Superman

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I don't know why you're defensive about it. I'm certainly not accusing you of calling the play call bad. I engaged because I'd like to understand your position. I get what you're saying about running it. I just disagree, because we'd had very mixed results running on that possession already. We barely got a yard on the previous play, 3rd and 2. Now it's 4th and 1, and the Texans are loading up to stop the run. Our best back is laboring through a foot injury, and it shows. So when you ask why wouldn't someone have faith in the ability to get 1 yard, I think the answer is because we were struggling to run already, and the lead back was hurt. I also think it's very possible for execution problems to undermine a run play, just like execution problems undermined the pass play. To me, Steichen did something that I think is a hallmark of a good play caller. He exploited the situation, and called a play that put his players in position to succeed. Personally, I think he should keep doing that.

Yeah, and this kind of bums me out. I think we've seen several examples of Shane's accountability mantra playing out in real life. We have a bad defense, but apparently decided right away that the DC was safe. That doesn't mean they haven't had conversations behind the scenes about changes and improvements that need to be made, and there could be other changes with the defensive staff I suppose. But concluding that Bradley is the best option for this team right now is kind of disappointing.

Why would running Taylor have been better? Taylor was hurt. The Texans had five down linemen, eight defenders in the box, and another safety within 10 yards of the LOS. They were determined to stop the run, even without Taylor on the field.

Who here is calling Venturi brilliant, or a genius?

Lots of people have said it was a bad play call.

There's obviously Bowers. I like him, he's good. I don't know how I feel about him in comparison to other players just yet. But there could be other TEs that come available, by draft or trade. And I mentioned I think Woods adds some playmaking, if he's healthy. I think most of what we saw from our passing game this year was restricted by circumstance, and the playbook will start opening up with time. But TEs got 20.7% of targets, and had 19.7% of receptions. And that's with no standout guy among the bunch. Granson led the way with 43% of snaps played. By comparison, Pittman got 27.2% of targets, and 30.7% of receptions; and he missed a game and a half. I think there are plenty of targets for TEs, especially for one guy who can really stand out from the rest.

I'm curious about this. From your perspective, what are you seeing/hearing that you would classify as "praise"?

I stopped listening to Venturi a while back. It's just a hard listen for me, a lot of repeating, a lot of personal opinion passed off as absolute fact, etc. I don't even like listening to him on the preseason broadcasts. Just not my cup of tea. But I don't care about his record as a coach, it doesn't mean he doesn't know the game. It was also a long time ago, people can learn and get better over the course of 30+ years. I happen to fully agree with him on Bradley's defense. People keep suggesting that it's all about personnel. It's a given that if you have a better defensive roster, we can expect better defensive output. Give Bradley Pro Bowl talent at DL, and LB, and CB, and safety, then yeah, we'll have much better results on defense. That's true of every team, though. Within the structure of Bradley's defensive scheme, defensive output will always be limited by his predictability and stubbornness in calling the game. I don't care how good your secondary is, if you give 8 yard cushions and only play two coverages, good QBs are going to take you apart. Above average QBs will hurt you. My favorite game from Bradley was the Ravens game, because it was proof that Bradley can put together a different gameplan, based on the opponent. I don't need that gameplan every week. When we play Mac Jones and the Patriots' piecemeal OL, do whatever you want. But when we're getting worked by Derek Carr or Jake Browning, and we can't run a disguise or contest a pass, and we're giving up big plays? My point is that if your only rebuttal to criticism of Gus Bradley is that we need better players, then I guess that means it doesn't matter who the DC is or what scheme we run. The only answer is personnel. And I strongly disagree with that argument.

I think Pierce's days at WR2 are probably over, because I think they'll upgrade the WR room. But I don't think that's because they don't like Pierce. I think everything Ballard said in response to that question about Pierce was an acknowledgment that a) they didn't do a good job of getting him involved, b) Pierce won't complain about it, and c) Pierce can still get better. If anything, it was a statement that could be read as critical of the offense in general, or of the QB. I get why people are inferring that Ballard will be more aggressive in free agency. I think that's reasonable. I'm not sure what Ballard said that makes people think he signaled more aggressiveness in adding a WR specifically. I guess maybe because he said we need to be more explosive on offense? That could be accomplished by having Richardson all year. Or by adding a playmaking TE, even getting Woods back and healthy. Kinda feels like people heard what they wanted to hear there.

What's your position here? Do you acknowledge that Richardson has greater potential to produce explosive plays than Minshew?

They have similar meanings. I don't know if I've heard/read 'oscillate' used in this kind of context, though. It's usually used in a mechanical context, while vacillate is usually referring to a person's thinking/decisions. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-vacillate-and-oscillate#:~:text=Oscillate means to move back,to change one's mind repeatedly. https://synonymappreciation.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/vacillate-and-oscillate/ Next time, I'll just say 'I'm hesitant.'

Five times on that possession, we had been stopped for 2, 1, 0, or -1 yards. Saying 'we were running all over them' isn't acknowledging how limited the run game had become at that point in the game. Taylor was obviously in pain. The Texans had five down linemen on 4th down. We can come up with all these different possibilities for how to get a first down there. None of them are guaranteed, partly because they all rely on the execution of the players on the field. Just like Minshew didn't make a good pass, and Goodson didn't catch it, if you call a run play, the OL might miss an assignment. Maybe the handoff is sloppy, or JT slips trying to cut through the hole. Maybe we have a holding penalty. Steichen called a play that resulted in a wide open receiver. The players on the field needed to execute. It wasn't a trick play, they didn't go tackle eligible, there's no high bar to clear, or significantly smaller margin for error. They didn't put anyone in a tough situation or ask anyone to do something that isn't part of their normal responsibility. It's a routine play, which got a capable receiver open. Minshew's job is to throw the ball, and he smoked the throw; part of Goodson's job is to catch the ball, and he smoked the catch. Like Steichen said, they got the look they wanted, and it didn't work out, but they trust whoever they put on the field to make a play. In other words, players have to execute. That would be just as true if they tried to run JT into a defense that was focused on stopping the run.