Grades: Week 5 vs Niners

[Superman]

 

Good result, thankfully they found a way to fight for the win. Wish it didn't have to be so difficult.

 

Stats

Snap counts

 

Defense, C-: 70 plays, 402 yards, 23 first downs (19 passing, 3 rushing, 1 penalty), 4/14 on third down, 2/2 on fourth down, 2/3 red zone, 0 turnovers, 23 points; the passing defense is a real problem

 

Defensive front: They got back to a tough, mostly physical performance against the run. There were some leaks up the middle, a couple of plays that probably would have gone for BIG yards if not for shoestring tackles -- no surprise that Breida was the guy that gave us trouble; besides Hyde being less than 100%, Breida is the speed guy that we typically struggle with.  Also some bad edge play a few times. For the most part the run defense was strong, including some third down stops. The pass rush was less impressive, partly because Hoyer got on the move and used strong play action, but mostly because they had open receivers all over the place. The Niners also used some tempo changes to catch the defense off guard. Sheard had a nice game, used his hands well and got to the QB quite a bit. They lined him up on the LT more often this game, good because their RT has been good in pass pro so far. Sheard might have been our best defensive player this week. B-, only critique is the lack of pressure, but when Hoyer held the ball the rush got to him

 

Pass defense: The good, Melvin had a decent game again, including a nice near pick coming under a throw to Garcon, who was eating us up. Melvin didn't have sticky coverage most of the game, but he's diagnosing and breaking on the ball a lot lately, and when a DB does that, he's going to cause turnovers (which we've already seen from him). He's also tackling better each week. The bad, well, lots of it. The ILBs can't cover, period, over the middle, up the seam, or in the flats. The safeties appeared to have some breakdowns, not getting deep enough on the long play to Goodwin, and not breaking strong on throws in front of them. And there's a gross lack of recognition in any zone coverage. By my count/judgment, Hoyer threw 26 uncontested passes with 4 incompletions, 3 of which were off target. We had 4 PDs, two of which were at the line, not due to good coverage. The pass defense was a sieve, and got shredded for 353 yards and 2 TDs by a QB who had a passer rating below 70, and an offense that went 22 possessions without scoring a TD. Gave up three more 20+ yard pass plays, and could not stop the bleeding in the 4th quarter. The PI in OT was bogus. D, this is scheme related and personnel related

 

Offense, C+: 73 plays, 447 yards, 25 first downs (14 passing, 9 rushing, 2 penalties), 8/16 on third down, 1/4 red zone, 1 turnover, 26 points; dry spells -- caused by poor execution and frustrating penalties at every position -- led to another up and down performance

 

QB: Pagano said Brissett has "it," and he's right about that. Hitting those third downs to Moncrief, and the big play to Hilton in OT, show what he can do. I wondered about his ability to throw the deep out to the left, but he nailed it to Moncrief. He also had a perfectly placed ball to Hilton for a big gain that was dropped. He found underneath receivers well, showed patience in the pocket and drove the ball to the second level with authority, even on the run... He also has some inconsistencies that pop up at the worst times -- elongated delivery, which I think led to the pick in OT, messy footwork and lack of balance, to name a few. Bounced back to make plays, including the aforementioned third down to Moncrief, which came after the pick. He also stayed tough when pressured, and there was plenty of pressure; for a stretch, his response was to tuck it and run, and that's fine when you can get yards. Not a perfect performance, almost cost us the game (again), but that playmaking ability and "it" factor are obvious multiple times every game. C+, 139 passing yards when pressured, 135 passing yards on throws 20+ yards

 

Backs / receivers / TEs: Gore was tough and showed good vision, getting to the second level several times, but he got stopped in the backfield more than usual this week. Turbin did what he does in short yardage, finding the hole and finishing, but got stopped in the backfield on the goal line. This was the Marlon Mack show, though, and he made big play after big play, almost hitting 100 yards in just 10 total touches on 17 snaps. The ability to take a busted play for 16 yards on third and 15 is special. He'll get more reps and more opportunities moving forward. Receivers were hit and miss; Hilton led the way with a big game, but had two drops. Moncrief started the game with a nice catch, disappeared for about three hours, then came back with two big catches in OT. Need more slants to Aiken from the slot. The TEs were nondescript. Gore did a good job gaining yards on a screen pass, then got chopped down on another due to bad blocking. B-, mostly Hilton and Mack with big gains, but the others made plays also

 

OL / blocking: Pass protection was overwhelmed on multiple occasions, unable to form a pocket or keep the QB upright. Bad matchups with Haeg on Dumervil and Vujnovic on Buckner, and those guys made big plays against us. The run blocking made some decent holes at times, some just big enough for Gore/Turbin to find and squeeze through. They were inconsistent getting the edge, but managed to seal it a few times. Too much penetration overall in both phases. The blocking in space was bad as well, especially the screen play where Vuj couldn't so much as redirect the DB so Gore could get upfield, and that play would have gone for big yardage. The TEs missed some blocks as well. Clark had a nice block as the 6th OL, continuing to do well in that limited role. Shout out to TY for a nice downfield block! C-, I'm thinking it might be time to go back to Haeg at guard, Clark at RT

 

Special teams: Focusing on the good, AV was on fire, two 50 yarders, including another game winner. This man is 44 years old, ya'll. Sanchez was great also, really good punter, and when he pulls off on kickoffs, it's well placed directionally to keep the returner controlled. The return game isn't doing anything but nearly turning the ball over. I get the concept, but it's a little overly risky, IMO, and Bray had a good 20 yards open in front of him. Don't beat yourself... B

 

Coaching / play calling / game management:

Well called offensive game. I personally would like to see Chud string together some play action, go to it after decent run plays, etc. This is a nitpick, especially since Pagano says they script the first 15 plays (I never understood how that works, but whatever), but the first play is a 10 yard pass, then a 9 yard run, then they run it again for a one yard loss. Throw a play action right there, and you probably have the defense on its heels. The last series of play calls was overly predictable, but they went super safe after blowing the previous possession in the red zone. The QB keeper and the wildcat have potential; some might see them as overly cute, but you can see defenses reacting to them, and there are things we can do off of them. Just have to field the snap and protect the ball. Also have to clean up the penalties -- which are spreading from the OL to the skill guys. B-

 

I'm not sure what the mix of man/zone is supposed to be, and I'm not sure why we can't play outside technique without completely vacating the space inside the numbers and giving receivers free reign. I know we're not good at ILB, but the pass defense is being stressed everywhere. Everything is vanilla against the run, and it's mostly working. D

 

Pagano was again caught between strategies at the end of the 4th quarter. Decline the ten second runoff because the Niners are running out of downs, that means you want a chance to get into FG range at the end of regulation. Then 4th down comes up with over a minute left, and you don't call timeout? Then why decline the runoff? Then you burn a timeout after the Niners get lined up, and still give up the TD? Also got burned on kicker freeze timeout, but that's impossible to predict. D

 

Missed Callin 'em Out last week, and Grades. Just a super rough week. 

 

Game ball: Marlon Mack, he's electric, made huge plays that woke the offense up in the second half, and was the key to setting up the game winning kick. I'm excited to see how we continue working him in.

 

Next up: Titans on the road, as the divisional schedule gets started. If Mariota plays, this will be a big test. I'm not convinced the Colts are good enough to do anything this season, especially without Luck, but we could be in first place a week from now. 

 

GO COLTS!!!

[myic90]

Brissett deserves better than a C+

[ColtsBlitz]

I think special teams deserves an A. Vinateri had a great game and Rigoberto had a few downed inside the 20. I can understand if it's low because of the return game. Bray seems to have lost that skill

[Gramz]

17 minutes ago, ColtsBlitz said:

I think special teams deserves an A. Vinateri had a great game and Rigoberto had a few downed inside the 20. I can understand if it's low because of the return game. Bray seems to have lost that skill

Yep.  Love this guy.  (photos taken from my seat at the game)   AV was on the money as usual.

[DaveA1102]

28 minutes ago, ColtsBlitz said:

I think special teams deserves an A. Vinateri had a great game and Rigoberto had a few downed inside the 20. I can understand if it's low because of the return game. Bray seems to have lost that skill

 

Is there a team with a better punter/kicker combo than us?

 

If there is, it's no more than 1 or 2.  Rigoberto has been a great find.

[throwing BBZ]

 BUT BUT, many here are saying the the o-line played pretty well.  chuckle
 Just our LUCK our hapless team can't find a way to lose to that hapless team.
  This IS year SEVEN of MOSTLY bad football. yeehaa GO COLTS 

[lance_m8]

Pass Defense will continue to struggle when th3 scheme doesn't fit the personnel I blame 60 on coaches 40 on players but when you have terrible coverage linebackers on the field I don't expect much and I do not enjoy Simon dropping back into coverage so much I wanna see him putting qbs on the ground not pushing running backs out of bounds 8 yards down the field

[SteelCityColt]

1 hour ago, Gramz said:

Yep.  Love this guy.  (photos taken from my seat at the game)   AV was on the money as usual.

 

Great pics 

[csmopar]

1 hour ago, throwing BBZ said:

 BUT BUT, many here are saying the the o-line played pretty well.  chuckle
 Just our LUCK our hapless team can't find a way to lose to that hapless team.
  This IS year SEVEN of MOSTLY bad football. yeehaa GO COLTS 

more like year 3......  We did make it to the AFCCG in the 2014 season. and

 

2012:11-5: Lost in the wildcard round

2013: 11-5: Won in wildcard round, lost in divisional round

2014: Won in both wildcard and divisional round (against Peyton freaking Manning's Broncos), Lost to New England in the money round.

 

so..... where do you get 7 years of bad football?

 

[dw49]

11 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Good result, thankfully they found a way to fight for the win. Wish it didn't have to be so difficult.

 

Stats

Snap counts

 

Defense, C-: 70 plays, 402 yards, 23 first downs (19 passing, 3 rushing, 1 penalty), 4/14 on third down, 2/2 on fourth down, 2/3 red zone, 0 turnovers, 23 points; the passing defense is a real problem

 

Defensive front: They got back to a tough, mostly physical performance against the run. There were some leaks up the middle, a couple of plays that probably would have gone for BIG yards if not for shoestring tackles -- no surprise that Breida was the guy that gave us trouble; besides Hyde being less than 100%, Breida is the speed guy that we typically struggle with.  Also some bad edge play a few times. For the most part the run defense was strong, including some third down stops. The pass rush was less impressive, partly because Hoyer got on the move and used strong play action, but mostly because they had open receivers all over the place. The Niners also used some tempo changes to catch the defense off guard. Sheard had a nice game, used his hands well and got to the QB quite a bit. They lined him up on the LT more often this game, good because their RT has been good in pass pro so far. Sheard might have been our best defensive player this week. B-, only critique is the lack of pressure, but when Hoyer held the ball the rush got to him

 

Pass defense: The good, Melvin had a decent game again, including a nice near pick coming under a throw to Garcon, who was eating us up. Melvin didn't have sticky coverage most of the game, but he's diagnosing and breaking on the ball a lot lately, and when a DB does that, he's going to cause turnovers (which we've already seen from him). He's also tackling better each week. The bad, well, lots of it. The ILBs can't cover, period, over the middle, up the seam, or in the flats. The safeties appeared to have some breakdowns, not getting deep enough on the long play to Goodwin, and not breaking strong on throws in front of them. And there's a gross lack of recognition in any zone coverage. By my count/judgment, Hoyer threw 26 uncontested passes with 4 incompletions, 3 of which were off target. We had 4 PDs, two of which were at the line, not due to good coverage. The pass defense was a sieve, and got shredded for 353 yards and 2 TDs by a QB who had a passer rating below 70, and an offense that went 22 possessions without scoring a TD. Gave up three more 20+ yard pass plays, and could not stop the bleeding in the 4th quarter. The PI in OT was bogus. D, this is scheme related and personnel related

 

Offense, C+: 73 plays, 447 yards, 25 first downs (14 passing, 9 rushing, 2 penalties), 8/16 on third down, 1/4 red zone, 1 turnover, 26 points; dry spells -- caused by poor execution and frustrating penalties at every position -- led to another up and down performance

 

QB: Pagano said Brissett has "it," and he's right about that. Hitting those third downs to Moncrief, and the big play to Hilton in OT, show what he can do. I wondered about his ability to throw the deep out to the left, but he nailed it to Moncrief. He also had a perfectly placed ball to Hilton for a big gain that was dropped. He found underneath receivers well, showed patience in the pocket and drove the ball to the second level with authority, even on the run... He also has some inconsistencies that pop up at the worst times -- elongated delivery, which I think led to the pick in OT, messy footwork and lack of balance, to name a few. Bounced back to make plays, including the aforementioned third down to Moncrief, which came after the pick. He also stayed tough when pressured, and there was plenty of pressure; for a stretch, his response was to tuck it and run, and that's fine when you can get yards. Not a perfect performance, almost cost us the game (again), but that playmaking ability and "it" factor are obvious multiple times every game. C+, 139 passing yards when pressured, 135 passing yards on throws 20+ yards

 

Backs / receivers / TEs: Gore was tough and showed good vision, getting to the second level several times, but he got stopped in the backfield more than usual this week. Turbin did what he does in short yardage, finding the hole and finishing, but got stopped in the backfield on the goal line. This was the Marlon Mack show, though, and he made big play after big play, almost hitting 100 yards in just 10 total touches on 17 snaps. The ability to take a busted play for 16 yards on third and 15 is special. He'll get more reps and more opportunities moving forward. Receivers were hit and miss; Hilton led the way with a big game, but had two drops. Moncrief started the game with a nice catch, disappeared for about three hours, then came back with two big catches in OT. Need more slants to Aiken from the slot. The TEs were nondescript. Gore did a good job gaining yards on a screen pass, then got chopped down on another due to bad blocking. B-, mostly Hilton and Mack with big gains, but the others made plays also

 

OL / blocking: Pass protection was overwhelmed on multiple occasions, unable to form a pocket or keep the QB upright. Bad matchups with Haeg on Dumervil and Vujnovic on Buckner, and those guys made big plays against us. The run blocking made some decent holes at times, some just big enough for Gore/Turbin to find and squeeze through. They were inconsistent getting the edge, but managed to seal it a few times. Too much penetration overall in both phases. The blocking in space was bad as well, especially the screen play where Vuj couldn't so much as redirect the DB so Gore could get upfield, and that play would have gone for big yardage. The TEs missed some blocks as well. Clark had a nice block as the 6th OL, continuing to do well in that limited role. Shout out to TY for a nice downfield block! C-, I'm thinking it might be time to go back to Haeg at guard, Clark at RT

 

Special teams: Focusing on the good, AV was on fire, two 50 yarders, including another game winner. This man is 44 years old, ya'll. Sanchez was great also, really good punter, and when he pulls off on kickoffs, it's well placed directionally to keep the returner controlled. The return game isn't doing anything but nearly turning the ball over. I get the concept, but it's a little overly risky, IMO, and Bray had a good 20 yards open in front of him. Don't beat yourself... B

 

Coaching / play calling / game management:

Well called offensive game. I personally would like to see Chud string together some play action, go to it after decent run plays, etc. This is a nitpick, especially since Pagano says they script the first 15 plays (I never understood how that works, but whatever), but the first play is a 10 yard pass, then a 9 yard run, then they run it again for a one yard loss. Throw a play action right there, and you probably have the defense on its heels. The last series of play calls was overly predictable, but they went super safe after blowing the previous possession in the red zone. The QB keeper and the wildcat have potential; some might see them as overly cute, but you can see defenses reacting to them, and there are things we can do off of them. Just have to field the snap and protect the ball. Also have to clean up the penalties -- which are spreading from the OL to the skill guys. B-

 

I'm not sure what the mix of man/zone is supposed to be, and I'm not sure why we can't play outside technique without completely vacating the space inside the numbers and giving receivers free reign. I know we're not good at ILB, but the pass defense is being stressed everywhere. Everything is vanilla against the run, and it's mostly working. D

 

Pagano was again caught between strategies at the end of the 4th quarter. Decline the ten second runoff because the Niners are running out of downs, that means you want a chance to get into FG range at the end of regulation. Then 4th down comes up with over a minute left, and you don't call timeout? Then why decline the runoff? Then you burn a timeout after the Niners get lined up, and still give up the TD? Also got burned on kicker freeze timeout, but that's impossible to predict. D

 

Missed Callin 'em Out last week, and Grades. Just a super rough week. 

 

Game ball: Marlon Mack, he's electric, made huge plays that woke the offense up in the second half, and was the key to setting up the game winning kick. I'm excited to see how we continue working him in.

 

Next up: Titans on the road, as the divisional schedule gets started. If Mariota plays, this will be a big test. I'm not convinced the Colts are good enough to do anything this season, especially without Luck, but we could be in first place a week from now. 

 

GO COLTS!!!

 

 

You were spot on . Can't think of a grade I would change. Oh.. and I already took the brunt of the blow back you should have received for writing this...

 

"Pagano was again caught between strategies at the end of the 4th quarter. Decline the ten second runoff because the Niners are running out of downs, that means you want a chance to get into FG range at the end of regulation. Then 4th down comes up with over a minute left, and you don't call timeout? Then why decline the runoff?"  

 

I stated the exact same issue in another thread adding to it that around 58 seconds and 1 time out is plenty of time to move around 40 yards. FYI there was no overwhelming support for either side of the argument  in the event you never saw the thread.  

[chad72]

If our front line DL is playing the run well and the OLBs are setting the edge well, why not use 3 safeties consistently so that one of them can run with the TE all the time? I'd just play nickel all the time with 3 safeties with only 1 ILB to play the run if our run D up front is holding up.

 

3 DL, 2 OLBs, 1 ILB, 3 safeties and 2 CBs

[shasta519]

Great write up. I think the offense overall deserves better than a C+, as does Brissett (who made some big time throws in this game).

 

If anything, the offense had some success in spite of the playcalling...which should be in the C range. The offense was largely driven by Brissett and Hilton making huge plays...and Mack's speed and ability to make plays. Chud had a better game than he has had, but there's still a ways to go: 

 

- Six targets to RBs is definitely an improvement over recent weeks. But only ONE of those was to Mack. That has to change. Mack could average a 1st down per touch in the passing game...and having to respect Mack as a pass catcher will open things up.

 

- Chud did a better job of getting Mack in space (the HB counter on the TD run for example)...needs to build off of this. Zone read plays with Brissett and Mack on the field seem like a deadly combo.

 

- Probably my biggest gripe with Chud (aside from the constant HB dives into a stacked DL) is that it seems like Chud has decided that Aiken is the WR2 on this team (based on targets and snap counts) and is instructing Brissett to look for Aiken...as well as calling multiple plays each game where Aiken is the first read…even on crucial 3rd downs. Meanwhile, Moncrief is an afterthought. In this game, Brissett completes his first pass to Moncrief for 10 yards and a 1st down. And then inexplicably he doesn't target Moncrief again UNTIL OT (where he makes two big catches). In between that first pass and OT, Aiken is targeted 7 times…only catching two for 22 yards. Overall, Moncrief ends up with 3 for 32 yards…all first downs. I don't think Moncrief's disappearing act is a solo act...and it's frustrating.

 

For the season, Aiken has 8 catches on 24 targets for a measly 69 yards...but has been targeted 4 more times than Moncrief. Yet Moncrief has 100+ more yards...and has made big plays. This decision to make Aiken the WR2 has really limited the offense at times (it also has resulted in two of three INTs)...and it needs to stop. I get that Moncrief didn’t do himself any favors with that game against AZ, and his route running still isn’t great. But he has been clutch the last three games…catching 8/9 for 106 yards and a TD. He clearly has the ability to make plays and win 1-on-1 battles. And he’s in a contract year. So free Moncrief...and let the man earn a payday.

 

 

 

[Creekside]

Agree about the O-line. I know the coaches know more than I do. But, seems like Mehwort is better than Vuk. at left guard, Hage is better at right guard than right tackle. Is Clark such a liability that he can't play right tackle? (at all?), even if they help him with tight ends and Gore/ Turbin?....He showed such promise last year. I don't get what happened to him....

[shasta519]

40 minutes ago, chad72 said:

If our front line DL is playing the run well and the OLBs are setting the edge well, why not use 3 safeties consistently so that one of them can run with the TE all the time? I'd just play nickel all the time with 3 safeties with only 1 ILB to play the run if our run D up front is holding up.

 

3 DL, 2 OLBs, 1 ILB, 3 safeties and 2 CBs

 

I agree. They don't really have a single ILB that can cover, so having two out there just exacerbates the issue. So a S playing ILB would at least negate some of this. 

 

If Geathers was healthy (or gets healthy), he would be ideal for this role. If TJ Green wasn't awful at football, he would be at least be usable in this role. So unfortunately, they don't really have the personnel for it. 

 

Another issue is that Pagano (and probably Monachino) seem to be dead set on having two-down thumpers as starting ILBs...Sheppard, DJax, EJax, Morrision, Bostic, etc. Freeman was an outlier because he was an adequate cover ILB...but they let him go. 

 

This offseason they have to change this and find an ILB (or two) that can cover (should have just signed Brown). But even if they do, I still think an ILB and a hybrid ILB/S would be the best combo...if the DL can stop the run and the OLBs can contain. They just have to have the personnel to do it.

[The Fish]

I dunno how to grade Jacoby. He looked fine in the first half, then as we've seen the game just starts to take him over as it goes and he unravels a bit. He went from playing B, B- ball to D level ball as it went. He did bounce back at the end, but he's really uneven.

[DaColts85]

10 minutes ago, The Fish said:

I dunno how to grade Jacoby. He looked fine in the first half, then as we've seen the game just starts to take him over as it goes and he unravels a bit. He went from playing B, B- ball to D level ball as it went. He did bounce back at the end, but he's really uneven.

Brissett in a since is still a rookie, or at least in playing time.  A lot of guys with top potential come in and struggle, let alone a guy drafted in the (3rd round) that was looked at as a backup type.  He has been a pleasant surprise but he is still going to struggle.  Especially since he was drafted he has had two learn two different systems with limited snaps (Jimmy G got snaps until being hurt). The best thing is he shows growth and potential.

[dgambill]

13 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Good result, thankfully they found a way to fight for the win. Wish it didn't have to be so difficult.

 

Stats

Snap counts

 

Defense, C-: 70 plays, 402 yards, 23 first downs (19 passing, 3 rushing, 1 penalty), 4/14 on third down, 2/2 on fourth down, 2/3 red zone, 0 turnovers, 23 points; the passing defense is a real problem

 

Defensive front: They got back to a tough, mostly physical performance against the run. There were some leaks up the middle, a couple of plays that probably would have gone for BIG yards if not for shoestring tackles -- no surprise that Breida was the guy that gave us trouble; besides Hyde being less than 100%, Breida is the speed guy that we typically struggle with.  Also some bad edge play a few times. For the most part the run defense was strong, including some third down stops. The pass rush was less impressive, partly because Hoyer got on the move and used strong play action, but mostly because they had open receivers all over the place. The Niners also used some tempo changes to catch the defense off guard. Sheard had a nice game, used his hands well and got to the QB quite a bit. They lined him up on the LT more often this game, good because their RT has been good in pass pro so far. Sheard might have been our best defensive player this week. B-, only critique is the lack of pressure, but when Hoyer held the ball the rush got to him

 

Pass defense: The good, Melvin had a decent game again, including a nice near pick coming under a throw to Garcon, who was eating us up. Melvin didn't have sticky coverage most of the game, but he's diagnosing and breaking on the ball a lot lately, and when a DB does that, he's going to cause turnovers (which we've already seen from him). He's also tackling better each week. The bad, well, lots of it. The ILBs can't cover, period, over the middle, up the seam, or in the flats. The safeties appeared to have some breakdowns, not getting deep enough on the long play to Goodwin, and not breaking strong on throws in front of them. And there's a gross lack of recognition in any zone coverage. By my count/judgment, Hoyer threw 26 uncontested passes with 4 incompletions, 3 of which were off target. We had 4 PDs, two of which were at the line, not due to good coverage. The pass defense was a sieve, and got shredded for 353 yards and 2 TDs by a QB who had a passer rating below 70, and an offense that went 22 possessions without scoring a TD. Gave up three more 20+ yard pass plays, and could not stop the bleeding in the 4th quarter. The PI in OT was bogus. D, this is scheme related and personnel related

 

Offense, C+: 73 plays, 447 yards, 25 first downs (14 passing, 9 rushing, 2 penalties), 8/16 on third down, 1/4 red zone, 1 turnover, 26 points; dry spells -- caused by poor execution and frustrating penalties at every position -- led to another up and down performance

 

QB: Pagano said Brissett has "it," and he's right about that. Hitting those third downs to Moncrief, and the big play to Hilton in OT, show what he can do. I wondered about his ability to throw the deep out to the left, but he nailed it to Moncrief. He also had a perfectly placed ball to Hilton for a big gain that was dropped. He found underneath receivers well, showed patience in the pocket and drove the ball to the second level with authority, even on the run... He also has some inconsistencies that pop up at the worst times -- elongated delivery, which I think led to the pick in OT, messy footwork and lack of balance, to name a few. Bounced back to make plays, including the aforementioned third down to Moncrief, which came after the pick. He also stayed tough when pressured, and there was plenty of pressure; for a stretch, his response was to tuck it and run, and that's fine when you can get yards. Not a perfect performance, almost cost us the game (again), but that playmaking ability and "it" factor are obvious multiple times every game. C+, 139 passing yards when pressured, 135 passing yards on throws 20+ yards

 

Backs / receivers / TEs: Gore was tough and showed good vision, getting to the second level several times, but he got stopped in the backfield more than usual this week. Turbin did what he does in short yardage, finding the hole and finishing, but got stopped in the backfield on the goal line. This was the Marlon Mack show, though, and he made big play after big play, almost hitting 100 yards in just 10 total touches on 17 snaps. The ability to take a busted play for 16 yards on third and 15 is special. He'll get more reps and more opportunities moving forward. Receivers were hit and miss; Hilton led the way with a big game, but had two drops. Moncrief started the game with a nice catch, disappeared for about three hours, then came back with two big catches in OT. Need more slants to Aiken from the slot. The TEs were nondescript. Gore did a good job gaining yards on a screen pass, then got chopped down on another due to bad blocking. B-, mostly Hilton and Mack with big gains, but the others made plays also

 

OL / blocking: Pass protection was overwhelmed on multiple occasions, unable to form a pocket or keep the QB upright. Bad matchups with Haeg on Dumervil and Vujnovic on Buckner, and those guys made big plays against us. The run blocking made some decent holes at times, some just big enough for Gore/Turbin to find and squeeze through. They were inconsistent getting the edge, but managed to seal it a few times. Too much penetration overall in both phases. The blocking in space was bad as well, especially the screen play where Vuj couldn't so much as redirect the DB so Gore could get upfield, and that play would have gone for big yardage. The TEs missed some blocks as well. Clark had a nice block as the 6th OL, continuing to do well in that limited role. Shout out to TY for a nice downfield block! C-, I'm thinking it might be time to go back to Haeg at guard, Clark at RT

 

Special teams: Focusing on the good, AV was on fire, two 50 yarders, including another game winner. This man is 44 years old, ya'll. Sanchez was great also, really good punter, and when he pulls off on kickoffs, it's well placed directionally to keep the returner controlled. The return game isn't doing anything but nearly turning the ball over. I get the concept, but it's a little overly risky, IMO, and Bray had a good 20 yards open in front of him. Don't beat yourself... B

 

Coaching / play calling / game management:

Well called offensive game. I personally would like to see Chud string together some play action, go to it after decent run plays, etc. This is a nitpick, especially since Pagano says they script the first 15 plays (I never understood how that works, but whatever), but the first play is a 10 yard pass, then a 9 yard run, then they run it again for a one yard loss. Throw a play action right there, and you probably have the defense on its heels. The last series of play calls was overly predictable, but they went super safe after blowing the previous possession in the red zone. The QB keeper and the wildcat have potential; some might see them as overly cute, but you can see defenses reacting to them, and there are things we can do off of them. Just have to field the snap and protect the ball. Also have to clean up the penalties -- which are spreading from the OL to the skill guys. B-

 

I'm not sure what the mix of man/zone is supposed to be, and I'm not sure why we can't play outside technique without completely vacating the space inside the numbers and giving receivers free reign. I know we're not good at ILB, but the pass defense is being stressed everywhere. Everything is vanilla against the run, and it's mostly working. D

 

Pagano was again caught between strategies at the end of the 4th quarter. Decline the ten second runoff because the Niners are running out of downs, that means you want a chance to get into FG range at the end of regulation. Then 4th down comes up with over a minute left, and you don't call timeout? Then why decline the runoff? Then you burn a timeout after the Niners get lined up, and still give up the TD? Also got burned on kicker freeze timeout, but that's impossible to predict. D

 

Missed Callin 'em Out last week, and Grades. Just a super rough week. 

 

Game ball: Marlon Mack, he's electric, made huge plays that woke the offense up in the second half, and was the key to setting up the game winning kick. I'm excited to see how we continue working him in.

 

Next up: Titans on the road, as the divisional schedule gets started. If Mariota plays, this will be a big test. I'm not convinced the Colts are good enough to do anything this season, especially without Luck, but we could be in first place a week from now. 

 

GO COLTS!!!

Good info Supes. I agree with others Vinny and Sanchez where awesome yesterday. Pass defense was not great. That said its harder to tell who was covering on all the plays (I was at this game and couldn't watch all replays etc on tv) but I thought Melvin was getting beat bad early and often by Garcon and then he got better later. Was that not the case? If not then whomever was covering Garcon on those in routes was awful. Backers indeed were atrocious....couldn't cover a 50 yr old Brent Jones and Tom Rathman much less who ever was out there the other day. I thought Hankins, Anderson, and company up front played well...Sheard really got after them. Am I wrong in thinking Basham looks completely lost out there? He hasn't played a lot but constantly loses containment and just looks clueless. I can't wait for Hairston to get back...that might help. Just like to see the team fully healthy for 1 game before I make a decision...fully healthy OL, Luck, Mack, Doyle and fully healthy defense. I think we can compete honestly. I thought the line gave Brissett plenty of time to throw...he really really hangs onto the ball too long. I prefer seeing him used in more roll out situations imo. In the pocket outside a 3 or 5 step drop I am not a big fan. I liked the play actions and get him moving. Anyways good write up. Thanks!!

[Superman]

1 hour ago, dw49 said:

I stated the exact same issue in another thread adding to it that around 58 seconds and 1 time out is plenty of time to move around 40 yards. FYI there was no overwhelming support for either side of the argument  in the event you never saw the thread.  

 

Totally agreed. At least you have a down or two to try to move the ball into FG range. If you're going to play it conservative and just go to OT, then why decline the runoff? 

 

This didn't hurt the team's chances of winning (like a hurry up snap instead of a TD review, or giving a team extra time to score a TD, which Pagano has done both), but what bugs me about it is that he's unsure which strategy he wants and how to execute it.

 

He's not getting better at game management, which suggests he never will.

[dgambill]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Totally agreed. At least you have a down or two to try to move the ball into FG range. If you're going to play it conservative and just go to OT, then why decline the runoff? 

 

This didn't hurt the team's chances of winning (like a hurry up snap instead of a TD review, or giving a team extra time to score a TD, which Pagano has done both), but what bugs me about it is that he's unsure which strategy he wants and how to execute it.

 

He's not getting better at game management, which suggests he never will.

I agree. I think he changed his mind. Like he wants to take more risks but it goes against his persona. You can tell he is super not comfortable with it...which in my minds makes the players up tight when we go to execute said plays or in certain situations. Its fine...just be who you are...but when you are going to step out of character you need to be 100% confident in your attitude and delivery...because I think the players definitely sense it and respond accordingly.

[Superman]

16 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Good info Supes. I agree with others Vinny and Sanchez where awesome yesterday. Pass defense was not great. That said its harder to tell who was covering on all the plays (I was at this game and couldn't watch all replays etc on tv) but I thought Melvin was getting beat bad early and often by Garcon and then he got better later. Was that not the case? If not then whomever was covering Garcon on those in routes was awful. Backers indeed were atrocious....couldn't cover a 50 yr old Brent Jones and Tom Rathman much less who ever was out there the other day. I thought Hankins, Anderson, and company up front played well...Sheard really got after them. Am I wrong in thinking Basham looks completely lost out there? He hasn't played a lot but constantly loses containment and just looks clueless. I can't wait for Hairston to get back...that might help. Just like to see the team fully healthy for 1 game before I make a decision...fully healthy OL, Luck, Mack, Doyle and fully healthy defense. I think we can compete honestly. I thought the line gave Brissett plenty of time to throw...he really really hangs onto the ball too long. I prefer seeing him used in more roll out situations imo. In the pocket outside a 3 or 5 step drop I am not a big fan. I liked the play actions and get him moving. Anyways good write up. Thanks!!

 

Garcon was getting open on everyone early, but it looked like they were releasing him to the inside, as if help was supposed to be there, and it wasn't. They released slot receivers to the second level, but the safeties didn't react until the catch was made for 15 yards. Really bad everything -- design, execution, awareness, etc. 

 

Basham does look like he's swimming. There was one play where he had to be corrected presnap by another linebacker, then the pass went right over his head. He needs a lot of work with recognition, he seems like he doesn't know his assignments.

 

The more they move Brissett, the better, IMO. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt with his holding the ball, but that with his slower delivery causes issues. 

[dw49]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Totally agreed. At least you have a down or two to try to move the ball into FG range. If you're going to play it conservative and just go to OT, then why decline the runoff? 

 

This didn't hurt the team's chances of winning (like a hurry up snap instead of a TD review, or giving a team extra time to score a TD, which Pagano has done both), but what bugs me about it is that he's unsure which strategy he wants and how to execute it.

 

He's not getting better at game management, which suggests he never will.

 

 

No he won't get better at it and I stated the same thing in the other thread. Why refuse the run off ? I think the truth is he just had no idea of what he really wanted to do. I really don't spend a whole lot of time bashing him as he's no doubt a lame duck coach.

[DougDew]

Nice to see somebody point out Brissett's long delivery.

Colts seem to give up passing yards when playing zone, which goes back to last year.  Maybe its used when we have a lead as a form of preventing the big play. Soft by design?

I say leave Clark in at RT and let him develop.  I can't see where its going to make much difference.

[Coffeedrinker]

I agree and disagree about the line.  Vuj and Haeg are the issues, the rest of the line played well, especially kelly in his first action back.  But there is only so much AC and Mewhort can do to help those guys out.  A lot of people on this forum were so enamored with Haeg, not because of his play but because Mudd made a positive comment about him.  But he's too weak to play inside and too uncoordinated to play tackle.  Clark has great movement and technique but he doesn't seem to know how to slow down a pass rusher once he gets his hands on him.  I can see why Good won the starting job and I still hold out hope that he can come back this year.

 

If I were the OC of the Colts, I would look at using 6 olineman as the base, and  then run 2, 3 or 4 WRs from that.  With 2 WRs you still have a TE and RB, 3 WRs, you could have a TE or RB, obviously 4 WRs is just that.

[ColtsBlueFL]

20 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Good result, thankfully they found a way to fight for the win. Wish it didn't have to be so difficult.

 

{snip}

 

Coaching / play calling / game management:

Well called offensive game. I personally would like to see Chud string together some play action, go to it after decent run plays, etc. This is a nitpick, especially since Pagano says they script the first 15 plays (I never understood how that works, but whatever),

{snip}

 

I'll take a stab at it.  From Pat Kirwan's book and other articles I've read before, I understand it to come about something like this-

 

Typically, a full playbook is cut nearly in half depending upon whether the team will face a 4-3 or 3-4, and the opponent strengths/weaknesses.  After considering their own roster (rookies, or new vets still learning the system, etc...) the playbook gets cut down further... possibly down to 100 plays.  Since you can't even practice 100 plays in practice the week before a game, a core of around 40-45 plays that are practiced become the core of the game plan.  

 

It seems like a small play sheet (and West Coast  coaches says they have 250 plays available, which is true if considering they run the same plays, but from different formations so often) but helps to OC's being overwhelmed by too much information.  If a game plan is cut so much though, it must be smart, and designed to get around the strengths of the opponent.  If the coach(es) haven't seen  a team do something in the last 4 games, then they just don't practice against that. The game plan must include plays that create match-up problems for that particular opponent.

 

When game day starts, those 'scripted' 15 plays have been practiced a lot, and will often be run come hell or high water.  The goal is to get as much information as possible in the first series or two. The offense sends in a rotation of personnel in to see how a defense lines up against each one.  Essentially probing the opponent with a variety of plays and formations, like a boxer would stick and move in figuring out his opponent early.

 

Once all the different match-ups have been tested, they'll identify 5 or so of the most advantageous plays, and those could very well be featured  another 4 or 5 times each throughout the game.  By the end of the first quarter, the game plan has been mostly revised for the rest of the game. But it still must evolve, based upon whats happened on the field.

 

I think we do have issues with an 'evolving game plan based upon what happens in the game.

 

BTW- thanks for the review/grades.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

When game day starts, those 'scripted' 15 plays have been practiced a lot, and will often be run come hell or high water.  The goal is to get as much information as possible in the first series or two. The offense sends in a rotation of personnel in to see how a defense lines up against each one.  Essentially probing the opponent with a variety of plays and formations, like a boxer would stick and move in figuring out his opponent early.

 

Once all the different match-ups have been tested, they'll identify 5 or so of the most advantageous plays, and those could very well be featured  another 4 or 5 times each throughout the game.  By the end of the first quarter, the game plan has been mostly revised for the rest of the game. But it still must evolve, based upon whats happened on the field.

 

I think we do have issues with an 'evolving game plan based upon what happens in the game.

 

Thanks.

 

I get the concept and the execution of it. I didn't want to spend too much time elaborating in the OP, but my problem with it is that I think a good play caller takes advantages of opportunities whenever they present themselves. If you chart your first 15 plays, but the defense shows a weakness right off the bat, why not exploit it as soon as you see it?

 

Case in point, the third play of the game. Nice play action pass play on first down, 10 yards. Solid run play on second down, 9 yards. The way the Niners were defending and the look they showed against a our 21 personnel with a FB, you have an opportunity to hit them with another body shot. To me, play action is begging to be called, and the way the defense crashed down on the previous run, you might even have a shot downfield. And it's 2nd and 1, the perfect time to look for a deep pass.

 

But you've scripted your first 15 plays. So when that opportunity presents itself, you don't take advantage of it.

 

And that's nearly a quarter of your offense. You get 60-70 plays on average, and you've taken any spontaneity out of the first 15 of them. It's a little rigid, IMO.

 

I could see if you're going to go more up tempo at times, which I'm almost always in favor of, but we haven't really done any of that this year (except to rob ourselves of a TD against the Cardinals). 

[ColtsBlueFL]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Thanks.

 

I get the concept and the execution of it. I didn't want to spend too much time elaborating in the OP, but my problem with it is that I think a good play caller takes advantages of opportunities whenever they present themselves. If you chart your first 15 plays, but the defense shows a weakness right off the bat, why not exploit it as soon as you see it?

 

Case in point, the third play of the game. Nice play action pass play on first down, 10 yards. Solid run play on second down, 9 yards. The way the Niners were defending and the look they showed against a our 21 personnel with a FB, you have an opportunity to hit them with another body shot. To me, play action is begging to be called, and the way the defense crashed down on the previous run, you might even have a shot downfield. And it's 2nd and 1, the perfect time to look for a deep pass.

 

But you've scripted your first 15 plays. So when that opportunity presents itself, you don't take advantage of it.

 

And that's nearly a quarter of your offense. You get 60-70 plays on average, and you've taken any spontaneity out of the first 15 of them. It's a little rigid, IMO.

 

I could see if you're going to go more up tempo at times, which I'm almost always in favor of, but we haven't really done any of that this year (except to rob ourselves of a TD against the Cardinals). 

 

Valid thoughts.  But then, you do lose the goal of seeing how the D will defend your various formations for later in the game.  So you might 'get predictable' based upon tendencies in down and distance calls rather than alter the plan based upon information found early (what works and what doesn't and against what alignments).  Bill Walsh pioneered the idea, and was successful.  So others have adopted the practice.

 

I'm more concerned with our 'Quality control' guy in the booth..  are they charting every play on every down and distance box.. how many time each has been run? (scripted or not) What's working, etc.. and relaying this so decisions can be made that  the O doesn't appear predictable?  And things like (pure hypothetical) the 'last 2 times the Colts were in that down and distance, they Blitzed (or whatever) and what play here would now work best against a Blitz (or whatever) ?  Is Chud getting this info in real time, and using it? Notably in the second half?

 

We can pick a lot of nits in this O, players and coaches alike, right now...

[Superman]

56 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Valid thoughts.  But then, you do lose the goal of seeing how the D will defend your various formations for later in the game.  So you might 'get predictable' based upon tendencies in down and distance calls rather than alter the plan based upon information found early (what works and what doesn't and against what alignments).  Bill Walsh pioneered the idea, and was successful.  So others have adopted the practice.

 

I'm more concerned with our 'Quality control' guy in the booth..  are they charting every play on every down and distance box.. how many time each has been run? (scripted or not) What's working, etc.. and relaying this so decisions can be made that  the O doesn't appear predictable?  And things like (pure hypothetical) the 'last 2 times the Colts were in that down and distance, they Blitzed (or whatever) and what play here would now work best against a Blitz (or whatever) ?  Is Chud getting this info in real time, and using it? Notably in the second half?

 

We can pick a lot of nits in this O, players and coaches alike, right now...

 

Good points. To the bolded, I'd rather have big plays and potential points than information. Put the pressure on the defense, and then your offense begins to open up.

 

And in practice, I'm sure it's more of a flowchart than a script -- if then, then that, and so on. Specifically on third down, because you have your third and short stuff, and your third and long stuff. Same inside the 10, or backed up into your own end zone. 

 

So that being the case, there's obviously room for flexibility. I would like to see Chud get into the game right away and take advantage of opportunities. And I'm clearly nitpicking about one specific play call, which I try not to do -- I don't do film study and develop game plans and whatnot, so it's kind of unfair to criticize one play when I don't have the information the staff does. But in this case, I feel like that series of plays exposes a flaw in the process, if we're valuing in game scouting more highly than making plays.

 

To your point about QC, there were games last year where it seemed like the opposing defense was a mile ahead of the offense, especially on critical downs. But to his credit, there are plenty of times when the offense strikes very effectively. The big play to Hilton in OT is a good example of that, and a perfect throw from Brissett might have resulted in a TD.

[ColtsBlueFL]

14 hours ago, Superman said:

 

So that being the case, there's obviously room for flexibility. I would like to see Chud get into the game right away and take advantage of opportunities. And I'm clearly nitpicking about one specific play call, which I try not to do -- I don't do film study and develop game plans and whatnot, so it's kind of unfair to criticize one play when I don't have the information the staff does. But in this case, I feel like that series of plays exposes a flaw in the process, if we're valuing in game scouting more highly than making plays.

 

I tend to agree from a fan standpoint.  Putting on a coaches hat, I'm sure everyone of those scripted plays were designed to be successful against that particular opponent if guys execute their part right. And certainly they hope guys execute well more often than not. We all know (despite comments from many members here that may hint otherwise) no coach says   ' hey, let's run these random 15 plays right here that probably won't work anyway, and see how badly our guys get beaten when the defense takes them out back behind the woodshed.  '

 

Successful scripted plays can work, and it is the pot of Gold at the end of the rainbow... 12-15 play opening drive with the scripted plays and it results in a TD and a lot of clock chewed.

 

14 hours ago, Superman said:

To your point about QC, there were games last year where it seemed like the opposing defense was a mile ahead of the offense, especially on critical downs. But to his credit, there are plenty of times when the offense strikes very effectively. The big play to Hilton in OT is a good example of that, and a perfect throw from Brissett might have resulted in a TD.

 

Yes, I want the QC guy say to Chud things like , 'last 4 times we were in a 2nd and 1 we ran a RB dive up the middle (something I feel our fans feel happens a lot, as I haven't seen but one game yet on TV).  Maybe we should run a pass out of the run/dive formation this time.  This is for both run pass balance, and because we are now predictable here.  Now if Chud trusts the QB and has a 2nd and 1 pass play he feels the offense can run well in the game plan, he should pull it off the play chart and go with it.  I also feel if things worked in the first half, stick with it, predictable or  not until they stop it.  Just as they adjust and start to stop it, run a different play from that formation and down and distance situation.  This is examples of the QC coach helping out the OC, and I feel it could really become helpful in the second half, and then maybe you do not have to play 'not to lose' nearly so much.

 

But as JB gets more knowledgeable and better, and more of the playbook is available for game plans, Chud will have a better play calling chart for each game. And if the QC guy does his job, we can be effective later in games and people won't feel like JB unravels or Chud is predictable.  But the QC guy and Chud don't call plays to appease fans, they do it to get mismatches against a defense, or fool them based upon their formations and tendencies and how they defended the situations earlier in the game (going back to that scripted stuff, I guess).