Dudley Smith
-
Posts
584 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Dudley Smith
-
-
I understand all of this but how does our Oline compare to Stanford's? Do they dominate their opponents like Stanford's? Then compare our WRs to Stanford's, it was clearly built for a pass heavy offense unlike Stanford.
You might say I'm walking by what our team is trying to do but I'm saying our team might be walking by what they have.
I would think Pep Hamilton understands that winning in the NFL is a lot different than winning on the college level. You need a great QB to win consistently in this league and you need him to make big-time throws. Just because we are going to a power-running scheme doesn't mean we are getting away from that. It is more about having the threat of the run and taking some pressure off Luck. I don't think Pep is going to abandon the pass. Luck just threw it almost 50 times this past Sunday after all. In fact, we may have won had we actually run it more often on Sunday. There was also a much greater focus on getting the ball in T.Y. Hilton's hands than there was against the Raiders. I think Pep knows who his playmakers are.
Trent Richardson can be a difference maker for this team. Winning games is more important than Luck throwing for 5000 yards per season. Luck, Richardson, and Hilton could be a very special nucleus on offense for years to come.
-
I know I am probably in the minority but I don't think the O-line has been as bad this season as a lot of people make it sound. I think the bigger issue has been Luck holding onto the ball to try to make a play and also not always doing an audible to make a defense pay for a blitz. There are still OL collapses here and there-- not saying they are a good unit or anything. But they are not awful like last year.
I think Richardson will get some touches this Sunday. I doubt he gets a lot though simply because he is not going to be familiar enough with the offense.
-
Kind of surprised by the amount of negative feedback on the trade here. I do understand why giving up the 1st Round pick can be somewhat concerning, but like others have pointed out, it's not like a 1st Round pick is a guaranteed game changer. You only have to look at the Colt's recent draft history to see that.
Richardson is a game changer if he is with the right team. He managed to have a good rookie season playing on the BROWNS with an offense that had literally no weapons at all outside of himself. On an offense with Luck, Hilton, and Allen, that no longer will be the case. We are now a Super-Bowl caliber offense once we get Allen and Ballard back next year. I think we are still a year away from Super Bowl contenders-- but I do think this move makes the Colts likely to get a playoff spot again with a 9-7 or 10-6 record.
Nothing is set in stone, but I think this was a great trade despite RB not being a position of greatest "need." When you have the chance to get a player like Richardson, you take it. Glad Grigson didn't hesitate.
-
Love it. Regardless of what happens I think this was a good move. Richardson is a special talent-- one that you won't find in many drafts. His YPC average is down because of the team he played on and him being the primary focus. That won't be the case here.
-
He could have in the past, and I'm sure he did or else you wouldn't be saying he did. I started listening to him consistently about a year ago and haven't heard anything overly negative about the Colts or the Pacers.
Now that I think more about it, I think it was a rant he went on about how terrible Pacer fans were due to low attendance while having a good team.
-
He actually is very pro-Colts. Had us in his top 10 NFL teams until this week. He says Luck is the best of the young QBs. Even after he said SF would kill us this week, he followed that up by saying he still likes the Colts and thinks we are a solid team. Also, the discussion of the game was in the context of his weekly eliminator picks. His reasoning for picking SF was that they are at home coming off an embarrassing loss on national TV. If the game was at Indy, he would feel different.
I happen to enjoy Cowherd--I know a lot of people don't. Either way, he is totally pro Colts and Luck. He just has an opinion about this weeks game that seems otherwise, but it needs to be put in the context of what he is doing. He wasn't just talking about us getting beat badly to bash us, it was because of his opinion of using SF as his eliminator pick this week due more to contextual factors.
Vegas has us as 10.5 dawgs. We should probably be hating on them if anyone.
Admittedly I don't listen to him very often nor did I hear the segment in question. However, I definitely remember hearing him bash Indianapolis in the past. Maybe I am getting it confused with a Pacers rant....
-
Cowherd is consistently anti-Colts the few times I have bothered to listen to him. This really isn't a surprise. Like jvan said, he may be right, or he could be completely wrong. He's just guessing like anyone else. Although it is tough to see it being worse than Luck's pick 6-fest with the Pats last season.
-
But that's the connection that I'm not getting. If Manusky were to be fired I think it would almost exclusively be because of his playcalling because, as you said and I said in an earlier post, this is ultimately Pagano's defense. Manusky is simply helping him to install it, but more importantly, Manusky is also the designated playcaller. Sure, Pagano could take on playcalling duties but would they want him to take it on long-term, or would he even want to take it on longterm with having to manage the entire game as Superman said? Even if they did, every team has a both an OC and a DC even if the HC calls the plays. So if Manusky were to be fired, he would need to be replaced for the simple fact that the team wouldn't have a DC anymore and there's no need to put that additional responsibility on Pagano when a new DC can be hired.
So I get and agree with pretty much everything else you said. I'm just not making the connection that if Manusky were to be fired, then having to bring in another DC would put question on Pagano's abilities or effectiveness.
I guess the assumption is being made that play-calling is the biggest issue. I confess I don't know for a fact if the play-calling is the biggest issue or it has to do with the scheme itself. If it is schematic, that is something I am hoping that Pagano could fix on his own without having to get a new DC. If it is schematic and the only solution is to fire Manusky to fix it, I would question Pagano's effectiveness. However, if it is play-calling that is the major issue with our defense (of which I am not sure that it is, nor am I saying that it isn't--I simply don't know) and it is not schematic, then getting a new DC who calls the right plays makes sense in order to let Pagano stick to HC duties during the game.
I hope that makes sense.
-
I don't think it would have anything to do with bringing in outside help. It would be more about Pagano not having to take on playcalling. I would imagine the defense being installed is the defense that Pagano wants to run. The biggest question right now seems to be about the situational playcalling of Manusky. If Pagano is unhappy with the way Manusky calls a game then he can either bring in someone else to do it or take on playcalling himself. I'm not sure how well it would go over though if Pagano simply took over calling the plays with Manusky still on staff. I could see that causing some...issues.
I agree with you for the most part. Just to clarify, when I said "outside help" I meant for that to mean firing Manusky and bringing in a new DC. I would hope that Pagano, being considered a great defensive mind, would be able to make this defense good enough on his own so that it wouldn't come to that. I understand that to a certain extent that isn't his job because he is the head coach and not the DC, but you would expect him to be fairly hands on with the side of the ball he used to coach and be a major asset there. I do agree that it could cause issues if he was to suddenly divest Manusky of play-calling duties while Manusky was still on the staff. But, if it is the difference between winning games or losing, it may have to be done.
Like you said in another post, Manusky was not the 1st choice of the Colts for the DC position. That said, it would take a terrible showing on the defense's part for him to be let go-- my ultimate point being if it came to that, I would be worried how effective Pagano was too.
-
Hard to point to any single reason. There were many mistakes here and there, such as Luck's 2nd half INT that was just a bad decision on his part. However, I think the biggest reason we lost was actually the Phins two first half TDs being scored right out of the gate due to bad defense. That was a hole that the offense had to dig out of right away, and while they dug out of it they were unable to keep the momentum over the course of the entire game. That paired with the missed 52-yard field goal by the Colts on the 1st drive (instead of going for it on 4th-and-1) really set the tone for the rest of the game IMO.
-
KC looks very solid early on this season. It is yet to be seen how Kelly's offense is going to play out over the course of a season. The Eagles are at home, which is an advantage. My guess is that KC takes a close one. I don't think the emotion of the game will affect the players one way or another after the first few plays.
-
More overreaction after Week 2. You never know what can happen in the NFL on any given Sunday. Colts also could reel off something like six straight wins and never again give the loss to the Dolphins a second thought. If the Colts are 2-6 in a few weeks, then will be the time to worry. Right now it's pretty premature.
This is just ESPN trying to create drama. You think that's bad, check out the college football page and see how ESPN just repeatedly rips on the Big Ten (most undeservingly). There definitely seems to be an agenda.
-
If the Defense tanks this year I could see that. Remember Pagano replaced Ryan in Baltimore so I could see Pagano bringing Ryan in to run the D IF we fire Manusky and I don't think that's a sure bet but I wouldn't rule it out.
It would take an epic collapse on defense this season for Manusky to be let go after Year 2. I don't see it happening unless the Colts just get lit up and/or have defensive breakdowns in the majority of their games this season (like the 1st half of the Phins game). Even if Manusky is let go, not sure how crazy I would be about Rex Ryan being on our sideline in any capacity.
Edit: Not to mention-- our head coach's specialty is supposed to be defense. If he can't work with Manusky and fix this without having to hire outside help I would be concerned.
-
Now if you'd like to parse words for some vain stupid loop reason, feel free.
I simply didn't agree with your choice of words. It had nothing to do with vanity on my part. Hubris simply doesn't apply to this situation.
-
Ugh. Apparently you're not paying attention either. Luck said on one of his passes instead of taking the checkdown and five yards, he intentionally tried to force a pass to a covered receiver. He acknowledged it as a mistake.
Now if you'd like to parse words for some vain stupid loop reason, feel free. But that mistake was the definition of hubris.
Okay. I agree it was a mistake on Luck's part. But that isn't "hubris." Had Luck said he thought he could complete the pass because he believed he was the greatest QB in the history of the game and believed no defender was capable of picking off one of HIS godly passes then I might agree with you. No, it was just a dumb pass.
-
Then you're not paying attention. Andrew made some serious mistakes in that game. Almost like rookie mistakes. IMO mistakes of hubris. Regardless, he's correct to own up to it and to feel a sense of responsibility. That doesn't let anyone else off the hook...it just is what it is.
Mistakes of "hubris?" Huh? Luck made a dumb decision on the INT. Plain and simple. He also had a few other throws that were off. All QBs have these things happen. I don't think hubris had anything to do with it.
-
I think a discussion of the coaching staff is worthwhile. The tone of the thread really puts a damper on a real question mark--Pagano is 3-4 as an HC, Hamilton is 1-1 as an OC, and Manusky has never really had great success as a DC. I do think all three have shown conservative tendencies. Conservatism shouldn't be based on/defined as run/pass ratio or blitz/coverage ratio. Not being conservative is more about the ability to continuously toe and sometimes cross the line of accepted NFL standards re: situational play calling, punting, kicking field goals, blitzing, playing bump and run coverage, formations (jumbo vs. 3/4 wide), etc. Pagano et. al., at this point, are showing that they are more inclined to stay on the conservative side of the line, which, as another poster pointed out, leads to watching at home during the playoffs. I'm willing to give this more time, but I'm hoping starting next week against the '9ers we start seeing more aggressive concepts introduced on a regular basis. Pep really needs to stop with so much jumbo and spread out the defense to slow down blitzes and open up running lanes. This was my main concern when he was hired, along with his lack of OC NFL experience when coupled with Pagano's lack of offensive and HC experience. The poor 3rd quarters point to our inability to have quick halftime adjustments, which point to a coaching staff who is struggling to work on the fly.
All in all, we still have a lot of promise among coaches and players, and it is too early to say we made the wrong decision on any coaching front. However, come the end of the season, there will be a large enough sample size to point one way or the other.
Good post, LH. I agree with most of what you said. I think Pagano and Pep will learn on the job and will probably become less conservative as they get more comfortable. Manusky does concern me in that prior to last season with the Colts he has never had very much success and he was the one hire I did not care much for. The defense has looked lost for major portions of the first two games of this season. The two TDs to open the Dolphins game really set the tone for the rest of the game and they both happened over the course of maybe just four total plays that were the result of defensive collapses by the Colts.
I feel that if you are going to have a conservative offense, you really need to have a dominant defense (which our Colts don't). I actually liked the playcalling much better in the Dolphins game than the Raiders game. I think Pep will open up the offense more for Luck as the season progresses. The biggest thing is making defenses pay for the blitz which has been the biggest issue thus far on offense.
-
9-7
Whether this gets us into the playoffs is the question. Will probably come down to tiebreakers.
-
Pagano is still somewhat learning on the job. Remember he really only coached like what-- four games last season? So this was his fifth game as HC? I think he will learn to feel out his style and I think we will see him become less conservative as he gets experience. I think that like players, brand new head coaches are afraid to make a mistake and take a big chance. That's why he tries for the 52 yard field goal instead of going for it on a manageable 4th-and-1 to begin the game.
Give him time to grow into the position. Arians did not have the added pressure of being afraid to make a mistake because he was simply Acting HC last year and could essentially make any mistake by taking any chance he wanted because it had no impact on his job security as the OC. He was going to get his job back regardless. Pagano seems to be a tremendous motivator, according to both reports and to the Colts players, and I think dismissing him this early in his tenure is a mistake.
-
Hard to say. Reggie sometimes seems like he gets fatalistic when his defender has him beat. Like he's just going to let the defender make the pick. I remember a couple of times last year thinking Reggie should have tried to play defense a little when Luck had thrown a bad ball but he didn't and just let the defender pick it off.
Not sure if he just is so determined to run his route that he doesn't feel like he can also worry about being a defender on a poor pass or what, but he definitely should have done everything he could to have prevented that INT yesterday-- even if took tackling the guy down. It was a great defensive play though.
-
Agreed about Arians...but the FG, no. It was early in the game, first quarter. It was the right call. Get (attempt to get at least) the points. Had he made that same call later in the game I'd be mad. But AV is still good from that range. Didn't he have a 53 yarder in the preseason? He was 4-7 from 50+ last year, so it's not like he can't still make those kicks. I think it was the right call, but that's just me. At the time in the game
Had it been sub-50 yard field goal or if it was 4th-and-10 then I would agree. But a 52 yarder is not a sure thing-- and only 1 yard was needed to move the chains. I am not saying AV can't hit it from there, but when it is between roughly a 50% chance at 3 points or trying to go a single yard to get a 1st down I go with the second option every time. I do understand where you are coming from-- but I think that is a situation where you go for the 1st down.
-
I bet the Colts take 1 out of the 3. Not sure which. I agree I think Seattle is most likely at home. I don't think Seattle is as good as they played last night but I also do not believe SF is nearly as bad. I think out of the 3 @ SF is the LEAST likely "W." SF will come out very fired up at home next week.
-
Last season many fans wanted Bruce Arians gone. Also, BA made some questionable head coaching decisions. He was pretty bad with his timeouts as I recall. I think it is easy to have overreactions after one game. We passed a lot yesterday. I am not sure if I would really label the offense conservative in light of that. I would say that Pagano (or Pep) seems to become too conservative when playing with a lead. The play-calling changed when we were up 20-17 yesterday. Also, on the 4th-and-1 on Vinny's missed field goal-- I feel that was definitely a situation where Pagano was too conservative. You've got to believe your team can pick up 1 yard. Getting 1 yard is much easier than hitting a 52 yard field goal.
-
I felt that was a situation where Pagano got too conservative. A 52-yarder is by no means a sure thing, and considering the Colts only needed 1 yard, I think the better call would have been to go for it. Sort of one of those "you play to win the game" type situations to use the tired phrase.
One reaction to the TRich trade that I simply don't understand.
in Colts Football
Posted
It's true that RBs are a dime a dozen in the NFL. I would generally agree that the OL is more important. A great OL can make an average RB into a pro-bowler. That said, some RBs are special talents that you generally are not going to find in a lot of drafts. I think T-Rich is one of those guys. He had a good rookie season last year and was a very special player at Alabama. As others have pointed out, we get him cheap too. Will he be injured off and on in his career? I'm sure he will. Almost all RBs are injured at some point. That's why we have Ballard though. Keep the T-Rich's carries reasonable and still have a solid back to come in and grab the hand off.
I also do not think this OL is as far away from being a decent (not elite) unit as some make it out to be. I think a few of the sacks this year have been due to Luck wanting to make a play (and sometimes he does) and holding onto the ball as long as he can. Sure there have been some breakdowns on the OL's part, but I think with another draft/FA period Grigson will have this OL looking solid by next season. I think it is ridiculous to believe he is being completely negligent about the OL simply because he went out and got a high profile RB.
Lastly, as many others have pointed out multiple times, just because you select a someone in the 1st round doesn't mean they are going to have heaps of success. The Colt's themselves are a great indicator of that. Giving up the 1st rounder, while maybe a little risky, I think is being made out to be a bigger deal than it really is.