DougDew

Like many. Not surprised. Where's @Moosejawcolt

If we throw out the seasons we expected to be bad, including the one after he's been GM for five seasons, Ballard would look good. And I agree that the Colts have seemed to always be one of the youngest teams. That's weird, and probably not a good thing.

What I saw in the games I watched looked like intentional decisions to not take off running after his first or second reads were covered. But I think he needs to run sideways earlier to extend the play and not stand back there like Marino expecting to be protected. I would think once he starts recognizing when to take off, or simply make it intentional as a coaching decision, it would begin to feel comfortable. BTW, Bryce Young seems to take more than his expected number of sacks this year. He stays in the pocket on plays a lot longer than it looks like he should.

Oh I get it. That passer rating is kind of wonky anyway with only 17 attempts, so I didn't think it was saying he had a great game. BTW, I didn't start any convo about passer rating AFAIK. I know stats need context, so I posted the info I had, which was much more than the rating. I think the bottom line is that TEN's offense is bad. A combo of a rookie QB, no weapons at receiver other than an aging DHop, injured oline, and who knows if DH has lost a step. It seems like TENs defense couldn't get off the field. Making for a 3-7 team and a top 10 pick probably. Its interesting that despite TEN falling behind, Vrabel didn't appear to have Levis sling it around (17 attempts?). What I've seen is bad short passing game (no gains) and Levis holding the ball waiting for something to develop down field on the longer pass plays. Going on the 4th game now. Yet Vrabel has made Levis the starter. Seems like the offense is staying in a predetermined box the rest of the year. Almost like where we thought SS would do with AR, sort of an introduction to the NFL type of season.

That's what I saw from TEN offense, except a few times when he connected deep that first game. A lot of short yardage plays. And the sideways passes went nowhere.

Yeah. That's what I eluded to above. Looks like JAX just held the ball, and TENs defense couldn't get off the field. And Vrabel did not ask Levis to throw it....may have made it worse, LOL. But lots of 3 and outs is what I saw in the first two games. His first game was great because of the 4 bomb TDs, but was inefficient because TEN did not have sustained drives. Looks like Vrabel is keeping Levis managed, for good reason at this point.

That doesn't make sense to me. What did TEN do all game? They only threw 17 times. I'd think garbage time stats would have him throwing at least 25 to 30 times. If Jax went up 27-0 with no picks from Levis, I assume TEN went 3 and out alot? If so, with only 17 attempts, they must have ran DH on 1st and 2nd downs then asked Levis to convert 3rd and long? Only 4 incompletions the whole game.

His first two...and those are the games I've commented on. The ones I saw he hardly tried to run at all, which I thought was different than how much he seemed to run in college. I agree with what you are saying about other games in not deciding quicker. The games I saw he took some sacks because his eyes were obviously looking past the rusher and looking for throwing targets. I'd say that he needs to learn to extend the play quicker if he's always going to look to pass. Whether or not Vrabel should call designed runs I have no opinion.

Seems like a case of looking through every read instead of moving out of the pocket after about the second read. Just not enough focus on the rush.

BTW, I didn't watch the game...because I'm not a TEN fan nor a HOU fan. But when I catch the games, I'll assess stuff that goes beyond stats. My quick opinion from just the stats is that Levis did not appear to do much to give the game away, yet his team scored 14 points on only 17 pass attempts and 158 yards passing, while the opponent scored 34. I assume JAX kept the ball a long time and scored on long scoring drives (not short fields). The coach did not put the ball in Levis' hands. Stroud threw 3 picks, so I assume he played like Luck....hurt the team, but made up for it enough to win. Because the coach put the ball in his hands. But that could be completely wrong. Its just one story that could be told from the stats. Ok.

You fool yourself. And its not my fault. For the 27th time on this forum (Back in April, during preseason, after week 5, and now.....no change): Stroud : Yes Levis : Probably Young: No AR: Incomplete If you read Strong Levis Supporter. that's on you.

No, I'm not a strong Levis supporter. I said he had one great game, and a couple of good ones. The back and forth is 100% due to you reading into stuff with exaggeration to present Strawman. Like your post above.

November 19 Young: 16/29, 123 yds 1 TD/ 1 INT, Longest 20 yds, Passer Rating 62.9 Stroud: 27/37 336 yds, 2 TD/ 3 INT Longest 40 yds, Passer rating 85.0 AR: NA Levis: 13/17 158 yds, 2TDs/ 0 INT Longest 49 yds, Passer Rating 143.6

When the players change their minds about wanting to play for the Colts or settle for the money the Colts want to pay them, its a bit of a cheap strawman argument to criticize folks wanting to trade JT or KM at a time the players were reportedly saying they would not. Everybody makes their comments based upon the unknown facts of what the players are actually thinking. You have to know that when you read their comments. BTW, other than JT getting more carries now that reflect his starter status, has he really done anything that Moss couldn't have done?

Has that ever happened before? LOL. Do the individual player rankings take into account the quality of QBs played? I'd wager these rankings are based on pretty superficial looks, like stats, but I don't know.. Not paying KM saves outside corner money for our outside corners (assuming we get some). That's an important element to this entire discussion.

If being all-pro at some positions mattered, some circles should expect they'd have a great winning percentage, like an All-Star pitcher.

You follow them more closely than I do. I think he helped develop the run-first...pass when you have too...strong defense team that got them success for these years. Can he coach a different kind of team? I think he's a quality guy that should be able to make that pivot. Naming Levis the starter indicates to me that he thinks he needs to have a more dynamic offense. Not that Levis can do it, but its a different direction than a game-managing...ish QB like Tannehill. Do you think they bring Tannehill back? Do you think they keep Henry?

LOL. Its now the third time you've accused me of not accepting your facts. I can see this convo is filled with stubbornness, or it just plain can't push though a blind spot.

In some circles of Colts country, I thought that's what they expected the LG and the WILL LB to do.

No, its not my perception, You were being argumentative because you were accusing me of not accepting your facts (stats) when I did know them but was merely pointing out that they mean virtually nothing relative to the point I was making. Stroud is a better QB than Levis. That's not being disputed. Its like saying Levis didn't play well against TB because Aaron Rogers and the GB offense had better stats with the same number of throws. That would be true, he didn't put up the same stats, so what? I'm saying that he didn't play unexpectedly considering what TEN typically asks its QB to do.

Totally agree. Other than opining when one plays well or not, there is no critical mass of evidence to make a definitive opinion about any of them at this point. Especially since the Colts QB's performance can't really even be discussed further until next September, and we're left talking about the QBs of other teams.. I'd be surprised if many fans regularly watch the games of the other QBs very closely.

I don't dispute the NUMBER of times Levis threw the ball against a common opponent. I bought up Stroud as a comparison of the different offensive styles that influence raw statistics between two QBs, despite how many times they throw the ball in any one game against similar opponents. Building an offense to serve Henry's success, then Henry being unsuccessful, is actually detrimental to a QBs success. Just like JT getting stuffed made Wentz and Ryan suck more. They did better when JT was busting off runs. I don't know why you sound argumentative. Are you saying the Levis is not as good of QB than Stroud? I agree. A direct comparison between Levis and Stroud was never my point, but you don't seem to get that.

Yeah, folks can dig into this as deeply as they want. Anything reported in the media can be biased or simply misinformed or exaggerated. I don't know the legitimacy of the site that's hosting the article. I also don't know what agenda could be promoted by this article, or what the reason would be to lie or misinform. I assume it comes down to what his definition of injuries are, and if its the same definition he applied to the history of the other QBs. Since the injuries could be a result of the teams reporting something, what gets reported by one team might not get reported by another.

Oh sure, if I did not say it I meant to. The Dr. is giving his opinion, but we don't really know what he looked at or the seriousness of the injuries. All we can infer is that he looked at all of the QBs equally, and concluded that AR was near the top of the list in injury frequency. I assume as a Dr. of medical sports, he's not going to equate contusions with tears, etc, so his conclusion about AR's frequency relative to the other QBs he's talking about seems objective to me.

Oh sure. I wouldn't begin to opine about what Ballard knew. In the timeliness about the forum's current discussions about AR, this is simply a new bit of info that adds to what we as fans knew or didn't know all of this time.