Very small, minor Andrew Luck update

[Superman]

5 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Then what was in your opinion? The slow starts were a big part of it, because it put extra pressure on the defense, and not scoring points is on Luck (the leader of the team). If you want to argue it's coaching, that's fine. Just make sure to make it your argument. Luck's play was not sufficient enough to reach the SB, that theory is debunked by how the Raiders were destroying us until Carr got injured. I think we were down by 3 TDs. If the Steelers and Pats are even better, then we have no chance of beating them if we start slow. If you want to argue that we can make the playoffs with Luck playing how he is, I'll agree with you, we can't beat the elite AFC teams though and make the SB. We couldn't even do it when Luck was at his highest point thus far in 2014, so there's no way we can do it with the way things currently are. 

 

I reject the position that states that not scoring points -- and of course, not winning games -- is entirely on the QB.

 

You mentioned the Raiders game. Luck threw two really bad picks in that game, which hurt the team. The defense also also got scored on five possessions in a row, with an average drive distance of 65.6 yards. The shortest scoring drive was 38 yards, after Gore's fumble, so Luck's turnovers didn't give the defense short fields to defend. Oh, and I should mention, all five of those scoring drives ended in TDs. So for half the game, the defense did nothing, got zero stops, couldn't even force a FG. Put blame where it's due, which is partly on Luck, but mostly on the defense. Even an average defense could be counted on for a stop at some point during that stretch, and then it's a different game.

 

(As an aside, the Colts had the momentum before Carr got hurt. It doesn't really matter since they couldn't complete the comeback, but they had already and finally gotten a stop on the prior drive, then Carr got sacked on 2nd and 18, the play where he got hurt, bringing up 3rd and 26. The Raiders were punting with or without Carr. The Colts scored a TD, got a stop, scored a FG, then couldn't get the ball back. Only one Raiders possession was really altered by Carr's injury.)

 

Luck also played well enough to beat Detroit and Houston the first time. The defense faltered with the game on the line both games.

 

And I absolutely blame coaching / play calling for the Denver game, and the second Houston game (I did a breakdown of the god-awful play calling on the final possession). I also did a breakdown of some of the critical plays in the Raiders game, and I believe that better play calling might have made that a winnable game, even with the terrible defensive performance.

 

Get the man some help, so he doesn't have to be flawless from bell to bell for the team to win a few games in a row. Get some momentum, and maybe make some common sense offensive adjustments, and you'll have a chance to beat some upper echelon AFC teams. Stop calling the most 7 step drops in the league, and maybe Luck isn't concussed for the Steelers game, and maybe you get a W there (we left at least 14 points on the field on the goal line, whereas the Colts offense with Luck was one of the most efficient red zone units in the league; we also had two 4th quarter interceptions). 

 

Luck's play was not perfect last season, by any stretch of the imagination. We all know what his flaws are, but we also know what his strengths are, and how much of a playmaker he is when he's on his game. If we can muster up even an average defense, we'd be a 10+ win team easily, including last season (I can argue for 12 wins last year). When we give up less than 20 points, we win 93% of those games; the problem is we only hold opponents under 20 points 35% of the time since 2012 (compared with the Chiefs, who do it 60% of the time). And if we adjust the offense, the QB won't get sacked as much and the offensive efficiency would improve across the board (I've typed many words on this over the last several seasons, including the last couple months). 

 

Luck is absolutely NOT the reason we're not good enough to hang with elite AFC teams. He can play better, but laying it at his feet is nonsense. Fix the defense and the play calling, and our 4,200 yard, 31 TD QB with the 96 passer rating would be more than good enough to beat good teams and go to the SB. And even if he does need to play 10% better over the course of the season, that's probably reason #328 why the Colts aren't good enough to make the SB. Let's check off the other 327 before we worry about Luck's performance.

[Yoshinator]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I reject the position that states that not scoring points -- and of course, not winning games -- is entirely on the QB.

 

You mentioned the Raiders game. Luck threw two really bad picks in that game, which hurt the team. The defense also also got scored on five possessions in a row, with an average drive distance of 65.6 yards. The shortest scoring drive was 38 yards, after Gore's fumble, so Luck's turnovers didn't give the defense short fields to defend. Oh, and I should mention, all five of those scoring drives ended in TDs. So for half the game, the defense did nothing, got zero stops, couldn't even force a FG. Put blame where it's due, which is partly on Luck, but mostly on the defense. Even an average defense could be counted on for a stop at some point during that stretch, and then it's a different game.

 

(As an aside, the Colts had the momentum before Carr got hurt. It doesn't really matter since they couldn't complete the comeback, but they had already and finally gotten a stop on the prior drive, then Carr got sacked on 2nd and 18, the play where he got hurt, bringing up 3rd and 26. The Raiders were punting with or without Carr. The Colts scored a TD, got a stop, scored a FG, then couldn't get the ball back. Only one Raiders possession was really altered by Carr's injury.)

 

Luck also played well enough to beat Detroit and Houston the first time. The defense faltered with the game on the line both games.

 

And I absolutely blame coaching / play calling for the Denver game, and the second Houston game (I did a breakdown of the god-awful play calling on the final possession). I also did a breakdown of some of the critical plays in the Raiders game, and I believe that better play calling might have made that a winnable game, even with the terrible defensive performance.

 

Get the man some help, so he doesn't have to be flawless from bell to bell for the team to win a few games in a row. Get some momentum, and maybe make some common sense offensive adjustments, and you'll have a chance to beat some upper echelon AFC teams. Stop calling the most 7 step drops in the league, and maybe Luck isn't concussed for the Steelers game, and maybe you get a W there (we left at least 14 points on the field on the goal line, whereas the Colts offense with Luck was one of the most efficient red zone units in the league; we also had two 4th quarter interceptions). 

 

Luck's play was not perfect last season, by any stretch of the imagination. We all know what his flaws are, but we also know what his strengths are, and how much of a playmaker he is when he's on his game. If we can muster up even an average defense, we'd be a 10+ win team easily, including last season (I can argue for 12 wins last year). When we give up less than 20 points, we win 93% of those games; the problem is we only hold opponents under 20 points 35% of the time since 2012 (compared with the Chiefs, who do it 60% of the time). And if we adjust the offense, the QB won't get sacked as much and the offensive efficiency would improve across the board (I've typed many words on this over the last several seasons, including the last couple months). 

 

Luck is absolutely NOT the reason we're not good enough to hang with elite AFC teams. He can play better, but laying it at his feet is nonsense. Fix the defense and the play calling, and our 4,200 yard, 31 TD QB with the 96 passer rating would be more than good enough to beat good teams and go to the SB. And even if he does need to play 10% better over the course of the season, that's probably reason #328 why the Colts aren't good enough to make the SB. Let's check off the other 327 before we worry about Luck's performance.

I like the long response. That's what we are going to have to do to get to the SB, a solid team and a solid defense. The only problem I have is he shouldn't have to be flawless to win every game, and it seems he has to be. I don't know if the team is that bad, or that's just on Luck. In any case, it'll take a great defense and better playcalling (as you said) to get us to the SB. What's going on now isn't working. This year's improvements on both sides of the ball is a start, but it likely won't be enough this year. Ballard has to give Luck what Manning didn't have, a top defense. Reason being, I don't think Luck has the talent Manning has and the ability to carry a team like him either.

[Chucklez]

On 11/07/2017 at 3:44 AM, Jared Cisneros said:

If there's a joke here, I'm sorry I'm missing it lol. I didn't get to see much of him in Stanford so I don't have a real opinion on that. Lets just hope he reverts back to his 2014 form when healthy (hopefully that's soon). If he plays like the last two years for the remainder of his career, we're toast as far as SB chances go.

What are you talking about?... Luck had one of, if not his best year last year.... and he was hurt! The year before he was out most of the season... so you are saying that if he plays like he did last year we are toast? Couldn't disagree more. If he plays like he did the year before last... he won't be playing at all because he'll be on IR... 

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, Chucklez said:

What are you talking about?... Luck had one of, if not his best year last year.... and he was hurt! The year before he was out most of the season... so you are saying that if he plays like he did last year we are toast? Couldn't disagree more. If he plays like he did the year before last... he won't be playing at all because he'll be on IR... 

I'm saying if we continue to get off to the slow starts that we were in most weeks, we will never beat teams like the Raiders, Steelers, and Pats and make the SB. Not sure why this is so hard to understand. Sometimes stats don't tell the whole story, and without knowing about the slow starts, you would think Luck dominated when it simply wasn't the case. We were behind a high majority of the time last year. Yes, two years ago he was hurt. Does it really matter if he's hurt though? Even in 2014, when Luck threw 40 tds, he got destroyed by the Pats. The team has to be much better. He isn't Peyton where he can carry them to the SB. If he can, he's shown no sign of it yet against the Pats or even the Raiders or Steelers for that matter.

[Chucklez]

14 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I'm saying if we continue to get off to the slow starts that we were in most weeks, we will never beat teams like the Raiders, Steelers, and Pats and make the SB. Not sure why this is so hard to understand. Sometimes stats don't tell the whole story, and without knowing about the slow starts, you would think Luck dominated when it simply wasn't the case. We were behind a high majority of the time last year. Yes, two years ago he was hurt. Does it really matter if he's hurt though? Even in 2014, when Luck threw 40 tds, he got destroyed by the Pats. The team has to be much better. He isn't Peyton where he can carry them to the SB. If he can, he's shown no sign of it yet against the Pats or even the Raiders or Steelers for that matter.

You cannot attribute the slow starts to luck last year. He had no one making plays for him outside of TY and Doyle in the passing game, moncrief was hurt most of the season and is still progressing and let's not even get into the topics of Allen and Dorset. 

 

Sure luck made some mistakes, but show me a qb who hasn't.... Including Mr. Brady...

 

It's true stats don't tell you everything. But the eye test told me that #12 was not the problem last year, in relation to the W/L column or the slow starts (I out that mainly on coaching).

 

Also, in 2014, Luck wasn't destroyed by the Pats... the entire team was. Again, you cannot place that all on him. 

[Yoshinator]

9 minutes ago, Chucklez said:

You cannot attribute the slow starts to luck last year. He had no one making plays for him outside of TY and Doyle in the passing game, moncrief was hurt most of the season and is still progressing and let's not even get into the topics of Allen and Dorset. 

 

Sure luck made some mistakes, but show me a qb who hasn't.... Including Mr. Brady...

 

It's true stats don't tell you everything. But the eye test told me that #12 was not the problem last year, in relation to the W/L column or the slow starts (I out that mainly on coaching).

I'll explain my position here as people here seem to have your viewpoint. The ONLY person you can attribute the slow starts to is Luck. You can't logically place it on a defense that was so devoid of talent that any team in the NFL could score at will against it. That defense just stunk. You couldn't expect it to hold opponent's offenses to any reasonable amount of points. The offense has to step up in that type of situation to make up for the defenses deficiencies. That is up to Andrew Luck. He's the most talented player on the offense and the leader of the offense. It's not fair, but it is what it is. Luckily, the defense should be much better this year, and we have a defensive minded coach to coach it up. I just can't blame it on the defense when they are literal trash. They never had a chance. Luck has to step up like Drew Brees does on the Saints, fair or not.

[Yoshinator]

3 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I'll explain my position here as people here seem to have your viewpoint. The ONLY person you can attribute the slow starts to is Luck. You can't logically place it on a defense that was so devoid of talent that any team in the NFL could score at will against it. That defense just stunk. You couldn't expect it to hold opponent's offenses to any reasonable amount of points. The offense has to step up in that type of situation to make up for the defenses deficiencies. That is up to Andrew Luck. He's the most talented player on the offense and the leader of the offense. It's not fair, but it is what it is. Luckily, the defense should be much better this year, and we have a defensive minded coach to coach it up. I just can't blame it on the defense when they are literal trash. They never had a chance. Luck has to step up like Drew Brees does on the Saints, fair or not.

As far as Hilton goes, he did nothing but produce as the leagues leading receiver. The only part he didn't do well in was TDs. Doyle was overshadowed by Allen, and unrightfully so. The coaching I agree with, but Luck has to have some freedom at QB. He never audibles like Peyton or anything like that. If Luck has no freedom to call plays by now, the problem is a lot deeper than we think at QB. It either means Chud won't let him call plays, there's a lack of trust going on, or Luck isn't capable of it this far into his career, which would be a huge problem.

[Chucklez]

1 minute ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I'll explain my position here as people here seem to have your viewpoint. The ONLY person you can attribute the slow starts to is Luck. You can't logically place it on a defense that was so devoid of talent that any team in the NFL could score at will against it. That defense just stunk. You couldn't expect it to hold opponent's offenses to any reasonable amount of points. The offense has to step up in that type of situation to make up for the defenses deficiencies. That is up to Andrew Luck. He's the most talented player on the offense and the leader of the offense. It's not fair, but it is what it is. Luckily, the defense should be much better this year, and we have a defensive minded coach to coach it up. I just can't blame it on the defense when they are literal trash. They never had a chance. Luck has to step up like Drew Brees does on the Saints, fair or not.

Uhm... what? You're kidding right? So the offensive coordinator and head coach who put the game plan in place have nothing to do with it?

 

The skill players who luck has to throw the ball to have nothing to do with it? Maybe they run the wrong route... maybe they miss a blocking assignment, maybe they drop a pass, maybe they aren't creating the separation the play was designed to create...

 

The position coaches who go through game film and prep each position group or the upcoming team have nothing to do with it? 

 

The offensive line has nothing to do with it?... we have consistently had one of the worst lines over lucks career in the NFL... 

 

Why even bother having a team and coaching staff? Let's just fire everyone in the organisation and all of the other players on the team except for Luck and trot him out there on his own each week... seeing as he is the ONLY one that is required to make the offense work apparently.

 

BTW I never even mentioned the defense.

[Yoshinator]

Just now, Chucklez said:

Uhm... what? You're kidding right? So the offensive coordinator and head coach who put the game plan in place have nothing to do with it?

 

The skill players who luck has to throw the ball to have nothing to do with it? Maybe they run the wrong route... maybe they miss a blocking assignment, maybe they drop a pass, maybe they aren't creating the separation the play was designed to create...

 

The position coaches who go through game film and prep each position group or the upcoming team have nothing to do with it? 

 

The offensive line has nothing to do with it?... we have consistently had one of the worst lines over lucks career in the NFL... 

 

Why even bother having a team and coaching staff? Let's just fire everyone in the organisation and all of the other players on the team except for Luck and trot him out there on his own each week... seeing as he is the ONLY one that is required to make the offense work apparently.

 

BTW I never even mentioned the defense.

I mentioned the defense because people always blame it, wasn't meant especially towards you. I also addressed Hilton and Doyle above in another post (which is ridiculous blaming those 2). The O-Line maybe, but Luck also is notorious for holding on to the ball too long. It was also much better the final 7 games, so it's almost half the season they fixed it.

[Chucklez]

Just now, Jared Cisneros said:

I mentioned the defense because people always blame it, wasn't meant especially towards you. I also addressed Hilton and Doyle above in another post (which is ridiculous blaming those 2). The O-Line maybe, but Luck also is notorious for holding on to the ball too long. It was also much better the final 7 games, so it's almost half the season they fixed it.

I never singled out hilton and Doyle as people to blame. I actually praised those 2... You are missing the point entirely though man.

 

Football is a TEAM sport. You can't single out someone for slow offensive starts unless it is glaringly obvious like the qb is throwing passes into the stands every play or a WR hasn't caught a single pass... it''s all tied together and every cog has to be working in unison on every play, or it all goes to hell. 

 

Saying it is ONLY lucks fault is ridiculous. It was the entire offense and coaching staff's fault.

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, Chucklez said:

I never singled out hilton and Doyle as people to blame. I actually praised those 2... You are missing the point entirely though man.

 

Football is a TEAM sport. You can't single out someone for slow offensive starts unless it is glaringly obvious like the qb is throwing passes into the stands every play or a WR hasn't caught a single pass... it''s all tied together and every cog has to be working in unison on every play, or it all goes to hell. 

 

Saying it is ONLY lucks fault is ridiculous. It was the entire offense and coaching staff's fault.

I agree football is a team sport, but nobody controls a team and leads it like the QB. On most teams, that's your leader, that's the person that has the most impact. Not every player is created equal and you know that. I can get behind Pagano and Chud screwing it up for Luck, but if the QB struggles, the team struggles. That's just how it is, and it's why we were 8-8. It's probably Luck's floor, but we still need to do better with him early on.

[Chucklez]

It's why we were 8-8...?

 

Dude we were 8-8 without luck the year beforehand... 

[Yoshinator]

Just now, Chucklez said:

It's why we were 8-8...?

 

Dude we were 8-8 without luck the year beforehand... 

That goes back to coaching, as you said. The coaching and playbook is so poor, that Pagano and Chud gets just as much out of Hasselback and Tolzien as they do Luck. When you limit Luck's abilities (and he's hurt), then you are basically allowing any QB that fits Chud's playbook to play just as well as Luck. Get rid of Chud, and you get rid of the main problem, lack of playcalling freedom for Luck.

[Chucklez]

1 minute ago, Jared Cisneros said:

That goes back to coaching, as you said. The coaching and playbook is so poor, that Pagano and Chud gets just as much out of Hasselback and Tolzien as they do Luck. When you limit Luck's abilities (and he's hurt), then you are basically allowing any QB that fits Chud's playbook to play just as well as Luck. Get rid of Chud, and you get rid of the main problem, lack of playcalling freedom for Luck.

Agree to disagree man. I just don't see it.

[coltsfeva]

Back to Luck's injury: Reggie Wayne emphasized to Colts fans that the surgery could be a good thing. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility to see a healthy Andrew Sept 10th and an improvement in the Oline's performance next year. Gonna be interesting to see how this all plays out.

[Dingus McGirt]

6 hours ago, Superman said:

"Get the man some help, so he doesn't have to be flawless from bell to bell..."

Supe - great post (as usual) - but I prefer... "whistle to whistle."  :^)

[Jason_]

2 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

That goes back to coaching, as you said. The coaching and playbook is so poor, that Pagano and Chud gets just as much out of Hasselback and Tolzien as they do Luck. When you limit Luck's abilities (and he's hurt), then you are basically allowing any QB that fits Chud's playbook to play just as well as Luck. Get rid of Chud, and you get rid of the main problem, lack of playcalling freedom for Luck.

 

um, no...and it's not even close.  

 

in 2015:

 

MH: 8 games, 60.9% completion percentage, 1690 yards, 6.6 ypa, 9 TD/5 INT, 211 yards per game, QB Rating 8

AL: 7 games, 55.3% completion percentage, 1881 yards, 6.4 ypa, 15 TD/12 INT, 268 yards per game

 

2015 was almost as bad for Luck as his rookie season, and yet he still (while battling through injuries) put up almost 60 yards more per game with 6 more TDs in one LESS game than MH.  Granted, Luck threw more interceptions, but that should be expected considering his type of play compared to MH's.  

 

Tolzien has only started one game as a colt in 2016 and he didn't come close to Luck's averages from 2015, which again was Luck's worst season...or at least tied for worst with his rookie year.  So Tolzien shouldn't be in the discussion.  

 

I think the point you were trying to make is that Pagano/Chud coached the team to the same 8-8 record in 2016 while having Luck for 15 games that he coached the team to in 2015 while only having Luck for 9 games.  And you're trying to take that one step further and say that Pagano/Chud got the same record out of the team without Luck as he did with Luck which would be a bad thing if all other factors were equal.  But other factors were not equal..not by a long shot.  Rosters were different, injuries were different and there were far more of them last year, not to mention Luck himself played hurt the majority of the past 2 seasons.

 

Yes, there are still some issues Luck needs to work on, and I actually agree with you that he's not at the same level as PM and he may never be..and that's ok.  He shouldn't have to be.  But imo the biggest person to blame for the slow starts is Chud, but the lack of consistency on the OL plays a huge factor in that as well.

 

2 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

but Luck has to have some freedom at QB. He never audibles like Peyton or anything like that. If Luck has no freedom to call plays by now, the problem is a lot deeper than we think at QB.

 

where are you getting this?  Luck audibles all the time.  He's simply not as good at reading defenses and anticipating what will happen pre-snap as guys like Manning and Brady...but neither of those guys were as good at those things in year 5 of their careers as they were later on so there's definitely still room for Luck to improve with experience.

[Peterk2011]

5 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I'll explain my position here as people here seem to have your viewpoint. The ONLY person you can attribute the slow starts to is Luck. You can't logically place it on a defense that was so devoid of talent that any team in the NFL could score at will against it. That defense just stunk. You couldn't expect it to hold opponent's offenses to any reasonable amount of points. The offense has to step up in that type of situation to make up for the defenses deficiencies. That is up to Andrew Luck. He's the most talented player on the offense and the leader of the offense. It's not fair, but it is what it is. Luckily, the defense should be much better this year, and we have a defensive minded coach to coach it up. I just can't blame it on the defense when they are literal trash. They never had a chance. Luck has to step up like Drew Brees does on the Saints, fair or not.

 

I'm curious what, in your opinion Brees did that Luck didn't? The Saints went below .500 four times in the last five years. If thats a "step up to make up for the defenses deficiencies", then Luck did more... Brees is a first ballot HOF, a seasoned veteran, he played well, while his team sucked, but could not save his team. Brees's numbers were similar to Luck's 2014 and 2016 numbers. Brees threw a few hundred more yards and he had a bit better overall QBR, but nothing eye popping. Brees's TD/INT ratio was in the same ballpark as Lucks. And Luck had more game winning drives, more rushing yards and TD's than Brees. Honestly, I don't see what was your point with this....

[throwing BBZ]

Silly to expect Luck to be our best option for opening day.
 I hope he is ready by game 7.

[Jason_]

2 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

Silly to expect Luck to be our best option for opening day.
 I hope he is ready by game 7.

 

how long has it been since you've reviewed his medical reports?

[jskinnz]

17 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

Silly to expect Luck to be our best option for opening day.
 I hope he is ready by game 7.

 

Dear Lord...

 

The only way Luck is not the Colts' best option on September 10th is if he is not medically cleared.  Other than that, he will be behind center because he gives them the best chance to win by a long shot.

[Restored]

1 hour ago, throwing BBZ said:

Silly to expect Luck to be our best option for opening day.
 I hope he is ready by game 7.

[ColtStrong]

On 7/10/2017 at 5:42 PM, CR91 said:

 

Not trying to discredit a team or lucks importance. More that the colts could be looking more long term

As they should be. No need to rush him back and hurt the rest of his career. He's got more than a few good years left.

[Superman]

17 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

This year's improvements on both sides of the ball is a start, but it likely won't be enough this year. Ballard has to give Luck what Manning didn't have, a top defense. Reason being, I don't think Luck has the talent Manning has and the ability to carry a team like him either.

 

I don't think the Colts will be a SB caliber team this year, either. There are some IFs that could change things, but they have a lot of work to do, and there's still a gap between the Colts and the Pats, for sure. Luck isn't Manning (Manning wasn't Manning until after Year 5), but he is good enough to carry a team through the regular season, if he gets even a little bit of help. 

[Superman]

14 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I'll explain my position here as people here seem to have your viewpoint. The ONLY person you can attribute the slow starts to is Luck. You can't logically place it on a defense that was so devoid of talent that any team in the NFL could score at will against it. That defense just stunk. You couldn't expect it to hold opponent's offenses to any reasonable amount of points. The offense has to step up in that type of situation to make up for the defenses deficiencies. That is up to Andrew Luck. He's the most talented player on the offense and the leader of the offense. It's not fair, but it is what it is. Luckily, the defense should be much better this year, and we have a defensive minded coach to coach it up. I just can't blame it on the defense when they are literal trash. They never had a chance. Luck has to step up like Drew Brees does on the Saints, fair or not.

 

Wut?

 

None of this makes any sense. You acknowledge that the defense was awful, but you refuse to lay any blame on the defense because 'the QB has to make up for it.' That's ridiculous. 

 

And then you use Drew Brees, who is inarguably a top 5 QB, but the Saints are 21-26 with him over the last 3 years. They're .500 over the last five years. Brees proves definitively that even when your QB is elite, he needs help to even make the playoffs, much less be a SB contender. 

 

This is the ultimate team game. If literally half of the team "just stunk" and is "literal trash" -- your terms -- then the team isn't going to have much success. You're claiming that the QB is holding this team back, when it's clear that the QB -- no matter what he still needs to improve on -- is the least of the team's problems. 

 

'The defense is awful and I think the coaches suck, but Luck is clearly holding us back.' 

 

I don't understand.

[Superman]

11 hours ago, J@son said:

um, no...and it's not even close.  

 

in 2015:

 

MH: 8 games, 60.9% completion percentage, 1690 yards, 6.6 ypa, 9 TD/5 INT, 211 yards per game, QB Rating 8

AL: 7 games, 55.3% completion percentage, 1881 yards, 6.4 ypa, 15 TD/12 INT, 268 yards per game

 

2015 was almost as bad for Luck as his rookie season, and yet he still (while battling through injuries) put up almost 60 yards more per game with 6 more TDs in one LESS game than MH.  Granted, Luck threw more interceptions, but that should be expected considering his type of play compared to MH's.  

 

Just tacking on, it's obvious that the play calling for Hasselbeck was night and day different than the play calling for Luck, even when Pep was still the coordinator. Which is another notch in the "Chud needs to get his act together" column. 

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Just tacking on, it's obvious that the play calling for Hasselbeck was night and day different than the play calling for Luck, even when Pep was still the coordinator. Which is another notch in the "Chud needs to get his act together" column. 

 

I don't believe Pep was ever the OC for Hasselbeck.    
 

Chud's first game as OC was Luck's game vs. Denver when Luck got hurt but played on.

 

From there,  Luck was out and Hasselbeck took over with Chud as the OC.     Chuc created the alternate Hasselbeck offense that worked so well for MH and the other QB's.      His act was completely together.

 

 

[Jules]

18 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I'm saying if we continue to get off to the slow starts that we were in most weeks, we will never beat teams like the Raiders, Steelers, and Pats and make the SB. Not sure why this is so hard to understand. Sometimes stats don't tell the whole story, and without knowing about the slow starts, you would think Luck dominated when it simply wasn't the case. We were behind a high majority of the time last year. Yes, two years ago he was hurt. Does it really matter if he's hurt though? Even in 2014, when Luck threw 40 tds, he got destroyed by the Pats. The team has to be much better. He isn't Peyton where he can carry them to the SB. If he can, he's shown no sign of it yet against the Pats or even the Raiders or Steelers for that matter.

 

Gotta admit I do share some of the same concerns as you do Jared. I won't delve into all of this too much since I think with Luck there is a lot of wait and see coming this season. But, I share some of the same concerns as you do so just wanted you to know.

[Yoshinator]

5 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Wut?

 

None of this makes any sense. You acknowledge that the defense was awful, but you refuse to lay any blame on the defense because 'the QB has to make up for it.' That's ridiculous. 

 

And then you use Drew Brees, who is inarguably a top 5 QB, but the Saints are 21-26 with him over the last 3 years. They're .500 over the last five years. Brees proves definitively that even when your QB is elite, he needs help to even make the playoffs, much less be a SB contender. 

 

This is the ultimate team game. If literally half of the team "just stunk" and is "literal trash" -- your terms -- then the team isn't going to have much success. You're claiming that the QB is holding this team back, when it's clear that the QB -- no matter what he still needs to improve on -- is the least of the team's problems. 

 

'The defense is awful and I think the coaches suck, but Luck is clearly holding us back.' 

 

I don't understand.

Basically what I'm saying is the defense is so bad, that you can't possibly blame them for losing based on their talent level. Most of these guys are career backups or depth guys, they shouldn't be starting full games and full seasons like they have. When you start over half the defense with guys like these, what do you expect? Did you really expect the defense to be great or even average? I seriously doubt it. Luck and this offense for the most part are average to solid starters. They have to pick up the slack, and they weren't even doing that most of the time. Early on in games, we were behind a large majority of the time. That's putting even more pressure on an already terrible defense. You can say the defense does that to Luck as well. Well, the defense just isn't talented enough, Andrew Luck and the offense is. They have to pull their weight, and they are the only ones capable of it. Maybe if the rookies and FA's work out it'll be different this year, but if Luck continues to get off to slow starts, it still won't make a difference, especially against elite opponents. 

 

Yes, the playbook choices by chud are horrible, but even that doesn't excuse struggling vs weaker opponents. We need to fix the slow starts above anything else. 

[Restored]

8 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Just tacking on, it's obvious that the play calling for Hasselbeck was night and day different than the play calling for Luck, even when Pep was still the coordinator. Which is another notch in the "Chud needs to get his act together" column. 

 

I still think Pagano has been interfering more with the offense than we are lead to believe. It's odd that Chud and Pep would be running somewhat similar offenses with both Luck and MH.

[Chucklez]

3 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Basically what I'm saying is the defense is so bad, that you can't possibly blame them for losing based on their talent level. Most of these guys are career backups or depth guys, they shouldn't be starting full games and full seasons like they have. When you start over half the defense with guys like these, what do you expect? Did you really expect the defense to be great or even average? I seriously doubt it. Luck and this offense for the most part are average to solid starters. They have to pick up the slack, and they weren't even doing that most of the time. Early on in games, we were behind a large majority of the time. That's putting even more pressure on an already terrible defense. You can say the defense does that to Luck as well. Well, the defense just isn't talented enough, Andrew Luck and the offense is. They have to pull their weight, and they are the only ones capable of it. Maybe if the rookies and FA's work out it'll be different this year, but if Luck continues to get off to slow starts, it still won't make a difference, especially against elite opponents. 

 

Yes, the playbook choices by chud are horrible, but even that doesn't excuse struggling vs weaker opponents. We need to fix the slow starts above anything else. 

Not trying to be mean or anything, but this is quite possibly the worst analysis of something I have ever read...

 

Yes, you absolutely can blame bad players for playing badly.... because they are the ones playing badly....

 

Put it this way, say you are really good at your job, like one of the best in your field. But your company has a department that you rely on to provide you with the basis of what you work off of, and they are astronomically bad, like the worst in the country at it... should you be blamed for being provided terrible information from that department? Should you just be expected to pick up the slack from them and make whatever it is that you do better than everyone else? I'll give you a clue, the answer is not yes....

[Yoshinator]

5 minutes ago, Chucklez said:

Not trying to be mean or anything, but this is quite possibly the worst analysis of something I have ever read...

 

Yes, you absolutely can blame bad players for playing badly.... because they are the ones playing badly....

 

Put it this way, say you are really good at your job, like one of the his he best I  your field. But your company has a department that you rely on to provide you with the basis of what you work off of, and they are astronomically bad, like the worst in the country at it... should you be blames for being provided terrible information from that department? Should you just be expected to pick up the slack from them and make whatever it is that you do better than everyone else? I'll give you a clue, the answer is not yes....

If you aren't capable of doing your job, then your boss shouldn't put you in the position to do it in the first place. These guys aren't qualified to do the job. This is Grigson's fault for the most part. He put us in a terrible spot defensive-wise. The players are going to play whether they do good or bad, they are getting paid and probably having fun while doing it. It's a dream for them. Grigson was supposed to put us in a position to win, and 5 years of drafting very poorly on defense made him fail to do that. They may have to start at some point, but so many at once is impossible to overcome. It should of never been as bad as it was.

[Jason_]

3 hours ago, Restored said:

 

I still think Pagano has been interfering more with the offense than we are lead to believe. It's odd that Chud and Pep would be running somewhat similar offenses with both Luck and MH.

 

The Colts have run a similar style of offense under all 3 OC's that Luck has had, Arians, Pep and Chud.  The only one of those that seemed odd was Pep because the Stanford offense was vastly different to the offense he was running here.  Arians and Chud have always run that vertical style of offense so there's nothing odd about that, other than it seems obvious that the vertical offense is the style that Pagano prefers.  I suspect Pep running the same type of offense had more to do with Grigson than Pagano.

 

I have a very hard time believing that Pagano would be interfering too much with the offense.  I'm sure he provides his input obviously and had a say when it came to the scheme/style of offense the team would run, but I don't see him micromanaging the OC to the point that they'd be runnning the offense in a way they did not like.

[Jason_]

12 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Just tacking on, it's obvious that the play calling for Hasselbeck was night and day different than the play calling for Luck, even when Pep was still the coordinator. Which is another notch in the "Chud needs to get his act together" column. 

 

Ok, this is an honest question...I didn't dissect the playcalling all that much.  It was very obvious that the execution was different, but was the playcalling really that different for Hassellbeck when he took over for Luck?  They definitely ran the ball more...but Pagano and Luck himself have said that one of Luck's bigger issues was audibling out of run plays and into pass plays and that he had to learn to be more patient and stick with the running game, even when they're not ripping off big gains.  That's a lesson that QBs tend to learn with experience, which is the one area that MH was vastly superior to Luck.  

 

The passing plays...were they really all that different or did MH's experience simply allow him to make better pre-snap reads and adjustments?  He obviously doesn't have the arm strength that Luck has so he's not going to try going deep as often as Luck does, but he did try to go deep from time to time.  Do we really know that the playcalling was that different, or did MH's experience simply help him to be more efficient with the same type of playcalling?  

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they playcalling did change some...it should when the backup QB takes over for the starter because the backup doesn't get as much practice time, and they simply are not as good a QB as the starter, otherwise they'd be the starter.  But I just question how much they really did change it up.  It wasn't as obvious to me as, say, when Caldwell/Clyde changed the offense in 2011 to accommodate Orlovsky when he took over for Painter.  Now THAT was an obvious scheme change...they used far more I formation and a lot less shotgun just as an example.  

[Superman]

12 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I don't believe Pep was ever the OC for Hasselbeck.    
 

Chud's first game as OC was Luck's game vs. Denver when Luck got hurt but played on.

 

From there,  Luck was out and Hasselbeck took over with Chud as the OC.     Chuc created the alternate Hasselbeck offense that worked so well for MH and the other QB's.      His act was completely together.

 

The two games Luck missed earlier in the season -- Weeks 4 and 5 against Jacksonville and Houston -- Pep was still the coordinator. He didn't get fired until after the Week 8 loss to Carolina. 

[life long]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

The two games Luck missed earlier in the season -- Weeks 4 and 5 against Jacksonville and Houston -- Pep was still the coordinator. He didn't get fired until after the Week 8 loss to Carolina. 

If anything that was the blueprint going forward when we turned to our backups (mainly MH). I have read from multiple sources, Luck has the most put on him to run an offense, compared to all other NFL qbs. They went with a more traditional WC system when Hasselbeck was in, which was stated by another poster Pep ran at Stanford.

[Superman]

9 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Did you really expect the defense to be great or even average?

 

The expectations aren't relevant at this point, only the performance. And the performance was bad, which hurt the team and directly cost us at least two wins at the end of games.

 

Quote

They have to pull their weight

 

The offense is pulling its weight, any way you look at it. The disparity between the offense (top ten by any metric, top five in some) and the defense (bottom ten by any metric, bottom three in some) last season is glaring. 

 

To an extent, I understand if you were saying 'the defense is bad, so we need the offense to be even better than they've been to make up for it.' But you're saying 'the defense is bad, and the offense didn't make up for it, so the offense failed the team,' and that's just absurd. The defense failed the team. You can't lay their failures at the feet of the offense.

 

Quote

Yes, the playbook choices by chud are horrible, but even that doesn't excuse struggling vs weaker opponents.

 

It doesn't excuse it, but it does explain it. Any analysis of the offensive play calling explains almost every issue with the offense last season, at any point in the game. 

 

Quote

We need to fix the slow starts above anything else. 

 

Nah, we need to fix the defense above anything else. It's also very important to fix the offensive play calling, which should make the offense more efficient and effective, but the offense, even with its current warts, isn't the primary issue. 

[Superman]

6 hours ago, Restored said:

 

I still think Pagano has been interfering more with the offense than we are lead to believe. It's odd that Chud and Pep would be running somewhat similar offenses with both Luck and MH.

 

I don't think Pagano is interfering with the offense, but I don't know that for sure.

 

Pagano's very first hire was Bruce Arians, a Coryell coordinator. They rushed out and hired Pep, but he ran some sort of hybrid of Arians' stuff and his own stuff. Pagano brought in Chud as an assistant, and then made him the coordinator when Pep was fired. Chud is also a Coryell coordinator. Pagano also hired Brian Schottenheimer as the QB coach, and Schottenheimer is a Coryell guy. Pagano seems to clearly prefer the Coryell offense, and that's reflected in his choices for coordinators. 

 

To that extent, the issues with the offense can be laid at Pagano's feet, but I don't think there's any evidence of Pagano interfering with the offense, beyond setting a general tone for the gameplans. He's probably influenced the coordinators to be more conservative than I think they should be, but even that's gotten loose at times. 

 

As for what Chud and Pep ran with Luck and MH, there weren't really that many similarities, IMO. I think they both drastically changed the gameplans when Luck was out. And I think that's good coaching. It's too bad they didn't do the same for Luck. 

[NewColtsFan]

45 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The two games Luck missed earlier in the season -- Weeks 4 and 5 against Jacksonville and Houston -- Pep was still the coordinator. He didn't get fired until after the Week 8 loss to Carolina. 

 

 

\OK....     point noted....

 

But I don't understand this comment from you from the previous post.....

 

"Which is another notch in the "Chud needs to get his act together" column." 

 

Why the knock on Chud?   When he was the OC for Hasselbeck down the stretch,  I thought he did a masterful job.      What was your objection to the offense that Chud ran with Hazzelbeck, Whitehurst,  and Lindsay and Freeman?

 

Or, am I misunderstanding  your meaning?

 

[Superman]

3 hours ago, J@son said:

 

Ok, this is an honest question...I didn't dissect the playcalling all that much.  It was very obvious that the execution was different, but was the playcalling really that different for Hassellbeck when he took over for Luck?  They definitely ran the ball more...but Pagano and Luck himself have said that one of Luck's bigger issues was audibling out of run plays and into pass plays and that he had to learn to be more patient and stick with the running game, even when they're not ripping off big gains.  That's a lesson that QBs tend to learn with experience, which is the one area that MH was vastly superior to Luck.  

 

The passing plays...were they really all that different or did MH's experience simply allow him to make better pre-snap reads and adjustments?  He obviously doesn't have the arm strength that Luck has so he's not going to try going deep as often as Luck does, but he did try to go deep from time to time.  Do we really know that the playcalling was that different, or did MH's experience simply help him to be more efficient with the same type of playcalling?  

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they playcalling did change some...it should when the backup QB takes over for the starter because the backup doesn't get as much practice time, and they simply are not as good a QB as the starter, otherwise they'd be the starter.  But I just question how much they really did change it up.  It wasn't as obvious to me as, say, when Caldwell/Clyde changed the offense in 2011 to accommodate Orlovsky when he took over for Painter.  Now THAT was an obvious scheme change...they used far more I formation and a lot less shotgun just as an example.  

 

To answer the first question, I think the play calling was significantly different as soon as Hasselbeck hit the field. I think the coaching staff actually did a great job of adjusting the gameplans for him, and it led to just enough efficiency that the team was able to survive for a short period without Luck. They also did a fantastic job in the finale, with two street free agents on five days prep. We could dig into some of the specifics, but it's well in the past so I don't know if that's where we're going here. But IMO, there was a clear distinction. (One specific change I remember was an increase in play action, which is something I always complained about with Pep.)

 

To the bolded, I remember Pagano and Luck making comments about audibles after the 2015 opener, when the offense got beat up by the Bills. At the time, I felt they were disingenuous. The issue has never been with the Colts passing too much, not running enough, IMO. The problem is the passing concepts aren't conducive to efficiency, they expose a poor OL, and they leave the QB vulnerable to too much pressure. This is a gameplan issue, which is specific to the offensive philosophy, and that's on the coaching staff. When the starting QB comes out in the opener changing plays -- and this is Year 3 with Pep, who was also his coordinator in college -- I think it's safe to assume that he's been given that authority by the coaching staff. I lay the blame for the offensive approach -- from philosophy to gameplan to play calling -- at the feet of the coaches, starting with Pagano, down to his chosen coordinators and QB coaches.