Dudley Smith
-
Posts
584 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Dudley Smith
-
-
Considering Irsay had 29 grand in cash on him along with a boatload of prescription meds he shouldn't have a very short while ago, I think I can agree the timing could be better for him handing out $100 bills. I certainly am not "embarrassed" by his doing so, but it definitely made me cringe just a bit when I saw the clip and feel like Irsay should have done it a bit different for the sake of Irsay.
I agree that in principle it is not much different than handing out jerseys. But the "optics" as others have labeled it here would have been far less negative had he done that in light of his recent issues with pills and huge sums of cash.
-
Rings are a team accomplishment.
True. I don't disagree with your statement, nor do I want to get into a off-topic discussion about what makes a QB an all-time great (rings vs. stats, etc.), since that has been done to death in other threads. I just simply wanted to make the point that Big Ben, who has two Super Bowl rings, is far from "average."
-
I don't see this as news worthy really. Were people saying that Ben and Peyton were on the same level before or something? I think everyone in the league realizes Peyton Manning is light-years ahead of your average NFL QB.
I agree that Manning is a better QB than Ben. But by no means is Ben an "average QB." He is still one of the best in the league. And while he may not have the overall work ethic of Manning, rings are what matters more than anything, and he has more than Peyton.
Edit: To be perfectly clear, I agree they were dumb comments for Sanders to make.
-
Last year, the Colts played their best football against the top teams outside of Arizona (which was a catastrophe-- 2nd worst game of the season outside of the Rams). No one gave the Colts a chance against the 49ers, Seahawks, or Broncos, and I think even most did not expect them to win on the road at KC. But they did, and in the case of three of those games, played dominant football.
I think overall the Broncos are a slightly better team, but I by no means believe the Colts don't have a chance Week 1. Yes, Mathis won't be suiting up and it is in Denver, but the Colts just seem to have another gear when it comes to playing big games (unless it's against the Pats). I think getting a good start will be the key. If the Colts get down by more than a touchdown in the 1st half, it will be very difficult come back and win. But if the reverse is true and the Colts get up by 10+, I like their chances to control the clock and hang on for the win.
-
Can't say I am upset to see him leave. He really did next nothing while he was here. About the only thing I remember standing out was a big TD catch vs. the Lions a couple of years ago in one of our comeback wins.
Whalen was the better option all along anyway. Made more plays than Brazill over the course of last season and got open a lot more from what I could tell.
-
The defense still really worries me. I think our offense has the chance to be elite, but the defense on the other hand-- especially those first few games without Mathis-- just doesn't look very promising. It's Vontae Davis and everyone else. Admittedly, I don't ever remember watching Jackson play at MLB because I watched probably only a few Browns games in the last few years and wasn't looking for him. However, I don't see him improving our defense by a wide margin, certainly not enough to make that unit good, let alone great.
Maybe our offense is so good that it masks our average D, but we saw what can happen with that type of team if the O has an off night (Broncos vs. Seahawks).
All that said, I am still really excited about this team's potential. Definitely looks on paper like one of our best in quite a few years.
-
Andrew Luck isn't what I would consider the best QB in the game right now. I think that is Aaron Rodgers. However, I do think Andrew Luck is the best young QB and would be the guy that every single GM in the NFL would take over anyone else if they were restarting their rosters from scratch and were building for the future.
I really like Wilson, but people who are claiming he is better than Luck need a reality check. The guy is able to win some games by completing eight passes due to the strength of the running game and defense. When he does pass, he has 4-5 seconds at times to get rid of the ball. I think if he is going to lose the game manager label he needs to be responsible for a greater percentage of the team's success. He looked good in the SB and made some nice throws, but like others have said, when you can make the easy, safe play, and be reasonably sure you will still win, you aren't going to take chances. Luck on the other hand, has had to have a gunslinger mentality due to a poor defense and o-line, and has done a great job his first two seasons under those circumstances.
-
While I think some people in this thread maybe overreacting just a bit, Sherman made himself look downright silly in that post-game interview with Erin Andrews last night. I had no problem with anything he did on the field while the game was still going, including going over to Crabtree and giving him a hard time, because that's understandable (especially when Crabtree was running his mouth as well). It was after the game that was just downright embarrassing. He's an intelligent person but didn't sound anything remotely like it. His demeanor was just inappropriate for a post-game interview. Not to mention proclaiming yourself the greatest CB in the game multiple times is just putting a giant target on your back. How much you want to bet this guy just gets torched by the Bronco's receivers in two weeks after that spectacle last night? I bet Peyton and the Bronco WRs are looking forward to working with the "greatest CB in the game."
-
I wouldn't mind seeing him gone. I think the idea of a QB's growth being stunted because of a change in OC is extremely overrated. In fact, I might argue that the more different offenses Luck is exposed to early in his career the better. I think he is easily smart enough to learn a new offense and absorbing different ideas is beneficial. Now, I do think you lose the ability to make small tweaks to an offense by changing that often that can make certain plays maximize their efficiency, but it isn't enough to keep around an average OC.
However, I would be worried that whoever replaces Pep won't be any different. Pagano has made it clear he wants a power-running team. I think the heavier pass offense we saw at the end of the season (which was much more effective than any of the crap we saw early in the year with a totally healthy team btw) was temporary due to injury. I fear that to start the next season, whether our OC is Pep or someone else, we will see the slow, plodding, and predictable offense we saw at the start of the 2013 season. Hope I am wrong, but might as well keep Pep if that is going to be the case.
-
May actually help Luck to get a new face around him and offer some different advice. If Clyde leaves it is by no means the end of the world and may actually end up being a positive.
-
After changing the way we approached games later in the season, almost abandoning the 22 personnel specifically, tells me that I don't think he wants the power run game to be THE focal point. Rather, that it should be an element of our offense. This offense must center around Luck for us to have a chance. The only way I'm okay with that not being the case is if Trent somehow plays on the level of guys like Adrian Peterson and Marshawn Lynch...and there just isn't the evidence there to believe that will ever be the case.
That being said, we need our run game to be able to get us in manageable 2nd and 3rd downs, gash a 20 yard+ run on occasion, and be able to punch the ball a yard or 2 on short down and short goalline situations. If Trent ever became that dependable, then this trade might have actually been worth it. With Luck in the passing game and that sort of run game, there's no reason to think our offense wouldn't be top 5 year in and year out. But as many have said, our offensive line MUST improve. If D. Thomas stays healthy, one of hte young guys step up or we get a quality OL in free agency, and we hit in the draft on another interior line like the Lions did with Warford, we could be that offense. We're still another offseason away and where the trent trade puts us behing the 8 ball is that we also have 3 or 4 quality starters (if not more) that we need to find to plug into our defense.
I really hope you're right. Honestly, after reading Pagano's comments I am petrified by the fact that I actually think he is suggesting they are going to go back to running the same type of offense that they did to start this season. And I don't like that at all.
-
Not sure if I entirely agree. I do agree that you need to be able to run the ball to keep drives alive. I don't agree that power-running should become the focal point of this team. The Colts offense began to actually look like an offense once Pep stopped messing around with his bogus jumbo sets and let Luck sling the ball around. I want the ball in Luck's hands at least 60% of the time if not more. I think the main issue is the vanilla playcalling. How about some bootlegs for God's sake?
We should have known that Pagano would use the game Saturday as a spring board to trying to further push the "power running" agenda. I actually really like Pagano, but I am sick and tired of this obsession with the power run game when we have one of the next great QBs lining up under center. Let him do his thing and use the pass to set up the run. Not vice versa.
-
The defense was pathetic on Saturday night and it was pretty bad for the majority of the entire season. Mathis was the lone bright spot on an otherwise woeful D. Yes, they were put in a bad spot on the opening drive, but outside of the two three and outs they had in the 3rd quarter they looked awful. Despite some excellent drives by the offense to put up TDs, the defense would always let the Pats run another TD down the Colts' throats right afterwards, negating any momentum.
However, putting so much emphasis on Saturday night is missing the big picture. This defense was pretty bad for the majority of the season, and the fact the Colts won 12 games was a small miracle in light of how uninspired the defense played. Players like Freeman and Davis, who had outstanding seasons last year, actually seemed to take a step back. This is especially concerning considering that defense is our head coach's calling card. I think the Colts would be well-served showing Manusky the door, but I doubt it happens. Something needs to change on that side of the ball though.
-
I think they are all safe except for Munchak at Tennessee. I could see them giving him the slip. Agree he deserves a bit more time though. I think Coughlin might be gone only if he decides to retire, but when the guy has won two Superbowls I think you let him stay as long as he wants unless the season was just absolutely dismal (which it wasn't despite starting that way). I guess nothing would surprise me in today's NFL, however.
-
The death knell for Schwartz was his calling out the Detroit fan base in the Giants game. You would think coaches would have enough common sense to know that you can't trash the people who are ultimately responsible for your paycheck and expect to keep your job, but apparently not. Not to mention they had good reason to be upset in that game IMO (and upset for the season with the talent the Lions have).
-
I'm surprised by the number of non-Colts fans/pundits on ESPN and elsewhere who are picking the Chiefs to win this game in light of the dominant performance by the Colts a few weeks ago. To be honest, I am actually glad, since we always seem to win when we aren't favored. Just thought it would be a bit more even since the Colts already beat them in their own house and very recently at that.
I think this is a game the Colts SHOULD win, but it does make me very nervous-- mostly because we had our way with them the first time. I expect this to be a lot of closer. It will come down to our Colts' ability to once again dominate the time of possession as they did in the first meeting and keep our defense fresh.
-
I disagree with that. This year, Luck is throwing almost exclusively short to intermediate routes. Passes to a target WR behind the LOS to 10 yards down field comprise of 62.7% of pass attempts (58.7% last year); passes to a target from 11-20 yards, 28.8% (compared to 25.8% last year). For passes to a target over 20 yards down field, 8.6% (14.5% last year). There's about a 0.1% variation in this year because I rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent.
At any rate, as you can see, we are exceeding by far last years short to intermediate pass attempts, with over 90% of all passes thrown less than 20 yards through the air.
As far as the no huddle bit, I don't mind it as a one possession thing to jump start the offense. But the risk you run into, and part of the reason why our defense has been so bad, is that it quickly puts our defense back onto the field. Sicne Wayne's been out, we've had the ball about 6 minutes less (on average) per game, and that was before this past weeks game where we lost the TOP battle by an entire 15 minutes (UGH!!). If the other team has the ball 6 minutes more a game, it's no wonder why our defense can't ever get a stop on 3rd down.
I see what you're saying, but I am talking more about how many short routes appear in any one play set. I agree Luck is throwing less bombs way downfield this year, and obviously we are very restricted in what we can actually see on our screens at home when watching the game, but do you recall seeing multiple short routes on any one play ever? You usually see almost every receiver running downfield with maybe one WR running a short route, screens notwithstanding. Why not multiple short routes?
As far as the reason not to run no-huddle, our offense is off the field in the blink of an eye anyway on most possessions. There is really almost nothing to lose by trying it. I would take doing it for one possession here and there like you suggest even. The coaching staff isn't doing it really at all unless we are down 18+ points.
-
IMO there is no way that Pep and Chuck can't see that ,with the current personnel, this is EXACTLY what they should be doing on offense from the opening kick (Shotgun - short passing game - draws - screens - shot down field when available) not just when trailing.
Under center, power formations, slow developing passes and interior running in the first half is the main reason this team gets in a hole almost every game IMO.
I put the responsibility of putting Luck in the right situation more on Pep than I do Pagano, simply because Pagano is a defensive coach (Lord knows he has enough to worry about already on the other side of the ball). While it seems obvious to us that the hurry-up is the way to go, for some reason it isn't obvious to the coaching staff. Why I have no clue. I am not professing to be a football genius (because I am certainly not), but I can at least point to the fact that our slow, ineffective, power run formations are putting our team in an early hole (and have been the entire season for the most part) and it wouldn't hurt to just let the offense come out in the hurry-up offense right from the get-go to allow Luck to get comfortable and put some points on the board right away.
Just because the Colts are in the hurry up doesn't mean they cannot run the ball out of it. It also doesn't mean that they can't slow the pace down if they have the lead and want to milk the clock. Why the coaches aren't trying it is beyond me.
-
Why does Pep (or maybe its Pagano) refuse to let Luck play a majority of the game in the hurry-up offense? Every time Luck is in the hurry-up, he elevates every facet of his game. He enjoys playing at a fast pace-- he gets into a rhythm. I agree that I liked the fact that we threw it more yesterday, but the plays still seemed vanilla. Like another poster stated, why not more slants? Why not more dink-and-dunk routes in general? There are almost no short routes in this offense. They are almost all intermediate to long passes that Luck is being asked to make. And in the rare times there is a play set with a short route, there is only one. Mix it up a little bit.
I think allowing Luck to run the no-huddle and call some of his own plays would benefit him greatly. And I think that is why people say he is on a leash. Even Arians last year let Luck do this as a rookie here and there in games.
-
Luck has about 1.5-2 seconds on average before he is feeling pressure from our sieve of an OL getting steamrolled back into his face. He immediately has to improvise and move a certain direction to avoid immediately being sacked. It is very difficult to throw bullet, spot on passes when you are constantly improvising and worried about being sacked. On top of this, the receivers do not run the greatest routes due to inexperience or physical limitation. Add in the fact that Luck's #2 receiver (until yesterday) has hands of stone and Luck has no confidence in, and you have what amounts to a mammoth task being presented to Luck in order to make precision passes.
To suggest that Andrew Luck is THE problem with the passing game is foolish IMO. I think primarily it is the OL, secondly the receivers, and lastly Luck. I am not saying Luck is without fault, because he does sometimes sail passes. But its difficult to throw precision strikes when you are getting bombarded by d-linemen and linebackers on nearly every snap. When he has time to throw, he makes the throw. Luck also is dealing with an offensive coordinator who refuses to acknowledge his primary play-style strength (the hurry up offense), and an offensive coordinator who has some of the most vanilla play-calling in the NFL.
-
The only thing I remember about DHB yesterday was him getting hit square in the face with one of Luck's passes when he tried to trap it against his body. It was a third down play and it resulted in the Colt's drive dying. I think there could be certain ways to still use DHB (like in the Denver game), but he should be getting close to zero reps as a WR at this point. His confidence is completely gone, and Luck's confidence in DHB probably is as well.
Rogers is the superior receiver. And it's not even close. Hilton, Rogers, Brazil, and Fleener is not an elite group, but it is at least serviceable. Better than what we had a few weeks ago.
-
I keep seeing this "throw him in there what could it hurt mentality" ...
It could possibly set back or destroy any progress we have made with Rogers. I don't know if this is the case, but judging from the articles about him one of Rogers biggest issues is that he gets discouraged and has trouble putting it behind him on future plays if he makes a mistake or something goes wrong with the play.
IF this is the case than that is what they are trying to work on with him, so they are probably being very careful about what kind of situations they put him in.
What if they feel that bringing him along super slowly (not throwing him in full games this season) has the best chances of allowing him to realize his potential and possibly become an elite WR, but their timeline for full service is next preseason .... Is it worth throwing away what he could be for what he might bring to the table now? You don't think if Reggie and the other coaches thought he was ready and able to come in and play at a high level they wouldn't have him in there?
We have so many problems right now that even if he comes in and plays to the level of a decent rookie WR, that's not going to get us to the SB ... and if that's the case why risk breaking something that with patience could potentially pay off in a huge way next season.
If the guy's psyche is really that brittle, then I can understand why the Bills cut him. Honestly, I don't see how a receiver at this level, even off the practice squad, could have that mentality and have made it this far. That's the kind of thing you see at your son's pee wee games, not in the NFL. No, this is just more of the same stubborn to a fault loyalty to the vets bologna from Pagano/Pep. DHB has EARNED his spot on the bench at this point. Rogers should be promoted out of principle because he is the next guy up.
Pagano finally had to make a move and got rid of Reed so maybe he will finally wake up after yet another dreadful performance by DHB this past Sunday.
-
Not just Brown - Ballard, Bradshaw and everyone who has touched the ball(but Richardson) has done well. I gave Richardson the benefit of the doubt as long as I could, but at 3/4 the way through the season, it's impossible to continue to do so.
Hard to argue with you. I still hold out hope that something will click with Richardson. He has all the physical tools. I am just not sold on our OL being good at much of anything-- outside of getting our QB almost killed every game.
-
If you subtract Richardson, the Colts, as a team, are averaging 5.3 yards a carry, which would place them #1 in the league by a wide margin. This is a poor pass blocking line, no doubt, but I've come to the conclusion this is actually a good run-blocking line made to look bad by Richardson. With Richardson on the bench, I'm not so sure they couldn't be the successful running team Pagano envisions them to be.
Not necessarily disagreeing here, but didn't Richardson have a higher YPC this past Sunday than Brown did when he was the RB who got less carries? I almost certain he did before the final drive of the game and he may have anyway. I think we need to see more games with Brown as the feature back before concluding that this is a good run-blocking line, because Brown could do nothing on Sunday before that final drive.
Irsay bashed for giving away cash?
in NFL General
Posted
It matters to some. I could really care less. However, if I were Jim Irsay, I wouldn't be handing out $100 bills in light of my recent legal trouble involving a big pile of cash. Some people DO care, chiefly the media who is looking to make someone look bad every chance it gets. As Colts fans we don't think it was a big deal, but to other fan-bases and the media I can definitely see how it could look dubious.