Three Things I'd Like to see Changed (Long...)

[NewColtsFan]

Since we're a week out from the end of our season,  I thought I'd post about some issues that I've been considering for a long time.     Apologies in advance,  this will be long...

 

1.   Change from power man on man o-line blocking to zone blocking.

 

As a longtime Stanford fan whose school specializes in power man blocking,  calling for this switch does not come easy.    And yet,  I'm done with man blocking here.     Several reasons.   First, I think  man blocking requires more precision.  One missed block and your run is done.   Zone blocking seems much more forgiving...  allows for far more cutbacks and secondary holes.   Also,  it's harder to find quality man blockers coming out of college.  Far more colleges and high schools run zone blocking schemes.   They're easier to teach and easier to execute.   So, we have a smaller, more limited pool of players to draft from.   We either draft a man blocker from the smaller pool of talent, or we draft a zone blocker and try to teach him to become a man blocker.  

 

I'm not saying we should never run a man power scheme again.  But it should be the secondary option and not the primary option.   Man blocking on the college level is much easier than on the NFL level.    It's time for a change.

 

2.   Change our strength-conditioning program. 

 

I've been a Colts fan for three years, and we've been among the league leaders in games lost due to injury all three years.   The standard response to injuries is this.....   "It's football, a violent game, and injuries happen."    We used to say that at Stanford.   My favorite college used to get wiped out by injuries every year.   Then, about 7-8 years ago,  we switched our S/C coach and program.   The old philosophy of lifting a lot of weight and finding out how much weight you can lift is out.   The new philosophy involves being flexible and mobile.   Our guys are still strong,  but Cardinal players no longer focus on finding out how many reps of 225 on the bench press they can do.   Weights still get lifted, but the goal isn't bulk and power, but rather flexibility and mobility.  Players at different positions have conditioning programs custom made to their specific needs.

 

The result?   Since the switch,  Stanford is either the leader, or among the leaders in FEWEST games lost due to injury.   And yet, we're always one of the biggest and strongest teams around.   Other coaches comment that they want their team to look and move and act like Stanford.     The proof is in the results.    There are steps that can be done to minimize injuries.    I'm not calling for anyone to be fired.   But instead, a switch of approach.   Three years of far too many injuries is enough for me.

 

(Note:  It could be more than three years.  This approach may be one that's been in place for much longer than three years.   I'm only going be the three years I've been a fan.)

 

2a. Drop the weight.

 

An ESPN report this year showed the Colts are the biggest team in the NFL.  We're the heaviest.    Sorry,  but I'm not seeing how we benefited by that.   We're not the strongest.   We got blown off the line by New England (twice) and pushed around plenty by other teams.   Seattle was the smallest/lightest team.   Think that hurt them?   We have a number of players who I think could stand to lose 10-15 pounds and I don't think it would hurt them in the least.   Football, for all it's insistance on strength and power, is also a game of movement and quickness.   Even in small areas.    You've got to be able to move.   And I'm just not sure we move all that well.   I think we're capable of much more.    And I think dropping some LB's would be part of our revised S/C program.

 

Again, my apologies for the length....   I look forward to your comments...

[TKnight24]

Wasn't that long

And I was hoping Kubiak was coming here. Always wondered what the beauty of Andrew running a PA Bootleg would look like.....

And yes, guys like Chapman could definitely drop some weight fat wise and get muscle

[COLTS449]

Nice write up man, and I tend to agree about changing to a zone blocking scheme and about our strength and conditioning.

[NewEra]

I agree on all three counts.

It seems like zone blocking teams are more successful in the running game.

In football explosive strength and training is more important than pure raw dawg power lifting strength. Flexibility is huge huge huge. If you watch the players even in warm ups it's half butt stretching. You need to stretch just as much as you lift if not more. I have been lifting off and on last 19 years. Have competed in power lifting and now body building. Stretching is key to everything.

The drop in weight can improve speed and explosiveness. I've said many times I think part of Trents and Landry to a point is putting on to much weight. I think Trent would improve his explosiveness if he lost weight. This is the NFL, you are not going to outpower a defense. Maybe in 1v1 situations but good defenses seldom 1v1 tackle. They always gang tackle opposing teams.

[Superman]

My thoughts:

 

1) I'm all for it. We're technically a mix of the two, but there's far more power/man blocking than zone blocking, and I think it should be the other way around. I also think Joe Gilbert has a lot of explaining to do. It doesn't look like he's going anywhere, but he was promoted into his position two years ago, and the offensive line play has been a mess.

 

2) There were changes made to the strength program last season. I can't say exactly what, but Grigson and Pagano talked about it, plenty, during the offseason program and during camp, and they both said similar things about power lifting and flexibility and so on.

 

And the injuries were down. A lot of guys suffered injuries that have nothing to do with their bodies, and everything to do with what was done to their bodies (Mathis, Holmes, Bradshaw, Thomas, Ulrick John, etc.). Then some other guys had some lingering things that took a long time to get right (Holmes, Reitz, Freeman), or never did get right (Cherilus, Wayne, Thornton). But the weird, long-term injuries that the team suffered from the previous two years were far less pronounced in 2014. I think that's improvement.

 

If there are other changes that can be made to the program, the practice schedule, the offseason work, etc., that would be great. But the injury bug wasn't as big of a problem this year.

 

3) Absolutely, some guys are too heavy. I said that about Richardson, but he's probably gone. Hughes, Chapman, Jones, Kerr, and a few others, are probably too heavy. All four that I named are DL, and they all got pushed around by the Pats. It shows how size doesn't necessarily win in the trenches. I understand that we need to have some beef up front, but I don't see any reason why any of those guys needs to be 335+. Some of the OL are a little lead-footed, also.

[theanarchist]

Funny, when Dungy was in charge we were too small. Now, we're the heaviest and people are complaining about that.

[Combsey]

Agree I don't know why they wouldn't have switched to zone blocking when they had all the issues in the first place.

[NewEra]

Funny, when Dungy was in charge we were too small. Now, we're the heaviest and people are complaining about that.

We had 265 pound DT's. Calling us undersized is an understatement. Dungys Tampa Bay team wasn't nearly as small as us. You can get either size or speed in later rounds. Do get a player with both you need to draft them early. Which TB did and we did not.

[theanarchist]

We had 265 pound DT's. Calling us undersized is an understatement. Dungys Tampa Bay team wasn't nearly as small as us. You can get either size or speed in later rounds. Do get a player with both you need to draft them early. Which TB did and we did not.

I think size matters at certain positions. Personally, I think part of the reason we got pushed around by NE was not necessarily because we were too big. The offense did not sustain drives either game and that put the defense in a situation where they were just in too quickly and not getting enough rest. I don't agree we're too heavy. The reason we got beat up front was not due to being too heavy it was because of the fact that the offense put the defense in a bad position by being ineffective. This was definitely the case in the playoff game.

[Superman]

I think size matters at certain positions. Personally, I think part of the reason we got pushed around by NE was not necessarily because we were too big. The offense did not sustain drives either game and that put the defense in a situation where they were just in too quickly and not getting enough rest. I don't agree we're too heavy. The reason we got beat up front was not due to being too heavy it was because of the fact that the offense put the defense in a bad position by being ineffective. This was definitely the case in the playoff game.

 

The point wasn't that we got beat by the Patriots because the linemen are too big. The point was that a big defensive front doesn't automatically mean good run defense.

[theanarchist]

The point wasn't that we got beat by the Patriots because the linemen are too big. The point was that a big defensive front doesn't automatically mean good run defense.

Point taken.

[MrNLM]

I would weep tears of joy if we switched to a ZBS. I think with that switch alone the whole "TRich is a bust" talk would have died down considerably. Regardless, I think anyone we bring in from this point on with a ZBS in mind would do well... well enough that Luck does not have to carry the team to those tough wins.

[jameszeigler834]

Since we're a week out from the end of our season,  I thought I'd post about some issues that I've been considering for a long time.     Apologies in advance,  this will be long...

 

1.   Change from power man on man o-line blocking to zone blocking.

 

As a longtime Stanford fan whose school specializes in power man blocking,  calling for this switch does not come easy.    And yet,  I'm done with man blocking here.     Several reasons.   First, I think  man blocking requires more precision.  One missed block and your run is done.   Zone blocking seems much more forgiving...  allows for far more cutbacks and secondary holes.   Also,  it's harder to find quality man blockers coming out of college.  Far more colleges and high schools run zone blocking schemes.   They're easier to teach and easier to execute.   So, we have a smaller, more limited pool of players to draft from.   We either draft a man blocker from the smaller pool of talent, or we draft a zone blocker and try to teach him to become a man blocker.  

 

I'm not saying we should never run a man power scheme again.  But it should be the secondary option and not the primary option.   Man blocking on the college level is much easier than on the NFL level.    It's time for a change.

 

2.   Change our strength-conditioning program. 

 

I've been a Colts fan for three years, and we've been among the league leaders in games lost due to injury all three years.   The standard response to injuries is this.....   "It's football, a violent game, and injuries happen."    We used to say that at Stanford.   My favorite college used to get wiped out by injuries every year.   Then, about 7-8 years ago,  we switched our S/C coach and program.   The old philosophy of lifting a lot of weight and finding out how much weight you can lift is out.   The new philosophy involves being flexible and mobile.   Our guys are still strong,  but Cardinal players no longer focus on finding out how many reps of 225 on the bench press they can do.   Weights still get lifted, but the goal isn't bulk and power, but rather flexibility and mobility.  Players at different positions have conditioning programs custom made to their specific needs.

 

The result?   Since the switch,  Stanford is either the leader, or among the leaders in FEWEST games lost due to injury.   And yet, we're always one of the biggest and strongest teams around.   Other coaches comment that they want their team to look and move and act like Stanford.     The proof is in the results.    There are steps that can be done to minimize injuries.    I'm not calling for anyone to be fired.   But instead, a switch of approach.   Three years of far too many injuries is enough for me.

 

(Note:  It could be more than three years.  This approach may be one that's been in place for much longer than three years.   I'm only going be the three years I've been a fan.)

 

2a. Drop the weight.

 

An ESPN report this year showed the Colts are the biggest team in the NFL.  We're the heaviest.    Sorry,  but I'm not seeing how we benefited by that.   We're not the strongest.   We got blown off the line by New England (twice) and pushed around plenty by other teams.   Seattle was the smallest/lightest team.   Think that hurt them?   We have a number of players who I think could stand to lose 10-15 pounds and I don't think it would hurt them in the least.   Football, for all it's insistance on strength and power, is also a game of movement and quickness.   Even in small areas.    You've got to be able to move.   And I'm just not sure we move all that well.   I think we're capable of much more.    And I think dropping some LB's would be part of our revised S/C program.

 

Again, my apologies for the length....   I look forward to your comments...

I like every one of those idea's the colts players that are really big could stand to lose about 15 pounds.

[NewEra]

I think size matters at certain positions. Personally, I think part of the reason we got pushed around by NE was not necessarily because we were too big. The offense did not sustain drives either game and that put the defense in a situation where they were just in too quickly and not getting enough rest. I don't agree we're too heavy. The reason we got beat up front was not due to being too heavy it was because of the fact that the offense put the defense in a bad position by being ineffective. This was definitely the case in the playoff game.

In the NE I do agree. Our offense and Cribbs didn't do our defense any favors. 7 fricken points isn't going to cut it.

[theanarchist]

In the NE I do agree. Our offense and Cribbs didn't do our defense any favors. 7 fricken points isn't going to cut it.

Not only lack of points but the offense was completely ineffective 3 quarters of the game. Time after time going off the field after short possessions and by the end of the 3rd q the defense was completely gassed

[NBColtsFanatic]

I've thought about the first 2 countless times before, changing to zone scheme could have salvaged Richardsons career. Also many of the Coaches should be fired, RB coach is a step in the right direction but the OL coach and the strength and condition coaches being fired for how poor things have been would help a lot too. Great write-up though. Hopefully Grigson/ Irsay are reading these comments .

[bestQBever]

size isn't the problem. It's athleticism. Nearly our entire D line is a bunch of fat people with no athleticism.

[scooter4910]

size isn't the problem. It's athleticism. Nearly our entire D line is a bunch of fat people with no athleticism.

hmmm

[NewEra]

hmmm

He's a perfect example of how you need to draft high to get a guy with both size and speed. He's getting up there in age but for a man his size he was/is very fast and strong as can be.

[rock8591]

hmmm

 

Ironic picture...

 

Isn't that Ted Washington?

 

We need less Ted Washingtons...more Kris Jenkins.

[scooter4910]

Ironic picture...

 

Isn't that Ted Washington?

 

We need less Ted Washingtons...more Kris Jenkins.

Vince Wilfork...all 325 lbs of him. And he can still touch his toes.

[scooter4910]

He's a perfect example of how you need to draft high to get a guy with both size and speed. He's getting up there in age but for a man his size he was/is very fast and strong as can be.

I agree....but he's only 33 (looks older to me). In terms of NFL you're probably correct.

[rock8591]

I'll be glad if we can get Danny Shelton in this year's draft. If not, then sign either Knighton, Dan Williams, or Damon Harrison to play NT.

 

I still think last year we should have went after Red Bryant - could have played NT or DE in our alignment.

[Gavin]

Since we're a week out from the end of our season,  I thought I'd post about some issues that I've been considering for a long time.     Apologies in advance,  this will be long...

 

1.   Change from power man on man o-line blocking to zone blocking.

 

As a longtime Stanford fan whose school specializes in power man blocking,  calling for this switch does not come easy.    And yet,  I'm done with man blocking here.     Several reasons.   First, I think  man blocking requires more precision.  One missed block and your run is done.   Zone blocking seems much more forgiving...  allows for far more cutbacks and secondary holes.   Also,  it's harder to find quality man blockers coming out of college.  Far more colleges and high schools run zone blocking schemes.   They're easier to teach and easier to execute.   So, we have a smaller, more limited pool of players to draft from.   We either draft a man blocker from the smaller pool of talent, or we draft a zone blocker and try to teach him to become a man blocker.  

 

I'm not saying we should never run a man power scheme again.  But it should be the secondary option and not the primary option.   Man blocking on the college level is much easier than on the NFL level.    It's time for a change.

 

2.   Change our strength-conditioning program. 

 

I've been a Colts fan for three years, and we've been among the league leaders in games lost due to injury all three years.   The standard response to injuries is this.....   "It's football, a violent game, and injuries happen."    We used to say that at Stanford.   My favorite college used to get wiped out by injuries every year.   Then, about 7-8 years ago,  we switched our S/C coach and program.   The old philosophy of lifting a lot of weight and finding out how much weight you can lift is out.   The new philosophy involves being flexible and mobile.   Our guys are still strong,  but Cardinal players no longer focus on finding out how many reps of 225 on the bench press they can do.   Weights still get lifted, but the goal isn't bulk and power, but rather flexibility and mobility.  Players at different positions have conditioning programs custom made to their specific needs.

 

The result?   Since the switch,  Stanford is either the leader, or among the leaders in FEWEST games lost due to injury.   And yet, we're always one of the biggest and strongest teams around.   Other coaches comment that they want their team to look and move and act like Stanford.     The proof is in the results.    There are steps that can be done to minimize injuries.    I'm not calling for anyone to be fired.   But instead, a switch of approach.   Three years of far too many injuries is enough for me.

 

(Note:  It could be more than three years.  This approach may be one that's been in place for much longer than three years.   I'm only going be the three years I've been a fan.)

 

2a. Drop the weight.

 

An ESPN report this year showed the Colts are the biggest team in the NFL.  We're the heaviest.    Sorry,  but I'm not seeing how we benefited by that.   We're not the strongest.   We got blown off the line by New England (twice) and pushed around plenty by other teams.   Seattle was the smallest/lightest team.   Think that hurt them?   We have a number of players who I think could stand to lose 10-15 pounds and I don't think it would hurt them in the least.   Football, for all it's insistance on strength and power, is also a game of movement and quickness.   Even in small areas.    You've got to be able to move.   And I'm just not sure we move all that well.   I think we're capable of much more.    And I think dropping some LB's would be part of our revised S/C program.

 

Again, my apologies for the length....   I look forward to your comments...

Hit the nail on the head! Though Im not familiar with Stanfords program nearly as much as you are, I'd also add I's like to use more Angle Blocking

[BOTT]

Vince Wilfork...all 325 lbs of him. And he can still touch his toes.

He hasn't seen 325 in awhile

[scooter4910]

He hasn't seen 325 in awhile

That's what he's listed at...but maybe that was preseason and he's been eating well.

[rock8591]

I remember he was listed at 344 exactly while at UM.

 

Doubt he ever got under that. Still can't figure out where the 325 came from. IMO it was just an "on the spot" thing, and has yet to be touched...but everyone knows the elephant in the room.

[BOTT]

That's what he's listed at...but maybe that was preseason and he's been eating well.

He's been lying for years. For some reason fat guys in the nfl are sensitive about their weight

[loudnproudcolt]

I don't know how hard the switch would be, but we may be considering it. The RB coach for the Colts was let go today. Possibly a sign? I can't say how much was his fault the last three years, but the RB's have not progressed, so maybe this is the set up for going to a zone blocking scheme. It does seem the most successful teams who run the ball use a zone blocking scheme. Also, love the idea of Andrew on the bootlegs. It is one of the reasons Rodgers is so dangerous. If he sees an opening he goes, but his eyes are always downfield, and the moment a back thinks he may run, and cheats for a second, the WR is past him, and Rodgers usually hits him in stride. I think it would be a great change for us.

[Dustin]

He hasn't seen 325 in awhile

 

Not since 8th grade at least. 

[lollygagger8]

Love the ideas....agreed 100%! 

 

 

I still don't understand why we got rid of the RB coach, but kept the O-Line coach. 

[AntonMcG]

I have been making the point about zone blocking for two and a half years (just saying). I'd also like to see more gap blocking as well, and preferably a one-cut runner to bring it all together.

 

I have heard Coby Fleener rave about Shannon Turley and how he is pioneering the game in terms of injury prevention. I presume he is very happy at Stanford, otherwise he would have been in the NFL long ago.

[Superman]

Love the ideas....agreed 100%! 

 

 

I still don't understand why we got rid of the RB coach, but kept the O-Line coach. 

 

RB coach was a Caldwell holdover. I'm surprised he lasted this long. Christensen is the last one left.

[Fx Stryker]

Wasn't that long

And I was hoping Kubiak was coming here. Always wondered what the beauty of Andrew running a PA Bootleg would look like.....

And yes, guys like Chapman could definitely drop some weight fat wise and get muscle

 

When was this even a chance?

[Valpo2004]

Arn't we basically the heaviest just because we kept the most OL and DL depth though.  It's not like we have the biggest guys in the NFL up front . . . we just have more of them then anyone else.

[Superman]

The Colts just made a little adjustment to the strength staff a few days ago:

 

http://blogs.colts.com/2015/01/22/indianapolis-colts-promote-david-williams-to-conditioningperformance-analyst/

[NewColtsFan]

The Colts just made a little adjustment to the strength staff a few days ago:

 

http://blogs.colts.com/2015/01/22/indianapolis-colts-promote-david-williams-to-conditioningperformance-analyst/

 

OK.....   I am not understanding something here....   a quote from Grigson....  I'm going to cut and paste it here...

 

 

“It was a total team effort by our strength staff, trainers and our coaches in achieving results this regular season in which we saw a drastic reduction in the number of players placed on Injured Reserve compared to previous regular seasons (2012-8, 2013-13, 2014-3).”

 

We only had 3 guys go on IR this year?     Huh?!?!?

 

How about this list from our website??     What am I not understanding here??

 

 

Reserve/Injured

# Name *. Ht. Wt. Age Exp. College

56 Adongo, Daniel OLB 6-5 270 25 1 Pretoria (South Africa)

33 Ballard, Vick RB 5-10 226 24 3 Mississippi State

44 Bradshaw, Ahmad RB 5-10 217 28 8 Marshall

78 Cherilus, Gosder T 6-7 316 30 7 Boston College

73 Hall, Matt T 6-9 326 24 R Belhaven

26 Howell, Delano S 5-11 197 25 3 Stanford

59 Johnson, Cam OLB 6-3 260 24 2 Virginia

68 John, Ulrick T 6-5 300 22 R Georgia State

43 Loiseau, Shawn ILB 6-0 239 25 1 Merrimack

95 Moala, Fili DE 6-4 308 29 6 USC

48 Morgan, Aaron LB 6-4 250 26 4 Louisiana-Monroe

61 Pendleton, Jeris DT 6-2 323 31 2 Ashland

66 Thomas, Donald G 6-4 303 29 7 Connecticut

69 Thornton, Hugh G 6-3 336 23 2 Illinois  

[Superman]

 

OK.....   I am not understanding something here....   a quote from Grigson....  I'm going to cut and paste it here...

 

 

“It was a total team effort by our strength staff, trainers and our coaches in achieving results this regular season in which we saw a drastic reduction in the number of players placed on Injured Reserve compared to previous regular seasons (2012-8, 2013-13, 2014-3).”

 

We only had 3 guys go on IR this year?     Huh?!?!?

 

How about this list from our website??

 

 

Reserve/Injured

# Name *. Ht. Wt. Age Exp. College 56 Adongo, Daniel OLB 6-5 270 25 1 Pretoria (South Africa) 33 Ballard, Vick RB 5-10 226 24 3 Mississippi State 44 Bradshaw, Ahmad RB 5-10 217 28 8 Marshall 78 Cherilus, Gosder T 6-7 316 30 7 Boston College 73 Hall, Matt T 6-9 326 24 R Belhaven 26 Howell, Delano S 5-11 197 25 3 Stanford 59 Johnson, Cam OLB 6-3 260 24 2 Virginia 68 John, Ulrick T 6-5 300 22 R Georgia State 43 Loiseau, Shawn ILB 6-0 239 25 1 Merrimack 95 Moala, Fili DE 6-4 308 29 6 USC 48 Morgan, Aaron LB 6-4 250 26 4 Louisiana-Monroe 61 Pendleton, Jeris DT 6-2 323 31 2 Ashland 66 Thomas, Donald G 6-4 303 29 7 Connecticut 69 Thornton, Hugh G 6-3 336 23 2 Illinois  

 

 

Those numbers only include players that were placed on IR during the season. That holds true for the 2012 and 2013 numbers as well.

 

Only Cherilus, Thornton and Bradshaw went on IR during the season in 2014. It's a bit cherry-picked, but I believe the total IR list for 2014 was shorter than 2012 and 2013 also.

[lollygagger8]

RB coach was a Caldwell holdover. I'm surprised he lasted this long. Christensen is the last one left.

 

Me too!