masterlock

This is a profoundly true statement.

I understand what you're saying, but if Gus doesn't have the players for his scheme to work, then the scheme is the problem. The scheme needs to fit the capabilities, or it's a liability.

A big reason the Colts were 28th in points allowed, IMO, was Gus Bradley's non-contesting zone scheme. Time and time again, we saw opponents complete critical 3rd and 4th downs, with the nearest Colts defender 10 yards away. It's disappointing to me that they brought him back. IMO, what the Colts' D needs is aggression, not soft, non-contesting zone that keeps opposing offenses on the field.

The Colts scouting under Ballard has yielded a 54-60-1 record, so I'd put them somewhere in the middle of the pack...unfortunately.

1 day. "Very". Gotcha.

It would be the non-exclusive franchise tag.

Money well-spent.

They also had a lot of things that went right, and failed to capitalize. They lost because they didn't make the most of the chances they had.

I'd say it starts with the GM (or de facto GM), since the GM is ultimately responsible for the roster and other staff, including QB, coach, scouts, etc.

I have to agree with Rick Venturi's assessment of Pittman--he compares to the top Slots and TE's in terms of production. Something around $17M/year sounds right.

He's 85th in yards-per-catch. (10.5)

First time I've listened to him, but wow, I don't think I disagree with a single thing he said. Very good football analysis. Right on-point. Kind of Polian-esque in his acumen. For those who missed it, my take-aways: On Pittman: Tough, physical, does the dirty work, battles for the football High-volume catcher due to the way the team is structured He makes his living inside the numbers, needs help getting open Isn't an outside burner, not twitchy, doesn't win outside battles More valuable to the Colts due to lack of receiver corps than he is on the open market A context player - 5th in league in catches, but 85th in yards per catch (10.5) Production-wise, Pittman more closely resembles the really good TE's and Slots of the league, but isn't a Hill, AJ Brown, etc., which puts his salary closer to $17M/year rather than $23M+ Shame creates opportunities for him. He's scheme-dependent On Defense: In 2 games vs Colts, Nico Collins went 16-for-346; 30 percent of his total yardage on the season came in 2 games vs Colts Defense is 79 percent generic predictable, non-challenging area zone (vs matchup zone) Doesn't challenge receivers on the outside or inside On Texans 1st play, Bradley strung out a 4.53 corner against a 4.4 wideout - Bradley's fault/scheme Texans, in 4th quarter, overcame a 2nd-and-20, 1st-and-20, 2nd-and-14 Last year, the Colts had an elite corner and yet played exactly the same (28th in points last year, same this year) Colts are 14 percent in blitzes (last in league) Need to have more of a 'contested' scheme in terms of coverages Every receiver who's come in here over the last 2 years has had a "career day" On Shane: Excelled in player utilization, creativity, motivation, accountability Seems to question Shane's rush to retain Bradley, says best guys (coaches) always have a bit of ruthlessness to them when it comes to hiring/firing. On the 4th down call: Was good call, not executed In crunch time, quotes Tom Moore, "think players not plays"

He did, but the present-day Frank Reich, who has now been fired mid-season by two consecutive teams, I believe, falls into the category of former HC whose best hope for future employment is at the Coordinator or positional coach level. Vrabel doesn't fall into this category, as you say.

True and true. I think the only time head coaches step down to a coordinator position is when they can't get work as a Head Coach. Someone like Frank Reich might fall into that category, I'm sorry to say. But not Vrabel.

I'd like to re-sign him too, maybe to another $3.5M deal. I'm not so sure another team wouldn't offer him as much or more. He wasn't elite but he was definitely competent. I'd say Garner and Jake Browning are my favorite backups. Either could be starters somewhere.

The big question for me is why Tyler Goodson? Why put the fate of your season in the hands of a player who had played just two games up to that point. If you're going to call that play, then throw it to Pittman or Downs or Moss out of the back field.

It's good to see him using his shoulder again.

I feel like we can blitz better than we can play zone. I agree that it wasn't that effective last week, but it's been very effective the few times Gus Bradley has called it earlier in the season.

Any scheme when done 'properly' achieves it's end, almost by definition. What I see with the Colts defense is a scheme that lets opponents stay on the field and burn the clock, getting plays in 7, 10, 12-yard chunks. Sometimes you have to adapt when what you're doing isn't working. Personally, I prefer to roll the dice and bring the heat with a lot more blitzing, especially when you can't play zone 'properly'.

The net effect of having bad corners is that they allow completions. But the current scheme does that all on its own, so what's there to lose by playing man coverage?

I was going to say the same thing. He's been open all season, in virtually every game, and yet Minshew just doesn't seem to recognize it. But then, Minshew misses other open receivers all the time, so it's not Pierce-specific, although it does seem to affect Pierce disproportionately.

Exxxxxxxactly. Seems like opposing receivers are continually wide open for critical 3rd and 4th down conversions. Glad the Colts won, but it was closer than it needed to be. Not a fan of the Gus Bradley D. On the bright side, it was nice to see Pierce catch a long one. He's been wide open down field so many times this season. It was nice that Gardner finally noticed and took advantage.

The Colts paid him $50M, exercised great patience as he rehabbed, then gave him every chance to prove he could still play at a high level, and even paid tribute to him, and now he somehow feels disrespected? Sounds like a wounded ego. Hard to take seriously.

I hear Ballard talking about overpaying free agents, and yet he doesn't seem to have a problem paying big bucks to in-house talent. Maybe there shouldn't be a distinction between in-house and outside talent when it comes to assessing a player's market value. Anyway, I'd re-sign Pittman, so long as he doesn't want outrageous money. There seems to be a new trend with contract extensions, where it's not enough to simply get a new contract; it has to set the record as the highest contract for the position, almost as if for bragging rights, which I have a hard time relating to. I'd also re-sign Grover and Kenny (with the same caveat).