Superman

Could be either of those. But if Cross drops deep, we still give up a nice chunk to the TE. Schematically, don't stop good QBs, we just let them complete passes with little resistance.

I don't know. I want the Gus Bradley that gameplanned for the Ravens. That doesn't mean I want the Ravens gameplan every week, just that I want the guy who will make common sense adjustments based on the opponent. Ballard signed off on that guy, and I highly doubt that Ballard told Gus to dial it back after that game. To me, that game is proof that Gus has some freedom to be more flexible. But this is a DC who has been super conservative and rigid for his entire time in the NFL. I agree that he fits Ballard's vision for the defense, but I'm not sure that he doesn't have the freedom to make adjustments week to week, play to play.

The Falcons are a 4-3 zone defense. I think what their new DC did in one season is a testament to what a fresh approach can bring for a team like the Colts.

I don't know about this. First, everyone talks about blitzing, and I think that's just a symptom of the conservative and uninventive minds of Eberflus and Bradley. For example, my biggest smoking gun for why Eberflus needed to go was the way we defended Lamar Jackson. He destroyed us twice in a row, and we did nothing different. Then we play the Ravens this year, and Bradley called the defense like he was possessed with the spirit of Brian Flores -- maybe because Flores is the most high profile defensive coach to fluster Lamar with heavy blitzing. Bradley showed a willingness to step outside of his comfort zone, and it worked. I'm certain he did this with the blessing of the HC, and I'm certain he didn't get a phone call from the GM telling him to never blitz that much again. I'm not asking for someone who will blitz a lot. I'm asking for someone who will adjust their approach from game to game, and play to play, based on the situation. I don't expect anyone to come in and go Brian Flores all season. I just want someone who makes adjustments within the zone based, four man rush scheme. To be clear, my point is that it's not acceptable to play like you're afraid of getting beat deep, while also getting beat deep. First play of the game Saturday night, we give up a 75 yard TD. It's unacceptable, when the underlying philosophy of your entire defense is 'don't give up explosive plays.' And I don't think that's a talent issue. The Texans exploited our defensive philosophy perfectly, and even if we don't give up the huge TD, that's probably still a successful play because they would have had another open receiver for a first down.

No, he just played it as if he wanted it to be the last possession of the game. And even JT going out of bounds gave Steichen a lot of flexibility with play calls, so I've been surprised to see people complaining about that also. We had plenty of time. Just needed another first down, and then I think we would have seen Houston start using their timeouts. And ultimately we know the goal was a TD and XP, hopefully with basically no time left.

I don't think a shutdown corner changes our defense if we're playing Cover 3 and Cover 4 almost exclusively, with virtually no pre-snap disguise. It's almost a waste of resources. And while we keep talking about "scheme," some specificity would be good. Ballard wants a zone based defense that can get consistent pressure with a four man rush, while limiting big plays. (With Gus, we have a zone based defense. We don't get consistent pressure, and we don't limit big plays. So one out of three on that mandate, IMO.) I don't know that Ballard wants a defense that only plays two coverages and never disguises, and that's my main problem with Gus. We can probably get better pass rush with some improvement up front, but if we're playing Cover 3 and Cover 4 70% of the time, we're still going to get picked apart by good QBs. Did we contest a single pass against Houston?? I think we can be a top ten defense even if we're zone based, four man rush, without a traditional shutdown corner. But we need to play more coverages, we need some disguise, and we need to allow our DBs to play closer to the line of scrimmage more often. (We also need better pass rush, and better tackling, but that's more about personnel than scheme, IMO.) I think there's room for more blitzing also, but there are games where Bradley brings extra pressure, so I think maybe there's something to work with there. That's what I mean by scheme. We're not going to hire anyone who runs 50% man coverage, or who blitzes 30% of the time. What I want is someone who isn't simultaneously so afraid of being beat deep that he runs the most conservative defense in the league, while also getting beat deep two or three times a game.

You should listen to what he said. Steichen is a master of coach speak, and he all but verified that Bradley is coming back. Maybe Gus decides to retire, but Steichen isn't dismissing him.

I don't know what you guys are talking about, the clock management was fine. We had the ball on the 15 with over a minute left, and three timeouts. We had plenty of time to score a TD.

Serious moves relative to Ballard's way of doing things. I think this offseason should look more like the 2020 offseason than the 2022 offseason.

I agree that the defense is limited by the personnel, but that's what the offseason is for. I assume we'll have some potential upgrades on defense. The question that I think is more relevant is whether you think the defense is limited by the scheme. Because even with an upgraded roster, if the scheme is limiting output, then the ceiling is capped by coaching. To me, that's an easy yes. There are a lot of zone based, four man rush defenses in the league. The Colts defense is one of the most conservative defenses in the NFL. We make vanilla look spicy and exotic. And the advantage is supposed to be that we don't give up big plays, but we see how that's been working. So we don't get any creativity from the defensive scheme, and we don't get the benefit of not giving up explosive plays. So what's the advantage? What is Gus bringing to the table, other than predictability? This defense is middling to bad in most statistical categories, and this is in a season where offensive output was seriously muted -- more offensive penalties, a ton of QB injuries, etc. The Colts played six backup QBs, (Walker, Levis, Browning , Trubisky, Heinicke, O'Connell -- three rookies included in bold), and went 3-3 against them. Two rookie starters in three other games (Young, and Stroud twice, and he worked our defense both times), three journeyman starters (Tannehill, Carr, Mayfield), and one of the worst QBs in recent history (Mac Jones). We played a soft defensive schedule, and were still barely average overall. I think it's a huge mistake to keep Bradley and not require changes to his approach, in the name of "continuity." I actually think it's contrary to Steichen's message of accountability. Bradley's way of running the defense isn't good enough, and the results are obvious.

I would have liked the team to get that playoff experience, and the opportunity to have a home playoff game for the first time since 2014 would have been awesome. But winning the division, aside from throwing up a banner, doesn't really change my thinking on the state of the team and the roster. The Jags should have clinched this division a month ago. They fell apart and blew it, which is the only reason the Colts had a shot at it to begin with. We couldn't even beat the Jags when they were healthy early in the season, and even then, they weren't some juggernaut of a team. We still probably would have been the sixth best team in the AFC, at best.

I don't usually make win/loss record predictions. But my expectations were that this was a year to evaluate the state of the roster, especially on offense, and develop the young QB. It's obviously an INC on the second part of that. But on the first part, the OL looked like the worst part of the team in 2022. This year, they bounced back significantly. Not exactly the OL from 2019/2020, but definitely back to a strength of the team, rather than the liability they were in 2022. Our QBs in 2022 got sacked 60 times; this year, only 41 sacks, and that's with obvious limitations at QB. The offense was again functional, and even showed some promise of things to come. I felt like coaching had a big impact on the OL play in 2022, and I think things look much better there this year. I also thought we'd have our bumps and bruises in pass coverage and pass rush. Kenny Moore bounced back. We were intending to play a bunch of young, inexperienced players in the secondary. We lost two of them right away (Rodgers, Flowers), we cut Darius Rush, and Brents missed half the season. I thought Blackmon got better as the year went on, then he got hurt. Rodney Thomas got worse as the year went on, and he got benched, only to show up in the Texans game in the worst way, blowing another coverage in the end zone. Nick Cross showed some flashes, but too late in the year, IMO. Jaylon Jones was the only stable part of the secondary, and he was simply adequate. I have other thoughts about the roster, but going from 4 wins to 9 wins with a limited QB and a patchwork secondary isn't too shabby. I definitely wasn't expecting 9 wins and a legitimate shot at the division back in August. I don't think we hit any impressive highs this season; even the Ravens win, while nice and fun, didn't make me think the Colts were ready to force their way into the top four of the conference or anything. But there is a lot of promise for the future. I think the Colts should treat 2024 as if they know they have their QB of the future, and build around Richardson. I'm not saying get reckless and go crazy, but I think the time is right for some serious moves with the roster.

That's not how that went. Corey Simon was franchise tagged by the Eagles in offseason before the 2005 season. He held out of all offseason camps, and training camp. The Eagles rescinded the tag after training camp, before the regular season started, so he became a free agent. Then the Colts signed him right before the season started. So even the one high profile free agent signing that Polian made was kind of a weird circumstance. We didn't sign Simon in the frenzied high of free agency, like you would think. He was a late summer addition, only available after most teams' rosters were already set and there were probably no other bidders. https://www.espn.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2145502 Simon wasn't in great shape for the Colts in 2005. He played 13 games, then had surgery in the offseason before the 2006 season. He went on PUP before the year, and wound up missing the entire year. He never reported to the Colts after the season. The Colts released him prior to the 2007 season.

Gary Brackett was a UDFA, so even he wouldn't count.

Don't you think it's speculative to say that Goodson didn't run the route properly? We don't know how the play is coached. By contrast, I don't think it's speculative to say that Minshew's footwork was wrong. We know the fundamentals of QB mechanics, and when you're closed off on the left side, you're undermining your power and accuracy on a throw to the left. Yes, it's a quick throw, but that's why your mechanics have to be on point. Agreed that Goodson should have caught it, as is.

Watched Warner's video. There's some good stuff there, and it's possible that Goodson's route wasn't perfect. But we don't know how the Colts coach that route. What is undeniable is that Minshew's feet are wrong, he's closed off to the left side, and has to fight across his shoulder to throw the pass. He is not under pressure. He could have opened up to the left with his last step, and made a better throw. Instead he rushes it and throws a pass that was not as catchable as it could have been, even if Goodson's route wasn't great.

There are so many people saying exactly that... Please stop trying to bend reality.

Before the kick I wanted them to punt, for the reasons I've stated already. When the kick barely missed, I actually softened my stance. It's not like our kicker can't make that kick, indoors, at home. I don't think I'm being reactionary. My point was just that it would have been good to flip the field at that point.

For me, it's the idea that any skill player on the roster should be able to make that catch. Acting like throwing to Goodson is irresponsible, like he isn't capable of catching a wide open pass, is what misses the mark. And really, I think the bigger problem on the play was Minshew's bad throw. Yeah, Goodson should have caught it, but Minshew really blew it. Terrible footwork, rushed throw, off target.

Yeah, I think getting another WR is a must. I just push back on the 'Pierce doesn't get open!' stuff because, as I've been saying all year, there have been chances to get him the ball, and we just don't do it. Doesn't mean that he's perfect and we don't need to improve the position. And yeah, Stroud was 20-26, pretty comfortable in the pocket with just a few exceptions. Even when we got them into unfavorable situations with sacks and penalties, they easily got back whatever yardage they needed, plus some. Just easy throws almost all game, and then a couple of really good throws from a talented QB who was already in rhythm. I think we got the full Gus Bradley experience last night. Some good, nice response to the early TD, good run defense. But not enough pressure on the QB, almost no contested throws, wide open receivers, bad tackling (not entirely on Bradley). I don't want it anymore. We need to be better on defense, and I think it starts at the top.

I keep going back and rewatching that clip. I don't think the pocket had collapsed, I think one rusher came from the left. And with anticipation, the QB could have hitched up and had time to throw. Instead, Minshew bailed, and I don't think he needed to. Again, we're talking about an impressive level of anticipation, pocket presence, and poise. A much better QB probably makes that throw look routine.

I definitely understand that logic. Just felt like we were fighting an uphill battle to that point, and it was maybe an opportunity to shift some momentum. Instead we tried the low percentage FG, and when it didn't hit, it put the Texans in a favorable position.

Haven't you been complaining about the TEs lately? I might be confusing you with another poster... For the record, I think we're fine at TE, especially if Jelani Woods comes in healthy. In any event, I think I agree with the bolded. If Richardson can play, the offense will get a huge boost because of what he can do. But we do need more playmaking from the WRs. I'd take some competition and depth at OL also. We need more on defense. I'd start with a new DC.

I think Minshew could have simply hitched up and made this throw. He's fleeing the pocket because that's what he does when he senses pressure, but there's room in the pocket, and more than enough time for him to plant and throw. But that requires anticipation.

Pierce being open has nothing to do with Minshew being on the run. With some anticipation, he could have planted and thrown to Pierce. I agree that this isn't the smoking gun example of Minshew missing Pierce, but for me, it's just the latest exhibit among a mountain of evidence that there have been opportunities to get Pierce more involved.