A8bil
-
Posts
241 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by A8bil
-
-
Krunk, your post overstates the point. To say that a young back "isn't good" because he is unable to unseat Gore disparages Gore and underestimates what it takes to be a successful back in the NFL. Look at Gurley...he was a man child in college and had a great rookie season, but was only able to gain 3.2 ypc on 278 carries last season. He has breakaway speed and strength, but he was unable to match Gore's performance last year, or even get close. The point is that it is difficult to have sustained success in the NFL...far more than you are willing to accept. You don't just bring in a good college RB and expect them to get 4.5 + ypc, particularly behind the Indy OL or in its offensive scheme. Both got better last year, but neither are there yet, nor is the offensive consistency that will take the focus away from the run game.
-
I agree with many of the other posters about opportunities. The thing is, while the OL has shown some improvement, they are not yet consistent, nor was the offense in general. Too many games last year were a story of two halves, with the offense struggling in the first half to stay in the game pointwise, and then Luck having to be the hero in the second half, with a correlated drop in the number of second half running plays (Colts were 5th in total passing plays and 16th in running plays). With a better game scheme and a more cohesive offensive line, there should be 40-50 more carries to spread around. I'm not convinced Turbin will flourish in a broader role.
-
9 hours ago, NannyMcafee said:
I would go oline before RB. It's a skill position. RBs are a dime a dozen.
I wouldn't agree with the notion that RBs are a dime a dozen. Avg. RBs are a dime a dozen, but exceptional RBs are hard to find.
That said, a great o-line can make an avg RB look like a superstar. Dominating the LOS is the most important aspect of any team, really.
-
I think it is narrow minded to blame team problems on just one thing, i.e., we'ld have a better run game if we just had a better o-line, yada, yada...the reality is that just as football is an 11-man effort, every facet of the game is impacted by the successes or failures of the other components of the game. For example, an o-line may be perfectly functional in a zone blocking scheme, but not in a power scheme or vice versa. Similarly, a power blocking line may be fully functional in a balanced, unpredictable offense but may be unable to win the line of scrimmage if play calling becomes predictable and the defense is able to determine where the run is going with decent accuracy. All of it either works, or doesn't work together.
With such a young o-line this year, I don't think they were done any favors with the play calling and the offense's overall inability to sustain drives. too many 3 and outs early in games and early in the season prevented the RBs from getting many carries, and prevented the o-line from gaining much continuity or experience.
Over the past few weeks I've had a chance to go back and look at some game film and study the O-line. They are much improved, but one of my observations about the run blocking in general is that the team as a whole has to get better at the second level blocking. Too often Gore and Turbin would get beyond the LOS only to be hit by 2-3 LBs or DBs...great running teams spring their backs for long gains largely through downfield blocking, not blazing RB speed (only a handful of starting RBs are faster than your avg. DB). As a scheme, the Colts need to train their o-line to release and block at the second level, and to have their TEs and WRs, lay blocks at the second level. It will do wonders for running game to have the RBs being able to cut off blocks at the second level rather than try to outrun or out juke 2-3 defenders.
-
Definitely in play. People will be getting healthy, but more importantly, the offensive line will have time to gel before the playoffs. It's all about momentum. If the Colts can gain more consistently and tighten up their defense, you never know what happens in the playoffs. Too soon to predict they'll get there, but also too soon to write them off.
-
Colts tied for second in the South! Colts are better than Houston...need to show that in coming weeks.
-
I see things differently. Instead of dwelling on where our rushing offense is now (17th BTW), why don't you look at how it is improving. After week 3, the Colts were 25th in the league in rushing attempts, 21st in Rushing 1st downs, 23rd in rushing yards per game and 20th in rushing ypc. Now, 3 weeks later, they are ranked 21 in rushing attempts per game, 10th in rushing 1st downs per game, 17th in rushing yards per game, and 14th in rushing YPC.
To get to this level of improvement over three weeks means that over the past 3 games the colts are playing among the top ten in the league in rushing. When was the last time that the Colts could say they had a running game that was performing top ten in the league over a three game period, or could say it was 10th in the league in rushing 1st downs, or 14th in YPC? You can't. Contrary to your assertions, the line IS getting better. Luck is getting better. The running game is getting better. There are reasons to be positive, offensively..you're just not trying to see the progress because of the losses. Understandable, but progress is being made.
Defensively is a bigger issue, but too soon to bail, IMO.
-
17 hours ago, Jaric said:
Neat. As a team they're ranked 18th. So I suppose we should be excited they're now just below average instead of inept. Progress!
Seriously though, thats not even really the point which was about this idea that we'll be able to trade Gore for anything.
You've clearly given up on the team. Good for you. Enjoy the baseball playoffs and the start of the basketball season. This is not about being "excited"...it's about where the team is and where it is going. Your comment about the running game being "inept" was hyperbole to prove your point. If the line is rounding into shape (which the evidence supports), and can have sustained improvement, the season is far from over. The defense needs help, but neither Gore's lament, nor your calls for parting out the team are particularly helpful. A conditional 7th round pick? How many of those actually make a team?
-
3 hours ago, Jaric said:
If we were offered even a conditional 7th for him we should jump all over it before the other GM comes to his senses.
We can suck at running the ball without Frank Gore. I don't blame him for the running game being inept, but we aren't going anywhere and our next GM will need all the picks he/she can get.
Not sure what you mean by "running game being inept." Gore is 8th ranked in the NFL right now. You don't have an 8th ranked RB yardage wize and still "suck." I think some of you guys think that other backs are regularly putting up 100 yd games. They don't. After an okay start, the running game has been getting stronger.
-
6 hours ago, JPFolks said:
Well, Gore averages 4.5 yards per carry, so really there is no reason at all there isn't 28 carries available. Especially if you want to use ball control to protect our weakling defense.
In theory. I have not looked at the stats, but my guess is that the Colts have a fairly balanced offense in the first half, with equal run/pass plays--there just aren't that many because they are not sustaining drives. However, in the second half, the plays are skewed toward passing because they've fallen behind.
All teams need a balanced attack of running and passing to have success in either area. No team can simply impose its will in a running game and get 4.5 YPC every play. The last team who tried was the 1983 Redskins, but the most they could achieve with Riggins was 3.6 YPC. If a defense knows you're running the ball, they can shut it down. Look at Gurley this year. He's a great back but he's getting crushed because they have no passing game.
The Colts need a better passing game early in games to sustain drives and keep defenses honest, IMO.
-
43 minutes ago, JPFolks said:
I'd be fine with giving Gore his 14 measly carries if we also gave Turbin 14 as well.
There aren't 28 carries for the RBs in this offense. 19 carries is what they are producing now.
-
Re Gore:
Ponder this: the Colts right now are 6th in the league in total offensive plays with just over 67 plays per game. In terms of running plays, the Colts are 26th in the league at 22.4 attempts per game, with Luck taking 3 per game. That means a total of 19.4 carries per game for all RBs. The idea that Gore or the RBs should be given 10 more touches with the ball just ignores what is happening in the game. These stats reflect a team that cannot sustain drives early on, and then falls behind and needs to play catch up, which dictates a rotation to passing.
If the Colts can sustain more drives early on and have more success early in the games, they should get more in balance, where there are closer to 30+ running plays per game. If that happens, you'll see Gore get more carries, as well as Turbin and Ferguson.
Some other thoughts: (1) No NFL team is going to not run because they think their back is incapable. They'll simply put in someone who can. If the game situation calls for a run, they'll run. (2) I think you guys don't realize that there is little difference between Gore running the ball and just running plays. When he doesn't get the ball, he is picking up blitzing linebackers, crashing into the line as a decoy, or going into pattern and laying downfield blocks. All of that wears on him just as running the ball does. It's not like he's lying on a featherbed when he's not running the ball. If he's on the field, he can run many more plays that what he is currently doing.
And no, the posters here trying to draw conclusions off of the number of runs Gore was getting in SF are not correct. Gore was not on any run count there. They were running a read option so Kaepernick was getting a lot of carries Gore might get. Then...they just started to get worse as a team, as they lost linemen in free agency and to injury. In 2011, 49er RBs had 423 carries between them. In 2013 they were down to 393, a drop of 30 carries (2 per game), and by 2014, RBs were down to 340 carries. That's 83 less carries than in 2011, a drop of over 5 carries per game. That's why Gores carries were down, not some perception he couldn't handle the load. You guys are pulling stuff out of your nether regions.
-
1 hour ago, cbear said:
I do agree that the run blocking is improved. Internet noise says they can't run, but that is not true IMO. Game circumstance and Gore's age have more to do with not calling as many running plays as we'd like.
I can't imagine that it has anything to do with Gore's age, and has everything to do with game circumstances.
Ponder this: the Colts right now are 6th in the league in total offensive plays with just over 67 plays per game. In terms of running plays, the Colts are 26th in the league at 22.4 attempts per game, with Luck taking 3 per game. That means a total of 19.4 carries per game for all RBs. The Colts are middle of the pack in terms of YPC, so it does not mean their rushing attach is in effective. These stats reflect a team that keeps falling behind and needing to play catch up, which dictates a rotation to passing.
If the Colts can sustain more drives early on and have more success early in the games, they should get more in balance, where there are closer to 30+ running plays per game. If that happens, you'll see Gore get more carries, as well as Turbin and Ferguson.
Some other thoughts: (1) No NFL team is going to not run because they think their back is incapable. They'll simply put in someone who can. If the game situation calls for a run, they'll run. (2) I think you guys don't realize that there is little difference between Gore running the ball and just running plays. When he doesn't get the ball, he is picking up blitzing linebackers, crashing into the line as a decoy, or going into pattern and laying downfield blocks. If he's on the field, he can run many more plays that what he is currently doing.
-
What you have to appreciate is how Frank suits up over and over. Yes, he sometimes limps off the field, and you find out later that he bruised his sternum and was playing in pain. The guy just has a passion to play, and he shows over and over again that he still has the ability to get it done. Frank proves that durability is a state of mind.
It's clear to me that while the Colts OL is not fully on the same page, or even close to dominant, it is much better than last year. They need a little more time to get some consistency. I could see the 100 yd mark fall this year and absolutely that 1k marks falls.
-
2 hours ago, JohnnyUnitas19 said:
"Problem with Pagano is you can't teach that old dog new tricks" Does anybody on this board remember HOF coach GEORGE ALLEN? Allen continued the practice of bringing in veteran players at all positions. He built the Super bowl bound 72 Redskins with castoffs and wily veterans but if memory serves his main running back was the youngest offensive player at 25 yrs of age ........I like Frank Gore but we need a younger back
And Riggins led Washington to a SB victory at age 33, a return to the SB at age 34 and led the league in TDs at age 35. What's your point? I think you want younger back for the sake of a younger back. If Gore can't produce despite good blocking, by all means he should be replace, but you have no evidence to back your position besides Gore's age.
-
7 hours ago, AZColt11 said:
Gore's ypc avg went up once we started completing balls downfield.
5.25 ypc in the second half. Never a (-) run. I'll take that every day.
-
8 hours ago, ÅÐØNϧ 1 said:
3.7 as a Colt
Yes, but last year was perfect storm of bad consequences for Gore, the Team and the running game. Bad line, bad offense, Luck goes down, a series of journeyman QBs...that Gore was able to accomplish what he did is actually amazing. Trent had perfect circumstances and could not achieve what Gore did in terrible circumstances. I am excited to see what Gore can do when everything starts to fall into place.
-
12 hours ago, Gabriel Alexander Morillo said:
Whats nonsensical is your comparison, m8e
Only as nonsensical as the OP, and your comment as well, m8e. I've read your posts all over the message boards. It's clear, you don't like Gore. Nor does the OP. But, your dislike for him doesn't mean he is not a good RB, or the best option the Colts have. The tired narrative of "he's too old," He's lost a step," yada yada, is just that...a narrative by those who don't like Gore and want someone else.
It is not "nonsensical" to point to guys like AP or Gurley, as they prove that every back has games where they are stuffed, and it has nothing to do with age or ability. It has to do with defensive game planning, and offensive execution. A single game's production is proof of nothing, unless you can show where the RB had holes to run and simply could not exploit them. You can't as to Gore, and nor can his other detractors.
So, why don't you let him have a chance to prove himself behind a healthy and improved offensive line, with a healthy QB? The coaches seem to think he's the best option...are you some sort guru who thinks you know better than the coaches?
-
RU watching Todd Gurley against the 49ers? He's got what...2.5 ypc? He's old. He's slow. He's lost it. The rams should be looking for someone like abdullah or sproles to replace him. (See how non-sensical that sounds? YOu don't judge a player off of 14 plays, particularly in the first game of the season.)
-
Getting to the line "fast" doesn't give you a running game...if you have no holes you just have a running back running into a line.
Running between the tackles requires timing between the blockers and back. The back needs to know where and when the holes is going to open, and then he needs to accelerate through hole. Gore is perhaps one of the best ever at exploiting holes in this manner.
That said, there has to be timing between line and runner. That's doesn't happen overnight. Practice some patience. Gore and the line will get it down. They started to as the game went on.
-
38 minutes ago, King Colt said:
Every football game consists of four quarters, not two. From 3 & out, 3 & out, 3 & out, filed goal to lighting up the pass game and putting TDs on the board something is wrong in the spirit of the team. The Lions are one of how many NFL teams that have never appeared in a Super Bowl and to lose to them in Indy is a wuss ball of major proportion.
Or....maybe, it's a flawed game plan to start the game. Or...it's the result of a QB who hasn't played live NFL action for nearly a year. Or, it's a bunch of new players trying to learn to play together. Or, ...no need to overreact to the first game of the season.
-
AP 28 19 carries, 31 yds
D. Murray 13 carries, 42 yds
McCoy 16 carries, 58 yds
Ez. Elliot 20 carries, 51 yds
Gore 14 carries 59 yds
R Matthews 22 carries, 77 yds
You guys are the most overreacting bunch I have seen in a long time. The Colts came out and could not execute, particularly in the passing game. That allowed the Lions to stack the box on Gore. He was 6 for 17 in the first half.
In the second half, playing from behind, Luck opened it up and guess what, Gore was 8 for 42 (5.25 ypc), but they were playing from behind so he did not get many touches. Gore only had 3 touches on Detroit's side of the field. That is not going to translate to much scoring for any RB. The Colts as team were not executing, and everyone in the backfield struggled as a result, just like multiple feature backs struggled this weekend (see above). There will come a day when Gore is too old to play, but that day is not now. When Gore can no longer get it done, he'll tell you and the coaches will tell you. Until then, enough of the prognosticating.
-
Gore did about as much as you can expect with the (i) line play; (ii) play calling; and (iii) passing efficiency this year. Face it, when a QB like Luck had the year he had, and the back ups play like they did, the defensive focus turns to the RB. Gore had 3.7 ypc. Bradshaw had 2.7 ypc. Robinson had 2.3. With the play of the line this year, neither Gore nor any other RB had a chance, but what Gore did was stay healthy enough to play all 16 games, which is more than any other back can claim. Get Luck healthy and invest in a good line, and the Colts will get back on track, as will Gore. He doesn't rely on speed to do what he does.
As for his catching...are those nitpicking that skill aware of his broken finger? Gore can catch just fine.
-
Gore goes 16 games behind a terrible o-line, and everyone is worried about his durability?
Does Frank Gore have at least one more 1000 yard season in him?
in Colts Football
Posted
And, I'll add to the last post by pointing to Ajayi...he had that incredible run mid-season, but if you take his last 8 games -- when teams chose to focus on him as a weapon -- he gained 626 yards on 152 carries, or 4.1 ypc. Barely better than Gore. And if you take away the one outlier (Week 14, Buffalo) he gained 420 yds on 120 carries, or 3.5 ypc-- substantially less than Gore. That's a hot back on a playoff bound team...not so impressive (not to mention his 2 ypc in the playoffs). The point is Gore is still very good and it'll take more than just a good RB to unseat him. It will have to be an exceptional runner.