Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Flash7

Senior Member
  • Posts

    3,779
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Flash7 last won the day on November 12 2019

Flash7 had the most liked content!

Uncategorized

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Sports, science, reading, fishing

Profile Fields

  • About Me
    Recently moved from California (Bay Area) to Austin, TX.

Recent Profile Visitors

14,758 profile views

Flash7's Achievements

Practice Squad

Practice Squad (2/6)

1.3k

Reputation

  1. Where are you guys seeing this? Just curious, not doubting you.
  2. When a GM is hired, it's usually because the team that hired him had been failing. The GM usually inherits a team with many flaws, (lack of talent, poor cap management, poor coaching, etc.), but steps into a situation where he would have a relatively high draft pick due to the team's losing record. The GM has to structure a front office team around him and then move on to evaluating the coaches. Most of the time, this results in the firing of the head coach and possibly others, and the GM will select his own head coach. Both the head coach and GM will then fill out any other coaching vacancies. Once the coaching is situated, they turn their eyes on the roster and cap management. This usually results in the release of players from the roster who are a detriment to the team's cap situation (sometimes even good players). With the roster trimmed down; the cap situation under control, and with high draft picks, they are ready for FA and the draft. At this point, I think that any competent GM can turn a bad team into a good team, especially if the team already has it's franchise QB. From a fan's perspective, it would appear that the GM is doing a great job because they turned a losing team into a good team. The team is winning again. But the enemy of "great" is "good". What philosophy would you apply or what steps would you take to get a roster from good to great? This to me, is the greatest challenge for all GMs.
  3. As for questioning Ballard, I think it's always fair game; however, the criticism should be applied fairly.
  4. He may be right, but I think this may require a deeper look. Let's look at the positions he's mentioned and see if we can perform a fair evaluation. Corner - I am under the impression that X. Rhodes is a very good corner, when healthy. And Rock has been playing really well, when healthy. Can we judge Ballard based on player health -- an unforeseen factor for the players mentioned here? Can we be better in this area? Yes, of course, but when healthy, we're okay here. Edge - Letting our best edge player (Houston) go during FA may have been a mistake, but we have to look forward and project Houston's production for this year instead of saying he gave us X amount of sacks/pressures last year and we can expect the same thing this year. Houston is on the back end of his career and it's right to expect a decline in his performance. As I mentioned in another post, Paye has looked good, when healthy. But overall, this was a need last year and still remains a need as Turay and Banogu have not panned out. We need more talent here. LT - Ballard had an opportunity to sign Charles Leno Jr, but instead, he opted to sign Fisher, coming off of an injury. Fisher has not played well, but we know that he has shown that he can, when healthy. Fisher is playing, but I'm sure he's playing through pain and injury. He will get better and I do think he'll be the answer at the LT position. WR - Our best WR (T.Y. Hilton) has been injured and has not played a single down this season. In his absence, I think the WRs have played fairly well. Without looking at the "All-22 game film" the narrative has been that the receivers have had trouble getting separation. But we know that for the first few games, the O-line play was a mess and Wentz had no time to find them. If we look at the last game, where the O-line finally played well, it's no coincidence that Wentz was able to throw for over 400 yards. He finally had time to find the open receivers. The WRs were a bright spot last game and I anticipate that if the O-line plays well, they will too. My overall analysis is that just as with any team, there are areas of improvement. And we will hopefully address these areas. But overall, if we have some health, we are actually a talented and good team. Just not great.
  5. Let's see what becomes of Paye. There is hope yet, and I like what I've seen so far, although limited.
  6. I think it's the exact opposite. Andrew most likely recommended retirement and T.Y. wasn't ready to retire. So in the end, Luck supported T.Y.'s decision and I'm sure he just wanted him to get healthy and stay healthy.
  7. Taking a step back and looking at this data, these are the things that come to mind: 1. Is it possible that with the same exact players but a different DC, could we generate more pressure/pass rush? 2. It's a numbers game. We mainly have 1 person for opposing teams to focus on, on our D-line, (D. Buckner). They can double team him and go man-to-man against the other D-lineman, who can't win their 1-on-1 matchups. With Houston and Autry gone, this has been a major issue this year, and that's why D. Buckner has been relatively quiet. 3. We do play different coverages on defense aside from just Cover-2 soft zone defense; however, that's our base defense. That means that most of the time we are banking on our 4-down lineman to get to the QB. And they haven't. 4. Should we look at other ways to generate more pressure? Blitzes by the LBs? Blitzes by DBs? I've seen a very vanilla defense. One that consistently allows for opponents to have career days. 5. What changes need to be made by our defensive scouting department? Give less weight to RAS scores and go by actual college production?
  8. It's a win-win. We now have our franchise QB moving forward, at the cost of a first round draft pick (and his salary).
  9. I think pressuring the opposing QB is one of the most important keys to winning. If we can't do that because we do not have the personnel to consistently apply pressure, then doing the same thing over and over again, (that's the criticism that's being made) is not useful. The criticism is that we continue to play a soft cover 2 zone defense and we hope that our 4-man rush will get to the QB. It hasn't...and Flus has not done much to change that. IMO, it could be that both Ballard and Flus have not done enough to make the defense effective, both in terms of personnel and scheme/coaching. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
  10. The Ravens are a balanced offense. If they rely on anything, it's their ability to run. The score at halftime was 10-3. So why would you expect huge passing yards given those circumstances? There was no reason for the Ravens to abandon their game plan and start throwing. It was only until they were well behind that they had to throw. And they had huge success doing it. Even when our starting DBs were in the game during the second half, (Rhodes, Moore, I. Rodgers, Blackmon, etc), the Ravens were completing passes at will. Sure we lost DBs throughout the game, which obviously didn't help.
  11. Yeah, it's just simple math. A good rushing performance is 100+ yards, while a good passing performance is 300+ yards. Stop QBs from having a good passing performance and you're well ahead of the game.
  12. I agree, and I think we focused so much on stopping Lamar from running and the Ravens setting a league record for consecutive 100-yard rushing performances, that we did not do enough on defending against the pass. We pass rushed to contain the run, instead of just getting after the QB. We did not want them to rush for 100 yards, so we allowed them to pass for 400 yards and 4 TDs (career highs for Lamar, and Andrews).
  13. You're focusing mainly on this game, while his criticism applies to many games under Flus.
  14. It's great to be optimistic. Way better than being negative, so I get that. But I like being in the middle. We've lost to every good team that we've played. And now we're excited because we'll be playing against bad teams. We'll actually have a shot at winning those games. This doesn't get me excited. As a Colts fan, I liked knowing that we could've won every game against any opponent (aside from the Pats). Now, just against the bottom feeders.
  15. We're in such a weird situation here with Q. He's an absolute monster. We all know that and there's no denying it. But he plays guard. And as good as he is (all-Pro, potential Hall of Famer by the end of his career), he really can't have too much of an impact on the game. Reed has stepped in and we haven't skipped a beat. It'll be interesting to see what we do. I'm sure he'll be signed by the Colts for mega bucks, and he'll earn it. But what affect will that have on the team's overall ability to field a competitive unit at other positions that have far more impact on the game?
×
×
  • Create New...