Superman

Okay but the argument isn't that his production would be different if he had a different QB. The argument is that his production would be different if he had a better QB. To me, that seems obvious. And the QBs we've had the last three years have all displayed some critical limitations. The offense was 30% 'quick pass to Pittman.' Look at his charts. His average depth of target was 8.8, 134th in the league. Mo Alie Cox was at 9.7. https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/charts/player/michael-pittman/PIT228050/season https://www.fantasylife.com/tools/air-yards I think it can be both. Like I said, Pittman isn't ever going to be a 16 yards/catch guy. But 10.8 is the number you're hanging over his head, and I think that's heavily influenced by the QBing and play calling. I think the strengths and shortcomings of the QB impact every receiver. What the QB does well and struggles with flavors every element of the passing game. And I think that's been a significant factor throughout Pittman's career. No disagreement there. That's also obvious. But it also seems to be the entire substance of your opinion on Pittman. He's 82nd in yards/catch, but surely you wouldn't argue that he's the 82nd best pass catcher in the NFL, right? So there's clearly value in his play beyond his yards/catch. And for me (and other like-minded observers), since I think his yards/catch is strongly influenced by the QBing and play calling, it's a stat that needs to be contextualized. I think the same is true of yards/catch, but that requires a bit more insight. And yeah, I think saying 'he's a 1,000 yard WR, of course he's a #1!' is similarly flawed. Okay, but back to my earlier question. Do you think that with a better QB, Pittman's yards/catch would be notably better? He was 12.6 yards/catch as a rookie. Just swap Minshew for Prescott, you don't think Pittman is closer to 13?

I don't understand how you say you don't get the QB argument, and then list three QBs who weren't very good with the Colts. Wentz was the best of the three, and there's a notable difference between Pittman's YPC in 2021 and his YPC in 2023. If we had Dak Prescott instead of Gardner Minshew, you don't think Pittman's YPC would be notably higher? Do you think that Garrett Wilson would have had more than 11 yards/catch if Aaron Rodgers was healthy? I don't think Pittman will ever be a 1,500 yard, 16 yards/catch receiver, and he's definitely not the prototype that comes to mind when talking about true #1 WRs. But I think it's a mistake to hold his career yards/catch stat over his head without acknowledging that he's played with bad/inefficient QBs for most of his career. Yet, you seem to want to reduce his entire career down to that one stat.

I'd add that it starts with good ownership. Some owners just can't get out of their own way, hire the wrong people, fire the wrong people, play favorites, dominate the process, etc. With good ownership, your GM and HC can thrive, and the football people can find and develop good players. With bad ownership, you get Washington, Jax, etc.

Agreed.

He had good production, and his talent was obvious. But from the ground up, he was awkward and fundamentally flawed as a passer. He got better in some areas, but he still has some of the same issues with fundamentals. CJ Stroud is much more fundamentally sound, more disciplined, better from the pocket, he's a quicker decision maker, I think he's more accurate to all levels of the field, and his arm is almost as good. He's not as athletic and fast, and he probably can't make crazy throws 50 yards downfield while he's scrambling the way Watson could, but we just saw him make a pretty good throw on the run against us. I'd agree that Stroud is a better passer, all things considered. He's already displaying a mastery of some of the things that Watson never improved on.

Even good QBs go through stretches where they turn the ball over at a high rate. I think it was after the Browns game, someone asked what should we do if Minshew keeps turning the ball over multiple times per game, and my response was 'grin and bear it.' And that was because it was easily his most productive game of the season to that point, and against a good defense. (Look at some of the Browns defensive splits, they were MUCH better at home than on the road this year.) My point is I think we can find a way to work around and eventually mitigate the turnovers. But if you can't move the ball at all, there's probably no fix for that. Watch the Jets try to move the ball with Zach Wilson, it's horrendous. I'd rather have 450 yards of offense and four turnovers, than 170 yards of offense and six points. You have to have some production at some point.

I get what you're saying about Rivers/Wentz, but there are so many other variables at play (age, athleticism, decision making, etc., with both sets of QBs) that I don't think it's a great comparison. It's true that Rivers was far more steady, while Wentz had greater variance. But Rivers' level of steady QB play also came with production and efficiency. I've tried to be really careful about the way I talk about Minshew's play this season. I appreciate him showing up and doing his job every week, he has a great personality, etc. He kept the offense alive for almost the entire season, in a year where we saw a lot of offenses die due to bad QB play. It gets a lot worse than Minshew, and it's a good thing we had him, IMO. That said, Minshew threw for about 200 yards/game, 62% completions, 15 passing TDs, 9 INTs, 6.7 YPA, passer rating 84.6. This is pedestrian, at best, in terms of production and efficiency. (We could go further if we want to discuss his play vs pressure, or his downfield numbers, or how little he offered out of structure.) Sometimes the conversation drifts into the extremes, but for the most part, I think we have a good understanding of what Minshew is, and he gets the appropriate amount of credit. With Richardson, I think it's just a projection. We got proof of concept in a small sample size, and there are still questions that haven't been answered, but to me, the big one was 'can he operate and perform in the NFL,' and I think I can check that one off.

Stroud got 40 votes, Richardson got 32. https://forums.colts.com/topic/75312-poll-which-qb-will-they-select-which-qb-should-they-select/

There's a lot more variance with Richardson than with Minshew, and that's good and bad. But what it really boils down to is that he's a rookie with so little experience, and we only scratched the surface with him. You're right, there's a lot of premature extrapolating and assuming based on the little bit of him that we saw, but what's very obvious is that he can do things that Minshew could never dream of doing. I'm not one who's saying the offense definitely would have been better with Richardson, but I do think the potential was there. Whereas with Minshew, we know what he can and can't do, and we probably just saw the ceiling of what the offense can do with him.

What will it take for you to stop listening?

Seems like the top of the draft will skew toward offensive players this year.

Thanks for doing this. That breakdown is eye opening. I didn't expect that big of a disparity. In the seven games you separated out, we averaged 5 sacks/game. In the other ten games, 1.6 sacks/game. That's massive. I'm tempted to go through and break out the pressures/game also, but I think we can assume that there's a similar disparity at work.

A lot of people liked Stroud. We did a poll before the draft, and Stroud was the #1 vote getter.

Yeah, definitely don't lump me in with moose. But I'm not impressed by our pass rush, I think we feasted on bad offenses for the most part. The competition is why I'm not sold on this. Statistically, you're correct. But whenever we played a QB with any kind of pocket presence, the pressures and sacks went down significantly. The Bengals game is an example -- 11.5% pressure rate, three total pressures, zero sacks. And that's just Jake Browning. Good talk. Didn't mean to backtrack, just saw that blurb and thought it was a good example of what I was talking about earlier.

I agree about Reddit, downvoting makes that place an echo chamber. I don't pay attention to Twitter. I don't see people calling him a great drafter, that doesn't seem like a popular opinion. I've defended Ballard, but I don't think he's a great drafter. I don't think media praises him. I think they like him, and they appreciate how he interacts with them. Some might defend him at times... This speaks to your point about charisma, for sure. I guess from my perspective, what I see is more defense of Ballard. And in that area, I think there's plenty of room to defend him, especially against some of the more rabid and illogical criticisms. Big picture, the results definitely haven't been good enough, but I think a lot of the results-based criticism is willfully dismissive of the circumstances. (And at the same time, a team like the Niners hasn't had great circumstances and have been limited by QBing, but they probably have the best roster in the league.) End of the day, I think Ballard has been in a new era, starting in January 2023. I think Irsay decided that Ballard wasn't the problem, and hit the reset button. And now, it's time to see results. Not 9-10 wins a year results, but competing with the heavyweights results. And if we don't see that soon, I think he'll have to be replaced.

I don't know if we played more man. Maybe there was a stretch earlier in the season where there was some man coverage?? I don't remember, it was a long season... I'm not calling for us to bury receivers at the LOS, but it's possible to bump receivers at the line and then drop back into zone coverage. The problem is that if you miss, you're toast.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39310757/detroit-lions-win-wild-card-game-los-angeles-rams-matthew-stafford-jared-goff-puka-nacua-ford-field There's a little note at the end of this article that illustrates why I'm harping on pressures and pressure rate. Not only does pressure lead to sacks, but pressure can turn a really efficient and capable QB into a complete disaster. To be clear, sacks are more valuable, but pressure still matters. Even if you don't see our sack conversion rate as unsustainable, we still need to be better than 19.6% pressure rate.

I'm going to take some solace in the fact that Steichen and Ballard defended Bradley so quickly, and Ballard in particular pointed to other facts, like the roster and the youth. Steichen apparently believes that there are ways to improve the defense that don't require changing the DC, so maybe they intend to upgrade the defensive roster, or adjust some of the gameplans and play calling. I still don't think Bradley will break significantly from his super conservative approach, so I feel like there's a cap on how much we can improve defensively with him running things. But there can sill be some improvement.

You can put this however you want, but what happened above is you accused me of doing something that I do not do, and I defended myself. If that's arrogant to you, I don't know what to tell you. But when you make an accusation like this, don't expect me to just back away. Speaking of which... This is 100% false. As I said earlier, I do not try to shut down discussions that I'm done engaging in, I simply move on. I also take strong issue with this. Apparently your feelings are bruised over our discussion on the 4th down call, which is interesting because you pursued that discussion with me, not the other way around. You should maybe revisit that thread and take a look at how aggressive you were with everyone who saw that differently than you did, and then come back and tell me who was belittling whom. And in this very thread, I do not think that my exchange with goatface in particular was belittling at all. We were having a solid discussion, IMO. If @Goatface Killah feels differently, I hope he sets me straight. I don't know what exchange with @2006Coltsbestever you're talking about, but same goes for him. Yeah, there are a ton of smart people here, and I respect people's opinions. It's still a discussion forum, where disagreements are worked out. Which is what goatface and I have been doing. I don't have a problem with anyone having a particular opinion, including a negative opinion of me as a poster. I'm not everyone's cup of tea, and I'm fine with that. And decided to chastise me, LOL. What response did you expect? That chastising also included an accusation that was not true. Goatface and I were having a solid back and forth, we expressed our viewpoints and I believe we came to a better understanding of each other's positions. And then a third party comes in and tells us that our discussion is a waste of time... I don't see the the point in pretending that he was doing anything else, simply because he didn't quote anyone. I thought richard's comment was unnecessary, and I said so. If you disagree, so be it. Thanks. I don't know why this discussion had to be so sharp. Just because I disagree with someone doesn't mean I don't think they're smart or respect their opinion, and that includes you, and the other people that you've mentioned earlier.

No, that's 100% not what I said to you, and this is 100% not what happened in this thread. That's my plan. You should recalibrate your vibe machine. If I don't want to continue a discussion, I just stop engaging. I don't come back and tell everyone else that it's a waste of time to continue. The implication was obvious, and I stand by what I 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.

It's a waste of time to tell people that a topic they want to discuss is a waste of time.

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!

If Dayo, Kwity, and Ebukam provided better pass rush than we had in 2022, then why didn't that result in more total pressures in 2023? It only led to more sacks? You're not allowing any room for the poor QB/OL play that we faced in 2023 to have influenced that statistical variance? Good QBs are hard to sack... doesn't that support the argument that our increased sack rate in 2023 is influenced by the quality of QBing that we faced? Also, doesn't it explain why some are so fixated on the idea of getting more pressure on the QB? We were 21st in pressures and pressure rate against bad QBs, what will that look like against good QBs? The stats are what they are, they're leading us to an understanding of the quality of the pass rush. It seems like you want the analysis to stop at total sacks, so we can say 'we must have a pretty good pass rush, we had 51 sacks.' You're basically separating the quality of the pass rush and the resulting sacks from the pressure rate, which I think is faulty reasoning. I don't blame Gus and his scheme every time, either. A lot of this conversation is happening in the margins at this point, but there are obviously other factors involved. Roster quality, experience, health, quality of opponent, execution, etc. One of the biggest problems with the defense was tackling, and I don't think that's a scheme issue at all. But I think the way he runs his defense is too conservative to have success. And that's not about zone coverage with a four man rush. It's more about such high reliance on two primary coverages, with little disguise. And while I think there's room for more blitzing, I think that's a more game/situation specific element.

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.