A look back at the 2014 draft

[wig]

I'm not going to play the game of saying we could have had player x who we know to be the best now. For example, Landon Collins instead of Dorsett. I didn't like Dorsett at the time so he won't make it. This is a look back at who I wanted at the time, and were also a favorite around here. 

 

First pick - Eric Kendricks (honorable mention for Malcolm Brown)

 

Second pick - Tyler Lockett

 

Third pick I did and do really like in H. Anderson, and Geathers in the 4th was also a really nice pick. 

 

Looking back, I just feel like this draft was really close to being really dang good if someone picked Dorsett before us. There were a lot of really good defenders with value in the first, and Lockett seems like a Grigs' guy if he hadn't already snagged a small speedy receiver. 

[Colts_Fan12]

Alot of people wanted Collins tho it's not really hindsight 

 

Me I wanted Kendricks tho 

[Superman]

You mean the 2015 draft...

 

And I'd love to have Tyler Lockett, but we wouldn't have been using him right either. He probably would have earned his keep as a return man, though. Dorsett muffed a couple punts and they'll probably never give him another chance back there. 

[NewColtsFan]

18 hours ago, Superman said:

You mean the 2015 draft...

 

And I'd love to have Tyler Lockett, but we wouldn't have been using him right either. He probably would have earned his keep as a return man, though. Dorsett muffed a couple punts and they'll probably never give him another chance back there. 

 

I dont' mean for this to be argumentative but I think the sentence in bold is not just false,  it's demonstrably false.  There are two arguments. here    I think they're related,  but they're not the same.

 

One argument is that we'd like to use more of a shorter passing game and throw more tot he RB's and have shorter route combinations.      OK.

 

The other argument is are we using our WR's correctly.    They connected,  but, in my judgement,  they're not the same.     Are we using TYH correctly?     Over 90 catches for more than 1400 yards which led the NFL?     Is that a bad thing?       All our WR's have done well EXCEPT Dorsett and that apparently is on Dorsett and his inability to separate and run better routes..     He was unpolished when he came out of college and he's been slow to come around.   That's in part why we brought iin this new WR coach from Buffalo who has been getting good reviews.     Chud knows how to use our WR's and our TE's,  but yes,  I think we'd like more shorter route concepts to convert key third downs and keep the chains moving.      But, on balance, we have a very highly successful offense.    Could we better?    Yes.     Score more?     Yes.

 

But to say that Lockett wouldn't be used occrectly and would be spending his time on punt return duty I think is poppycock based on what exactly?      How we use Dorsett?       Lockett was always more polished than Dorsett.   IIf we used Moncrief in his first few years and he was raw,  then there's no reason to think we wouldn't have used Lockett.    Didn't we also use Rogers when he flashed and showed something?    And Lockett is far more polished than Dorsett.    Perhaps not as fast,  but more polished.  

 

Honestly,  I don't like this view on Chudzinski.    This drum has been beaten for the last six months here and there's a growing sense, I think,  that Chud can't coach his way out of a wet paper bag.   I see more and more of those type of posts.    And I think that's unfair to him.    

 

I'm of the view that Ballard is not only going to recommend what we all want,  more shorter passing concepts,  but he's going to insist on it.     I think Ballard is going to note that if KC can have a successful offense with Alex Smith,  then the Colts should be more successful with Andrew Luck.    I think CB will want Luck's completion percentage up around 65 or 66 and not where it was a year ago, which was a career high 63 and a half.    I think the offense in '17 will be the best one the Colts have put on the field in Luck's six years.   And I expect it get better in the year's to come.

 

Apologies for the length of ths post,  but I wanted to address a growing list of issues......

 

[Superman]

How about an even longer response?

 

Quote

The other argument is are we using our WR's correctly.    They connected,  but, in my judgement,  they're not the same.    Are we using TYH correctly?     Over 90 catches for more than 1400 yards which led the NFL?     Is that a bad thing?

 

So since we're breaking this down, let's not conflate separate issues. Hilton is one of the game's best, most productive receivers, he's Luck's favorite target, and his production speaks for itself. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with how he's used, but it's hard to complain when he's so effective, so let's say that Hilton's usage has been acceptable.

 

Quote

All our WR's have done well EXCEPT Dorsett and that apparently is on Dorsett and his inability to separate and run better routes.. He was unpolished when he came out of college and he's been slow to come around.   That's in part why we brought iin this new WR coach from Buffalo who has been getting good reviews.     Chud knows how to use our WR's and our TE's,  but yes,  I think we'd like more shorter route concepts to convert key third downs and keep the chains moving.      But, on balance, we have a very highly successful offense.    Could we better?    Yes.     Score more?     Yes.

 

I disagree with the characterization of Dorsett, because I can show several instances of him being open and not getting the ball (post #2). I also can show several instances of defenses playing off coverage on him (and other receivers, so this is not meant as a defense of Dorsett), but the play sends the receiver into the strength of the defense rather than hitting him short and giving the receiver a chance to make a play with the ball in his hands.

 

Just because the offense has had some success doesn't mean it can't be improved in very specific ways. More on this in a minute...

 

Quote

But to say that Lockett wouldn't be used occrectly and would be spending his time on punt return duty I think is poppycock based on what exactly?      How we use Dorsett?       Lockett was always more polished than Dorsett.   IIf we used Moncrief in his first few years and he was raw,  then there's no reason to think we wouldn't have used Lockett.    Didn't we also use Rogers when he flashed and showed something?    And Lockett is far more polished than Dorsett.    Perhaps not as fast,  but more polished.  

 

I think you're mischaracterizing or maybe just misunderstanding what I'm saying, especially about Lockett. He is a great return man, and even if he didn't get opportunities as a receiver, he would be productive as a returner. That's on any team, I think. Dorsett got chances as a returner, and blew them. That's on him. I am NOT saying Lockett would be restricted to only returning, only saying that even if he didn't get good chances as a receiver, he'd still be more productive than Dorsett as a returner.

 

Quote

 

Honestly,  I don't like this view on Chudzinski.    This drum has been beaten for the last six months here and there's a growing sense, I think,  that Chud can't coach his way out of a wet paper bag.   I see more and more of those type of posts.    And I think that's unfair to him.    

 

I'm of the view that Ballard is not only going to recommend what we all want,  more shorter passing concepts,  but he's going to insist on it.     I think Ballard is going to note that if KC can have a successful offense with Alex Smith,  then the Colts should be more successful with Andrew Luck.    I think CB will want Luck's completion percentage up around 65 or 66 and not where it was a year ago, which was a career high 63 and a half.    I think the offense in '17 will be the best one the Colts have put on the field in Luck's six years.   And I expect it get better in the year's to come.

 

Apologies for the length of ths post,  but I wanted to address a growing list of issues......

 

 

I hope you're right about Ballard and his directive, for obvious reasons. 

 

But on Chud, I am not arguing that he can't coach at all. I've been a very vocal critic of Arians' offense (which is similar to Chud's), and I acknowledge that he's a good coach. I just don't like his offense and play calling, going back to 2012 at least. 

 

I am saying that I don't like Chud's offensive approach (just like I've said about Arians). Considering what the offense can improve on, the first and most obvious concern is QB pressure and sacks. This offensive approach ALWAYS yields more pressure and sacks, and it's not hard to see why. It emphasizes aggressive passing concepts, stretching the field vertically, it features more deep drops than any other offensive philosophy (and one report says the Colts ran more 7 step drops than any other team in the league last season), and that necessarily leads to more QB pressure. Combine that with a playmaking, never-say-die QB who believes he can make something happen every time he drops back -- and he's almost right about that -- and add in an offensive line that struggles to pass protect, and you're going to have an often sacked QB. Luck has been hit and pressured more than any QB since 2012, and he's missed 10 games the last two years.

 

The second biggest concern is turnovers, and since Luck's rookie season, we've been talking about the need for him to take better care of the football. Well, an aggressive passing attack is going to lead to more interceptions, necessarily. Combine that with the increased rate of pressure, and now you have a concerning amount of QB fumbles.

 

My third concern is a lack of efficiency. Completion percentage, INT %, yards/attempt, YAC, etc., are typical measurements for efficiency. Luck had a strong year in 2016, but in comparison with the best passing attacks in the league, we're lacking in one way or another. 

 

Two basic things I've said I would like our offense to do: 1) Maximize our strengths, and 2) minimize our weaknesses. We have fast and quick receivers; we should get them the ball as quickly as possible. We have a weak pass protecting OL; we shouldn't ask them to pass protect for deep drops very often. We have a mobile QB; we should roll him out and let him make plays. Our QB excels at play action, with or without a strong rushing attack; we should call more of it (to Chud's credit, he's used more play action than Pep did, from Day 1). And so on. Philosophically, we should do more of the things we're good at, less of the things we're not good at.

 

So after a full season in Chud's offense, when I can offer screenshots of play after play where we did silly things in the passing game, schematically, I think it's more than fair to be critical of Chud's offense. He doesn't call slants or screens, and when the defense plays off, we don't check to quick hitters, even on early downs (post #1 and 3). Just philosophically, I want the offense to do these things that lead to efficiency, take pressure off of the OL and QB, and reduce the opportunity for turnovers.

 

This is not born out of a desire to defend Dorsett. He has his issues, but I don't think there's any question that he hasn't been used correctly. And that's just a function of our offense not attacking defenses in what I think is the best way.

 

Chud has shown the ability to call great games. The first game he called was very good, and they adjusted to backup QBs that season was a good display of coaching. And I don't care which receivers get used the most. If Dorsett is the odd man out, oh well. But any group of receivers would benefit from these adjustments, IMO. And again, I've been saying this since before Chud (and Dorsett), and will continue saying it until it happens or I'm proved wrong.

[NewColtsFan]

 

Thanks........

 

Good discussion......     I don't know if we're done with it or not...   part of our Big Questionmark is Luck's rehab and when will he be up tp speed?        That question is a shadow over our entire offense whatever it is that we run. 

 

I don't object to more shorter pass routs....    

 

I don't object to more slants and screens....

 

I don't object to rolling Luck out more.    I always thought he was above average throwing the ball on the run, so I'd like to see more of it.     

 

I'd like to see more of Luck under center....    I think he's an effective weapon as he drops back to pass whether he uses play-action on any given play or not.

 

And I hope Ballard makes it clear that our offense has to be more efficient and better thought through....    more eating the clock with long drives to get our defense rest and off the field.....      get more bang out of our offensive buck.     And, like all of us,  I hope this is finally the year that our offensive line takes their game up a few notches.       With a good offensive line,  your ability to do almost anything you want on offense is practically limitless.

 

Thanks again......

 

 

 

[NewColtsFan]

21 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I hope you're right about Ballard and his directive, for obvious reasons. 

 

 

 

I'd like to expand on this thought.....

 

I'm highly confident Ballard and Chud (and maybe even Pagano and Luck) will have a meeting about the offense and the need for more shorter rout concepts....

 

And the reason I'm expecting this is because the Colts actually played Kansas City alst year and they manhandled us.      I wrote about then and since then,  but it's worth repeatomg./   

 

The Chiefs looked like they knew what the Colts were doing when we broke the huddle and lined up.    Their defense was so suffocating that they looked like they had 12 men on the field on every play against us.

 

And I'd like to think that Ballard will sit down with his brain trust and show him how they did that.    It's more than just having a talented defense.      We looked so, so well scouted.    This conversation,  similar to Superman showing the freeze frame shots,  would explain the need to take a somewhat different approach. 

 

To NOT do that would be professional misconduct, and I don't think there's 1 percent of me that believe Ballard would commit that.     He's the kind of guy that crosses every T and dots every i.       It's impossible for me to believe he hasn't talked about it with his team.      That's a conversation you have to have.

 

As good as our offense was last year,  and it ranked highly in a number of catagories....    our offense could go to the next level with input from Ballard.    We could be scary good if that happens.....

 

 

 

[DougDew]

Geez, is the GM responsible for everything? I don't know why Ballard would give Chud or Pagano a directive about the offense...as it pertains to the philosophy that impacts how players are used. That sounds like something Grigson got slammed for, but because its Ballard it would now be okay.  KCs offense was run by Andy Reid.  I'm sure their GM had almost nothing to do with how players were used.

 

Its my understanding of Chud's system is that it tends to favor 1 WR and the TE, with the other receiving components sort of on the field to set up the production of the two favorites.  Perhaps Dorsett, and perhaps Moncrief, will always tend to be underutilized relative to TY and Doyle, not viewed as targets so much, hence, not used as "correctly" as their skills could demand.  That "incorrect use" would be accurately described as stemming from the philisophy/scheme of the OC, IMO.

[NewColtsFan]

 

I don't see why strongly recommending the use of shorter pass routes would be something that anyone would object to.      I didn't say gut the offense,  or drop anythbing.     But there are a number of plays during the course of any game when all that is needed is a first down,  and not a gain of 15-20 yards.    

 

Get the first down.

 

Because if the pass attempt of 15-20 yards is incomplete then you're putning.

 

The idea is to be able to hold onto the ball for more time.     To keep our questionable defense off the field as much as possible,   and as fresh as possible for when they're back on the field.

 

Ballard can point to a team like KC that is succeding with a much lesser QB because the team uses a more QB friendly system.       I don't see why that would be a problem?

 

Ballard would have history and facts on his side,  to say nothing of the fact that he's now the GM and the boss of Pagano and Chudzinski.

 

[UKColt13]

A well used phrase, hindsight is 20/20.

 

I remember having Collins as the top rated guy on my board at our pick. I also remember being very disappointed. 

 

 

[Flash7]

21 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I don't see why strongly recommending the use of shorter pass routes would be something that anyone would object to.      I didn't say gut the offense,  or drop anythbing.     But there are a number of plays during the course of any game when all that is needed is a first down,  and not a gain of 15-20 yards.    

 

Get the first down.

 

Because if the pass attempt of 15-20 yards is incomplete then you're putning.

 

The idea is to be able to hold onto the ball for more time.     To keep our questionable defense off the field as much as possible,   and as fresh as possible for when they're back on the field.

 

Ballard can point to a team like KC that is succeding with a much lesser QB because the team uses a more QB friendly system.       I don't see why that would be a problem?

 

Ballard would have history and facts on his side,  to say nothing of the fact that he's now the GM and the boss of Pagano and Chudzinski.

 

I'm just curios how often a GM would have a say in the game plan or scheme that a particular team should run. (This is an honest question, no sarcasm implied). Basically, I think that if a GM wants his team to run a particular type of offense, he hires a coach that runs that style of offense, but I could be wrong.

[wig]

On 6/30/2017 at 9:51 AM, UKColt13 said:

A well used phrase, hindsight is 20/20.

 

I remember having Collins as the top rated guy on my board at our pick. I also remember being very disappointed. 

 

 

 

My point wasn't to look back and determine who should have been picked, it was looking back at who we wanted at the time. Case in point, you wanted Collins at the time and that obviously would have been a great decision. 

 

The entire forum hated the Dorsett pick, and we all had our favorites. As it turned out, we were right for hating the pick and many of our favorites would have been anywhere between really good and great. 

[crazycolt1]

9 minutes ago, wig said:

 

My point wasn't to look back and determine who should have been picked, it was looking back at who we wanted at the time. Case in point, you wanted Collins at the time and that obviously would have been a great decision. 

 

The entire forum hated the Dorsett pick, and we all had our favorites. As it turned out, we were right for hating the pick and many of our favorites would have been anywhere between really good and great. 

Hating the pick is pre mature at this point. It is not uncommon for a NFL receiver to take three years to learn to play in the NFL.

One of Dorsett's problems is he has never been used properly.

I understand some hating the pick but hating on Dorsett is two different things.

[wig]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

Hating the pick is pre mature at this point. It is not uncommon for a NFL receiver to take three years to learn to play in the NFL.

One of Dorsett's problems is he has never been used properly.

I understand some hating the pick but hating on Dorsett is two different things.

 

First rd WRs should not take 3 years. He has 750 yards and 3 TDs. It was a bad pick, plain and simple. 

[crazycolt1]

23 minutes ago, wig said:

 

First rd WRs should not take 3 years. He has 750 yards and 3 TDs. It was a bad pick, plain and simple. 

Not when he is not being utilized like he should be.