Goatface Killah

January 13

51 minutes ago, masterlock said:

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

So? Thats completely irrelevant to my point.

January 13

1 minute ago, Superman said:

That's probably fair, and I think I'd say the same about a few other plays throughout the year. But that starts to bother me when it's supposed to be the calling card of your scheme, and when you and your staff are supposed to be high level teachers. Busted coverage in Week 4 with a young secondary, I get it. Week 18, on the first play, seems like trouble.

To their credit, really no more long plays for the rest of the game. The Texans earned everything else they got, including Stroud making huge plays with pressure in his face, which is something good QBs do.

Thats all Im really getting at Supe

I put that play squarely on Brents, who I like a lot, and I thought did really well under tough circumstances last year. I understand why he was beaten and think its correctable. I think he was flat out asleep on the first play of the game and he just got burned.

January 13

19 minutes ago, Superman said:

I've never argued that the problem with Bradley's scheme is that he relies on zone coverage. I said he only plays two coverages the majority of the time, and offers little disguise to either of them.

It seems like you think the defense is beat the moment they step on the field. And the only way to hope for a stop is if one guy can make a play, so scheme is irrelevant.

What I'm saying is that Bradley's entire approach is 'don't get beat deep,' and his scheme broke on the first play. So if the scheme doesn't hold up, and the only hope we have is for a player to transcend, then what is Bradley bringing to the table?

Do you want me to do Bradley's job, scout the Texans offense, examine our defense, devise a gameplan, and teach it to the players? I think we should close this thread, and maybe shut down the forum entirely, if that's where we're headed.

The entire foundation of Bradley's defense -- the reason he's so conservative to begin with -- is don't get beat deep. If he can't call a game that doesn't allow the Texans #1 option to get behind our defense on the very first play, then what did he do all week in preparation for the game? I'm not calling it easy, and sometimes you get beat by good players, but it's the entire focus of his scheme.

I'd complain about Bradley a lot less if his conservative approach basically eliminated big plays. We endure the adverse results of his conservative approach by allowing a ton of short completions and first downs, and we don't get the intended benefits because we still give up big plays!

1. I dont feel like that play is an accurate represemtation of Bradleys scheme, properly executed.

2. We had an unusually inexperienced group of corners.

3. All schemes requires players to execute and make plays against the perfect playcalls.

January 12

26 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

To be honest, the "cushion" has been an issue for 20 plus years. No matter who the HC or DC has been. Maybe it's an Irsay philosophy.

Honestly I just think everytime a guy gets beat people act like the DC told him to stand 2 yards behind the sticks and let him get the first down.

The player was just too slow to read the play and react.

January 12

9 minutes ago, indyagent17 said:

Nope,not new players. how do you think defenses get better? It’s all about scheme it’s all about philosophy first. if you have a lay 7-10 yards philosophy it’s never gonna work. We have defensive backs with a good speed. Just be aggressive being passive is never gonna win us a championship again. Good offenses get you into the playoffs. Great defenses win the Super Bowl It didn’t work for Gilmore and it won’t for any other that we have. We can’t simply play so passive.

Player development.

I think you can play a conservative play call, with aggression.

January 12

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

I'm not overvaluing analytics, you're just ignoring what I'm saying. Sacks are obviously more important than pressures.

However, sacks are a result of pressure. That means the more pressures you get, the more sacks you can expect. We got 51 sacks on 127 pressures, converting 40.1% of pressures to sacks. However, in 2022, we had 37 sacks on 134 pressures, just a 27.6% conversion rate. So if more pressures generally means more sacks, why did we get more sacks in 2023 despite fewer pressures? Same pass rushers, same scheme, but a significant variance in conversion rate. Is there a reason? Is it sustainable? Don't you want to know the answers?

I think the answer is obvious -- we played bad QBs, bad OLs, bad offenses. If you have another theory, I'd love to hear it. Or maybe you're just satisfied because we set a franchise record in total sacks.

And even if we were to settle on some other reason why we're able to convert at such a high rate, even if you think it's sustainable, there's still value in pressure rate. I'd rather have more pressures, the same number of sacks, and a lower conversion rate, because that's more plays on which we're affecting the QB.

No I think sacks are their own thing and more pressures dont always equal more sacks. Sacks are a clear win. Usually it means your first move was effective. I think we got more sacks this year because Dayo and Kwity developed and were just better with their initial move. I also think Ebukam was really good for us and when he win, he won early. Some guys just dont get off blocks very well. Thats what seperates great rushers from good rushers, they win early and late.

And I think really good QBs are very hard to sack. So youre never gonna sack good QBs unless they have a horrible OL......and then thats just another thing to point to that diminishes your play.

Im just not a fan of trying to knock an accomplishment with analytics. Thats not what they are for. They are for evaluating areas of performance. Pressure rate is designed to evaluate the frequency of your pressures. Thats it. And yes we could absolutely be better at that. I already said I also want more pressures. I also want a more stout run defense.

I have plenty of criticisms of this defense.

i just dont blame Gus and his scheme every time. he has been in the league a long time and knows how to stop this stuff. As long as the team feels like he is a good teacher, I think he is fine at DC. I like his scheme and happen to think its plenty adequate for this pass happy league.

I want JuJu to get an entire offseason healthy so he can get ready for next year and I think he covers that play much, much better.

January 12

4 minutes ago, indyagent17 said:

But all of us disagree with the fact that, for as many years, I can remember our defensive coordinators have always played way off the ball and we always get sick about how they drape all over us and don’t give us any room to catch. That’s the coordinator that I want there is gonna be risks but if you’re gonna give up 25 to 30 points a game, let receivers go off the hook for over 100 yards every game so how risky is it to change?

Because the kind of change youre speaking of requires bringing in a different coach with a different philosophy, which also requires bringing in different players. And that is basically hitting the reset button. You lose all the positive things youve built over time, and there are positive things I have pointed out here.....and effectively start from scratch.

Some people believe that improving your playcalling, talent and execution is just a better way to address it.

I personally think the scheme is fine. Our secondary was an issue this year, which I expected.

January 12

14 minutes ago, Superman said:

No. I don't know how you reached that conclusion. I've never asked for Bradley to simply take more risks and play more man coverage.

He didn't put the rookie on an island. It was Cover 3, and the Texans ran a Cover 3 beater. Not exactly rocket science, nearly half of our defensive snaps we play Cover 3.

He plays zone because he doesnt want to take risks. Thats the entire point. If you want him to change that, he is gonna have to take more risks.

And if the guys cant execute thats a completely different issue. Brents had no help on that play. Call it a "beater" if you want but its only called that because it ISOLATES him in what is effectively MAN COVERAGE.

The answer to that isnt necessarily a different coverage, because they likely check out of the play if they dont get the look they want and come back to it later. The answer is to be better. Get a sack. Cover him 1 on 1. Make a play.

But out of curiosity, what would you have done on that play Supe? What wouldve been your call? And would that have only been the call because you, in hindsight, KNOW THE TEXANS PLAYCALL?

Its a lot easier than doing it for real.

January 12

Just now, Superman said:

By your logic, it doesn't matter who the DC is or what scheme we run, because it's impossible to have a good defense.

The Colts had a turnover streak playing against mostly bad QBs and offenses. They set a franchise record in sacks playing against mostly bad QBs and OLs. And they were still mediocre in both areas. Why would you place so much value on a random streak and an outlier sacks stat?

What I'm saying is plainly obvious.

No I think you seem to over value analytics and diminish clear and obvuous stats.

Sacks are way better than pressures. We discussed this already. So a framchise record in sacks is gonna be a great accomplishment.

You remember that incredible throw to Nico Collins on the final Texans drive?

That was a pressure.

So you cant just throw out the franchise sack record and call it mediocre because we didnt get enough of those meaningless pressures.

I wish we wouldve sacked him. We wouldve likely won the game if we did that.

January 12

1 minute ago, Superman said:

The #1 guiding principle for Bradley's defense is 'don't get beat deep.' But he put Brents in position to get beat deep by the Texans only noteworthy receiver, and it only took one play for their rookie QB to identify and exploit that decision.

And then Nico Collins caught 8 more passes for 120 more yards over the rest of the game. I mean, he's cool, but we made him look unstoppable. Twice.

And bigger picture, we don't really stop anybody, unless the QB is bad.

Isnt that exactly what you advocate for? Taking more risks? Playing more man coverage?

Well........

He cant win.

He puts the rookie on an island, he gets beat, its a bad call.

He plays zone and rushes four to try and stop plays like that and protect our young corners, its a bad call.

He rushes 4 on 5 and they cant get immediate pressure, the pass rush stinks.

He blitzes and allows the RB to catch a screen pass and take it 70 yards, the LBs cant cover.

I mean I just find all this over the top.

January 12

1 minute ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

This thread shouldn't be Bradley vs venturi's past record......remember venturi was around the colts in the 80's and no one including the great Lombardi would have had success in that era with the colts. And if a losing record is what defines a persons worth in football, then what about Ballard's?

But many here wanted Bradley fired the last two seasons but now know that won't happen because Steinchen said he wants continuity. So your stuck with him..

And Bradley has been criticized by others in local and national. Questioning, because of injury, the Texans only had one healthy good WR playing and he didn't scheme a strategy to not let him beat them.....but he did beat them. A 75 yard bomb on their first play and then repeatedly throughout the game.

Some of that is on Bradley.... some is on.Ballard for not giving him more talent to see what he does with it.....and some is on Steinchen, as HC, he could have.said.something like "don't let their only healthy quality receiver beat us!"

But maybe he was too busy designing a play for a practice squad player with the season on the line!!!

Hold up, the playcall on the first play was the exact oppositte of Bradleys typical play call. He left a rookie on their best receiver 1 on 1.

If anything it highlights the risks of playing man coverage, which his detractors use as THEE SOLUTION.

Cmon.

January 12

6 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I don’t think our defense is as bad as some think. What the defense needs is more experience in the secondary and a few meaningful additions. The scheme works. If you have experienced and good players it doesn’t really matter if the other team knows how you are going to play them. They have to have better players who will outperform yours. Gus’s system worked in Seattle because he had the players who could execute it. Ballard has to get him the players. For me teams who play man give the advantage to the offense. The rules are designed to give the advantage to the offense. So that’s why most teams play zone. There are only a handful of good to elite shutdown corners but the league is loaded with good to excellent receivers. Zone works but you need the experienced players who can execute and players who can apply pressure which leads to sacks and turnovers. If you have a good front four rotation you shouldn’t have to blitz often imo. They will get the job done.

Its definitely not.

You can take any defense in the league and diminish them by pointing out that they cant stop very good QBs like they stop back up QBs.

I dont understand the point in doing that unless its to prop up your opinion which isnt necessarily supported by the results.

The franchise sack record cant be a fluke. A turnover streak of 18 games, or whatever, cant be a fluke or a statistical anomoly because the achievements are the anomoly. And to achieve an anomoly takes tremendous skill.

The Colts defense did fine against CJ Stroud on Sunday. They got burned on the first play of the game by an incredible throw and play call..........and did very well against him the rest of the game. The kid played great in crunchtime and made some plays that won them the game.

So we suck?

January 12

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

The Colts defense is mediocre at both, and that's being kind. Our schedule was whatever the opposite of a murderer's row would be. Something like 70% of the QBs we faced were backups or backup quality. I take little solace in the fact that we were 5th in total sacks, because we were 21st in pressure rate and total pressures, 17th in TOs, and 15th in TO%. So even the areas in which you give the defense credit, we were middle of the pack, and that's against cupcake offensive opponents.

Trevor Lawrence, CJ Stroud, Matthew Stafford, good QBs took our defense apart. Even Derek Carr and Jake Browning had really good games against us. Our run defense broke several times.

We had one impressive defensive performance all season, and that was against the Ravens. Coincidentally, that's the game in which Bradley bucked his trend and deployed an unconventional gameplan...

What's more probable than checking that third box is that the Colts will play better QBs in 2024, the anomaly of having a high sack number with a low pressure number will regress to the mean, and we won't be able to pick on Bryce Young and Mitchell Trubisky for turnovers.

The good QBs take everyone apart. If thats your gauge, everyone is mediocre.

Supe, the Colts had the longest turnovers forced streak in the entire league at one point this year, and it was 3 times longer than anyone elses. And they set a franchise record in sacks.

What youre saying is not true. At all.

January 12

19 minutes ago, Superman said:

I didn't mean by you, but the first response to this thread is taking a shot at Venturi based on his coaching record. I don't have a problem with being critical of Venturi, I've been critical of him in a lot of ways. My point was just that I didn't think people were propping him up because he has an agreeable opinion on this topic. If anything, it seems the other way around, IMO.

Regarding the state of defense in the NFL, I agree somewhat that it's really hard to play good defense right now. I guess you're using yards allowed to judge defense, which is interesting. The Browns would be #1, but their opponents scored 6 non-offensive TDs. And half the league gave up fewer than 38 TDs this year. The Ravens had the best scoring defense, and they gave up 26 TDs, including two non-offensive TDs. I definitely wouldn't agree that 44 TDs is some kind of measuring stick.

Despite the fact that it's hard to play defense, there's a pretty obvious distinction between a good defense and a bad defense. That's why, even though the Colts and Browns both had 44 TDs against, the Browns allowed 3.1 fewer points/game, and 79 fewer yards/game.

Also, the bolded is overly simplistic. Playing zone and rushing four is part of the frustration for some. But more specifically, it's playing two coverages the overwhelming majority of the time, with less disguise than any other team in the league, and bringing less extra pressure than any other team in the league.

I believe coaching matters. And if it's so hard to play good defense, than finding a DC who can produce good results despite all the difficulties seems like an area where a team can exploit an inefficiency.

I used the Browns solely because they are the only team Ive heard anybody suggest has a great defense this year. And we scored on them fairly easily, as did other teams. Truth is, there are no great defenses anymore, because its illegal to play what I consider great defense.

I dont disagree that we need to be more creative. But that doesnt mean its gonna create better results than simply improving what we already do.

The Colts defense already does the 2 of the 3 things I think are most important in the modern NFL, very well. They get sacks and force turnovers. If they can create more consistent pressure, they will check that third box and all of the other stats will improve significantly. JMO

January 12

1 minute ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

My biggest thing about Venturi was he never mentioned it being a coverage bust. He thinks that was an actual coverage.

Right. Sometimes a guy just gets outplayed. And sometimes that has to be acceptable because of how hard it is to do what the player is being asked to do.

For example, if you dont ever ask Jaylon Jones or JuJu to cover a very good receiver with no help, then schematically a team is gonna see that and tear you apart in other ways. And if you do ask them to do it, they are gonna get beat sometimes because the other team has every rule advantage plus the knowledge of the play.

But Rick would point out the flaw in the coverage and say nothing about the fact that we cant cover the TE and thats why the corner was put on that island in the first place.

To a fan, every time another team does something positive against your team, its a failure by your team or a bad play call. And Rick talks like a fan a lot of times which is why other fans like him so much. And honestly I like Rick as a commentator, in small doses. I think he does a pretty nice job.

January 12

Just now, Superman said:

Got it. That does happen.

I think the opposite is more on point in this discussion. Seems like Venturi is being slammed because he wasn't a good coach, not treated as a genius because he has a popular opinion.

By me? Maybe. But I dont see much of that.

I look at the merits of the person with the opinion and gauge how much stock I put into it. I never thought Rick was a good coach when he was here. And the fact he never coached in the modern NFL, suggests to me, that he hasnt a clue how hard it is to stop teams from scoring points now. The number 1 defense allowed 44 TDs this year. But when you hear Rick speak, it all sounds like he thinks its so easy. I think he would be embarrassingly bad if he attempted to coach a modern NFL defense. So why do I care what he has to say?

Now as far as Gus, there are times I am also maddened by the problems with playing zone defense and just rushing 4. But I also understand that its even harder to build a defense that can thrive on man coverage and blitzing. Good quarterbacks destroy blitzes and man coverage and almost nobody is actually good at it.

January 12

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

You don’t see any elite traits on Pittman?

At least two: Hands and routes.

I think that if a guy can catch the 5th most passes in the league without any elite traits, that would be pretty incredible.

Moose is basically saying he isnt as fast as Tyreek Hill.

January 12

2 hours ago, Superman said:

Who here is calling Venturi brilliant, or a genius?

Its hyperbole, but the essence of what I posted is absolutely true.

January 12

24 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

Likewise.

I just think that Venturi is credible and his opinions on Bradley are 1) not new and 2) spot on. I know his record as a coach / coordinator is not great but doesn’t mean he does not know the game.

I am a casual fan and can see the Colts D is easy to play against. Look at how bad the stats are and how mediocre the QBs they played against were.

Not great? Its actually very bad

Hes never coached in the modern NFL. How would he know what works and doesnt work?

January 12

The funny thing about this is if Rick Venturi was the coach right now instead of Gus, and his track record was anywhere near as poor as it was when he was here back in the 80s and early 90s, these same fans would certainly be calling him a * and demanding he be fired. And defense was nowhere near as hard to play back in those days.

I think people just call the guy who agrees with them a genius and everyone who doesnt is an *.

The teams Rick coached for had like a 30% winning percentage when he was on the staff. And I believe he was like 1-15 as a head coach.

But he agrees with me so hes brilliant!

January 9

I would be interested in a guy like Ryan Tannehill if he is available. I think he would be a good fit with Steichen and is certainly good enough to win games.

January 9

4 hours ago, runthepost said:

He wouldn’t get 120 with Chase in Cincy tho.

Again. I completely disagree. He would see a lot of single coverage and destroy it.

January 9

3 hours ago, bluebombers87 said:

Based on defensive schemes. They were more spread during his bigger runs and playing closer to the line when they wanted to play the run. Teams do this all the time, it isn’t a new concept.

You seriously have no clue what youre talking about.

If fans could read defenses that easily they would have jobs in the NFL.

So on 3rd and 1 they are expecting run and play closer to the LOS.

On first and 10 they are not playing close to the LOS.

And youre take away from this is they only wanted to stop him on the plays when they crowded the line of scrimmage?

January 9

30 minutes ago, husker61 said:

exactly what I have been saying most of the year! Lb is by far the weakest defensive position and hope the colts draft 2 in the upper rounds. I like speed and think Harrison can be that passing down lb. Harrison could cover the te and allow for more blitzes.

Heres the thing, I think Josh Downs is a star in the making and might wind up being our best receiver.

On defense, I dont disagree that LB is a weakness for us. But I also think safety is a major weak spot and might be a little more important in this defense. I wouldnt be surprised if they make free safety a top priority.

January 9

3 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Jake Querry had a very good point today. It’s not Pittman they have to make a decision on. Pittman has done enough to get his money from colts. The bigger question is they have to decide if pierce is good enough to be the number two. They have to determine if it’s purred inconsistent or it’s been the QB arm. If they can say they don’t think Pierce is Pittman robin then they do need to upgrade from Pierce. If they think Pierce is that 2 then they don’t really need another WR.

People dont want to let a guy develop anymore. I think Pierce has a lot of talent and its way too soon to give up on him.

He has things he needs to work on. Thats for sure. But he can be a weapon, I have no doubt about that.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Gallery

Events

Blogs

Posts posted by Goatface Killah