very questionable throws, and also just completely missing the open receiver at times. Do you think these early struggles are cause for concern at this point?

[Superman]

Hey Superman, I'm just curious if you have any thoughts on why Luck seems to be struggling like this recently. We all know what he's capable of, so I don't know if he's still just shaking off the rust from the preseason, or if something else is going on. I think most people are surprised because he's done so well his first two seasons and many of us expected him to keep progressing at a high rate. I still fully believe that Andrew is going to be an exceptional quarterback, but I've just seen some very questionable throws, and also just completely missing the open receiver at times. Do you think these early struggles are cause for concern at this point?

 

First, I keep preaching perspective because I think it's very important. Luck just started his 37th game as a pro. He's still new to all this. And while he played well overall in his first two seasons, none of these issues are new. He didn't start off well in 2012; we were 1-2 after three games, he had thrown some picks, made some mistakes, and his completion percentage was in the low 50s. Last season, we were sluggish in the opener against the Raiders, then Luck threw a pick to end the game against Miami. I think people think Luck has had a steady incline throughout his career, and one day it's all going to click and he'll be the greatest of all time. That's not how it works.

 

So, to answer your question, I don't think there's cause for concern, because I think these are normal growing pains. If he doesn't shake it off, then we can't win enough games, so maybe there's concern there, long term. But I don't think this speaks to Luck's overall career trajectory.

 

A former NFL guy once explained his concept of progress to me, and he basically said that everyone has peaks and valleys. The key to getting better and having success is minimizing those peaks, maximizing those valleys, and gradually bringing your average performance up. You'll never get rid of the rough patches (remember Peyton throwing 11 picks in three games in 2010?), but the faster you can snap out of them, the smaller the dip will be, and the sooner you'll get back into a hot zone again. So I'm hoping that Luck starts shaking off the rust, or whatever it is, and starts performing better, and then we'll be looking at some transcendent performances (like the second half of the Chiefs game), and even if he comes down off of that high, he'll still be playing well enough for us to win. But I don't expect him to go out and play like a superstar every game. That's just not fair. 

 

More practical, specific thoughts? I think Luck needs to be willing to run more often. He needs to get through his progressions a little bit quicker so he can hit some dumpoffs (which have been there). That will get him in a rhythm, and then the rest of the game should come easier to him. The play caller can help him by rediscovering play action, for starters; I called that the missing ingredient a few weeks ago, and I still think that's the case. No question about his talent and winning mentality, he just has to get back to basics. Even the greats have to stick to the formula.

[ponyboy]

Game ball to the unheralded Jack Doyle.   Nice effort on converting a tough 3rd down, nice effort on the touchdown, and was instrumental in many of the longer rushes blocking out of the  backfield, IMO.  He was a pleasant surprise for me in this game.

[Gavin]

What I don't see much of in my opinion...if any at all......Is Sight Adjustments by WR's and I honestly don't think that's stressed in this offense because Reggie Wayne is a veteran.....He knows how to read defenses...specifically Safeties and Corners...So I think if there was some sight adjust in this offense then our players would react to that.....which doesn't really happen the best I can tell...Its a bunch of pre snap calls or line up and run the play as is while just using Hot Routes for Luck to go to if he wants, I do know that not all coaches use sight adjustment but elect to have built in Hot Routes....Jim Harbaugh of the 49ers is 1

[SteelCityColt]

 Good post.

 An obvious lack of pass rush againt another Great LT.

 We got terrible ILB play and mediocre to poor S play.

 I suspect we lack the personnel to fix this going forward. ugh!

 

Slightly OT (ha unintended pun) but having had back to back weeks against top tier LTs it does make me wonder about AC .I've always understood LT to be a key position on the offense possibly only 2nd to QB. I see AC as serviceable but not elite, my question is do you need an elite LT to be a great team and if so where's the cut off point for AC?

[Coffeedrinker]

Thanks again Superman.  Since I agree with most of what you wrote and I know I could not do a better job of breaking down the game, I will just mention the one thing I disagree with; I think a grade of C is very generous for the pass defense.  No matter how good they do the rest of the game, if a D gives up two passes of 50+ yards (especially a critical one late in the game all but guaranteed the win for the Eagles, that is an "F" in my mind.  I could see a D with the rest of the game.

[Coffeedrinker]

Slightly OT (ha unintended pun) but having had back to back weeks against top tier LTs it does make me wonder about AC .I've always understood LT to be a key position on the offense possibly only 2nd to QB. I see AC as serviceable but not elite, my question is do you need an elite LT to be a great team and if so where's the cut off point for AC?

I would argue that AC is better than serviceable and with the way he has played in the 1st two games I would put him in the Top 10 LT category right now.

[SteelCityColt]

I would argue that AC is better than serviceable and with the way he has played in the 1st two games I would put him in the Top 10 LT category right now.

 

Serviceable might have been a little unfair on AC. I'd be interested to see how PFF graded him (and the rest of the O-Line) over the first 2 games. 

[Coffeedrinker]

Serviceable might have been a little unfair on AC. I'd be interested to see how PFF graded him (and the rest of the O-Line) over the first 2 games. 

I'd be interested to know as well, although I don't put a lot of stock in PFF oline grades, but that is another topic.

[SteelCityColt]

I'd be interested to know as well, although I don't put a lot of stock in PFF oline grades, but that is another topic.

 

Like any metric they need to be valued on their own merit, but as a tool to help paint an overall picture I quite like them. 

[Jeff Tolle]

Coaching gets a F-

[OffensivelyPC]

Coaching gets a F-

It's literlaly impossible for coaching to get an "F" when we had the lead for most of the entire game.  If Superman had given coaches an F, anyone at least trying to be objective about this game wouldn't be able to take the grade seriously.  At least I wouldn't have. 

[Jeff Tolle]

It's literlaly impossible for coaching to get an "F" when we had the lead for most of the entire game. If Superman had given coaches an F, anyone at least trying to be objective about this game wouldn't be able to take the grade seriously. At least I wouldn't have.

Tie game with 2:30 remaining, and we run, run, pass? The Eagles pinned their ears back and got after Andrew on third down. *ic play calling at best.

[ColtsBlueFL]

It's literlaly impossible for coaching to get an "F" when we had the lead for most of the entire game.  If Superman had given coaches an F, anyone at least trying to be objective about this game wouldn't be able to take the grade seriously.  At least I wouldn't have. 

 

Absolutely.  Sup discloses some deficiencies in the coaching but nothing near D, let alone F material. On top of that, the run game achieving 71 yards in 11 carries on all of the attempts on 1st down in the first half, and Luck completing 8 passes out of nine for 94 yards on all of his second down attempts in the second half is Pure Golden.

[ColtsBlueFL]

Tie game with 2:30 remaining, and we run, run, pass? The Eagles pinned their ears back and got after Andrew on third down. *ic play calling at best.

There is a discussion about that in another thread.  And the two sides are presented.  But some folks don't want to read it and some others that do want to complain about it.

 

One series that is controversial does not get the F.  BTW, it was 3:25 to go in the game when our series began at the 20 on our last possession.

[Superman]

Slightly OT (ha unintended pun) but having had back to back weeks against top tier LTs it does make me wonder about AC .I've always understood LT to be a key position on the offense possibly only 2nd to QB. I see AC as serviceable but not elite, my question is do you need an elite LT to be a great team and if so where's the cut off point for AC?

 

1) I don't think you need an elite LT to be a great team. The Broncos made it to the SB with a backup LT (that probably hurt them in the SB, but that offense was on fire all season), and the Seahawks have only an average LT. Just two examples off the top of my head, but there are others. And there are also bad offensive teams that have great LT. So while I think it's good to have a great LT, I don't think it's necessary.

 

2) AC has been above average through two games. Through his career, he's been better run blocking than pass blocking, and this year so far, that's kind of flip-flopped, where he's been excellent as a pass protector, but not as good run blocking. But I think he's shown improvement as a pass blocker, and that's the most critical thing for a LT. I think he's a good LT, with potential to be really good.

[Superman]

Tie game with 2:30 remaining, and we run, run, pass? The Eagles pinned their ears back and got after Andrew on third down. *ic play calling at best.

 

What about the rest of the game? 

 

I don't believe in grading an entire game on the basis of one or two sequences. Sorry. I refuse to be a prisoner of the moment.

[Superman]

I'd be interested to know as well, although I don't put a lot of stock in PFF oline grades, but that is another topic.

 

Just really quick, PFF has Castonzo as +1.3 against Denver, and +0.5 against Philly. Overall, he's +3.1 pass blocking, and -1.9 run blocking, and has given up 4 hurries, no sacks, no hits.

[OffensivelyPC]

Tie game with 2:30 remaining, and we run, run, pass? The Eagles pinned their ears back and got after Andrew on third down. *ic play calling at best.

For us constantly being criticized for not playing a full 60 minutes and doing well in in halves, I find it ironic that you give a 60 minute assessment based on only 3 plays.

[Superman]

Thanks again Superman.  Since I agree with most of what you wrote and I know I could not do a better job of breaking down the game, I will just mention the one thing I disagree with; I think a grade of C is very generous for the pass defense.  No matter how good they do the rest of the game, if a D gives up two passes of 50+ yards (especially a critical one late in the game all but guaranteed the win for the Eagles, that is an "F" in my mind.  I could see a D with the rest of the game.

 

I don't believe in dropping an overall grade drastically because of a couple mistakes, even if those mistakes are terrible. And I think you'd agree, if it we had blown a coverage over the top to Maclin, I don't think you'd be saying that. I think the problem is that it's Sproles, who always kills us, and we tackled like crap on the second one, so we're feeling burned again.

 

Overall, though, the pass defense was decent. If not for the two big plays by Sproles, my grade would be higher than a C. We couldn't get any pass rush, so half of Foles completions came with no duress, and the coverage was right there. Aside from Sproles, there wasn't a whole lot of yardage after the catch, and that includes two guys in McCoy and Maclin who excel with the ball in their hands. I know we can't just take away the big plays, but aside from those two plays, Foles adjusted yards/attempt drop down close to 6, compared to 8.5 with those plays. 

 

Anyway, I don't want to get carried away over two mistakes in 39 dropbacks. If you take a test with 39 questions on it, your grade doesn't drop because you failed miserably on two answers, no matter how wrong they are. Wrong is wrong. The grader doesn't look at the incredible wrongness of those two answers and knock down what should be a B- to a D just because you were way off on two answers. I think we CAN weight those big mistakes, but only to an extent. For me, they don't undo the pretty good coverage on the rest of pass plays.

[Superman]

For us constantly being criticized for not playing a full 60 minutes and doing well in in halves, I find it ironic that you give a 60 minute assessment based on only 3 plays.

 

Imagine if we were all graded only on our worst performances, with no credit for the good.

[Coffeedrinker]

I don't believe in dropping an overall grade drastically because of a couple mistakes, even if those mistakes are terrible. And I think you'd agree, if it we had blown a coverage over the top to Maclin, I don't think you'd be saying that. I think the problem is that it's Sproles, who always kills us, and we tackled like crap on the second one, so we're feeling burned again.

 

Overall, though, the pass defense was decent. If not for the two big plays by Sproles, my grade would be higher than a C. We couldn't get any pass rush, so half of Foles completions came with no duress, and the coverage was right there. Aside from Sproles, there wasn't a whole lot of yardage after the catch, and that includes two guys in McCoy and Maclin who excel with the ball in their hands. I know we can't just take away the big plays, but aside from those two plays, Foles adjusted yards/attempt drop down close to 6, compared to 8.5 with those plays. 

 

Anyway, I don't want to get carried away over two mistakes in 39 dropbacks. If you take a test with 39 questions on it, your grade doesn't drop because you failed miserably on two answers, no matter how wrong they are. Wrong is wrong. The grader doesn't look at the incredible wrongness of those two answers and knock down what should be a B- to a D just because you were way off on two answers. I think we CAN weight those big mistakes, but only to an extent. For me, they don't undo the pretty good coverage on the rest of pass plays.

I'm not disagreeing with your logic or how you grade them, only showing what I disagree with and why.  I guess I just do more situational weighting of grades.  

[Superman]

I'm not disagreeing with your logic or how you grade them, only showing what I disagree with and why.  I guess I just do more situational weighting of grades.  

 

Fair enough. Your grading system is whatever your grading system is. I was only rationalizing mine. ;)

[OffensivelyPC]

Imagine if we were all graded only on our worst performances, with no credit for the good.

For some reason, I am picturing a doctor setting.  "Well, it could be cancer or some other fatal or debilitating disease.  But dont' worry, it'll either go away or you'll die at which point we'll know."

[NewColtsFan]

Some random thoughts I wanted to add to Superman's thoughtful review......

 

Defense:

 

I thought our defense looked surprisingly good for the first 35-40 minutes.   For a defense with no Mathis,  no Freeman and no Jones,  I thought we looked well coached,  well prepared and played assignment football.     Yes, the lack of a pass rush eventually caught up to us.

 

But the fact that Nick Foles threw for over 300 yards I think is among the more misleading stats of the year.   We didn't get hurt by any of their WR's.    They caught a small number of passes, as did their starting TE,  Brent Celeck.     What hurt us was Ertz who we couldn't cover.    And what hurt us even more was the very short passes to Sproles and McCoy.   For all intents and purposes, they were run plays.   Long hand-offs.    And by then,  our defense was gassed,  which is what I feared and wrote about in the days leading up to the game....

 

Any defense that loses it's leading pass rusher, it's leading tackler, and then it's leading lineman is going to eventually struggle.  And somewhere in the middle-late of the 3rd quarter,  it all caught up to us...   Still, I give them props.

 

And I thought Toler and Davis, were, on balance,  excellent.   They looked like shutdown corners.   It looked like Philly wanted as little to do with them as possible.    Though, with the kind of success they had elsewhere,  there was no need to throw at them.

 

But, I was pleased with Manusky doing the best he could with the hand he was dealt....

 

Offense:

 

Where did that ground game come from?    It was nice to see it show up.

 

Two issues still concern me:    Pep likes to go to the well too often on successful plays.  He becomes predictable when he thinks he's got this advantage.    So, often a run would work, followed by a similar run and it would get stuffed.   At some point the defense will catch on.   And they did.

 

The other issue is Trent....   for as happy as I was that Trent ran well and hard, now that he had room to run it's clear to me he's still carrying too much baggage.    He may be down to 225,  but it's still 6-10 pounds too much.   He's lost at least a good step on what he was once upon a time in his freshman and sophomore years in college.    His acceleration leaves much to be desired.

 

I hope (but I'm not optimistic)  that he'll be encouraged to get under 220 next year and as close to 215 as possible.   He needs less baggage.

 

That said.....   wow,  Ahmad Bradshaw really, really ran hard.    You can see why he doesn't hold up over 16 game seasons.  It looked like every run might be his last in the NFL.    I could hear Grigson saying "he runs violently..."    He did, and it was impressive.    I'm fine sharing the load.   But we've got to hope Bradshaw holds up....

 

Finally.....    Gavin has talked about this for a year now....  Pep does not put together well designed pass plays that get his receivers open.   It just feels like a Colts receiver rarely catches a pass in the clear.   There typically is someone draped all over them.    Opposing receivers are often more open against our DB's than our receivers are against opposing DB's....

 

Combine that with Luck's never-ending love for throwing to Wayne and Hilton (and Bradshaw in this game)  and you get a lot of wasted opportunities for guys like....  Nicks, Allen, Fleener, Moncrief and TRich who is a good receiver out of the backfield.

 

Overall:

 

I'm most curious about what we do this week against J'Ville.    They're struggling -- badly.    Do we play poorly and make them look good?   Or do we crush them as a good team should do to a bad team.    Given our incentive to win this week,  I'll be disappointed if we don't win impressively......    but I'm in wait and see mode...

 

Apologies this went so long........

[lollygagger8]

I think they have to do a better job of flooding the field with our receivers (by receivers I also include TE's). We did an excellent job of this at the 5:22 mark of the 1st Quarter and it got the team an easy td pass to Bradshaw, I think the key to that play was not only passing out of that formation but using Allen to go up like he is running a route for a possible pass his way only to use him as a blocker in a sense at the top of his route giving Bradshaw all kinds of room for the easy catch and TD, That's a play I'd more often from different alignments as well

 

I agree with this. 

 

Send Wayne, Nicks, Hilton, Allen, and the RB out. 

 

Somebody's going to be open out of all those targets......just make a good throw. 

[TheJACKCOLT]

Two really good halves, back to back. Too bad they were in two different games, but combining the end of the Denver game and the beginning of the Eagles game, we'd have a 34-13 advantage. Need a solid full game effort one of these days...

 

 

Week 1 grades

Colts vs Eagles box score

Offense, B-: 72 plays, 341 yards, 25 first downs (14 passing,  7 rushing, 4 from penalty), 4/12 on third down, 1/1 on fourth down, 3/4 in the red zone, 2 turnovers, 27 points; finished in the red zone, but the TOs hurt

 

QB: Kind of picking up the same theme as last week. Luck is going to have to snap out of it and make plays. His timing isn't good, his throws are sometimes off target, and he invites pressure rather than taking off with the ball. He could have ran the ball in on the first TD drive rather than dumping it to Bradshaw. There were other opportunities for him to run. He hasn't thrown the ball downfield to stress the secondary. I'm not too irritated with him for the pick, but it did take the go-ahead points off the board. C, I'd like quicker decisions and more playmaking

 

Backs / receivers / tight ends, B-: 

Running game: If not for the fumbles, this would have rivaled the Niners game from last year. For pretty much all game, the run game was successful, and there were several big rips, back to back run gains, etc. Best game from our backs in a while, and if we can get this kind of 1-2 punch with any regularity, it will make a huge difference. But the fumbles... c'mon, Trent. B+, my only complaint is the two fumbles, which isn't characteristic of Richardson

 

Passing game: Another one where I think the QB has to do a better job of taking quick, easy completions, and then letting the ball get downfield and giving his guys a chance at a play. We threw into a lot of tight or even double coverage, so maybe the separation wasn't there regularly, but there were several times where Luck missed the open man or a better opportunity. The screens don't work, for whatever reason. The backs also did a good job as receivers, and probably should have gotten a few more targets. The TE attack was strange, with Doyle getting as many targets as Fleener and Allen combined, but he snuck in for a TD. Reggie had a really nice route and grab, but still doesn't look like he can just get open and make a catch whenever he wants. C+, not a lot of good opportunities, given the flow of the game

 

OL / blocking: Every play wasn't perfect, but this line did what we have been asking them to do. Made running lanes all game long, wherever you wanted them to be, got into the second level and created opportunities for extended pick-ups, finished blocks, etc., and did so with zero penalties. They also didn't blow too many protections. The Eagles' blitzes were effective, but only 4 pressures, and I think those middle blitzes need to be read beforehand by the center and QB, and be picked up by backs or rolled away from. The Eagles don't exactly have a fearsome front, but they have some guys who can make plays in Cole and Barwin, and they were mostly kept away from the QB and the ball in general. WE CAN BUILD ON THIS! B, some letdowns here and there with missed blocks, but overall, we beat their defensive front

 

Defense, C: 65 plays, 458 yards, 24 first downs (13 passing, 9 rushing, 2 from penalty), 5/12 on third down, 3/6 in the red zone, 1 turnovers, 30 points; 7 yards/play won't cut it, too many big plays, need to create more TOs

 

Defensive front: Another reasonably good job against the run, aside from a couple of carries. We have to erase that, because it's just enough to hurt us. Tackled much better, aside from a couple of carries. Take out McCoy's long of 21 yards, and Sproles' long of 19 yards, and those two guys averaged less than 3 yards/carry. McCoy had another for 16 yards. So we need to be more consistent. We got beat on read option a couple of times, but Foles isn't fast enough to really hurt us, and Freeman is our scrape/exchange guy and he didn't play. The pass rush was painfully inadequate, and it was obvious from the second play. They also like to get rid of the ball quick, but Foles had a handful of dropbacks where he could have played a game of UNO before we got pressure. 11 pressures in 37 dropbacks isn't bad, but it's not enough, and those pressures were mostly late pressures. C+, someone has got to step up and get some pressure, and we can't let out 40 yards on two carries

 

Pass defense: Often done in by the pass rush, and more ticky-tack penalties, we gave up some plays. The receivers didn't do the damage, though; they combined for 6 catches for 70 yards. Ertz had a couple plays that really stung, but it was really Sproles, and we all know that feel... Two 50+ yard plays off of short passes for that man. He carried their offense. Without those two plays, we win. McNary got roasted on those, and it really drags this grade down. That halfback angle route that puts a quick RB against our ILBs is a killer. I think the coverage was generally much better than last week, although there were some other letdowns. At least, on most completions, we had a man there to bring the receiver down right away, and even got some PDs. C, five plays of 20+ yards, two of 50+, explains Foles' 8.5 adjusted yards/attempt

 

Special teams: Good special teams play, good coverage, a couple of decent returns,, 2/2 on FGs, punted well (maybe a little too well, but didn't give up more than 8 yards on a return), and a rookie penalty that I must not understand, as I didn't think that was a blindside hit. B+, reserving a higher grade for a special performance from someone

Coaching / playcalling / game management, C:

Defensively, we need to coach that read option better. I guess we're not facing RGIII this year, but anyone who runs more than a 5 second 40 could have taken off for a lot more yardage than Foles was getting. And the mismatch issue changed from a TE to a RB, but I think covering Sproles is a lot different schematically than covering anyone else in the league, basically. I'm good with the defensive gameplan, but more effective blitzing is in order at times, and Manusky isn't quite getting them there. C+, matchups and blitzes, matchups and blitzes

 

I'm fine with the overall offensive gameplan, the run/pass ratio, all that. I don't like a handful of calls, and I'm still looking for more play action. Especially when the run game is working. And make Luck comfortable with running the ball, call some rollouts, there are even some read option opportunities for us. Also, our bubble screens suck, and it's because our WRs aren't blocking well, and we're not cutting the edge defender on the play side, so he's getting a hand on the ball. Need to fix that. And figuring out how to handle 2nd and 4 or 3rd and 9 is critical, moving forward. I've defended Pep against some of the criticisms this week, but there's no question he missed some calls. It's too bad those few calls are standing out among what I thought was a well-called game. C+, can't go higher than this until he rediscovers play action

 

Got the 4th down right, and I thought the rest of the game management was fine. Play calling and execution on the last drive was lacking, but that's on Pep and Luck. B

 

Game balls:

 

No game balls. Get a win, then we can talk.

 

Next, @ Jacksonville. Perfect opportunity to right the ship, but keep in mind these guys sacked Foles five times in the first half in Week 1. 

 

GO COLTS!!!

 QB- I agree Luck has not looked good, his accuracy is off and he's a little slow with his reads, I know sometimes he's having to throw early due to pressure, but he seems to be aiming the ball when he throws, has got to play better and the play calling has got to help him get into a rhythm. On the dump to Bradshaw, when I saw it live I too thought Luck should have run it in, but after going back and watching it he had no chance at all, Luck was on the 13 when he threw it and their were 4 Eagles within a yard or two of the goal line, he would have been lucky to get to the 5.

  RB-I really liked the way we were running the ball in the 1st half, and one of our best games running the ball overall in a long time. Second half the Eagles staff made adjustments and we weren't nearly as effective, we on the other hand, did not make many adjustments once they figured us out. I think a B+ is  high for the running backs or maybe high for Trent as he was the one responsible for both fumbles, even thou it was only two plays it is very alarming, Trent has now fumbled three times in his last four games, which is the beginning  to start a pattern or characteristic, but all he has to do to fix that is quit fumbling, lets hope he gets that taken care of. the fumble that they did recover was huge, as it lead to a very short TD for the Eagles. I think that wipes out a handful of 8-12 yard runs, very happy that Reggie recovered the other as we were inside our own five and that would have taken away one of our TD's and between the two it could have been a disaster and that's why I think the B+ was high.

  Passing game- I agree was not real good and a combination of Andrew not playing well so far this year, pressure causing him to throw a little early, not using the tight ends, some of that because the tight ends and backs are having to help in protection and this is giving us less guys running routes, another thing I have noticed is our WR's are not getting good separation, in Reggie's case, I hope it's just rust. I agree Andrew has got to use the check downs more and I wish we could run decent screen passes, but even when Peyton was here we just have the most awkward looking screen passes I ever seen, yet other teams really excel with screen passes against us. the passing game has got to get better.

   Defensive front- I agree overall not to bad, bit gave up a couple big runs at crucial times. the Mcoy 21 yarder on third and 15 was terrible and we should have never given that up. We don't seem to be able to generate a pass rush with anybody, DL or LB.

   Pass Defense- yeah lack of pass rush killed us in this game and unless something changes it will be a season long problem. Sproles killed us and sadly that's not the first time we have seen that. 150 of his 152 rec yards were after the catch and that is just inexcusable. Covering tight ends could also end up being a season long problem, the good thing is we don't half to face Sproles again and that alone should improve our pass defense in the coming weeks.

   special teams - I agree they looked good and I too don't understand the penalty as it look as if the guy was looking at Newsome and saw him coming, but just wasn't in a position to do anything about it, just another bad call.

   Coaching/play calling/game management- I agree the blitz packages have got to get more creative as it seems to be the only way were going to be able to generate a pass rush. Sproles is a unique talent like nobody else and I'm sure glad we don't have to face him again.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Good mixture of running and passes, but I would like to get Andrew in a rhythm, while running the ball well and we would be unstoppable, and swing passes, quick slants when the blitzing is coming right up the middle so much. the last two drives left something to be desired, running on 1st and 2nd down on the final drive before giving the ball back to the Eagles for there game winning drive, was just plain dumb an inexcusable, you have this great young QB 3:15 left in the game put the ball in his hands and let him go out and win the game as we have seen him do many times before, I will never understand what they were thinking.

 

[BlueShoe]

I would argue that AC is better than serviceable and with the way he has played in the 1st two games I would put him in the Top 10 LT category right now.

 

I agree. Castonzo has played outstanding this season. We have seen a steady incline in his play every season.