Superman

January 8

1 minute ago, Douzer said:

Minshew struggles with accuracy - that's been painfully visible all year. He left 1,000 yards on the field between missed throws and missed reads. He's a mid-level veteran #2 who knows the Steichen offense. So, he's good for a rookie HC, rookie QB, game planning & emergencies. I can see that being the case for another year. There does need to be competition for that #2 spot though, which should swing the focus to Ehlinger.

How well does he know the offense, when he never seems to be aware of receivers coming open down the field?

January 8

Just now, Moosejawcolt said:

Good. I really dont think Steichen is overly invested in Pittman. He wants more explosive receivers that fits what Richardson is capable of doing. He is a good receiver and not worth near what Pittman wants. I don't think there will be a robust market for Pittman and I think he is going to find that out. I put all chips in for Higgins

What's the difference between Higgins and Pittman?

January 8

22 hours ago, bluephantom87 said:

We had the opportunity to grab Stroud also but chose to stand pat and hope that he fell to us with rumors flying that his stock had dropped drastically due to his low scores on the Wonderlic test. Rumor also had it that the Texans preferred Young due to the Bama ties that hc Ryan liked or Richardson. All this was BEFORE the Panthers jumped in to take the top pick and by all reports it was a house divided with Frank liking Levis, the owner liking Young and the organization liking Stroud.

Are you arguing that the Colts had Stroud ahead of Richardson on their draft board, and were hoping that Stroud dropped to #4?

January 8

16 minutes ago, bluephantom87 said:

?? I just let you know that's not my intention. So I don't get the reply. I'm sorry that you find a few random caps to be jarring and off-putting. I think that's a little harsh from my perspective but oh well. We can call truce here because I might be reading too much into this..

Not meant to be personal, sorry to have offended you.

January 8

28 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Earlier today, you wrote a crushing piece about how Bradley’s defense puts a cap on just how good and effective the defense can be. One of your better posts.

But here’s the thing, everything you wrote, Steichen and Bradley surely know all that as well. So why is he being retained? There has to be a good reason.

Im not sure I know it. But it could be the dollars we’d owe Bradley and his staff if they were fired? Or maybe Steichen and Bradley have come to an understanding…. That Steichen may be more involved in-game with the Def play calling. He may be telling Steichen to blitz more.

I think there are pieces of the puzzle missing, because the decision doesn’t seem to add up to much scrutiny.

Sure would love to be a fly on the wall inside the Colts facility.

It's a good question. The most cynical response is that the Colts value continuity over improvement. I don't think I believe that, but that seems like the basis for Steichen's answer earlier today.

I don't think it's a financial thing. Bradley and his staff can't be making much, and I'm sure they all have offsets.

And I don't think that Steichen would want to be more involved in the defensive game planning, when he's already intimately involved in the offensive game planning. (By the way, I always talk about how I dislike my HC being a primary play caller; Steichen seemed absolutely locked in all season, one of the rare examples of how to handle the play calling and still nail all the game management decisions. And he was also engaged with defensive players and special teamers. If anyone can handle that responsibility, it's Steichen, IMO.)

And I don't want a DC that has to be prodded to change his approach. If Steichen is having to plead with Bradley to make adjustments, then they aren't on the same page, and Steichen should hire someone that's a better fit.

I guess they had low expectations for the defense, given the state of the roster and the developmental nature of this season. And maybe they hope that another offseason brings improvement, which will lead to better output from the defense. It would be nice to hear comprehensive thoughts from Steichen about the defense and future expectations, but today probably wasn't the time for that.

January 8

10 minutes ago, krunk said:

I mean how complex did you expect the coverages to be with a secondary full of young players? I mean the only guy you could even remotely call a vet was Blackmon. The scheme is supposed to be simple when you're looking for these guys to come in right away and play. You can add a little bit more with continuity. Some of these guys like Cross are just now starting to figure things out. Keep this in mind

Do you think it's too difficult to teach young DBs how to play Cover 2 and Cover 6? These are basic NFL coverages, and Bradley's staff is supposed to be great at teaching fundamentals.

January 8

5 minutes ago, Shive said:

I'm not entirely convinced that's what was being said. If it's something that's not in doubt, Steichen doesn't have a problem saying it. When there's not 100% certainty, he always sidesteps. I think there's a solid chance Gus is back, but I don't think his comments today were any sort of vote of confidence.

Did you listen to his presser? I think it was exactly a vote of confidence, and the only reason he didn't say it with 100% certainty is because there's a process at the end of the season, with exit interviews, meetings with the owner and GM, etc. It's also possible that Bradley signed a two year contract, and it will be partly up to him to decide if he wants to return. But if it's up to Steichen, it sounds like Bradley would be back.

Quote

I want to believe that we played less press due to the young secondary, but Gus' history says that that's just not his style anyhow.

For sure. If anyone thinks Bradley will be more aggressive with different/better personnel, I think they're fooling themselves.

Quote

I saw a statistic somewhere that essentially said that we had the lowest blitzing rate on 1st and 2nd downs, but one of the highest on 3rd down. Not only do we not blitz often, but when we do, it's almost entirely on 3rd down, which goes back to Gus' lack of innovation and creativity.

Yeah that's another good point. If you only blitz on third down, it's much easier to gameplan against.

January 8

6 minutes ago, bluephantom87 said:

To each his own. I think my posts are well thought out and articulated. I simply put in caps at times to emphasize a certain word in the sentence that I'm typing. Nothing more nothing less. I'm not trying to channel some edgy talk radio host because I don't listen to them either.

I'm a little surprised by this and now I see why we don't hardly interact because I USUALLY agree with a lot of your opinions but on this I don't. There's too much going on in the world today and I love this board as a place to get away with my fellow fans WHO all have vastly different opinions. So I guess at the end of the day I must sadly say that you'll just have to keep quick skimming because I can only be myself caps and all.

To each his own, for sure. I find the caps jarring and off-putting, and I doubt that's your intention. Not trying to change you, just offered my perspective for your consideration.

January 8

41 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Yeah I missed understood a few pages ago when people were complaining about Taylor going out of bounds because I thought they were talking from a time perspective and I was like that didn’t hurt us but they meant they wanted Taylor to cut back up the field for more yards.

Maybe that's what they meant. I thought it was about clock management. I think Taylor wasn't fighting for extra yards because he was in pain.

January 8

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

This might be a hot take but...I kind of feel like we might need to add a LB to this team...

LOL, not a hot take at all. I thought we were in trouble depth-wise before the season started, because we were relying on Leonard and didn't know if he was healthy. We let him go, and converted a safety to LB. It's one of the thinnest positions on the roster, and poor tackling was one of the biggest problems with the defense all season.

January 8

1 hour ago, bluephantom87 said:

Got ya... I believe you read it anyway because

A) you responded, B) used my choice word of bypass from the post and C) you simply can't help yourself but it's all good! Whether you agree with some of the points or not, I did drop you a nugget at the end as a fellow Colt fan to help you from time to time with that UPSET stomach problem. Lol

Not to pile on you, but the caps is a big turn off for me also. And while I might give your posts a quick skim, it's mostly just out of 'is this another random caps rant' curiosity. It's like you're channeling an edgy talk radio host, and I don't listen to those guys either.

JMO -- the caps stuff detracts from your message, which I think is the opposite effect you're going for.

January 8

2 minutes ago, KB said:

I mentioned in a post a few pages back about that play. To me it seemed Cross should of dropped but he had to pay attention to the TE heading towards his zone. Our LB (couldn't say who) was on that TE like glue throughout the route. Was this a scheme issue, did they just draw up a good play against our zone, or was it an execution error on Cross's part? I think it was an execution error. Could also he called a poor choice I guess.

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.

January 8

9 minutes ago, stitches said:

I think we want the same thing(if we cannot have the even better option - different defensive scheme altogether). I just don't think this is what Ballard wants and will allow. Thus, I don't think the biggest problem is with Gus or whoever the current DC under Ballard is... they will all run that type of D with the same pet peeves we all hate.

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.

January 8

12 minutes ago, stitches said:

BTW @Superman can you think of a coach who actually runs a similar defense but hits the points you want a new DC to hit - more disguises, more variety in coverage, more press and less fear of getting beat deep?

I don't think it's easy to find this one and the reason is - the foundation of those type of defenses(rush 4, zone heavy) is aimed precisely at not allowing big plays downfield.

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.

January 8

2 minutes ago, stitches said:

The big problem is that both Ballard and Gus(and whoever else Ballard decides to hire) will rush with 4, play zone heavy and practically never blitz(and that type of scheme is severely dependent on the front 4 being able to disrupt the pass, because you are not disrupting it with the secondary). We were one of the least blitzing teams with Eberflus and we continue on this trend now with Gus.

...

Remember when the Giants DC interviewed for us and after that he said something to the effect that the Colts didn't seem like they wanted to give him the freedom to run schematically what he wants. IMO this is precisely the root of the problem - it's not Gus or Eberflus or whoever else we hire. It's Ballard who wants that defense.

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.

Quote

I think we probably can be better defense with this scheme... but again... we need better talent. We need better pass-rush to begin with and we need better and more consistent secondary. And on bringing in someone who isn't so afraid to get beat deep - I think it's probably one of Ballard's philosophical principles - one of the priorities for his defense he sees is not giving up big plays.

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.

January 8

9 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

I had no problem with the clock management. The plays to me just seemed weird. The kind of things you do when all you need is a FG. Even when we were back at the 30. I just think there should have been a little more urgency to get another 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.

January 8

2 minutes ago, stitches said:

I think you are right about the ceiling of this defense. This scheme limits the ceiling you can achieve. But for that you need premium talent that I'm not sure Ballard is willing to invest in. For example, I think a shut-down corner is a must in today's league, but Ballard doesn't seem willing to spend big resources on that position. It goes straight against his philosophy of building from the inside out. A second round pick is the highest he's given for a CB and 10-11M is the most he's given in FA for one. But for that scheme that type of talent is probably an overkill so Ballard won't spend on it IMO. He might take multiple shots(like he did last year), but I doubt he will pay either top of market money or spend a 1st round pick for one. I think you need to trust your secondary to lock down the opposing receivers if you want to play a more adventurous defense on the front(more blitzing, more disquises, etc.) ... in the simplest of terms - you just need better talent.

I still want to point out that the defensive scheme we are playing is VERY LIKELY a mandate from Ballard. If it's not Gus, it will be someone else runing similar scheme. And if we think the scheme is the problem then we should really be looking 2 steps above Gus for solution to that problem.

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.

January 8

12 minutes ago, indyagent17 said:

I strongly disagree. Bradley is very conservative and even though we don’t have all of our players on defense I just don’t like his style and what else is Coach going to say. I get a feeling that when he looks at his own options, he may pick somebody else over the choice he was forced to take.

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.

January 8

1 hour ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

It’s why Steichen was milking the clock. He didn’t want to give it back. The problem was he milked it too long. Milking it from the 15 is fine. But he was milking it even when we were at the 30. It was a losing situation because he couldn’t give it back to them and therefore limited what he could do to try and get it in the end zone. He had to play it like we only needed a field goal but we needed a TD.

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.

January 8

4 hours ago, OffensivelyPC said:

"Serious moves" that's a can of worms that you're going to have to elaborate on. Serious moves as in...what?

Because I don't mind trading picks for players and vice versa, but we have little on the roster that I think would classify as ground breaking. I think if there's a year that we move up in the draft, it could be this year if the right guy falls within trade-up distance. I know everyone likes Harrison Jr. which I'd be on board for, but who knows where he's drafted this early on. I hadn't even looked at other skill position players which I think is our biggest need - WR and CB amongst the top, and not necessarily in that order either.

I also think it depends on whether we keep Bradley - fingers crossed we have a change there, but not sure who's in the market. But if we did, and shifted our defensive strategy to include more man coverage on the back end, I wonder who is on the trading block around the league - also probably too soon to tell.

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.

January 8

46 minutes ago, stitches said:

It is what it is. Right now IMO the (lack of) talent at key positions for this D is more of a limiting factor than the defensive coordinator. Or are you going to tell me another coach would severely outperformed what Gus did with that secondary? With no household name at EDGE? I think this is about the limit of this group. We need better talent (or the talent on the roster to develop and some of them might because they are young)...

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.

January 8

7 hours ago, MikChiken said:

Honestly winning the division is cool but it doesn’t really mean much. The more I sit with this loss I’m happier it was now and not next week. Texans aren’t likely to make it too far and we’ll be ten picks ahead plus they don’t have a first rounder. Onto 24’

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.

January 8

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.

January 8

32 minutes ago, Hawkeyecolt said:

Simon was a trade initially. He played well enough his first year then fleeced the Colts when they gave him a new contract.

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.

January 8

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

Technically yes, Polian signed back up players and kickers. I assumed OP was looking more at signing immediate starters with higher price tags.

For example, IIRC, he signed Brackett as a backup to MLB Rob Morris, whom he drafted 26 but was later moved to SAM as Brackett won the starting role.

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

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Gallery

Events

Blogs

Posts posted by Superman