Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Superman

  1. How about FB dive to the LG? :: sigh :: Split backs would be fine, depending on the blocking. Even out of shotgun.
  2. Rock has to stop grabbing, and work on finding the ball. He's feisty, he seems to have a resilient attitude, and he's tough, but his technique falters and he commits penalties (even when they don't get called). This goes back to his college tape. I like him but he has to clean it up.
  3. No one knows because the boundaries haven't been tested yet. Some analysis suggests that offenses could easily double their use of play action and still see increased efficiency. No one does it more than 36%, as of last season (LAR). Their offense definitely didn't suffer from too much play action. The bottom eight teams were all pretty bad offensively last year; not saying that correlation is entirely about play action, but I think we can definitively say that those offenses weren't bad because they ran too much play action. I don't know what the fear is, to be honest. People might think that play action corresponds to time to throw, but it doesn't. Play action doesn't have to be long, drawn out and exaggerated. Tom Brady and Carson Wentz were both top five play action passers last year, and both were in the bottom half of the league for time to throw. Someone is gonna break the mold one of these days. It's bound to happen. https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2019/play-action-offense-2018 https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/stats/passing/2018/all#average-time-to-throw https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/10/23/nfl-is-midst-play-action-boom-kirk-cousins-is-reaping-benefits/
  4. That is a distinction, but I don't know that it distinguishes play action from option plays. An old fashioned outside veer might start with a play fake. Either way, I'm talking about the act of faking the handoff to the RB to manipulate the defense. If that happens at the start of the play, I call that play action. Including RPOs. And my belief is that we do not know how much play action is too much, because no team has ever tested its limits. That's not surprising, even "aggressive" NFL coaches are still very conservative. But I'd like to find out. The Cowboys started this season with a ton of play action, something like 60% in their first two games (IIRC), and have since tapered off.
  5. RPOs still use play action. They are fundamentally a play action play -- "run/pass option" -- as half of the play is a run and half is a pass, and it's up to the QB to make the decision. I count RPOs as play action if they include a play fake. Of course, they are not play action from under center.
  6. That's something else we can do when using play action from under center -- pull a guard toward the play action, which is guaranteed to get the LBs out of position. We've done it before.
  7. The prevailing counter argument seems to be that if you throw a screen to Hines, the defense will immediately stop him because they know he's out there to catch screens (even though we never throw any to him, so go figure). And at the same time, there's a vocal objection every time Hines gets an inside carry, because he's supposed to be used in space. So don't establish any trends, and don't call any trend busters. Just ... I don't know ... punt???
  8. I never called Reich a bad coach, and I never complained that he was costing us games. Don't do this strawman stuff, please. And how do you know he doesn't feel comfortable with screen passes? He called one on third and 19 and it converted. He calls play action, just at about the same clip as every other typical NFL play caller. I've been saying since 2013 that I think it's time for someone to test the upper limits of the play action threshold. I'd love for that to be this year's Colts, especially since we have a capable rushing attack. But I'll even settle for 10% more play action, with some of those PA attempts coming from under center. I promise that if it's not successful (however we're qualifying "success"), I won't call for Reich to be fired because he called too much play action. Scouts honor.
  9. Run a bubble screen. Run a fake screen to Hines (gasp!) Run a screen when Hines isn't on the field. Throw one to Mack (double gasp!) These plays are in the playbook. Reich worked with Doug Pederson for two years, before that he worked with Mike McCoy and Ken Whisenhunt (who at one point, seemingly forever ago, were pretty good OCs), before that he worked with Tom Moore and Peyton Manning... and he's a pretty good play caller when he wants to be. We have this stuff at our disposal.
  10. That's a very general statement that doesn't really bring anything to the conversation. There's literally no personnel grouping on offense that would prevent a play action pass. And unless we have zero backs on the field, there's no grouping that would prevent play action from under center (and with all the injuries at WR, we're not using zero back formations). Play action on second down isn't going to tip off the DC. More importantly, I don't care if it does. Play action isn't for sucking in every defender and going over the top, it's for opening some pass windows and slowing down the pass rush. It's not going to happen, but I'd love to see 50% of our pass attempts come off of play action. And when we're running the ball down the defense's throat like we did Sunday, maybe every pass attempt would be play action, with the exception of third and long.
  11. To the bolded, I'm gonna go with never. And by "never," I mean less than 5% of the time. And that's just my observation, not based on anything that I'm presenting as absolute fact. As for why they're calling the plays they are, I think there are multiple reasons. First, I believe they're coaching to their personnel, as others have said, and the biggest change this season is the QB. And over the last few weeks, lots of injuries at critical positions. So that's fine. But I don't understand the lack of screen plays. To me, there's one explanation, and it's that we're not good at screens, but that bothers me. We should be able to run a moderate amount of screens with a moderate degree of success, and every once in a while get a big one to go. We did on third and long Sunday, so big props, but let's see more of those in less throwaway situations.
  12. I've taken issue with some of Reich's play calling this year. Even if he's being conservative, I'd like to see more play action from under center, especially on second down, and I'd like to see more screens.
  13. It would be interesting to review that info if you can get your hands on it again. And I can agree that different surfaces will have different effects on players. If you run every day on pavement, you might be more likely to have leg injuries over time vs someone who runs every day on grass. But can we see that type of discrepancy conclusively when comparing the different types of NFL playing surfaces?
  14. Superman


    I know we need him, but he needs to be ready.
  15. He needs to practice to show that he can perform, not because he doesn't know the defense. They're only doing walkthroughs this week. I assume he'd have physical tests and they wouldn't just throw him out there blind. I guess we'll see in a couple days.
  16. Superman


    To me, it's all about him and the docs. But if he takes another week, then that probably means he comes back in good shape next week, which would be good.
  17. No doubt they have different personalities, and maybe that's affected the locker room in a positive way. Also, a lot of the guys on the roster and the staff weren't here before 2017, which is when JB really endeared himself to the team. Luck was in Europe part of that time. Since then, Luck started 16 games, JB has started 24, along with leading the offseason and training camp practices. We could argue that this team knows JB better than it knew Luck. And just to be clear, I don't think there was anything wrong with Luck's style or his leadership qualities. I'm sure the teams from 2012 to 2016 admired him the same way this current team admires JB. But it's JB's team now.
  18. I get that, but it's dumb. If that's what they wanted, then yes, they should take away the coaches challenge for PI and just buzz down and correct bad calls on their own. I don't know why it would be awful if they made PI reviewable by the clear and obvious standard. You're not adding more replay, because coaches still have two challenges per game, so it's not like they can throw the red flag every pass play. But if you're going to review something, then why not review it to the same standard that every other review is held -- the standard you said you would use for PI review? Take the Rock play from Sunday. PI, clear and obvious. If the ref had been on the other side of the play, the flag would have been thrown, and there'd be no path to overturn it. Apparently, the reason the challenge wasn't successful is because 'it wasn't egregious enough, we're gonna let it go,' and that's crazy to me. And no, I don't want every foul reviewed, but again, there's a limited number of challenges so that's not a concern. And when you're inside of two minutes, they would obviously apply a high standard to determine what plays to stop and review.
  19. I have mixed feelings. It feels like this team would be capable of doing something big this year if Luck hadn't retired. The improvement from the defense and the sometimes dominant work from the OL has been impressive. The two recent losses were primarily due to injuries on offense, we probably could have won by multiple scores if JB were healthy. So while it's great to see the whole picture coming together, I can't shake the feeling that we have a lower ceiling due to the QB change. And that's not a shot at JB (please don't start), just an acknowledgment that he's not as good as Luck, in several ways.
  20. The fact that we're barely practicing this week probably doesn't bode well for Desir playing, since he hasn't practiced in a month. It's hard to see them putting him out there on a short week, and that's too bad because he really gets up to play against Hopkins.
  21. I disagree. We know the PI rules. They haven't changed. The problem is they're requiring a very high bar to be cleared to overturn a call made on the field, which mostly defeats the purpose of reviewing calls in the first place. The standard is supposed to be "clear and obvious" according to the rule book, but they're using a very different standard that appears to be something like "egregious, flagrant and inarguable," and that's a problem. It's like they're taking these reviews and saying 'yeah, that's PI, but it wasn't "Nickell Robey-Coleman in the NFCCG" PI, so we're not gonna overturn the call on the field.' In which case, take away the coaches challenge aspect and just let NY buzz down and tell us when they're going to step in and change a call.
  22. I think stitches and I talked about the Chiefs' process back during the Luck saga this preseason. I'm not against it, transparency would probably be a good thing (although some people are never satisfied, and the next step is they'll want to crowd-source medical decisions).
  • Create New...