Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Superman

  1. It's easier to sustain the coach and the QB. That's two people. An elite defense requires six or seven high level starters at the right positions, plus solid depth. So you're looking at 10-12 players. And if they're pieces to a great defense, they'll want to be paid, so you'll have to replace foundational players regularly. Plus, if you have an elite defense, the DC is going to get HC opportunities. It's hard to even build an elite defense. I think Colts fans should know that. Sustaining an elite defense for more than a couple years is nearly impossible, and that's without big injuries to critical players. But if you told me I could sustain an elite defense for several years, I'd prefer an elite defense + elite offensive minded head coach, who will get enough production out of an above average coach (I don't want Ryan Tannehill, I still need a capable QB). I think you can win SBs with that formula.
  2. That might be a legit angle. I watched in fragments, not straight through, so I might have missed that change in approach. The RPOs were called throughout the game, but you might be right that the short passes were overused early on.
  3. I think the gameplan was different, actually. More RPOs, some different passing concepts with TY out, and I think they made a more concerted effort to look downfield to keep the defense honest. It kind of worked, but we couldn't capitalize because of the dropped passes and the missed run blocks. I would have liked to see more screens, but we didn't execute those well, either. I really think it was just a game of bad execution, more than anything else.
  4. I'm finally done with my rewatch. I don't know if I'd call the play calling "vanilla," particularly on offense. They did a few things that I've been hoping to see more of, like RPOs and read options with pass outlets, etc. I think it was a fairly balanced gameplan, and it seemed to be undermined by a lack of execution, especially dropped passes and poor run blocking. I do have some issue with the usage the backs. Hines was fine even in short yardage on 4th down, even though I don't understand why he gets short yardage carries. I like seeing him on those angle routes, he's starting to become a problem for linebackers every week. But it seems like every time Wilkins gets a few carries, he moves the ball. Yet he's not a real part of the gameplan each week. They want to make Mack the feature back, and I also get that, because he seems to do better with more carries, but it bothers me that Wilkins gets excluded from the rotation. Just 12 attempts through four games... Another thing, everyone has been critical of the receivers after last week. Too many drops, for sure, and the young guys are still working through some of the finer points of running routes and making adjustments when the ball is in the air. But I didn't think the receivers were as bad as the initial response made them seem. Cain ran some nice routes, Campbell is great with the ball in his hands (just needs to actually keep the ball in his hands), and even Rogers is contributing. Pascal had the penalty at the end, but he's just fighting to make a play, with the game on the line. The receivers are gonna be fine, I think. The OL has to tighten up their run blocking assignments. Too many busts, resulting in negative plays. And it's not just one player getting beat physically, there are a lot of things going on that will hopefully get better as they keep working together, but if we can stop shooting ourselves in the foot, it will help the offense stay on schedule.
  5. This is not meant to be a criticism of JB, let me just say that. Every QB will miss a read. But I think JB missed this one from the jump. He should have read zone presnap, and I assume he did. He probably didn't see the corners back off right before the snap, which is reasonable. But looking at it again, I think he had the wrong read from the beginning. The defense was in single high, which is either man Cover 1, or zone Cover 3, in most cases. Because the TE isn't covered presnap, he should have read zone, and assumed Cover 3. If he threw his first read, he threw right into the strength of Cover 3 zone. Even if he didn't see the corners back off until after the snap, he should have known the corner wasn't open. So by the time he hits his back foot, he should be coming off that receiver. Again, try the out if you want to take the safe throw. But when you see three defenders on the left side, I don't see why he wouldn't come back to the right side. Check the middle and confirm it's Cover 3, then throw the in to Cain. That's the soft spot of this coverage. And he had protection, so there was time to come back. And yes, I'm saying that after watching the replay a half dozen times, but again, I'm wondering about his presnap read because it looks like he's attacking a Cover 3 with a Cover 2 beater, which isn't gonna work.
  6. They didn't overlook his deficiencies, they coached with them in mind. Still do, that's why the Pats have invested so much in the defense and running game in recent years. Possible, plausible and probable... It's improbable that JB has a third of the success Tom Brady's had, making this is an implausible projection to begin with. I also don't agree that JB plays like an elite QB situationally, but that's heavily influenced by his 15 starts in 2017. It's too early to really judge his situational play in 2019, but it's been a mixed bag so far. I don't know what you've seen to suggest that he's "elite" situationally. That's fine, we all want a strong, deep, balanced roster. But historically, if you don't have a QB who can make plays consistently, you need a top five defense to win a SB. I don't think it's easier and more sustainable to build a top five defense than it is to find a playmaking QB; I think there are more teams with playmaking QBs and bad defenses than the other way around, especially over the last 5-7 years. To the bolded, I said after last season that the worst thing the Colts can do moving forward is to allow good to be the enemy of great. I was talking about the defense and the OL for the most part. I think that will apply to our evaluation of the QB position moving forward. JB has to prove that he's good enough. I'm willing to give him the chance to do that, but I also think the staff has to be honest and critical in evaluating him, and if he's not checking the right boxes, they have to make a reasonable effort to upgrade. That doesn't mean sell the farm for Tua in 2020, but it does mean making sure you aren't accepting mediocrity just because 'it's hard to find a good QB.' By the way, I think finding a QB as good as Jacoby is getting easier as QBs get better coaching and development, and as NFL offenses continue to adapt college style offenses. But it's still hard to find an elite guy. It's not hard to project us as a top eight team, but that will take a lot of the young guys performing, which again is not a given. The defense is far from being top ten, statistically and situationally, but again that's with a lot of injuries and young players. I still think we're another draft class away, which probably means two years before the defense is impressive.
  7. I found it to be a big nothing burger.
  8. That's my point. No one has ever knocked his work ethic or denied his improvement. My concern is that some of these traits seem to be more innate than learned -- anticipation and playmaking, for instance. That doesn't mean he can't get better, but again, there's a long list of NFL QBs who never made the leap from where JB is now to that next level. Because it's not automatic. I don't know for sure what you mean by this. But it's absolutely necessary that a QB for a title contender be able to do these things, unless your defense is great enough to make up for it. He's also a statistical anomaly. JB most likely will not be the next Tom Brady. There will most likely never be another Tom Brady. I think Ben was better at making plays downfield even as a rookie, but he absolutely developed over the course of a few seasons. Every QB does. I'm certainly not suggesting JB won't develop with more time. Drew Bledsoe lost his job to a statistical anomaly, playing for the greatest coach of all time, with the benefit of a top 10 defense. He was also coming off of multiple seasons of mediocre play. And it's not like he just got benched. He got hurt, they had some magic with Brady, and never looked back. If the Colts can capture that kind of magic this season, I will be very happy. But I'll still be looking for improvement from JB as time goes on. I disagree with the bolded. Consistently good QBing is very dependent on the QB being able to read defenses. And consistently good QBing helps a team win games. If we can build a special team around him, that would be awesome. But I think it's fair to evaluate his contributions, just like we would any other QB. And there are several tiers between Brady/Brees/Mahomes and Russell. Is he on that Roethlisberger tier, or closer to the Mariota tier? We'll see if JB is on a "good enough" tier as time goes on. But that's still a high bar to clear, one that many QBs never reach. So it's not a given that, just because JB has physical tools and a good work ethic, that he'll eventually be "good enough" to contend for a SB. He could be, I'm not writing him off. I'm just giving my opinion about what he needs to do better to get there.
  9. You're conflating several different issues here. 1) JB won his first ever start in the NFL. He was 11/19 with 103 yards and a rushing TD. The Pats beat the Texans 27-0 in Foxborough. "Doing enough to win" isn't the same as being a good QB. Let's stop talking about the win/loss record. 2) "He will probably never be truly elite" is a true statement for 98% of NFL QBs. It's not a slight against JB. It's more an expression of a statistical likelihood than anything else. 3) He does miss reads, and he doesn't always make the right decision. Let's acknowledge that as fact. Let's also acknowledge that this is not unique to JB. 4) Missing reads and making sub-optimal decisions is something that happens to every QB. The difference is that really good and great QBs miss far fewer reads, make optimal decisions more often, and make outstanding plays at critical times in the game. While slightly above average QBs miss more reads and make more sub-optimal decisions, and when the team needs them to step up with a big play, they aren't able to do so reliably. 5) Playing from behind is something that the offense has to own just as much as the defense, and JB runs the offense. As I said before, playmaking, reading defenses, adjustments, anticipation are all critical factors to playing QB on a team that can win in the playoffs. Especially when that team isn't a historically great defense. There's nothing unfair about evaluating JB against that standard.
  10. Because it's a small sample size in which the team is throwing a lot more in the red zone than they are expected to throw over the course of the season. If that's their normal pass/run ratio in the red zone over a larger sample size, great. Right now, it's probably skewed in favor of the pass, which has contributed to JB having 10 TDs. And that's not a knock on JB at all. Just identifying a potential anomaly that will likely normalize as time goes on.
  11. It's zone on both sides of the field, and that's obvious presnap based on the defensive alignment. Then, right before the snap, both outside corners fall back to give up a large cushion. There is no first open guy on the left, although if JB pump fakes he has a shot at the underneath guy (playmaking). He should have come off his first read, because, he has a much better option on the backside of the play, with plenty of space to protect the ball and his receiver. If the play was called as a half field read, then again, that says something about the way the staff is handling JB, which speaks to his attributes as an NFL QB.
  12. The stat I saw said 53 attempts, 4 recoveries. It is a small sample size, but even historically, onsides aren't recovered at a high rate. Especially obvious onside attempts. Of course, sometimes you have to go for it, and that would have been defensible as well. I just get where Reich is coming from. Obviously, when your chosen route doesn't work, you wonder what would have happened if you had chosen a different route. But I don't think Reich made an awful decision.
  13. I heard it was only 6 on Sunday night. It's moved five points since then.
  14. I don't know what the charts say, but I would think the only time you're trying something that has a 7% success rate is if you don't have any other legitimate options. I know the defense was trash on Sunday, but I think we had better than a 7% chance of getting a stop. If we didn't have three timeouts, there's no decision to make, you try the onside. And I listened to Reich last night, but I didn't think he regretted his choice or was suggesting that he'd try something different. I think he sounded like he knew he had one bad choice and one awful choice. He went with the bad choice, but it's defensible, IMO.
  15. Another strawman on your part. I'm not judging him as an elite QB. I'm talking about the things a QB leading a good offense will have to do, especially in the playoffs. You apparently just want to talk about his completion percentage and act like that equals good QBing.
  16. Every team gets multiple third down attempts every game. You can see a clear trend and variance from your own team on third down. There were 53 onsides attempted last year, league wide. That's an average of less than 2 per team. League wide averages are valuable. If you're just going to go off of the Colts percentage in 2018, then the book says don't try it at all, because we were 0/2. I understand your angle. If you try the onside kick, even if there's a very small likelihood of recovering, you at least give yourself that small chance of getting the ball back. I just don't think you're considering the field position argument. First, you have to acknowledge that the overwhelmingly likelihood is that you DON'T recover the onside kick. Let's start there. If you try 100 onside kicks, you'll fail 93 times. Those are the numbers. You're most likely not going to recover. So now you're giving the other team the ball at midfield (more likely the 45, or closer). And you still need a defensive stop and have to use your timeouts. If they gain zero yards and punt with a minute remaining, you're getting the ball with no timeouts, probably at your ten yard line. And you put yourself in that situation because you were hanging on to the statistically unlikely chance of recovering an onside kick. On the flip side, if you kickoff, you're asking your defense to get a stop. And if they do, you'll get the ball back with a minute left and no timeouts, but you're probably starting at the 25 or 30. And that's without a punt return, by the way. Yes, you're still relying on your defense, which has been bad all game. But if you respect the stats, you can acknowledge that you were going to be sending your defense out 93 times out of 100, because onside kicks aren't converting since the rule was changed. When you weigh those two things out, there's an obvious logic to kicking it deep. I understand that if you try the onside, you at least have a chance to get the ball back. But realistically, you're just costing yourself 15-20 yards in field position if you manage to get a stop.
  17. Some context that might be helpful to some of you: I think Deshaun Watson is a special talent at QB. However, I'm critical of how long he holds the ball. This displays a lack of anticipation, an inability to diagnose defenses before and after the snap, and an unwillingness to throw the ball into tight windows. I also think his footwork breaks down into absolute trash at times. Just because I point out something that I think a QB needs to work on to get better doesn't mean that I don't like the QB and don't think he can improve.
  18. I don't listen to Venturi anymore, but last year when he was saying the same thing, it seemed to me to be a problem of Venturi simply not agreeing with the defensive philosophy. If you want a hot fudge sundae, it doesn't matter how delicious this strawberry shortcake is. It's not what you want. In this case, I think Eberflus is fighting with one hand tied behind his back. I think Hooker is the most important coverage player in the scheme, and he's out right now. I think Leonard is the most dynamic player in the front seven, and he's out. I think we're playing a lot of young players who are struggling to cover their zones -- they don't have the awareness and eye discipline they need, and that's something that has to get better. I think we're struggling to tackle, which is something that probably has more to do with the preseason preparation than with the scheme. I also think we should play some different coverages on third downs, but that's hard to call for when we're not playing the basic coverages the right way (from what I see). I think blitzing is the sexy answer, but as Coffee said, blitzing plays into a quick passing attack. Everyone gets upset when corners play off, but without depth to your backfield, you're going to give up big runs. Like Venturi, I'd prefer a different scheme. I want more Man 1 coverage, more Cover 3, and some tighter contests on the outside. But for what they're trying to do, and with the personnel issues they have, I understand the approach. And I don't think making major adjustments to the scheme is the answer. I think getting better at executing the scheme is critical. From there, you can add different features and really play all your coverages in multiple situations.
  19. I'm not willing to write him off, but I do think some of the traits that great QBs have are more innate than learned.
  20. I want you to know I read your whole post, despite it's length. I'm not going to respond to all of it, just the things I think you're way off on as it relates to an evaluation of QBing. These comments above display a lack of awareness of what goes into good QBing. Did you ever consider that Reich's play calling is affected by JB's limitations as a progression-based passer? If Reich isn't opening up the playbook for Brissett, isn't that an indication that Brissett's limitations are holding back the offense? If you don't have the insight to understand that good QBs make big plays, beat blitzes, anticipate and read coverages, etc., and to understand that if your QB is lacking in any of those areas that it's holding your offense back, then that's your own faulty understanding of what makes an NFL offense excel. And the bolded is a special brand of nonsense, IMO. This not made up, this is obvious with good QBs who lead great offenses, and it's what separates them from other QBs who never quite get over the hump. Nor is it blind criticism. I resent the implication that I am not being fair to JB, or not taking into consideration what he does well. This is an outrageous response to anything I've said about him as a QB. That would make sense if you could plot a QB's progression and improvement on a straight line. Unfortunately, projecting how a QB will advance is not a simple math equation. Most QBs never get past slightly above average (don't omit the "slightly" in an effort to change the narrative). The odds are against JB becoming a top tier starter than just like they're against any other fourth year QB with 20 NFL starts. Doesn't mean he can't, but it would be irresponsible to just assume that he will. And in what way am I not giving him a fair chance? Me saying what I think he needs to improve on is not me being unfair to him. And I've pointed out several times the things he does well. It has nothing to do with replacing Andrew Luck, it's about what I believe a team needs from the QB position to win in the playoffs -- playmaking, anticipation, adjustments, reading defenses, etc. His job is to play QB for a team that wants to win SBs. Evidently you and I have different ideas of what that involves.
  21. And that's what I wonder about, when he has to come off script, can he make the plays we need? And can he make them as a passer, not just as a scrambler? It's still early, but that's what has to happen for him to be a franchise level QB.
  22. None of this is relevant to the clip above. JB didn't throw Cain the ball because he didn't look Cain's way, plain and simple. There's nothing else to it. It's not at all about Cain, it's entirely about JB.
  • Create New...